![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oct. 4th, 2006
(no subject)
Oct. 4th, 2006 09:39 pmInteresting development in the Foley scandal. Drudge is reporting that ABC neglected to mention that most of their proof (IMs, etc) happened when the page in question was over 18. Also, the "blog" that broke the proof and thus the story, to Kos and ABC apparently didn't exist until this particular scandal was launched, making it look suspiciously like a hatchet job tailored for an "October Surprise" created by Democrat hit men.
Personally, I have no doubt that Foley hit on underage pages, and several powerful Republicans covered it up (as have Democrats, even to this day. Kissinger's Law.) But, if the "proof" turns out to prove that Foley was merely gay and annoying, the Dems are going to probably get hit with a backlash from this, similar to Dan Rather's fall from power from his faked "proof" of Bush's National Guard duty (and lack thereof).
It might be enough to make the fall elections a close call, except the Republicans are being caught doing the same thing. I read an article today condemning the Democrats because Congressman Mel Reynolds (D) had been convicted on 12 counts of sexual exploitation of minors, including child pornography, and that Bill Clinton pardoned Reynolds on his (Clinton's) way out the door. Apparently, though, Mel was also convicted on bank fraud and tax evasion completely unrelated to his pedophilia. Reynolds had fully served his child exploitation time, and was serving his fraud time when Clinton commuted (not pardoned) Reynolds' sentence. Which makes Clinton merely scummy and political, instead of turning a blind eye to the exploitation of minors.
All of which is yet another example of the problem of immediate gratification in modern politics. There is no "long view" any more. Any politician will happily screw the future to score a few points today.
Personally, I have no doubt that Foley hit on underage pages, and several powerful Republicans covered it up (as have Democrats, even to this day. Kissinger's Law.) But, if the "proof" turns out to prove that Foley was merely gay and annoying, the Dems are going to probably get hit with a backlash from this, similar to Dan Rather's fall from power from his faked "proof" of Bush's National Guard duty (and lack thereof).
It might be enough to make the fall elections a close call, except the Republicans are being caught doing the same thing. I read an article today condemning the Democrats because Congressman Mel Reynolds (D) had been convicted on 12 counts of sexual exploitation of minors, including child pornography, and that Bill Clinton pardoned Reynolds on his (Clinton's) way out the door. Apparently, though, Mel was also convicted on bank fraud and tax evasion completely unrelated to his pedophilia. Reynolds had fully served his child exploitation time, and was serving his fraud time when Clinton commuted (not pardoned) Reynolds' sentence. Which makes Clinton merely scummy and political, instead of turning a blind eye to the exploitation of minors.
All of which is yet another example of the problem of immediate gratification in modern politics. There is no "long view" any more. Any politician will happily screw the future to score a few points today.
(no subject)
Oct. 4th, 2006 10:20 pmSo, in my previous post, I mentioned that politicians will happily screw the future to score a few points today. Why is that? So that they can get re-elected. How to change this?
My modest proposal to move the entire quagmire of American politics in a better direction, in three short paragraphs:
President: term limited to a single six-year term. Lately, two-term presidents have scandals around their 6th year anyway which tends to make them a lame duck until they're dragged out of the White House kicking and screaming.
Representatives: term limited to five two-year terms. A decade, tops.
Senators: term limited to two six-year terms. But! Repeal the 17th Amendment. Prior to 1913, Senators were not elected by us personally, they were chosen by the state legislatures (and those bozos were elected by us). Originally, Senators were to represent their States for the best interest of the State government, not the people within the State. Which is why certain powers such as the ability to levy taxes were placed with the House of Representatives, who were directly elected by us unwashed peons. This was changed in the 1910s, because state legislatures would often deadlock on a Senate choice, which occasionally caused longish vacancies. Instead of electing Senators directly by the voters, my modest proposal would be that the Governor of the State would break any deadlock, just as the Governor has the power to appoint a temporary Senator when that Senator resigns or dies or gets thrown in jail or otherwise causes the office to become vacant.
And now, my headcold and talk (...type...) of politics has left a bad taste in my mouth, so I shall fix it with a little Tennessee cough syrup. There's a bit of Jack Daniels over some ice that I can hear calling me from a cabinet in my kitchen. I shall go rescue it, forthwith.
My modest proposal to move the entire quagmire of American politics in a better direction, in three short paragraphs:
President: term limited to a single six-year term. Lately, two-term presidents have scandals around their 6th year anyway which tends to make them a lame duck until they're dragged out of the White House kicking and screaming.
Representatives: term limited to five two-year terms. A decade, tops.
Senators: term limited to two six-year terms. But! Repeal the 17th Amendment. Prior to 1913, Senators were not elected by us personally, they were chosen by the state legislatures (and those bozos were elected by us). Originally, Senators were to represent their States for the best interest of the State government, not the people within the State. Which is why certain powers such as the ability to levy taxes were placed with the House of Representatives, who were directly elected by us unwashed peons. This was changed in the 1910s, because state legislatures would often deadlock on a Senate choice, which occasionally caused longish vacancies. Instead of electing Senators directly by the voters, my modest proposal would be that the Governor of the State would break any deadlock, just as the Governor has the power to appoint a temporary Senator when that Senator resigns or dies or gets thrown in jail or otherwise causes the office to become vacant.
And now, my headcold and talk (...type...) of politics has left a bad taste in my mouth, so I shall fix it with a little Tennessee cough syrup. There's a bit of Jack Daniels over some ice that I can hear calling me from a cabinet in my kitchen. I shall go rescue it, forthwith.