General discussion


Pelosi and her choice for leadership roles

By DanLM ·
Ok, the Democrats won the election and I have no issue with this. With the winning of this election come certain perks. Leadership roles. Nancy Pelosi has been chosen as the leader of the house, and is now filling various leadership positions.

Now, wasn't one of the things that the Democrats ran on was cleaning up Washington? Get the corrupt Republicans out of office? And yes, I agree there was too many corrupt Republicans. But, look at this lady's choice to fill two major leadership positions:

Majority leader: John Murtha of Pennsylvania
Yet Murtha could prove to be a problematic candidate because of his penchant for trading votes for pork projects and his ties to the Abscam bribery sting in 1980, the only lawmaker involved who wasn?t charged. Ok, he wasn't charged. Agreed. But....
FBI agents pretending to represent an Arab sheik wanting to reside in the United States and seeking investment opportunities offered bribes to several lawmakers. When offered $50,000, Murtha was recorded as saying, ?I?m not interested ... at this point.? A grand jury declined to indict Murtha, and the House ethics committee issued no findings against him
Sorry, not interested at this point does not give me a lot of confidence in his honesty.
Next choice Of Ms. Pelosi that I have issue with.
Head the House Select Committee on IntelligenceRep. Alcee Hastings
Hastings is also one of fewer than a dozen federal judges in U.S. history to be removed from office by the Senate in an impeachment trial. He was a federal judge appointed in 1979 by President Carter.

In 1989 the Democratic-majority House impeached him and the Democratic-majority Senate tried him on charges of conspiring to extract a bribe from two drug dealers in exchange for reducing their sentences. The Senate voted to remove him from the bench.
The democrats themselves impeached and removed this person from office. FOR TAKING A FREAKEN BRIBE, and she wants this person to be the head of the inteligence committie?

Look, who cares what party would be making these choices. These are bad choices. They send completely the wrong message when Americans are fed up with corruption. And yes, the republicans caused this. But this lady is showing no, none, completely nada common sence in her choices.

By the way, I think the Republicans are doing the same stupid thing with their choice of Lott for minority leadership. His racist remarks speak volumes.


Edited because{/b] I had the wrong replubican listed. It's lott who they want, not Delay as I had previously posted.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Lott's racist remarks speak volumes?

by maxwell edison In reply to Pelosi and her choice for ...

Enlighten us, please. I'm pretty well informed, but I don't know what racist remarks of Lott's you're referring to. What did he say and when did he say it?

By the way, your message speaks volumes as to the merits of voting party over person -- regardless of your party of preference. And to those who claim to have no party of preference, they are also saying, by default, that they have no preference as to which party rules the House or the Senate. It's gotta' be one or the other; and if you don't vote party, you have no say in the matter (at least no "direct" say).

Collapse -


by DanLM In reply to Lott's racist remarks spe ...

It was at the birthday party of a southern politician on something like his 9?th birthday. This politician had advocated segregation. Watch me be wrong on this, and have Delay mixed up with Lott. But, during the birthday party the comment was that we would not be having these problems today if we would have followed the birthday persons policies. Let me look this up, and Ill post it for you. Unfortionally, I'm at work and between things.

And with regards to what I just posted. I wanted to go independent along time ago because I didn't like either party, but I found that to help someone in the primaries. At least where I lived at the time, I needed to be registered with a major party. I ended up being registered Democrat for that reason.


Collapse -

Okay, Dan, it was a "set-up" question. . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to Max

...because Trent Lott made no such "racist remarks", but the Democrats and the press made them out to be.

At a birthday party for Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, in a good-humored way to say nice things to a colleague, said something to the effect that the country would be better-off had Thurmond won the presidential election of 1948. It was an off-the-cuff comment, and one that was totally meaningless except to make an old man at the end of his career feel good. The "racist" connection is because Strom Thurmond was a segregationist in 1948 -- just like Robert Byrd, another U.S. Senator (except one of the Democrat flavor), was a card-carrying member of the KKK.

Things like this show the disingenuous nature of the Democrats trying to demonize Republicans -- and how the main-stream press is an accomplice. What would they do if Robert Byrd was a Republican, and why don't they do it to him as a Democrat?

But for anyone to call Lott's comments "racist", it shows they're either misinformed, silly, or partisan. Which one were you? Or do you REALLY think those comments were "racist"?

Collapse -

I will **** you off, but I'm on the fence here

by JamesRL In reply to Okay, Dan, it was a "set- ...

I think the subtle part of this is that Thurmond broke away in 1948 to form his own party specifically to campaign on the issue of segregation. And I expect to someone like Lott to know that. So either Lott was racist or he was stupid not to understand how his remarks could and would be understood.

I'd actually look at more of Lott's history before I called him a racist, since in my opinion there are two ways to interpret his remarks. Are there people I would call racist based on one comment - depends on the comment. I don't need to study much on David Duke to know what he is. We had a native leader in Canada who was tried for hate crimes for suggesting Hitler - I could tell by the clarity of his speech that he was racist.

George Wallace was certainly a racist at one point in his career, but became a better man.

I know Byrd has certainly sincerely apoligised and recognized the error of his ways.

Even Strom Thurmond softened his stance over the course of time.

So would I judge Lott based on one questionable comment? I would dig further.


Collapse -

James, you could never "**** me off"

by maxwell edison In reply to I will piss you off, but ...

Agree with me or not, I believe that anyone who doesn't consider the context of Lott's comment is looking for something that just isn't there. At worst, the only thing Lott could be criticized for is not thinking about how other people might be able to construe and twist a comment before he says it. It was a totally innocent attempt to say something nice about -- and to -- an old man. No more, no less. It was not a window into Lott's view on race.

I will say this, however, Lott was a spineless coward for apologizing to the idiots who were race-baiting him in the first place. (Gee, guess what they really WANTED you to do, Trent -- you IDIOT! You played right into their hands -- AS USUAL!)

It was yet another case where the accuser(s) should have been called to task for being disingenuous, political opportunists looking for yet another excuse to demonize someone for nothing. I would have told them that they should be ashamed of themselves for suggesting such a ludicrous and insulting thing, and I would demand an apology from the idiot Democrats who levied such a stupid accusation in the first place. If there's one thing the Republicans in Congress need it's a friggin' spine. (I would never make it in Washington! Too outspoken!)

Trent Lott may have proved he's an idiot, but not that he's a racist.

You and Dan are both way off on this one. (But neither of you will say something like, "Gee, I never looked at it that way. Maybe you're right." That kind of thing just doesn't happen around here.)

Collapse -

What part of "on the fence" do you not get?

by JamesRL In reply to James, you could never "p ...

We agree substantively, but you chose to throw me in the same bucket as Dan. I said I wouldn't judge on one statement. I would give him the benefit of the doubt, but I would look further.

You know you are right, you wouldn't make it in Washington. You can be outspoken, but if you are outspoken all the time, you lose credibility.


Collapse -

Nowhere in your message did you say. . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to What part of "on the fenc ...

...that you were giving Lott the benefit of the doubt. And the way I read it, you didn't even suggest it.

You did start by saying you were on the fence, but the whole discussion started by someone who claimed that Lott made a racist remark. Unless you question my "reporting" of the incident, or unless you can't do a two second search for the full text and context, one can CLEARLY see that there was nothing racist about it. If you're "on the fence", you just lack the gumption to just call em' like you see em'.

Was that ONE REMARK a racist one or not? It's a pretty simply question to me? And it's the only one on the table.

And it seems to me that one's "credibility" will lie (or should lie) in the consistency of his comments, not how well he plays the political game. Too many people, in my opinion, are afraid to just speak their minds. It would be a refreshing change, if you ask me.

Collapse -

On the benefit of the doubt...

by JamesRL In reply to What part of "on the fenc ...

"I'd actually look at more of Lott's history before I called him a racist, since in my opinion there are two ways to interpret his remarks"

"So would I judge Lott based on one questionable comment? I would dig further."

Read those statements from that post. Is that the benefit of the doubt or not? If you don't see it plainly, then I am at a loss on how to explain it to you.

As to consistency and outspokenness, I see it a little differently. I think you can be entirely consistent on an issue, say abortion, but chose not to emphasize it until the issue arises. Why? Because within the term of any politician there is only so many days and so much time to devote to change. And you should focus on winning the battles you can instead of tilting at windmills. Thats not being afraid to be outspoken - thats choosing to be not outspoken on every topic all the time.

It may not be right, it may not be fair, but those who happen to be outspoken on everything are seen as ideologues. And I know as well as you the appropriate Barry Goldwater quote. But I would remind you he never became president. And also to be fair, I see it the same way for the right and the left. I am just as opposed to the Dems acting that way, as I would be to a right winger.

I heard a project manager today from a business that I respect tell me they tried to work on 6 projects at once last year, and none of them completed. He decided to focus on one and fast track it to make it happen and he is getting results. Thats similar to how I see the "outspokenness".

Am I a political pragmatist? Yes. That doesn't mean I am afraid to speak my mind , I sometimes chose not to. I often don't reply to some of your posts because I know I won't change your mind or you change mind. I am entirely consistent, but not always outspoken. You may think that a political game. You and I would disagree.


Collapse -

No, I wouldn't call that benefit of the doubt

by maxwell edison In reply to What part of "on the fenc ...

I would call giving a person the benefit of the doubt when one considers that person innocent until proven guilty. The tone of your message, as well as the content, seems to judge him guilty until your research might show him to be innocent. I believe there's a big difference.

You said you can take the comment two ways. Well, which do you choose to take it? My way -- being nice to a tired old man -- or Dan's way -- flaming racism? (Okay, I took some editorial liberty with the "flaming" part.)

Collapse -

What I said

by JamesRL In reply to What part of "on the fenc ...

Was that I would NOT judge him based on that one statement alone.

LET ME SPELL IT OUT. I would require more evidence before considering him a racist. I thought thats what I said. Could I be more clear?


Related Discussions

Related Forums