30 September 2005

Will DeLay's Indictment Change Anything?

DeLay's indictment will not result in any substantive change in the way the House works. The transfer of political power from people to corporate lobbyists has been going on for decades, but it was DeLay who came forth and unashamedly made government-for-sale the status quo.

But now that it is the status quo, will it change with DeLay's indictment? The Republican House leadership supports DeLay and even wants to keep him as Majority Leader after the indictment. You will recall that the House ethics committee already changed its rules as well as its membership to keep DeLay safe. A real watchdog, that House ethics committee.

When Trent Lott was stripped of his Senate Majority Leadership a few years ago, he was replaced by Bill Frist, who has turned out to be anything but a refreshing change from partisan politics. And it will be no different if DeLay is replaced. Control of Congress is in the hands of corporate lobbyists, and it will remain in their hands for the foreseeable future.

For a good review of the DeLay and Roy Blunt (the majority whip) machine, follow Talking Points Memo's recommendation and read this one-pager from WaPo.

3 comments:

Jeff Sinnard said...

No and here is why. "But an even more basic problem is that there's no evidence voters consider Democrats any less complicit in this web of corruption."

Read this quote in context at:
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=19684

John Stewart said it last night to Sen. Chuck Schumer, "it took the Democrats 20 years in control to become corrupt, the Republicans did it in 5."

We all know that all politicians are crooks.

Q. How can you tell a politician is lying? A. His/her lips are moving.

Too many Democrats revel in the misery of the Republicans. When we simple point out how corrupt they are, we paint ourselves with the same brush. It is time to stop finger pointing and boldly express a new vision for America.

KatieG said...

well, the first one might not, but how about the second one?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9583433/

Anonymous said...

Public oversight would go a long way toward fixing this problem. Full disclosure of the funding sources and lobbyists activity needs to be made public. The revolving door of government needs to be locked. Special interests need to publish their agendas.

I am not for publicly funded elections but if that is the way to stop influence peddling then that is what we must do. Is the cost to the taxpayer greater for publicly funded elections or for the corruption costs involved in the current system?