TampaYankee

Former Republican Sen. Warns GOP May ‘Have Gone So Far Overboard That We Are Beyond Redemption November 27th, 2010 at 4:30 PM by Alex Seitz-Wald In an age when far-right tea party activists have taken over the Republican Party and demanded lockstep allegiance, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) has been one of the few GOP lawmakers to step out of line. In particular, Lugar, the ranking GOP member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has blasted his own party for relentlessly blocking ratification of the New START nuclear arms treaty with Russia, calling on his fellow GOP senators to “do your duty for your country” and complete the pact. Not surprisingly, this insubordination has earned Lugar significant scorn within the Republican base, which now seems to value blind obedience over principled independent decision-making. In a New York Times profile of Lugar published today, former GOP Sen. John Danforth feared that the backlash against Lugar from his own party signals that the GOP has gone “far overboard” with no hope of turning back: “If Dick Lugar,” said John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri, “having served five terms in the U.S. Senate and being the most respected person in the Senate and the leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican Party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.” Mr. Danforth, who was first elected the same year as Mr. Lugar, added, “I’m glad Lugar’s there and I’m not.” Danforth’s fears are not unfounded. Lugar, who is up for reelection in 2012, has already been targeted by tea party groups. “If I was Dick Lugar, I would certainly expect a challenge,” noted veteran political analyst Stuart Rothenberg. As Diane Hubbard, a spokeswoman for the Indianapolis Tea Party, told the Times, removing Lugar “will be a difficult challenge. But we do believe it’s doable, and we think the climate is right for it and we believe it is a must.” Indeed, asked about a potential tea party challenge motivated by his breaks with the GOP on START and other issues, Lugar suggested the party has drifted to the right while he has stayed steady, saying, “These are just areas where I’ve had stances for a long time.” Previous post: Scowcroft on START: ‘Partisan’ GOP Doesn’t Want To Give Obama ‘A Foreign Policy Victory’ Next post: Reagan Budget Director: GOP Has Abandoned Fiscal Responsibility By Adopting ‘Theology’ Of Tax Cuts See original post at ThinkProgress.org: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/27/danforth-lugar-overboard/

There is a reason society exacts punishments for what may be one-time transgression of passion: to keep the aggrieved from exacting their own punishment. Society takes personal judgement out of it and substitutes institutional process based on impartial jurors removed from the passions of the individuals involved. Else we have a lot of score settling, not always justly or even the right parties. As for politicans suffering the greatest punishment through loss of their job, I think that depends on the politician and the crime. Many policticians are punihsed every election by defeat at the polls and view it as a natural part of political life. A disappoint sure, but life goes on. For Delay it was a heavy punishment given that he worked his way up to Speaker of the House. However, his crime was great in that he subverted the democratic process in his state that influenced the government policy of the United States. He corrupted the Texas electoral process. In this case just losing his office is insufficient recognition of the crime and the damage it did to the people, other politicans and the oppostion party. Certainly he will never do this again. However he and this case are an example to others for good or ill. If he sits five years in jail, even Club Fed, it will increase the ante for the next pol in either party that decides to subvert the democratic process. I will be suprised if that happens though. I expect a hand slap at best but who knows, maybe he drew Judge Roy Bean?

Sounds to me like you wer't too hungry.

This is really a terrible story or expose' if you will. It is not so much the doctors accepted bribes or the patients offered them, which is terrible too. Doctors could be cleaned up quickly by the medical licensing board. Just send some 'undercover patients' out to bribe doctors and strip the licenses from 15 - 20 and let everyone else know their next patient could be undercover. Routine monitoring to refresh the delicensing drama every now and then would keep most circumspect. The big problem here is how to run a universal system offering medical service to all. Made the more difficult by hypocondriacs and those who dont like lines. Not everyone needs elective surgery by time for the Winter Party. There are serious cases that demand priority. However, establishing priority for the well-heeled is just as unjust as using bribes. The same is true for those with insurance versus those who cannot pay. You may not think so but it really is choosing those with resources over those who don't have resources. The only difference is whether the money is passed over the table or under the table. At the receiving end the money is the same color. It looks no different. If we are going to sanctify 'buying access' then most of us will be screwed eventually. Most who can afford to buy find little or nothing wrong with the concept, I'm sure. However, health care costs are going up and up - dare I say almost exponentially. Attempts to curtail that future cost are met with denial of the facts and where they ultimately lead or with politics and stalemate or at best minor improvements around the edges. As prices go up fewer and fewer will have insurance as business limits or discontinues coverage. Businesses dropping the perk are growing. Recognizing the spiraling growth in premiums, my company capped its contribution in the 90s. This is a kinder and gentler way of cutting the perk to eventual practical elimination. As the prices rise, fewer of us can afford access. Hospitals will close down. Doctors will diminish as the opportunity for the big bucks shrinks. Only the rich can afford to continually access a wasteful health care system that provides unlimited access, unlimited doctors, unlimited tests, the right to choose any treatment regardless of efficacy, immediate scheduling regardless of medical priority. This is pretty much what those who have had access got. People cannot bury their heads in the sand and expect to have what we have known in the past. It just ain't sustainable. Now insurance companies are limiting access through raising rates to undesirable groups, trumped up exclusions when they cannot invoke lifetime limitations or 'experimental treatment' for denial, or just arbitrarily dumping customers and small business. Why is that ok but it isn't ok for medical boards to establish recommended treatments based on proven efficacy? Why is it ok for insurance companies to exclude heroic medical treatments to extend life a few months at a cost of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars but a Health Care System cannot deny the the same heroic treatments seeking a tempoary extension of life? People can argue to obfuscate these points from this election to next election. However, taking a longer view down the road provides a very clear view where that road is going. As 'they' say, the current approach is not sustainable. Something has to be done to conserve a health care sytem that provides affordable access to everyone who needs it. That turns out to be everybody. How to do that in a world of finite resources and funds, hypocondriacs, imperfect physicians and patients, and politicians is the big challenge. If we do not get a handle on it now then in the future health care will be only for the rich. Ultimately. that will be bad for the rich too as medical R&D and pharmceutical R&D shrink due to a shrinking target base. This Canada story highlights a problem of their system. I have alluded to some of the problems in our system. All pretty bad but small compared to the problem of doing nothing and travelling the road to health care oblivion. Burying our head in the sand will not make this go away.

I look forward to her running for president. I forsee no end of entertainment value here. Unfortunately, I think she really wants to keep making money and recieve that adoration that comes to those who dont have to get their hands dirty in a campaign. She is shallow but not stupid. She loves the limelight and the money. Who wouldn't?

Did he have any choice? I would like to see him get a bundle. Not sure that is in the cards though.

At the quoted price, I dont think it will make any difference at all. Only the well off will be able to afford this as a lifestyle change, and then only some of them will be up for the 10% risk factor.

A really good thought that I need to heed. Thanks for raining a little sunshine on my parade.

A really good thought that I need to heed. Thanks for raining a little sunshine on my parade.

I want to wish all a Happy Thanksgiving and thank all those who regularly contribute to make these forums a better place. We couldn't do it without you.

I'm pleasantly suprised that we have ended up on the same side, especially more than once. At one point I thought we were destined to meet on the field of honor. Just goes to show that the improbable is not impossible as my buddies Demint and Coburn demonstrate.

LOL... how true. Just to be bipartisan, Murtha deserved his own trip up the river too, not to imply they are equal. Murtha was just a thief by seniority while Delay broke the law to corrupt the democratic process to usurp political power that led to bribes and payoffs to perpetuate power and steer money to his allies. No doubt many on both sides of the aisle would win accommodations at Club Fed if the keys to their closets were available to the DOJ. After all, we are talking about politicians.

Experience is a great teacher, and sometimes, not so great, even if effective.

Thanks for the sentiment. I can't think of a better standin that Charlie. Erudite and measured in his comments: content, tone and frequency, unlike some of us, ummm... well me. All around good company. And thanks for participating in our Community, you have made it a better community.

What other justification is there for incurring the not insignificant expense and disciplined daily regimen required? It is clearly an attempt to remove the risk from risky behavior. I suspect the researchers and drug companies would grant that. What else justifies the expense and resource allocation for the research? It sure beats throwing caution to the wind that all too many do on a regular basis. I agree I would not be comfortable playing Russian Roulette with a 10% chance of losing. I would hope this is a step toward a regimen that ultimately moves the risk rate to well under 1% if a perfect prophylaxis or cure continues to elude us.

Given the hypothetical choice of Mexico or Colombia, considering the relative risks and rewards, I'm headed to Colombia.

Precisely my objection!!. I too have no a problem in principle using tax incentives to achieve certain practical and policy goals. It depends on the policy of coures. I do have a problem using tax policy to drive the cost of food up in my grocery store and the world market -- even for fuel. We are not that close to engery oblivion that we have to choose between travel and feeding ourselves. Unnecessarily driving up the price of food is morally objectionable not to mention practically terrible policy. It has become an article of political faith in the mid-west in Presidential and Congressional politics much like farm subsidies to pay big agribusiness not to grow certain crops. I agree with leaving any gasahol subsidies to non-food sources.

This guy makes Nancy Pelosi look like a kindergarten teacher when it comes to political maneuvering of the House. Now he has been found guilty of serious criminal behavior too (finally). He says it was just good old fashioned politics. There is a reason they called this guy the Hammer. We'll see if this hold up on appeal. This represents only the tip of the iceberg. They couldn't get him for Abramhoff. I suspect K Street could send in up the river for a millineum if they talked. No doubt he believes that is the way politics works. That is his problem.

Tom DeLay GUILTY: Jury Convicts Republican In Money Laundering Trial JUAN A. LOZANO | 11/24/10 09:47 PM | AP AUSTIN, Texas — The heavy-handed style that made Tom DeLay one of the nation's most powerful and feared members of Congress also proved to be his downfall Wednesday when a jury determined he went too far in trying to influence elections, convicting the former House majority leader on two felonies that could send him to prison for decades. Jurors deliberated for 19 hours before returning guilty verdicts on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering in a scheme to illegally funnel corporate money to Texas candidates in 2002. He faces up to life in prison on the money laundering charge, although prosecutors haven't yet recommended a sentence. After the verdicts were read, DeLay hugged his daughter, Danielle, and his wife, Christine. DeLay whispered into his daughter's ear that he couldn't get a fair trial in Austin. DeLay had unsuccessfully tried to get the trial moved out of Austin, the most liberal city in one of the most Republican states DeLay's lead attorney, Dick DeGuerin, said they planned to appeal the verdict. "This is an abuse of power. It's a miscarriage of justice, and I still maintain that I am innocent. The criminalization of politics undermines our very system and I'm very disappointed in the outcome," DeLay told reporters outside the courtroom. He remains free on bond, and several witnesses were expected to be called during the punishment phase of his trial, tentatively scheduled to begin on Dec. 20. Prosecutors said DeLay, who once held the No. 2 job in the House of Representatives and whose tough tactics earned him the nickname "the Hammer," used his political action committee to illegally channel $190,000 in corporate donations into 2002 Texas legislative races through a money swap. DeLay and his attorneys maintained the former Houston-area congressman did nothing wrong as no corporate funds went to Texas candidates and the money swap was legal. The verdict came after a three-week trial in which prosecutors presented more than 30 witnesses and volumes of e-mails and other documents. DeLay's attorneys presented five witnesses. "This case is a message from the citizens of the state of Texas that the public officials they elect to represent them must do so honestly and ethically, and if not, they'll be held accountable," Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg said after the verdict. Lehmberg said prosecutors will decide in the next few weeks what sentence they will recommend in the case to Senior Judge Pat Priest. DeLay chose Priest to sentence him rather than the jury. He faces five years to life in prison on the money laundering charge and two to 20 years on the conspiracy charge. He also would be eligible for probation. Jurors, who left the courthouse right after the verdict was read, declined to comment to reporters, only saying that it had been a tough decision for them to make. The jury had sent numerous notes to Priest during its deliberations, which began on Monday. Many of the notes asked various legal questions that at one point had prompted the judge to say the panel wasn't on the right track. But at the end of Tuesday, jurors had indicated they were making progress. Prosecutors said DeLay conspired with two associates, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis, to use his Texas-based PAC to send $190,000 in corporate money to an arm of the Washington-based Republican National Committee, or RNC. The RNC then sent the same amount to seven Texas House candidates. Under Texas law, corporate money can't go directly to political campaigns. Prosecutors claim the money helped Republicans take control of the Texas House. That enabled the GOP majority to push through a Delay-engineered congressional redistricting plan that sent more Texas Republicans to Congress in 2004 – and strengthened DeLay's political power. DeLay's attorneys argued the money swap resulted in the seven candidates getting donations from individuals, which they could legally use in Texas. They also said DeLay only lent his name to the PAC and had little involvement in how it was run. Prosecutors, who presented mostly circumstantial evidence, didn't prove he committed a crime, they said. DeLay contended the charges against him were a political vendetta by Ronnie Earle, the former Democratic Travis County district attorney who originally brought the case and is now retired. Lehmberg, who replaced Earle, said the trial was not about criminalizing politics. "This was about holding public officials accountable, that no one is above the law and all persons have to abide by the law, no matter how powerful or lofty the position he or she might hold," she said. Craig McDonald, the director of Texans for Public Justice, a liberal watchdog group whose complaints with the Travis County District Attorney's Office helped lead to the investigation of DeLay's PAC, said he was pleased by the verdict. "We can't undo the 2002 election, but a jury wisely acted to hold DeLay accountable for conspiring to steal it." The 2005 criminal charges in Texas, as well as a separate federal investigation of DeLay's ties to disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, ended his 22-year political career representing suburban Houston. The Justice Department probe into DeLay's ties to Abramoff ended without any charges filed against DeLay. Ellis and Colyandro, who face lesser charges, will be tried later. Except for a 2009 appearance on ABC's hit television show "Dancing With the Stars," DeLay has been out of the spotlight since resigning from Congress in 2006. He now runs a consulting firm based in the Houston suburb of Sugar Land. See the original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/24/tom-delay-guilty-money-laundering_n_788325.html

I NEVER thought I'd see the day when Tom Coburn, Jim Demint and I would line up on the same side of an issue. Hell finally has frozen over. Is ethanol mandate the first test of GOP seriousness? By GREG SARGENT WASHINGTON – IS THERE a new intra-GOP war brewing — a sequel to the Tea Party’s big win in the battle over earmarks? Conservative GOP senators are opening a new front in the fight over government spending that could be similar to the earmarks standoff: They are calling on Congress to let billions in ethanol subsidies expire at the end of this year. Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, two leading conservative senators who have pushed the GOP to be serious about its anti-spending rhetoric, told me they are calling on fellow Republicans to urge Congress to allow ethanol subsidies to expire. This could put other Republican senators in an awkward spot and subject them to the wrath of the anti-government-spending Tea Party if they don’t go along. This is the perfect test of whether the GOP is serious about its anti-spending rhetoric, since some Republican senators — such as Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley — have supported the ethanol subsidies. It appears that DeMint and Coburn are dead serious about pressing to end the subsidies, which include a 45-cent-a-gallon tax credit for ethanol blenders that heaped nearly $5 billion on to the deficit last year. “We need to let the ethanol subsidies expire and we need energy developed based on market forces,” Coburn said in an interview. He said senators who are not willing to let them expire are “just protecting a parochial interest ahead of the national interest.” Coburn added that renewing the subsidies would show that Republicans were not heeding the message their electoral victory sent about reining in spending — precisely what Tea Partiers argued about earmarks. While this issue could also create tensions among Democrats along regional lines, its significance as a true test of whether Republicans are serious about reining in spending offers Democrats an opening to exacerbate GOP divisions. It also creates the prospect of an unusual alliance between conservative Republicans and environmentalists who are urging Democrats to support nixing the subsidies. It’s hard to know whether this issue has any chance of gaining traction. It will depend on how hard DeMint pushes and on whether the issue catches fire among Tea Partiers and right-wing bloggers, as the earmarks fight did. But this is definitely one that bears watching. Greg Sargent writes the “Plum Line” blog at www.washingtonpost.com, from which this is adapted. See original article at:http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=307f2865-8130-478c-973d-d3003ba7fbae&headline=Greg+Sargent%3a+Is+ethanol+mandate+the+first+test+of+GOP+seriousness%3f

I believe the best approach is legislative repeal. It takes all of the wind out of the critics about executive fiat or judicial activism. The people's representative voice is hard to label as a slight of hand approach thwarting the will of the people.

Big Business is not into charity or jobs programs. They are into making money. Period. If they can make money then they will invest and create jobs as a byproduct. When there is demand they will meet it for a buck. Count on it. All this crap about uncertainty is bullshit unless it refers to uncertainty in demand. Plain and simple. If the demand is strong enough that will overcome their reticence about taxes and regulations. They know pretty much about their impact on the equation. What they are uncertain about is the demand. 9.5% unemployment fans a lot of uncertainty.

That's just two of a hundred excellent reasons.

And how does this differ from Baptists and Catholics?

It's just a TV show. I watch for the entertainment value and the eye candy. This won't be the first time I have disagreed with the winner as influenced by the audience vote. It is a minor disappointment if my choice doesnt win but I dont loose sleep over it. And I enjoy the next season just as much as long as it is entertaining with eye candy. Breaking news... Bristol and Mark place third as I watch the show.