Skip to main content

Proving once again that intellectual consistency is not a hallmark of partisan politics...

... we can find our usual suspect friends at Delawareliberal attacking Mike Castle's vote against the porkulus package (remember, most analysts--and now an increasing number of legislators of both parties--agree that only about 1/3 of the spending in the bill was even related to economic stimulus by the most charitable of standards) in the House of Representatives as

Voting against the jobless, the underemployed, those who fear for their jobs, and struggling small businesses? Ehhhhxcellent!


[This, by the way, ignores the fact that on a series of bipartisan votes, the Senate is now chipping away at the very pork to which Castle and others objected.]

But, strangely enough, they have nothing to say about House Reps in their own party cavorting in the Caribbean on Citigroup's dime (after voting to send dear old Citigroup bazillions of dollars), as Shirley reports....

Here's the roll of honor for that particular junket:

Charlie Rangel
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Donald Payne
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (mom to that stand-up reformer and current felon Kwame Kilpatrick)
Bennie Thompson
Donna Christenson

Nor have we heard much of anything in that direction about the amazingly porous standards against lobbyists in the new administration, exemplified by the decision to appoint Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn and multiple others to positions of power. If it somehow passed under the radar, here's Senator Carl Levin justifying all the exceptions:

"The decision of the administration to impose an additional set of requirements, and then waive them for this nominee, does not change the standards to which we hold all nominees," he said.

Let's be perfectly clear: Democratic tax-dodging and partying it up at taxpayer-laundered corporate parties does not in any way excuse the culture of corruption in DC over the past eight years as expressed by the excesses of the Republicans.

But you can't keep portraying yourself as the party that's real concerned about the little guy if you don't hold your own to a higher standard.

Comments

Anonymous said…
DelawareLib is like a race horse: as long as the blinders are on there is nothing they see to distract them.
Bowly said…
Why would you go and insult a perfectly innocent racehorse with that comparison?

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...