A PACK OF MERCENARY WRETCHES
In my last post decrying the shameless legislative prostitution of congressional call girls legislators Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson I was taken to task by one of our liberal readers for my naivete regarding run of the mill legislative “log rolling.” Apparently, only a uninformed boob would object to legislators who, having previously carved out a position based on a highly publicized moral position, cave on that self same position once they are offered enough money. Wow, I thought all this “log rolling” was to be a thing of the past in the new transparent age of Obama who, after lowering sea levels and global temperatures, would bring a new tone to Washington.
While our associates on the left may have made their peace with corruption I have not. I remain disgusted at the performance of our legislature regarding healthcare reform. If this issue is as important as they say then why the artificial deadline of getting this thing done before Christmas? Why not take the necessary time to get this thing done right? Why do we have to rush this thing through?
Reelection. Thats it. These high priced whores in D.C couldn’t care less about the welfare of the nation. Its all about them and the retention of political power. Their shameless self promotion at the cost of the fiscal health of the public purse disgusts me to no end. Apparently, certain liberal readers believe such thinking is hopelessly naive. For them I offer the following clip:
Absolutely right. “When statesmen abandon their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties they lead their country by a short route to chaos.”
I think Oliver Cromwell’s rebuke of the House of Commons is particularly applicable to our legislature today.
“It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money. Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?
“Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter’d your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turn’d the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!”
AMEN!!!!!!
as I said below….the term “statesman” is little used anymore, with good reason….great take Joel…
Joel-
While you may have not made peace with corruption, do you think that those who have are limited to the left/liberal/Democrat side of the aisle? While I would self identify as someone left-of-center, I do not condone Nelson’s actions and criticized them loudly on that post. However, I do not think such actions are limited to one side of the debate. Unfortunately, the whole system has become so corrupt that Nelson’s actions are essentially par for the course. That’s not to say that all elected officials would be guilty of such an egregious violation of morals and ethics, but all too often they allow their votes to be bought, either on the House/Senate floor or in backroom deals with private lobbyists. I still argue that allowing unrelated bills to be tacked on to each other promotes this practice, as the quid-pro-quo of political dealing (which is sometimes necessary) becomes built into the system and, as such, makes it permissible.
BSK,
You make some good points. Certainly, politicians that put private gain before principal are not unique to the left. Furthermore, I could not agree with you more concerning omnibus bills.
My post was not directed at you. It was inspired by Muskrat’s comment on my original post on this subject and comments from several pundits on the political talk shows. Too many people are excusing the actions of Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson as nothing more than “the way things get done in Washington.” I am well aware that such high profile perfidy is not uncommon in Washington. That said, I don’t have to be happy about it. All citizens, left or right, should despise such behavior. In fact, I think the indifference demonstrated by the aforementioned pundits demonstrates a striking lack of personal and public virtue.
If we don’t expect better from our representatives then we deserve their corruption.
BSK,
The difference is that the Dems corruption is aimed at taking control of healthcare, which comprises 1/6 of our economy and permeates almost every aspect of society.
Whereas the GOP’s corruption is mostly cowardice.
Although, I didn’t take the above to be aimed primarily at Democrats. Woolsey is essentially asking More: “If you’re not going to help me, atleast don’t actively oppose me. Just go along with me.”
The same occurs later in the movie. Maybe that could be shown again here, and aimed directly at McConnell.
Things aren’t going to change until voters demand change. When Ben Nelson is in trouble in his home state for bringing home too much pork, then others will beware. But that’s not going to happen.
Example: Parker Griffith just switched parties. His main complaint was liberal legislation. But also mentioned was the GOP support for NASA and defense spending. His district holds NASA’s Marhsall Space Flight center and a military installation. Hmmmm.
I’d love to see the system change, but how?
I think what sets Nelson (I’m not familiar with the specifics of Landrieu’s situation) apart from the usual “that is how things get done” is that he initially expressed his moral repugnance at the health care reform. It’s one thing when a Senator signs a bill with the mindset of, “I don’t like this provision, but I do like this one, and I like it more than I don’t like the other, so on sum, I support this bill.” It’s quite another to work with the mindset of, “I find this bill morally wrong. BUT, this extra money going to my state makes it okay.”
Again, I think if we eliminate grouping bills in such way, we’d eliminate this from happening in both situations. There is also the risk that two “moral issues” will be attached in such a way that would require a representative to violate his/her own personal morals (or otherwise abstain from the vote). Suppose a bill banning abortion but legalizing euthanasia was proposed? This would put many representatives in an impossible situation that need not exist, as abortion legislation and euthanasia are not directly linked in such a way.
The cardinal had a point, of course. The failure of the king to produce an heir led to quite a bit of death. The reign of “Bloody Mary” followed, and though Elizabeth the First was quite a servicable monarch, she was known as “Bloody Bess” to many in her time.
He was wrong on the science of how a boy child is created, which he couldn’t know; and it wasn’t as bad as the Wars of the Roses that had proceeded the Tudors, which he also couldn’t know. Still, the wish to avoid the chaos of a dynastic war was not a position wholly without merit. I wonder if the play does him justice in that regard.
Grim,
Accurate historic points all. However, the point of the scene was to draw a contrast between a man driven by pure political expediency and a man motivated by principle.
No truer statement has been made than the following:
“When statesmen abandon their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties they lead their country by a short route to chaos.”
I think you would enjoy the movie.
By the way, how do you get that little picture to show up by your comment?
I believe that’s from Gravatar. Google/Blogger has one too, but my photo there is in color.
You should put up the photo of yourself with that fine Randall knife — you know, the Sheikh Marine photo.
That is a good picture i will have to break it out.
Lets see if this works.
Working?
“Justice in the life and conduct of the State is possible only as first it resides in the hearts and souls of the citizens.” Plato
You liberal cretins who believe that Joel’s thinking is “hopelessly naive” have been, unfortunately, hopelessly corrupted by the same amorality that corrupted the high-priced hookers now running this country.
No need to defend yourself so strenuously, Joel. The trolls ALWAYS lose, eventually.
Lauran-
To which “cretins” do you refer? I don’t see anyone here having referred to Joel’s thinking as “hopelessly naive”, not on this thread at least. As someone who might be described as “liberal” (but hopefully not as cretin), I agreed with Joel’s point. Muskrat, another person who might be described as “liberal” also concurred. Not only is your comment seemingly off-base and unnecessarily defensive, you make ad hominem attacks without even naming who you are attacking. What motivated your post? Something on this thread or elsewhere?
I’ll assume the cretins know who they are, BSK.
Appears, by your comment to me, that you’re a bit defensive yourself. I, for one, have no reason to be defensive.
A Merry Christmas to all.
Whatever you say, Lauren. You made a vague attack on anyone prescribing to what me classified as a liberal viewpoint or might otherwise disagree with Joel. If you feel someone is a cretin, call them by name. Otherwise, your attacks are draped in cowardice.
As I wrote earlier, “BSK,” I, for one, have no reason to be defensive. I cannot speak for you.
An opinion, for your information, is not a judgment, and ‘cowardice,’ I must say, is not a term that you, personally, are in a position to throw at anyone.
I must agree, BSK, that you’re a tad liberal in issuing ludicrous accusations with little to no justification for them.
I also note that your comments are pointedly aimed at those posters who comment rather than the authors–who have often made scathing comments regarding their subjects (of which I have yet to disagree).
And I must also agree with the comment that you, sir, are not in the position to accuse anyone of cowardice, especially.
Just get to the point, y’all. BSK, you’re a sorry whiner, man.
Nuff said.
How am I guilty of cowardice? I outlined why I thought Lauren was: she made personal attacks on unnamed individuals and did not articulate a basis for those attacks. To me, that is cowardly. So while you may disagree with my assessment, to say I have made it “with little to no justification” is simply intellectually dishonest, as the evidence of my justification is well-demonstrated (even if you do not accept it as accurate).
At times I respond to posters and at times to authors. I respond to what is of interest to me, and that comes from different sources. Sometimes I am in agreement and sometimes not. On this particular thread, I agreed with the original author Joel’s primary point and engaged in some discussion about it.
Later, Lauren came on and made a general attack on liberals that seemed factually irrelevant to the conversation here, as no one made the claims she ultimately insulted “liberal cretins” for. That is a straw man’s argument, which is a logical fallacy at it’s heart, and I questioned her to both the direction of her attack and the motivation for it. If engaging someone directly is cowardice, than I suppose I am. But I challenge you to directly demonstrate how I was cowardly and how Lauren’s criticisms here were both legitimate and relevant, given the conversation up to that point.