What One Honest Man/Woman Could Do? One Congress? ...

[rrrevolution]

When reviewing the level of corruption that is embedded in what we call our democratic representative form of government, it might be worthwhile considering what one Honest Man/Woman could accomplish in that environment. Then take the next step and ask what one, just one, Honest Congress could accomplish.

I submit the results would be groundbreaking.

One honest representative who was a true statesman and not beholden to money and special interest groups would have the opportunity to speak from the floor of the House or Senate and call out the corrupted and their relationships.

Look at what happens when corruption is exposed to the light of day, for example the Cunningham scandal. "Sunshine" can be lethal to those who manipulate citizens with the vote to keep them in power.

Is this a partisan issue? Only to the extent that the party sells its soul to special interests, and promotes corruption as a S.O.P.

Do we come down hard on members of the less corrupt parties who embody corruption? We should in no certain terms call out our own as traitors to what we are trying to establish, honesty in government.

Just imagine what could be accomplished in once year if there were a wholesale turnover in elected representatives in the House and/or Senate? Given the level of corruption, even small changes would be astounding in their impact on the electorate.

I submit our citizens do not turn out to vote because they believe their vote will be ineffective in changing anything. We need to convince our citizens that their vote can make a difference, and they will show up at the polls in droves.

We need to "rethink" what the real impediments are to real representative democratic government -- what it will take to make a real difference. Can millionaire representatives make decisions that protect the interests of the poor and middle class voters. It is possible, but not likely. There are so many opportunities to profit from favoring the special interests and wealthy, can they stand up to them?

I believe the impetus for change is coming, but it will very painful in so many ways that people will literally be driven into the streets to protest what their government has allowed to happen to them.

We are at the precipice of several catastrophies which require immediate honest leadership. The economic meltdown, unemployment rising, the fiasco in Iraq, the coming oil embargo, and looting of the public treasury, are just a few of the matters requiring immediate attention.

We need to band together to demand totally honest statesmen to be our representatives in government, partisanship aside. As a party we need to lead the way, and demand our candidates live up to the same standard or lose our support.

For want of one Honest Man/Woman we could . . .

Help me out here, what do you see as a natural result.

[ClassWarrior]

1. So what is John Conyers? Chopped liver?

Henry Waxman? Barbara Boxer? Barbara Lee? Russ Feingold? Cynthia McKinney?

NGU.

[rrrevolution]

4. OK, more than one ...., but what if ....

What if Conyers, Waxman, Boxer, Lee, Feingold, McKinney, conducted protests, on their own or jointly, inside the official chambers of the House and Senate upon the resumption of business after the August recess?

Just casting a no vote to the new bankruptcy bill, the NRA lawsuit protection bill, the class action lawsuit reform bill, and other nasty efforts to destroy Social Security, etc., IS NOT ENOUGH.

Why are our honest representatives not organizing massive protests on the steps of Congress? Better there than in the streets, where this will all end up if there is not a change made and fast.

People who have no job, cannot pay their bills, lose their homes, have no health insurance and cannot get medical care -- what do they have left to lose? You can bet they will hit the streets.

When democratic governments become non-responsive to the electorate, the will of the people will be expressed in other venues -- ie. civil rights marches, which cannot be ignored.

I applaud the efforts of Conyers, Waxman, Boxer, Lee, Feingold, McKinney, but statesmanship requires more than registering a vote within the existing corrupted system. It requires motivating the electorate in such a way that they cannot be ignored. We expect more, we need more, we are entitled to more.

The stage is set for a hero to emerge on the national stage.

Will it be an honest representative, or an imposter fed to the masses who is beholden to the same corrupt influences?

That is where this venue will play a historic role.

[ClassWarrior]

5. What was the challenge to the 2004 election? What was the DSM hearing?

What was Maxine Waters' trip to Camp Casey?

Maybe we should be dogging the Corporate Whore Media rather than painting our own people with one nasty broad brush.

NGU.

[rrrevolution]

6. So what that I suggested as action do you disagree with??

Aside from taking offense that your named representative should have been excluded from my criticism -- what about the actions I suggested do you disagree with?

[ClassWarrior]

7. I disagree with the implication that they're not doing the things...

...you suggest.

NGU.

[rrrevolution]

8. Ok you disagree with the implication, now answer the question

Now that you have sufficiently exhibited you are offended, try answering the question.

[ClassWarrior]

10. I'm not offended. I'm just correcting your blanket charges.

It's fact. And what was the question? The rhetorical one in the OP?

NGU.

[rrrevolution]

11. This question ....

"We need to band together to demand totally honest statesmen to be our representatives in government, partisanship aside. As a party we need to lead the way, and demand our candidates live up to the same standard or lose our support.

For want of one<<OR MORE>> Honest Man/Woman we could . . .

Help me out here, what do you see as a natural result."

This question, with <<OR MORE>> added so as not to offend. What of this action do you disagree with?

[ClassWarrior]

12. I disagree with your implication that none of our Dems...

...are already doing that. I see John Conyers and Russ Feingold as two shining examples of "totally honest statesmen" who are "leading the way," "partisanship aside."

NGU.

[rrrevolution]

13. OK, by not answering Q then you agree with the action I suggested

I restated the question for you, and even include <<OR MORE>> in deference to your stated offense of painting with a broad brush, so why the evasion in answering the question.

What could be the reason or than you have no grounds to disagree with me?

[ClassWarrior]

14. Your question: "What of this action do you disagree with?" I answered it.

:silly:

What am I missing here?

NGU.

[rrrevolution]

15. So you agree with this? ....

"We need to band together to demand totally honest statesmen to be our representatives in government, partisanship aside. As a party we need to lead the way, and demand our candidates live up to the same standard or lose our support."

Are you willing to call out individual Democrats who do not meet this standard?

Has nothing to do with supporting Democratic principles.

[ClassWarrior]

16. That statement's a given - and should be for ALL Americans.

And I'm willing to hold accountable individual Dems who do not meet this standard. But "holding accountable" and "calling out" are two different things. The first requires some effort, intelligence, and persistence. The second only requires blind rage.

NGU.

[rrrevolution]

17. "calling out" does NOT require blind rage, --just courage

"calling out" means bringing into the open, exposing as to "sunshine of open government".

In my limited understanding there can be none of the former, "holding accountable", unless there is first a good dose of the latter, "calling out."

Representatives operating in the shadows are less likely to be held accountable.

[ClassWarrior]

18. I can hold an individual accountable for a wrong without trotting out...

...our grievance into the town square, where it can be abused by people who wish to inflict damage on the individual or me. That's usually appreciated. Or I could trash the individual relentlessly and destroy any hope whatsoever of resolving matters positively.

NGU.

[rrrevolution]

19. While that is true, here the duty owed is to all constituents not just you

If you have a grievance with your friend, by all means settle it privately.

Here, the congressman owes a duty to ALL OF HIS/HER CONSTITUENTS. I do not know how you can hold the congressman accountable if you do not know about it -- and ALL THE CONSTITUENTS have a right to hold them accountable at the next election by casting their ballots.

THere is no room for privacy in holding these congressmen accountable in that the duty to disclose information that might bear upon the decision of the constituent at the polls requires "calling out" those who do not adhere to the standard, which you and I already agree upon.

[ClassWarrior]

20. All I’m saying is that when you set out to do damage…

…damage is what you get. I think it's important to inform people. But "calling out" suggests something more vengeful than simply providing people with the information they need to vote.

Geez, I thought one of the most important things that distinguishes us as Progressives is the belief that it's more powerful to build up than to tear down.

NGU.

[rrrevolution]

21. Build Up On The Right Foundation Is The Key For Success

We can have a war over semantics as to what "calling out" means to you and how its differs to me.

I am pointing out that we have Democrats in Congress who are not doing the job, taking nothing away from the absolute corruption of most of the Republican Party and its reps.

As a Progressive I take issue with people who will not face the reality that some of our Democratic representatives are part of the problem in Washington -- we need to build from the ground up on the right foundation if we are to be successful.

The issues facing us are too important not to hold each and every congressional representative of all parties responsible.

[ClassWarrior]

22. I thought "calling out"...

...is the entire premise of this thread. So "what it means to you and how its differs to me" is much more than just semantics.

And we don't have the luxury to "build from the ground up," unless your intent is to blow up the whole thing to begin with - and take down a lot of allies in the process. Is this your goal?

If not, then you need to turn to the effort, intelligence, and persistence that I mentioned in a previous thread. That is, we must do our best to educate the sometimes lame Dem reps we have, while diligently working behind the scenes to groom a farm team of young Progressives to replace them.

No, it's not as instantly gratifying as "calling out" - but it's a helluva lot smarter.

NGU.

[rrrevolution]

23. If we won't call the truth the truth when we see it, how are we any diff

different from the corrupt politicians we are out to bring down.

My intent is to build up not to "blow up the whole thing."

When we demand more of our Democratic Representatives we will be in a better position to change the present Republican Administration, because our reps can point out the corruption with "clean hands."

And if our reps already have 'clean hands" then they have nothing to fear from me.

[ClassWarrior]

24. Who ever said don't tell the truth?

And how does "demand more of our Democratic Representatives" equate with trashing them in public?

I do it by getting involved in my county party and TELLING THEM POINT BLANK, FACE-TO-FACE how I feel and demanding their leadership. And you know what? They usually respond.

How do YOU "demand more of our Democratic Representative," apart from advocating their public humiliation on an online message board?

NGU.

[rrrevolution]

25. I have contacted the Office of Each of my Elected Reps in Congress

(House and Senate)over the last 2 years, in Washington, DC, and spoke in person to several or their top aides. So don't lecture me on who is more involved.

I think you have a real problem with taking what I wrote and twisting it to some scenario which only exists in your own mind.

It would seem that you have a problem with the reality of politics, and that is it sometimes requires that an elected official answer for their actions in the daylight of public opinion. If that is public humiliation, then so be it --they brought it on themselves.

We did not elect these representatives to be free of the "checks and balances" that the public exerts over their actions. That is what a "representational democracy" means. If you want to see what happens when there is no oversight or checks and balances exerted, you need look no further than the present White House.

So while you are talking "face to face" with your elected reps, let us compare who has more influence over them -- you or all of the other constituents who are aware of what they are doing and can exert some influence by not re-electing them. I would side with the other other constituents.

Why don't you try spending more time publicly exposing the corruption of elected officials and less time trying to hide the substandard performance of certain favored politicians. You might find that the level of performance might go up across the board if more had to answer publicly.

by the way.... hanging a label like "democrat" on someone does not make them one. Exhibit A was Zell Miller.

[whistle]

2. Where did you obtain your from??

[BlueJac]

3. Capital Hill

Has already been bought and paid for by multi-national corporations and lobbyists. The American people are being screwed so fast it is making everyones head spin. The "Hill" has turned it's back on everyone with every new bill they pass, lining the pockets of corporation after corporation with our money. It is sickening at best. :puke:

[rrrevolution]

9. Are We Willing To Call Out Our Own? If Not, then .......

If we are not willing to call out our own Democrats for their failure to act and failure to speak out, then we can expect more of the same.

Every Democrat should be on the same page on the big issues, should be speaking out boldly, and acting boldly.

This business of trying to find the middle ground to attract swing voters, where corruption is so evidently the cause of the problem, is worse than having no representative at all.

We need to demand more of our representatives in Congress. I don't mean to criticize those who are trying to do the best they can(ie. Conyers, etc.), but we need ALL OF THE DEMOCRATS to act in the same manner or expect they will be serving their last term of elected office.