Folks, we need to have a serious conversation about ethics here.

[Skidmore]

As a personal note, I lost my career and had to start again from scratch because I stood up against unethical and illegal behavior in an organization several years ago. It took me years to recoup. I understand the price that can be paid for doing what is right so I don't speak lightly. Whatever my reservations have been over the past 6 years of this criminal administration, I hung in there because I believed that we at the grassroots stood a chance of rooting out the corruption and that our voices were at last being listened to. This week, I'm not so certain. I am more than a little uncomfortable with idea that we have spent 6 years decnouncing the hypocrisy of the Republican party and their willingness to wink at ethical violations until they became untenable, and then we appear to be sidestepping the issues when asked about them within the Democratic Party.

This week we had our first test of the party's position on ethics with this leadership election. I've struggled mightily with who to select and personally supported Murtha because I so badly want the war to end and think he's contributed greatly breaking the propaganda stranglehold on discussions of Iraq. Both Murtha and Hoyer are part of the party's machinery. I don't really feel comfortable with Hoyer but I will support him and Pelosi as the elected leadership so long as some very serious ethics reform is addressed. We do not need to be the party of "the machine." That's exactly how the Republicans screwed up--the machine was more important that the work of the people. I see the machine focused on maintaining power in the hands of a few select people, rather than making this a movement in which we all have a stake. And we wonder why more people don't participate. If we must have machinery, we need to fix it. It needs to be cleaned up.

We cannot stand and shout that we are for ethical government when we will not make active moves to change the system. Now, before you jump down my throat about it not being January yet, I would venture to say that there have to be good faith actions regarding ethics that the party can take before then to demonstrate sincerity to the rank and file and to the public.

I know there are those on this board who will start yelling that I'm being naive and/or stupid because I just don't understand the nature of politics and I don't have the appropriate credentials to be be making judgments about political strategies. In my estimation, I have the only credential that any of us needs to have in this discussion--I am a citizen. I have the only creed that I believe to be important here--I believe in honesty and integrity in my elected officials.

Now how many are with me and how will we do this?

[NotGivingUp]

1. This citizen agrees with you 100%.

[Teaser]

2. Murtha lost. What more do you want?

Pelosi wanted to reward his loyalty/friendship/position on the Iraq war. He lost. End of discussion for me.

[Skidmore]

5. You miss my point.

This is not about whether Murtha won or lost, or whether Hoyer won or lost. I'm speaking of something more fundamental than this. I'm saying that we should be about walking the walk and not just talking. Either we do what we say or we shut up and quit pretending. I have no vested interest in supporting the goold old boys and girls of the machine. We needs new solutions or nothing will change. Rhetoric gets us nowhere.

[TahitiNut]

16. Bullshit. No matter how often people say "Murtha lost" it doesn't become true.

Murtha was a relatively obscure congressman from western Pennsylvania, very cozy with a constituency that's socially conservative and militarily muscular. Murtha owns the chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Military Appropriations ... arguably one of the most powerful chairmanships today. Until he, as an advocate for the gagged and muted career military in the Pentagon, called for withdrawal from Iraq, he was an unknown to all but western Pennsylvanians - and even some of them might say, as DU did, "Murtha who?"

He has become a national political figure. That's not a 'loss.'
He has become the leading spokesperson for House Democrats and Democrats at large regarding Iraq. That's not a 'loss.'
He earned the recognition and endorsement of the presumptive Speaker of the House. That's not a 'loss.'

Murtha is NOT a full-spectrum spokesperson for the Democratic Party's constituency. He's a leading spokesperson on a single issue of very high prominence which, when resolved, will not assure a continued prominence.

Murtha has been rewarded. That's not a 'loss.'

[MODemocrat]

35. It seems that his new position was custom made for him

To save me, I can't see what the big fuss is about Murtha "losing". He didn't lose; he wound up with a
position where he can accomplish his goal, and that is, getting our military back home once and for all.

:thumbsup: :loveya: :patriot:

[blm]

3. Heh.... I posted something with the same bottom line as your post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2741678&mesg_id=2741678

It's IMPERATIVE for the preservation of democracy itself that this country start basing its governance in TRUTH.

No one has it harder than those who seek to investigate and expose government corruption at ANY level.

Salute to you Skidmore.

[Skidmore]

8. Thaks for the link to your thread. I had missed that one, blm.

You and I have caught the same wave. For me, this issue will either make it or break it for me with this party. I stuck with the party even as we watched Dem legislators sell out workers, women, and the poor during this last Congress. For me, Dems in the new Congress need to get busy and deliver some honest product for me to continue. I'm waiting.

[blm]

10. Beyond the party structure, this entire nation's DEMOCRACY is at stake and

we have already seen how close it can get to being utterly destroyed by BushInc and its fascist agenda. The ONLY thing that can strengthen this country and preserve its democracy is TRUTH - and plenty of it.

It shouldn't be a novelty to RESPECT the citizens as citizens and call for others to stop manipulating them rhetorically because they only see them as voters.

[Skidmore]

12. Absolutely! If the party leadership is not willing to deal in truth

they will lose this member. I don't understand why they need to be dragged kicking and screaming back to the people. It defies common sense for them to disregard populist issues and to seek to preserve a jaded process that has been constructed over decades. It is time to tear that house of cards down.

[blm]

21. You get an Amen, and pass the ammo from me.

I REFUSE to go back to pretending that anything a Dem administration does is allright - if it lets BushInc get away YET AGAIN, then it is as traitorous as BushInc is because they KNOW and DID NOTHING.

[glitch]

23. Hear hear. This country has only just begun to wake up and we will not be lulled back to sleep

by a "D" after a name.

[On the Road]

4. I Think Those are the Plans

I hope Pelosi will stand behind them regardless of what other congressmen and -women think.

[screembloodymurder]

6. If there's no attempt to roll back the Bush agenda,

I can no longer support the party.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

7. Kick. Well said.

[Jackpine Radical]

9. I'm with you in principle, of course.

But...as regards Murtha, say, what is the evidence against him? An FBI video of him refusing a bribe? He wasn't indicted, while others were, remember. And he took PAC $$. Was he actually bought, or was he just arming himself the only way he could with the cash he needed to fight a dirty, money-driven battle?

I really don't know the answers to these questions. But the Dems have been bringing Robert's Rules of Order to the gunfight for 'way too long.

I'd love to see money taken out of the political game. I'd love to see lots of things. And I'm no fan of the DLC machine, so your post really twangs my strings, but...and but...and but...

[Nite Owl]

11. I'm with ya

We have to make sure our dems are 'clean'. It's the money, the bad monied interests in politics that keeps the people from getting the things that they need. We have to make it clear that we want reform, it's not just about party it's about the people.

[acmejack]

13. Very good post.

I couldn't agree more.

[Alamom]

14. We absolutely must demand and make sure our party leaders

will not let anything slide. Not the smallest of mistakes or any action which may look corrupt or unethical..(in the present or past)

This may be hard when people we like and may be the best for the job, do not get where we would want them to be.

N. Pelosi, I believe, started the phrase "CULTURE OF CORRUPTION".

It's our duty to make sure this can not be said of the Democratic Party, ever. This was just one election.....we have many more in the future and we need to win every one.

[Greyhound]

15. I agree completely, and the only stupidity and naivete I see is that

displayed by those that view this as some kind of obscene team sport, where the idea that it is OK so long as you don't get caught. It always comes back and bites us in the ass. It is ironic that you used the term political machine as it is so thoroughly identified with various Democratic administrations.

The sheeple have stopped chewing their cuds long enough to demand a change in course, if we don't deliver, whatever happens it won't be good.

[Skidmore]

19. It is a machine. There are two of them, one with a D and one with an R.

They do similar things to crank out their brand of product in terms of politicians. Now, Democratic politicians need to stop being a brand. Brands are sold. We need the political leaders on this side to engage with the people. I truly want a revival of the great movements of the last century...labor, women, and civil rights. We need these movements to define the direction of the 21st century, and there is no reason why the Democratic party cannot embrace and lead in these areas. You don't need money to lead. Some of the greatest leaders in history have had little wealth at their disposal. They need to lose the money machine and crank out ideas and solutions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. I already made my mind

this congress stands on not making them pay for what they've done, in 2008 I vote for a third party

That is the only way, if I and millions of others do this, that the message will be received, maybe

Power corrupts, and we are not above that. And the we shan't do a thing about corruption and the misadministration and we are worried that people care for impeachment talk has me at incredibly uneease

[ChiciB1]

18. I'm In & I Understand What You Are Saying Too!

I was tempted to write a few words to some in Congress just recently, but we have this weird election that's still going on down here in District 13 in Florida.

We need to formulate what we stand for as a group. I haven't raised any hackles about the Murtha/Hoyer flap, but I am upset AND insulted with Carville. Seems he is trying to DIVIDE & CONQUER, and I can't "go there!"

Hey, I was all for REVOLUTION a long time ago.... but understand that this might not be the only solution.

And again... one more time to you Skinner.... HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

:bounce: :party: :crazy: :eyes:

[BlackVelvet04]

20. I agree 100%.....

if the Democrats can't do any better in the ethics department I'm not sure where that leaves us.

I WILL not defend unethical behavior on the part of any politician regardless of their party affiliation.


Not only do the Democrats need to be ethical they must have an appearance of being ethical. Nobody outside of political junkies is going to split hairs over whether or not Murtha was convicted of anything.

[TahitiNut]

22. As a fellow whistle-blower, I stand against 'waste, fraud, and abuse' ...

... no matter what the label du jour. This is much of why I steadfastly regard myself as an independent liberal democrat - more anti-partisan than non-partisan.

"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others."
—— F. A. Hayek, 1956 Preface to "The Road to Serfdom"

While Hayek has become the (unwilling) guru of the new breed of self-proclaimed Libertarians, people who've totally lost sight of the anti-corporatist tenets of classical libertarianism, I find this single perspective regarding conservatism to be at the core of the corruption we're seeing in BOTH political parties today. Established Privilege - a form of entitlement, just as 'Baron' and 'Duke' are entitlements.

A word about 'abuse.' 'Abuse' is the wielding of authority in a manner contrary to the trust vested by the People in that person granted authority. The current administration, and the majority of Congress, have become emblematic of 'abuse' of authority. The 'waste' and 'fraud' perpetrated by this administration dwarfs any historical precedent in this nation. Radical correction is mandated.

[sinkingfeeling]

24. Agreed, count me in.

[Solly Mack]

25. recommended

[spuddonna]

26. I agree that if we are to fight for truth, we must make sure that we hold ourselves...

... to an even higher standard. I guess I'll be in that "naive" little group along side you...

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
- Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963

[happydreams]

27. I've called for impeaching, but am willing to wait until January

befoe concluding anything. It seems that the dems are just laying the groundwork for going after the bastids in January. They have the supoena power and the power to call the shots on the floor. The dems need some time to get their act together. After that, yea, we need to hold their feet to the fire.

[SoCalDem]

28. I agree, BUT the way we ELECT our representatives CREATES ethical issues

Ethics, or the lack thereof, are at the very start of the quest, and are present at EVERY turn.

Before any person even is sworn in, they already have "ethical" problems.

Our system demands that they be everything to everyone, so there are promises made, that realistically can never be carried out.

They start out "owing" many people.
They are also in charge of writing the laws that excuse their indiscretions, and allow them to walk that razor's edge between illegality and just unseemly,

those laws also protect their benefactors..think of any of the recent "corporate collapses". Most of what they did (when they screwed their own employees) was actually legal..

Until we have election reform and term limits, there will always be the "need" for elected officials to have ready 'escape hatches' for themselves and their money-people.

This is why the sex-scandals always seem to be the ONLY tree that bears the fruit of punishment and firing. It's easy to understand, and is pretty much a cut and dried thing.. Money crimes are nuanced, and slick lawyers know all the loopholes.

The ethics committees are also comprised of people who may be or ARE ethically challenged themselves, so it never surprises me when the "drop the ball" because they know that if they press too hard, THEY may be next.

[democrank]

29. We either have principles or we don`t.

What a slippery slope once we start making excuses for our party leaders. All one has to do is take a hard look at the cesspool in Washington if they want to see the results of looking the other way.

If we say we`re the party that speaks for the poor and middle class, then we can`t make excuses for backroom deals that favor only the most powerful. If we say we want an end to the horrific mess in Iraq, then we can`t fiddle around with ambiguity because it`s easier. If we say we want a balanced budget, then we can not have leaders who constantly bring home the bacon in order to bribe a few more votes.

I`ve had enough of "leaders" who speak with a forked tongue. I want solid, ethical Democrats to represent our party. No more snakes on planes, snakes on golf courses, snakes in limos, or snakes on snakes.

[madokie]

30. I'm with you a 100% As long as money talks we lose, no if and or buts about it.

[puebloknot]

31. "...the only credential...I am a citizen."

I see comments here and elsewhere that we need to *trust* our leaders to do the right thing.

I dissent from that position. It has never been more important for us to exercise our right to speak out, and to hold our leaders accountable.

And when it comes to ethics, there is nothing more important than that our newly-elected leaders begin the proces of holding Bush and Cheney accountable for their many ethics violations -- read that "crimes." To do less would be truly *unethical*!


Judy Barrett, Citizen
United States of America

[blm]

45. Unfortunately our party has too many 'unethical' leaders who have covered up for BushInc

in the past and will seek to gain the power to do so again for the latest round of BushInc's crimes of office.

[joe_sixpack]

32. Right on! Right on!

If we stand up for truth and ethics and bringing the government back to working for the people, then there is no way we can lose. If we play the same games in politics that have been played for some time, then we are subject to the whims of an electorate that more often than not says, "what's the difference?". We had the Iraq war for this election, a war that is increasingly not popular. Without that fact, would we still have won as we did? Or would the citizens of a country at peace have said, "No sense in upsetting the apple cart, the economys not too bad, why make a change?" We can inspire folks to actually think there is a difference if we give them what they've seldom seen: A party that strives to act and govern based on the principles it articulates. Imagine how exciting that would be to the average, disgruntled American.

[thingfisher]

33. The hold on our political process

by large coporate interests is the biggest counter weight to achieving some semblance of true representation for the average person.

Corporations need to be held accountable for their actions and practices. These entities control the wealth of the nation and have been in the drivers seat of the body politic for much to long.

Their interests and the interests of private citizens are seldom congruent. They serve only one purpose - to maximize profits at any cost. They owe no allegiance to anyone or anything but themselves and have been willing to sacrifice the welfare of our nation and citizens in the pursuit of higher profit margins.

I am not optimistic that the political will exists to take the drastic measures that would be needed in order to bring these behemoths to heel. Their corrupting influence is so great that it may be impossible to break it.

[Skidmore]

36. Which is why we need to weed out the politicians in the party

who are willing to sell out the people and the party for the power bought for them by corporate donations. We need some serious reform.

[blm]

37. The will is greater now than ever before - majority of Dems would likely support

public financing of campaigns at this point.

I hope Kerry resubmits his and Wellstone's 1997 bill for Clean Money, Clean Elections, in memory of Wellstone - I really think it would pass in this political climate where corruption was the major issue for all voters in the last exit polls.

[blm]

40. No way can we lose if we run on ANTI-CORRUPTION and OPEN GOVERNMENT where

the citizens are TRUSTED and RESPECTED with the TRUTH.

No more manipulating politicians from either party - no more COVERUP FOR BUSHINC Dem presidencies.

This country can't afford it.

[mike_c]

34. I'm with you....

Fantastic post-- K&R.

[Katzenjammer]

38. Ted Rall is with you too

[Codeblue]

39. I'm with you

If the Democrats tunr out to be corrupted shitheads indebted to large corporations, I guess everyone will need a new party eh?

Not that that's a bad thing, but I don't think anybody really wants to abandon their party at this point...

[bobbolink]

41. What you've said is soooo important! NATION BEFORE PARTY!

ALWAYS!

Yes, DU being DU, you will get flamed, but you are exactly right.

Further, it's this very thing that is largely to blame for so many people being so turned off to politics that they won't even vote-- "They're all crooks."

And, as Bobby Kennedy, Jr. said, the Republicans are 100% corrupt, and the Dems are 75% corrupt.

I'm so disappointed that the complicity started so soon after the election!!

BASTA!

Keep speaking out on this!

[blm]

43. It's getting to the point that TRUTH has become anathema to those in our own party and THAT

is what will kill democracy - Democrats were this nation's last best chance, but many Democrats have allowed personalities to take control of the party which makes it easier to subvert the whole party structure.

[Iverson]

42. dangerous subversion

You propose that ideas are the things that count most in politics.

If you follow through on your comments, you will become a pariah. This has been demonstrated. People whose limits were exceeded a few years ago and who, for example, couldn't vote for a Scalia-approving, NAFTA-endorsing, pro-death-penalty candidate have been vilified unceasingly, while the Republicans, by contrast, have since enjoyed a steady stream of "bipartisanship," Supreme Court approvals, and other pernicious forms of cooperation that have left large numbers of people dead in the Middle East.

If you follow your train of thought to its logical conclusion, chances are very good that you will see ethical problems not merely in simple bribes but also in the systematic erosion of the Bill of Rights. There is little praiseworthy in being the junior partner in so fundamental a crime.

You will be shouted down with "pragmatic" arguments that suggest that only by abandoning those ideas in order to get elected can we address those ideas one future day. You will not be told that that glorious day never comes, since the "pragmatism" it its own justification when successful and the rallying cry when it fails.

You are probably lucky. If you haven't been pushed over the edge by now, it isn't likely to happen. You will not lose friends. People will not shout at you. I will not need to show you the secret iconoclast handshake.

Stay well.

[TahitiNut]

44. The perennial "deontologist vs. consequentialist" battle of wills.

Been there. Done that. Will again. Life goes on.