The neocons are taking on a new name: scandalcons.
I think it fits them well.
If going to war over fake weapons of mass destruction wasn't enough to unseat the head neocon, maybe all the scandals of the neocons combined will be enough to at least highlight their hypocrisy.
I'm all for it.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched a website that convincingly draws attention to all the ethics charges and violations surrounding House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX).
House of Scandal is a creative and interactive site that allows users to fully understand the entire scope of the violations, which usually become quite confusing with today's media. The site also comes equipped with some unflattering pics of Tommy (that has to be the worst comb-over ever). I gave it a try and was quite impressed with it. You can look up your own congressional district in which you live and find the relation between your representative and Tom DeLay, including contributions and statements related to DeLay. Plus you can view all the other indicted people DeLay either supports or receives support from.
I gave it a try and discovered that my Republican representative in the House has received over $20,000 from DeLay and voted with him 90% of the time, and voted "yes" to weaken ethics to allow DeLay to remain in leadership. Very interesting. Well, he's Republican so I wouldn't have voted for him anyway.
Wow, the Democrats finally starting to get creative.
Then Truthout.org has a Scandal Sheet listing 34 scandals involving President Bush since taking office in 2001. That's more than all of President Clinton's lifetime scandals combined.
Why don't these things stick to Republicans like they do Democrats? I must admit, I think the House of Scandal site will generate some noise.
4.15.2005
Scandalcons
Posted by Chris at 6:32 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
All I have to say, is that if you don't like what you see, change it at the polls. Getting beat than using lame excuses to expel someone is not a good way to run our system. I was unhappy when Republicans tried it with Clinton in 1998, and really hate it now.
I don't vote Republican so I'm sure that comment doesn't apply to me.
DeLay's ethics violations are not lame. Some are in fact criminal. The whole neocon movement is to blame for this, not the people trying to make it right.
I really hated it when Republicans did it in 1998 and now I'm just happy. Political karma has to be the best to watch.
Jin;
Here is the point about educating voters; most don't want to be educated. A vast majority of voters don't really listen to the story behind the policy. The only thing that matters is what have you done for me lately (god do I really hate that quote though).
I say change it at the polls, because if you want things your way, you need to have the people you want elected. In 1992, the Republicans took a defeat and reconcerted their efforts to control more seats by getting people to vote for them. It can be done without lies and websties like House of Scandals and MoveOn.org making fallacious statements.
I plan to do a post about this very soon, let me know how much you disagree with.
Jin, thanks for commenting, good to see you back. I don't know why I can't comment on your site. I will try again and see what happens.
Craig, I gotta disagree again. There's a whole lot more to it then educating voters. And I'm under the belief that most voters do want to be educated about issues, but in order to do that the issues have to be defined correctly and with today's lazy form of politics nothing is how it appears. Voters are tired of lazy politics, not with being educated.
I do agree that it has to be changed at the polls. But, the Republicans didn't change it at the polls. They did it with scandal after scandal after scandal.
The Republican majority today has nothing to do with educating voters or changing it at the polls, but has everything to do with scandal, politicizing God and a very extreme form of indolent politics.
Again, political karma has to be the best to watch.
When I lived in the US, and even before I did, I noticed a lot of people only voting based on what they were, not how they felt. Either you are a republican or a democrat. I met a few independents, but that doesn't count for much. Anyways, I think it would be hard to sway voters from how they have always voted. I can't ever see any republicans saying: hey, maybe I should vote for a democrat this year? or vice versa. I think that the non-voters are the ones who need to be targetted, or the new voters, the youngens who still have a chance to get out from their parents wishes and vote how they feel.
It's pretty similar in canada, but I would have to say that it's closer to what craig said: what have you done for me lately. It's fairly obvious if you look at the history in each of the provinces.
Interesting...
Post a Comment