Rep. Jefferson loses party endorsement

[Ron Burgundy]

- The Louisiana Democratic Party turned down eight-term U.S. Rep. William Jefferson on Saturday and endorsed state Rep. Karen Carter, one of a dozen challengers who emerged after Jefferson became the target of a federal bribery investigation.

Rep. Jefferson loses party endorsement

27 minutes ago

The Louisiana Democratic Party turned down eight-term U.S. Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record) on Saturday and endorsed state Rep. Karen Carter, one of a dozen challengers who emerged after Jefferson became the target of a federal bribery investigation.

The State Central Committee's 69-53 vote, at a special meeting to decide whom to endorse in Louisiana's open primaries Nov. 7, was the first time in recent memory that an incumbent had failed to win the state party's endorsement.

All seven of the state's congressional seats are open.

Jefferson denies the bribery allegations and has not been charged. A former Jefferson aide and a Kentucky businessman have pleaded guilty in an alleged scheme to get kickbacks for helping the businessman get contracts in Africa.

[Country Ken]

Originally Posted by Ron Burgundy

- The Louisiana Democratic Party turned down eight-term U.S. Rep. William Jefferson on Saturday and endorsed state Rep. Karen Carter, one of a dozen challengers who emerged after Jefferson became the target of a federal bribery investigation.

I still cannot beleive the mayor endorced that skumbag.

[motivez]

This is how Democrats handle corruption

Unlike folks like Ney, who are still in office.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Country Ken

I still cannot beleive the mayor endorced that skumbag.

He made a personal promise that if Jefferson helped him win the mayor's job, he'd back him

I can't fault Nagin, its personal honor, the highest kind

You don't go back on your personal word to someone, ever

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

This is how Democrats handle corruption

Unlike folks like Ney, who are still in office.

Or Kennedy

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

This is how Democrats handle corruption

Unlike folks like Ney, who are still in office.

The fact that you even make this statement after there are tons of examples from both parties where politicians have left office after scandals and retained office after scandals is just

This is not how Democrats handle corruption. This is one example of someone who was disposable for them.

[Donkey®]

Democrats...Republicans....they are all the same in the end.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The fact that you even make this statement after there are tons of examples from both parties where politicians have left office after scandals and retained office after scandals is just

This is not how Democrats handle corruption. This is one example of someone who was disposable for them.

Lets talk about recent issues of corruption. There have been many Republicans implicated in illegal dealings with people like Abrhamoff, and many of them have tried to deny their illegal activites, keep their seats, etc, etc.

For the most part, Republicans have been willing to allow the situation to play out at its slow pace without demanding any real accountability.

This is the one real person Republicans can point to as being guilty of corruption recently on the Democratic side, and he was forced to give up his power in Congress, and has lost all official support from within the party.

I think that's a clear distinction.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Or Kennedy

1
Besides the obvious fact that you have to go to the 1960s...again...which is worse Watergate or that?

2
You know, if two liberal democrats got in a car, one was a drunk driver, and they both got killed, you'd be saying they both deserved it, because what idiot gets in a car with a drunk driver...but because you can mock a Senator, you'll hold these specific morals you wouldn't apply elsewhere

3
Also, there is a HUGE difference here: People in MA knew Kennedy screwed up in the 1960s, they all know it, but they forgave him, the victims family forgave him, and people realized he is an excellent politician to help MA, and they keep re-electing him

If People in Ohio knew Bob Ney took bribes, they'd never re-elect him, because bribery isn't just a moral failure, its a failure to represent your districts interest...he wasn't voting for Ohio, he was voting for bribes

Same thing with Studds, people don't realize, you can fail as a moral person, but pick yourself up and still be a great representative to your people

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

1
Besides the obvious fact that you have to go to the 1960s...again...which is worse Watergate or that?

2
You know, if two liberal democrats got in a car, one was a drunk driver, and they both got killed, you'd be saying they both deserved it, because what idiot gets in a car with a drunk driver...but because you can mock a Senator, you'll hold these specific morals you wouldn't apply elsewhere

3
Also, there is a HUGE difference here: People in MA knew Kennedy screwed up in the 1960s, they all know it, but they forgave him, the victims family forgave him, and people realized he is an excellent politician to help MA, and they keep re-electing him

If People in Ohio knew Bob Ney took bribes, they'd never re-elect him, because bribery isn't just a moral failure, its a failure to represent your districts interest...he wasn't voting for Ohio, he was voting for bribes

Same thing with Studds, people don't realize, you can fail as a moral person, but pick yourself up and still be a great representative to your people

1. It's not just the 1960s. Kennedy is known to be one of the more corrupt public officials using his name, power and status for his own bidding. He is known greatly for intimidation.

2. It's not about that. And that's a horrible representation of what happened or what I would say about it.

3. Forgiving and electing corrupt officials doesn't change the point I was making.

And Ney is going to resign.. eventually. Keep in mind I'm from NJ where we have governors and senators hold seats after being disgraced and found to be overly corrupt beyond the lengths of Jefferson. The argument was that the Dems are somehow morally superior in handling corruption.

That simply isn't the case. Any unbiased person can see that. The shit rains on both sides.

[motivez]

I can only comment on what I'm seeing going on now.

It's really easy to bring up things that happened decades ago, which is probably why it's done so often.. and why it's so meaningless. I don't have knowledge of every local political situation that happens, and neither does anyone.. so anecdotal evidence about this town or that town doesn't mean as much about what's happening on a national level IMO.

What I see is the Democrats shunning someone who's guilty of corruption, while the Republican establishment seemingly embraces those individuals, only shunning them when it's finally very politically inconvenient.

[Thorgrim]

I believe the argument is that National Democrats are...not NJ democrats

I think you compare Tip O'Neil to Newt Gingrich and Denny Hastert...I think Tip beats them both by leaps and bounds

Your demonizing of Kennedy is just morals, that he abuses his office somehow to rip off MA residents in general is a baseless claim, I know Republicans from MA that voted for Bush twice and Kennedy twice or more because they knew Kennedy gets things done for MA, he is consistently ranked by nonpartisan groups as the best Senator for their state...just like Byrd in WV or Collins/Snowe in MA

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I believe the argument is that National Democrats are...not NJ democrats

I think you compare Tip O'Neil to Newt Gingrich and Denny Hastert...I think Tip beats them both by leaps and bounds

Your demonizing of Kennedy is just morals, that he abuses his office somehow to rip off MA residents in general is a baseless claim, I know Republicans from MA that voted for Bush twice and Kennedy twice or more because they knew Kennedy gets things done for MA, he is consistently ranked by nonpartisan groups as the best Senator for their state...just like Byrd in WV or Collins/Snowe in MA

Democrats are Democrats. Republicans have had more corruption lately, but the Democrats have no moral highground here as far as I'm concerned. We're not singling out corrupt Republican states. We're talking about officials here. There's corruption on both sides and both sides cover it up when it's fitting.

And I never made the claim that Kennedy rips off CT, so yes in that effect it truly is baseless. However, I did make the claim that Kennedy is extremely corrupt in the fact that he abuses his power far more than most public officials. Does he get shit done, without a doubt. But he certainly isn't an angel..

Has Kennedy taken a bribe? Not that we know of publicly and I'd say he hasn't. But that doesn't change the fact that he isn't extremely corrupt. Unless we're going to narrow down the definition of corruption here to allow the Dems to have moral highground...

If that's the case then yes. As far as bribery is concerned the Republicans seem to be getting the axe lately and the Dems appear to be fairly squeeky clean. That is of course if we ignore all the corrupt land deals, abuse of power and strong arming. If that's the type of argument we're going to make, we should have just said so from the start. Cause here I was confused thinking we were talking about corrupt politicians.

[Thorgrim]

The only corrupt land deals were those involving Hastert in his district

That Reid claim is baseless and by a guy who for weeks tried to make a huge deal out of Reid taking tickets to a Nevada boxing match that turned out to be nothing

and abuse of power and strong arming...in what the 1970s? I don't know what you are talking about

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Or Kennedy

I cant believe you brought up the Kennedy card !! Did you not learn anything at all from THAT other thread??

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Lets talk about recent issues of corruption. There have been many Republicans implicated in illegal dealings with people like Abrhamoff, and many of them have tried to deny their illegal activites, keep their seats, etc, etc.

For the most part, Republicans have been willing to allow the situation to play out at its slow pace without demanding any real accountability.

This is the one real person Republicans can point to as being guilty of corruption recently on the Democratic side, and he was forced to give up his power in Congress, and has lost all official support from within the party.

I think that's a clear distinction.

Foley...

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

I can only comment on what I'm seeing going on now.

No, you can comment on what you've seen in the past too.

[Stylerod]

The State Central Committee's 69-53 vote, at a special meeting to decide whom to endorse in Louisiana's open primaries Nov. 7, was the first time in recent memory that an incumbent had failed to win the state party's endorsement.

Wow, a bit closer than I would respect. Lot of spineless Democrats around still I see.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Wow, a bit closer than I would respect. Lot of spineless Democrats around still I see.

Kind of like when the GOP backed Bob Ney in the primary as he was going on about how he was innocent of bribery...and then he broke down and said he was bribed and blamed in alcohol

Yeah, real golden moment for the GOP there



As a rule, I don't think any politician wants to vote to not endorse an incumbent when he hasn't been charged, the GOP failed at this too in Ohio, Texas, etc