rolling stone cover story: all you need to know about the worst congress ever

If there was no personal responsibility, Mark Foley wouldn't have resigned, or been forced to resign. Trent Lott lost his leadership post. Tom Delay, ditto. Gingrich, ditto. There are examples all over of GOP lawmakers taking responsibility, or being forced to take responsibility by their peers, constituents or the wheels of justice.

Then you have Ted Kennedy, Gerry Studds, Barney Frank as examples of not taking personal responsibility.

 

First, these resignations weren't from some principle of "personal responsibility." They were at the barrel of a gun because of the threatened loss of power if they stayed around. If it's all about personal responsibility, why does Bob Ney still have a Congressional office? That said, you rarely see any politician of any party resigning out of some form of "personal responsibility" that doesn't involve an indictment or party leaders telling him he's through.

Second, I'm not always a big fan of Matt Taibbi, but man did he nail it here. What a well-reported piece. For those who can't make it through all six pages to find out why the Democrats don't get piled on more often for their role in the Worst Congress Ever, the upshot is that Republicans rewrote or played with the rules so much to freeze out Democrats that, as a parliamentary challenger, they ceased to exist. Or to put it in a sports metaphor, this Congress was the 1985 NBA All-Star Game, the Democrats were Michael Jordan, and the Republicans were Isiah Thomas. One example: Republicans literally locked Democrats out of conference committees. There's a laugh-because-you-don't-want-to-cry story about a group of Republican conferees staying deathly silent while Charles Rangel knocked on the door, so he wouldn't think they were meeting.

You know that saying about absolute power? If the Democrats retake the House and Senate -- and I say, if, because Democrats are often their own worst enemy, and I believe in the realm of possibility that they could be the Arizona Cardinals to the Republicans' Chicago Bears -- the best thing they could do is roll out the welcome mat for Republicans to participate in Congress.

 

Good Lord, why does anybody read Rolling Stone any more!?!?!?!?!?! Go read Paste.

And shock of all shockers, Rolling Stone puts 9 Republicans and the one Democrat caught red-handed with literally cold hard cash on their list. Now, they may all suck, of course Hal Rogers has been good for his district, and you could go through and pick out crap on all 435 of them. Like it will be any different if the Dems get back in power. Less reported maybe, but t won;t be any different.

 

Yes, you're right. Much like the underreported Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal. I couldn't find anything about that anywhere while it was going on. It was extremely frustrating.

 

Re: rolling stone cover story: all you need to know about the worst congress eve

And the one Dem they pick is toast anyway, 'cause all the Dem voters in his district are now living in Houston.

Brownie 1, rest of country 434.

 

Please STFU. The story is, yes, largely about Republicans as they are currently the douchebags in charge. BUT, it clearly states that many of the practices that are now in full force were started by the mid-90s Dems. The GOP is essentially paying back those ills and, soon, the Dems will be right back on top in this heinous political porno, giving it to the GOP in a very uncomfortable place. The main story is not maligning individuals as much as it laments a broken system.

 

Re: rolling stone cover story: all you need to know about the worst congress eve


Hey, it could have been worse for the GOP.

Remember, Craig Schelske (aka Sara Evans' husband) LOST his election bid in Oregon.

 

Re: rolling stone cover story: all you need to know about the worst congress eve

Don't make me defend these douche-nozzles!

Because the people of his state still need representation. The bulk of what a Congressional Office does (when not lying, cheating or stealing) is helping people out with receiving benefits coming to them through the Federal Gov't.

True to an extent, but keep in mind that this is just in the House. The Senate has standing rules whereas the House rewrites them on every bill they send up (for the most part.)

Because of that, if the Ds can take one, it'd be better for them to take the House; it's easier for the majority to control -- which is what's created all these farkin' problems in the first place.

But if they do take only one chamber, other than being able to make a little more noise and exert some more influence, I'm not sure that it's going to have a dramatic effect on things, at least to the extent of completely reforming the situation the way it needs to be done. 2008 will have a much larger impact on that. Alas.

 

Let's consider the source: the only time Rolling Stone would be behind a certain Congress is if it would not only legalize marijuana, hash, LSD, and crystal meth, but force the FDA to name those substances a food group. Also, to declare a national holiday for John Lennon's birthday and the day he was shot.

I wish they had the balls to use P.J. O'Rourke again.

 

That article reads like some blog screed. Everything might be accurate but the writing is amateurish. Couldn't even get close to the finish.

 

What do you have against Grassley? I've always liked him -- has an independent streak and a strain of the libertarian/Western "leave me alone" conservatism.

 

Just to be clear, are the Dems also allowed to go back 20, 30 years to pull out examples? I don't think anyone really needs that sort of leeway (the current GOP batch could rival the Dems all-time list), I just wanted you to think about it.