moonbattery.gif


« CAIR Proud of Its Media Influence | Main | More Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome »


November 14, 2009

Corrupt Former Congressman Jefferson Gets Just Desserts, But Is America Better Off?

Posted by The MaryHunter at November 14, 2009 10:12 PM

Corrupt-Beyond-Approach Democrat William Jefferson, former New Orleans U.S. Representative, gets 13 years up the river for all sorts of nasties:

A federal judge in Alexandria, Va., handed down the sentence to Mr. Jefferson, a 62-year-old Democrat ousted by voters last year. He had been convicted by a jury of bribery, money laundering and racketeering in schemes that prosecutors said he devised to enrich himself and his family.

The best part of the story is that the "alleged" bribe money was stuffed into boxes of veggie burgers. Goes to show you: Just say beef.

Of course, his replacement, RINO Rep. Anh "Joe" Cao, if at least not as corruptible (yet -- this is Louisiana after all), was the lone Republican vote for PelosiCare. Who knows, if he keeps his freezer clean, perhaps he'll have a long run in that congressional seat.

Which, of course, provides a segue to this video:

Your party won't like this, no how... and how. Video credit.

On tips from Anonymous Countermoonbat.


Comments

Puh-leez. Now I've got that damn catchy tune in my head.

Posted by: pomalom at November 14, 2009 11:12 PM


Of course, his replacement, RINO Rep. Anh "Joe" Cao, if at least not corruptible (yet -- this is Louisiana after all), was the lone Republican vote for PelosiCare. Who knows, if he keeps his freezer clean, perhaps he'll have a long run in that congressional seat.

Cao has already fallen into the Beltway culture of corruption.

Cao's vote for Pelosicare was bought with pork projects. As of April, he had already requested $1.2 billion and counting. Now that he has properly submitted to his moonbat masters, the total is bound to be more.

As long as he remains Pelosi's lap dog, he'll get his pork, and the rest of the nation will get the bill for his pet projects and the rebuilding of a below-sea-level city they were smart enough not to live in.

Welcome to Washington, Cao. Please get caught quickly.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 14, 2009 11:35 PM


Cao's Voting Record:

PelosiCare: YES
Omnibus Pork Bill: YES
Porkulus Bill: Yes
Pork Laden Farm Bill: YES
Extending Unemployment (AGAIN): YES
Cash for Clunkers: YES
Cash for Clunkers / Additional Funding: YES
Hate Crimes Expansion: YES
SCHIP Socialized Medicine: YES
DoI Pork Bill: YES
Paycheck Fairness Act (Tort Lawyer's Wet Dream): YES
Americorps/Community Organizer Expansion: YES

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 14, 2009 11:48 PM


Cao's massive helping of pork projects

The sooner this clown is gone, the sooner the taxpayers can begin paying back the massive debts incurred by decades of political corruption.

And yes, moonbats, all earmarks are corrupt, because the process itself is corrupt. A single member of Congress should not be determining the value of a project, which is how earmarking basically works.

If the project isn't worthy enough for a competitively-awarded, merit-based grant, and it isn't important enough to receive open debate on the floor, then it doesn't deserve Federal money.

Earmarked dollars don't go to the best projects. Earmarked dollars go to whomever is close with the appropriator, which invites all sorts of corruption, cronyism, and favoritism.

Earmarks also grease the wheels of politics in Washington, and bring out the worst in everyone who votes yes on a piece of legislation only because their campaign contributors are counting on the pork in the bill.

Cao should know about the corrupting influence of pork projects. He only won his seat because Jefferson was caught engaging in pork barrel corruption.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 15, 2009 12:06 AM


Yes, that's only reason Cao won. But he has a good shot at keeping his seat in this far-left district with a voting record like that. Why does he bother calling himself a Republican?

What will be REAL interesting is to see how much $$ and support the RNC put into helping him retain his seat in 2010. Will they have learned from New York 23rd?

Posted by: pomalom at November 15, 2009 5:29 AM


Do they ass rape old, bald guys in prison?

Posted by: Henry at November 15, 2009 8:21 AM


Good point pomalom. I'm also wondering which paths the RNC will take. It'll be hard to make that "big tent" happen if they shrink the base.
You guys can complain all you like but at the end of the day, Cao listened to his constituents and voted as they wanted which ultimately, is what a true Representative should do.

Anonymous Countermoonbat, of course he voted for extending unemployment benefits again. Should he not have?

Posted by: andy42302 at November 15, 2009 8:23 AM


Too bad demacreeps but one of you is a going down now wouldnt you like to see this happen to DICK GEPHART OR THAT JERK MORON MAYOR OF chicago?

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at November 15, 2009 8:41 AM


Posted by: andy42302 at November 15, 2009 8:23 AM

True re Reps listening to his constituents. But when doing that over and over again stands in complete opposition to the party to which said Rep is supposed to belong, then that Rep is in the wrong party. The national party leaders have a responsibility to uphold the basic principles of the party. If that means cutting him off then so be it - what they should have done from the get-go to Scuzzywaffla in NY 23rd.

I would expect no less from the DNC had the shoe been on the other foot - conservative Dem voting against Pelosi on all those items, a DINO. The Blue Dogs are now the serious problem of the dems. See how many of them get sincere DNC party support come election time. Pelosi would be pleased as punch if all the Blue Dogs were voted out in primaries or general election. She doesn't like them, can't control them.

Posted by: pomalom at November 15, 2009 9:04 AM


Looking at the big picture pamolon, I can't see either party ousting anyone that caucuses with them, regardless of how often the vote against party lines. While Ben Nelson and Joe Liberman are DINOs (yes I know JL is actually an Independent) and often vote against the Dems, replacing them in their conservative districts would only likely gain a seat for the opposing party. Every seat counts towards retaining, losing, or overtaking the majority and that majority determines the introduction of bills (or the refusal to do so) as well as the # of party members sitting on committees.
At this point, the GOP should be looking at overtaking the House in 2010. I don't think it can happen but to toss your Dedes and Coas out the window decreases that possibility. Had the GOP had the majority, the HCR would have never have been brought to the floor, even if half of them were RINOs.

Posted by: andy42302 at November 15, 2009 9:57 AM


OK, NOW LET'S GO STRANGLE RANGLE

Posted by: bergbiker at November 15, 2009 10:58 AM


Cao listened to his constituents and voted as they wanted which ultimately, is what a true Representative should do.

You're right. His constituents demanded he go to Washington, bring home the bacon, and make them financially able to live in a disaster-prone city below sea level.

The rest of us, who are not his constituents, are left with the bill for his parochial projects.


Anonymous Countermoonbat, of course he voted for extending unemployment benefits again. Should he not have?

In a nutshell, no.

1. The vast majority of workers on unemployment who find new jobs do so in the last three weeks of benefits. Studies have repeatedly shown that extending the benefits extends the idle time which precedes a worker's decision to get serious about finding a job.
2. UI was not intended to get people through 1+ years of a bad economy. The point of UI is to help people who refused to save money (at the expense of those who did) pay their living expenses for the short period required to find a new job. UI was designed to keep a person's bills paid so they are in a position to find work. It was never designed as a welfare replacement that takes pity on people for periods of unemployment greater than a year (where we are now).
3. Since UI has been extended so long, and has become a quasi-welfare entitlement, rather than a transitional one, the cash flows of the state and Federal UI trust funds are negative. The systems are not sustainable. Look for UI funds to get bailed out after they go broke.
4. The length of UI has been shown to with the lag between non-job measures of economic recovery and the time in which new jobs are actually filled. Since UI pays people to not work, the longer the UI, the longer it takes for the recession to end.
5. Giving away cash because people like it is bad governance. If a policy has a rational basis for enactment, when viewed from an objective perspective, then there is a reason to vote for it. If the entire point is to make voters happy with free stuff, then it should be avoided. Representatives should not lower themselves to a Tammany Hall style of governance.


At this point, the GOP should be looking at overtaking the House in 2010. I don't think it can happen but to toss your Dedes and Coas out the window decreases that possibility.

The Dedes and Coas of the Republican party aren't advancing the Republican platform, so what does it matter if Republicans keep them around or not? Why should the Republicans spend money on a candidate that votes liberal once he or she gets to Washington?

For example, it is irrelevant whether Dede wins as a Republican or Owens wins as a Democrat. Both are going to vote liberal. The only difference is that Dede will occasionally vote with the Republicans for the sake of party solidarity, but those are the quid pro quo politics the conservative base is sick of.

The number of party members in office only matters if you're considering party politics. The conservative base is sick of party politics. We want individual freedom, free markets, and limited government, not a bunch of self-serving Beltway corruptocrats more worried about logrolling more pork into their district than putting this country back on a prosperous, Constitutional path.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 15, 2009 11:13 AM


Anonymous Countermoonbat and Evil Otto in 2010 or 2012.

I'd vote for that ticket any day. Your intelligent, measured responses are something our currents pols could sure learn from.

People that actually read and know their Contitution!

Posted by: EvilResident at November 15, 2009 11:54 AM


Countermoonbat, you're not a skilled chess player or strategist are you? Granted Scazza and Cao may not advance the GOP agenda but what I'm saying is that you cannot advance that agenda if you're in the minority. You're simply stuck in offense. Yes, Dede and Owens will both vote left but with Dede in the seat, that's 1 seat closer to the MAJORITY. MAJORITY= those in charge, those that introduces bills, those that have more representatives in House Committees, those that can opt not to introduce opposing parties agendas and thus, introduce their own.

As far as unemployment insurance extensions, it passed by a landslide. You underestimate both the ramifications of failing to do so in respect to both the economy as well as to the ire of the constituents back home.

Cao faced that ire on HCR which by the way, would ultimately reduce the deficit by over $100 Billion.

Posted by: andy42302 at November 15, 2009 12:37 PM


Ahh, now we see why andy is so benightedly wrong about everything; he's believing everything he hears from liars. REDUCE the deficit? HCR will add trillions, just over the first few years. It's inescapeable.

Also, UI has been extended to the point it is defacto welfare now. As pointed out, that's not what it's for, and using it that way is breaking it. These people need to face actually getting on welfare; maybe that will get them off their asses. At least it would be honest.

Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at November 15, 2009 1:15 PM


Mr Evilwrench, our government (Republicans included) overwhelmingly disagree with you on UI.

While the HCR may have a price tag of around $1.05 trillion, there's a price tag of over $1.06 trillion if we continue as is without doing nothing.

Posted by: andy42302 at November 15, 2009 1:21 PM


"Our government" seems overwhelmingly to disagree with the entire population over HCR. That doesn't convince me they are right. They are not. Your price tags on HCR are wildly at odds with reality; you're all too willing to believe the liars because you wish the program would work. It will be a disaster on multiple levels if it's passed in anything similar to its current state. Likewise UI. Just because they want to pay off the constituents by disguising welfare as unemployment, doesn't make it right to do so. Your logical fallacy here is called "appeal to authority".

Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at November 15, 2009 2:53 PM


Countermoonbat, you're not a skilled chess player or strategist are you? Granted Scazza and Cao may not advance the GOP agenda but what I'm saying is that you cannot advance that agenda if you're in the minority. You're simply stuck in offense. Yes, Dede and Owens will both vote left but with Dede in the seat, that's 1 seat closer to the MAJORITY. MAJORITY= those in charge, those that introduces bills, those that have more representatives in House Committees, those that can opt not to introduce opposing parties agendas and thus, introduce their own.

The big tent strategy fails at advancing conservatism. Republicans have taken to being Democrat-lite in order to compete, even though 40% of the nation self-identifies as conservative, while only 20% self-identifies as liberal.

Democrat-lite still accomplishes the progressive agenda, albeit at a slower pace. The conservative base doesn't believe in the progressive agenda, regardless of the speed at which it comes about. The conservative base wants conservative candidates, and will fail to turn out for a party more concerned with power than principle.

Republican in-fighting cost them one seat in NY-23. However, continuing to elect liberals like Scozzafava costs Republicans credibility with millions of voters who want small government and free markets.

As far as unemployment insurance extensions, it passed by a landslide. You underestimate both the ramifications of failing to do so in respect to both the economy as well as to the ire of the constituents back home. Mr Evilwrench, our government (Republicans included) overwhelmingly disagree with you on UI.

UI is a great example of special interest politics.

Most of the voting base does not think about UI as they go to the polls. Of those who do, there are those who are either currently unemployed or serially unemployed, in addition to the small business owners who pick up the UI tab. Since the number of unemployed or serially unemployed outweighs the number of small business owners by a large margin, a politician can safely vote for more UI, even if the program becomes de facto welfare, creates disincentives to work, and no longer accomplishes the limited reason for its existence.

Extending UI is one of those decisions that only pisses off a small minority, so politicians can feel safe making it, even though it is not in the best interests of the nation.

UI functions much like a populist pork project.

Cao faced that ire on HCR which by the way, would ultimately reduce the deficit by over $100 Billion.
If we make $500B of Medicare cuts, we can reduce the deficit by $500B. Pelosicare makes $500B of Medicare cuts, and, as you claim, reduces the deficit by $100B.

Do you not see the sleight-of-hand they are performing?

The numbers from Pelosicare are horribly cooked and should not be trusted.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 15, 2009 5:00 PM


Countermoonbat, you're not a skilled chess player or strategist are you? Granted Scazza and Cao may not advance the GOP agenda but what I'm saying is that you cannot advance that agenda if you're in the minority. You're simply stuck in offense. Yes, Dede and Owens will both vote left but with Dede in the seat, that's 1 seat closer to the MAJORITY. MAJORITY= those in charge, those that introduces bills, those that have more representatives in House Committees, those that can opt not to introduce opposing parties agendas and thus, introduce their own.

The big tent strategy fails at advancing conservatism. Republicans have taken to being Democrat-lite in order to compete, even though 40% of the nation self-identifies as conservative, while only 20% self-identifies as liberal.

Democrat-lite still accomplishes the progressive agenda, albeit at a slower pace. The conservative base doesn't believe in the progressive agenda, regardless of the speed at which it comes about. The conservative base wants conservative candidates, and will fail to turn out for a party more concerned with power than principle.

Republican in-fighting cost them one seat in NY-23. However, continuing to elect liberals like Scozzafava costs Republicans credibility with millions of voters who want small government and free markets.

As far as unemployment insurance extensions, it passed by a landslide. You underestimate both the ramifications of failing to do so in respect to both the economy as well as to the ire of the constituents back home. Mr Evilwrench, our government (Republicans included) overwhelmingly disagree with you on UI.

UI is a great example of special interest politics.

Most of the voting base does not think about UI as they go to the polls. Of those who do, there are those who are either currently unemployed or serially unemployed, in addition to the small business owners who pick up the UI tab. Since the number of unemployed or serially unemployed outweighs the number of small business owners by a large margin, a politician can safely vote for more UI, even if the program becomes de facto welfare, creates disincentives to work, and no longer accomplishes the limited reason for its existence.

Extending UI is one of those decisions that only pisses off a small minority, so politicians can feel safe making it, even though it is not in the best interests of the nation.

UI functions much like a populist pork project.

Cao faced that ire on HCR which by the way, would ultimately reduce the deficit by over $100 Billion.
If we make $500B of Medicare cuts, we can reduce the deficit by $500B. Pelosicare makes $500B of Medicare cuts, and, as you claim, reduces the deficit by $100B.

Do you not see the sleight-of-hand they are performing?

The numbers from Pelosicare are horribly cooked and should not be trusted.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 15, 2009 5:05 PM


Evilwrench, you seem to be unable to distinguish what the majority wants vrs what you yourself has deemed reasonable and what's politically advantageous for the GOP.

Let me help you if I may. Health care is a problem and it's literally pulling our economy down the drain. For a site that's hell bent on focusing only on Democrat's failures and bringing them down, I well understand that that conflicts with your agenda. Regardless, heath care is an ongoing problem that continues to plague the well being of our country. I understand that the well being of our country comes in a far second to extremist such as you but it doesn't with mainstream America.

Posted by: andy42302 at November 15, 2009 5:30 PM


Andy is just upset that protease inhibitors are costing him an arm and a leg. I told you to not go commando but Andy loves the 'freedom'.

Posted by: Ghsot of Wellstone (the real one) at November 15, 2009 9:43 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)