Corruption Like a Cancer Grows

| | Comments (2)

Corruption in our government is reaching new proportions surrounding the "Duke" Cunningham investigations. Foley cover-up aside, DeLay, Jefferson, and Abramoff investigations on hold, (could the elections have anything to do with this?), the Cunningham investigations are widening to uncover the many other government officials required to permit Cunningham's bribes to have succeeded.

As the Washington Post reports:

Since Cunningham had no authority to award contracts, he needed the acquiescence of some members of Congress, congressional staff members and Defense Department officials, according to the executive summary of an investigation by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence into his activities as a panel member. "This was a lot of people to persuade, cajole, deceive, pressure, intimidate, bribe or otherwise influence to do what they wanted," the executive summary says.

While it is unlikely the general public is aware of these details, it is nonetheless remarkable that the public 'smells' the pandemic corruption throughout our government as reflected by poll after poll indicating dissastisfaction with Congress and the direction our nation is heading. But, will such dissatisfaction result in record numbers of incumbents losing reelection in 3 weeks? That is a question in hot and useless debate. Nov. 7 will tell.

But, one argument's logic is inescapable. If the Constitution is inherently good, then bad government must be the result of bad politicians. Corrupt government must be the result of corrupt politicians. And wasteful government must be the result of wasteful politicians. Given this truth, does it not also follow that the remedy must begin with removing these politicians from office?

Isn't it illogical to assume that bad, corrupt, and wasteful politicians will correct their own behaviors? And if so, then is it not the duty and responsibility of the voters, like it or not, to remedy the situation by electing new politicians rather than keeping the incumbents responsible for the waste and corruption?

The days of voting for one party or another as the answer to bad government are over, gone, long behind us. The rules and internal workings of our government laid down by decades of corrupt, irresponsible, greedy, and wasteful politicians is now self sustaining. Reforming the internal workings of government is essential to cleaning up government and making it work for America's future instead of against it. We must force reforms such as reducing the influence of huge sums of campaign dollars used as bribes, eliminating exclusionary rules that prevent amendments from being voted on by the Congress, and end the Committee processes that have become the stalwart of one party extremist government in Congress.

But, such reforms will only come if voters demand it from the challengers they elect and deny them reelection if these reforms are not forthcoming. This anti-incumbent mindset must grow, and envelop a number of elections to come in order to bring in the kind of politicians America needs to force these reforms into reality. Spread the word, we the people are taking control at the ballot box and incumbents are going to be an endangered species for a number of elections to come, until the beneficial reforms needed are brought to bear.

Bad government is easy. Just keep voting incumbents back into office to sustain it. Great government is achievable. But, you have to vote for it. And that means we voters must STOP voting for a particular political party, and start voting for candidates who commit to the needed reforms regardless of party. It is past time for large numbers of Democrat and Republican voters to become Independent voters. Some are. Many more must, if we are to restore our government to what it was intended to be, a problem solver, not a problem creator.


I read your reply to "jack" at "Republicans and Conservatives" archives then while trying to find contact info. I came across this article. It seems your a biased domocrat who goes to republican forums just to argue. Jacks article contain facts based on a linked source. Your reply to him had no such sources, only your opinion on the facts jack presented. - - Why should anyone take your opinions seriously when there so clearly bias? Plus the fact that you sound like a person who's glass is always half empty! - - I'll admit MY opinion is based on one reply and one article. My apology if I just caught you on two bad days.


Tommy, thank you for leaving the comments.

It is far more important to me that folks read and consider what I write than that they agree with me.

Some arguments are logical, and require no source to validate their logic. Logic is funny that way. Also, sources are like mushrooms. There are vast numbers of them, some good, some lethal.

The trick is knowing which is which.

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.


Monthly Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.25

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by David R. Remer published on October 18, 2006 10:49 AM.

Victory Not An Option was the previous entry in this blog.

Republicans No More! is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Offsite Links