The Post Where The Liberal Sounds Conservative?

[Taymelo]

Call for lawmaker to step down irks black caucus
Disagreement abounds on how to deal with William Jefferson

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A drive by the Democratic leadership to strip embattled Rep. William Jefferson of his committee post triggered a backlash Thursday as the Congressional Black Caucus opposed the move and said the Louisiana lawmaker deserves a "presumption of innocence."

The caucus chairman, Rep. Melvin Watt of North Carolina, told reporters that some black voters might ask why action was sought against "a black member of Congress" when there was neither precedent nor rule for it.

Jefferson has not been indicted and has denied all wrongdoing in connection with a federal bribery investigation that has netted two convictions. He has rebuffed repeated calls from Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and others to step aside until any involvement is clarified.

Watt spoke after a Democratic leadership group voted to strip Jefferson of his committee post, at least temporarily. The entire rank and file was then summoned to debate the issue but postponed a vote until next week.

A vote by the full House would be required to force Jefferson to step aside.

"I can guarantee" he will not voluntarily step aside, said Melanie Roussell, Jefferson's spokeswoman.

Several officials said Jefferson had rebuffed a final appeal to step aside in a meeting with three fellow Democrats dispatched by party leaders. They spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the delicate nature of the conversation.

The maneuvering came as part of a determined attempt by Pelosi, D-California, to ease Jefferson from his position. "I feel he should step aside," the minority leader told reporters, declining further comment.

Democrats intend to campaign against Republicans this fall by accusing them of presiding over a "culture of corruption." Jefferson's continued presence on the committee presumably would allow Republicans to blur the issue in the midterm elections.

Several officials said Watt had spoken up at the meeting of the rank and file to invoke a rule that provides for a five-day delay.

Emerging from the session, he distributed a statement that said the Congressional Black Caucus perhaps has a "unique appreciation of our nation's constitutional guarantee of the presumption of innocence."

The statement added the group "therefore opposes suggestions that some have made to force Rep. Jefferson to resign from Congress or to remove him involuntarily from his position on the Ways and Means Committee in the absence of precedents that have been historically applied and will be consistently applied in the future."

Speaking for himself, Watt was more pointed.

He said the leadership was open to a charge that it was acting out of political expedience. "It's about to blow up in their face," he added.

Referring to black voters, who are among the most loyal Democrats in the electorate, he added, "You've got a whole base of people out there who believe that the Democratic Party takes them for granted already."

If action is taken only against someone who "is a black member of Congress, then our community will legitimately ask what in the world are you doing?"

While Jefferson has not been indicted, two men have been found guilty in the probe.

Brett Pfeffer, a former Jefferson aide, was sentenced to eight years in prison last month for conspiring to commit bribery and aiding and abetting the bribery of a public official.

Vernon Jackson, 53, chief executive of iGate Inc., a Louisville, Kentucky-based telecommunications company, pleaded guilty May 3 to paying more than $400,000 in bribes to Jefferson.

Additionally, the FBI claims that it videotaped the Louisianan last summer taking $100,000 in bribe money and that agents later found $90,000 of the money stashed in a freezer in his home.

FBI agents carried out a weekend search of Jefferson's congressional office last month, triggering an outpouring of criticism from congressional leaders claiming they had encroached on Congress' constitutional powers.

In response, Bush ordered the material taken be turned over to a Justice Department official not involved in the investigation.

Race was a further complication in the episode. Jefferson is black, and some Democrats say that black voters could be alienated if he is forced aside.

"The rule is you lose your leadership position or chairmanship" after indictment, said Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia, who is also black.

Pelosi recently prevailed on Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, to step aside as senior member of the ethics committee after questions were raised about some of his legislative actions. But he remains a member of the Appropriations Committee, with broad authority over the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

A vote by the full House would be required to force Jefferson to step aside.

OK. This is the post where a liberal comes out sounding conservative. Here goes.

This is bullshit. The only reason the congressional black caucus is standing up for this guy is because he's black, and it makes them look terrible.

This guy is unquestionably guilty, and being indicted is merely a formality. The democrats need to distance themselves from corruption before the election, and this criminal is dragging the entire party down.

I'm getting so sick of black people sticking up for guilty black people simply because they're black. They are damaging their own party in favor of their own... dare I say... racist agenda? (Racist agenda being advancing black people at the expense of their own country)

And don't get me started on the ACLU. I wish it was disbanded along with the Congressional Black Caucus. I'm sick of these rogue organizations making the entire democratic party look like shit.

[Taymelo]

And before anyone starts off with a post about how he hasn't been indicted yet, and tries to split hairs, just look at the bold print.

His aides have pled guilty and/or been convicted in a court of law for ASSISTING HIM in accepting bribes. They are now literally spending time in prison for HELPING HIM break the law.

So, do we really need to allow him to keep all his cabinet positions just because he hasn't officially been indicted yet? Shit, if he were a police officer, teacher, etc., he'd at the very least be suspended with pay pending an investigation.

So, the proper analogy would be for him to at least step down temporarily, until this matter is resolved.

But don't tell that to the Congressional Black Caucus, because he's black and that's all they care about.

[Hermy]

The ACLU doesn't represent the Democratic party, it represents freedom. If Democrats don't like freedom for everyone, get away. It's gonna keep representing the tobacco industry, and porn, and Christians, and children, and anywhere the rights of the community are placed over the rights of the individual. It's not going to disolve because there are too many people who care enough about actually determining their own destiny to allow it to ever not exist, popularity be damned.

[Uncle Mxy]

And before anyone starts off with a post about how he hasn't been indicted yet, and tries to split hairs, just look at the bold print.

The part you should have bolded is:

the Louisiana lawmaker deserves a "presumption of innocence."

That alone should be enough to safely assume corruption, kickbacks, bribery, etc.

[Taymelo]

The ACLU doesn't represent the Democratic party, it represents freedom. If Democrats don't like freedom for everyone, get away. It's gonna keep representing the tobacco industry, and porn, and Christians, and children, and anywhere the rights of the community are placed over the rights of the individual. It's not going to disolve because there are too many people who care enough about actually determining their own destiny to allow it to ever not exist, popularity be damned.

If it didn't lose me before, the ACLU lost me when it indicated that it would represent the family that protests at military funerals. Don't tell me that's defending freedom. That's defending someone's right to intentionally inflict severe emotional distress on innocent people in their most vulnerable hour at a private event on private property in which they weren't invited nor welcome.

And it has nothing to do with free speech. Those guys don't want a public forum. They want to ashame and humiliate people attending their own loved one's private funeral.

Fuck the ACLU.

And the problem, Herm, is that no matter whether the ACLU is representative of democrats or not, assholes like Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly make over 50% of the country THINK the ACLU is a wing of the democratic party, and thus the ACLU drags democrats down.

I'll tell you what. I'm so fed up at this point I'm almost ready for if you can't beat them join them. But not quite.

How's this: If I were running the democratic party, I'd say screw abortion, screw gay marriage, and screw the ACLU. These issues rarely affect the average democrat, but always keep the democrats out of office.

Fuck em.

Let the libertarians worry about keeping abortion legal.

Let the independents worry about rights for gay people.

I just want better government, more access to health care, cheaper medicine, more jobs, a stronger infrastructure, security, clean air and water, lower fuel costs, and a better future.

Its too bad I'm in a catch 22. I can't get it with republicans, and I can't get democrats into office (assuming they'd even follow through with 1/2 of those things).

[Hermy]

Yeah, being principled stinks some times, no one says they agree with them, but you as a lawyer understand precident and if you don't stand every inch they'll take it.

Making an effort to defend the undefendable ensures me that if I ever did something you thought was undefendable someone would be there for me.

And don't fault the ACLU that the Republican noise machine is better than yours. Turn it around and get people pissed that the ACLU defends fag hating and big business so everyone should hate Republicans who appreicate these qualities.

[Taymelo]

^^^Hire that man, Mr. Dean.

[Uncle Mxy]

If it didn't lose me before, the ACLU lost me when it indicated that it would represent the family that protests at military funerals.

It's not so much a family as a church. Check out:

http://www.godhatesfags.com

for their WWW site (and no, it's not a joke). This isn't typical "war protest" stuff. They're protesting against homosexuality, and claiming that our troops are dying because God is punishing us for tolerating gays.

Don't tell me that's defending freedom. That's defending someone's right to intentionally inflict severe emotional distress on innocent people in their most vulnerable hour at a private event on private property in which they weren't invited nor welcome.

The ACLU's concern is that some of the laws designed as a reaction to these dipshit protestors are too broad. The specific item that caught my eye was how speech was restricted within 300' of a funeral home. As it turns out, I lived within 300' of a funeral home for a year or so awhile back. I could see where laws that restrict speech on private property could be problematic. It isn't easy to legislate speech, and I could believe that some reactionary laws got it wrong. Hell, it's hard enough -defining- speech in some cases.

Obviously, the ACLU shouldn't take shitheads for poster-boy clients if they care about being effective, but tact isn't one of their virtues AFAICT.

[Taymelo]

The ACLU seems to be the only organization that is not worried about public perception, whatsoever.

Sure, that can be considered a good thing - altruistic and all - but its not effective.

And since the ACLU is associated with the democratic party by Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly, etc., the democrats need to distance themselves from it.

Perhaps democratic candidates spend a good deal of time criticizing the ACLU to the media? Maybe that will win votes?

All I know is I'm trying to figure out how democrats can win office when most americans ingest anti-democrat propaganda instead of news.

Of course, in the end, I realize I can't win, because the talking heads don't focus on one democrat.

They defame whatever democrat is popular at any given moment. For example, once John Kerry started gaining support, republicans stopped ripping on Ted Kennedy just long enough to swift boat him, and now people like Gecko think the swift boat ads were true, although they were debunked years ago.

Similarly, they started calling Kerry a flip flopper, although GWB has a verifiable record of flip flopping A LOT more than Kerry - it didn't matter. Once O'Reilly called him a flip flopper, 54 million voters voted for the REAL flip flopper, all while calling the non-flip flopper a flip flopper.

The Jersey Girls are just ANOTHER example. They are starting to get popular with voters, so they had to send Coulter out to destroy them and save votes for republicans.

The bottom line is whoever runs for the democratic party, no matter how squeeky clean they are, will be considered anti-american pieces of shit by 54 million people once Karl Rove is through with them.

I guess its Jeb Bush in '08 (if not McCain).

[Hermy]

^ Agreed.

Republicans are equally as brilliant at running campaigns as the seem to be inept at running the country.