It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A Republican Calls for a Democratic House Majority

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 12:41 PM
Maybe we can give integrity, if not peace, a chance. As I was going through some of my favorite online sources, I found this interesting and wanted to share it at Politics@ATS. Please read through his letter before commenting.
Part of letter

Some 18 months ago, my former law partner, Lewis Butler, an Assistant Secretary of HEW in the Nixon Administration and subsequently the distinguished Chair of California Tomorrow and the Plowshares Foundation, and I initiated an effort we called The Revolt of the Elders. All of us were retired and in the latter years of Social Security entitlement. Most of us were Republicans who had served in the Congress or in former Republican administrations with men like Gerry Ford, John Rhodes, Bob Michel, Elliot Richardson, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and the president's father, George H. W. Bush, all men of impeccable integrity and ethics.

We had become appalled at the House Republican leadership's decision in early 2005 to effectively emasculate the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct by changing the rules to protect Majority Leader Tom DeLay. DeLay had been admonished three times by the Committee for abuse of power and unethical conduct. It was our hope to persuade Speaker Hastert and the Republican leadership, of which Northern California Congressman Richard Pombo and John Doolittle were prominent members, to rescind the rules changes and to act in accord with the promise of high ethical standards contained in Speaker Gingrich's Contract With America which brought the Republicans majority control in 1994. We failed. Letters to the Speaker from an increasing number of former Republican Members were ignored and remained unanswered. Then, only a few weeks ago, the House leadership refused to allow even a vote on what could have become an effective independent ethics monitor. Instead of repudiating the infamous Pay to Play program put in place by DeLay to extract maximum corporate campaign contributions to Retain Our Majority Party (ROMP), DeLay's successor as Majority Leader called for a continuance of the free luxury airline trips, mammoth campaign contributions to the so-called Leadership PAC and the continuing stalemate on the Ethics Committee. Strangely, even after the guilty pleas of Abramoff, Duke Cunningham and a number of former House staffers who had been sent to work for Abramoff and other lobbyists. The Republican House leaders don't see this as corruption worthy of investigation or change. That their former staff members and Abramoff were granted preference in access to the legislative process is not seen as a problem if it helps Republicans retain control of the House. It reminds one of the contentions of Haldeman and Ehrlichman long ago that the national security justified wire-tapping and burglary of Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office and the Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate. Republicans are happy with this new corporate lobby/House complex, which is far more dangerous that the Industry/Defense complex we were long ago warned about by President Eisenhower.

I have therefore reluctantly concluded that party loyalty should be set aside, and that it is in the best interests of the nation, and indeed the future of the Republican Party itself, to return control of the House to temporary Democrat control, if only to return the House for a time to the kind of ethics standards practiced by Republicans in former years. I say reluctantly, having no great illusion that Democrats or any other kind of politician will long resist the allure of campaign funds and benefits offered by the richest and most profitable of the Halliburtons, oil companies, tobacco companies, developers and Indian gaming tribes whose contributions so heavily dominate the contributions to Congressmen Pombo and Doolittle.

[edit on 29-7-2006 by desert]

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 01:50 PM
Here is more of the letter that wouldn't fit in above

There is another strong reason, I believe, for Republicans to work this fall for Democrat challengers against the DeLay-type Republicans like Pombo and Doolittle. That is the clear abdication by the House over the past five years of the Congress' constitutional power and duty to exercise oversight over abuses of power, cronyism, incompetence and excessive secrecy on the part of the Executive Branch. When does anyone remember House Committee hearings to examine into the patent failures of the Bush Administration to adhere to laws like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or to the arrogant refusal of the President to accept the congressionally-enacted limits on torture of prisoners? When can anyone remember the House's use of the subpoena power to compel answers from Administration officials? Why have there been no oversight hearings into the Cunningham bribery affair or Abramoff's Indian gaming and exploitation of women labor in the Marianas?

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 02:11 PM
I'm a Goldwater/Reagan Republican and I, too, am disgusted by what I see. The last five years has been a nightmare because of this morally deficient bunch of so-called leaders. Never in a million years did I think I would see the GOP go so dark. I hope the Democrats take back the Senate and the House. It's past time for accountability.

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 11:23 AM
Yes, morally deficient, indeed.
The author certainly gets it all out there, including using "corporate lobby/House complex".
At one point in time, I had been ideally optimistic that the Republicans would clean up their own mess, but this elder Republican author believes that the Dems have to come in to clean up the poop from the Elephants in the political parade. Sounds like a Herculean task

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 11:38 AM
I call for an independant house majority!!!

Seriously...I never really understood why people have to associate themselves with a party. Do you have to label yourself to make sure you don't forgot what you think is right? I think we shoulod do away with political parties, and just have people with views and ideas, run against 1800 people with different views an ideas. That way, with all those choices, you're bound to get someone that is a natural great leader that got to where he is by his own hard work and thirst to help out his country.

Sorry I didn't read the letter. I'm just sick of parties fighting with each other, when 95% of their views are exactly the same. rediculous.

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
I call for an independant house majority!!!

Seriously...I never really understood why people have to associate themselves with a party.

By the time I could think for myself.. late 70s.. the Carter presidency was so pathetic. Everything seemed to be going to H E double L in a handbasket (inflation, joblessness, rampant immorality, completely demoralized military, soviet arms race and the grandaddy of all, the Iranian hostage crisis). When Reagan came along, everything seemed to change. America got its confidence back, he completely re-invigorated and rebuilt our military into the most wicked fighting force the world had ever seen. And he seemed to bring honor back to the presidency, and values. I loved him. I became a staunch Republican in the 6th grade.

Back then all the cool people were Democrats. I didn't care, though. I was always proud to be a Republican. I hated all the immorality that came along after the 60s and 70s. The Republicans just seemed to better reflect my personal values. And, as always, I am all about national DEFENSE. Democrats always SEEMED weak on national defense. If you weren't old enuff to remember... the Iranian hostage crisis was HUGE. It really scarred us as a nation. That is why, in large measure, alot of Americans wouldn't care one bit if we nuked them off the map. But I digress.

I'm so done with the GOP. They've done more damage since their ascent in '94 than I could've ever imagined.
And I'm not jumping on the Democrat bandwagon... but I will vote for them if they seem to be the real deal. Right now, I would give anything for Al Gore to win the presidency in '08.

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 10:43 PM
Reagan was one of a kind in a good way and in away the Republican party hasnt recovered because no one can match up to Reagan. The Democrats have simila problems overcoming Clinton.

The Current Bush admin seems to be a bunch of "Liberals" who got lost along the way.

Heres article thats worth a read. It seems like Goldwater wasnt a main stream Republican.

However, by the 1980s, with Ronald Reagan as president and the growing involvement of the religious right in conservative politics, Goldwater increasingly showed a libertarian streak that put him at odds with the Reagan Administration and religious conservatives. Goldwater viewed abortion as a matter of personal choice, not intended for government intervention. As a passionate defender of personal liberty, he saw the religious right's views as an encroachment on personal privacy and individual liberties. In his 1980 Senate re-election campaign, Goldwater won support from religious conservatives but in his final term voted consistently to uphold legalized abortion. Even in matters of foreign policy, Goldwater disagreed with Reagan and his supporters; he opposed the decision to mine Nicaraguan harbors. Notwithstanding his prior differences with Dwight Eisenhower, Goldwater in a 1986 interview rated him the best of the seven Presidents with whom he had served.


[edit on 30-7-2006 by xpert11]

top topics


log in