Should bipartisan watchdog monitor House and Senate ethics committees?
Perhaps this is why they don't discipline worse offenders such as those who took obvious bribes from Abramhoff? -- they're all at least a little dirty and can't call others on the carpet without being exposed themselves?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/06/15/hastert-accused-of-secret_n_23072.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-11-reid_x.htm
2006-10-12 03:44:24 · 9 answers · asked by ? 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
There is a difference between 'irregular' or 'shady' or 'suspect' and ILLEGAL. For one, those terms are all subjective.
They strike me as an attempt to muddy and dilute the importance of criminal corruption charges against others in Congress, who legitimately deserve the attention.
2006-10-12 03:56:59 · answer #1 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Leaders could desire to be held to easily one generic, can they lead? Too usually our so talked approximately as leaders exist just to pander to monied hobbies and our very own passions, yet fail to steer. genuine management potential having the braveness to make unpopular judgements besides by way of fact the easy ones. It potential status up and asserting that the conflict will end the next day or it won't no center of the line BS. as to in the event that they must be ethical function fashions or not, NO. persons are people and could consistently fail our expectancies, shop the better ethical standards for the Gods the way the Greeks did, no guy or woman is worth of our expectation that they are extra effective than something. they are able to't be.
2016-10-16 02:52:00 · answer #2 · answered by goodgion 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Shining differences between these 2 "Land Deals" and the White Water fiasco - No one is dead under suspicious circumstances, key paperwork is not missing, no one got screwed out of millions of dollars, and it was all reported by the gentlemen in question to the ethics committees of the House and Senate when the deals were going down.
2006-10-12 03:50:44 · answer #3 · answered by APRock 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would hope all politicians would be held to very high moral and ethical standards, though obviously this is not the case. High morals and ethics are required of those who would hold the reigns to power in our government.
This is especially important now that the government has grown far past its limits and has so much control over our lives.
2006-10-12 03:57:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The ultimate responsibility lies with the voters. Rather than punish those who serve corporate interests instead of the public good, people keep allowing their votes to be swayed by pandering on a variety of minor issues that appeal to the gut rather than the head. Meanwhile, politicians line their pockets with cash from corporations that pollute our country and ship jobs overseas. Both parties are guilty in this.
It won't stop until we stop letting ourselves get fooled into voting for these jackholes over and over again.
2006-10-12 03:52:12 · answer #5 · answered by x 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Reeds in trouble. USA today right, Huff-n-puff wrong obvious or it would have been plastered all over the news for weeks and weeks until hastert resigned.
2006-10-12 04:00:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, and so should the clintons. Remember the whitewater real etate scandal?
2006-10-12 03:50:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, absolutley.
2006-10-12 03:46:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They most certainly should!!! they shape the policies that affect our lives!
2006-10-12 03:49:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋