this might just be the first of many
The incoming Democratic-Party controlled Congress was handed a large plateful of steaming crap this weekend when William Jefferson was re-elected to the Congress from his home district in New Orleans. Mr Jefferson is under investigation by the FBI on bribery/corruption allegations. Earlier this year, he was found to have about $90,000 stored in his freezer. It is important to note that he has not been indicted or accused of wrongdoing as of this date, but the cloud over his reputation still lingers. The load-of-crap aspect of his reelection presents itself to the new Speaker, who now must deal with a party member who is facing the prospect of indictment, but who has been vetted by his own constituency and found worthy. Mr Jefferson was stripped of his committee assignment when the allegations surfaced, the issue facing the incoming speaker is whether or not to restore his position, (knowing all the while that he might become an albatross at a later date).
I don't know what to think.
If this was Mr Joe Anybody in almost any other situation, I would unequivocally side with him, but this is not the typical man-on-the-street, this is a United States Congressman, and a member of a party that ran on anti-corruption sentiment, (if not a formal platform).
What should the Speaker-designate do here?
Mr. Jefferson has every legal and moral right to take his seet in Congress, he was lawfully elected by his constituents to represent them and their interests. If the day comes when he is no longer qualified, (by that I mean convicted of a felony), he should step aside or be removed, in a manner prescribed by law. But that day has not yet come, and may not. His presence in the House is not a reflection of the institution or the party, it is the expressed desire of a portion of the population.
The issue of influence, committee assignments and party position is another thing. It is not right that even a hint of impropriety can sideline a political career, but it is a fact, (look at Gary Condit). Should, for the good of the country and the party, the new leadership keep him at arms length? Or, at the opposite extreme, should the man be given all benefits of the doubt and reinstated into his previous positions?
This is a difficult question, I admit that I don't have an answer at the moment, but as I type I am thinking that this illustrates the notion that nuance is completely lost in the public political arena. This is why we had to put up with an impeachment of a President over a very private act, (depends on how you define 'act'), why the Senate Minority whip had to step down after he publicly praised a segregationist, and why the new Congress will be held to a very rigid standard indeed, 9the one they used on the old Congress...).
The axiom "may you live in interesting times" could not possibly have envisioned the times we are wading through.
Stay focused.
I don't know what to think.
If this was Mr Joe Anybody in almost any other situation, I would unequivocally side with him, but this is not the typical man-on-the-street, this is a United States Congressman, and a member of a party that ran on anti-corruption sentiment, (if not a formal platform).
What should the Speaker-designate do here?
Mr. Jefferson has every legal and moral right to take his seet in Congress, he was lawfully elected by his constituents to represent them and their interests. If the day comes when he is no longer qualified, (by that I mean convicted of a felony), he should step aside or be removed, in a manner prescribed by law. But that day has not yet come, and may not. His presence in the House is not a reflection of the institution or the party, it is the expressed desire of a portion of the population.
The issue of influence, committee assignments and party position is another thing. It is not right that even a hint of impropriety can sideline a political career, but it is a fact, (look at Gary Condit). Should, for the good of the country and the party, the new leadership keep him at arms length? Or, at the opposite extreme, should the man be given all benefits of the doubt and reinstated into his previous positions?
This is a difficult question, I admit that I don't have an answer at the moment, but as I type I am thinking that this illustrates the notion that nuance is completely lost in the public political arena. This is why we had to put up with an impeachment of a President over a very private act, (depends on how you define 'act'), why the Senate Minority whip had to step down after he publicly praised a segregationist, and why the new Congress will be held to a very rigid standard indeed, 9the one they used on the old Congress...).
The axiom "may you live in interesting times" could not possibly have envisioned the times we are wading through.
Stay focused.
posted by eccentric recluse at 2:51 PM
6 Comments:
hey, i did your tag! sorry its a bit late.
It just doesn't seem right any way you slice it. Presumption of innocense and all, but that clashes with the (probably reasonable) fear of having an alleged notorious no-goodnick guarding the henhouse. $90,000 you say? In a freezer? Sure, there could be a perfectly logical explanation. *cough* What seems fair here is the opposite of what seems prudent. Alas, the justice system is full of this type of cases.
If he had stored the money in the microwave and still gotten re-elected...well then we'd have a problem. But the freezer just shows a healthy amount of logical forethought and for that...well...let's just say I'm interested to see where he decides to store the next batch.
Oh yes are you ever correct there ER. Nuance is going going gone....
Speaking of Congresscritters, I read that the bug man Tom Delay had a blog up for about 90 minutes. I'm sure he'd have an opinion about that $90,000. If you remember fellow Congresscritters were very upset that the law would step into a congressman's office and peek.
JB
The problem is not that he'd be in over his ethical-head selling used cars.. The problem is that he's an ethical, middle-of-the-roader in that town (both parties)..
And that's our problem... not his or the Dems.
If the Dems tried to "throw him out".. he'd take a bunch of then down with him.. And they know that.
I am sure that he would name quite a few names, but until there is a resolution to his legal situation, (and being mindful that a resolution might name other names for him), he is a millstone around the neck of the party. He has a right to be there, no doubt, and his constituents have a right to any benefits they may have because they kept him for so long, but in the view of much of the nation, (as you said, outside his district), he is definately damaged goods. In the eyes of the GOP, he is a walking target.
This is a test of the party, how they handle this will go a ways towards setting the tone for the next two years, and by extension, for the '08 election.
Post a Comment
<< Home