Does this surprise anyone?

The dems are just too busy trying to surrender in iraq. There just isn't enough time this term. All they need is another 12-14 years. It'll get done. They promised. Dems would never lie or con the public.

Would they?

Hail to the new boss, same as the old boss!

"In all highly developed societies, civil servant is semantically equivalent to civil master."

R. A. Heinlein, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

There is no balking, and no change of heart. There was never the slightest intention to reform anything.

They certainly aren't going to give up the big donations. The Democratic Party, even more than Republicans, is Big Money. You might as well give up ugly pantsuits, or the phrase "false pretenses". There'd be nothing left.

The Democrats have made themselves nice and cozy by pretending that "corruption" is whatever Republicans do, and are confident that they can dodge any scandal by claiming it's a vast right-wing smear job, or an attempt to divert attention from something else.

There'd be nothing left.

You don't get it. It's the Republicans whom the Dems wanted to reform. Because the Dems are pure of heart and intentions, they needed no reform.

The Democrats know how to do graft and corruption cleanly. Just ask Diane Feinstein.

Heck, guys, I am one of the dreaded neo-con Rethuglicans. You know one of the mindless drones mesmerized by GW and the Rovemaster, held in thrall to Bushhitlerhalliburtoncheneywarmachine. Every bunch of politicians [spit] has beaten the campaignfinancereformcultureofcorruptionweneeditnow drum when they were out of power. It is politician speak for "They took my ball, WAAAAAAAAH!" They wait long enough for the 30 second memories of the body politic to fade and then the need for reform dies.

To get real reform we need to push it through from the people. Campaign finance reform - lobbying reform measures - term limits - etc.

Especially term limits. That makes sure that the citizen politician cannot be totally corrupted by the DC machine. Make tenures in that cesspit short and it may cease to be one.

Throw the Bums Out! Vote against the incumbent. Put new people in DC.

The Hobo

The idea the party of Aaron Burr, William Tweed, Richard Daley and Tammany Hall has any interest in reforming anything is laughable. Honest Democrat is a contradiction in terms.

The atlantic had a series of articles based on the idea of Tocqueville's travels. One of his trips led him to a Democratic Committee meeting pre-2004 election. Democrats were still reeling from 2000/2002, and we're trying to figure out solutions for 2004/2006.

The thing he heard constantly was "We don't have enough money!". Not ideas, not making a better argument, not returning to the roots of the democratic party. Money.

That's a serious problem. I support the general scope of the D party (especially to keep republicans in line, I also support republicans to some extent when the opposite is true). However, the idea that either party is going to bring reform on the next cycle is becoming laughable.

So...How does one raise hell about this in your own party? I guess I need to start writing letters. But it seems like Senators/Congress(wo)men have completely sheltered themselves from answering the questions of people like me.

What's next?

"What's next?"

Sooner or later, we are going to need new parties.

Sooner or later, we are going to need new parties.

What we really need is a 10-year moratorium on all political parties, with all funds frozen in escrow and everybody forced to run as an Independent.

Since we'll never get that without mass executions, how about an end to voter party registration, with everyone registered to vote only?

#7 from Robohobo,

There are no tweaks to the system that will fix this.

Want less corruption? Reduce the size of government.

"Want less corruption? Reduce the size of government."

I read a very well written book which I no longer know the name of which argued just that. However, it's not just goverment. It's beaurocracy written into law that prevents many in power from being 'caught'. Even reducing the size of goverment is not going to stop that problem.

A.L., I am sorry but I cannot resist this cheap shot. I thought that AP had lost all your trust and confidence, especially when it uses unnamed and anoynomous sources. I guess that when AP's "facts" and interpretations are are more supportive of your beliefs you are willing to cut them a little more slack.

LOL - good one, mark. I do think AP has a systemic bias...

A.L.

A.L., yes they do. they seem to be systemicaly skeptical of anyone in power.