• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

“Squeaker” McCarthy

I’m pretty sure there’s only one Jack Smith.

Let there be snark.

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

Consistently wrong since 2002

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

I’d like to think you all would remain faithful to me if i ever tried to have some of you killed.

The next time the wall street journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.

That’s my take and I am available for criticism at this time.

They are lying in pursuit of an agenda.

“I never thought they’d lock HIM up,” sobbed a distraught member of the Lock Her Up Party.

A lot of Dems talk about what the media tells them to talk about. Not helpful.

Chutkan laughs. Lauro sits back down.

Optimism opens the door to great things.

Balloon Juice has never been a refuge for the linguistically delicate.

“That’s what the insurrection act is for!”

Their freedom requires your slavery.

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

Bad news for Ron DeSantis is great news for America.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Rahm Emmanual Didn’t Run The House

Rahm Emmanual Didn’t Run The House

by John Cole|  December 10, 20065:09 pm| 59 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

Gelnn Greenwald hammers Rahm Emmanuel for lying during Foleygate:

Did Rahm Emanuel explicitly and clearly lie during his October appearance on ABC?

Emanuel would likely say that he did not “lie,” because each time he was asked whether he was “aware” of the e-mails — which he plainly was — he never denied being “aware” of them. Instead — he would likely argue — he changed the subject by denying that he ever “saw” the e-mails, a fact which appears (based on what we know) to be true (or at least not demonstrably false). Therefore, in the narrowest and most technical way, an argument could be constructed that Emanuel did not actually “lie” in his responses.

But that argument, ultimately, is nonsense. If you listen to the video, there is little doubt that Emanuel was lying in every meaningful sense of that word. He not only denied having “seen” the e-mails, but also interrupted Stephanapolous’s first question about whether he was “aware” of the e-mails with an emphatic “no,” and at least on one other occasion, denied not only having seen the e-mails, but also having been aware of them. Those denials were just outright false (i.e., “lies”).

Read the whole thing. Good for Glenn.

And, not surprisingly, Republican bloggers learn exactly the wrong lesson:

I don’t have the time or desire to go through the Foley Report and retype all the confirmations that the entire effort was a Democrat hit job supported and covered up by the media. It is one thing to protect a source, but it is another to hide the fact Democrats began shopping the Foley story as I said they did and when I said they did. What is humorous is watching naive lefties like Glenn Greenwald wake up and choke down their crow regarding their pure and valiant political leaders. Now maybe they understand why those of us who grew up in the swamp that is DC knew better and knew the Democrats were in complete cahoots with the media.

The media is now reporting this because it was uncovered in the House investigation, and Glenn isn’t “choking down crow,” he is holding the Democrats responsible for their behavior when it is uncovered. It is an idea that Republicans might want to think about while they are in the minority. And just an FYI- Rahm Emmanuel was not in charge of running the House. Denny Hastert and the GOP were.

As a side note, check memeorandum for the growing list of right-wing bloggers who are linking to Glenn approvingly and are shocked he is calling the Democrats on this. I guess integrity is a novel concept these days.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Bush’s NASA Administrator: Science Takes A Back Seat To Putting Men On The Moon (Again)
Next Post: Eesh »

Reader Interactions

59Comments

  1. 1.

    scarshapedstar

    December 10, 2006 at 5:18 pm

    Going “off-message” is a completely foreign concept to these people. It just does not compute. Could there be a neurological basis for this?

  2. 2.

    ThymeZone

    December 10, 2006 at 5:46 pm

    Could there be a neurological basis for this

    ?

    It’s the same reason that Islamic radicals shake their fists against modern civilization: Rage, feelings of inferiority, and a need to vandalize that which they don’t understand.

    The fact is that the history of civilization is the history of progressive change, and that just terrifies and infuriates the people who don’t get it.

    They hate Dems and Liberals and anything that reminds them that they were basically left out of the Twentieth Century.

    The actual topic du jour doesn’t matter. Foley today, Dan Rather tomorrow, global warming next day, Clinton next time. Makes no difference.

  3. 3.

    Bruce Moomaw

    December 10, 2006 at 6:00 pm

    I always had a feeling that this was the sort of scandal that was basically “bipartisan” in nature — that is, that either party was capable of doing it. This doesn’t alter the fact that the overwhelming majority of scandals over the last 6 years have been Republican for the unsurprising reason that (to paraphrase Willie Sutton) scandal follows the money, and the GOP have been making Herculean efforts to make sure that they have a monopoly of the latter.

    The gazillion-dollar question, as Tim F. has said twice today, is whether the Dems will make a sincere effort to clean up the “swamp” (to quote your right-wing blogger), or whether they are simply going to ignore the issue of corruption now that they are back in power, thereby not only being dishonest but making politically suicidal fools of themselves. It might be wise for the House Ethics Committee to RE-investigate the entire Foley matter when they gain control of Congress — and to lower the boom this time on everyone connected with it, Republican and Democrat alike.

  4. 4.

    DougJ

    December 10, 2006 at 6:05 pm

    Republican bloggers are, with very few exceptions, useless morons. Why even comment on their reaction to anything? Why not tell us what Tunch things about it instead? I’m not trying to be a smartass here, just trying to help.

  5. 5.

    DougJ

    December 10, 2006 at 6:07 pm

    And while I’m happy to see Rahm get caught lying, I think most others in DC would have done the same under the same circumstances. I guess that at this point, it’s okay with me if they lie, as long as they don’t also steal and kill.

    Rahm pisses me off, though, so I’m glad to see him knocked around a bit.

  6. 6.

    SeesThroughIt

    December 10, 2006 at 6:45 pm

    So, wait…does this mean Glenn Greenwald hates America or not? Is Glenn Greenwald fat?

  7. 7.

    demimondian

    December 10, 2006 at 7:15 pm

    No, Rahm doesn’t run the House — but he just proved that every one of the criticisms of him leveled by the “netroots” is fundamentally sound. That’s not something I’m going to be forgetting any time soon, particularly given how little love I have for the netroots.

  8. 8.

    The Other Steve

    December 10, 2006 at 7:26 pm

    I guess I’m confused.

    What’s the actual issue here?

  9. 9.

    maf54

    December 10, 2006 at 7:27 pm

    I totally cc’ed Rahm on my IMs!

    He is really hot (for a Democrat), by the way!

  10. 10.

    The Other Steve

    December 10, 2006 at 7:31 pm

    BTW, is that republican blogger seriously arguing that the only thing wrong with the Foley thing was that Foley got caught?

    How can it be a hit job, if the guy was clearly doing something wrong and people had been hiding it for years?

  11. 11.

    Matt

    December 10, 2006 at 7:50 pm

    BTW, is that republican blogger seriously arguing that the only thing wrong with the Foley thing was that Foley got caught?

    SOP, no?

  12. 12.

    TenguPhule

    December 10, 2006 at 8:16 pm

    It might be wise for the House Ethics Committee to RE-investigate the entire Foley matter when they gain control of Congress—and to lower the boom this time on everyone connected with it, Republican and Democrat alike.

    I call Bullshit on trying to implicate Democrats in the Foley Scandal when Republicans went to great lengths to hide it from the Democrats for what now seems to be almost TEN YEARS.

  13. 13.

    Darrell

    December 10, 2006 at 9:27 pm

    Glenn isn’t “choking down crow,” he is holding the Democrats responsible for their behavior when it is uncovered. It is an idea that Republicans might want to think about while they are in the minority

    Particularly ironic given today’s news:

    Despite an ongoing federal bribery probe and his removal from the influential House Ways and Means Committee, eight-term U.S. Rep. William Jefferson beat the odds and two-term state Rep. Karen Carter in Saturday’s runoff to retain his seat in Congress.

    Yep, another example of Dems holding their own repsonsible. Dems definitely doing a standup job on that front, right John?

  14. 14.

    Darrell

    December 10, 2006 at 9:31 pm

    Ok, that was a little unfair. I agree that Greenwald should be applauded this one time. Problem is, Dems returning Jefferson to Congress is anything but holding their own responsible.

  15. 15.

    rmp

    December 10, 2006 at 9:53 pm

    Darrell, I think you’ll find most Liberal/Left leaning sites openly embarassed by Jefferson. They are NOT sweeping it under the carpet. Simply debating the best way to deal with it.

    I can’t speak for the voters in his district. I agree that’s a bit hard to understand.

  16. 16.

    Tsulagi

    December 10, 2006 at 9:58 pm

    Rahm Emmanual Didn’t Run The House

    Certainly no defense of Emmanuel, but the title of the post says it all with the proper perspective.

    That the Republican led ethics committee found no wrongdoing taking no action against House leadership and other members, in one sense I say fine. Close out business as usual. Drive on. There are more important things to focus on.

    This Republican led Congress has been the most retarded, incompetent, and probably up there for corruption. Lately we see also the most lazy. We’ve had two wars going on, supposedly an overarching GWOT where the fear purveyors will tell you we’re in a struggle for our existence, yet these “Support the troops” Pubs set two-day work weeks for themselves. Unfucking believable. They really have provided less than no value for the air they’ve used.

  17. 17.

    Mr Furious

    December 10, 2006 at 10:08 pm

    I remember watching those clips (probably courtesy of Crooks and Liars) and thinking right away, Rahm was full of shit. They were clear non-denial denials…

    You know the Same kind of bullshit when Cheney (or insert other Admin official here) says he “hasn’t read the report.”

  18. 18.

    rilkefan

    December 10, 2006 at 10:16 pm

    Hilzoy slamming Reyes and the Jefferson outcome here and here.

  19. 19.

    rilkefan

    December 10, 2006 at 10:29 pm

    Actually, having read Greenwald’s post, I’m not that impressed – did RE have positive knowledge (what “aware” implies) or had he just heard rumors?

  20. 20.

    Redhand

    December 10, 2006 at 10:29 pm

    Since he’s a former Clinton advisor, why are you surprised? After all, “It depends on what the meaning of the word is aware is” doesn’t it?

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, etc. etc.

  21. 21.

    Darrell

    December 10, 2006 at 10:30 pm

    Hilzoy slamming Reyes and the Jefferson outcome here and here.

    How in the hell would anyone put the Jefferson fiasco in the same category as Silvestre Reyes, who seems to be a pretty decent guy?

  22. 22.

    srv

    December 10, 2006 at 10:55 pm

    How in the hell would anyone put the Jefferson fiasco in the same category as Silvestre Reyes, who seems to be a pretty decent guy?

    Sheesh, Darrell, we’re trying to help you. Jefferson got elected to just another district. Reyes is the House Intelligence Chairman. Appointed by none other than Nancy…

    Just because his Republican predecessors were just as (or more) ignorant doesn’t mean you have to cut him slack. I’m not even a Dem, but I’m calling Nancy’s office tommorrow to rant.

    Sometimes I wonder just which side you’re on.

  23. 23.

    Darrell

    December 10, 2006 at 10:59 pm

    I’m not even a Dem, but I’m calling Nancy’s office tommorrow to rant.

    I’ll ask again – why in the hell would anyone put Reyes in the same category as Jefferson? Did Reyes have cash hidden in his fridge too? Tell us srv, what has Reyes done to deserve such a “rant” from you?

  24. 24.

    srv

    December 10, 2006 at 11:13 pm

    Tell us srv, what has Reyes done to deserve such a “rant” from you?

    1) He thinks AQ is Shia
    2) He can’t explain what Hezbollah is.

    Pretty decent idiot, if you ask me.

    Whoever is playing you today hasn’t done their homework.

  25. 25.

    SeesThroughIt

    December 10, 2006 at 11:18 pm

    Problem is, Dems returning Jefferson to Congress is anything but holding their own responsible.

    “The Dems” didn’t return Jefferson to Congress; the voting people of his district did. What “the Dems” did on the national level is strip Jefferson of his seat on the House Ways and Means committee, and what “the Dems” did on the state level is endorse Karen Carter instead of Jefferson. Neither one of those things sounds much like an endorsement of Jefferson, does it?

  26. 26.

    demimondian

    December 10, 2006 at 11:19 pm

    Indeed. I had hoped that Reyes would have done his homework, particularly since there was at least one candidate with both the technical and the personal qualities not selected, Rush Holt.

  27. 27.

    rilkefan

    December 10, 2006 at 11:41 pm

    I rather hope the Dems will expel Jefferson (apparently they’ll have to seat him) – but he’s not leading a committee of vital importance to the country. I hope Reyes has an excellent staff and that he listens to them. I hope Pelosi’s counting on that.

  28. 28.

    Pb

    December 10, 2006 at 11:44 pm

    Well, this at least helps explain why the ethics committee did essentially nothing here, not that nothing was an appropriate response, nor was waiting until after the election to release anything. Status quo ante bullshit.

  29. 29.

    TenguPhule

    December 11, 2006 at 12:27 am

    Yep, another example of Dems holding their own repsonsible. Dems definitely doing a standup job on that front, right John?

    Hey Dumbass Darrell, the voters voted him in. The Democratic Party ran against him and lost. Not much they can do to reject the will of his district, as stupid as the voters in it may be. Well, aside from keeping him off the committee seats…which they did.

    Or do we get to hang every dumbass Republican voting district around the entire party too?

  30. 30.

    Jess

    December 11, 2006 at 2:13 am

    I always had a feeling that this was the sort of scandal that was basically “bipartisan” in nature—that is, that either party was capable of doing it. This doesn’t alter the fact that the overwhelming majority of scandals over the last 6 years have been Republican for the unsurprising reason that (to paraphrase Willie Sutton) scandal follows the money, and the GOP have been making Herculean efforts to make sure that they have a monopoly of the latter.

    It’s pretty clear we’re also seeing the results of the power shift from old school conservatives (like John Cole) to corporate cronies (and christianists), who see their mission as winning and destroying their enemies at all costs. They’re not interested in process or even democracy from what I’ve seen, so hence the upsurge in corruption far beyond the usual levels of both parties in the past. Big business might have a legitimate place in the world (I’m willing to keep an open mind on this for now), but the mentality it fosters does not lead to good governance, even if it does win elections.

  31. 31.

    DougJ

    December 11, 2006 at 8:46 am

    What’s sad about Reyes is that after 6 years of strict oversight from the knowledegable Republican-run Intelligence Committee, we’re now stuck with this clown. I guess that means our run of 6 years of foreign policy success may be coming to a close.

  32. 32.

    The Other Steve

    December 11, 2006 at 9:50 am

    Darrell, I think you’ll find most Liberal/Left leaning sites openly embarassed by Jefferson. They are NOT sweeping it under the carpet. Simply debating the best way to deal with it.

    I can’t speak for the voters in his district. I agree that’s a bit hard to understand.

    Not much they can do at this point. He has not been formerly convicted on any crimes yet. Until such time, he remains in the House, although his committe seats were stripped.

    It’s hard to understand Darrell’s rant. As others have noted, the Democrats have done everything they could to oppose his reelection. But the voters said otherwise.

    But then this comes from the guy who supported Tom Delay being kept as majority leader even though he had been convicted on similar charges.

  33. 33.

    The Other Steve

    December 11, 2006 at 10:23 am

    It’s pretty clear we’re also seeing the results of the power shift from old school conservatives (like John Cole) to corporate cronies (and christianists), who see their mission as winning and destroying their enemies at all costs. They’re not interested in process or even democracy from what I’ve seen, so hence the upsurge in corruption far beyond the usual levels of both parties in the past.

    I think you underestimate the capacity for the religious right to be crooked.

    You have to look at their history. With Jimmy Bakker, Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, etc. These are people who saw a business opportunity. That is, preach religion and cash in on the market.

    Consider the mega church… it’s business consolidation at it’s finest. A church only has one pastor, right? Well consider the take for the week. Let’s say every family gives $20 a week.

    An old mainstream church may have 100 families in attendance. These megachurches have around 2,000.

    100 * $20 = $2000/week * 52 weeks = $104,000

    2000 * 20 = $40,000/week * 52 weeks = $2,080,000

    Which one is more conducive to a plus salary and a Mercedes for the pastor to drive? And that’s not even taking into consideration that $20 may be a low guess.

    Now what person would reasonably look at religion this way? That is, that I could use this market to make a lot of money? The answer is clearly someone who is crooked.

    This isn’t about corporations. Corporations are generally not crooked. There are a few who are, but most just want to make a decent living for their employees and investors.

    But you look at what has happened to our churches, and their lust for money has overwhelmed any sense of ethics. And those churches are the modern face of the Republican party.

  34. 34.

    Zifnab

    December 11, 2006 at 10:33 am

    Big business might have a legitimate place in the world (I’m willing to keep an open mind on this for now), but the mentality it fosters does not lead to good governance, even if it does win elections.

    It’s hard for Big Business to not have a legitimate place in the world. Unless you want to go on a mad-cap spree of corporate break-ups, Big Business is the inevitable consequence of Small Business doing well.

    The question you have to ask yourself is how willing you are to let corporations dictate US Government policies. And in that both the Republicans and large numbers of Democrats have been whole-heartedly supporting as much Big Business involvement as possible.

    Because Big Business is by its very nature authoritarian and power exclusive, a virtual Autocracy at worst or an Oligarchy at best in terms of power distribution, it seems silly to me to allow such a collection of organizations a free hand at the reins of power in a proportedly Democratic nation.

    Also, Tom DeLay can suck my balls.

  35. 35.

    madmatt

    December 11, 2006 at 10:38 am

    Glenn is just another sterling example of the party of personal responsibility…when you get caught blame a democrat. Plus I notice he didn’t mention the several other pervs that fell out of the rethug closet this past year!

  36. 36.

    Zifnab

    December 11, 2006 at 10:46 am

    Now what person would reasonably look at religion this way? That is, that I could use this market to make a lot of money? The answer is clearly someone who is crooked.

    That’s not entirely fair. Unfortunately, under our legal system, there is no law against a pastor driving a Mercedes or a priest living in a masion on the backs of his parisoners. However, as I think Joel Olestein has successfully proved, you can run a Mega-Church and not necessarily be a prick. Every pastor looks to increase his flock, and churchs full of 40,000 people are as much a result of the Evangelical philosophy as any sort of corporate greed. You seem to be under the assumption that all congregations abuse their cash flows, and that giving a church more money will just result in more abuse. I have a slightly sunnier view of humanity, in that I don’t think all pastors grow their churches purely to fatten their wallets. Furthermore, I don’t think Robertson or Dobson are working as hard as they do with Presidents and Congresspeople just to squeeze a few more bucks out of the system. Dobsonites have certainly had a keen eye on policy, and I imagine that Mega-Churches are as much about political power as they are about turning your religious townsfolk into your own personal ATM.

    In this sense, I think the more radical and delinquent Mega-Pastors are as much into feeling like Rock Gods strutting about on God-TV or playing kingmaker in national elections as they are about living high on the hog.

  37. 37.

    Davebo

    December 11, 2006 at 11:41 am

    Tell us srv, what has Reyes done to deserve such a “rant” from you?

    Because he’s head of the intel committee yet is nearly as clueless about our enemies as you are.

  38. 38.

    Halffasthero

    December 11, 2006 at 12:17 pm

    What is telling about most Republican blogs is that they are very easily able to see Dem people act partisan and call it out, but only see noble intentions with occasional hardball on their side. To suggest that RE used this information “politically” (trans: unfairly) and then screeching from the highest mountain about it when Republicans in the house knew about Foley’s conduct a long time ago is ridiculous. They are basically trying to make the math work that sweeping his deeds under the rug 10 years and 4 election cycles for political purposes somehow equals 11 months. The argument that Dem’s “failed to protect” pages is almost laughable given the differences in the time frame. The damage was basically already done unless there were new allegations between when RE found out and when the news was released. So it was only a matter of time before someone was going to hand him a razor and the Republican wrist. Whatever else he can be criticized for, parents were likely NOT going to be concerned with his actions so much as the fact that this went on for so long and he likely knew it.

    Did RE play politics on this? Yes he did if what I am reading is true. My response to that is this: After all, the Republicans knew all about him and they STILL had Foley running in re-election cycle No. 5#. Tell me again how that somehow makes everyone all equal in disgusting behavior?

  39. 39.

    Devil's Advocate

    December 11, 2006 at 12:22 pm

    “the entire effort was a Democrat hit job supported and covered up by the media. It is one thing to protect a source, but it is another to hide the fact Democrats began shopping the Foley story as I said they did and when I said they did.”

    According to the right-wing turd who wrote this, the real outrage is not that Foley was a pervert and that the entire House leadership covered for up for him, but it is that the story came out BEFORE the elections.

    These people have no moral compass, never did, never will.

    But they surely know how to whine and blame anyone but themselves for whatever fate befalls them.

  40. 40.

    Devil's Advocate

    December 11, 2006 at 12:27 pm

    Darrell Says:

    Glenn isn’t “choking down crow,” he is holding the Democrats responsible for their behavior when it is uncovered. It is an idea that Republicans might want to think about while they are in the minority

    Particularly ironic given today’s news:

    Despite an ongoing federal bribery probe and his removal from the influential House Ways and Means Committee, eight-term U.S. Rep. William Jefferson beat the odds and two-term state Rep. Karen Carter in Saturday’s runoff to retain his seat in Congress.

    Yep, another example of Dems holding their own repsonsible. Dems definitely doing a standup job on that front, right John?

    December 10th, 2006 at 9:27 pm

    Hey moron, the Ddems are not the ones who changed the rules in GOP – controlled House “Ethics” (sic!) to allow the bugman to retain his majority position if he were indicted.

    Run along, Darrell, and go spout your tripe on Redstates.org or LGF.

    And remember, moron, that you are shouting your frustration in the desert: the GOP scum is out of office, and the freaks who supported them are a fringe minority.

  41. 41.

    Zifnab

    December 11, 2006 at 12:31 pm

    Did RE play politics on this? Yes he did if what I am reading is true. My response to that is this: After all, the Republicans knew all about him and they STILL had Foley running in re-election cycle No. 5#. Tell me again how that somehow makes everyone all equal in disgusting behavior?

    That always really did get me. “Dems didn’t out the Republican candidate well before the election, and that’s bad” seems to imply that A) Republicans don’t have any stake in policing their own candidates, B) You can’t say bad things about a candidate during an election cycle (which is so laughable as to leave me in pain), and C) Outing a Congressional Pedophile late is actually worse than verbally molesting a page.

    My pity goes out to the people dumb enough to swallow this bullshit, the people who must associate with them, and the Democratic party for being unable to win when they insist on bringing intellectual knives to a gun fight of stupidity.

  42. 42.

    Devil's Advocate

    December 11, 2006 at 12:33 pm

    madmatt Says:

    Glenn is just another sterling example of the party of personal responsibility…when you get caught blame a democrat. Plus I notice he didn’t mention the several other pervs that fell out of the rethug closet this past year!

    December 11th, 2006 at 10:38 am

    I think you have your Glenns confused. This is Glenn Greenwald, not Glenn Reynolds (right-wing apologist extraordinaire).

  43. 43.

    DougJ

    December 11, 2006 at 1:21 pm

    This is Glenn Greenwald, not Glenn Reynolds (right-wing apologist extraordinaire).

    As with Sunnis and Shiites, all Glenns look the same to me, regardless of their last names. I don’t want to hear anymore about Greenwald versus Reynolds. If they don’t like it, I say we just blow the blogosphere up.

  44. 44.

    demimondian

    December 11, 2006 at 1:35 pm

    I say we just blow the blogosphere up.

    Darn straight. As Jesus’ General, JC Christian himself, said it “Nuke ’em till they glow. Then shoot ’em in the dark.”

    I think he sells a T-shirt, too.

  45. 45.

    Jess

    December 11, 2006 at 2:10 pm

    This isn’t about corporations. Corporations are generally not crooked. There are a few who are, but most just want to make a decent living for their employees and investors.

    The “few bad apples” argument doesn’t really convince when you look at the immensly long list of large corporations that have been caught breaking laws. We generally don’t hear about them because–guess what?–the media is owned by large corporations. Successful corporations get that way by being competititive, and to be competitive in a climate of increasing deregulation and lack of oversight demands that one bend the rules to the breaking point and beyond. Corporations are REQUIRED by their own charters to be as competitive and profitable as possible, not ethical and not concerned with the greater good. The individuals involved might be respectable, patriot folks, but the system itself requires that they put their moral qualms and community values aside to pursue profit. I’m not going to argue that the pursuit of profit is a bad thing in itself, but its seems obvious that their are certain arenas where it should not be the driving force.

  46. 46.

    Adam

    December 11, 2006 at 2:17 pm

    I don’t know anything about the netroots arguments against Emmanuel, but despite being a lifelong liberal, I can’t say that I feel all that bad about calling him out. The guy is possibly the most annoying person on the planet.

  47. 47.

    jenniebee

    December 11, 2006 at 2:53 pm

    Only slightly less amusing than a right-wing blogoplause for Glenn Greenwald calling Rahm Emmanuel to the carpet is that, all due respect to Glenn, motives for lefty blogs blasting Emmanuel aren’t necessarily pure as the driven snow. Emmanuel is the new poster boy for the DLC, which is mostly a giant pimple filled with money and preferences for very bland, theoretically “electable” candidates. Again, all due respect for Glenn who is marvelous on many levels, but it’s on a level with expressing amazement at Atrios’s non-partisanship when he’s making fun of “Joementum”

  48. 48.

    The Other Steve

    December 11, 2006 at 2:53 pm

    The “few bad apples” argument doesn’t really convince when you look at the immensly long list of large corporations that have been caught breaking laws.

    Ok, give me the list.

    And then give me a list of the number of companies total.

    I think you’ll find that even 100 corporations is a “few bad apples”.

    Corporations are REQUIRED by their own charters to be as competitive and profitable as possible, not ethical and not concerned with the greater good.

    As long as their is a working free market with consumers, and proper transparency to public investors, that is not the case.

    I have a real hard time buying this argument, because I work for a corporation, so does most everybody I know. You’re argument that all of these companies are evil are should be destroyed just doesn’t fly with me.

    Either moderate it, or fuck off.

  49. 49.

    The Other Steve

    December 11, 2006 at 3:00 pm

    I have a slightly sunnier view of humanity, in that I don’t think all pastors grow their churches purely to fatten their wallets.

    No, but it’s a very easy mechanism for a crooked pastor, such as Pat Robertson.

    You seem to even give Robertson a benefit of the doubt he does not deserve. He wasn’t supporting Charles Taylor because he was a “Good Christian”, he was doing it because Charles Taylor gave him access to diamond mines.

  50. 50.

    Faux News

    December 11, 2006 at 3:30 pm

    Darn straight. As Jesus’ General, JC Christian himself, said it “Nuke ‘em till they glow. Then shoot ‘em in the dark.”

    I think he sells a T-shirt, too.

    I think we just found our new US Ambassador to the United Nations.

  51. 51.

    Jess

    December 11, 2006 at 4:57 pm

    You’re argument that all of these companies are evil are should be destroyed just doesn’t fly with me.

    That’s okay if that argument doesn’t fly with you, because that’s not the argument I’m making. I’m pointing out that it is not the corporation’s job to be concerned with ethics and the greater good, any more than it is a football team’s job to be concerned with courtesy and non-violent communication. My argument is that while the corporate mission is all well and good in certain arenas, it is disatrous in others, such as the government. As for corporate crime statistics, those are hard to compile because there has been little official attention paid to the problem. There are plenty of websites of independent groups that are trying to assess the problem if you’re interested–just google “corporate crime statistics.” Here’s the only goverment-sponsered study that I know about–clearly we’re long overdue for a new one.

    http://www.corporatepolicy.org/issues/crimedata.htm

    * In 1979 the Justice Department issued “the first [and last] large-scale comprehensive investigation of corporations directly related to their violations of law.” Justice found that “approximately two-thirds of large corporations violated the law, some of them many times” over just a two year period (1975-1976). Actions that affected consumer product quality were “responded to with the least severe sanctions.” (See “Illegal Corporate Behavior,” U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, October 1979.)

    As I said above, it’s not the individuals who work at corporations that are the problem–it’s the lack of proper oversight and regulation of a system that too-often rewards corruption.

  52. 52.

    Jess

    December 11, 2006 at 5:13 pm

    Some more info on the issue:

    THE DAILY MEDIA CONTINUALLY report on private lawsuits or government actions seeking redress against fraud, pollution, personal injury and other consequences of anti-social corporate behavior. Administrative, civil or criminal actions brought against corporations often expose behaviors that generally result in far more significant personal and monetary damages than is inflicted by street criminals. Preventable corporate negligence frequently results in violent injury or loss of life, and estimates of the economic cost of corporate criminogenic behavior range as high as $200 billion per year. In comparison, estimates of the cost of all street crime range from $3 billion to $4 billion.

    Despite its social significance, illegal, negligent and injurious behaviors of corporations remains a little-studied phenomenon. Amitai Etzioni of George Washington University and corporate criminologist Marshal Clinard have conducted two of the few in- depth studies of corporate crime. Etzioni found that, between 1975 and 1984, 62 percent of Fortune 500 companies were “involved in one or more incidents of corrupt behavior, including price fixing, bribery, violation of environmental regulations, and tax fraud.” A 1979 study by Clinard concluded that 45 percent of the 582 largest corporations in the United States had been charged with at least one moderate or serious violation in 1975 and 1976.

    http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1992/12/mm1292_07.html

  53. 53.

    brendan

    December 11, 2006 at 8:18 pm

    excellent post.

    “The media is now reporting this because it was uncovered in the House investigation, and Glenn isn’t “choking down crow,” he is holding the Democrats responsible for their behavior when it is uncovered. It is an idea that Republicans might want to think about while they are in the minority.”

    Absolutely true. And that’s why I like this blog more and more, and added you to my blogroll last week. I don’t agree with you a lot of the time, but at least you’re honest.

  54. 54.

    brendan

    December 11, 2006 at 8:23 pm

    PS: I think Emmanuel is a dick, and so I was really glad to see Glenn tear him the shreds.

    Fact is the foley report was signed off on by democrats as well as republicans. I called Mike Doyle’s office on Friday: he’s a Pittsburgh democrat with three sons and a daughter. When I asked whether Doyle would have signed off on this disgusting whitewash if Foley was trying to pick up HIS kids, I got no good answer.

    Melissa Hart’s (R-PA) office was even better: the guy I spoke to claimed not to have heard anything about the report, saying he was doing jury duty all last week. I asked him if he had kids and got a yes, and followed with “what if it was YOUR kids, would it be OK if no one said anything, and everyone covered for Foley?” To his credit the guy said “No way in Hell would it be OK,” and said he’d gladly pass my message along.

    And that’s the problem: it’s other people’s kids. I don’t think it’s malicious necessarily, but kind of abstract when you live in that bubble.

  55. 55.

    t. jasper parnell

    December 11, 2006 at 9:06 pm

    The fact is that the history of civilization is the history of progressive change, and that just terrifies and infuriates the people who don’t get it.

    And some people claim you’ve no sense of humor.

  56. 56.

    esmeralda

    December 12, 2006 at 2:26 am

    nancy ‘tiptoe through the tulips’ pelosi.

    gotta love san fran nan…

  57. 57.

    billo riley

    December 13, 2006 at 9:58 am

    You managed to spell Emanuel’s name wrong two different ways at the top of this post, Cole: in the header and in the first sentence. Nice work.

    I guess I should be glad you got “Rahm” right.

  58. 58.

    myiq2xu

    December 13, 2006 at 4:04 pm

    The wing-nut right must be happy to discover that their pet pedophile is innocent. No, wait, Foley is still a hypocritical pervert. He wasn’t framed, he wasn’t even entrapped, he was EXPOSED. So what if Rahm and/or other Dems knew about or even leaked the scandal? Whistleblowers often have ulterior motives.
    Foley was still a PERVERT and the REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP KNEW IT AND TRIED TO COVER IT UP!
    By comparison, Rahm’s dishonesty was far less significant than the misdeeds of Foley and Co. It’s not like Rahm lied about having sex with an intern or anything else impeachable.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. The Mahablog » What Integrity Looks Like says:
    December 11, 2006 at 6:44 am

    […] As explained by John Cole of Balloon Juice. […]

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • YY_Sima Qian on War for Ukraine Day 575: President Zelenskyy Met With Congress (Sep 22, 2023 @ 3:22am)
  • Jay on War for Ukraine Day 575: President Zelenskyy Met With Congress (Sep 22, 2023 @ 3:10am)
  • Jay on War for Ukraine Day 575: President Zelenskyy Met With Congress (Sep 22, 2023 @ 3:07am)
  • wjca on Excellent / Horrifying Read: The Patriot — How General Mark Milley protected the Constitution from Donald Trump (Sep 22, 2023 @ 2:58am)
  • YY_Sima Qian on War for Ukraine Day 575: President Zelenskyy Met With Congress (Sep 22, 2023 @ 2:54am)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
What Has Biden Done for You Lately?

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Cole & Friends Learn Español

Introductory Post
Cole & Friends Learn Español

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!