2 Opposite Parties, Yet only 1 Ideology on Ethics Reform?

I suppose that, as a progressive, it may be considered somewhat blasphemous to go after the Democrats in my blog, particularly with the litany of transgressions propagated by the GOP (namely the Bush Administration) quotidian. To a degree, that viewpoint has merit. Just last week, the episode of General Hospital featuring John Ashcroft came to light, and boy was that a sordid tale. Season finale worthy, I'd say.

Also, the stalemate on Capitol Hill between an increasingly petulant President and a steadfast Congress over funding the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan persisted, with the piece de resistance arriving on Friday when Mr. Bush flatly declined to negotiate whatsoever with his Congressional counterparts, despite having both overwhelming public opinion and prominent leaders from his own party turning against him, has illustrated starkly the doctrinal futility of this brand of Republican. Mr Bush, just because you are from Texas, doesn't mean you have to imitate former presidents who decided to go into a self-imposed vacation from reality in times of war. (See-Johnson, Lyndon for future reference)

Yet the aforementioned summary is essentially a run of the mill 5 days for the Grand Ole' Party, especially since the Bush cabal (and their coterie of sycophants in both houses of Congress (Boehner, McConnell, Frist, et al.) came to power at the turn of the century. Given this, it is hardly insightful to highlight their buffoonery, and therefore I will leave it to others.
I will admit: It would be disingenuous of me to imply I shall spare the Republicans the point of my literary rod. Rather, I am just saving it for the next instance of their inimitable tendency to malign our country.

Now on to the prudent matters to be analyzed in this blog: As mentioned, Republicans have now established a routine of detrimental conduct in the last seven years. On the other hand, their colleagues from across the aisle, while hardly omniscient, have by in large advocated for policies that are far more conducive to an egalitarian, just and economically viable society.

Recently though, they have confronted their first full fledged crisis since assuming leadership in January with the problem over curtailing corruption within the halls of power in D.C. This was an issue that struck a prominent chord with voters last November, and it has become increasingly complicated for prominent democrats like Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer. In essence, failure to pass the legislation, which could be now fait accompli given the developments of last week, is a highly dangerous prospect for a party holding a minuscule lead in the Senate, and hardly a majority in the House.

As a recent Times' article by David Kirkpatrick explicitly detailed, said House Democratic leadership has faced a near revolt from the rank of file over the forthcoming ethics reform package. Essentially, the tumult has arisen specifically over a portion of the legislation that would mandate Lawmakers to double the time they must wait before entering the private, lucrative lobbying sector after their tenure on the Hill is done, from one year to two years. In addition, the bill would greatly inhibit lobbyists from engaging in "informal relations" with lawmakers, from plotting strategy or simply consultancy.

On the surface, this bill seems like an overdue solution to the dearth of accountability and transparency that has pervaded Capitol Hill as an institution for the last decade. Furthermore, in lieu of the specific, audacious scandals that have plagued both parties recently, from Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney with the GOP to Jim Traficant for the Democrats, the expediency needed to pass this particular legislation within Congress itself should have reached its crescendo in 2007. Furthermore, the revisions at hand are hardly the large scale reforms once proposed during the apogee of the fervor over Cunningham's bribery and fraud scandal. In fact, these provisions are largely neutered compared to their predecessors.

For example, let's look at the foremost bone of contention between the pro-approval Leadership of the House, and the revolting rank and file: The increase in entrance to the private sector upon retirement from public service from 1 year to 2. Give me a break. You can't wait one extra year to start raking in the bucks on K Street? Those who protest against the bill on these grounds offer at best, a flimsy defense of their vote. If a former Congressman is so eager to continue "serving his constituents, though in a different, yet equally important way" (yes, I'm lampooning their rhetoric right there), let him go join a non-profit. Wait, what am I thinking? The only thing less likely to happen than that is the Iraq war ending without an internecine civil war. Oh, but I digress.

However, despite the growing storm of criticism emanating from the voters at large, to whom politicians are supposedly accountable to, (Congress has an even lower approval rating than our beleaguered President at present), this bill is ultimately likely to die as part of a weak-ass "compromise" to get other facets of the legislation passed in due time.

This bitter legislative pill is even harder to swallow when it comes from a Democratic led Congress.

First of all, Democrats, though hardly immune to corrupt practices, have traditionally presented themselves as the party of the "middle class", or more broadly, the "party of the people". Therefore, they are held to a higher standard when it comes to ethical conduct, for better or worse. In addition, the GOP has proven in the past that they are beholden to large scale interests, like powerful lobbies (energy, pharmaceutical and auto) and corporations, than to the middle class of society. More over, the recent incarnation of the right in D.C. has proven they are more interested in re-election, no matter through what means, than enforcing the rule of law. Disregarding the principles of separation of powers, accountability and responsibility started at the Executive Branch, and it has now trickled down to the GOP in Congress.

Democrats, since they are the agent of the "people", were supposed to reverse this trend upon election, starting with a comprehensive, enforceable ethics reform package. They were supposed to differentiate themselves, by their willingness to eschew shady, barely legal relations with lobbyists. Rhetorically, they have promised to fulfill that pledge ad nauseum, from the campaign trail in November to myriad news conferences on Capitol Hill in January.

Regrettably though, when it came to taking tangible action on ethics reform, they have failed miserably. With the leadership being stonewalled on Iraq by the President and the passage of the ballyhooed Senate immigration deal looking dire, coupled with few legislative successes since inauguration, save a much needed minimum wage hike (even that was diluted by a ridiculous part of the bill that included unnecessary relief for small businesses), and one would think the Democrats would embrace a maneuver that would afford them a well publicized legislative success. Ethics reform was the epitome of that idea. Yet, they did not embrace it.

Call me an idealist, but I genuinely trusted that the Democrats would break from the recent history of opprobrium that has characterized the interactions between lobbyists and lawmakers. Instead, in revealing their cowardice, they could only mimic the pathetic Republicans. So much for a new vision, eh?

Secondly, idealism about the Democratic party, and the principles embodied there in: altruism, fairness, transparency of government, have long since been anachronistic. As such, Democratic leaders must have weighed that into their decision to renege on critical tenets of the ethics reform package as a mere affront to the small sect of political observers that espouse idealism.

That said, Democratic leadership is forgetting the immense hypocrisy involved with their decision on ethics reform. Throughout the entire 2006 mid-term campaign, the DNC absolutely destroyed the GOP on issues of corruption and accountability within government. Given the prominence of the Abramoff and Cunningham scandals, how could you blame them? Furthermore, aside from Iraq, combating corrupt public officials, was the most pressing issue on the conscience of voters, according to exit surveys. So, it's only expected to see a litany of advertisements attempting to distinguish the Democrats from their debauched Republican counterparts. This tactic was particularly effective in 2006 because of the 24/7 frenetic media climate in which we now live.

Eventually, publicizing their steadfast commitment to fighting unethical GOP conduct became one of the cornerstones of the campaign that allowed the Left to seize control of Congress for the first time since 1993. However, the Democrats, while embracing the benefits of the hyper-capitalized media world to win this election, forgot to abide by it's one general rule: do not bite the hand that feeds you.

With their eminent hypocrisy on evicting corruption and lobbyist influence, as epitomized by their craven stance on this ethics reform, the Democrats are playing a duplicitous game with the voters, one that is likely implausible within a political world where unmitigated negative advertising is the most preferred form of campaign advertising.

Historical precedent has starkly illustrated that brazen hypocrisy will not go un-punished by the voters. Just ask George H.W. Bush. In 1992, he was crippled by the Clinton campaign's decision to run on a continuous loop his his infamous, ultimately fraudulent pledge of "No New Taxes" at the 1988 GOP Convention. Lord knows, if the Democrats are willing to pounce on hypocritical statements made in the past by prominent politicians, what will the GOP do during the 2008 elections? After all, this is the party that chastised John McCain for having an adopted daughter that wasn't pearly white with radiant blonde hair!

Ultimately, Pelosi and her ilk must believe their decision on ethics reform will engender not enmity or outrage but indifference within the electorate. However, this is a highly myopic perception of voters, particularly with the mass of interest groups swarming around like a troop of frenzied bees.

As George W. Bush's re-election in 2004 proved, voters are willing to forgive incompetency, economic stagnancy and a disastrous foreign policy. Fast forward two years, and we find them thoroughly unwilling to tolerate the corruption of his party. In 2006, the Democrats accurately felt the pulse of the voters, and ousted the Republicans with a resounding message of transparency and amenability.

Apparently it only takes 5 months for that message to become obsolete.

"5 Games to Determine the Champion"-Thoughts on the Spurs-Suns series...

I hope my fellow Suns fans can forgive me for being quite antagonistic towards Mike D'Antoni in the last few days, even before the commencement of the monumental Western Conference Semifinal series versus the venerable San Antonio Spurs. After all, my sentiments of anger and confusion towards the former NBA Coach of the Year served the dual purpose of dampening the positive aura shrouding the squad after a resounding quarterfinal victory over the hated Lakers, while also introducing negative feelings, always simmering below the surface within a typical Suns fan when these two squads meet, prior to the first tip of the forthcoming semifinal series. Alas, obviously, I am hardly an important figure within the Suns' fan cabal, but I (in a typical manifestation of the Freudian concept of "Super Ego") nevertheless believe, that my knowledge of basketball allows my feelings on the Suns to be representative of the entire fan constituency. Nevertheless, I have to offer my sincere apologies for prematurely staining the Suns mood.

But, realistically, how can you blame me for being pessimistic about the forthcoming series? In everyday life, I am a cynic, admittedly one of an undue nature at certain times. However, if one deliberates on the recent clashes between Phoenix and San Antonio, from both a quantitative and qualitative perspective, the bleak picture that emerges generally engenders an outlook that is closely aligned with mine.

So, given the fact that the Suns have compiled an ignominious 4-11 record during the Nash era, playoffs sadly included, ( that's the quantitative part) coupled with numerous instances of Suns players admitting in interviews that San Antonio "demoralizes" them because the Spurs are the only squad that impedes, successfully, the Suns' patented style (and there is a qualitative example), I was rightfully incensed after D'Antoni started to shoot off his mouth in the days leading up to Sunday's Game 1.

His comments, for those of you unfamiliar, and I am essentially paraphrasing here, were something to the effect of "We (the Suns) know we have far more talent individually than Popovich's squad, they just happen to play better as a team presently."

Wow. This is the one instance where the Suns coach does not need to serve up, on a silver platter, some bulletin board material for the opponent. Sure, he tries to backtrack slightly by throwing San Antonio the proverbial bone with the "They are a better team presently" comment, but the damage had already been done. Frankly, that attempt to offer San Antonio the olive branch came across as decidedly disingenuous. Furthermore, though the Spurs' poise and unflappable demeanor in pressurized situations is already renowned, they are hardly immune to provocation at the hands of the opposing coach. Therein lies the genius of the Spurs: they are impervious to rattle (except maybe during the waning moments of regulation during Game 7 of the 2006 West Semifinals against Dallas), while simultaneously adroit enough to utilize any provocation from the opponent as positive motivation.

Fast forward to early Tuesday evening, hours before Game 2 is set to tip from US Airways center. Combine D'Antoni's idiotic prognostications about the talent disparity between the two teams before the series begun with his inexplicable schematic errors in judgement in the Game 1 defeat (benching Kurt Thomas for large swaths of the game, placing Steve Nash on the whirling dervish Tony Parker to begin the third quarter), and needless to say, I was quite incensed with the Suns coach.

Then, finally, a mere four hours later after Game 2, not only did the Suns players perhaps finally hurdle that seemingly insurmountable obstacle known as the San Antonio Spurs, but almost as importantly, so did their beleaguered coach.

D'Antoni, particularly in the last three years, has compiled an illustrious resume at the helm of the Suns. He has won a Coach of the Year, been the subject of a bestselling expose penned by a respected writer, and generally attributed to be the architect of a fast-paced, exciting brand of basketball that has reinvigorated both the NBA's diverse fan base, but also the disparate group of companies that sponsor basketball on television.

Despite this, D'Antoni has yet to ascend to the immortal echelon reserved for coaches who have led their teams to a championship. The San Antonio Spurs are largely responsible for this prominent deficiency in Mike's curriculum vitae, if you will, to this point. Yes, the Dallas Mavericks were responsible for eliminating Nash's gang in 2006. But, as team insiders will verify, this squad, through the myriad of injuries to Bell, Thomas, and Amare coupled with exhausting 7 game series versus the Clippers and Lakers, was essentially facing perilously long odds, regardless of their opponent in the 2006 Western Conference finals.

In reality, San Antonio has been the defensive monolith that has impeded the Suns championship aspirations, particularly during the run n' gun era instituted by D'Antoni in his three year tenure in Phoenix. Starting with the 2005 demolition, in a series where the lone Suns win was achieved only after a highly questionable non-goaltending call against Amare with precious seconds remaining, the Spurs' have been the proverbial thorn in the Suns' side. (no really bad pun intended, I promise) The Spurs, though known for their defensive prowess, have countered the Suns offensive onslaught, as evidenced by their 111 point performance in Game 1 of this series, throughout the years, and that has been the main reason for their 12-5 record against Phoenix in the Nash era. Furthermore, D'Antoni had largely been responsible for the Suns ineffectiveness, with his fundamental refusal to alter the Suns' game plan to rebut the litany of adjustments Popovich has made time and time again.

Then came Tuesday night.

By finally quelling his own personal hubris, which manifested itself in a painfully obvious way when he petulantly refused to pull James Jones' from the starting lineup despite his ineffectiveness, D'Antoni may have finally realized that his patented frenetic, awe-inducing style is not above reproach, or at the very least, alteration. In stifling his ego through inserting defensive stalwart Kurt Thomas in to the starting lineup, even at the expense of offensive fluidity, D'Antoni has shown signs that he is finally cognizant of the necessity of adjustments en route to a title chase.

Certainly, the bold move by the Suns boss has yet to atone for his rigidity in past playoff series. However, for at least the 48 minutes of perfect basketball (on both ends of the floor) played by Phoenix on Tuesday night, Mike D'Antoni has proven that he is beholden to the best interests of the team, not those that conform with furthering his quintessential basketball philosophy.

Coming up next, a look at the performance of Suns' players as we head to Game 3 on Saturday night.