• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bush officials violated Hatch Act, agency concludes

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
According to the report, the White House improperly orchestrated the use of assets throughout the government to help key congressional allies as the voting drew near, including arranging more than 100 ostensibly official appearances by top appointees in battleground states such as Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana and Connecticut.

This federally funded travel was organized, approved and closely tracked by Bush's political office, the Office of Special Counsel found, describing the activity as leading to the illegal diversion of federal funds and workers' time.

At one point in 2006, it disclosed, operatives employed by the Republican National Committee moved into White House quarters where they worked in tandem with the political-office staff to coordinate the campaign.
Click to expand...

I know, I know, Bush hasn't been in office in more than 2 years, and this is old news, even though it has just come to light. Why don't we just move on?

Here is why we don't just move on - If former Bush officials are allowed to skate without consequences, then what is to prevent Obama from doing the exact same thing, knowing that they will also never be on the hook for it? The Hatch Act either works or it doesn't work, and there must be limits to abuse of political offices, don't you think?

That is why my answer must be prosecute. Either that, or just repeal the Hatch Act as a law relic that gives the American people a warm and fuzzy feeling that their leaders are accountable for their actions, but just doesn't work in real life.

Article is here.
 
The Hatch Act? Is this really all they have on Bush?

Obama offered Bart Sestak a job on the White House, if he dropped out of the race. That's illegally influencing an election, is a felony and carries a 5 year stretch in the joint. There was no investigation.

Now, we need to prosecute Bush, because a few civil servants might have engaged in partisan political activity?

That's not Bush's fault. That's on those civil servants that particiated in such activity. They're the ones that have violated the Hatch Act. Prosecute them.
 
what is to prevent Obama from doing the exact same thing
Click to expand...

That is pretty funny. Berry has not made one move without his reelection and the politics of the moment foremost on the agenda. Berry campaigned all over the country for his dem allies using our money and I didn’t hear a lot of crying from the left or the right.

I agree that the president should not use our tax money to travel for political or personal reasons. That would eliminate 99% of the travel we have seen from Berry. He should not be flying all over the world in AF1 unless he is one official business. He can fly coach if he has already spent his $500k/year compensation.
 
Iron River said:
That is pretty funny. Berry has not made one move without his reelection and the politics of the moment foremost on the agenda. Berry campaigned all over the country for his dem allies using our money and I didn’t hear a lot of crying from the left or the right.

I agree that the president should not use our tax money to travel for political or personal reasons. That would eliminate 99% of the travel we have seen from Berry. He should not be flying all over the world in AF1 unless he is one official business. He can fly coach if he has already spent his $500k/year compensation.
Click to expand...

:confused: Who's Berry?
 
danarhea said:
I know, I know, Bush hasn't been in office in more than 2 years, and this is old news, even though it has just come to light. Why don't we just move on?

Here is why we don't just move on - If former Bush officials are allowed to skate without consequences, then what is to prevent Obama from doing the exact same thing, knowing that they will also never be on the hook for it? The Hatch Act either works or it doesn't work, and there must be limits to abuse of political offices, don't you think?

That is why my answer must be prosecute. Either that, or just repeal the Hatch Act as a law relic that gives the American people a warm and fuzzy feeling that their leaders are accountable for their actions, but just doesn't work in real life.

Article is here.
Click to expand...
excellent point
it appears to be one Obama anticipated with this unprecedented move of his reelection staff: Obama shifts staff, seeks Chicago space as he preps for reelection - The Boston Globe

he anticipates he will be subject to additional scrutiny for the shrub's failings
 
Redress said:
He meant Barry, which is a name used for Obama by people who prefer mindless namecalling to debate.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but President Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. did once go by that name... but still, it is often simply just used as a pathetic jab

From what I read in another article (can't find the link now) but the only punishment for violations of the Hatch Act is dismissal, and since all of the officials involved are no longer in office, there is no applicable punishment.
 
You know what's lacking? In this country of heavy-regulation - what's lacking is government accountability measures.

There are adequate ways of investigating, researching and learning about what individuals, companies, and law enforcement - even military -do. . . but government seems exempt from this same scrutiny.

I think they need to address this because, yes, Presidents do things wrong - but because they're in for such a short amount of time it's hard and impractical to actually pursue action against them. By the time an adequate amount of facts are discovered the person is out of office and possibly out of reach altogether. . . and people have already moved on.

You're right- I agree that it shouldn't be so quick adn simple. . . but the first thing that needs to change is how they can be held accountable. Currently there are no reproaches.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You know what's lacking? In this country of heavy-regulation - what's lacking is government accountability measures.

There are adequate ways of investigating, researching and learning about what individuals, companies, and law enforcement - even military -do. . . but government seems exempt from this same scrutiny.

I think they need to address this because, yes, Presidents do things wrong - but because they're in for such a short amount of time it's hard and impractical to actually pursue action against them. By the time an adequate amount of facts are discovered the person is out of office and possibly out of reach altogether. . . and people have already moved on.

You're right- I agree that it shouldn't be so quick adn simple. . . but the first thing that needs to change is how they can be held accountable. Currently there are no reproaches.
Click to expand...

It is called accountability and transparency.. both of which US politics lack.

We all saw how that the Bush administration pissed on the Hacht Act (and other things), and there was plenty of complaints about it, but nothing was done. I also have no doubt that it is happening under Obama, and happened under Clinton and before.... simply because there is no system in place (that works) to deal with such breaches of the law, let alone consequences.

And as long as this lack of accountability and transparency exists then nothing will happen and the usual partisan bs will continue and American politicians can get away with pretty much anything short of keeping bribe money in a freezer.
 
danarhea said:
I know, I know, Bush hasn't been in office in more than 2 years, and this is old news, even though it has just come to light. Why don't we just move on?

Here is why we don't just move on - If former Bush officials are allowed to skate without consequences, then what is to prevent Obama from doing the exact same thing, knowing that they will also never be on the hook for it? The Hatch Act either works or it doesn't work, and there must be limits to abuse of political offices, don't you think?

That is why my answer must be prosecute. Either that, or just repeal the Hatch Act as a law relic that gives the American people a warm and fuzzy feeling that their leaders are accountable for their actions, but just doesn't work in real life.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

You're the one that can't move on. Everyone else, even most liberals have moved on. But you are still trying to get him prosecuted for something, anything.
 
danarhea said:
I know, I know, Bush hasn't been in office in more than 2 years, and this is old news, even though it has just come to light. Why don't we just move on?

Here is why we don't just move on - If former Bush officials are allowed to skate without consequences, then what is to prevent Obama from doing the exact same thing, knowing that they will also never be on the hook for it? The Hatch Act either works or it doesn't work, and there must be limits to abuse of political offices, don't you think?

That is why my answer must be prosecute. Either that, or just repeal the Hatch Act as a law relic that gives the American people a warm and fuzzy feeling that their leaders are accountable for their actions, but just doesn't work in real life.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Agree with your point. Either enforce the laws or get rid of (or revise) the ones that are outdated.

But before pursuing prosecutions, it would be appropriate to determine if some of this behavior has just become business as usual in Washington (suspicions lean that is the case).

Am all for cleaning things up moving forward. Not so much for putting people in jail just because they happened to be the most recent ones in a behavior pattern that has been going on for decades.


.
 
Cole said:
Agree with your point. Either enforce the laws or get rid of (or revise) the ones that are outdated.

But before pursuing prosecutions, it would be appropriate to determine if some of this behavior has just become business as usual in Washington (suspicions lean that is the case).

Am all for cleaning things up moving forward. Not so much for putting people in jail just because they happened to be the most recent ones in a behavior pattern that has been going on for decades.


.
Click to expand...

To the bolded - absolutely all sorts of unacceptable actions have become mere business-as-usual. . . because they're are no repercussions.

A repercussion for a congressman is to be voted OUT - repercussion for the president is only to be Impeached - but that must be done while *in* office - and violating a few things here and there usually isn't known quick enough - nor is it *enough* in general to warrant such an action.

The repercussion for a president WAS being voted out - but when they capped time in office at 2 terms is kind of took away the importance of that action. 4 years, it's argued, isn't very long to wait to just get rid of someone.

A congressmen can be brought up on ethics-charges, even jailed and booted out, but the office of the Presidency seems to be untouched - which, overall, regardless of who's in office and Bush and all that, is unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
To the bolded - absolutely all sorts of unacceptable actions have become mere business-as-usual. . . because they're are no repercussions.

A repercussion for a congressman is to be voted OUT - repercussion for the president is only to be Impeached - but that must be done while *in* office - and violating a few things here and there usually isn't known quick enough - nor is it *enough* in general to warrant such an action.

The repercussion for a president WAS being voted out - but when they capped time in office at 2 terms is kind of took away the importance of that action. 4 years, it's argued, isn't very long to wait to just get rid of someone.

A congressmen can be brought up on ethics-charges, even jailed and booted out, but the office of the Presidency seems to be untouched - which, overall, regardless of who's in office and Bush and all that, is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

This thread was started because of a personal vendetta against Bush. If Bush gets shot tomorrow, can we hang that on political vitriol?
 
American said:
This thread was started because of a personal vendetta against Bush. If Bush gets shot tomorrow, can we hang that on political vitriol?
Click to expand...

That part kind of confused me. The article said it was a "3 year old" investigation. First impression was that it began under the Bush administration.

If it was initiated by the new Obama appointee, the investigation would ring a bit more of a partisan thingy...


.
 
American said:
This thread was started because of a personal vendetta against Bush. If Bush gets shot tomorrow, can we hang that on political vitriol?
Click to expand...

So I could start another thread discussing the overall action that can be taken against any president in office (during or after presidency) and say the exact same thing.

I really don't care about the personal-views of the OP. I saw it as bringing up a subject that IS an issue of concern in general - partisanship aside.

There is little REASON for a president to stick to the rules - thus - rules are being violated frivolously. . . anyone who says otherwise is fooling their selves. And it most certainly is not "just Bush" - because, as was pointed out, it's become "business as usual"

If no one does anything because they want to be stubborn and insist that "you're just against so-n-so!" then NOTHING will ever change. The issue has to be pressed and change has to start somewhere. :shrug: Why not Bush?
 
Last edited:
from the OP link...

It said that, while not enough information was available to conclude "whether these events should have been classified as political and reimbursement should have been sought," a separate probe of them has been started, "due to the seriousness of using government aircraft to attend political events."
Click to expand...

If that is what is against the law via the Hatch Act... using funds/facilities for political purposes... and there isn't enough information to conclude the clssification of the events... um... what's the problem again?
 
apdst said:
The Hatch Act? Is this really all they have on Bush?

Obama offered Bart Sestak a job on the White House, if he dropped out of the race. That's illegally influencing an election, is a felony and carries a 5 year stretch in the joint. There was no investigation.

Now, we need to prosecute Bush, because a few civil servants might have engaged in partisan political activity?

That's not Bush's fault. That's on those civil servants that particiated in such activity. They're the ones that have violated the Hatch Act. Prosecute them.
Click to expand...

Is a violation a violation or not? And can you really defend someone by complaining about someone else?
 
Boo Radley said:
Is a violation a violation or not? And can you really defend someone by complaining about someone else?
Click to expand...

The Hatch Act prohibits civil servants from participating in partisan political events. Bush isn't a civil servant. Was there some sort of violation? Maybe. Is Bush guilty of violating the Hatch Act? That's a stretch.
 
American said:
This thread was started because of a personal vendetta against Bush. If Bush gets shot tomorrow, can we hang that on political vitriol?
Click to expand...

If Bush committed a criminal act, or otherwise violated the law, he should be prosecuted. That's not political. I feel the same way about Obama or Clinton or any other political figure.

The real question is: Why don't you?
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
If bush committed a criminal act, or otherwise violated the law, he should be prosecuted. That's not political. I feel the same way about Obama or Clinton or any other political figure.

The real question is: Why don't you?
Click to expand...

I agree. Anyone who violates the law should be prosecuted. It too often doesn't work that way. But it should.
 
apdst said:
The Hatch Act prohibits civil servants from participating in partisan political events. Bush isn't a civil servant. Was there some sort of violation? Maybe. Is Bush guilty of violating the Hatch Act? That's a stretch.
Click to expand...

Not sure if it's a stretch or not. You're welcome to your opinion, but I wouldn't consider either of us the authoratative word on this. But, if you agree he may have violated something, isn't that enough to seek to hold him responsible?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Evidence? I've found that your claims generally lack substance.
Click to expand...

I have to prove a negative?

Why don't you prove that an investigation did take place. That would make more sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom