Arizona Congressman indicted on multiple federal counts
 

Rick Renzi was not going to seek another term anyway, but yet another black eye for a group that doesn't need this as they aim to take back the House, this year.

(top story on CNN)

Because the actions of an outgoing senator have something to do with any of the other senate or presidential races? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

It's a political stretch to think this will have an effect on anything other than who this guy's cellmate will be.

you're naive. For the longest time, the GOP has stood out as "the party of moral values". For years and years, there's been attacks on the other side based on this.. It has ramifications on his race and in general, as the shoe is most definitely on the other foot.

Unless you're less than 2 years old, it shouldn't be hard to see how one congressman's actions could have a major national impact on an election.

I'm not less than 2 years old and the actions of a congressman in Arizona don't affect my vote any more than the latest DUI arrest of (insert first name) Kennedy. I vote based on the best candidate available, not based on who the retired idiots in Arizona voted for in the last election.

That's a pretty interesting sample size. Wonder what the margin of error is on that.

About the same as yours.

At a minimum the pictures of he and McCain together will be rather embarassing, as will McCain's rather odd inability to call Renzi's behavior wrong.

It's also going to play into another cycle of Republican congressional corruption. Add to Renzi, Lewis, Young, Stevens, Craig, Calvert, et al. There's still a lot of indictments and FBI investigations touching congressional Republicans.

actually it's the hippy tree hugging idiots...he's from Flagstaff...pine trees and snow

aren't you morons supposed to wait until these get a couple pages long before acting like asshats?

I lived in Flagstaff. What is wrong with Flagstaff? (Besides the hippy tree hugging idiots, which I am NOT).

For anyone who has never been to Flag, it is a beautiful, homie type of place to live. Unfortunately, the housing prices are absurd, the work is limited (except for college kids who are fine making $7/hr), and most of the full time residents have birds living in their beards.

This guy isn't just some random congressman, he was a big ally and supporter of John McCain, serving on mcCain's National Leadership Team and was the co-chair the Arizona Leadership Team - whatever those are.

William Jefferson called. He wants to know why all his bribe money disappeared from his freezer down in Louisiana. This idea that democrats can be crooks because they don't stand for "morale values" but republicans can't is ridiculous. Both sides have crooks and both sides have decent congressmen. I don't see 1-2 instances on either end impacting other individual elections for people not involved.

As to the McCain thing, I could maybe see a tie-in that hurts McCain. But it's pretty minimal. Renzi was just a local guy out here that tried to ride his coat tails on some legislation/elections.

If the specifics of what he's accused of are true, then he's in that special zone of stupid that could make him a serious Darwin Award contender.

It's a reverse-Bubba thread creation!!!!!111!!!!!!!

One of his reasons for not seeking another term was his much closer than expected race in 2006. One reason the race was so close were whispers that he was under investigation by the Justice Department. The crimes he has now been charged with were first investigated by US Attorney Paul Charlton, one of the casualties of the Alberto Gonzalez mass firings. Charlton was brought up as a potential firing shortly after he began his investigation of Renzi.

Nice. One or two on either side wouldn't be much of an issue, but in reality it's like one or two Democrats and a dozen or more Republicans. Understand I'm not trying to argue moral purity, but the Republicans are generally getting investigated/arrested for issues coming from selling power. Much like the Dem scandals of the early nineties didn't effect many Republicans because nobody wants to pay for access to the powerless.

It's Jefferson on one side and Renzi, Doolittle, Lewis, Craig, Dominici, Young, Stevens, Murkowski, Vitter, Calvert, and Miller on the other. Not to mention Bush admin officials who have been caught doing everything from perjury to shoplifting at Target to child solicitation.

You can't be serious. The following democrats have been arrested/investigated for issues ranging from bribery, numerous ethics complaints and quid pro quo non-profit earmarks to shady land deals and money laundering:
Senator Bob Menedez, Harry Reid, Mary Landrieu; Reps Bob Filner, Jane Harman, Alan Mollohan and the best of them all - William Jefferson. Jefferson wins the prize for most charges by racking up racketeering, solicitation of bribes, honest services wire fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, violating the foreign corrupt practices act, and conspiracy.

Now, the republicans may have more at the end of the day, but it's not like 1 vs. 12, it's more like 8 vs. 11. Again, in the end, I don't see this impacting either party's chances in local elections. And, as far as I can tell, both McCain and Obama seem fairly clean.

Renzi is a total snake, always has been. The fact that McCain really doesn't come out and acknoweldge what he did was wrong is yet another example of him showing blind loyalty to his buddies.....A McCain Whitehouse would wrought with the same flaws as the Bush Whitehouse has been IMO, not a pleasing thought.

Well Arles if you want to include ethics complaints the list of Republicans grows considerably longer. I only included those arrested or under investigation by the FBI.

Everyone I listed save Reid has been under investigation by the FBI.

Let me just take this opportunity to say how silly this discussion is becoming. There are well over 500 congressmen and women - and we are bickering which side has the most of 15-20 documented crooks. As long as there is money in politics, there are going to be crooks from both sides and I don't see the facination in trying to pin a majority to one side or the other to declare some kind of "morale superiority".

It isn't about moral purity, it's about power. There are many more problems involving Republican lawmakers right now because they have been in power for most of the past 12 years. If the Dems stay in power it will become a problem largely effecting them, but right now corruption problems are much more pronounced on the Republican side of the aisle.

It's good of you to decide that it doesn't matter. I'll remember that the next time you're up in arms about some scandal effecting a Democrat. You're definitely right about Mollohan, he's a crook.

I agree with this for the most part. There's more chances for abuse when you have control.

I probably wouldn't vote for any republican you mentioned (esp Remzi). But, that doesn't mean I think the entire republican party is tainted and won't vote for other local republicans who have clean records. In the end, I don't see how most of this matters as a vast majority of candidates on both sides are pretty clean going into this fall's election.

It seems I am taking this as a "I wouldn't vote for these 11-12 republicans or 7-8 democrats, but I would vote for my local guys from either party regardless of these scandals". You are looking at it as "Republicans have more crooks, so anyone that votes republican is supporting crooks". Please correct me if I am wrong, but that's how I've read the above posts.

Sorry. It's all about perception. And right now, the perception is that some Republicans have been on the take. That may change, but there is a perception out there.

Ales: No, I think you should vote for whomever you wish. I'm just pointing out that right now corruption is more of a problem on the Republican side of the aisle. My only real intent is to set the record straight.

It's hard to argue with that statement. I think if you polled most people on who's more corrupt nationally, dems or reps - the reps would win fairly comfortably. My point was that I doubt that impacts local elections. If the dems have a strong showing this fall, I think it will be more on distaste towards the past/future policies of congressmen running than any national vibe.

I think the Dems also have, in general, stronger candidates. That's not true everyplace, of course - it doesn't seem to be true in New Mexico - but in the last few years they've done a better job of developing talent.