|
idiot interview with the Sacramento Bee. Here's a sample that says it's a big tent full of people angry at Doolittle (I'm just saying :shrug:):
Opinion LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letters: House of scandal
'Earmark' for Sacramento?
Published 2:15 am PST Wednesday, March 1, 2006
Story appeared in Editorials section, Page B6
Re "Doolittle: Scandal is troubling," Feb. 18: Geez, J-Doo "earmarked" a half-billion tax dollars for a "business" owned by Brent Wilkes. For the money, Wilkes supplied computer software bought on the open market to service Department of Defense contracts. So, J-Doo gets a half-billion dollars transferred from the public to his "friend." The "friend" then gives some money to his lobbyist "friend." Then the lobbyist transfers money to J-Doo's leadership PAC. Nice.
Say, why doesn't Sacramento just send J-Doo's favorite lobbyist "friend" a couple of million dollars and whatever it takes (a wink?) to get some tax money "earmarked" for the levees up north, Folsom Dam, new bridges, light rail, plus whatever else they can think of? We could get it done for pennies on the dollar, saving the city hundreds of millions of bucks. Maybe Julie-Doo could cater the next "Black Tie and Tennies" for a whole new arena. And he's still not sure if it's illegal. It's soooo funny. Should the rail be doug fir or valley oak?
- Max Dill, Sacramento
Doolittle, Abramoff and a dam
Another Bee exposé clearly illustrated smug and smarmy Rep. John Doolittle as our own poster boy for all that has gone terribly wrong with the Republican Party, specifically, and the American political system, generally.
In his Jack Abramoff scandal interview, Doolittle asks us to believe that he is the dull-witted piano player in the brothel, "shocked, shocked!" to find that his friends Tom DeLay and Abramoff are the worst sort of "pay-to-play" political pimps. We are asked to believe that they just forked over piles of cash to Doolittle because they liked his pious lifestyle.
Likewise, with the Auburn dam for Doolittle it is damn what the experts say! Damn what is safe, environmentally prudent and financially sound! Damn what voters in his district want! He only has the interests of his true constituency - big-money developers - at heart. Unfortunately for us all, he is not an aberration but another California contribution to this country's full-blown leadership crisis.
- Greg V. Hill, Sacramento
Doolittle unscripted
Thanks to the excellent Feb. 18 interview with Rep. John Doolittle ("Doolittle: Scandal is troubling"), 4th District voters were finally treated to an unscripted account of where Doolittle stands. Unfortunately, the article also painted a picture of a congressman who is either embarrassingly naïve or so caught up in his own power that he has lost all critical thinking ability.
Those who voted for this man in the past have a right to be insulted by Doolittle's comment: "I don't think people understand quite what motivates political giving anyway. Believe it or not, the main thing that motivates it is friendships, I think." Regarding convicted felon Jack Abramoff, Doolittle says: "If you had a friend who was a lobbyist like that and he liked you, he was able to procure quite a bit of support for you from the clients he represented."
Guess we Republican voters just didn't realize how things work in Washington! Now we can sleep at night knowing that we're in good hands as long as Doolittle values those close friendships on our behalf!
- Richard A. Del Balso, Auburn
Is Doolittle for sale? Yes
After years of ignoring The Bee's readers by refusing to speak with The Bee, Rep. John Doolittle granted an interview and attempted to distance himself from the corruption scandal swirling around his friends.
Doolittle says he has done nothing wrong. Let's review some facts: Doolittle has taken large contributions from defense contractors whose products he pushed in Congress. One of these same contractors has been indicted for bribery of another congressman. Doolittle was brought into the House leadership by Rep. Tom Delay and acted as DeLay's right-hand man. DeLay has been reprimanded three times by the House Ethics Committee and is under indictment in Texas. Doolittle became personal friends with lobbyist Jack Abramoff, took large sums of money from Abramoff's clients and his wife became a business associate of Abramoff. Now Abramoff is the center of the biggest lobbying scandal in decades.
Did Doolittle break the law? We don't know yet. Is he for sale? Clearly.
- Al Franklin, Auburn
Doolittle's favors
It seems that Rep. John Doolittle still doesn't get it. His recent interview reveals that he continues to believe his Jack Abramoff problem is simply media excess rather than the reaction of his constituents to their congressman being revealed as just another player in a system based on "access" for financial favors that attracts corruption.
- John Thurman, Lincoln
Doolittle's ethical challenge
With the ethical challenges swirling about Rep. John Doolittle, The Bee deserves credit for its reporting.
Doolittle's rejection of the notion that contributions to his campaign are not tied to his political favors for the donors is enough to raise eyebrows. His assertions that he and Rep. Tom DeLay are victims of the liberal press, despite DeLay's indictment and the Justice Department's subpoena of Julie Doolittle's business records, border on the absurd.
Doolittle should watch his rear view mirror because a Republican alternative is fast behind him - Mayor Mike Holmes of Auburn.
- Carolyn L. Kemmler, Auburn
Laughing with Rep. Doolittle
Re "John Doolittle, in his own words," Feb. 18: In a time where so much information coming from Washington is depressing, it was a delight to read the interview with Rep. John Doolittle and laugh our heads off.
What was Doolittle thinking? The shallow, sophomoric and superficial answers to the questions showed his total disconnect with real people. We urge everyone in Doolittle's district to read the entire interview (sacbee.com/links). The portion published was just the tip of the iceberg.
- Mary Ann Karrer and Gary W. Taylor, Sacramento
Doolittle's judgment
It seems that if Rep. John Doolittle's answers are all completely honest, he is admitting to having an appalling inability to judge character. It seems that all a person needs to be Doolittle's friend is to be a wealthy conservative Republican. Doolittle's admitted inability to judge character disqualifies him to hold any senior management position anywhere. I certainly don't want such a dupe to represent me in any venue, least of all in Congress.
- Gary Sanchez, Auburn
Doolittle's faulty memory
Re "John Doolittle, in his own words," Feb. 18: I was struck by the recurring theme running through Rep. John Doolittle's answers: "I honestly don't remember," "There again I don't remember exactly" and "I don't know if it was that." Doolittle's memory is faulty. Doolittle's judgment of character is faulty. But Doolittle's ability to evade and self-justify is superb. As a resident of the 4th Congressional District, I look forward to Doolittle's own words hastening his departure from Congress.
- E. Jane Field, Rocklin
Doolittle's troubles
To the aptly named Rep. John Doolittle, the "scandal is troubling." In his case, it's the same cast of crooks. There are two-for-two investigations and multiple felony plea deals so far. There was another wife (Doolittle's) on Jack Abramoff's payroll - and Doolittle, up to his neck, pretends naïveté and expects another term?
Abramoff's attorneys and federal prosecutors recently requested a three-month extension before sentencing so Abramoff could finish his aria. The facts are piling up. It's a matter of time before the case against Doolittle is presented to the grand jury.
Seen in the best light possible, Doolittle has extremely poor judgment. For that reason alone he does not deserve another term. Doolittle should take whatever shreds of credibility he has left and resign - now.
- Sharon Andrews, Elk Grove
Doolittle's character
Rep. John Doolittle, at one point in his interview with The Bee, says, "I think I am a pretty good judge of character, or at least I thought that." I wonder how the congressman would judge a first-time Assembly candidate who deliberately set about confusing his incumbent opponent's name with that of another incumbent who was under investigation - deservedly - at the time. The first-timer won, defeating one of the few principled members of the body.
Might not one need "character" to judge it in others?
- Ed Klingelhofer, Sacramento
Bee Doolittle bias showing?
The Feb. 12 article "Doolittle defends helping Iowa tribe" came across as unfairly biased against him - at least to the casual reader. Both the headline and first few paragraphs, which is all most people read, leave the impression Doolittle wrote his letter to help his lobbyist friends and add to his campaign coffers. Reading the full article leads to the opposite conclusion. As Doolittle himself says, "I will ... stand up for what's fair and right when situations are brought to my attention." Reading the details of the whole article gives pretty compelling support to that statement.
- Ron Byrd, Sacramento
'Safe' Republican seat
Whether being affected politically by scandal or not, Rep. John Doolittle needn't worry about being re-elected. The 4th Congressional District is so "safe" for Republicans that if a monkey were to run as a self-declared Republican, even the monkey would win the election.
What's not so surprising is that Doolittle broke his silence to The Bee over the Jack Abramoff scandal. It's obvious why. He did it to try and save his own political hide since he's running for another term. But the moral aspect of once being a close friend of a now-known felon, among other things, won't help Doolittle much though, as his campaign gets under way.
Regarding Abramoff's cozy relationship, either the congressman is a poor judge of character in choosing friends or just a plain naïve, egotistical fool to the lobbying code of quid pro quo. It seems the latter is the case: "He (Abramoff) was supporting me because he liked me and liked what I stood for." Yeah, sure, influence and money have nothing to do with it, only "because he liked me." Anyway, the sad truth is even monkeys get re-elected to safe districts. Just watch, wait and see.
- David Briceno, Grass Valley
Doolittle and the Meskwaki Indians
Re "Doolittle defends helping Iowa tribe," Feb. 12: I cannot help to wonder what Iowa's Meskwaki Indian tribe has to do with Placer County. Why is our Republican congressman, John Doolittle, involved with this matter at all? The Meskwaki Indians are not from this area nor do they plan to be in Placer County.
And we learned that Doolittle received $5,000 from the tribe for his "help." Since the Meskwaki have ties to Jack Abramoff, this doesn't bode well for Doolittle. Abramoff gave monies to Doolittle, hired Doolittle's wife and hired a Doolittle aide. All Doolittle can do is to deny any wrongdoing. He makes no apologies.
Five terms of Doolittle is enough for me. Time to cleanup Congress. We must vote out all of those who have direct ties to Abramoff. We must be brave enough to vote out incumbents, especially those who may have questionable ethics. We can do better!
- Parri Assem, Granite Bay
Doolittle's re-election chances
Can Rep. John Doolittle win re-election in his safe Republican district despite growing evidence of influence peddling and favors for special interests? Probably, but it's a shame, and an embarrassment to many (hopefullly most)of his constituents.
He interceded on behalf of an Indian tribe in Iowa with casino interests which was represented by Jack Abramoff even though his previous position was anti gambling. Yet he sees no hypocrisy in this.
His wife worked directly for Abramoff and later as a consultant for him. Yet Doolittle sees nothing wrong in this.
His former staffer, Kevin Ring, was hired by Abramoff and he later invoked the Fifth Amendment in a Senate hearing.
Doolittle earmarked $37 million in defense funds for a Southern California company whose directors later raised $85,000 for him. Budget earmarks have been called "the currency of corruption" by more honorable members of Congress.
But probably worst of all is Doolittle's arrogance. He make no apologies for even the appearance of wrongdoing. He says he will not return the contributions as others have done. And he says that those in Congress who call for ethics reform are grandstanding. Haven't we had enough?
- William M. Steele, Nevada City
Influencing politicians
Re "Records show more links to Abramoff," Feb. 10: Lobbyists have been around since the Civil War. As far as I can tell, the only reason they exist is to influence politicians to do what the lobbyist's clients want them to do. In return for that, the lobbyist or client will see that the politicians get what they want, whether it be tuition for their kids, anonymous gifts, trips, plain old-fashioned cash, etc. This sounds like bribery to me but I'm sure a politician could explain it away.
As Mark Twain once said, "Everybody needs to buy a politician, it's the American way." As much as I detest federal and state level politicians, they are only people. Like a hungry fish, give politicians enough bait and they'll bite the hook. Take that bait away and only the extremely weak-willed will go after the same hook.
Lobbyists and influence-peddling should be outlawed, but this will never happen because the politicians won't allow it to happen because it's too much of a good thing for all involved. The only ones that lose are the voters, and who cares about them?
- Mike Mattice, Elk Grove
The fight against earmarks
Re "Shame returns to Capitol Hill?" Forum, Feb. 12: It's about time that our elected "representatives" got the message that their spending habits are not in the best interest of the public. My hats off to Sen. Tom Coburn for his stand on "earmarks" ("pork" spending).
"Earmarks" are spending that is hidden in larger bills by politicians who use it like campaign funds to convince voters about their, the politician's, value to their districts. The big problem here is the voters lap this up, not realizing that all that money coming back to the districts was once their money which government took from them and is now making a big deal about giving it back to them. What a total "crock"! Taxpayers, or local governments, would do a much better job of spending this money, as Coburn points out.
The scary thing is the public swallows these "gifts" hook, line and sinker, and the politicians keep getting re-elected.
- Don Perera, Rocklin
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
