Is there a double standard for political scandals?

[Woody101]

I see no outcry of rightous indignation on this forum when one of the liberal socialists gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar like there is when one of the conservative wing nuts is found in the same situation. Is there perhaps a double standard?

What is the liberal take on this?

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/senate-husbands-firm-cashes-in-on-crisis/

 

[Coin]

You need to stay more up to date on what the actual socialists are thinking. Diane Feinstein is widely loathed by the far left for protecting Bush administration policies in several areas, has approval ratings in California low enough [for an incumbent] to scuttle a gubernatorial run she'd hoped for, and she is sure to face a primary challenge in 2012. This is before you get into the constant stream of corruption concerns. I say kick her out, she's using up a valuable California Senate seat :P

 

[Oscar Wilde]

I see no outcry of rightous indignation on this forum when one of the liberal socialists gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar like there is when one of the conservative wing nuts is found in the same situation. Is there perhaps a double standard?

Depends on whom you ask. I've noticed a particular tilt in PF, including a few memorably loud and angry liberals. However there are conservatives as well...

In general I'd have to say that there is much more outcry over the EVILS of business than the faults of labor. There are people who bring more attention to Fox News (they aren't fair and balanced??!) than is healthy and necessary. I saw one person advocating searching for 'Fox News Bias' to troll and dig up some dirt. In sum, there are fewer conservatives than liberals on these forums. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the liberals were daily contributors to the Daily Kos, but healthy partisan feelings are perfectly acceptable. More liberls=more outcry over supposed "conservative injustices" and vice versa.

 

[K.J.Healey]

I'm not sure I see an improper connection after reading this. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is what I'm reading :
Her husbands firm was in a "competitive" bidding for a contract.
She DIDN'T KNOW if his firm would win, or the outcome.
She pushes legislation that gives the FDIC some money.
Regardless of the legislation, her husband's firm would still get paid if they won the contract.
Her husbands private investment firm, prior to winning the contract, invests in the company he boards.

It looks more like he was betting CBRE would win the contract than anything else. This is fair so long as he had no prior knowledge of winning the bid. If he did it's insider trading, but I don't see how he could know, as it probably wasn't decided yet.
Her giving money to that department doesn't do anything. I just don't see a connection.

I think they're trying to stretch it a bit in that they're insinuating she was "rewarding" the FDIC for taking her husbands bid. Seems doubtful. Would have made more sense for her to do it before it was decided to "buy" their vote, but I don't think a budget committee really would work that way.

A highly speculative article that doesn't really have proof, or even promise of proof of any wrongdoing.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm not sure I see an improper connection after reading this. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is what I'm reading :
Her husbands firm was in a "competitive" bidding for a contract.
She DIDN'T KNOW if his firm would win, or the outcome.
She pushes legislation that gives the FDIC some money.
Regardless of the legislation, her husband's firm would still get paid if they won the contract.
Her husbands private investment firm, prior to winning the contract, invests in the company he boards.

It looks more like he was betting CBRE would win the contract than anything else. This is fair so long as he had no prior knowledge of winning the bid. If he did it's insider trading, but I don't see how he could know, as it probably wasn't decided yet.
Her giving money to that department doesn't do anything. I just don't see a connection.

I think they're trying to stretch it a bit in that they're insinuating she was "rewarding" the FDIC for taking her husbands bid. Seems doubtful. Would have made more sense for her to do it before it was decided to "buy" their vote, but I don't think a budget committee really would work that way.

A highly speculative article that doesn't really have proof, or even promise of proof of any wrongdoing.

This is the part of the story in question:

"About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed Monday at $5.14.

Spokesmen for the FDIC, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum's firm told The Times that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov. 13, and that the couple didn't even know about CBRE's business with FDIC until after it was awarded.l

Senate ethics rules state that members must avoid conflicts of interest as well as "even the appearance of a conflict of interest." Some ethics analysts question whether Mrs. Feinstein ran afoul of the latter provision, creating the appearance that she was rewarding the agency that had just hired her husband's firm. "


Here's more
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/21/MNTQ176KBD.DTL&type=politics

"Blum's wealth and his wife's power have attracted scrutiny many times in the past, particularly over Blum's business dealings in China and with government defense contracts, but have never resulted in evidence of wrongdoing."

This story from Monday doesn't help her
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/22/MN310531.DTL

"Army contract for Feinstein's husband
Blum is a director of firm that will get up to $600 million

URS Corp., a San Francisco planning and engineering firm partially owned by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's husband, landed an Army contract Monday worth up to $600 million.

The award to help with troop mobilization, weapons systems training and anti-terrorism efforts is the latest in a string of plum defense jobs snared by URS. In February, the firm won an army engineering and logistics contract that could bring in $3.1 billion during the next eight years.

Government contracting has come under increasing scrutiny by Congress and citizen groups, with critics decrying the political connections of firms winning lucrative jobs. Richard Blum, Feinstein's husband, serves on the company's board of directors and controls about 24 percent of the firm's stock,

according to Hoover's Inc. research firm.

A Feinstein spokesman Monday declined to comment on the contract. "

 

[Astronuc]

URS Corp, is a big engineering/contractor like Bechtel and Halliburton. They all have allies or contacts in Congress.

With respect to the CBRE deal, Feinstein should have recused herself from the intervention of behalf of FDIC. There does appear to be potential for conflict of interest or access to inside information.

 

[WhoWee]

URS Corp, is a big engineering/contractor like Bechtel and Halliburton. They all have allies or contacts in Congress.

With respect to the CBRE deal, Feinstein should have recused herself from the intervention of behalf of FDIC. There does appear to be potential for conflict of interest or access to inside information.

The story indicates Feinstein's husband, Blum owns 24% of URS Corp. That's not a typical situation.

 

[ExactlySolved]

Liberals prefer big governments, and big governments historically have had big problems with corruption. The elected officials need to create stronger anti-corruption laws for themselves (in Plato's Republic it is recommended that senators should live in a barracks and not be allowed to accumulate excessive wealth; they also live apart from their children, to prevent nepotism).

The GOP claims to prefer smaller government, but based on the last 8 years it is obvious that this is an outright lie. They too prefer larger government and the correspondingly larger degree of corruption this affords. Combine this with the self-rightous attitude that is associated with the GOP for other reasons, and we see that it is especially hypocritical for those holier-than-thou republican senators who preach gospels on the senate floor and spout dogmas about the benefits of smaller government to then go and vote for increases in government spending and fight for pork for their cohorts.

With either party you have corruption, but where does the money go? Historically with the republicans the money goes to the capitalists and the aristocrats. Historically with the democrats the corruption money goes to organized labor (people in unions) and to lawyers.