Senator Jay Rockefeller singlehandedly kills Freedom of Information Act reform


#1

[Permalink]


#2

West Virginia, not Wyoming. I wonder why?


#3

Rockefeller represents everything that is wrong with America.


#4

Really? Do you know something about his career I don’t?


#5

Seriously, WTF is wrong with these so-called “Democrats”? And they wonder why we don’t turn out to vote…


#6

They are often just as much in the pockets of corporate interests as the republicans… just usually for different industries. To think that either party is looking out for our interests is folly now a days, I hate to say. I like, for example, Elizabeth Warren, but I’m frankly as wary of her as I am of anyone else.

Edited to add link: I think Nader originally said something about Nader being more progressive than more recent democrats, but there is also this list comparing Nixon to Obama. Then again, Nixon was an incredibly secretive President, who was willing to do illegal things to stay in power…


#7

Let me guess…

A whole bunch of politicians and/or donors want to kill the reform but only one person has to take the fall to do it this way? And Senator Rockefeller will get a nice committee seat or perk from the private sector now as a reward?

I mean, I didn’t even have to bother finding out what party or gender the senator was representing because the sentence doesn’t care. It works either way.


#8

Here’s a guy doing the responsible thing and planning for his retirement. Why all the hate?


#9

“When information which properly belongs to the public is systematically withheld by those in power, the people soon become ignorant of their own affairs, distrustful of those who manage them, and - eventually - incapable of determining their own destinies.” Pres. Richard Nixon, 1972


#10

Jay Rockefeller doesn’t need to plan for his retirement; it’s quite well taken care of already.

I’ve actually met the man a few times. He’s just a politician, no more, no less.


#11

And all those things are now legal, so current politicians don’t have to wander around DC with cash in suitcases anymore. Problem solved!


#12

Why is it that that comes across as a plan of action, rather than a warning to the future?


#13

I wonder what kind of sweet retirement deal he bought himself with that move.


#14

Boo! Hiss! Run the bum out of town!


#15

It’s a fallacy to think that those who are worth (tens or hundreds of) millions aren’t looking for still more. It’s incorrect to think that those who are wealthy are above corruption. It’s been my observance that those who value money so very highly are more likely to behave unethically in its pursuit.


#16

Rockefeller.

Doubtless, utter scum.


#17

I wonder why we don’t turn out to vote, too…for anyone other than a Republican or Democrat. People can complain all day that they don’t really have a choice, but voting for a third party en masse would certainly send a clear signal. If people feel they have no real choice then why not spend a vote on a third party?

My personal strategy is to vote third party whenever there is a third party candidate. For anything. If there is no third party candidate I vote Democrat, not because I like the Democrats but because I really dislike the Republicans.


#18

Worked out great for George Bush, so at least somebody’s happy.


#19

Is this really going to be the refrain that locks us into the current two sides of the same coin party system for a few more generations? The Democrats are damn lucky the current Republican party has gone insane because they’d be looking at full on revolt if the alternative weren’t so scary.


#20

Yes, I noticed how effective that strategy has been. I don’t claim to have the solution to the problem, but the only thing I can even conceive of is for there to be some sort of wedge issue/group that manages to insert itself in a strategic way “between” the two parties and stay there.