Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Is it the duty of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to only investigate members of the ‘other’ party? For how long has Henry Waxman been given some sort of scary persona as the oversight guy in Washington? And what exactly has he done, if anything, to earn any cred as some kind of watchdog? Take the case of Cold Cash Jefferson, please, no one else will.

Doing a simple search to refresh one’s memory about the LA corruptocrat finds he was caught with the 90 grand of cold cash in his freezer in 2006. According to a search hit from Patterico he was indicted in 2007 and had not gone to trial yet. There is another hit about some ‘truck trip’ of his related to Katrina. Yet another story is in the results that Pelosi tried to get him on the Homeland Security Committee sometime in 2007. So the LA election in 2008 through out Jefferson and denied him at tenth term according to a post at Right Voices. One can only imagine what other corrupt business the so-called Congressman was responsible for in the nine terms served. Which is probably what he should have gotten in prison, nine terms.

But the Oversight Committee and Mr Waxman get a lot of press over investigating the GOP. Armed with subpoena power and an expansive mandate — “The committee has oversight over anything, anything that government does or might do,” says Waxman — the soft-spoken congressman from California has made himself into the most feared Democrat on Capitol Hill. So why is this story from Rolling Stone in April 2008 only concerned about Waxman investigating the GOP? It might be that is what liberals expect from the Democratic party yet they seem real short on interest in investigating their own.

The Democratic congressman who will investigate the Bush administration’s running of the government says there are so many areas of possible wrongdoing, his biggest problem will be deciding which ones to pursue. How about investigating Democrats too? A story seen lately deals with Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Queen of Cringe, being a champion for the interests of those who have donated to her husband’s foundation. Let’s see, there is no possibility of corruption in that is there? The list of things to investigate about Rahm Emanuel has to be substantial given his involvement with the GSE’s of the subprime mortgage meltdown along with fellow Democrats Chris Dodd and Barney Frank but hell, there is no reason for Waxman to investigate them is there?

So if there is no reason for Waxman to investigate the fine liberals mentioned in this post so far there couldn’t possibly be a reason to look at the anointed one’s connections with corrupt Chicago politics from the likes of Blogojevich, Daley, Jarrett, Rezko and others. That’s right. PEBO is also one of those in the Democratic party getting a pass from Waxman’s oversight but there will be no shortage of investigative targets in the GOP ranks. That is the kind of situation that makes one want to take a Washington Democrat out to dinner. And leave them miles out in the desert where nature can dispense some long overdue justice.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 14th, 2009 at 3:05 am and is filed under Public Affairs, wordpress, Politics, Democrats, liberal, Waxman, disclosure, ethics, oversight, Opinion, Congress. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.