But I would like to ask a followup... How do we change and make a clean break from the culture of corruption in Washington? What steps would you personally take as congresswoman to ensure that this type of corruption, regardless of the administration in power, is not repeated?

Thank you!

If you have noticed that the Government Operations Committee under Chairman Waxman's leadership is starting to question those who have been involved with pay to play schemes (unlike the previous Chair Tom Davis). Congress has to exercise the oversight of government. We also must strenghten the hand of Inspector Generals with in the agencies. We must also prosecute those found guilty of breaking the law, instead of slaps on the wrist. The cozy relationships between lobbyists and those they lobby need to be more fully disclosed. But first and formost, voters need to say, "Enough!"

Is that an issue you're going to be talking about more over the next 50+ days in your 11th CD race?  Seems that we have one candidate who has quite a "cozy relationship" going with Bechtel and a lot of other companies with which the county does business.  Any comment on that?

Voters in the 11th and elsewhere are going to hold those running for public office to standards of accountability and responsibilty. Anyone who says one thing and does another should answer to the voters.

Everyday folks tell me they are tired of the war profiteers, big oil companies, banks and hedge funds taking money out of their pockets when they don't have enough for health care, college tuition,or money to pay the bills. Other candidates will have to prove how they will change the status quo and some will have to defend how they blocked change. My record of standing up to special interests is well documented. The diary I posted shows how pervasive this culture of corruption is and it should be exposed at every level of government where ever it is found.

When I was first in Congress, there were a few earmarks. Now Congress has broken the budget process and the authorizing committees with over 10,000 earmarks. Anything that is slipped in a bill via an earmark ought to withstand the scrutiny of the budget and committee process. I won't use them to circumvent an open and orderly government.

In fact, I have donated over $500 to her- the money is going the other way.

So explain to everyone here why an honest question about earmarks, the subject of so much discussion following the despicable Abramhoff scandal, is a "troll" comment?  Is it trollish behavior to ask a candidate for Congress if she will renounce inserting earmarks in exchange for campaign contributions?  Notice that I never implied that she did or would.  I just asked her if she was making the commitment.

It was about the defrauding of American Indian tribes and corruption of public officials -- e.g., fraudulent dealings with SunCruz Casinos.

Because Leslie didn't mention earmarks, and you asked the question in a hostile way, that was phrased like a follow up to something that wasn't there.

I wouldn't have rated it, if you have left the question as a comment below for her to answer instead of as a follow up to something she never mentioned.

Very hostile, for no reason at all.  Of course Leslie Byrne is against corruption, why are you even asking that question?  

I think everyone is against corruption. who ever says "Yeah, Corruption's good, I like it."

I mean, it is kind of a "Duh" statement.  

If I were, I'd say so publicly.  I strongly support Leslie Byrne for a number of reasons, including what she did for Jim Webb and also the fact that she's the strongest progressive in this race.  

Tell us what was improper about my question, Lowell.  Is Leslie willing to denounce Abramhoff-like donations or not?

donation?  If you're talking Abramoff/DeLay style "pay to play," I believe she already has strongly denounced that.  

A lot of construction and Transportation projects are put though via earmarks. Granted, the "Bridge to nowhere" typifies the gross spending, but soem project are worth funding.

I think we need to distinguish between Earmarks left for review, and earmarks slipped in without review.  

...I believe this question is absurdly broad:

"Are you promising to not accept campaign donations or any other support from any organization who benefits from an earmark?"

How do you define "benefits from an earmark?"  Given how many earmarks there are, it seems to me that we probably all "benefit" from them in one way or the other. What, is Leslie supposed to not take any campaign donations at all?  Also, in general, what's so horrible about earmarks?  I think if they're abused, like anything else, they're bad, but let's say Rep. Moran earmarked money for building Metro to Dulles the right way (tunnel, competitive bidding, etc.), would you be against that?  All earmarks are not created equal.

We all know the difference between constituent services and Abramhoff earmark bribes.  This is nothing new.  Read Bill Grider's book from 1992, Who Will Tell The People.

There is a mountain of literature out there about the linkage of campaign contributions and earmarks, special relief legislation (Arabscam), and what is otherwise considered to be outright coruption.  Is Byrne not willing to take a position against it?  

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Earmarks are not inherently evil, and Jack Abramoff was NOT convicted for earmarks. You're mixing up all kinds of things here.  Also, why are you dogging Leslie, I thought you didn't like Connolly and were a Byrne supporter?

I'm a little baffled by anybody being angry at "HisRoc"'s utterly reasonable question. Like most folks in the state, I haven't paid any mind to this race, but this seems like a very simple question that could be met with an equally reasonable response. This bridling doesn't make any sense to me.

Waldo,
I'm constantly amazed by how thin-skinned and reactive this bunch is.  Kind of immature in their ability to respond to critical questions.

Ms. Byrne, if these people are your thought leaders then I won't be at PJ's next Tuesday night, won't be making a contribution, and won't be voting for you.

is a phrase used by many in Fairfax County to describe the relationship between the development industry's campaign contributions (especially to Mr. Connolly) and the approval of land use projects.

It's a really bad idea to send such a person to Congress. The damage he could do there would make Fairfax traffic gridlock pale by comparison.

This is a path while rightfully undertaken must be taken will be taken at great peril to the establishment of both parties.
The problem, which I stated in the RTD in 2006 after the Fall Elections is one of an evil that Woodrow Wilson first addressed in his commentary on the merits or lack there of of the "committee system" of government.
As long as we allow our government to function in this manner you will have those seeking and "paying" for the ear of those drafting legislation as things come out of committees.
Within the Commonwealth you can see it today at with many claiming a bias by Richmond officials who have have taken contributions from Dominion Power for example. The implication being their votes have been bought with regard to the Wise plant and Kaines in particular. Right or wrong the implication is only plausible if one had accepted contributions in the first place.
Fact is unfortunately manny folks are not opposed to those "cozy relationships" that benefit them or thier agenda but are by those of that appear to benefit the opposition. Until we collectively are willing to rationalize and address that dilemma these things will continue.

Leslie should be careful about talking about alleged cozy relationships.

Her last financial report showed that a Dominion lobbyist threw a fundraiser for her and contributed money to her campaign.

That is pretty cozy. Does Byrne support the power plant being proposed by Dominion for Wise County?

has a long-time friend who lobbies for Dominion Power. On the other hand, from everything I've seen, Leslie is a very strong environmentalist.  In other words, Leslie is quite capable of having a friendship while sticking to her principles.  What a concept! :)

Guess who the one was.  

So maybe he to should be afforded the same level of understanding as people here would give Leslie. Kaine has be criticized for such "relationships" as they have been portrayed and yet some feel such relationships evidently are not in conflict with principle and the same time they attack one based not on the "principles" they have communicated per say but on who has contributed to a campaign.

for responding so quickly!

is so entrenched, with tentacles so woven into the depths of our system, that I am convinced it will take years, if not decades, to rip out the corruption.  This applies to the incredible power of the pharaceutical and agrabusiness industries as well. It is so pervasive that a case can be made, especially by the neocon protagonists of what has been called "disaster capitalism," that ripping it out by the roots could very well cause enormous, irreparable damage to our country--- I can hear it now, "unpatriotic," "you must hate America," and so on.

It's okay, in Republican eyes, to bleed American taxpayers white for generations to come in order to support these corporations and their wars for profit, and it is also okay for these corporations, if threatened with oversight, to move their headquarters to, say, the Arab Emirates, while continuing to gorge on no-bid contracts and, to all intents and purposes, write American foreign policy to suit themselves. And, it is also okay to encourage obscene company profits and personal bonuses for manipulating the financial system, but then to force the American taxpayer to bail out these same greedy corporatists when they come a cropper.

What a system! Go, Leslie!    

... ban Lobbying .... impose term limits of some length per elected office (the Supreme Court as well) and ensure 5 full days of work per week for Congress (curtail campaign fund raising via pacs and lobbyist and keep those boys and girls in town doing the peoples business).

REFORM is needed in many areas .... but reform the system we must ... less we end up bankrupt and a failure as a country.

I want to know is why these so called military "analysts" are doing this? Lying to us? Why? In most cases they are retired already and making a very nice pension. Are the networks paying them so much money that they get on TV and just bullshit us?

Sorry, I just don't get it I guess. Are they so friggin brainwashed that they just get up there and say whatever they are told to say by the Pentagon and the networks?

The story behind this is a bit more complicated that what is presented.

First, the role of retired general/flag officers (GO/FOs).  Retired GO/FOs routinely visit DoD offices and receive briefings on current military events.  By virtue of their rank, they are granted respect for the position they once held.  Its kind of like Professor Emeritus status in academia.  Often they are a valuable resource for opinions on how to handle certain situtations based on their own experiences.  They also advise and mentor commanders on decision making proceses during planning and operations, etc.  These guys have led us into no kidding combat and can school newbies on do's and don'ts.  However, on the other side, like the article said, they have potential conficts of interest.  They work for defense contractors, etc.  But, there's no proof offered that they were trading access for advancing their business prospects.  So what we have is the appearance of potential conflicts of interest, not evidence of actual corruption.  There is no smoking gun that can be resolved by one Congressional election, this has been going on for years.

Second, there is an ongoing problem of how we reform Cold War processes, organizations, and laws to meet today's realities.  

During the Rumsfled years we saw a lot of tension between the SC/PA/IO communities.  We are horrible at Strategic Communications, but after 9-11, USG/DoD realized we were in a battle of ideas against terrorists, etc., and we needed to figure out how to get our message out more effectively.  Strategic Communciations received a lot of ink in the 2006 DoD Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).  Public Affairs folks felt Information Operations (IO) was invading their turf.  The Lincoln Group scandal hit in Iraq.  IO was, and is, misunderstood by the media.

Meanwhile, the Smith-Mundt Act, passed at the beginning of the Cold War, prohibits the USG from targeting propaganda at a domestic audience.  I'm not sure whether they did that in this case, but it points to a larger problem (much like Obama's "bitter" comments get the attention that sould be discussing the larger issue of globalization leaving some people in the rust belt behind).  I'd bet that this situation was just bungled by folks who were politically tone deaf and overzealous in their support for the war.

The larger point, is we're in a war of ideas against terrorism and instability, but we are not capable of telling our side of the story.  A lot of laws were passed before the Internet, blogs, podcasts, satellite TV, etc., creating a lot of gray areas in the information dissemination business.  I think what we're seeing is DoD struggling to find the right answer on how to disseminate information, and a outdated structure for waging the battle of ideas.