"Corruption is Nonpartisan"
That's what the research director of what is often characterized as a "liberal leaning corruption watchdog organization" in Washington, DC told me last week. I sent him over a dozen pieces of information about the traffic.com scam. He's still in the process of reviewing this information, but told me that "You're going to be keeping me pretty busy on this one!" Let's hope so.
At this point I am working closely with three different such organizations -- two considered liberal-leaning and one considered conservative-leaning -- and all are very interested in this scandal and are working to both understand it and, ultimately, to expose it to the light of day. That's not surprising, since this scandal involves good and bad guys from both parties -- the scandal itself is nonpartisan.
The problem, of course, is that this very high-profile scandal involves the Bush Administration in a big way, including the recent Secretary of Transportation, the sitting Deputy Secretary of the Dept. of Homeland Security, and a fellow by the name of Mark A. Holman (See information about him on the Texans for Public Justice website) who was a lobbyist for traffic.com (aka Mobility Technologies) both before and after he was a Deputy Assistant to President Bush on Homeland Security. The high-profile nature of this scandal means that everybody (including the press and these watchdog organizations) wants to get their ducks fully in line before going public with this baby, and I fully understand where they're coming from.
I am realizing, however, that having oversight the responsibility of independent third parties like these is a very effective approach, because these organizations are not being dragged into the oversight process kicking and screaming (like U.S. House Committees that are asked to look into the shady dealings of their colleagues), but have a passion for getting to the truth.
It will be real interesting to see what happens to the oversight process when the Democrats take control of the U.S. House in January. I'm particularly interested in what happens with the Committee on Government Reform. I've sent information about the traffic.com scandal to staff members on both the majority and minority side, and both have (so far) been very interested in it but noncommittal at the same time.
The real question in my mind is whether Henry Waxman, who will likely be the next Chairman, will be willing to fully dig into this scandal or will choose not to do so because of his long-standing relationship with his former California Democratic colleague Mr. Mineta. They both came into the Congress in 1974, and I would guess forged a strong friendship in working on the same side of many issues for over 20 years (until Mineta resigned from the House in 1995).
I've seen Waxman in action many times on CSPAN and it always appears that he is relentless in his pursuit of the truth no matter where it leads. I hope that he'll do the same with the traffic.com scandal, and will realize -- as the three non-governmental watchdog organizations do -- that corruption really is nonpartisan.
Jerry
At this point I am working closely with three different such organizations -- two considered liberal-leaning and one considered conservative-leaning -- and all are very interested in this scandal and are working to both understand it and, ultimately, to expose it to the light of day. That's not surprising, since this scandal involves good and bad guys from both parties -- the scandal itself is nonpartisan.
The problem, of course, is that this very high-profile scandal involves the Bush Administration in a big way, including the recent Secretary of Transportation, the sitting Deputy Secretary of the Dept. of Homeland Security, and a fellow by the name of Mark A. Holman (See information about him on the Texans for Public Justice website) who was a lobbyist for traffic.com (aka Mobility Technologies) both before and after he was a Deputy Assistant to President Bush on Homeland Security. The high-profile nature of this scandal means that everybody (including the press and these watchdog organizations) wants to get their ducks fully in line before going public with this baby, and I fully understand where they're coming from.
I am realizing, however, that having oversight the responsibility of independent third parties like these is a very effective approach, because these organizations are not being dragged into the oversight process kicking and screaming (like U.S. House Committees that are asked to look into the shady dealings of their colleagues), but have a passion for getting to the truth.
It will be real interesting to see what happens to the oversight process when the Democrats take control of the U.S. House in January. I'm particularly interested in what happens with the Committee on Government Reform. I've sent information about the traffic.com scandal to staff members on both the majority and minority side, and both have (so far) been very interested in it but noncommittal at the same time.
The real question in my mind is whether Henry Waxman, who will likely be the next Chairman, will be willing to fully dig into this scandal or will choose not to do so because of his long-standing relationship with his former California Democratic colleague Mr. Mineta. They both came into the Congress in 1974, and I would guess forged a strong friendship in working on the same side of many issues for over 20 years (until Mineta resigned from the House in 1995).
I've seen Waxman in action many times on CSPAN and it always appears that he is relentless in his pursuit of the truth no matter where it leads. I hope that he'll do the same with the traffic.com scandal, and will realize -- as the three non-governmental watchdog organizations do -- that corruption really is nonpartisan.
Jerry
posted by Jerry Werner | 1:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home