"We have defrauded the country"

It is a colossal shame that the American electorate put such men in office, then proceeded to spit on their honor and integrity. The cowardice of the electorate is matched by the cowardice of the people they routinely elect, and especially when they elect people who play on fear and use open deception in the face of such honesty.

If Danforth and Rudman were a presidential ticket this year, I'd vote for them in a heartbeat, even in the surety that they'd lose.

BTW, this reminds us all of three good reasons for disguntled conservatives to vote for McCain/Palin

Surely you've left off a fourth reason - the surety that the Republicans will regain their majority in the Senate? Because without that, I don't see that reasons 1-3 matter.

Daniel: "Two, old-fashioned conservatives chased out of Congress and their party ..."

Nobody chased them out. Both would still be in the Senate if they had wanted to stay, due in large part to their very high home-state popularity. They just quit. That's all.

"They just quit. That's all."

They quit out of frustration with the system, and their own party. Danforth has written eloquently about the impact social conservatives have had on the GOP and the role they play in the party. Rudman was a pro-choice New Englander who was a fiscal realist. He never rose in the party because of his social views. Davis--arguably one of the smartest people in Congress--was thwarted from the GOP leadership in the House because he was pro-choice and pro-gay rights. The GOP is going to now lose that seat for at least a decade.

I posted this comment down below in the section on the 60 Minutes program, which described the incredible complexity of the financial vehicles that are now collapsing and whether a prosecutor could prove fraud in relation to these financial transactions. I think the same point could be made here - at least at a criminal level you need to be able to prove that a defendant intended or at least knew he was lying in order to get a conviction. Can we say the same about our politicians? I would think that negligent misrepresentations are sufficient to hold them accountable and get rid of them. But at some level, is it possible that our financial sector is so complex that no one really understands it? If so, how do we dole out blame for that?

If the guys creating and selling the things didn't really understand what they were doing, how do expect regulators to understand and come up with rational regulations and enforcment actions?

------------- Here's my comment from below -

Regarding possible criminal charges of those selling these worthless financial vehicles - Sometimes prosecutors try to use securities fraud in order to get at conduct where there is not a specific statutes making behavior criminal. As I understand it, securities fraud just requires a material misrepresentation about some matter in a transaction. (i.e., saying "this paper is completely secure and worth X amount of dollars", and then finding internal emails saying - "this transaction is for the dogs - it's worthless and completely insecure")

The real challenge, if this 60 minutes report is correct about the complexities involved, is that the prosecutor has to show some level of awareness regarding the fact that the defendant was making a material misrepresentation -- they have to "intend" or at least "know" they are making a material misrepresentation. Usually reckless or negligent misrepresentation is not sufficient to maintain a criminal charge. The problem is that if you really needed a PhD in mathematics or physics to understand these transactions, then it may be very difficult to establish that anyone "knew" that they were lying about them.

I say all this from a general criminal law perspective, so there may be other more specific criminal charges that could be brought, but you'd have to ask someone with more specific training in that area of law. Anyone knowledgable in this area care to comment?

I vividly remember an interview with Sen. Rudman in which he described the circumstances that lead to his leaving the Senate. He held private discussions with many members of the Senate. In each one, he pleaded with them to do the right thing, to reign in spending, balance the budget and eliminate the debt. He asked them, “What is the worse thing that can happen to you by doing what you know to be right? You lose your re-election, you return home, set-up a comfortable private law practice and spend time with your family.” The vast majority of the senators had the identical response. “Yeah, but in the Senate, I am one of the 100 most powerful men in the world.” That was it. He knew it was a lost cause.

What power do you have if you're just a yes-man?

The power to satisfy one's individual passions. For a Senator, lust for power, influence, and money. It gets easier and easier the more one gives in to the system.