Sometimes good enough is.

David Sirota and others are all atwitter about the inadequacies of the Democrat's Honest Leadership And Open Government Act. Frankly, I think an excessive focus on the need for bigger, better, brighter rules misses the real point regarding the GOP culture of corruption. The problem hasn't been a lack of rules. What's right and what's wrong under the current rules isn't hard to figure out for an adult human being with a functional moral compass. The problem hasn't been a lack of rules, it's been a lack of regard for the rules, whether they be explicitly stated or simply the kind of kindergarten ethics - don't steal, don't lie, don't hit your classmates - that should be understood whether or not they're codified.

That's why the specific contents of any ethics package don't matter all that much. The fact is, most folks expect that their own personal Member of Congress gets treated to some pretty good lunches, goes to parties the rest of us never get invited to and never pay parking tickets. Most folks don't mind that kind of thing so much. Being a Member of Congress is, in fact, kind of special, and Congresscritters are bound to get some degree of special treatment and attention.

On the other hand, whether there's a rule or not, most folks understand what bribery, theft and extortion are, and most folks know that's wrong, no matter how special you may be. They expect their representatives to know where the line is, and to stay on the right side of it, regardless of what the official rules may be.

Still, there are rules, and there are going to be new rules. Odds are that the Democratic package will be passed over in favor of the Republican package. The merits of the plans won't be meaningfully debated, though they'll be widely - and doubtless loudly - discussed. In the end, the new rules will be adopted on a partisan vote. We're left, then with coming up with a plan that's essentially a campaign tool.

The Stakeholder has details and the rationale for each point, but I think the headers alone show that some pretty savvy political minds were at work on this one. Here's the plan in it's short form…

The Tony Rudy Reform: Close the Revolving Door.

The Ralph Reed Reform: Toughen Public Disclosure of Lobbyist Activity.

The Jack Abramoff Reform: Ban Lobbyist Gifts and Travel.

The Grover Norquist Reform: Shut Down Pay-to-Play Schemes Like the “K Street Project.”

The Scully & Tauzin Reform: Disclosure of Outside Job Negotiations.

The Frist & Hastert Reform: Prohibit “Dead of Night” Special Interest Provisions.

The Halliburton Reform: Zero Tolerance for Contract Cheaters.

The Brownie Reform: Prohibit Cronyism in Key Appointments.

Is it a perfect plan, from a good government purist's perspective? Probably not. It's an improvement over the current rules, though, and, for now, good enough.
It's also a beautifully expressed plan, if you're a Democratic candidate whose opponent can be tied to a name that's become synonymous with some kind of reform needed because of some kind of corruption. In this, it's briefest iteration, the message is clear. We need reform because the Republican Congress is riddled with crooks.

Time for the naysayers to realize they're not going to get what they want by way of a reform plan, whether the Democrats promote every conceivable element of the goo-goo vision or not. Our plan just won't pass in this Congress.

It's time to accept this plan for what it is, and to use it for what it's good for, which is to implement the ultimate Frist & Hastert reform - a new Democratic Congress.