An Instructive Contrast
Tom DeLay is out as House majority leader. Here's the story. Given his ties to some involved in the Abramoff scandal, plus his pending (meritless) trial thanks to grand-jury-shopping prosecutorial travesty Ronnie Earle, it was the right call.
That being said, I'd like to point out a most telling distinction between Republicans and Democrats. When Republicans realize that stepping down (and/or going away) is the right move for their party (and their better principles) generally, they tend to do so -- think not only of DeLay, but Newt Gingrich in the wake of the 1998 elections and even Richard Nixon.
In contrast, Democrats and/or leftists seem to cling to power tenaciously, from Bill Clinton -- who refused to resign despite having committed perjury, engaging in sexual acts with an intern in the Oval Office, and looking the American people in the face and lying about it -- to Dan Rostenkowski. Even when their non-elected luminaries like Jesse Jackson and Ward Churchill engage in what's politely termed to be "questionable" behavior, they continue on as respected (in some cases, even celebrated) members of the left.
When shenanigans occur on the right, in contrast, condemnation is quick to follow -- just ask Armstrong Williams and Doug Bandow (forced out of the Cato Institute in the wake of a "pundit payola" scandal).
The contrast is instructive.
That being said, I'd like to point out a most telling distinction between Republicans and Democrats. When Republicans realize that stepping down (and/or going away) is the right move for their party (and their better principles) generally, they tend to do so -- think not only of DeLay, but Newt Gingrich in the wake of the 1998 elections and even Richard Nixon.
In contrast, Democrats and/or leftists seem to cling to power tenaciously, from Bill Clinton -- who refused to resign despite having committed perjury, engaging in sexual acts with an intern in the Oval Office, and looking the American people in the face and lying about it -- to Dan Rostenkowski. Even when their non-elected luminaries like Jesse Jackson and Ward Churchill engage in what's politely termed to be "questionable" behavior, they continue on as respected (in some cases, even celebrated) members of the left.
When shenanigans occur on the right, in contrast, condemnation is quick to follow -- just ask Armstrong Williams and Doug Bandow (forced out of the Cato Institute in the wake of a "pundit payola" scandal).
The contrast is instructive.
posted by LadybugUSA at 2:59 PM
20 Comments:
"The contrast is instructive" to those who will see, but the left cannot see the problem so cannot even think of a solution.
"The contrast is instructive."
Let me give you a hypothetical and you can instruct us on the superiority of the Republican way.
Let's say there is a Republican President, who said that anyone involved in leaking the identity of an undercover CIA agent during a time of war would no longer be part of his administration.
Let's further pretend that the Vice President's Chief of Staff is found out to have leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent during a time of war. As President do you (a) keep your word and remove the person from your administration or (b) break your word and wait until the person is indicted and then given him a nice testimonial and allow him to resign?
Now let's say that the President's chief political strategist is found out to have leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent during a time of war. As President do you (a) keep your word and remove the person from your administration or (b) break your word and let the strategist stay on and keep his top-secret security clearance?
“When one of my closest and dearest friends, Jack Abramoff, your most able representative in Washington, D.C., invited me to the islands, I wanted to see firsthand the free-market success and the progress and reform you have made.”--Tom Delay (New Year's 1997/1998)
Carol's phrase "some involved in the Abramoff scandal" is understatement indeed.
Yes, it is instructive. Politics for Democrats is a vocation--they play hardball better--while it's more an avocation for Republicans.
Can you imagine if the sides were switched and the minority Republican were threatening to filibuster judge appointments what the Democrats would have done? Steam-roll over the minority, exactly as was NOT done in the Bill Frist compromise worked out last year.
I think you have raised a noteworthy point; valuable post, Carol!
Brent wrote, "Can you imagine if the sides were switched and the minority Republican were threatening to filibuster judge appointments what the Democrats would have done?"
Are you talking about the Abe Fortas nomination in 1968? Abe Fortas was nominated to the Supreme Court by Lyndon Johnson, and the Republicans filibustered him. Or are you talking about the time that Senator Frist and fellow Republicans voted to filibuster Richard Paez?
On both case, the Democrats pretty much left Senate rules and procedures as they were. What do you think happened?
Brent continues, "Steam-roll over the minority, exactly as was NOT done in the Bill Frist compromise worked out last year."
I see, you are making an argument on a subject you know absolutely nothing about. You should fit in well with the majority of people who post here.
An LBJ-er and a no-namer do not an argument make, Mr. Reacher, er, Twister.
What Brent and others conveniently fail to mention -- that is, if they even know about it -- is the "blue-slip" rule used by Senate Republicans that effectively killed dozens of Clinton's nominees BEFORE THEY COULD EVEN GO TO COMMITTEE.
If a senator from the nominee's home state refused to fill out the standard paperwork for the nominee (a procedure that senators from both parties had always complied with, regardles of their feelings about the nominee) the nomination was dead.
So, in effect, ONE senator decided the fates of these nominees. At least a filibuster requires the cooperation of forty-one. How does Orrin Hatch's exploitation of the blue-slip rule square with your sense of fairness, huh?
Brent wrote originally, "Can you imagine if the sides were switched and the minority Republican were threatening to filibuster judge appointments what the Democrats would have done?"
I give Brent two cases where the side were reversed and the minority Republicans attempted to filibuster Democratic judicial nominees.
Brent responds, "An LBJ-er and a no-namer do not an argument make, Mr. Reacher, er, Twister."
Sorry there Brentster. You see, when you posted the first time I made the mistake of actually believing you had a point to make. I didn't realize you were applying to be yet another wingnut in Carol's legion of mouth breathing minions.
Duke-stir, we shouldn't confuse Brent with facts or things like that.
Now let's say that the President's chief political strategist is found out to have leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent during a time of war.
Except that Valerie Plame wsan't undercover. But why let THAT fact get in the way.
Still waiting for some kind of explanation of how a filibuster on the Senate floor is worse than killing judicial nominations pre-committee with the blue-slip rule.
I know, I know, because they were Clinton's nominees. Therefore, the ends justified any means. But now that there is a "real" man in the White House, a return to decorum is required.
The old "speck in your eye/plank in my eye" thing.
eLarson joins in with word games, "Except that Valerie Plame wsan't undercover. But why let THAT fact get in the way."
Notice how eLarson would rather play word games than answer the question.
Asked directly in a Press Conference about the Plame leak, we have President Bush saying,
Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so [leaked Valerie Plame's name]?
BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.
Has anyone actually been fired, eLarson? Of course not. Instead the Bush administration provides the first indictment of a sitting White House staff member in over a century.
After all of this we get to hear you play crap word games and Carol moralizing, "When Republicans realize that stepping down (and/or going away) is the right move for their party (and their better principles) generally, they tend to do so.. "
Pete opines, "Of course, only the right's errors get played up, and laid open to the public, because they (the right) are the ONLY ones held accountable."
Okay Pete, fair is fair. Let's play the game...
1) Tom Delay was the sitting Republican House Majority Leader. He was indicted on money laundering charges.
2) Duke Cunningham, Republican House Member, pled guilty to accepting over $2.3 million in direct bribes.
3) Bill Frist, the Republican Senate Maority leader is the target of an SEC insider trading investigation.
Now, Pete, why don't you list three Democrats that are in similar legal trouble? Although I am listing examples from just the last two months or so, anything from this century should suffice.
Just for those of you keeping score at home, what Carol terms Delay's "(meritless) trial" was upheld today by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Elsewhere Carol has called this a partisan indictment--so I'm sure she will be glad to know that each of the judges who heard Delay's appeal (and declined to act on it) were Republicans.
Yea!!! Someone remembered the Duke-Stir again! (Funny how it's always only Mr. Twister who remembers me. Maybe I'll start going by "The Hammer" or "Lobbyist A.")
This post was too ridiculous to even begin to address -- until I realized that most of Carol's readers actually believe it. Carol and others here write of Republicans as if they are noble samurai who fall on their swords to preserve their honor.
Too bad I'm not an eighth-grader in her demented version of a Civics class.
And the notion that only Republican misdeeds are played up in the MSM is so outrageous that it can only be a joke. Does anyone here recall the '90s? Really? 'Cause it seems to me that the oh-so-scandalous Travelgate (to name but one of the dozens of flimsy attempts to run Clinton out of office) got exponentially more attention in the media than, oh, Halliburton, phantom yellow cake, and the infamous August PDB... combined.
Get real.
I didn't answer the question because I don't accept your premise.
I remember the news coverage of Clinton's fun-n-games as having an air of wonder at how he so cleverly spun them.
Imagine if it had just been found out that the CEO of BigOil, Inc., had been using office interns as office supplies. Do you think the talking heads on the news would take on that "Damn, he's GOOD!" tone as he spun away their questions?
Hahahahahahahahaha.
Carol is, of course, correct.
The contrast is instructive.
Further evidence:
http://www.reason.com/hod/db011906.shtml
Post a Comment
<< Home