Does one of the political parties, more than the other, try to paint itself as not only more representative of, but in fact more of a defender of, moral values? Family values?
If not, then fine, no problems.
If so, it is relevant to point out the behaviors of the political officials of that party.
Now, I wish that, if one party portrayed itself as more moral than the other, that it would have any sort of “cite!” routinely demanded of it. But, unfortunately, that does not happen.
Moto, you never demonstrated a political affiliation for your counter-cite. Nor is that person elected to that position from one or another political party. All Americans who value the Constitution should value the ACLU.
So…you’re saying that because the Democrats don’t make a big stink about how bad child rape is, if this guy had been a registered Democrat you’d have no problem with him?
In other words, the problem isn’t child rape, it’s that Republicans are hypocritical about the child rape problem?
By comparing it to the, say, Larry Craig scandal, where the problem wasn’t that he was having gay sex in bathrooms, but that he supported anti-gay policies while secretly having gay sex in public places? Really?
That’s stupid on about 12 different levels. Sorting out all the levels of stupid and why each one is stupid in its own stupid way is left as an exercise for the readers.
Sorry, no. Since no political party of any repute will advocate child abuse of any kind, using particular instances of child abuse to paint that party as morally bankrupt is completely off the table.
If child abuse were confined to one party, criticism of this sort would be valid. We know that this is not so.
Therefore, it is not indicative of Republicans in general, any more than it is the ACLU in general, which was my point.
Of course this behavior is egregious on its own, regardless of Atchison’s political affiliation. The partisan aspect is that this is the latest in a string of Pub sex scandals. And, as was pointed out repeatedly in the threads on Senator Craig’s restroom antics, what really jars about that is the hypocrisy of such behavior from members of a party that, nowadays, has set itself up as the “family values” party. I mean, if Barney Frank had been caught soliciting sex in a public men’s room, it would have been highly undignified behavior for a Congresscritter and his boyfriend would have had some sharp words for him; but it would not have been nearly as embarrassing as it was with Craig, and nobody who mattered would have called for his resignation.
It still is true. Allow me to amplify on Gfactor’s correct point above:
U.S. Attorneys are political appointees. A Democratic president comes in, the vast majority of the (Republican) U.S. Attorneys are out of a job, because they are replaced by Democratic appointees. And vice versa when the presidential party shift is from Democrat to Republican. There is no real way to divorce the political aspect from the office, because most U.S. Attorneys owe their office to their political party and will lose it once the party in power changes. Ideally, this will not unduly affect the day-to-day work of the office, because that work entails interpreting and enforcing U.S. law (both criminal and civil), which doesn’t change much from administration to administration.
The people responsible for doing that day to day work of a U.S. Attorney’s Office are the ASSISTANT U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs). The guy in the article is an AUSA. The AUSAs are NOT political appointees and, although they are “at will” employees who serve at the pleasure of the U.S. Attorney, they generally do NOT lose their jobs when the Administration changes and a new US Attorney comes in. Their political party affiliation is irrelevant. So there’s really no need to sigh over how apolitical AUSAs used to be, “once” – they are exactly as political as ever, professionally speaking, which is to say not much.
it isn’t a “pub scandal” any more than any random guy on the street who votes republican committing a crime is a “pub scandal” Or did you want to refer to John Wayne Gacy as a “dem scandal”?
Hmmm. Let’s see where I said that. Nope, can’t find it.
Hmmm. Let’s see where I said that. Nope, didn’t say anything like that.
But it looks like you go to 13, to paraphrase Spinal Tap.
In case you aren’t just being a cunt for shits and grins, I’ll point out that one would presume, as a starting point, equal levels of this type of disgusting behavior from both, or all parties. When one party lays claim to any sort of title regarding values (family, moral, what have you), then they force the accounting issue. Or I should say, when dumbass fuckers start buying into that frame, then it becomes relevant.
To follow up on the above, if the Democrats were trying to paint the Republicans as the clown-killer party, or the bodies-stuffed-in-crawlspaces party, then it would be pretty fucking relevant.
But here we’re talking about a guy proposing to rape a 5 year old. So enlighten me: Which political party could he have belonged to where his actions would not have been hypocrisy? Should the Republicans stop condemning child rape because some perv who claims to be a Republican gets his jollies that way? Exactly which political party is A-OK with the rape of a child? The Democrats? :rolleyes:
This STILL doesn’t make any sense. Are the Democrats abdicating moral authority (“laying claim to any sort of title regarding values”) WRT child rape? Of course they aren’t. They are as 100% against it as the Republicans are. So there isn’t one party “claiming” the high ground on this issue that the other party doesn’t claim as well.
It’s like you’re saying that if it had been a Democrate caught trying to rape a 5 year old, the party could not be accused of “hypocrisy” on the issue because the party has never actually said “child rape is BAD!” How does that make the Democrats look any better? A guy gets caught doing (trying to do) a completely horrific thing and your response is “Well, at least MY party never said it was horrific, so we’re not hypocrites!”?
When have the Republicans ever painted the Democrates as the baby-raping party? Seriously. Because under your own reasoning, that’s the point at which this arrest would become relevant and not before.
Thanks for the laugh.
Political affiliation doesn’t matter to me in this case–I hope the guy does hard time for a long time. But I am glad that the sting worked.
Jesus Fucking Christ, I guess I’ll have to explicate this for you. Don’t worry, I’ll type slowly.
What party is the anti-child-rape party? Are you seriously contending that since the Republicans cloak themselves with the anti-child-rape mantle, it’s worse if a Republican rapes a child, because it’s hypocritical?
Are you contending that Democrats don’t constantly point out how they don’t rape children? Is that it? You realize that not raping children is kind of, you know, a given?
And the comparison to the difference between Larry Craig and Barney Frank fucking guys in restroom stalls is fucking hilarious in its stupidity.
Yeah, because gay sex isn’t, you know, illegal. Yeah, if you’re against gay rights while having gay sex, that’s hypocritical. And if you don’t believe that having gay sex is immoral (like, you know, reasonable people), then that’s all that’s left. If you’re an out gay man, having gay sex isn’t a scandal. It’s only a scandal if your constituents would be shocked and horrified to learn that their anti-gay leader was secretly smoking pole. In this case, it’s, you know, the hypocrisy that’s the issue, because sucking cock is not a big deal. It’s only a big deal if you condemn cocksucking while at the same time practicing it.
So WHERE’S THE FUCKING HYPOCRISY in this case? Is this case worse because US attorneys are supposed to prosecute child rapists, not rape children? Are you fucking high? That Republicans oppose child rape, and therefore it’s worse for a Republican to rape a child than for a Democrat?
You contend that this case is worse because this guy was a Republican instead of a Democrat. That means you are an idiot.
Yay. When Clinton was the President it was the Arkansas Project. When Bush was the President it was Jennifer Fitzgerald. With Reagan it was Iran-Contra and ABSCAM. With Carter it was Desert One, the Killer Rabbit and “Malaise”. No administration is immune from scandal, from top to bottom.
This is simply the manifestation of the party holding the Presidency getting exposed for their misdeeds. When the Democrats win the Presidency they’ll be the target du jour and all of their transgressions will come out.
What gets tiresome is the constant righteous indignation. No party holds the moral high ground, and both parties claim the right to be the arbiter of decency, moral and ethical behavior. The worm will turn, as it always does, and inevitably the hunters become the hunted. And where will your righteousness be then? We already know, actually. We’ve had endless discussions about it. You excuse behavior on behalf of your favorite sons and fall all over yourselves condemning it when there’s an R beside the name.
So this guy’s a douchebag. BFD. Murtha declined a bribe only because it wasn’t big enough. BFD. Bush lied. BFD. Nothing changes, the world still turns, and sure as the sun will rise tomorrow this will happen again and again. The only thing that will change is the name.
Yeah, Repubbies in general like to pound their chests about sexual morality–perhaps moreso than Dems–but we have no evidence that this guy was like that. For all we know, he might be one of those libertarian, small-government Republicans who worships Satan.
He’s not a hypocrite because he’s a Republican. He’s a hypocrite because he’s an officer of the law, attempting to do something a hundred times worse than most of the crimes he’s charged people with in his entire career. That’s why you should be pitting him.
I sincerely hoped he was lying when he said he’d done it before.
Don’t paint an entire party as screwed up because a non-politician member of it is a completely screwed up individual.
There is no shortage of stuff to accurately blame the current leadership of the party for, this is not one. Or do you suppose they were covering up for him and already do about him being a sick perverted piece of shit?
Really just stick to the real evil that Bush & Cheney and their cronies are doing with full knowledge and purpose, this type of op is stupid and useless. Its useless RO crap and silly political accusations that make you look less intelligent than I gave you credit for.
Ignore John Mace and stick to what you do well. Interesting GD questions.