# IOKIADDI (It's OK If A Democrat Does It)? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 19, 2013, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622 "2013-08-19T08:47:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/21 "2013-08-19T17:15:03Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > What is the best example out there of the media granting Democrats a pass for egregregious offenses/failures, for which it would hold Republican counterparts to a much higher standard? Depends on the media. Fox News sometimes will report a Republican’s scandal but show a (D) after his name. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/22 "2013-08-19T17:29:51Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Cite for that, please(being an international joke, not his Viet Nam record)? Cite the “lying about his Vietnam record” too, if you please. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/23 "2013-08-19T17:33:38Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > John Kerry lied about his Vietnam experience and then ran on his service record. He was a joke then and he’s treated internationally as a joke now. As I recall, the people lying about his record have become a bit of a joke. Kerry was a decorated war hero. “Swift Boating” has become a rather ugly term. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/24 "2013-08-19T17:51:33Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > John Kerry lied about his Vietnam experience . . . No, that was the Swiftvets, [who lied about Kerry’s Vietnam experience](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboat_Veterans_for_Truth#Controversy), **as you know.** > [@](#): > > \*\*Controversy > > Truth of allegations\*\* > > Early in the advertising campaign, Time magazine surveyed public credence in the SBVT advertisements among those who viewed them. The poll, conducted August 24 through 26, showed that about one-third of viewers believed there was at least “some truth” to the allegations. Among swing voters, about one-fourth felt there was any truth to the ads.[63] > > More recently, an early member of the group, Steve Hayes, stated that he came to believe that the group was twisting Kerry’s record, and broke with the group and voted for Kerry. Hayes told the New York Times: > > > [@](#): > > > > The mantra was just ‘We want to set the record straight,’ Mr. Hayes said this month. It became clear to me that it was morphing from an organization to set the record straight into a highly political vendetta. They knew it was not the truth. > > Hayes also told the New York Times that he provided a long interview to Kerry’s supporters, backing their version of the incident for which Kerry received the Bronze Star.[64] > > A major part of the SBVT controversy centered on the group’s testimony. The SBVT statements were accompanied by sworn affidavits. One affiant, Al French, acknowledged he had no firsthand knowledge of the events to which he had sworn.[65] > > **First television advertisement** > > The first SBVT ad was contradicted by the statements of several other veterans who observed the incidents, by the Navy’s official records, and, in some instances, by the contemporaneous statements of SBVT members themselves. > > Several major newspapers were also skeptical of the SBVT allegations. For example, a New York Times news article stated, “on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth prove to be riddled with inconsistencies.”[66] Regarding the medal dispute, a Los Angeles Times editorial[67] stated, “Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues in the newsroom, we can say it outright: These charges against John Kerry are false.” The editorial argued this position on the basis that “Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the events in question, as well as by documentation.” On August 22, 2004 The Washington Post reported: “An investigation by The Washington Post into what happened that day suggests that both sides have withheld information from the public record and provided an incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, picture of what took place. But although Kerry’s accusers have succeeded in raising doubts about his war record, they have failed to come up with sufficient evidence to prove him a liar.”[68] > > The ABC television show Nightline traveled to Vietnam and interviewed Vietnamese who were involved in the battle for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star. These witnesses disputed O’Neill’s charge that there “was little or no fire” that day; they said that the fighting was fierce.[69] SBVT supporters question whether these witnesses are reliable because they spoke “in the presence of a Communist official”,[70] but their account of enemy fire is substantially the same as that previously given by another former Viet Cong to an AP reporter[71] and by the American witnesses, including the only SBVT member who was actually present that day, Larry Clayton Lee.[72][73][74][75] ABC News’s The Note opined, “the Swift Boat ad and their primary charges about Kerry’s medals are personal, negative, extremely suspect, or false.”[76] > > **Book, other media statements** > > Jerome Corsi has said that a picture of Kerry’s 1993 visit to Vietnam hangs in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City as a gesture of “honor” by the Communists “for his contribution to their victory over [the] United States”,[citation needed] and John O’Neill has stated that Kerry “is in the North Vietnamese war museum as a hero… . one of the heroes who caused them to win the war in Vietnam”.[77] The statement is also repeated in “Unfit for Command” (pp 167–174). However, Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun stated in this regard: > > > [@](#): > > > > “ While the museum clearly honors opponents of the war from America and other countries, it is not clear that the photo of Mr. Kerry is part of that tribute. The picture of the senator hangs among a set of photos devoted to the restoration of diplomatic relations between America and Vietnam in the 1990s. > > The picture apparently was taken as Kerry took part in a delegation President Bill Clinton sent to Hanoi in 1993. Other photos nearby show visits during that period by former American officials who played key roles in the Vietnam War, including a Navy admiral who has since died, Elmo Zumwalt, and a defense secretary, Robert McNamara. A secretary of state during Clinton’s term, Warren Christopher, is also shown meeting Vietnamese officials” > > — Josh Gerstein[78] > > In this connection, the web page Corsi and another anti-Kerry veteran originally published on the Kerry museum photo contained the picture of Robert McNamara’s 1995 meeting with General Giap, who was misidentified as “Mao Tse-Tung”.[79] (Photo #10). > > In addition, John O’Neill said that in 1971 John Kerry “wanted to abandon ship and leave the POWs [in Vietnam]” and that “[o]n the Dick Cavett show and elsewhere, John Kerry‘s position was that we should accept the Madame Binh seven-point proposal, which called for unilateral withdrawal, setting a date after which at some future time, we‘d negotiate the return of the POWs. So we would set a date. We would withdraw and then we would begin to discuss how to bring them home”.[80] However, in the Cavett debate, Kerry actually said: > > > [@](#): > > > > “ Now, if we were to set a date for withdrawal from Southeast Asia, we can – the Vietnamese, first of all, have said it will be settled prior to the arrival of that date, but we can set a time limit on that. If the prisoners of war aren’t back prior to the arrival of that date, then I think we would have – for the first time in all of our history in Vietnam we would have a legitimate reason for taking some kind of reaction to it. ” > > — John Kerry[81] > > **Connections with Republicans** > > SBVT characterized itself as a non-partisan group both in the legal sense and in spirit, yet several prominent individuals who assisted SBVT also have had close ties to the Republican Party. According to information released by the IRS on February 22, 2005, more than half of the group’s reported contributions came from just three sources, all prominent Texas Republican donors: Houston builder Bob J. Perry, a longtime supporter of George W. Bush, donated $4.45 million, Harold Simmons’ Contrans donated $3 million, and T. Boone Pickens, Jr. donated $2 million. Other major contributors included Bush fundraiser Carl Lindner ($300,000), Robert Lindner ($260,000), GOP contributor Aubrey McClendon ($250,000), George Matthews Jr. ($250,000), and Crow Holdings ($100,000).[82][83][84] > > The initial communications consultant for SBVT was Merrie Spaeth, a Reagan administration press officer and a volunteer consultant to Ken Starr in the Clinton impeachment; she was also a spokesperson for “Republicans for Clean Air,” a 527 group opposing John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign and funded by Bush supporters who also helped fund SBVT.[85][86] John E. O’Neill — the primary author of Unfit for Command and a key player in the formation of SBVT — donated over $14,000 to Republican candidates. He co-operated with the Nixon White House in opposing Kerry in 1971, and seconded Nixon’s nomination at the 1972 Republican national convention.[87][88] > > Retired Admiral William Schachte, a principal source for the SBVT allegations about Kerry’s first Purple Heart, has donated to both of Bush’s presidential campaigns. Schachte was also a lobbyist for FastShip, a firm that recently announced it was receiving $40 million in federal funding for one of its projects. In addition, Schachte’s lobbying firm associate, David Norcross, was chairman of the 2004 Republican convention.[89] Chris LaCivita, Political Director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2002,[90] works as a private contractor providing media advice for SBVT.[91] > > The SBVT postal address was registered to Susan Arceneaux, treasurer of the Majority Leader’s Fund, a PAC closely tied to the former Congressional leader, Republican Dick Armey.[92] > > Republican activist Sam Fox’s donation of $50,000 to SBVT during the 2004 campaign[93] caused a controversy when Bush nominated him to the position of ambassador to Belgium. Because the Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee indicated that they would not support his nomination, Bush withdrew the nomination; he appointed Fox to the position on April 4, 2007, while Congress was in recess.[94][95][96] > > These ties, along with others (see below), led to suggestions in the popular press that SBVT was a front group for Republicans.[66][97][98] > > **Connections with the Bush campaign** > > The Bush campaign became part of the general SBVT controversy when McCain condemned the first SBVT ad, and said, “I hope that the president will also condemn it.” The Bush campaign did not condemn SBVT or the SBVT ads. The campaign did not endorse the group either, stating “We have not and we will not question Senator Kerry’s service in Vietnam.”[99] Kerry was dismissive of this statement, saying, “Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that.”[100] Kerry also alleged that SBVT was “a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won’t denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know — he wants them to do his dirty work”.[101] When pressed on the issue, President Bush called for an end to all 527 group political advertisements, and challenged Kerry to do the same.[102] > > Critics and the Kerry campaign pointed to several specific connections between SBVT and the Bush campaign. The Kerry campaign asserted that Bush campaign headquarters in Florida distributed fliers promoting SBVT events, a charge the Bush campaign denied.[103] Kenneth Cordier, former vice-chair of Veterans for Bush/Cheney (in 2000) and volunteer member of the Bush campaign veterans steering committee, appeared in the second SBVT advertisement. The Bush campaign asked him to resign and stated that it had been unaware of his SBVT involvement.[104] > > On August 25, 2004, Benjamin Ginsberg, the top election lawyer to the Bush campaign on campaign finance law, also resigned after it was learned that SBVT was one of his clients. Ginsberg stated that he was withdrawing to avoid being a distraction to the campaign. He declared that he had acted “in a manner that is fully appropriate and legal,”[91] arguing that it was not uncommon or illegal for lawyers to represent campaigns or political parties while also representing 527 groups. He also maintained that he did not disclose to the Bush campaign that he was simultaneously representing the SBVT group. After leaving the Bush campaign, Ginsberg retained his status as counsel to SBVT. > > In January 2005, Governor Jeb Bush, the President’s brother and Florida chairman for his 2004 campaign,[105] sent a letter to SBVT member and former POW Bud Day, thanking him for his “personal support of my brother in his re-election.” In addition, Governor Bush said of the SBVT: > > > [@](#): > > > > “As someone who truly understands the risk of standing up for something, I simply cannot express in words how much I value their willingness to stand up against John Kerry.”[64][106] [See also SourceWatch.](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth) > [@](#): > > **Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT)** “registered their group under Section 527 of the U.S. tax code and went public at a news conference held in the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on May 4, 2004.” [1] > > The group, rebranded as **Swift Vets and POWs for Truth,** is an advocacy organization formed in 2004 by opponents of John Kerry’s U.S. presidential campaign. (The group’s name refers to the class of boat on which Kerry and some of the organization’s members served in the Vietnam War.) > > Primary projects have been: their [www.swiftvets.com](http://www.swiftvets.com) website, the book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (released by the conservative Regnery Publishing), and a series of television advertisements challenging John Kerry’s military record and activism against the Vietnam War. > > The group’s credibility has been challenged due to misleading, false or inconsistent statements. [2][3] A detailed review of the claims in their book is also available. [4] > > The SBVT propaganda smear campaign was financed by Sam Fox, a billionaire and hardline rightwinger.[5] The fact that Fox financed this project was revealed during his Senate confirmation hearings to become US ambassador to Belgium. Although the Senate blocked his confirmation pointing out Fox’s pernicious activities, George Bush appointed Fox over the authority of the Senate during a “Senate recess”. Furthermore, the PR company responsible for the SBVT (and whose bill Fox paid) was Arthur J. Finkelstein and Associates run by Arthur J. Finkelstein, the “dirty-tricks guy for the Republicans”. [6] Finkelstein is best know for his black-propaganda campaigns that are primarily character assassinations or smearing – as the SBVT campaign demonstrates. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/25 "2013-08-19T18:13:49Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, that was the Swiftvets, [who lied about Kerry’s Vietnam experience](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboat_Veterans_for_Truth#Controversy), **as you know.** > > [See also SourceWatch.](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth) Is that all you’ve got? _He’s_ got a faded bumper sticker on his pickup-try to top _that_! ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/26 "2013-08-19T18:49:34Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Clinton was a sitting President going through the impeachment process. It would have been front page news even if it was for shoplifting a banana. Actually IIRC the ratings weren’t all that good; the media just wanted to bash Clinton and so force fed the public a “scandal” most of it wasn’t all that interested in. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/27 "2013-08-19T18:51:30Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Actually IIRC the ratings weren’t all that good; the media just wanted to bash Clinton and so force fed the public a “scandal” most of it wasn’t all that interested in. IIRC, that’s completely wrong. “The media” doesn’t purposely lose money in order to “bash” a president. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/28 "2013-08-19T19:38:39Z")
The media tends to ignore Dem scandals until they can be ignored no longer. The opposite is true for Pub scandals…reporting will start the minute there is a whiff of scandal (remember John McCain’s implied affair?). Also, when there is a scandal involving a Pub the media attempts to hang it around the neck of the entire party (remember Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comment and the Republican war on women?) while a scandal involving a Dem is considered a “personal failing” that in no way indicts the larger partly. Media bias can be very subtle…like only reporting on morning shows but ignoring a story in the evening broadcast, really reporting on a Pub scandal from the first moment while dragging their feet on a Dem scandal, or treating the scandal as an isolated event for a Dem while attempting to tar the entire party in the case of a Pub. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/29 "2013-08-19T19:48:41Z")
Oh, yeah, there was that thing with that governor in Illinois selling some graft or something, what was his name again? Ron Blegonski? Big story that the media just buried. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/30 "2013-08-19T19:55:32Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > “The media” doesn’t purposely lose money in order to “bash” a president. Sure it does, if it fits their political agenda or personal dislikes. It’s composed of humans with feelings and agendas, not robots. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/31 "2013-08-19T19:58:59Z")
These types of anecdote wars aren’t particularly compelling. My own sense is that, yes, most of the reporters for the big media outlets lean Democrat, but they generally don’t care if their scoop has an R or a D after their name. They want the scoop. This may not be as true about a media source like FoxNews, but they are still a bit player in the world of “The Media”. And when a large segment of the American population gets its news from right-wing radio, I think the idea that “the media” treats Democrats less harshly is, to use a technical term, horse shit. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/32 "2013-08-19T20:09:03Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Media bias can be very subtle…like only reporting on morning shows but ignoring a story in the evening broadcast, really reporting on a Pub scandal from the first moment while dragging their feet on a Dem scandal, or treating the scandal as an isolated event for a Dem while attempting to tar the entire party in the case of a Pub. And I betcha on their talk shows, they moderate conservatives much more harshly while liberals have free rein to break any rule they like. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/33 "2013-08-19T20:26:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > My own sense is that, yes, most of the reporters for the big media outlets lean Democrat, but they generally don’t care if their scoop has an R or a D after their name. They want the scoop. There you go, being reasonable again, **John**. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > This may not be as true about a media source like FoxNews, but they are still a bit player in the world of “The Media”. I don’t think that Fox is a ‘bit player’. They seem to be the major source of [del]propaganda[/del] news for much or most of the Republican Party. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > And when a large segment of the American population gets its news from right-wing radio, I think the idea that “the media” treats Democrats less harshly is, to use a technical term, horse shit. I didn’t bother to find the most current numbers, but according to the [List of most-listened-to radio programs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs), the conservative shows (top of the list, with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity) have about 42.25 million listeners, and the liberal shows (on NPR stations) have about 37.6 million listeners. I listen to a lot of Public radio, and I detect little bias. I _have_ heard them being called out by listeners when bias in either direction was detected. Also, the programs cover a range of interests, from Art to Science to Politics. I do not listen to conservative radio, so I don’t know the range of topics they cover. What I _have_ heard is a lot of Liberal-bashing and a notable lack of correction or apology when they are caught out. Given that most radio listeners listen to conservative radio, I agree with your technical term. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/34 "2013-08-19T20:30:00Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > The media tends to ignore Dem scandals until they can be ignored no longer. The opposite is true for Pub scandals. Not even you believe that. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/35 "2013-08-19T20:34:14Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > The media tends to ignore Dem scandals until they can be ignored no longer. Yes, that’s why you’re hardly hearing anything about these Anthony Weiner and Bob Filner things. This use of “can be ignored no longer” is weasel wording. ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/36 "2013-08-19T20:39:01Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > If you think this might be true, how about providing an example? Frankly, I can’t think of a great example, which is why I posed the question to the board. The difficulty is finding two situations that are sufficiently comparable to be deemed basically equivalent, which itself can be highly contentious. For example, when I get into this with my father-in-law, he alleges that Benghazi is getting swept under the rug because Obama’s a Democrat, liberal media, etc. I reply, among other things, that there were 53 attacks on diplomatic targets under Bush and no one in the liberal media made a political football of any of them. He then says that the the two (well, the 54) are not comparable, because no one in the Bush administration tried to cover up the nature of those attacks or flagrantly declined to respond to them for fear of political repercussions at home. Putting aside that I think he’s ill-informed, as far as he’s concerned it’s not a valid comparison. Are there recent examples where two situations were uncontroversially similar, where we can clearly say one way or the other whether the Democrat got a pass while the Republican didn’t? My two cents: depending on the context there may /sometimes/ be a bias toward IOKIADDI - for example, liberal politicians may get more leniency in sex scandals, partly because there’s less hypocrisy involved. But then, in some contexts, there’s probably an IOKIAWMDI rule: as much grief as Bill Clinton got over Monica Lewinsky, I cannot even contemplate the shit-storm of murderous rage that would be unleashed if Obama were ejaculating onto barely-legal white interns in the Oval Office. Likewise, if Obama belonged to a church that excluded white people until 1978 and had served his whole life as a leader in that church, he would have been disqualified from office; not so for Mitt Romney. In the context of draft-dodging, there may be some evidence of an IOKIARDI rule. The list could go on. The point is, I think that the media is sometimes arbitrary and uneven in its application of scrutiny, but it’s not clear there’s anything particularly systematic about giving a free pass to Democrats per se. ---
**Author:** ![Tethered\_Kite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a5b964/32.png) [@Tethered\_Kite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tethered_Kite)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/37 "2013-08-19T20:48:40Z")
I thought George Will made a pretty good case in his column a few days ago when he wrote about the President sidestepping Congress and the Supreme Court thereby violating Constitutional Law in order to rewrite the ACA. articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-14/opinions/41408610\_1\_affordable-care-act ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/38 "2013-08-19T20:56:39Z")
> [@Tethered\_Kite](#): > > I thought George Will made a pretty good case in his column a few days ago when he wrote about the President sidestepping Congress and the Supreme Court thereby violating Constitutional Law in order to rewrite the ACA. [That’s](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16583310&postcount=131) actually what got this whole discussion started. I don’t view that as a good example, chiefly because a reasoned, well-defined delay in enforcement falls well within the discretion of the executive; and secondarily, because George Will had nothing to say about Mitt Romney’s promise to grant a 50-state waiver from Obamacare on Day One of his administration, which serves only to argue against the existence of an IOKIADDI rule. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/39 "2013-08-19T20:59:22Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > The opposite is true for Pub scandals…reporting will start the minute there is a whiff of scandal (remember John McCain’s implied affair?). No, I don’t. I remember I remember Hillary’s “right wing conspiracy,” I remember Christine O’Donnell’s “I am not a witch,” I remember Willie Horton, I remember John McCain’s “black” baby… but a John McCain affair? Just not ringing a bell. > [@](#): > > Also, when there is a scandal involving a Pub the media attempts to hang it around the neck of the entire party (remember Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comment and the Republican war on women?) while a scandal involving a Dem is considered a “personal failing” that in no way indicts the larger partly. As I recall, the Republican Party mostly abandoned Akin after the “legitimate rape” comment, with the exception of a few whacko birds (that’s a John McCain term – do you remember that?) like Richard Mourdock who endorsed Akin’s candidacy with his own sexist comments. OTOH, there was the “forcible rape” controversy in which significant numbers of Republicans cosponsored a bill that made a distinction between “forcible rape” and… God knows what they were thinking, maybe “voluntary rape.” Perhaps that’s the news story you’re thinking of that was an embarrassment to more than one Republican candidate, since many Republicans supported that bill. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622/40 "2013-08-19T21:08:02Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > The media tends to ignore Dem scandals until they can be ignored no longer. The opposite is true for Pub scandals…reporting will start the minute there is a whiff of scandal (remember John McCain’s implied affair?). Also, when there is a scandal involving a Pub the media attempts to hang it around the neck of the entire party (remember Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comment and the Republican war on women?) while a scandal involving a Dem is considered a “personal failing” that in no way indicts the larger partly. > > Media bias can be very subtle…like only reporting on morning shows but ignoring a story in the evening broadcast, really reporting on a Pub scandal from the first moment while dragging their feet on a Dem scandal, or treating the scandal as an isolated event for a Dem while attempting to tar the entire party in the case of a Pub. Examples of ignored Dem scandals? I disagree with your post in general, but I am willing to keep an open mind. For example, Todd Akin’s comments were really about Todd Akin, not about the Republican party. The Tea Party folks who did not say dumb things about rape did fine. Still, I see little difference between claiming Democrats are gun grabbing treasonous socialists that want to raise your taxes and claiming Republicans are fundamentalist misogynists that want to legislate who you can marry and what you can do in your bedroom. Both parties try to create a caricature of their opponents to run against, and sometime those opponents help in you in this regard as they did with Akin, Mourdock, and Rivard. Finally, the whole war on women thing was never about Akin or Mourdock, it was about the huge number of anti-abortion laws that are being passed nationwide and the attempts to defund planned parenthood. Trying to conflate the two is pretty much bullshit. Still, let’s talk about Dem’s peccadilloes being considered a “personal failing” while Republicans don’t get the same treatment. Do you mean like disgraced congressman Anthony Weiner (D) (sexting)? Disgraced Governor Mark Sanford (D) (adultery)? Disgraced presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (D) (multiple acts of infidelity!)? Disgraced Senator David Vitter (D) (Prostitution)? Oh wait, it just occured to me that Sanford, Gingrich, and Vitter are Republicans that were forgiven for their various sex scandals while it remains to be seen if Weiner, the only Democrat, will be. We could talk about Edwards (D- the scumbag) and other politicians of either stripe that never made a comeback, but I think you are full of shit when you say Democrats are given a free pass and Republicans are not. Let’s get some examples, surely you have some. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iokiaddi-its-ok-if-a-democrat-does-it/666622.md?page=3)