# Is it bad to expose Democratic corruption?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [October 28, 2001, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123 "2001-10-28T17:41:13Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 10

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Myrr21](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Myrr21](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Myrr21)\
**Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/181 "2001-10-30T19:49:27Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> the removal of a sitting President from office is of such great import that it’s only been contemplated by the Senate and Chief Justice twice in the country’s history, and never been done. A fair-minded observer can easily imagine a situation in which the President commits a minor crime, and the Senate decides, although they believe the crime was committed, that it does not warrant removal from office. You may not, therefore, conclude that “if he had really committed a criminal offense… he would have been convicted.”

_sigh_  
Go back, and re-read what I wrote right after december replied.

Then understand it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\
**Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/182 "2001-10-30T19:59:08Z")

</div>

Sua – you ask some good question and make some good arguments. I’ll try to respond the best I can.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \*So I assume that you consider the offer to Strom Thurmond’s son of the position of U.S. Attorney for the District of South Carolina, for which he has no qualification, to be a corrupt act? Because I don’t.  
> Guess I’m not a good Democrat.

Sua, you are implying that the younger Thurmond was as unqualified for his US Atty appointment as Monica was for her UN job offer. Can you prove this?

> [@](#):
>
> **december** , you are going all over the place.

Too true.

> [@](#):
>
> Please:
> 
> 1. Define “demonization;”

I’m thinking of definition #3  
de·mon·ize  
tr.v. de·mon·ized, de·mon·iz·ing, de·mon·iz·es

1. To turn into or as if into a demon.
2. To possess by or as if by a demon.
3. To represent as evil or diabolic: wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy.

> [@](#):
>
> 1. Tell us who is doing the demonizing of the people you mentioned, Clinton loyalists or the general public;

In my opinion, it’s being done by Clinton loyalists and by other Democrats, particularly certian media sources who repeat and amplify the unfair attacks. I hope I’ve made a prima facie case, although I admit my evidence is far from conclusive.

> [@](#):
>
> 1. Please tell us how Newt was demonized over the House Post Office Scandal;

He was demonized _after_ that scandal. As has been pointed out, a weakness in my case is that I cannot demonstrate how much of a role, if any, revenge played in Newt’s demonization. However, I may give this a try if I get time for some research later.

> [@](#):
>
> 1. Please tell us who was demonized over exposing Koreagate (where most of the implicated Congressmen were Democrats).

I had totally forgotten about Koreagate. A quick glance through google points out that it implicated executives of the conservative Washington Times. Not a Democratic scandal.

> [@](#):
>
> 1. Ditto the Keating Five (four of whom were Democrats);

Not treated as a Democratic scandal. (Irrelevent oint: McCain claims that his level of guilt was far below the other 4 and that he was named solely for the purpose of making it bi-partisan.)

> [@](#):
>
> 1. Ditto Abscam;

Ditto to response above. I do seem to recall that Congress responded by passing a law making that sort of investigation illegal. So, they took care of themselves by something even better than revenge.

> [@](#):
>
> 1. By whatever definition of demonization you provide, please explain why you believe the Watergate investigators were not demonized (_hint_: read _All the President’s Men_ - Woodward and Bernstein were viciously attacked by Nixon loyalists. And, of course, unlike Starr, Cox was **fired** ).

Of course, Cox became a hero by being fired (and deservedly so.) I did read ATPM, but many years ago. Why were Watergate investigators not demonized the way Tailgate investigators were? I’d say it’s because most of the media is Democratic. In some other world where Republicans control the media, no doubt Democrats would more often be unfairly demonized.

> [@](#):
>
> IOW, what the hell is your beef?

My beef is that many people who serve the public by helping to root out corruption are being punished in retaliation. This sort of thing discourages public-spirited actions. (E.g., Juanita Broadderick says that she didn’t report the Clinton rape because she was afraid of retaliation.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\
**Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/183 "2001-10-30T20:24:32Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> Why were Watergate investigators not demonized the way Tailgate investigators were?

What’s Tailgate? …_Google search_… Something about [Ethernet](http://sunsite.bilkent.edu.tr/pub/sun-info/sun-faq/Docs/ethernet.bugs3), something about [Tailhook](http://members.tripod.com/~WASHRAG/wash2-3.txt)… Oh! I get it! [TAILgate!](http://www.political.com/buttons.html) Bwahahahahahahahaha! What will those witty conservative pundits think of next? Why, the play on words is almost Wildean! Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\
**Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/184 "2001-10-30T20:44:58Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> Why were Watergate investigators not demonized the way Tailgate investigators were?

Let’s ask Woodward & Bernstein what they [think](http://www.wwnorton.com/uwire/news09089815.htm).

> [@](#):
>
> “We are in uncharted territory, infinitely different than Watergate,” Bernstein said. “(The Clinton scandal) will be looked at, a generation from now, as a moment of real madness.”

and

> [@](#):
>
> “When we reported Watergate, you had newspapers, three networks and magazines and that was about it,” Bernstein said. "Today, there are just so many media outlets. We couldn’t do the story in today’s atmosphere. We were alone on (Watergate) for awhile and could wait days, sometimes weeks to check a story.  
> “If reporters today followed what we did in Watergate, there’d be a tremendous amount of better reporting.”

While W&B are certainly self-justifying, could there not be some grain of truth to what they are saying? As whistleblowers, they were held to different reporting standards than those of today. Furthermore, they seem to believe that there was some real _import_ to the scandal they uncovered.

From another [article](http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria13_1.html#media)

> [@](#):
>
> After Watergate, journalists, especially those covering national news, became more skeptical and wary of politicians manipulating them. The press actively tried to expose government abuses. One consequence of this has been more negative political reporting. While demanding an open and more honest government, reporters sought out the mistakes, inconsistencies, and ethical faults of political leaders.

The journalistic climate was incomparably different. This alone can account for the change that **december** is trying to explain by partisanship alone, devoid of poltical and social context.

From the same article:

> [@](#):
>
> But the aggressiveness of the press is not what concerns today’s media critics. They worry about the decline in thoughtful reporting on serious public issues. Frequently, they say, newspaper and TV news editors cut back on this type of news coverage because it is too boring or lacks the drama of conflict.

Watergate: thoughtful reporting.  
“Tailgage”: drama.

> [@](#):
>
> One study of press coverage between 1972 and 1992 revealed that news stories about domestic and foreign questions being considered by Congress dropped significantly. On the other hand, stories about political conflict and ethical misbehavior of elected leaders increased.

While the article conveniently does not cite the study nor provide hard data, I find this conclusion _intuitively_ true. It is, of course, open to be challenged.

> [@](#):
>
> Larry Sabato, professor of political science at the University of Virginia, has criticized the press for its current tendency to jump quickly into a scandal story. Sabato says that scandals frequently explode into media “feeding frenzies” where every tidbit of gossip is reported. This type of reporting, he says, gives a great deal of newspaper space and air time to matters that have little to do with the real problems of the country.

Is it so big of a stretch to conjecture that whistleblowers on such low-level scandals are despised due to the immense amount of useless press coverage that accrues to such scandals, like barnacles on a mouldy old ship?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\
**Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/185 "2001-10-30T21:02:27Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by december \*  
> Sua – you ask some good question and make some good arguments. I’ll try to respond the best I can.
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \*So I assume that you consider the offer to Strom Thurmond’s son of the position of U.S. Attorney for the District of South Carolina, for which he has no qualification, to be a corrupt act? Because I don’t.  
> > Guess I’m not a good Democrat.
> 
> Sua, you are implying that the younger Thurmond was as unqualified for his US Atty appointment as Monica was for her UN job offer. Can you prove this?

Well, actually I can’t, as I have no recollection of whatever job Monica was offered (the only one I remember is the Revlon job). I can tell you that Strom, Jr. is singularly unqualified to be the U.S. Attorney.  
His experience thus far -  
Approx. 1 year with the District Attorney’s office in Charleston (where he did mostly misdemeanor cases, with a few felony cases); and  
Two years as a partner with a Charleston firm (and yes, that was a blatant ploy for political favor - lawyers do not become partners with one year experience).  
If his law school grades were good, and if he got good recommendations from his previous employers, that resume would get him a job as an Assistant U.S. Attorney - certainly not a supervisory position, and definitely not the position of U.S. Attorney.

No prob with your response to points #1, 2 or 3.

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > 1. Please tell us who was demonized over exposing Koreagate (where most of the implicated Congressmen were Democrats).
> 
> I had totally forgotten about Koreagate. A quick glance through google points out that it implicated executives of the conservative Washington Times. Not a Democratic scandal.

I think you have to work on your Google skills. Koreagate occurred in the mid-70’s - the Washington Times didn’t start publishing [until 1982.](http://www.americasnewspaper.com/about.shtml) Yes, people who later became executives of the Washington Times were the people giving out the gifts, but the recipients were primarily Democrats.  
Oh, and I’m sure you’ll find this funny. Donald Fraser was the **Democratic** Representative who led the investigation into Koreagate and who issued the Fraser report on the scandal.  
Bo Hi Pak, who is now the president of the Washington Times’ parent corporation

> [@](#):
>
> made an appearance before the subcommittee. He made an emotional defense of the church and attacked the committee’s chairman Rep. Fraser. “I cannot help but believe,” the tearful-eyed Bo Hi Pak said, “that you are being used as an instrument of the **devil.** Yes, instrument of the **devil,** I said it. Who else would want to destroy a man of God.” In the end, Moon’s disciples, **with the help of sympathetic journalists,** extracted their revenge on Rep. Fraser. They charged that Rep. Fraser was an agent of the KGB. He was narrowly defeated in the 1978 Minnesota Senatorial election. The Moonies were elated. “Mr. Fraser’s defeat was due to more than political fortune. It was an act of God,” they crowed.

I got that from here. [http://www.usvetdsp.com/story17.htm](http://www.usvetdsp.com/story17.htm) Kinda interesting, don’t cha think? The Democratic investigator of a primarily Democratic scandal was, quite literally, “demonized” by a conservative operative. Shocking, I say.

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > 1. Ditto the Keating Five (four of whom were Democrats);
> 
> Not treated as a Democratic scandal.

(For points #5 & 6) Not “treated” as a Democratic scandal?!! WTF does that mean?

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > 1. By whatever definition of demonization you provide, please explain why you believe the Watergate investigators were not demonized (_hint_: read _All the President’s Men_ - Woodward and Bernstein were viciously attacked by Nixon loyalists. And, of course, unlike Starr, Cox was **fired** ).
> 
> Of course, Cox became a hero by being fired (and deservedly so.) I did read ATPM, but many years ago. Why were Watergate investigators not demonized the way Tailgate investigators were? I’d say it’s because most of the media is Democratic. In some other world where Republicans control the media, no doubt Democrats would more often be unfairly demonized.

Ahh. But you see, there is a difference between Watergate and Zippergate. In Watergate, the investigators were proven right - Nixon resigned in the face of an almost certain impeachment and conviction. In Zippergate, the investigators were proven wrong - Clinton was acquitted by the Senate. Besides which, going by the definition you presented, Woodward, Bernstein, Cox, etc. **were** demonized. It wasn’t until after they were proven right that they were considered heroes.

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > IOW, what the hell is your beef?
> 
> My beef is that many people who serve the public by helping to root out corruption are being punished in retaliation. This sort of thing discourages public-spirited actions. (E.g., Juanita Broadderick says that she didn’t report the Clinton rape because she was afraid of retaliation.)

But, you see, they didn’t “root out corruption.” The relevant legal authority (i.e. the US Senate) _acquitted_ Clinton of “corruption.”  
The O.J. prosecutors are the butts of jokes now, because they failed to do what they set out to do. They wasted all of our time. Are they being “demonized” or fairly mocked as incompetents?  
Similarly, the people you list put this country through a great deal of angst, with the end result being **that nothing happened**. They lost their case. Either (a) there was no corruption, or (b) they were incompetent. Either way, they were **failures**. This country has never been kind to failures.

Sua

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\
**Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/186 "2001-10-30T22:29:00Z")

</div>

“Juanita Broderick didn’t report the Clinton rape…”  
Excuse me? Rape? Which you lay out so offhandedly, like this is common knowledge? Clear this up for me, will you, **december**. Is it your contention that Bill Clinton actually **raped** this Juanita Broaderick!

When you use a word like that, pal, you better be ready to back it up, bigtime! Further, I insist you do so at _once_ or eat these words like the scurrillous turds they are!

Bill Clinton is a politician, hence a crook, a liar and a poltroon. It goes with the territory. But **rapist**!

If you can’t prove this, you’re so full of crap your eyes are brown!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\
**Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/187 "2001-10-30T22:42:35Z")

</div>

-slight hijack- **John** , I did as you suggested and checked _Man of the House_ out of the library-so far it looks VERY good. 😉

BTW, the Congressman Newt was attacking was none other than Edward Boland-of the Boland Ammendment-which Iran Contra broke?

Don’t know if THAT pertains to anything in this thread, however, I just found it interesting…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/188 "2001-10-31T01:28:27Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by elucidator \*  
> Excuse me? Rape? Which you lay out so offhandedly, like this is common knowledge? Clear this up for me, will you, **december**. Is it your contention that Bill Clinton actually **raped** this Juanita Broaderick!

Not his contention - hers. Are you unfamiliar with this story, or do you just not believe it? In any event, read [The ugliest story yet](http://www.salon.com/news/1999/02/cov_20news.html).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/189 "2001-10-31T01:58:09Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by elucidator \*  
> \*\*“Juanita Broderick didn’t report the Clinton rape…”
> 
> Excuse me? Rape? Which you lay out so offhandedly, like this is common knowledge? Clear this up for me, will you, **december**. Is it your contention that Bill Clinton actually **raped** this Juanita Broaderick! \*\*

I wrote, “Juanita Broaddrick says that she didn’t report the Clinton rape because she was afraid of retaliation.” Maybe this is slightly ambiguous. On re-reading, I ought to have used the phrase “a rape” rather than “the rape.”

JB said Clinton raped her and JB said she didn’t report the rape because she feared retaliation by the Governor of Arkansas against her business. The story was reported in all the major media. JB was interviewed by Lisa Meyers on NBC TV.

I can’t prove whether JB was telling the truth. There’s no other witness. She appears to have had no reason to lie. She came across as honest. OTOH she had signed some document (I think it was an affadavit) denying the rape many years ago.

However, recall that Anne Marie Smith, the flight attendant who had an affair with GAry Condit, was asked by his lawyer to sign an affadavit denying the affair. In this case, she refused to sign the false affadavit. I find it plausible that JB might have agreed to sign a false affadavit, since her business could be harmed by the Governor’s bad will.

You can find lots of references to Broaddrick via a search engine. Again, the rape is her story; it hasn’t been independl;y verified.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/190 "2001-10-31T02:11:14Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by december \*  
> …OTOH she had signed some document (I think it was an affadavit) denying the rape many years ago.
> 
> However, recall that Anne Marie Smith, the flight attendant who had an affair with GAry Condit, was asked by his lawyer to sign an affadavit denying the affair. In this case, she refused to sign the false affadavit. I find it plausible that JB might have agreed to sign a false affadavit, since her business could be harmed by the Governor’s bad will.  
> …Again, the rape is her story; it hasn’t been independl;y verified… \*\*

Well, I was inclined to doubt this story myself. That was before you put this evidence before me. I humbly admit that I hadn’t even considered how a flight attendants affair with Gary Condit could be relevent to the issue.

Truth be known, I’m too stupid to see it now.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/191 "2001-10-31T02:15:17Z")

</div>

December: your claim, from the beginning, has been something along the lines of: “anyone who investigates corruption among democrats will be demonized”.

(a) I’m sure that it is true that there are some people who are so rabidly pro-democrat that they will treat as an enemy anyone who besmirches any democrat in any way

(a1) The same is surely true of republicans

(a2) But the vast majority of people in the country, in either party, and on this board, are not in that group

(b) There are probably also some people who view it as their job to support the political fortunes of their party, and would thus use a variety of means to discredit those who they view as political opponents. Thus, some amount of mud is likely to be slung at anyone who brings or pursues charges of corruption against any politician of either party.

© Up to this point, I kinda doubt anyone will disagree. (Anyone? Anyone? Beuler?) But you seem to take things one step further (although I don’t want to put words into your mouth) and state that anyone who attacks or investigates any democrat is automatically demonized with such effective and amazing ferocity that they become a subject of very widespread public ridicule and scorn, a la Linda Tripp and Rush Limbaugh. Is this in fact your contention?

(d) If so, all that one would have to do to disprove your point would be to come up with any single example at all of a scandal in which it is revealed that democrats were at fault, in which even one of the parties involved in investigating that scandal was _not_ demonized. Correct?

(e) Many such scandals have already been pointed out (how it is that you dismiss the Keating 5 as not being a Democratic scandal is somewhat of a mystery to me). In addition, there were numerous (somewhat minor) scandals early in the Clinton years, such as something involving the white house travel office, and a multi-hour haircut at LAX, in which (as far as I know) no one who investigated them was demonized. Would you care to provide counterevidence? If not, I believe that your original argument is baseless.

(f) Could you argue something along the lines of “some people who have investigated/attacked democrats have been smeared/villified/attacked”? Easily. How about “some people who have investigated/attacked democrats have been _unfairly_ smeared/villified/attacked?” Well, you could certainly argue that if you wished, and if wish to do so, please go ahead and make that argument. Could you argue “people who have investigated/attacked democrats have been unfairly smeared/villified/attacked moreso that those who have investigated/attacked reuplicans”? Well, that would be a long and bloody Great Debate that would probably end up going nowhere. But you go far beyond any of those claims, and thus, I believe that unless you clarify the heck out of your position, and backpedal from many of your implications, then your original claim is just plain false.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/192 "2001-10-31T02:39:37Z")

</div>

Here’s a CNN story that supports the theory that Democratic attacks on Newt Gingrich were revenge for his exposure of Democratic corruption. Given CNN’s liberal tilt, their support for the revenge theory carries more weight.  
[http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/infocus/gingrich/](http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/infocus/gingrich/)

> [@](#):
>
> … Gingrich steadfastly maintained that the numerous ethics complaints – more than 70 – launched against him by Democrats amounted to a cynical desire for revenge. It was revenge, the speaker said, for his successful crusade against former House Speaker Jim Wright, whose ethics transgressions eventually led to his resignation in 1989.
> 
> In fact, there’s probably some truth to Gingrich’s revenge theory. Though Gingrich has faced a steady torrent of complaints since assuming the speakership in 1994, all but two have been dismissed by the House ethics committee.

I don’t have cites handy, but I can vividly recall the NY Times editorials during these hearings. They had over half a dozen editorials blasting NG. I’ve never seen them repeat an attack, day after day, the way they did then.

There’s strong evidence that the Maryland prosecution of Linda Tripp for taping her own phone was motivated by revenge. According to liberal Salon magazine:

> [@](#):
>
> Maryland’s wiretap statute, which forbids one person to tape another without notification, is routinely violated and rarely prosecuted, experts agree. That has prompted Tripp’s defenders to charge that the prosecutors are politically motivated. Halpert maintained that “we don’t have statistics on a state-wide level” to demonstrate how many wiretapping cases have been opened in recent years.
> 
> But another Maryland official, Deputy State’s Attorney Dario  
> Broccolino, conceded wiretap prosecutions were “very rare.”

Not surprisingly, the conservative National Review agrees.

> [@](#):
>
> The indictment of Linda Tripp was, from the start, a transparently political act of revenge by Maryland Democrats sympathetic to their soon-to-be disbarred leader, Bill Clinton. There was never any doubt that this prosecutorial abuse would fail.

See: [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment052400c.html](http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment052400c.html)

It’s not surprising that Clinton operatives set out to demonize Paula Jones. What is noteworthy is that Newsweek Magazine followed their lead.

> [@](#):
>
> Instead, Newsweek repeated its attack on Jones in the July 11 issue: “Former Clinton aides from Arkansas are depicting Paula Jones as a groupie, who, far from acting like a victim of harassment, hung around Clinton’s office `giggling and carrying on’ after her alleged hotel encounter.”

[http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/mediawatch/1994/mw19940701nbites.html](http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/mediawatch/1994/mw19940701nbites.html)

In summary, I have now supplied direct evidence my thesis: Democrats actively set out to demonize people who helped expose their scandals and some major media contributed to these attacks.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/193 "2001-10-31T02:47:15Z")

</div>

Today’s homework assignment, **december** : learn the difference between “demonization” and “revenge.” Refer back to the posts in which I twice mention how Gingrich’s tactics toward Wright set off a decade of congressional scandal politics.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/194 "2001-10-31T02:55:40Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by december \*  
> In summary, I have now supplied direct evidence my thesis: Democrats actively set out to demonize people who helped expose their scandals and some major media contributed to these attacks. \*\*

Oh, so _that_ was your thesis? That a political party might sometimes attack people who have attacked it? That a political party might sometimes act out of revenge? The shock! The horror!

Oh, no, wait, I thought _this_ was your thesis (cleverly phrased in the form of a question):

> [@](#):
>
> The question I want to discuss here is whether liberals feel that “investigating while conservative” is a no-no.
> 
> ```
> In particular, do you liberals approve of anyone who has helped expose Democratic corruption?
> 
> ```

You strongly implied, what with your little list of people all of whom had been demonized, that democrats would savagely attack anyone who ever investigated or attacked any democrat. You further strongly implied, what with referring to “Democrats” as opposed to “politicians”, that that was a trait that was unique to (or at least exaggerated in) the Democratic party. To the best of my recollection, you have not provided any evidence for either of those claims.

(If your original post was, in fact, an inncoent question, well, I’m more liberal than I am conservative, so to answer your question, I don’t feel that “investigating while conservative” is a no-no. And my approval, or lack thereof, of someone helping to expose corruption is based not on the political party of the person being investigated, or of the person doing the investigation, but of the level of corruption exposed, the tactics used, the amount of public money spent, the spindoctoring that goes on, etc.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/195 "2001-10-31T03:46:59Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by december \*  
> . . . the theory that Democratic attacks on Newt Gingrich were revenge for his exposure of Democratic corruption.

So here’s the big question: Do **you** support the people who exposed Gingrich’s ethical violations? (And he WAS punished by the House Ethics Committee, quite strongly, as I remember.)

> [@](#):
>
> There’s strong evidence that the Maryland prosecution of Linda Tripp for taping her own phone was motivated by revenge. According to liberal Salon magazine:
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Maryland’s wiretap statute, which forbids one person to tape another without notification, is routinely violated and rarely prosecuted, experts agree. That has prompted Tripp’s defenders to charge that the prosecutors are politically motivated. Halpert maintained that “we don’t have statistics on a state-wide level” to demonstrate how many wiretapping cases have been opened in recent years.
> > 
> > But another Maryland official, Deputy State’s Attorney Dario  
> > Broccolino, conceded wiretap prosecutions were “very rare.”

How on earth does “very rare” demonstrate that Linda Tripp’s Maryland wiretapping prosecution was “motivated by revenge”? Can you identify an instance of wiretapping in Maryland that was anywhere near as high-profile as Ms. Tripp’s, or demonstrate that the likelihood of criminal prosecution is somehow independent of the prominence of the crime?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/196 "2001-10-31T04:56:39Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Gadarene \*  
> Today’s homework assignment, **december** : learn the difference between “demonization” and “revenge.”

I think the following actions, which I just mentioned, were attempts at demonization:

[list][li] Democrats filing dozens of spurious ethics claims against Newtie.[/li][li]Maryland Democrats filing criminal charge against Linda Tripp, knowing that conviction was impossible.[/li][li]Newsweek Magazine falsely describing Paula Jones as, “a groupie, who, far from acting like a victim of harassment, hung around Clinton’s office `giggling and carrying on’ after her alleged hotel encounter.”[/li][li]The NY Times running over half a dozen editorials powerfully blasting Newtie.[/li]

> [@](#):
>
> Refer back to the posts in which I twice mention how Gingrich’s tactics toward Wright set off a decade of congressional scandal politics.

I fully accept your description of Gingrich’s tactics. What’s your point? It sounds as if you’re agreeing that the Democrats were demonizing him, but saying it served him right. You may have a point.

However, Linda Tripp and Paula Jones were middle class women who were not involved in the rough and tumble of politics. Their “offense” was telling the truth. Did they also deserve to be demonized?

**MaxTheVool** , I appreciate that you could approve of someone who helped expose Democratic corruption _in principle._ I’m curious to know if you do actually approve of any such people, _in practice._ E.g. Tripp, Jones, Gingrich, Starr, Goldberg. (If you don’t approve of any of them, then I will postulate that the demonization had its intended effect.)

**Minty** , as I said in an earlier post, I have the utmost respect for the people who exposed Nixon and Agnew, such as Sirica, Skolnik, Woodward, Bernstein, Cox, etc.

Somewhere in another post I explained why I disagreed with Newt’s ethics finding. Investigatons of Newt’s organization by the House and by the IRS found no viloations of the tax law. (Although media coverage gave the opposite impression.) His ethics conviction was for _failure to seek legal advice._ This sounds pretty minor to me, especially since he had acted legally. His punishment was unjust, in my opinion. (OTOH a lawyer might think that failure to seek legal advice is a capital crime. ;))

**Minty** , you didn’t name the people who attacked Newt. I couldn’t name them, either. We can’t name them, because they weren’t demonized. I contend that if a group of Republicans filed dozens of spurious charges against a Democrat, they’d be blasted in the media (and they’d deserve it.)

**MaxTheVool** wrote:

> [@](#):
>
> f) Could you argue something along the lines of “some people who have investigated/attacked democrats have been smeared/vilified/attacked”? Easily. How about “some people who have investigated/attacked democrats have been unfairly smeared/vilified/attacked?” Well, you could certainly argue that if you wished, and if wish to do so, please go ahead and make that argument. Could you argue “people who have investigated/attacked democrats have been unfairly smeared/vilified/attacked moreso that those who have investigated/attacked repulicans”?

I believe I have now made all these arguments.

**Minty** , you questioned whether Linda Tripp’s prosecution really was based on a desire for revenge. The revenge motive was blatant:

> [@](#):
>
> On January 23, 1998, the Columbia, Maryland Democratic Club sent a letter to Howard County State’s Attorney Marna McLendon requesting that she immediately convene a grand jury and conduct an investigation. Ms. McLendon, a onetime Democrat who switched political parties to be elected as a Republican, did not immediately respond to this partisan demand; in fact, her office had previously indicated that no action would be taken until “some further information became available.”
> 
> But Ms. McLendon could not escape the clamor of a what was quickly becoming a partisan lynch mob.
> 
> On January 30, 1998, 49 members of Maryland’s House of Delegates – all of them Democrats – signed a letter to Ms. McLendon demanding that she commence an investigation of Linda Tripp. With stunning audacity, the Democrats declared, in support of their blatantly partisan demand, that “there is no place for partisan politics within our criminal justice system.”

[http://www.lindatripp.com/statevstripp.htm](http://www.lindatripp.com/statevstripp.htm)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/197 "2001-10-31T09:22:09Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by december \*  
> **MaxTheVool** wrote:
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > f) Could you argue something along the lines of “some people who have investigated/attacked democrats have been smeared/vilified/attacked”? Easily. How about “some people who have investigated/attacked democrats have been unfairly smeared/vilified/attacked?” Well, you could certainly argue that if you wished, and if wish to do so, please go ahead and make that argument. Could you argue “people who have investigated/attacked democrats have been unfairly smeared/vilified/attacked moreso that those who have investigated/attacked repulicans”?
> 
> I believe I have now made all these arguments.

But just to be precisely clear, you are not claiming that **everyone** who investigates/attacks democrats are villified? Because if not, well, then I’m not going to say that I agree with you, but your statement really becomes one of opinion that is hard (and meaningless) to argue with. You say that republicans are unfairly demonized? Well, that’s going to be a position that is close to impossible to argue against, both because the word “unfair” is so hard to define, and because it’s almost certainly the case that there have been some examples of quite inappropriate behavior among democrats that you could point to. To put it another way, if one were to discuss the Ratio Of Republicans Who Investigate Democrats And Are Unfairly Demonized (RORWIDAAUD), and you were to claim that it was 0.7 and I were to claim that it was 0.3, well, we could talk at each other until we were blue in the face without accomplishing much… if someone were to claim that it was 1.0 (as you sure seemed to be doing initially, I must say), then it would be worth discussing. As it is, I don’t feel it worth saying much more.

(Drawing comparisons to a similar situation, it is my **opinion** that there is far more vitriolic hatred directed towards the Clintons than (a) is deserved, (b) is healthy/productive and © has ever been directed at any other similar figure in the past. You might claim otherwise. But measuring something as amorphous as “amount of hatred” is not going to be an easy great debate to undergo… thus, I will not start a thread on that topic… but if you argue that there is no such hatred at all, I will challenge you on that.)

> [@](#):
>
> **MaxTheVool** , I appreciate that you could approve of someone who helped expose Democratic corruption _in principle._ I’m curious to know if you do actually approve of any such people, _in practice._ E.g. Tripp, Jones, Gingrich, Starr, Goldberg. (If you don’t approve of any of them, then I will postulate that the demonization had its intended effect.)

I approve of whoever investigated the travel office scandal. As far as I know. I have no idea who it was who did so, which is strong evidence that they were not particularly well demonized.

It is inarguably true that there is a group of people who have been opponents of Clinton who many liberals passionately hate, and who many other people disdain. All of those that you list are certainly on that list. It is possible that they were all the targets of incredibly effective liberal smear campaigns. It’s also possible that they are all scumbags. Most likely every one of them is somewhere between those two extremes, and we would probably disagree as to where on that scale they fall. If you want to debate each such case one by one, feel free to do so (with someone other than me), but as long as you’re not claiming that the RORWIDAAUD is 1.0, winning any one of those arguments (which I personally doubt you will do) (unless you wuss out and argue for the existence of some trace amount of demonization, as opposed to arguing for total demonization) will prove nothing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/198 "2001-10-31T12:34:19Z")

</div>

The Washington D. C. branch of the National Organization for Women, said that their own national organization was demonizing this Clinton critic.

> [@](#):
>
> Once again, NOW wasted no time in joining the chorus of feminists ever-ready to profess disgust and repulsion for the act and simultaneous support for the actor in the manner that had become the trademark of White House apologists. Carried away by devoted fervor, they even attacked Mrs. Broaddrick’s credibility and blamed her for her plight, in imitation of what criminal lawyers do to defend an accused client.

[http://www.dullesnow.org/juanita.html](http://www.dullesnow.org/juanita.html)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/199 "2001-10-31T12:53:45Z")

</div>

**Me:** Prove Linda Tripp’s prosecution was motivated by revenge.

**december:** [lindatripp.com](http://lindatripp.com) says so.

**Me:** :rolleyes:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/200 "2001-10-31T14:06:51Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by minty green \*  
> \*\ ***Me:** Prove Linda Tripp’s prosecution was motivated by revenge.
> 
> **december:** [lindatripp.com](http://lindatripp.com) says so.
> 
> **Me:** :rolleyes: \*\*

The cite showed that two groups of Maryland Democrats sent letters to the State’s Attorney pressuring her to prosecute LT. These letters exist, regardless of the source of the information about them. (Otherwise, LT’s lawyer would have committed a serious ethical infraction, and they’d be in big trouble.)

These letters were obviuosly motivated by revenge. What other reason could there be for sending them? Were Maryland Democrats upset about a rampant, out-of-control crime wave consisting of individuals recording some of their own telephone calls?

I don’t think so.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123.md?page=9)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123.md?page=11)