# Is it bad to expose Democratic corruption? **URL:** \ **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:** 12
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2001, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/221 "2001-11-05T19:57:55Z")
shot gun approach: If **december** posts a bunch of stuff maybe we won’t notice him not admitting he was wrong. He asked **Sua** for cites on all of the Republican demonization, and received same. Does he admit he was wrong? no, he mentions in passing that (re the Vince Foster nonsense) > [@](#): > > Monica referred to the same “frightening series of deaths” and implied that Linda might be murdered if she told the truth. > > It would seem that lots of people took this legend seriously. and still seems to believe that the Dems ‘do a better job at demonizing’. Here was a case of where the administration of a sitting President was alledged to have **killed** people, **december** mentions that _even_ some one sucking up to (heh heh heh) the Clintons voiced concern about it, and some how or other, Newt getting yanked for public slanderizing is worse? I’ll have to start looking into the alternate universe proposed by **december** , some interesting footwork seems to go on there. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2001, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/222 "2001-11-05T21:20:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \*Quick question, **december** : Are there any circumstances under which you believe it’s appropriate to criticize someone who purports to uncover corruption? That is, when is it not “demonization,” in your world? \*\* First of all, it would be demonization to smear him personnally, attacking him for things that are separate from the information he divulged. E.g., calling him a “whack job,” criticizing the theme of a novel he once wrote, or calling her “trailor park trash.” _False_, personal accusations against a whistleblower would be particularly egregious demonization. Many of the stories recounted by **Ned** about DS didn’t have the ring of truth. ( **Ned** , if you have cites confirming these allegations, please let’s hear from you.) OTOH it would be appropriate to criticize a purported whistle-blower if he were lying. E.g., if Newt had made up his White House drug story, he would have deserved severe criticism. Initially, it could have been plausibly suspected that Newt might have manufactured the story, so early criticism of Newt was arguably justifiable. Of course, we now know who Newt’s source was and that Newt did accurately quote him, so it no longer would make sense to accuse him of having lied. A second valid reason to criticize would be if a whistleblower were telling the truth as far as he know it, but he was inaccurate or wrong. In Newt’s case, one might suspect that DS’s 25% figure was inaccurate. However, the White House went much farther than that. They lied in response, claiming that there was no drug problem at all. I don’t think it’s proper to lie in response to a whistle-blower’s expose. (I bet lots of people do so, not just too Bill Clinon. I could tell some sad stories about when my older daughter was growing up…) One can validly criticize a whistleblower for breaking the law or for harming the country (if he did so.) E.g, Daniel Ellisburg did the former and arguably did the latter when he released the Pentagon Papers. (He was never prosecuted the way Linda Tripp was, because Reps are nicer than Dems :)) I consider Ellisburg a hero. One can also criticize a whistleblower for violating a confidence. E.g., David Brock recently presented some negative information about a Bush appointee (I forget his name), which had been given to Brock in confidence as a journalist. Interestingly enough, the appointee was confirmed by the Senate, nevertheless. The Senate appeared to give little weight to Brock’s disclosures. In summary, I’m very much in favor of whistle-blowers, whether they divulge Dem or Rep scandals. We should nurture them. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2001, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/223 "2001-11-05T21:34:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > In Newt’s case, one might suspect that DS’s 25% figure was inaccurate. However, the White House went much farther than that. They lied in response, claiming that there was no drug problem at all. I don’t think it’s proper to lie in response to a whistle-blower’s expose. (I bet lots of people do so, not just too Bill Clinon. I could tell some sad stories about when my older daughter was growing up…) **december** , I really wish you would stop demonizing the Clinton White House, and Panetta in particular. You quoted Panetta in your OP in the other thread as saying, > [@](#): > > ``We cannot do business here with a speaker of the House who is going to engage in these kinds of unfounded allegations,’’ fumed Leon Panetta, the White House chief of staff. As has been amply demonstrated in the other thread, Newt’s allegations _were_ unfounded. So where’s the lie? (I guess you could argue that Panetta did lie because the Clinton White House did continue to do business with Newt, but I suspect that was not your point.) Sua ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2001, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/224 "2001-11-05T22:44:30Z")
I think whackjob is a pretty apt description for anyone who chooses to be represented by Judicial Watch. There is certainly no question that he has an axe to grind against the administration. For the most charitable description of his attitudes read his own deposition to the house oversight committee. [http://www.house.gov/reform/oversight/finance/depolist/sculim.htm](http://www.house.gov/reform/oversight/finance/depolist/sculim.htm) You will also find reference to his head injury in the deposition which he conceeds caused him problems with balance, coordination and memory. Problems with him started before that of course, he was an early player in filegate and travelgate. Can’t find any existing links with reference to his novel though I recall the article I read it in was not antagonistic towards him. In any case the point remains that Newt had access to better information when he chose to make the most inflamatory charges. He had no evidence that there was a problem and, contrary to your continual assertions, no evidence that any white house staffer ever failed a drug test. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2001, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/225 "2001-11-05T23:46:49Z")
See my post in the other thread for more detail on what the ‘senior FBI guy’ thought constituted a ‘serious drug problem’ (admitted use of up to 100 times during one’s life). And of course, there’s the concept that ‘amphetamine derived designer drugs’ include hashish and mushrooms. :eek: I get extra brownie points for doing major research on a slow ass 486 computer, too. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2001, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/226 "2001-11-05T23:48:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \*As has been amply demonstrated in the other thread, Newt’s allegations _were_ unfounded. So where’s the lie? (I guess you could argue that Panetta did lie because the Clinton White House did continue to do business with Newt, but I suspect that was not your point.) \*\* **Sua** , you and I disagree about whether Newt’s allegations were “unfounded.” In a sense we’re both right. [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com) says: un·found·ed \*adj. \* 1. Not based on fact or sound evidence; groundless. See Synonyms at baseless. 2. Not yet established. Newt’s statement wasn’t groundless. It had a foundation, namely the specific information provided by Sculimbrene, based on his experience working in the White House. OTOH one could argue that Newt’s statement wasn’t based on _sound_ evidence. This would be judgment. Since Newt indicated that his source was a single law enforcement officer, he had been accurate. A listener could decide for himself whether this was sufficient grounds for belief (Many didn’t believe it.) OTOH if Newt had represented his statement as proved beyond a doubt, that would have been unfounded statement on his part. I stand by my statement, “However, the White House… lied in response, claiming that there was no drug problem at all.” An example of an honest response would be something like, “Yes, we have changed White House drug policy to allow 40 people to serve on Staff despite a recent history of serious drug usage, but we did the right thing, because…” Here are some relevant quotes from the cite in the OP. [http://www.bigeye.com/jj072396.htm](http://www.bigeye.com/jj072396.htm) > [@](#): > > THOSE WHITE HOUSE DRUG USERS: GINGRICH WAS RIGHT > By Jeff Jacoby > The Boston Globe > …`We cannot do business here with a speaker of the House who is going to engage in these kinds of unfounded allegations,'' fumed Leon Panetta, the White House chief of staff. He lashed Gingrich for `behaving like an out-of-control radio talk-show host,’’ for making an `absolutely false'' accusation, for trafficking in `smear and innuendo.’’ > Clinton adviser George Stephanopoulos labeled Gingrich `irresponsible.'' Hillary Clinton: `So unfair.’’ Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers: ``Reckless charges.’’ … > Now, 19 months later, it turns out that Gingrich was basically telling the truth and Panetta was lying through his teeth. … > … isn’t it at least as serious that Panetta lied energetically about the ex-druggies in the West Wing? for those who like to parse, here are two specific quotes: [list][li]`We cannot do business here with a speaker of the House who is going to engage in these kinds of unfounded allegations,'' fumed Leon Panetta -- Of course, Panetta knew that there was some degree of foundation, because he knew about all the appointees who were having trouble passing their drug tests.[/li][li]`‘absolutely false’ accusation," – Panetta knew that the charge was not absolutely false, even if he thought it was exaggerated.[/li][li]trafficking in ``smear and innuendo.’’ – Newt’s statement wasn’t “innuendo.” (“An indirect or subtle, usually derogatory implication in expression; an insinuation”): it was a specific charge.[/li]{However, I’d characterize this last point as “spin”, rather than a lie.} ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2001, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/227 "2001-11-05T23:55:00Z")
> [@](#): > > that there was some degree of foundation, because he knew about all the appointees who were having trouble passing their drug tests. You continually lie about this. Please provide a link to any evidence that anyone had trouble passing their drug tests. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2001, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/228 "2001-11-05T23:56:04Z")
By the way, **december** –I don’t think “whistleblower” means what you think it means. Hint: most of the people named in your OP aren’t whistleblowers. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2001, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/229 "2001-11-06T00:21:37Z")
Hopeless, absolutely hopeless. **december** , you acknowledge that a reasonable person (in this case, myself), may consider Newt’s allegations “unfounded”, as they may not have been (or, in point of fact, weren’t) based on sound evidence. So, if I say, as I did in my last post, that Newt’s allegations were unfounded, I’m not lying. However, according to you, if Panetta said _the exact same thing_, he was lying. The only explanation I can figure for this dichotomy is that you are attempting to demonize Panetta when he blew the whistle on Newt’s unfounded allegations. God almighty, will we ever have an end to these Republican attempts to demonize those who expose Republican emotion!? Sua ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2001, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/230 "2001-11-06T01:26:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > \*\*By the way, **december** –I don’t think “whistleblower” means what you think it means. Hint: most of the people named in your OP aren’t whistleblowers. \*\* I certainly agree with your second sentence, **Gaderene.** Among those I would define as “whistle-blowers” would be Daniel Ellisburg, John Dean, “Deep Throat”, Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, Gary Aldrich, and Dennis Sculimbrene. As has been pointed out, demonization is often tried by Reps against Dems as well as by Dems against Reps. I think the Dems are more skilled and have better support from main stream media, but this is a judgment call. However, what Dems clearly do much more than Reps is to demonize non-politicians – ordinary people who have blown the whistle on their Party or its leadership. This is ugly stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2001, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/231 "2001-11-06T01:33:07Z")
> [@](#): > > However, what Dems clearly do much more than Reps is to demonize non-politicians – ordinary people who have blown the whistle on their Party or its leadership. Clearly? Much more? _sigh_ Cite, please? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2001, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/232 "2001-11-06T01:35:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\*Hopeless, absolutely hopeless. > > **december** , you acknowledge that a reasonable person (in this case, myself), may consider Newt’s allegations “unfounded”, as they may not have been (or, in point of fact, weren’t) based on sound evidence. > So, if I say, as I did in my last post, that Newt’s allegations were unfounded, I’m not lying. > However, according to you, if Panetta said _the exact same thing_, he was lying. > The only explanation I can figure for this dichotomy is that you are attempting to demonize Panetta when he blew the whistle on Newt’s unfounded allegations. > God almighty, will we ever have an end to these Republican attempts to demonize those who expose Republican emotion!? > > Sua \*\* I shouldn’t split hairs with a skilled lawyer. I’m certain to lose, and wind up with no hair at all. (not that I’m far from that now.) I’ll make one more try, and give **Sua** yet another chance to demolish me. [list][li]Panetta’s statement about “unfounded” was at most a half truth, since he knew he was withholding significant facts from the public. And, these were facts that couldn’t be gleaned by anyone outside the White House, not even by Gingrich. Only someone who worked in the White House could know about the parts Panetta had left out.[/li] Panetta’s phrase, “absolutely false” was pretty clearly untrue, given what we now know was going on. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2001, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/233 "2001-11-06T02:32:06Z")
Ned, you’re making it worse > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ned \*I think whackjob is a pretty apt description for anyone who chooses to be represented by Judicial Watch. What does this mean, **Ned?**? Are you down on this organization because they support whistle-blowers? When someone wants representation, they need a lawyer. I expect that **Sua** and **Minty** , honorable lawyers that they are, would see nothing unreasonable about choosing JW, even if they don’t like that organization. JW had one immediate advantage – they were willing to take DS’s case! > [@](#): > > There is certainly no question that he has an axe to grind against the administration. “If someone criticizes Democrats, then he must have an axe to grind, so I won’t believe him.” Using that formula, you’re never wrong! > [@](#): > > For the most charitable description of his attitudes read his own deposition to the house oversight committee. [http://www.house.gov/reform/oversight/finance/depolist/sculim.htm](http://www.house.gov/reform/oversight/finance/depolist/sculim.htm) **Ned** , I’m impressed that you found this link. Still, was my guess not correct – that you were turned on to negative information about DS through some left wing organization or media? > [@](#): > > You will also find reference to his head injury in the deposition which he concedes caused him problems with balance, coordination and memory. This is a lot different from claiming that he was “around the bend”, which means “insane.” > [@](#): > > \*\* Problems with him started before that of course, he was an early player in filegate and travelgate. What a delicious sentence, **Ned**. Are you criticizing DS because he helped to clear up these two scandals and to expose wrongdoing? Wow! :o\*\* > [@](#): > > Can’t find any existing links with reference to his novel though I recall the article I read it in was not antagonistic towards him. **Ned,** I presume you are withdrawing your claim that the theme of the novel somehow proves that DS shouldn’t be believed. > [@](#): > > In any case the point remains that Newt had access to better information when he chose to make the most inflammatory charges. This sounds very significant, **Ned**. Are you saying that Newt had info beyond what DS had told him? What info? How do you know this? > [@](#): > > He had no evidence that there was a problem He had exactly the evidence he claimed he had – the word of DS, a senior White House law enforcement officer. P.S. The OP included a link about the drug tests. This topic was also covered in Gary Aldrich’s book. ---
**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:** [November 6, 2001, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/234 "2001-11-06T02:49:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > I expect that **Sua** and **Minty** , honorable lawyers that they are, would see nothing unreasonable about choosing JW, even if they don’t like that organization. Actually, I would advise against accepting personal representation from any group with such an overt political agenda, as the client’s personal interests are much more likely to take a back seat to the political agenda. Just ask Paula Jones how happy she was being represented by lawyers whose representation was driven by their politics. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2001, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/235 "2001-11-06T02:59:24Z")
**december** , I’d still like a cite for the following astonishing claim: > [@](#): > > However, what Dems clearly do much more than Reps is to demonize non-politicians – ordinary people who have blown the whistle on their Party or its leadership. Whenever you can get to it. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2001, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/236 "2001-11-06T03:21:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > \*\ ***december** , I’d still like a cite for the following astonishing claim: > > > [@](#): > > > > However, what Dems clearly do much more than Reps is to demonize non-politicians – ordinary people who have blown the whistle on their Party or its leadership. > > Whenever you can get to it. Thanks. \*\* Paula Jones was demonized, e.g., by the President’s spokesman calling her “Trailor Park Trash” and implying that she was a liar. Nobody could doubt that Linda Tripp was demonized. E.g., dozens of Maryland Democrats signed a letter urging a prosecution that everyone know would fail becasue of her immunity deal. On this thread, **Ned** showed how Dennis Sculimbrene was demonized. I mentioned how Clinton defenders represented Gary Aldrich as being unreliable, because his book passed on a supposedly preposterous rumor about Clinton and extra-marital sex. So, I’ve given 4 examples in one direction. A fifth example, who I hadn’t previously thought of, was Katherine Willey: > [@](#): > > Think about Paula Jones," Kingston said of the former state of Arkansas employee who won a sexual harassment settlement from Clinton. "Everyone said she was ugly and she had a bad nose. That was their depiction in the press. > > “Then, there was Katherine Willey,” he said of the former White House volunteer who alleged Clinton sexually harassed her. “They portrayed her as kind of a slob, kind of disheveled looking.” [http://www.coxnews.com/washingtonbureau/staff/eversley/12-01-00ELECTSAVANNAH1201COX1STLEDE.html](http://www.coxnews.com/washingtonbureau/staff/eversley/12-01-00ELECTSAVANNAH1201COX1STLEDE.html) However, I cannot think of any examples the other way where pubbies demonized witnesses who had blown the whistle on them. Maybe there are some who I’m overlooking or don’t know about. I encourage other posters to bring up examples of smear campaigns against whistle-blowers of any stripe. ---
**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:** [November 6, 2001, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/237 "2001-11-06T03:27:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > “Then, there was Katherine Willey,” he said of the former White House volunteer who alleged Clinton sexually harassed her. “They portrayed her as kind of a slob, kind of disheveled looking.” This is “demonization”? ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2001, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/238 "2001-11-06T03:28:44Z")
> [@](#): > > If someone criticizes Democrats, then he must have an axe to grind, so I won’t believe him." Using that formula, you’re never wrong! I am having a hard time responding to this one outside the pit thread dedicated to your arguing style. Are you suggesting that being a personal litigant against the Clinton administration and alleging that he was forced from his job is equivallent to criticism? > [@](#): > > Ned, I’m impressed that you found this link. Still, was my guess not correct – that you were turned on to negative information about DS through some left wing organization or media? Nothing impressive about either simple google search or your reading comprehension. I stated my sources. The left has pretty much ignored this guy, most of the negative information about him can be found in riht wing screeds. They just don’t see it as negative. > [@](#): > > What a delicious sentence, Ned. Are you criticizing DS because he helped to clear up these two scandals and to expose wrongdoing? Wow! Helped clear up what? Exposed what wrongdoing? Perhaps I missed something and you could direct me to some source that establishes either of these issues constituted anything more than a steaming little pile of turds. > [@](#): > > Ned, I presume you are withdrawing your claim that the theme of the novel somehow proves that DS shouldn’t be believed. Rarely does one find a single fact that proves someone is not believable. It is up to you to judge whether his view that Clinton should never have passed a security check should impact on his credibility. In my view it strongly suggests his statements should be treated with a degree of caution. > [@](#): > > This sounds very significant, Ned. Are you saying that Newt had info beyond what DS had told him? What info? How do you know this? I am refering to the 1996 statements at which time secret service tesimony was available. In 1994 he would at least have had the ability to question the details of the allegation. If he based his statements on a single vague sentence it remains irresponsible. This rolls us nicely into your last claim that he can simply rely on the fact that someone else used the word problem. Is Newt allowed to simply accept that a situation is problematic without enquiring from his source exactly what the problem was? Your OP cite does not establish that anyone had any problems passing a drug test. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2001, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/239 "2001-11-06T03:53:24Z")
So your support for the claim that Democrats “clearly” demonize non-politicians “much more” than Republicans is that you can think of some instances in which certain people weren’t portrayed in a positive light, and you can’t think of any instances in which certain other people were portrayed negatively. Stellar. I stand in awe of your debating style. (By the way, how many non-politicians can you think of whom the Republicans demonstrably showed restraint in not demonizing when they could have? In other words, show me that your sample size is greater than zero.) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2001, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/240 "2001-11-06T05:21:48Z")
> [@](#): > > However, I cannot think of any examples the other way where pubbies demonized witnesses who had blown the whistle on them. Maybe there are some who I’m overlooking or don’t know about. I encourage other posters to bring up examples of smear campaigns against whistle-blowers of any stripe. I would infer from this statement that you have avoided reading any news journals or watching any substantive news broadcasts throughout the summer. I cannot think of a one that did not give at least _some_ space or time to the effort that David Brock put into recanting over ten years of deliberate smears that he launched from the political Right. For example, _every single “fact”_ noted in this blurb on his book [Real Anita Hill: the Untold Story](http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Reading/brock-hill.html) has been shown to be a lie, both by outside evidence and Brock’s confessions. In this book he smeared Anita Hill and two co-workers who corroborated her testimony and he smeared Senators Simon and Metzenbaum. (Nope, no demonization from the Right.) [One story on the issue.](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0627-01.htm) (And, of course, the whole “Clinton body count” had nothing in common with smearing political opponents.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123.md?page=13)