# 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:** 9
**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, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/161 "2001-10-30T02:08:54Z")
> [@](#): > > _courtesty of december_ > Sua, there’s a big difference between accusing Starr of doing something that deserves imprisonment vs. accusing him of coming close to an ethical violation. BTW isn’t there some mechanism by which the Bar Association reviews ethics violations? Didn’t Starr’s enemies get him charged with several violations and wasn’t he cleared in all cases? I would imagine that if he really had committed an ethical violation, charges would have been filed and he would have been sanctioned for it by the Bar Association. December, there’s a big difference between accusing Clinton of doing something that deserves imprisonment vs. accusing him of coming (heh) close to an ethical violation. BTW isn’t there some mechanism by which the Congress reviews Presidential violations? Didn’t Clinton’s enemies get him charged with several violations, and wasn’t he cleared in all cases? I would imagine that if he really had committed a criminal offence, charges would have been filed and he would have been convicted by the Senate of the United States of America. ---
**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, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/162 "2001-10-30T02:14:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Myrr21 \* I would imagine that if he really had committed a criminal offence, charges would have been filed and he would have been convicted by the Senate of the United States of America. Cute. Anyhow he did lose his Arkansas law license. Apparently one needs higher ethics to practice law in Arkansas than to be President of the United States. ---
**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, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/163 "2001-10-30T02:37:24Z")
I guess I should mention that I don’t necessarily believe what I wrote, but simply wanted to point out that you are being inconsistent in your standards. If your standard for innocence is “being acquitted (/not disbarred) by the group charged with overseeing you”, then Clinton is just as innocent as Starr. If you truly believe that Clinton is guilty and Starr innocent, then I think you need a different standard. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/164 "2001-10-30T02:48:11Z")
**december** said > [@](#): > > Anyhow he did lose his Arkansas law license. Apparently one needs higher ethics to practice law in Arkansas than to be President of the United States. Damn that’s funny, and probably true. Ethics, sir, have nothing to do with it. If it were a matter of ethics, we’d have no President. Ever. The system prevents it. Can’t speak about lawyers in Arkansas, though. ---
**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, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/165 "2001-10-30T05:23:00Z")
Now, it escapes my memory, but did Richard Nixon have a license to practice law? Surely he must have suffered some legal or official rebuke along those lines? No? Perhaps not. Compared to Nixon, Slick Willy Knobjob walks in a cloud of sanctity, flowers spring from his footprints, and nightingales vie for his attention. Reagan told us lies for eight years, the main difference being in that he sincerly believed every lie he told us, even if the day before, he knew different. Presidential ethics. Military music. Feminist humor. Comprehensible Conservatism. ---
**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, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/166 "2001-10-30T05:53:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Now, it escapes my memory, but did Richard Nixon have a license to practice law? Surely he must have suffered some legal or official rebuke along those lines? No? Perhaps not. \*\* RMN “volumntarily” gave up his law license, before they could take it away from him. ---
**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, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/167 "2001-10-30T15:02:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \*If you’re saying that Gingrich’s reputation as a bomb-thrower was based unfairly on these episodes, perhaps you’ve forgotten about his claim that one-fourth of White House staff were drug users > > This turns out to be an example where Gingrich was essentially correct, but the media didn’t give him a fair shake when Secret Service agents testified to the facts. > > > [@](#): > > > > Secret Service agents told a congressional committee last Wednesday that dozens of White House aides had a history of serious drug abuse when they joined the executive branch in 1993. `I would say more than 30 -- more than 40, perhaps -- had drug usage,'' Agent Jeffrey L. Undercoffer testified. `There was some where the drug use was recent… . . I have seen cocaine usage, I have seen hallucinogenic usages, crack usages. I would say those are the big three.’’ [snip] Sigh. This is getting tedious, **december**. The Secret Service testified that approximately 40 Clinton White House aides had a history of drug use, [out of almost 2000.](http://library.thinkquest.org/17188/whiteh.html) 40/2000=.02 or 2%. So, yeah, Gingrich was “almost” correct; he was only off by approximately 460 staffers. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/168 "2001-10-30T15:04:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Myrr21 \* I would imagine that if he really had committed a criminal offence, charges would have been filed and he would have been convicted by the Senate of the United States of America. > > Cute. > > Anyhow he did lose his Arkansas law license. Apparently one needs higher ethics to practice law in Arkansas than to be President of the United States. \*\* Specious logic from both posters above. **Myrr21** , 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.” **december** , your post compares apples and Chevy Impalas. A lawyer may be suspended for a given length of time, or even disbarred, and return to practice; a President, once impeached, is out for good. The rules for ethical conduct used by lawyers do not always produce what a laymen would call “ethical” results – see almost any episode of _The Practice_ for illustration – and are detailed and highly formalized. The standards for removal of a President are basically the viewpoint and will of the Senate sitting in an impeachment trial. A fair-minded observer may thus not draw any conclusion like “one needs higher ethics to practice law in Arkansas than to be President…” - Rick ---
**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, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/169 "2001-10-30T15:05:35Z")
> [@](#): > > Do us a favor. The next time you don’t want to take the trouble to support one of your “theses”, announce beforehand that’s it’s a joke. That way we won’t mistake your subsequent contortions for a cop-out. Don’t you think it’s a little strange that you, **Jackmannii** , are the _only one who refuses to understand_? Yet you consistently refuse to back down when your complete and utter wrong-headedness has been made perfectly apparent? I suggest you spare yourself any further indignities. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/170 "2001-10-30T16:42:50Z")
If you post something, Maeglin, that even vaguely relates to one of the issues raised in this thread, it may merit a response. ---
**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, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/171 "2001-10-30T16:50:09Z")
That leads me to wonder why you persist in responding. ---
**Author:** ![stofsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dfb087/32.png) [@stofsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stofsky)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/172 "2001-10-30T16:56:13Z")
**december** , since you felt it necessary to call me a (and I attempt to code a quote) > [@](#): > > Rush-hating racist here: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=91819](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=91819) I am calling you on your (and this is one of Rush’s favorite words meaning “dodgy”) disingenuousness. Can you, or can you not, cite or expose any Democratic corruption found by your list of people and organizations in the OP? If not, go away. If so, do so. And just so we get the ground rules down, we’re talking malfeasance or financial gain, not entrapment into perjury. Don’t dodge the issue; the issue _you_ brought up was Democratic corruption. Show us some. Otherwise, I refer you to my assessment of you in the aforementioned thread on page 3 > [@](#): > > **december** , you’re an ass. ---
**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, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/173 "2001-10-30T17:10:55Z")
Um, I already made a Pit thread, **stofsky** -no need to sling names here. ---
**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, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/174 "2001-10-30T17:27:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stofsky \* > \*\*Can you, or can you not, cite or expose any Democratic corruption found by your list of people and organizations in the OP? If not, go away. If so, do so. And just so we get the ground rules down, we’re talking malfeasance or financial gain, not entrapment into perjury. > > Don’t dodge the issue; the issue _you_ brought up was Democratic corruption. Show us some. Otherwise, I refer you to my assessment of you in the aforementioned thread on page 3 > > > [@](#): > > > > **december** , you’re an ass. > > \*\* Stofsky, I used the dictionary’s definition of “corrupt” (which includes “dishonest” as well as “venal”) rather than yours. (which is “venal” only.) Would you really say, “The Nixon Administration was noted for its lack of corruption.”? These words would choke in my throat. Stofsky, your request is silly, because it follows from an intentional misreading of what I was communicating. Nevertheless, if I fulfill your request, will you write a post calling me a “highly intelligent person,” instead of an “ass”? You requested one example. Here are four of them: Dan Rostenkioski was convicted of stealing from the US government. Jim Wright had to resign because he had taken improper payments. Tony Coelho also resigned over financial hanky-panky. New Gingrich helped expose these scandals. Monica Lewinsky was offered a well-paying job at the United Nations, for which she had no qualification, because of her personal relationship with the Prez. (The impression one gets from the documents is that she was more-or-less blackmailing Clinton into giving her a good job.) Kenneth Starr helped expose this corrupt act. ---
**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, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/175 "2001-10-30T17:48:50Z")
> [@](#): > > Dan Rostenkioski was convicted of stealing from the US government. Jim Wright had to resign because he had taken improper payments. Tony Coelho also resigned over financial hanky-panky. > > New Gingrich helped expose these scandals. A. No one here is saying that no Democrats have ever been corrupt. Thus, an invocation of Coelho or Rostenkowski without a demonstration of a subsequent causal demonization of the people who brought the corruption to light is absolutely irrelevant. B. I really, _really_ urge you to read the book I recommended earlier, John Barry’s The Ambition and the Power. You can find it used online for $5 or less. To state that Jim Wright “had to resign because he had taken improper payments” which Newt Gingrich “helped expose” is to cast the situation in the most simplistic light imaginable. Gingrich’s conscious and concerted embrace of scandal politics (tactics of which include routinely making scandalous tempests out of teapots) significantly altered the character of Congress through the 1990s. To ignore thie circumstances surrounding Wright’s resignation is to engage in sophistry of the highest order. ---
**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, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/176 "2001-10-30T18:17:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \*A. No one here is saying that no Democrats have ever been corrupt. Thus, an invocation of Coelho or Rostenkowski without a demonstration of a subsequent causal demonization of the people who brought the corruption to light is absolutely irrelevant. Gaderene, I was answering Stofsky’s request, which sounded more like a challenge. BTW the lack of causal demonstration doesn’t quite make my examples “irrelevent”; it makes them inconclusive. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/177 "2001-10-30T18:33:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > Noted, rjung. I’ll keep that in mind if Bush starts getting blowjobs from interns in office sections of the White House, during work hours. How about [entertaining big-money donors](http://www.arktimes.com/dumas/061501dumas.html) with government facilities? After all, IIRC the Republicans made a big stink over Clinton letting guests sleep at the Lincoln bedroom. And since you didn’t counterargue any of my points, Milo, shall I conclude that you agree with me that the GOP is a bunch of hypocritical self-proclaimed moralists? Because I _still_ haven’t heard of any right-wing demands to “clear the air” over Dubya’s dirty past, and I think _Teletubbies_ is over… ---
**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, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/178 "2001-10-30T18:49:58Z")
> [@](#): > > BTW the lack of causal demonstration doesn’t quite make my examples “irrelevent”; it makes them inconclusive. No, it makes them irrelevant unless you can _demonstrate_ causality, since that is the premise on which your argument rests. If Newt Gingrich was “demonized” for reasons _other_ than assiduous and proportionate investigation of Democratic corruption–note the important words _assiduous_, _proportionate_, and _corruption_–then he can’t be included in support of your theory (posited in the OP) that Democrats tend not to appreciate Democratic corruption being exposed. Otherwise, it’s like me making this argument: White Midwestern males are unfairly demonized by everyone who isn’t a white Midwestern man. You want proof? Just look at the popular treatment of Timothy McVeigh and Jeffrey Dahmer![sup]\*[/sup] [sub][sup]\*[/sup](Obligatory disclaimer for chronic decontextualizers: I am not saying that Newt Gingrich is in any way comparable to Timothy McVeigh or Jeffrey Dahmner.)[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/179 "2001-10-30T19:15:04Z")
What **andros** has learned from this thread so far: A lot of people continue to embrace a “My party is better than yours” attitude. There is a left-wing bias in the media. There is a right-wing bias in the media. There are both. There are neither. Tom is a liberal. Al Franken was right. 2% is statistically indistinguishable from 25%. Some people are still far too concerned about President Clinton’s sex life, as well as his choice of lovers. Somehow, Barry Bonds has an important role in politics. Or he doesn’t. And, filtered through the crap and blather, I’ve learned that at least some thinking people truly wish to see corruption fought at all levels, regardless of partisan bullshit. Of couse, I’ve also learned that Democrats and Republicans are both inclined to both overlook corruption in their own camps and exaggerate wrongdoing in their opponents’. But, sadly, I knew that already. ---
**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, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/180 "2001-10-30T19:25:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > Monica Lewinsky was offered a well-paying job at the United Nations, for which she had no qualification, because of her personal relationship with the Prez. (The impression one gets from the documents is that she was more-or-less blackmailing Clinton into giving her a good job.) > > Kenneth Starr helped expose this corrupt act. 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. **december** , you are going all over the place. Please: 1. Define “demonization;” 2. Tell us who is doing the demonizing of the people you mentioned, Clinton loyalists or the general public; 3. Please tell us how Newt was demonized over the House Post Office Scandal; 4. Please tell us who was demonized over exposing Koreagate (where most of the implicated Congressmen were Democrats). If you point back to Newt again, please explain the negative impact on him of people disliking him - did it perhaps affect his advancement? Hmm.; 5. Ditto the Keating Five (four of whom were Democrats); 6. Ditto Abscam; 7. 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** ). IOW, what the hell is your beef? Clinton loyalists don’t like the group of people you mentioned because of their involvement in Zippergate? Shocking. I’m sure Nixon loyalists thought Sam Ervin was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Sua [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123.md?page=10)