Is it bad to expose Democratic corruption?

[SuaSponte]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by december *
**

*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][/QUOTE]

OK, december, were the following acts attempts at demonization?

Jerry Falwell promoting and selling the tape that alleged Clinton ordered murders when he was governor of Arkansas?

Rush Limbaugh promoting the theory that Vince Foster was murdered by the Clintonistas to shut him up?

Pat Roberts accusing Hilary of lesbianism and witchcraft?

The current president of the Washington Times accusing the Democratic Representative who has investigating him of being an “instrument of the devil”? (Obviously, you missed my post about this, because you would never ignore an inconvenient fact, now would you?)

Bush supporters accusing McCain of having an illegitimate child? (Oops, that’s right, that’s a Republican demonizing a Republican.)

Newt accusing 1/4 of Clinton’s White House staffers of being drug users, when the evidence presented by the Secret Service demonstrated that only 2% were former drug users? (Again, you must have missed this - next time I’ll try to write in a different font so my posts are more readable).

Let’s face it, december, both sides viciously attack the other. Unless the Republicans are always truthful, and the Democrats are always liars, then both sides act in the reprehensible manner. Do you honestly believe that?
Well, in your defense, Hilary did turn me into a newt. I got better.

Sua

p.s. New York Times editorials blasting Newt is evidence of demonization? Pleeeze. It is evidence that the editorial board of the NYT is liberal. To your mind, are Washington Times editorials blasting Clinton demonization? If not, why not?

[december]

*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
OK, december, were the following acts attempts at demonization?

Jerry Falwell promoting and selling the tape that alleged Clinton ordered murders when he was governor of Arkansas?

Rush Limbaugh promoting the theory that Vince Foster was murdered by the Clintonistas to shut him up?

Pat Roberts accusing Hilary of lesbianism and witchcraft?

Yes, all were attempts at demonization, if they’re true. Do you have cites?

Newt accusing 1/4 of Clinton’s White House staffers of being drug users, when the evidence presented by the Secret Service demonstrated that only 2% were former drug users? (Again, you must have missed this - next time I’ll try to write in a different font so my posts are more readable).

Not quite.

1. The SS testified that at least 2% were druggies, not only.

2. More importantly, the big deal about the Clinton staff is that he ordered the SS to let into the White House many people who couldn’t pass drug tests.

Maybe Newt’s figure was exaggerated. (Even I have been known to exaggerate, unbelievable as that may sound! ;))

Still, Newt’s general warning was accurate. There was a Whie House drug problem. He was demonized for saying so. OTOH White House leaders who lied about the problem were never dinged for their lies.

Let’s face it, december, both sides viciously attack the other. Unless the Republicans are always truthful, and the Democrats are always liars, then both sides act in the reprehensible manner. Do you honestly believe that?

Yes, Republicans also demonize. However, my point is that Dems use demonization a lot more frequently and a lot more effectively than Republicans do. One reason is that it works for them.

I’ve given a lot of examples. I believe the substantial number and the seriousness of these cases demonstrate the difference in degree of demonization. I really can’t think of anything more to do to prove my point.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by minty green *
Me: Prove Linda Tripp’s prosecution was motivated by revenge.

december: lindatripp.com says so.

By this reasoning, I must conclude that there was a “vast, right-wing conspiracy” against the Clintons!

And since I don’t see any efforts to unearth that conspiracy and bring it to light, can I conclude that it’s bad to expose Republican corruption?

:rolleyes:

[andros]

Still, Newt’s general warning was accurate.

No, it wasn’t. He lied. Exaggerated, if you prefer. Deceived. Inveigled. Obfuscated.

There was a Whie House drug problem.

You have not established this.

He was demonized for saying so.

Nor have you established this.

[wring]

*Originally posted by december *
**

Originally posted by Sua :Newt accusing 1/4 of Clinton’s White House staffers of being drug users, when the evidence presented by the Secret Service demonstrated that only 2% were former drug users? (Again, you must have missed this - next time I’ll try to write in a different font so my posts are more readable).

Not quite.

1. The SS testified that at least 2% were druggies, not only.

**
So, If I say “99% of december’s posts are pure bull” and you say, no, only 10% is demonstratively B/S, then I can point out that since we can prove that at least 10% is B/S, then the original statement of 99% is “generally accurate” (to use your words), right?

[SuaSponte]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by december *
**

*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
OK, december, were the following acts attempts at demonization?

Jerry Falwell promoting and selling the tape that alleged Clinton ordered murders when he was governor of Arkansas?

Rush Limbaugh promoting the theory that Vince Foster was murdered by the Clintonistas to shut him up?

Pat Roberts accusing Hilary of lesbianism and witchcraft?

Yes, all were attempts at demonization, if they’re true. Do you have cites?

december, if you are claiming that you have never heard of the “Clinton Chronicles”, you have either been living in a cave for the past 8 years, or you are lying. Which one?

Newt accusing 1/4 of Clinton’s White House staffers of being drug users, when the evidence presented by the Secret Service demonstrated that only 2% were former drug users? (Again, you must have missed this - next time I’ll try to write in a different font so my posts are more readable).

Not quite.

1. The SS testified that at least 2% were druggies, not only.

2. More importantly, the big deal about the Clinton staff is that he ordered the SS to let into the White House many people who couldn’t pass drug tests.

Maybe Newt’s figure was exaggerated.

Listen up. Your claim was that Newt was vilified for asserting that 25% of Clinton’s staffers were drug users. Do you remember writing that? (Hint - this is a computer message board. Everyone here can read what you wrote.) The “evidence” you produce is Secret Service testimony that “at least 40” Clinton staffers had a past history of drug use. 40 staffers is 2% of the Clinton staff, an order of magnitude less than Newt’s claim.
OK, you point out that the Secret Service testified “at least.” I’ll be generous, and interpret “at least” to mean double, or 80. That is still less than 1/5 of the number Newt claimed were drug users (and remember, Newt claimed they were current drug users, when the Secret Service testified only that they had a history of drug use - much like Newt.)

Yes, Republicans also demonize. However, my point is that Dems use demonization a lot more frequently and a lot more effectively than Republicans do. One reason is that it works for them.

How does it work for them, son? Let’s see - both sides demonize. The Republicans control the House of Representatives, the Presidency, and the large majority of governorships and state legislatures. On the evidence, Republican tactics seem to be working better.

I really can’t think of anything more to do to prove my point.

No, you can’t. So please go away.

Sua

[december]

White House Druggies seemed like a topic in itself, so I started a new thread for all you Gingrich-haters. Have at him!

{b]Sua**, yes, indeed. I had forgotten about the disgusting “Clinton Chronicles.” Your reminder of it fully supports your Falwell allegation.

Cites on the other two?

[Gadarene]

Cites on the other two?

Pat Robertson:

“The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.” Quoted in the Washington Post, 8/23/92

This came out during the Republican National Convention. I’ve got conflicting reports whether this was said specifically about Hillary Clinton or about feminists (of which Hillary is one) in general. A 8/22/92 Washington Post editorial, entitled “Hateful Talk About Hillary,” detailed further attacks on Clinton during the convention, including campaign director Rich Bond’s claim that Hillary Clinton thought marriage was slavery.

december, do you not remember the tumult of the 1992 RNC in Houston?

A quote from a piece in the 8/22/92 Houston Chronicle:

“And if the TV evangelist leading the right-wing of the
president’s political party denounces homosexuals and Bill and Hillary Clinton, and all in the name of God, and you are homosexual, or you know or love or are related to one, and you think the Clintons are OK people, then what? Are you bad, are you Democrat, are you Godless, or what?”

A quote from Pat Robertson:

“When Bill and Hillary Clinton talk about family values, they are not talking about either family or values. They are talking about a radical plan want to destroy the traditional family and transfer its functions to the federal government.”

(From a Washington Post article dated 8/21/92)

Want more? I love Lexis. Vince Foster in a second.

[Gadarene]

Re: Vince Foster

A Toronto Star article dated 10/2/94 and entitled, “Hard right showers abuse on Clinton’s presidency”:

The AIM Report, a newsletter published in Washington, D.C., by right-winger Reed Irvine, continues to poke away at Clinton on the issue of the suicide last year of Vince Foster, the deputy White House counsel. These attacks, based on the flimsiest of evidence, are continuing despite the conclusion reached in an investigation by independent counsel Robert Fiske, who happens to be a moderate Republican, that Foster took his own life because he was suffering from severe depression.

It also mentions Rush Limbaugh generally as propagating anti-Clinton rumors.

A Times-Picayune article dated 8/8/94 and entitled, “Partisan Overkill on Whitewater”:

Ever since the assistant White House counsel committed suicide in July 1993, the political right has tried to use the death to attack President and Mrs. Clinton. Conservative commentators claim that Foster killed himself over the Whitewater affair, or was murdered. As crackpots from Mark Lane to Oliver Stone had a theory about President Kennedy’s assassination, so with Foster they have come up with conspiracy fantasies.

A newsletter suggested that he had died in a Virginia apartment, and the body was moved to the park where it was found. Rush Limbaugh reported that charge to his large audience, embellishing it to say the newsletter "claims that Vince Foster was murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton."

Emphasis mine.

A London Guardian article dated 8/4/94 mentions the allegations of Clinton involvement in Foster’s death. Its title is “Dark Machine: Robert Parry on an insidious and sophisticated form of political control spreading calumny and character assassination in the capital.” This ‘dark machine’? Let’s see:

While all sides in Washington share blame for this epidemic of meanness, some are more responsible than others. For the well-funded conservative movement, slander has evolved into a sophisticated form of political control, a way to intimidate dissident voices during the Reagan-Bush years and now to threaten the political survival of a sitting Democratic president. Over the past two decades, while fancying themselves the victims of some all -powerful liberal establishment, conservatives have built a well-oiled attack machine and have shown no compunction about using it. In recent years, almost anybody who stepped into the path of the conservative investigator has run foul of the Grand Old Party (Republican) machine.

Emphasis mine. Int’resting.

A Herald (Glasgow) article dated 7/23/94 and entitled, “Conspiring to clobber Clinton”:

Usually, Mr and Mrs Clinton are called liberals (which means communist). But Rush Limbaugh, a radio talk-show star, who leaves a trail of green slime wherever he goes, calls Mrs Clinton a “Femi-Nazi”. He accuses her of being a militant lesbian, as well as a crook, murderess, adulteress (with Vince Foster), and all the rest.

In another part of the wood, a former Congressman from California, William Dannemeyer, who ran for the Senate last year, and lost, alleges that the President has had a hand in a “frightening series of deaths under other than natural circumstances. It raises the very serious question of whether he is involved, directly or indirectly, in their deaths.”

Dannemeyer, by the way, is a Republican. Curious.

A Chicago Tribune article dated 7/22/94, about findings regarding Foster’s death:

But those findings have been questioned by Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) and conservative commentators, including Rev. Jerry Falwell and broadcaster Rush Limbaugh. All three have seized on apparent discrepancies in forensic and pathology reports conducted after Foster’s death.

This is just during six months! I could go on, and on, and on… Really care to test the Lexis well concerning Republican demonization of Democrats?

[december]

*Originally posted by Gadarene *
**

Cites on the other two?

Pat Robertson:

“The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.” Quoted in the Washington Post, 8/23/92

**Thanks for the cite, Gaderene. I think Robertson’s statement was unfair and disgusting.

Oddly enough, there was actually some basis for the witch accusation.

Back in April of 1978, an accredited study program entitled “The Great Goddess Re-emerges” was held at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Women had to be turned away from the course, which could only accommodate 450 students. The following excerpts from a Los Angeles Times article inform us as to what took place during the study program.

…eerie monotones…reverberated on the UC Santa Cruz campus. Cheers and whoops went up for the goddesses of yore—Isis, Astara, Demeter, Artemis, etc.

…the event was indicative of a burgeoning spiritual dimension to the women’s liberation movement in America…

Christine Downing, head of San Diego State University’s religious studies department, estimates that many—if not most—spiritually sensitive women in the women’s movement are willing to replace the Biblical God with a frankly pagan and polytheistic approach.

**Witchcraft is aiding the women in their search for roots and rituals—without the connotations of evil usually associated with witchcraft.

A Santa Cruz woman…said, “Some of the women think of themselves as witches, but not all.”

A brief, unscheduled appearance—met with enthusiastic applause—was made by Z. Budapest. A self-described witch…the goddess movement knows her more as a leader of the Susan B. Anthony Coven No. 1 in Los Angeles and a charismatic spokeswoman for a feminist brand of Wicca, an ancient women’s religion [witchcraft]

The goddess movement, also called the women-spirit movement, apparently considers its first major gathering to have been a conference attended by about 1,200 women at the University of Massachusetts in late 1975…

The ancient Mediterranean world, pagan Europe, Native America and Hindu traditions are all sources for goddess imagery, Dr. Christ (rhymes with “grist”) said. (Dr. Christ is head of San Jose State University’s women’s studies program.)

A religious phenomenon virtually unknown outside feminist circles, “goddess consciousness” will be widely known in three to five years, predicted Dr. Christ.1

**.

http://allanturner.com/ss09.html

[december]

*Originally posted by Gadarene *

In another part of the wood, a former Congressman from California, William Dannemeyer, who ran for the Senate last year, and lost, alleges that the President has had a hand in a “frightening series of deaths under other than natural circumstances. It raises the very serious question of whether he is involved, directly or indirectly, in their deaths.”

Dannemeyer, by the way, is a Republican. Curious.

Again, thanks for the cite, Gaderene.

A related curious fact was on the Linda Tripp tapes of Monica Lewinsky. ML was trying to persuade Linda to commit perjury. Linda said she would testify truthfully. 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.

[Gadarene]

It would seem that lots of people took this legend seriously.

Legend? You misspelled “Republican demonization.” Hope this helps.

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by december *
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.

Congratulations, you have demonstrated that some people wanted Tripp prosecuted out of political revenge. Of course, that wasn’t what you originally claimed or what I challenged you to prove, which is that she was prosecuted for purposes of political revenge. Unless in Maryland, letter-writing Deomcrats have the power to prosecute criminal cases?

[december]

*Originally posted by minty green *Congratulations, you have demonstrated that some people wanted Tripp prosecuted out of political revenge. Of course, that wasn’t what you originally claimed or what I challenged you to prove, which is that she was prosecuted for purposes of political revenge. Unless in Maryland, letter-writing Deomcrats have the power to prosecute criminal cases? **

Minty, if I’m ever charged with a serious crime, will you be my lawyer? You are fixed, steadfast, firm, fast, steady, balanced; confirmed, immovable, riveted, rooted and incontrovertible.

[MaxTheVool]

*Originally posted by december *
Minty, if I’m ever charged with a serious crime, will you be my lawyer? You are fixed, steadfast, firm, fast, steady, balanced; confirmed, immovable, riveted, rooted and incontrovertible. **

…and currently beating the pants off of you in this great debate

[minty_green]

It’s a legal concept called “relevance,” december, and it’s the first and foremost requirement for the admissibility of evidence in support of a proposition.

[SuaSponte]

For me, the irony of this thread is that to all intents and purposes I am a moderate Republican - moderate to conservative on fiscal issues, liberal on social ones.
The primary reason I have not changed my registration is that I do not wish to be associated with the tactics and conduct of the Republican party and its operatives. While I’m not happy with the choice, I can sum up my position as “I’d rather be associated with Jesse Jackson than Jesse Helms.”

Sua

[december]

Originally posted by Ned (on the Newt Gingrich thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=96443&pagenumber=2 )
**Dennis Sculimbrene is a whack job with a serious axe to grind against the Clinton administration. Prior to his resignation he was known to whine that his democratic colleagues in the FBI would purposely knock over his prized photograph of he and Newt. He was also known to complain that Clinton should never have been allowed into office and penned a unpublished novel inspired by his white house experiences about a KGB mole being elected president. Some suspect that a serious 1994 head injury sent him right over the edge.

To rely ongarbage statements from the likes of a man like this is irresponsible in itself particularly given the presence of contradictory secret service sworn testimony.

I can find no record that even a nutbar like Sculimbrene…(december’s emphasis)**

According to Ned, Dennis Sculimbrene is a whack job, with an axe to grind against Clinton. He whines and complains. He wrote a novel. He went insane in 1994 due to a head injury.

Ned offered no cites or evidence of any sort for these harsh criticisms, but I don’t think he made them up. I assume that he got them from some Democratic spin-master or from a publication that was promulgating Democratic spin. (If Ned comes back with evidence to the contrary, I’ll withdraw this post.) If Ned’s post represents the position of certain Democratic operatives, it confirms several of the themes I had raised in this thread.

[list][li]Revenge. These smears were promulgated after DS made negative statements about a leading Democrat. The ad hominem attack seems to be an effort to weaken his allegations and to punish him for making them. []Liberal source. Although Ned gave no cites, I’ll bet his information came from the left. []Silliness. Some of the accusations are ridiculous. E.g., “DS is a bad because he wrote a novel with a particular plot.” Give me a break! []Unfairness. The smear story makes no effort to present a balanced picture of DS. E.g., he obviously had a successful career, since he rose to become the senior FBI agent in the White House. Nor is it mentioned that the existence of White House drug problems was later confirmed under oath by the testimony of several secret service agents. []McCarthyism. The Democrats were willing to commit McCarthyism in attacking DS, using Elvis’s definition. (Elvis: “The term ‘McCarthyism’ instead means tossing out damaging allegations about other persons, regardless of facts, for one’s own personal or political advancement. It means destroying, or being willing to destroy, other peoples’ reputations and lives for one’s own gain.”Obliqueness. The real genesis of the smear was that DS had divulged negative information about a Democratic White House. However, he was attacked for supposedly writing a novel, being a whack job, having an axe to grind, etc.[/li]
An aside: Ned’s post illustrates the power of demonization. Although DS was never that famous, and he hasn’t been in the news for several years, Ned remembered all these negative details. Maybe some psychologist could explain why we human beings take such interest in dishing the dirt.

[SuaSponte]

But, december:

Ned’s post was true. Presumably, senior FBI officials made the statements, as he claimed.
Ned’s statement was literally accurate. “Whackjob” is not a precisely definable term, and is therefore such a weasel word that his statement is not incorrect.
Ned’s assertion that Sculimbrene is a whackjob has never been shown to be wrong. It may be an accurate description, for all we know.
Ned’s statement was apt: head injuries have been demonstrated to cause personality changes.
Ned’s statement was important: I don’t believe that Sculimbrene ever actively attempted to harm the Clintons. But, could such an FBI agent have contributed to breaches in our national security? We’ll never know.

This works for you, right?

Sua

[Gadarene]

Ooh, hoist by his own petard! (I always wanted to say that…)

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?