Is it bad to expose Democratic corruption?

Great Debates
101

My my, such harsh words. Unfortunately, I believe they are based on a misunderstanding of the OP. The point of the OP was to suggest that Democrats are not favorably disposed towards exposing corruption in their own party. The evidence was the suggestion that there are no examples of Democrats looking favorably on exposing corruption in their own party. This leads to the conclusion that either such corruption does not exist in the Democratic Party, or that Democrats do not tend to favor attacking it when it does exist.

The sole evidence is the pattern, the larger picture, the lack of any examples. If december was to focus on one particular example it would be meaningless - in every case there are two sides, and a person might conceivably happen to be on the other side regarding that particular scandal. The significant fact is the fact (if true) that in every case of corruption involving their guys, Democrats just happen to buy into the argument that it is no big deal or not really corrupt etc. As such, it is proper for december to call for an example of Democrats supporting a corruption investigation into their own, and it is improper to demand that he focus on a particular example. (Another acceptable argument would be to maintain that Democrats are indeed pure as the driven snow, and are never corrupt. But this should be argued upfront.)

As mentioned in my first post to this thread I do not think the OP is particularly meaningful - this post is merely to clarify it’s meaning.

Stoid, I seem to recall you claiming in some Pit thread or other that you never attack people - only their positions. If so, this post represents a departure from your usual lofty standards, and it is a shame that it should turn out to be based on misunderstanding the OP. I think an apology is in order.

Of course, I also remember you saying in a Pit thread that you are the most misunderstood poster on the SDMB. Perhaps that is the case here as well. And when you said “You’re a liar” what you really meant was “You’re a respectable person whose positions I vehemently disagree with”. If so you might want to clarify this.

:slight_smile:

102

I’m calling you out on this one, Gadarene.

Andrew Johnson was impeached specifically for breaking the Cabinet Act of 1867, in which the U.S. Congress decreed that, since they had the right to confirm appointees to the Cabinet, they also had the right to confirm firings of the Cabinet.

This was blatantly unConstitutional- they had no such power over the Cabinet, and their blatant usurpation of the power was nothing more than an attempt to tie Johnson’s hands and save Stanton’s career. Secretary of War Stanton was doing everything in his power to feed Congress information on Johnson’s administration- what legislation they were planning, who they were talking to, where he was planning to speak and upon what topic- all so that the Congress could counteract Johnson more effectively. Johnson had every right to fire the S.O.B.; for Congress to declare that Johnson had acted illegally in firing Stanton and to impeach Johnson on such- this was not an exposition of corruption, this was a simple coup d’etat attempt by the Congress.

If there’s one thing I hated about the most recent impeachment, it was the constant statement “they just want to overturn the election!” As if by impeaching Clinton, Bob Dole would take over. Removing Clinton from office would have made Gore President, and I cannot understand at all how this could be considered “overturning the election”. But, in 1868, there was no Vice-President, and had Johnson been impeached, Speaker of the House Benjamin Wade (R-OH) would have taken over, switching control of the White House from the Democracts to the Republicans.

Thus, I cannot see how any person could honestly state that the impeachement of Johnson was rightful, or that it was in any way exposing corruption.
:wink:

103

Hey “just a blowjob” gang -

Quick question: Is a boss getting head in the workplace, from an intern, at their place of employment, during work hours, improper?

Yes. Or no. And why.

And, if you can find the time, how should other female employees in the same office feel about that?

(It will be fun to watch you all now do the rhetorical and ideological hula-dance, so that whatever answer you give allows you to fall squarely in support of Clinton.)

104

Improper?
Yes.

Illegal?
No.

Worth destabilizing the entire friggin’ US of A?
HELL NO.

105

I agree with DY. However, regarding DY’s last point, I think Bill Clinton deserves the lion’s share of the blame. He ought to have known that his actions might be discovered and that they risked “destabilizing the entire friggin’ US of A.” Pretty irresponsible for him to take this risk on behalf of the entire country merely for the sake of a few BJ’s.

106

I’d say he ought to have known that his actions might be discovered and that they risked “painting him as a human, albeit an adulturous one”…also maybe “getting his ass divorced”. This whole “run the country through a meat grinder” thing was not an outcome any reasonable man would foresee.

107

Just to nitpick, while Johnson was a Democrat, he and Lincoln ran in 1864, as members of the “Union Party”, which was an alliance between moderate Republicans and War Democrats.

Personally, I support Johnson’s impeachment, but that’s really another thread.

108

Other people have said what I would have said much better (I, too, have a very hard time imagining Bill Clinton’s blowjob as anything other than silly). But I will give an anecdote I think is relevant, here.

A few years ago, I was an editor at a small-circulation, left-leaning newspaper in Montreal. At the time, the Student Union at Concordia University, which was on the extreme left, had become incredibly corrupt. And although the editors of our paper belonged to many of the same causes as the CSU, we felt we had a duty to expose that corruption, especially after we learned that one member of the CSU had embezzled over $200,000 of the students’ money.

We were of course attacked by the Union, called liars, and, inexplicably, corporate media. But we didn’t back down, and we continued to report on some of the nastier things the CSU was doing. Last year, it attempted a coup at the paper by trying to take over its editorial board at one of our assemblies. Now, it’s collapsing. The general feeling in the community is that we did the right thing.

I’ve always been suspicious of the concept of “solidarity.” I hold people on my side of the political spectrum to very high ethical standards. I demand of the right, too, but frankly I’m a little too cynical to expect it from them. We certainly weren’t demonized.

Oddly about Clinton, I found it strange that the Republicans obsessed more over who he was having sex with, and less about campaign contributions. Perhaps, living in a glass house, they didn’t want to throw stones.

I don’t see why an elected leader should remain a virgin. Whatever Clinton did is between him and his wife, and it really isn’t the public’s business.

109

Well, duh. :smiley:

[QUOTE} However, consider the analogue of someone who works with a number of people of somes particular minority. Even if this person had (or claimed to have) a good reason for not respecting each and every cow-orker belonging to that minority, would you not suspect ulterior motives? Similarly, if Stoid fails to respect each and every person who ever uncovered Democratic corruption, I will suspect ulterior motives.[/QUOTE]

But we are not talking about Stoid, and we are not talking about a group of people and entities categorized by an objective condition, like race.
Instead, we are talking about a group of people and entities who engaged in a particular activity, who are allegedly being demonized by the general population vecause of their engagement in that activity. So, one person who doesn’t like all of his/her hispanic co-workers is an inapt analogy.

Democrats do not make up a majority in this country, so the putative disapproval of your list of people includes disapproval by independents and Republicans. Further, the current approval ratings of Bush demonstrate that this country does not have a congenital inability to like Republicans. So what’s left? Perhaps the general population “demonizes” the people you list because they heartily disapprove of what they did.
That’s utterly acceptable. People don’t dislike the Mafia because they are prejudiced against Italians - they dislike the Mafia because the Mafia does bad things.

Sua

110

As I hinted earlier in this thread, I don’t believe any part of Clinton’s Monica scandal can be fairly said to be “corrupt.”

But it’s also fair to say that it’s a serious problem. As others have suggested, a federal government supervisor getting oral sex from an intern, in his office, ought to lead to the supervisor’s firing. It’s improper on many levels - as to the relationship between the supervisor and the intern, demoralizing to others, both male and female, who may become aware of it, or aware of rumors of it, and a misuse of the office property that the supervisor’s in charge of. In the President’s case, there’s a bit of a blurry line; his residence is also federal government property. But the residence is provided to live in - and if he chooses to indulge in such activites, with a non-employee, there, I can hardly complain. The Oval Office is provided for business; the interns, for work.

What’s the remedy, though, if the supervisor is the President? I don’t accept that we should merely turn away from this because it involves the President. Defenders of Mr. Clinton have argued he was “manuevered” into lying under oath. I don’t accept that either. He had choices - at every stage of his deception, he had choices.

I would take precisely this stance if it were a Republican president.

I get the impression that many - not all - of the ardent defenders of Clinton would have attacked a Republican president if one had first been involved in such a scandal. And I get the sense that many - not all - of the ardent Clinton attackers would have excused a Republican president under similar circumstances. Both sides seem to justify this under a “past wrongs” theory: they’ve done so much shit to us in the past that we can only respond in kind now.

This approach has obvious problems, and when you indulge in it, it paints you as a zealot, unwilling to listen to anything not in support of your view.

Cut it out.

  • Rick
111

Jackmanii, I simply must know, is your appalling condescension learned behavior or does it come naturally to you?

You lost the Bonds debate. Gadarene and RickJay evidently had little difficulty perforating your arguments. Since you lacked the grace either to stand down or to cut your losses, I simply cannot blame Gadarene, or anyone for that matter, for avoiding protracted arguments with you.

Your contention rests on the assumption that somehow economic issues “balance” social issues. Kindly support this foundation principle with either evidence or logic.

Media that reports economic issues with a rightward slant and social issues on the left is doing just that. Economic and social issues are not on the same continuum. If FOX reported yet another welfare failure alongside a successful government-funded microenterprise zone, then the two stories would balance each other. But reporting welfare failure next to school voucher failure does not balance a news medium.

Furthermore, the very word “counterbalance” connotes an intention, a teleology even. The fact that mass media swings one way on some issues and the other on different issues is better explaineed by corporate expediency than by intention.

Your bias against Gadarene in this and other threads suggests that if he had found the Rosetta Stone, you would have insisted that it wasn’t inscribed in Egyptian. I simply do not trust your powers of judgment in this matter.

There is no logical connection between the verbiage before and after the “therefore”.

The fact that the media devours scandal, be it Hollywood or corporate, in no way exonerates it from a rightward economic bias. Perhaps you should read Gadarene’s point A over and over, until you understand.

And like you said, there’s no hurry.

MR

112

So why are you starting one? I remind you that I took issue with something Gadarene said in this thread regarding media bias; he and now you are intent on dragging in an entirely different debate which you are still peeved about.**

I contend no such thing. The assumption that “corporate media bias” balances “social issue media bias” is exactly what I’m refuting, if you’d taken the trouble to read my posts instead of launching into attack mode.
Feel free, however to take up the challenge I directed at Gadarene - provide concrete examples to demonstrate a “corporate media bias” that benefits the Right.**

Despite the juicy opportunities for a pungent retort, I will exercise restraint, while noting my continuing efforts to bear up under your disapproval.

Want to respond to an actual debate point rather than exercising your personal frustrations? Be my guest.

113

Senator Robert Packwood had been driven from office for sexual miscouduct and Gary Hart had been driven out of Presidential contention for the same reason. I think Clinton’s risk ought to have been predictable, based on these two scandals.

And don’t forget those vicious Clinton-haters who had been after him for years. It shouldn’t have taken much imagination to predict that if these people could point to substantial evidence of sexual misconduct, perjury and obstruction of justice, then major consequences might ensue.

YMMV

114

In utter agreement - my dream resolution would have been Clinton and Starr sharing a jail cell. Clinton for perjury and Starr for violation of Lewinsky’s civil rights under color of law (by denying Monica her right to contact her attorney when detained, he caused the false affidavit to be filed, and thus caused Monica to commit perjury.)

Sua

115

Sua, I’m afraid you’re repeating an untrue story. Monica wasn’t detained. She walked out of that hotel room several times that afternoon. She could have called an attorney at any of those occassions. In addition, she could have asked to use the phone in the hotel room to call an attorney.

116

Jack, let me put this in small words so you can understand: Nobody in this thread has made the assumption that you are working so diligently–oops, I mean “hard”–to refute. I have not said that anything balances anything. If you wish to debate the existence of a centrist-conservative economic cant in the media, kindly open another thread. But do not ascribe to me arguments that I am not making–namely, that “corporate media bias balances social issue media bias.” That’s a straw man, man.

Maeglin: Rosetta Stone? Funny stuff. I guess I gotta go learn Egyptian for my arguments to be credible. :slight_smile:

John Corrado: Bah! Your defense of Andrew Johnson is clearly partisan, and shows your kneejerk Democrat blinders once again. :wink:

This thread is one big mess, isn’t it?

117

“Overcondemned” is the word. The OP was about people helped to expose Democratic corruption who were subsequently overcondemned or underappreciated. In many cases, they were condemned for some activity other than their anti-Demorcat role. However, my allegation is that one reason they were singled out for attack was in payback for the harm they had done to Democrats. **
[/QUOTE]

and of course we’re still waiting proof of this assertion. Or, gasp, could it be as Sua points out that the persons listed were in their very own way reprehensible themselves???

You are allowed to have an opinion. You can even post it. However, if you’re making (as you do here) the claim that it’s true, you’d best have data to support it. Otherwise, the claim of trolling seems to be quite apt.

Milo yeppers any supervisor having sexual contact w/a (paid/unpaid) employee is, IMHO acting (at least) inappropriately. During work hours, reprehensible. Criminal? Well, actually in some cases it is (prison guards for example, having sexual relations w/prisoners, ie some one they supervise- are subject to prosecution in the State of MI). In the case listed, apparently not.

Of course, what a sexual contact tween two adults in DC during the late 90’s had to do with some land transaction in Arkansas many years before, I’m still unclear, despite the hefty price tag. (yaddy yaddy yea, I know perjury etc. And I’d care a whole lot more about the perjury itself if the judge in the case the dep was taken for hadn’t ruled it inadmissable in the first place. Too bad they weren’t forced to submit the list of questions to the judge first, eh?)

Should he have known better ? yep. Of course, I’m not sure that any man (with a proclivity towards cheating on their spouse) would ever suspect that the Sweet Young Thing [sup]TM[/sup] before him would A. spill her guts so thoroughly B. to anyone who would break laws by taping the conversation and C. would ‘save’ a semen stain. Do I think he’s a personal slime ball? you bet. Paragon of virtue? hell no.

I personally would wish to know quite a bit less about the sexual habits of a long list of folks, starting with politicians, going on through celebrities, neighbors and ending with my father (ewwwwwww). But I guess I’m in the minority.

I find it ironically amusing (as apparently do you) when folks who would gladly point out others sins find themselves caught (those two Jimmys - Swaggert & Baker come to mind). But other than that, shrug.

And of course, 3 pages later, we’re still waiting to evidence to support the OP. (other than gee, seems to me these people got vilified). Hint - Sua pointed out on page one what you’d have to do to support your contention, and, since you ‘filed’ the charge, it’s up to you to prove it.

118

it’s a close-fought thing, but to my mind, it was a detention and, more importantly, the false assertion that an immunity deal would be off the table if Monica spoke to her civil lawyer, but would be on if she instead spoke to a public defender, was an ethical violation. More importantly, it was done for an improper purpose - as the Starr report itself acknowledges, Starr was aware of the Lewinsky affidavit. Starr was desperate to have that affidavit filed, because without it being filed, Lewinsky had not committed a crime.

Sua

119

it’s a close-fought thing, but to my mind, it was a detention and, more importantly, the false assertion that an immunity deal would be off the table if Monica spoke to her civil lawyer, but would be on if she instead spoke to a public defender, was an ethical violation. More importantly, it was done for an improper purpose - as the Starr report itself acknowledges, Starr was aware of the Lewinsky affidavit. Starr was desperate to have that affidavit filed, because without it being filed, Lewinsky had not committed a crime.

Sua

120

I am expressing my contempt for your attitude and your argument. Do not assume that I am starting a protracted argument with you. If I do, trust me, you will know.

Yes, we all know you took issue with something Gadarene said, and we also all know that you are carrying spillover bile from other threads, namely on baseball and also on media bias.

That is the sound of Jackmanii stepping into a cowpie.

Gadarene repeated not once but twice that the above was manifestly not his argument. So whose argument, then, were you refuting?

Surely not one that was actually made.

Whether the bias is beneficial or not is less relevant to the existence of the bias. But I might just take up your gauntlet.