By saying that, I surely don’t mean the Republicans have it back - just that running on an ethics platform, like they did in 2006, would be laughable.
By now too much has happened. Rangel was admonished by the House today. Governor Patterson is embroiled in a scandal over allegedly covering up domestic abuse by an aide, and he is in office only because of the Spitzer flameout. Republicans couldn’t run a credible campaign for governor in Illinois in 2006 in part because of past scandals. This certainly helped Blagojevich at the time - but we all know what happened then.
Of course, related to this, Senator Roland Burris still holds his seat.
A defense contractor closely associated with John Murtha just pled guilty to fraud in the earmark investigation. This might have ensnared Murtha himself if he had not died.
The Mark Foley case was a big deal, surely, but Democrats lost the advantage when their candidate to replace Foley, Tim Mahoney, promptly paid hush money to his mistress and lost reelection to a Republican.
Like I said, Republicans can’t seize on this issue yet, except in certain specific races. But Democrats have lost ethics as a general issue. This was a missed opportunity for them.
I don’t believe Democrats as a whole have ever run on an ethics platform, thats the realm of the ‘moral majority’…which is why its so funny when they turn out to be as amoral as the rest of us.
Well, of course, there’s not much that can be done about that. Nothing definitely unethical could be pinned on him, and the useless twit is out at the end of the term, to be replaced by whoever.
Ok, I had not realized that our current political parties had even identified the probable location of the moral high ground, much less planned any assault on it.
I live just outside of the Great Hot Air Machine, and in all my life have never even heard of Diogenes even sending for scouting report from this town.
Cynical doesn’t even begin to cover it. We don’t doubt that our politicians are honest, we have no doubt about it at all. We assume they are criminally involved, selfishly motivated, and utterly unrepentant in their greed.
Perhaps the Democrats lost something. They sure didn’t lose it to the Republicans, who wouldn’t want it anyway.
We’ve seen immoral acts from dozens and dozens of both Republicans and Democrats for a long time. Is this really something new? What is it really that they have lost?
As far as I’m concerned, even given the recent incidents mentioned in the OP, the Democrats are still much better off than the Republicans. Whereas this is mostly individual cases, they have yet to do anything as organized and/or widespread as e.g. the “Florida incident” of the Presidential Election in 2000.
Yeah, seriously. The ethics issue, such as it is, changes hands so much as to make it only fleetingly in any party’s hands.
Corruption is acceptable… up until the next elections, anyway. It’ll have an effect then, but really, “X political party has ethically dubious members” isn’t really news.
Really? That’s all you’ve got? You think this represents the Democrats, overall, losing the ethics issue? And you’re talking about Spitzer and Patterson? Why not throw Jefferson in there too if you want to reach back in time to make your case.
Perhaps if the Democrats had promised to never have anyone who id’s as a Democrat engage in any impropriety, you might have a point.
Compared to the Culture of Corruption that the Republicans established (and I’m sure the perp log is still easily found over at Talking Points Memo if you need a reminder), the Democrats have a long way to go before they start being particularly tainted by ethics problems.
I know you were really counting on the Murtha thing exploding, but it never did, did it? Sorry about that.
Don’t know as you’ve noticed, but Paterson is under some pressure to resign now.
And I specifically said that the Republicans couldn’t pick up the ethics mantle. I’m just saying the Democrats ran a campaign in 2006 to improve ethics, and it worked for them in that election. They can’t make that case today.
Are you suggesting that if the Democrats were not conducting ethics investigations into fellow Democrats, they COULD claim to be the more ethical party?
If there’s one thing that is perfectly clear, regardless of party, there are going to be politicians of either party who are going to do dumb things for bad reasons. One watchdog lists their view of the 15 most corrupt members of Congress, and it seems to be equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. The question from a party perspective is the degree to which unethical behavior is overlooked or investigated.
I agree with the OP, only to the extent that ethics is NEVER an issue on which an incumbent party can realistically run on – people don’t trust politicians in power, ever. The notable thing is that the party out of power cannot run on the issue either, which is more unusual.
So is Pelosi going to ask him to resign? And Pattersonwon’t run again but won’t quit.
Neither side can claim ownership to moral superiority. They are all sleazy, money-grubbing slime balls who would sell their mothers to increase their re-election war chests. I wouldn’t trust any of them with my children or my checkbook but we are supposed to trust them to have our best interests at heart. Bullshit.
Anyone who runs for office says that they are doing it for altruistic and patriotic reasons. While that might be true I think that to some degree there is a narcissism and neediness to them. The approval and adoration fills some void and their sense of entitlement leads them to take greater risks and greater advantage.
Occasionally a candidate comes along who claims that they don’t want to make a career of their position and will quit after a couple terms. But it seems like they go back on that pledge and run one more time, claiming that there is so much that still needs to be done.
Kick them all out after two terms so they don’t have a chance to get entrenched, complacent and corrupt (provided they didn’t show up in DC that way). Bring in a fresh batch of scum and start over.
A couple of people posting here have mentioned the lack of ethics in the political class…so I think it appropriate to mention that the reason there is a lack of ethics in that class (and there is)…
…is because the “political class” is chosen from the population in general…and our population in general is possessed of questionable ethics.
We have people in politics who are more concerned with their personal benefit than with the benefit of the people in general…because they are chosen from the general population…and the general population seems to have personal benefit in mind rather than the benefit of the people in general.
The “political class” is reflective in every way of the population of our country in general.
The fact that they have assumed duties which supposedly are to put the welfare of the general population before their personal welfare…
…is just more of the same.
That is the way we do things.
That there are some exceptions is merely “proof” of the rule.
Politics is the business of being re-elected. If you want to get in ,or stay in, it takes money.The court has made sure special interests can wield it with a heavy and powerful hand. The interests of the people can not compete with the power of special interests. We do not have the same access. Most people do have something in common with other people and want politicians to reflect their needs. But real power is in the hands of lobbyists who work largely against the interests of the people.
I am sure there are a lot of pols who feel badly about what they have to keep doing to stay in office. After they leave they often tell more of the truth. Some become lobbyists .
And