I’d go as far as to say corruption is guaranteed and inevitable. Anymore, whenever some politician questions the ethics or honestly of another, it’s just the pot and kettle.
The thing is that the Republicans specifically run on these platforms. The one against equal rights for gays turns out to engage in homosexual behavior often. The ones who lambast liberals for wanting to destroy the family get caught in adultery.
It’s not the lack of morals that makes these guys so ripe for attack. It’s the hypocrisy. The lack of morals themselves are just sad and pathetic and human.
I said this back in the 1990’s as I recall:
The best argument for the Democrats is the Republicans. The best argument for the Republicans is the Democrats.
A two-party system encourages you to vote for the one that sucks less or not at all.
The Repubs institutionalized the K Street connection that resulted in Abramoff and many ,many other like him. They did not allow the ethics committees to do a thing. No matter what a Repub did ,he would be covered up. Corruption was their method of governance. It was about money. They took our government to a new low. the Dems would have to try to get there. Because the Repubs were doing the governing to the highest bidder on purpose.
My personal dis-favorite right now is the slime who voted against stimulus money, and then run home to get photographed next to big cardboard checks crowing about how they brought home the jobs bacon. I’m totally ready to denounce, renounce, and condemn any Dem for doing anything that so totally ensuckens dead donkey balls.
Trouble is, can only find Pubbies doing that, and that won’t get me any centrist, non-partisan cred. Well, shit.
Yet?
Well, maybe the big G.O.P. ethics revolution is just around the corner and we can’t hear the hoofbeats yet. Public financing of elections, major restrictions on former Congresscreatures lobbying after leaving office and lots of other neat stuff are bound to be a big part of the party platform any time now, so that Republicans can say they have seized the moral high ground for generations to come.
Yup, any time now.
Mr. Moto, I don’t think that it is fair to include:
Might doesn’t count – especially when the flowers on his grave haven’t wilted under the snow.
But since your observation itself is accurate, I’ll give you a biggie to fill in: John Edwards.
He’s the one that makes my flesh crawl.
Since we agree on this, why don’t we suggest to our leaders that they make up for their lapse in eithics by becoming more compassionate servants of the People.
I find it interesting that the OP is about the effectiveness of ethics as a 2010 campaign issue as compared with 2006, rather than the question of whether there has been any change since 2006 in terms of which party has a more systemic ethics problem, period.
Fundamentally, the OP’s question is all about which side is going to be more effective at framing and spinning. Fuck that shit.
Republicans torture, Democrats don’t prosecute. As disgusted as I am with the ethics of Democrats for not prosecuting torture leading to death in multiple instances, I must confess that the Republicans who actually order and commit these torture murders disgust me more.
Except that little things like this win or lose elections - and those have consequences, right?
We can argue endlessly about which side is right or wrong - that will have little impact on which side gets more votes in the polls. And while you might join a side for the most highminded or selfish reasons, you won’t be able to do much without actually winning an election or two.
I made the distinction right in my OP. This is about ethics as a campaign issue. I’m not expecting you to become a Republican over this, just to recognize that this could make it harder for Democrats to win elections - a case I don’t see difficult to make.
David Vitter, liked whores and whorehouses and enjoyed running around in diapers. Still in office.
Eliot Spitzer, spent his own money on whores. Immediately drummed out of office.
The Dems expect better. The Repubs figure no big deal.
Sure they do - but what’s the point of debating them? “The Repubs can spin the Dems’ ethics problems to look just as bad as their own!” “No they can’t!” No matter which side you’re on, your argument has its feet planted firmly on air. Or maybe water vapor, if you’re lucky.
Nothing said or done on the Dope will have that much impact on elections. So we might as well argue about something real rather than about what people might or might not be persuaded to think about what’s real.
You sure did.
Just remember, according to the Democrats your personal life has nothing to do with political office. Unless of course you are a Republican.
At least finish the sentence. 'Unless of course you are a Republican who has stated that anyone who conducts their personal life in an ‘immoral fashion’ should resign.’
As to the OP: the ethics issue such as it is will continue to claim casualties from both sides of the fence. It’s inevitable. Neither side will ever be able to claim the ethical high ground en toto. The best that can be hoped for is individuals with good ethical track records. One of the biggest issues I’ve noticed with Republican voters is that they insist everything must be an all or nothing scenario. That’s very rarely the case. A small percentage of Democratic or Republican politicians with ethics issues does not mean the entire well is poisoned. Vote the candidate, not the party.
There are exceptions, based on nothing more than affection, in my case. Charlie Rangel probably is at least somewhat corrupt, in the fine old tradition of Adam Clayton Powell. But I like the old crook, and the House would be a greyer place without him.
Exactly. From what I can tell, the Democrats investigate themselves and chase the bad players out. There may be some exceptions like Dan Rostinkowski and possibly John Mertha. I’m not sure Rostinkowski counts though since he was removed from leadership PDQ and then removed from office prior to conviction. When the Republicans get into ethics battles, they line up behind and blame the liberal media right up until absolute proof is demonstrated, and even then continue support. Hows Sanford doing these days?
Democrats still have the ethics issue over the Republicans.
Well, theres ethics and ethics. Suppose we have a Pubbie who wouldn’t pick up a nickel off the street if it wasn’t his to begin with, but due to honest personal conviction invariably supports the causes of the rich and powerful. I will admire him most profoundly as I vote against him.
I think the problem with the Democrats is that when they transgress ethically, they do it in such a half-assed, inept, and comparitively petty fashion. It’s almost like their hearts aren’t really in it. Compare them to the Republicans who will boldly go down on a K Street lobbyist right in front of you and then, when you call them on it, jump up and accuse you of being of a disloyal liberal elitist tool of the drive-by media before attacking a nearby Democrat for stealing a grape in a grocery store.
To paraphrase Alan Rickman in Die Hard, when it comes to unethical behavior, the Democrats are common thieves; the Republicans are exceptional ones.
Another thing is, the Dems haven’t had that much power to corrupt them, the last decade or so.
What does that link have to do with John Tower who during his confirmation hearing had to defend himself against (among other charges) being a womanizer by dating different women after his divorce?