Posted on 09/15/2007 10:04:03 PM PDT by SmithL
As illustrated last week in the sad case of state Rep. Rob Briley and as more or less acknowledged by Tennessee’s Democratic and Republican chairmen, our two major political parties have developed different approaches to politicians in trouble.
You might say that Republicans offer the accused a boot, the Democrats a kid glove.
Briley, a Democrat, allegedly engaged last weekend in a round of remarkably stupid and dangerous behavior, especially for a man House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh accurately described as capable of displaying brilliance in the legislative arena.
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which decides what should be the laws of our land, stands accused of drunken driving, evading arrest, vandalism of a police car and multiple lesser infractions.
Before he had checked into a substance abuse rehabilitation clinic, Republicans were issuing statements declaring Briley should resign from the Legislature immediately. GOP Chairman Robin Smith challenged her Democratic counterparts to do the same, saying it was a matter of keeping the public trust in a public institution.
State Democratic Chairman Gray Sasser declined the challenge. Briley has not been convicted of anything, he noted, and “at this point in time, what’s most important is that Rep. Briley gets healthy and deals with these deeply troublesome and personal issues.”
Naifeh was more blunt. The naysayers declaring Briley should leave the Legislature are pretty low-life people playing for partisan advantage against a man suffering from alcoholism and trying to heal, he said
The speaker said the court system will resolve the matter of guilt or innocence in due course, and until that happens — and until he has talked with Briley after his treatment program — no discipline decisions should be made.
The Republican call for Briley’s resignation is consistent with similar calls when members of their own party were accused. Party leaders, for example, actively prodded former state Rep. Chris Newton, R-Cleveland, to quit his House seat after indictment on bribery charges in the FBI’s Tennessee Waltz sting.
At the national level recently, GOP stalwarts actively pushed Idaho Sen. Larry Craig to resign after learning he had pleaded guilty to men’s room misconduct.
Here in Tennessee, the Democrats have also been consistent. Democratic legislators accused in the Waltz sting were not urged to resign by their party when accused. Those subsequently convicted or pleading guilty did eventually resign.
“We let the judicial system work, and it worked very well,” said Sasser. “Maybe Democrats have more faith in the judicial system.”
Then there’s Sen. Jerry Cooper, D-Morrison, acquitted by a jury on bank fraud charges — perhaps providing an example of when resignation was proven unwarranted. Cooper has other troubles, though — a recent guilty plea to DUI and pending civil action for alleged wrongful use of campaign contributions.
Sasser speculates that the GOP boot became standard after the scandal over former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, who sent sexually explicit messages to juvenile boys. Republican leaders “felt a little burned” after initially keeping quiet on Foley, he said. Not to mention the delay in resignations by Tom DeLay and others at the national level.
Smith said the boot is simply a part of the basic political duty to make government and the state better for citizens “rather than protecting personal interests and personal agendas.”
Politicians should not hide behind the judicial system, she said. That criminal justice system protects individual rights, not the right to hold an elective office — a position that should be held to a higher standard.
In Briley’s case, it’s a safe bet that he will lose the chairmanship position, either voluntarily or because of House rules requiring leadership positions be vacated when a legislator is indicted on felony charges — and that’s likely.
It’s also virtually certain that he will remain in the Legislature, if he chooses, for the remainder of his term. Both he and Cooper, if they seek re-election, will be judged by voters next year — after the 2008 legislative session.
Maybe that’s too long. While there are reasonable arguments for both the immediate boot and the wait-and-see kid glove, perhaps there is a better approach.
Say, for example, a law requiring that, when an officeholder is indicted, he or she would have to go through a special re-election within 180 days to remain in office.
Then, voters would decide whether he or she should continue to be trusted. And the parties could play their usual role of trying to influence that decision.
Dems know the media won’t run their scandals into the ground. So they can go easy on the perps.
While I have no desire to cover for the black sheep on our side.
I am VERY tired of the double standard.
Unfortunately I have no idea what to do about it.
Republicans take out their trash.
Democrats enthrone theirs.
Think of it as short-term pain leading to long-term gain.
ALLEGATION against a republican= republican a disgrace, must resign.
CONVICTION of a democrat= we need to make sure the perp is OK and gets all the medical help he needs, but resign, no.
DemocRATS are above the law. Everyone knows that. Especially the DemocRATS.
get used to it, larry craig gets thrown out of the senate for toe tapping and hillary clinton is lauded and praised for laundering all of the chicoms money.
You nailed it.
This is just a symptom. The underlying reality is that Democrats protect their miscreants because they can, and Republicans do not because they cannot get away with it.And what determines who can get away with what in politics? "Objective" journalism, of course. And why do "objective" journalists who go pedal-to-the-metal on any allegation of Republican soft-pedal allegations of Democratic malfeasance? Because the business of journalism is
That is why journalists call themselves and their colleagues "objective" with no basis in fact.
- self-promotion,
- promotion of those who support your own self-promotion, and
- demotion of the reputations of anyone else.
That is why journalists call others who promote criticism of the productive (but who don't have jobs in journalism) "liberal" or "progressive" (or whatever positive label they prefer).
And that is why journalists bushwhack and second guess businessmen, the military, and the police. And why journalists call anyone who thinks that
"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena - Theodore Roosevelt"partisan" or "conservative" or "right wing." With no basis in fact.
BTTT
“DemocRATS are above the law. Everyone knows that. Especially the DemocRATS.”
If you can get away with it, why not?
RATS are bullies. Smack them in the nose with a newspaper and they will stop.
RINO’s are wussies. Threaten them with the newspaper and they will stop.
BTTT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.