Karnak say, "Rod Blagojevich, Eliott Spitzer, Jefferson,..."
Question: What Democrat Scandal?
Posted on 01/04/2009 4:13:32 AM PST by careyb
the sad fact is that Democrat and Republican politicians have more in common with each other than they do with the people the ostensibly represent. When the trough is open, they feed.
Where’s that photo of Carville with a trash can on his head?
Excellent way to put it and I agree.
...back when he had hair.
Take it back! That's an insult to alligator intelligence.
I have faith in the American People to see this poser for what he really is. You can fool all of the people some of the time— but in the long run they will get tired of their new toy and start to see his feet of clay. The people on the left will be the first to un-mask Obama—mark my words. Scandal—not sexual but monetary will be his undoing I believe.
Their streak of scandals goes all the way back to John ‘Bath House” Coughlin in Chicago and the Tweed Machine in NY. our native criminal class.
I am more thinking its a call to bear arms for the computer crusaders to dig, dig and dig even deeper to bring to light scandals, back door deals, and of course the scandals.
Used to be those in power had barriers in place to keep the common folk out of their business.
Not anymore, we can find phone records, utility bills, property liens, travel records.
With picture phones an average person is now an on the spot reporter.
We will air your dirty laundry, your history, your hidden past, we will expose your lack of history and will find the pattern of your existence.
Its calle, “We The People”.
More snakes=more bites.
Is he right? I have no doubt that he believes what he is saying. Perhaps I tend to agree with him because he is echoing what I posted for the election. First, let's put up what Courville said so that we know what he was talking about and maybe even what we are talking about:
A "near catastrophic ideological rift" in the Republican Party. "There is no obvious Republican leader on the horizon, and the party is caught between its Southern/talk-radio base and the rest of the country on whether they should oppose or cooperate with [Barack] Obama's administration. The combination of the lack of an obvious leader and the general political combustibility of the Republican Party will lead to a dangerous fissure that will plague it until the 2012 election cycle."
Before the presidential debates, I was so concerned with the impending catastrophe that I wrote the following rather long post, parts of which are excerpted here:
So we will be leaderless for a time while we get this sorted out but we need not be rudderless for long because we have several men who can take the tiller in steady hand and guide the ship out of these shoals and into blue waters. There will be finger-pointing and acrimony but that is necessary and good. We must rediscover our soul and that cannot be done without bloodletting.
Speaking of bloodletting, it is absolutely vital that the conservative wing of the party come to a final victory over the moderates or we conservatives simply must leave the party. There will be no better time, we will never have less to lose. We will be in control of most of the elected offices and we will be in solid red states, few though they may be. The moderates will be geographically scattered in occasional congressional seats with some odds and ends in statehouses. They will have their voices in the media and some access to money. Many of them will defect to the Democrat party. Some might become libertarians. But conservatives must get lean and mean and come to a clear understanding of who they are and what they stand for. Moderates can come along but only after capitulation. There is no sense taking stragglers and mutineers along into the wilderness.
Not less important than finding our soul, conservatives must ruthlessly enforce party discipline. That can only come after moderates are reconciled to conservative leadership or have gone their own way. There can be no doctrinal accommodation with moderates. There is nothing more to be gained by compromising principle for a few more votes in the caucus because the caucus will have no power anyway. Conservative power will come from the moral strength of ideas. Eventually, if Obama only perverts and does not subvert the constitutional system, the public will realize the moral corruption of the liberal regime.
I believe that the big battle in the party will not be between conservatives and moderates but between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives who are primarily libertarian. Both flavors of conservatives find common ground in strong defense. Fiscal conservatives are generally not as enthusiastic about Second Amendment rights, but the issue is not a dealbreaker. Social conservatives are almost universally fiscal conservatives but not all fiscal conservatives share social conservatives concerns about abortion and the ancillary issue of the morning after pill, education, religion in the public square, homosexual union, stem cell research, and pornography, marital fidelity as a prerequisite to public service, and evolution.
I consider myself to be a social conservative with a pesky libertarian reflex. In other words I am ferociously opposed to abortion but I am less exercised about what homosexuals are doing to each other in private. I am very concerned about the war being waged against Christians by our own governments but I'm not very exercised about adult pornography. I recite all of this because I think the way I resolved my apparent dilemma is the way everybody should do it: look for the victim and protect him. The classic arguments in support of legalizing alcohol, drugs, prostitution and gambling all point to the "absence" of a victim so the traditional conservative bias towards individual liberty weighs very heavily. But I sure see a victim in partial-birth abortion so I don't give a damn about the mother's convenience. Indeed, I see no reason to grant exceptions to prohibitions against abortion for incest or rape because those circumstances do not justify victimizing innocents, that is, to kill babies. Life of the mother exception, to the contrary, makes sense to me because one can identify the mother now as a victim. So if all conservatives would only just do as I do, (you know, be as reasonable as Henry Higgins and I) which is to weigh the balance in behalf of an identifiable victim but otherwise to respect individual liberty, we would find much overlapping common ground upon which to build long-lasting compromise.
If social conservatives would accept formulations of public morality the organizing principle of which is the protection of an identifiable victim rather than the vindication of a moral precept, fiscal conservatives and libertarians would be much more comfortable in the party. Fiscal conservatives, for their part, must go to bat for Christians when they are embattled by the secularists who would rob them of their faith through the arm of government. Fiscal conservatives owe Christian conservatives one more consideration, they must stop their smug condescension and their eye rolling whenever Christians express their faith in public. Consider for example the execrable figure of the son of William F. Buckley Jr. abandoning the McCain/Palin ticket for ill disguised abhorrence of Palin's faith. This is probably the last kind of bigotry that is socially acceptable in America but it must no longer be acceptable among conservatives. Buckley claims that he is a "small government conservative" but I claim that no matter how small his government, he is no conservative at all but something quite alien to us.
If the conservative movement is to be salvaged, this dichotomy will have to be resolved either along lines that I suggest or some other way. The alternative is a further splintering of the party and that would be very, very unfortunate.
Finally, another post which deals and leased by analogy, with Carville's comments about corruption which I believe sound good because they sound fair and evenhanded. But the truth is quite the opposite. Republican vices are not routinely excused the by the media as our Democrat peccadillos:
Some years ago I wrote a series of posts predicting the disintegration by centrifugal force of the Democrat party because it was intellectually incoherent. A primary cause of that incoherence, I wrote, was the African-American block which voted somewhere in the 90 percentile for the Democrat. It was easy to cite the reelection of the Mayor of Washington, DC, (the Mayor for life), the reelection of Mayor Naglin in New Orleans, the reelection of Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana. These individuals comprise grotesque examples of a voting bloc that has so departed from middle-class values and norms that one can only scratch one's head. Delivering more than 90% of a group's vote for criminals or even just for one party means that the collective voting pattern of this group is such that it cannot be defended intellectually and must be called what it is: racist.
I thought that this would eventually so corrupt the Democrat party that it would disintegrate. If the anti-intellectualism of the African-American community cannot be identified for what it is how can we discuss the alleged anti- intellectualism of the Christian fundamentalists? In other words, why is it okay to call Sarah Palin's stupid but not Cynthia McKinney? How is it that Kathleen Parker can write that Christian fundamentalists are an intellectual embarrassment to the Republican Party but I am not able in most forums to observe that the grotesqueries of the African American "community" in their voting habits, if nothing else, are far more embarrassing to patriotic America?
Not only did my assumption prove wrong, it proved the opposite of correct. The Democrat party has not been tainted by the shenanigans of its African-American base, to the contrary, it has been shielded from criticism because it adheres to this kind of reverse racism. The media establishment from Hollywood to Manhattan have simply, steadfastly, decided that America must be cured of its racism and they, by God, are going to do their part to drag America to enlightenment. The last most egregious example of them doing their part is the election of Barak Obama. Although the intellectual grotesqueries and criminal corruption of the Democrat party proceed mostly unreported, unprosecuted, and unpunished at the polls, the Republicans in the last two cycles have enjoyed no such immunity.
One would hope that an enlightened society would grant the Republican Party the same protection of its association with Christian fundamentalists. Alas, the opposite is the case. White Christians, especially white Christian males, are the last group in America against whom it is politically correct to be bigoted. Not only does such bigotry go unrebuked, it is flagrantly rewarded. Where, outside of conservative circles, has Charlie Gibson been rebuked for his intellectually dishonest interview with Sarah Palin in which her remarks were about God were distorted in the cutting room? The fact is that within Manhattan and Georgetown salons Gibson has been fêted.
I do find it odd that the Republican Party is disintegrating or, better put, flying apart from its centrifugal forces. It should be the Democrat party that is cracking from its own lunacy, but it is the Republicans who are dying because of their own rationality. Yes, rationality. What is so irrational about believing in God? Why do the Kathleen Parkers of this world who purport to be conservatives feel compelled to issue broadside after broadside against Christians? Why does Peggy Noonan find herself unable to exercise self-restraint when it comes to Sarah Palin? The answer is obvious, Sarah Palin is the living personification of her faith. What is it that Sarah Palin has done as a Christian which provokes these reactions? We know the answer, she carried of Mongoloid to term. For this affront she will never be forgiven.
Odd that the whole party has to suffer for her effrontery.
Media will cover for the dems like they did for Clinton
I don't believe this at all. We voted for change, not business as usual.
I did catch that and I think Carville's right. As someone whose conservatism is very much of the libertarian variety I wonder whether I will have a home in the GOP. The whole bailout frenzy has appalled me and big government conservatism is a disaster. On the other hand I don't care who puts what organ where as long as they are consenting adults, so homosexuality doesn't bother me. I could even live with gay marriage provided it's adopted through a democratic process and not foisted upon us by a handful of judges. My pro-life views are an extension of my libertarianism since I'm not particularly religious. I truly wonder where I belong in the politics of today.
Yeah, democrats are the most corrupt by far. The difference is that the scandal and corruption being covered up by the liberal media will be harder to avoid since so many democrats got elected.
add Richardson to the list, He just pulled his name from consideration in Obama’s administrtion.
The Democrats are acting even weirder than usual lately.
May a camel with weak kidneys invade your tent.
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.