Hoist On Their Own Petards III

December 10th, 2008 By: Arvak | Tags:

Many left-leaning critics have responded to reports of Democratic Illinois Governor Blagojevich’s blatant corruption scandal by highlighting Republican corruption scandals that led to sweeping electoral defeats in he 2006 Congressional elections.  These observations are certainly valid, as political corruption knows no party.  But that only serves to call into sharper relief the Democrats’ true problem here — they made so very much hay out of Republican corruption scandals, with Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bragging about Democrats providing the “most ethical Congress in history” by way of contrast, that the growing string of venal corruption by Democrats compounds itself by adding on hypocrisy and unwarranted arrogance.

And Michelle Malkin has her rhetorical scalpel out for some payback after all the self-righteous trumpeting by Democrats for the last several years:

Democrats and the media can no longer rest on the old rationalization that Blago is an exception to the “we’re cleaner than thou” rule. 2008 was the year of Democratic Reps. William “Cold Cash” Jefferson, Charlie “Sweetheart Deals” Rangel, and former Detroit Mayor Kwame “Text Me” Kilpatrick. It was the year Democratic Massachusetts State Senator Dianne Wilkerson got caught stuffing bribes from an FBI informant down her shirt. It was the year 12 Democratic leaders and staffers in Pennsylvania’s state Capitol were stung in a massive corruption scandal involving cash, sex and abuse of public office. And it was the year of multimillion-dollar embezzlement scandals at Democratic satellite offices of ACORN and the SEIU.

The Democrats have met the culture of corruption, and it looks like it ain’t just elephants among the jackasses soiling public office.

Alas, it seems that whenever either party gains power to a degree that insulates it from effective institutional opposition and/or scrutiny by the media, some of its members are perfectly willing to assume that the rules of law no longer apply to them. Contrary to the pretensions of Democratic leaders (and bloggers) for the last 5 years, the pathology of corruption is not limited to Republicans. Yet, it is their prior insistence that it was an exclusively Republican sin that makes them ineffective in trying to redirect attention this time, especially since most conservative bloggers readily concede that corruption is a bipartisan problem.

Note to Democrats: When you overreach in trying to cast yourself as morally better than everyone that disagrees with you, it only serves to make the inevitable fall from grace harder to bear and make it harder to redirect attention by shifting the subject.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Orson Buggeigh
    December 10th, 2008 at 19:47
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Nicely said, Jason. Yes, the Dems have been, to steal a line from James Thurber, ‘laboriously building the petard by which they have been hoist.’ No doubt about it, there is plenty of corruption on both sides of the aisle. And the Dems need to get busy and clean house. Quickly. Froma Harrop has an editorial in papers today calling for Speaker Pelosi to get serious about investigating Charles Rangel’s practices. I couldn’t agree more. She’s correct – Rangel is a personally charming fellow, and a Korean War vet, one of the founding leaders of the Congressional Balck Caucus – and someone who has fallen prey to the temptations which often trip up politicians. Of all parties. Having runh for four years on the charge of being clean and honest government types, the Dems need to deliver. That means cashiering their members who have been found ethically wanting.

  2. c3
    December 10th, 2008 at 22:23
    Reply | Quote | #2

    I guess both glass houses are sufficiently shattered now.

  3. c3
    December 10th, 2008 at 22:28
    Reply | Quote | #3

    I suggest the formation of the “Purity Party”. It would be founded on the highest possible ethical standards and the unwavering determination to do nothing that might be construed as wrong or unholy. It would have a strict “ex-communication” process, also. And to maintain its very high standards it would not propose nor participate in any legislation or administrative action.

  4. Tom
    December 11th, 2008 at 01:25
    Reply | Quote | #4

    The Democrats certainly made much of people like Duke Cunningham and Scooter Libby.

    I wonder though…

    Were Democratic objections to Republican practices focused primarily upon corruption? Or was it more focused on the bad decisions of the Bush administration and its supporters?

  5. c3
    December 11th, 2008 at 17:19
    Reply | Quote | #5

    @Tom
    There’s a difference?

    (When you’re the source of all evil in the world are such distinctions meaningless?)

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.