Comments on: Hoist On Their Own Petards III

By: c3

c3 — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:19:42 +0000

@Tom There's a difference? (When you're the source of all evil in the world are such distinctions meaningless?)

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:25:41 +0000

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?

By: c3

c3 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:28:05 +0000

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.

By: c3

c3 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:23:33 +0000

I guess both glass houses are sufficiently shattered now.

By: Orson Buggeigh

Orson Buggeigh — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:47:14 +0000

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.