«
»

Corruption comparison

Posted 20 Aug 2007 in Bill Clinton, corruption, Democrats, liberals, Republicans

Jay Tea has a story about Bill Richardson’s campaign organizer which turns into a nice compare-and-contrast over at Say Anything:

Every now and then, some leftist will publish an account of some Republican (rarely a prominent one) who’s run afoul of the law or some moral issue (usually both). This is usually tagged as “Republican family values” or “culture of corruption.”

I don’t care for those sorts of stories. To my way of thinking, such corruption is pretty much non-partisan. I don’t like hanging the failings of one person on their group. I prefer to see how the person is treated by their compeers after the scandal has broken; to me, that’s a fairer measure of the group than how thoroughly it weeds out potential miscreants.

By that standard, I don’t have much truck with either party, but I think that the Republicans have a slightly better record than the Democrats. Mel Reynolds was pardoned by Bill Clinton, Alcee Hastings nearly won a choice committee chairmanship, Ted and Patrick Kennedy are still in office, and Bill Clinton is still wildly popular. On the other hand, Mark Foley became an instant pariah, virtually nobody rushed to Duke Cunningham’s defense, and Bob Ney was shunned and the calls for his resignation were quite bipartisan.
…
The point should not be “which side is the most corrupt.” It should be “how quickly can we get rid of the corrupt ones …”

Posted by FullMetalPatriot
12th gen. American, Constitutionalist, Harley-riding Texan, gun owner & NRA member, blogger, illustrator, Florida Gator alumnus. #TCOT

Leave A Comment