Vote Republican

[MrRain422]

Well, the big issue in the Foley scandal, IMO, wasn't the screw up of one guy, it was the failure to act by the many others who knew what he was up to. Including party leadership.

[owl]

It's about the rhetoric itself. Every time one of their members makes a moral indiscretion, it should be a chalkmark against the "moral majority" claim.

 

Like I said, nobody should ever claim moral high ground because for the vast, vast, vast majority of people, it's impossible. Defending the use of that rhetoric gives them a free pass to continue to make dubious claims like that one.

 

I wouldn't have Democrats make that claim, and I wouldn't have Republicans make it, either. It's foolish to make such an impossible claim, but the Republicans did.

[owl]

It's basically a choice between

 

A) If you make a claim, you live up to it.

If you make a claim, it's okay to not live up to it.

 

Don't make impossible claims. (And remember which party claims ownership of consistency, too.)

[MattZ]

but the Republicans did.

 

I think that's the point here -- people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones (to quote a tired cliche).

 

We all have glass houses -- dems and repubs. But the Republicans seem to be the ones most often throwing stones. So when a prominent Republican figure gets caught as a hypocrite its different than when Clinton got busted. Clinton didn't get caught after running races and crucifying his opponents for their sexual infidelities. Clinton is someone who made a mistake. It's very very different in my book.

 

But I definitely understand El El's point. As a general matter, its ludicrous to paint an entire party by the actions of a few -- even if its a very visible few -- hypocrites.

 

Go vote tomorrow people. Even if its in a place where your preferred candidate is assured victory. Make a statement to Washington that a high turnout means that people are listening and watching and caring about how Washington is being run. Whether you are on the left or the right.

[mountain bed]

I recently read an excerpt of a book by a guy named David Kuo.He was former second-in-command of GW Bush's Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.Looking forward to actually reading the whole thing.Regardless of which party is more 'moral',I find it really sickening that the current Administration played on evangelicals and the like (which form a true core of the Republican constituency),to get their support & when the time came to reward them Bush & Co. just shit on them.In fact,many in the Admin. laughed at them & made crude jokes about them & their apparent naivete in the political arena.

 

Now if THAT isn't the worst kind of hypocrisy,what is? If I was a Promise Keeper or some such (NOT ),I'd be voting against the Republicans just out of sheer spite and/or disillusionment.

[wheelco]

I recently read an excerpt of a book by a guy named David Kuo.He was former second-in-command of GW Bush's Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.Looking forward to actually reading the whole thing.Regardless of which party is more 'moral',I find it really sickening that the current Administration played on evangelicals and the like (which form a true core of the Republican constituency),to get their support & when the time came to reward them Bush & Co. just shit on them.In fact,many in the Admin. laughed at them & made crude jokes about them & their apparent naivete in the political arena.

 

Now if THAT isn't the worst kind of hypocrisy,what is? If I was a Promise Keeper or some such (NOT ),I'd be voting against the Republicans just out of sheer spite and/or disillusionment.

I was in court with my brother's father in law, who is divorced, and he told the bailiff ad nauseum that he was a Promise Keeper

 

my thought -- "broke one!!"

 

not that I really care, personally, just the irony

[bobbob1313]

I can't even begin to understand what that picture is supposed to mean, but good god is it offensive.

[bjorn_skurj]

Looks like Ortega is back in Nicaragua.

 

Oh! Mama, Mama look there!

Your children are playing in that street again

Don't you know what happened down there?

A youth of fourteen got shot down there

The Kokane guns of Jamdown Town

The killing clowns, the blood money men

Are shooting those Washington bullets again

 

As every cell in Chile will tell

The cries of the tortured men

Remember Allende, and the days before,

Before the army came

Please remember Victor Jara,

In the Santiago Stadium,

Es verdad - those Washington Bullets again

 

And in the Bay of Pigs in 1961,

Havana fought the playboy in the Cuban sun,

For Castro is a colour,

Is a redder than red,

Those Washington bullets want Castro dead

For Castro is the colour...

...That will earn you a spray of lead

 

For the very first time ever,

When they had a revolution in Nicaragua,

There was no interference from America

Human rights in America

 

Well the people fought the leader,

And up he flew...

With no Washington bullets what else could he do?

 

'N' if you can find a Afghan rebel

That the Moscow bullets missed

Ask him what he thinks of voting Communist...

...Ask the Dalai Lama in the hills of Tibet,

How many monks did the Chinese get?

In a war-torn swamp stop any mercenary,

'N' check the British bullets in his armoury

Que?

Sandinista!

[tugmoose]

This should clarify everything.

[Atticus]

This should clarify everything.

 

giant douche or a turd sandwich...

[John Smith]

See, but you are getting back into that area of what some considers issues of 'morality' and what's not. They are still considered more 'moral' on the abortion, gay marriage, etc. items important to a lot of people and mentioned earlier a couple of posts back.

 

Also, by your rationale, you can't count Haggard...that's like saying that the party is accountable for anybody who isn't an official, but still a republican constiutent or backer. Then, somebody needs to answer how they address those 'log cabin' republicans today...how do they account for those cats?

 

At the end of the day, i'll still vote Democrat...but these type of conversations amaze me.

 

Each individual is responsible for their own morality that much is certain. For years the Republicans have been running on being morally superior, with abortion being one of their main issues. Over the last few years the gay marriage issue has probably supplanted abortion a little. If Republicans were truly serious about ending abortion they could have done something about it over the last two years. They had the majority on both houses. They were able to pass a law that effectively ended Habeus Corpus and gave the president the authority to determine who get Habeus Corpus thus effectively allowing one person to determine who is outside the law (and thus can be tortured). If they can pass a law of this nature, surely they could have passed something on abortion to reinforce their moral high ground. However, some things can never be passed, and a law on abortion is one of them, because they will always need to have it around as an election issue.

 

But with the Haggard issue, true he is not a party official, but he was a party operative who was used to motivate people to vote their values, which he shared with them and the party etc

[EL the Famous]

The pundits, the Limbaugh

[John Smith]

Exactly why i can't understand why anybody who finds that disgusting and silly would turn around and do the same thing. That's my only point.

 

I agree, that's why I looked at ALL the corruption, bribery, influence buying, bullying, and covering up of sexual misconduct as being what the republican party has going for it and leading to it's downfall this election. With Foley the big problem for me is nto so much his actions, but rather the apparent actions of thsoe around him who seemed perfectly content to cover it up. I recognize that all republicans are not corrupt, but enough misdeads have painted them as they appear. There has been a pattern of misbehavior going on unabatted, till now of course. While with the dems the press took Wild Bill and projected him on all democrats. One guy was used to paint the whole party, while with the republicans scores of wrongdoers are not supposed to paint an image for the whole party? If it was one guy, be it Bush or Hastert or Ney or anyone else, it would have been one thing, but with a virtual plethora of crap to choose from it is very hard not to paint the whole party. For quiote soemtime I've been saying that perhaps the RICO statutes need to be invoked and the current party leadership be investigated. At least the dem criminals (Rostenkowski) dealt with pennny ante crap compared to republicans. Of course we will find out what happens with Jefferson who appears to be as corrupt as any republican.

[EL the Famous]

I agree, that's why I looked at ALL the corruption, bribery, influence buying, bullying, and covering up of sexual misconduct as being what the republican party has going for it and leading to it's downfall this election.

 

could you do the same complete list for the dems? i really don't care either way, but it'd just be fun to see they're that less crooked than the republicans. every politician is slightly crafty in my book, that wasn't my point at all.

[John Smith]

could you do the same complete list for the dems? i really don't care either way, but it'd just be fun to see they're that less crooked than the republicans. every politician is slightly crafty in my book, that wasn't my point at all.

 

Implying that the dems have the same issues as the republicans does nto make it so. Right now of the currently sitting congress I can think of Jefferson from Louisiana who is being investigated for bribery and for his deplorable Katrina behavior. I'm not sure of any other real scandals. Sure there is the phony Reid Land Deal muked up by the press, but the correct story got very little play. Outside of that I can't think of any real scandals. That does nto mean they exist, I just have not heard of them...got another the Kennedy (not Ted, the other one) drunk driving issue

 

On the republican side, congress only, we have Cunningham, Ney, Abrahamoff buying influence throughout congress. The Hastert land/legislation deal. The Foley Scandal & the even bigger coverup scandal. Santorum and his man./dog issue. There is Curt Weldon and his problems. The ice President shot a man in the face. The vice president told a senator to fuck off on the sennate floor. The president has told the world that if the dems win the terrorists win, and then says it was just campaign rhetoric in the same taklk whre he tells the terrorists nto to rejoice at the dems win. Jean Schmidt callig a decorated Marine a coward fromt he floor of the house of representatives. Jean Schmidt lying to congress about a letter she read on the floor of congress when she called a decorated marine veteran a coward. Don't forget chokign congressional girlfriends/payoff for silence because hhe is married. Passing legislation effectivel ending Habeus Corpus. The allowing of torture. etc...etc...etc... It goes on and on.

 

Outside of congress we have all that shit in Ohio with the coin guy., Blackwell trying to re-write election laws at the last minute Taft/graft. We have the situation in nevada with the candiadte moleting a woman.

[quarter23cd]

I don't know why this makes me laugh. Must be slap-happy today...

[owl]

could you do the same complete list for the dems? i really don't care either way, but it'd just be fun to see they're that less crooked than the republicans. every politician is slightly crafty in my book, that wasn't my point at all.

 

Even if both parties were equally corrupt (and they may be), wouldn't it make it that much worse if one claimed ownership of morality?

[MattZ]

Even if both parties were equally corrupt (and they may be), wouldn't it make it that much worse if one claimed ownership of morality?

 

I say yes.

[EL the Famous]

Even if both parties were equally corrupt (and they may be), wouldn't it make it that much worse if one claimed ownership of morality?

 

"First base." It's clearly what each person's definition of morality is and/or what makes a paricular issue a moral one. The point i'm making isn't against either of the actual parties, it's that some of the folks aligned to said parties complain about it when it happens to their guy and turns around and issues the same blanket stament against the party they don't like.

 

Plus, I ask again, does the Democratic party call themselves the 'Immoral Majority'? Who cares what somebody calls thenselves to get votes...you and I know it's bullshit. You say they really aren't moral...but then hold them to it wjhen one of their members proves otherwise. Doesn't make sense to me.

[MattZ]

Who cares what somebody calls thenselves to get votes...you and I know it's bullshit. You say they really aren't moral...but then hold them to it wjhen one of their members proves otherwise. Doesn't make sense to me.

 

Damn you people. Each new post in this discussion re-convinces me that the other side of this argument is right.

 

Now I agree with El El again.

[EL the Famous]

All i'm saying that there are plenty of legitimate issues to bag the republicans and the current administration...getting bogged down in these individual scandals makes you look as petty as the goofs you are trying to oust. rise above.

[owl]

I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this one. I see what you're saying, but I also don't see why the irony should be ignored.

[quarter23cd]

You say they really aren't moral...but then hold them to it wjhen one of their members proves otherwise.

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a very Republican friend during the whole Lewinsky thing. She went on and on about how a man can't be trusted to run a country if he can't be trusted to keep his sacred vows to his wife. My response was "Hey, aren't you one of those people that has been saying for years that the Clinton marriage is a sham anyway, put on for appearances to advance each other's careers? If you truly believe that, how can you get so upset about it when he breaks that supposedly-fictional trust?"

[owl]

For the record, I think that adultery is wrong, Clinton or not.

[EL the Famous]

I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this one. I see what you're saying, but I also don't see why the irony should be ignored.

 

It doesn't, I just think it's a waste of time. To each their own.