Should we treat the US Democrat/Republican parties as equally corrupt/depraved/etc

[bascule]

LIst of Democrat hypocrits

 

The list I linked is exclusively elected Republicans who hold public office of national stature (i.e. Congress). Your list has 1 current Democratic Congresswoman and 1 dead Democratic Senator, along with a bunch of celebrities and Al Gore. Kinda apples and oranges there.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think you missed my point. This is exactly the type of question that I don't want to ask myself.

 

The first question is "do you see similar things?" This is asking the things I'm observing in the media. Not the things that are actually happening. I don't pay attention to all the political corruption stories out there, nor does the media report on or even know about all of them.

 

"Do I feel such behavior..."

 

I don't want to base my opinions on feelings... what does the data say, if such data exists? If it doesn't I don't want to form biased opinions based on anecdotal and circumstantial observations and form an arbitrary narrative based on my existing biases.

 

I know I have biases... why should I try to confirm them based on irrational thinking? That's something I'm actively trying to avoid.

 

How do you think we could objectively scrutinize congresscritters?

[Pangloss]

So basically what you all are arguing is that the side with the smaller number of ridiculously hypocritical and unethical politicians in the news is the one we should vote for?

 

Given the large number of hypocrits and ethical violators on both sides, and lacking a connection between one politician's bad behavior and another's, I'm not sure I see the value in this.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Pangloss

[jryan]

The list I linked is exclusively elected Republicans who hold public office of national stature (i.e. Congress). Your list has 1 current Democratic Congresswoman and 1 dead Democratic Senator, along with a bunch of celebrities and Al Gore. Kinda apples and oranges there.

 

Which, of course, is why I provided all the other links and lists in my post. I could also provide more, if needed.

[Mr Skeptic]

The list I linked is exclusively elected Republicans who hold public office of national stature (i.e. Congress). Your list has 1 current Democratic Congresswoman and 1 dead Democratic Senator, along with a bunch of celebrities and Al Gore. Kinda apples and oranges there.

 

Also, your list is Republican hypocrisy (with a few hypocritical Republicans thrown in for good measure), whereas his list is at best hypocritical Democrats. Yes, people are hypocrites, but there's a difference between "do as I do not as I say" and "do as I say and not as I say". There's a difference between having hypocrisy in your personal life compared to your public life, vs having hypocrisy in your public political life.

 

And then some of those on that list only superficially appear to be hypocritical, and when you take a closer look it turns out they're not.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=4804677

Monsignor John Brenkle: "I don't think she has the possibility of finding other union workers here in the valley."

 

Of the more than 300 vineyards, fewer than four are union, and most of the farm workers in the Napa Valley get paid better.

...

But all of that aside, if Nancy Pelosi wanted to have union workers she could not ask the union for a contract. It's illegal and has been since 1975.

 

A spokesman for the United Farm Workers Union explains.

 

Marc Grossman, United Farm Workers Union: "It is patently illegal for any grower to even discuss a union contract, which is the only way you can supply union workers, without the workers first having voted in a state conducted secret ballot election."

 

I asked Peter Schweizer, the Hoover Research fellow, if he had researched those facts before he called Pelosi a hypocrite.

 

Peter Schweizer: "It's really for her to explain why there is this inconsistency. It's not my responsibility to go and find out how every single particular circumstance is handled on the Pelosi vineyard."

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I keep getting "We're experiencing unprecedented traffic, please try again later!" from that link. Obviously, republicans everywhere are flooding the site to confirm all the talk of hypocrisy they've been hearing lately.

 

And it's still doing that. His link is the top result of this google search. Here is the cached page.

[bascule]

So basically what you all are arguing is that the side with the smaller number of ridiculously hypocritical and unethical politicians in the news is the one we should vote for?

 

No, my point is that there is a systemic problem with the Republican party. They care more about winning political victories against the Democrats than they do about improving the country. I do not think that the Democrats have this problem to nearly the same degree.

 

Here's a Google Cache link to an extremely well sourced list of incidents, since the original link is having problems:

 

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:CkxaP-ujtRwJ:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/a/m/americandad/2010/03/an-open-letter-to-conservative.php+an+open+letter+to+conservatives&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[ecoli]

How do you think we could objectively scrutinize congresscritters?

 

Good question. I'm not really sure. Besides for distinct events... amount of money wasted could be a good metric. What do you think?

[bascule]

Also, your list is Republican hypocrisy (with a few hypocritical Republicans thrown in for good measure), whereas his list is at best hypocritical Democrats. Yes, people are hypocrites, but there's a difference between "do as I do not as I say" and "do as I say and not as I say". There's a difference between having hypocrisy in your personal life compared to your public life, vs having hypocrisy in your public political life.

 

And yes, this really goes to the heart of the issue. Much of this list is "flip-flopping" (as much as I hate to use this word), many of the cases being ideas which were originally Republican which the Democrats adopted and then the Republicans washed their hands of.

 

It makes bipartisanship extremely difficult when the opposing party adopts your ideas and then you turn around and reject them.

[ecoli]

No, my point is that there is a systemic problem with the Republican party. They care more about winning political victories against the Democrats than they do about improving the country. I do not think that the Democrats have this problem to nearly the same degree.

 

I have to disagree with that... For example, I think Dem's have been hugely hypocritical on the Iraq war. They largely took over congress and the whitehouse especially thanks to the moveon.org crowd, and what have they done since then?

 

They gave up this rhetoric under George W and even under Obama, is anything substantially changing?

 

I agree that the public narrative amoung liberals is that this problem is bigger with Republicans. But the repubs are the minority party right now. Don't you think that's what could be strengthening this image?

[bascule]

I agree that the public narrative amoung liberals is that this problem is bigger with Republicans. But the repubs are the minority party right now. Don't you think that's what could be strengthening this image?

 

Being the minority party means they should disavow their own ideas when the Democrats try to implement them? Seems like a golden opportunity for bipartisanship to me, but the Republicans would rather do a complete 180 and rub it in the Democrats' face.

[ecoli]

Being the minority party means they should disavow their own ideas when the Democrats try to implement them? Seems like a golden opportunity for bipartisanship to me, but the Republicans would rather do a complete 180 and rub it in the Democrats' face.

because they think it'll get them elected next time around... they're busy building their own public narrative for the midterm elections. Frankly, I think it's going to work for them, if they can keep the momentum going.

 

I don't think the democrats would do it much differently if their roles were reversed. I point to the war issue as potential example as that.

[bascule]

I have to disagree with that... For example, I think Dem's have been hugely hypocritical on the Iraq war. They largely took over congress and the whitehouse especially thanks to the moveon.org crowd, and what have they done since then?

 

Not to derail this thread, but Obama announced a withdrawal timetable with a hard date of August 31, 2010. We'll see if that slips. That's all the Democrats asked for throughout the duration of the war and it was one of the first things Obama did after taking office.

[Mr Skeptic]

House Democrats literally lock out Republicans after Obama claims there will be transparency

 

And I would take that seriously were there evidence that the Republicans wanted to do anything more than disrupt the debate.

 

Democrats turn off lights in house chambers and kill microphones to stop debate

 

I guess bedtime really is 11:30 and after the vote to adjourn passed. And are you sure this was Democrat, not Republican hypocrisy?

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/pelosi-energy-congress/2008/08/01/id/324774

Brendan Daly, a Pelosi spokesman, told The Associated Press said Republicans "should go home to their districts and explain their record of obstructing common-sense proposals to address the pain at the pump being felt by American consumers and businesses."

Here's the aftermath:

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=topics.print_pub&doc_id=478988&group_id=180829&topic_id=1412&stoplayout=true

They made a bill and compromised with the Republicans on it shortly after returning from the recess.

[ecoli]

Not to derail this thread, but Obama announced a withdrawal timetable with a hard date of August 31, 2010. We'll see if that slips. That's all the Democrats asked for throughout the duration of the war and it was one of the first things Obama did after taking office.

 

For what it's worth, Cindy Sheehan disagrees with you.

[bascule]

For what it's worth, Cindy Sheehan disagrees with you.

 

*shrug*

[jryan]

And I would take that seriously were there evidence that the Republicans wanted to do anything more than disrupt the debate.

 

Only if you define dissenting views as disruptive.

 

 

I guess bedtime really is 11:30 and after the vote to adjourn passed.

 

Well, as was pointed out in the original question, the Republicans leaving at 2:00pm was within the rules. I took the objection to mean they were not acting in good faith, or with decorum. My examples were of Democrats behaving in a similar fashion.

 

 

And are you sure this was Democrat, not Republican hypocrisy?

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/pelosi-energy-congress/2008/08/01/id/324774

Brendan Daly, a Pelosi spokesman, told The Associated Press said Republicans "should go home to their districts and explain their record of obstructing common-sense proposals to address the pain at the pump being felt by American consumers and businesses."

 

This is just partisan posturing, Mr. Skeptic., and you know it. It is also begging the question on part of the Democrats. The "common-sense proposals" are defined by the folks shutting off the lights and cutting off the microphones.

 

Here's the aftermath:

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=topics.print_pub&doc_id=478988&group_id=180829&topic_id=1412&stoplayout=true

They made a bill and compromised with the Republicans on it shortly after returning from the recess.

 

Returning after the break to compromise is not a defense for the poor behavior. I suppose when Republicans decide to finally cooperate with Democrats you will excuse them the poor behavior?

[Mr Skeptic]

Returning after the break to compromise is not a defense for the poor behavior. I suppose when Republicans decide to finally cooperate with Democrats you will excuse them the poor behavior?

 

Agreed. If the Republicans make compromises half a dozen work days after being accused of being uncompromising, I will agree that the accusation was invalid.

[pioneer]

The democrats tend to be more depraved. The reason is, a wide range of behavior, which would cause most republicans to be forced out by the media and/or its own members, have less impact on the democrats. The democrat depravity meter is calibrated differently.

 

For example, there are members of the democratic party, still in important positions, who have taken bribes, failed to pay their taxes, had affairs with office staff, etc. These things would be career enders for republicans, since the party demands a higher standard. With the bar so low for the democrats, one often wonders how low is low.

[swansont]

The democrats tend to be more depraved. The reason is, a wide range of behavior, which would cause most republicans to be forced out by the media and/or its own members, have less impact on the democrats. The democrat depravity meter is calibrated differently.

 

For example, there are members of the democratic party, still in important positions, who have taken bribes, failed to pay their taxes, had affairs with office staff, etc. These things would be career enders for republicans, since the party demands a higher standard. With the bar so low for the democrats, one often wonders how low is low.

 

Mark Sanford resigned and nobody told me? John Ensign? David Vitter? Republican affairs don't seem to be the death knell you are proposing.

[bascule]

The reason is, a wide range of behavior, which would cause most republicans to be forced out by the media and/or its own members, have less impact on the democrats. The democrat depravity meter is calibrated differently.

 

As far as I'm concerned, this speaks to the culture of hatred among many Republicans I was talking about earlier (citations for recent occurrences may be found in the list I linked)

 

For example, there are members of the democratic party, still in important positions, who have taken bribes, failed to pay their taxes, had affairs with office staff, etc.

 

Aside from the issue of bribes, the others are personal, not political flaws. I've taken the stance (FLIP-FLOPPER!) that I no longer care about any politican's personal life. People's personal lives should be personal.

 

The reason is, a wide range of behavior, which would cause most republicans to be forced out by the media and/or its own members, have less impact on the democrats. The democrat depravity meter is calibrated differently.

 

QFT

Edited March 26, 2010 by swansont
fixed quote attribution

[jryan]

Agreed. If the Republicans make compromises half a dozen work days after being accused of being uncompromising, I will agree that the accusation was invalid.

 

Of course, the Democrats will have to actually be compromising as well... which they have yet to be in the last year.

[iNow]

Going to Extreme

 

I admit it: I had fun watching right-wingers go wild as health reform finally became law. But a few days later, it doesn’t seem quite as entertaining — and not just because of the wave of vandalism and threats aimed at Democratic lawmakers. For if you care about America’s future, you can’t be happy as extremists take full control of one of our two great political parties.

 

<...>

 

What has been really striking has been the eliminationist rhetoric of the G.O.P., coming not from some radical fringe but from the party’s leaders. John Boehner, the House minority leader, declared that the passage of health reform was “Armageddon.” The Republican National Committee put out a fund-raising appeal that included a picture of Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, surrounded by flames, while the committee’s chairman declared that it was time to put Ms. Pelosi on “the firing line.” And Sarah Palin put out a map literally putting Democratic lawmakers in the cross hairs of a rifle sight.

 

All of this goes far beyond politics as usual. Democrats had a lot of harsh things to say about former President George W. Bush — but you’ll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials.

 

No, to find anything like what we’re seeing now you have to go back to the last time a Democrat was president. Like President Obama, Bill Clinton faced a G.O.P. that denied his legitimacy — Dick Armey, the second-ranking House Republican (and now a Tea Party leader) referred to him as “

your

president.” Threats were common: President Clinton, declared Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, “better watch out if he comes down here. He’d better have a bodyguard.”

 

<...>

 

For today’s G.O.P. is, fully and finally, the party of Ronald Reagan — not Reagan the pragmatic politician, who could and did strike deals with Democrats, but Reagan the antigovernment fanatic, who warned that Medicare would destroy American freedom. It’s a party that sees modest efforts to improve Americans’ economic and health security not merely as unwise, but as monstrous. It’s a party in which paranoid fantasies about the other side — Obama is a socialist, Democrats have totalitarian ambitions — are mainstream. And, as a result, it’s a party that fundamentally doesn’t accept anyone else’s right to govern.

Edited March 26, 2010 by iNow

[Pangloss]

So basically what you all are arguing is that the side with the smaller number of ridiculously hypocritical and unethical politicians in the news is the one we should vote for? [/quote']No, my point is that there is a systemic problem with the Republican party. They care more about winning political victories against the Democrats than they do about improving the country. I do not think that the Democrats have this problem to nearly the same degree.

 

I guess I'm still not seeing the relevance of the last sentence, but okay.

 

 

------------------

 

Here's what I wonder: Why do people see the current behavior of the Republican party as a fundamentally different from an obvious extension of the gradually increasing degree of partisanship that both parties have sequentially risen to with each trip to minority status?

 

(You held up 10 of our judges? I hold up TWELVE of yours! You held up 12 of our judges? I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!)

[bascule]

Here's what I wonder: Why do people see the current behavior of the Republican party as a fundamentally different from an obvious extension of the gradually increasing degree of partisanship that both parties have sequentially risen to with each trip to minority status?

 

I just think they've sunk to a new low and it's damaging to the country. How or why that came about is a different matter entirely. It certainly doesn't excuse their behaviour.

[Pangloss]

It's interesting how the bit about threats against Democrats keeps coming up. I thought Neal Boortz had an interesting take on that today.

 

If you're opposed to the Democrats attempt to gain control over health care you're a dangerous, violence-prone right-wing radical who needs to be investigated by the FBI. We're being told that "our heroes are under attack." The culprits? Out-of-control right wing haters who want to visit violence on the wonderful Democrats who brought us this government intrusion into our health care system. James Clyburn from South Carolina .. the Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus .. is saying that the Republicans are "aiding and abetting terrorism."

 

Hmmmm ... When Republican Senator Jim Bunning was getting death threats because he was holding up an extension of unemployment benefits (he wanted them to be paid for) did Clyburn speak up? Hell no, he didn't. Not in the game plan. The plan is to demonize anyone who dares to speak out against ObamaCare. The ObamaMedia will play the game.

 

Actually, as I said, a pretty brilliant tactic. Dishonest as hell .. but brilliant.

 

http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2010/03/a-pretty-good-plan-actually.html

 

And of course there's this lovely bit of sentiment from Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy yesterday:

 

I know how the "tea party" people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their "Obama Plan White Slavery" signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.

 

Oh those saintly liberals, all peace and love and tolerance!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I just think they've sunk to a new low and it's damaging to the country. How or why that came about is a different matter entirely. It certainly doesn't excuse their behaviour.

 

Thanks for clarifying. I agree with this 100%.

[jryan]

Claiming "Republicans don't want to improve the country" is begging the question, Bascule. We must first assume that the Democrat bill was good for the country before we can accept the accusation. Not everyone assumes it is a good bill.