pudge's Journal: Politics

If DeLay were a Democrat, would the Democrats be attacking his so-called ethical problems? Would the Republicans be defending them?

If the Democrats agreed with Bolton's views, would the Democrats be bringing up this stuff about his personality? Would the Republicans be dismissing/apologizing for the arguments?

If the judicial nominees believed that abortion was always OK, in every situation, instead of that abortion should have significant limits, would the Democrats say they are extreme? Would the Republicans defend them as representative of the views of the people?

Would the Republicans filibuster those nominees? Would the Democrats be trying to remove the filibuster?*

I know the above focuses on the Democrats, because they are in the minority and doing most of the attacking because of that. But this isn't about partisanship. This is about ignoring the completely B.S. arguments the politicians use to attack something.

The Democrats do not think DeLay has ethical problems, they simply dislike him. The Democrats do not think Bolton has a bad personality, they simply dislike his views. The Democrats do not think the judicial nominees are extreme, they simply don't want new conservative judges in district courts.

The rest is just garbage. But the Democrats won't stick to the real point, because if they do, they lose, because they are in a minority, just like the Republicans did in the early 90s when they were the minority. So they bring up the garbage to try to confuse people. And we're stupid and gullible, as we are a mob of people, so it works.

*Lieberman, Kennedy, and Kerry are among the Democratic senators who are fighting to "save the filibuster" because it is so integral to democracy, but voted to abolish all filibusters 10 years ago, calling them "legislative piracy." And, of course, some of the current GOP senators participated in judicial nominee filibusters in the 90s.

Rephrase the question

[RailGunner]

If Harry Reid were a Republican, would the Democrats be ignoring his so-called ethical problems? [newsmax.com] Would the Republicans be attacking them?

Why aren't the Republicans pointing out Harry Reid's ethical problems? What's good for the goose...

As far as the Judiciary, the reason the Left loves the activist liberal Judges is because the only way they get their agenda is through Judicial fiat. [westmiller.com]

Re:Rephrase the question

[pudge]

Why aren't the Republicans pointing out Harry Reid's ethical problems?

They probably will, if there's anything to the story. They just this last week started mentioning the ethical problems of various Democrats to deflect attention from DeLay.

Re:Rephrase the question

[cascadefx]

As well they should...

AND I think the Democrats should look at the ethical violations of other Repubs.

IF you take the premise that government is corrupt, then get the corruption out of there. If we had a bunch of ethical non-whack-jobs on the hill, perhaps some good work would get done.

Toss them all out and get some decent people in there on both sides of the aisle.

As for RailGunner's comment about activist Judges, Republicans like activist judges as well, they just don't call them that when the causes

Re:Rephrase the question

[pudge]

As well they should...

AND I think the Democrats should look at the ethical violations of other Repubs.

The problem is that all of it is crap. It's nonsense. It's a way for the parties to try to win arguments by proxy. "Social Security private accounts are a bad idea because Tom DeLay is too close to big business."

Sure, there are some real examples of ethical problems. Nothing I've seen here, on either side, is more than a sideshow.

Re:Rephrase the question

[cascadefx]

No...

Social Security private accounts are a bad idea because they don't solve the problem that they are being pitched as solving (a shortfall in the future). It is fine to say there is a crisis, but fix the damn crisis.

Re:Rephrase the question

[pudge]

Social Security private accounts are a bad idea because they don't solve the problem that they are being pitched as solving (a shortfall in the future).

Who pitched it to solve the solvency problem? I've never heard this. You're arguing a strawman.

Re:Rephrase the question

[cascadefx]

That was a lot of smoke and mirrors going on when these were first proposed. Bush would make a lot of generalizations and would point out that Social Security is in a crisis... blah blah blah and then spring the whole ownership society thing followed by, ta-da, private accounts.

Most people don't get that private accounts don't solve the major problem, insolvency, with social security. They think it does!... and that's exactly how it was pitched so that people would support this idea instead of actually l

Re:Rephrase the question

[pudge]

Most people don't get that private accounts don't solve the major problem, insolvency, with social security. They think it does!... and that's exactly how it was pitched

You keep saying that, but I've seen no evidence of it, and therefore consider it to be false.

Re:Rephrase the question

[cascadefx]

Ok... maybe the Republicans that you talk to don't... but the Republicans in my city (I work with about 40 or so) do.

Re:Rephrase the question

[pudge]

Sorry, I didn't mean that no people use that argument, I mean the policymakers aren't using it. I hear a lot of "lay" people on both sides use a lot of stupid arguments, like the one I mentioned in my most recent journal entry: a lot of people on the left are incorrectly claiming that for 200 years we've needed a supermajority to confirm judges, which is flatly false. I am not, however, saying that the nuclear option is "pitched" this way by the Democrats.

Re:Rephrase the question

[NeMon'ess]

That newsmax article was some impressively bad reporting. Having to read half-way down to find the first evidence of wrongdoing, past all the ad hominem attacks is bad journalism. I'm sure it gets newsmax readers all gleefully angry though.

So how far removed does a politician have to be to avoid being unethecal? If s/he receives campaign contributions from a company, does that make passing legislation that benefits the contributor unethecal? What if the legislation is consistent with the politician's p

Re:Rephrase the question

[pudge]

So how far removed does a politician have to be to avoid being unethecal? If s/he receives campaign contributions from a company, does that make passing legislation that benefits the contributor unethecal? What if the legislation is consistent with the politician's platform?

I am very loathe to assume that taking money is evidence of an ethics violation, myself. On either side of the aisle. :-) I know it is vogue to think money == evil, but I just can't go along.

defend delay?

[(trb001)]

Who, exactly, is defending DeLay? I see this printed a lot but I haven't heard of anyone adamantly defending him.

--trb

Re:defend delay?

[pudge]

Lots of people have. Just on Sunday I heard House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, and Trent Lott.

Although "defending" him is a bit odd, since there are few actual charges to defend against. Most of the attacks on DeLay are comprised of ad hominems, innuendos, or railings against perfectly legitimate activities. There's only one outstanding charge I know of that might have some merit, that hinges on whether he knew a trip was paid for by a lobbyist, a claim there's no evidence for, and he's never actually been