Remember when something like this would have been a big scandal?

[davefoc]

The gist of this scandal is that Mehlman (currently Republican Chairman) when he was working in the white house successfully worked to get a state department employee fired at the behest of Abramoff.

I would have thought something like ths would have been big news. But it seems like it's been pretty well drowned out by the other scandals. Pretty good timing for Mehlman.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/na...,7689854.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

As a mental exercise here let me take a shot at the Republican apologist spin:

Mehlman did nothing that wasn't appropriate for his office. He was made aware of an individual that he thought was working to undermine Republican policy direction with respect to the Marianas islands and he made other people in the administration aware of this. These people used their independent judgment to decide that Stayman (the fired employee) should be fired in the national interest.

I realize that to score high marks for my effort here I would need to bring up a Democrat who did something similar within the last 50 years or so, but I don't claim to be an expert at this.

 

[Lurker]

Clintons!!! Travelgate!!!! Scandal!!!!

Did that get the high marks you were seeking?

 

[BPSCG]

As a mental exercise here let me take a shot at the Republican apologist spin:

As a mental exercise here let me take a shot at what would be the Democratic apologist spin, if Abramoff had been bribing mostly Dems instead of Republicans:

"This happened five years ago. Abramoff pleaded guilty almost a year ago. How long are you going to keep going back to that well?"

 

[davefoc]

That was a reasonable effort there Lurker (although you might have fleshed out the details a bit) In the end I rated your effort at only a seven out of a possible 10. You did get points for bringing in Clinton and points for briging up a Democratic scandal and bonus points because this scandal involved Hillary as well as Bill. I also gave you points because you didn't waste any time discussing actual facts related to the current scandal. I had to deduct a point for your failure to work in Lewinsky and then it was just frankly a little short. But still, a good effort.

 

[Lurker]

BPSCG, I am quite glad that I can again disagree with you. All is right in the world again.

If Dems complained about something happening one/five years ago as if it were too long ago to be germane, I would happily call them out on it.

What about you? Are you willing to call the Republicans out for their deflections by bringing up Studds from 33 years ago? Huh? Hmm? Come on, answer me!

Lurker

 

[Lurker]

That was a reasonable effort there Lurker (although you might have fleshed out the details a bit) In the end I rated your effort at only a seven out of a possible 10. You did get points for bringing in Clinton and points for briging up a Democratic scandal and bonus points because this scandal involved Hillary as well as Bill. I also gave you points because you didn't waste any time discussing actual facts related to the current scandal. I had to deduct a point for your failure to work in Lewinsky and then it was just frankly a little short. But still, a good effort.

Thanks for the review but I think my large font size and numerous exclamation marks should be worthy of another point myself. Had I brought up facts that would have been a point deduction.

 

[davefoc]

As a mental exercise here let me take a shot at what would be the Democratic apologist spin, if Abramoff had been bribing mostly Dems instead of Republicans:

"This happened five years ago. Abramoff pleaded guilty almost a year ago. How long are you going to keep going back to that well?"

This is a truly creative effort. Personally, I would say brilliant. Of course you scored points for not adressing the actual scandal. This was good, but to turn the whole thing around by putting the apologist argument in the mouths of the Democrats. That was great. Although this is somewhat subjective I gave you an eight out of a possible ten.

 

[BPSCG]

What about you? Are you willing to call the Republicans out for their deflections by bringing up Studds from 33 years ago? Huh? Hmm? Come on, answer me!

I might be if his Democratic constitutency s hadn't returned the child rapist to congress again and again after his censure, and if they weren't eulogizing him in glowing terms today, yes. I conclude from this little episode that Dems have a low tolerance for child abuse done by Republicans, but don't think it's so awful otherwise.

 

[BPSCG]

This is a truly creative effort. Personally, I would say brilliant. Of course you scored points for not adressing the actual scandal. This was good, but to turn the whole thing around by putting the apologist argument in the mouths of the Democrats. That was great. Although this is somewhat subjective I gave you an eight out of a possible ten.

(*blushes*)

...aw shucks...

 

[davefoc]

Thanks for the review but I think my large font size and numerous exclamation marks should be worthy of another point myself. Had I brought up facts that would have been a point deduction.

Perhaps, I should have given you more credit for the large font size. And what can I say about the exclamation points? Alas, I am going to stand by my ruling, but if it comes down to a tie between you and another 7 pointer I will take the large font size into consideration as a tie breaker.

Right now , BPSCG is the leader, although perhaps I should have divided this into two divisions. It might not be fair to have amateur Bush apologists competing against the professionals in the same division.

 

[Tricky]

Clintons!!! Travelgate!!!! Scandal!!!!

Did that get the high marks you were seeking?

Needs color. See how much more effective that is?

 

[pgwenthold]

Denny Hastert purchased a bunch of worthless land, pushed legislation to build a highway through it, and turned around and sold it for a $2 mil profit.

Imagine what would have happened if Bill Clinton were accused of something like that.

Oh wait, we don't have to imagine. We know what happened.

 

[Tailgater]

Oh, me next, me next....

It's obvious by looking at the source of the article and other articles/ads linked to this site that it is clearly bias toward Republicans and part of the liberal media conspiracy. Everyone knows that any news from the NE states is controlled by the Dems.

 

[Mycroft]

As a mental exercise here let me take a shot at the Republican apologist spin:

What is it with all these threads that don't even attempt to engage anyone but just go straight for speculation on what you think they might say? It's as though you know in advance you can't win an argument unless you make your opponent's argument for him.

Which is a perfect analogy for US politics today. The Democrats have all the ammunition they could want to bash the current administration, but they can never win an argument.

 

[davefoc]

Mycroft,

I didn't originally intend that this thread be sarcastic or humourous (and based on your reaction, at least, I succeeded in not making it humourous).

This particular scandal struck me as a particularly egregious example of the mixing of governance, politics and corruption that, IMHO, has resulted in staggeringly bad governance by Bushco. But in an effort to be objective about the scandal I attempted to figure out why I might be wrong about the significance of this particular scandal and I posted the results of that little attempt at introspection.

But, I had been thinking lately about how skillful and coordinated the Republican responses have been to all these various scandals had been. One of their most successful ploys is to bring up a Democratic scandal and then switch the entire focus from the issue in question to a focus on the details of the Democratic scandal. Do you suppose Hannity has mentioned Foley or Studds more often in the last few weeks? My guess is that he has mentioned Studds several times more often than Foley. At some point, I began to think there was quite a bit of humour in the Republican misdirection efforts associated with each of its scandals and when the thread went in that direction I thought, frankly, that I was being quite humourous with my jibes at the Republican talking point apparatus.

But perhaps not (I often find that my sense of humor is not widely appreciated but I always am entertained by it), so now with as open a mind as I can muster: What do you think of this particular scandal?

 

[SezMe]

"This happened five years ago. Abramoff pleaded guilty almost a year ago. How long are you going to keep going back to that well?"

Beeps, I missed my S&M class last night so as penance this morning I listened to the first hour of the Rushmeister.

Within the first ten seconds of his opening monologue he had used the word "Clinton" and used that same word 3 times within the first minute.

And what had El-Rushbo all atwitter? Some judge who Clinton had nominated nearly ten years ago had taken into consideration the background of a woman who had been found guilty of a crime in determining her sentence.

No, that is not a long string of typos. As I understand it, judicial descrestion in meting out sentences is SUPPOSED to take into consideration the miscreants background. But Mr. Pain Killer had to spend over a half-hour lamenting the fact that a (gasp!) Clinton-appointed judge had, in fact, followed SOP in determining a sentence.

Go for the language award, BPSCG, by spinning that one.

 

[fishbob]

I might be if his Democratic constitutency s hadn't returned the child rapist to congress again and again after his censure, and if they weren't eulogizing him in glowing terms today, yes. I conclude from this little episode that Dems have a low tolerance for child abuse done by Republicans, but don't think it's so awful otherwise.

There, there.
Just imagine boiling him in pig fat.
Better now?

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, that is not a long string of typos. As I understand it, judicial descrestion in meting out sentences is SUPPOSED to take into consideration the miscreants background. But Mr. Pain Killer had to spend over a half-hour lamenting the fact that a (gasp!) Clinton-appointed judge had, in fact, followed SOP in determining a sentence.

Go for the language award, BPSCG, by spinning that one.

Sounds like he is upset about how criminals like him get off so easy.

 

[SteveGrenard]

I remember when this may've been a big sandal.

 

[Mycroft]

Mycroft,

I didn't originally intend that this thread be sarcastic or humourous (and based on your reaction, at least, I succeeded in not making it humourous).

I thought my response was humorous. Didn’t you?

This particular scandal struck me as a particularly egregious example of the mixing of governance, politics and corruption that, IMHO, has resulted in staggeringly bad governance by Bushco.

Bushco?!

I think it’s bizarre how everything bad that happens in government is laid at the feet of Bush. Don’t get me wrong, I think Bush is a terrible president, but this constant Bush-bashing is just as irrational as those kooks who blamed Clinton for everything from rape to murder.

Abramoff was a corrupt Washington power-broker. He’s been that way for years, long before Bush was elected. I know your irrational hatred of Bush makes you want to take Abramoff’s crimes and transfer them to Bush, but it doesn’t work that way.

But in an effort to be objective about the scandal I attempted to figure out why I might be wrong about the significance of this particular scandal and I posted the results of that little attempt at introspection.

Objective?

Abramoff is guilty of a lot of bad stuff. There will also be other people convicted with him because for every bribe he gave there was someone taking the bribe. This is a good thing, and hopefully it will have a positive effect on US politics.

Abramoff is not Bush. Just because there may be a Republican connection does not mean there is a Bush connection.

I don’t like Bush either, but “objective” does not mean you try to make every piece of dirt that comes along cling to him.

But, I had been thinking lately about how skillful and coordinated the Republican responses have been to all these various scandals had been…

Did you ever stop and think that maybe it has less to do with Republican skill than it does with the general public being smart enough to figure out that one bad lobbyist and a handful of corrupt politicians is just one bad lobbyist and a handful of corrupt politicians?

But perhaps not (I often find that my sense of humor is not widely appreciated but I always am entertained by it), so now with as open a mind as I can muster: What do you think of this particular scandal?

I think the authorities are doing their job in prosecuting the guilty. In the meantime I’m still waiting for the Democrats, the party I’m registered with, to come up with some message other than a constant stream of ”badbadbadtheotherguysaresoterriblybadlookhowbadtheyareeverythingistheirfaultevilbushishitlerhaliburtonwillcontroltheworldnineelevenisourfaultlet’snotpissofftheterroristsortheymighthurtussomemorecan’tyouseehowevilbushis?”

Democrats need a message stronger than “We’re not Bush.” Come 2008 the Republicans won’t be Bush either.