Asherman wrote:I'm not suggesting that the public overlook illegal, or dishonorable behavior.
My point is that we should not expect politicians to be without blemish, and that mud-slinging tactics are ultimately destructive to the whole process. Both Parties are equally vulnerable to charges that some of their members are corrupt, act illegally, or without honor. Individuals who violate the law, should be prosecuted in the courts, but neither Party is inherently "evil" or dedicated to the destruction of the Constitution. It is a case of the pot calling the Kettle black.
I understand your point, Asherman, and I agree about 80%. I would not deny there is corruption in both major parties as there is throughout society, and actually I believe politicians pretty much mirror society. However, we are no longer dealing with discreet mistress affairs by the likes of FDR or possibly Ike, or something like that. We are dealing with very serious corruption.
Also, I would like to point something out that I believe is creeping into the philosophy of the Democrat Party especially. I have heard more than one Democrat refer to what is labeled as "public morality," which has a translation of how much can I we tax everyone to help the poor. This is at the expense of personal morality, which is no longer considered to be that important among many of that political philosophy. I think this is a very dangerous mindset, because under that thinking, Mao Tse Tung may be considered to be a very, very moral man. Huge problem, communism and socialism is not what our country is about.
In contrast, I believe Republicans still believe in personal morality as being very important. That is part of the mindset of conservative people. Many liberals are moral people, but what party defended Bill Clinton regardless of the scandal, and there were literally dozens of them. When Republicans get in trouble, their own party tends to abandon them, and I think we can bring up several examples if you need them. Do not misunderstand. I think this is stereotypical, not true in every case, but the Democrats do not emphasize personal morality as much as Republicans. There are still crooks on both sides of the aisle, but I see the Democrats circling the wagons around any of their own that may be accused of personal moral problems and corruption.
Quote:Those serving on the Intelligence Committees should undergo the same background investigation required of members of the Intelligence community. Any impropriety or evidence that a potential member of Intelligence Committees might pose even a remote security risk should be cause for keeping that person off the Committee. Oversight of members serving on those committees should be careful and constant so long as they have access to highly classified matters. I believe that Mr. Jefferson poses an unacceptable security risk and should not be given access to classified information.
Understanding and making allowance for human weaknesses is one thing, but to bestow trust upon a person after they have demonstrated betrayal is another. Mr. Jefferson may be a fine public servant whose efforts to represent his constituency are both effective and efficient. He doesn't need to be driven from office, but it will be along time before he again deserves a position of trust within the Congress. The same should be said about those conservative Republicans who sleep with the help, line their pockets as a benefit of position, or who break the laws.
If Jefferson is guilty of bribes, he is not a fine public servant, he is a criminal, and should be sent to jail. If he was a Republican, I would be willing to bet quite a bit that he would no longer be in office, let alone be appointed to anything.
That's quite a spin, Joe. But this is what you actually wrote.
Nonsense. A man can be a murderer without being convicted of murder. However; a conviction of murder is most certainly substantial evidence that the man is indeed a murderer. This is not at all unclear to a layman, Joe.