« Bob Dole Rips Scott McClellan a New One | Main | Reuters thinks Obama is Christ, too! »

We Don't Need No Stinking Rules!

The never-ending saga that is the 2008 Democratic presidential primary has proven to not only be tremendously entertaining, but remarkably educational as well. And it has revealed several truths that have been denied or overlooked for far, far too long.

And one of them is one of the core principles of the modern Democratic party: they have no core principles.

OK, that's a bit flippant and a bit harsh, but it's not that far from the truth. The lesson I have taken away from the Democrats' behavior is that "we don't believe in rules the instant they become inconvenient."

Let's look at the facts:

When the primary season was being planned out, the Democratic National Committee set a schedule and informed the state parties that if they tried to jump ahead, they would be punished -- with penalties up to and including the refusal to seat any of their delegates. They also got the leading candidates to agree to not campaign in any "illegal" primaries.

Well, Barack Obama agreed, and even took his name off one ballot. Hillary Clinton also agreed, but left her name on the ballot and made a "fund-raising" trip to Florida -- but it was NOT a "campaign" visit (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) -- just before they voted.

Now, though, those delegates want to be seated. And Hillary Clinton, who is the beneficiary of winning two races where Obama didn't compete (and one he didn't even enter), is calling it a major issue of democracy and fairness and she ought to get those delegates -- or, at least, most of them.

And, by god, they probably will be seated. At least, a good chunk of them. The rules just arent' that important.

Personally, I always thought that the time to argue about the rules was before the contest started. It seems to me that when you enter into a contest, you are tacitly agreeing to the rules of that contest. To argue at the end of the contest, when you are losing, that the rules are unfair is pretty much the definition of whining.

I don't care much for Senator Obama's positions and history, but the fact is clear: he looked at the rules before he ran, and he won (well, technically, "is winning") by playing by those rules. So he should claim the prize.

And then there's the issue of Puerto Rico. They are having their primary tomorrow, and this is very exciting. People there are American citizens, but they don't get to vote for president. This is bringing up the whole question of Puerto Rico's legal status vis-a-vis the United States -- and is bringing up the usual hand-wringing and whining (here's a good example) about how unfair the whole thing is.

Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States. It is not a state, so it does not have many of the rights and privileges of statehood. Among them is voting for president.

On the other hand, Puerto Rico is also exempt from a lot of taxes and other regulations. So it's not entirely a bad deal.

More to the point, Puerto Rico's status is something that is revisited on a fairly regular basis. Every few years or so, there's a referendum among the island's residents on how they want their future to unfold: become a state, go independent, or remain a "territory." And every time, the status quo is preserved.

Rules are important. They give life structure, let us see how things are supposed to be and let us work towards our goals with at least some reassurance that we can reach them. Knowing the rules helps us figure out how we can get what we want, where we want to be, or decide that some things are unobtainable and readjust our aims. It also gives us assurance that others are supposed to follow the same rules, and won't likely have an unfair advantage over us, and that there are penalties for breaking those rules.

Also, knowing the rules also gives us the ability to decide when we want to break those rules, and what we can expect for logical consequences.

Every day, I break rules. I speed. I violate rules of spelling and grammar. I ignore social mores and customs. And in most of those cases, those are deliberate choices, in full knowledge of the likely result. If I speed, I accept that I might get pulled over and given a ticket. When I deliberately break rules of spelling and grammar, I know that I might be thought ignorant, but I might be better able to make my intended point. I like to think of it as either the "e.e. cummings" rule, or an expansion of Bob Dylan's line about "to live outside the law, you must be honest." A writing teacher once explained that cummings could get away with ignoring the rules because he knew them so well, and could choose to break them for his own style in secure knowledge that no one would think he was acting out of ignorance. And Dylan pointed out that if you want to get away with breaking the law if you were careful to not do it carelessly.

That's a lesson I've learned through experience. It's one the Democratic National Committee could stand to learn, too.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/29935.

Comments (53)

Wasn't the 2000 election en... (Below threshold)
Roy:

Wasn't the 2000 election enough to prove your point?

... one of the core prin... (Below threshold)

... one of the core principles of the modern Democratic party: they have no core principles ... The lesson I have taken away from the Democrats' behavior is that "we don't believe in rules the instant they become inconvenient."

The mega-pundits have expressed this too in their own ways. Rush often states: "There are no rules in the Democrat Party. There are only traditions and customs."

Mark Levin often calls out liberals who change, bend, or completely ignore the rules when it interferes with their agenda. A quintessential example is activist judges, who cling to precedent and the literal word of the Constitution when it suits them, or otherwise twist its words and call it a "living, breathing document" when it suits them. Never about principle, always about result.

http://VocalMinority.typepad.com
Jewish AND Republican?? Oy gevalt

WE DO NOT ACCEPT OBAMAS POL... (Below threshold)
Obama words: what he really thinks of white folks:

WE DO NOT ACCEPT OBAMAS POLITICAL DAMAGE APOLOGY!!!

SHOCKING Obama words: what he really thinks of white folks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI77cU3jsFs

An Obama Presidency Will Set Race Relations Back Decades
Just this Sunday Father Michael Pfleger (a longtime friend and associate of Senator Obama) mocked Hillary Clinton & AGAIN ATTACKED WHTE PEOPLE at Obama's church OF 20 PLUS YEARS.

"theres a whole lot of white people crying!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H11x6bMu4Y

http://www.dontvoteobama.net
depp=true
viz=We don't accept cut-and-paste, hit-and-run assholes of ANY persuasion around here.

I am really relishing the c... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

I am really relishing the chickens coming home to roost (thanks Jeremiah Wright!) on the Democrats. This fight over rules is one they deserve to be enmeshed in. For all the accusations of voting "irregularities" against republicans since 2000, I think we have seen that Republicans aren't cunning or ruthless enough to pull off any voter fraud, considering that they can't even see that screwing their base on a regular basis leads to them losing. On the other hand, haven't all the famous political machines been run by Democrats? Dead voters, double voters, and busing in fraudulent voters from elsewhere are well-known Democrat tactics. Rules to Democrats? Only when they can use them to block Republicans.

Democrats do so have rules.... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Democrats do so have rules. You must love dictators, traitors, child rapist and the slime of the world to stay in the party + firmly support the 'do as I say (eat spam), not as I do (eat phillie streak with Brie)' life style of the Obambi's/Kennedy's, etc. Everytime I see Obambi I still think of big eared 'Howdy Doody', the dummy with someone's hand up his a** pulling the strings. Actually the lame stream media is using their head instead of the hand.

How can people that can't r... (Below threshold)
Spencer:

How can people that can't run a primary run the country?

Sadly it will happen in 2009.

What strikes me a funny is ... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

What strikes me a funny is the "Why?" behind MI and FL moving up their primaries. They felt the early states were garnering too much attention and had to much influence over who the nominees would be. They moved up their primaries so their voices could be heard before the selection process had "played out".

Imagine if those primaries were this coming Tuesday. MI and FL would be playing the role of king maker. Instead they're squabbling about whether their reps are 1/2 or 2/3 of a delegate.

The fact it involves Florida - where we were told arbitrary rules shouldn't disenfranchise voters by not "fully counting every vote" - is a sweet maraschino cherry atop whipped cream and hot fudge slathered on Breyer's vanilla bean.

The unfortunate thing about... (Below threshold)
COgirl:

The unfortunate thing about all of this is the disenfranchising of those who voted.

My solution is to include the delegates in the count to reach 50%, but do not let their votes count in the first round. After the first round, they count. I suppose that will favor Hillary, but if Obama's going to get the nomination, it should be on the basis of getting a majority of all the votes.

I am not a Dem and will vote against either candidate just to make the record clear.

Well, Barack Obama agree... (Below threshold)
Mike G in Corvallis:

Well, Barack Obama agreed, and even took his name off one ballot. Hillary Clinton also agreed, but left her name on the ballot and made a "fund-raising" trip to Florida -- but it was NOT a "campaign" visit (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) -- just before they voted.

Now, though, those delegates want to be seated. And Hillary Clinton, who is the beneficiary of winning two races where Obama didn't compete (and one he didn't even enter), is calling it a major issue of democracy and fairness and she ought to get those delegates -- or, at least, most of them.

This gives Obama a little too much credit. The rules did not require the contenders to withdraw from the race; other candidates were on the ballot in Michigan, but Obama withdrew there because he wanted to suck up to New Hampshire voters. And Obama ran broadcast-media ads in Florida -- they were "national" ads that the networks carried in other states, too ... so gosh (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) whaddaya gonna do?

Whoops -- that second parag... (Below threshold)
Mike G in Corvallis:

Whoops -- that second paragraph in the post above should be in italics, too, since I was quoting Jay.

Rules, what rules? Oh, you ... (Below threshold)
glenn:

Rules, what rules? Oh, you mean those things all you peons have to play (and work) by. We make those, you obey them, got it.

The problem with republican... (Below threshold)
Dave:

The problem with republicans is that they all have sex in airport bathrooms. Obvious that's not true as only one republican has been convicted for doing it.

However, that is the same logic you are using. Applying the actions of one candidate to an entire party.

Were there not also 2 state... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Were there not also 2 states in which the republican party broke the same rules. Therefore by your logic all republicans do not follow rules nor have principles.

Here's a new mantra for Dem... (Below threshold)

Here's a new mantra for Democrats in Florida:

Count every other vote! Heh.

RE:Here's a new mant... (Below threshold)
Dave:

RE:
Here's a new mantra for Democrats in Florida:

Count every other vote! Heh.

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

The republicans violated the republican primary deadline in Michigan and Florida and as a penalty had their delegates reduced in half. Heh.

It's not so much the action... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

It's not so much the actions of one candidate. It's the lack of actual rules. They "discourage", "suggest" and "recommend" rules such as caucus volunteers shouldn't participate in the vote. It's not a real rule; it's discouraged. Per Howard Dean. If it's not a rule, then any putative measures are likely optional too.

Dave - "However, that i... (Below threshold)
marc:

Dave - "However, that is the same logic you are using. Applying the actions of one candidate to an entire party."

Talk about failed logic. This mess wasn't created by some lone, or small group of Dems in Mi Fla, it was fostered into being by THE Dem party bosses and agreed upon by the entire Party.

Rush Limbough called for Re... (Below threshold)

Rush Limbough called for Republicans to vote for Clinton in the primaries, and no doubt some did to hedge their vote, thinking that there would be less change in Washington, DC if Clinton were elected than if Obama were elected; so what is the estimate of percentage of Clinton's popular vote due to Republicans?

Marc,You must have... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Marc,

You must have only read the first sentence of what I wrote. Because the second sentence was

"Obvious that's not true as only one republican has been convicted for doing it."

I will accept your apology if your man enough to own up to it.

Marc,Rush may have... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Marc,

Rush may have been responsible for Hillary winning in Indiana (Hillary won by 1.4%) and Texas (Hillary won by 3.5%).

However I consider fraudulent voting to go against the principles that many people have died for in establishing a democratic government. It may be legal but its still fraudulent.

If you do not believe it be fraud then look it up in the dictionary.

According to American Heritage Dictionary

fraud
1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
2. A piece of trickery; a trick.

DaveWhen was: "one... (Below threshold)
Maggie:

Dave

When was: "one republican has been convicted for doing it".

Where is your source for this allegation?

Actually, Dave, you might o... (Below threshold)

Actually, Dave, you might owe the apology. You had two errors in your original piece.

The first is rather pedantic; Larry Craig didn't have sex in a men's room, he was accused of soliciting it. Further, his conviction was for "disorderly conduct," not actually soliciting sex.

The second, though, is considerably more significant. Craig's behavior was, indeed, an individual aberration; the problems the Democrats are the consequences of a single, thoroughly-repudiated individual, but of a major faction within the party. And that faction is challenging the rules laid down by the duly-chosen leadership of that party and agreed upon by all.

A better analogy would be... um... sorry, nothing springs to mind. If I was more of a sports person, I might be able to make some New England Patriots cheating scandal comparison, but I'm not.

So no, I'd say you weren't due to receive an apology. I wouldn't go so far as to say you owe one, but if you're going to push that theme, that's where it should end up.

J.

Maggie,I was in-co... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Maggie,

I was in-correct in stating that only one republican enjoys bathroom sex with their gender. In fact there have been at least three involving bathrooms and at least one for sex with a man he met at an erotic video store while on a GOP retreat.

Another fact is one of those republicans (Bob Allen) was a co-chairman for McCains presidential campaign.


1. Republican Larry Craig was arrested at Minneapolis airport in June
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20467347
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/27/craig.arrest


2. St. Bernard Parish Councilman Joey DiFatta was twice detained for lewd conduct in mall restrooms.
http://blog.nola.com/times-picayune/2007/10/report.pdf
http://www.blackstarnews.com/?c=135&a=3844


3. State Rep. Bob Allen was arrested at a local park after offering to perform a sex act on an undercover officer [in a bathroom stall] in exchange for $20, police said.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/12/mccain.campaign/index.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923837/posts

4. Richard Curtis A Republican state legislator who repeatedly voted against gay rights measures resigned his seat amid revelations he had sex with a man he met at an erotic video store while in Spokane on a GOP retreat.
http://www.ktvb.com/news/regional/stories/ktvbn-oct3107-curtis_resignation.1c6315c5f.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/22/9542/46167/903/461834

Jay,I was in-corre... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Jay,

I was in-correct in stating that a republican was convicted of bathroom sex. You are correct he was accused of solicitation. For that I appoligize.

However, it was not an individual aberation. At least three republicans have been charged with soliciting in a mens room.

One of those republicans (Bob Allen) was a co-chairman for McCains presidential campaign.

However whats even more frightening was the Mark Foley scandel involving underage paiges. If you remember there were numerous compaints about his behavior over a number of years yet republicans overlooked it to protect their party over the children.


1. Republican Larry Craig was arrested at Minneapolis airport in June
2. St. Bernard Parish Councilman Joey DiFatta was twice detained for lewd conduct in mall restrooms.
3. State Rep. Bob Allen was arrested at a local park after offering to perform a sex act on an undercover officer [in a bathroom stall] in exchange for $20, police said.

Dave... why do you even wan... (Below threshold)
marc:

Dave... why do you even want to go down that road?

The list of sexual peccadilloes on both sides of the aisle is long in both history and specific names.

In short it's a bullshit argument. Not to mention far off topic.

Get over it.

Chicago politics, destroy y... (Below threshold)
Paul, miami fl:

Chicago politics, destroy your opposition before THE PEOPLE get to vote. That is who Obama is and does. Do you know that Rev. Wright is still in full control of that church (and I use the term very loosely). Why won't the people wake up and see him for what he is? God help us!

Marc,I agree its a... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Marc,

I agree its a BS argument but so is this article. Just as there are those in the democratic party lacking core principles the same applies to republicans. That is the point I am trying to make.

Applying the Clinton's lack of core principles to the entire party is an absurd argument. Especially since most of the democratic voters and super-delegates have rejected her. Hillary is not ahead in the popular vote despite her claim. In fact I would even vote for McCain over Hillary if it came down to it.

JT, you take the time out t... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

JT, you take the time out to explain to Dave that Craig did not get arrested for soliciting sex but for disorderly conduct. Dave responds by say you are correct that Craig was convicted of soliciting. Wow! That is the lefts problem. Compreshension. Focus. They don't have the skills. ww

WileWillie,You are... (Below threshold)
Dave:

WileWillie,

You are the one with the comprehension/focus problem. I responded by saying he was accused of not convicted of soliticing. My exact words were,

"I was in-correct in stating that a republican was convicted of bathroom sex. You are correct he was accused of solicitation. For that I appoligize."

In fact Jay also used the exact same wording,

"Larry Craig didn't have sex in a men's room, he was accused of soliciting it."

WildWillie,Would i... (Below threshold)
Dave:

WildWillie,

Would if be fair if I stated that just because you have demonstrated a problem with comprehension/focus and mis-quoting people that all Republicans have the same problem?

After all that is the argument you incorrectly tried to make with me.

Dave, he was ACCUSED of sol... (Below threshold)

Dave, he was ACCUSED of soliciting sex, CHARGED and PLEADED GUILTY to disorderly conduct.

And I still don't see the connection between what a couple of dipshits did -- and were promptly shunned for it -- and the stated position of a significant faction of the Democratic Party. The bathroom stuff is a mark of shame; Hillary's campaign is utterly shameless.

Finally, Dave, Craig's incident was utterly personal and private. Clinton's actions are a matter of public and political policy.

Are you really, really that dense?

J.

Back on topic.Just... (Below threshold)

Back on topic.

Just finished watching the rules committee determination on CNN. Here is the money quote:

Clinton's chief delegate hunter Harold Ickes angrily informed the committee that Clinton had instructed him to reserve her right to appeal the matter to the Democrats' credentials committee, which could potentially drag the matter to the party's convention in August.

"There's been a lot of talk about party unity--let's all come together, and put our arms around each other," said Ickes, who is also a member of the Rules Committee that approved the deal. "I submit to you ladies and gentlemen, hijacking four delegates ... is not a good way to start down the path of party unity."


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D910TNI00&show_article=1

Now this may a ploy to gain a better negotiating position for future discussions (campaign expenses, appointments etc. Heck, Ickes paycheck may be on the line....won't be the first time that has happened in either Party or private business).

However, as much as I dislike Ickes from a political standpoint, he is a shrewd and effective negotiator. I don't think this thing is over by a long shot. And from the shouting I heard from the audience (is that what you call them?)it sounds like sheets tearing.

Maybe the Dems should ask t... (Below threshold)
Steve:

Maybe the Dems should ask the Iraq government how to hold an election!

Obama just threw his church... (Below threshold)

Obama just threw his church
under the bus.

Remember this?

"I could no more distance myself from Pastor Wright than I could from my white grandmother"?

Did it take a white Catholic Father Michael Pfleger to bring this about? Or is he just another typical white guy?

Post #20"It may... (Below threshold)
914:

Post #20

"It may be legal but its still fraudulent"

What a bunch of nonsense.

Jay,As the followi... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Jay,

As the following time shows not everybody I mentioned were promptly shunned for it.

2000 -- Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) informed of improper Foley Internet messages that made a page feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley was taking their email relationship. Kolbe claims he never personally confronted Foley, but rather recommended that the complaint be passed along to his office. [Washington Post, 10/9/06; Arizona Republic, 10/11/06]

2001 -- A Republican staff member warns pages "to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley." A former page says that they were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff." [ABC, 10/1/06]

2003 -- Foley's former aide Kirk Fordham told The Associated Press that "when he learned about Foley's inappropriate behavior toward pages, he had 'more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene,' alluding to House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Hastert's office denied the explosive allegations." [CBS News, 10/5/06]

SEPTEMBER 2005 -- Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA), who sponsored the page, learns "of the e-mails from a reporter." [AP, 9/29/06; CQ, 9/30/06]


FALL 2005 -- "Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the [Speaker J. Denis Hastert's] Office, received a telephone call from Congressman Rodney Alexander's Chief of Staff who indicated that he had an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House page...[Mike] Stokke [Deputy Chief of Staff for Speaker Hastert] called the Clerk and asked him to come to the Speaker's Office so that he could put him together with Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff." [Hastert Statement, 9/30/06]

LATE 2005 -- Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), Chairman of the House Page Board, "was notified by the then Clerk of the House, who manages the Page Program, that he had been told by Congressman Rodney Alexander (R-LA) about an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House Page." Shimkus interviewed Foley and told him "to cease all contact with this former house page." He did not inform Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI), the only Democrat on the House page Board. [Roll Call, 9/29/06]

EARLY 2006 -- Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) talks Foley into running for another term. Bob Novak reported, "A member of the House leadership told me that Foley, under continuous political pressure because of his sexual orientation, was considering not seeking a seventh term this year but that Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), talked him into running." [New York Post, 10/4/06]


FEBRUARY/MARCH 2006 -- Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), whose office first received the complaint from the page, told Boehner about Foley's inappropriate e-mails, and Boehner sent him to Tom Reynolds. Alexander tells Reynolds about "the existence of e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. Alexander's." Reynolds tells Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) about the emails and his conversation with Alexander. [Reynolds Statement, 9/30/06; Roll Call, 9/30/06; Hastert Statement, 9/30/06; Chicago Tribune, 10/3/06]

SPRING 2006 -- House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) learns of "inappropriate 'contact' between Foley and a 16-year-old page" from Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA). After learning about Foley's conduct, Boehner told Speaker of the House J. Denis Hastert who assured Boehner he would "take care of it." Later, Boehner changed his story and told the Washington Post he didn't remember whether he talked to Hastert. [Washington Post, 9/30/06; New York Times, 10/1/06]

SPRING 2006 -- Reynolds says he told Hastert about the e-mails after he learned about them. "He said he alerted the Republican speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, to the issue, but Mr. Hastert said he had no recollection of the contact." [The Sun, 10/3/06]

JULY 21, 2006 -- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington forwarded the messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation on July 21 and requested an investigation. [CREW, 10/5/06]

SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 3:00 PM -- Foley resigns. [ABC, 9/29/06]

You know, the funny thing i... (Below threshold)
Amanda:

You know, the funny thing is, I am a Florida voter. I knew going into it that I was wasting my time (I voted for Obama) and I'm fine that decision, but I wanted to be a part of the process if only it meant casting a meaningless vote. Why do you republicans care anyway? Don't you have your own candidate to worry about? Mind your own business.

Dave, you really seem obses... (Below threshold)

Dave, you really seem obsessed with Foley. You have every single detail of his downfall committed to memory, as if you replay it in your head over and over, cherishing each sordid detail, each lurid aspect. I can only imagine what you do as you do that -- and really, really wish I could get that image out of my head.

Around here, we kicked it around and kicked it to the curb AS IT HAPPENED. We've gotten over it. We've MovedOn, even.

I'd suggest you do the same. Or, at least, find a new place to indulge your Onanistic revels.

J.

Foley is pretty inconsequen... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Foley is pretty inconsequential. So is Larry Craig. And remember Jeff Gannon? That guy was fun to laugh about for a few months. Loads of kinky folks on both sides of the aisle, I should think. After all, politicians are similar to regular American people (with glaring differentiators, of course). As long as nobody's committing acts of pedophilia or rape or bestiality or polygamy or whatever I could care less what they do, as they're just people and many people have impulses that other people find downright filthy. Doesn't matter, morally speaking, but as public figures they ultimately have to answer to their constituents and families. E.g. I could care less that Eliot Spitzer liked call girls. Also could care less that the political and personal climate was such that he ruined his own career and future.

While Dave's Foley timeline is off-topic, it's relevant insofar as Republicans seem to try to position their party as the bastion of vanilla sexual mores, when there's no evidence nor any reason to separate themselves from the Democratic party in this regard.

'Don't you have your own... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

'Don't you have your own candidate to worry about? Mind your own business."

If you can't see why this is every American's business, then I suppose there's no point in rocking your world with the reasons why.

But back to the topic:

From what I've seen with the Democratic Party, their means of operating government consists of 1) make rules and laws 2) if those rules or laws are broken by enough people, change them and make them retroactive to absolve all those who broke them. This is how they want to handle the mortgage crisis and immigration. It's how they handled abortion, etc.

All the while, they point to the bogeyman (invariably, a Republican or evil "big business") that has caused them to behave badly thereby relieving the public of responsibility for their own actions which garners more support for the rule changes.

Re 26 and historical Chicag... (Below threshold)
epador:

Re 26 and historical Chicago politics:

Not much in response to this from the Obama supporters. The Clintonian approach of destroying your threats by any means possible at any time has proven so far to be inferior, but the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

JT, I'm already too full of popcorn and Diet Coke. And the trailers are still running! I hope I'm not too tired of this before the main feature starts in Denver. From what I hear there may be a sequel before Nov as well.

Hyperbolist is correct in o... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Hyperbolist is correct in one aspect, the republican party does embrace sexual propriety. The difference between the two parties is: When a republican is caught in a sexually deviant situation, the republican party immediately rises up and shuns the sick bastard until they leave the position they were elected to. The democrats embrace their deviants. There is the difference. ww

Why do you republicans c... (Below threshold)

Why do you republicans care anyway? Democrats used to say "Count every vote". Are you saying that since you yourselves don't believe what you say, we shouldn't either?

JayGet the feeling... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

Jay

Get the feeling that Hillary knows something?

Get the feeling that ... (Below threshold)

Get the feeling that Hillary knows something?

rampant speculation everywhere

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/31/breaking-news-michelle%e2%80%99s-whitey-problem-thread-2/

WildWillie,Your in... (Below threshold)
Dave:

WildWillie,

Your in denial. How can you say,

"the republican party immediately rises up and shuns the sick bastard until they leave the position they were elected to"


I just showed you a timeline that shows high level members of the reublican party new Foley was sending inappropriate internet messages to young boy pages at least 6 years before Foley resigned. Meanwhile Foley continued to invite minor male pages to his house where he gave them booze and pot.


Dave, willie might or might... (Below threshold)

Dave, willie might or might not be in denial (I don't think he is), but you're definitely in the grips of obsession. Go find somewhere else to spank your monkey over Foley. We exhausted his debate/entertainment value when that news first broke.

J.

Get the feeling that Hil... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

Get the feeling that Hillary knows something?

rampant speculation everywhere


http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/31/breaking-news-michelle%e2%80%99s-whitey-problem-thread-2/


It's Larry Johnson.

I dismissed this early on because of that but the way Hillary is hanging in there it makes me wonder...

And Dylan pointed out th... (Below threshold)
ras:

And Dylan pointed out that if you want to get away with breaking the law if you were careful to not do it carelessly.

I would venture that Dylan's point was more like: if you choose not to be guided by the rules, then you must be guided instead by your conscience. And your consience must be wholly honest about both you and the world around you if it is to keep you alive.

Or to put it yet another way: you need clear vision and judgment in order to steer the car yourself.

I forgot I was talking to a... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I forgot I was talking to a liberal. I will type slower. When the republican party as in, us the people who make it happen, not the elected people. So, if some congressmen knew about this, shame on them, but when I learned of it, I wrote my congressman to take action against this deviant behaviour. Now, I hope you understand. On the other hand, if you are a democrat, you can run a homosexual whorehouse from your apartment and get re-elected, you can actually have sex with the minor pages in congress and get re-elected, you can rape and grope women and continue in office, the list goes on how the democratic rank and file support immoral deviant behavior.

JT, thanks for the defend, and no, I never live in the denial neighborhood. ww

WildWillie,Do you ... (Below threshold)
Dave:

WildWillie,

Do you feel any action should be taken against House Majority Leader John A. Boehner and House Speaker Dennis Hastert and all the other republican leaders who new what Foley was doing but covered it up to protect the party over children?

Dave, this is the LAST time... (Below threshold)

Dave, this is the LAST time Foley comes up on this thread.

Foley NEVER harmed a child. He stayed just barely on the legal side of the age of consent. Had he actively pursued a child, he would have been criminally charged.

Foley was disgusting, repulsive, creepy, perverted, but he was not -- QUITE -- a pedophile in the eyes of the law.

That's why he should not be compared to the late Representative Gerry Studds (D-MA), who DID have a sexual relationship with a teenage Congressional page. You probably don't recall that Studds was censured by the House, rejected the censure, and went on to resume several Democratic leadership positions before he retired.

Foley, on the other hand, was instantly shunned and is still to this day a pariah and a joke and absolutely toxic. Unlike Studds, who was lionized upon his death.

Now get your hands out of your pants and either talk about the subject at hand, or go elsewhere.

If you can't do that, I'm ready to help you.

J.

LOL, Hillary wins popular v... (Below threshold)
epador:

LOL, Hillary wins popular vote in PR on a 20% of the eligible voters casting votes. Rules? What rules?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy