In the American Thinker today, Phillip Gallagher asks Where's the Outrage about William Jefferson, the Democratic representative caught with almost $90,000 of bribe money in his freezer, but who was subsequently reelected to his seat, to this day remains unindicted, and is now on the verge of being named to the sensitive Homeland Security panel by Nancy Pelosi -- the woman who promised us the most ethical House in history. She is not off to a good start.
There are at least three troubling aspects to this whole story, not the least of which is how Ms. Pelosi could think it appropriate to assign Cold Cash to a panel that deals with classified information and national security. But that aside, as Mr. Gallagher notes, "it is the Justice Department that is to blame."
I have to concur. This whole situation surrounding William Jefferson has taken so much time as to border on the surreal. A New Orleans newspaper advanced the theory that the Justice Department did not want to indict Cold Cash before the November election and thus stand accused of partisanship. But that theory does not hold water now.
I do not know the answer to Mr. Gallagher's question. I do know that whatever words one could choose to describe the performance of the Bush Justice Department, "stellar" would not be among them. Leaving Cold Cash aside, one of the great threats to our national security has been leak after leak of classified information subsequently gracing the front pages of the major newspapers. We do not yet have a single indictment for any of these leaks, nor, as I understand, any ongoing investigations. And now there is the ham handed firing of various U.S. attorneys in a manner that raises questions of true motivation. All in all, the Bush DoJ has dropped the ball far too often.
And then there is a third issue, one that I have pondered but never been able to answer. When there is a scandal involving a conservative elected official, as a general rule, the subject of the scandal resigns in short order, knowing full well that the people who elected him or her would never vote to reelect. Mark Foley is but the most recent example.
But it seems that when the scandal involves a liberal, not only do they often not resign, but they are quite often reelected. Ted Kennedy is the poster boy for this, having been responsible for the vehicular homicide of Mary Jo Kopechne in 1969. Others notables include Cold Cash Jefferson himself (bribery), Gerry Studds (bending over a paige), Alcee Hastings (bribery), John Murtha (Abscam), Barney Frank (boyfriend running a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment) and Marion Berry (drug use), just to name a few.
I make no claim that either party has a lock on the moral high ground, nor that either party tends to be more ethical in comparison. My only point is to question how an informed electorate can send people, some of them clearly tainted with scandal, back to positions of responsibility in government? Is it that ethical standards do not matter to them except as a tool to attack conservatives?
Perhaps someone on the liberal side can answer that one for me -- but please do so coherently, with facts, and minus, bald assertions, labels or profanity.
There are at least three troubling aspects to this whole story, not the least of which is how Ms. Pelosi could think it appropriate to assign Cold Cash to a panel that deals with classified information and national security. But that aside, as Mr. Gallagher notes, "it is the Justice Department that is to blame."
I have to concur. This whole situation surrounding William Jefferson has taken so much time as to border on the surreal. A New Orleans newspaper advanced the theory that the Justice Department did not want to indict Cold Cash before the November election and thus stand accused of partisanship. But that theory does not hold water now.
Well the election is long over and we have the specter of a suspected major security risk sitting on one of the most sensitive congressional committees and still no action by the Justice Department. What can be the reason? Are they being careful, are they just slow, or are they simply incompetent?
I do not know the answer to Mr. Gallagher's question. I do know that whatever words one could choose to describe the performance of the Bush Justice Department, "stellar" would not be among them. Leaving Cold Cash aside, one of the great threats to our national security has been leak after leak of classified information subsequently gracing the front pages of the major newspapers. We do not yet have a single indictment for any of these leaks, nor, as I understand, any ongoing investigations. And now there is the ham handed firing of various U.S. attorneys in a manner that raises questions of true motivation. All in all, the Bush DoJ has dropped the ball far too often.
And then there is a third issue, one that I have pondered but never been able to answer. When there is a scandal involving a conservative elected official, as a general rule, the subject of the scandal resigns in short order, knowing full well that the people who elected him or her would never vote to reelect. Mark Foley is but the most recent example.
But it seems that when the scandal involves a liberal, not only do they often not resign, but they are quite often reelected. Ted Kennedy is the poster boy for this, having been responsible for the vehicular homicide of Mary Jo Kopechne in 1969. Others notables include Cold Cash Jefferson himself (bribery), Gerry Studds (bending over a paige), Alcee Hastings (bribery), John Murtha (Abscam), Barney Frank (boyfriend running a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment) and Marion Berry (drug use), just to name a few.
I make no claim that either party has a lock on the moral high ground, nor that either party tends to be more ethical in comparison. My only point is to question how an informed electorate can send people, some of them clearly tainted with scandal, back to positions of responsibility in government? Is it that ethical standards do not matter to them except as a tool to attack conservatives?
Perhaps someone on the liberal side can answer that one for me -- but please do so coherently, with facts, and minus, bald assertions, labels or profanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment