The Jefferson corruption scandal and the Democrats

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

so why is it that its Democrats' calling for Jeffersons' head and not, say, the opposing (and coincidentally ruling) party? Why are the Democrats so eager to do the Republicans work for them? Now I am not well versed on the details of Jefferson's case, but this backstabbing and in-fighting by his own party over his fate (CBC vs Pelosi FITE!) is precisely the sort of head-scratcher that lends ammo to the charge that the Democrats have no sense of unity or are capable of maintaining any kind of discipline.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 June 2006 15:09 (nineteen years ago)

it reminds me of the Murtha thing - as soon as any Democrat is in trouble in the media, the Party immediately moves to disown them, rather than defend them (or, perhaps better, keep quiet about it).

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 June 2006 15:10 (nineteen years ago)

Maybe because Jefferson looks really guilty?

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 9 June 2006 15:12 (nineteen years ago)

well then why not let the Republicans take care of him? What's to be gained by actively going after him? That it represents the Party taking a "principled" stand and not allowing corruption within their own ranks? I don't think that's how the majority of Americans are gonna see it - I would expect the main reaction to be "they betrayed one of their own, these people can't be trusted".... loyalty seems to be, for many in America, a virtue in and of itself that is above and beyond many others.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 June 2006 15:14 (nineteen years ago)

christ my posts are all really poorly worded here, sorry

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 June 2006 15:15 (nineteen years ago)

read hastert's comments on this and the other threads about it first

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 9 June 2006 15:18 (nineteen years ago)

The pseudo-Constitutional issue both parties want to make of this is fairly disgusting, and makes one want to move to the Seychelles.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 9 June 2006 15:18 (nineteen years ago)

the Democrats have FAR more to gain by shaking out Jefferson, because that money comes from dark and terrible places that the ruling party, as you so politely call them, is more intimate with than the Dems are.

this is no way resembles the chickenshit behavior surrounding John Murtha. Jefferson, for one, is guilty as sin and deserves to do time.

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 9 June 2006 15:21 (nineteen years ago)

otm

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 9 June 2006 15:25 (nineteen years ago)

I'm just trying to make sense of the weird shifting allegiances here.

(and oh come on they control all three branches of gov't - how are they not the ruling party?)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 June 2006 15:28 (nineteen years ago)

I just like "ruling party" imagined as an euphemism better

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 9 June 2006 15:41 (nineteen years ago)

TOMBOT 100% OTM. not just b/c it's the right thing to do (it is) but also for tactical reasons -- it's gonna be that much harder to run on a "GOP are corrupt bastards!" line when you have this jefferson guy as low-lying fruit for a counterattack.

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Friday, 9 June 2006 15:56 (nineteen years ago)

so its a preemptive tactic. that the CBC is not going to play along with.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 June 2006 16:02 (nineteen years ago)

jefferson has a right to defend himself, and the CBC has a right to defend him. but he should still resign until his innocence or guilt is established.

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Friday, 9 June 2006 16:09 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.