That’s a scream of frustration, not a real question.
Ted Stevens was just indicted on seven counts of lying about hundred thousand dollar “gifts” on Senate disclosure forms. By and large, his senate pals have closed ranks around him. Our own paragon of virtue, Robert Bennett, is quoted as saying, “We all decided to say, ‘No comment.’” Our other paragon, Orrin Hatch, decided to go a bit further, “I know Ted Stevens, and he’s an honest man.”
Contrast this with what happened to Larry Craig of Idaho when the news broke about his misdemeanor soliciting sex in a men’s room. Bennett (and Mitt Romney) first threw him off the campaign bus and then Bennett did his dead level best to get him to resign. To his credit, Craig has now refused. (In my blog, Pile On!, I wrote about why Republicans were so hard on Craig.)
The clear lesson is that selling your Senate seat for a barbecue grill is OK with Republicans. Having anything to do with gay sex in a men’s room is a hanging offense, however.
(To justify my case about “Republicans” versus “Democrats”, contrast this with the Democrat treatment of Louisiana’s Representative Jefferson, who was caught with a freezer full of bribery cash. Jefferson is taking the hard line just like Stevens, but you don’t find Democrats circling the wagons around him. The most they’re doing is insisting that he get his day in court. This is turning out to be fairly difficult since the good citizens of Louisiana decided to reelect him anyway. And I thought Color Country voters were nutty.)
The same thing is happening on a larger scale with Bush versus Clinton.
There’s no question, especially in light of official investigations like the “Senate Report on Iraqi WMD Intelligence” that Bush should be impeached for his crimes against the nation. But will he be? Noooooooo. There’s also no question that Clinton was guilty of sex with an intern. He was impeached.
Is sex really so much more important than corruption? What’s wrong with us?
Dan – I generally agree with you with a couple of quibbles.
I share your frustration, but I suspect that our Lords and Masters in Washington are not unique in how they compare sexual indiscretions vis a vis official misconduct. I suspect that many people in this rather puritan nation agree with them. Look at how movies are rated – blood and gore (PG-13) compared to a flash of a bare boob (R).
Is this the same Hatch that said that the people of Colorado City / Hildale were wonderful and law abiding ?
Quibbles –
Stevens has not been accused of selling his Senate seat. The indictments are for failure to report receipt of financial assistance, not bribery.
Neither of the Senate reports on Iraq Pre War Intelligence accuse Bush of committing crimes, although plenty of people believe crimes were committed.
Quibbles noted. And you’re correct insofar as the official charges are concerned.
The prosecutors didn’t say that Stevens sold his Senate seat for a barbecue. I did.
And the Senate didn’t say Bush betrayed the nation either. I did.
The evidence that the prosecutors and the Senate have made available to us is convincing enough for me, but since Stevens and Bush aren’t playing footsie under the conference table together, they both stand a good chance of never being held accountable.
Stevens might get a big fine. I can’t imagene an 84 year old guy getting much jail time.
Bush will probably never be held accountable except in public opinion and by history
Before Bush came along Jimmy Carter was probably the worst president in the last 100 years (toss up with Hoover) and he ended up with a Nobel Prize.
Hard to imagene that happening to Bush. If I were Bush I might be reluctant to go to anyplace in Europe other than Great Britain. He could be snatched and end up in a war crimes trial.
That’s an interesting point about Bush. It happened to Pinochet, the former dictator of Chile. (But, in the end, they had to let him loose again.)
If it did happen to Bush, in a way he would have himself to blame. The only way it could happen would be if America’s power had virtually evaporated and the political climate here was totally against him. And both of those events would be direct results of his own actions today.
You seem like a reasonable person and I’m curious about why you think Carter was so bad.
An inept handling of the hostage crisis in Iran
Stagflation — high unemployment — low growth — high inflation
He may still hold the record for the highest pain index — sum of rates for inflation and unemployment.
Blamed many of the problems of the country on the lack of confidence of the American people — his “malaise” speech.
Poor leadership — not as bad as the current President but pretty bad.
One of the results of the hostage crisis in Iran was an oil shortage with gas lines. However to his credit he did try to seriously address the problem of dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately his accomplishments withered away when the price of oil returned to “normal” levels. I’m afraid we may see the same thing again if the price of oil continues to decline.
As I recall, Kissinger was tried in abstentia for war crimes — also a winner of a Nobel prize
Interesting list.
From my point of view, Carter was probably the last actually honest politician to achieve national office.
(Yes, that means that ALL of the others since then were as crooked as a dog’s hind leg. You may note that includes Clinton. I personally can’t forgive the pardons in his last days in office.)
But Carter was a victim of both circumstance and a succession of truely evil opponents. Sometimes he won. Sometimes he lost. For example, in his first race for the Georgia Senate, his opponent tried to steal the election with fictitious voters. Carter exposed the fraud in court and then took his seat in the Georgia Senate. But in his first race for Governor of Georgia, he lost to the arch-segregationist Lester Maddox.
One thing I admired about Carter was that he was not a lawyer-politician by training. He was a nuclear engineer. Carter was picked as the engineering officer of the Sea Wolf, America’s second nuclear submarine. He probably would have been an engineer for his whole life except that his sense of responsibility took over. When his father died suddenly, Carter resigned his commission and returned to Georgia to run the family’s farm and warehouse business, selling fertilizer and farm supplies.
In considering your point about “stagflation,” you have to remember that he followed what might have been the most corrupt administration in our history. (Ford doesn’t count. He was just a “place holder” for a little while.) The VietNam War cost more in constant dollars than we have spent even on the present disaster (but we’re getting close). Both the President and the Vice-President before Carter were forced from office. That many years of mismanagement is hard to recover from in just a few years. As Governor of Georgia, Carter had an excellent record of sound economic administration. It worries me that President Obama will face the exact same problem.
As for the handling of the Iran hostage negotiations, serious reasons still remain to implicate Bush’s dad and Reagan in negotiating in secret with the Iranians to prevent the release of the hostages before the election. Certainly, the Iran-Contra affair during Reagan’s administration clearly demonstrates his willingness to subvert the law with deals just like that.
Carter’s main failing was his extraordinary honesty and humility which made it much easier for enemies who were willing to stop at nothing. His core values remain on display today in his work for projects like Habitat for Humanity.
I agree with you about Carter’s honesty and character. I also admire his work for Habitat for Humanity.
However, I think the country was worse off when he left office than when he entered office. He faced many obstacles – as do all Presidents – but did not effectively deal with them. Would Ford have been more effective? Probably not, but Carter was the one elected and his record is what it is.
He did try. As I said in my previous post, I think we would much better off today if Carter’s energy program had persisted.
However, a successful President has to be effective. I don’t think Carter was effective or successful. I don’t think Carter demonstrated effective leadership. He might have been great at steering a nuclear sub, but not so good at steering the ship of state.
If Carter was not temperamentally suited to dealing with Congress and the bureaucracy then he was obligated to bring in staff and Cabinet secretaries who were capable in dealing effectively with the realities of Washington. As someone said – politics ain’t beanbag.
Perhaps he needed a milder Cheney.
I don’t mean to dismiss the importance of honesty and character – they are essential. However, by themselves they are not sufficient. I hope than honesty and effectiveness are not either / or.
The next President – probably Obama – will certainly face problems. I fear we are in for a rough ride the next four years.