home

Repbulicans and Their High Moral Ground

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:27:17 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Great video, check it out.

< Giuliani Promises Conservative Judges | Larry Craig Spokesman: He's Getting Ready to Leave >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Repbulicans and Their High Moral Ground | 55 comments (55 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    And then (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Al on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 12:52:38 PM EST
    there's all the immorality that doesn't have to do with sex.

    Keeping Track (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 06:02:02 PM EST
    Here is a loooong list covering the moral misteps for 2007 of the Republican Culture of Corruption
    .

    via robot wisdom

    The Circus that is Republican Party (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Nowonmai on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 06:24:12 PM EST
    I am rather amused at the fact that one of the Repugs in the video, who called Former President Clinton a "Dirty nasty bad boy" is even nastier. (Hey dude, at least it wasn't in a manky bathroom stall) There is a big helping of irony there.

    Yeah, the Dems have their fair share of fubars, but dammit, at least they don't suddenly FIND GOD, or GET CURED, while still attempting to claim the high moral ground. (Don't bother mentioning those Repugs in Dems Clothing, and you know which politicians I am referring to)

    Having ideals and failing is one thing. But paying lip service to having such high morals, all the while
    doing something else... what's that called?  Oh yes, hypocrisy.

    Republicans (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by tnthorpe on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 08:03:03 PM EST
    act like they talk to God on the phone every day, but looks like some of them had the wrong number.

    Still, it might look like the Republican party is imploding, but the argument Chris Hedges makes in American Fascists still holds. The theocrats will look for fresh Republican faces and business firsters will continue to hitch their wagon to the God, gays, guns agenda.
     

    In politics, the "moral high ground" (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:23:29 AM EST
      is perhaps higher than Death Valley, but not much. Part of the problem is that both Parties prefer to cite the nearly infinite examples of the other Party's failings to argue the other side is worse than make even the slightest real effort to clean their own house.

      Corruption is endemic in both Parties from top to bottom. Arguing about who is least  corrupt is akin to arguing which lady is most chaste at the bordello.

    Well... heh. At least that's a better excuse than (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:33:42 AM EST
    ppj's continued strolling diversionary attempts at excusing the never ending supply of big republican boners.

    Not much better, but a little. A cute little thing, at least...

    Parent

    edger's ethics include this (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:15:28 PM EST
    Posted by edger at September 3, 2005 01:04 PM

    This may get me kicked off this site, and I'll probably regret saying this later, but here goes...

    Jim... you know how to use a gun? Bullets are cheap, and plentiful, you can get lots of 'em almost anywhere if you are out of 'em...

    You only need one, though...

    And thid...

    Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

    The first demonstrates the hidden desire to see harm done.

    The second shows edger's position towards freedom of speech, and having calm reasonable conversations toward solving problems.

    Parent

    Nice (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:55:13 PM EST
    You got something right. Finally.

    Well... 90% percent right, anyway.

    I always knew you had it in you.

    Can you figure out the other 10% now?

    Parent

    Deconstructionist (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:16:37 PM EST
    And why would someone at bordello be arguing ethics?

    ;=)

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:23:30 PM EST
     ... compared to politicians...

    Parent
    Republican Ethics (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 10:27:56 AM EST
    Republicans don't have ethics problems because they change the rules when needed. And if any Republican actually does have the backbone to hold ethics in high esteem they are the ones that suffer the consequences, by either being forced out. As usual with these guys they what they say and what they do are ususally opposite.


    The [House Ethics Committee] rules in effect before January allowed investigations to begin if the ethics chairman and ranking minority member failed to act on a complaint in 45 days and no other member requested full committee consideration. The Republican changes provided for an automatic dismissal in case of a tie, a procedure that Hastert said was needed to avoid keeping members in limbo....

    Hefley [ R-Colo.] was dumped by Hastert as chairman of the evenly divided committee after the panel admonished DeLay. He has been one of the few Republicans who opposed the rule changes from the beginning.


    MSNBC

    Are you suggesting Democrats are without fault? (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 11:23:42 AM EST


    Parent
    Gosh Sarc, No (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 11:45:32 AM EST
    Usually you get it on these sorts of things, and am surprised that you ask the question.

    This thread is about the hypocrisy and spin of the GOP, not scorekeeping.

    No one is claiming that the Democrats are snow white and without problems, but they are making any absurd claims about moral superiority.  The Republicans,  on the other hand, claim to be the party that owns the moral high ground but actually is the party with an disproportionate amount of moral lapses in the last seven years.

    Parent

    Ah, see, you confused me when you (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 12:13:52 PM EST
    started scorekeeping here. Darn good thing Democrats don't profess to hold any morals dear, otherwise they'd be hypocrites and pervs, instead of merely pervs.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 12:19:32 PM EST
    If you want to keep score the Republicans are on a very deep losing streak. Not getting better either.

    Parent
    Call it what you wish, but to my way of thinking (3.00 / 1) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:20:37 PM EST
    to have ideals and at times fail to live up to them is preferable to having no ideals at all.

    It would be nice if Bush did that, I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:25:24 PM EST


    Parent
    and who (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Jen M on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:32:27 PM EST
    pray tell, has no ideals?

    Parent
    OK, good point. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:50:32 PM EST


    Parent
    I wonder.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:04:45 AM EST
    if our leaders have sincere ideals and sometimes fail to live up to them, like most human beings....or if they have phoney ideals for the cameras that they never even attempt to live up to.

    I wonder....probably a little of both, depending on the leader.

    Parent

    Interesting (1.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Slado on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 02:56:26 PM EST
    Is the point that Democrats own the moral high ground or just a cheap shot at Republicans?

    The counterpoint if I may is that when Republicans commit such acts they are removed from government because of pressure from their own party.

    If Democrats drown a women, run a male prostitution ring or boink their intern in the oval office they not only don't suffer any consequences their party rallies to their defense.

    Repeating GOP Talking Points (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 03:09:26 PM EST
    Doesn't make you look so good. The point which self servingly eludes you is that the Republicans have claimed that they own the moral high ground. THe democrats make no such claim.

    Parent
    Can you say (1.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 03:57:34 PM EST
    John Murtha - Indicted Co-conspirator

    Democrat - Congressman

    If you need, I have others....

    Parent

    More BS Defensiveness (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:21:51 PM EST
    And non sequiturs from another shill from the party that claims to own the moral high ground. The issue which seems to elude all the shills is hypocrisy in all its glory.

    Parent
    Heh! (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:37:44 PM EST
    Another issue which seems to elude all the shills, especially this shill, is that if you need, he has others.... but he specializes in elusion, and delusion.

    He can't help himself. He's been using his own product too long. ;-)

    Parent

    So you can't answer (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:16:44 AM EST
    so you want to change the subject..

    I understand.

    Come join me Squeaky and edger. Become an Independent Social Liberal. Believe in true free speech, not just in leftist talking points..

    That way you won't have to be embarassed all the time.

    Parent

    Believing the Minute Men (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 11:43:29 AM EST
    should allow white gays to aqpply for membership dosnt make you "a liberal" and paraphrasing what Hannity and Drudge said night dosnt make you independent.

    Thanks for the offer though.

    Parent

    Notice I didn't writre "Jondee." (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:30:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Hahahhahaha... ha.. ha... owww... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:39:21 AM EST
    Stop...stop... it hurts to laugh this hard....

    Parent
    Speaking of hypocrisy.... (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:18:31 AM EST
    Hereeeeeeeees Squeaky!!

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.


    Parent
    Just Like The GOP (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:48:32 PM EST
    Thanks of giving us a perfect example of GOP tactics, not so different than the topic at hand.  Your out of context quote that you repeat is an intentional lie. An obvious emulation of your dream boy Rove and the GOP.

    Parent
    Squeaky wants ???? (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:19:39 PM EST
    Now Squeaky, you know better because I have posted this before.

    ppj does as ppj does (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 09:58:35 PM EST

    (I had written) So because Rove is doing wrong, it is okay for you to do wrong?

    (You replied) I have no problem with alleging that Rove's grandparents were Nazi's. Even if they were not, he uses Goebbels' propaganda techniques as a bible and may as well be a born and bred Nazi.

    On 9/19/05 your were defining your MOP and on 3/3/07, about 17 months later your are saying the same thing.

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    I have no problem...alleging.... even if they were not...




    Parent
    BS (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:22:05 PM EST
    Your out of context quote that you repeat is an intentional lie. It is a distortion that winds up drastically changing the meaning and intent on of a sentence I wrote in the context of our discussion about Rove.
    Your lie claims that I am emulating Rove's practice of smearing his political opponents by placing outright lies, half truths and distortions in the MSM thorugh his right wing media sources.
    Nothing could be farther fron the truth.

    In fact you are the one who emulates Rove's dirty tricks here by relentlessly changing the original meaning of my words by taking them out of context.

    It is obvious now that you are thoroughly dishonest and your lies are not just born out of stupidity.

    Parent

    Your guy is in Congress (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:12:50 AM EST
    The Repubs in jail...

    Tell me all about being pure as the driven snow.


    "I want to deal with you guys awhile before I make any transactions at all, period.... After we've done some business, well, then I might change my mind...."

    ..."I'm going to tell you this. If anybody can do it -- I'm not B.S.-ing you fellows -- I can get it done my way." he boasted. "There's no question about it."...

    But the reluctant Murtha wouldn't touch the $50,000. Here on secret videotape was this all-American hero, tall and dignified in a disheveled way, explaining why he wasn't quite ready to accept the cash.

    "All at once," he said, "some dumb [expletive deleted] would go start talking eight years from now about this whole thing and say [expletive deleted], this happened. Then in order to get immunity so he doesn't go to jail, he starts talking and fingering people. So the [S.O.B.] falls apart."...

    "You give us the banks where you want the money deposited," offered one of the bagmen.

    "All right," agreed Murtha. "How much money we talking about?"

    "Well, you tell me."

    "Well, let me find out what is a reasonable figure that will get their attention," said Murtha, "because there are a couple of banks that have really done me some favors in the past, and I'd like to put some money in....["]

    The dialogue continued as follows:

    Amoroso: Let me ask you now that we're together. I was under the impression, OK, and I told Howard [middleman Howard Criden] what we were willing to pay, and [This is where the available videotape begins]I went out, I got the $50,000. OK? So what you're telling me, OK, you're telling me that that's not what you know....

    Murtha: I'm not interested.

    Amoroso: OK.

    Murtha: At this point, [This is where the available videotape ends] you know, we do business together for a while. Maybe I'll be interested and maybe I won't.... Right now, I'm not interested in those other things. Now, I won't say that some day, you know my mind, I, if you made an offer, it may be I would change some day.

    Link

    And then...


    The Associated Press has an exclusive report on a series of real estate transactions by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid,
    in which he parlayed a $400,000 investment into a $1.1 million return in just six years.

    The focus of the AP's report is on the fact that Reid mis-reported the transactions in his Senate financial disclosure forms. He made the original investment personally, but transferred his land to a limited liability company in 2001, without reporting that transfer. It was actually the LLC that sold the land in 2004, but Reid reported the transaction as if it had been a personal sale of the land he bought in 1998.

    And this is the guy you support for the Majority Leader of the Democrats?? That's a giggle.

    And you do remember Hillary making $100,000 on a $12,000.investment in less than a year??

    What a lovely deal that was for your candidate. Why, she didn't even have to cover margin calls...
    of course the rest of the folks do..

    Non-indicted co-conspirators, land deals that weren't reported that make $600,000 in six years, futures trading were she wasn't required to cover margin shortages.... yes indeed

    "Oh, I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts.
    There they are all standing in a row.
    Big ones, small ones, some as big as your head.
    Give 'em a twist, a flick of the wrist."
    That's what the showman said.

    Oi! I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts.
    Every ball you throw will make me rich.
    There stands me wife,
    The idol of me life,
    Singing roll a bowl, a ball, a penny a pitch.
    -Fred Heatherton



    Parent
    DA (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:26:06 PM EST
    Oh really?? There are lots of people out there who aren't in jail who should be. We all know that.

    OJ for one. Kennedy should have served time.

    Cold cash Jefferson is on his way...

    Hsu will be dead so he won't serve any time.

    In seven years of Clinton-Gore rule, therefore, the United States has gone from being an invulnerable superpower to a nation that no longer has a shield against Chinese nuclear-missile attacks. This is a direct consequence of (1) the violation of U.S. security laws by Clinton-Gore campaign funders like the Loral Corporation, which provided key restricted satellite and missile technologies to China; (2) the removal of security controls and the lax attitude towards security by Clinton-Gore cabinet members like Hazel O'Leary; and (3) the Clinton-Gore team's systematic removal of security controls on commercial transfers, particularly for supercomputers, essential for the Chinese to develop their nuclear and missile technologies.

    I could go on and on, but I'll save some for later.

    Parent

    This quote (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:20:41 PM EST
    is from David Horowitz, the most partisan, deranged hack going. He's about as objective as Limbaugh on a pain pill high, though not nearly as funny.

    DH is a serial, lunatic fantasist of the most paranoid order whose career is nothing but scaremongering, misstatement, and rabid left-o-phobia.

    This is really too too sad.

    If DH is the moral high ground, ...... I can't even finish that sentence; it's just too ridiculous a thought.

    Parent

    Couldn't Agree More (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:31:20 PM EST
    DH is one of ppj's faves.

    Parent
    Prove it. (1.00 / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:52:58 PM EST
    You can't.

    What you can do is smear and make false allegations.

    Parent

    to quote yourself (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 10:51:37 PM EST
    back to yourself.

    "You know, this is not a court room (1.00 / 1) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 10:13:57 AM EST
    so I have no idea why you think I should have to defend any link. As I said, the link is the link." One standard, "proof," for me, another for you, apparently.

    But your DH, who really has nothing other than a pathetic conversion narrative and a big chip on his shoulder going for him, makes unwarranted claims in that are simply too silly to merit discussion. China has been threatening war with Taiwan for decades, ever since Cash-My-Check fled there (sorry, that's a Rocky and Bullwinkle joke). Reno declined to press charges because they were bogus: bogus like the voter fraud cases that certain now fired US Attys refused to pursue.

    Since this is a thread about the moral high ground, I simply reflect that part of what that might be is discerning truth from lies, and reality from ideology. But, then I'm a liberal.....

    Parent

    The question is not the messenger, (1.00 / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:24:35 PM EST
    the question is simply is it true?

    And you don't deny the accuracy because you can't.

    And it isn't the ethics of the messenger that is important, rather those of the ex-President of the US and his wife, who now wants to be President..

    Of course she did say, "You get two for the price of one."

    Parent

    Figures (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 05:11:28 PM EST
    So your answer is not that the quote is wrong, but that you don't like the politics of the messenger..

    Parent
    Liar and Troll (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 05:22:30 PM EST
    I was clear about your out of context quote.  Your current response shows that you are intentionally lying.

    Parent
    He's out of his league (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:10:14 AM EST
    here??

    Parent
    The Clinton defense (1.00 / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:35:27 PM EST
    Faced with a choice between dumb crooks and smart crooks, the choice most folks would make is pretty obvious,

    That's the Clinton defense....

    Congratulations.. it only took you what, two comments to get there??

    Actually, most people think you can have a smart politican as well as an honest one.

    That's one of the reason Algore couldn't use Clinton in his campaign, and one reason Hillary is trailing Rudy..

    Link

    Parent

    DA be wrong (1.00 / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 05:09:37 PM EST
    The FBI videotaped Murtha responding to an offer of $50,000, with Murtha saying, "I'm not interested... at this point. [If] we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't", right after Murtha had offered to provide names of businesses and banks in his district where money could be invested legally.[5]

    No that is not what he said.

    This is what he said.

    ..."I'm going to tell you this. If anybody can do it -- I'm not B.S.-ing you fellows -- I can get it done my way." he boasted. "There's no question about it."...

    But the reluctant Murtha wouldn't touch the $50,000. Here on secret videotape was this all-American hero, tall and dignified in a disheveled way, explaining why he wasn't quite ready to accept the cash.

    "All at once," he said, "some dumb [expletive deleted] would go start talking eight years from now about this whole thing and say [expletive deleted], this happened. Then in order to get immunity so he doesn't go to jail, he starts talking and fingering people. So the [S.O.B.] falls apart."...

    "You give us the banks where you want the money deposited," offered one of the bagmen.

    "All right," agreed Murtha. "How much money we talking about?"

    "Well, you tell me."

    "Well, let me find out what is a reasonable figure that will get their attention," said Murtha, "because there are a couple of banks that have really done me some favors in the past, and I'd like to put some money in....["]



    Parent
    There is no hypocrisy (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Slado on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:08:42 PM EST
    Republicans hold themselves to a high moral standard.   That some in the party choose to not practice what they preach results in them losing their positions in the party and their positions in government.

    The hypocrisy is democracts/liberals only caring when republicans commit such acts and not batting an eye when those in their party commit the same crimes.

    One party holds it's members and the members of the other party responsible for thier actions and one only worries about the other.

    That's the only hypocrisy I see.

    Parent

    Sure they do. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:24:42 PM EST
    One party holds it's members and the members of the other party responsible.

    Of course they do. Let's see, like Gonzales, you mean? Ashcroft? Or maybe "helluva job" Brownie? Rumsfeld, perhaps? Oh yeah, Bush. Of course!

    Bob Livingston?

    I'm sure you can think of a few more that the Republicans should hold responsible, slado.

    How about these guys? Maybe a few Republican supporters too, slado?

    Parent

    Gosh (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:50:33 PM EST
    I heard the exact same BS spin from none other than Mr. High Moral Ground aka Tom Delay.

    He is a veritable spigot of Morality.

    ahhahahahaha

    Parent

    Prove it. - Here's squeaky again (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:29:30 PM EST
    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    I have no problem with alleging that Rove's grandparents were Nazi's. Even if they were not, he uses Goebbels' propaganda techniques as a bible and may as well be a born and bred Nazi.

    Ethics?? I think not

    Parent

    You Lie Again (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:53:31 PM EST
    And once again you adopt Rove's favorite tactic. Perfect for this thread. Using unetical means to call someone unethical. Dishonesty by using out of context quotes seem to be your particular speciality.

    Parent
    Squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:28:48 PM EST
    Those are quotes available from the archives by one and all.

    Plus, the second quote, written by you approximately 17 months after the first, just confirms what the firs said.

    So watch who you call a liar. You be caught in the act of denial, which is a......??? Wanna buy two vowels???

    :-)))

    Parent

    You Lie Again (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:35:44 PM EST
    And again, as I have shown.

    Parent
    heh (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:58:15 PM EST
    Tell you what. I'll spot you an L and give you two vowels for the price of one.

    You be caught Squeaky. Those be the goods I have on you.

    Parent

    Moral Highground (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 12:16:45 PM EST
    YOu are in fantasy land.  No one is buying your snake oil. Just like the GOP tinny claims regarding morality, you have lost all credibility here.

    Parent
    From their own (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 03:59:28 PM EST
    party. Just like during Watergate and Iran Contra.

    And nice distortion of events, i.e., Kennedy committed murder; "prostitution rings" etc

    Whats the latest on the Vince Foster investigation? lol

    Parent

    Repbulicans and Their High Moral Ground | 55 comments (55 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment