Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Something else I don't understand


They elected Sarah Palin as governor!! Now its true that she was running against the worst and most corrupt governor in Alaska's history, but still.

And they came very close to reelecting Ted Stevens to the Senate, after he was convicted of official corruption (accepting gifts from a contractor and failing to report those gifts as required by law).

What were they thinking???


Matty said...

Actually that's the same way I feel about Robert Byrd.

How can a party that receives 80%+ of the African-American vote continue to have elected a 90 year old former leader in the Klan who insists on naming EVERYTHING in WV after himself.

Weird, right?

Uncle Walt said...

Robert Byrd was never my favorite Democrat, but he was never convicted of offical corruption either.

And unlike Senator Stevens who insisted a conviction was not really a conviction, Senator Bryd apologized for his racist past, admitted his mistake and sought forgiveness.

I don't know how much stuff in WV is named after Senator Byrd. The whole naming thing is kind of funny. Republicans seem to want to name one of everything after Ronald Reagan, including what was Washington DC's most expensive office building. Thats kind of funny cause that building is the kind of big government thing that Reagan ran against.

Definitely funny.

secret word trandler

Matty said...

So you forgive Strom Thurmond too and Trent Lott for saying nice things about him at his birthday? Thurmond wasn't even a Klansman, let alone a grand wizard.

True Stevens is corrupt, what do you want me to say. What I'll say about the GOP vs the Dems is that when they get caught doing something - or even accused of it - they are usually drummed out (Lott, Foley, Cunningham, etc) whereas the Dems just keep right on making excuses (Mahoney, Jefferson, Frank, Kennedy, etc).

Why is William Jefferson still in Congress after getting caught red-handed with $90K in his freezer?

They're all corrupt to some extent but it seems to not be a deal breaker for the Dems.

Uncle Walt said...

We could both bluster about the corruption in the other party. Both parties ahve bad apples.

I am amazed that Jefferson was reelected in his district after being indicted, but he hasn't been convicted.

I am amazed that the voters of New Orleans reelected Ray Nagin as Mayor.

Your response should have been to ask what were the people of Louisiana thinking.

As for the Republicans drumming out their bad apples, I would remind you that they didn't drum out Stevens. If he had been reelected the Senate would not have seated him, but thats not quite the same. Lott wasn't drummed out of anything by the Republicans. After the brouhaha about his wishing (in 2002) that an avowed segregationist had been elected President in 1948, he resigned his leadership post and eventually his Senate seat, but not at the urging of his fellow Republicans. Yes, House Republicans demanded the resignation of Mark Foley, but Senator Craig showed how little that really means. Craig stuck it out until the end of his term, despite the attempt of his leadership to Drum him out as you put it.

The contrast between Senator Craig and Senator Vitter is interesting. Larry Craig is accused of soliciting for homosexual sex outside of marriage and the Republican Leadership tries to run him out of the Senate. Senator Vitter is accused of using the services of a prostitute and is quickly forgiven. Both are crimes. Why forgive Vitter and give Craig the bums rush? Probably because Craig is from Idaho where they had a Republican Governor. So a Republican would have replaced. Vitter was from a state that had a Democratic Governor. So he would have been replaced by a Democrat.

Both parties have their rotten eggs and I have seen no evidence that Republicans are any more or less forgiving of their miscreants than Democrats.

I just thought it was interesting about Alaska

And thinking about, it is also interesting about voters in Louisiana.

Funny Even

The Coach said...

I'm not at all surprised at the Palin re-election. By all Alaskan-citizen accounts, she has been an excellent governor for the state. Her lack of geographical acumen and ability to look good in a Katie Couric blind-side-editing interview aside, it appears that a good portion of the American people think she's a pretty reasonable leader.

Alaska voted her in because of her "throw the bastards out" campaign -- even when the bastards were her own political kith and kin.

On political corruption - I agree with you both - neither party seems to have any sort of high ground. Even the messiah-elect's attorney general appointee isn't without his own winking indiscretions. And yet, I'm not worried that the political scene will change significantly. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.