Napoleon Photo wrote:
If you want to have a reasonable discussion about the issues, you need to graduate from third grade and stop the name calling. (That goes for both sides). I usually ignore blogs that contains terms like "teabagger", "Obummer", "DemoRats" etc. "Fright wingers" is new to me but no more mature than the others.
Now to address your concerns. By the time we find out that a Republican has misbehaved, they are usually being escorted out of their offices. The Republicans appear to be more inclined to push their own out before they are indicted. It all comes down to nothing to talk about. He/she misbehaved, got pushed out, resigned and is gone. End of story.
On the other hand, you might recall Congressman William Jefferson from Louisiana, who was caught with money in his freezer and was eventually convicted and imprisoned for corruption. He was not forced out, in fact, he was re-elected after the money was found (among an assortment of other evidence of wrongdoing). He walked into the House of Representatives in January of 2007 to a standing ovation from the Democrats, being cheer led by Nancy Pelosi. He never resigned, he was defeated in the subsequent election. Had he been a Republican, he would likely have been shown the door (by other Republicans) as soon as the FBI found the money.
As for Christie, you will find a lot of Republicans, especially the more right wing ones, who do not like him and if you read the right blogs, you will find that there are many Republicans who are rooting for him to fall.
The charges against McDonald are serious. Once charges are filed, the presumption of innocence prevails. We can speculate as to whether or not he violated the law, but it is for the courts to decide. If he is convicted, he will join the likes of Jefferson in prison. Not openly criticizing him is not a sign of bias but the exercise of our duty to allow due process. The question is whether he is being treated differently than other politicians who accept favors from donors.
I think the complaint some have is that there seems to be more scrutiny of one party than the other. For example, Obama is an admitted former cocaine user. The news media and most Democrats have no problem with that but a Junior Congressman from Florida has to resign. Yes, the difference is current vs. former use, by my personal opinion is that the use of illegal drugs is a crime and should disqualify anyone who has habitually used them from high public office. Our leaders should be held to a higher standard than the rest of society (every one of my employers over the years required me to pass drug tests). I am certain that there are enough qualified people who have never used drugs to fill the offices.
If you want to have a reasonable discussion about ... (
show quote)