You know it's bad when ...
The Washington Post does a front-page story about a Democratic scandal:
Then came the allegations last August that [Louisiana Rep. William] Jefferson had orchestrated a corruption scheme. Federal investigators are targeting the Democratic congressman, 58, for allegedly demanding cash and other favors for himself and relatives, in exchange for using his congressional clout to arrangeNotice, however, that the Post views this as bad news not because people (allegedly) have been scammed and hustled by a corrupt politician, but chiefly because it's bad P.R. for Democrats:
African business deals. A former aide recently pleaded guilty to bribing Jefferson and is cooperating with authorities, and sources familiar with the case say a plea agreement with the lawmaker is being explored.
Jefferson's woes are unwelcome news for his party and have undercut the Democrats' election-year assertion that Republicans have created a "culture of corruption." If Jefferson is indicted and pleads guilty or is convicted, he will have to step down or face expulsion. But if he is indicted and decides to go to trial, he may remain in Congress and stand for reelection ...Clever, huh? A "bipartisan tinge" -- even though, as the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics has documented, Democrats got $1.1 million from Abramoff's clients in the past four election cycles -- 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 -- compared to the total of $2.6 million Republicans got from Abramoff & Co.
The investigation of Jefferson and the recent guilty plea by a former aide give Republicans the chance to argue that corruption in Washington has a bipartisan tinge.
(By the way, both Pelosi and Reid got money from Abramoff's clients and are trying to spin it that since they didn't get contributions directly from Abramoff himself, then this doesn't count. This won't work, and I'm not going to explain yet why it won't work, because that would give them a tipoff that they need to come up with a new spin. But here's a hint, Harry: Unlike some of the media morons who've been peddling your spin, I can count.)
What the Post doesn't tell you, of course, is that Democrats are indicted, convicted or plead guilty to corruption charges on a regular basis. Even in 2006, which began as a bad year for Republicans scandal-wise, the Democrats seem to be keeping pace or pulling ahead. There's Chicago, Atlanta, Wisconsin, Philadelphia, etc., etc. -- and that's just from the past WEEK!
No matter how you slice it, dice it, or make julienne fries with it, when it comes to corruption, Democrats are the all-time champs. The media, of course, does its best to ignore Democratic corruption -- for years, everybody knew that Clinton was an adulterous horndog who couldn't keep his hands off any woman who'd hold still long enough, but it took DNA evidence before the MSM would admit it.
Like their Democratic idols, the MSM think Americans are too stupid to see the plain truth. And so while they fill their pages with stories about Scooter and the NSA and Cheney's 28-guage shotgun, they ignore all the Democrats caught in scandals at the state and local level. Meanwhile Harry and Nancy thing they can convince Americans that the way to fix the "culture of corruption" is to elect the party of Chinagate and Chappaquiddick. "Hey, your local Democratic mayor is a cheat and the Dems in your state's legislature are a bunch of lying scumbags ... but you can trust the Democrats in Congress!" Brilliant.
Dems are basing their entire political strategy for 2006 on the assumption that voters are too stupid to see through the DNC's lies. But considering that it's been more than 12 years since voters were stupid enough to elect a Democratic majority in Congress, and considering Democrats have lost ground in the past two elections, it may be that America is getting smarter every day.
DONKEY CONS: Buy it
DONKEY CONS: Rave review
DONKEY CONS: Another rave review
DONKEY CONS: Yet ANOTHER rave review
DONKEY CONS: About the book
DONKEY CONS: On Book TV
DONKEY CONS: On Capitol Hill