September 28, 2005
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying whether he's guilty or not. I haven't seen any evidence. Nor has anyone else outside of the indictment, either. And all those hypocritical Dems who defended Bill Clinton up and down over charges of perjury and obstruction of justice won't be giving DeLay that same benefit of the doubt.
I know most of those on the Right considered Clinton guilty as sin and weren't shy about saying so. I'm not defending that either (and by the way, I was a Democrat back then, so spare me the ad hominem charges of "hypocrisy"). And I don't think I need to point out that he was, in fact, found guilty of those charges. So it's not hypocritical to rip him a new one now.
Here's my point: if Democrats want to be the party that champions the cause of those charged with a crime before they get a fair trial, then you'd think they'd try to be consistent about it, wouldn't you?
But then why should they start now?
Update: Michelle Malkin has a thorough round-up.
Update II: It didn't take Mad Howard very long, and yes he's painting with a broad stroke as he always does:
Tom DeLay is neither the beginning nor the end of the Washington Republicans' ethical problems."The part where he says he hates those rich, white Republican Christians must not have made the final edit.
h/t: The Corner
112 queries taking 0.0945 seconds, 225 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.