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
Posted by: Gary at
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.
Well, sure enough McCain did have a meeting with her, during which she allegedly insulted his service in Vietnam:
Sheehan said Tuesday that McCain told her then that her son's death was "like his buddies in Vietnam" and that he feared their deaths were "for nothing." McCain, however, denied he made such a statement.On top of that, she called him a "warmonger" in an interview afterwards. McCain went on to tell reporters that the only reason he agreed to meet with her is that he was "misled" into thinking some of his Arizona constituents would be part of her delegation.
Captain Ed weighes in:
Does anyone believe that? McCain's entire career shows him as a rank opportunist, and with his recent moves to establish himself for a run at the 2008 Presidential nomination, he figured he could score a twofer: he could embarrass George Bush and make himself a media darling by getting some friendly face time with Sheehan. Instead, she winds up, predictably, talking about him in shrill tones while he mumbles some excuse about thinking that he would meet an Arizona representative among her staff. In the end, he proved Bush's wisdom in declining a second meeting with the poster woman for the radical Left.I have mixed feelings about McCain. While he is the primary reason I registered as a Republican five years ago, he consistently says and does things that really piss me off. This little stunt is just one more on that list.
If CQ readers want to see how badly this worked out for John McCain, by the way, read through the print editions of the Washington Post and New York Times. Neither one of them carried a word about this meeting, despite the meeting taking place well before deadline. This AP report appears on the web editions of both newspapers as a wire-service story, which means that McCain's office waited a long time before talking about this meeting to reporters. How ... convenient.
Posted by: Gary at
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 3 kb.
113 queries taking 0.1205 seconds, 229 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.