Barack Obama: Fire Greg Craig
By Soren Dayton Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Greg Craig — Comments (84) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Greg Craig, one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisors defended John Hinckley, who shot Ronald Reagan. From Craig's professional website:
In 1981 to 1982, working with Vince Fuller, Mr. Craig represented John Hinckley who was charged with the attempted assassination of President Reagan.
That might be considered neat trivia, but it doesn't stop there. Other people he defends include a former Bolivian Minister of Defense indicted for crimes against humanity, the current President of the Panamanian Senate indicted for the murder of US soldiers, and other generally bad people. Here's a video that capturess the problem:
I join the Dallas Morning News (starting in January!) in calling for Barack Obama to fire Greg Craig and answer whether or not, in Barack Obama's mind, Craig would be an appropriate hire at the State Department.
Read on for details.
ABC's Jake Tapper also notes:
Craig represents Pedro Miguel González. González is president of the Panamanian Legislature and is also under indictment in the U.S. for murdering U.S. Army Sgt. Zak Hernández in 1992. ... González's indictment has complicated passage of the U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreement. So there is legislative relevance.
Like how? Well, for Obama, González's indictment was a problem:
For his part, Obama told a Wisconsin labor coalition that he would vote against the Panama Free Trade Agreement specifically because of González's indictment.
It doesn't stop there:
Craig also represents Carlos Sánchez-Berzaín, the Bolivian Defense Minister who has been accused in a federal lawsuit of "crimes against humanity" because of his alleged role in the suppression of labor union riots in 2003 that resulted in the deaths of 67 people. He has represented Kofi Anan in the UN's oil-for-food scandal, Elian Gonzalez's father, John Hinckley, Jr., and former President Bill Clinton.
RG
There is a point to be made I suppose about the sort of clients a lawyer represents and how that intersects with your personal beliefs. It's a standard you hear the Left honking on about the likes of Ted Olson or for that matter Ken Starr, both some of the best legal minds in my view.
I wonder what one of the resident legal types have to say on the topic of legal ethics, and I must avoid the cheap joke.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
is imperative that the police understand that they must be able to prove the guilt of those they arrest, lest they think they can get anyone arrested and seek to ruin their personal enemies or members of groups they don't like.
I also don't like the call for resignations, in lieu of pointing out that THE CANDIDATE, i.e. liberal dems, do sympathize with America's enemies.
see Blame America first
Victory lies in confronting McGovernism head on.
Most repubs are too timid for that.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I'm sure lawyers could talk hours on the subject, but it seems like defense representation is a very important part of our legal system.
And you could argue that defense lawyers are doubly honorable because everyone beats up on them so much.
In our system everyone deserves legal representation. But what if he is like that idiot Marxist woman attorney who represented some terrorists a few years ago? We found out she was giving secret messages for them to Al Queda.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
You could have lots of what ifs. Problem is, right now, as far as I know, there is no evidence of him doing anything like what Lynn Stewart did. It's irresponsible to speculate that he is doing such things with no evidence.
Again, I don't want to defend the guy's views, but attacking him because of a client he represented seems wrong. Certainly, a lot of Republican lawyers have represented unsavory characters as well.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
It's analagous to, and pushback against, this.
Jeff
I figured as much, but is that really what Republicans are all about? Tit for Tat, you slam we slam, we all slam?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the cases sited, call it NewTone, call it kinder gentler, but Republicans have played this game for a while and really don't play it well or seem to play it well, so what's the point?
Said softly with no pointed stick intended.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
the wimpy limp wristed reponses that the GOP have given over the years have gotten them?...right no where...the DNC and their minions have said some of the most hateful things and run the most disturbing ads during elections and the GOP...duh we are nice we are kind we like animals...give me a break...if you don't want to get down in the gutter and fight fine say so...but there are those of us who will despite the GOP.
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
Gee I must be on the wrong site, thought this was a more thinking group of Republicans instead of somewhere with Free and Republic in it....silly me.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
And before you splutter: I don't care.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
because posters are allowed to engage in something a little less than palatable to you personally....that is why posters need not respond to each post and can divert to those they feel most comfortable engaging in.
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
lets be clear about the ONE thing everyone can agree they did right and that is wait out the enemy CodePink and when those crazy women forgot to get their permits for the corners surrounding Walter Reed....Free Republic jumped in there and grabbed them so that those freaks could no longer stand closer than 2 blocks and scream that our soldiers were baby killers....there is no doubt they are over the top sometimes but sometimes that is what is called for.
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
absentee
I tend to think the Tit for Tat approach has not been successful from the Republican side over the last 7 years. I'd prefer to see a different kind of response, maybe one based on a flying truth squad that appeals and goes right to the electorate with hard facts and the truth instead of the "smash mouth" politics developed during the Clinton years by both sides. Maybe Newt, maybe Jack Kemp, maybe Fred Thompson could be that truth squad, strong voices that can cut through the noise and speak the truth in such a way that the MSM can't ignore them.
I still remember the savage attacks on "Ronnie Ray Gun" and all the other nastiness, along the savage imagery employed to attack Republicans in the early 80's. Yet I don't recall Republicans responding in kind. Of course we did have the great communicator and he did have a way of cutting through the chatter class with his personality and way of making the common folk understand what he was saying. He also did not have to deal with the Keith Oberdogs and the like. A different time, and one without the internet I suppose.
Maybe I'm wrong, known to be that, but I don't think the MAD approach has been working of late. The MSM being increasingly in the tank for Obama, McCain is not going to get a fair hearing without some truth tellers out telling the truth.
I'll leave it at that.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
"I tend to think the Tit for Tat approach has not been successful from the Republican side over the last 7 years."
The problem is that over the past seven years is that it's been one tat after another without any tit to match. Maybe they don't have to attack back but at least freakin' defend yourselves aggressively.
George W. Bush has been the Bizarro-Reagan. Up is down, black is white, he says goodbye when he arrives and hello when he leaves. The man couldn't communicate his way out of a wet paper bag. Everything Reagan did he did with a hostile congress and media but he was so great and so popular with the people that they had to cow to his will.
Bush, on the other hand, had a friendly congress for 3/4 of his presidency...so friendly, in fact, that he misplaced his veto pen the entire time, encouraging corruption with his too-loose purse strings. He managed to not just embolden his enemies through his political incompetence, but to piss off a good deal of his original supporters, of which I was one, through wrongheaded policy decisions.
With eight years of perspective I wholeheartedly believe we nominated the wrong guy in 2000 and really had no choice but to stick with it four years later. I don't believe history will judge him kindly. Yeah, he had two really good justice picks and some nifty tax cuts but managed to screw pretty much everything else up and that includes the war in Iraq until Gates and Petraeus took over.
It is going to take years to undo the damage that Bush has done to not just the Republican brand but the party itself. Judging by our primary this cycle it may yet prove to be irreparable.
The silence from the White House when the Democrats go out and spread their lies during the Bush years has been flabbergasting. Then the President shows up on TV months later to make his case, well you know what? The Democrats have been repeating their charges ad nauseum by that point and the real truth is no longer the perceived truth and it's too late. It's been amateur hour for the past 7 and a half years and it's been maddening.
"First you win the argument, then you win the vote." - MARGARET THATCHER.
So let's start winning the argument.
The GOP must be strategic in picking its battles, with victory as the main goal.
That being said, without endorsing this blog, I'm a little resistant to Liberal Red Riding Hood crying "Wolf!" at us when she is aiming a shotgun at us.
I don't like that either. Which is why I'd rather not copy it. Two wrongs don't make a right. I learned that when I was barely old enough to talk.
If this is a joke, a parody, then the author should say so.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
...and turnabout is fair play. See, I remember lessons from my childhood too. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
That's nothing but ends-justifies-the-means.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
A better one would say you can't put out a forest fire with a flame thrower.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
All you need is sufficient knowledge of the ground, and which way the wind's blowing.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Yes, technically, in some situations, you can with a backfire.
But you get my drift. Water usually works better.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I meant what I said.
Just like the war, either we fight the enemy to beat them or we just play defense and die a slow painful death. You have to be willing to call the Kossacks on this sort of stuff and the way to do that is to make them eat their own words. Our guy will probaly fire Charlie Black, so he won't appear corrupt, if he already hasn't. Obama will then be forced to either fire his guy or explain why his actions and why they are ok. Either way it puts Obama in a crunch politically. We need to do the opposition work that the GOP won't do. And if you aren't willing to do the work I sure hope you have maxed out on your political donations for this season.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
They picked this battlefield; we're just showing up for it.
Welcome to the World That Is.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Appropriate means may change depending on the situation, but you still can never justify the means by the ends alone.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
And enough to still recognize a blatant appeal to emotion as opposed to logic or reason.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
Pity.
Anyway: thanks for your input - but, unfortunately, we still have a political fight to run, so unless you have something that can actually stop them from going after our people?
No?
- Then we're just going to have to concede that you're on an elevated moral plane than the rest of us and go back to fighting in the mud.
That good for you?
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Pointing out idiocy and calling out hypocrites good. Being an idiot and a hypocrite, not so good.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
You can disagree with our strategy all you like. You do not get to throw direct insults in our faces. Period. End stop.
I'm going to need an apology from you now. Next post.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
So a spy serving the interests of the U.S. has to answer truthfully the question "are you spying for the U.S."?
If the ends never justify the means, is killing someone in self-defense permissible?
An absolute rule of the ends never justifying the means is pure bunk.
Killing OK if in war or in self-defense, but not ok for other ends.
Lying OK if a spy, to spare someone pain (little white lie --see Heart of Darkness), but not good (still permitted in most cases under the law) otherwise.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Is he Ramsey Clark, who sought out enemies of the United States to defend, or simply a legal professional?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I think it's also important to clarify what Obama meant by this:
"For his part, Obama told a Wisconsin labor coalition that he would vote against the Panama Free Trade Agreement specifically because of González's indictment."
If Obama is arguing Gonzalez shouldn't have been indicted, then that -- not who he has as an advisor -- seems like the reason for criticizing Obama. If he is arguing that the Free Trade Agreement shouldn't be passed because people in the Panamanian gov't are killing Americans that's a very different issue. One might argue that a trade agreement shouldn't depend on this type of issue, but certainly couldn't say it would be unreasonable to argue against a free trade agreement based on the government killing Americans.
How surprising is it that this guy is one of Obama's advisors? His list of clients! The causes he supports!
I wonder if Obama will get up on TV next weekend and tell George Stephanopoulos that he has nothing to do with his advisors views and doesn't agree with them, and wave it away.
Because of course we know that the second paragraph is going to obtain.
Barack Obama could dance over the grave of Ronald Reagan wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt while snorting a line of coke out of Charlton Heston's exhumed skull and he'd still win the next election. And everyone in the media knows that.
I checked Mr. Craig's website. It says that Mr. Craig also defended:
Alexander Solzhenitsyn;
an FBI agent accused of violating the rights of the Weather Underground;
a plantiff in the Swine Flu litigation;
a former director of the CIA.
Sure he's liberal. But he doesn't sound like a William Kunstler type to me.
And I'm not going to hold it against any lawyer for representing Hinckley. He's entitled to some counsel.
If we get into the position of shunning lawyers for representing unpopular, antisocial or even subversive clients, we're damaging our concept of equal justice under the law.
One more thing: I know we're looking for any dirt we can use against Obama. But let's be sure of our facts first, so that we do not have an accusation blow up in our faces. Remember what happened to CBS and Dan Rather after those infamous National Guard documents were exposed as forgeries.
Barack Obama is the New, New Moderate and he represents a shift of that at least 15 degrees left of center. It's not a surprise that he picks as his advisors people who defend Kofi Annan and John Hinckley, Jr., and so many others. It's the New Mainstream he's going to define. And you're right in a sense: nobody is going to be able to protest it, even with very good explanations. It all goes in one direction from here.
Guy just went up 100pts in my eyes. Solzhenitsyn is an unqualified hero in my book.
I'm still not crazy in his pick of Presidential candidates, but this doesn't seem to be a fair attack on him. He represented a lot of people in his job as a lawyer. Nothing wrong with that.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
John Adams on defending the Boston Massacre shooters...
"The Part I took in Defence of Cptn. Preston and the Soldiers, procured me Anxiety, and Obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country."
The outrage meter should be dialed down here.
...on the Left-sphere for Obama's people going after Charlie Black.
That's not an invitation for further debate on the subject, by the way. We don't mind playing by hard rules, just as long as they apply to both sides. But we're not going to play by one set of rules and let the other guys play by another. We're not.
So go yell at Move.on. That goes especially for anyone reading this who is a legitimately upset Lefty. Free ride's over, kids.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
This is the same stuff we heard thrown against Thompson in the primaries ("he lobbied for abortionists as part of his job at a law firm, and therefore must be a liberal on that issue or a sellout"). I don't buy it. Defending unsavory characters is part of being a lawyer. If there is evidence that he (Craig) actually believed in these people's causes or ideology, then fine, that is fair game; merely doing his job isn't, and I think it is a weak line of attack.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
...are going after one of our guys using the exact same tactics. This is a thing that is happening. It will not stop happening because you are disappointed. It will continue to happen until we push back and remind people why there are unstated rules in the first place.
So. Thank you. We appreciate your delicacy.
Was there anything else?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Until the Republican party has some ideas like the contract with America. If the new slogan is "best of two evils", the party goes down.
"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,q
...will immediately and instantly be deflected by a set of clear, concise goals for a new Republican Congressional majority.
Personally, I'd love a new set of them myself, but it won't actually help the problem at hand.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
At this point it is tit-for-tat. We go after his people, his wife (as long as she is out there speaking publicly for him, we go after her professionally not personally) his friends, his acquaintances, his history, his policies....everything.
Just about every post here today some how relates to the failings of Republican leadership. THIS is what it is all about, for far too long we have taken the "high road". We have turned the other cheek with a humble attitude and that does not work.
Democrats and Liberals have written the rules, we must play by those rules or like the Liberals claim-we will be doomed.
MelZ
"It will go on until the Republican party has some ideas like the contract with America."
Yes, there's nothing like a big fat target to make the hyenas lie down and eat tofu.
You must have been about 8 years old in 1995.
...like a 2 hour troll you wouldn't have been able to make your previous comment.
But if you have any further complaints about my (or any other moderator's) tone, feel free to take them up with the Directors via the Contact link at the top of the site.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
It will continue to happen until we push back and remind people why there are unstated rules in the first place.
Dan Rather tried your tactic.
The "60 Minutes" piece on Bush's National Guard records was in direct retaliation for the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry.
Look what happened.
Who won, and who lost?
When those documents were exposed as forgeries, not only did Bush win and Kerry lose, but Dan Rather's credibility (and his career) was wrecked.
In your desperate attempt to strike back at Democrat charges, be sure before you fire. Be sure of your facts, that you have built a powerful case, before springing it. Don't go flailing away throwing everything you can imagine at Obama in hopes that something will work somehow. That has never worked in the past.
Be sure of your facts, build a case around some key points that Obama will have real trouble with (like Reverend Wright), and then make your case.
If you squander your effort on every little piece of dirt, no matter how trivial, like this lawyer, you're just going to lose your credibility. You'll be considered an alarmist, desperate, frantic, even a nut.
This guy DID do what he's been credited with doing.
The sticking point, for some it seems, is that it seems needlessly trivial, a mountain-out-of-molehill experience. Which it is.
The counterpoint is that the Dems have made a profession out of doing this very thing for decades, so the cries of "foul" will fall on some pretty unsympathetic ears, since this is the bed they made for themselves.
This is payback, and it's acceptable warfare.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Dan Rather's source was lying.
The Swift Boat people weren't.
Moe
PS: There's a list of people who can lecture me and get away with it. You're not on it.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/65000.html
It's not good enough in a court of law, but my old man sure used it to knock the snot out of me a few times.... of course that was back in the day when he could, and I usually deserved it.
manner of people in between.
So we shouldn't jump to conclusions, as some were tempted to do with Fred.
but if the clientele consists mainly of leftists and the cases are leftist advocacy cases, the prudent man or woman starts asking questions. Lots of them.
I'm glad that RS brought this to my attention. It just proves that once again if this was John McCain's advisor the news media would be going insane and demanding that he resigns. Of course, since it's Obama he'll get a free pass.
Obama's friends are going to cost him the election. Mary Matalin once talked about "bimbo eruptions" costing Bill Clinton. Well, in Obama's case, these might be "pinko eruptions."
"Be intolerant. Because some things are just stupid"
- Ryan Dobson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/cr...
There's much more out there on this thing called the net. This article is a bit misleading - he knew the Clintons well enough to give the unmarried couple his apartment when he left Yale. nttawwt He also made a name for himself at Harvard as an anti-war protestor.
Craig has defended a lot of unattractive types, including Bill Clinton. So what? He's a lawyer. What is the fear, that this is John Hinckley Jr's secret plot to control the Presidency?
Get a grip, people, and focus on the many real reasons Obama should not be president.
... it is the height of idiocy for Republicans to keep theirs holstered after the other side has fired the first shot.
Has it ever occurred to any of the folks here whining because we're not just lying back and taking what they dish out that unless and until the Democrats are made afraid that the GOP would respond in kind to such tactics that they will continue?
This tactic has been tried. It's called the New Tone™. And in case you missed it, IT DOES NOT WORK. Letting your opponent beat you up till you're broken and senseless on the ground is neither admirable nor wise.
"First you win the argument, then you win the vote." - MARGARET THATCHER.
So let's start winning the argument.
Martin, you are on the money - nothing new for you dude.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
"First you win the argument, then you win the vote." - MARGARET THATCHER.
So let's start winning the argument.
I just put it up. Well, actually I was considering something much like this, but you inspired - no laying back and letting Dems play hardball while we play nicey nicey, dining on tea and crumpets - when beer and cheese fries will work so much better.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
What I'm arguing, is that it's tactically risky to cry wolf--to make charges that can be instantly and easily refuted. Do that enough times, and folks will just stop listening to you, even on the big stuff that really matters.
Dan Rather's credibility was wrecked permanently over those alleged Bush National Guard documents that turned out to be forgeries. He never recovered. The New York Times took years to live down the embarrassment over Jayson Blair too.
That should be a lesson: Be sure of your facts before you go out on a limb.
Credibility and respect have to be earned, and can easily be squandered.
In the case of Reverend Wright, we had him cold because he appeared first on YouTube and then in person and on C-SPAN.
But to try to stick Obama with the fact that one of his advisers actually represented Hinckley in a trial once is bizarro.
We end up looking frantic and desperate over nothing much.
You know, I don't comment frequently on here, mainly because my time is taken up with school, or other activities, or writing content on my own conservative blog, or whatever.
But I just gotta say, it seems like the response to guys like RandomGuy seem awfully sarcastic, and indirectly insulting, and downright in a talking-down-to manner, even from a Director of this site (I love this site, by the way, and frequent it often).
You can "blam" me for this all you want, and it won't mean much - because as I said, I don't comment here often but enjoy reading this and many other conservative blogs, and contributing on my own blog. I just think the tone taken here has been a bit too snarky. Whatever happened to reasonably engaging others in an argument? And more importantly, if you're going to tell someone to "stop right there" with a demand for an apology for a comment made against your argument and judgment (without using any epithets or out-of-bounds attacks), why would you insist on using the same sarcastic speech talking down to him?
Some people need to calm down for just a second. I don't like Barack Obama's platform, or what he stands for, or what his former pastor stands for, or what his party stands for, any more than any of the other people who frequent this site. But I don't think pointing out that a lawyer may represent some unsavory clients from time to time warrants such ridicule.
"Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more; you should not wish to do less" - Robert E. Lee
RandomGuy (who throws elbows a heck of a lot) is not being slapped around because of a fairly obvious point. That reprehensible people have access to legal representation is something most here consider a feature, not a bug, of the American system.
RandomGuy (and SteveLA) is rightfully getting snark thrown his way because he is essentially advocating one rule for Republicans and another for Democrats that lets them get away with murder.
SteveLA likened this to the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy the US had with the Soviet Union under the mistaken assumption that this has been ongoing on both sides. Not true. Since the New Tone™ got to Washington, Democrats have been assured of only being presented with the other cheek no matter what they do.
If the USSR had not been afraid of retaliation, they would have attacked the United States without any hesitation.
The Democrats are no longer afraid of retaliation from Republicans because a significant contingent of our party continue to act as their enablers by shrieking at us to be "good sports" and drop our weapons while the other side is letting loose with both barrels.
So, yes ... squealing that we should not point out and attack the hypocrisy and bad faith of liberals screaming that Charlie Black should resign from the McCain campaign because of his clients while Greg Craig is not resigning from the Obama campaign does warrant heavy ridicule.
"First you win the argument, then you win the vote." - MARGARET THATCHER.
So let's start winning the argument.
You've gotten to the core of the issue, here.
Most of what's been going back and forth here is a debate over tactics. However, the elephant in the room is how to expose and deal with the bad faith of our partisan opponents.
There are two basic approaches. The first being advocated by Soren and Moe, among others, is "tit for tat": if we have to fire our guy, then Obama has to fire his advisor who also represents unsavory guys.
The alternative is that McCain says that my guy is just a lawyer representing clients, some of whom are unsavory, but whose defending them is just part of our great American tradition of allowing the accused a defense, etc. and therefore I'm not going to fire him for that anymore that I'm going to call on Mr. Obama to fire Mr. Craig because of his list of unsavory clients.
Actually, I would think that the second approach could be healthier for our political process, as the first will lead to purity tests and witch hunts.
Nonetheless, the point is that we're holding to the principle of equal standards for both sides. What's not acceptible is different rules for Democrats and Republicans. That's suicide because the press will (and has) turned out higher standards against us and tell the public that our actions represent a greater corruption rather than higher standards. At least that's what come out thus far in Congressional scandals.
So let's not get distracted from the principle (equal treatment) by a debate over tactics.
"First you win the argument, then you win the vote." - MARGARET THATCHER.
So let's start winning the argument.
...first, you have to get the mule's attention. I'll be happy to back off, when they do; and I'll be happy to keep playing for just as long as they are.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I'm Jack Ketch. When I'm not being the comic relief.
In either capacity, however, what Martin said.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
|
He gets what he gets! |
Is there any indication that this guy represented these thugs because of sympathy for their political cause? Because while I'm not likely to agree with anybody who's an Obama FP adviser, it's not fair to hold every lawyer accountable based on who he chose to defend. Scooter Libby was Mark Rich's lawyer, for example. That's just part of the job. I wouldn't hold it against a lawyer defending a guy anymore then I would hold it against a Doctor from stitching up someone I found to be repugnant.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain