Saturday, December 6, 2008

Rush on Dodd and Ethics

Below is s a clip from today's Rush Limbaugh show on Chris Dodd and Congressional ethics; read more here:

RUSH: And, you know, ethics in Washington is like everything else, it's a partisan two-way street. The Democrats really are not subject to any ethics. Victor Davis Hanson has a three-pager today at National Review Online about this very interesting conundrum that exists there, and I'll just give you one example off the top. Here you have Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Let's just take Chris Dodd. Chris Dodd actually accepted money from Countrywide, the big mortgage broker and bank. He got a preferred mortgage interest rate. He was in the VIP program, that was the purpose of it. He oversaw legislation as the chairman of the banking committee that governed the mortgage industry, including his good buddy Angelo over at Countrywide. Not only is Chris Dodd not shamed, not only did he not resign, not only did he not get embarrassed, he's now in charge of rewriting the rules again for the mortgage industry.

CALLER: Scary, isn't it?

RUSH: In the meantime, Trent Lott happened to make a joke about how much better America would be if Strom Thurmond had become governor somewhere, and he's forced out of the Senate for some words he told at a birthday party for an old man who couldn't even hear him anymore. So Republicans fall on the sword all the time, and then the Republicans demand that their own guys fall on the sword. The Republicans were the ones that forced Trent Lott out. I mean the Democrats are right in there demanding it, but the White House said, yep, I think you ought to go, you're embarrassing us. Ted Stevens, Ted, get the hell out of there, just won reelection but you're an unethical guy, get out. Democrats never fall on the sword, nobody ever demands they fall on the sword, so the answer to your question is, at our juncture in history now, Democrats are not capable, it's not possible by virtue of the definition of the word for them to be unethical. So there's no need for them to recuse themselves.

CALLER: Is there any possible way to put a provision in any of these things to keep this money from being shoveled back to the same criminals that are taking our money now?

RUSH: Well, the people that would have to write the provision are the people you're referring to here as the criminals, and I doubt they're going to ace themselves out of this.

1 comment:

mccommas said...

Rush makes an excellent point. There is a double standard not only in DC but else where including CT.

I would only add though that Lott got what he deserved. I think what he said was unforgiveable. And didn't Stevens get defeated in a close election?

I don't know much about the Stevens case.

I will give you another example. You recall how much trouble Chief Justice Sullivan got in for delaying the publishing of an opinion he thought was controversial and might harm his successor?

Denise Merrill, then chairman of the Appropriations committee did something a hell of a lot worse that that.

She stuck in one of her voluminous bills the non-germane language of a defeated bill that would force Catholic Hospitals to give what they consider to be “chemical abortions” (Plan B pills) to rape victims.

With no vote by the democratically elected committee, she just stuck in the defeated bill in the middle of the night and hoped no one would notice. Well someone did notice “the rat” and another committee tossed the language.

Not only is this perfectly legal in Connecticut

Not only did she not have to resign her seat

Not only did she keep her Committee Chairmanship

Not only did she violate her oath of office

Not only did was she not even embarrassed

Not only did she never apologize

Not only was she not held accountable in the press

Not only was Merrill’s obvious hatred of Catholics ignored (so much for diversity!)

Not only was she re-elected without opposition

Not only did this flagrantly unconstitutional law eventually passed anyway

But now she is Majority Leader.

Not only should that woman have been kicked out of office for that stunt, I think what she did was criminal. It sure would have been had a Republican done it.

It clearly was at least as bad as what Chief Justice William J. Sullivan had done. I would characterize what Sullivan did as a political maneuver instead of a crime. It’s done all the time and I think, while it was wrong, too much was made of it.

I would have loved to be present when they put Merrill in handcuffs and marched her away to prison. She tried to circumvent democracy and everyone just yawns.

Sullivan was castrated and Justice Peter T. Zarella (who had nothing to do with any of it) was denied the appointment in favor of a liberal. Even Zarella’s reputation was assailed by the Commie Courant. Rell let him swing in the wind. I will not be nominating Rell for a profile in courage anytime soon.

Republicans just obediently shrunk in submission apparently forgetting which party had won the last election. Not only did Rell sheepishly decide not to re-nominate Zarella but she didn't have the courage to nominate a Republican.

I will never-ever let a liberal talk about ethics or reform again without bringing this up. A lousy chairman should not have a power like this in a democracy.

I don’t even consider that point debatable.

I can’t help but wonder what other abuses go on that are never reported on.

We will never know.