A couple of them come close the answer.
Most don't have a clue.
Excuses abound.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002710493Mon May 21, 2012, 04:41 AM
xchrom (76,356 posts)
Why Do Sex Scandals Destroy Democrats But Not Republicans?
http://www.alternet.org/sex/155461/why_do_sex_scandals_destroy_democrats_but_not_republicans/
Does no one else find the very fact of John Edwards being on trial curious? Does no one else wonder about the criminal basis for the prosecution? About who in politics does and does not end up being destroyed by matters related to sexual behavior?
Let me preface my take on the Edwards trial with one general observation: Not all politicians are created equal. And not all are treated equally. Therein lies an issue deserving a much, much closer look: whether vulnerable Democrats, chiefly of the liberal persuasion, are targeted for destruction. Or at least helped along to their doom by a double standard.
***
But first, the specifics of the Edwards case. He faces a potential $1.5 million fine, but, far more seriously, up to thirty years imprisonment. Thirty years. His crime? Not murder, not torture, not armed robbery, not stealing money from clients. No, his crime was his failure to report campaign contributions. While preparing for his second presidential bid, in 2006, he got caught up in an extramarital affair that produced a child. And, not exactly able to announce that fact or ask his sick wife to sign off, the wealthy Edwards turned to some wealthy backers to take care of the woman and the baby and hide the whole thing from Elizabeth Edwards and presumably everyone else. Two people gave him a total of $900,000.
When someone running for office receives money, or the benefit of money or services, that’s a contribution, and it must both be reported and be subject to restrictions on amount. Unless of course it has nothing to do with the campaign itself. Certainly, candidates receive ordinary income (such as fees for lawyering) that is not subject to those limits. And if someone gives a candidate a gift that is not used for the campaign, it is similarly not subject to campaign finance laws.
Simply because nine out ten that get caught, seem to be "D's.
Response to xchrom (Original post)
Mon May 21, 2012, 04:45 AM
pinboy3niner (19,223 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
1. Magic underwear?
You got me. I can't exlain it.
You know the answer, too, don't you DUmboynumbers.
Response to Scuba (Reply #2)
Mon May 21, 2012, 07:02 AM
BlancheSplanchnik (5,510 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
30. I believe you are on to something there.
something I've been angry about for years
I sure don't blame you. Vote the D's out. Problem solved.
Response to xchrom (Original post)
Mon May 21, 2012, 05:02 AM
justiceischeap (7,343 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
5. I think because Dems have standards and repubs don't?
Also, it's not as common among Dems as it is among Repubs. Oh, and they own the media too.
You're right. Yours are far lower than we wish to go.
Not a bad little fire.
They blame everyone and anything except the democrat lack of morals.
.
