It’s our party and we’ll lie if we want to

Instapundit points out PowerLine pointing out this purely innocent error [since corrected] at CBS News:

Top law enforcement officials at the Justice Department and the FBI indicated to their counterparts at the White House that they could not, and were unwilling to, return documents to the Louisiana Republican which were seized as part of a bribery investigation.

Not sure if I should care that they called him a Republican when he is, in fact, a Democrat. Probably just an accidental slip. Like all those times they accidentally label Republicans caught in scandals as Democrats.

Comments

  1. Not sure if I should care that they called him a Republican when he is, in fact, a Democrat. What you *should* care about is that this person is an elected official. What you should care about even more, is that it seems that Republicans and Democrats are being more frequently caught in lies and scandals when one would think that there should have over time there should be fewer. Although I must say that it seems the lies and scandals on the Democrats side seem to be incidents where individuals are involved whereas the lies and scandals on the Republican side appear to be more organized and extensive where multiple individuals are involved….

  2. First, a response to BW: This is really pretty funny. Your post starts off talking about how the party affiliation of the individual doesn’t matter, and that someone *should* just care that they were elected officials. Certainly it’s the partisan hackery that’s a huge part of our problems in this country today. Then, you go ahead and write a laughable paragraph about how one party has a few bad apples, but the *OTHER* party, oh, that’s the dark side, they’re just evil. And yet you think it’s *Murdoc* with the issue. That’s rich stuff. BW, Murdoc’s point is bias in the media. He didn’t attack Democrats or Republicans, he attacked the media. *YOU* made this about politics. So far, between Murdoc, you, and myself, there’s only one persopn talking about politics: you. And so far, 100% of them are guilty of the ‘but your party’s worse than mine’ crockery. (That’s still you in case you hadn’t been counting. Yes, you’re still part of the problem, as are many on both sides of the aisle.) Anyway, on to why I was going to respond to this in the first place… Second, CNN did this exact same thing. The day it broke, MSNBC reported him as a Democrat, so it’s not like his party affiliation was a secret or anything. The next day, CNN (on air) had story after story in which he was a Republican. Ain’t just CBS.

  3. Sure it was a stupid mistake but with Wasington the way it is can you blame them? I mean seriously there are dozens of instances where they have tried to draw democrats into the abramoff crap unsuccessfully. Jefferson is a lone wolf and should be treated as such. Delay and Duke and Harris and Hastert and Dolittle and Ney and Santorum and Reed and Safavian and the list goes on and on and on. Are caught up in a culture of corruption. I think the instance the murdoc pointed out was just pure and simple lazy reporting. If you are talking about a corruption investigation 90% chance it will be primarily about republicans so someone and CBS just did not verify his facts. Lazy journalism.

  4. Murdoc, The press does get it wrong both directions. They still refuse to report the Abramoff scandal as Republican-only. Yes, Democrats have their corruption issues, but Abramoff ain’t one of them.

  5. Chuck, the reason they refuse to call the Abramoff a (R)-only scandel is because it isn’t. Jackasses of both the red and blue hue drank from the same well.

  6. Fersboo, from the number I remember seeing, there were a healthy number from each side drinking at that particular well. There were more red asses there, but the blue asses drank far deeper on average. Hard to say that one situation is ‘worse’ than the other. Would you rather be part of a population that had lots of potential corruption, or one with less numbers, but folks leveraged in up to their necks? Yeah, this is what makes voting feel so good each November. We get to pick the least stinky checkbox.

  7. Umm KTLA you are just flat wrong. No Democrats ever got personal contributions from abramoff and abramoff clients who donated to democrats pre-abramoff had thier donations go FAR down after they hired abramoff. spit out that kool aid

  8. Jswanny, the list I read (long and distinguished it was) on MSNBC had folks from both sides. I recall distinctly, because one of the dems is from my home state, and had one of the largest numbers attached to Abramoff. Are you seriously accusing *ME* of drinking the kool aid? What does it say that this particular senator made a public statement that they would *NOT* be returning any of the money. There were entire articles on this in my area. The funny thing is, I actually believe that *YOU* believe this is a one-party scandal, and no dems were involved. Posts like your’s are exactly what’s wrong with the voting population these days. Not only are you ill-informed (read: happy to be lied to), but you actually *ATTACK* anyone who has any kind of view grounded in reality that doesn’t match up with the way you wish the world was. Now, in case you’ve gotten this far, still believing you were right, here’s a link to a local paper (an extremly ‘blue’ paper, mind you) talking about how Sen. Patty Murray would not, in fact, be returning any of the Abramoff cash: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/256542_murray21.html A simple web search will get you a LOOOONG list of dems tainted by the Abrmoff scandal. Seriously, wake up and smell your party. Once your head clears, you’ll notice it smells just like the other party. You are seriously deluded.

  9. Oops, forgot to add my paragraph re: somehow being proclaimed ‘pure’ if the cash was moved through lobbying clients. As in, it doesn’t make you so.