In which Max Abrahms makes a darn fine observation

February 8, 2015

Looking at the ferocity of the Jordanian response to ISIS’ atrocities, he notes:

Funny how that works, isn’t it? Almost as if there’s a double-standard in play, with the loser happening to be Jewish… Nah. Couldn’t be.

Advertisements

Weinergate: Question of the day, double-standards edition

June 10, 2011

Writing at Pajamas Media, Rand Simberg first thinks back to how hard (1) Bill Clinton fought to stay in office after a far worse sex scandal in a far more important office, then looks at all the Democrats suddenly calling on Congressman Anthony Weiner to resign and asks a simple question:

Can someone explain to me what Anthony Weiner did that was so much worse than what Bill Clinton did that he is being asked by his fellow Democrats to resign?

As someone who had the graphic details of then-President Bubba’s sexual escapades seared —SEARED! (2)– into my mind at the time, I have to say this is not only a simple question, but a good one.

Look at prior congressional sex scandals:

  • In 1983, Congressman Gerry Studds (D) was reprimanded for having sex with a 17-year old male House Page. Studds not only didn’t resign for what was arguably a worse offense (3), he turned it into a triumph, actually being applauded in the House when he stood on the floor to receive his reprimand.
  • Idaho Senator Larry Craig (R) was caught soliciting sex in a public restroom. He first resigned, then stayed to finish out his term.
  • Senator David Vitter (R) visited brothels, probably committing a crime (4), yet he not only did not resign, he was reelected.
  • And, my favorite, Barney Frank (D), whose “personal aide” ran a gay escort service from Frank’s apartment. (Frank claims he never knew until… Yeah, right.) And Barney is still there.
  • In a non-sex scandal, New Orleans “Dollar Bill” Jefferson (D) was widely believed to be as corrupt as the day is long, but he only left when defeated for reelection.

I’m sure we can think of others that are worse than a congressman cheating on his wife with phone and internet-sex, yet weren’t asked to resign. And all these people lied as much as Weiner — though probably not so wretchedly.

(Note: While John Ensign did resign in the wake of his scandal, there is a strong possibility of criminal violations in this case.)

So, to repeat Simberg’s question, if Clinton, Studds, Craig, Vitter, and Jefferson all got to stay, why does Anthony Weiner, whose offenses were lesser, have to go?

To be frank, since no crime was committed that we know of, let his voters pass judgment on him. They’ll be passing judgment on themselves, too.

And, as a partisan who wants to see the Democrats crushed in 2012, I want Weiner to stay so that our side can turn him into one of the “faces of Congress” for the election. Ask yourselves why the Democrats are pressuring him to go, now — it’s because they’re scared we’ll do just that.

So, there’s your question for the day, folks: Dear Democrats — if Bill could stay, why not Tony?

via Ed Driscoll

Footnotes:

(1) Get your minds out of the gutter.

(2) Just like Kerry in Cambodia, only this really happened.

(3) Not the sex itself (the age of consent in DC is 16), but for violating the trust implied in parents sending their teens to work in the House.

(4) Or is that not a crime in Louisiana?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Media bias? Surely you jest!

May 8, 2010

At Pajamas Media, Bob Owens has a good article on the double standard of the mainstream media when it comes to covering politically motivated violence:

During the recent health care debate in Congress, the media was quick to latch on to every perceived slight or hurt, real or imagined, directed at Democrats. They offered wall-to-wall coverage of phoned-in threats of violence against Democratic representatives, even as they hastened to downplay the stray bullet that crashed through an office belonging to Republican Eric Cantor.

These same media outlets were quick to pounce on reports that a handful of Democratic offices were vandalized, and they seemed to relish in discussing the glory-hound, former militia leader who sought to claim credit for the handful of broken windows.

The message from the media was clear: any violence against their liberal allies will be broadcast far and wide, and any threat or slur will be published as fact, no matter how dubious the claim.

The reverse, sadly, is not true, and that is not a recent development.

When speculating about why the media refuses to honestly cover the violence perpetrated by the Left, Owens comes to a conclusion that’s a mirror image of one I came to a few years ago when The New Republic published the fraudulent stories of Scott Thomas Beauchamp. Then, I speculated that TNR fell for Beauchamp’s slanderous stories about the US military in Iraq because they wanted to believe them. In the case of the MSM and left-wing violence, Owen offers the flip-side: they don’t want to believe, and so they pretend as much as they can that it does not exist.

Neither is healthy for journalism or democracy in America.


Bill Clinton’s rhetorical dishonesty

April 19, 2010

Jennifer Rubin on the former President’s “concerns” about the dangerous rhetoric coming from those radical tea-partiers:

There is a single reason why Clinton, Obama, and the mainstream media are in a tizzy about the Tea Party protests. As Bill Kristol said:

  • It’s an attempt to demonize and discredit the movement and not engage it on its ideas. … I think this notion that — the left pretends to think the Tea Parties are a problem for the Republicans. The fact is the left is terrified of the Tea Parties.President Obama knows they have done a huge amount of damage to his attempt to transform America in a left-wing direction. And therefore, they don’t want to debate the issues. They want to demonize them.

You don’t see the liberal attack machine getting this bent out of shape over nothing. As Bill remarked, “The Obama administration has given rise to a more powerful conservatism than has existed for 20 years, since Ronald Reagan in this country.” And it’s not the GOP Beltway crowd that has done this — it’s ordinary citizens. I don’t think Bill was exaggerating when he said: “The Republican establishment is the threat to the future of the Republican Party and conservatism. The Tea Party is the best thing that’s happened for conservatives.” (You need look no further than the Florida Senate race, where the insiders picked the hapless Charlie Crist, and the Tea Party amateurs identified Marco Rubio as a rising star.) And so the liberals attack and make ludicrous connections to murders like Timothy McVeigh or concoct racist allegations that do not stand up to scrutiny.

It’s the same as with their attacks on Sarah Palin: you can tell whom the progressive statists really fear by the targets they pick and the vitriol they throw.


Yes, he really said that

August 28, 2009

White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton tried to make a funny when talking about President Obama’s plans to go to Camp David after a week at Martha’s Vineyard:

Obama will head to Camp David on Wednesday, Sept. 2, and stay through the weekend, White House spokesman Bill Burton told reporters in a Thursday briefing.

Joking that it may have been “wishful thinking” to suggest Obama’s current trip out of Washington would coincide with a news-free week, Burton quipped that the president needs a “break from his vacation.”

Quite the comedian, eh? Don’t get me wrong: I don’t begrudge Presidents time away from the White House. It’s a very stressful job, and they never really escape it. But then Burton kept going and showed why he should have a lounge act in Vegas:

On Monday, Burton pointed to former President George W. Bush’s vacation habits to defend scattered criticism of Obama’s August schedule.

“As I recall, the previous president [took] quite a bit of vacation himself, and I don’t think anyone bemoaned that,” Burton said.

William Jacobson takes notice and says “Oh, really?

Funny guy, that Mr. Burton.