Are Dems really as bad as Repubs?
 

Politicians of all stripes engage in exaggeration to make their points, but are they "all the same" as some people like to say? To those on the right, Dems seem worse. To those on the left, including me, Repubs seem worse. Those perceptions arise, at least in part, from each person's own biases, but I have a hard time accepting that the Repubs aren't worse. For example, Dennis Hastert says that many Dems in Congress are traitors. He did not use that precise word, but I don't see any other meaning to his words. I will post his comments in a second, but I would have to say that his comments are objectively false and he has to know it. Can anyone think of any Democrats of similar prominence to the Speaker of the House who have made similar comments about Republicans?

Here's what Hastert said (from http://thinkprogress.org):

Typical posturing.

This happens whenever any of them talk about the current hot-button issues. For example, look at the Democrat position on concealed carry permits; then look at reality.

Yes. They are all the same.

Soft language and moderate, well-reasoned views do not lend themselves to the promotion of fascism. In the long run, I suppose it will all balance out, but at this point in time, Repubs are definitely worse.

"career politicians" are generally all corrupt and inflated with ego and entitlement,most of them combine the ethics of a grifter with the morals of an alley-cat,screw'em all I say. Time's ripe for a good social revolution,never happen though,people have too many material diversions and not enough hardship to wish for a change. Don't like the mid-east crisis?just change the channel and you are instantly disconnected from unpleasantness.....there's always HGTV,how much more pleasant to replace those old velvet curtains with sheers than to attempt to fathom why innocent people are dying daily in Iraq.

Democrats... Republicans... just different sides of the same coin.

Carleton,
Is it possible that you and I agree? amazing.
This country was set up for citizen-legislators; not career politicans.
The founders would scarcely recognize it.
Sad.

I re-watched "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" a few weeks ago. I would be the Jimmy Stewart character--I would be the one expecting the government to actually work as intended. I would also be talking it over with Ab Lincoln's statue as I packed my bags to leave.

I believe that you have to be of a certain mindset to want to be a politician. That kind of person, in my mind, is not very trustworthy.
Yes, there are a few exceptions - unfortunately, they are few, and hard to find; especially since they must blend in with the crooks.

So far, we've got several responses agreeing with the conventional wisdom - that politicians are all the same - but nobody has cited any facts to support that view.

IMHO, Karl Rove figured out a long time ago that most people think that all politicians are the same. Therefore, there is no political benefit in staying on the ethical or fair side of the line. That's why people like Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, et al., get away with saying and doing things that are way, way over the line. When they get caught, people say it's no big deal because policitians are all the same.

I am not an objective observer of this phenomenon, but I also believe that there is some objective truth to what I'm saying. It would be great if someone could post some examples of Democrats engaging in similar dishonest or unfair behavior. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of that, but it would be interesting to compare them to what Hastert said.

How can you trust a person that needs millions and millions of dollars to get a job that pays a fraction of that.

Whoa, that's well put.

Generally they are equal. These days though, the Repos have embarked on a serious, no holds barred attempt to corral a more or less indefinite majority. We got sleazebag Michael Powell (a shadow of his daddy) taking steps to insure that FOX like control of the media becomes the norm.

We got Repo-boosting Diebold engaging in questionable behavior. The democratic party, warts and all, has a few senators the likes of which the Repos don't even come close to in intellect and honesty -- Carl Levin and Pat Leahy come to mind.

I do like a few Repos, Rep. Chris Shays, Sens. Specter, Lugar, McCain, and Hagel, but the Repos are on a dangerous course in general, IMHO.

Fine, lets have a revolution. What next? More revolutions after a couple months? Who will you put in there that is uncorruptable? A computer?

Democrats are idiots. At this point they should actually change their party name to "SOCIALISTS." It would probably suit them a lot better.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h1...h_36192d1c.jpg

In Maryland, we have Diebold machines, and they are an issue. They were forced on us by the Democrat-controlled legislature. We have a repub governor only becasue the last dem candidate thought she should be coronated rather than elected. The repub gov is actually suggesting the use of absentee ballots becasue there is no paper trail to the Diebold machines. There is fear that the vote will be corrupt, but here the power is with the dems.

Anyone who thinks are qualified to be elected to office is automatically disqualified.

To address your question, I used to think that repubs held a clear moral advantage, but the wolrd has turned so much that it is no longer clear. The resignation, today of the Fla rep for sex-related charges doesn't help.