(“How Can People Consider Voting For Candidates This Unethical?” or HCPCVFCTU for short will flag the worst of the worst, the really awful politicians whose lack of ethics should be a source of humiliation to all who support them.)
I have pledged to keep this category balanced between Republicans and Democrats, and since the first candidate featured was a Democrat and the utterly horrific candidate who came to may attention this morning also belonged to that party, I am featuring two politicians this morning to avoid the inevitable accusations that I take my orders from Glenn Beck and Fox News:
- Charles Barron (D) Barron is a New York City Councilman who is expected to coast to an easy victory after winning a Democratic primary for an open seat on the New York State legislature. He is an outspoken fan of Third World military dictators, Communist thugs and murderers, among them the late Libyan leader Muammar el-Quaddafi and former Cuban President Fidel Castro. “All my heroes were America’s enemies,” Barron proudly told the New York Observer in a recent interview. One of his favorite role models is Zimbabwe’s repressive President Robert Mugabe, whom he compares to Nelson Mandela. “I would love for him to come to Albany. I would love for him to come anywhere in the United States, really,” Barron says. “I think he’s a shining example of an African leader on the African continent.”
When asked about some of Mugabe’s less sterling moments, Barron’s response is Unethical Rationalization #19, “No one’s perfect.” Mugawe is believed to have instituted genocide against the Matabele citizens of Zimbabwe in 1983 and 1984, resulting in 20,000 deaths. All of the elections keeping him in power have been tainted by corruption and fraud. He has enacted repressive laws against homosexuality, and has described gays as “worse than dogs and pigs.”
Other than those blemishes, Barrron’s hero is apparently perfect.
- Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis (R) I wrote about Ardis earlier this year, splitting my post between pointing out his shocking ignorance of basic American principles and use of police power to punish dissent with my disgust that the news media was then condemning NBA owner Daniel Sterling around the clock for what he said to his girl friend in his bedroom and ignoring the far more important story of a city mayor stomping on the First Amendment because his feelings were hurt by a parody Twitter feed.
Ardis is back in the news this morning because I lost my bet. When the Mayor illegally ordered a SWAT team to raid the house where Jon Daniels, the young man who runs that Twitter account, lives, falsely using as a pretense a city statute that prohibits impersonating an official, the police also found some marijuana and drug paraphernalia in the bedroom of his housemate and landlord, Jacob Elliott. “I will be stunned if the marijuana charge stands up in court. Where was the crime that justified the police being there at all? The search warrant was improperly obtained and issued. If this isn’t the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, I don’t know what is. Fruit of the Stupid Tree, maybe,” I wrote. I’ll stand by the stupid part, but so far, stupid is prevailing. A judge, even while acknowledging that the warrant to search the home was illegal because the law Ardis used doesn’t apply to the internet, refused to exclude the pot as evidence to be used against Elliott Again, I can’t see this decision holding up: if evidence of a crime by an individual can be legally seized by police while they execute an illegal warrant against his house mate, then all a clever prosecutor (or idiot mayor) has to do is get a bogus warrant on the roomie of the citizen who is really the target of the search.
This new legal fiasco just highlights the dangers of voting for juvenile, ignorant incompetents like Ardis for public office. Good work Peoria: this man was re-elected unanimously in 2013, with no opposition. This man has also uttered interpretations of the Constitution that would get him an F in middle school civics, like
“I still maintain my right to protect my identity is my right. Are there no boundaries on what you can say, when you can say it, who you can say it to? You can’t say (those tweets) on behalf of me. That’s my problem. This guy took away my freedom of speech.”
1. Nobody but an idiot would ever think Jon Daniel’s spoof Twitter feed was really…oh. Right.
2. No, there aren’t a lot of boundaries that the law can enforce, and God Bless America for that. Whatever boundaries there are, however, do not include satirical fake Tweets designed to annoy a public servant who richly deserves it.
3. Yes, you can say those tweets, you ignorant disgrace.
4. Oh, you’ve got a lot more problems than that.
5. No, you took away his freedom of speech. You can say anything you want to.
How Can People Consider Voting For Candidates This Unethical?
I am curious, though. In some sick, dystopian Hell where the only candidates for an elected office were Charles Barron and Jim Ardis, who would you vote for?