“My conscience — as an activist, a strategist — is very clear…if I had to do it all over again, I would know a hell of a lot more about cybersecurity.”
—-Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile, refusing to apologize for forwarding debate and town hall questions to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, thus breaching journalism ethics and betraying the trust of CNN, which was employing her as an analyst.
When you vote for Hillary Clinton—and voting against Donald Trump does not change the fact that you are still voting for Clinton—do understand what this statement, in an interview yesterday on satellite radio, really means. It means that the Democratic Party officially embraces the anti-ethical principle that the ends justifies the means. It means that the party endorses lying and cheating, which was what Brazile did, as long as the “right” people lie and cheat. It means that the Democratic Party—-not just Hillary and her staff, who we know have the core political ethics of Lenin and Goebbels, but the entire party—agrees with Brazile. Her mistake was not cheating, but failing to get away with it, by hiding her conduct insufficiently.
She, like the party she leads, is so confident that the American public, at least the voters she and the party care about, accepts these ugly and undemocratic values that she is not even pretending to regret her actions. If it helps elect Hillary Clinton, it’s fine. It it acquires power for the Democrats, it’s fine. If it deceives the public to the “right” end, it’s fine.
The Democratic Party hasn’t condemned Brazile’s actions, and won’t condemn her smug words of endorsement of lying and cheating. It hasn’t asked her to step down, as her predecessor was made to step down after she was caught rigging the nomination process for Clinton. Thus it endorses Brazile’s values, and openly so. President Obama also endorsed Brazile’s values, explicitly, by directing his spokesman Josh Earnest to praise her, and only praise her, as “a person of integrity and ..high character” after being asked about the first of Brazile’s cheats on behalf of Clinton (more have since been uncovered.)
Is that clear? The President of the United States publicly stated, through his agent, that an individual who lies and cheats has integrity. This is what integrity has come to mean under this leader, to his party.
We already knew—I hope– that Hillary Clinton would have no problem with lying and cheating as the a means to an end. She hasn’t uttered a word of criticism regarding Brazile’s conduct. The party and its President, however, had an obligation to reject Brazile’s statement and demand her retraction or resignation…if it believed that the nation’s values matter more than the mere acquisition of power. It wouldn’t have been hard. It wouldn’t have been risky. It wouldn’t have lost a single vote, and might have won some. Most of all, it would have been the responsible and ethical course…if the Democratic Party regarded a nation’s values and ethics as being as important as winning.
As the Washington Post reports, the interviewer, Joe Madison,ostensibly a journalist, also saw nothing wrong with Brazile’s stated values. “The one thing folk need to understand at CNN, MSNBC and all of this: When you hire folk who are, as you say, the, you know — their responsibility is to their candidate and their party,” Madison said, “they’re going to do whatever they can to win. That’s just — that’s the nature of the beast.”
So we should expect politicians to lie and cheat, and there’s nothing the matter with that, because it’s the way they are. This, of course, has been one of the three core defenses (rationalizations, lies and logical fallacies, actually), consistently offered to justify or deny Clinton’s conduct. It is the fall-back argument:
1. You can’t believe this: it’s just the right wing media and a smear campaign by conservatives!
2. It’s only because she’s a woman!,
…and when the lies or misconduct can no longer be denied,
3. All politicians are like this!
All politicians are not like this, but they will be, if the public signals capitulation, acceptance and consent. The Democratic Party is obviously corrupted; it wants to have an admitted cheat and liar as its official representative. When America allows these toxic values to prevail, these people—Obama, Clinton, their minions and followers, those who support their increasingly open rejection of ethics and the employment of any means necessary to prevail—it will be closer to corruption as well.
This is what you are voting for when you vote for the Presidential candidate of the party led by Donna Brazile. I guarantee that Democrats will take your vote as an endorsement of their “principles” as well as their candidate.
They will be correct, too.
Just so you know.
Pointer and Facts: Washington Post
30 thoughts on “Yes, Yes, We Know Who You Are Voting AGAINST…But You Should Know Who And What You Are Voting FOR…”
Forgive us for we know not what we do.
It is done.
Post Vote Purge underway.
I am sorry, but I could not bring myself to vote for ANY of the idiots currently running for President. Sad.
dragin_dragon said, “I am sorry, but I could not bring myself to vote for ANY of the idiots currently running for President. Sad.”
It would be really interesting to see how many would have voted for “None of the Above” if it had actually been a vote-able choice.
I would have gone for it.
I’m sure some people would chastise others for voting that way but it would have sent a clear “No Confidence” message straight from the voters to all the candidates and parties; abstaining from voting for the available candidates doesn’t do that.
I would support a system that would make that “No Confidence” message part of the ballot, on one condition: No re-do’s; only write-ins win.
In other words, no “second-chance” Election Day(s) for rejected parties; no eligibility for any new candidate nominated by any party apparatus (such as re-convened nominating conventions); complete disqualification of the parties rejected, thus ineligible to submit any new or alternate candidates for the election in which the parties’ nominees or candidates were rejected.
The leading write-in candidate wins, with appropriate limitations of validity of ballots, depending on the person identified in the write-in. For example, ballots with “Mickey Mouse” or “Richard Nixon” would be voided and invalid, so that any jerk who wants to mock the system like that is rewarded with self-disenfranchisement.
In 1982, running as Sister Boom Boom and listing his occupation as “nun of the above,”a well known drag queen and serious, knowledgeable political activist got 23,124 votes as a candidate for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. The result was eighth place out of 13 (the first five were elected).
Yeah, I know, but still . . . .
I think we ought to organize a flood of letters and e-mails to the Democrats and Hillary’s transition team, telling them in no uncertain terms that a vote for Hillary was a desperation vote, and any other Republican candidate would have had our votes; that we do not endorse the behavior of Hillary — as a candidate, a secretary of state, a senator, or a non-profit leader — or the behavior of the Democrat Party in its lying, spin, and buying off of the media. They need to know what’s out there, and we should copy in the Republicans as well. This should be only a first step to letting the parties know that we will never, ever, put up with this again.
“and any other Republican candidate would have had our votes”
Not according to charlesgreen, who laughably believes that every other Republican was too extremist and as corrupt as Hillary making any other Republican essentially the same unpalatable choice as Hillary v Trump. It’s sad that his opinion seems to be the mainstream of the Left.
I like this idea…I will do it.
I think it should be a generalized letter from the whole of American People directly to ALL politicians and ALL political parties telling them that we have lost confidence in our United States Federal elected officials and the government as a whole. Make it VERY clear that it’s not the system that’s broken, it’s the power-hungry, ends justify the means, unethical political hacks that are running the system.
The million man march on Washington DC is going to be minuscule to the hoards that’s going to rain down on them in protest if they don’t shape up.
Our patience is running thin.
So who’s going to pay for the full-page ads in the Times, the Post, etc.?
And if we did do that, it would be so easy for Hillary’s camp to say that it was paid for right-wing radicals… or ‘Anonymous’ or some other fringe group.
“Never tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.” George Patton
Maybe one of those KickStarter things to raise the money, I really don;t know. The idea is to do it; I’ll gladly let someone else who’s better at organizing focus on the details. 🙂
Maybe even getting the mogul himself, Donald, to re-direct “his movement” in this manner – along with a few tens of millions or hundreds of millions of his dollars, with the proper person (one of his kids?) to run the campaign – would be a way for the man to do something honorable before he dies. Who cares what the corrupt jerkosphere might say in objection?
So… will you endorsing this behavior by voting for Clinton? I know you said that’s how you will be voting. Or would you like to walk back “…They will be correct…”.
I think they will be wrong to read too much into votes for Hillary because the opposition is so awful. The same goes for Trump votes.
Please have respect for your friends and others; don’t ask who others voted for, it’s none of your damn business!
That’s generally correct, but I, as they say in the law, “opened the door.” I just voted. I’ll be posting on how. And why.
I believe it’s being disrespectful to ask who a person cast their “secret” vote for.
Jack said, “I just voted. I’ll be posting on how. And why.”
That’s your choice and I fully respect that choice too.
Ethics whiplash ahead!
Barring an unexpected change of course, haven’t you already indicated the “how” and demonstrated the “why”?
Ethics conflicts require constant evaluation of new data.
Jack said, “Ethics conflicts require constant evaluation of new data.”
Amen to that!
I thought this was going to be a rare semi-ethical half apology for not telling Clinton to use her State account.
*Must stay optimistic; Must stay optimistic; Must…*
BTW, Jack, this article is an Ethics Bullseye, but the sad fact is most Democratic voters don’t give a damn, or you wouldn’t be writing it in the first place.
No kidding. Her name might as well be Donna Brazen. And don’t think she and Debbie Wasserman Schultz won’t be in the cabinet. Health and Human Resources, or, God forbid, some department like the EPA. Standard issue Clinton patronage.
My conscience is clear.
Sent an Email entitled “Kaboom!”
Please lemme know if you didn’t get it. It’s a link to the world’s worst researched slideshow of WW2 photos:
Got in the booth and couldn’t push the button for any of the presidential candidates. Our political elites have totally failed the test. I guess we are going to find out if crazy is can do any better than same’o, same’o and I doubt it.
Is there anybody here? This post seems so long ago…
No sir, we all left for…
Squirrel…. gotta get hat squirrel…..
Play, play, play…. squirrel…
Wait, what was I talking about?