Democrats

Unethical Quote of the Week: Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY)

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

“This is the political weaponization of the DOJ. Trump uses his official authority to defend his benefactor Elon Musk. The FBI then creates a task force to use our law enforcement to ‘crack down’ on adversaries of Musk’s. Where are the Republicans so opposed to ‘lawfare’?”

—Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY), mounting his challenge to be the most irresponsible and dishonest hack in Congress.

Just when I think I’ve figured out who the most disgracefully unethical member of Congress is after the merciful departures of George Santos, Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman, another contender says “Hold my beer!”

I thought the current run-away champ was shaping up to be potty-mouthed, jive-talking Rep. Jasmine Crockett, who padded her lead yesterday during the House Oversight Committee’s Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency hearing titled “Anti-American Airwaves: Holding the heads of NPR and PBS Accountable. ” Demonstrating once again that she either doesn’t understand the Constitution or wants to make sure the public doesn’t understand it, she said in one of her characteristic rants, “To be clear, free speech is not about whatever it is that y’all want somebody to say, and the idea that you want to shut down everybody that is not Fox News is bullshit. We need to stop playing, because that’s what you all are doing here, you don’t want to hear the opinions of anybody else,” Crockett said.

I don’t understand why someone, maybe even a Democrat with some self-respect and integrity, didn’t have the sense or guts to point out to this demagogue that the First Amendment doesn’t require the government to subsidize political speech, only to avoid restricting it. PBS and NPR will be free to be as biased, partisan and dishonest as they please, but someone other than taxpayers should pay for it. Goldman’s idiocy, however, was even more flagrant. Let me turn the metaphorical mic over to Professor Turley, who already has neatly described what Goldman is doing:

Continue reading →

House Democrats Emulate Al Green En Masse Just So There Is No Mistaking The Party’s Descent Into…[Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 30 Comments

Early during President Trump’s State of the Union Message [See footnote below], Texas Representative Al Green, who already filed articles of impeachment against the President, shook his cane and shouted, refusing to stop disrupting the speech until Speaker Mike Johnson had the House Sergeant of Arms escort him out of the chamber. Green then went to the first camera he saw and declared, “I’ll accept my punishment! It was worth it.”

Speaker Mike Johnson had issued several warnings. “Members are directed to uphold and maintain decorum in the House and to cease any further disruptions,” he said. Then, “That’s your warning. Members are engaging in willful and continuing breach of decorum. And the Chair is prepared to direct the Sergeant at arms to restore order to the joint session. Take your seat,” Johnson said. Finally, “The members continue to engage in willful and concerted disruption of proper decorum. The chair now directs the Sergeant at Arms to restore order. Remove this gentleman from the chamber.”

Green’s official censure was assumed to be a certainty, and sure enough, Green was censured the next day. The vote was 224-198, with 10 Democrats joining all Republicans, so we know that at least ten Democrats have a shred of dignity and respect for the institution of Congress. (Green and freshman Rep. Shomari Figures, D-Ala., voted “present”) As the vote proceeded, Green sat by himself along the center aisle as tradition dictates.

Continue reading →

OK, a Show of Hands: How Many Believe That Gavin Newsom Has Had a Change of Heart Regarding Transgender Competitors In Women’s Sports?

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

I sure don’t.

In the debut episode of the California governor’s new podcast “This Is Gavin Newsom,” Newsom invited Turning Point USA founder and conservative activist Charlie Kirk to banter about politics and public policy. To Kirk’s amazement (the New York Times assumes), Newsom concurred with the political right’s position regarding biological men participating in women’s sports. “I think it’s an issue of fairness, I completely agree with you on that,” Newsom told Kirk. “It is an issue of fairness. It’s deeply unfair.”

The Times was shocked—shocked!—that Newsom would break from the official party line on the issue. In the Senate last week, not a single Democrat supported the House-passed bill banning such cross-gender competitors, despite polls showing that this is an issue in which about 80% of the public agree with conservatives. “The comments by Mr. Newsom, who has backed LGPTQ causes for decades and was one of the first American elected officials to officiate same-sex weddings,” the Times said, “represented a remarkable break from other top Democrats on the issue, and signaled a newly defensive position on transgender rights among many in his party.”

Continue reading →

Never Mind “The Appearance of Impropriety,” Democrats Need To Avoid The Appearance of Stupidity

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

Let’s see: the ethical values that Congressional Democrats spat upon last night were competence, responsibility, integrity, respect, civility, courtesy, decency, dignity, self-restraint, prudence, fairness and patriotism. That’s quite an accomplishment in a single event. The party’s decision to challenge the GOP’s well-earned title as “The Stupid Party” last night during the State of the Union address was, in turn,

  • Foolish
  • Juvenile
  • Desperate
  • Embarrassing (to their party, the  nation and the institution of Congress)
  • Damning
  • Damaging to democracy
  • An appeal to the Trump Deranged while simultaneously proving how crippling the malady can be…and…
  • …a gift to the man they hate so much, President Trump.

In “True Grit,” the villain Tom Cheney is shot by young Maddie Ross after he taunts her by telling the girl how to cock the giant pistol she has aimed at him. He is stunned when she shoots him, and cries out, “I didn’t think you’d do it!”

I might make “The Cheney” a new Ethics Alarms distinction. I had read about the ridiculous college campus protest-level tactics Democrats were considering, and posted about them yesterday, as well as noting that the party’s leader in the House, Hakeem Jefferies, had advised them to eschew such nonsense in favor of a “strong, determined and dignified Democratic presence in the chamber.” Jeffries was right for a change, and I really thought all of the stories about the Democrats bringing props and dressing up would prove to be false alarms. I didn’t think they’d do it! Yet when the time for the yearly Presidential “speech “state of the nation” speech arrived, there were the Democrats, looking like the studio audience in a particularly ugly episode of “Let’s Make a Deal.”

Continue reading →

Ethics Irony: Democrats “Resisting” the President During the State of the Union Address Will Be More Destructive Than the J-6 Riot

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

But they’ll do it anyway.

Some Democrats have told colleagues they will storm out of the chamber if and when Trump says specific lines they find objectionable. Some are going to boycott the speech entirely. They are considering using props, like noisemakers, signs (like the “war criminal” sign “Squad” member Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) held up during Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech last year, eggs or empty egg cartons to taunt Trump for not bringing down inflation in less than two months, and so on.

Morons. Of course, Ethics Villain Nancy Pelosi set the precedent for such juvenile and divisive tactics when she ostentatiously ripped up the text of Trump’s last State of the Union Speech in 2020. Remember when GOP Representative Joe Wilson was excoriated in the media and by both Republicans and Democrats by shouting “You lie!” at President Barack Obama during a joint session of Congress in 2009? Wilson was formally rebuked by the House , which held that by shouting that during the president’s speech the Congressman had committed a “breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House.” The State of the Union is the most notable and in most years the most important joint session of the House and Senate, as well as a traditional demonstration of unity and respect for the U.S.’s government, the Presidency, and it institution. Elected officials deliberately breaching this “democratic norm” and showing such disrespect for a newly elected POTUS in the first address of his first year in office is destabilizing, dangerously divisive, and an unequivocal demonstration that the party will not give the people’s choice a fair chance—just like the last time.

Continue reading →

Cognitive Dissonance Scale Lesson For Senate Democrats

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

I have mentioned here frequently that one of two things I learned in college that have been most useful in my life and career is Leon Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Scale. The concept illustrated by the scale is also one of the most useful tools for ethical analysis, often essential to answering the question, “What’s going on here?” the entry point to many perplexing situations. Check the tag: it just took me 15 minutes to scroll though the posts that got it. I was surprised to find that I didn’t use the tag until 2014, when the scale helped me conclude that the Tea Party, then in ascendancy, was “doomed by a powerful phenomenon it obviously doesn’t understand: Cognitive Dissonance.” Heard much about the Tea Party lately? See, I’m smart! I’m not dumb like everybody says… I wrote then,

As psychologist Leon Festinger showed a half a century ago, we form our likes, dislikes, opinions and beliefs to a great extent based on our subconscious reactions to who and what they are connected with and associated to. This is, to a considerable extent, why leaders and celebrities are such powerful influences on society. It explains why we tend to adopt the values of our parents, and it largely explains many marketing and advertising techniques that manipulate our desires and preferences. Simply put, if someone we admire adopts a position or endorses a product, person or idea, he or she will naturally raise it in our estimation. If however, that position, product, person or idea is already extremely low in our esteem, even though his endorsement might raise it, even substantially, his own status will suffer, and fall. He will slide down the admiration scale, even if that which he endorses rises. If what the individual endorses is sufficiently deplored, it might even wipe out his positive standing entirely.

The implications of this phenomenon are many and varied, and sometimes complex. If a popular and admired politician espouses a policy, many will assume the policy is wise simply because he supports it. If an unpopular fool then argues passionately for the same policy, Festinger’s theory tells us, it might..

1. Raise the fool’s popularity, if the policy is sufficiently popular.

2. Lower support for the policy, if he is sufficiently reviled, and even

3. Lower the popularity of the admired politician, who will suffer for being associated with an idea that had been embraced by a despised dolt.

This subconscious shifting, said Festinger, goes on constantly, effecting everything from what movies we like to the clothes we wear to how we vote.

Here, for the heaven-knows-how-many-th time, is the scale in simplified form…

Continue reading →

Pundit Malpractice, Part II: A Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Masterpiece From “The Hill”

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

This is truly a “Hold my beer!” moment to savor from “The Hill.” David Brooks’ fake history lesson, draped in his usual smarty-pants rhetoric, was unforgivable, but The Hill’s opinion piece with the click-bait title, “Blue Alert: Why Democrats are poised to win in 2028 and 2032” is so silly, lazy and idiotic that even Brooks gets leave to make fun of it.

Authored by GOP operatives Gary D. Alexander and Rick Cunningham, the thing makes it crystal clear how the Republican Party got the moniker “The Stupid Party” if it pays for advice from people capable of writing such junk. To state the obvious, Democrats aren’t “poised” to do anything at this point. The party has no leader; its President just exited the White House with one of the worst six months in Presidential annals; its Senators made asses of themselves in the hearings on Trump’s nominees so far, and its House members have declared themselves fans of biological men spiking volleyballs that crush women’s faces and illegal aliens who rape and kill. Its DEI Presidential candidate ran an embarrassing campaign while the party’s platform became “Abort more babies” and “Having a rally in Madison Square Garden proves Trump is Hitler.” Poised? Poisoned is more like it.

The article flags itself as bonkers by the third sentence, asserting that Democrats were already in an advantageous position to win in 2032. That’s eight years from now: I’m going to forgo the amusing but needless exercise of pointing out how unpredictable American political fortunes have been even two years in the future for most of our history. In eight years, the little fifth grade girl next door will be on the pill and registered to vote. Ah, but these two swamis write that their entrails readings “are deeply rooted in history and strategic realities.” You know, like Brooks’ one-term Presidents proving that populism doesn’t work.

Let’s examine these “realities”:

Continue reading →

“Lying, Losing and Cheating Is No Way To Go Through Democracy, Democrats!”

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Do Democrats really cheat more often than Republicans? It sure seems like it over the last year at least, when the party faked out the nation as long as possible pretending that Joe Biden was really President, then made Kamala Harris their substitute nominee without her winning a single primary vote. In addition, its plan for winning the Presidential election was t put Donald Trump in jail, or at least set him up to be labeled a “convicted felon.”

From Minnesota comes a particularly ugly example of ethics rot on the struggling left. There are 134 Minnesota House districts. When the votes were counted after the last election, Republicans had gained enough seats to deadlock the state’s House, 67-67. Ah, but one of the Democrats’ candidates had cheated! In House District 40B, Democrat Curtis Johnson falsely claimed to reside in the district and he didn’t, making him ineligible to run or serve under the Minnesota Constitution. The GOP filed an election challenge and it was successful, so a district court issued an injunction barring Johnson from taking that seat. A special election will be held to fill the seat at some time in the future—don’t ask me why Johnson’s cheated opponent didn’t automatically get declared the winner: I don’t understand Minnesota (Al Franken, Jesse Ventura, Tim Walz…) at all, and less with each passing year.

Continue reading →

Presuming Bias Also Makes You Stupid…and a Failure

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

I’m really and truly searching for good ethics topics that haven’t been raised by politics, and its hard right now. This entry in the Ethics Alarms Hollywood clip archive is appropriate…

This time, I was pulled back in by an alleged news analysis story in the New York Times. If it had been an op-ed column, then its thrust would have been slightly more excusable. This was supposedly fact analysis, not opinion, and the article could do nothing but make its readers dumber and more resistant to harsh truths. The piece was headlined, “Will the U.S. Ever Be Ready for a Female President?”[Gift link!]

Morons. The question itself is dunderheaded and insulting in a vacuum, but as analysis of Kamala Harris’s well-deserved defeat, it is a throbbing neon example of “my mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts” as well as how rationalizations are lies that we tell ourselves when we want to be deluded. Of course the U.S. will be ready for a female President, as soon as one of the parties nominates a woman who is a strong candidate and who doesn’t run a terrible campaign. Imagine writing this garbage without giggling…

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunces: 17 Democratic Senators

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

To be specific: Sens. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Angus King (I-ME), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), Rafael Warnock (D-GA) and Chris Murphy (D-CT).

Yikes, what a rogues gallery! This unethical group voted for three resolutions submitted by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) seeking to block transfers of crucial weaponry to Israel. Their logic is the same as the Hamas-supporting student protestor who harassed Jewish students on campuses across the country, as well as the anti-Semites who dominate the United Nations. let’s listen to the career-long ethics dunce, Senator Durbin. “This war must end,” Durbin said in a statement after the vote. “Israel’s strategy of deadly attacks on and near civilian populations must end as well. The United States should not be sending arms and ammunition that continue to take the lives of innocent people. It is time for real humanitarian aid to reach the Palestinian people. I will stand by Israel, but I will not support the devastation of Gaza and the deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinians.”

Palestinians are no more innocent of the terrorist attacks against Israel than the citizens of Germany and Japan were of the war-mongering of their governments. The war being fought by Israel “must end” when that nation is no longer a target for genocide by Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. It is astounding that the same party whose President is risking World War III by escalating the Ukrainian conflict is pressuring a loyal ally and a true democracy (the Ukrainian government is still a somewhat shaky republic) to forgo a just and necessary war in the interest of its survival.

No Republicans voted for the resolutions, and even the Biden White House, like a stopped clock, was right this time: “Disapproving arms purchases for Israel at this moment would … put wind in the sails of Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas at the worst possible moment,” it told the Democratic Senate contingent.