I Cogitate
| Recent Posts | My Best Blogs | Archives | Favorite Quotes | Links | Contact |
What Do You Believe In and When Did You Believe It?
"Never in the history of the Senate has a minority filibustered a judicial nominee with clear majority support."
Bill Frist, 1/4/05
VERSUS
"On March 8, 2000 ... Bill Frist was among those who voted to filibuster judicial nominee Richard Paez."
American Progress Press Release, 1/4/05
Just what is it about truth that politicians find so difficult? Yes, this is minor but Bill Frist had no excruciating reason to lie regarding the above matter--he chose to do so. No one was holding the proverbial gun to his head. If his memory was faulty, he has since failed to correct his deceitful statement.
Yes, before the ordnance comes fast
and furious from the right, Bill Clinton lied too. Major. Big time. He
placed himself in jeopardy with both this nation and, more importantly
to him, his own family because of his unfathomable actions. My sense is
his lie was based more on protecting his family from hurt but it
doesn't matter--he lied. He made that choice.
I guess for many it has to do with
'fun' or 'rush' in getting away with something, plus a fear of the dire
consequences in publicly admitting malfeasance but what's with Frist in
this instance? He had to know the record would indicate his lack of
candidness and it certainly wasn't on a matter anywhere near as
dramatic or difficult as Clinton's.
Yeah
you say, politicians lie. Big deal. Goes with the territory.
Occupational hazard. That I should stop being Little Mickey Sunshine.
Well, John McCain is the most
well-regarded politician in this country, primarily due to his
forthrightness and the public's sense of his honesty--as a politician.
Democrats are currently being lambasted for not standing for anything. A mislabel or not, at least that is the perception of numerous members of the punditocracy and a death knell for anyone seeking office. Equivocation doesn't connect with anyone.
What puzzles me if that more politicians don't understand this and don't embrace, but more importantly live, a public persona of authenticity and genuineness. There is political capital to be made with voters if one is perceived, right or wrong, as a straightshooter. A Republican or a Democrat will always have a certain base of support but the tendency is to employ nuance, negativity, or sometimes gobbledygook, to capture swing voters.
Why use such approaches? Because it's politics and therefore okay? Is it the fear of losing if such tactics aren't employed? Because most people won't find out?
Politics IS the art of compromise (or it used to be) and most people understand and accept the concept of and need for trading votes. Voting for Senator X's highway bill despite not agreeing with all aspects of it in return for Senator X's support for your trade legislation is how things get done (or used to). It may be a bit of a fine line but such is not a denial of one's moral creed, unless an affirmative vote is provided on a matter one adamantly opposes.
Bill Frist is a medical doctor, one who has provided his services overseas at no cost to the ill and the indigent. In joining the medical community, he has sworn to uphold the Hippocratic oath. Curiously, this oath ends with: "...while I continue to keep this Oath unviolated may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art and science of medicine with the blessing of the almighty and respected by my peers and society, but should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot."
Maybe we need a political equivalent of the Hippocratic oath? But then who could Karl Rove work for?
top
RSS feed
| Recent Posts | My Best Blogs | Archives | Favorite Quotes | Links | Contact |