Morality of Election Fraud
In 2000, 2002, and 2004, dozens of reports of election fraud by Democrats came in from all over the country. Bill Hobbs did a great job of compiling a lot of them this past fall. [While Democrats have claimed that the GOP disenfranchises black voters, there is no evidence to support the claim and the alleged "disenfranchisement" always seems to occur in counties where the elections are run by the Democrats themselves.]
If we assume that Democrats are governed by moral principles, why the epidemic of vote fraud? Go back to Krauthammer's axiom on the difference b/w Democrats and Republicans. If one is doing battle with the forces of evil, what's a little vote fraud? The ends justify the means in this moral calculus.
Remember how Bill Clinton justified his illegal conduct to the members of his cabinet? It was necessary, he said, otherwise the Republicans would benefit. What other choice did he have?
Despite overwhelming evidence that Clinton was guilty of felonies, not a single Democrat in Congress voted against him in the impeachment process. Why? As Chris Matthews explained at the time, nothing Clinton could have done could be bad enough to justify siding with Republicans.
The various scandals of the Clinton years were so numerous that Democratic lawyers in the White House needed multiple pages on their legal pads just to write down the names of the different investigations. Yet none of the hundreds of Democrats with knowledge of the illegalities and corruption has cooperated with investigators. Why?Because Republicans might benefit.
If extensive corruption and criminality can be justifed as moral because the enemy is the evil Republican party, what's a little vote fraud?
If we assume that Democrats are governed by moral principles, why the epidemic of vote fraud? Go back to Krauthammer's axiom on the difference b/w Democrats and Republicans. If one is doing battle with the forces of evil, what's a little vote fraud? The ends justify the means in this moral calculus.
Remember how Bill Clinton justified his illegal conduct to the members of his cabinet? It was necessary, he said, otherwise the Republicans would benefit. What other choice did he have?
Despite overwhelming evidence that Clinton was guilty of felonies, not a single Democrat in Congress voted against him in the impeachment process. Why? As Chris Matthews explained at the time, nothing Clinton could have done could be bad enough to justify siding with Republicans.
The various scandals of the Clinton years were so numerous that Democratic lawyers in the White House needed multiple pages on their legal pads just to write down the names of the different investigations. Yet none of the hundreds of Democrats with knowledge of the illegalities and corruption has cooperated with investigators. Why?Because Republicans might benefit.
If extensive corruption and criminality can be justifed as moral because the enemy is the evil Republican party, what's a little vote fraud?
posted by Stan at 7:54 AM
1 Comments:
Excellent point!
Post a Comment
<< Home