Spotlight Advertisement


Absolute Power Corrupts California Dems


National media gave abundant attention to humiliating video of a married GOP Congressman kissing one of his aides while a far more serious Democratic scandal unfolded in California with scant press attention.

Three State Senators faced devastating criminal charges: one for soliciting bribes and trafficking in arms to the Philippines, another for taking bribes and doing favors for federal agents posing as Hollywood executives, and a third convicted of voter fraud and perjury.

The state Senate majority administered the lightest imaginable punishments to their fellow Democrats, announcing “suspensions” that allowed their disgraced colleagues to receive their salaries of more than $95,000 a year. Democrats have enjoyed such unquestioned control of state government in Sacramento for so many years that they’ve come to illustrate Lord Acton’s famous declaration: “Power corrupts. But absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Comments (7)

  1. From: Brian   On: April 9, 2014

    Never did abide by the axiom that power corrupts. Power can also do good, the problem isn’t power, the problem is people. Just as good people seek power to do good, corrupt people will also seek power to do bad things and more often then not corrupt people will seek power to serve only their own needs.

    • From: mark   On: April 10, 2014

      True enough Brian

      However, when one political philosophy is the only power, we see how they will protect their own when crimes are committed. That is why divided government is so important. Bad as it sometimes seems, it’s better than single rule/power government. With that there are no strong checks and balances.

      • From: Brian   On: April 10, 2014

        I really don’t see anyone being protected here. I do imagine that the political allies of these folks will demand fair investigations, as they deserve, but I don’t think that really constitutes being protected any more than anyone’s right to a fair trial is protective. I think it is more important that government be representative than to just be balanced. Besides, I don’t think our founders ever intended for our government be balanced. They assumed there would be partisanship but as long as a democratic system was employed to make decisions and there was an impartial judiciary to enforce the most basic rights that we recognized then we could openly explore the merits and demerits on any political philosophy.

  2. From: mark   On: April 11, 2014

    Maybe not balanced, but the “checks and balances” I believe were always intended to be there. However, those checks, must come from other elected or appointed officials. If said officials do not use the oversight and check power, due to one party influence, then the system can be used in ways that overstep. For instance, it looks a lot like Eric Holder is not inclined to look too deeply into certain scandles. If the AG fails to act, then the truth can be hidden for political reasons.

    • From: Brian   On: April 14, 2014

      So, its OK for a House of Representatives that just happens to be in balance of your political preference to “check” the AG who was appointed by a President who is not in your political preference, but would it be OK for the AG and the President to start pulling tax forms to see where the Reps got their income? Or is the “check” just one-way?

      By the way, Eric Holder is the Attorney General of the United States, he is not obligated to look into “scandals”. What I would like him to look into is all these Tea Party groups that were and are illegally applying for tax benefits that they do not deserve. Someone needs to go to jail there.

      • From: Al   On: April 23, 2014

        So what it sounds like you are saying is that it’s a phony “scandal” if somebody with whom you agree does something with which you approve but if somebody with whom you disagree asks for the same privileges as your favored group, THEN it’s an illegal act that must be “looked into” by the US AG?

        I believe your statement that…”Eric Holder is the Attorney General of the United States, he is not obligated to look into “scandals”…” is on it’s face illogical. The appearance of impropriety (I.E., “I think I smell a scandal”) often follows from an act of illegality.

        How could the AG know there was nothing illegal occurring if the act isn’t investigated? He can’t, of his own volition, simply ignore the possibility of illegal activity simply because he may agree with the function of the act itself or the perpetrators of the act.

      • From: derek marlowe   On: May 5, 2014

        You are tongue in check-right?

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Use.

2016 Strawpoll Advertisement

Contact the Show

Call or Text: 800.955.1776


Follow Michael Medved

also available on tunein
  • Michael Medved Mobile App
  • Michael Medved's History Store
  • Medhead - Premium Content website
  • Invite Michael to Speak
LIKE Michael Medved on Facebook Follow Michael Medved @medvedSHOW Go to Medhead (Premium Service) Invite Michael to Speak Subscribe to Medved's Newsletter Get the Michael Medved Mobile App