Columns

Absolute Power Corrupts California Dems

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print
Advertisement
147911144

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.”

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print

Comments (7)

Leave a comment
  1. Brian  •  Apr 9, 2014 at 10:42 pm

    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.

    • mark  •  Apr 10, 2014 at 11:14 am

      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.

      • Brian  •  Apr 10, 2014 at 2:49 pm

        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. mark  •  Apr 11, 2014 at 9:52 am

    Brian
    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.

    • Brian  •  Apr 14, 2014 at 5:52 am

      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.

      • Al  •  Apr 23, 2014 at 11:35 am

        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.

      • derek marlowe  •  May 5, 2014 at 1:15 am

        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 website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.

Medhead - Michael Medved's Premium Content

Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Michael

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Get Medved weekly movie reviews, columns, and special offers delivered to your inbox.

Subscribe

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Advertisement
Advertisement
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn