I was struck today by the contrasts in morality following scandals on the right versus the left, as demonstrated by today’s announcement that former Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen’s (GOP) re-trial was being moved to Waukesha. This is in sharp contrast to the long completed trial, conviction and jailing of his Democratic colleague Chuck Chvala who was faced with similar misconduct charges.
On the right, we have the “exemplary” Scott Jensen, who has continued to fight the charges and his subsequent 2006 conviction in a trial by jury of 3 felony counts of misconduct in office according to The Capital Times. The Wisconsin Democracy campaign has been tracking the days since he was charged and has them pegged at 2,771 according to the article.
Meanwhile on the left, in a very similar case from that era, Democrat Chuck Chvala was convicted, had his law license suspended and went to jail. He has since been released and had his license reinstated.
The contrast in how each of these politicians approached their convictions is telling, as a morality story that we’ve seen way too many times between the right and the left, whether involving political scandal or sexual scandal.
For example, in sexual scandals, we saw Democratic Governor Spitzer (NY) resign after the revelations of his extramarital affairs with prostitutes; while on the right we have Republican Senator David Vitter, who not only continued in office, but is running for re-election on a family values platform following his prostitution scandal. We also have family values man, GOP Representative Vito Fossella, of New York, who was found to be so family loving that he had two of them – 1 in New York and 1 in the DC area – now being trotted back out as the GOP’s preferred candidate even after his scandal according to the Huffington Post.
I could add to these cases stories like Republican Newt Gingrich, who condemned Bill Clinton during the Clinton impeachment hearings at the same time that he was conducting an extramarital affair or Republican Larry Craig who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in the Minneapolis Airport and then decided to say it was all a big mistake attributable to his “wide stance”.
Regardless of what sorry story we follow there seems to be a vastly different set of moral values for the right wing sinner than for the left wing sinner. I leave it up to you our readers to help define if and why this so.
First and foremost, sure some have the sense to go quietly when they’re going to lose, while others fight to the bitter end, it’s tenuous at best to drawn a conclusion about party affiliation. Fact of the matter is, nobody pleads guilty unless they’re convinced they’ll lose. Nobody. So a guilty plea is a function of the evidence and how good the case is more than anything else.
Next, the Jensen and Chvala cases were very different. Trying to draw the conclusion you are is way off base. Chvala plead guilty to two felonies. Jensen has been convicted of a misdemeanor. Apples and oranges.
Excuse me, Locke. I beg to differ. If the WI State Journal has its facts right – Jensen was convicted of 3 felony counts and a misdemeanor in 2006. Look at the words in the image that are underlined.
The article has it’s fact right, but you don’t. The very next line in the article:
So two questions for you:
Do you believe that convictions that are overturned should still be held against a person? Or just for people whose politics you disagree with?
Did you not mention the fact that the convictions were overturned on purpose? Did you just happen to crop the image one line before that sentence or was that no accident? Because leaving that out on purpose is being intentionally misleading regardless of what you think about the case or appeals.
Good catch, but I stand by his conviction by a jury. Plus, why would any case go from 2007 to 2010 if Jensen thought he was innocent. This is about gamesmanship and shopping for a court he thinks will serve him better. Any non-politician would have faced the court long before he will in Waukesha. The Waukesha courts are claiming not to have the resources to investigate the case, so you can see where this is going. Good old Scott Jensen will get off without any penalties, unlike the Democrats and Republicans I might add who faced their penalties in 2005 and 2006.
In terms of the cropping, I did nothing like you suggested. Using Snagit, I took a picture of the screen that was shown on my computer and that is what is showing up here in Blogging Blue. I’m sorry if my graphic arts talents offend your sensibilities.
GOP Rule Number 1- Rules don’t apply to us.
GOP Rule Number 2- If something goes wrong, NEVER take responsbility, and deceive and deflect from your failures as much as is human possible.
Anyone care to wager that this suburban Milwaukee Scotty Boy and the other one are getting a lot of their funds from the same place?
You forgot the third one: Make counter accusations.
This has nothing to do with party affiliation, unfortunately both sides of the aisle appear to have more scum bags and criminals than decent law abiding, moral people.
Are they any less a scumbag because they decided to step down? And as for taking responsibility remember this famous quote “I did not have sex with that woman!”
The real problem is that we could spend days citing example after example of this foolishness and yet everyone defends the ones on their side and tries to make the other side look worse.
KJ- No debate that it’s bipartisan and inexcusable on all sides. Though I would not compare a BJ to flagrantly breaking state campaigns law.
But as you correctly mention, Chvala and Scooter both broke the law and deserved to be prosecuted and punished. But it’s Scooter that’s making excuses and pulling every trick he can to stay out of the slammer, and it’s very telling.
Corruption is corruption. former Governor Blagojevich for example tried to cling onto his position. I actually have a conservative friend who thinks he’s innocent. I really can’t imagine what would possess the ousted governor of Illinois to go out and launch a reality show TV career though, other than a desire for attention. I will say I find the obsession some conservatives have with former President Bill Clinton’s affair to be weird, as well as some of their attacks on Hillary for staying with him. I thought sticking though a marriage in tough times is a conservative value, but I guess not when it’s something to attack the wife over if she’s into politics.
I really don’t think corruption is something that is partisan though. It’s important to criticize those who stick up for the corrupt, but making it seem like the left or right is better at dealing with it deflects attention away from the real problem: the corruption itself.