I'm thinking we might have ourselves a theme in this.
Politicians in Congress are responsible for the leaders they choose. Their choices reflect their moral values.Every law enforcement officer depends on the moral values and integrity of society for backup; they are like body armor. The cynical destruction of moral values at the top makes it hard for law enforcement to do its job.
In terms of moral values, this is where the rubber meets the road. The rules you apply to yourself are the true test of your moral values.
[...]
There is no limit to what you can do if you have the power to change the rules. Congress may make its own rules, but the public makes the rule of law, and depends for its peace on the enforcement of the law. Hypocrisy at the highest levels of government is toxic to the moral fiber that holds our communities together.
The open contempt for moral values by our elected officials has a corrosive effect. It is a sad day for law enforcement when Congress offers such poor leadership on moral values and ethical behavior. We are a moral people, and the first lesson of democracy is not to hold the public in contempt.
It must not be forgotten amidst all this that Ronnie Earle is A DISTRICT ATTORNEY--never mind where, never mind what party affiliation--and, therefore, the first line in his job description is to prosecute innocent people: to destroy their reputations, confiscate their property, imprison them, and ultimately put them to death.
If he ever displayed the smallest squeamishness about this part of his job, he would be evicted from office at the first opportunity.
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily a saint.
Are you telling me that complete corruption of our democracy is more immoral than gay people? Don't be silly.
Posted by: Mike Schafer on November 25, 2004 9:57 PMThe fact that Earle wrote an op-ed and had it published in a major newspaper is clear and compelling evidence that he really is the political animal that the GOP claims. Why should the House GOP's actions elicit any response whatsoever from a public servant who is only interested in justice? If Earle indicts DeLay, why should he care if DeLay is not forced to step aside during the trial? It is simply not relevant to the prosecution of the case. Earle apparently realizes that no indictment will be forthcoming. This was his last shot.
Posted by: J. King on November 26, 2004 5:18 PM