June 8, 2007

The Culture Of Corruption, Presidential Version

The midterm election theme of the "culture of corruption" functioned as an argument for Democratic control of Congress, after several scandals rocked the Republican caucuses. The Democrats apparently like the theme so much that they plan to incorporate it into their presidential campaign -- but perhaps not in the manner some might expect (via Big Lizards):

The Clinton Campaign today announced that Florida Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Congressman Alcee Hastings have been named national Campaign Co-Chairs.

"We need a leader with a clear vision and sound judgment, who can work with a Democratic Congress to renew the promise of America. Hillary is that leader," Rep. Wasserman Schultz said.

Rep. Hastings said, "When we elect the next President Clinton, this country will be a much better place for the African-American community, Floridians and all Americans."

Both Reps. Wasserman Schultz and Hastings serve in the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives, and Hastings is the Vice Chair of Florida’s congressional delegation.

That's not all Alcee Hastings is. He's also the last federal judge to get impeached -- and that was by some of Hillary Clinton's current colleagues in Congress. In fact, his impeachment took place less than 20 years ago, and Hastings has long been a controversial figure in the Democratic caucus.

Hastings got appointed to the federal bench by Jimmy Carter in 1979. In less than two years, he got indicted for soliciting a bribe in an FBI sting. In 1983, he won an acquittal, but a subsequent House investigation found that he had committed perjury in that trial. The House Judiciary Committee authorized a whopping seventeen counts for impeachment against Hastings in 1988.

The man chairing Judiciary at the time? None other than John Conyers, Jr, a longtime member of Democratic leadership. In fact, the House voted to impeach Hastings in a massively bipartisan vote of 413-3, and the Senate convicted him on 8 of 11 counts they considered. He became only the sixth federal judge ever removed by impeachment. Hastings attempted to play the race card, but Conyers strongly rejected that, and a majority of the Congressional Black Caucus voted for his impeachment.

This all came out again last year, when Nancy Pelosi started assigning committee chairmanships in expectation of winning the majority in the midterms. It became a major embarassment to Pelosi, who had already angered the CBC with her removal of William Jefferson from the Ways and Means Committee. She wound up having to remove Hastings from her list of committee chairs.

Now Hillary has embraced Hastings, and indeed has made the former perjurer and corrupt judge as her campaign's national representative. She says that with Hastings' help, her "message of change" will get rolled across the country. The message is that the Clinton campaign has its own idea about the culture of corruption -- they want to pursue it.

UPDATE & BUMP, 6/8: A hearty welcome to readers of James Taranto's Best of the Web at OpinionJournal. Take a look around, and be sure to catch CQ Radio at 2 pm CT today, where Duane "Generalissimo" Patterson and I will discuss this story, among others -- and be sure to read the rest of Captain's Quarters!

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/cq082307.cgi/10176

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Culture Of Corruption, Presidential Version:

» Weren’t the Democrats going to be different? from Pros and Cons
Whatever happened to transparency? At least in 1994 there were some stabs at it. one of my law professors actually went to D.C. to tell congressmen how the regulations they spawned would affect their offices if they were applied, for example. Maybe I&... [Read More]

» Hillary Appoints Impeached Judge As Campaign Chair from CALIFORNIA YANKEE
Impeachment - The Tie That Binds Hillary appointed impeached federal judge, Florida Congressman Alcee Hastings, as a co-chair of her presidential campaign. Hillary's decision o make Hastings co-chair speaks volumes about the ethics we can expect from a... [Read More]

Comments (40)

Posted by commander0 [TypeKey Profile Page] | June 7, 2007 8:33 PM

Is this the only "person of color" she can glom onto? The other Slick William was unavailable? Oops, I guess he was unavailable. Never mind.

Posted by richard mcenroe | June 7, 2007 9:48 PM

It's freakin' Christmas...

Posted by Del Dolemonte | June 7, 2007 10:11 PM

Impeachment is a badge of honor now.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Posted by hunter | June 7, 2007 10:26 PM

By embracing the likes of Hastings, the dhimmies show to all who care to pay attention what they think of not only ethics, but the voter.

Posted by Karen [TypeKey Profile Page] | June 7, 2007 10:28 PM

This is the gift that keeps on giving. Can you imagine the commercial material that this gives her opponent in the general election?

SWEET!!!!

Win FRED Win !!!!!!!!!!

Posted by HA | June 8, 2007 5:59 AM

The problem for the Democrats is that, apparently, a culture of corruption isn't nearly decadent enough for their tastes. It takes an orgy of corruption to really get their juices flowing.

Posted by Waste | June 8, 2007 7:25 AM

Why should someone that committed perjury and was impeached bother Hillary? Isn't she married to someone that did the same?

Posted by Anthony (Los Angeles) | June 8, 2007 7:32 AM

A perjurer who got impeached? Representative Hastings should feel right at home in the Clinton campaign.

Posted by James I. Hymas | June 8, 2007 2:27 PM

Has the man changed in 25 years? Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't. I don't know and I don't see it being discussed.

I find it interesting that the Cap'n is not allowing Christian forgiveness to inform his policies.

Posted by NoDonkey | June 8, 2007 3:04 PM

The Democrats are the Party of Corruption, the Party of Incompetence, the Party of the Hopelessly Stupid and the Party of Humiliating Surrender.

By bringing on an individual like Hastings, the Democrats are also the Party of the Utterly Predictable.

Posted by Jim C | June 8, 2007 3:30 PM

James,

What has Christian forgiveness to do with shrillary appointing a perjurer to a position of power in her campaign? The issue here is hypocrisy, and the Democrats apparently have no problem with it.

Jim C

Posted by James I. Hymas | June 8, 2007 3:51 PM

Jim C - the events at issue happened 25 years ago.

I don't know about you, obviously, but I've certainly changed in the last 25 years and I'm able to entertain the possibility that Hastings has too.

The Cap'n has shown Taliban-like insistence on one true faith in the past; I'm surprised that John 8: 1-11 apparently has been forgotten.

Posted by Aaron Converse | June 8, 2007 3:56 PM

Mr. Hymas -- one of the prerequisites for forgiveness is to acknowledge one's fault; has Hastings admitted that he had perjured himself? Or that he took bribes? Note also that Christian forgiveness is not incompatible with Christian justice as well; the reasonable Christian has no difficulty with the administration of justice, and (when facing an unrepentant criminal) treating the malefactor with prudence as well. If he admits his sin, I would have no problem accepting him as having rectified his crime; this does not mean that I am required to think (or that it is reasonable to think) that he should be entrusted with such responsibility again.

Posted by MarkJ | June 8, 2007 3:59 PM

Now that Alcee Hastings has hitched his creaky wagon to the campaign of "Lord Hillary," I can already hear the faint sound of Dubya's cackling laughter emanating from the Oval Office....

"Rove, you magnificent bastard, how did you manage to set up Hastings with Hillary? Both of those fools still don't understand what you've done to them. Buddy-boy, you screwed the pooch on that immigration bill, but the Hastings thing is one sweet caper!"

Posted by James I. Hymas | June 8, 2007 4:23 PM

has Hastings admitted that he had perjured himself? Or that he took bribes?

I don't know - the whole question has been ignored in the gleeful rush to judgement.

Posted by Captain Ed | June 8, 2007 4:50 PM

Gleeful rush to judgment -- after 19 years.

Yeah, right.

Posted by Rose | June 8, 2007 5:31 PM

The Clinton Campaign today announced that Florida Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Congressman Alcee Hastings have been named national Campaign Co-Chairs.

-----------------------

Any surprise that the Whitewater Queen, Hillary of 1,000 FBI Files, would feel most comfortable working with a crooked judge?

I didn't think so.

Posted by Rose | June 8, 2007 5:41 PM

Has the man changed in 25 years? Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't. I don't know and I don't see it being discussed.

I find it interesting that the Cap'n is not allowing Christian forgiveness to inform his policies.

Posted by: James I. Hymas at June 8, 2007 2:27 PM
****************************

Christian forgiveness can do a lot of things, amazing how the DEMOCRATS always think it can redeem someone ELSE's CHARACTER, and make them something they are not, never was, and never will be.

NOBODY can give Hastings back h is good name, except himself, through a lot of hard work - and the reason you haven't HEARD of his redeeming himself in the eyes of hte public is that he doesn't have to in the DIM party, AND HAS NOT.

He has proven himself, WE DO NOT OWE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT - it has nothing to do with FORGIVENESS.

You can forgive a lion for slaughtering a herd of antelope - you don't give him another herd of antelope, if you are the head of the herd of antelope.

Posted by Adjoran | June 8, 2007 5:49 PM

I have a hunch Hastings will find the likes of the Clintonistas and Mr. Hymas quite compatible with his own ethical beliefs and practices.

Posted by Rose | June 8, 2007 5:50 PM

Jim C - the events at issue happened 25 years ago.

I don't know about you, obviously, but I've certainly changed in the last 25 years and I'm able to entertain the possibility that Hastings has too.

The Cap'n has shown Taliban-like insistence on one true faith in the past; I'm surprised that John 8: 1-11 apparently has been forgotten.

Posted by: James I. Hymas at June 8, 2007 3:51 PM
***********************

Your willingness to assume that a convicted FELON has changed his CHARACTER and should again be entrusted with "The Hen House" isn't laudable.

Apparently, nothing in "The Hen House" is of value to you.

The passage of 25 years in and of itself doesn't mean he has changed his very nature.

The incidents he was convicted of do not constitute a "mistake", they constitute major character flaws - and he is patently the same character, or he wouldnt' be flocking to associate with other people who are world famous for inherent character flaws of similar nature.
He is willing to associate with the heart of the CHINAGATE, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Travelgate, and FBI FILES scandals, plus the chief boss of the Bimbo Eruption Committee - they killed CATS, didn't they?

A changed character would now avoid even the appearance of evil.

You put your own personal fortune in his "trustworthy" hands, for yourself.

Don't try to sell us this con game.

Posted by James I. Hymas | June 8, 2007 7:00 PM

Cap'n Ed: Gleeful rush to judgment -- after 19 years.

Yeah, right.

More like 19 hours, Cap'n! The "judgement" to which I am referring is yours ... with the reasoning that Hastings did something bad 25 years ago ... therefore he is an evil person forever & ever ... therefore Hillary Clinton is evil for hiring him as Campaign Chair ... therefore, a potential Clinton Administration (Mrs.) will be corrupt.

The chain of logic reflects much more on you - or, perhaps, your employers - than on either Hastings or Clinton. Is it part of your campaign for civility in politics?

Posted by Captain Ed | June 8, 2007 7:10 PM

I am laughing my rear end off, James. This is perhaps the most pathetic spin I've seen on this blog.

i guess the liberal screaming about the 'culture of corruption' last year, including that from Hillary, was all about forgiveness. I see. Uh-huh.

I'm not claiming that Hastings is evil; I'm claiming that he was corrupt as a federal judge. I'm also saying that hiring people with that background shows very little concern over integrity in public service. That seems rather obvious to all but the most ardent Hillary apologists.

You, on the other hand, have put words in my mouth and created strawmen about "evil" and "forgiveness" in order to desperately make Hillary look good in hiring Hastings. Well, feel free, but you're only making a fool out of yourself, and pretty much indicating that you have nothing serious at all to say here ... ever.

But it's great comedy, so keep it coming. Really.

Posted by nandrews3 | June 8, 2007 7:58 PM

You know, Ed, there's also the fact that Hastings has been in Congress for the last fourteen years and counting, and you plainly don't have a single example of anything that he's done wrong as a Congressman in all that time.

If Hastings' past sins were part of some pattern of conduct which you could still detect over any period of time since "Miami Vice" was on Friday nights, then that's what you'd be crowing about. But since you can't do that, I think more people would agree with John I. Hymas on this than you seem able to imagine.

Here's a little rule of thumb for you: When all the press clippings you can find have turned yellow, and you have to blow the dust off them before passing them around -- then your chances of getting anyone to care about them are pretty remote. I agreed with the decision not to give Hastings the intelligence committee chair. But, frankly, nobody's will -- or should -- care much whose presidential campaign he supports.

Posted by nandrews3 | June 8, 2007 8:05 PM

Oops, I meant James I. Hymas. Sorry, Mr. Hymas.

Posted by JohnG | June 8, 2007 8:22 PM

Beyond Hastings' ethically challenged past, there's another almost exclusively Democratic trait that I think signifies bad leadership - appointing co-campaign chairs. To me, nothings screams "I can't make a decision" more loudly than appointing two people to hold one position.

Posted by JorgXMcKie | June 8, 2007 9:50 PM

Hmmmmm. May I suppose that those here crying over '26 years' ago events never, ever have chided Bush for anything that happened prior to 1980 or so, right? Nor Mrs. Bush?

No whining about DUI or TANG or alcohol usage or a teenage accident, right? Right?

I'll bet James I. Hymas will now post that he has never, done any of these things and he totally forgives Bush and Mrs Bush for any perceived sins in their past. It's only Christian, right?

Posted by Helen | June 8, 2007 10:56 PM

Wasn't Alcee Hastings the politacl patron of the spectacularly corrupt and incompetent "Million Dollar" Miriam Oliphant?

Posted by helen | June 8, 2007 11:09 PM

Pardon. "political". Ms Oliphant was the Broward county elections officer removed from office. Hastings spoke out for her and sent his aides to work with her, trying to save her, but to no avail. The Florida legislature upheld the removal in a remarkable show of bipartisanship.
That would be an incident in the last five years that shows Mr Hastings' character, and it's not good.

Posted by James I. Hymas | June 8, 2007 11:09 PM

Cap'n Ed: You, on the other hand, have put words in my mouth and created strawmen about "evil" and "forgiveness" in order to desperately make Hillary look good in hiring Hastings. Well, feel free, but you're only making a fool out of yourself, and pretty much indicating that you have nothing serious at all to say here ... ever.

But it's great comedy, so keep it coming. Really.

Huh. So instead of addressing what I've said, you're just going to brush it off with some name-calling? Is this part of your campaign for civility in political discourse?

It's odd that you claim I'm trying desperately to make Hillary look good - because I don't really take a view one way or the other on her candidacy. You will certainly not find anything particularly partisan in my comments in this thread.

No, Cap'n, my comments in this thread have been directed towards you.

In your comments you stated: I'm not claiming that Hastings is evil; I'm claiming that he was corrupt as a federal judge. I'm also saying that hiring people with that background shows very little concern over integrity in public service.

I will not pretend to be an expert on American Constitutional law, but it is my understanding that the Senate, at the time of his impeachment, had the authority to bar him from seeking public office and chose not to do so. They left that up to his (potential, at that time) constituents who, according to his website, gave him a 77% majority in the 2002 election.

[Actually, the biography on his site contains the priceless line: " Appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, he became the first African-American Federal Judge in the state of Florida, and served in that position for ten years.". Well, that's one way to say it!]

OK, for "evil" in my paraphrase of your logic, substitute "corrupt". Are you willing to accept that paraphrase as amended?

It doesn't make you look too good, frankly.

Cap'n, what I object to in your remarks is your insistence that not only is it impossible to make amends after a major error; but further, that anybody who does give such a person a second chance twenty-five years after the event is necessarily corrupt themselves. And, as has been pointed out by nnandrews, you have not made any apparent effort to determine what Hastings has or has not done by way of rehabilitation in the twenty-five years since the events of interest.

It's petty, it's vindictive and it's unworthy of you.


Posted by jumbo | June 9, 2007 12:03 AM

Simply beyond parody. Who said Hil has no sense of humor? It is no exaggeration to say this could have appeared in "The Onion" word-for-word and been gut-bustingly funny.

Posted by Adjoran | June 9, 2007 3:49 AM

It's typical for those who have truly been rehabilitated to express remorse and regret for their crimes.

Has Alcee Hastings ever so much as acknowledged his? No.

But then, neither has Hillary . . .

Posted by docjim505 | June 9, 2007 7:58 AM

Hymas, what drugs are you on???

A few thoughts on Christian forgiveness, justice, and politics:

1. Forgiving somebody requires repentence on their part.

2. It seems to me that, if Hastings truly repented what he did, he would never have run for another public office but rather would have spent his time trying to atone, perhaps through voluntary public service, for his crimes.

3. What is the statute of limitations on crimes? You seem to imply that, since Hastings committed his crime a number of years ago, time has washed away the stain. OK... What if he did it ten years ago? Five years? Last year? Yesterday?

4. I must say that, in my experience, dems are only big on "forgiveness" when one of their own is caught. As JorgXMcKie points out, I think that this self-righteous talk about "forgiveness" would come to a speedy end if the person to be forgiven was George W. Bush.

5. In my mind, forgiveness doesn't equate to blindness. The man was impeached for corruption by the Congress. Maybe he's repented and now walks the straight and narrow... and maybe he hasn't (IMO, being a member of Congress is ipso facto evidence of criminal tendencies). Either way, it's prudent to keep him out of positions of responsibility and trust.

6. Forgiveness does not exclude punishment for crimes. See Romans 13:1 - 7.

Posted by dwyvan | June 9, 2007 8:58 AM

Has our president repented for his lies that got us into Iraq? Has he repented for his lies about torture? How about the secret prisons, the renditions, or the past drug use?

Did Reagan apologize for selling arms to Iran? I think he gave us one of his famous "I don't remember" speeches. And yet he is forgiven? Where is the double standard, and by which party?

Republicans and democrats are equally guilty of many lies. The only difference is if they are caught and made to pay for them. How many times has every Senator gone on TV and looked right into the camera and lied to us? We all know it is true. So the holier than thou line doesn't play out. Guilty is guilty, weather they are made to pay for it or not.

Posted by Marc | June 9, 2007 10:31 AM

"Has our president repented for his lies that got us into Iraq?"

No. Because he didn't lie to get us into Iraq.

"Has he repented for his lies about torture?"

No, because he didn't lie about that either.

"How about the secret prisons, the renditions, or the past drug use?"

Didn't lie about that either.

"Did Reagan apologize for selling arms to Iran?"

Nope. Why should he?

"And yet he is forgiven?"

It was foreign policy. Bad foreign policy, but foreign policy nonetheless.

"Where is the double standard, and by which party?"

The Democrat party. If it werent for double standards, the Democrat party would have no standards at all.

"Republicans and democrats are equally guilty of many lies. "

No, not equally guilty. The Democrat party is guilty of many more lies than the Republican party.

Posted by James I. Hymas | June 9, 2007 10:37 AM

docjim505:

1. I have no idea whether Hastings has repented or not: the Cap'n did not consider such a triviality worthy of discussion. It would appear, however, that his constituents are prepared (by a landslide majority) to trust him again.

2. We all do different things. Perhaps Hastings feels that the best way to atone is to engage in the political process, suffer the same calumnies every single election - I'm just assuming that it becomes an issue every single election, but it seems like a pretty good bet - and represent his constituents to the best of his ability. At least if he serves according to the wishes of the voters, he knows that they want such service and he's not just fooling himself! Is this the case? I don't know. The Cap'n did not consider such a triviality worthy of discussion.

3. I do not mean to imply that time has washed away the stain. I do mean to state that 25 years is sufficient time not just to make amends, but to show that amends have been made. As stated earlier, I am prepared to entertain the possibility that twenty-five years down the road, the man has changed; I am prepared to listen to argument and form my own judgement. The Cap'n did not consider such a triviality worthy of discussion.

4. I can't speak for all Dems; I can't speak for any Dems. I make no claims to being perfect; if you know of an instance where I have applied such a double standard, let me know and I'll address the issue - without, I hope, referring to your remarks as "comedy" or "pathetic spin".

5. Well, it is my understanding that the Senate, at the time of his impeachment, had the authority to bar him from public office forever and did not exercise that authority. Maybe they made a good decision - maybe they made a bad one. I don't know. The Cap'n did not consider such a triviality worthy of discussion.

6. No, forgiveness does not exclude punishment. He was punished - his affairs were discussed in the Senate and he got fired. When does the punishment stop? When do we agree that the punishment has fit the crime? When do we allow somebody to start showing us they've got some good in them? The Cap'n did not consider such trivialities worthy of discussion.

And, in fact, the Cap'n has stated, on being challenged, that he does not only believe that the crime is irredeemable, but that anybody who believes that he has something useful to offer is necessarily showing little concern for integrity in public service - in other words, not simply that Clinton (Mrs.) got it wrong (which would require a little argument to justify) but that Clinton (Mrs.) didn't care - which is just mudslinging.

Posted by Jim C | June 9, 2007 12:47 PM

Mr. Hymas,

Oh, so now discussing his sins in the Senate and firing him is just punishment? I thought punishment for that sort of thing included jail time... Guess I was wrong.

Once again, Al cee Hastings has NEVER apologized for his crimes. He's never made an attempt at making ammends. He's never done anything that would indicate that he has learned from his crimes and won't do it again. Even if he had, that doesn't mean we as the public ever have to trust him again. Just because someone has apologized and made ammends doesn't mean that they automatically regain the trust that was lost through the commission of their crime.

Jim C

Posted by docjim505 | June 9, 2007 8:54 PM

Hymas,

A cogent answer though I think you're wrong.

As for mudslinging against Mrs. Bill Clinton... Whether or not she believes ol' Alcee has repented or got a raw deal in the first place, putting him in her campaign is either very brave or bloody stupid. She and Bill have enough troubles with charges, allegations, and suspicions of corruption without having one of the few federal judges to actually be removed from office for corruption on the payroll. You're known by the company that you keep.

Oh, well... With any luck, she'll pay at the ballot box.

Posted by TallDave | June 9, 2007 9:49 PM

Lefties don't care about corruption. Just doesn't register.

Unless, of course, it involves Reublicans. Then it's always the end of the world.

Posted by James I. Hymas | June 9, 2007 10:55 PM

Jim C - Do you have a link to some reasonably reliable (and preferably non-partisan) material on the subject? I've tried learning more, but only run into thousands of blog hits (oh! and a post-mortem inquiry by the House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Crime, Committee on the Judiciary, and the Department of Justice. It seems that one of the Fibbies testifying at his trial also perjured himself ... just to make a tangled tale even more impenetrable!).

docjim505 - Clinton must have know what the knee-jerk reaction was going to be, especially given the political fooferaw over the committee chairmanships. Whatever else she might be, I don't think she's stupid. So what does Hastings bring that's worth the trouble? Money, organizers, votes, suitcases of used twenties? At that level (and at many levels below it, for that matter) you don't get a high profile position just because you're a hard-working nice-guy who'll do a good job. I'll guess it's because he's bringing in a lot of well-connected organizers, but it would be interesting to see some more informed comment.

Posted by Buzzy | June 10, 2007 1:32 AM

That's a problem I have. Once someone tells enough lies and commits enough crimes to be removed by Congressional action from a lifetime government appointment, I just can't ever believe anything that comes out of their mouth... forever.

Obviously Hillary Clinton does not have the same problem I have.

After much though maybe I'm not the one with the problem.