McDonnell, Bolling and Mullins choose politics over principle
By JR Hoeft | Monday, August 24th, 2009 | PolicyThis. Is. B.S.
“Elected officials must keep the highest ethical standards in order to maintain the public trust. From what I have seen of published news accounts containing emails and admissions, it appears that Delegate Hamilton has violated the public trust. Based on this public information it would be in the best interests of his constituents for him to step down (em. added), but if he believes that the due process of a full inquiry by the House Ethics Advisory Panel will clear his name, he should have a full opportunity to present his case. Any such inquiry should be commenced immediately and conducted expeditiously.”
-Bob McDonnell
If Hamilton “believes” that he deserves due process? Of course he should be afforded due process!
What the heck is going on with the GOP leaders? What sort of political winds are they succumbing to? What principles are they abiding by?
Based on “news accounts” they’re willing to hang the guy? I thought McDonnell, as the state’s number one attorney for the past four years, was all for the protection of a person’s right to have their fair hearing?
Are we now guilty until proven innocent? I guess in the court of public opinion – or at least political opinion – you are.
Everyone is due a mistake every now and then…for me, McDonnell, Bolling and Mullins just made theirs.
Very disappointing.
Hey, Del. Hamilton, FYI: That bus that just ran you over had a McDonnell-Bolling bumper sticker.
Oh…and thank God for Sen. Ken Cuccinelli who hasn’t joined in on this reckless behavior. At least the person running for AG understands due process.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
11 Responses to "McDonnell, Bolling and Mullins choose politics over principle"
The court of public opinion has NEVER been analogous to actual courts.
The court of public opinion is about politics over principle. If we made decisions based on court of public opinion Bush would have been removed in 2006.
[...] over principle … August 25th, 2009 | Author: Justin Harrison This. Is Excerpt from: McDonnell, Bolling and Mullins opt persuasion over generalisation … Posted in Uncategorized | Tags: have-seen, highest, highest-ethical, keep-the, [...]
Politics is different from the law.
Under the law, one is innocent until proven guilty.
In politics, even the appearance of impropriety can be enough to sink a candidate. In this case, it doesn’t look good for Hamilton.
I’m with McDonnell on this one.
[...] Hoeft and the other guys at Bearing Drift are correct. McDonnell, Bolling and Mullins are choosing politics over principle; and for the life of me, I can’t understand why. Speaker William Howell (R – Stafford) [...]
“In politics, even the appearance of impropriety can be enough to sink a candidate. In this case, it doesn’t look good for Hamilton.”
Sounds to me like the voters should decide. Unless of course the McD gang wants to push for another kangaroo court like they did for Frederick. The real reason they are ‘concerned’ is because they are afraid some of Hamilton’s rectal discharge will infect their own campaigns. Too much voter finger waving might expose the malignant tumor that has taken over the RPV, therefore Hamiliton must be buried now.
Everyone is entitled to due process in a legal proceeding. Campaigns are NOT legal proceedings. It was smart politics to call on Hamilton to step aside. The Ds are floundering and you dont need to get into fight over this. Dont get me wrong I like Phil Hamilton, he is a very good legislator but I think he may have made a terrible mistake. But the facts here dont seem to be in dispute unless the emails are fake which Hamilton has not claimed. You can not use a position of public trust to enrich yourself.
All,
I’m glad to see the true character of people coming out over this particular incident.
Those who are willing to hang Hamilton’s political career, and, perhaps, even civil career, without even having the courtesy to hear his side of the story is very telling.
Hey…I said it doesn’t look good for Hamilton. But I think it’s up to him to decide if he wants to take this forward. He has to deal with his own conscience.
It just strikes me as VERY political by McDonnell-Bolling-Mullins to try to shed this guy before he infects the statewide campaign – which is exactly what I think they are doing.
Whatever happened to loyalty?
Seriously, would it have been so bad for McDonnell to say “the House leadership is taking the correct approach by opening an ethics inquiry into this issue. My hope is that this matter is resolved thoroughly and expeditiously. Del. Hamilton is entitled to this inquiry.”
And leave it at that?
Frankly, this really isn’t even an executive issue. This is a House issue – and they’re dealing with it.
Kind of hypocritical dont you think? Of course he should resign, the emails make him no better than Rod Blagojevich. Its embarassing Republicans have people that operate this way.
Delegate Hamilton is Virginia’s Rod Blagojevich. Loyalty is not an issue, principles and values are.
The Court of Public Opinion can be far more fair than the Courts of Law where rule the BARbarians (JUDGES and lawyers).
Remember that the Duke Rape Case Prosecutorial Misconduct was stopped, and the prosecutor disbarred, ONLY DUE to the Court of Public Opinion.
Judges are far too often biased toward “their own” — other lawyers, other Bar members… other BARbarians, the Pro Se litigant, the common citizen, at a severe disadvantage.
The only way the Courts of Law are fair is when a JURY rules, not a judge, and the judge has not “hood winked” the JURY by biased JURY INSTRUCTIONS that in fact are contrary to the full power of the Jury as provided by this Constitution.
No Jury? No Justice!
Well, I was surprised that Bolling took such a quick stance. He doesn’t have the track record of “selling out” for political expedience.
Things would ave been softened a great deal if a few “if and then”s were in that statement. Sounds like a conclusion was reached and a sentence was recomended.
Leave your response