Skip to comments.Quid pro quid
Posted on 01/08/2006 10:15:34 AM PST by pickrell
As conservatives, we owe it to our cause to be honest with ourselves. Several men, on opposite sides of the partisan divide have been impugned with charges ranging from bribery all the way to treachery.
The very thought that a man like Tom Delay, a person of obviously credentialled liberal and progressive thought, tuned to the needs of those dependent upon the re-distribution of proceeds- be it proceeds from work, proceeds from healthy habits, proceeds from hard work and preparation to undertake the support and moral guidance of what children they should father, or proceeds from a preparation to fulfill their responsibilities in life as citizens-, that such a man who might easily be mistaken as a twin of Barney Frank in a room with poorer light, could be suddenly and mysteriously induced to champion conservative policies makes a powerful argument. An argument that such a paradigm shift in his political philosophy must have been purchased by nothing less than an accounting irregularity in his political action committee, seems obvious.
Can we not admit that immediately after this nefarious occurrence, we were all shocked to see Toms sudden conversion to conservative principals? We did not need the infamous two ladies from the 1980s commercials to roar, Wheres the quo?
And yet the defense has produced several writings, from Delays youth, where actual conservative opinions were written. Close examination will disclose that, much like the current Judge Alito case, Delay didnt actually author the writings himself, but accepting the Alito conviction in the press as adequate precedent, it must be allowed that Delay may have perhaps read the writings- or at least may once have been in a room where someone who had heard of the writings once sat. Certainly damning evidence in anyones eyes.
In any case, it can be proven that Mr. Delay was at least alive at the time of the writing, and so establishes, (see U.S. 2165, Mary Mapes vs Apparent Causality), a clear linkage between Mr. Delay and conservatism. Unfortunately, this technical argument could be made to stick, this loophole in the case might be raised, that if Tom Delay took a walk on the wild side towards sudden conservative thought it was a short stroll, indeed.
Thereby our case against Mr. Delay, and the quo necessary to accompany the quid, evaporates. Mr. Delay, however, cannot hope to be absolutely exonerated from money laundering in the same manner as Al Gore was, after he collected a thousand dollars apiece, in a Buddhist temple, from nuns sworn to poverty with no visible assets, by simply stating to an adoring press, that I had no idea this might violate them laws- why, I personally authored that legislation back in the 1930s
No, Mr. Delay will need further exposure by the press.
We must then turn to another representative, one lauded near and far, by every journalist studiously copying word-for-word the New York Times talking points, exchanging plagiarism for the admirable quality of party loyalty.
In the same manner, (writing from a city in Ohio), where an aging ex-astronaut might obsessively desire a final mission to highlight his life, and so exchange one final mission to the front pages, one glorious and scientifically meanless risk of co-astronauts lives, for a quo that he would defend even to the detriment of the country, even under oath sworn before the world to put all political considerations aside and adhere to the truth, the despicable actions of the former impeached priaptic President; so too this John Murtha faces that time of life where retiring unlauded by the media tastes bitter, and a desperation to exit glory overwhelms that oath, sworn decades ago, to protect and defend the U.S.
If a Cindy Sheehan can carve out weeks or even months of front page attention merely by trashing all that her late son, and several thousand other late sons, died for, how much more attention could a U.S. Representative purchase if he is willing to despoil the accomplishments of those same sons, and convince other young Americans that standing in harms way to protect others is a suckers bet?
Since no record exists of the minutes of a meeting of conspirators from media and those in the government who stand to gain politically by allying themselves with our enemies, no quid pro quo can be proven. No contract exists stating, The party of the first part shall provide for us the image of propaganda necessary to demean all that the armed forces have suffered and endured in their quest to keep safe the Republic, render to the country great harm in the contest of wills that all war consists of, and prevent that same military from achieving their recruiting goals and in return the party of the second part shall commit to aggressively marketing the image of a former hero broken in his tears by the rape and abuse of innocent Arabs abroad. [Playful note to typist: Theres no downside here for us!]
At the end, our argument falls apart. The same reasoning utilized for Mr. Delays defense must surely apply to Mr. Murthas defense as well.
No quo can be found against Murtha, after any honest examination of the actions of the party he represents. The agenda of the leftist has always been the opposition to United States foreign policy, the commitment to undermining the institutions which give America an unfair advantage over the rest of the world, the seizure of the fruits of a workmans labor to redistribute to those of too delicate a disposition to work for their own, and, yes, the weakening of our military- so to render ineffective a defense of our commitment to freedom.
No more than we can accuse the postman of suddenly and conspiratorily delivering the mail this morning, no more than we can accuse the checkout clerk of collusion in grocery negotiation, can we make a case stick that those whos entire lives have been devoted to one cause or another might suddenly be induced to continue what they have always done.
And so also we must understand that it is normal to the work of the mainstream media, to seek out and provide several weeks, or even months- if the story can be made to stretch so far-, of pivotal attention upon a man who is doing what cannot be done by an aging actress in an anti-aircraft gun upon enemy soil this time around.
It must be dismissed with prejudice as merely a case of the Party of the Quid, going about their normal and ordinary business of
yet more quid.
IF I had any idea what you are talking about, I might respond.
As you say.
Republicans:Party, but not at the cost of country.
Is that what was conveyed?
Um,well good,glad thats all cleared up.
Uh Oh I must have my sarcasm mode on as it made since to me....
Do I since some sarcasm there?
not since it made sense
Hmmmm...."quo" is the ablative form of "quid." The only remnants of grammatical cases in English are in the pronouns -- nominative he, objective case him (Latin would split this into dative (indirect object), accusative (direct object), and ablative (in, by, with -- some languages call this the instrumental case), and possessive his (sort of like the genitive).
Maybe what the writer is trying to say is something like "quid pro nihilo," or "something for nothing?"
At a time where Delay's actions in championing conservative causes are prima facia evidence of wrongdoing, Murtha'a actions in championing anti-US causes... somehow merely deserve applause...?
The essay was a thought exercise, to establish that Murtha could be excused for treachery, since the party he represents has a stated purpose and history of treachery, and so his actions represent nothing new, and thus no inducement, (publicity for treachery), was present.
It was a exercise in neither coming here to praise Caesar nor to bury him, but rather to excoriate Murtha and his like by "defending" him.
It's a slow newsday kind of Sunday- let's just call it a writing which failed utterly to connect.
Dont be too hard on yourself (Spoken by one who has written stuff that went absolutely nowhere)I knew what you were driving at ...(I think) and it is my question also ...as far as I can see Abromoff did what lobbyists are supposed to do ....spend money and promote congressional actions for his clients ..that he has cheated his clients does not mean he "bribed " anyone.
As to Murtha ...who knows what is driving him ? senility?greed , stupidity? I dont have a clue
Perhaps you realize now that "this for that" is a mistranslation. "Quo" does not mean "that" as opposed to "quid" meaning "this." They are two forms of the same word, and the ending of the word is determined by its grammatical case (and pro takes an ablative object).
Just amazing, isn't it, how the "watchdogs" of the press let some things go by totally unexamined?
Just amazing, isn't it, how the "watchdogs" of the press let some things go by totally unexamined?
Old dog, new trick?
Or, a small fish that doesn't do English?
True. In fact, it's gone beyond any point of redemption. I hope the truth embargo was worth it to the blow-dried boys parading as network anchors, because they have lost any semblance of worth in the arena of ideas.
I think this may turn out to be the biggest thing to have come along in awhile. It basically assigns an ADA score to news outlets, and there's no taint of advocacy or partisanship in any body's mind that I know of. If this can be computerized, then at least what they report (as opposed to what they don't report, admittedly) can be quantified on a semi-objective scale, and widely distributed. This would pressure them more than anything else to come along has. Then we could have some fun, by filing a class action suit as consumers deceived by false advertising of "news" when it is actually DNC commercials. Then the DNC could be sued for in kind contributions totalling hundreds of millions of dollars per year by the RNC. Lots of publicity, and it would be mealy mouthed to say the least that it is a freedom of the press issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.