VA republicans will retake control of the VA senate

[Fuzzy Bear]

And even if there had been, how exactly does that justify bribing Puckett to resign?  I swear, it's like complaining about imaginary Obama "scandals" has become the Republican party's version of "Oh yeah?  Well, I'm rubber and you're glue, so anything you say bounces off me and goes back to you."

Who was bribed? It doesn't appear that Puckett is getting a magical money sack. He's not getting a shiny new job. His daughter's appointment is probably going to go through, but the holdup was his fault in the first place for being a sitting legislator. It's not like the Republicans just invented that custom out of thin air. Huffpost and ThinkSoros are quick to use the word "bribery" even though there isn't any evidence of it, other than that there's an outcome detrimental to Democrats. For all we know, Puckett resigned because Josh Lyman bullied him too much, or his wife has cancer, or he's getting a divorce. But because Terry's plan falls apart, the automatic assumption is that icky Republicans "bribed" the Democrat to get him to resign. What happened here is no different than the Max Baucus Ambassadorship.

In the words of The Rock:

"IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK!"

Seriously, how does this look to the average Virginia voter that Sen. Puckett resigned under the circumstances he did, essentially to ensure that his daughter got a Judgeship that depended on GOP approval?  Incumbents resigning a la Baucus is nothing new, and has always been within bounds of ethos.  This, on the other hand, is selling out to the enemy so your family member can advance HER career. 

Baucus's actions are in line with his status as a career liberal Democrat; he accepted an appointment that helped his successor get a leg up.  Most of the folks that have supported Baucus and Montana’s Democrats would approve of all of this.  Most Republicans in any state would approve of such a maneuver if the players had all been Republican.  Baucus’s actions reflect keeping faith with what he presented himself to be in 35 years on the national scene.

Puckett, on the other hand, professed to be a Democrat, yet acted in a way that sabotaged his own party’s control of the Virginia Senate, for the sake of the advancement of his daughter’s career; it was a betrayal of his Democratic colleagues, and of the principles he had purported to stand for over time.  It was a payoff, however legal the action might be.  I would hope that the voters of his district take note as to how this came about, and elect the Democratic candidate to replace Puckett if for no other reason than to send a needed message that bribery, legal or not, is intolerable.

[Fuzzy Bear]

And even if there had been, how exactly does that justify bribing Puckett to resign?  I swear, it's like complaining about imaginary Obama "scandals" has become the Republican party's version of "Oh yeah?  Well, I'm rubber and you're glue, so anything you say bounces off me and goes back to you."

Who was bribed? It doesn't appear that Puckett is getting a magical money sack. He's not getting a shiny new job. His daughter's appointment is probably going to go through, but the holdup was his fault in the first place for being a sitting legislator. It's not like the Republicans just invented that custom out of thin air. Huffpost and ThinkSoros are quick to use the word "bribery" even though there isn't any evidence of it, other than that there's an outcome detrimental to Democrats. For all we know, Puckett resigned because Josh Lyman bullied him too much, or his wife has cancer, or he's getting a divorce. But because Terry's plan falls apart, the automatic assumption is that icky Republicans "bribed" the Democrat to get him to resign. What happened here is no different than the Max Baucus Ambassadorship.

In the words of The Rock:

"IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK!"

Seriously, how does this look to the average Virginia voter that Sen. Puckett resigned under the circumstances he did, essentially to ensure that his daughter got a Judgeship that depended on GOP approval?  Incumbents resigning a la Baucus is nothing new, and has always been within bounds of ethos.  This, on the other hand, is selling out to the enemy so your family member can advance HER career. 

Baucus's actions are in line with his status as a career liberal Democrat; he accepted an appointment that helped his successor get a leg up.  Most of the folks that have supported Baucus and Montana’s Democrats would approve of all of this.  Most Republicans in any state would approve of such a maneuver if the players had all been Republican.  Baucus’s actions reflect keeping faith with what he presented himself to be in 35 years on the national scene.

Puckett, on the other hand, professed to be a Democrat, yet acted in a way that sabotaged his own party’s control of the Virginia Senate, for the sake of the advancement of his daughter’s career; it was a betrayal of his Democratic colleagues, and of the principles he had purported to stand for over time.  It was a payoff, however legal the action might be.  I would hope that the voters of his district take note as to how this came about, and elect the Democratic candidate to replace Puckett if for no other reason than to send a needed message that bribery, legal or not, is intolerable.

And we're back to one half of the country, and one half on my state being "the enemy" because you personally disagree with them on politics. That way "bribes" that benefit the Democrats are actually good, because Democrat good-Republican bad. But an equivalent "bribe" that benefits Republicans is bad, because Republican bad-Democrat good. Sen. Puckett has been lynched by the media before anything has been proven because of this rampant partisanship. Partisanship makes everyone involved morons.

As some one who actually lives in Virginia, I can say that Puckett's move helps everyone, not just one party. Now we can actually get a budget. I mean, when 5 Republicans vote with Democrats in the Senate on cloture is that "helping the enemy." When did elective politics become a war that requires unquestioning obedience to an arbitrary party label (but only for Democrats)? The impression I'm getting from national Democrats is that they almost wish Puckett would be indicted for kiddie porn so they could breathe a collective sigh of relief because "at least he didn't work with an icky Republican. They are the enemy ya know."

I live less than an hour from Puckett's district and I can tell you, no one is really talking about it. Those in his district voted for the person over the party. If Puckett felt the need to step down, they side with him. There is no evidence of bribery, only evidence that a Democrat did something that makes other Democrats angry. I can only imagine what would happen to poor Ruth Bader Ginsburg is she decides to retire under a Republican President. They are the "enemy" after all.

If Puckett had just resigned, or merely voted with the GOP, that would be nothing more than a political disagreement.  If he had switched parties, there would have been weeping and gnashing of teeth by Democrats, but those things happen.  And, again, any number of officeholders have resigned near the end of their terms to allow a Governor of their own party to fill the vacancy while they accept a Federal appointment, and no one looks askance at that, no matter which party does it.  (And both parties do "the Baucus"; it's an established practice that is standard fare in politics.

But Puckett quit to feather his daughter's nest, and the quid pro quo came from the other party.  The quid pro quo was for Puckett to sell out, and he found a way to do it in which the opposition can't say that he sold his vote.  So he won't go to jail.  The national GOP was right to be incensed over Jim Jeffords' switching to the Democrats and changing the composition of the US Senate over a parochial issue concerning dairy farmers.  But even that is more defensible then what Puckett did.