Loyalty gone wild

By Carol Gee

There is a kind of theme I detected in several recent posts at The Reaction. Several have alluded to loyalty or disloyalty in one way or another. Is there such a thing as too much loyalty? Of course there is! (Perhaps I could be accused of same for "pimping" these posts, when I am so new to the group of co-bloggers.) But I do not think so. I and all other avid blog readers love a clever turn of phrase or an elegant skewering, particularly when it is at Republican expense. And these are what I'd like to point out with the following exerpts:

Whom to serve, the people or the boss?
Capt Fogg's "Special Pleadings" was about the sentencing of Scooter Libby from the questionable perspective of William Otis of the Washington Post. To quote, "In addition he thought he [Libby ]was serving his country by putting loyalty to the Bush administration above loyalty to the people and constitution of the United States."

Protecting their own syncophants -
Michael J.W. Stickings gets right to the heart of Bush admnistration loyalty at its worst, "No Confidence in Alberto Gonzales," with this great summary:

"He will survive today's vote only because it is non-binding, because Republicans will close ranks to protect one of their own, even one whose conduct has been as reprehensible as Gonzales's, and because he still enjoys the support of the president -- likely because Bush loves to surround himself with sycophants, of which Gonzales is one of the more repugnant, and because he hates to give in to pressure from his critics, that is, because he is stubborn.

Bush can't always count on loyalty -
Creature in an earlier post, "The grand conservative compromise" opened with this wonderfully wrought sentence, "Loyal Libby apologist Bill Kristol, who just last week eviscerated the president for being a disloyal coward undeserving of respect, now predicts that his "fallen soldier" buddy, I. Scooter Libby, will get the commuted sentence Paris Hilton could only dream of."

Who's the friend, who's the enemy?
Later Creature posted a piece exploring our new "alliance" with Iraqi Sunnis. Who is the enemy of whose enemy in that incredibly convoluted tapestry of ephemeral Iraqi loyalties?

Havoc wrought through loyalty -
J. Kingston Pierce looks at former Secretary of State Colin "Powell - born-again maverick" who, to quote, ". . . effectively destroyed any chance he had of a future career in elective politics by providing George W. Bush with cover he needed to invade Iraq in 2003." Our blogger continues with a quote from Powell indicating that he might not necessarily vote GOP in 2008, and then this great conclusion,

As Joe Sudbay of AMERICAblog points out, such coyness about party choice is “just not done in GOP world. Loyalty comes first.” Apparently, Powell didn’t get the memo. Or maybe he’s just seen what havoc can be wrought through loyalty.

Democrats have little sympathy for Republicans who let blind loyalty get in the way of decent public service. And we,of course, know the pain of what it feels like when someone we trust becomes disloyal. The thing to remember, however, is that United States citizens paid the salaries of these people. The transgressors never had permission to act as if their salaries were personally paid by the boss. Because we pay his, too!