Why do Democrats ...

[Fantastic Anarchist]

When Democrats take power, everything is off the table, including legitimate concerns about lying a country into a war, torture, illegal surveillance of thousands of Americans. Nary a peep from the media. The Democrats are in power and they're skittish about going after actual criminals.

The Republicans ...

The Republicans don't even have to be in power! Whether they are the majority or minority power, they have no qualms about going after perpetrators, real or imagined. They don't have that inner voice asking, "Is this going to make me foolish? How is this going to play out politically? Will the American people back me? Do these questions make my butt look big?" No, they have no conscience! Which is probably why they can go after stupid, wild geese chasing like Benghazi!!!! They have no problem whatsoever throwing investigations, and tax payer money down the toilet! Why???

Why when Democrats are in power, these questions don't manifest? More importantly, why don't even more pertinent questions present themselves? Like, "Will this heal the country? Will this be for the public good? Will this show the world that we are serious about justice? Will this stand up to moral scrutiny?"

Why?

What the fuck is going on? Why can Republicans get away with shit like this for illegitimate stories. Why can't Democrats, in this regard only, be like Republicans??????

I'm fuming right now.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

1. McCain is going to get to the bottom of this ...

... and he wants answers to his questions.

And doesn't go to the hearings that have answer to his questions!

This shit should be satire, yet it is actually happening in real life. Why do Republicans not have a sense of shame?????

[MrYikes]

2. Saturday night live will get it all straightened out and

yes this will make all the butts look big.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

3. Why does this not appear to piss anyone else off?

[Iceberg Louie]

4. It goes back to each respective party's base

According to Merriam-Webster, "liberalism" is synonymous with "broad-minded", while "conservatism" is analogous to "reactionary". The Democrat base, at least since the 1960's, has been generally progressive-minded, metropolitan, pro-education, pro-critical thinking, etc. The Republican base, outside of the 1%-er chickenhawks, have conversely consisted of regressive-minded, bigoted, anti-education evangelicals and yahoos. And despite their supposed penchant for individual responsibility, Republicans by their very conformist nature are demonstrably prone to being herded like the sheeple they are, to the extent that they require puppeteers like Rush, Sean, and Glenn to put words in their mouths for them. Do the Democrats have an equivalent to Rush Limbaugh? One could argue that it might be Bill Maher or Jon Stewart, but at the end of the day, you will be hard-pressed to find liberals going around parroting their scripts verbatim, and reacting (sometimes violently) to their edicts as Rushbo's legion of dittoheads do.

So, to answer your question, the Democratic politicians don't engage in this kind of reckless witch-hunting or fearmongering because their base doesn't lap it up so unquestioningly as the Republicans do.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

6. Somewhat generalistic, but I don't disagree.

But, and I'm not a Democrat (I don't do party politics), wouldn't the party, regardless of what their base thinks, actually try to do what is right?

[LeftInTX]

10. Conservatism needs a reactionary definition

From Merriam Webster
Conservatism b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

******************************************
I also used to think conservatism was about keeping the status quo. Now they are anything but. They want abrupt change in the form of impeachments, filibusters, Fox, Rush to push a radical agenda.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

14. I do call them reactionary.

They would prefer the Ancient Regime.

[gravity]

5. The Republicans have an echo chamber

and have no qualms about using it for political advantage.

[John2]

7. You

got some Democrats that you don't know where their loyalties lie. In other words, some of them are in bed with Republicans for their own personal gains. For example, if Senator Diane Fienstein thinks taking up this fish hunt after the President to give the Repukes cover, she isn't speaking for me. So they need to just throw the Public needs to know crap out the window and put the proper characterizations on it. Maybe it is just to stoke the ego of your pals on the other side. When is the last time she supported her Party on any issue? Somebody should ask her that question instead of having hobnobs with Joe Lieberman and the chap in Utah.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

8. She sickens me, too.

[LeftInTX]

9. Fantastic Anarchist: You are not alone. I feel the same way

It doesn't help that big money is tied with Republicans. I think it gives them lots of leverage even when they are not a majority.

The election is over and there are robocalls going out to impeach Obama.

Someone who has a lot of money is paying for this stuff.

It does seem like Republicans really turned nasty in 1994 with Newt Gingrich

I'm watching a documentary on Netflix called Patriocracy. Filmed in 2011. Its about nastiness and lack of compromise in congress.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

12. I'm going to check that out.

Thanks, LeftInTx.

[ancianita]

11. Democrats' media 'case' should focus on how Republican drama is hurting -- HURTING -- America.

Empasize their horrible waste of taxpayer dollars to dramatize their tire, old school Politics of Spite.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

13. Why don't they?