When Political Affiliation Means Nothing - Except That It Does, Maybe

It's become a predictable situation, that hardline Republicans will either deny party affiliation when one of their own has been "caught in the act" of something. Either that, or they will create the illusion that the offender of of an "opposing" party is guilty in part simply because is "of that party".

The particular story that I reference here is in regards to the "Anthrax Mailer" and how the blog AceOf Spades is using this story to show that the fact that he was allegedly a "registered Democrat" helps prove his guilt.

So if you're wondering why Ivins' political affiliation has not been reported -- as many of you were certain would be the main storyline here, assuming he had turned out to be Republican -- there's your answer. Surely the MSM would be calling him a Republican in every report, but, alas, it turns out he's a Democrat, and hence no reportage on this aspect of his political beliefs whatsoever.

I wouldn't read too much into his political affiliation; his main party was of course "Crazy."

What is a conservative blogger, reporter, pundit, or commentator to do when a story about a "crime" is ran without mention of the criminals registered political party? Why, use that to show that those reporting it are biased, of course.

And, if said criminal is allegedly a registered Democrat, take it a step further and claim that "the left" will attempt to exonerate said criminal simply because of this.

Ivins Was an Out-and-Proud, Bona-Fide, Broken-Glass Democrat: Kudos to the Brad Blog for reporting it. I suppose it's sadly inevitable that, having found out the culprit was an out-and-proud partisan Democrat, the lefty blog immediately begins doubting he could have been the culprit.

So, my question is this - what does a person's voter registration status have to do with criminal acts they may or may not have commited? Is there a precedent somewhere that shows that a Democrat is more likely to commit a crime than a Republican?

The answer is, most likely, a resounding "no".

Though "Ace" attempts to mask the thesis of his story, it is clear that he is attempting to draw a direct correlation between being a Democrat and being a person that is likely to commit a "terrorist" attack.

And, while we are on the subject of Dr. Ivin's alleged guilt, there was an interesting discussion about this on last night's COUNTDOWN:



Though many - if not all - within the conservative-blogging-community will lambast me for even referencing this dicussion above, it should be noted that none of what was discussed on COUTNDOWN seems to be a topic of discussion anywhere else. Of course, knowing the conservative response to that would be that Olbermann is obviously a biased, left-wing, hack isn't going to stop me from referencing it.

****UPDATE****

Dr. Ivin's story is starting to get some traction.

If Dr. Ivin's was so "mentally unstable", why was he not removed from his job? It would appear that his employer would have known of this and either fired him or not hired him in the first place.

What about the fact that the Anthrax that Dr. Ivin's used to test out a vaccine with was in liquid and not "weaponized" form?

What about the fact that it took 7 years to find this man?

Perhaps it's my cynical nature, or my unwillingness to believe any and everything that my government and the media-at-large tells me, but there has to be more to this story than we are being told.

Olbermann's highlighting of this in no way makes me believe Dr. Ivin's is innocent, but at least he is asking the questions that others don't seem to be.