So which party has no limiting principles?

Michael Gerson of the Washington Post writes that Republicans have no limiting principles.

They value certain political ends – tax cuts, a conservative judiciary – more than ethical considerations. When it comes to confirming judges who oppose Roe v. Wade, the vote of a statesman is no better than the vote of a sexual predator – or, presumably, of a drug dealer or a murderer. This type of calculation admits no limiting principle.

What pious, one-sided nonsense.

Democrats have defended and supported the Clintons for decades, who have mentally and physically abused women for as long as they've been in politics, along with enriching themselves greatly through obvious unscrupulous and criminal means.  Yet, Gerson says, it's Republicans who have no limiting principles. 

Journalists, who are virtually all Democrats, knew how corrupt the Clintons were and how willing they have been to destroy anyone who gets in the way of their unending quest for power.  Yet they were willing to put this pair back in the White House in 2016.  But Gerson says it's Republicans who have no limiting principles?

Not only has Bob Menendez been accused of taking big gifts from a supporter, but there are also stories that he had sex with underage prostitutes.  Yet Democrats rarely say a word, and journalists rarely cover the issue.  But Gerson says it's Republicans who have no limiting principles.

Right now, there is a Democratic Party leader who is a woman and touted as a presidential candidate who falsified her race in order to enrich herself.  Journalists and other Democrats don't care, but Gerson says it is the Republicans who don't have limiting principles.

Not long ago, there was a celebrated Democrat icon for over forty years who left a woman to a watery car death, all to protect his political power.  (I do not believe that any Republican matches that fine résumé).  Yet to Gerson, it is the Republicans who have no limiting principles. 

Meanwhile, another Democratic Party icon for over fifty years had been a leader in the KKK, was an obvious racist, and fought the Civil Rights Act.  Yet, according to Gerson, it's Republicans who have no limiting principles. 

There are many versions of Michael Gerson's article out there, and they are all basically repeating the Democratic talking points that they are the ethical and moral party because they have thrown out Al Franken (if he really goes) and John Conyers.  There is absolutely nothing ethical or moral about journalists and other Democrats who supported putting the Clintons back in the White House, despite knowing how they both physically and mentally abused so many women and still don't care about women like Juanita Broaddrick. 

Journalists and other Democrats have had one mission the last several decades, which has nothing to do with ethics, morality, truth, or limiting principles: to protect and cover for the Clintons, Obama, and other Democrats, no matter what they do.  They could continually abuse women, violate security laws, lie continuously, refuse to enforce immigration laws, be for abortion on demand, sue the Little Sisters of the Poor, violate free speech rights of opponents of Obama, and support people who crushed and crunched and chopped up babies for a profit.  Nothing but power and the agenda mattered.  I fail to see any limiting principles. 

The mission of journalists and Democrats every day the last year is to destroy Trump and his agenda, no matter what he does.  There is absolutely nothing ethical, moral, or truthful about a party and its supporters that will buy a falsified dossier to destroy an opponent.  I wonder which limiting principle that would be covered by.  Which limited principle covers spying on political opponents, illegally unmasking names, and illegally leaking phone calls?

Michael Gerson's writings along with other journalists should be moved to the comics pages, although Mallard Fillmore's strips are much more relevant and honest.