It depends upon what your definition of "cheating" is

RatherBiased posts 50 memogate cartoons [via Mind of Mog]

"But why should this new form of cynicism appear just now, and why primarily among Democrats?" Paul Mirengoff -- aka deacon of PowerLine -- asked presciently two years ago in his FrontPage article "The Cheating Heart of the Democratic Party." Mirengoff's answer sheds brilliant light on why Democrats are not serious in serious times:

In 1991, candidate Bill Clinton was asked how he would have voted on the resolution to go to war with Iraq. He replied that he would have voted for the resolution if the vote was going to be close, but thought that the opposition had the better arguments. This remarkable pronouncement set the stage for more than a decade of Democratic cynicism that culminated this year when Senate Democrats (with the exception of Paul Wellstone) decided to vote for another Gulf War resolution only if the vote in their Senate race was going to be close.

I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.

-- Senator John F. Kerry re his votes on funding troops, March 2004

I believe the answer to the first question [why now?] lies in the modern (or actually the post-modern) intellectual climate. The essentially frivolous manner in which Clinton and Gore approach vital issues has clear parallels in current intellectual and academic thought. In the post-modern intellectual climate, “texts” (e.g., great literature, philosophy, and even laws and judicial opinions) are not valued in their own right, but rather exist to be appropriated by creative “scholars” for whatever purposes they see fit. Everything is up for grabs. The only limit on valid interpretation is the imagination, and political correctness quotient, of the interpreter. In this world, it becomes possible for politicians to ask what “the meaning of ‘is’ is.” And once that point is reached, it becomes possible to suggest that whether one should vote to go to war does not necessarily depend on who has the better arguments.

Why has this tendency surfaced largely among Democrats? . . . After 1964 and before 1992, the Democrats lost five of six presidential elections, including three landslides. Their positions had become so unpopular that the term “liberal” became an epithet of derision. The party’s options were to change its core beliefs or to disguise them. Opting largely for the latter alternative, it needed and found leaders who were particularly skillful in the art of deception.

But this deception could only be tried if the Democrats were confident of getting away with it. And only the Democrats could have that confidence. First, only Democrats could be confident that the overwhelmingly liberal media would, by-and-large, give them a pass. More fundamentally, only Democrats could be confident that their core constituencies would do so too.

Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says

-- New York Times headline September 15, 2004

The Democratic Party contains at least two core constituencies – African-Americans and feminists – whose leaders view rules as instruments of their oppression and barriers to their advancement . . . The common thread here is something akin to cheating. No wonder these core groups, and the sophisticates who believe that rules exist only to be deconstructed, admired Clinton’s intellectual gyrations on key issues and now tolerate Gore’s less supple efforts.

By contrast, the Republican party is a “values” party, a party of churchgoers. While these constituents can be hypocrites in individual cases (as Hollywood endlessly reminds us), collectively the Republican constituencies are far less likely to tolerate cheating and dishonesty among their leaders. This, more than a lack of fortitude, may explain why a Gingrich, a Livingston, and even a Nixon will step aside, whereas a Clinton will hang tough.

And from what I hear and what I see, the American people want a consistent, steady, principled leader. And that's why with your help we're going to win.

-- President George W. Bush, remarks at Victory 2004 Luncheon September 17, 2004