The list is obviously not accurate. Ted Kennedy’s name isn’t on it.
On it, hell - isn’t leading it.
Can you make an argument that Kennedy is the most corrupt member of Congress, rather than snide innuendo?
And on what basis should it be? Other than that you hate him, therefore he *must * be guilty or corrupt or evil or something, that is.
Wonderful. But why do you say that?
And bringing up Chappaquiddick is as wrong as bringing up Bush’s college aged indiscretions. (Not equating them, just attempting to head that one off at the pass.)
Note the incredible non-barrage of people belittling my calling Corzine a corrupt asshole, despite the fact that he’s a Democrat. Why the disparity, do you think?
Daniel
In a perfect, oh hell, in a reasonable world this would be true. I, as a government employee am constantly taking ethics training (it does feel like it is constant). The major points in this training are: Here are the things that are unethical, don’t do them. If you know something is ethical, but to an average person it would look suspect, don’t do that either. The goal is to root out even the appearance of unethical behavior as they realize that this undermines faith in government.
Now, here is the kicker. Elected officials are not bound by the ethics standards that bind government employees. If I am close friends with someone that I work with (he is a contractor and I am gov employed though we may as well be coworkers) and neither of us have influence on the other’s job or the contract, them gov gets pissed if I pick up the tab for dinner. Congressmen can get their vacations paid for and at the most expect a slap on the wrist. Ugh.
Corruption follows power. Nobody looks to corrupt the Libertarian Party, they have no power. Hence, it follows that however long a party retains power, the likelihood of corruption increases. People who enter politics for such gainful sleaze can as readily adapt the coloration of one political party as another.
In a healthy Republic (one not ravaged by a Cognitive Dissonance pandemic…), power clusters around the center. The ruling party can be chucked out and cleansed of sleaze barnacles regularly, the center right keeps the center left in check, gadflys on both extremes keep them honest. Crude, clumsy, but effective, since all the others are so much worse.
The Pubbies are in thrall to their extremist wing. Which makes the situation truly nasty for the honest citizen. Do you vote for the comparatively corrupt centrist, whose presence is distasteful but not clearly destructive, or vote for the radical reactionary - idealisticly honest but potentially destructive.
Happily, this paradox doesn’t apply so much in present circumstances: the ruling party is both politically destructive and venal as well. Time for a jolly good chucking-out party!
Sorry to take so long.
I think of corruption as more bribery (in cash or in kind) or insider dealing which results in gains, and in which the person handing out the gains gets what they want from the politician. No, it doesn’t have to be illegal, but neither does something being illegal automatically make it corruption.
Musgrave, actually, is where I draw the line. It appears that she has violated campaign laws. I don’t believe that, in itself, makes her corrupt at all, let alone one of the 13 most. With the evidence Mr. Moto has presented against Moran, I’m convinced he belongs on the list instead of Musgrave.
It’s a good thing no Democrats have showed up in this thread defending Marilyn Musgrave. Cause that would, like, blow your whole theory out of the water. Y’know, if it’d happened.
Certainly speculation, but hardly wild. But it is hard to take this kind of a list seriously, given the kind of objections Mr. Moto raises. So you are correct, I didn’t criticize the list.
I rather doubt it would be informative at all. Because party affiliation would not be damned, it would be definitive. Just as for this list.
And, as ever.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s a damn good summary. The Republicans, controlling most of the federal government now, are drunk with power and making blunder after blunder. I wouldn’t at all be surprised if an objective review (if such a thing could come to be) found the bulk of corruption to reside in that party. The Democrats went through a somewhat similar period just before Newt Gingrich engineered the GOP takeover of Congress in the mid 90s. The Democrats might be able to pull off another switch, but it’ll be a bit harder, at least in the House, where party-safe districts are overwhelmingly the norm.
But I do believe the country is fed up with Bush-style Republicanism. From the war in Iraq, to Terri Schiavo, to balooning deficits. If you like McCain, this is a good time for you. He’s going to be riding high in the polls as we approach '08. The Democrats will need to nominate a strong candidate if they want to beat him (assuming no health problems, of course).
70 posts seems to have worked in my favor. Now I can go back and read it with some EDUCATION on the subject and get more out of reading it. See how amazing that is? I’ve fought my ignorance already!
This thread points out to me more that the biggest source of corruption in this country is party affiliation. We have divided up values and decided that one or the otehr represents them, but neither represents the values of everyone within the party. We have these political tussles between people over being democrat or republican, and there are these imbalanced power shifts where most of our government money is spent trying to get power for one side or the other, and the populace gets lost in the process.
I never understood how you, the average citizen can feel a party affinity. What does the party have to do with your every day life? How do they represent you? It’s like the people who get too tied up into their sports teams, and take an insult to their sports team as a personal insult when the only thing they have in common with those sports teams most of the time is some sort of nominal geographic affinity. Here in New York we have a senator from Arkansas, who doesn’t represent anything. She talks out of both sides of her mouth and it’s nearly impossible to know where she’s actually coming from, and what this means to me is that she is playing the power game above and beyond representation of her constituency.
I don’t expect peopel not to hire their children to work on their campaigns, that would be a naive expectation, people build their networks and those networks support them, that’s the basis of society, if we erode that, then no one has any personal connection to anyone.
I personally can’t get down with a government where how one feels about gay marriage influences whether or not we invade a foreign nation. It’s ludicrous, they are completely seperate issues. As far as I can tell Clinton was far more fiscally conservative than Bush.
Me personally, I’m fiscally conservative when it comes to government, I think that the people can provide for themselves far better than the government, but we have this party war that works on the populace in a divide and conquer style. So, we have liberals telling us that laissez faire economics doesn’t work, when it’s never actually been tried. We practice so many levels of economic protectionism that we aren’t anywhere NEAR a free-market. Then you have companies like Acxiom that will give you the relevant data on any particular subgroup that you are pandering to so you can narrowcast your views specifically tailored to that group. If I had the money I could buy the data from Acxiom on what exactly your church buys, and how they vote traditionally, then pay my speech writer to tailor my speech to your church directly.
Then if there are any accusations of corruption you have the average populace (that’s you) picking your sides in the partisan debate, and then looking at the facts through that filter. That kind of solidarity erodes the checks and balances system. Not to mention the fact that our country is now run by regulatory agencies that are not elected like the FCC, FDA, Department of Homeland Security etc…
Between all this spin and hyperbole, and the average citizens willingness to stand upright and defend their “team”, how can we even hope to analyze the corruption?
Erek
Thanks. And I agree with that last bit.
“What is corruption?” is an interesting question to me, especially if one distinguishes between illegal and corrupt. One that I was thinking of putting into a new thread. If only there were time and I didn’t have deadlines looming large. Perhaps closer to the end of the month…
Perhaps for you it would be, but for myself, I call bullshit. Your accusation against me is spurious and repugnant. I am willing to call Democrats on their nonsense, and I am willing to call Republicans on their nonsense.
Your partisanship is not universal.
Daniel
But I disagree. I was going to put something in that last post about adversarial jurisprudence, but couldn’t make it sound right. In just the same way, party affiliation can play a positive role in motivating criticism. It does unfortunately tend to devolve into partisan sniping and crappy drive-bys (Clothahump, is that you?), but I hold the Doper community in such high esteem that I think it would be informative.
For instance, I seem to remember some Congresscritters being shills for the entertainment industry (for their personal gain). I think Lindsay Graham and Orrin Hatch were the ones. I know little about them, however, not living in their states, nor having any contact with the music/movie industry. Do I remember wrongly?
Living in IN, as far as I know my Senators/Representatives are pretty good. Bayh, Lugar, Chocola, Pence…I may disagree with them, but I’ve never heard even hints of corruption. Does someone know better?
Oh, and from what I remember (used to live in NJ, parents still do), Corrizine deserves lots of criticism.
And the curtain rings down on Republican Congresscritter Randy Cunningham, who has pleaded guilty to bribery, as well as conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax evasion :
Good riddance. One less corrupt bastard on the Hill is good news, no matter what side you’re on.
Ney may be a minor-leaguer, but he’s just been subpoenaed in the Abramoff case.
Dead pol walking.
Or it may very well be that the people who get offered the most bribes are the ones in the best position to provide a return on such an investment. If there aren’t many Democrats in the Top 13 Most Corrupt, there aren’t many in the Top 13 Most Powerful, either.