Yes, I see that’s what he’s saying.
I’m saying it’s not fair to make that assumption.
I thought Evil Captor was generally on “our” side. Did I miss something?
Nonetheless, it looks like everybody did completely misunderstand your post. I think you confused them by snarking about your own.
I’ll go with posting at an hour before I’ve reached sufficient caffeination, actually. However, for me that hour may be at 2 pm and with a two-liter of Mountain Dew downed, but I still blame the lack of caffeine. 
That’s the ticket…
(I also think EC starting off attacking the IL GOP was confusing; if you started kind of glazing over at that point like I had, I missed the counterattack until I re-read it this morning, and just kind of leapt to the assumption that others read it the same way.)
It is fair. I explained why – the evidence on the tapes indicates that in person Blowjobovich is a foul-mouthed troll who is openly motivated by greed. You can’t tell me that the leadership of the Dem party in Illinois didn’t have members who either directly heard Blowjobovich being himself, or had reports of him doing so from their associates. But nobody said, “Say, this guy is a corrupt, greedy troll. We’d better withdraw our support for him before he gets indicted for corruption like three of the previous seven governors of Illinois have been!”
Nobody said that, or if they said it, they were ignored. That’s just pathetic.
I am generally pro-Dem as I think their core principles are sounder than the Republicans. My comment about the Illinois Dems was more in disappointment than in anger. It’s more like being a fan of a football team that’s fucking up left and right, and yelling at the set, “Can’t you clowns do any better than that?!” You WANT them to be great, but the evidence that they’re a bunch of incompetents is right there on the screen.
The sad fact is, corruption is a matter of degree here. They knew he was sleazy, I’m sure, but they might not have realized HOW sleazy… The bottom line with the corruption here is that it’s a machine…it actually DOES work, but everyone has to play on basically the same level, like you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours, and don’t do anything dumbass that brings attention to the whole thing. Kind of like the mafia. (Which is probably where the politicians around here learned how to do this stuff in the first place, come to think of it.)
One thing he apparently never figured out is that the guys with the most ambition are the ones who generally keep their own hands the cleanest. They may know about the corruption, they may even orchestrate some of it, but they make sure nothing sticks to them.
Pop quiz:
Rob’s friend has twice as many quarters as nickels. How much change will he need to buy a senate seat from Rob?
What? The differences between the Bush administration and Blagojevich are manifold. Blagojevich tried to get paid for a Senate seat and by the looks of it most were too smart to do it. He has clearly been a pariah in Illinois politics for quite some time now.
Almost all Republican scandals have been perpetrated by the Bush White House, and have generally had full support by Republicans and even Joe Lieberman refused to investigate Katrina or any of the other Bush fuck-ups due to incompetence or malicious intent.
The reason why Republicans are lumped into Bush’s related bullshit is because they generally come out and actually say they support him. It’s kind of hard not to lump all Republicans in with Bush’s corruption when they all march in lock-step with him. The Blagojevich case is different because this guy thought he was essentially God.
What you should be saying is how happy you are that Democrats don’t blindly defend one of their own (a la regards, Shodan) for no goddamned reason other than that they are Democrats. Except that we hate corruption on either side. I don’t see where you get that, honestly. When Ted Stevens was indicted, I think we all realized that he was a bad apple in particular. Did anyone think it was the Republican party’s fault?
I’d like some examples of where people concluded that Republicans were all crooked from a single example. Again, Republicans giving support to one of Bush’s crooked actions doesn’t count because if the whole damn party supports it, then it would indicate there being a difference. Really you’re making an apples to oranges comparison as far as I can tell.
It is hard for a party to turn on a guy who can deliver the seat. Bunning,Byrd and Lieberman are examples. They are almost embarrassing to watch and listen to, but they can win. The party probably thinks they can mange them. It does not always work.
How is Byrd embarrassing? He repudiated his former KKK membership ages ago, and has shown every sign of no longer being young and stupid.
He did make that “white niggers” speech in 2001, which didn’t go down too well.
Do you think Illinois politicians are really more corrupt than elsewhere, or just more inept at hiding it? Or are we more zealous in seeking it out and prosecuting it, since we’ve come to expect it’s there, and if we look hard enough, we’ll find it? After all, these things were heard on wiretaps…it’s not like he was in Grant Park kicking puppies.
I ask because, as Sarahfeena says, this system of corruption does work, most of the time. I admit I’m feeling cynical this morning, but I wonder if it’s working elsewhere, but no one’s bringing them to justice?
Okay, yeah, I’m grasping at straws here. I’d like a reason to not hate my state.
Not as corrupt as Louisiana?
Didn’t Obama support Blagojevich’s reelection?
Yep. This was an OP later merged into another thread:
I saw on the news yesterday (MSNBC) that we’re only the 18th most corrupt state if you analyze per capita - North Dakota was #1 there. 6th if you just analyze overall and using the 35 most populous states; Louisiana won that one. We just have the long history of big, highly publicized stuff and the almost mythic “kingmaking” powers of Richard M. Daley WRT JFK (not really true on analysis), etc., so when Chicago/Illinois does something, it’s confirmation bias.
And then lock the bidders up too.
Well… yeah, they did.
And after posting, I see Mr Moto got there first. 
Wow! I’m glad Chefguy speaks for all Democrats!
:rolleyes:
I found it interesting to go back and look at this 2006 thread:
Illinois Voters–Who do you support for Governor?
To recap:
Chefguy is not representative of all Democrats when he says that Ted Stevens is representative of all Republicans.
Er… right?