I perused it briefly, not surprised that there was only one “token” Republican mentioned, which led me to believe this was conservative trash. I looked up a few things on Judicial Watch and they have an interesting history, and they’ve gone after the likes of Dick Cheney and Halliburton before (Judicial Watch - Wikipedia), so they aren’t completely a cog in the Republican machine, AFAICT.
What say ye? Anyone care to debate the purpose or existence of this entity? How about debating some of the assertions on the list of “corrupt politicians”, which includes President Obama?
Is this just dreck or are they largely factual or what?
Seems pretty hackish. As Magellan says, they could be a Conservative Watchdog, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but the list seems to be bending over backwards to not just make a list of corrupt Democrats, but ignored Democrats who were more obviously corrupt in order to get the “big names” on there. And to get the big names on there, they play really loose with both facts, timelines and even if you agree everything they say is true, its a stretch to call a lot of it “corruption”.
Its a stretch to say “being soft on terror” is corruption, for example, even if its true. Obama “Being interviewed by the FBI” sounds bad, but given there was never any suggestion of even suspected wrong doing, its obviously just being used to pad the list. Pelosi’s asking the Pentagon for a plane was simply a request to continue a practice started( continued?) by the previous Republican Speaker, and even if it wasn’t, asking the Air Force for use of a plane isn’t corruption unless she tries to strong arm them into it somehow. Sending Elian Gonzales back to Cuba was controversial, but that doesn’t make it “corrupt” (and its also a little bit before 2009).
As a simple rule of thumb, when someone mentions Obama’s “czars”, you can pretty much just assume they’re a hack.
Some of the stuff is actual corruption (Baglovitch and Rangel would be on anybodies list of corrupt politicians for example), but they’re just throwing them on there to try and associate them with the politicians they’re actually interested in going after.
As I said, there’s nothing wrong with being a partisan watchdog so long as you go after members of the other party for actual corruption. But the group linked to is just trying to manufacture scandal out of political disagreements, innuendo and optics to go after the politicians they don’t like rather then actually try and root out corruption in the Democratic party.
Are there any truly non-partisan (if not unbiased) watchdog web sites? Or it is a facet of human nature that everybody everywhere has some pre-existing axe to grind?
That was kind of my thrust…I know media terms like “conservative thinktank” or “watchdog” get tossed around rather blithely without really explaining what that even really means (though as I typed that, there’s the obvious definition in the name itself). I would be interested to see websites/media outlets that are truly unbiased politically that simply report on ongoing issues with elected officials and political parties without resorting to distortions to portray their interpretation of events.
Like John says, maybe that’s just impossible these days.
No, it is a facet of watchdogging that the function logically requires some pre-existing axe to grind. E.g., Human Rights Watch is predicated on a concern for human rights, which sounds neutral and irreproachable, except that human rights, of course, have no objective definition; so including gay rights on the list or leaving them off reflects bias either way.
True, but a good watchdog will still call out people on their side if they violate the principles they have already created. And not just in a token fashion so as to appear unbiased when they are not.
I get a lot of mail that a lot of you don’t get. I have two pet peeves. The first (it would clearly apply on either side of the aisle) is “P.S.” messages in political solicitations that are preprinted. Invariably, the P.S. is nothing more than the tenth repetition of what was said in the letter. Really, there should not ever be a P.S. in a pre-composed letter.
The second is the invocation of specific bugbears. The “Hillary Clinton agenda” or “Ted Kennedy agenda” were the ones that bugged me the most. Tell me why you object to policy X, not who (you allege) is driving it.
Judicial Watch starts from the premise that the judiciary has been politicized by liberals, so its villains will be liberals. Not surprising, and many (not all) of their critiques are valid. I think they were behind the Bill Clinton Arkansas bar discipline proceedings, which most can agree were a good thing, as lawyers being punished for perjury can hardly be controversial. But yes, they will be selective.
Maybe, but as I said, my problem isn’t that they’re selective. If they listed ten Democrats for actual acts of corruption, I’d say they’re selective, but still a valid watchdog organization. And there are certainly ten such members. But Judicial Watch decided they needed to have Pelosi and Obama and Holder on there, so they padded out the lists with things that aren’t actual charges of corruption instead of listing .
Here’s a liberal watchdog list of “most corrupt members of Congress”. Click on some of the links, note the detailed list of actual investigations by the Justice Apartment, actual conflicts of interest, etc. There’s no insinuations, like mentioning Obama was interviewed by the FBI, but not mentioning he wasn’t a suspect or accused of any wrong-doing. There’s no puffed up outrage items, like Pelosi asking for a bigger plane. There’s no vague mention of long past political controversies like Elian Gonzales, or vaguely defined “czars”, or “being soft on terror”.
CREW is a partisan but valid and honest watchdog group. Judical Watch, at least judging by the list linked in the OP, appears to be a bunch of political hacks more interested in spinning outrage against the Dems then actually monitoring the gov’t for corruption.
Larry Klayman, who founded Judicial Watch, once sued his own mother over reimbursement for funds spent caring for his grandmother. To me, this colored my view of his legal judgment and caused me to classify all of his lawsuits in the crank category. Klayman has left JW and is in fact currently suing it. Sooner or later, they’re all going to implode.
This is politics. How many liberal groups devoted more time to Murkowski than to GWB (who had few if any ties to direct “corruption”)?
20% of the members listed there as unethical are black (by a liberal group, in a country that is 12% black). How do you think liberals would react if Judicial Watch launched an attack based on that rationale on the “most corrupt members of Congress?” Just curious. Given that the Congressional Black Caucus is on record against any stringent ethics enquiries. http://nlpc.org/stories/2010/06/07/congressional-black-caucus-asks-congress-restrict-power-ethics-board
All of them? None of them? 187 of them? I don’t see how either answer changes my argument. I’m certainly not claiming that every liberal organization is a legitimate watchdog group. I’m claiming that “Judicial Watches 10 most corrupt Politicans List” is bunk. And its not how much “time” Judicial Watch spent on Obama, its the disregard for the meaning of the word “corruption” in order to justify putting him, Pelosi and Holder in the list.
How would I think liberals would react if Judicial Watch launched an attack based on CREW’s listing of sevearal black members of Congress on their list of corrupt members? I’m not sure what this means, nevermind how “liberals” would react, and I certainly don’t see how its relevant to my post.