The Top 10 Most Corrupt Politicians for 2007
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Judicial Watch posted their list of the most corrupt politicians from the last year:
1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
2. Rep. John Conyers
3. Senator Larry Craig
4. Senator Diane Feinstein
5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani
6. Governor Mike Huckabee
7. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby
8. Senator Barack Obama
9. Rep. Nancy Pelosi
10. Senator Harry Reid
I am sure there are more, and some are probably worse, but it is still disturbing. The fact that several are candidates for president is not all that encouraging either. I was familiar with the accusations against Huckabee, Clinton, and Giuliani, but hadn't heard about Obama. I have a hard time believing a politician from Illinois is corrupt.
30 comments:
You don't see Ron Paul on that list. He gets his campaign donations from individuals.
But of course the MSM says he's a "fringe" candidate.
Color me unimpressed. Compared to the current band of theives, everyone on that list ought to be considered for canonization.
The shady real estate deal was in the news and put to bed. Doing business with major campaign donors? Umm...just about every single politician I know or have worked with. "One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed"....um, that's how legislation works. A guy just passed a majr bill for me, so yeah, I think I'll give to his campaign. "Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law." Every. Single. Legislative. Office. Does. This. Every single one. Every single office on the State level does it too. Every single one.
All of these "indictments" against the Obama campaign are things that are the course of business. This top 10 list is full of Democrats and liberal Repubicans except for Scooter Libby who you HAVE to put on a corrpution list and Senator Craig who deserves it. I smell a rat.
Let' see judicial watch apply thir same crack standards against more mainsteam Republicans. Guess what you'll find....
...exactly the same shit.
Whose fault is it? Mine. Lobbyists. If these legislators wuld only stop saying yes to our various temptations..
Huckabee and Guiliani aren't mainstream? Huckabee sure as hell aint liberal. The fact that everyone is doing it seems like poor justification. Have we really sunk that low?
The list probably is biased, to some degree, despite their claim to being bipartisan, but it seems to factual. It is certainly no more biased than Maher's list.
Huckabee and Guiliani aren't mainstream
They pretty much are. When I said "more mainstream" in my first comment, I meant quantity of those in the mainstream, not proximity to the mainstream.
The fact that everyone is doing it seems like poor justification. Have we really sunk that low?
That everyon does it really sucks. But my point there is that this "Top 10 most corrupt" is bullshit. Obama is much better by light years than a bunch of folks, but is just as bad for oing any number of things that politicians do. Thus, making these people worse than any of the others shows that what these people at Judicial Watch are doing is simply busting on people who are currently the most popular (Obama, Hillary, Giuliani and Huckster) and nailing people who are already indicted. Comparing Obama in the same list as Scooter Liby or Larry Craig?? Bullshit.
Hillary, though...I can see that one.
It is certainly no more biased than Maher's list
But Maher's list...everyone knows he's about as Liberal as you can get, and a comedian, and that his list is a tongue-in-cheek assessment of who is an asshole. And yes, those people on his list were assholes. But he does it with a degree of humor, not truth. Like the Daily Show. The danger with the not-at-all-bipartisan Judicial Watch is that thy are being serious. But again, their list is trumped-up nonsense. Yeah, it sucks all politicians are involved in some massive quid pro quo scheme, but to single-out the most popular Dems and Republicans and stick them in the same lit as convicted criminals is total bullshit, not "responsible reporting."
it seems to [be] factual
So's the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. So's what each candidate say about the other in a debate. It's all what you do with a "fact."
Oops...that comment was attributed to my wife, who must be the oen signed-in right now. But it's mine (Smitty's).
Not that she would say anything different.
It is no better or worse than any other list. There is no way to quantify corruption in any meaningful sense. I can't even say that I agree with the list, but it offers some interesting discussion (or at least it should).
I can't stand Obama's positions on many policies and his lack of experience is troubling. I think he is very intelligent and a great speaker, but he scares me in terms of the power he thinks the executive branch should have. I was never a huge fan of Huckabee, but his ethical lapses killed any chance I would have voted for him. Giuliani was never an option and I am still undecided on Hillary.
As much as I was swept-up in the blissful demagoguery of Obama's post-Iowa speech, I am still as much in Edwards' camp as I have ever been. Despite his $300 haircuts. I am only really troubled by the expense of his health care proposal and the fact that he has no reservations about doing the exact opposite of watever poliy th republicans hve.
Giuliani sacres me at the same visceral level Obama sounds like he scares you. Huckabee, as I said in a comment on another blog, is absolutly everything that is currently wrong with the Republican Party.
ANd Hillary? She belongs at the #1 spot on the "most corrupt list." She is everything that is currently wrong with the entrenched part of the Dem party.
I like Edwards, too. I still like Bill Richardson better, but Edwards has a better chance. Despite some outlandish views, I also like Ron Paul, but I doubt he will get more than 10% in any primary.
Giulini scares me and his constant references to 9-11 are annoying. Romney isn't as scary, but he seems like he will say or do whatever to get elected. What other blog did you comment on Huckabee? He seems like a persoanble guy, but there are so many etical problems and he lied about having a seminary degree.
I think I did the Huckabee thing on Mr. Furious. They all sort of run together after a while.
I was recently having a discussion with some Republican campaign staffers who I'm friends with. They lamented that your average Republican doesn't care about homosexuals or gay marriage, doesn't care about Terry Schiavo and is frankly a little tired of business bailouts and tax breaks they themselves don't get. They are annoyed their own party has bent to religious pressure when they themselves aren't so ardent. And Huckabee, in their minds, is a step even closer than Bush to a theocracy in their minds (their words, not mine).
Obama doesn't scare me. I am just concerned that he just doesn't have the experience to pull-off being the leader of the free world. He talks a GREAT talk. But is that it?
There's an incredible Obama/Edwards/Democrats discussion here. Mr. Furious does a good job. Be sure to follow the links to his buddy Toast's page.
Assuming that "Top 10" means “The 10 most corrupt”, this list is bullshit. Much more bullshit than any comedian’s top ten list, or any list from a group that isn't lying about its partisan leanings.
I wonder if anyone should be giving this list credibility by even reposting it here?
Any Top 10 politicians list that doesn't include the current President and Vice President must be a joke. Frankly, I am not sure if Larry Craig is corrupt in the sense of using his office to better himself. He's a loser, liar and a hypocrite, but I don't know about corrupt. That said, he’s a good token R. to put on the list to make it look bipartisan.
Seems to me that this is a list of every Democrat that the Republican establishment fears, as well as a list of every Republican that the establishment wants ostracized from their own party. The Democrats got on the list by being in leadership positions or having a shot at the Whitehouse. I can think of a few Dems that are lesser targets, but definitely more corrupt. In the eyes of the beltway Republicans, Huckabee and Guiliani are not mainstream. They are upsetting the applecart and must be purged.
I'm with Smitty, in that I am not overly impressed by the list. I'm not claiming that "everybody does it" is an excuse. But if you are going to create a "Top Ten list", you need some sort of distinguishing factors. That's like creating a top ten list of cheaters in the NBA based on who gets away with traveling.
Where is David Vitter? Where is Carl Rove? Where is Congressman William "Cold Hard Cash" Jefferson?
If you're curious about Judicial Watch's motivations, take a quick gander at their funders. The Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Carthage Foundation the John M. Olin Foundation, and a bunch of other neo-conservative orgs. Think MoveOn.org for the right.
But I disagree about Giuliani. He saved us from the terrorists. He singlehandedly stopped 9-11 with a series of shoulder-fired Stinger missiles, then went to Afghanistan and kicked Osama bin Laden in the balls. I know. I heard it in Rudy's stump speech.
I wonder if anyone should be giving this list credibility by even reposting it here?
Relax, Poindexter. It's for the sake of debate.
Seems to me that this is a list of every Democrat that the Republican establishment fears, as well as a list of every Republican that the establishment wants ostracized from their own party.
Yup.
As for Ron Paul, I don't see him as a fringe candidate. Dennis Kucinich is a fringe candidate. Lyndon LaRouche is a fringe candidate. Mike Gravel is a fringe candidate (and one who reminds me an aweful lot of Grandpa Simpson).
Ron Paul is an actual candidate. And he has absolutely NO CHANCE to win the nomination, let alone the White House.
I see him as the Howard Dean of 2008. He's energized a certain segment of the electorate. He's gotten the libertarians and disaffected/disenchanted Republicans excited about a candidate again. And he has some interesting ideas, some of which don't sound that bad.
But the GOP will never nominate, and America will never elect, someone who wants to go back to the Gold standard, and to replace the Income Tax with... nothing??? Or someone who says, "I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that [Washington D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Or someone who has said that the Jews have too much power in Washington. Or someone who claims that Lincoln was wrong to have started the Civil War.
Let me repeat that last one, for effect. He claims that Lincoln was wrong to have started the Civil War. After all, we could have just bought all the slaves and freed them. Um... but... BWAAAAAA?
Ron Paul violates the first rule of modern politics; he says what he THINKS, regardless of whether it is politically popular. That's why he has developed such a hard-core following. And it's also why he'll still be Congressman Paul a year from now.
There's an awful lot of heresay and conjecture in that Obama charge. But hey, those are KINDS of evidence, right? Right?
By the way, tonight Bama gets the Presidential nod.
Rickey knows his Lionel Hutz references. Bravo, Rickey...
Relax, Poindexter. It's for the sake of debate.
I knew I'd get whacked for that. lol.
"Seems to me that this is a list of every Democrat that the Republican establishment fears, as well as a list of every Republican that the establishment wants ostracized from their own party."
I doubt the establishment fears Reid, Peolosi, and Feinstein. Despite having a majority, they haven't exactly stood up to the Republicans.
Good frickin' grief! I never claimed this list was handed down to Moses, along with the 10 Commandments. If there are factual errors, then I will certainly listen. If your only leg to stand on is to attack source, then that is weak. That is just as bad as the folks who only get their news from World Net Daily, because the rest of the media is 'liberal.'
All these lists are biased, because everyone is biased to some degree. If anyone has a link to an unbiased list, I'd love to read it. If anyone knows of an unbiased think tank or unbiased advocacy group, tell me about it. There isn't one. The only way to get useful information is to use a varity of sources and make up your own mind. I don't honestly see how this is any more BS then Maher's list, which is composed almost entirely of Republicans and Democrats that haven't stood up to Republicans.
We may owe Steve an apology. I wasn't trying to attack you personally, or to question your posting of the list. In fact, I'm glad you posted it. It's been a great discussion piece, and I'd guess that everyone has agreed with at least 1/2 of the people on the list. It was a nice find, so I complement you on the post. I may have posted it if I had found it first, though obviously with a different slant.
The difference I see between this list and Maher's list is that Maher doesn't claim to be credible. When you call your list "Biggest Assholes of 2007", you pretty much know the list is somewhat satirical. I look at Judicial Watch's list as similar to Keith Olberman's daily list of "worst people in the world". I don't care if people develop lists of people or things that they hate. But to do it in the guise of some sort of legitimate organization (be it Judicial Watch or MSNBC), I have some issues there.
"I doubt the establishment fears Reid, Peolosi, and Feinstein. Despite having a majority, they haven't exactly stood up to the Republicans."
They fear Obama and others who might win the Presidency. That is why they go after them. They go after Reid, Pelosi and others because they are in leadership positions. Their performance will decide who controls Congress, so they do fear them if they are successful. (Not that I have seen a lot of “success” out of them recently.)
We may owe Steve an apology. I wasn't trying to attack you personally, or to question your posting of the list.
I definitely wasn't trying to attack Steve personally. Heck no. Steve’s posts, and critiques of what I post, keep me on my toes. Steve is thoughtful and comes from the area of the political spectrum that everyone in politics should be listening to, instead of listening to gasbag political hacks. (like me, B Mac and Andy)
Please don’t ever read malice into my posts. It is very easy to read a negative tone in blog postings and e-mails that doesn’t exist. We fire these things off fast and don’t necessarily use the best language and punctuation, so sometimes people will read an attack that is really meant for discussion.
I’d also like to mention that Smitty and others here are always willing to hand my ass to me when I post something stupid on the blog. (Not that Steve’s post is stupid). In fact, I post stupid things often enough that I expect to soon see a “Top 10 Stupid Things Bob Has Posted” list.
We just need to scrutinize our sources and make sure we too aren’t falling for a fake bipartisan source. The conservatives seem more likely to claim bipartisanship when in reality they front groups that distort research for their own ends. That said, I wouldn’t fail to scrutinize the research of a liberal think tank either. I would not print a quote from Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), without the disclaimer it is a progressive, if not Democratic, group.
I agree that the list is biased and if it is true that they are making stuff up or reporting things with little credibility, I won't bother with them in the future. I had never heard of them before someone posted a link on a forum I visit. I also didn't post this just to stir things up. If I did, I'd just post stuff from Ann Coulter (just kidding, I don't read her stuff either). I respect the people that post here and wouldn't put something up to be intentionally insulting or rude.
I htink you are right about Ron Paul. He is kind of like my deceased grandmother. The part of her barin that controls tact stopped working when she turned 90. She would just say whatever popped into her head. His other problem is that his positions don't lend well to sound bites and debates and demand amore lengthy discussions.
To be fair, the accusations of his racism seem to stem from a few sources. One was a letter from the head of some nutjob nazi group and another was a 12 year old article on a 15 year old newsletter that Paul claims he did not write. It bears further inquiry, but doesn't offer conclusive proof he is a racist.
He has also been critical of the amount of funding that goes to Israel and thinks the Israelis haven't done enough in trying to make peace with their neighbors. I don't think this means he hates Jews.
The stuff about the civil war is not correct, IMO. By the time it started, the South had made a peaceful outcome all but impossible. That being said, his problem with the Civil War was that he thought that all of the bloodshed could have been avoided if we took the same approach the UK took in ending slavery.
His stuff on taxes and the gold standard are not something I agree with, but I figure he would be held in check by Congress if he ever became President (which he won't).
a) I guess it's better to be a gasbag political hack than a bottom-feeding lobbyist responsible for the downfall of western society (Smitty, I'm looking in your direction).
b) Bob, I think you must now add "Poindexter" to your official ATK moniker. From this moment forward, you shall be known as "Chief Beer Poindexter"
Yeah, I'm not saying that he hates blacks or Jews. In fact, I doubt he does. But he's what we political gasbags call an "easy target". Politics is about perception, not reality.
Very true, b mac. He received a $500 donation from the founder of Stormfront. If you don't know what that is, I caution you in visiting their site. You will probably need to shower after going there. He kept it, figuring it is $500 less a racist nutjob has in his pocket. A better thing to have done would been to donate it to some anti-racist charity.
"The conservatives seem more likely to claim bipartisanship when in reality they front groups that distort research for their own ends."
Bob, I think it is more a matter of perception. I doubt any side does it more than the other. I have seen plenty of lefty groups (along with righty) that try to hide their leanings behind innocous sounding names, like the Center for Media and Democracy. They claim:
"The nonprofit Center for Media and Democracy strengthens participatory democracy by investigating and exposing public relations spin and propaganda, and by promoting media literacy and citizen journalism, media "of, by and for the people." Our programs include PR Watch, a quarterly investigative journal; six books by CMD staff; Spin of the Day; the Weekly Spin listserv; and, Congresspedia and SourceWatch, part of our wiki-based investigative journalism collaborative to which anyone, including you, can contribute."
They are very biased in favor of the left. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but they certainly have an agenda.
In the areas where I feel I know something, such as gun rights, I am very familiar with the distortions (and lies) of left leaning groups, such as the Brady Campaign and other gun-control groups.
I know the right does this too, but I can't say they have the edge.
bottom-feeding lobbyist
You know what else is a bottom-feeder? Shrimp. And lobster. And people LOVE shrimp and lobster. Most expensive things on the menu.
And hopefully, steve, you feel personally attacked by our vehement outbursts about the top 10 list you found. All you saw were politcal hacks rippingapart a source we don't agree with. That's how political hacks roll.
And bottom-feeding lobbyists.
People who don't agree with me are wrong.
Why is that so hard to understand???
And hopefully, steve, you feel personally attacked by our vehement outbursts
DON'T!!! DON'T!!! I MEANT I HOPE YOU DON'T FEEL PERSONALLY ATTACKED!!! GAH!!
Screw that... Steve, may you feel personally de-balled by all of us. :)
No worries. The day I feel deballed because of teh internets, is the day I have no balls. Hows that for a circular argument?
Er, by the way, please disreguard Rickey's comment from yesterday about Bama winning the NH primary on Monday night. We've just been informed that is an electoral impossibility. Fuck. So much for Rickey's political astuteness.
Don't pay attention to anything that Judicial Watch says. It's the baby of ultra-right-winger Richard Mellon Scaife. They all spend a lot of time and money going after Bill Clinton back in the 1990s.
Post a Comment