Comments on: Vote Republican: We’re not THE Party of Corruption, Just A Party of Corruption

By: J Thomas

J Thomas — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:55:18 +0000

Virgil, Republicans don’t actually have to climb that mountain. It isn’t like they’re in a race to see how fast they can outdo the previous record-setting levels of corruption.

Or if Republicans are trying to win the corruption race, could we please make it easier for third parties? If Democrats are just as bad, get rid of them both.

By: virgil xenophon

virgil xenophon — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:56:19 +0000

john emerson: The reason Republicans are making up for lost time in the Prairie State is that they have such a huge mountain to climb. Ever heard of Shoe-box Paul Powell(forever pronounced as one word) the Democrat Secretary of State from Southern Ill. who died in a hotel in Springfield in 1970 with $800,000.00 in a shoe-box under his bed? Whose salary never exceeded $30,000.00? Well, it was slightly more than one shoe-box; for a great read go to: http://www.tommcmahon.net/2005/12/paul_powell_the.html-28k ; or, alternatively,
hit http://www.time.com/magazine/article/0,9171,942440,00.html-36k or just Google “Shoe-box Paul Powell”. He practically built modern-day SIU with all the State money he funneled into Carbondale. Google has about 20 pages on Paul in particular. And Illinois in general? Much more. Shoe-box was some kinda guy.
Unlike Kerner he beat the rap by heading by-by
ahead of the prosecutors.(PS: He also had 49 cases of whiskey, 2 cases of creamed corn and 14 transistor radios in his room—Be sure to read the entire Tom McMahon article, it’s a hoot!)

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:08:53 +0000

I think that we should grant them the title for the moment, though, Brett.

In the popular mind corruption is still associated more with Democrats, but a lot of that is because of stuff that happened decades ago. The Republicans’ opening statement is still “We’re fiscal conservatives, deficit hawks, and squeaky clean—not like those Democrats!”, but when they run into someone minimally well informed they quickly retreat to “They’re as bad as we are!”

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:34:13 +0000

Admittedly, “We’re not THE Party of Corruption, Just A Party of Corruption” isn’t much of a defense, but it does at least have the virtue of being true. Unfortunately.

By: Rev Ray Dubuque

Rev Ray Dubuque — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:22:29 +0000

Thank you, MSS, for correcting the misinformation spouted about the Germans having to choose between Nazism and Communism in the early 1930s:
“Germany, 1932, July (second election that year):

37.3% Nazi
21.6% Social Democrats
14.6% Communist
12.4% Centre

The “Centre” the semi-offical party of the Roman Catholic who represented 1/3rd of the German population and was crucial to Hitler’s rise to power. The year after the election above, the future Pius XII shut down this party and Catholics who had formerly been warned NOT the join the Nazi party were freed to support Hitler, Goebbels and the many other Roman Catholic leaders of the Nazi party, all of which I spell out clearly and forcefully at CatholicArrogance.Org/RCscandal .

By: e julius drivingstorm

e julius drivingstorm — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 18:01:17 +0000

Frank, you may have misread me at 41. I did not intend to place sex with minors on the same level as sex with animals. Perhaps you should run two indices on your CCI to differentiate. Otherwise, your concept is obviously sound.

By: abb1

abb1 — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:57:11 +0000

You’re right that the quid pro quo may include abstaining from acting, but I’m not sure the hypothetical damage caused by corruption needs to be included into the measurement. A minor incident may inflict tremendous direct damage, ubiquitous corruption may have little discernible (palpable) result. Depending on the laws/rules/obligation being broken it can even be beneficial to everybody, but it’s still corruption.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:08:42 +0000

abb1, since the mortgage meltdown is the result, I’m told so often by Dems, of regulatory failure, as in a failure to regulate, we don’t just need to ask what Dodd did do, but what he didn’t. And he didn’t do anything. As to the measure, surely it isn’t just a question of the value provided, but also of the harm caused. Can’t we draw a straight line from Dodd’s mortgage to his failure to legislate and failure to provide effective oversight to the current economic recession? Sure we can. The direct federal fiscal cost is on the hundreds of billions of dollars this year so far.

By: bi

bi — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:10:13 +0000

e, abb1:

I propose Frank Bi’s Cultural Corruption Index, which is computed by taking the total amount of bribes received in US dollars, and raising it to the power of the number of incidents of sex with minors and barnyard animals, and divided by the Fibonacci number corresponding to the GDP increase in Euros.

—bi, International Journal of Inactivism

By: abb1

abb1 — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:22:35 +0000

The amount of a bribe alone doesn’t tell you if someone is cheap or expensive, you have to divide it by the value of the service provided. If Dodd didn’t do anything at all for the Countrywide, then he’s infinitely more expensive than Tauzin who’s being payed mere millions for providing the service worth billions.

So, what should be the unit of corruption to facilitate a fair comparison?

By: Thomas

Thomas — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 05:05:41 +0000

e, it really doesn’t speak well for Democrats that so many of you are proud that elected Dems can be bought cheap.

By: e julius drivingstorm

e julius drivingstorm — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:38:17 +0000

It’s time to introduce a 10-to-1 rule of corruption. If a convicted Duke Cunningham took more than ten times as much in bribes than an as yet untried Jefferson, then the Republicans cannot claim that the Dems are just as bad. Similarly, if ten times as many Repubs have sex with minors or barnyard animals than Dems do,…you get the idea.

This rule should only apply to current office-holders.

By: Bruce Baugh

Bruce Baugh — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:25:52 +0000

For some of us, it matters that yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling was 5-4 in favor of fundamentals of law and justice, rather than 4-5 against, and we see that one party provides a lot more justices serious about that than the other. It’s a handy demonstration.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:58:06 +0000

Luxemburg

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:54:13 +0000

Yeah, but the 1918 SDs allowed Luxumberg et al to be killed.