Depoliticizing corruption: Media figures miscast GOP-laden scandals as "nonpartisan"
A number of national media figures have cast the recent spate of political scandals as "nonpartisan," despite the fact that the vast majority of government officials who have been indicted or are under investigation are Republicans. In breaking down the "series of scandals ... currently dogging high-level elected officials," Washington Post staff writer Chris Cillizza lumped a former Democratic member of Congress in with current government officials, apparently to beef up the numbers on the Democrats' side of the ledger. MSNBC host Chris Matthews asserted that "there's no difference in the saliva test" between corrupt Republicans and Democrats. Post staff writer Jeffrey H. Birnbaum quoted a Republican pollster in reporting that "voters think less of both political parties the more prominent the issue of corruption in Washington becomes." By framing the recent political scandals as affecting "both political parties" (or "Washington" in general), Cillizza, Matthews, and Birnbaum obscured the fact that the vast majority of these scandals involve Republicans.
The number of scandals involving high-level Republicans in the House, Senate, and White House continues to grow:
- On November 28, former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) resigned from the House of Representatives after pleading guilty to accepting bribes from defense contractors.
- Cunningham's resignation follows GOP lobbyist Michael Scanlon's November 21 unrelated admission to conspiring to bribe a member of Congress and other public officials. The federal investigation into the alleged defrauding of Indian casinos by Scanlon and GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff may expand to members of Congress, such as House Administration Committee chairman Bob Ney (R-OH), who was reportedly identified (though not by name) in court papers regarding the case, according to a November 22 New York Times article.
- The Abramoff investigation also led to the October 5 indictment of former General Services Administration chief of staff David Safavian for obstruction of justice and lying to investigators.
- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, was indicted on October 28 for perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements in the investigation into the alleged outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald reportedly continues to investigate other White House officials over their possible involvement in the leak.
- Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) stepped down from his leadership post after being indicted on September 28 on charges of money-laundering and conspiracy to violate Texas campaign finance law.
- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) is under investigation by federal prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission for initiating the sale of stock in HCA Inc., a hospital chain founded by his family, shortly before a weak earnings report caused the company's share price to plummet.
Cillizza, in a November 29 entry on his Post weblog, The Fix, wrote that "scandals are nothing new in politics," and noted that Cunningham's guilty plea "is just the latest in a series of scandals -- some large, some small -- currently dogging high-level elected officials." Cillizza offered a "political scandal scorecard," which included DeLay, Ney, Cunningham, Frist, and a number of other Republicans, as well as Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA) and Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat*. Cillizza claimed that the "scorecard" was limited "to members of Congress and governors currently in office to keep the list manageable," but then said he was making a "small exception to the rule" for former Rep. Frank Ballance (D-NC). Ballance, who resigned in June 2004 after less than one full term in office, pleaded guilty in November 2004 to charges that he illegally redirected $2.3 million in state funds to a charity he operated. According to Cillizza: "Yes, we said we're limiting this list to current members, but this is a fairly recent case so we're making a small exception to the rule."
Matthews, in discussing Cunningham's resignation with former House counsel Stan Brand on the November 29 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, cast political corruption as a nonpartisan issue:
MATTHEWS: Just to brag about my profession, a good newspaperman went out there and noticed, apparently, that this guy [Cunningham] was selling his house at about double the market rate to a defense contractor -- a contractor who's doing business with the government. And that's these pass-throughs, these -- same thing with [former Rep. James] Traficant [D-OH]. Remember, they bought his houseboat at some exorbitant price, the congressman, the Democrat? You're in this business, you've defended a lot. Is this basically nonpartisan, this kind of corruption?
BRAND: Oh, absolutely.
MATTHEWS: Just stealing money?
BRAND: Because look, in the past, we've certainly had Democratic scandals. There were more Democrats --
MATTHEWS: So there's no difference in the saliva test of these guys. The corruption is in a person's character, not in their politics?
BRAND: I think so, but again, the notion that they would get away with it is engendered by the fact that there was no adverse party to look at any of the stuff and force the issue. And they thought they were insulated from review.
MATTHEWS: Because he could.
BRAND: Because he could.
Birnbaum reported in a November 29 Washington Post article: "But pollsters say that voters think less of both political parties the more prominent the issue of corruption in Washington becomes. ... No fewer than seven lawmakers, including a Democrat, have been indicted, have pleaded guilty or are under investigation for improper conduct." Birnbaum also quoted GOP pollster William McInturff as saying: "The indictments and investigations have strengthened the feeling that people have that in fact there's too much money in Washington and that the money is being used to influence official decisions." Birnbaum's report missed a key point: One reason that allegations of corruption are hurting both political parties is because media figures such as Birnbaum are casting current national scandals as a "bipartisan" problem when, by his own tally, Republican lawmakers who "have been indicted, have pleaded guilty or are under investigation" outnumber Democrats 6 to 1.
* According to an August 14 Washington Post article, "Investigators are looking into whether Jefferson, 58, illegally pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars of an investor's money from business transactions." The Chicago Tribune reported on October 30 that Blagojevich "has found his administration subjected to federal and state investigations into allegations ranging from pay-to-play politics to potential political kickbacks involving his appointees."
...here's the "saliva test":
If, for the sake of argument, we suppose a congressman, for example, say Democrat John Murtha; if we supposed that he were possibly taking bribes from defense contractors, would he have proposed a resolution to gradually redeploy our forces over a 6 month period, leaving an "over-the-horizon" force in the region, thereby setting an end date to the interminable Operation Iraqi Freedom, and in the process an end to the funding of that operation?
Or is it more likely to suppose that someone, for example say Republican Randall "Duke" Cunningham, who might be taking bribes from defense contractors, would instead oppose redeployment, and propose greater and greater funding for that interminable operation?
I mean if you agree with the supposition, of a congressman taking bribes from a defense contractor, would you think he would oppose a gradual redeployment, or be in favor of interminally continued funding for Operation Iraqi Freedom?
If I were interested in seperating out those congressman who might be taking bribes from defense contractors, from those who were not, I'd find out how they felt about gradual redeployment, and about the interminable funding of Operation Iraqi Freedom:
I'd ask for the yeas and nays on that question.
I don't need to hear from Democrat John Murtha though; I already know how he feels about it. For that matter I believe I already know how most Democrats in the House feel about it...
...and now that I think about it, I guess I know how most Republicans in the House feel too; certainly I know Republican Randall "Duke" Cunningham's (bought and paid for) opinion on the question.
That would be my "saliva test".
...as for what defense contractor General Electric's employee Chris Matthews "saliva test" might be, who cares...
He's bought and paid for; his opinion doesn't mean "spit".
Is it a coincidence there are more Republicans in this cycle of control that seem to be having difficulties with regards to scandals?
After all, isn't the Republican party supposed to be the one that's moral and righteous??
Isn't that what shrub campaigned with back in 2000?
They sound like a bunch of hypocrites to me..
I guess it's that damned "liberal media" again, reporting on these scandals......
The "liberal media" lie is a big lie told by the lying Republicans.
Liar Chris Matthews pro-Republican apologist tone for the corrupt Republicans, and his attacks on the Democrats, prove that the conservative media continues to be apologists for the Republican Party.
This right wing conservative corporate Republican media is doing everything they can to protect and sustain the conservative Republican Party. They're MORE corrupt than the Republicans in Congress, in too many cases.
I watched Chris Matthews says this in utter disbelief...does he not remember the amount of indictments during the past Nixon and Reagan terms?>? Sure , the Clinton White House was investigated ad nauseum, but nothing was found (except Monica), no murders, no corruption w/ land dealings, no campaign irregularities, NO CRIMINAL wrongdoing, and all the while when Clinton bombed Iraq and went to Bosnia, it was, according to Repubs, a wag the dog...a way to get attention off the Starr investigations (which were, after 45 million$ leading nowhere). I used to enjoy Hardball..no more...Chris Matthews is too much of an insider and does not see the BIG picture.
I noticed when I read an article online about ol Duke confessing that they didn't mention party affiliation. But golly they're all the same those politicians except for right now almost all of them are Republicans. Strange I wonder why they don't want to focus on that. Do you think they would if most of them were Democrats? Nah, that would never, ever happen.
This is a probably true that most "voters think less of both political parties the more prominent the issue of corruption in Washington becomes." Largely due to the fact most voters don't even know a Congressperson's issues when they vote. Some guy shows up on the TV ready to do the frog step all they know is he is a politician, don't you hate them all? It's a brillant Right move to cast all politician in their shadow it makes voting for the average guy that much more muddled. After running on the we can clean up government and the "Contract with America" this is pathetic as is anyone who would defend it. "Contract with America" can we sue the Republican party for breech of contract? Maybe we could pay back some of the debt their running up.
It would be "non-partisan" if there were 100 percent participation by Repukes and 1 Democrat.
It's a Democratic scandal if the initial person caught is a Democrat.
And, of course, the old standby, when they know they're really in trouble - "Well, Clinton did it/said the same thing" - whether he did or not.
I have heard more than one person say that "Nixon didn't do anything anyone else didn't do, he just got caught." The same mind-set appears to be pervasive at MSNBC, Fox, etc. Republicans getting caught in criminal acts? Well, some Democrats have been caught, too! Bush's poll numbers are in the basement? Well, Clinton's were, too! The swiftboat vets tell malicious lies? Well, MoveOn.org said some things that weren't 100% accurate, too!
It's all so whiny and petulant. I teach K-2nd at my church, and I've had to deal with an occasional scrap between children. Sometimes one of them will use the "He did it, too!" argument. I don't accept it from my kindergarteners, and I won't accept it from the media.
So by Matthew's logic, "So there's no difference in the saliva test of these guys. The corruption is in a person's character, not in their politics?" it follows:House Republicans are corrupt; those whose personalities are corruptable tend to be conservative: therefore Republican politics are corrupt.
Works for me.
So by Matthew's logic, "So there's no difference in the saliva test of these guys. The corruption is in a person's character, not in their politics?" it follows:House Republicans are corrupt; those whose personalities are corruptable tend to be conservative: therefore Republican politics are corrupt.
Works for me.
It isn't really a matter of personalities--people from any political perspective can be corrupt. There is, however, an inherent corruption in conservatism. The conservative is the representative of the status quo. That status quo is always the element with the money--it's the part of society which has materially benefitted from how things are--and it's always willing to pay quite handsomely to protect its interests. The Cunningham matter is a very crude example of this (Cunningham seems to have been undone by his own rapacity). Most of this corruption, however, is entirely legal--they've already rigged that game.
When it was revealed that Bush's Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle (along with other members of that body) stood to make enormous financial gains from the Iraq war policy he was forcefully advocating, he angrily denied that this had anything to do with his advocacy of those policies. And that's probably true. But we can't take his word on something like that. Cheney with Halliburton, same story. It would be insane to take someone's word on that.
When Republicans took over congress in 1994, one of their first actions was to organize a "working group" that met every Thursday. This was a weekly meeting with lobbyists for regulated industries--the ones which had just financed the Republican takeover of congress--where the Republicans were told by their Masters how they were to run the government. Time after time, lobbyists for the industries affected by a given regulation were allowed to, themselves, write the laws under which they'd be regulated in the future, all the while giving massive amounts of money to those who were going along with this. This corruption is systemic, and it's how conservatism is inherently corrupt.
Sure there's a saliva test. If your constituency is ordinary people, and you believe that government is capable of doing good for everyone, then what do you owe the people who put you in office? You must support laws and policies which forward the public interests and oppose those which violate the public trust.
If your constituency consists of deep-pocket campaign contributors, and you believe that the money spent by the government is all wasted anyway, then what do you owe the people who put you in office? Why not lavish some of that "wasted anyway" money on your friends? When the deficit soars, you can cut all those great society programs that you hate anyway. There's no down side unless you get caught.
The Columbia Journalism Revue gives a view from the standpoint of journalistic integrity in regards to a NYT article about corruption in DC.
~~~
Take for example today's New York Times, in which reporters John M. Broder and Carl Hulse file a story about how Republicans are distancing themselves from now-former California Rep. Randy Cunningham, who resigned earlier this week after pleading guilty to taking over $2 million in bribes and evading taxes.
Up top, the two reporters include a paragraph attributed to "some Republican officials" who claim that "Democrats in Congress were equally guilty of questionable behavior, including lobbyist-paid trips and underreporting of campaign contributions."
First, we were under the impression that the Times was trying to crack down on anonymous sources, or at least tell its readers why whoever was doing the speaking can't go on record. The phrase "some Republican officials" tells us exactly nothing. The vice president is a Republican official, but then so is the treasurer of a county-level clubhouse in Obscure, Nebraska. So, who was it?
Beyond that, why does the Times blindly quote the claim that Democrats in Congress are "equally as guilty" as Republicans of "questionable behavior," without naming names or giving examples, or at least insisting that those mysterious "some Republicans" do so?
Are some Democrats involved in "questionable behavior?" Of that, we have little doubt. Are they "equally as guilty" as Republicans? According to recent history, not even close.
Sorry,
Here is the link to the CJR article I was quoting from for your reference:
[link to www.cjrdaily.org]
Why is it so important to group the issue of scandals has something the Democrats do just as much as Republicans? You would think this argument would be the Republicans first line of defense for the resent scandals that has defined the Party's behavior. When the media advances this argument, the Democrats are the same, does it follow that we live in a left wing media bias? The truthful answer to the last questions points to where the real bias is, and it is not to the left of the political spectrum.
Balancing the blame is an media ploy to keep the argument going;thus, keeping both parties equal and fit to keep fighting. This tactic will always help the Party in power because it creates a false common sense response that changing Parties would lead to more of the same. Fair and balanced is what the media will claim their objective is in reporting the news. Thank god for media matters, who I feel is the only organization willing to sort out these suttle forms of misguided tactics and expose it for what it really is.
VOTERS are supposed to be EQUALLY ANGRY with corruption. When DeLay is indicted, the Voter is supposed to be EQUALLY ANGRY with those corrupt Democrats. Cunningham, Frist, VOTERS are supposed to be EQUALLY ANGRY with Democrats.
Or, as an acceptable alternative, it's OK to NOT be angry at Republican crooks, because some Democrats in the past have been corrupt as well.
As long as the VOTER doesn't let the FACT of rampant Republican corruption affect their vote in November.
It wouldn't do for GOPers to be held accountable for their record of arrogance, greed and corruption.