Asserting that "Democratic rogues" are "starting to stack up" against corrupt Republicans, ABC's Klein ignored several high-profile GOP cases
SUMMARY: In a post on ABCNews.com's The Note, Rick Klein asserted that "the emerging lineup of Democratic rogues is starting to stack up against" several Republicans accused of corruption and scandal, but in the slate of people he listed, he omitted numerous examples of high-profile Republicans embroiled in criminal or ethical scandals, such as Rep. Don Young, Sen. Ted Stevens, and Rep. Rick Renzi.
In the wake of the December 9 arrest of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), ABC News senior political reporter Rick Klein asserted in a December 10 blog post on The Note that "the emerging lineup of Democratic rogues is starting to stack up against" several Republicans accused of corruption and scandal, but in the slate of people he listed, he omitted numerous examples of high-profile Republicans embroiled in criminal or ethical scandals. While Klein named "the GOP grouping of Abramoff/Foley/Tom DeLay/Bob Ney/Larry Craig/David Vitter," several investigated, indicted, convicted, or incarcerated Republican figures are notably absent:
- Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, who, on October 27, was found "guilty on seven felony counts, each with a maximum penalty of five years in prison," as The Washington Post reported.
- Alaska Rep. Don Young, who, according to a July 25, 2007, Wall Street Journal report, is "under criminal investigation" for whether he "accepted bribes, illegal gratuities or unreported gifts from VECO Corp., Alaska's largest oil-field engineering firm." As recently as December 10, Roll Call reported (subscription required) that Young still "faces legal scrutiny for his relationship to an oil services company." Additionally, the Anchorage Daily News reported on December 9: "Since the beginning of 2007, Young has spent more than $1 million in campaign contributions on legal fees related to a Justice Department probe -- which includes an investigation into fundraising."
- Former vice-presidential candidate and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who was found by the Alaska Legislative Council to have "abused her power in pushing for the firing of an Alaska state trooper who was once married to her sister, or by failing to prevent her husband Todd from doing so," according to an October 10 Anchorage Daily News article. Palin was later exonerated in the scandal, known as "Troopergate," by a state Personnel Board-sanctioned investigation, which found that she did not abuse her power. However, as the Associated Press pointed out on September 23, Personnel Board members are appointed -- and can be fired -- by the governor.
- Arizona Rep. Rick Renzi, who, as Roll Call reported (subscription required) on December 8, "faces trial in March on corruption charges." Renzi was indicted February 22 "on charges of federal conspiracy, fraud, extortion and money laundering related to a land-swap deal in his home state," according to a December 7 Congressional Quarterly Weekly article (accessed in the Nexis news database).
- Nevada Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki, who was indicted December 3 by a grand jury "on four counts of misappropriation and falsification of public records," The Hill reported.
- Former California Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who pleaded guilty in 2005 to conspiracy to accept bribes from defense contractors, mail fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion, and was sentenced to more than eight years in prison.
- Former vice-presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to federal investigators in the Justice Department investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame. President Bush commuted Libby's 30-month prison sentence on July 2, 2007.
Additionally, the title of Klein's post, "Democrats' 'Culture of Corruption,' " echoed what he reported is the Republicans' argument: that "the 'culture of corruption' tag belongs firmly on the other side of the aisle these days."
Ted Stevens and what about the GOP congressman Vito Fosella and his DWI conviction? Larry Craig and his sexcapades?
Karl Rove?
So Klein leaves out a few crooked Republicans for MMFA's satisfaction. He mentions plenty and the point remains unchanged. Both parties, if given enough power to abuse all by themselves, will start to bend themselves crooked.
Corrupt politicians should be scorned and hung out to dry by everyone, irrespective of partisanship. It should not be used to point fingers and say one side is worse than the other.
It's sad when defending a political party with a scorecard becomes more important than nonpartisan condemnation of all.
You do have a good point. It might help if there was some sort of tone set by MM - is it tapping on the shoulder or pointing a finger?
Beyond that I agree 100%
Sweet, naive Tommy. You just don't understand that awful MMFA trying to excuse the Dems by saying the (R) s have more corruption. That must break your heart to see them defend the evildoing you hate so much.
... Blagojevich... is allowing Republicans to argue that that the “culture of corruption” tag belongs firmly on the other side of the aisle these days.
The Title of the piece assigned the "Culture of Corruption" label to the Dems. MMFA is not excusing nor minimizing Dem dirty deeds. They're pointing out that with a relatively lower level of corruption than Repubs, the Dems are characterized in the media as the dirtier party.
I know it's your job to wring your hands and be offended at MMFA's items, but it's Klein who's distorting things here.
"MMFA is not excusing nor minimizing Dem dirty deeds"
Best post of the day!!
I almost added "done dirt cheap", but you know restraint is my middle name.
Wow, the list of GOP crooks that Klein omits is longer than the list he cites.
Yes it is...
What is the point Snoop? It's like many of you celebrate whenever there is crooked goings on from the "other side". To me, it's sickening, no matter who does it. It poisons our entire process and there is no upside for anyone, unless as I said, one takes delight in such things. I don't.
I take delight in seeing crooked politicians get caught...particularly the really hypocritical ones. I'm a big fan of justice...
I agree completely. I just don't get caught up in the tallying game.
The Dems were quick to call for him to step down and they do not want him to fill the senate seat. They would rather have the seat go up to re-election even if that means a republican takes it. Dems aren't perfect, but I still trust them a helluva lot more than I do the Repubs.
This reminds me of the old saying since when a child is told he did something wrong. The child usually says "Well so and so did it also".
Nice MMFA.
You're right, and as been said so often by the sage, Bill O'Reilly, 'you don't excuse bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior."
I'm not sure how it can be assumed that they're trying to excuse anything. If you make a list shorter in order to suggest equivalence, then that's clearly misleading.
Do you think he may have shortened the list for both sides?
Equally? I don't know, but if it does I would say that would invalidate the article.
Equivalence? It doesn't matter whether there's 30 crooked Republicans and 20 crooked Democrats, that is the point. It's not the numbers game, it's rotten with one or a hundred.
Tommy, are you saying Media Matters should not highlight when media types author a story that promotes the idea that Democrats are more corrupt than Republicans?
No, Tommy would never say anything that straightforward. He's saying that he is pure and decent and unbiased, and all corruption makes him so sad that he can't even reach the position of noticing whose corruption is being emphasized.
I don't celebrate corruption from either political party, as apparently you do Colonel. If that's being pure and decent, so be it. :)
Stop making stuff up, Tommy. Nobody's celebrating corruption, just pointing out that the media tend to magnify one parties over the other's. I know you understand that, but you need to meet your cuteness quota for the day.
"Stop making stuff up, Tommy"
"No, Tommy would never say anything that straightforward. He's saying that he is pure and decent and unbiased, and all corruption makes him so sad that he can't even reach the position of noticing whose corruption is being emphasized"
Follow your own advice Col. Half your posts here are cute little snarky comedic summaries you make up. Get real.
Sorry for misrepresenting what you wrote, Tommy. Does that make it feel better?
OT, but I'm hoping this doesn't reflect poorly on you Colonel.
I'll do my employee reviews the way I want to.
I don't care who has more, that is the point. 20 is nothing to take solace in if the other side has 30.
It's not about taking solace in numbers. I don't think you're gonna find a single liberal here who doesn't want the democratic scum purged ASAP. The real point is too bad we can't say the same for the GOP talking heads who have made every excuse imaginable for republican crooks.
So then Klein is wrong for counting and doubly wrong for miss-stacking the deck. Shame on him twice.
Right. But as far as public perception goes, it's not right to act as if both sides have the same number.
As I said, only hardline partisans care about the numbers and keeping score. I don't.
Well, if there's 50 corrupt on one side, and three on the other, shouldn't the public get an accurate picture of that? It would certainly indicate that there's more of a problem on one side of the aisle, which would seem relevant.
Is there 50 and 3?
I think the real issue is that some of the partisans on here are against any news of a Democratic politiican being linked to a scandal. If they had control of the news , that would be censored. Not allowed by the Partisans.
I have yet to see a single person try to excuse this douchebag. Every blog, every post I've seen has called for his head on a stake.
But not without pointing out the rottenness on the other side too.
Wrong. Every site I've visited, every post I've seen has unequivocally blasted Blagojevich, without any downplaying efforts whatsoever.
Really? Then perhaps you missed the thread to which you are responding.
This site isn't a news site or a commentary site, first off. Also, can you tell me specifically what you're referring to, please?
"Every site I've visited"
Sorry, I thought you said every.
This site hasn't made any subjective declarations about Blagojevich. Did you think I meant ihasacheezburger.com as well when I said every site?
Again, what specifically are you referring to? What is there on this thread that tries to excuse him?
By being more concerned with some scorecard of crooks, which is a typical tactic of those who want to excuse someone's bad behavior, as Steve said, by pointing out others bad behavior. Surely you're not this naive.
If there was no story being forwarded about how the disparity is being misrepresented, you would have a point. But when there's a reaction to such a story, then the complaint is clear, and there's no reason to look for an ulterior motive. Steve didn't pursue an argument to the contrary, would you like to?
Not trying to excuse it but sure trying to change the subject.
Next - More Bush scandal news.
You have to tell me how this complaint isn't legitimate. If it's a genuine criticism of Klein, then you can't very well assert that the motivation is to "change the subject".
"As I said, only hardline partisans care about the numbers and keeping score."
So let me get this straight. You don't care about keeping score, period. But if it's a big difference in numbers, then you do care?
Did I say that? I only asked you to elaborate on the numbers you gave, that's all.
The actuality of the numbers is irrelevant, by your own statement. You don't care about keeping track. Theoretically, it could be 50 to three, and you don't think that should be reflected in the media?
The actuality is irrelevant? So you made it up. Ok
I "made it up"? I would direct your attention to the word "if" in my post. I did not make any claim.
Oh, so this is another of your patented "hypothetical extremes to try and make your argument because you can't do it on the facts here".
Now I got it.
"It doesn't matter whether there's 30 crooked Republicans and 20 crooked Democrats, that is the point."
Isn't that a hypothetical? It's hard to see how you can object to my stretching your point to see if you really stand by your principle or not. You made an unequivocal remark, and I'm not seeing you live up to it now.
Mine was perfectly reasonable, yours was an extreme, again. Hence the obvious difference. But you do it all the time when you're losing an argument, I am duly unimpressed, again.
Why does the difference matter to you? You're saying that the numbers don't matter, no matter what they are. Yes or no?
And why is asking you to clarify your comments an argument? Why do you feel such a need to create that situation?
I should have known to expect an honest discussion with you on the facts and particulars in this thread. I don't argue extremes, I know you want to take it there but it's pointless and irrelevant. My point was numbers and a scorecard do not matter under reasonable circumstances as is the case concerning Democrats and Republicans here. I figured that was obvious, but it was only obvious to some who didn't pervert what I meant to some ridiculous hypothetical extreme to try and salvage your own partisan argument. You never fail to disappoint, well done.
Oops, should have known NOT to expect.......
So the scorecard now doesn't matter under reasonable circumstances. This is what I was going for. It's just a question of what sort of disparity you think qualifies this information for accurate public reflection, unlike what you said originally.
It's not my fault that you weren't specific in your phrasing. I wanted clarification, and you provided it after much struggling.
Thank you. Was it really that hard?
Well, I just assumed that in the context of my point was the fact the numbers comparing the two are not planets apart, or yes, then MMFA may have a point in bringing it up. However, considering the numbers are not stratospheres away from each other, I see no point in playing the tit for tat scoreboard game.
If there's no point in keeping score then how do you know the numbers are not stratospheres away from each other?
What an idiotic question? Governor, you are the best!
I'm not "Governor".
There is only one way to know how far or how close the numbers are, oh wise one.
Then that would have been very easy for you to explain, wouldn't it? When you make an absolute statement, you should amend it when you realize you don't actually mean it.
"It should not be used to point fingers and say one side is worse than the other."
"As I said, only hardline partisans care about the numbers and keeping score."
...unless one side is really worse than the other. I don't know how I was supposed to garner that meaning. I do appreciate the clarification, though.
"So Klein leaves out a few crooked Republicans for MMFA's satisfaction. He mentions plenty and the point remains unchanged"
This was my first sentence. If you took from that that I meant some lopsided idiocy as 50-3, then no clarification I could provide would help you.
And you were wrong in your very first post. Klein left out more than a few.
Nonsense, when I asked you a question you could clarify. I'm accepting it now that you grudgingly gave it, so there's no way to assert I wouldn't accept it then.
That statement is about the numbers as reflected in the article in question. Whether that actually is the current status or not, you said you didn't care what the numbers were. So your statement is no longer restricted to "plenty".
But the bottom line is, it's clearly not a partisan issue, as you claimed. If there's a large discrepancy, then obviously more than partisans are going to think that's important to know. Note that I didn't say "50 Republicans and 3 Democrats". I didn't specify that, because it doesn't matter. Either way the public should know.
Your question was based on a hypothetical extreme that had no relevance, that is the point Einstein. Duh.
When will you ever learn that stupid lawyerly tactic doesn't work with me? Stop playing Perry Mason, again, you look so foolish.
You stated a principle. The extent of a principle is tested with hypotheticals. In this case, it showed that you didn't believe exactly what you said.
This should be stuff you learned in school.
In any event, there's no need for your hostility, as is so often the case. I wanted clarification, and I got it. It's not a partisan "gotcha" game, it's an attempt at rational discourse. There's really no need to be so sensitive when someone dares to question what you say in any way at all.
Dishonesty breeds hostility. Remember that, stop playing the victim, and we can have a rational discussion. It's up to you.
You've never demonstrated dishonesty on my part, though. So you can always have a hissy fit every time someone questions you based on that. The person flying off the handle for no reason is supposed to be a fair judge of anything? That's pretty bizarre.
Your crooked politician count was reasonable?! It's ok when you do it?! Do you fart Fabreeze?
For me, if "my side" had 50 crooks and the "other side" had 3, I'd probably assert that it's "wrong" to keep count. I'd play the 'everyone's poo smells' card.
You'd have a point Governor, if I had a "side". Which I don't. So keep yourself busy by finding any post of mine on this thread where I even hint at excusing any Republican for corruption?
I'm not "Governor". In any case, it's ALWAYS the side that is losing that advocates that there's no point in keeping score. And that's a FACT.
In any case, nothing, Governor. I gave you a task to find a post of mine, now are you going to do it or just sit there and post one falsehood after another? Show me the money.
I'm not "Governor".
Tommy I say we take Victor at his word that he is not the Governor (who I liked from what I remember) afterall he has been so supportive of me when I have been accused of the same thing by an unnamed personal attacker.
I would like him to have the same courtesy that has been shown me.
J, As I said I prefer to call posters by their original name, that's all it is.
I've been called worse, my only point is to point out that he's wrong when he does it. The simply fact is that this Tommy guy is just trying to get me banned from here cus I slighted him once. He's a wimp.
Banned? On the contrary Governor, but if you're worried about it, I understand.
You keep calling me "Governor" (and I'm not) and you keep asserting that I was banned (and I wasn't). Why?
We have a double standard here, why is it not ok for Tommy to question that you may be the Governor , but yet you can promote the theory that I am this "sueeld" person with this smear you spewed yesterday? You pretend your innocent yet promote the smear. Nice. I could care less if your Governor or not , but your moral ground on this is thin, as long as you rally with your friends who want to silence me by suggesting I am also someone I am not.
How did MMFA threads get so out of control?
Posted by Victor Colorado in reply to Caseysprings
REPLY »
Nice Gov, you call me a troll yet you were banned before. Take a hike Gov.
I'm not "Gov" or "Governor". And telling me I've been banned and calling me some other name is pretty funny coming from you. Who was it someone called you last week or so? Sue Eld or something?
Posted Wednesday December 10, 2008 8:06:44 PM EST / Flag this comment
I'm not "Governor". And, for the record, it's perfectly ok for this Tommy guy to be wrong. It's even expected by many.
>>but your moral ground on this is thin
How can moral ground be thin? Are you thinking of some other metaphor?
Great reply Casey. He can deny his true identity all day long, it's pointless and every time he does it he just makes it more clear.
And for the record, I really could careless who he is, I just do not believe he has a right to turn around and imply I am someone else also.
I don't either, if he acts up and gets banned and then comes back here reincarnated, so be it. It happens alot I am sure. But when it's as obvious as Governor Colorado is, then he should be addressed by who we all know and love.
Flag away, wimp cop.
You really come across as hating Tommy. Is it political?
I don't like cops.
I have already told you, I prefer to call posters by the name they gave themselves when they first surfaced. I was born Tommy, and still am Tommy. If I get banned, I get banned. I wouldn't reincarnate myself, besides I would never be able to fool anyone, the sharp ones here would know in a minute. We all have our style, and yours in very unique Governor. I would know it in a heartbeat
And you are wrong.
>>We all have our style, and yours in very unique Governor. I would know it in a heartbeat
This is hysterical. Question mark Tommy, the forsenics expert! You might suspect this, Tommy, but you have no way of knowing. For example, your style is almost identical to Wesley's; but you are apparently (as far as I know) two different posters.
Feel free to call me Wesley, I take no offense.
Now I know the real reason you're so wigged out by being exposed as the "Governor". It isn't about some silly mistaken identity with you, you are just freaked out the moderators here will find out and yank your dishonest little behind from these boards.
Where will you go then?
Keep it up, wimp cop.
Absolutely correct Tommy.
Partisans.
Partisans! Partisans! Partisans!
Yes, they are the yoke of our problems.
>>Yes, they are the yoke of our problems.
Yoke? What are you talking about?
Yes! And if you don't agree that you are all partisans, then you are idiots and morons (to quote what our lovely Casey called me yesterday).
Yes! And smearing partisans smear!
And smearing Governors , smear, right Governor?
I'm not "Governor".
And I am not "Sueeld" or anyone else.
And I never called you that.
Thank you
Well when you suggest I am saying something I did not, how else am I supposed to get through your head?
>>Well when you suggest I am saying something I did not, how else am I supposed to get through your head?
Sure, Casey. I quoted what you said. Not only that, but you called me an idiot when I responded to AA's post, which had nothing to do with you.
But we are the partisans.
No you are not a partisan.
"It doesn't matter whether there's 30 crooked Republicans and 20 crooked Democrats, that is the point. It's not the numbers game, it's rotten with one or a hundred."
No disagreement there, Tommy. The problem is that, given the well-documented (hell, constantly broadcast) Republican/conservative contempt for government, Republican corruption goes more to the heart of the Republic and metasticises in particularly lethal ways. It was guru-of-the-right Grover Norquist who famously opined that an honest public servant was worse than a corrupt one.
'Tis True. Hardline partisans, as well as hardline partisan media watchdog websites, never can take responsibility for their own house, so they shift automatically into the "quick, look over there" game. Like children indeed.
Well, it seemed like a decent enough response when Foley and Craig were caught.
Not celebrating, just pointing out a fact. MMFA is reporting who's doing the celebrating. These people are out to demonize the entire democratic party and create a one party government. I'm just doing my part to make sure they don't succeed.
Hannity is celebrating . I am sure Rush is also, i just can not stand to listen to him.
What ever happened to Tom DeLay? He was indicted over three years ago. Is there a trial date?
I think he is still awaiting trial.
Another issue is how Blagojevich's troubles are being projected onto Obama while the media largely avoided that with Stevens and Palin or with Libby and Bush who pardoned him.
Guess you never watched MSNBC every night.
http://www.anncoulter.com/
Speaking of hypocrisy and corruption in the democratic party, looks like the Franken campaign will do whatever it takes to subvert the process.. . . . As cogently revealed by Ann Coulter
Not sure how sarcastic you are on this one, and I didn't read through the whole thing, but I'm curious about something. She says Franken lost 46 votes because 129 weren't counted twice. Franken wants that area's votes to be counted twice.
46 from 129 leaves 83. That's 83 people who didn't vote for Franken. Even being generous and saying 30 people voted for alternative party candidates, that's 53 for Coleman. Am I reading/calculating this right?
I gotta read it again later when I have time, but I as well thought, when I first read it, that she could've been a little clearer on her numbers
But you said above "...as cogently revealed by Ann Coulter."
If she could have been clearer on her numbers, wouldn't 'cogently' incorrectly describe the article?
Personally, nothing Ann Coulter says is 'cogent'. I find it laughable that anyone, even someone as blindly partisan as you are, would even equate Ann Coulter with anything having to do with though processes.
Yes, if there is any analysis I count on, it's from Ann Coulter. Because, she would never lie.
Did she also mention the FBI investigation concerning Colman and a big, cash in hand, supporter?
Probably not.
Corrupt democrats will be recieving more attention. Good, just as long as its not all from the neocons. In some cases you will see progressive support for a republican over a democrat. Are the denizens of Wingnuttia capable of the doing the inverse? I see no evidence that this is so.
I think we need to compare quality as well as quantity.
What Democrats in recent history have matched the abuses and apparent corruption of Bush or Nixon?
LBJ? Maybe. Clinton? Please. His shenanigans pale in comparison to the war crimes and Constitutional abuses of Bush/Cheney.
Here we go again, lets talk about Bush which has NOTHING to do with the Illinois Governor. Why the defocusing?
>>Here we go again, lets talk about Bush which has NOTHING to do with the Illinois Governor. Why the defocusing?
The topic of the thread is Republican vs. Democratic corruption. So it would be pretty normal to bring up Republicans.
The topic is ABCNews.com's The Note, Rick Klein
>>The topic is ABCNews.com's The Note, Rick Klein
And more specificallyl, how he compares Democratic and Republican scandals. Did you not read the article?
Isn't the topic corrupt Republicans vs. corrupt Democrats? How can Bush and Cheney's prolific dishonesty not be relevant?
Because if you listened to MSNBC for the past 5 years we know everything.
Do you watch BUSHED?
That is covered, Bush is leaving the people know about his administration.
>>That is covered, Bush is leaving the people know about his administration.
Actually, most people don't. Most people could not tell you that one group documented 971 lies from Bush. Just recently the media was praising Bush for his "candor" on the Iraq war. That's a pretty bizare statement.
Anyway, that's not even relevant to the topic. Nerzon is saying that since Bush is the most corrupt president in modern history, Klein should not leave him out of any comparision.
Pretty bizare statement with Obama praising Bushs AIDS efforts last week also. Considering if I read what I have read on many blogs Bush has done nothing and actually hurt the cause. Why would Obama praise Bush if that were the case?
Well, I guess he feels obligated to find something nice to say about the bastard.
Just because Bush did one good thing as president doesn't negate all of the lies and crimes committed by himself and his administration.
Hitler created a top-notch military. What a great leader he was!!! </sarcasm>
What are the crimes?
Will you be Outraged if Obama is unwilling to investigate?
Will you be angry when Obama thanks Bush for his 8 years of service at the inauguration ?
Well, we can start with the unnecessary deaths of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians and 4,000+ American soldiers, and work our way down from there. I haven't read his book yet, but I've heard that Vincent Bugliosi lays out a pretty convincing case.
Will you be Outraged if Obama is unwilling to investigate?
Will you be angry when Obama thanks Bush for his 8 years of service at the inauguration ?
Disappointed, but not outraged. Obama is going to have enough to deal with, just cleaning up Bush's mess. Going after Bush and Cheney legally would be a luxury, but politically it's a loser...it would consume the Obama administration and probably not accomplish much.
No, I save my outrage for the lazy, overpaid "journalists" who squandered their Constitutional privilege and allowed the Numbnuts administration to lie us into an unnecessary war.
As for any statements at inauguration, who cares? Politicians always toss around niceties at those events. We all know that President Numbnuts has been a disaster, regardless of what Obama says at a ceremony.
Fair enough reply. Thank you
He does lay out a pretty convincing case (not that I needed convincing, having been awake for the last eight years) but it's hard to get through the Jeremiah-like outrage, even for me. The book would have been improved by excising fifty pages or so of diatribe.
Bugliosi is just a passionate guy, I suppose. I think he wrote a book about the O.J. trial entitled "Outrage".
The cherrypicking of prewar intelligence has YET to get a full hearing in the MSM or in Congress.
If you dig a little, you can find plenty of books and documentaries on the subject, but the average person is really not aware of it.
We know very little about the most secretive administration I've ever lived though. We still have no idea who attended Chenny's energy meetings, early in this administration's watch. Much less what policies came from it.
Then you can try to get access to shrub's governorial papers or his daddy's presidential papers which were to be realeased on schedual, but that never happened either.
Hey we are still getting Nixon tapes released 36 years later, maybe the Bushie tapes will be released in 2046
However you might try there is no equivilency betwee the continuing release to Nixon tapes and the secrecy of shurbCo.
Your sentence does not make any sense. What are you trying to say? Looks like typos.
When you figure it out get back to me. If you never figure it out, well somehow I think I can live with the angst of it.
I am usually against flagging but your post should be removed, it is meant to insight.
That sounds pretty funny . . . .(I know you meant incite . .)
In going through the posts rather quickly (164 or so would take more time than I have this evening to peruse thoroughly), it is clear that politicians with criminal or ethical problems span both parties. I could personally care less what the count is at any given time, it is more important to expose and get rid of the rot and to hold them all to the ethical standards they should have as public servants. The same goes for the criminal and ethical acts in the private sector as well, CEOs demanding golden parachutes for running companies into the ground, Drs cheating on Medicare billings, people undeservedly collecting disability or welfare, fileing fraudulent tax returns, etc. WE, as a country, seem be losing our moral compass. We are all going to fall short of perfection in this area, but to do some of the things that are being done politically or privately should be unacceptable to all of us.
I'm inclined to agree. The pattern seems to be that, when one party dominatesfor too long, they tend to become corrupt. It happened to the Democrats in the latter part of the twentieth century, and it happened to the Republicans after 1994. I guess all we can do is purge the system and reboot every few years.
Agreed. Personally, I no longer think we need to gather any more evidence to support the fact that the Duopoly has failed us.