Corruption as an issue in the 2006 US elections

Wait and see..

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Are you referring to the mystery of why ABC would print false stories? That is indeed a mystery.

After the incidents in the past with Dan Rather and newsweek, I imagine that the reporter did his homework before publishing. But like Nimh said, we have to wait and see how it unfolds.

0 Replies

Jefferson/Hastert/FBI & ABC
I listen to Public Radio news for four hours a day. The above story finally got a mention in hour #4. It moved , in my mind, from a story about corruption to one of Washington political intrigue. Today's status report:
(1) Congress is outraged at the Executive Branch (the administration's Attorney General and the FBI) intruding onto, quite literally (by raiding Jefferson's office), the Legislative Branch's turf;
(2) Mr Bush has ordered all material seized from Jefferson be sealed for 45 days. No one is supposed to be able to look at it for 45 days. Of course, the FBI has had the info for four days so one has to wonder how effective that order will be;
(3) ABC is so far sticking by its story that despite a flat denial from the Dept of Justice Hastert is, along with some other unnamed members of Congress, having his activities reviewed. ABC used descriptiions in its reports such as "federal law enforcement sources" and "a senior official;"
(4) Hastert contends that he is the victim of a smear campaign BY THE FBI (emphasis added to delineate the "source" as not being Democrats or the liberal media) to intimidate him because of the ruckus he raised in (1) above.
I certainly don't know how this will all play out. My feeling is that Jack Abramoff was throwing money around pretty wildly and there were numerous folks picking up the cash. When he starts to sing, it is going to get very, very messy.

Finally, it is a rare day when I come close to agreeing with McGentrix about much of anything. But here goes. ABC may have worded their story cleverly ("sources tell ABC"). That perhaps makes the story accurate, technically. But where I fault ABC is for not asking themselves "why is this source telling me this?" They were eager to tell the story about Hastert, but they completely missed the story behind the story. Sloppy journalism.

0 Replies

"Sloppy journalism" indeed, and with the rapid decline of advertizing income going to ABC, a sign of desperation!!!!

I seem to remember a "Scoop" about the "indictment" of Karl Rove.

That was "Sloppy journalism" also and another attempt to get to the head of the line.

Bogus stories( peace to you-Dan Rather-)always end up damaging the source trying for the scoop far far more than any anticipated rise in the ratings.

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

Jefferson/Hastert/FBI & ABC
I listen to Public Radio news for four hours a day. The above story finally got a mention in hour #4. It moved , in my mind, from a story about corruption to one of Washington political intrigue. Today's status report:
(1) Congress is outraged at the Executive Branch (the administration's Attorney General and the FBI) intruding onto, quite literally (by raiding Jefferson's office), the Legislative Branch's turf;
(2) Mr Bush has ordered all material seized from Jefferson be sealed for 45 days. No one is supposed to be able to look at it for 45 days. Of course, the FBI has had the info for four days so one has to wonder how effective that order will be;
(3) ABC is so far sticking by its story that despite a flat denial from the Dept of Justice Hastert is, along with some other unnamed members of Congress, having his activities reviewed. ABC used descriptiions in its reports such as "federal law enforcement sources" and "a senior official;"
(4) Hastert contends that he is the victim of a smear campaign BY THE FBI (emphasis added to delineate the "source" as not being Democrats or the liberal media) to intimidate him because of the ruckus he raised in (1) above.
I certainly don't know how this will all play out. My feeling is that Jack Abramoff was throwing money around pretty wildly and there were numerous folks picking up the cash. When he starts to sing, it is going to get very, very messy.

Finally, it is a rare day when I come close to agreeing with McGentrix about much of anything. But here goes. ABC may have worded their story cleverly ("sources tell ABC"). That perhaps makes the story accurate, technically. But where I fault ABC is for not asking themselves "why is this source telling me this?" They were eager to tell the story about Hastert, but they completely missed the story behind the story. Sloppy journalism.

So you think the story might be technically accurate but sloppy because they didn't dig deeper? Your probably right.

0 Replies

It seems like corruption will indeed be an important, if not the most important, issue in these elections:

http://pollingreport.com/images/CNNissues.GIF

0 Replies

nimh: I think that corruption will be an issue, particularly if the planets line up such that various trials etc coincide with the November elections.
Having said that, I do find a bit of fault with the CNN poll you cited in the posting above. "How important will each of the following issues be..." is so open-ended. People are likely to respond that every issue is very important.
I suspect that you know more about the science (or is it the art) of polling than I do. But I think that, for example, if the question had been "Here are 7 issues. Rank them in importance from 1 to 7" the results would have been quite different. I can't prove that, of course, but I offer that as an aside.
I suspect that Immigration and The War in Iraq would rise.
And, oh yes, as long as I am quibbling with the CNN Poll wording, I would ask for a definition/clarification of the word Terrorism. I don't live in a big city. I live in the country where the birds are singing and my biggest problem is with the groundhogs getting into the garden. I am not meaning to be flippant, but I doubt that most Americans wake up every morning and have anxiety attacks about being terrorised.

So this is Memorial Day weekend. Memorial Day used to be on May 30th but it got switched to the Monday closest to May 30th so people could travel and picnic and forget about why the day was set aside as a day of remembrance for those who died fighting for what they were told were just causes.

(Forgive Realjohnboy's melancholy. He turns 60 on May 31st)

0 Replies

RealJohnBoy- I must admit that your posts are refreshing. I find that I have agreed largely with every one I have read.

Your take on opinion polls is quite accurate and, as I am sure that you know, the critical part of a poll is the way in which it is constructed and worded.

I pay and have paid close attention to the wisdom of Tip O'Neill. He said, of course, that All Politics is local.

Anyone who thinks that politicians in the Senate and the House are not casting their votes to correspond with the wishes of their constituents has seen too many Jimmy Stewart Movies. One can guess the position taken, for example, on Immigration without reading any speech by asking where the particular House Member's District is located. Senators who are not running this year are, of course, not at risk because 94% of the public will not remember how they voted.

My analysis of the election in November may be viewed as rather simplistic. I go back to the tried and true--PEACE AND PROSPERITY.

Troops coming home from Iraq and Iraqis taking more responsibility for their own defense=PEACE

A continuation of the rising Stock Market, 401K values and a continued level of unemployment below 5%=PROSPERITY.

We shall see!!!

0 Replies

The Democrats have mightily strived to cast the Republican government as a Culture of Corruption. It was worth a shot, but it really hasn't paid off.

Congressman Jefferson is a Christmas gift in May for the GOP. That Speaker Hastert isn't shutting up, sitting back, and enjoying the hoopla is indicative of the seriousness in which he takes his role. He is Byrd-like in his advocacy of the institution of Congress. He is fundamentally wrong and politically an idiot, but I have to give him some minor amount of credit for "sticking up" for The House.

But then, perhaps he is a selfless political mastermind.

It's a foregone conclusion that the elite media in America is not prepared to focus on what, journalistically, is a great story: A congressman is video-taped accepting a bribe, and the money is found in his freezer! Why wasn't that a front page headline before the FBI searched his office?

Perhaps (although I doubt it) Hastert knew that the best way to get the Jefferson stroy in the media was to come out against the FBI search.

It is only logical that there are more Republican, than Democratic, scandals. The Republicans hold power in all three branches of government. Why waste one's time and money trying to bribe a Democrat? Sure they'll take the money as quickly as a Republican, but what can you get for you dough?

Local politics and graft is another matter, and this is where we find Rep. Jefferson.

In any case, very very few people are going to vote against a local candidate because his or her party has been scandalized --- if the individual themself is clean.

Poll after poll has confirmed that Americans do not believe that one party is either significantly more corrupt or honest than the other. Congressmen who have been (somewhat) directly tainted by current scandals will have a tough row to hoe in November, but it is very unlikely that issue will go national.

0 Replies

Quote:

Congressmen who have been (somewhat) directly tainted by current scandals will have a tough row to hoe in November, but it is very unlikely that issue will go national.

Your probably right that if the problem with the GOP was only corruption it wouldn't have too much effect on who people vote for. However, for some reason right now polls show that people favor democrats over republicans. Go figure.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/April%20Dailies/Election%202008.htm

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Your probably right that if the problem with the GOP was only corruption it wouldn't have too much effect on who people vote for. However, for some reason right now polls show that people favor democrats over republicans. Go figure.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/April%20Dailies/Election%202008.htm

Its not just in the Rasmussen reports poll either ... the shtick used by conservatives a while ago that, yes, people are sick of Republican Congressmen but the Dems wont benefit cause they think just as lowly of their people, is no longer holding up.

http://pollingreport.com/images/2006.GIF

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Poll after poll has confirmed that Americans do not believe that one party is either significantly more corrupt or honest than the other.

I'm just checking out the Polling report collection of polls on corruption, and this is the latest poll there (the first in a while):

CBS News/New York Times Poll. May 4-8, 2006.
N=1,241 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. [Compared to January 5-8, 2006]

"Do you think the Republicans in Congress are more financially corrupt, or are the Democrats in Congress more financially corrupt?"

Republicans In Congress
40% (+6)

Democrats In Congress
15% (-3)

Same (vol.) / Unsure
45% (-3)

Looks to me like "Americans" are roughly split in two: half of 'em believe both parties are equally bad; and half of 'em believe the Republicans are worse.

Only one in six believes the Democrats are worse -- so I'd say there's clearly a marked difference in perception of which party is "significantly more corrupt or honest".

0 Replies

so, if the repubs keep the house this year will you all just face the fact that polls are a stupid waste of time? Or can we expect to hear the same rehash of selected questions asked of selected people daily ad infinitum?

Losers are only losers. Losers who keep fighting the last battle are pitiful.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Poll after poll has confirmed that Americans do not believe that one party is either significantly more corrupt or honest than the other.

I'm just checking out the Polling report collection of polls on corruption, and this is the latest poll there (the first in a while):

CBS News/New York Times Poll. May 4-8, 2006.
N=1,241 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. [Compared to January 5-8, 2006]

"Do you think the Republicans in Congress are more financially corrupt, or are the Democrats in Congress more financially corrupt?"

Republicans In Congress
40% (+6)

Democrats In Congress
15% (-3)

Same (vol.) / Unsure
45% (-3)

Looks to me like "Americans" are roughly split in two: half of 'em believe both parties are equally bad; and half of 'em believe the Republicans are worse.

Only one in six believes the Democrats are worse -- so I'd say there's clearly a marked difference in perception of which party is "significantly more corrupt or honest".

Put the Democrats in power and the numbers flip.

Notice the poll didn't ask whether or not those polled believed the Democrats to be a party of integrity.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Put the Democrats in power and the numbers flip.

What that assumption ignores is that the poll numbers listed above are not y'r usual party-in-power numbers. You can quickly check that by looking at the plus/minus numbers compared to even just a few months ago. Even just last January, the perception that the Republicans were the more corrupt wasnt as marked as it is now.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Notice the poll didn't ask whether or not those polled believed the Democrats to be a party of integrity.

Hm.

Well, there's this poll below. And conveniently enough, it was held both last January, with Bush and the Republicans in power (but before the latest slide in the image of the Republicans in this respect) - and in July 1994, when Clinton and the Democrats were in power.

It doesnt make it look like your assertion that, "Put the Democrats in power and the numbers flip", holds any water.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey
conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International.
Jan. 4-8, 2006. N=1,503 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Please tell me if you think the phrase I read better describes the Republican Party and its leaders or the Democratic Party and its leaders.
Which party do you think is better described by the phrase [see below]?"

"Governs in an honest and ethical way"

January 2006

30% Republican Party
37% Democratic Party
33% Both Equally (vol.) / Neither (vol.) / Unsure

July 1994

32% Republican Party
35% Democratic Party
33% Both Equally (vol.) / Neither (vol.) / Unsure

0 Replies

Heh :wink:

Gotta admire their pluck...

Quote:

Watchdog group gets assist' from foe Ney

Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Sabrina Eaton
Plain Dealer Bureau

Ohio GOP congressman Bob Ney regularly claims that watchdog groups who highlight his ties to criminal lobbyist Jack Abramoff are part of a conspiracy against him that is bankrolled by liberal financier George Soros.

Ney's gripes actually helped one of those groups land funding from Soros this January, its executive director believes.

"For the longest time, we got no money from George Soros," says Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "We now get money from The Open Society Institute, and it is probably thanks to Bob Ney."

After Ney and his spokesman, Brian Walsh, repeatedly insisted her group was funded by Soros, Sloan brought their claims to Soros' foundation.

"We kept saying, They say you are already funding us. Shouldn't you?' " recalls Sloan, who said the group got its first grant in January. [..]

Sloan wouldn't disclose exactly how much her group gets from Soros' Open Society Institute, but said "they are not, by any means, our biggest funder." An institute spokeswoman said CREW got $100,000. [..]

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

It's a foregone conclusion that the elite media in America is not prepared to focus on what, journalistically, is a great story: A congressman is video-taped accepting a bribe, and the money is found in his freezer! Why wasn't that a front page headline before the FBI searched his office?

I'm not 100% sure but I think that it came to light because the video-taped evidence was used in the affidavit to get the search warrant. So nobody knew about it until they used it to get the warrant to search his office. I agree that it's a great story.

0 Replies

I am quite heartened by one of the posters on this thread referring to Rasmussen Reports. I check it daily. It is quite simple to find-

Web Search---Rasmussen Reports.

I referenced it today. Rasmussen gives the Job Approval Rating for President Bush as 40%. This is quite a difference than the 29% Job Approval Rating given by some other poster.

AN 11% SPREAD--IMAGINE THAT!!!!

0 Replies

Corruption as an issue in the 2006 US elections

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know