10 Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians for 2006
Not really much new or surprising in Judicial Watch's "10 Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians for 2006" list, but it functions as a pretty good year-end news in review piece in these last weeks of the year, when year-end news in review pieces rule the roost.
Comments to "10 Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians for 2006":
Lost_In_Translation | December 21, 2006, 4:05pm | #
These are just the ones they caught and more than half are still actively in office, including Mr. Jefferson.Term limits for gods sakes. And lobbying should be public and on record.
Shouldn't that be the "10 LEAST Wanted Corrupt Politicians for 2006"
Anonopotomous | December 21, 2006, 4:16pm | #
Two complaints:1) Ohio's *convicted* soon-to-be-former-Gov. Taft (R) escapes without so much as a "dishonorable mention."
2) The other dishonorable mentions betray the group's partisanship; they're all Democrats (except probably the last guy, but it doesn't say).
Travis | December 21, 2006, 4:24pm | #
The list would make more sense if it read "10 most corrupt politicians." Most wanted implies that they haven't been caught yet, which in most of these cases they have.And putting Hilary at #2 is a pretty obvious bone to the conservative base. She may turn out to be corrupt, but failing to report campaign contributions doesn't seem as bad as outright taking bribes, whether you hide them in your freezer or not.
Dan T. | December 21, 2006, 4:51pm | #
While McKinney was never forced to answer in a court of law for her behavior, she lost her bid for re-election in 2006.Not true, McKinney was charged but a grand jury did not indict her.
Dan T. | December 21, 2006, 4:53pm | #
The entries for Hillary and Reid are laughably weak.Agreed. How much did Hillary really have to do with her fundraisers failing to properly report legally raised money?
Corpo | December 21, 2006, 5:13pm | #
"Agreed. How much did Hillary really have to do with her fundraisers failing to properly report legally raised money?"By your reasoning, Ken Lay was innocent too.
Sam B | December 21, 2006, 5:30pm | #
While I certainly agree that this list has a perceptable conservative bias, there are a couple of mistakes in these comments."And putting Hilary at #2 is a pretty obvious bone to the conservative base"
If you read the introduction you'll see that the list is in alphabetical order.
"Not true, McKinney was charged but a grand jury did not indict her."
Technically, it is true (although misleading). A grand jury is not a court of law, it is a criminal procedure and considered part of the investigation, not trial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury
DerFuror | December 21, 2006, 5:31pm | #
Corpo:And were thousands bilked out of their pensions/savings/jobs by Hillary, as per Ken Lay?
Weak analogy there.
joe | December 21, 2006, 5:43pm | #
Even the "charge" against Hillary looks serious compared to that levelled at Reid.Harry Reid owned a piece of land. He incorporated a LLC to own it. He reported owning this land every year, and when it was sold. However, he declared it as personal property, instead of as the property of the LLC that he was the sole owner of.
And that's it. That makes him one of the ten most corrupt politicians in America; he reported a piece of land as personal property, when he actually owned it through an LLC.
Jonathan C. Hohensee | December 21, 2006, 5:56pm | #
Term limits for gods sakes.Weren't their a movement for Republicans to try and get rid of them? Whatever happened with that?
Hillary's at #2 because the lists in alphabetical order. With a list like this, it really shouldn't be.
Also, Obama had an "unusual" land deal. Not even "questionable," just "unusual." What, was the lot in the shape of the state of Illinois? Did he pay in nickels? I have no idea how strong the case is on this one, but that blurb isn't helping.
Kwix | December 21, 2006, 6:45pm | #
5. Former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) – Foley left the House in disgrace after news broke that he had been sending predatory homosexual emails to a House page. A recent House Ethics Committee report indicated that Republican leaders knew about Foley’s dangerous behavior, but failed to take action. Democrats, meanwhile, shopped the story to the press to influence the elections. Outrageously, the Committee recommended no punishment for those involved.This is corrupt how? If they are accusing Foley of sexual harrasment, then I can see it, but predetory and dangerous they were not. Seems to me that this entry should have had the emphasis on "Republican leaders knew about Foley’s ... behavior, but failed to take action."
biologist | December 21, 2006, 6:53pm | #
also, in the description of the Foley scandal, how is it relevant that they were "homosexual" emails? could have left off the "homo", and the scandal is just as bad, but not as salacious.the Murtha stuff seems especially weak, considering it was 25 years ago, and he was never indicted.
I find this organization to be very, umm, lax. It claims to police corrupt politicians and activist judges yet mentions jack all about the Kelo or Raich cases. Glad to see they keep digging up the hard truth on Bill and Hillary like good little conservatives.
joe | December 21, 2006, 7:04pm | #
"Murtha, whose current ethics continue to be questioned, lost his bid for Majority Leader to Maryland Democrat Steny Hoyer."God bless the passive voice.
Questions have been raised! Mistakes were made! What's the matter, Judicial Watch, don't you have the stones for "Some have said...?"
Ah yes, the good old passive voice, where things happen but nobody knows who did them!
Weak list all the way around, and considering that Abromoff by my definition doesn't qualify as a politician, someone deserving got left off the list.
joe | December 21, 2006, 8:55pm | #
"....someone deserving got left off the list."Passive voice! Aaaarrgggghhh!
Dan T. | December 21, 2006, 9:46pm | #
The Dan T. at 4:53pm isn't me.Meanwhile, I enjoy WILD MANCOCKS LASHING INSIDE MY ANUS WOOOO!
joe | December 21, 2006, 10:22pm | #
Dan T.,Throughout 2003-2004, I had a personal troll who posted as "joesux," with email addresses like "whyareyouhere@goaway.com" What a dick.
Guess who's still here? Don't let the bastard get you down.
madpad | December 21, 2006, 10:54pm | #
By your reasoning, Ken Lay was innocent too.Corpo,
It's obvious you don't know squat about finance, corporate accounting, business ethics, executive adminstration, basic business law, the stock market or the responsibilities of a CEO.
You also seem to have a weak understanding of just what he was indicted for (11 counts of securities fraud, wire fraud, and making false and misleading statements).
You don't get charges like that from accountants cooking the books behind your back.
joe, you put effort into posting and I'm annoyed when the others lump you in with lazy goofballs like Dan.
joe | December 22, 2006, 11:19am | #
76,I give Dan a break because somebody is making a lot of effort to discredit him by posting under his name.
TrickyVic | December 22, 2006, 8:32pm | #
I sense some partisanship. All except one of the dishonorables are Democrats. The last entry is one of they guys that gave Abriamhoff the keys to the Whitehouse. I think that should be a little more than just a mention.I think most you are right about Hillary, it is weak as compared to others below her.