Comments (36)

Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 11:14 AM:

Why should the ratio be 1.2:1?! What if there are simply more corrupt Democrats than Republican officeholders? 5.6:1 sounds about right to me. TPM won't even cover the Democrats accused of corruption like Rockafeller (see today's NY Times).

Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 11:17 AM:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/washington/23nsa.html

Scott L wrote on October 23, 2007 11:21 AM:

I guess this is what the Republicans call " The rule of law". Any good Bannana Republic would be proud to have a Justice Department like ours.

EH wrote on October 23, 2007 11:25 AM:

To assert that party has a role in the level of political corruption is the height of comedy. As a very rough measure, there would likely be more earmarks from one party than the other, which I'm pretty sure is not the case, and at any rate is not imbalanced 500%.

dave wrote on October 23, 2007 11:28 AM:

Jake D. The more you stick up for the them the more respect you loose for yourself. Take the blinders off and realize both sides are guilty and need to be called out or our republic will turn into something that nobody will recognize. There is a big discrepancy between federal and state investigations and it should be looked into.

Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 11:30 AM:

From the Ted Stevens thread below:

Fellow Traveler wrote on October 23, 2007 9:38 AM:

While the Republicans certainly should distance themselves from Ted Stevens (not condemn- he has not been convicted of any crime), the Demos should certainly be expressing their concern over the shocking news that Demo head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, J.D. Rockefeller, IV, has,in recent days, taken $42,000 from the big telecom companies and now supports granting them immunity from prosecution for illegally spying on American citizens (he had only received a few grand over the last four or five years from these folks.) I notice that, although this story appears prominently in today's NY Times, there is virtually nothing about it on the blogs, including TPM's front page.

Corruption is corruption. A Demo Party that is in the pocket of the same special interests who control the Repubenron Party, is worthless in helping to reform the system, end the illegal, immoral, and ill-conceived invasion of Iraq, or to restore our much abused civil liberties. We cannot save the country until we save the Democratic Party and we cannot save the Demo Party until we free it from the corrupting influence of the DLC "Wall Street" Democrats.

Marilyn wrote on October 23, 2007 11:30 AM:

At least in my uber-corrupt big city, there hasn't been a Republican in any significant office in over 50 years.

Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 11:33 AM:

Dave:

Didn't I just say that both sides are guilty?! "5.6:1 sounds about right to me." But, liberal blogs like TPM won't even cover the Democrats accused of corruption like Rockefeller. Why is that?

Dave wrote on October 23, 2007 11:40 AM:

Jake D.

5.6 to 1 is not realistic in any senerio. I do think that TMP should report on both sides but this is not my website and if I only rely on one site then I am not doing my job as a reposible citizen. I suggest that people should read as much as possible and look at all viewpoints with an open mind. I feel from reading you past comments on multiple topics you do not.

Dave wrote on October 23, 2007 11:40 AM:

Jake D.

5.6 to 1 is not realistic in any senerio. I do think that TMP should report on both sides but this is not my website and if I only rely on one site then I am not doing my job as a reposible citizen. I suggest that people should read as much as possible and look at all viewpoints with an open mind. I feel from reading you past comments on multiple topics you do not.

Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 11:47 AM:

Dave:

It certainly is "realistic" if you have a Biblical worldview -- do you have an "open mind" to that particular viewpoint? Since my retirement, I have plenty of time to read from lots and lots of sources, thank you very much.

Dan D wrote on October 23, 2007 11:58 AM:

Jake D,

If Democrats really were more than 5x likely to be corrupt than Republicans, than why wouldn't this disparity exist at the national level, where the Bush DoJ investigates Dems and Republicans far more in line with actual numbers?

It is only at the State and local level that they investigate far far more Democrats, and when you compare this to State prosecutions of State and local officials, the State investigations do not follow the Federal DoJ pattern.

This clearly stinks of partisan muckery in the choice of investigations.

I don't see how you can claim "5:1 sounds right" - based on what? What tells you that State and Local Dems would be 5 times more likely to be corrupt, but once they go federal, they're suddenly much cleaner?

The simplest explanation is that Bush's DoJ is targeting Democrats unfairly below the radar where they didn't think anyone would notice.

Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 12:05 PM:

The simple explanation is not always the correct one -- there are many other possible reasons -- for instance, once most Democrats get to the national level, they have much more to lose and clean their act up themselves.

Dave wrote on October 23, 2007 12:13 PM:

Jake D.

It is of no concern to you what my beliefs are. I believe that peoples religious views should be kept between him/her and their higher power and to say that democrats are a 5.6 to 1 more corrupt than republicans is not a realistic point of view it is a blinded point of view and has nothing to do with a biblical worldview.

Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 12:23 PM:

You probably think that abortion, gay marriage, and other deviant behavior has nothing to do with a Biblical worldview either. I tend to equate those who support sin as more likely corrupt themselves, ergo I can buy the 5.6:1 ratio. I have an "open mind" to be convinced otherwise, even if you don't.

Jeannie L. wrote on October 23, 2007 12:30 PM:

Sure Jake D., let's through out intellectual logic and just go with your personal beliefs. That should solve the pesky problem of having to deal with people who THINK.

Dave wrote on October 23, 2007 12:32 PM:

Jake D.

Just because I think that the numbers are suspicious you come at me with this nonsense. The repect I ahd for you has just been thrown out the door. Had fun but you took it over the edge and that is why religious beliefs should be kept to themselves

Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 12:36 PM:

The vast majority of Americans profess to the same exact "personal belief" in Jesus Christ, Jeannie L. Also, I actually THINK there's a difference between "through" and "throw" : )

Dan D wrote on October 23, 2007 12:44 PM:

Jake D,

Please read
http://www.theauthoritarians.com

And tell me if you recognize anyone in it.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will operate under the much more plausible explanation that the most immoral and partisan administration in history simply chose to target Democrats because that has been their record in every other instance, including misusing the Federal Bureaucracy through Lorita Doan to help Republicans.

Oh and by the way, your Rockefeller link was covered by the progressive blogs in a very large way. Including here. But continue to feel like TPM is ignoring Democratic corruption when in fact they are not if it helps your personal sense of persecution.

Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 12:47 PM:

Dave:

Keeping religious beliefs to ourselves is what got us in this mess in the first place -- I simply stated my viewpoint (which YOU suggested above: "people should . . . look at all viewpoints with an open mind") -- it was fun talking with you as well.

Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 12:51 PM:

Thanks, Dan D. I will take a look at your link and let you know if I recognize anyone. In the meantime, if you have any other questions, please let me know.

Jeannie L. wrote on October 23, 2007 12:52 PM:

You definitely caught me on through/throw. I guess this error disqualifies me from discounting your "personal belief system." I was not speaking of the nation's personal beliefs, just yours. Now I can go back to not thinking. I'll just watch for your posts in order to save myself some time.

Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 1:06 PM:

Jeannie L.:

No need to go back to not thinking. In case you are not saving time, though, think about the FACT that my "personal belief system" is the exact same one professed by the vast majority of Americans, both today and in our past (I was not speaking of the entire nation's personal beliefs either -- for instance, I know there are practicing Satanists out there -- I do not have an "open-mind" toward their belief systems). See you around.

Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 1:25 PM:

Dan D.:

I'm up to Chapter 3 so far.

Dan D wrote on October 23, 2007 1:53 PM:

That's great Jake, here is where Talkingpointsmemo already mentioned that Rockefeller's donations from the telcos has gone up and linked to his support of immunity

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/056362.php

QUOTE

Rockefeller's sympathy for the telecom companies--and his position at the crux of the legislative battle--is reflected in his campaign contributions from telecom employees, which have spiked in recent months. No wonder then that the White House dumped its documents on Rockefeller's committee rather than the Judiciary Committee. It was all part of setting the stage for getting what the White House knew it could get from Rockefeller anyway.

UNQUOTE

Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 2:00 PM:

And, if TPM had reported on any similar spike in campaign contributions to a REPUBLICAN, don't you think the word "corruption" would have been used a couple times? That's my point, and it's not just me. Fellow Traveler picked up on it too.

lll wrote on October 23, 2007 2:15 PM:

actually, no, the ratio should NOT be 1.2:1 but 1:1.

statistically speaking, that is.

just because the state and local investigations are 1.2:1 does not make it the standard against which the DOJ should be measured.

it's not at all clear from the info here if that 1.2:1 ratio is statistically significant. depending on a number of things, including how many cases they counted total, that ratio might actually represent a large margin of error, which might render the ".2" difference moot.

if not, then we should be looking at why the state and local prosecutions are not 1:1, which they really should be. statistically speaking.

in order for them to make the claim that 1.2:1 is the viable standard against which the DOJ should be measured, they would have had to analyze the total probability of such cases locally around the country. did they tally up the total number of possible local democratic and republican cases around the country? not likely, which emphasizes my point that the real comparison should be the global statistical probability, NOT the local prosecutions (c'mon; who knows why THOSE are skewed, however relatively slightly).

in any case, in BOTH the DOJ and local cases, 1:1 is what the statistical probability should be. NOT 1.2:1

a small point, but one that needed to be made, seems to me.

Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 3:03 PM:

lll:

Again, what if there are simply more corrupt Democrats (known as "population sample" for instance, maybe there are currently twice as many Democrats in office, so even if the same % were corrupt in each party that would result in 2:1 ratio) than Republican officeholders? I therefore cannot agree that the ratio is exactly 1:1 because that would mean there are exactly the same number, percentage, severity of corrupt GOP officerholders as there are Democrats -- that's just not humanly possible -- I'm not the only one who thinks that BTW. Judging by its own coverage, even TPM thinks there are many, many more corrupt GOP officeholders than Democrats ; )

Raoul B wrote on October 23, 2007 3:11 PM:

You folks are letting Jake D pull your chains. Wake up. As long as we engage in these drawn out strings, the point is being missed. Corrupt is corrupt is corrupt. Republicans have a major lock on hypocrisy, therefore the higher likelihood that they are in fact more corrupt.

lll wrote on October 23, 2007 4:48 PM:

um, at the risk of taking jake d's vapid bait, i'll at least respond to his lack of understanding of stats.

no, jake, you're wrong. we cannot KNOW or ASSUME that dems are twice as corrupt as repugs; there are no data to support that assertion and thus that is a question we must ask, or pose as a hypothesis. the null hypothesis would of course be that there is no reason to expect there to be any difference in the corruption percentages of dems and repugs. period. that is not only basic scientific method, but it is basic probability theory.

in contrast, your rejection of the null is NOT - i repeat, NOT - based on any statistical data. you are asserting your ALTERNATE hypothesis as the null. that is just totally bassackward science.

your alternate hypothesis is that there are statistically more corrupt dems, and - at least you are asserting - that TPM readers 'assume' there are more corrupt repugs. those are each alternate hypotheses, hypotheses to be tested by DATA. and the data are then to be compared with the NULL hypothesis, which is that there is NO DIFFERENCE in the corruption levels of dems and repugs.

well, the data are in, and as you can see, there is a highly significant difference, and the data show that, IN FACT, repugs are far more corrupt than dems.

and if this still does not make any sense to you, then you need to take a refresher course in both stats AND basic science because you clearly do not quite grasp the concept of either...

and though you're trying to be cute to make your baseless claims equivalent to those of TPM readers, believing that because TPM readers 'think' repugs are more corrupt than dems therefore you are allowed to 'think' dems are more corrupt than repugs, it just does not work. you have no DATA to back up your thinking, whereas this study shows TPM readers (and many many more, like - oh - 70% of americans) are correct in 'thinking' (based on, i dunno, the FACTS) that repugs are in fact more corrupt than dems.

just for fun, though, why don't you take a few moments to entertain the meaning of the wise old saying:
power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,
in the context of the fact that repugs had control over congress for twelve years, six of them with bush the mighty repug as prez, and just look what they've done with all that power.

and oh yeah, what raoul said about hypocrisy.

Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 5:13 PM:

As I stated above, many more Democratic officeholders IN FACT support abortion, gay marriage, and other deviant behavior -- according to my worldview, that would make them more likely corrupt in their official duties as well -- that's all I was trying to say about the 5.6:1 ratio being logically possible. "Probability theory" aside. Sorry if you think that is "hypocrisy" or "trolling" or whatever else.

Luis T. wrote on October 23, 2007 5:42 PM:

As opposed to Republicans actually practicing gay sex in mens' bathrooms; molesting young (and perhaps underage) interns; performing adultery; taking money which does not belong to them; lying about why we halfway across the world killing other human beings in a country which had nothing to do with an attack on our soil and other documented deviant behavior while in the performance of their official duties as well.

Or is this ignored?

Jake D. wrote on October 23, 2007 5:51 PM:

"As opposed to Republicans actually practicing gay sex in mens' bathrooms; molesting young (and perhaps underage) interns; performing adultery; taking money which does not belong to them . . ."

Not at all -- let's throw out EVERY homosexual, adulterer, and corrupt politicians regardless of party.

". . . lying about why we halfway across the world killing other human beings in a country which had nothing to do with an attack on our soil and other documented deviant behavior while in the performance of their official duties as well."

Unless it is a "Just War" like WWII, right?

Luis T. wrote on October 23, 2007 6:49 PM:

"Not at all -- let's throw out EVERY homosexual, adulterer, and corrupt politicians regardless of party."

If this is the case, why is a person who supports "Gay Marriage" given more grief than a person who is a "Practicing Homosexual" (Experimenting, Closeted or Not)?

Your posts spend more time on "Democrats" not supporting your worldview in "moral terms" but nary a single character is typed about "Republicans" who have already demonstrated abuses of power - and are not being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law already on the books.

Your outrage is selective.

"Unless it is a "Just War" like WWII, right?"

What does "WWII" - since it sounds like you are insinuating that FDR "lied" to get the US into World War II - have to do with the Bush Administration lying about Iraq right now?

How does WWII have have any bearing with Bush and Cheney and the Republicans draining the US National Treasury - and destroying "American Goodwill" right now?

Why is WWII relevant in a discussion concerning Americans, Iraqis, and others dying in droves right now in an invasion started by and orchestrated this current administration?

Where is the relevance of bring up WWII?

And who in this discussion brought up WWII, and tried to call it some kind of "Just War" in some attempt to derail the discussion of politically motivated prosecutions by Republicans - after being called out on their "moral code"?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 24, 2007 2:27 AM:

Jake D. @ October 23, 2007 12:23 PM:
You probably think that abortion, gay marriage, and other deviant behavior has nothing to do with a Biblical worldview either.

I can't speak to Abortion or Gay Marriage . . . But Rampant Republicanism claims to be seeped in Rapturism.

lll wrote on October 24, 2007 9:30 AM:

sigh.

jake. it is your opinion that abortion and gay marriage are deviant. it NOT the opinion of most of the country. democrats do NOT support deviant behavior; they support individual choice (i.e., the govt is not allowed to tell me what to do with my body) and equal rights for all (that bothersome constitutional thing i know your repug buddies so abhor). what 'other' deviant behavior so bothers you? and therein lies the problem, friend; it bothers YOU, and that is YOUR problem. you need to learn a little christian tolerance, buddy. your suggestion that we toss out all the deviants is so terribly UNchristian.

and again, you really need to take a refresher course in science and stats. your HYPOTHESIS that, because dems support these things that YOU find deviant they must therefore be more corrupt, is merely that, a HYPOTHESIS! the sad thing for you is that you canNOT put probability theory aside!! probability allows us to actually test that hypothesis, and the data expose the FACT that YOUR ARE WRONG. deal with it!

that's not hypocrisy; your hypocrisy is exposed in your inability to tolerate all these 'deviants' and yet you call yourself a christian.

what we would call your inability to accept the fact that your hypothesis is WRONG is technically delusional thinking, but more casually just plain blind pig-headedness.

you've made it perfectly clear that you either will not or cannot grasp the information i've tried to impart to you on the stats issue, and that you will not even entertain ideas different from your own. so you have essentially shut down communication. you've created your own echo chamber. how sad for you. but i can exit. thank god.

adios.