Top Ten: Most Corrupt Politicians
 

Who are yours?

Judicial watch did their list for 2010...

Theirs are posted in white below.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2010 list of Washington's “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in alphabetical order, includes: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Rahm Emanuel, Former Obama White House Chief of Staff, Senator John Ensign (R-NV), Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), President Barack Obama, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY), and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA).

from here

ETA - this site is so partisan you'll wanna puke... but it got me to thinking about a list... maybe even a field of 64...

Ronald Reagan

GW Bush.

Neither of them were politicians in 2010...

C'mon people... list of TEN (10) from 2010

Where the heck is Dana when you need her?
DANA - Paging Dana!!!!!1

What>?

DAMN! The pager thingy really worked.

You didn't say they had to be from 2010.

That list was obviously created by rightists.

Edwards! Weiner! Edwards's weiner!

Speaker of the House John Boehner

cry me a river

Anyone crying that often in public is up to no good.

Tom DeLay, Charlie Rangel

Paul Ryan, the Republican in the House with the slash and burn budget, cutting $billions from programs that benefit working families and clean energy programs but saying NO to tax cuts for the rich, NO to cutting tax benefits and subsidies to oil companies.

Could this explain it, in part:

Interesting.... Still doesn't get him anywhere near the top ten - 7 of which are D's.
Nor does it compare to Gore hawking his bs all over while being invested in all that he was trying to sell. Actually, its about the same thing.

Add them both to the list.

Republican Darrell Issa, one of the richest members of Congress and new chair of the House Govt Oversight Committee, who recently conducted hearings on the SEC investigation of Goldman Sachs (the investigation that resulted in one of the largest fines in history - $550 million), claiming that the SEC was politically motivated. Not to mention numerous shady land deals that may have benefited from legislation.

Could this explain it, in part:
Its one thing to take campaign funds from Goldman Sachs - both parties are guilty. Its something else when you own $millions in Goldman Sachs funds and chair the House Govt Affairs Oversight Committee.

Ohhhh Thats a good one - forgot about Issa

That's the top 10 according to Judicial Watch. I don't know that I agree with their assessment.

No Spexx - I was referring to the top 10 wealthiest.

Boehner's Boner

I love it....

Hey merc - did you even read the original post in this thread?
lol

From the beginning. Why?

Cuz you posted the link to the posted link that started the thread.

Because you basically had it hidden, and I posted it without it being hidden and thought it was quite entertaining.

lol - the idea was not to give away their answers...
instead to pick your own - like everyone else was.

I hate them all.... :)

Seriously, though, this is only about the top ten *US* politicians. By global standards, they're pretty lame.

Mubarrak is said to have stolen something like $50 billion, and given lush jobs to his entire extended family. Assad has had thousands of his own citizens killed. Gaddafi has organised mass rapes of dissident populations.

That's corruption.

Your pollies are freakin boy scouts by comparison.

It's like the big furore over MPs expenses over here. Loads of MPs scotched the system, claiming for second homes that weren't really second homes, or for wages for assistants who turned out to be sons and daughters who had never worked for them etc. But much of it involved silly shit like claiming for repairs to houses that they shouldn't have claimed for, or cleaners that they should have paid for themselves. The actual amounts were mostly quite low. Only a handful were involved in large amounts and even those compared to most countries were pitiful.

There are a few who've been sent to gaol for fraud. But the amounts they've defrauded the tax-payer for are pretty low all things considered. LIke £20-30k across 5 years.

Good point.

I agree with you ZenGum and mercy. It's a problem, but a good one to have.

Still, in our own local political ecosystem, local standards apply. Our society, and yours and many others, are built, function at all, because we're a nation of laws. Ironically, it is this very adherence by most that makes the corruption effective.

I see what you mean, it is like Churchill's point that democracy is the worst form of government except for every other form that has been tried.

There are times, though, when we need a strong leader to say something like "screw your campaign contributions, screw your vested interest lobby groups, screw your poll results, screw your marginal electorates and swing states, I'm in charge here and were doing [insert necessary but unpopular move here]!"

Alas, for someone to be able to say that, they'd need to have roughly absolute power, and we have an adage about that, too.

Didn't Jimmy Carter try to do something like that?

John Howard was the kind of leader that said and did that sort of thing. He was also completely deluded about how good his decisions were. I agree with your point Zen (and I know that you know this), but pigheadedness needs to be recognised for what it is-as does wisdom in the face of unpopularity.

Funny, I remember Howard more for his completely-unnecessary-but-popular-among-the-rednecks policies.

I was just reflecting, though, that my use of the phrase "necessary but unpopular" gives the game away. If the voting masses had sense, anything necessary would be popular. The mere existence of the Necessary Unpopular shows, yet again, that we get the government we deserve.

As usual, what you've said describes it so much better.

Re the second paragraph-so true, but I am praying in a figurative sense that Australia will never deserve Tony Abbott (or Christopher Pyne...WTF do they keep on inviting him to appear on the panel of Q & A).

A quibble, if I may.

I don't believe that having sense means that necessaries cannot be unpopular.

I flatter myself that I have sense. And there are some necessaries about my own life that aren't popular (if I may substitute popular among many for enthusiastic about for myself). There are some chores that just stay chores no matter how necessary. There are some obligations that I fulfill grudgingly. They're not always the same, my attitudes aren't static and neither are the attitudes of the public.

Not popular as in "I like it"; popular as in "when polled about whether we should do it, I say yes".

One of the top ten has a new book out. I still suspect W could have been a decent President if Cheney hadn't been standing on his shoulder with his little pitchfork.

Agreed, but I am not sure that he could have done it without someone guiding him. I just wish he never would have invited Cheney into the castle.

Corrupt Politician - isn't that redundant?

Cheney invited himself. He was in charge of vice presidential selection.

Really? Cheney selected himself for the job and Bush had no say in it? :lol: