Accountability (4.00 / 1)

In an ideal world, the political enablers of clearly corrupt politicians like Jefferson & Blagojevich would also be accountable to the political powers that be even if they are not legally culpable.  However, all to often the enablers of corrupt politicians are characterized by pundits of various ideological stripes to be realistic, pragmatic or street smart while those trying to crash the gates are naive and troublesome political adolescents.  Just imagine what the political establishment would say if "left wing bloggers" had backed somebody who ended up losing a solid Dem. seat like Jefferson's or if they were a big part of a statewide official like the Governor of Illinois.  

---

by: howardpark @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 15:51:41 PM CST

So where do we start? (0.00 / 0)

I'm for taking down every Democrat with a hint of corruption, but who all needs to go on the list?

Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/

---

by: ARDem @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 15:54:21 PM CST

Everybody (4.00 / 2)

Everybody should have a primary challenger. The ones where a challenge is merited should then be supported.

If you're asking who has a taint of corruption about them, this list from CREW might be a place to start.

That said, most of them are Republicans.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 15:57:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I am curious where Cao got the money to run ... (0.00 / 0)

I mean he had to convince NO that he was legitimate .. sadly .. Carter couldn't ... whether it was a lack of money/name recognition I don't know

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 16:10:49 PM CST

Seniority (0.00 / 0)

Seniority gets in the way of purging corruption.  A poor district like Mollohan's, Murtha's, or Don Young's (not exactly poor, but a net recipient of federal funds) is going to overlook corruption as long as it possibly can, in order to get the federal money that the community feels it desperately needs.  That's a problem, because it helps institutionalize corruption in Congress and makes it very hard to draw sharp ethical lines that others may not cross.  "Why shouldn't I be able to profit a bit from this earmark if Don Young or Speaker Hastert are guilty of far worse, and are getting away scot free year after year?"

I'm having trouble imagining a remedy though.  It would be nice if a district could somehow invoke a corruption clause, recall a representative, replace him, and keep the seniority.  Otherwise the community is expected to shoot itself in the foot (or even the head) in order to defend an ethical principle.  Maybe that's the kind of country we ought to have, but we clearly don't right now, and I don't know how likely it is that we would succeed in creating it.  And maybe we should just have a system that doesn't force people to choose between their ethics and their dinner.

To engage in some fanciful imagining of how a system would have to work, you'd need an element that prevents any old district from removing its non-corrupt incumbent at retirement age just to keep the seniority.  If a district had to vote to censure an incumbent in order to recall and replace him, that should be deterrent enough to keep the recall from being overused.  

Anyway, it's clear that the seniority system is causing districts like New Orleans, West Virginia, Montana, Alaska, West PA, et al to abstain from removing their incumbents until it becomes absolutely unavoidable.  That's a structural problem that it would be very nice to solve.

(I suppose an alternative is a very aggressive and effective Public Integrity branch of law enforcement, but there's a lot of perilous problems associated with that too.  Besides, "trusting a centralized law enforcement agency" is a structurally unwise way to solve this problem.)

---

by: texas dem @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 17:09:10 PM CST

PS -- it would probably be easier to just replace seniority (4.00 / 2)

than to enact any of the changes I just entertained.  It tends to distort the distribution of political power in other problematic ways too.  If committee chairs were simply elected by the caucus, seniority would probably have enough of a role in the likely outcome that its good aspects would be retained, while the bad ones were discarded.

I am totally talking out my ass at this point.  Sorry everyone.

---

by: texas dem @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 17:14:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

short, sweet and exceptional (0.00 / 0)

let's print it out, tape it to a 2x4 and beat the leadership in the head with it until they 'get it'

---

by: gaspare @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 07:28:42 AM CST