It is not at all surprising that Blunt has been chosen to replace Delay or to hear how corrupt Blunt really is. That is, after all, the true nature of the modern Republican party.

by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 02:04:27 PM EST

Funny how no one asks for proof when it's a Republican being called corrupt. I would have thought Ace would have been all over this. Must be too busy celebrating the Delay Indictment. I for one am by no means surprised by this. Congress is, in general, corrupt, and it is run by the most corrupt members, who have the means and the will to do what it takes to thwart anyone who even tries to do something honest. Witness the bipartisan outrage at those who have stepped forward to stop more mindless spending on social programs as part of the Katrina (and soon Rita) relief efforts. Roy Blunt is the perfect poster child for this, even if only 10% of what is being said about him is true. But everyone should note that just because this list claims to include "the most corrupt", it makes no claims to this list being all inclusive, and it is open to debate as to whether other members of Congress should replace some or all of those on the list. Both sides of the aisle routinely sell their votes for campaign contributions, which is corruption at its worst. None of these people are of sufficient character to make me comfortable letting them watch my dog for 5 minutes alone. Why in god's name do we pick them to lead the country?

by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 02:04:27 PM EST

It will be interesting to see what intrepid reporters turn up on Blunt now that he's the big man on campus. God knows that Republican sleaze has been a non-story in Washington for years, but this could be a blessing in disguise. The main Republican weakness has always been hubris and if Blunt thought no one would notice, perhaps he hasn't covered his tracks. If corruption is suddenly an "issue" worth discussing inside the Beltway, a guy like Blunt is just who we want in charge.

by owenz on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 02:04:28 PM EST

JustPaul What 'mindless social spending' are you referring to? PBS programing or feeding children in poverty educating children in poverty etc

by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 02:04:28 PM EST

Jen, Actually neither. I was thinking about the attempt to ram through $9 Billion in additional Medicaid state funding, without debate, which took place Monday night. Why you would think I have anything against feeding or educating children is a mystery, unless it's simply your knee-jerk reaction, "he said something against more spending so he must be an evil conservative who hates children, puppies, and his own mother" liberal slip showing. As for PBS: No one that I am aware said anything about spending more money on PBS; the issue was someone having suggested to cut funding to it. But hey that's just a factual quibble when evil conservatives are afoot, right?

by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 02:04:28 PM EST

Check the links in the original posting Justpaul (internet_navigation_101), they will take you to the information you would be looking for if you REALLY wanted to know if the guy is corrupt or not. OMG I just challenged your intellect OR your integrity..... which is worse?

by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 02:04:28 PM EST

Dreier #2 man was blocked because he is gay. Blunt is the #3 man. Dobson at work. Corruption is much more appealing than being gay, Dobson should know.

Dreier was blocked because he has a long-term, loving relationship with someone of the same sex. This has been documented on many fronts and is widely known by members of Dreier's own caucus. If the reality of this blocked Dreier's ascension, then the news has a duty not to keep this matter hidden.

Steve Clemons via atrios

by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 02:04:28 PM EST

Hey, Adrazer's back! Still clueless, but he's back. Sorry Adrazar, but if you'd had enough interest to read my comment, you would have seen I haven't even begun to question this guy's corruption. I take it almost as a matter of faith that he is, simply because I believe they all are. My point was that anytime someone says something about a liberal idea or individual, we get immediate and multiple demands for proof and links (you clearly know about this, having engaged in such behavior). But let it be a claim about a conservative idea or individual and no proof is required for the peanut gallery to jump in with both feet, as you just have. I've read the link, Adrazar. Have you? Had you before I brought up the issue of proof? Probably not. But if you had, good for you! It's nice to know that you care enough to check it out. But with that said, can you provide any evidence beyond that cited by the people making the accusation? Do you normally accept the claims of anyone making an accusation? Are all defendants guilty because a prosecutor says they are and says he has evidence to prove it? I didn't know northern europe had such a strange legal system, but hey, I never claimed omnipotence. Next time, try to understand a comment before you reply to it. You'll find the going much easier.

by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 02:04:28 PM EST

bark! bark! And yes, I did read the stuff on this guy earlier today. And I did indeed read your post. Starting off asking for any proof of corruption and then slowly slipping into some sort of "the democrats are corrupt too, so my guy is ok" thing. Classy.

by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 02:04:28 PM EST

Adrazar, If you read my comment, and still got to "Starting off asking for any proof of corruption and then slowly slipping into some sort of "the democrats are corrupt too, so my guy is ok" thing", you're lack of comprehension in english is even worse than your understanding of most election systems. I have no "guy" in this fight. I have stated repeatedly that I think they are all corrupt. I didn't say a word about Democrats in particular, and I certainly didn't say that anyone in Congress is "ok". Do everyone here a favor and try to limit your comments to what people have actually said rather than what you would like to believe they have said so that you can regurgitate the latest Sideshow Paul rant. You made more sense when you were claiming that voter registration is not required because voters are registered by the government anyway, and that made no sense at all.

by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 02:04:28 PM EST

Hey! I am just trying to do society a favor keeping you off the streets, busy writing stuff here! No but really, you did start with an indignated

Funny how no one asks for proof when it's a Republican being called corrupt

followed by a vague

Congress is, in general, corrupt

etc. I did however miss your last couple of lines, so I guess you have some legitimate claims on me this time : )

by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 02:04:28 PM EST

Adrazar, I don't see anything vague about saying that congress is, in general, corrupt. The problem is that you somehow managed to read that as "Democrats are also corrupt" (which I will agree they are, but it's not what I said), and then launched another tirade based on your failure to understand a clear statement. And I still stand by my original statement. The majority of those here require no objective evidence that a Republican is guilty of any crime you want to name, but accuse a Democrat of jaywalking and they'll demand actuall footage of the offense and then argue about the definition of jaywalking. There are exceptions, of course, but there are exceptions to almost every rule. The "bark, bark" was nice though. I like dogs.

by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 02:04:28 PM EST

ah, yes of course. "mindless social spending" being such a specific description, I should have KNOWN you meant 'medical care for children in poverty'

by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 02:04:28 PM EST

Jen, Your slip is showing again. If medical care for poor children is worthwhile, and I certainly haven't said it's not, then it's worth discussing openly and voting for specifically, rather than passing a massive increase, with no debate, hidden within a bill providing relief funds for Katrina victims. It's these kinds of spending bills, the ones slipped in under the radar and voted on without half the members even knowing it's there, that are a major reason for the out of control spending the government is involved in. If you simply believe that all government spending is good, so be it. I disagree. That I chose not to go into specifics about various types of spending priorities was an attempt to remain on topic, which you seem unwilling to do. (Do you even have a comment on the subject at hand, or are you, like Adrazar, here only to attack other people's comments?) Welcome to TalkLeft, Jen. I understand that you took this place to be filled only with rabid liberals and few rabid conservatives, but some of us actually do attempt, not always successfully, to chart a middle path. If you want to advocate more spending, find a thread on the subject and have at it. If you have nothing to offer but snide asides, you'll just get marked down as another person whose comments aren't worth reading.

by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 02:04:28 PM EST

None of these people are of sufficient character to make me comfortable letting them watch my dog for 5 minutes alone. Why in god's name do we pick them to lead the country?

Because they care about fetuses more than gays and blacks? Just a thought.

by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 02:04:29 PM EST

I'm not one to trust congressmen either. Thats why our system is supposed to have checks and balances. Our forefathers realized they couldnt trust ANYBODY with power in government without having a way to keep them in line. You understand nothing about me, justpaul. I understand nothing about you - I apologize for the assumptions I made about you. Medicaid isn't really something I object to. Wars and perks for the priveledged? yes. health care? no.

by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 02:04:29 PM EST

Our forefathers realized they couldnt trust ANYBODY with power in government without having a way to keep them in line.

Key phrase in that statement: "supposed to". I am afraid that I'll have to argue that the checks and balances system has become extremely weak b/c the govt has begun to learn how to work together to surpass checks and balances to gain more power as a federal entity.

by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 02:04:29 PM EST

I think the powerful have *always* done their best to dampen the checks and balances. They have been very succesfull recently.

by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 02:04:29 PM EST