I'd Like to See the Complete List...

@hofferp (4734)
United States
May 23, 2010 11:01am CST
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/dec/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2009 None of the names on this list surprise me, which is sad to say. For the ones still alive, I hope they're voted out of office in 2010 and 2012, or thrown out of office sooner. Some actually need some jail time. Are there any names on this list you disagree with? You have names to add?
1 person likes this
3 responses
@TTCCWW (579)
• United States
23 May 10
No offence meant. Judicial Watch.org is a heavly bent propaganda group that spends most of it's time making up the facts. Clinton/Whitewater as one example. They are owned by Cory Consulting. Frinds of ick Army to name one and a major player for the Carlyle Group. There are a lot of politicians that need to be held accountable and making up issues or outright lies about them is totally unnessesary and just adds the rediculious to the conversation we need to be having. Where are their indictments for the seven senators and representatives that own sweat shops in Haiti and America Somolia. Or the ten years when the ethics commitees were disbanded in congress. When these folks do a shake and bake on Lindsey Grahm we will start paying attention to them...
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
23 May 10
No offense taken. Judicial Watch and a bunch of other organizations are bent too far right...and others too far left...for me. I took most of this with a grain of salt. But I would have liked to have seen the longer list...who knows it might have included the senators and representatives you're referring to. I think if they or other groups did a shake and bake on Grahm, and a sh*t-load of other politicians, you'd find corruption everywhere. That's why I want to clean house...Republicans and Democrats alike.
@TTCCWW (579)
• United States
24 May 10
Both sides are far to guilty of this. I have mixed feelings about this. We do have some older, and wiser, statesmen that actually understand how things work and I don't beleive they get any attention because they are not thieves and crooks. I have been in numerous industries in my life time and I always value the people that have been around the longest for thier base experience and wisdom. They just have more information. If we vote in all newbies are they not more inclined to have to cater to the folks who bought their way to the party where as the older reps have a solid foundation of donors.. My delemma. lol We are getting ready to vote for more campaign control in our state but how do we get this at the federal level. I used to give money to McCain in his earlier incarnation when he was for Public Campaign Finance. Now no one talks about it any more. I think that if we remove the need for them to raise huge sums of money and much about our country would change overnight.
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
24 May 10
I hear you...we may be throwing the baby out with the bath water...if we simply throw out the old and vote all new people in. I wish there was a way to surgically remove the corruption, but what we've done so far isn't enough or fast enough for me. I too have been/continue to be in favor of Public Campaign Finance reform and I would hope it would become an issue again with our next Congress/President. People are just as angry about the corruption as they are big government/big business. At my state level, corruption/government reform are top agenda items. That's what we get after 8 years of Bill Richardson. Thank goodness, he didn't become President! But sad for us, he remained our Governor...
@dawnald (85135)
• Shingle Springs, California
25 May 10
Bush and Cheney? :D
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
25 May 10
Corrupt? Dumb decisions at times, but I'd give Bush that. Maybe, as time goes on, I might have to add Bush to the corrupt list.
1 person likes this
• United States
23 May 10
I would not argue with any of those names on the list...but I would certainly add a few more. But then it would not be a top 10 list then. It would have just about every member of congress and the house on it. LOL.
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
23 May 10
I don't argue with the list either...and I'd like to see the next 1000-5000. That would take care of just about everyone in Congress, the Administration (I'll let the Supreme Court pass) and some of the worst former Congressmen/women/Administration people turned lobbiests. I'm sure then we could go to each state and the list would grow by 1000s. Have a great day, Lilwonders.