The American Spectator

Bill Bailey| 3.23.09 @ 7:34PM

Dodd's a crook.

Jeremiah| 3.23.09 @ 8:26PM

This is interesting. Because we know it NEVER pays to be a Republican. They're just a bunch of poor idealists slaving away for the good of the country, asking for nothing in return.

Interested Conservative| 3.23.09 @ 8:46PM

Nice try Jeremiah, but the democrats are doing there best to make up for lost time.

That said, the timing here is curious, presuming Countrywide's program was in effect for several years, including before the democrats regained control of congress in 2006. Where they not so interested in greasing the skids on the GOP side, or did they only need to tend to the out power?

The democrats certainly have no monopoly on corruption, but they do seem to have a substantial majority interest in it.

Jeremiah| 3.23.09 @ 9:39PM

Interested Conservative --

Frankly, I'm disappointed.

The strongest and most consistently persuasive conservatives have is a healthy American distrust of politicians -- including Republicans.

If you think Democrats own the "substantial majority" of corruption, you're becoming a party man.

Interested Conservative| 3.23.09 @ 9:53PM

Jeremiah - it's a question of degree, not of kind. Democrats are in the majority, and much more interested in government as vocation - ergo, it's only to be expected they're presently a substantial majority of corruption.

I have plenty of experience with republican corruption, but it's mostly been more state and local, and for the next few years quantitatively less as well.

The natural advantage for the GOP, if they ever get around to it, is that less government usually means less government corruption. Again, it's been a while since we've heard that argument, but it may have a quick comeback considering present circumstances.

George W's fortune is a classic example - nothing corrupt, but hardly without government involvement. Not a ringing endorsement for small or limited government devotees.

Jeremiah| 3.23.09 @ 10:05PM

I don't think it follows that "less" government (and from whom have we gotten that?) means less corrupt government.

Generally, a government that takes its oversight responsibilities seriously, unlike the W administration, will have less corruption.

If people know they are likely to be caught and punished for abusing power, they'll be less likely to abuse power.

Abdicating from the responsibilities of governance (which is all to often what so-called conservatives do) leads to the kinds of insane corruption that existed in W's Justice Department and at his SEC -- where slush funds of tax payer money were diverted into cocaine parties and hookers. This was the least reported story of last year, mostly because it came at a time when everyone was suddenly obsessed with the fact that a black preacher in Chicago once said something angry sounding. Liberal press indeed.

Starry Night| 3.23.09 @ 10:43PM

Jeremiah is Dodd's enabler; just another liberal whoremonger.

Interested Conservative| 3.23.09 @ 10:49PM

Whoa there Jeremiah - I particularly enjoy the "least reported story of last year" recap. I can think of a few reasons it was overlooked, before you even get to how inconsequential it actually was.

For that matter, I think you're confusing you're arguments. "Insane corruption" is at the end of the list for problems which the Bush administration had - ineptness, incompetence, inefficiency - plenty of agreement there, but disagreeing with a policy doesn't mean it's corrupt.

Abramoff was corrupt, Duke Cunningham too, Mark Foley/Larry Craig - perverse yes, criminal maybe, corrupt no. Keep your arguments straight.

As for my point, consider rail passenger service - I cannot think of any non-governmental corruption in present day rail passenger service. Why? It's all governmental (not that there's much corruption there, but since it's now a government monopoly, by definition any corruption is government corruption).

PS - are you sure you have the least reported story correct - I thought that was in the interior department.

PPS - In any case, how are these W's administration corruption - I thought they were civil servants, arguably non-partisan, or were they political appointees?

Steve| 4.10.09 @ 10:39PM

Nice to see were actually a third world country. Consumers are sick of all of it. Countrywide sucks, KB Home sucks. Just a bunch of racketeers working with the paid off legislature (wink-wink-nudge-nudge). A KB Home Sucks dot com, show you how the scam starts... build a cheap crappy house then finance it for way more than it should be. Over time were rollin in the dough. Please pass the Homebuilder Lemon law in your state. If nothing else Hold KB Home/Countrywide accountable. http://www.akbhomesucks.com