Two Time CREW "Most Corrupt In Congress" Award Winner

[RLENT]

When, in 2005, CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) announced their first ever "Most Corrupt In Congress" report, Senator Rick Santorum managed to garner the coveted corruption honor for two matters.

In 2006 CREW released their second edition of "Most Corrupt In Congress", and utterly undaunted by his previous appearance in the spotlight of soil, Santorum had charged full-speed ahead as though he were auditioning for the title of "Crony Capitalist Extraordinare" - and managed to earn a spot once again - this time with a listing for not only the two previous issues, but for another five issues:

Crews Releases Second Annual Most Corrupt Members of Congress Report

The documentation that is linked in the above article is extensive and large, so I did not link it here.

As you sit listening to the mindless morons of morning tv on any of the various channels, ask yourself: Why they aren't they talking about this ?

Hilarious timing - can't make it up - just as I was in the middle of typing this the following occurred:

I have Fox and "Friends" In The Morning on, and Bridget Carlson just commented about Santorum not having gotten the benefit of being vetted by the media spotlight ..... and then asked Dana Perino (former Bush the lesser mouthpiece, who I'm sure is a lot more knowledgable that she is letting on) if there was anything in Santorum's past to be concerned about ?

Perino's reply: Um ..... uh ...... no, not really .......

Right Dana .....

.... rather than take your word for it though, I think I'll just stay tuned ....

 

[xiggi]

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, lets just keep in mind why this group was established and where it's funding comes from. It does have a very liberal bent and gets funding from the same people such as Acorn, Move On etc. Not saying Santorum is squeaky clean but the group you site could not be considered so either. There is no doubt or even argument they were created to fight for liberal causes.

Just to add I am not a Santorum fan.

 

[witness23]

Just google "Santorum" and you'll know everything you need to know about the guy from the first link provided.

 

[RLENT]

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, lets just keep in mind why this group was established and where it's funding comes from. It does have a very liberal bent and gets funding from the same people such as Acorn, Move On etc.

Just curious - did you even bother to look at any of the linked documentation on Santorum before you wrote any of this ?

Describe how they have a "liberal bent" (other than who they might have received funding from) in terms of their actions .... preferably using something resembling actual facts ...)

Not saying Santorum is squeaky clean but the group you site could not be considered so either.

Really ?

They can't be considered "squeaky clean" ..... because of their political associations ?

Or have they done something unethical that would make them something other than "squeaky clean" ?

There is no doubt or even argument they were created to fight for liberal causes.

They were created to function as a left-leaning counterweight to Larry Klaman, et al, from Judicial Watch ...

FWIW, responsibility and ethics in government is a cause that transcends political ideology - so your premise above is kinda funny on it's face (and seemingly self-defeating)

I'd suggest you look at their listings of corrupt politicians, the stuff on their website, and notice that some of them do indeed have a big "D" behind their names .....

The point is the message, not the messenger.

Just to add I am not a Santorum fan.

Right

 

[witness23]

I was really surprised he didn't mention the infamous George Soros in his post.

 

[xiggi]

Just curious - did you even bother to look at any of the linked documentation on Santorum before you wrote any of this ?

Describe how they have a "liberal bent" (other than who they might have received funding from) in terms of their actions .... preferably using something resembling actual facts ...)


Really ?

They can't be considered "squeaky clean" ..... because of their political associations ?

Or have they done something unethical that would make them something other than "squeaky clean" ?


They were created to function as a left-leaning counterweight to Larry Klaman, et al, from Judicial Watch ...

FWIW, responsibility and ethics in government is a cause that transcends political ideology - so your premise above is kinda funny on it's face.

I'd suggest you look at their listings of corrupt politicians, the stuff on their website, and notice that some of them do indeed have a big "D" behind their names .....

The point is the message, not the messenger.


Right

My post in no way was to defend Santorum. You are very quick to mention how right leaning a place just as fox is and are sure to point out the messenger when they are involved, a little consistency might be a good thing in that area. My only point was to shed light on the source you mentioned. Yes they did throw in a few D's very few compared to R's and as we all know each party has targets within there own people.

 

[davekc]

Santorum certainly isn't squeaky clean. Most outside of PA probably know little about him. Soon to come out if he starts gaining any traction. He hasn't really been under the microscope as of yet. Romney likely has NH locked up. Real test will be down in SC and FL.

 

[RLENT]

Santorum certainly isn't squeaky clean.

Yup - not at all. But being dirty ain't the only baggage he's got.

Most outside of PA probably know little about him. Soon to come out if he starts gaining any traction. He hasn't really been under the microscope as of yet.

Oh they (the establishment and media) all know his baggage - they just trot it at the point where it suits them - all part of the big dog and pony show.

Romney likely has NH locked up.

Him prevailing there would not be a real big surprise. He will be subject to Newt's tender ministrations however - hopefully that will knock a little luster off Mittens.

OTOH, Santorum, while getting a little bump out of IA has a very tough row to hoe in NH still - bad favorability numbers (39/40) which probably ain't gonna get better in NH.

Gingrich continues to slide in NH in a new CNN/ORC poll (first number post Iowa, second number is pre Iowa) ... and Bachmann apparently lost 50% of her supporters:

Romney 47% 47%
Paul 17% 17%
Huntsman 13% 13%
Santorum 10% 5%
Gingrich 9% 12%
Bachmann 1% 2%
Perry * *
Someone else (vol.) 1% *
None/ No one (vol.) 1% 1%
No opinion 1% 3%

CNN/ORC Poll 01/03/12

Real test will be down in SC and FL.

Yup - those will be two biggies ....

Be interesting to see how bloody Santorum is by the time he gets there ... if he does ...

 

[RLENT]

MSNBC is about to have Santorum's nephew on in a bit ..... he's supporting Dr. Paul ...

The Santorum family Christmas this coming year may be a bit awkward me thinks ... mebbe they'll do immediate only, as opposed to extended.

Dr. Paul apparently called Newt a "chickenhawk" this morning (on CNN maybe ?) ... seems likely Rooster would qualify for that label as well.

 

[witness23]

Dr. Paul apparently called Newt a "chickenhawk" this morning (on CNN maybe ?)

Nice!

I will be searching for that video.

 

[davekc]

MSNBC is about to have Santorum's nephew on in a bit ..... he's supporting Dr. Paul ...

The Santorum family Christmas this coming year may be a bit awkward me thinks ... mebbe they'll do immediate only, as opposed to extended.

Dr. Paul apparently called Newt a "chickenhawk" this morning (on CNN maybe ?) ... seems likely Rooster would qualify for that label as well.

That's not nice.

 

[Pilgrim]

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, lets just keep in mind why this group was established and where it's funding comes from. It does have a very liberal bent and gets funding from the same people such as Acorn, Move On etc. Not saying Santorum is squeaky clean but the group you site could not be considered so either. There is no doubt or even argument they were created to fight for liberal causes.
Just to add I am not a Santorum fan.

This is right on target, and it's obvious that the efforts of CREW in 2006 were geared toward Santorum's defeat in his reelection bid against Bob Casey that same year. Three different complaints were filed by CREW against Santorum, some of his staffers, and a network of Pastors that supported him. Wonder if those actions might have intimidated any other support groups that would have supported Santorum's re-election bid? Apparently, none of these complaints had any merit considering the Democrat-controlled Senate Ethics Committee never even responded to the Santorum allegations. These sort of efforts appear to be routine for this outfit, which is nothing more than a thinly veiled organization created for the reelection efforts of Democrat congressmen and senators.

"CREW has published seven annual reports since 2005 of the politicians that CREW identifies as the most corrupt members of Congress.

The 2005 report included 11 Republicans and 2 Democrats;[4]

the 2006 report included 17 Republicans and 3 Democrats;[5]

the 2007 report included 18 Republicans and 4 Democrats;[6];

the 2008 report included 17 Republicans and 7 Democrats;[7]

the 2009 report included 7 Republicans and 8 Democrats;[8]

the 2010 report included 16 Republicans and 10 Democrats;[9]

the 2011 report included 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats.[10]"

"Melanie Sloan serves as CREW's founding and current executive director. Prior to founding CREW in 2003, she served as one of more than 300 Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the District of Columbia from 1998 to 2003 after having worked for Congressional Democrats John Conyers, Charles Schumer, and Joseph Biden.[12]"

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are quite a few people on the CREW hit list that would be justified in wearing these trumped-up accusations as a badge of honor. Naturally, the CREW hitmen have to target such no-brainers as Democrats like Charlie Wrangel, John Edwards and Anthony Wiener in order to give the appearance of credibility. However, most anyone with a shred of analytical ability can recognize them for what they are - liberal democrat political hacks.

 

[RLENT]

Apparently, none of these complaints had any merit considering the Democrat-controlled Senate Ethics Committee never even responded to the Santorum allegations.

Huh ?

Have we now moved beyond just the use of logical fallacy for partisan agenda into wholesale misdirection ?

The Senate was held by a Republican majority starting in January 2003 in the 108th Congress, and running to January 2007, when the 110th Congress convened, and the Democrats took control.

Santorum's term ended on January 3, 2007 - so he was gone by the time the Democrats took control.

That they weren't further addressed by the Ethics Committee once the Democrats took control of the Senate may have less to due with the merits of the allegations, than just the fact that he was no longer there.

Again, it's just more logical fallacy. No real suprise there though I guess .....

These sort of efforts appear to be routine for this outfit, which is nothing more than a thinly veiled organization created for the reelection efforts of Democrat congressmen and senators.

Right ...... because ...... wesayso .....

There are quite a few people on the CREW hit list that would be justified in wearing these trumped-up accusations as a badge of honor.

...... name them .... and the we can have a little talk about the merits ....

Naturally, the CREW hitmen have to target such no-brainers as Democrats like Charlie Wrangel, John Edwards and Anthony Wiener in order to give the appearance of credibility. However, most anyone with a shred of analytical ability can recognize them for what they are - liberal democrat political hacks.

..... as opposed to hypocritical authoritarian republican political hacks ?

BTW, it seems that for some, "analytical ability" is often distorted thru a partisan lens ...

 

[muttly]

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, lets just keep in mind why this group was established and where it's funding comes from. It does have a very liberal bent and gets funding from the same people such as Acorn, Move On etc. Not saying Santorum is squeaky clean but the group you site could not be considered so either. There is no doubt or even argument they were created to fight for liberal causes.

Just to add I am not a Santorum fan.

Thanks for pointing this out. A group's agenda is very important to know about and should be viewed with a great deal of skepticism.

 

[witness23]

Thanks for pointing this out. A group's agenda is very important to know about and should be viewed with a great deal of skepticism.

Oh the irony in that statement.

 

[Turtle]

All too often, however, skepticism allows one to incorrectly dismiss real, relevant data, like facts. Human nature. So, one's own skepticism should be looked at with a little skepticism. The messenger can sometimes be important, especially when they are delivering opinion. But it's the message itself that holds the greatest weight. The problem comes when you believe, or dismiss the message, because of the messenger.

 

[RLENT]

...... name them .... and the we can have a little talk about the merits ....

.... waiting ..... (crickets) .....

 

[chefdennis]

RLent wrote:

BTW, it seems that for some, "analytical ability" is often distorted thru a partisan lens ...

Really!?!? LOL....

 

[muttly]

It's been pointed out before by some in this forum that certain organizations or persons with a bias will throw in counter arguments or in this case putting Democrats on a list (who have obvious corruption problems)so as to give the appearance of objectivity. When in reality they are shilling for their liberal friends.

 

[witness23]

It's been pointed out before by some in this forum that certain organizations or persons with a bias will throw in counter arguments or in this case putting Democrats on a list (who have obvious corruption problems)so as to give the appearance of objectivity. When in reality they are shilling for their liberal friends.

Conspiracies, conspiracies everywhere.