What percentage of the Democratic party do believe is corrupt?

[Response]

If you like you can include the DLC as well.

[aSpeckofDust]

Just the 1%. /snark >:3

[Quantess]

60. That is the weirdest smilie I have ever seen.

By turning one's head to the left, is it sinister eyebrows, 2 eyes, and a cleft lip?

[mitchtv]

62. looks like a rabbit n/t

[aSpeckofDust]

1. -dupe-

[Tunkamerica]

2. define corrupt

[WCGreen]

38. Yes..... That is a very good question....

[xchrom]

3. Most of it & all of the DLC. Nt

[A-Schwarzenegger]

4. You go first.

:*

[Response]

6. Power corrupts as the song goes.

I'm not sure if any are truly clean. There are plenty that appear to be amoral.

I have no reason to believe that the republicans are anything less than 100% corrupted, but I also believe that as time goes on that the Democratic party becomes more so.

There is nothing to keep them from being less corrupt since there is little penalty if caught. Collusion with big business, $$$ and the powerful, at the expense of the rest of us, leaves me little doubt that there is no moral Democratic leadership. Even ten percent corruption is too much, and I believe that the number is far higher than that.

[pacalo]

13. Have you been paying close attention for the past 12 years?

I'm not sure if any are truly clean. There are plenty that appear to be amoral.

We don't know all there is to know about the motivations or the dynamics behind every stupid move made by the top echelon in Washington, but I can give you a self-educated guess as to which politicians are evil & morally-challenged, & those politicians are the Republicans/teabaggers. How could you MISS that point yourself when the Republicans/teabaggers have been predominantly displayed on all the major news channels for years? One either gets it or doesn't; it's that obvious.

[Response]

34. Talk about missing it.

I don't believe that my quote could be any clearer here.

"I have no reason to believe that the republicans are anything less than 100% corrupted..."

Are you seriously going to go the route that the only corrupted, or morally bankrupt for that matter, people in D.C. have an R after their name?

[pacalo]

75. "There are plenty (Democrats?) that appear to be amoral" is what I referring to.

That's too general a statement given without examples. Who appears to be amoral & why?

[CrispyQ]

63. "There is nothing to keep them from being less corrupt since there is little penalty if caught."

Also, we keep voting for them cuz they aren't as corrupt as the other guys. :eyes:

It's a vicious circle that only leads to the democratic party moving further & further to the right.

[apocalypsehow]

5. Uhhhhhh, the "DLC" is a defunct outfit:

"On February 7, 2011, Politico reported that the DLC would dissolve, and would so as early as the following week.<4> On July 5 of that year, DLC founder Al From announced in a statement on the organization's website that the historical records of the DLC have been purchased by the Clinton Foundation"

Democratic Leadership Council

Every party has an element of corruption in it, both ethical, ideological or otherwise. That is the nature of large groups of human beings in common organizations, or just random groupings of people walking down the street.

That's a pretty broad question; perhaps you could narrow your query?

[Response]

7. Do you really believe that?

[Electric Monk]

10. I believe the majority of them believe that they are now 'mission accomplished'.

fwiw

[yurbud]

11. what percentage of Democratic pols would never accept a job as a corporate lobbyist, CEO, or

do nothing corporate board member when they leave office, or take an insider tip in office or after.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

55. They are now 'The Third Way'.

DLC/Third Way

[woo me with science]

57. ....

:rofl:

[ohheckyeah]

8. Not as high of a percentage of republicans

that are corrupt.

[Response]

9. No disagreements there, but I really don't believe that the

argument of "our guys are less corrupt that the 100% corrupt party" really has any merit.

[limpyhobbler]

12. are you talking about big-name people like Congress and ...

are you talking about big-name people like Congress and Governors and such? ---> 71%

Or are you talking about my grandma, and the state rep that lives down the street from me? ---> 0%

Or did you mean just anyone that is registered democrat? ---> 12%

[TheKentuckian]

51. 0% of state reps is beyond laughable. I'd say that in many states the capitals are more captured

than wretched ass DC.

I think your registered number is also low or we wouldn't be so receptive to being lead by charlatans, chumps, crooks, sell outs, and corporate fascists but clearly they are not corrupted in the same ways. And are more accurately described as twisted and/or throughly deceived. They also don't control bureaucracies are legislate nor do they get the payoffs, plum jobs, and trappings of the elite caste so it is a distraction to discuss the rank and file in this conversation when by definition it only can functionally apply to elected and non-elected political operatives with real power to enforce, interpret, or legislate the law.

Pretending the state and local levels are clean essentially spits in the face of reality and pointing at individuals rather than the totality of the system is also distraction that works to short circuit focus on the root problems.

[limpyhobbler]

65. Not what I said.

I said my grandma is a Democrat and she is not corrupt.
Also there is a state rep that lives down the street from me and he is not corrupt.
That was the 0%.

I agree with that much of the state legislatures are captured.
I would say 50% on that one.

The question was "what % of democrats". Precisely speaking, that includes people that are registered with a 'D' party affiliation. I still think 12%.

I also think that at the state and local level, the dividing line between what is 'rank and file' vs what is 'political operatives' is not a clear dividing line.

If somebody is a local township trustee and he gets his nephew a job mowing grass at the cemetery, I don't want to call that corruption, because it is too small.

So I was saying that the more power someone has, the more likely they are to be corrupt, right?

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Like the Gilded Age...most at the top levels

There is less money and less corruption at the state level, like the gilded age.

[begin_within]

15. Not as much as the Republicans, only about 95%

[Fire Walk With Me]

16. Only the ones not visibly supporting #Occupy and not damning what happened to Scott Olsen.

[Syrinx]

18. the very system is corrupt beyond redemption

The Democratic Party is the lesser of two evils.

[Peace Patriot]

19. "Divide and conquer" question, seemingly designed to elicit cynical answers that

beat up on the Democratic Party leadership without specifics about who or what. The question promotes unease, disillusionment and disempowerment without being helpful in any way. I can't know if this is deliberate or not. Maybe just lazy thinking.

If you have something to say about the Democratic Party leadership or the rank and file membership, say it. Don't ask others to say it for you. And please be specific. Define "corruption." Say what YOU think is the percentage of corruption, say, in the Party leadership, and how you have arrived at this percentage.

One commenter above, for instance, says (of the leadership): Any who have not supported the OWS movement. Although that is not direct evidence of corruption, it is at least a criterion that points to corruption. We can think about this, note who has or hasn't supported the OWS movement and then look at their other actions to make an assessment of them (look at their campaign contributors and their associations; for senators and congresspersons, look at their voting records, etc.).

This is more useful than a vague accusation of general corruption, in the form of a question. (Answer: "Oh, they're all corrupt, so why bother participating in politics?')

In defining corruption and identifying specific forms of corruption, as they manifest in specific leaders, we get a much clearer picture of what's wrong with our Party and with our country. For instance, how many of our Party leaders in Congress voted for the Iraq War, and did they do so out of fear (--the "Anthrax Congress") or is there evidence of close association with "military industrial complex" contractors? Or (a very important question to me) How many of them voted for corporate-run, 'TRADE SECRET' voting systems and who among them has ever objected to this rape of our democracy?

Investigations of corruption can lead us to answers and, most important of all, to action. (How do we get our power back, as a people? Where do we start?) Vague questions about corruption and vague answers--based on feelings and "belief'--lead nowhere and can even do harm (encourage feelings of helplessness).

So, once again, if you have something to say, SAY IT. Be precise. Be focused. And give us some indication of what your thoughts on corruption in the Democratic Party are aimed at. What practical solutions can you offer? (Take over the local Central Committees? Get out in the streets with OWS? General strike? Throw the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines into 'Boston Harbor'? (YES!) Start a third party? Where are you going with this?) Not this vague, general slander of the Party leaders, which discourages activism and voting. Instead, identify the corruption that YOU see in terms of potential action to correct it.

[JoePhilly]

31. Outstanding Response!!!

There is a concerted effort to get Democrats to give up and go home.

The GOP's only chance is a reduced turn out ... just like in 2010.

I consider many of these OPs as playing directly into that.

[Response]

37. Yeah, that's it. I must be asking every Democrat to give up.

:sarcasm:
No corruption in D.C. at all. Move along. Go shopping. We can do no wrong. Yea team!

[JoePhilly]

42. I don't know what your actually asking ... as many have noted, your OP

lacks sufficient specifics to respond to.

I think the post that I praised did a nice job of pointing that out.

My small addition goes to the impact of such OPs, regardless of your actual motive.

Regularly, we see "Dems are Bad?" OPs that, rather than indicate why they are bad, simply leave others to fill in a laundry list of reasons.

btw ... I did not say there is no corruption in DC ... or Dems can do no wrong .... but I do find it strange that your interest was only with the "bad" Dems.

[Response]

45. My post was fairly clear for those with eyes.

What is more clear is that some are able to answer in their own way, without fear of asking what their opinion should be, while others work very hard to paint the question as unacceptable to them.

".... but I do find it strange that your interest was only with the "bad" Dems."

Why would I care about the republicans? They are beyond corrupt.
My party, the Democratic party, is the one that I want to save. Simply by voting for them is not enough.
They are there to serve us and not the other way around.

On edit: If a bad thing happens to the party in 2012 please don't play the bs game of blaming those Dems that didn't come out and vote. There is a sizable number of independents that you have to consider as well. I will vote D in 2012, but I an not honor bound to NOT ask questions.

God, this question really isn't even that tough. Had I asked a really tough question I may already have received my pizza...seeing how Democracy works.

[JoePhilly]

66. If you really wanted to save the Dems, why not say that in your OP?

As for 2012 ... there is a concerted effort to depress Dem turn out, that is simply a fact.

And the best way to do it, is to get moderate Dems to decide that the Dems are just like the Republicans, and there is no reason to get up and vote on election day.

The GOP does not need to win the moderates, they need them stay home. That is their goal.

[Response]

67. Why not just sit down and shut up as well?

America: love it or leave it?

It is true that there is "a concerted effort to depress Dem turn out, that is simply a fact", but some of that is coming from the Democrats themselves.

Yes or no?

[JoePhilly]

70. You seem very scattered in your response.

"Sit down and shut up!"

"America, love it or leave it!!"

Are you able to have a straight discussion, or ... do you need to scream such nonsense????

There is a concerted effort to depress Dem turn out ... that is a fact ... but if you read what I wrote, I did not say that Dems were trying to do that.

I do think that the GOP, with media assistance, is trying to get Dems to quarrel in a manner which leads to that outcome.

Dividing the opposition is a TACTIC. And the GOP and the media are happy to divide Dems. Get them to fight each other, and as a by-product, get some to stay home.

You can ignore this if you want. But this is what is happening.

[Response]

72. Actually I'm dead on, but thanks.

[Response]

36. Perhaps the question was too difficult for you to answer honestly.

[Peace Patriot]

71. "Difficult"? Yeah, well, it's so vague as to be unanswerable--that's true.

It's just a vague slander. It has no meaning for me.

And I don't know what you're getting at. What would I base a guess at the percentage of corruption in, say, the Democratic Party leadership, ON? Direct graft--payment and perks for votes? Consulting corporate lobbyists on laws? Taking campaign contributions from the rich and the corporate? Legislators' votes? Correlation of votes to campaign contributions? "Revolving door" door employment? General mind-set (what they advocate). I don't know how to arrive at a percentage.

I have the general opinion that there is hardly a Democratic Party leader in the country who is not corrupt to some degree--that is, who is not getting some benefit from some bad decisions--from decisions that harm the rest of us. I think public office is "for sale." And this is very wrong. You have to have at least a million dollars in hand these days to even think of running for Congress--or even city council! It is a rich peoples' game. You either have to have the money or you have to get it--and how you get it is to hang out with the rich and corporate, and please and do favors for the rich and the corporate. That's the reality--that's the general stinkpot in which all those ambitious for public office have to swim. I think there are leaders who try to swim in this muck with a wet suit on--who try not to be directly corrupt, who have "standards," who even listen to poor constituents at times, on some issues. But even they have to spend most of their time raising campaign funds.

I think that your question bypasses this stinky reality. It doesn't include what YOU think corruption to BE? Is it hanging out with rich folks because you have to raise money or compromising on some issue because otherwise you won't get money from general Democratic Party funds? Do we call anyone "corrupt" who is caught in that kind of bind? Or are we talking about bribes, dirty deals, promises of cushy, well-paying corporate board positions in exchange for introducing a certain bill or voting a certain way?

I tend to think of anyone who is tapped for public office, or decides to run for public office and gets vetted and approved by the Party establishment, as automatically ascending to a plane of existence above us all, in another reality. That uppermuck reality is inherently corrupt and includes luxuries that most of us cannot afford. In this uppermuck reality, there are levels of power and the more corrupt you become--the more enticed by comfort and luxury and acceptance by those above you that you become--the more power do you have. Power then becomes addictive and it is the enticement. Is anyone and everyone who aspires to this muck corrupt? Possibly not. Do they often become corrupt? Yup. It acts like any other elite or exclusive club. As long as you are "good boy" or "good girl," you get along fine. If you cross those above you and/or those who fund you, you won't be in office for long.

This is not what our democracy was supposed to be. It is not what most people want it to be. But that's what it is. It is rotten to the core at the higher levels of public office--the national and state capitol levels the worst, and sometimes at the local level as well. This political establishment has become unresponsive to the public will. Any who enter it with ideas of doing good and manage to hang on to those intentions at the beginning soon become marginalized or pigeonholed into powerlessness and if they persist, their money dries up and/or the media goes after them and they are destroyed (or their small airplanes fall out of the sky for no reason or they get shot up in a mall for no reason). Good intentions will not survive in this political establishment for long. I think that those who may start out with good intentions give up the fight and yield to the general corruption.

The corruption takes two forms--war profiteer corruption and general corporate corruption. These two corruption forces often cross paths, or rather often join forces in mutual seduction of our public officials. That is how we find ourselves in the Forever War with no way out. U.S. transglobal corporate power (corporations founded here but now loyal to no country or people) and the U.S. war machine are intertwined. Virtually all of our public officials soon become advocates for the one or the other or both (advocates for using bully power to enhance U.S. transglobal corporate power around the world). There is also a flow of really dirty money--trillions from illicit traffic in drugs and weaponry--as well as the "aboveboard" profiteering in pretending to fight "a war against drugs" and in spreading weaponry far and wide to every corner of the earth often in support of hideous regimes merely because they have the money (stolen from their people) to buy it.

What we have to decide, as progressive activists and as citizens of the U.S. who want to see real democracy established here and who desire good government, is, a) when to try to secure something from this corrupt political establishment (judging the odds of getting it vs the enormous effort needed to overcome the corruption and even to get our public officials' attention), and b) how--specifically, practically, strategically--to reform this system (where to begin?).

It does no good to say that the Democratic Party leadership is corrupt. Of course it's corrupt. It does no good to guess at percentages of the corrupt. If you say 90% or 100%, then where are you? You are nowhere. This might be impetus for forming a third party--but is that really the best strategy? (I'm not sure that it is.) Of what other use is guessing at percentages of corruption? What we need to think about is how to change it--or, temporarily, how to get something from it, especially something that could assist reform (say, restoring controls on campaign contributions or--very, very, VERY important--restoring transparent vote counting and getting our vote counting systems out of the hands of Diebold/ES&S and its 'TRADE SECRET' code). (The latter I think can't be done with public pressure--unless it is a truly huge movement that arises in many localities.)

When you are speaking to a public official in the U.S. you are more than likely speaking to a person who has been found acceptable to the far-rightwing connected Diebold/ES&S and to a person who is under immense pressure from above to be deaf to you. That is why their eyes go blank at common sense questions about U.S. warmongering, or bankster bailouts or 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines. They have to shut such things out of their minds in order to survive in this cauldron of corruption. You NEED TO KNOW this when you try to influence them. They don't answer to YOU.

Having said all of this, I ADAMANTLY support political activism and voting--not just because voter turnout can make election fraud more difficult and not because I "have faith in the system," but ON THE PRINCIPLE of "use it or lose it." We must never ever EVER give up trying to restore our democracy. We must never ever EVER give up on our right to vote. We must never ever EVER give up trying to be heard. If we were to, say, boycott the "TRADE SECRET' voting machines, it should be part of a strategy and a movement--not an act of hopelessness and depression, but a well thought-out act of hope. The same for a third party or any other strategy. We need strength in numbers and a plan--and we need to focus on restoring the democratic power of our people. The OWS movement is doing this by its remarkable decision-making process (participatory democracy) and of course by its occupation of public spaces. How else can we do it? How else can we empower each other and all of the seemingly powerless people in our country?

What are your thoughts on this, and how does asking this question about the percentage of corruption serve activism, participation and change?

[Response]

77. "I don't know how to arrive at a percentage."

That's all you really had to write.


Thanks.

[spanone]

20. what % of the republican party do YOU think is corrupt? 150 % ??

[Response]

39. It can only be 100%. There is no 150%

Yeas, I would agree that (R) is totally corrupted.

[Odin2005]

21. 90%

[sarcasmo]

22. I would say 75% of Washington is corrupt.

There are good people like Bernie Sanders, but they are few and far between.

[lunatica]

23. That's like asking how pregnant are you

Not everyone is corrupt, but once part of the Democratic Party is corrupt then it is all corrupted.

[Response]

40. I disagree. Pregnancy is to the individual.

Corruption is to the group. And I believe that the Dem party can be saved from itself; not without experiencing a lot of pain and soul searching though.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

53. And your statement is dangerous if it leads to complacency. The question is one of degree.

The assertion that BOTH parties are *EQUALLY* corrupt is the meme that the Corporate Media and the Republican Party have been pushing post-Watergate. And they have been incredibly effective in getting people to throw up their hands and declare "a pox on both houses," thereby leading to widespread apathy, while at the same time, getting their faithful out to the polls. Americans are fucking lazy! They use that "they're all bad" excuse to absolve them of their responsibility to get involved and work to change the system.

It's a vicious cycle: The system is undoubtedly corrupt. People don't get involved to change it as a result, accepting that this is the way of the world. Therefore, the system remains corrupt. People complain but refuse to get involved. Thus, more corrupt politicians are elected, and the cycle continues.

My view is that we can't complain if we are unwilling to do something about it!!

[FarCenter]

24. It depends on what the meaning of "corrupt" is.

But by almost any definition, they are politicians, so well over half.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lpbk2713]

26. Thanks for playing.

Come back again when you can stay longer.



:hi:

[Response]

41. I'm still here. Is the question too painful to answer?

Democracy isn't easy. It can be a painful process when there is a concerted effort by rich individuals to corrupt or subvert it.

What is worse though is when the politically indolent turn a blind eye to their own party's avarice while lambasting the others for exercising the same traits.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Well, the leadership of the party has proven Lord Acton's axiom to be accurate.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[ThomWV]

28. It is not a question of what percentage are corrupt, its what percentage are they corrupted

If it comes down to a head-count they are all corrupt, so that's 100%. Now of that body in which every single man and woman is corrupt the question becomes how badly corrupted is each individual and maybe what then is the average of those individual's corruption?

The Congress may be 100% corrupted but there are some members who are nearly as clean as the driven snow and many others who are wholly owned subsidiaries of various business or other special interests.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. Define "corrupt". I think a lot of them do things that are not against the rules, but should be.

I suspect that pretty much 100% of Democrats are, to some extent, influenced by "how will this affect how much funding I receive for my next election campaign", rather than just "how will this affect how many people vote for me".

That's a) entirely legal, and b) they have to think of that, because if they don't they won't be reelected, but it's also pretty close to selling their votes, which is arguably the worst form of corruption.

For as long as elections are privately funded, all politicians *have* to engage in things that are pretty close to corruption, even the honest ones, I think.

[Response]

43. I believe that the term "corrupt" defines itself.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

47. I think the number of different usages demonstrated in this threat suggests that isn't the case.

Is someone who doesn't break the law non-corrupt by definition? Or does it require more than that.

[Response]

49. In this threat?

:rofl:

Now that is a shlep if I ever saw it!


Okay, here are two for you.

1. guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: a corrupt judge.

2. debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: a corrupt society.


Example. Clarence Thomas appears to be corrupt for ethics violations.

George Bush is criminally corrupt for presiding over the invasion of a sovereign nation (Iraq) while claiming they harbored WMDs and implied that they had ties to 9/11.

[WillyT]

30. Republicans... 100%... Democrats... 70%...

At least that's the way it seems.

:shrug:

[LWolf]

32. All of the DLC, "Centrists," "New Dems," and "3rd way" "Democrats" are corrupt.

I don't know what percentage of the party they comprise.

Then there are those who hear what they say, assume that because they claim the "D" they must be okay, and follow along without investigation or critical analysis, eventually adopting the propaganda being spewed continuously, and calling themselves "liberals" while they inexorably attack liberal positions.

Anyone who thinks the new Democratic Corporate Logo is appropriate.

So...90%. That's a guess.

Edited to add:

"Corrupt," in this case, means "sold out to corporate interests and money."

[BlueIris]

33. Impossible to know, but I can only name about four Dems off the top of my head

I think don't deserve that label.

[Lyric]

35. Are we talking about the leadership?

If we are, then 75-80%.

[darth marth]

44. Kochs funded the Democratic Leadership Council

According to SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media & Democracy, the brothers are "leading contributors to the Koch family foundations, which supports a network of Conservative organizations and think tanks, including Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Manhattan Institute the Heartland Institute, and the Democratic Leadership Council."

Charles Koch co-founded the Cato Institute in 1977, while David helped launch Citizens for a Sound Economy in 1986.

This is no less stunning than if Scaife or the Coors family were funding the DLC. So do the Kochs just throw money at the DLC -- as long as the Council supports a free-market" (i.e. unrestricted/unregulated corporate power) agenda that the Kochs generally agree with. Or is it more than just that -- does this really buttress what Greens and other disaffected liberals contend -- that the DNC has just become a party of "Republicrats", thanks especially to the DLC? They would say that corporate backers like the rightwing/libertarian Kochs have co-opted the Democratic establishment -- a hostile takeover of (what was once) the opposition.

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

46. It all depends on the vote. Let me explain...

I live and work in DC. Lobbyists, political consultants? That's a natural part of life. Nearly every politician, regardless of ideology, has been subjected to monied interests. But for me, it's much more about how the politician votes. I don't care how much money is behind a congressman as long as at the end of the day, their vote reflects the will of the people. That said, the DLC, along with the Blue Dogs have been a blight on the Democratic Party for a very long time. On the other hand, there are not enough Yellow Dogs there to make a difference.

That is why I refuse to blame Obama or the vast number of Democrats who have tried to do right by the people. Sure mistakes have been made, but I just believe that there are obstructionists in both parties that are aligned with Corporate Anerica against the will of the vast majority of Americans.

[Response]

48. Now that's an honest statement.

I didn't blame Obama, though.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

52. I know you didn't. It was a general statement! ;)

[Throd]

50. 37.842%

However 83.22% of statistics are pulled out of people's asses to fit their agendas.

[gulliver]

54. Most Dem corruption is due to Republican corruption.

And most Republican corruption is due to desperation. Republicans are so desperate to preserve their way of life that they have prostituted themselves. It's sad and ironic, because Republicans have prostituted themselves to the very forces that are most undermining their way of life. They want to save Bedford Falls, so they put Potter in charge. It would be funny if it weren't so unfunny.

Dem corruption would still exist without Republicans, but it would be drastically reduced and manageable. Republican corruption forces Dems to the trough too. They have to go where the people are, and the people (the ones who vote anyway) are corrupt.

One of these days (maybe really soon), the non-voting people are going to be forced to take action. And when they do, there is a better-than-50% chance that they will do the smart thing and simply jump into the Dem party en masse. That would end this whole argument, and the people would be the winners. It's an easy way for liberals and progressives to take over the system if they are smart enough to see it.

[woo me with science]

56. Whatever percentage it is, they are clearly running things now.

Why are some of us pissed off and uneasy?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2382941&mesg_id=2382941

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. it is not a matter of "corruption" it is simply that "Government - including the Democratic Party

is the executive committee of the bourgeoisie. The political class including the Democratic Party - is part of how Wall Street -at least Wall Street euphemistically speakings executes its will. There is a reason why the Democratic Party started embracing right-wing economics which is the same reason why socialist and even communist parties in Europe started implementing pro-corporate policies. It is not necessarily a matter of corruption the way many people might use that term. It is simply that the power of moneyed interest simply outstrips the good intentions of politicians. This can only be changed when money is removed from politics.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. Kinda like asking what part of the cup of coffee you're drinking has arsenic in it.

[woo me with science]

61. Well said. nt

[A-Schwarzenegger]

64. "...there is no moral Democratic leadership."

(From your #6 above.)

None?

[rucky]

68. About half. n/t

[Mendocino]

69. About 90%.

But I cling to those 10% like I cling to religion and guns. ;)

[ellisonz]

73. IIII DRR RRIIINKKK YYYYYYOO OOOOUUUU UURRRRRRR MIIIIILLL LLKKKKKSS SSSHHHH HAAAAKKKEE EEE

I drink it up.

:nopity:

[wildbilln864]

74. 95% nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

76. 95% there's a handful of trustworthy politicians. Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich come to mind.

There may be 2-3-4 more, but that's IT. The rest are as corrupt as the rethugs. Cut from the same CORRUPT CORPORATE-OWNED CLOTH. Watch the movie, "The Corporation"....http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=46

[applegrove]

78. I believe the corrupt types are attracted to the GOP where they get to lie as the day is long.

But there are bad apples in the democratic country I am sure.