How do you respond to "They are *ALL* corrupt" comments?

My father-in-law was a Bush voter, but is now absolutely disgusted with him. (My husband and I have taken great pains to make sure he is better informed than he has *ever* been before in his life.) His typical response lately is, "They are *ALL* corrupt" and I don't know how to respond to that. It is his last line of "don't vote for Democrats, either" defense.

Suggestions? Thanks!

:shrug:

when this guy was busted



I was only 12, but the arguement didn't work then either....

and other progressives who aren't involved in corruption but are truly working for the people.

They are CORPORATE.

The Democratic Platform at least is imbedded with high ideals. We just need the leaders to actually work for them. And we do have some.

That's your response.

The only one I can think of Dan Rostenkowski - who used Congressional mail priveleges to send campaign fliers to constituents.

Next - you can list as many Repubs as you can --

Abramoff
Delay
Ney
Libby
The guy convicted of phone jamming NH Dems
...
...
...

He is making an over-general statement. Push him to be specific and he won't have the 'evidence' that Dems are as corrupt as Rethugs.

The right makes noise as if it is true, but, of course, they lie. They fought like hell to make the Abramoff payoff receivers equally Rethug and Dem when there were not *any* Dems who benefitted from Abramoff.

And ask if he were to gain public office, if he thinks would HE become corrupt as well.

They're people just like everyone else. Some good, some bad.

I think the argument can be made that many are out of touch with the average American, but that doesn't necessarily equal corrupt. Campaign financing is one of the major reasons for corruption, which is why we should support those who call for public financing, and getting big business out of the election racket.

If he believes they're corrupt, what's he doing to work for more honesty and fairness in government? It means nothing to complain if you're not willing to do something about it.

... but nobody much cared... /whine

:)

Here's a good Kos post about the issue:

"The May 5-7, 2006 poll also asked Americans their perceptions about whether the corruption scandals in Washington over the past year mostly involve the Republicans, the Democrats, or both parties equally. Seventy-six percent say it involves both parties equally, while 15% say the scandals mostly involve Republicans, and 5% say they mostly involve Democrats."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/17/115120/830

... and you name a corrupt Democrat. We keep switching off until someone can't come up with a name."

The first one to come up with nothing loses.

All politicians lie, the only difference is to what degree. As for all of them being corrupt, that is using a broad brush.

Well if he won't vote for either, then it's still one less vote for them.

:rofl:

before Newt could hang a book deal ethics charge against Jim Wright. Within 6 years Newt lost to the same book deal.

Ten year into power we have K-street, Abramoff, Cunningham ($2.5 mil in bribes), DeLay (indictments on conspiracy, money laundering, Scooter Libby, Frist investigated by SEC, Scanlon, and on and on and on and on . . .

and tracked the biggest terrorist network that existed at the time. Bush and his allies worked overtime to block the investigation at every turn.

It was Kerry who worked FIVE YEARS to investigate and expose it. Had Bush not blocked many of the documents from being revealed, terrorist financial networks would have been better known by the American public and the growing strength of terrorism could have been a greater issue in the early 90s, when BCCI was forced to shut down. They would have known about the dirty Bin Laden money and how BushInc was protecting it. A 9-11 wouldn't have happened.

John Kerry in the Senate, and Waxman and Conyers in the House have long been the leaders of the anti-corruption, open government wing of the Democratic Party.

Only problem is that Kerry was fought on his investigation into BCCI by Democrats as well. It helps on the individual politician not being corrupt, but it doesn't help on the larger scale. Problem is, corporate money and lobbyists in politics corrupts (both parties), and the largest numbers of corporate money/lobby rights backers tend to be Republican, but Democrats (thanks DLC) are joining in the Bacchanal, and we're seeing the end of government in the sunshine.

it led to all that we are going through today - no Bush would've gotten near the WH if Clinton had opened those books.

But, there does seem to be a growing trend for open government and it's coming from the Democrats. We need to get louder. I gladly label myself - I'm with the anti-corruption, open government wing of the Democratic Party - and our numbers are growing.

We, as progressives, won't deny that people in power are too easily corrupted, no matter what side they're on. Imo, we're the first to call out those on our own team for being dishonest. (witness the bright lights on Leopold and Truthout...)

The foundation of the progressive movement is not corrupt, while the conservative one is.

he might have a hard time. Not saying that some Dems aren't corrupt, but c'mon! Nowhere near the level displayed by the GOP.

you could say that the GOP has an awfully high % of corruption compared to Dems, Greens, Libs etc

lobbyists, etc, that have been indicted or arrested in the past 6 years for crimes ranging from phone jamming, fraud and influence peddling to vehicular manslaughter and child molestation is so astounding it could be classified as "Republican Corruption Syndrome".

Offhand, I would say that for every one politician from all the other parties put together that runs afoul of the law, there are ten republican politicians that get busted.

The Republicans have been in charge of the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court for several years. And yet, all of the scandals and corruption which have been brought to light - even though the Republicans are in charge of the FBI and all the other levers of power in the justice system - are Republican scandals! The Democrats are clean, and the Republicans are so dirty they can't even hide all their corruption when they're in charge of the system.

Just as "Military Intelligence" is an oxymoron.

You could just as easily say that they are all dishonest, but on the one side you have errors of memory (as in the Gore-Bush debates, was Gore correct when he said he visited Texas with the head of FEMA in March? (and yes, I have probably mis-remembered this anecdote)) and on the other side you have deliberate lies (for example the Bush tax cuts, any honest evaluation of the statistics and math shows that they primarily benefit the rich, and yet, to this day, they continue to deny it.

In the second place, for whatever reason, the press seems to hold Democrats accountable for their mis-statements. "What makes it all possible, of course, is the absence of effective watchdogs. In the Clinton years the merest hint of impropriety quickly blew up into a huge scandal; these days, the scandalmongers are more likely to go after journalists who raise questions. Anyway, don't you know there's a war on?" Paul Krugman
"Yes, your “press corps” micro-nitpicks Kerry, searching for single words to examine. But Cheney? He commits the world’s most laughable blunder and all of them know that it mustn’t be mentioned!" Bob Somerby

Another thing is, perhaps because the press lets them get away with it, Republicans seem far more committed tp a "partisan world view" which ignores or distorts actual facts.
"The amazing thing is that Mr. Grassley is sometimes described as a moderate. His remarks are just one more indicator that we have entered an era of extreme partisanship — one that leaves no room for the acknowledgment of politically inconvenient facts. For the claim that Mr. Grassley describes as "outright false" is, in fact, almost certainly true; in a rational world it wouldn't even be a matter for argument." Paul Krugman
I would claim that Grassley engages in this extreme partisanship far far more than his fellow Iowan, Democratic Senator Thomas Harkin.

As luck would have it, I cannot find my quote that describes how the Bush admin is ignoring honest analysis and getting rid of honest analysts. Bush even lied to his own party about the costs of his medicare prescription drug program.

when their party is in trouble. It allows them to remove themselves from the GOP without having to move over to the Democrats (which they, the Republicans, hate). It's a bullshit argument. I never allow any Repug to get away with that talking point.

He was a life long republican, but now, of course, he sees that GWBush does not act in his best interest. When I try to get him to reassess his political affiliation, he says "they're all the same, you can't trust any of them". I usually leave it at that, but I think a possible response is that, currently, there may be some weak, corrupt democrats in office, BUT with democrats in power at least change for the better would be possible. At least the potential exists to protect the constitution, strengthen existing laws, write new laws, & limit Presidential authority. Also, we need investigations for a lot of what they've done (WMD's, wiretapping, 9-11 ;), election fraud). If we continue with GOP leadership, none of this will ever be investigated and our country will be unrecognizable within 10 years, as they continue to defy our existing laws.

and mention Abramoff, giant lobbyist corporations, 65 lobbyists for every member of both houses, etc. i believe that our values will win out when the politicians are ONLY beholden to the people they represent.

found that out in 1997 when not ONE Repub would even CONSIDER their Clean Elections bill. Of course, there were only 5 DEms at the time who supported it. McCain-Feingold bill came in and took the pressure off those Dems to do the right thing.

I'll show you the formula to win any debate/discussion.

You: Makes statement
Husband: Makes Counterstatement
You: Interrupt him half way through and just start screaming "SHUT THE FUCK UP, FOR THE LOVE GOD JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!" or just repeat whatever he says back to him in a mocking tone. Trust me most people are weak willed and usually walk away with their beliefs so shaken that they'll never bother speaking to you again because they know you are such a mastor debator. (hah master-debator)

This strategy is also particularly effective with cops and children.

and the difference between the types of corruption is public money...rather did the politician involved use public funds or was it a personal foible (like Kennedy's accident)? What does he consider corrupt? Do we ask the pols to be totally without the same sins we have? Or like with Clinton, was that corruption or a personnal failing that many men seem to have? When the Republicans are stealing public money hand over fist, how can he blame the Democrats for it?

When my Republican boss said the same thing, I asked him to name one Democrat that was corrupt, he said Clinton, I asked why? He said he lied - I asked him, if he was asked in front of his wife if he was cheating would he lie, he said of course, so I said is that corrupt? of course he said no.....

to fight Hitler in Europe and that the war should have been isolated to just Japan because they attacked us. Democrats saved us from the wrath of Hitler. Remember that.

A guy at work said the same thing to me. I reminded him of:

Nixon
Haldedman
Erlichman
Liddy
North
Libby
Delay
Abramoff

I told him these are all names just off the top of my head, well known Republican criminals and asked him to name some Democrats. He got pissed, said he would look some on the internet tonight and tell me the next day. He never did.

Also remind them that, "They're all the same" is the battle cry of the ignorant. You never hear an expert on any subject say something like that. Only KKK members, six pack swilling arm chair warriors, etc.

It's also good to remind them there is a big difference between personal malfesance (drugs, hookers, drunk driving, boosting office supplies, etc.) and systemic corruption that subverts public policy. You never hear of Democrat politicians breaking the law to get welfare, environmental, or civil rights laws passed. Or breaking in or spying on adversaries, or election fraud (confused immigrants trying vote doesn't count).

most Democratic politicians are alot less corrupt than Republican politicians. :crazy: :crazy: :dem:

It's as simple as that. We can postulate that most pols will accept money if you offer it to them, and most of those will wink at the quid pro quo-- but it took Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff and their cronies to institutionalize the process. There simply hasn't been a corruption machine of such thoroughness since Tammany Hall.

You might also ask your FIL what he thinks about these related tactics: holding votes in the middle of the night, keeping the balloting open for up to 3 hours, having party whips make offers and/or threats on the House floor during those 3 hours to opposing congressmen in their party, and finally systematically excluding anybody from the opposition party with any interest in the legislation from sitting on the conference committee. These are all unprecedented before the Smirky Congress, and now they happen with distressing frequency-- I think all of the above were needed to pass that horrible Medicare drug coverage bill.

On an episode of Real Time, Bradley Whitford commented that the brilliance of this govt was creating separate branches with the power of keeping the others in check.

Which is also why it's so important that we get a congress who is actually interested in providing oversight.

True, there is corruption in both parties but the scandals we are seeing now is mainly on the republican side.