Talk:2006 Republican Party scandals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV note[edit]

To potential editors of this article, please note that this is an article about a slogan. It is not about whether there is, in fact, a "culture of corruption" in the Republican Party, or in Washington D.C., or anywhere else for that matter. It would be impossible to have an NPOV discussion of such a claim. This article is therefore only about the fact that this slogan is being used at all, without consideration of its validity. Please do not use this article as an attempt to bash Republicans, demonize Democrats, or score any other manner of political points. Cheers!  BD2412 talk 14:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional links and information about the "culture of corruption." A search on Yahoo, 12/07/2007 for "Democrat culture of corruption" revealed 6,390,000 links. Any portrayal of the political term "culture of corruption" that does not more fairly address the long and well documented history of democrat corruption, including the distorted use of political sloganeering (such as this) is distorted, unbalanced, and promotes an agenda no matter what "artful terms" are used to try to slant the definition against Republicans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.135.19 (talk • contribs)
It's not really a matter of slanting the definition, the purpose of the article is to explain the use of the term in historical context - much like the term "Slick Willy" was directed at Bill Clinton. bd2412 T 17:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevence/NPOV question[edit]

The last paragraph of the article, "Some political commentators have observed that Democrats must take care not to paint with too broad a brush in applying such a label, as some Democrats are connected with Republicans currently under investigation. For example, it has been alleged that Abramoff paid some expenses for Democratic Reps. James Clyburn and Bennie Thompson." Really isn't relevent, nor impartial, as it is addressing the validity of the slogans use, not what it is and how it is being used. , if someone has some reason why it should remain, please add it back with an explanation. Dan 21:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above phrase should be added precisely because it is addressing the validity of the slogan's use - not saying that the slogan is invalid per se, but that commentators have made that point. BD2412 T 21:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid the appearance of bias and a political agenda, balancing information about some of the problems with the Democratic Party's adoption of this phrase must be presented. Wiki's own policies require this:

Key Policies

2. Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views on a subject, factually and objectively, in an order which is agreeable to a common consensus.

Ignoring the hypocrisy in using a political slogan, when one is guilty of the same things is very relevant. Ignoring the hypocrisy and ignoring the controversy demonstrates a very clear bias. The entire definition is written in a slanted way that itself smacks of politicking.

The article is about the slogan, and the use thereof. What Democrats do is not relevant unless some substantial effort is underway to describe such behavior with that slogan. For the record, when I wrote the article, I included references to such use pointed at Democrats, which I have just realized was apparently removed by someone with partisan goals[1]. I will restore the paragraph that I had included:
Some political commentators have observed that Democrats must take care not to paint with too broad a brush in applying such a label, as some Democrats are connected with Republicans currently under investigation. For example, it has been alleged that Abramoff paid some expenses for Democratic Reps. James Clyburn and Bennie Thompson.
However, some of your examples, such as Kennedy driving drunk and McKinney hitting a cop, are simply not "corruption" in the sense of the political corruption that the slogan addresses. Note also that the Dems have stripped Jefferson of his post in the House. bd2412 T 01:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked and cleaned up a bit for readability and transitions. Made mostly changes to add balance and attempted to be fair, but point out how the sloganeering is used by both sides, but that the object of the slogan, i.e. "corruption" can not be ignored without separating the slogan and phrase from actual context.

Indeed - much improved. bd2412 T 03:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Life[edit]

I've changed the comparison to the slogan "Culture of Life" to the related slogan "Culture of Death." I thought it was more apt a comparison, to "culture of corruption as they're both pejorative terms Dan 21:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the culture of life reference, but kept the culture of death reference as well - the former term is more popularly used (per the article on that topic) and the use of "culture of corruption" appears to be intended as a counter (e.g., they claim to be X, but in fact are Y). BD2412 T 21:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Culture of (anything)" is more of a buzzword meme. And I really think it will serve to confuse the reader more than help if a discussion of similar Republican memes is inserted in the first paragraph of this article, before an accurate picture of "Culture of Corruption" itself is painted.66.209.15.235 23:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes 12/14/05[edit]

I have added that some members of the democratic party use the slogan. To say that the democratic party is unified in its use of this slogan is innacurate. In addition, although I didn't change anything in the positive/ negative euphemism sentence, I think there may be a need for a rewrite of this. A euphemism is an "agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unplesant." First, right to life people would find this term as offensive as any other it may be used as a substitute for. Second, if "culture of corruption" is described in this article as a "political slogan", why shouldn't "culture of life/death" be described in the same terms. They are political slogans just as much as "culture of corruption". I won't make this change immediately, because I'm interested in first hearing if people agree with this. Please leave comments on the board.

  • Culture of life is currently categorized as a political slogan. If you can find a more appropriate word than "euphamism", please do. bd2412 T 22:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is categorized as a political slogan, it should be referred to as one in the article, not a euphemism. Do you agree?
    • Well, I think there's more leeway on "culture of life" - I think it is more than just a political slogan. But I have no objection to it being so characterized here. bd2412 T 22:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The official site of the Democratic Party (democrats.org) is using "Culture of Corruption" extensively; just look for the link on the red sidebar. It links to an detailed list of Republican offenses they maintain and monitor, located at http://www.democrats.org/a/national/honest_government/abuse_of_power/66.209.15.236 22:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Cons? This is not NPOV![edit]

The third paragraph includes a book plug, followed by a line item list of corruption allegations against Democrats. Some of these allegations are blatant lies (Reid did not accept boxing tickets to promote legislation) while others are badly researched, at best, as Kennedy being described as "drunk" instead of under the influence of pain killers, with the additional "when anyone else would have gone straight to jail" clearly indicating the author's POV. By contract, a cursory examination of the article reveals that allegations of actual Republican corruptions are given less detail and, seemingly, importance.66.209.31.30 18:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've repaired the article by placing it in contextual chronological order, and removing the list of incidents which have not been associated with the use of the term. This is an article about the term, and every incident discussed herein must be referenced to a substantial use of the term in relation to that incident. bd2412 T 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fast edit. I would recommend removing reference to declining poll numbers and control of the house as part of the "republican response" with this book, as these seem to be separate issues, and not central to any established reasoning for the book's inclusion into this wikipedia article. If you are gong to link to WorldNetDaily, it should be noted that WND and the publisher of "Donkey Con" (Nelson Imprints) shared a financial relationship as recently as 2004, and this is based off what I've pulled from wikipedia itself. I'm certain a more thorough research into the matter would conclude that no review of this book by WorldNetDaily should be considered without noting its own financial interest in the book's success. Also a small nitpick: "that" after the word "reported" read as extraneous.66.209.15.236 22:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to make any corrections to the article that you see fit - this is Wikipedia, after all, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the invitation, but I should decline. You have been largely handling this article for some time, since October (I think), and I hate to just rewrite the work of others, even when invited. I have never been keen on collaborative composition concept, as much as I admire what wiki has been able to achieve. Besides, I only stumbled across this article while doing research for an essay, and I thought I would point out a few rough corners. Cheers, mate!66.209.15.235 23:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV surrenders[edit]

Recent edits to this article have removed any illusion that it is NPOV. Frankly, I'm concerned.

• Accusations of Republican corruption are now padded, as scandals are now described as "real or perceived scandals."

• The very definition used within the article for "culture of corruption" is laborious, and doesn't emphasize the main implication of cronyism.

• A new paragraph venemously labels the phrase as "sloganeering", a "political attempt to paint the Republican Party as the sole source of corruption", a "politcal tactic to erode support" from a base which is "very intolerant of such claims." It then ends with "both parties carry baggage", and though whoever wrote that paragraph may think he or she has NPOV, they are only deluding themselves -- this is a republican talking point to respond to corruption claims, and one which the Republicans plan to feature prominently in the upcoming November election. In fact, they already are.

• Much of the additions range from factually inaccurate recent Republican talking points to the bizarre, such as the contributor's assertion that Harry Reid led "a charge" to hush Gonzales from investigating the Abramoff scandal. Source for this hubris? I couldn't even google one.

  • EDIT I've found an article stating that Chuck Schumer led Senators to call for Gonzales to recuse himself from the investigation because of the A.G.'s (and administration's) personal connection to Abramoff, but the way that this article is worded wrongly implies that Reid "led the charge". It can easily be misread as stating that Reid was trying to stop the investigation. That's the way I read it on first pass. Further, 28 of 31 senators did not receive contributions from abramoff, but rather companies which abramoff has been associated with in the past. This very counter claim is woreded to imply that these specific contributions to 28 Democrat senators were improper (and possibly part of the investigation) when this is simply not factual. This claim also glosses over the fact that Abramoff was well known for courting companies which traditionally contributed to Democrat candidates, so he could then redirect their contributions to the GOP.66.209.31.29 00:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A quote from a Wall Street Journal opinion page, which is itself a noted source of right wing bias, is randomly inserted out of context.

• Already debunked lies about Harry Reid, previously edited out, have been reinserted.

• Though the term was invented by the Democrats to describe the "Culture of Corruption" within the Republican-run administration and congress, specifically regarding cronyism, more space in this wiki article is now devoted to attacking Democrats. You cannot pretend this is NPOV by word space or paragraph count. Giving more space to Republican counters of "Democrat Corruption" in an article describing a Democrat slogan to highlight Republican corruption is hardly NPOV, and more than a paragraph or two (if absolutely necessary) indicates a glaring and willful ignorance of wiki's NPOV policy.

• One more little beauty, near the beginning: "The Democratics rely on parallel euphamisms such as "choice" to describe the act of abortion". Can anyone justify this early phrasing (which has nothing to do with the matter at hand) as NPOV wording to enhance understanding of the meaning of the phrase "Culture of Corruption"? I mean, and do it without having their head 'asplode?66.209.15.234 22:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please feel free to edit the article accordingly. I'm trying to round up a larger group of editors to spread the work and minimize the possible bias. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responses section?[edit]

It seems like a separate section for specific sourced responses to the slogan might help with some of the POV warring. By sourced responses, I mean responses by politicians/media figures, as opposed to some of the current attempts at claiming whether or not corruption claims are true or that Democrats are also corrupt(those are better handled on articles about the scandal and/or person). Sxeptomaniac 23:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The absolute basics[edit]

Here is what I think can absolutely be said in an NPOV way about the topic of this article:

  1. "Culture of corruption" is a political slogan, e.g. a phrase that one party is attempting to use as shorthand for a more complex set of ideas in order to gain a political advantage.
  2. The complex set of ideas that the term is intended to communicate primarily involves:
    1. lobbyists attempting to gain support for specific allocations of funds by offering cash, gifts, trips, etc. to lawmakers
    2. lawmakers and other political figures soliciting or accepting cash, gifts, trips, etc. in exchange for their offer of political support
    3. lawmakers directing or diverting federal funds towards businesses run by friends or by those who have offered political support, thereby preventing other qualified businesses from having an opportunity to earn those funds
    4. situations in which persons are offered or receive political appointments not based on their objective qualifications for the position, but based on where their loyalties lie, or their ability to provide cash, gifts, and the like to the party responsible for the appointment
  3. This slogan has predominantly been used by members of the U.S. Democratic Party since about the summer of 2005, and those persons have used it in a way that is directed towards the U.S. Republican Party.
  4. The slogan has specifically been used by members of the U.S. Democratic Party to describe events that have involved members of the U.S. Republican Party who either have been accused or convicted of the activities outlined above.
  5. Criticism has been raised against those members of the U.S. Democratic Party based on comparable incidents involving members of the U.S. Democratic Party.

That's a framework that I think is fair to start with. bd2412 T 01:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put some work into the article, attempting to develop a better framework and cut back on the POV sections. I'm still not happy with most of it. I would rather focus on the people who have used it and what the context was. The Republican response section is in need of specific responses, which I've had difficulty finding in my searches, though I did find a couple of good references to public opinion and added those in a third section. I think detailing various scandals isn't part of the scope of the article, so I've removed some of that, particularly when it didn't directly relate to the slogan. Sxeptomaniac 23:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial changes[edit]

I have made some substantial changes. In particular I have eliminated most of the secondary allegations since there are now convictions in the Cunningham and Ney scandals. For the purposes of this article it does not matter much who Safavian is, merely that something like 10 GOP staff are indicted.

I have also extended the article to cover Foley since this has become the metanym for the whole system.

The phrase is also used to refer to Haliburton extensively but I think that there needs to be more citations.

Doing a bit of Googling I found that the phrase was used to refer to an earlier scandal in Maryland. I am pretty sure that Dean's original comment was a reference to that scandal since it was an exact copy of the Abramoff scheme, albeit involving a Democrat.

The phrase is clearly used by the Democratic party, not just 'members'. Dean and Pelosi are two of the three principle leaders. The commentary on the GOP response was unstructured, wooly and out of date. The only consistent reply has been to point to Jefferson 'Dollar Bill'. I am not aware of any GOP politicians repeating Solomon's attacks on Reid, nor are they likely to.

I did some checks and found that CNN, WaPo and the NYTimes are very careful not to use the phrase except when reporting statements by Democrats. I would strongly suspect that there is a style guide entry requiring that. I don't expect that to change until after the Democrats stop using the phrase which won't be until the 2006 or possibly even the 2008 election. --Gorgonzilla 17:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article definitely needed the cuts. I kind of liked having some information regarding the effectiveness of the slogan, though. I also worry that the list of scandals diverts attention from the use of the slogan itself. Also, whether or not they've been indicted seems irrelevant. The important aspect (for the purposes of this article) is the scandal, not the legal proceedings. Sxeptomaniac 23:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indictments provide an objective test. Now that there are actual convictions it is hardly likely that anyone will refer to squibs that never errupt into actual procedings as part of the culture of corruption. Speculation on the effectiveness of the slogan is going to be pretty subjective and POV. We will know empirically how effective the slogan has been in just three weeks time. The article was last edited before the Ney conviction and the Foley erruption when the question of whether GOP scandals would effect the election was still being debated. --Gorgonzilla 02:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and now it is history. bd2412 T 01:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything in this article is unsourced.[edit]

Closing as moot per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600:_continued_problems
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sources need to be added. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance issues[edit]

It seems like a number of items here are not showing any relevance to the actual article. Is there anything to indicate that the term has been used in reference to Rod Blagojevich, for example? I propose pruning back the article, as it's not supposed to be a collection of all scandals of the various parties. It's about a specific phrase and what it's been used in reference to. If it can't be fixed, it should probably just be deleted. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I agree. The "Republican Response" section would only belong here if there were a similar slogan, and then should be mentioned and then referenced to a seperate article. This also applies to any book or article using, "Culture of Corruption" in it's title. formeat 04:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Republican Response" need not be a slogan at all, just a description of how the Republican Party responded to the slogan/campaign theme raised by the Democrats in that election cycle. bd2412 T 16:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article move[edit]

Moved from Culture of corruption because it's less about that political slogan than about the evidence backing up the charge that Republicans are more corrupt than Democrats, which is either a violation of NPOV or simply WP:OR.

All contributors, whether they accept or reject the premise of the slogan, agree that nine Republican politicians left office amid scandals that year. So this "neutral fact" should be the basis of the article.

Any material about the phrase, if it's truly encyclopedic, could go in a small section of this article or moved to a more general article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2006 Republican party scandals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 2006 Republican party scandals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Republican_Party_scandals&oldid=1196487314"