When asked, voters name Corruption as a top issue of concern.
When given some variation of Corruption and Ethics in Washington among their choices of concerns, the issue always ranks near the top. The issue is consistently ranked as important by 90% to 97% of all voters (depending upon what corruption stories are in the news).
Often Corruption is the #1 concern of voters.
That was the case a few days ago when Rasmussen Reports released their October results on the Importance of Issues in the 2008 election:
Note a +8 Democratic advantage over Republicans.
One year ago it was a +21 advantage.
This is a big problem.
Edwards gets it. So does Obama.
HRC and other Democratic Leaders do not get it.
We are in trouble.
To the jump...
I’ve been following the impact of Washington’s Culture of Corruption for almost a decade. It is why sweatshops, human trafficking, forced prostitution and other crimes have been (and still are) being protected by the US Congress. But that story was just my way into researching and writing about the cancerous impact of corruption on our Nation, Government, values and politics.
A just solution to every issue of concerned is blocked by corruption.
You want universal health care, or even a simple expansion of SCHIP—well you have to bust through layers of corruption just to begin the process.
Ending the war is next to impossible without confronting the massive corruption that feeds off the growing disaster.
Any issue, any concern is blocked by corruption. Look at the Farm Bill, or the renewed push for nuclear power, or FEMA, or... well, anything.
The voters get this.
We really understand that Washington DC has become a cesspool of corruption. It weaves vertically and horizontally through every institution: the press, the Congress, the Executive branch, the think tanks, the pundits—and the systems that tie them all together.
A discussion of change is meaningless without a clear plan to confront corruption.
For the most part we are only offered talk (and mostly BS at that). When most folks address the corruption issue it is done in a round-about way. Solutions that sound nice, but totally avoid the issue are consistently offered as "evidence" of change.
I am tired of being pissed on and told its raining—and so are a lot of other voters.
Pollsters rarely ask about corruption. It was the "surprise" tipping point issue in 2006.
According to CBS News exit polls 74% of all voters identified corruption as either extremely important or very important as they went to the polls. As the dust settled on the ruins of Karl Rove’s "math" he told Time Magazine what went wrong (emphasis added):
"The profile of corruption in the exit polls was bigger than I'd expected," Rove tells TIME. "Abramoff, lobbying, Foley and Haggard [the disgraced evangelical leader] added to the general distaste that people have for all things Washington, and it just reached critical mass." [snip]
The Republican National Committee has been pointing out that a small shift in votes would have made a big difference. A shift of 77,611 votes would have given Republicans control of the House, according to Bush's political team. And a shift of 2,847 votes in Montana, or 7,217 votes in Virginia, or 41,537 votes in Missouri would have given a Republicans control of the Senate. In addition, the party has calculated that the winner received 51 percent or less in 35 contests, and that 23 races were decided by two percentage points or fewer, 18 races were decided by fewer than 5,000 votes, 15 races were decided by fewer than 4,000 votes, 10 races were decided by fewer than 3,000 votes, eight were decided by fewer than 2,000 votes and five races were decided by fewer than 1,000 votes.
It was close. Voters knew that Republicans were corrupt. They decided to give Democrats a chance to prove that they are not. I could not find a Rasmussen Report on "Issues of Concerns" from last year, but I did find a USA Today/Gallup poll from October 6-8, 2006:
In a very tight race for control of Congress Democrats held a +21 point advantage when voters were asked who they trusted to "clean up Washington".
It was that advantage that destroyed Karl Rove’s math. Without the trust of voters that we (I am a Democrat) could end the corruption, I am certain that we would have lost Senate races in Montana and Virginia (we almost did). I also believe that the GOP might have held onto enough seats to still control the House.
In 2006 the Republican Party neglected to pay attention to growing anger about corruption in America. They paid a heavy price.
As we head into 2008, it is the Democratic Party that is now ignoring the issue.
We do so at our peril.
It is time to wake up and smell the cesspool.
In one year we have lost a +13 point advantage on the issue. 13 POINTS!
If we had gone into the 2006 midterms with only a +8 advantage, Karl Rove’s math would have been accurate and our County would be in far more trouble than it is today (and we are in BIG TROUBLE).
By November 2008 our advantage on this issue could be increased or erased. If it is increased, we will win big. If it is erased, the Republican Party has a shot at holding onto the White House and maybe even making gains in the 111th Congress.
We need to demand that the Democratic Party focuses on cleaning up the corruption in Washington. We need to demand that the actions of the House and Senate, their legislative goals and the way candidate are recruited and campaigns are run take the issue of corruption and reform to heart.
We need to focus on corruption, but in reality, the issue is mostly being ignored.
On issue after issue, the 110th Congress is making small compromises that are allowing the Culture of Corruption to flourish in Washington. Democratic lobbyists like William Oldaker are replacing Republican lobbyist like Jack Abramoff. The same levels of corruption are in place, the same policies are being pursued, but now the cash flows to folks with a "D" instead of a "R". This kind of sleazy behavior must end and it is part of the reason we have lost a 13 point advantage. Some in Congress are trying to emulate the DeLay "K Street Project" (hi Rahm), while others are happy to scoop up the cash (for a "small" favor to be named later).
When the Democratic Party loses their trust advantage on corruption, we will lose our slim hold on Congress—and perhaps we should.
2008 is a Presidential election and the importance of the corruption issue will be set by our Party’s nominee. Depending upon who that is, we could be in real trouble. The corruption issue could cost us the White House.
Earlier this year I wrote a couple of Diaries about the Presidential candidates and their stands on the issue (It’s The Corruption, Stupid and The Corruption/Reform Primary). Back then, the only Democrat who seemed to even get that corruption was important was Barack Obama. It was not only talk, it was also action. Obama had a leadership role in passing the most significant lobbying reform since the 1970s. It was this action that led me to open my wallet and give him a donation earlier this year. Since then he has not closed the sale with me and I remain undecided, but Obama’s stance on corruption still has me considering him as my choice for the Nomination.
For a long time it looked like Obama was going to be the only Democrat to even seriously mention the issue. That has changed.
John Edwards has made the "corruption connection". He is showing a growing awareness that tackling the mess in Washington head on is the only way to bring change and reform.
It is a good thing. Since the debate at Yearly Kos, Edwards has been mentioning corruption more and more. At this point he may have a clearer focus on the issue than Obama. Both are actively competing to win back the Democratic advantage on the issue.
Both Edwards and Obama have offered detailed plans to confront corruption. Here is Obama’s plan for Cleaning up Washington and here is John Edwards’ reform proposal.
One reason why both Candidates are talking about the corruption issue is because the front runner is avoiding it. Senator Clinton only speaks to the corruption issue in generalities. She lobs sound bites at the edges of the problem while avoiding the heart of the issue. As an example I turn to her Web site. In the section on "issues" there is a page on her Government Reform proposal:
Hillary has proposed a comprehensive, 10-point plan to restore Americans' confidence in their government by increasing transparency and cutting waste and corruption. Her plan includes:
- Banning Cabinet officials from lobbying a Hillary Clinton administration.
- Strengthening whistleblower protections.
- Creating a public service academy.
- Ending abuse of no-bid government contracts and posting all contracts online.
- Cutting 500,000 government contractors
- Restoring the Office of Technology Assessment.
- Publishing budgets for every government agency.
- Implementing Results America Initiative to track government effectiveness.
- Tracking and eliminating corporate welfare.
- Expanding voting access and safeguarding voting machines.
First, it is a nice list of items that are worthy of action. These would be good things for our Government to do and I support them all. I hope they all become law.
That said, none of these items will get to the heart of corruption in Washington. Hell, they will not even get close to the problem. To call this list a "Comprehensive Government Reform" proposal is risible. It is not "comprehensive" and it will do little to reform, change or end the system of corruption destroying our Republic.
Missing is any serious effort to confront lobbyists; or earmarks; or Leadership PACS or any mention of the corrupting impact of money—piles of loose cash—moving around the Halls of power in our Nation’s Capital. You can not seriously talk about "Comprehensive Government Reform" if you can not, or will not talk about the money flooding the zone.
Then there is her revolving door proposal. Every time I read it, I’m inclined to do a spit take. The problem is not just the Cabinet Officers—it is everybody else. You know, the thousands of people working at all levels of the Government and then moving seamlessly through a series of revolving doors between lobbyists, the media, think tanks, PR Firms, consultants and back to the Legislative and Executive Branches. Restricting a few dozen folks from this system will not reform it. And it is just silly to suggest that it would.
And by the way, ethics reforms are also missing from her "comprehensive" plan.
When it comes to her proposals "Comprehensive Government Reform" I am reminded of a question Fritz Mondale once asked: "Where’s the beef?
Corruption is a tipping point indicator. Whatever your pet issue is—the War in Iraq, immigration, health care, abortion, security, etc.—corruption can be seen as the cause when things fail. After years of Republican Rule, last November the voters decided to give Democrats a chance. They handed us a broom and said clean this mess up. It was a chance to govern. It was a conditional mandate. It was a date.
In the 2008 election, perceptions of corruption will impact every race up and down the ticket. Unlike 2006, the main focus will not be control of Congress; it will be control of the White House. And the race to the White House will drive the narrative.
The Democratic advantage on the issue of corruption (and many others) will be shaped by whoever is at the top of the ticket. Right now we have reduced a 21 point advantage to an 8 point advantage. Part of that fall may be due to fundraising scandals.
When Rasmussen polled for Issues of Concerns in August, Corruption was the #1 concern and Democrats held a +10 advantage over Republicans.
Then Larry Craig and his "wide stance" became a pop culture talking point. The next Rasmussen poll of Issues of Concerns took place on September 12-13. Once again, Corruption was the #1 concern of voters and the "wide stance" scandal seemed to help Democrats as their advantage over Republicans grew to 12 points. It was good news, but by early October Democrats lost four of those points and Republicans picked up two:
Something happened. I’ve looked around and I think it was Norman Hsu.
As the September poll was being conducted, the story of Hsu’s arrest, bail jump and re-captured was just breaking into the pop culture narrative as was the news that the HRC campaign was returning around $850,000 of Hsu related donations. This story grew in the news cycles in the days and weeks following the Rasmussen poll. It placed a cloud of suspicion over our front-runner and a number of other Democrats who received money from Hsu. While money was returned, the issue of corruption was ignored. People noticed the double standard and trusting Democratic to effectively take on corruption in Washington fell to the lowest level in over a year.
Today’s Washington Post/ABC News poll offered more evidence for concern on the issue of corruption:
Question 23. (ASKED OF LEANED DEMOCRATS)
Regardless of who you may support, who do you think is the most honest and trustworthy - (Clinton), (Obama) or (Edwards)?
Clinton: 35%
Obama: 26%
Edwards: 22%
All: 2%
Any 2: 1%
None: 8%
No Opinion: 5%
UPDATE NOTE: a number of folks have pointed out that the results of questions 23 an 24 do not fit with the other poll results I cited in this Diary as these are the result of a zero-sum poll and track the preferences for
Partially Impartial said this:
The diarist seems to think these are the percentages of people who find each candidate trustworthy, but they're clearly not. They only speak to their perception of trustworthiness relative to each other--it's a zero sum game.
And FischFry also takes me to school on the finer points of questions 23 and 24:
According to the diarist, these are "weak" results, "especially" the 8% who answered "none". [snip]
It doesn't mean that only 35% trust Clinton, or only 22% trust Edwards. It merely asks among them, which is the most trustworthy? The result is clearly most likely tied to candidate preference. It can't be over 50% for all of them, since the sum total can only be 100%. Numbers above one-third for any of the three candidate would be pretty good news for the one candidate, but the lower numbers don't refelct bad impressions of the other two candidates.
Moreover, any poll that finds only 8% saying they don't trust any of the whatever slate of candidates is a phenomenal result. 90% willing to say all or one of the three is most honest -- that's very impressive, considering the cynicism towards politicians in the modern age.
As does MarkInSanFran:
...you really need to remove the commentary on questions 23 and 24, since the percentages in those questions must add up to 100% no matter what - they are zero-sum (actually 100%-sum) questions and have nothing to do with your otherwise well-supported thesis.
There were others as well. Their comments are in the thread.
Their critique is valid. Questions 23 and 24 of the WP/ABC poll can only tell us something about the folks who took the poll. It is a closed loop, or as several mentioned: a zero sum game. Including them here clouded the issue and the main point of this Diary. Namely that Corruption matters, but it is a problem we can fix.
It just takes leadership, the will to do it and a backbone.
It will not be easy, but we can fix this.
I will place this note as an update and in a box in front of what I wrote on the two questions in question. If I worked with an editor, I’m sure this would have been caught, but I work with all of you, so thanks for pointing this out.
Like the Glassman of Baltimore, "I stand to be corrected".
Cheers
These are weak numbers across the board. While I am sure that supporters of HRC will point out that she beats Edwards and Obama, there is not a lot to celebrate for any of these candidates in these results and the "honest" numbers more than likely track with the number of hardcore supporters that responded in the overall poll. Especially troubling is the 8% of Democrats who believe NONE of these candidates are honest or trustworthy. Things would look even worse if independents were included and this is bad news for anybody hoping for Democratic gains in the House and Senate in 2008.
Question 24. (ASKED OF LEANED DEMOCRATS)
Regardless of who you may support, who do you trust most to handle Corruption in government - (Clinton), (Obama) or (Edwards)?
Clinton: 40%
Obama: 28%
Edwards: 20%
All: 2%
Any 2: *
None: 5%
No Opinion: 4%
I am certain that HRC’s supporters will use these numbers to discount any concerns about the corruption issue. They are wrong to do so. These are weak numbers for all our candidates and our Party. The numbers track hardcore supporters, but are less than those who said the strongly supported the candidates in other questions. For example, HRC’s "strongly support" was 61%, but she looses a third of those voters when they think of her and corruption. That is a weakness to be concerned about, not a strength to celebrate. It is a problem not just for her, but all Democrats running up and down the ticket.
Question 36.
In general do you think most of the presidential campaigns are (engaging in improper fundraising), or are (sticking to the rules on fundraising)?
Engaging in improper fundraising: 48%
Sticking to fundraising rules: 40%
Depends: 3%
No Opinion: 9%
Wow, almost half of those polled believe Presidential Campaigns are cheating. While this is an open ended question and subject to interpretation, it is also another sign of bad news. The best way for Republicans to neutralize the Corruption Issue in 2008 is to bring public perception of Democratic corruption down to their levels. For over a year the range of trust for Republicans has been in the 27% to 30% range. A year ago Democrats were trusted by 49% now it has fallen to 38%. Perceptions of our Presidential Candidates are dragging down the trust of the Party on this issue.
And rightly or wrongly much of the focus is on Senator Clinton because she is the front runner, (and already the appointed winner by the DC chattering class). They are so focused on her that they are ignoring everybody else, hence this odd question in the WP/ABC poll:
Question 37.
Thinking specifically about Hillary Clinton's campaign, do you think it is (engaging in improper fundraising), or is (sticking to the rules on fundraising)?
Engaging in improper fundraising: 39%
Sticking to fundraising rules: 48%
Depends: 2%
No Opinion: 10%
I found it odd that this question was only asked of her campaign. It is a clear example of how polls are designed to support the desired narrative of the folks commissioning the poll. We would have a better understanding of how corruption is playing across the board if this question had been asked about all the leading candidates (both Democrats and Republicans). It wasn’t, so this is a data point with little context.
Still these questions highlight the coming impact of corruption as an issue in 2008. I find little to celebrate in a result that less than half of the respondents think HRC is following the rules, even if those results could be explained by the Republicans answering the poll or some other internal dynamic. More troubling is the signal the question sends about the Washington press corps and the Campaign narrative they are preparing to write about Hillary Clinton. They will relentlessly tie her to corruption until her negatives match the Republican Party on this issue.
The attack is coming down Main Street. It is coming and the response of the Clinton campaign, their Washington insiders, DC consultants and many of her supporters is to ignore the issue and hope it will go away.
It will not go away.
Senator Clinton will be challenged on corruption until either she confronts the issue or allows it to become synonymous with her campaign. She is repeating John Kerry’s "swiftboat" mistake and following in the footsteps of Dukakis and Mondale. A response is needed, but she sits and waits. I keep hoping she will address the issue of corruption in a meaningful way—that she will show leadership, but so far she has only offered empty rhetoric at best. More often than not the campaign’s approach to corruption seems to be neglect, unless somebody in the Democratic fold dares to bring up the issue. Then the approach seems to be attack.
And I’m certain the gang will be out in force to attack me again for mentioning it, just as they have when I’ve mentioned the money HRC has taken from the sweatshop owners of Saipan.
Now, I have been hard on Senator Hillary Clinton, because her Senate Campaign in 2005 received $10,000 for the Tan Family, the folks behind the vile, evil and corrupt system on the CNMI. She has taken another $16,000 from the head of the Tan Family’s operations in the USA.
I have been hard on her when it comes to this money because her husband had a great record on fighting the corruption and abuse on the CNMI. I’ve been hard on her because I like her and I expected her to lead. I expected her to pick up where her husband left off. Her acceptance of the Tan money is a failure and so is her failure to take a stand on CNMI reform legislation (S. 1634) moving through the 110th Congress. I expected more of her than many others in the Democratic Party, but then why should I.
I mean, Hillary Clinton is doing no more (or no less) on the CNMI issue that any of the other Democrats running for President. The sad truth is that they are all united in their commitment to ignore the culture of corruption and abuse on the Marianas Islands.
Like most of the rest of the Democratic Party (and the world) they do not care about the CNMI workers (or anything happening on the islands of the Western Pacific).
And that is too bad as the Democratic Party owes their control of the US Senate and House of Representatives to the foreign contract workers in the CNMI. The most horrific stories of Saipan sweatshops, brothels and forced abortions were used to great impact in the 2006 election. We used the tragedy, horror and personal stories of these workers to WIN seats and take control of Congress. Without these stories of corruption, Conrad Burns would have beaten Jon Tester and a good number of House seats would still be in Republican hands.
I know the impact these stories of corruption and abuse had on the 2006 election, because I helped in the effort. So did the workers on the CNMI. There were happy to share their stories because they believed that a Democratic Congress would FINALLY bring justice to the Marianas Islands.
So did I, but we were wrong.
Thanks to lobbyist money and corruption n Washington, it now looks like the 110th Congress will sell out the workers of the CNMI.
We used them. We exploited them to win control of Congress. We are planning to exploit their stories again in 2008 as we try to defeat out this or that Republican who helped Tom and Jack maintain the system of abuse.
We implicitly promise these workers relief and we promised the American people that we would clean up the mess of Republican corruption left on the CNMI.
We promised, but we lied. And that is how corruption works. Pick any issue and you can trace a similar pattern of influence leading to betrayal.
And soon the CNMI betrayal will just be another item in a growing DC Beltway narrative that everybody does it. And that will help close the gap between Democrats and Republicans on the issue corruption. And then people will trust us as little (or even less) than Republicans.
This is a problem.
It is a Corruption time-bomb ticking away under our feet. If we do not confront the issue it will hurt us in 2008. We could loose the White House and even Congress.
After the endless corruption of the Bush Administration and over a dozen years of the Gingrich/DeLay/Boehner/McConnell Congress selling out America, the Republican Party should be synonymous with "corruption". Democrats should have a 30+ advantage on the issue. Instead, we are getting close to even.
Fortunately, it looks like at least some Democrats are paying attention. Obama and
Edwards have offered serious proposals to confront corruption and they are challenging the others in the race, especially HRC.
Reading the transcript of the 10-30-07 Democratic Debate shows that Obama and especially Edwards have realized that corruption really matters to the American people. They are actively speaking to this concern.
Now if only the Democrats in the 110th Congress and the other Candidates for President would engage the issue—then we might actually save the Republic from the cancer of corruption.
A boy can dream.
Cheers
UPDATE NOTE: a number of folks have pointed out that the results of questions 23 an 24 do not fit with the other poll results I cited in this Diary as these are the result of a zero-sum poll and track the preferences for
Partially Impartial said this:
The diarist seems to think these are the percentages of people who find each candidate trustworthy, but they're clearly not. They only speak to their perception of trustworthiness relative to each other--it's a zero sum game.
And FischFry also takes me to school on the finer points of questions 23 and 24:
According to the diarist, these are "weak" results, "especially" the 8% who answered "none". [snip]
It doesn't mean that only 35% trust Clinton, or only 22% trust Edwards. It merely asks among them, which is the most trustworthy? The result is clearly most likely tied to candidate preference. It can't be over 50% for all of them, since the sum total can only be 100%. Numbers above one-third for any of the three candidate would be pretty good news for the one candidate, but the lower numbers don't refelct bad impressions of the other two candidates.
Moreover, any poll that finds only 8% saying they don't trust any of the whatever slate of candidates is a phenomenal result. 90% willing to say all or one of the three is most honest -- that's very impressive, considering the cynicism towards politicians in the modern age.
As does MarkInSanFran:
...you really need to remove the commentary on questions 23 and 24, since the percentages in those questions must add up to 100% no matter what - they are zero-sum (actually 100%-sum) questions and have nothing to do with your otherwise well-supported thesis.
There were others as well. Their comments are in the thread.
Their critique is valid. Questions 23 and 24 of the WP/ABC poll can only tell us something about the folks who took the poll. It is a closed loop, or as several mentioned: a zero sum game. Including them here clouded the issue and the main point of this Diary. Namely that Corruption matters, but it is a problem we can fix.
It just takes leadership, the will to do it and a backbone.
It will not be easy, but we can fix this.
I will place this note as an update and in a box in front of what I wrote on the two questions in question. If I worked with an editor, I’m sure this would have been caught, but I work with all of you, so thanks for pointing this out.
Like the Glassman of Baltimore, "I stand to be corrected".
Cheers