The indictments and convictions that were making all the news in the run-up to Nov. elections were almost entirely [Jefferson was the exception] against republicans. It seems unsurprising in hindsight: the administration knew full well at the outset that it had a boatload of scumbags among its own ranks and gave DoJ marching orders to drum up counter examples among the Dems or at least distractions. I had no clue. Where was there a word in the news about this ratio of investigations?
Even more damning, and in a way that amuses the heck out of me: given the yield of indictable cases from this investigatory blitz, the paucity of prosecutable findings against Democratic office holders means one of two things: Democrats really don't suffer from the "culture of corruption" or the DoJ, like just about any other administrative branch the bush league tamper with, was as incompetent as the Three Stooges in 3-piece suits.
Its beyond disgrace, its more than alarming, its barely believable. In any other administration, I would seriously question the source of such news! This needs to be blogged and otherwise shouted far more widely. Blinking at the TPM headline about Paul Kiel raising questions won't serve. Dig for the facts or read those who have because the facts about the ratio of investigations make this story explode. From epluribusmedia:
Data* indicate that the offices of the U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven (7) times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops.
Our paper explores the role of the fourth estate and others in detecting such profiling and concludes that what is really needed is transparency, the highlights of which are noted below.The current Bush Republican Administration appears to be the first to have engaged in political profiling. ...
Like I said...you can't get by on headlines: I now notice that me and my alarm are late to the party. While Keil was on the case days earlier, this scandle is exactly what Andrew Sullivan and, (far too visible for me to excuse not knowing), Paul Krugman were talking about. And, as I find my self saying more often lately, how bad does the administration have to be to have those two writers in agreement?