As a native of Philadelphia, I can attest that once-proud city can give Chicago and New Orleans a run for the (stolen) money when it comes to corrupt politicians.

What's impossible to ignore is how the media there, here at Slate, and a nationally sprain ankles trying to tip-toe around the obvious: THEY ARE ALL OVERWHELMINGLY DEMOCRAT. And have been, for DECADES.

I don’t think Democrats are fundamentally less principled than Republicans. Not at all. But something is up.

Maybe because Democrats for bigger government and more spending they naturally have more money to throw around, and therefore exchange? What is it? What's the fear in asking the question openly?

And why do journalists and other watchdog types find Democrat corruption kind of…charming? The Daley Machine, Edwin Edwards, the Long brothers….it’s all reported with a wink and a smile.

Even politicians who rise out of this sewer, like our next president, are never asked: It was all around you. What did you do to stop it? As far as I can tell, Obama made one phone call on behalf of an ethics bill. When he was campaigning for president.

Why are journalists at Slate, and most major outlets, so reluctant to state the obvious about the most corrupt political systems in the U.S.: that they are dominated by Democrats?

CJinPA:

As a native of Philadelphia, I can attest that once-proud city can give Chicago and New Orleans a run for the (stolen) money when it comes to corrupt politicians.

What's impossible to ignore is how the media there, here at Slate, and a nationally sprain ankles trying to tip-toe around the obvious: THEY ARE ALL OVERWHELMINGLY DEMOCRAT. And have been, for DECADES.

I don’t think Democrats are fundamentally less principled than Republicans. Not at all. But something is up.

Maybe because Democrats for bigger government and more spending they naturally have more money to throw around, and therefore exchange? What is it? What's the fear in asking the question openly?

And why do journalists and other watchdog types find Democrat corruption kind of…charming? The Daley Machine, Edwin Edwards, the Long brothers….it’s all reported with a wink and a smile.

Even politicians who rise out of this sewer, like our next president, are never asked: It was all around you. What did you do to stop it? As far as I can tell, Obama made one phone call on behalf of an ethics bill. When he was campaigning for president.

Why are journalists at Slate, and most major outlets, so reluctant to state the obvious about the most corrupt political systems in the U.S.: that they are dominated by Democrats?

I'm not sure if there is some grand philosophical or psychological explanation as to why Democrats are more engaged in corrupt activity. I think the simple reason is that in most major cities, Democrats have long had a stranglehold on local government, with all the spoils and patronage that go with it. So it's a simple matter of access to power. You mention being a native of Philadelphia, so you should know that the city hasn't elected a Republican mayor in almost 60 years. And if not for some bizarre quota, there would be almost no Republicans on city council. The Dems could nominate the Phillie Phanatic for an at-large council seat and he'd win in a landslide. It's the exact same thing in corrupt New Jersey cities like Camden, Newark and Atlantic City. Even Detroit is a one-party town. I'm not as knowledgeable about Chicago but from what I hear, it's the same situation

Philly hit its high (as in "low") point in the 2003 mayoral race. It came out that the mayor's office was under federal invetigation for corruption. His support shot up. What was a close race for re-election became a runaway victory.

I agree the one-party lock plays the biggest role. The question is why the 'good government' types don't advocate some political diversity as a result.

At the least, journalists have to stop dancing around the fact that this is mainly a Democrat Party problem.

Well, the Democrats do a better job of paying lip-service about "standing up for the little-guy" and the elitist news media that likes to think of itself as the "little guys" champion too gives them a pass. Here's a clue, the Democrats don't give a damn about the "little guy", it's all a smokescreen in hopes the "little guy" doesn't notice how much money the Democrats are sticking in their pockets through graft, corruption and sweetheart deals with cronies. And if the "little guy" does notice the corruption, Democrats are hoping he doesn't say anything because we all know the Democrats "care more about the little guy" then the evil Republicans do. This sham has worked well for the Democrat party.

"Why are journalists at Slate, and most major outlets, so reluctant to state the obvious about the most corrupt political systems in the U.S.: that they are dominated by Democrats?"

Oh please! It is not the responsibility of journalists to catergerize corruption based on who dominates that corruption based simply on what party they are in unless the story is that Democrats are corrupt by definition, which would then make it a story worth detailing. The simple fact is, corruption comes from all parties. I have seen quite a bit of Republican scandals that scream of corruption that have gone all the way to the Bush White House administration. Yet, strictly speaking, the story isn't that they were Republicans. The story is that they were corrupt. The fact they were Republican is no more relevant to the story then that they were Christian, wouldn't you say? Also, it isn't that Democrats are more prone to corruption. It's just that they are more easily caught since Republican smear campaigns spend huge amounts of time and money making sure they are caught whilst Republicans are just better at covering up their corruption or turning the American voters away from the corruption by giving them something else to spend their attention on.. Like a "Yellow defense" rating. So, we can point fingers based on what party is more corrupt or we can deal with the corruption as simply what it is- a politician abusing power to his or her own gain. That is a crime and criminals aren't thinking about what party they are in when they commit the crime so why should we? We should be focusing on the crime itself. And that is what journalists are paid to do.

Oh please! It is not the responsibility of journalists to catergerize corruption based on who dominates that corruption based simply on what party they are in

It’s not? Really? It’s not the job of journalists to look into obvious trends involving governance and law? I disagree. And so do journalists, at least when it’s Republicans dominating the corruption headlines, as in 2006. Then, the impact of GOP scandals seemed quite interesting to the media.

Also, it isn't that Democrats are more prone to corruption. It's just that they are more easily caught since Republican smear campaigns spend huge amounts of time and money making sure they are caught

Really? “Republican smear campaigns” exposed corruption in Illinois. And Louisiana? And New Jersey? And Philadelphia? And Detroit? And…

That is a crime and criminals aren't thinking about what party they are in when they commit the crime so why should we?

For the same reason that you and journalists focused on party in 2006: Because it’s obvious. I stated that I don’t think Democrats are any less principled than Republicans. But something is at work here. Maybe one-party rule breeds trouble? Maybe Chicago needs some diversity? These are questions journalists should ask.