Being less openly corrupt, IMHO is worse, because you are trying to hide how corrupt you truly are, and in essence shows how dishonest and evil you can be, that you go to extra lengths to prevent the information from being leaked, or dug up or whatever form you try to get this from being "open corruptness".
It's not saying that being openly corrupt means you are more or less corrupt. If you are corrupt, no matter what the scale is, you are then corrupt. But by hiding things, you could be seen as being more "criminal" as you are then perhaps also guilty of bribery, blackmail, abuse of power etc. Then you aren't just corrupt, but even more malicious and evil than someone being more open to what he is doing.
The thing is though, is that corruption in politics is always happening, be it minor like nepotism, party-advancement, race/friendship/religious advancement. I have always been a firm believer that the definition of corruption should be broadened, and that some parts of "corruptness" shouldn't be deemed illegal per se. And by this I mean that you got to that position with help, and the expectation is that if you are in that position, you will be able to give back to those who helped you. And sometimes the red tape and other factors just delays the inevitable, so people then take shortcuts, And that's usually where the corruption comes into play.
Blame will always be with the party in control. And the blame usually comes from the parties not in control. That's just normal politics, and that's how the non-leader party(ies) try to get more voters to try and overthrow the leadership party at the voting booths.
Pretty standard.
Because Bush had Cheney, who was a brilliant political mind, and knew how to control Bush and prevent things from being worse. Bush wasn't smart enough to politicize issues, he wasn't the one pulling the strings.
) but a fairly uncontroversial, unspectacular appointment is exactly what will be needed imo.
www.theneweuropean.co.uk
