Someone please explain this to me. The Washington Post
has a front page story
this morning headlined, "Corruption That Shook Capitol Isn't Rattling Elections" with the subhead, "Abramoff Case and Others Not Necessarily a Key Issue."
As an example of one of those races where corruption isn't "rattling" the election, the author, Blaine Harden, cites Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), who's been hammered for his close dealings with Jack Abramoff:
In an interview, the senator said his polling shows that most voters regard the "Abramoff deal" as merely a political liability and not a damning verdict on his character. Several pollsters and observers of politics in this state agreed with that assessment. The controversy is almost certainly the main reason Burns is in a competitive race this year, but by no means is it a guaranteed career-ender.
Yet Burns, an 18-year veteran of the Senate, is in a fight for his political life largely because of the Abramoff scandal. Somehow the Post's
story and other "Corruption's Not The Issue It's Cracked Up To Be" pieces that I've seen over the past month make the argument that this is a disappointment for Democrats.
Is it just me, or is there a double standard here?
When you're reading the piece, notice how Harden breezes past the fact that the Abramoff scandal has already ended two prominent careers -- those of Reps. Bob Ney (R-OH) and Tom DeLay (R-TX). If any other issue were so potent as to foreclose two such political careers, I doubt its failure to automatically end other careers would be cast as a disappointment.
C'mon, people! Give muck the respect it deserves. Update
: Ha. New Rasmussen poll shows
Burns trailing by nine.