Interesting observation.

Dan,

I think you're correct in what you said. Fumo is very, very wealthy. I don't think anything will ever come out that he took a dime he shouldn't have. Rather, he's always working at his political game, and quite frankly, for his district. In the process, there may have been some sloppy details. Should this deserve more than a slap on the wrist? Up to a jury.

No it wouldn't be odd. Would it be odd to call the cops because someone robbed me of $300, even though the salary and processing and stuff costs more than the $300 I lost?

Part of it is deterrence. Unfortunately, much of humanity obeys laws not because they feel it is right, but from fear of repercussions.

Over the past few years many progressive Dems have called for the resignation of many Republican electeds and appointees, even when there is not illegal activity. Whether Fumo is found guilty or not certainly matters but he is clearly a corrupt politician and few are arguing that he is not. He has delivered many things sure (many of which are weakening Philadelphia like casinos and resistence to gun control), but he has done so due to his corruption not in spite of it. This idea that somehow if he just didn't do bad things he would be great misses the point, what he has accomplished is a result of undemocratic, non-transparent and corrupt practices. Progessive Dems. should be standing up and renouncing him (should have happened long before we got an indictment announced) for how he governs which rarely has strengthened the democratic character of our city or state. Right now we need what we always need -- principled leadership that puts trust in the people not not leaders that exploit our fears and our resources.

Bad argument. We don't only have two choices of "honest and ineffectual" and "corrupt but productive".

I would like to think we can expect "honest and productive".

I am actually arguing that neither the means (corruption)nor the ends (casinos and a whole bunch of other bad public policy) are justified (and Josephs, like all other PHiladelphia delegation members in 2004 voted for Act 71). I am glad to have the naive label thrown around on a politics site. Grassroots organizing and movement building change the rules of the game so that new policy decisions can emerge.

Here is an example from my background as an organizer. The Boston Red Sox convinced the MA Legislature, the Mayor of Boston and the Governor that historic Fenway Park could not be renovated and that government should take 25 acres of eminent domain to build a new stadium, the government also threw in $313 Million in public money just to help them out. It took a few years of organizing on the neighborhood, city and state level and a lot of work but in the end the new "done deal" stadium was shelved and plans we developed to renovate the Park moved ahead. The team won the World Series (talk about naive), there was no eminent domain or corporate subsidies and the community could advance its planning for a sustainable community. It wasn't perfect or easy but I am proud that leaders in the effort never believed those that called them naive or that the new stadium was a "done deal."

Many people on this site have been involved in elections that were "unwinnable" and it was often because they worked with principled candidates who are now combining justifiable means and justifiable ends. Progressives who don't challenge corruption will find that they have little support for their policy prescriptions in years to come.

I agree with that, Larry. Honestly, the problems of today need solutions and wedge style leaders really have no place in government. It is one thing to have principles and stand by them, but and entirely different thing to be ineffective otherwise.

Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!

Because you can't have both?