Not quite Bit, one would have to discount totally the "Heckuvajob, Brownie" comment to reach that step. It showed that Bush, not only did he not have a clue, he did not care.

No, it doesn't. what it showed was that Bush was recoginzing that the federal government lived up to the expectations both they and the states thee signed on for, and Brown did a fair enough job there. The complaints, apparently are because the federal government dind't anticiapet the level of unfitness in the democrats within those states.

Nagin, etc.

I'm guessing that in Louisiana's case it has and had to do with oil, but what about Mississippi?

You mean state and local officials were in no way responsible?

Not quite, Steve. Reread my comment with your considerable powers of comprehension, and I think my point will come clear to you.

And why divide by the size of the population? Every state has precisely one governor, two senators, one secretary of state, etc. regardless of population. It’s true that large states have more Members of Congress and tend to have more local officials. But, again, adding them in muddies the waters unnecessarily.

I mostly agree. For things like U.S. Senators, Governors, and other offices invariant to population then the data should not be normalized to population. U.S. Congressmen, State level assemblymen and local officials...okay normalize by population. So a composite index.

Not quite Bit, one would have to discount totally the "Heckuvajob, Brownie" comment to reach that step. It showed that Bush, not only did he not have a clue, he did not care.

You mean state and local officials were in no way responsible?

So, can we now admit to ourselves that the reason NOLA was so fouled up in Katrina wasn't the Bush administration, and was Louisiana's corrupt 'public servants'?

I mean, isn't that the next logical step?

Not quite Bit, one would have to discount totally the "Heckuvajob, Brownie" comment to reach that step. It showed that Bush, not only did he not have a clue, he did not care.

What a surprise that the top 4 are all Southern States!!!!
Yes, the good old Republican states, so is it any wonder....power and greed are what that party thrive on.

louisiana is not a republican state...and why stop at 4? why not the top 10? according to this list, 6 for dems, 3 for repubs, and 1 barely leaning dem in LA.

of course, let me fill in your rebuttal:

OMG GOPers ARE EVIL!!!! BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED.

corruption is not a partisan issue, its a politician issue.

I mean, isn't that the next logical step?

I would also think convictions aren't the best measure of corruption-after all what is more corrupt the guy who gets caught and convicted or a system where everyone turns a bind eye to the corruption and it is expected? Just look at Bagojevich-he was elected and especially re-elected in spite of rumors about his corruption.

How many years has Blago been dirty? How long have their been suspicions about the Chicago Daley political machine? Anyone doubt that there isn't some at the very least unethical if not illegal stuff going on there?