GeekPol's evil twin

Way Too Much Sense points out that CNN does push polling now. Apparently, they could get 250 people (51% of their sample) to say that the Clinton schlong is to blame for accounting funny business. And here is the question they used to do it...

Some people have argued that President Clinton is at least partially responsible for the current business scandals because of the climate he set while in office by his own moral failings. Do you strongly agree, moderately agree, moderately disagree, or strongly disagree with that statement?

To quote Mr. Way Too Much Sense on his interpretation of how business responded to Clinton's schlong, "Smithers, it seems the Congress is more concerned with Clinton's dick than whether our profit/loss numbers are legit. Let's fudge them a little to inflate our stock price. Oh, what the hell, let's fudge them a lot. Summon the accountants!"

I don't quite agree, but his piece is (as always) worth a read. Bill Clinton could have been as chaste as Jimmy Carter; these accounting scandals would have happened anyway, thanks to the Republican (now Royalist) Congress' torpedoing of any strengthened SEC oversight role from Reagan-era relaxation. And now with the napping Chihuahua Harvey Pitt on the job, the occurrence of earnings fudging has only multiplied.