Is it a Republican scandal?

[Tricky]

Politicians are all slimeballs. I think we can mostly agree on that. But in regards to the Abramoff scandal, it has been suggested that Democrats are just as dirty as Republicans. When I saw them handing back contributions, I assumed the same thing. Turns out I was wrong. No Democrat has taken any money from Abramoff, at least according to Clarence Page. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/3588924.html)
IT'S not healthy to blow your favorite evening beverage through your nostrils. But that's how surprised I was to hear National Democratic Chairman Howard Dean deny that any Democrats took money from Jack Abramoff.
***
But, I checked it out and, guess what? Dean was right. Although both Democrats and Republicans did, in fact, receive money from Abramoff's clients, only Republicans received personal donations from Abramoff himself.
***
He's right, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which keeps track of such things. Their analysis of FEC records shows that Democrats received about a third of the $4.2 million donated between 1998 and 2005 by tribes that had hired Abramoff to represent them in Washington, but none from Abramoff's own wallet.

Now this doesn't mean that the Dems are not slimy for taking money from his clients, but it means they are free of direct bribery from Abramoff himself. Of course, add to that that the Republicans are in power. Total power. They control both houses, the Presidency and, if the 2000 election is a guide, the Supreme Court. Worse, their guys have their hands thrust most deeply in Jack's pockets. DeLay's former aide became Abramoff's second-hand man after working closely with him while in the DeLay team.

Latest revelation is that Bob Ney, (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/3588973.html) an Ohio Republican who was the head of the committee with jurisdiction over the Republican reform agenda, has stepped down, reportedly under pressure from Dennis Hastert. Apparently his former chief of staff, Neil G. Volz, left Ney to join Abramoff and was deeply involved in the Indian casino kickback business.

No skeptic should be surprised that politicians line up at the trough when they get the chance, but the scale and temerity of the Repubs is astounding even to those who expect the worst of them. Obviously the Dems are going to try to make a lot of hay with this, and they should be able to do so, as it looks like the details from this scandal are going to disgust even the most hardened cynic.

On the other hand, it could be a good time for Libertarians to get a foot in the door.

[bob_kark]

I think that no matter which way you go, this should give Congress a good spring cleaning. If the whole affair made Congress a bit more balanced, I wouldn't mind one bit. It seems that the Republicans have had Carte Blanche for long enough now.

[headscratcher4]

Of course, there is corruption in both parties...potentially in all parties. But this is a GOP scandal. These guys -- Abramoff, DeLay, Reed, Norquist were/are at the heart of the Republican revolution...the family values, liberals are traitors campaign, the campaign to create a real one-party state (The K-Street project is unlike anything ever seen before in Washington lobbying...an attempt to concentrate all power inside and outside of government in the hands of GOP loyalists).

In the end, if the scandal is two/thirds GOP to one/third Democrat, I'll take it ...the GOP has more to lose but not that much more. If two/thirds to one/third lose their seats, the House will change over and than, maybe, we can begin to do some real oversight on issues like domestic spying, FEMA, Crony appointments and many other issues that the GOP Congress has neglected in deference to King George.

[Mephisto]

I think it's more an American scandal than simply a Republican scandal. Hopefully the American people will walk away from this with a lot more cynicism about politicians in general as well as a good healthy dose of realization that they'll carry with them until the next elections.

Having control of nearly the entire government, it's worthy to note just how much the Republicans REALLY care about family values, bringing integrity BACK to the White House and all the other B.S. we heard during elections.

[Luke T.]

It won't change a damn thing. The media will pump this up more and more as we get closer to the November elections. Michael Moore will make a new movie and bitch about it not being shown in every theater in America and on primetime TV. Senator McCain will make the circuit discussing the need for reform. He will co-sponsor a giant bill to clean up things, and two years from now, some bastardized version that bears no resemblance to the original will pass the still-Republican dominated House and Senate.

[Ed]

At least when they sell out thoer fellow citizens they do it with a joyful christian heart.

[Mephisto]

At least when they sell out thoer fellow citizens they do it with a joyful christian heart.

So that's what compassionate conservative means.

[Tricky]

So that's what compassionate conservative means.
(The tune is something like "Bridge over Troubled Waters")


EVERYMAN (FOR HIMSELF) (http://www.roysongs.com/lyrics/foremen/folkreprise/everyman.htm)
words and music by Roy Zimmerman (http://www.roysongs.com/lyrics/foremen/folkreprise/everyman.htm)



(sung)
When your heart is heavy
When the night has been too long
When every road you choose
Muddies up your shoes
And leads you wrong

When you're cold and lonely
When your rope is at its end
When darkness clouds the skies
And tears fill your eyes
When you just need a friend

Don't look at me
Wipe your own damn nose
And if I've kept you down or made you cry
Or trampled all your hopes and dreams
Well, that's the way it goes

In heaven there's no hate or war
In heaven no one's hungry or poor
In heaven they hold hands evermore
But we're on earth
And here on earth
It's everyman for himself

When you're a Black, Chicano, Native-American, Jewish lesbian folk singer
And this morning when you woke up you hit your head on the steering wheel
You're shoulder deep in ****
And you just wanna quit
I know how you can get a handgun without the usual background check

Get off my lawn
Pay your rent on time

And if I hire illegals to build a wall around my property
It's just 'cause I'm
Tough on crime

In heaven there's no fear or need
In heaven no one's rabid with greed
In heaven you get laid guaranteed
But we're on earth
And here on earth
It's everyman for himself

'Cause there's a hot wind a'blowin'
Can't you feel it?
It's blowin' hard!
So, where's your national pride, brother?
Where's your national I.D. card?

(spoken)
And even as we send the American liberal off to the great society in the sky, we await the day when he'll be joined by his friends, the literate and the tolerant... when all the frivolous arts and sciences are replaced by nationwide network of publicly-funded putting greens... the government at the people, and above the people, and in spite of the people shall not perish, but that certain people shall... and until then, my friends...

(sung)
It's every man for himself!

[Mephisto]

Thanks, Tricky,

That wrapped things up nicely and Mr. Zimmerman certainly deserves credit for hitting SEVERAL nails on the head.

I was recently thinking about the ONLY good thing to come out the Bush II era is rebellious music, poetry, art AND comedy. As the late, great Hunter Thompson once said, "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."

[Luke T.]

It's nice that no Democrats took money directly from Abramoff. That means Abramoff didn't waste any money on the party he probably thought couldn't do much for him. He was a smart little weasel.

[headscratcher4]

It's nice that no Democrats took money directly from Abramoff. That means Abramoff didn't waste any money on the party he probably thought couldn't do much for him. He was a smart little weasel.

Its true, the Dems couldn't do much for him, and its true that they are potentially (if not in fact) as corrupt. However, what is also increasingly true is that this not an aboration of GOP majority rule. These are the guys that got them to the Ball. DeLay, Reed, Norquist and their corporate lobbyiest friends were there from the beginning...these aren't idealists gone wrong and corrupted by the capitol culture, they broght their corruption with them. The K Street project shows from the outset that this is how they wanted Washington to work...force the interest groups to come to you, raise money for you, do you favors for favors and build a one-party hold on government...for it is only in that way that you can limit oversight and crush the opposition.

I've been in D.C. a long time. There was much wrong, corrupt when the Dems controlled both houses of Congress. This is not the same kind of scandal. This is qualitatively different...these are true believers...true believers in money and power. As bad as it was in the bad old days, this is worse...and, I would again argue that this is not an aboration, this comes directly out of the will to power of the people who have created the GOP majority.

[Tricky]

Thanks, Tricky,

That wrapped things up nicely and Mr. Zimmerman certainly deserves credit for hitting SEVERAL nails on the head.

I was recently thinking about the ONLY good thing to come out the Bush II era is rebellious music, poetry, art AND comedy. As the late, great Hunter Thompson once said, "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
LOL. You're welcome, although to be fair, that song was written in 1995 after the so-called "Republican Revolution". I guess some things don't change.

[Hutch]

It won't change a damn thing. The media will pump this up more and more as we get closer to the November elections. Michael Moore will make a new movie and bitch about it not being shown in every theater in America and on primetime TV. Senator McCain will make the circuit discussing the need for reform. He will co-sponsor a giant bill to clean up things, and two years from now, some bastardized version that bears no resemblance to the original will pass the still-Republican dominated House and Senate.

You're a bitter, cynical man Luke T.

And I agree with your analysis 100%, at least for the next election cycle.

[Tricky]

It's nice that no Democrats took money directly from Abramoff. That means Abramoff didn't waste any money on the party he probably thought couldn't do much for him. He was a smart little weasel.
I'm sure Dems could have opened significant doors for him, mainly by dropping resistance, but it is true that the people who chair the committees are the ones who need a well-greased palm.

And I have to chuckle at the concept that money spent on the Dems would have been "wasted". Does that mean that the money spent on Repubs was well invested? Perhaps it would have been if he hadn't been caught.

[RandFan]

I have no problem calling it what it is. A scandal that involved Republicans. If you wish to call it a Republican scandal then by all means do so.

[Luke T.]

And I have to chuckle at the concept that money spent on the Dems would have been "wasted". Does that mean that the money spent on Repubs was well invested?

In a Machiavellian way, yes. Let's just hope he was also a smart enough weasel to document his transactions with irrefutable hard evidence of the elected officials' corruption.

I see a whole new cable TV channel. The White Collar Criminal Trial channel. Enron executives, Republicans, pedophile priests. There's plenty of material for 24 hour non-stop action for at least the next two years when Mark Warner is narrowly defeated by John McCain.

[Nyarlathotep]

I am going to have to agree with Luke on this one. Abramaoff likely didnlt bother bribing Dems because, as the minority party, it wasn't worth the time, effor, or expense.

Look at it this way. Pretend you are a corrupt lobbyist. You only have so much money to spend on bribery. Are you going to spend that money ont he party that actually ahs the votes to get things implemented or are you going to spend it on the party who has to beg, wheedle and threaten a filibuster to maybe get something attached as a rider to another bill bit otherwise is just ocupying floor space even if they ARE just as corruptable as the first party. In Abramoff's shoes, I know which of those groups if going to get MY suitcase full o' cash. HInt: it's not the second one.

[TragicMonkey]

I think the Democrats are every bit as corrupt as the Republicans, but they're just not as good at it, thus their corruption is less pervasive. They'd probably love to swap places with the Republicans and have all those vast networks of bought people and favors. The corruption's reaching ridiculous levels, like medieval Byzantium or China under the last dynasty. There's only so much natural human greed a government can tolerate before the parasites kill off the organism.

[Luke T.]

He's right, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which keeps track of such things. Their analysis of FEC records shows that Democrats received about a third of the $4.2 million donated between 1998 and 2005 by tribes that had hired Abramoff to represent them in Washington, but none from Abramoff's own wallet.

Sayyyy...

Look who's Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs (http://indian.senate.gov/members.htm)

[Luke T.]

Latest revelation is that Bob Ney, (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/3588973.html) an Ohio Republican who was the head of the committee with jurisdiction over the Republican reform agenda, has stepped down,

They need to fix their web page. (http://cha.house.gov/)

[Luke T.]

Heh.

Noting that on its website, Common Cause claims to have “led efforts” to “enact strict lobbying disclosure requirements,” Ney said, “When we first took these important steps in June, I wondered why groups such as Common Cause did not say a word in support. At first, I thought it was because they so rarely support Republican initiatives, even if they are in-line with their own philosophy, but now it seems that they first needed to get their own paperwork in order. Now that it seems they are in compliance with the law, I hope they will support our efforts to increase accountability and transparency in government.”

Linky-winky (http://cha.house.gov/mediapages/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1134)

[headscratcher4]

While politics can always inspire corruption…and thus complacency as some write-things off to simply “politics” … I would argue that this scandal is significantly different from previous political scandals. This isn’t a matter of lobbyists waiting around to corrupt politicians of any party that is in power; the base of this scandal is that the corruptors are, to a man, significant players in the GOP power base and structure. They were foot soldiers in the Republican revolution, raising the money, figuring out the strategic messages, lining up the themes of “reform” and fighting corruption from an entrenched system.

Additionally, this is how they have been operating from the very day they took control of both houses of Congress. Abramoff, in other words, is not an aberration for the GOP…he is the GOP in this incarnation.

Sure, someone like Dorgan may get caught up in the scandal…though ever indication is that he is at best a minor player….but the Dems have no power. I note that Dorgan, in one of the few hearing that the GOP leadership has allowed to investigate these goings on, was very aggressive in demanding answers and asking tough questions. In other words, what ever they were buying from Dorgan, they weren’t buying the go-anywhere, do anything complacency that they apparently were getting with DeLay, Ney, Burns and others.

Anyway, yes, Washington can corrupt, but – and again – I argue this is different. These people are integral to GOP rule. They have been working to take over the GOP and the country since college (note, Norquist and Abramoff’s long association). And, once they helped create the revolution and fund it, their attitude has been like the Medici Popes…. Now that god has seen fit to give us this office, we must enjoy it.

My ultimate point is that while these guys may not be the Lenin and Trotsky of the GOP revolution, they are the Stalin, Molotov, Beria, Kagnovich and Kamenaive of the GOP revolution. In short, they are the thugs that seem to accompany all revolutions – especially those interested in establishing one party states ….

[Luke T.]

While politics can always inspire corruption…and thus complacency as some write-things off to simply “politics” … I would argue that this scandal is significantly different from previous political scandals. This isn’t a matter of lobbyists waiting around to corrupt politicians of any party that is in power; the base of this scandal is that the corruptors are, to a man, significant players in the GOP power base and structure. They were foot soldiers in the Republican revolution, raising the money, figuring out the strategic messages, lining up the themes of “reform” and fighting corruption from an entrenched system.

Additionally, this is how they have been operating from the very day they took control of both houses of Congress. Abramoff, in other words, is not an aberration for the GOP…he is the GOP in this incarnation.

Sure, someone like Dorgan may get caught up in the scandal…though ever indication is that he is at best a minor player….but the Dems have no power. I note that Dorgan, in one of the few hearing that the GOP leadership has allowed to investigate these goings on, was very aggressive in demanding answers and asking tough questions. In other words, what ever they were buying from Dorgan, they weren’t buying the go-anywhere, do anything complacency that they apparently were getting with DeLay, Ney, Burns and others.

Anyway, yes, Washington can corrupt, but – and again – I argue this is different. These people are integral to GOP rule. They have been working to take over the GOP and the country since college (note, Norquist and Abramoff’s long association). And, once they helped create the revolution and fund it, their attitude has been like the Medici Popes…. Now that god has seen fit to give us this office, we must enjoy it.

My ultimate point is that while these guys may not be the Lenin and Trotsky of the GOP revolution, they are the Stalin, Molotov, Beria, Kagnovich and Kamenaive of the GOP revolution. In short, they are the thugs that seem to accompany all revolutions – especially those interested in establishing one party states ….

Somehow, I doubt that a lobbyist bribing committee chairmen is anything new. Abscam anyone? Traficant?

And of course they are "significant players". That's the whole point of bribing them!

[DavidJames]

My ultimate point is that while these guys may not be the Lenin and Trotsky of the GOP revolution, they are the Stalin, Molotov, Beria, Kagnovich and Kamenaive of the GOP revolution. In short, they are the thugs that seem to accompany all revolutions – especially those interested in establishing one party states ….Be careful, you are getting close to suggesting a conspiracy, a vast right wing conspiracy. "They" will pick up on that and ask for evidence and soon the discussion will revolve solely around evidence of a conspiracy and the actual issues will no longer be discussed.

We've been there before.

[headscratcher4]

Somehow, I doubt that a lobbyist bribing committee chairmen is anything new. Abscam anyone? Traficant?

And of course they are "significant players". That's the whole point of bribing them!

The players in abscam were, for the most part, very minor. Jim Tafficant was an outsider wcwn in his own party. Even Rostencosky was taken down by essentially a petty administrative scandal (his vision was too small, his coruption mean and petty in the larger scheme of things).

These folks are visionaries...Just look at the scope of the k Street project.

Again, the fact remains that the core of this scandal lies with those who broght the GOP to power. The GOP is what it is today, in no small measure, to the talents of many of the people already entangled in this scandal, and it will grow worse.

This is corruption of a different quality, in other words.

[headscratcher4]

Be careful, you are getting close to suggesting a conspiracy, a vast right wing conspiracy. "They" will pick up on that and ask for evidence and soon the discussion will revolve solely around evidence of a conspiracy and the actual issues will no longer be discussed.

We've been there before.

I actually don't believe in a right-wing conspiracy. I think the GOP does...Abramoff, Norquist, Reed, DeLay, Nay, to name the leaders in this just now, are all essentially what they themselves call "movement" Republicans. They systematically set out to make lobbying and lobbyist adhere to GOP goals and demands in the k Street project...a sort of political pay to play (hire GOP and donate to GOP or don't get in the door). While corruption has long existed among lobbyist, this was a particularly clever innovation and is very new here...just as importantly, "movement" Republicans (at least in my experience which is pretty vast) do not believe that the other party is wrong or just corrupt, many really do believe that Dems. and other who disagree with them are essentially traitors...they far more than most Democrats (Hillary excepted, possibly) believe in big conspiracies.

Everyone in politics has a lot to account for in turning up the rhetoric and hyperbole, but I continue to argue that this crew is qualatively different and this scandal is too...its about money, but more it is about power.

[RandFan]

Be careful, you are getting close to suggesting a conspiracy, a vast right wing conspiracy. "They" will pick up on that and ask for evidence and soon the discussion will revolve solely around evidence of a conspiracy and the actual issues will no longer be discussed.

We've been there before.Good point. Yes, let's steer clear of that pesky evidence crap. Damn skeptics. They are always going on about "evidence this" and "evidence that". Well I'm here to tell you that beliefs are more than evidence.

Thanks David.

[DavidJames]

Good point. Yes, let's steer clear of that pesky evidence crap. Damn skeptics. They are always going on about "evidence this" and "evidence that". Well I'm here to tell you that beliefs are more than evidence.

Thanks David.Sigh, but thanks for making my point.

Edit to (try and) Clarify:

HeadS suggested what appears to be a coordinated effort of people doing certain things
Apologists pick up on the "coordinated" aspect and re(mis)direct the conversation to the "coordination" thereby taking the focus on the original point, namely those "certain things".

Okay?

[RandFan]

Everyone in politics has a lot to account for in turning up the rhetoric and hyperbole, but I continue to argue that this crew is qualatively different and this scandal is too...its about money, but more it is about power. I have to shrug my shoulders. Sorry scratcher. I don't mean to minimize the seriousness of the event. I hope those who are involved are thrown out of office and those who broke any laws prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

That being said, it is human nature, a need actually, to come to a conclusion that one side is some how worse than the other. It is comforting to us. White vs Black. Good vs. Evil. Imperial storm troopers vs. the Jedi. Yeah, they are all bad but the Republicans by Ed are so much worse. They don't simply break rules they have created a "culture of corruption".

Scratcher, you are a pretty bright guy. Don't drink the kool-aid.

[RandFan]

Sigh, but thanks for making my point.That would be great if I made your point. Sadly you underscore your own, even if unintentionally.

[headscratcher4]

Scratcher, you are a pretty bright guy. Don't drink the kool-aid.

:)

Maybe...but things here feel very different over how they felt when I first came to DC more than twenty years ago..and not for the better. Maybe all the talk about whether torture is justified and when, what phones the President can order tapped without warrents, intelligence mistakes that lead to war and the trillion dollars we're going to pour into a war that even the Predisnent says "will never end" has hightened my paranoia...

[RandFan]

Edit to (try and) Clarify:

HeadS suggested what appears to be a coordinated effort of people doing certain things
Apologists pick up on the "coordinated" aspect and re(mis)direct the conversation to the "coordination" thereby taking the focus on the original point, namely those "certain things".

Okay? Missed your edit first time around.

I have not tried to redirect anything. My point is simple. Stick to what you can prove or I'm going to call you on it. Okay?

[RandFan]

:)

Maybe...but things here feel very different over how they felt when I first came to DC more than twenty years ago..and not for the better. Maybe all the talk about whether torture is justified and when, what phones the President can order tapped without warrents, intelligence mistakes that lead to war and the trillion dollars we're going to pour into a war that even the Predisnent says "will never end" has hightened my paranoia... Understandably.

[jj]

It won't change a damn thing. The media will pump this up more and more as we get closer to the November elections. Michael Moore will make a new movie and bitch about it not being shown in every theater in America and on primetime TV. Senator McCain will make the circuit discussing the need for reform. He will co-sponsor a giant bill to clean up things, and two years from now, some bastardized version that bears no resemblance to the original will pass the still-Republican dominated House and Senate.


Yep, and people here will still keep excusing it, just like they excused the excesses of the last campaign, sliming the war hero at the same time they voted for the draft dodger.

[Lurker]

Yep, and people here will still keep excusing it, just like they excused the excesses of the last campaign, sliming the war hero at the same time they voted for the draft dodger.

As a friend of mine in the Air Force says: How many purple hearts and medals does Kerry have? 5. How many does Bush have? 0.

Lurker

[DavidJames]

Missed your edit first time around.

I have not tried to redirect anything. My point is simple. Stick to what you can prove or I'm going to call you on it. Okay?Here are my comments, in their entirety about this topic, prior to your adderssing me.
Be careful, you are getting close to suggesting a conspiracy, a vast right wing conspiracy. "They" will pick up on that and ask for evidence and soon the discussion will revolve solely around evidence of a conspiracy and the actual issues will no longer be discussed.

We've been there before.

So, quote the bit which prompted you to say:

"Stick to what you can prove or I'm going to call you on it. Okay?"

You are also welcome to point out where I said you were redirecting anything.

Edit to add
I didn't say there was a conspiracy here.
My oblique reference was to H. Clinton's "vast right wing conspiracy". One which I never opined about. I'm sorry that wasn't clear, my apologies.

Man...

[RandFan]

"Stick to what you can prove or I'm going to call you on it. Okay?"

You are also welcome to point out where I said you were redirecting anything. You sighed when I responded to you, stating that I had proven your point. How can I prove your point if I don't do what you say? I'm making the observation that if people drift into conspiracy theories then it is quite appropriate to call for evidence.

[Art Vandelay]

I think that Dean's statement was a bit misleading. It's not that no Democrats took his money, but that no Democrat was offered his money. This is like saying that only Canseco's teammates took steroids from him, so it's just an Oakland scandal. Of course only Canseco's teammates took steroids from him. Why would Canseco offer steroids to other teams? And is Canseco the only person giving out steroids? If someone didn't take steroids from Canseco, does that mean they didn't take steroids? Of course not!

A Democrat saying "I didn't take money from him" is a bit like a serial killer saying "Hey, there are quite a few people that I didn't kill".

[DavidJames]

You sighed when I responded to you, stating that I had proven your point. How can I prove your point if I don't do what you say? I'm making the observation that if people drift into conspiracy theories then it is quite appropriate to call for evidence.Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.

http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm

[LawnOven]

Without reading all the comments I would just say...

Sorry republicans, this is infact a REPUBLICAN scandal; no democrat has taken money from that guy. That doesn't mean democrats can't be corrupt it just means that in this case it is a purely republican scandal no matter how hard they try to spin it otherwise.

Further; republicans control every branch of government now; so anything that happens under thier watch is effectively thier fault and responsibility.

Too many years have passed to still be blaming stuff on Clinton...

It's a republican mess; and they had better clean it up and before the american people do it for them.

[Luke T.]

Yep, and people here will still keep excusing it, just like they excused the excesses of the last campaign, sliming the war hero at the same time they voted for the draft dodger.

For the record, I defended Kerry's war record.

Anyway, about all those campaign excesses:

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 was supposed to curtail the influence of soft money in the federal electoral system. However, during this past election, BCRA fell woefully short of achieving its primary objective. Over a half-billion dollars in soft money was spent in an attempt to affect the outcome of the 2004 elections. In the process, BCRA distorted our political process by taking power away from our political parties and redistributing it to less accountable, ideologically driven outside groups.

Opening remarks made by Chairman Ney during hearings for 527 reform (http://cha.house.gov/hearings/hearing.aspx?NewsID=1102).

Which led to “Political Speech on the Internet: Should it be Regulated?” (http://cha.house.gov/hearings/hearing.aspx?NewsID=1126)

Nazis! Nazis everywhere! Trying to stop the sliming of Kerry!

[Cleon]

*sigh* So the Republicans got their hands caught in the cookie jar.

But we shouldn't blame the Republicans, heavens no. :rolleyes:

One more reason as to why skepticism and politics don't mix.

[joobie]

...but that no Democrat was offered his money.

out of curiosity, you know this because...?

[RandFan]

*sigh* So the Republicans got their hands caught in the cookie jar.

But we shouldn't blame the Republicans, heavens no. :rolleyes: What do you mean by "blame the Republicans"? I think we should blame people who are accused of wrongdoing. I think we should understand the inherent corrupting power of politics. I think we should throw out of office and prosecute those who commit crime and throw out of office those who are unethical but for whatever reason could't be prosecuted.

How does being "republican" play into the mix? Do you believe the Republican party is inherently more corruptable?

[Cleon]

What do you mean by "blame the Republicans"? I think we should blame people who are accused of wrongdoing. I think we should understand the inherent corrupting power of politics. I think we should throw out of office and prosecute those who commit crime and throw out of office those who are unethical but for whatever reason could't be prosecuted.

How does being "republican" play into the mix? Do you believe the Republican party is inherently more corruptable?

Amazing the dances people will go through to avoid admitting that their party of choice has done wrong.

[Mark]

How does being "republican" play into the mix? Do you believe the Republican party is inherently more corruptable?

Any party that controls all 3 branches of government should be assumed to be more corruptable for the simple reason that the checks and balances have been weakened, if not removed entirely. So at this time, yes, I think the Republicans are more corruptable, at least potentially.

[RandFan]

Without reading all the comments I would just say...

Sorry republicans, this is infact a REPUBLICAN scandal; no democrat has taken money from that guy. That doesn't mean democrats can't be corrupt it just means that in this case it is a purely republican scandal no matter how hard they try to spin it otherwise. No argument. From a political point of view it is VERY relevant.

Further; republicans control every branch of government now; so anything that happens under thier watch is effectively thier fault and responsibility. Well, that's a bit extreme. If some Democrat kills his hooker girlfriend because she caught him with a 6 year old boy then I don't think that can be argued to be the fault of Republicans. I think you would have to put such a scandal squarely on the shoulders of the Democrats and particularly the shoulders of the Democratic leadership. I'm thinking Kerry, Dean and Pelosi.

Too many years have passed to still be blaming stuff on Clinton... Oh hell no. :D Stained blue dresses render Clinton guilty of any and everything. Don't like the weather? It's Clinton's fault.

[Tricky]

out of curiosity, you know this because...?
From the first post...
according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which keeps track of such things. Their analysis of FEC records shows that Democrats received about a third of the $4.2 million donated between 1998 and 2005 by tribes that had hired Abramoff to represent them in Washington, but none from Abramoff's own wallet.

[Nyarlathotep]

Well, that's a bit extreme. If some Democrat kills his hooker girlfriend because she caught him with a 6 year old boy then I don't think that can be argued to be the fault of Republicans. I think you would have to put such a scandal squarely on the shoulders of the Democrats and particularly the shoulders of the Democratic leadership. I'm thinking Kerry, Dean and Pelosi.



While I see your point (and agree with it), I'll have to nit pick your example a bit. If such a thing were to occur, I would think the scandal would (or at least should) fall on the shoulders of the individual, not either party since such a thing is SUCH an abberation I can't see the leadership of either party condoning it or even turning a blind eye to it if they were aware of it.

[Tricky]

What do you mean by "blame the Republicans"? I think we should blame people who are accused of wrongdoing. I think we should understand the inherent corrupting power of politics. I think we should throw out of office and prosecute those who commit crime and throw out of office those who are unethical but for whatever reason could't be prosecuted.

How does being "republican" play into the mix? Do you believe the Republican party is inherently more corruptable?
In recent history, that seems to have been the case. And it is not terribly surprising that since Republicans are more likely to be wealthy, and they certainly have had more money for campaigning, it stands to reason that their scandals are going to be bigger dollar-wise. Maybe that's not the way to measure things, but it cannot be eliminated as a metric.

[Luke T.]

No doubt this is a Republican scandal. Only time will tell who actually broke any laws. Then there will be talk of "reform" which will just cause politicians to find yet another way around the law.

It will never end. Politicians are scum.

"It is indeed probable that the men who are best fitted to discharge the duties of this high office would have too much reserve in their manners, and too much austerity in their principles, for them to be returned by the majority at an election where universal suffrage is adopted." - Chancellor Kent

Many people in Europe are apt to believe without saying it, or to say without believing it, that one of the great advantages of universal suffrage is that it entrusts the direction of affairs to men who are worthy of the public confidence. They admit that the people are unable to govern of themselves, but they aver that the people always wish the welfare of the state and instinctively designate those who are animated by the same good will and who are the most fit to wield the supreme authority. I confess that the observations I made in America by no means coincide with these opinions. On my arrival in the United States I was surprised to find so much distinguished talent among the citizens and so little among the heads of the government. It is a constant fact that at the present day the ablest men in the United States are rarely placed at the head of affairs; and it must be acknowledged that such has been the result in proportion as democracy has exceeded all its former limits. The race of American statesmen has evidently dwindled most remarkably in the course of the last fifty years.

Alexis de Tocqueville (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch13.htm). In 1832!

[Art Vandelay]

Sorry republicans, this is infact a REPUBLICAN scandal; no democrat has taken money from that guy. That doesn't mean democrats can't be corrupt it just means that in this case it is a purely republican scandal no matter how hard they try to spin it otherwise.Did any nonchristians take money? If not, would it be accurate to describe it as a Christian scandal?

Further; republicans control every branch of government now; so anything that happens under thier watch is effectively thier fault and responsibility.Maybe if you keep saying it enough times, people will believe it.

Too many years have passed to still be blaming stuff on Clinton...Ah, that liberal shibboleth. Blame everything on the Clinton blamers. No matter how much of a non sequitur it is, pretend that this is somehow about Clinton.

Amazing the dances people will go through to avoid admitting that their party of choice has done wrong.Not as amazing as the dances that people will go through to avoid admitting that the Palestinian "government" supports terrorism.

joobieout of curiosity, you know this because...?Common sense. You're welcome to present contrary evidence. Absent that, I think that the default position clearly should be that I am right.

[RandFan]

If such a thing were to occur, I would think the scandal would (or at least should) fall on the shoulders of the individual... :D Yeah, ahh... that was my point.

Don't take that the wrong way. I'm laughing with me. Thanks for the response.

[Luke T.]

Too many years have passed to still be blaming stuff on Clinton...

Oh, hey. Thanks for reminding me. I am remiss in my "Clinton did it, too!" choral obligations.

So...Didn't Clinton or his minions take bribes from lobbyists to grant pardons to convicted criminals?

:D

[Luke T.]

Did any nonchristians take money? If not, would it be accurate to describe it as a Christian scandal?

You leave Ralph Reed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/15/AR2006011500915.html) out of this!!!

[Luke T.]

I blame Nixon! (http://www.watergate.info/nixon/checkers-speech.shtml)

[Luke T.]

No, no, no. I blame Harding! (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0848032.html)

[RandFan]

In recent history, that seems to have been the case. And it is not terribly surprising that since Republicans are more likely to be wealthy, and they certainly have had more money for campaigning, it stands to reason that their scandals are going to be bigger dollar-wise. Maybe that's not the way to measure things, but it cannot be eliminated as a metric.Oh, I suppose one could make such an argument. But the point was "more corruptible" not currently capable of bigger scandals?

And let's keep in mind that historically Democrats have truly elevated corruption to an art form from Boss Tweed (http://www.answers.com/boss%20tweed) to Richard Daily (http://www.answers.com/topic/richard-j-daley?gwp=19) to the Keating Five (http://www.answers.com/keating%20five) (McCain was one of the five but he and Glenn, a Democrat, were really not involved) to Dan Rostenkowski (http://www.answers.com/topic/dan-rostenkowski?gwp=19) (I really like Dan BTW, a truly great politician).

As I said to Headscratcher, it's tempting to assume that ones opponents are the bad guys. It's not really objective though.

Are Republicans currently in a position to have more scandals by virtue of their control of the House, Senate and the fact that a Republican is President? Sure, I buy that.

[Luke T.]

Well, I really blame Jefferson (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030224_grossman.html).

[specious_reasons]

Did any nonchristians take money? If not, would it be accurate to describe it as a Christian scandal?


I'm sorry, I don't post too often here anymore, is Art Vandalay a knee-jerk Republican supporter or just a troll?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff

After a campaign managed by Grover Norquist and aided by Ralph E. Reed, Jr., Abramoff was elected chairman of the College Republican National Committee.

Abramoff is a Republican "insider", and gave almost exclusively to Republicans. This particular scandal is entirely Republican. Reasonable people here acknowledge this. Reasonable people also acknowledge that this isn't the only corruption in Washington.

BTW, Abramoff is an observant Jew, so it wouldn't be correct to call it a Christian scandal. ;)

[Almo]

It's a republican mess; and they had better clean it up and before the american people do it for them.

Actually, I'd rather they didn't so we can get rid of all these neo-con bastards.

[jj]

BTW, Abramoff is an observant Jew, so it wouldn't be correct to call it a Christian scandal. ;)


Given what he is accused of, could one not suggest that perhaps he wasn't observant? :)

Seriously, it seems clear, that while contributors to Abramoff also gave money to Democrats, most of the money Abramoff handed out himself seems, so far, to have gone to Republicans.

Of course, they have 2 years left to change the law to make themselves all innocent.

[specious_reasons]

Given what he is accused of, could one not suggest that perhaps he wasn't observant? :)


:)

Perhaps Orthodox is a better word? IIRC, he wears a yarmulke when he's not wearing those other stylish hats...

[joobie]

From the first post...

well yes, but i'm asking how art knows that no democrat was offered that money, not that no democrat took that money.

i am not making the claim that no democrat would have taken said money, merely being skeptical about the assertion that none were offered any money.

Common sense. You're welcome to present contrary evidence. Absent that, I think that the default position clearly should be that I am right.

ah, i see. you have decided it, so it is true, and you need present no evidence of your claim. gotcha.

[gnome]

Errant post... see its own thread.

[Chaos]

:)

Perhaps Orthodox is a better word? IIRC, he wears a yarmulke when he's not wearing those other stylish hats...


I´m just waiting for some diehard Republican to declare any accusations against Abramoff to be motivated solely by anti-semitism.

[Kerberos]

Well, I really blame Jefferson (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030224_grossman.html).
I blame Columbus, without him none of this would have happened.

[Tricky]

well yes, but i'm asking how art knows that no democrat was offered that money, not that no democrat took that money.

i am not making the claim that no democrat would have taken said money, merely being skeptical about the assertion that none were offered any money.
LOL. Well, you got me there. Of course if they were offered it and refused, that would make them look even better. I have a hard time believing they would keep such a noble (in retrospect) act secret.

[Tricky]

I blame Columbus, without him none of this would have happened.
Maybe you should blame God. He started this whole temptation thingie with that damn tree of knowledge, right?

[headscratcher4]

I blame Montazuma...had he more spine and street smarts, he could have defeated Cortez and we'd all be speaking Toltec.

I like the fact that the WH is not going to talk publically about Abramoff's contacts with Rove. Innocent, Scott McClellan assured the press yesterday, not business. Not that there may be anything to those contacts, yet one is left to ponder what innocent contacts big Republican fund raiser, stratagist and wheeler/dealer Abramoff would want with big Republican stratagist in search of funds and support Rove?

Do you think they just sipped tea and talked Redskins football? Perhaps talked about thier kids ('cept Rove, I don't think has any). Told each other war stories of past rigged elections -- an activity that neither had to contemplate any longer now that they were king-makers?

Abramoff...a consumate lobbyiest and proponet of the theory of "pay to play" and arcitect of making K Street into a arm of the republican party met with people at the White House and wanted nothing? What did they say? "Sorry, Jack, thanks for the money, but we don't operate that way. BTW, will you do a fundraiser next month?"

"Gee, Carl, sorry to hear that. I am sure my clients will understand. Sure, maybe we can figure something else out..."

I have this bridge in Brooklyn.....

[corplinx]

I thought part of the reason why Abramoff was so dirty was he funneled money supposedly (or at least it appeared that way) through his clients to politicians? The direct contributions being the least nefarious ones?

[Kerberos]

Maybe you should blame God. He started this whole temptation thingie with that damn tree of knowledge, right?
I prefer not to blame fictional characters for real world events.

[Mercutio]

I blame Columbus, without him none of this would have happened.
A friend of mine, a Lakota Sioux, blames the Indians...for their lousy immigration policies.

[headscratcher4]

I thought part of the reason why Abramoff was so dirty was he funneled money supposedly (or at least it appeared that way) through his clients to politicians? The direct contributions being the least nefarious ones?

Possibly...so your suggesting that he only expected returns (legal or otherwise) from his nafarious activities involving money laundering and fraud, but that he had no expectation of influence or access from the money he personally gave or raised for the President.

Certainly, the White House is arguing that. It given away $6K of the money he raised or that came from him personally, but kept almost a hundred grand of money he only helped raise. Very sensible. Clearly, his motives in raising that $100K were innocent compared to the $6K.

They've known this guy for 25 years. He has been at the heart of Republican fundraising and political stratagies. He has been pushing his causes and filling his purse with help from all levels of the GOP...and, suddenly, he's just a lobbyist, not reflective of how the GOP does business.

When he contacted White Hosue officials, they heard him out because he was a good joe and an average citizen...the "good" money he raised didn't help him open any doors or get phone calls returned.

I am so happy that they were able to distinguish him and that money in that circumstance from the other ways he seems to have opperated.

Of course, this is the crowd that thought Brownie was qualified to head FEMA...so maybe they just didn't see?

My offer on the bridge still stands.

[corplinx]

Possibly...so your suggesting that he only expected returns (legal or otherwise) from his nafarious activities involving money laundering and fraud, but that he had no expectation of influence or access from the money he personally gave or raised for the President.

You'll have to pardon me. I am not up to date on the scandal. Are you suggesting the transparent transactions are the more nefarious ones versus the funneled ones? Is there evidence of a quid pro quo for any of these direct contributions?

[Art Vandelay]

well yes, but i'm asking how art knows that no democrat was offered that money, not that no democrat took that money.

i am not making the claim that no democrat would have taken said money, merely being skeptical about the assertion that none were offered any money.



ah, i see. you have decided it, so it is true, and you need present no evidence of your claim. gotcha.Looks to me that you're the troll.