|
Abramoff pleads guilty, says he can implicate 60 lawmakers
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
Reports the WSJ (subscription needed):
http://users2.wsj.com/lmda/do/check...e_whats_news_us
I wonder just how many Republicans vs. Democrats are on that list? Hmmmmmm....
Needless to say, Republicans are starting to bricks:
| quote: | The political ramifications of the Abramoff probe were apparent, with minority Democrats intending to make ethics a campaign issue in this election year. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said Abramoff's confession in court was "not a surprise because this Republican Congress is the most corrupt in history and the American people are paying the price."
Some political consultants and analysts are comparing potential damage from the Abramoff investigation to the 1992 House banking scandal that led to the retirement or ouster of 77 lawmakers.
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/st...-01-04-09-43-42 |
There is a pretty good spin by the White House and GOP to attempt to implicate the Dems. being involved in some of this as well:
| quote: | While Mr. Abramoff is most closely linked to Republicans, even Democrats, many of whom also benefited from his largesse, acted skittish.
"We're talking about people who have longstanding careers in Congress who took contributions from somebody who knew somebody who knew somebody who knew Jack Abramoff," said a Democratic Congressional aide who insisted on anonymity so as not to drag his boss into the scandal. "Now they're panicked. The hope is that this investigation will root out the wrongdoing without innocent people getting hit with the ricochet."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/04/p...artner=homepage |
The sentiment from liberal bloggers is a bit twofold. First, they are begging for this investigation to blowup into a monumental scandal, Democrats implicated be damned. If there are some Dems. involved, so be it. Let them get trampled under the weight - they shouldn't have been there in the first place with Abramoff. But they seem willing to bet that the vast majority of those implicated are high-ranking Republicans, which at first glance appears to be the case with Delay, Burns (Montana), Ney (Ohio), Cornyn, and others.
Second, are there really any Democrats being implicated with Abramoff? Did any of them really take his money for favors? Upon initial examination of this:
http://www.thinkprogress.org/abramoff
It's hard to see any. But if that's not good enough, how about this:
http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_...ck_Abramoff.php
All political donations connected to Abramoff, aren't there? Anyone notice any "D"s amongst all those "R"s? Just skimming through, of course, but all I noticed were Republicans. Anything missing here? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Interesting. I read that Harry Reid is high up on the list of douchebags. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
I like this one:
| quote: | | Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois announced that he would donate to charity $69,000 in campaign contributions directed to him by Mr. Abramoff. |
Ahh. When it's been passed off to charity, then it's like it never really happened, right? Hastert must believe that his voters are idiots. Then again, they might be. |
|
|
| occrider |
| Congressman Bob Ney of Ohio has been notified that there is an investigation against him and that he could face indictment. Most of Abramoff's links are Republicans (duh, because they're the party in power) so I think this scandal will likely hit Republicans much more than democrats. If the democrats are smart, they'll campaign off of the Republican corruption much like the Republicans did to the democrats in the 90's. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Most of Abramoff's links are Republicans (duh, because they're the party in power) so I think this scandal will likely hit Republicans much more than democrats. |
D'uh indeed. Though lobbyists have to work both sides of the aisle, despite their political leanings. Look for Republican involvement to be highlighted while Democratic involvement will probably be rationalized and dismissed. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
D'uh indeed. Though lobbyists have to work both sides of the aisle, despite their political leanings. Look for Republican involvement to be highlighted while Democratic involvement will probably be rationalized and dismissed. |
Well if 1 Democrat will be involved for every 19 Republicans, this could hardly be characterized as a scandal that falls on both sides of the aisle. Obviously I'm happy with everyone sharing the same fate, but I'm not going to turn a blind eye to what seems to be a climate of corruption within the Republican party simply because a few democrats are involved. Did you view the 1992 House Banking Scandal as something that fell on "both sides of the aisle" despite the fact that most of the abusers were Democrats? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Well if 1 Democrat will be involved for every 19 Republicans, this could hardly be characterized as a scandal that falls on both sides of the aisle. Obviously I'm happy with everyone sharing the same fate, but I'm not going to turn a blind eye to what seems to be a climate of corruption within the Republican party simply because a few democrats are involved. Did you view the 1992 House Banking Scandal as something that fell on "both sides of the aisle" despite the fact that most of the abusers were Democrats? |
Climate of Corruption? I thought the buzzword was Culture of Corruption! I certainly agree with your conclusion, I was just mentioning that lobbyists must work both sides and that I had already read something mentioning Harry Reid as a potentially guilty party. With more GOPs than Dems in Congress, it is pretty logical that more of them will be implicated. I honestly can't say I have much of an opinion on the '92 Scandal--do you? I don't think politics was a vitally pressing issue for me back then.;) |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Climate of Corruption? I thought the buzzword was Culture of Corruption! I certainly agree with your conclusion, I was just mentioning that lobbyists must work both sides and that I had already read something mentioning Harry Reid as a potentially guilty party. With more GOPs than Dems in Congress, it is pretty logical that more of them will be implicated. I honestly can't say I have much of an opinion on the '92 Scandal--do you? I don't think politics was a vitally pressing issue for me back then.;) |
Well certainly not pressing back then, but I definitely think that there was a "culture" of corruption in the Democratic lead house back then as I think there is a "culture" of corruption in the Republican lead house today ;).
Btw here is a list of Abramoff's lobbying, and political contributions from Abramoff, the tribes that hired him, and SunCruz Casinos, since 1999:
http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp
Let the investigations begin! |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
David Brooks grows a spine:
| quote: | I don't know what's more pathetic, Jack Abramoff's sleaze or Republican paralysis in the face of it. Abramoff walks out of a D.C. courthouse in his pseudo-Hasidic homburg, and all that leading Republicans can do is promise to return his money and remind everyone that some Democrats are involved in the scandal, too.
That's a great G.O.P. talking point: some Democrats are so sleazy, they get involved with the likes of us....
Tom DeLay needs to take care of his own legal problems and give up the dream of returning as majority leader.
But Republicans need to do more than bump DeLay. They need to put the entire leadership team up for a re-vote. That's because the real problem wasn't DeLay, it was DeLayism, the whole culture that merged K Street with the Hill, and held that raising money is the most important way to contribute to the team....
Finally, today before noon, fire Bob Ney as chairman of the House Administration Committee. For God's sake, Republicans, show a little moral revulsion.
Back in the dim recesses of my mind, I remember a party that thought of itself as a reform, or even a revolutionary movement. That party used to be known as the Republican Party. I wonder if it still exists.
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/01/0...5brooks.html?hp |
It's nice to see one of Bush's biggest apologists step up to the plate and call bull. There may be some hope that the Republican Party will gain back its integrity. Get the extremist corrupt s out, just they did with the Dems., and perhaps some good will come. |
|
|
| Shakka |
Some Democrats are so sleazy, they get involved with the likes of us!
| quote: | Democrats Benefited from Abramoff Contributions, Too
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
January 05, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - The National Republican Senatorial Committee said Wednesday that 40 of 45 members of the Senate Democrat Caucus have taken money from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, his associates and Indian tribe clients.
Abramoff pled guilty Tuesday to conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion. He also plans to implicate a number of U.S. lawmakers and congressional staffers in a bribery scandal.
Among those named by the NRSC as the worst examples of "Democrat hypocrisy" for taking money from Abramoff and his associates are: Sen. Byron Dorgan, (D-N.D.) who received at least $79,300; Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who received at least $45,750; Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who received at least $68,941 and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who received at least $6,250.
Dorgan is among the lawmakers who have already returned campaign donations or given those donations to charity.
Bush campaign
President Bush's re-election campaign plans to give away $6,000 in campaign contributions from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the Associated Press reported.
Abramoff reportedly raised at least $100,000 for Bush's re-election campaign, earning himself the honorary title of "pioneer."
The White House said Bush does not know Abramoff personally, but it's possible the two met at holiday receptions.
Several Republican lawmakers, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), also announced plans to give Abramoff's campaign contributions to charity. |
What was up with the black get-up Abramoff was wearing? Looks like friggin Mugsy, see. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Some Democrats are so sleazy, they get involved with the likes of us! |
Actually no, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by Democrats at this time. But it is interesting you posted something from CNSNEWS. I guess that makes it fair for me to post something from Media Matters to rebute one of the charges in the article pertaining to Sen. Byron Dorgan:
| quote: | CNN congressional correspondent Ed Henry claimed that Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) accepted and "had to give back" campaign contributions from former Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his wife, Pam. In fact, there is no record Dorgan ever received contributions from either Jack Abramoff or his wife.
On the January 3 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Henry stated, "I mentioned some Democrats -- Byron Dorgan, Democrat from North Dakota -- he's also had to give back a lot of money he received from Abramoff and Abramoff's wife." However, a search of the Center for Responsive Politics' database (here, here and here) did not turn up any data showing that Dorgan ever received contributions from either Abramoff or his wife. On December 13, Dorgan announced he was returning all campaign contributions he received from Abramoff's former partners and Indian tribe clients, which he contends were legal.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200601040004 |
What twits like this in the media and people like yourself (I'm not calling you a twit, BTW) are misunderstanding is that money contributions come in two flavors - legal and illegal. Campaign contributions coming legally were passed out from Abramoff's former partners and so on to both sides, though they heavily favored the Republicans. Nothing wrong with that. However, contributions passed out in return for official favors is another matter altogether - and THAT'S what has the Republican fingerprints all over it. That is what is at the heart of this investigation which has top key Republicans all over it like Delay, Burns, Ney, etc.
Additionally, there are NO campaign contributions coming directly from Abramoff himself to any Democrats - rather, they are all Republicans:
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/s...le3=2002&Page=1
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/s...t1998=Y&Order=N
Any money given to Reid, Harkin, or any other Democrat as far as I have seen was given legally without breaking any Senate laws and/or House ethics rules. This cannot be said of money given to Republicans in power.
Finally, the article briefly touched on the President giving back a paultry $6,000 given to him by Abramoff. Well Jesus, what about the other $94,000 given to him by Abramoff?:
| quote: | Abramoff raised more than $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign, making him an honorary Bush "Pioneer." But the campaign is giving up only $6,000, which came directly from Abramoff, his wife and one of the Indian tribes the lobbyist represented.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6010402111.html |
How can Bush be taken seriously at all with this if he himself doesn't give the money back that may be oh so slightly dirty as well? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Somebody just slapped me over the head with a ing tuna.
I can't believe what I just read:
| quote: | The Abramoff Scandal (R., Beltway)
It’s the Republicans, stupid.
...The GOP now craves such bipartisan cover in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Republicans trumpet every Democratic connection to Abramoff in the hope that something resonates. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), took more than $60,000 from Abramoff clients! North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan used Abramoff's skybox! It is true that any Washington influence peddler is going to spread cash and favors as widely as possible, and 210 members of Congress have received Abramoff-connected dollars. But this is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection.
Abramoff is a Republican who worked closely with two of the country's most prominent conservative activists, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed. Top aides to the most important Republican in Congress, Tom DeLay (R., Tex.) were party to his sleazy schemes. The only people referred to directly in Abramoff's recent plea agreement are a Republican congressmen and two former Republican congressional aides. The GOP members can make a case that the scandal reflects more the way Washington works than the unique perfidy of their party, but even this is self-defeating, since Republicans run Washington.
Republicans must take the scandal seriously and work to clean up in its wake. |
Now take a guess as to the source - NYTimes? Nope.
WaPost? Try again.
The Nation? Tom Paine? Daily Kos? Buzzflash? Michael Moore?
Nope on all liberal outlets.
Done guessing? Well here it is: The National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry...00601100816.asp
That's right, kids, the Bush Apologist Review who 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time sides with Bush on practically each and every issue no matter what that issue is of the day.
They know as well as the rest of the ing Republicans know - this is a true Republican scandal. You will not find any Democratic fingerprints on this sucker. The reason is not because the Republicans are corrupt. I honestly don't believe that any more than I believe ALL Democrats were corrupt in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's.
It's because they are in power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is why I advocate a balance in power, whether it be between the Executive and Legislative, within the Legislative, etc. Without a good healthy balance, corruption ensues and becomes the rule, not the exception.
It is heartening to see that more Conservatives are coming to grips with this reality. |
|
|
|
|
