Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 4, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

ABRAMOFF AND K STREET....Janet Hook and Mary Curtius have a pretty good story in the LA Times today that ties the Jack Abramoff story to the broader and ultimately more important story of the K Street Project, a scheme dreamed up by Republican leaders a decade ago as a way of cementing their control of Congress via permanent and ironclad links to pro-business lobbyists:

GOP leaders, seeking to harness the financial and political support of K Street, urged lobbyists to support their conservative agenda, give heavily to Republican politicians and hire Republicans for top trade association jobs. Abramoff obliged on every front, and his tentacles of influence reached deep into the upper echelons of Congress and the Bush administration.

....Critics of the campaign finance system say it would be a kind of rough justice if Republicans were hobbled by their relationships with a lobbyist, because they worked so hard to increase coordination between their party and K Street.

....According to a study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, 296 members of Congress since 1999 have received contributions from Abramoff, his Indian tribe clients or SunCruz Casinos. Abramoff and his wife contributed $204,253 all of it to Republicans.

As always, Nick Confessore's "Welcome to the Machine" is the best primer available about how the K Street Project was born and how it works. I also recommend Thomas Edsall's piece in the Washington Post last year explaining how the Project has morphed to the point where K Street lobbyists are now practically an arm of the Republican Party itself, expected to cooperate on cue whenever they're needed to help intimidate reluctant members into voting with the leadership.

One of the underreported stories of the past few years is the evolution of the Republican Party from being the party of capitalism and free enterprise to being merely the party of whichever business interests can help Republicans get reelected. There's a big difference between being pro-market and being pro-business in fact, they're often diametrically opposed but the difference isn't always obvious until something like the Abramoff affair shines a bright light on it. If the Democratic Party is smart, this will be a learning moment for the country about not just garden variety corruption, but about the true nature of how the modern Republican Party operates.

Kevin Drum 1:13 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (109)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

It is time for the Dems to start republishing all of the actions of Delay et al where Delay et al threatened the various businesses and lobbies if they hired Dems.

Posted by: bubba on January 4, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

If the Democratic Party is smart,

Alas, it would appear they are once again running around in confused circles and tripping over each others' feet.

The sanguine money seems to be on the Dems once again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by: bleh on January 4, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Actually the Democratic leaders are shitting in their pants trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory as it is very difficult for them to find ways to be tarred by this scandal.

Posted by: lib on January 4, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans corrupt? Why do you hate America, Kevin?

Posted by: elfranko on January 4, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Janet Hook and Mary Curtius have a pretty good story in the LA Times today that ties the Jack Abramoff story to the broader and ultimately more important story of the K Street Project

what??? Only one Congressman, Bob Ney, was even mentioned in the indictment. Most likely, he'll be the only member of Congress who's charged with any crime and did anything possibly wrong. As usual you libs are just jumping to your guilty unless proven innocent view of all Republicans.

Posted by: Al on January 4, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

I've read a few articles in daily news papers, they hardly ever mention this is a Republican scandal. Closest one newspaper came was to say more than 50% of the contributions went to Republicans.

Posted by: jussumbody on January 4, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

In light of these developments and the Republican assaults on Constitutional protections etc., it is time to push hard against those partisans getting away with being called, or calling themselves, "conservatives." What better name or phrase/s suggests itself?

Posted by: Neil' on January 4, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

The issue isn't just about how Republicans have used lobbyists to their advantage to get reelected, but the fact that lobbyists have so much influence in government at all. We need to reform the American lobby-for-vote-and-money system and make it better for the next generation.

(Have you noticed that the Iraqi govenment is elected in a proportional basis, rather than our more familiar "winner takes all" system? Why is that I wonder...)

Posted by: Jon Karak on January 4, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

lib: Sadly, it seems that Harry Reid is tarred by this scandal, or at least has some connection to Abramoff - did I hear correctly?

Posted by: Neil' on January 4, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

The main goal for the Democratic leaders should be to convince the electorate of the obvious fact that all the appeals to morality and faith and religion and god and conservative ideology that the Republican leaders make are cynical ploys to advance their true agenda, the results of which are in full view for all to see.

I doubt that the Democratic leaders, at least the current ones, are upto this monumental task.

Posted by: lib on January 4, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

"What better name or phrase/s suggests itself?"

Crooks?

Posted by: Matt on January 4, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Sadly, it seems that Harry Reid is tarred by this scandal, or at least has some connection to Abramoff - did I hear correctly?

Not quite. Some of the Indian tribes associated with Abramoff donated money to Reid (and a few other democrats), but A) it wasn't funneled through Abramoff, 2) it was minor amount of money compared to the millions and millions being pushed around by the GOP machine and K Street.

Most lobbying groups, obviously, try butter both parties' bread. The problem is that with Abramoff and friends, the ratio is 80% GOP 20% Democrats.

Posted by: ChrisS on January 4, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Abramoff and friends, the ratio is 80% GOP 20% Democrats.

And just to make things clear, Abramoff himself, never donated money to Democrats. This is strictly a GOP scandal. In short, this is the bag man for the GOP political machine.


Posted by: ChrisS on January 4, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Thugs?

Posted by: Matt on January 4, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

God, would the Democrats just fucking fight them on SOMETHING? ANYTHING?

I am so tired of being the wimp party. Why the hell aren't they sick of it?

God, so what if one or two Dems get swept up in this? Disavow them. Call them "the exception that proves the rule" and then continue going after the Republicans.

Pathetic, really, the wimps who are in congress now. I'm thinking of voting against my Democratic Representative just out of spite.

Posted by: theorajones on January 4, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

This is strictly a GOP scandal
Ya, and Bush was AWOL, and Kerry will win by a landslide, and Rove will be frog-marched out of the White House.

I expect Dan Rather to have memos about this anytime now.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 4, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

What's particularly absurd about the idea that Abramoff might implicate a substantial number of Democrats is precisely his pivotal role in the K Street project, and the type of money that would be illegal to use.

Look, it's pretty obvious that Abramoff was the most crucial single lobbyist/moneyman enabling the K Street project, inherently a REPUBLICAN project, by definition. Illegal money, whether through bribes or money laundering, is the type of money that most critically one must only dole out to those with the greatest loyalty.

How and why would Abramoff EVER trust a Democrat in such a scheme, as a recipient of his most sensitive money? How would explain handing out ILLEGAL money to a Democrat to Delay, who was responsible for the K Street project? What could the incentive possibly be for Abramoff?

If Abramoff gave money Democrats, it would almost certainly be the legal kind, to maintain an appearance of some balance publicly. It makes NO sense for him to include them in his ILLEGAL schemes.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 4, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

I think Delay left a stain on Al's dress.

Posted by: G on January 4, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

Slack-Jawed, Mouthbreathing Ne'er-Do-Wells?

Posted by: Matt on January 4, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

shorter conspiracy nut:

blah blah blah blah...

you read like Charlie Brown's teachers sound.

Posted by: ChrisS on January 4, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

The Wall Street Journal reports that up to 60 members of Congress may be involved.

Oh, and AP apparently "forgot" some important details about the allege involvement of Byron Dorgan. From Media Matters:

But in reporting that Dorgan received the contribution from the Coushatta Indians "shortly after" writing to the Senate Appropriations Committee in February 2002, the AP failed to mention Dorgan's claim that he had initially expressed support for the program much earlier -- in August 2001.

Oh and the alleged Reid connection is even more ludicrous.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on January 4, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

This is the role that the blogosphere has to play. Every time that Abramoff is mentioned, the Delay/Norquist/Rove K Street Project needs to be mentioned. "Abramoff = K Steet = Republican Party" is the mantra, keep repeating it.

Posted by: Ed on January 4, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

The Players, the Money, the Favors, and Links documenting it all here:
http://www.thinkprogress.org/abramoff

Posted by: The Dad on January 4, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

"Abramoff = K Steet = Republican Party" is the mantra, keep repeating it.
Kerry will win in a landslide, Kerry will win in a landslide, Kerry will win in a landslide...

Is it true yet?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 4, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

There's a big difference between being pro-market and being pro-business

...and being pro-those-certain-business-willing-to-pay-up.

Posted by: tom on January 4, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

"I think Delay left a stain on Al's dress."
Posted by: G

Nah, Al swallows EVERYTHING the GOP gives him. Talking points and anything else.

Posted by: bubba on January 4, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

What G said. Hehe. 'xcept, he left out consiracy nut. and tbrosz.

Posted by: elfranko on January 4, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

We will bring honor and dignity to the White House.

Adults are in-charge now.

hahahahha. Some adults!

Posted by: lib on January 4, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

If the Democratic Party is smart...

as if.

Please point out to your moonbat readers that never leave the echo chamber that this story was broken by Andrew Ferguson at The Weekly Standard. I agree the Augean stables need a good cleaning, and if it makes the Repubs lose their majority or working majority so be it. But I think the big winner of this in the long run will be McCain, and the big unforeseen loser will be the Congressional Black Caucus, starting with Clyburn, Alcee Hastings, etc.

Posted by: minion of rove on January 4, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

100% of what conspiracy nut says is crap.

Ignoring the idiots is the best way to deal with them.

Posted by: nut not on January 4, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

It's good to stay focussed. This is the truth that we all must face; even Bush's 39% approving folks, about the Republican Culture of Corruption.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on January 4, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Two points:

1. Howard Dean runs the Democratic Party. And it was he who pushed the Bush White House on its heels yesterday, causing the RNC to explain to which charity Bush was giving his Ambramoff dough.

2. The media is reacting to against yesterday's preposterous GOP spin. Today's AP story, courtesy of Forbes:

Associated Press
Update 1: Key Events in the Abramoff Investigation
By The Associated Press , 01.04.2006, 12:22 PM

Most Popular Stories
Homes Of The World's Billionaires
Worst Cars 2005
The Worst Things You Can Do To Your Body
The Fastest American Cars
Hollywood's Most Expensive Movies

Most Popular Videos
Homes Of The Billionaires
Big Ape, Big Budget, Big Bet
Getting Results Right Now
ING Direct Banks On The Net
Capturing King Kong

A timeline of key events in the Jack Abramoff investigation:

2000:

_ Abramoff and associate Adam Kidan purchase the SunCruz Casinos fleet of gambling boats.

2003:

_ Abramoff donates more than $100,000 to President Bush's re-election campaign.

2004:

_ Sept. 29: Abramoff refuses to answer questions from the Senate Indian Affairs Committee about his lobbying work on behalf of American Indian tribes and casino issues. The Senate committee's staff concluded after a seven-month investigation that Abramoff and partner Michael Scanlon, a former aide to Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, had charged six tribes in six states at least $66 million for the lobbying and may have manipulated at least two tribal elections to ensure they would get contracts with tribes.

2005:

_ Aug. 11: Abramoff and Kidan indicted by a Miami federal grand jury on fraud charges in the 2000 casino boat deal. Federal prosecutors say the pair faked a $23 million wire transfer to make it appear that they were making a significant contribution of their own money into the deal. Based on that transfer, lenders Foothill Capital Corp. and Citadel Equity Fund Ltd. agreed to provide $60 million in financing for the purchase.

_ Aug. 29: Abramoff pleads innocent to Miami fraud charges.

_ Oct. 5: David Safavian, former chief of staff of the General Services Administration, is indicted on charges he made false statements and obstructed a federal investigation into his dealings with Abramoff.

_ Nov. 21: Scanlon pleads guilty in Washington to conspiring to bribe public officials in connection with his lobbying work on behalf of Indian tribes and casino issues.

_ Dec. 15: Kidan pleads guilty in Miami to fraud and conspiracy charges.

_ Dec. 13-22: Six members of Congress - Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla.; Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.; Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.; Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont.; and Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. - return or give away campaign donations they received from Abramoff and his associates.

2006:

_ Jan. 3: Abramoff pleads guilty in Washington to mail fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion charges in federal court in connection with his lobbying work. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., announces he will give money received from Abramoff to charity.

_ Jan. 4: President Bush and DeLay announce they will give money they received from Abramoff to charity.

Posted by: Steve High on January 4, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

S.P.E.C.T.R.E.?

Posted by: Matt on January 4, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Remember when this used to be all about "the criminalization of politics"?

It's been kind of hard to toss that one out since Abramoff and Cunningham made their teary-eyed public apologies.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on January 4, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

actually, i find the desperation of conspiracy nut rather telling.

that said, to be fair to some degree to the dems: we don't have a parliamentary system. in countries with that kind of setup, there is a shadow cabinet, well-versed in the issues, and a clear chain of command, because a parliamentary opposition could, in theory, take command at any moment.

in the american system, the organized party tends to be the one with the white house, which sets the agenda and drives the talking points. in the absence of executive power, there aren't really a lot of ways for the minority to have a uniform, well-honed message.

that said, obviously, newt figured away around that problem in the early '90s, and it would be nice to see the dems solve the problem, too, but when your party includes clowns like lieberman in positions of prominence....

Posted by: howard on January 4, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Why should we have to fight, The repugs are doing there own damage quite nicely,Take a look around they have to pay all these useful idiots to go on talk shows, the blogs,all just to try and defend there crooked ways.RESULT Bush and the repugs are now at 33% and sinking.

Posted by: scott on January 4, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, conspiracy nut, be proud! Abramoff, Norquist, Rove, Reed, Safavian, Ney, Frist, Cunningham. The "Young" Republican leaders of the future. Embrace them, be proud of 'em because they're yours, and we'll do our best to make sure everyone knows it.

Posted by: Ed on January 4, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut proves once again that he is the most pathetically stupid idiot to ever post a comment on this site.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 4, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

"Morphed?" At which point in which decade was the 20th century republican party not for business. It's irritating to see the praise thrown towards "capitalism and markets" because that language has not been used to do anything but line pockets since the nineteenth century started. All praise Hayek, I suppose, but let's not pretend that the world isn't what it is.

Posted by: david on January 4, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK


"What the Republicans need is 50 Jack Abramoffs. Then this becomes a different town." -- Grover Norquist - National Journal, July 29, 1995.

mission accomplished

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on January 4, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

Howard
the desperation of conspiracy nut
You mistake desperation for joy. Coming out here brightens my day.

But I'll be serious with you for a moment. We're talking about lobbying efforts here, and yes we're talking about a system set up by Repubs, but still lobbying. Do you think only Repubs are affected by lobbyists? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

Second point. People have a low opinion of politicians, except their own. The only likely effect is on politicians found involved since everyone already hates all other politicians. And let's take a hypothetical: say Senator Chappaquiddick is found involved, do you think MA is going to elect a Republican over that? Do you think WY will elect a Democrat if one of theirs is involved?

Also keep in mind that junkets and campaign contributions are not necessary illegal. There's still some ground to cover (I know you couldn't tell this reading the NYT, all Repubs are already serving time according to them).

In the end, we don't know what will come of this, we don't know who will get rolled up (anyone that does can hang as far as I'm concerned), but the net effect on the makeup of Congress will most likely be little to none.

But to listen to the moonbats here, they've bought the NYT story that all Repubs are already in prison over this, and they're celebrating the freshman crop of newly elected Democrats. Just like they celebrated Bush being drummed out of office over AWOL, like they celebrated the Kerry landslide, and like they celebrated Rove being frog-marched from the White House.

You'd think they would learn to wait to see if anything is actually happening. And the constant cart-before-the-horse celebrations here just put me in a playful mood.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 4, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

If the Democratic Party is smart, this will be a learning moment for the country about not just garden variety corruption, but about the true nature of how the modern Republican Party operates.

The Democrats are on the take too.

Posted by: Thinker on January 4, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

"I am so tired of being the wimp party. Why the hell aren't they sick of it?"

I hear Anthrax can make you sick.

Posted by: Joey on January 4, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

"The Democrats are on the take too.'

more thoughtlessness from "the Thinker"

Posted by: Joey on January 4, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Don't be so hard on CN he is just doing what his handlers want, He is getting the casino money to.

Posted by: scott on January 4, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

they're celebrating the freshman crop of newly elected Democrats. Just like they celebrated Bush being drummed out of office over AWOL, like they celebrated the Kerry landslide, and like they celebrated Rove being frog-marched from the White House.

Better to celebrate the prospect of politicians being held repsonsible for their mendacity, incompetence and malfeasance than to celebrate them avoiding it.

Posted by: Gregory on January 4, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

The notion that business interests, as a group, favor free markets is so fatuous that it beggars belief. Of course, very few interest groups, if any, who are closely associated with the Democrats, are strong advocates of economic freedom either, so it really doesn't leave those of us who are with anyone to caucus with on this principle.

The only way for the Republicans to redeem themselves in the short-term would be to take up the mantle of term limits again, this time via Constitutional Amendment. Of course, the handful of the class of '94 Republicans who truly favored this measure have largely voluntarily term-limited themselves already, leaving only those who never were committed in the first place.

Posted by: Will Allen on January 4, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

Does anyone else find it ironic that Will Allen trumpets economic freedom in one paragraph and in the very next paragraph advocates a Constitutional amendment forbidding people to vote for the candidate of their choice?

Posted by: Gregory on January 4, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Can someone explain to me how "Bush won" is a counterargument to any subsequent development?
It seems to be all that the Bush apologists here can come up with.

Posted by: Marc on January 4, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut wrote:
You mistake desperation for joy. Coming out here brightens my day.

Fantastic! And, congratulations. How long have you known you were gay? And how can you stand to back a political party that considers you to be an abomination?

Posted by: josef on January 4, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Does anyone find it surprising that Gregory's intellect is such that he finds irony in a dilineation between advocating economic freedom, and the freedom for a majority to continuously elect the same body of representatives who will constrain the economic fredom of a minority?

Posted by: Will Allen on January 4, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: And the constant cart-before-the-horse celebrations here just put me in a playful mood.

As far as I can tell, conspiracy nut is in the same "mood" that he's always in: stupidity and ignorance.


Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 4, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Remember when this used to be all about "the criminalization of politics"?

This is just the criminalization of bribery. Why, if you outlaw bribery, then only outlaws will be offering bribes!

Posted by: Stefan on January 4, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

that said, to be fair to some degree to the dems: we don't have a parliamentary system. in countries with that kind of setup, there is a shadow cabinet, well-versed in the issues, and a clear chain of command, because a parliamentary opposition could, in theory, take command at any moment.

Which is why I've been keeping my fingers crossed for that Canadian invasion. We'll welcome you as liberators!

Posted by: Stefan on January 4, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut, sadly, i devoted irreplaceable seconds of my life trying to find an example of "moonbats" "buying" the story that all republicans are already in prison.

i say sadly because, of course, there is no comment that says this, although watching your projection is a rather fascinating exercise.

Yes, son, we all get that lobbying as it is practiced in american politics is an oft-corrupt business. we all get that were there a democratic majority in the congress and a democrat in the white house, it's entirely possible that abramoff would be totally in bed with them.

but that's a parallel universe. in the universe in which we reside, all political power in washington belongs to the republican party, and as a result, any lobbyist with half an ounce of brains knows where to focus his or her efforts: on the republican party. want the republicans not to be tagged as the party of corruption? join us in voting them out of office!

then you get to harass the dems, whom i have no doubt will gladly take advantage of opportunities to profit from unseemly associations with scumbags, although i must see, for all the years the dems ran congress and the white house, they never once invented a "K street project." Republican genes or Tom DeLay in particular? you decide.

Will, i have come around to supporting term limits on the grounds that there are so many built-in advantages for incumbents that it's virtually impossible for a challenger to win, but to support term limits because you think they are a promotion of freedom is really rather stretching, to say the least. fwiw, my first choice, frankly, is to find a way to cut out gerrymandering, but i haven't seen one proposed that passes muster and is likely to come into existence....

Posted by: howard on January 4, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

The notion that business interests, as a group, favor free markets is so fatuous that it beggars belief.

Will, this is the only line you've written in many posts here that has a modicum of good decent common sense. See? It's not so hard.

Of course, the handful of the class of '94 Republicans who truly favored this measure have largely voluntarily term-limited themselves already...

OK, I'll bite. Name them. The word "handful" speaks volumes.

Posted by: kaptain kapital on January 4, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

C-SPAN did a long live call-in show last night about the Abramoff plea deal. Many of the callers wanted to know if other lobbyists were as corrupt as Abramoff. (C-SPAN's problem is that it relies on entrenched establishment media to explain stories. Last night's expert guest was a Business Week journalist. I do not doubt the journalist's truthfulness, but he does communicate through the lense of what is best for capital and corporations, rather then what is best for the total society.) The BW journalist guest seemed to think Abramoff was an anomaly, which I think was incorrect.

The oil and energy companies have more money to throw around than Abramoff's Native American clients. The pharma companies have more money to throw around than Abramoff's Native American clients. The defense industries have more money to throw around than Abramoff's Native American clients. AIPAC has more money to throw around than Abramoff's Native American clients.

Abramoff was busted because his money came from bilking Native Americans with casino money to throw around, which he was able to divert to his own cause. Since other lobbyists have a lot more money to distribute than Abramoff, they wield more economic power over our legislators. Abramoff was caught because he became too greedy and wanted to become an industry unto himself. The other big money lobby groups have corporate management that prevents their lobbyists from becoming greater than the corporate interests they are paid to market.

A question I would like answered is what are Abramoff's Texas connections besides DeLay? Since the AG is from Texas, I think a special prosecutor is required to sort out every sordid detail of his corrupting influence.

Posted by: Powerpuff on January 4, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, please name them.

Posted by: bubba on January 4, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

howard: conspiracy nut, sadly, i devoted irreplaceable seconds of my life trying to find an example of "moonbats" "buying" the story that all republicans are already in prison. i say sadly because, of course, there is no comment that says this, although watching your projection is a rather fascinating exercise.

One reason that conspiracy nut's comments are consistently so pathetically, abjectly, clownishly stupid is that he doesn't even respond to what other commenters are actually writing. He responds to what the imaginary, one-dimensional, cartoon comic book stereotype "lefty moonbats" in his head are saying. And then he responds to these imaginary voices in his head with some irrelevant cut & pasted boilerplate remark about "Dan Rather" that he happened to see while randomly flipping through the pages of "Regurgitating Republican Talking Points for Dummies".

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 4, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan quote, "fingers crossed for the Canadian Invasion". The Canadians couldn't invade Rhode Island.

Re: Abramoff, this could prove to be an actual scandal unlike Rathergate, Plamegate and the NSA. "If the Dems are smart" (and that's a huge if) they will capatilize on this and could gain some seats in 06 (hopefully not). This is exactly how the Reps gained their majority in '94 with Newt and the Contract With America following Espy, the House Ways and Means and the Rostenkowski Democrat's "Culture of Corruption" in the 90's. The only caveat to this is how many Dems are in the Abramoff net?

Posted by: Jay on January 4, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

Howard
sadly, i devoted irreplaceable seconds of my life trying to find an example of "moonbats" "buying" the story that all republicans are already in prison
Don't tell me that I have to preface all my hperbole as such.

any lobbyist with half an ounce of brains knows where to focus his or her efforts: on the republican party
Yes, this will no doubt hit more Republicans, but any lobbyist with half an ounce of brains wouldn't put all their eggs in one basket, either.

join us in voting them out of office!
There's only one problem there: then Dems would get in. I'll take mostly crazy over completely crazy, but it's a poor choice to have to make.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 4, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

Does anyone find it surprising that Gregory's intellect is such...

Golly, Will doesn't even deny that he would limit people's political freedom to impose the kind of economic freedom that he advocates, but that neither the Republicans nor Democrats support.

There's a word for those who would impose their own political will on a majority, will-they or nill-they...but my limited intellect is having trouble putting my finger on it just now.

Posted by: Gregory on January 4, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

Tell ya' what kaptain, you refrain from being an a-hole, and I'll deign to respond to your inquiry.

howard, term limits are a means to constrain the freedom of static majorities to constrain the freedom of individuals. I believe democracy works best when power is a constantly shifting dynamic between various factions and individuals, thus working against the centralization of power in static groups. Term limits, I believe, will promote this.

In my preferred world, where everyone agreed to have a state which had much less power than is curently the case, I wouldn't see term limits as important as I do. When the likes of Jim Wright, Tom Daschle, Tom Delay, or Trent Lott can wield as much power as our leaders in Congress now do, however, a formalized method to regularly fracture power arrangements becomes preferred.

Posted by: Will Allen on January 4, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

Investigating DeLay could take up to a year and require the cooperation of other witnesses before issues surrounding the Texas Republican are resolved, according to people familiar with the case.

Sweet.

Jay: Abramoff, this could prove to be an actual scandal unlike Rathergate, Plamegate and the NSA.

Jay's bizarre definition of "actual scandal" seems to be lacking recognizable words.

conspiracy nut: You'd think they would learn to wait to see if anything is actually happening. And the constant cart-before-the-horse celebrations here just put me in a playful mood.

That description, although false with respect to liberals and the Bush administration scandals, is not unlike the conservative reaction to Iraq.

Which just goes to show how often conservatives are looking in the mirror when they blather.

Ya, and Bush was AWOL, and Kerry will win by a landslide, and Rove will be frog-marched out of the White House.

Bush was AWOL, few liberals predicted a Kerry landslide - certainly an insufficient number to characterize this as a liberal prediction as cn falsely does, and Fitzgerald's investigation continues, so it looks like cn is failing to follow his own advise about putting the cart before the horse, as if he really believed all the vomitous tripe he regurgitates in his posts.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 4, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

Yep, Gregory, I favor constraining the freedom of individuals to use the state for limiting the freedom of other individuals.

Posted by: Will Allen on January 4, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

Advocate for God wrote: cn is failing to follow his own advise about putting the cart before the horse, as if he really believed all the vomitous tripe he regurgitates in his posts.

conspiracy nut is a genuine troll. He posts deliberately obnoxious bullshit just to "troll" for attention. None of it means anything. It's pure bullshit, and he knows it. He's a stupid, ignorant little twerp who can do nothing more than be deliberately annoying just to get attention.


Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 4, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

Term limits throw out the honest politicians along with the crooks. The crooks become lobbyists. The incoming legislators, wet behind the ears, desperately need advice on the basics of getting things done, and what's in the bills. They turn to the lobbyists, because the lobbyists are the only operation in town with any institutional memory left, and they are very convenient. Term limits don't do anything to get rid of corrupt politicians. All they do is move the corrupt politicians to cushy jobs with better pay, where they aren't accountable to the voters, and they have even more power than they did when they were in office. This is exactly what's happened because of term limits in Sacramento. Don't let it happen to you.

The Republicans did the K Street project because they wanted to create a power base in Washington that would be responsible only to their party. They are in favor of term limits for the same reason. Term limits are a bonanza for corruption.

An early example of how Republican partisan control over lobbying is what they did to the Clinton's health care reform initiative. Big business was initially in favor of health care reform because it would have helped their American operations be more competitive. They were forced to back out, against their own best interests. I'd love to know what combination of threats and promises of future spoils the Republicans used to force the business leaders into line. It was a battle with very few winners, such as the insurance companies and the Frist family, while the overwhelming majority of Americans and American businesses were screwed.

It should be emphasized that the Republican influence peddling, money laundering, pork spending, law breaking, Constitution trampling, cronyism, corruption, and incompetence are not about being pro-business. Business needs health care, educated workers, sound fiscal policy, and a level playing field. The Republicans are not about that at all. Rather, they have become the party of irresponsible business, the companies that can keep going only with special tax breaks, earmarked pork-barrel spending, and a carefully turned blind eye to all their environmental, safety, and accounting violations. It's past time that responsible business leaders realize they are being played for chumps, and start doing something about it. Cutting off the money to K Street would be a good start.

The criminal busts on K Street should be followed by an economic bust. The power of the lobbyists has never been higher, but all the indications are that it's a bubble, inflated by Republican overreach, and just waiting to burst.

Posted by: TomB on January 4, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: I'll take mostly crazy over completely crazy, but it's a poor choice to have to make.

You've been completely crazy for a long time, so don't pretend you have a choice to make.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 4, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

Secular, it appears cn has definitly gotten under your skin therefore he has achieved his goal. And I liked how you have attacked his character rahter than the content of his posts, that's so liberal of you.

Advocate, did you say something?

Posted by: Jay on January 4, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

Will Allen: I favor constraining the freedom of individuals to use the state for limiting the freedom of other individuals.

Thus, someone like myself who thinks that I have a very fine Congressional Representative who is doing a terrific job, and would like to reelect him for multiple terms and not have his service terminated by a term limit statute, favors constraining your freedom to use the state to limit my freedom to vote for the person who I want to keep doing a great job as my Representative.

You have stated your theory about how you believe term limits would affect government -- in your view, for the better. I disagree. I think they would affect government for the worse.

However, I am not trying to limit your freedom; as far as I am concerned, you are welcome to vote against your Representative when he or she runs for reelection, even if you think he or she is doing a good job, just because you think that he or she shouldn't serve beyond a certain limited amount of time regardless of whether he or she is doing a good job.

On the contrary, by supporting term limits, you are the one seeking to use the state to limit my freedom to reelect the candidate that I prefer.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 4, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

TomB., after the Republican maintain their control in Congress through the next four cycles or so, it may occur to you that elected crooks really aren't accountable in any meaningful sense.

Posted by: Will Allen on January 4, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

The front-page obituary for Abramoff in the LA Times was very sweet too. Does someone know something we don't, a la Jack Ruby, or is this just a "political" obituary?

Posted by: Jimm on January 4, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

None of it means anything. It's pure bullshit, and he knows it.
Come on, Animist, where's the love? You're not still pissed because because I pick on brocolli plants are you?

And some of it means something. Not much of it, I admit; and I hide it the best I can. But then, no one wants to respond to meaningful stuff anyway; they just want to fling feces. Look at your comments.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 4, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

Jay wrote: Secular, it appears cn has definitly gotten under your skin therefore he has achieved his goal.

Yes, he has certainly achieved his goal of being an annoying little asshole.

And I liked how you have attacked his character rahter than the content of his posts

The so-called "content" of conspiracy nut's so-called "posts" consists of little more than repetitious incantation of the words "moonbat" and "lefty", interspersed with irrelevant references to right-wing bugaboos like "Dan Rather" and "Michael Moore", and other miscellaneous and meaningless horseshit.

And I don't address his "character" at all, just his behaviour, which as I said, is that of a stupid, ignorant little twerp being deliberately obnoxious and annoying just to get attention. He's like the spoiled little brat whose histrionic whining and screeching makes everybody wish his mother would slap him and tell him to shut up.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 4, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

Tell ya' what, SecularAnimist, if you agree to reduce the power of your elected representative to constrain my freedom so that it approximates that which his predecesser had seventy years ago, and I'll be happy to let you elect whomever you wish. As long as you insist on investing your wonderful representative with the power to endlessly meddle in my life, however, I will seek to force you to constantly find a new dime-store Mussolini to do your bidding.

Posted by: Will Allen on January 4, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

People killin', people dyin'
Children hurt and you hear them cryin'
Can you practice what you preach
And would you turn the other cheek

Father, Father, Father help us
Send us some guidance from above
'Cause people got me, got me questionin'
Where is the love (Love)

Where is the love?

No soup for you!

Posted by: Hostile on January 4, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

Nut-"Kerry will win in a landslide, Kerry will win in a landslide, Kerry will win in a landslide..."

Diebold! Diebold! Diebold! Diebold!

Posted by: G on January 4, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

We really can't blame the repub-nuts for believing what ever they are spoon fed, since when have they ever needed evidence in order to believe something? From WMD's to God, theses guys will buy anything.

Posted by: nutty little nut nut on January 4, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."
- Adolf Hitler

Posted by: Satan on January 4, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

I really think the Dems are missing a golden opportunity if they focus solely on Abramoff's lobbying and political contributions. The man is deeply involved in serious criminality, witness the fraudulent $20+ million wire transfer, and his possible ties to the gangland-style "hit" on the SunCruz casino owner. See link below:

http://www.madcowprod.com/

Remember the mileage the GOP got out of Vince Foster's corpse? - insinuating that Hillary Clinton was somehow involved in his death, despite the fact she was 3,000 miles away when he killed himself? There is a dead body here - this is far more serious than an overzealous lobbyist! Abramoff is a filthy, dirty criminal.
[How about a few Internet rumors insinuating Pickles Bush was Abramoff's lover and Gus whatever-his-name-is was killed because of a love triangle? You don't think the GOP would hesitate to do it to the Dems, do you???]

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on January 4, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Diebold! Diebold! Diebold! Diebold!
First you moonbats whine that the CA recall election needs to be held off because they didn't have electronic voting machines. And now you moonbats whine about electronic voting machines.

Since nothing makes you happy, why should anyone worry about making you happy?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 4, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

I feel this would be a good time to bring up the Rove-Bush romantic relationship.

Posted by: Satan on January 4, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

The Founding Fathers did not consider term limits and did not put them in the constitution. There are no leaders today as honorable or as concerned with good governance as the Founding Fathers. Term limits will only make our corrupt system more corrupt. If we did not have term limits on the presidency, Clinton might still be president, which would be so much better than Bush II. Even though I concede our political leaders are corrupt, including Clinton, whom I did not vote for, I still have hope and desire that my fellow constituents will throw out the bad and vote for the good, although the 2004 elections and the 2000 elections and the 1996 elections, etc., did not supply very many good, decent elected officials. Even though these have been dark times, I still have some hope left that America can elect good people. If good people should be elected, I would like them to remain in office.

Posted by: Powerpuff on January 4, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

First you moonbats whine that the CA recall election needs to be held off because they didn't have electronic voting machines. And now you moonbats whine about electronic voting machines.

Maybe we would like the number of people who "vote" not to exceed the population of registered voters.

Say it with me nuts-on-chin: Transparency
Transparency, as used in the humanities, implies openness, communication, and accountability. It is a metaphorical extension of the meaning used in the physical sciences: a "transparent" object is one that can be seen through.

When liberal democracies, like USA or the Philippines, are developing their democracy one step further transparency is introduced as a means of holding public officials accountable and fighting corruption. When government meetings are open to the press and the public, when budgets and financial statements may be reviewed by anyone, when laws, rules and decisions are open to discussion, they are seen as transparent and there is less opportunity for the authorities to abuse the system in their own interest.

Transparency cannot exist as a purely one-way communication though. If the media and the public knows everything which happens in all authorities and county administrations there will be a lot of questions, protests and suggestions coming from media and the public. People who are interested in a certain issue will try to influence the decisions. Transparency creates an everyday participation in the political processes by media and the public.

Modern democracy builds on such participation of the people and media. There are, for anybody who is interested, many ways to influence the decisions at all levels in society.

The elections and referendums are no longer the prime or only way for the people to rule itself. The democracy is working continuously, and the elections are there just to make major changes in the political course.

While a liberal democracy can be a plutocracy, where decisions are taken behind locked doors and the people have very small possibilities to influence the politics between the elections, a participative democracy is much closer connected to the will of the people.

Participative democracy, built on transparency and everyday participation, has been used officially in northern Europe for decades. It has officially been adopted as an ideal to strive for by the rest of EU.

Posted by: G on January 4, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

Well, Powerpuff, the founding fathers also did not put the income tax in the Constitution, nor did they put the direct election of Senators in the Constitution. The founding fathers did not put into the Constitution that slavery was illegal. The founding fathers did not give Congress the power to regulate what plants people grew or the power to regulate the content of political speech by certain assemblies of people during certain periods prior to an election. What does that have to do with what is desirable today?

Posted by: Will Allen on January 4, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe we would like the number of people who "vote" not to exceed the population of registered voters.
Ya, that would have tickled Nixon if the dead hadn't voted in such large numbers in Chicago.

Of course, the dead were registered there...

Other than that, nice dialog on transparency. I suppose it's too much to ask that you want the same from Democrats.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 4, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton might still be president and we would never have had Bush start endless wars. Term limits put out good politicians who might be replaced with monsters.

Posted by: Powerpuff on January 4, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

I think honesty is a nice place to start.

What did the Founding Fathers have to say about gay marriage?

Posted by: G on January 4, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

Term limits put out good politicians
That's right, Bush is still young. He could easily serve a couple more terms.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 4, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

That's right, Bush is still young. He could easily serve a couple more terms.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 4, 2006 at 6:21 PM

It should be no problem to reprogram Bush to do what ever either party wants, he's never had an original thought in his life and as long as they let him fly in the vroom vrooms he'll be happy. And a little coke and booze wouldn't hurt.

Posted by: nutty little nut nut on January 4, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

"Facts are stupid things."

Ronald Reagan

Must be a game of follow the leader

Posted by: G on January 4, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

Remember the mileage the GOP got out of Vince Foster's corpse? -
Posted by: Stephen Kriz on January 4, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

I can't understand why nobody's getting any milage out of former enron CEO J. Clifford Baxter's "apparent suicide" - and subsequent botching of his autopsy by the Houston coroner. There's all kinds of unanswered questions surrounding his death, and it all quietly "went away". Just like the price-fixing scandal, and the accounting scandal, and the Cheney energy policy meeting scandal, and the Schwartzenegger meeting scandal. . . etc.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on January 4, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

and it all quietly "went away". Just like Dan Rather's memos.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 4, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

and it all quietly "went away". Just like Dan Rather's memos.
Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 4, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

. . . just like unka dickie's fake Niger documents.

Posted by: Mammon on January 4, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK
conspiracy nut proves … that he is the most pathetically stupid idiot to ever post… on this site. Posted by: SecularAnimist
I don't know, there is some stiff competition for that title here. Perhaps there should be a contest, a reverse Koulfax, say The Best Falangist award?
take up the mantle of term limits again, this time via Constitutional Amendment….Posted by: Will Allen
The experience of having term limits in California has been to increase the influence of lobbyists. Posted by: Mike on January 4, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK
Tell ya' what kaptain, you refrain from being an a-hole, and I'll deign to respond to your inquiry.

Will,

You were an asshole before you exited your mummy's womb, and the weather hasn't changed significantly since. A more abrasive SOB I don't think I've encountered.

The notion that business interests, as a group, favor free markets is so fatuous that it beggars belief. Of course, very few interest groups, if any, who are closely associated with the Democrats, are strong advocates of economic freedom either, so it really doesn't leave those of us who are with anyone to caucus with on this principle.

Pure Will Allen. Pompous incoherence.

Posted by: obscure on January 4, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK
I favor constraining the freedom of individuals to use the state for limiting the freedom of other individuals.

[tears welling in eyes] *sniff* why, Will... *sniff* that's so... beautiful!

Posted by: obscure on January 4, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

Well, golly gee, obscure perhaps you can inform me as to why my remark to the kaptain was more abrasive than his initial post to me. Or is that request too pompous? Or is it beyond your social grasp that an abrasive start of an interaction just might engender an abrasive retort? Truly, what is it about this forum that so many participants find it notable that their approach to interacting with those with whom they differ will very often result in a mirrored tone? Are you truly so dense? Given that you apparently are ignorant as to the meaning of the word "incoherence", the answer to my last question may be rather obvious.

Posted by: Will Allen on January 4, 2006 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

As long as you insist on investing your wonderful representative with the power to endlessly meddle in my life, however, I will seek to force you to constantly find a new dime-store Mussolini to do your bidding. - Will Allen

Will, you're talking about taxes, yes? Taxes are a legitimate power of government, all governments, everywhere. Especially when there's a war on!

Posted by: Doctor Jay on January 4, 2006 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK

Uh, no, Doc, I'm not talking about taxes. You may wish to examine the expansion of the commerce clause, and other developments, and how they relate to greater power and scope of permissable activities by national government during the 20th century.

Posted by: Will Allen on January 4, 2006 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

"the evolution of the Republican Party from being the party of capitalism and free enterprise to being merely the party of whichever business interests can help Republicans get reelected."


But that's what the Republican party has always been. The evolution has been that they are now populated by the first generation of Republicans who don't know corruption is wrong, who think that's how it's supposed to work and who are so unselfconscious of their evil they simply lack the social grace to hide it as effectively as in former years.

The Republican Party has never been anything but the party of whichever interest will help them get elected.

Posted by: cld on January 4, 2006 at 10:41 PM | PERMALINK

Dear Mr. Allen,

Would you be so kind as to name the names requested by Mr. Kapital. This would substantiate your claim.

Thank you very much.

Your obedient servant,

Posted by: bobbyp on January 4, 2006 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

The Republican Party has never been anything but the party of whichever interest will help them get elected.

They are the direct descendants of the Whigs, whose sole goal was to give away the resources of the government to the business community. This subservience to financial interests was cemented when they threw the radical republicans out of the party after the Civil War.

Posted by: bobbyp on January 5, 2006 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINK

At least the Founding Fathers discussed slavery and considered banning it. As far as plant regulation and free speech limitations not being in the consitution, I do not think they belong there either, but giving Congress the power to enact laws in the public interest most certainly is. I would agree with you that these two examples are bad law, so why not throw the bums out? I rarely vote for an incumbent because I think almost all mainstream candidates are corrupt. Of course, I am in the minority, but the US was created to be a majority, and the majority of Americans are, well, stupid and easily fooled by flag waving and shiny trinkets, which is why we have politicians who are not worth spit.

I do not see how term limits will stop the ignorant majority from replacing bad with worse.

Posted by: Powerpuff on January 5, 2006 at 1:31 AM | PERMALINK

bobbyp, off the top of my head, Joe Scarborough and Matt Salmon were two guys who made good on their promise to term-limit themselves, even if term limits could not be passed for everyone. I think there were just a few more, hence my description of those who chose this honorable course as a "handful".

Posted by: Will Allen on January 5, 2006 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, the Republican party was just the right size to be bought wholesale at the convention in 1860 and have remained unerringly true to their dearest values ever since.

Posted by: cld on January 5, 2006 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK
You may wish to examine the expansion of the commerce clause, and other developments, and how they relate to greater power and scope of permissable activities by national government during the 20th century.

Since that expansion has almost entirely been at the expense of state government power, I'm not sure why this is particularly a concern of personal liberty, so much as a change in the level at which government power is exercised, which is not an issue of personal freedom -- since it impacts it not one whit -- but one of pragmatic arrangement of government power.

As both the level of activity that transcends state boundaries, and our understanding of an practical ability to respond to conditions, natural and artificial, that have always transcended those boundaries increases, it is natural that increasingly power already in the hands of government should be exercised at higher levels. Certainly, one might debate whether the particular ways that that has occurred are the most appropriate, or whether they have been realized through means that are procedurally appropriate. But to try to make a big deal about "freedom" over the fact that powers traditionally held and exercised vigorously by one level of government are now being taken and preempted by a higher level of government is laughable.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 5, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely is a liberal catholic who also happens to be brilliant, and his politics show that he cares about the rights of people other than himself.

But that's just my opinion.

Not that this is anything other than yodelling into the abyss, but, Will, if you had half a brain you would realize that the word "freedom" is fraught with inherent ambiguity.

I have never seen you grapple with that ambiguity, much less acknowledge it.

Instead, you grab hold of the word and use it for purposes of the most bombastic and purple-prosed moral preening that I think I've ever seen.

Bugger off, 'Kay?

Posted by: obscure on January 5, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Well, cmdicely, perhaps you find it laughable to think that voting with one's feet is an effective response to government constraints, but millions of people who have done so do not. Perhaps you should meet some, and then reconsider whether it is laughable to be concerned with what level of government can exercise power A, as part of a generalized concern for the preservation of freedom.

Let Roe v. Wade be overturned, for instance, and many defenders of abortion rights will become acutely aware of the importance of the question of whether the national government has the power to regulate abortion. May answer would be "no", but I suppose that is just a concern of laughable signifigance.

Obscure, I've never seen you more socially competent than the average thug, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to conclude that you have bodies stacked in your crawl space. Bugger off, 'Kay?

Posted by: Will Allen on January 5, 2006 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly