RNC points out hypocrisy of Democrats.

"Democrats at all levels have attacked Republicans for ties to indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his Indian tribal clients. They do this despite the fact that 40 of the 45 members of the Senate Democrat Caucus have taken money from Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Read news about some of the worst Democrat hypocrisy here."

There is another GOP strategy at work here--change the subject. You won't hear about Abramoff on Fox News because they would rather talk about other things.

I am a high school teacher in a well-educated community. My students generally know a little bit more about politics than average high school students. They do not know who Jack Abramoff is. I asked them--the name did not ring any bells.

Although I have been saying Democrats are as corrupt as Republicans, it is true Republicans are much much worse at this particular time in history. Throw out the Republicans, but make sure there is lots of oversite on the replacement Democrats.

The MSM's idea of "balance". Don't actually investigate or anything.

W: The earth is flat.

Reid: No it's not.

See? Balanced.

In related news . . .

(January 09, 2006 -- 03:32 PM EST // link)

Remember, Tom DeLay is still out telling everyone that the only thing that brought him down was a meritless indictment from a partisan Democrat. Today, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied his request to have that supposedly meritless indictment tossed out.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is made up of nine judges. Each one elected. Each one a Republican.

-- Josh Marshall

Up here in Canada we’re having an election and one of the major issues is a kick-back scandal involving the federal Liberals. But even the Liberals aren’t trying to say “every one else is doing it too”.

Canada is far superior to the US in many ways. Even our crooked politicians are more honorable than your crooked politicians.

My prophets own the bulk of large mainstream media outlets and conglomerates. So there's no way in hell you'll be able to spread your lies that Democrats aren't just as bad if not worse than Republicans. In fact, soon, they're going to start spreading the truth that Abramoff was really a Democrat, and a member of the American Communist Party.

The press can get it all wrong but the actions of prosecutors will determine who's fingered with breaking laws in all this. It would be nice to see the MSM get the story straight be I'll be far happier to see the Justice Dept. get the story straight. The New York Times won't put any Republicans in jail, for that we have to pin our hopes on the FBI.

"40 of the 45 members of the Senate Democrat Caucus have taken money from Abramoff..."

Nope. Fact is, NOT A SIGNLE DEMOCRAT has taken money from Abramoff. That is a lie. Get your facts straight.

Your Liberal Media at work.
Eating the doggie treats the Republicans toss them.

When Rupert Murdoch's time on your miserable shithole of a world is over, he shall be assigned to my highest choir of angels for the good work he has done spreading the truth that only the VERY wealthy are morally upstanding, and that their wealth is my holy reward to them, and thus PROOF, that they are good.
Jack Abramoff, my humble servant, has done my will. And he shall be rewarded. My other humble servant, George W Bush will pardon him, and spare him from this evil political witch hunt by the Liberal Devils.

Remember, Scooter Christ lied for your sins!

I'm with Steve Duncan above. We have to wait and see who is actually brought down...if it's all Republicans, well, there you go.

Joe Canuck, what was that Canadian kick back scandal worth? About $85 million? Our corrupt republicans spit on your little scandal. Let's talk about real money.

Liberal media
Liberal media
Liberal media

The sooner we get some, the better.

The Democrats appear not to be involved in the Abramoff scandal, but they obviously are on the take.

This is why their behavior, since 2001, has been so passive, so inept, so futile.

If the Democrats weren't on the take, then the bankruptcy bill and numerous tax cuts would have been filibustered, the word "bipartisan" would not be such a disinfectent, the charge "class warfare" would be laughed at, and - while they controlled the Senate - there would have been much robust oversight of Bush.

Interesting defense the Republicans are adopting: "oh yeah? Well, the Democrats are almost as sleazy and corrupt as we are!"

I'll accept the premise, but not the conclusion.

Joe Canuck, what was that Canadian kick back scandal worth? About $85 million? Our corrupt republicans spit on your little scandal. Let's talk about real money.

I have been schooled.

They do this despite the fact that 40 of the 45 members of the Senate Democrat Caucus have taken money from Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients.

Dishonesty defined.

Of course Senate Dems may have taken money from Indian Tribes, the RNC is implying that that connects them to the Abramoff Republican Corruption Scandal. This does not prove a connection. Therefore, this statement is meaningless crap.

Indian Tribe $ != GOP Bribery Scandal.

Dumbass Al making simple basic logic fallacies again.

Zachary Roth wrote: But it’s an idea that the press, in its obsession with finding an "objective" storyline, can’t resist.

The "press" is not obsessed with finding an "objective" storyline.

The "press" consists of a handful of giant corporations who own and control virtually all of the mass media in the USA, and the ultra-rich, neo-fascist, corporate-feudalist owners and CEOs of these corporations support the cronyism, corruption and criminality of the Bush administration and the Republican Party and their policies of transferring taxation from capital to labor and deregulating the media industry, to allow these corporations to buy up more and more newspapers, TV and radio stations and use them to propagandize the American people with their ultra-rightwing corporate agenda.

So the "press" is deliberately going to do everything possible to preserve Republican power, which in this case, they will do by deceiving the American people into believing that the Democrats are just as corrupt as, or more corrupt than, the Republicans.

The Republicans will write the script, and the giant media corporations will bullhorn it to the American people, and the truth will be marginalized, ignored and drowned out.

After all, that's how Cheney and Bush came to power and how Cheney and Bush have remained in power since 2001.

Blasphemer!

Careful, Secular Animist, or I shall smite you, you infidel! Change your ways, worship the almighty Buck!

Democrats either lack any understanding of how politics has become a contact sport, or they have been infiltrated by moles from the other side who, like Joe Klein and Joe Liberman, continually mouth the Repub taking points.

I wish I'd thought of "Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! Political Witchhunt My Ass!" as a handle. It rocks.

Isn't the response simply to say, "Bring it on"?

I mean, let's assume that Democrats ARE tied up in the whole Abramoff mess. As a liberal Democrat, I certainly don't want them in MY party. So I'm just as happy to see them go down as well.

I think the best way to counter the Republican meme is to say, "Fine. If you say so. Whatever. We're not afraid of a full investigation and to let the chips fall where they may. Will you join us? ...Hello? Hello? Where did you go?"

The media does not want this to end,How much money does the media make on election years,It's like Christmas to them,Wasn't it almost a Billion dollars spent in the last Presidetial election. WOW!!

"Dumbass Al making simple basic logic fallacies again."

Ok, So prove it. I don't have to tell you that the whole gov't is dirty. You know it as well as I do. By continuously pointing fingers at repubes only tells me that you are perfectly happy with the demoncrats corruption. If you were REALY concerned about corruption you would be clammoring to have the whole gov't cleaned out. But thats not what I'm hearing. Hmmmm

>The press can get it all wrong but the actions of prosecutors will determine

Yup. Chill. Did you think this combination of nasty Rethug lying and MSM greedy swallowing was going to suddenly stop happening?

Just keep fighting, we know how the cards will turn up eventually. And if they do manage to turn up a Democrat, well hey that's OK with us too. We don't exactly love the current composition of our party, it's just the Less of Two Evils.

>Ok, So prove it.

How is "A is involved with B, C is involved with B, therefore A is involved with C" *not* a logical fallacy???

Otherwise there are a lot of adulterers that will be very suprised to find themselves suddenly classified as bisexual.

AL has a scoop, No one else has info on the 45 dems taking Abes money.Way to go scoop.

Interesting but an editorial by Rich Lowry in the National Review no less has this to say.....

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.

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200601100816.asp

Abramoff, his friends, and clients gave money to Republicans in the form of computer-generated checks drawn on US banks. Democrats also received computer-generated checks drawn on US banks. Therefore Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans.

Right?

AL you have them 40 names for us?

Steve Duncan's point above -- that it will be prosecutors, not newspapers, that make and prove criminal charges -- is very true. But he misses the point, I think. The GOP sees this as ALSO a massive campaign issue. They don't really give a thimbleful of spit if a few of their guys go to prison, but they care very, very much if they lose control of Congress or, in 2008, the White House. "Corruption" and "cronyism" are powerful charges against the Republicans, not the least because they are absolutely true; if not neutralized, the charges will cost them elections, and they know it.

The reality is that the Democrats are not and have never been corrupt in the systemic way the GOP and conservative movement is now. But that's a subtle and complex argument to make. All the GOP needs to do, they think, is tar EVERYONE with the same brush, then continue to play their usual electoral game of divide-and-conquer with various wedge issues.

Kevin's point is that the so-called liberal media is falling all over itself to do the GOP and rightwing's bidding on this. One incidental consequence, of course, is how this just leads to yet more cynicism by the public about government -- a greater sense of estrangement in the average citizen from our political system. (Which, given the GOP's regular demonization of all taxes and government generally, probably doesn't bother them in the least).

I wish any one of us had a simple solution for all of this, but of course we don't. If we had true campaign reform, one that almost entirely eliminated the need for candidates to raise campaign money, the whole story would be different. But even if we could implement such a thing this afternoon, it wouldn't change the fact that every member of Congress has already lived with the old system ... and has baggage from it. Kevin's piece makes clear that even a conscientious elected official, who played by the legal rules and in fact is not corrupt, can still be branded as corrupt.

Echoing something Publius wrote over at Law & Politics the other day, the Republicans don't need to "win" this argument. If ONLY Republicans are convicted, and in the end any thoughtful person can see that the Democrats being tarred here were all perfectly honest, it won't really matter. That's because the GOP wins simply for getting THIS particular debate going.

My apologies: I did not at first notice that this posting was by guest blogger Zachary Roth. So all of my comments above, ascribing this or that thought to Kevin Drum, need correction. Mea culpa, Mr. Roth.

No, Democrats did not receive any money from Abramoff. Democrats did receive money from Abramoff's victims; i.e. Indian tribes who were defrauded by Abramoff and his cronies. Abramoff was a "Republican" lobbiest who was at the heart of a criminal enterprize that operated for the benefit of the Republican Party. Period, end of story.

If there are any Dems involved. . . PLEASE let it be Joe Lieberman and the other DLC stooges. . .

Please see my post at 3:36 p.m. yesterday on the How to Talk About Corruption thread. I will paraphrase below:

No, this is a 100% Republican problem. Democratic candidates may have received money from Indian tribes that Abramoff worked with (read - screwed over), but Abramoff did not give one nickel, not one penny, to a Democrat. Karl Rove came up with this fanciful way of conflating contributions received from an Indian tribe with receiving money from Abramoff. THE TWO ARE NOT THE SAME!!! Many Indian tribes give campaign contributions to both sides, in order to hedge their bets (no pun intended). Do NOT, I repeat, DO NOT LET KARL ROVE PAINT THIS AS A DEMOCRATIC SCANDAL TOO!!!

...Dems need to remind voters there is also a dead body linked to Abramoff named Gus Boulis, former owner of SunCruz Casinos. He was the victim of a gangland-style hit and I'll bet you money Abramoff is eventually tied to his killing. [We need to] make sure the GOP is also linked to this killing, [as Dems sure as hell are not]!

Stephen Kriz

The reason why the media has maintained "objectivity" of Republican complacency versus Democratic complacency is because what Thinker said earlier:

If the Democrats weren't on the take...

The simple fact that Democrats have taken this criticism without any meaningful reform agenda, allows the media to soppose that their heart isn't in it, and peddle that they are just as guilty.

I don't think the Democrats want reform per se, because they are due to inherit Congress as long as the cards keep falling. What’s bad for Republicans hegemony is good for democratic hegemony. The two-party system at its worst.

[We need to] make sure the GOP is also linked to this killing, [as Dems sure as hell are not]!

I think there's over 2000 bodies that have come back from Iraq that are also linked pretty strongly to the GOP.

. . . not to mention the 3000 bodies on 9/11, the 2000+ bodies in New Orleans, 12 that were pulled out of an unregulated coal mine last week. . .

You guys need to get out a little more. This is up at John's blog:

http://americablog.blogspot.com/

National Review editor says Abramoff is a Republican scandal, period
by John in DC - 1/10/2006 12:50:00 PM

A rather amazingly honestly editorial from the National Review:
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.

Wow. Wow. And wow. Quote this widely any time a Republican or a journalist claims this is a bipartisan story."

"The reality is that the Democrats are not and have never been corrupt in the systemic way the GOP and conservative movement is now. But that's a subtle and complex argument to make."

Oh you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

ET:

George Will made the same point today, too.

Also, Will sez because Dems believe in activist government, they're inherently immune to charges of hypocrisy when bits of grease fly off the big, oily machine.

Republicans, OTOH, are supposed to be in favor of limited government. Therefore, excusing the ill-gotten fruits of big government makes them hypocrites in a way that Dems couldn't be even *if* a Dem here or there was tainted by taking a little Abramoff cash.

Not that they did, mind you. Damn was Dean's smackdown of the insufferable Volf Blitzah the smokin'est :)

When even George Will and the National Review are swatting back your memes du jour, it's gotta be a rough day for the GOP.

Bob

This is the Goebbels BIG LIE in action.

The reality is that the Democrats are not and have never been corrupt in the systemic way the GOP and conservative movement is now. But that's a subtle and complex argument to make. But it is so fucking obvious that anyone can understand it.

After all, never, EVER, NEVER, have Democrats sat out to get all the graft. They were always willing to share.

But the repukelinazis under Delay, Hastert and the other repukeliscum have initiated the K Street project. This is the core - the REPUKELISCUM have TRIED THEIR HARDEST to get the Abramoff scandal all to themselves, and they have succeeded.

This is a repukeliscum scandal.

Let's play SCUMBAG POKER.

Here's the rules:

In SCUMBAG POKER, you each start with a stack of scumbag reps. As each side puts up a scumbag, the other side must match the scumbag with a scumbag of its own.

The side that runs out of scumbags in its pile of chips first wins.

By the rules of SCUMBAG poker, the DEMS are WAY WAY ahead.

Roger, the weight of indictments, resignations, withdrawals from primaries or elections, open investigations primarily targeting Republicans and other fallout from all this may neuter MSM/RNC tilting of the story to tar Dems. I posit a non-partisan, dispassionate reporting of the misdeeds would help Dems in the main. However, it seems the eventual concentration of prosecutorial efforts on the "R" side of the ledger would take hold in the public mind. Also don't forget in all the polling we'll read there are about 40% of the populace willing to support and vote for Republicans no matter what they'reengaged in, be it pedophilia, drug trafficking, bank robbery or rape. They'd sooner die than pull the lever for a Democrat. It would take the total outrage of everyone else just to push a poll over the 50% mark of those fed up with the current regime. Factor in apathy, ignorance and the apolitical and we'll never achieve a groundswell demanding "Throw the bums out!"

Nope. Fact is, NOT A SIGNLE DEMOCRAT has taken money from Abramoff. That is a lie.
Nice quote truncation, the full quote read to the effect of taking money from Abramhoff, his associates, or the indian tribes. The last 2 the Dems definitely have a problem with.

But hey, good luck narrowing the assault to only who Abramhoff gave money to. You're going to need all the luck you can get for that.

How's Hillary's! $700K problem coming?

wait, wait. i'm still overwhelmed by lurker42's excellent rebuttal.

Meanwhile:

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is said to have spent the past month preparing evidence he will present to a grand jury alleging that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove knowingly made false statements to FBI and Justice Department investigators and lied under oath while he was being questioned about his role in the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity more than two years ago, according to sources knowledgeable about the probe.

RICO: The House of Representative is a RICO.

A repukeliscum-influenced corrupt organization.

Any organization which is REPUKELISCUM influenced is a RICO.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is said to have spent the past month
Who said that? Michael Moore?

But hey, good luck narrowing the assault to only who Abramhoff gave money to. ..
Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

Unfortunately for you, it's only Abramoff's operation that is under investigation here. Not general campaign giving by Indian Tribes. So why should we be worried again that Indians gave Nevada Senator Reed (D) some money, in a contribution completely unrelated to Abramoff? You think Nevada Senator Reed (D) never voted on gambling issues?

hey osama.......

"When policy analysis is just backfill to support a political maneuver, you’ll get a lot of oops," -John DiIulio, former Bush administration policy advisor

you’ll get a lot of oops = dead americans

Who said that? Michael Moore?
Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Boy are you going to look stupid when Fitzgerald indicts Rove. No wait, strike that. You already look stupid. 24x7. Ever since I've known you.

Unfortunately for you, it's only Abramoff's operation that is under investigation here.
Funny, you seem to have forgotten Abramoff's associates in your response. Like I said, good luck narrowing the assault to only who Abramhoff gave money to.

Boy are you going to look stupid when Fitzgerald indicts Rove.
No, I'm sure you're right. In fact, isn't Dan Rather coming out with some memos proving that?

I'll find it kind of funny if Rove is indicted for lying to the grand jury. All that lying going on with no underlying crime to lie about. Idiots.

Who said that? Michael Moore? - conspiracy nut

Hey CN, better check your random liberal name generator. It didn't spit out Bill Clinton as was required.

conspiracy nut: Who said that? Michael Moore?

Osama_Been_Forgotten: Boy are you going to look stupid when Fitzgerald indicts Rove. No wait, strike that. You already look stupid. 24x7. Ever since I've known you.

OBF, don't you realize that at the mere mention of the name "Michael Moore", all "liberals" are supposed to fall on their faces and whimper in shame at the very existence of such a person, and tearfully concede that George W. Bush must after all be the greatest man who ever lived since such a horrible person as Michael Moore criticizes him?

conspiracy nut is most certainly stupid. He is by far the stupidest, most ignorant, and most dishonest, rightwinger who comments on these threads.

But conspiracy nut is also apparently too lazy to click on the link I provided, and see for himself "who said that".

Hey CN, better check your random liberal name generator. It didn't spit out Bill Clinton
Hey, be careful. I like Clinton. He failed to screw up an economic boom, he signed most of the Republican's Contract with America that made it to him, and he provided 8 years of some the best entertainment a politician can provide.

Like when he bombed those tents. That still tickles the hell out of me. Fun guy and still signed all those Republican bills, it doesn't get any better than that.

Funny, you seem to have forgotten Abramoff's associates in your response. Like I said, good luck narrowing the assault to only who Abramhoff gave money to.

"Abramoff's Associates" is an overly-broad, undefined quantity. Prove a connection to the corruption. If I took money from Abramoff's veteranarian, does that prove I was part of the whole K-Street project scam?

All that lying going on with no underlying crime to lie about. Idiots.

Perjury's not a crime? You wingnuts sure thought so when there was a blowjob involved. If Rove lied to the Grand Jury, it was to cover up a crime. Not because he's forgetful or absent minded (gee, there sure seem to be a lot of forgetful absent minded Republicans these days - they're forgetful and absent minded when it comes to fessing up to crimes - yet they're the sharpest, best and brightest, when it comes to supposed justification for appointments or elections. . . How conveeeeenient. .. ).

But conspiracy nut is also apparently too lazy to click on the link I provided
I did click it, but I didn't see anything to indicate it was anyone other than Michael Moore.

conspiracy nut: In fact, isn't Dan Rather coming out with some memos proving that?

As the rightwing clown known as "conspiracy nut" demonstrates, every mention of "Michael Moore" must immediately be followed by a mention of "Dan Rather". This is strictly and rigidly required by the rules of rightwing scripted talking point regurgitation.

In the first 10 months of the Bush Administration, there were over 190 phone calls logged between the White House and Abramoff.

And we're expected to buy into this crap that this is a bipartisan scandal?

Prove a connection to the corruption.
I know this isn't going to sink in, but since somewhere around 75% of Americans think all politicians are corrupt, I don't have to. Rather, in this case, the Dems are going to have to successfully isolate themselves.

The Dems have taken money from Abramhoff's associates, and from the indian tribes. Couple that with Hillary's! recent $700K problem and I don't think you're going to convince Joe Average American that the Dems are above the corruption they are painting the Repubs with.

But seriously, good luck, it'll be a miracle finish if you pull it off.

Perjury's not a crime?
As dense as that reply was, there's just really no sense in doing anything but poking fun at you, is there?

Funny, you seem to have forgotten Abramoff's associates in your response. Like I said, good luck narrowing the assault to only who Abramhoff gave money to.

What a mental midget.

Every time you fucking morons try to expand the scope, you catch 1 Dem and 35 repukeliscum. So, expanding this will result in more corrupt repukeliscum, and 1 corrupt dem.

So take the corrupt dem.

We are playing SCUMBAG POKER here. you are putting 30 corrupt repukeliscum in your pile and we still only have 1 corrupt dem.

Perjury's not a crime? You wingnuts sure thought so when there was a blowjob involved.

You don't get it. By definition, Republican cannot commit perjury, because whatever they say becomes the new reality.

you catch 1 Dem and 35 repukeliscum Let's see, 40 Dem Senators caught, 3 Republicans per Dem, carry the one... Well glory be! That's 120 Republican Senators caught!

When did they add those 60 Senators?

Where have you all been??? Howard Dean answered these questions and left Wolf Blitzer speechless on Sunday. It's at Crooks and Liars. There is no need for any further discussion on this.

By definition, Republican(s) cannot commit perjury, because whatever they say becomes the new reality.

This is an interesting comment. It demonstrates a totalitarian characteristic to make reality bend to the needs of the party, and is, I think, why so many good thinkers associate the Bush regime with Nazism and Stalinism.

Even I cannot equate that to anything the Democrats have done.

I agree with the National Review quotes above, Abramoff is a Republican problem BUT,

Remember the K Street project was part of a larger Norquist/Rove agenda to defund the left. On the other side of the scale the Department of Labor, after many years efforts in the courts, has finally forced the NEA to reveal the $50 million per year they have confiscated from teachers to give to various groups, and guess what? Not many conservatives or Republicans are among them. Other interesting tidbits are that the head of the NEA makes nearly $500K per year, and over half of the 600 members of the headquarters staff make well into six figures per year. But the defenders of the working man made sure Swartzenegger's efforts to help teachers control their dues went down.

Steve Duncan,

Well, please do understand, I sure hope you're right. You and several others here are suggesting that a little optimism right now is appropriate. I profoundly hope and pray it works out as you suggest: that indictments and convictions will carry more weight with voters than a blizzard of groundless accusations and obfuscation generated by the GOP and distributed by the MSM.

Oh, and to those who didn't quite get my point up above: I did not argue that the Democrats haven't engaged in corrupt practices or had pockets of corrupt people at various times. I didn't even argue that there haven't been times when the Democrats were arguably more corrupt than the Republicans (although I personally doubt that). But there has NEVER been anything in the past like what we see today: a coherent, tightly-integrated culture of corruption throughout both the GOP and the rightwing world generally. The K-Street Project alone is something utterly unique: a massive -- truly massive -- systematic form of corruption. And mentioning that just scratches the surface, I think.

And if we take the term "corruption" in a broader sense -- so that it covers pure abuse of power, not just financial graft -- the active dismantlement of the American political compact by the GOP puts them a thousand miles ahead of Democrats on the road to perdition. I'm speaking of all their little tricks that were never, NEVER standard operating procedure during the many previous decades of either Democratic OR Republican control of Congress. Things like effectively barring the opposition from committee meetings, holding votes open for hours, scheduling votes at 2 a.m., drastically altering bills during reconciliation hearings, denying minority party caucuses meeting space, failing to provide final versions of bills until minutes before the vote, redistricting multiple times after a census, refusing to even schedule hearings for judicial appointments by Democrats, etc.

But the defenders of the working man made sure Swartzenegger's efforts to help teachers control their dues went down.
Posted by: wks on January 10, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

When will the defenders of the investor class propose a bill that allows shareholders to control corporate campaign contributions?

Personally, I figure that out of 535 Representatives and Senators, somewhere in the realm of 500 are corrupt. There might be a few good folks among them, but I'm not so sure I'd invite most of the rest of those thieves into my home. I personally think that the desire to enter Congress in the first place is a sign of slight mental disorder, and the desire, once there, to stay is absolute insanity. But that's just me.

Either way, The Q and O Blog had a nice run-down on this. Democrats didn't receive any *direct* funds from Abramoff, although they did receive quite a bit in indirect funds. So they have a choice. They can either pledge to give back the indirect funds they received, or they can stop including all the indirect funds Republicans have received as evidence of corruption, and focus purely on the direct contributions.

Either way, this has turned into both parties' spin machines going full-bore. If anyone in this country still trusted Congress, they're rapidly eroding that group.

Brad:

Define "direct" and "indirect" funding and provide examples from both parties. As somebody (I think Secular) said upthread, let's play Scumbag Poker :)

Helpful hint: Taking donations from Indian tribes in your state who also happened to give to Abramoff doesn't count as indirect funding.

Bob

They can either pledge to give back the indirect funds they received, or they can stop including all the indirect funds Republicans have received as evidence of corruption, and focus purely on the direct contributions.
You seem like a sane guy, have you been impressed with the Republicans that have returned Abramhoff contributions? Or are you asking why they got them in the first place? Should it be any different with Dems and indirect funds?

And when the mere existence of indirect funds is considered, do you really think it's possible to focus only on direct funds? The inability to do this so far is what prompted this post.

No, everybody is going to end up getting tarred here (and deservedly so). The only discussion is whether the Repubs end up getting tarred worse, and will any difference in tarring translate to a change of power in Congress.

I know it is frustrating to see the media get led so willingly down the "everyone's doing it" path, but have patience. The Republicans will only be able to use that talking point until the indictments start coming down - and they are all for Republicans. It will be hard to play that game when it is obvious that the only ones committing crimes were their guys. Not even Chris Matthews will be able to ignore that.

Democrats were part of the K Street Project?

No?

Then they weren't involved in this scandal. Bing, bang, boom.

So CN, why would Abramoff bribe Democrats?

Are there a bunch of Democratic Senators who could publically support conservative policies?

Besides, Republicans are the majority in both houses. Abramoff doesn't need to bribe any Democrats to get his bills through.

The Republicans will only be able to use that talking point until the indictments start coming down -

Correct! just like they were only able to use the "partisan witchhunt" talking point until the Texas Judicial review board of 9 elected republicans upheld the Delay trial, and they were only able to use the "criminalization of politics" talking point until Randy Cunningham publicly wept as he apologized for knowingly doing wrong.

So CN, why would Abramoff bribe Democrats?
Are you just playing shallow, or was this serious?

I'll answer anyway. Let's say Abramhoff et al have some bill they want passed. Now, if this bill can be passed on merit, they have no need to "financially induce" anyone. Money saved. So the initial assumption must be that the desired bill cannot stand on merits.

So in order to get this bill passed, sufficient congresspersons must be "induced" to see their way clear to vote it.

Now you lefties clearly believe that all Repub congresspersons are corrupt to the core, and all Dem congresspersons are as pure as the driven snow, but Abramhoff is likely smarter than that (this is his job, after all). So he will look for congresspersons of any persuasion he can.

Hence the need for other persons to approach Dems, they wouldn't be caught dead taking money from Abramhoff himself; so surrogates with indeterminate politics get sent.

Remember, we're dealing with those evil businesspersons here, devils in pursuit of the almighty dollar; what make you think they care whether a Dem or Repub votes for their bill, as long as it gets passed?

conspiracy nut:

Do you have anything other than straw man hypotheticals based on rhetorical false dichotomies?

Show me a "tainted Democrat" -- enumerate the charges -- or continue to enjoy your marginal status here.

Bob

Show me a "tainted Democrat"
Hillary and her little $700K problem, and what was that with Al Bore and his Buddhist monks?

Anything else?

what make you think they care whether a Dem or Repub votes for their bill, as long as it gets passed?
Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

Because every dollar they give to a Dem means two more must be given to a Republican during the next election cycle to defeat that Dem, to ensure that they won't be as likely to need to bribe them for the next attrocity. Bribing Dem congressmen defeats the whole purpose of the K-Street project: to defund democratic runners, and make lobbying a republican-only endeavor.

conspiracy nut:

WTF are you talking about?

And Al Gore, sheesh.

Funny coming from a guy who never tires of mocking "liberals" for refighting the 2000 election ...

Bob

Osama:

It's not like it's outside the realm of imagining that Abramoff might have decided to cover his bets with Democrats on certain committees and whatnot. Most lobbying firms try to influence both parties.

It's just that there's been no evidence of it.

I'd love to know what these idiots call an "Abramoff associate."

Bob

WTF are you talking about?
Well, you know, that conservative dominated media has naturally been all over this; a $700K campaign contribution difficulty involving Hillary. Or just possibly, it's a liberal media doing all it can to sweep it under the rug. You decide.

You can also Google.

And Al Gore, sheesh. My sentiments exactly. But I gather from this that Democrats violating laws don't register with your whine activator; but I also find that the possibility of Repubs violating laws sends your whining into overdrive. Interesting.

Most lobbying firms try to influence both parties.
Careful, agreeing with me gets people pilloried around here. Facts don't matter much here, only toeing the moonbat line.

a $700K campaign contribution difficulty involving Hillary.

Another "NewsMax" special. (expecting the Jeff Gannon byline)

Mrs. Clinton's campaign finance director, David Rosen, was acquitted last year on charges that he knowingly filed false reports with the FEC related to Paul's Hollywood event. But this latest agreement suggests that other campaign officials may be responsible for the same kind of violation. In a message posted Thursday to his blog, peterfpaul.com, the one-time Hillary supporter urged the authorities to follow up on the FEC findings. "Now that Hillary's treasurer admitted to making the false FEC reports that David Rosen was indicted and tried for, will the Justice Department act?," Mr. Paul wrote. "Will Hillary's role as a co-conspirator, colluder and aider and abettor be reviewed by the Office of Public Integrity and the Senate Ethics Committee, along with her role in misleading the federal investigation that led to Rosen's indictment rather than Grossman's?" Meanwhile, campaign officials staunchly maintain that Mrs. Clinton was not involved in any illegality. "This agreement makes clear that there was no violation of federal election law by the Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate Committee in connection with the August 13, 2000 event," campaign lawyer Marc Elias told the New York Sun.

Nothing to see here.

conspiracy nut wrote: Hillary and her little $700K problem, and what was that with Al Bore and his Buddhist monks?

rmck1 responded: WTF are you talking about? And Al Gore, sheesh.

conspiracy nut has no idea what he's talking about. He's too stupid. He just picks up these phrases (Dan Rather! Michael Moore!! Al Gore and Buddhist monks!!! Lefty lefty moonbatlefty moonbat!!!!!) from the rightwing talking point script and types them. He has no idea what they mean.

See, it's like this. A group of people are standing around having a political discussion. It gets quite heated sometimes, liberals and conservatives arguing, and all that. Then a funny looking little kid runs up to the group. He yells out "Hey, look at me!" When everyone looks, he sticks his thumbs in his ears and wiggles his fingers, sticks out his tongue, goes "Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!" and makes a loud fart-like raspberry sound, then runs away, giggling, obviously impressed with himself and all the attention he got.

That's conspiracy nut.

conspiracy nut:

Well, thanks there for making our point.

First, Al Gore is *irrelevant* here. It's just a waste of time to talk about. It isn't the *principle* of corruption that's under discussion here, it's the reality of who the current scandal effects.

As for this $700 million Hillary thing, I've seen you bandy it about a few times. But not another other one of your wingnut soul-mates. Why isn't rdw on the case? He watches at least as much Fox as you do.

If it had legs, don't you think your fellow wingnuts would be blithering about it as well?

I mean -- at the very least you could provide a reference if not a link.

Otherwise there's exactly zero reason to believe you.

Bob

Then a funny looking little kid runs up to the group. He yells out "Hey, look at me!" When everyone looks, he sticks his thumbs in his ears and wiggles his fingers, sticks out his tongue,

more like, he says "you're all gonna die!", then pees all over the rug, and pukes green-pea soup all over the place.

I can't believe that you all haven't seen this all over the conservative dominated media!

A fund-raising committee for Senator Clinton's 2000 campaign has agreed to pay a $35,000 civil penalty and to concede that reports it made to the federal government understated by more than $700,000 donations to a California celebrity gala held to benefit her Senate bid.

And surely you haven't forgotten Wooden Al and his Buddhist monk buddies? I can probably Google that, too.

But what am I thinking, this is information that goes against the heartfelt desires of moonbats everywhere, and so it must be false. I tell you, it's terrible not knowing what I'm talking about.

conspiracy nut:

NewsMax, LOL ! Correction, there's *no* reason to believe this warm little steaming brown morsel, is there.

Oooh, big Justice Department conspiracy to keep Hitlery Klintoon out of legal jep from Bush's FEC.

ROTFL !

C'mon, ya little propeller head. You can do better than *thaaaat* :)

Bob

First, Al Gore is *irrelevant* here.
Well, I certainly maintain that Al is irrelevant, but I was under the impression that your initial inquiry related to my statement:

Now you lefties clearly believe that all Repub congresspersons are corrupt to the core, and all Dem congresspersons are as pure as the driven snow

Show me a "tainted Democrat"

NewsMax, LOL ! Correction, there's *no* reason to believe this warm little steaming brown morsel, is there.

Their "source" is some bitter guy's blog comment.

NewsMax, LOL
CNN, LOL. Thanks for playing though.

(Perhaps you should hold off on the party until you know what the hell is going on around you. You really should have Googled when I told you to.)

conspiracy nut:

Okay, let's assume that AP story about Peter Paul (who's had a grudge against the Clintons for years) is true, and HCSC paid a $35k fine for underreporting a fundraising event.

So fucking what? This kind of thing is fairly routine.

What it has to do with the influence peddling scandal I have no idea.

Helpful hint: It doesn't rest on the straw man that all Republicans are evil minions of Satan and all Democrats are soldiers of the Archangel Michael.

Bob

conspiracy nut:

I didn't say show me one tainted Democrat in some kind of vaccuum. Sheesh, next you'll be pulling up old stories about Dan Rostenkowski and Jim Trafficant :)

I said show me a current congressional Democrat in either chamber who's been tainted by the Abramoff scandal.

Sheesh!

Bob

So fucking what? This kind of thing is fairly routine.
Once again, we see that your whining is activated only by Republican malfeasance.

Let's say that in response to Abramhoff's lobbying efforts, I said "So fucking what? This kind of thing is fairly routine." Because, after all, lobbying is. Organized lobbying is. Would you consider my lack of concern a reasonable response?

Should I consider your lack of concern a reasonable response?

conspiracy nut:

Just as I figured. You're a moral nihilist.

As if there's any equivalence between being bought by Abramoff a la the Duke and making an accounting mistake on a fundraiser.

Bob

I said show me a current congressional Democrat...
No you didn't. That may be what you wanted to ask, but it is not what you asked.

If you go to the RNC site, however, I believe you'll find the information you want. (And don't be surprised, it's no wonder that the DNC isn't putting this out.)

conspiracy nut: And surely you haven't forgotten Wooden Al and his Buddhist monk buddies? ... And Al is relevant as a corrupt politician.

OK, you snivelling little puke. Why don't you tell us exactly what crime Al Gore was found to be guilty of in that incident?

And you are so stupid and ignorant that you don't even know that the official, correct rightwing talking point is Buddhist nuns, not Buddhist monks.

You are a despicable lying sack of shit, and it's really worse than deliberate lying when you are so rock stupid and clueless that you don't even know the difference between what's true and what's a lie, you just mindlessly regurgitate whatever bullshit you are spoon-fed by Rush Limbaugh.

Every day, your comments here provide an excellent example of what utterly moronic cretins rightwingers are.

As if there's any equivalence between being bought by Abramoff a la the Duke and making an accounting mistake on a fundraiser.
Oh, I'm aware there's a difference. But I'll make 2 observations: first you didn't read the article. Second, the difference to you is which was done by Repubs and which was done by Dems.

conspiracy nut:

Well gods forbid, pistaschio head, you ever try to read in context.

I should suspect chronic literal-mindedness to be among your intellectual sins.

No, I'm not going over to the RNC site. What *you* could do, though, is pull something off of it that defines "Abramoff associate" and post it *here*. That would make all your moonbat friends cry, I'm sure :)

Bob

Once again, we see that your whining is activated only by Republican malfeasance.

Shorter conspiracy nut: IOKIYAR

Let's say that in response to Abramhoff's lobbying efforts, I said "So fucking what? This kind of thing is fairly routine." Because, after all, lobbying is. Organized lobbying is. Would you consider my lack of concern a reasonable response?

I'd say you were ignorant of the known facts about this case: - the dead casino owner, the extortion for a law to close a casino, then the extortion to re-open the casino.

Comparing that to what appears to amount to an accounting error (or maybe just sour grapes) in the cases of Gore and Clinton is again, a simple, basic, logical fallacy.

Every day, your comments here provide an excellent example of what utterly moronic cretins rightwingers are.
You're still pissed over the brocolli thing, and I want you to know that I understand and I forgive your mindless lashing out. Because God knows, you don't have the ability for anything else.

No, I'm not going over to the RNC site.
Funny, I regularly check the DNC site (it's like the funny papers). What's wrong? Afraid to step out of the echo chamber?

conspiracy nut:

No, walnut cranium, the difference is the severity of the crime.

I read the AP story. I'm not prejudged against the premier wire service in America the way I am against NewsMax :)

Your projective identification (trying to claim that it's us who won't own up to the sins of our party while you do backflips to excuse the sins of yours) is becoming tiresome.

I'm beginning to understand how SecularAnimist feels ...

Bob

And you know, when Kerry was running for president I never missed a day of not checking updates on his site.

That was a hoot, too.

I'm beginning to understand how SecularAnimist feels
Not until you've seen the brocolli thing.

the difference is the severity of the crime
Yes, I know, all Democratic crimes are just slight errors that anyone could make. Whereas Republican crimes stem from a visceral hatred of civilization itself.

I'm with ya.

Just as I figured. You're a moral nihilist.

Which is why the correct term is 'Marie Antoinette Nut'.

Bob
Try this one on. The Repubs are charged with being bought out by US business through contributions. Clinton was charged with being bought out by the Red Chinese through contributions.

How's your equivalency thing coming?

conspiracy nut:

Right. You're the guy who we can all trust to make judgment calls on the severity of political crimes while doing special pleading for the eternal relevancy of The Broccoli Incident.

LOL !

Oh Bugs I wish you were around to utter this phrase in your inimitatable Mel Blanc voice:

What a maroon ...

Bob

cn: You've still failed utterly to make any coherent case, except for the case that you're a moron - which you've proven more than adequately.

http://blogs.citypages.com/canderson/2005/12/post_1.asp

Check this out. Taste be damned, I chuckled quite loudly.

You're the guy who we can all trust to make judgment calls on the severity of political crimes
I don't believe I'm the one trying to make that judgement call, but I'll scroll back up to make sure I didn't say anything unwarranted.

Any comments on the Dukester agreeing to wear a wire?

Any comments on the Dukester agreeing to wear a wire?
Yep, if any politician we send up there is doing things that he doesn't want us to know about, hang 'em out.

Kinda low to wear a wire to save your own backside, but an argument as to whether it's ethical to use low-life politicians to catch low-life politicians is not something I have the stomach for.

The case for conspiracy nuts' claim that the Abramoff GOP Bribary and Corruption Scandal is insignificant in light of Evil Democrats:

Dems make accounting errors in tracking funding of campaign expenses.
Exhibit A: A NewsMax article sourced from an angry blogger.
Exhibit B: Buddhist Mon-, er, Nuns, Al Gore (funds returned, no quid pro quo even alleged, let alone proven).

Dems also took money from some of the same people who gave money to Abramoff.
Exhibit A: A Senator from Nevada who took Indian contributions, and regularly votes on gaming-related issues.

The case for conspiracy nuts' moronicy:
Exhibit A: See above case arguments.
Exhibit B: his posts.

The case for conspiracy nuts' claim that the Abramoff GOP Bribary and Corruption Scandal is insignificant in light of Evil Democrats:
Perhaps you can quote that claim for me. I was asked for tainted Dems, and I responded.

If you want to be reading things into my writing, make me sound like Charles Dickens; I like that stuff.

Exhibit B: Buddhist Mon-, er, Nuns, Al Gore (funds returned, no quid pro quo even alleged,
Heh, didn't have to be. Campaign contribution from foreign source.

Campaign contribution from foreign source.
Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

. . . could just as easily have been domestic Buddhist monks. Only jingoistic rednecks knee-jerk conclude that all Buddhist monks are fronts for Chinese Communist government agents (especially considering that communism is an atheistic doctrine).

I wonder who Jack Abramoff is a front for?
Or Richard Perle.
Or Paul Wolfowitz.
Or Ari Fleischer.
Or Larry Franklin.
Or any of the other co-indictees in the AIPAC scandal.

conspiracy nut: Not until you've seen the brocolli thing.

The broccoli thing was when conspiracy nut revealed that he doesn't know that vertebrate animals have central nervous systems and plants don't.

It was just more of the same stupidity and ignorance from an unbelievably stupid and ignorant idiot.

And conspiracy nut hasn't followed up to explain exactly what "corrupt" act Al Gore was found guilty of in connection with his speaking engagement at a Buddhist temple back in the 2000 election cycle. Why? Because conspiracy nut has no clue. All he knows is that "Al Gore ... Buddhist monks" are phrases from the rightwing scripted talking point archives, along with "Micheal Moore!!!" and "Dan Rather!!!" so he types them into his comments. He has no idea what they mean, and in fact he can't even type them up correctly, since the script actually refers to Buddhist nuns, not monks. That's what a pathetic moron conspiracy nut is.