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 10, 2006
By: Zachary Roth

ABRAMOFF AND THE DEMOCRATS....Its now clear that the GOP strategy for limiting the damage from the Abramoff scandal is to employ the Democrats were doing it too defense. And the press has been willing to help that strategy along. An Associated Press story, for instance, reported that a contribution to Democratic senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota had been made by the Coushatta Indians on Abramoffs instructions. But AP failed to note that its source for that story, Jimmy Faircloth, is not just the Coushattas lawyer, but a Republican operative.

Its no surprise that Republicans would hope to take out Dorgan as collateral damage in the Abramoff affair. Not only is he a red state Democrat, but, as the top Dem on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee he joined with John McCain earlier this year to hold the hearings into the Abramoff matter that got the ball rolling on the issue. Last month, in a piece headlined Dorgan Tangled in Abramoff Web, the Washington Post reported that Dorgan was among beneficiaries of the largest campaign contributions from Abramoff's associates and clients. And its true that in March 2001, Dorgan held a fundraising event at the MCI Center in Abramoffs skybox.

But Dorgan, who has been working on behalf of Indian tribes far longer than Abramoff has been bilking them, reported the gift as an in-kind contribution at the time. More important, the event was organized not by Abramoff but by Mike Smith, a colleague of Abramoff at the Greenberg Traurig lobbying firm. Smith, a veteran Democratic operative, had worked closely with Dorgans office before he joined Greenberg in 2000, a year before Abramoff did. Smith told Dorgans office that the box was owned by the Choctaw Indians, not by Abramoff something Smith himself was led to believe by Abramoff and his staff, according to a former Greenberg staffer.

But its not just Dorgan. The attempt to tie Democrats to Abramoff is breaking out all across the country and the press is buying it. AP reported last week (link no longer available) that in Arkansas, Republican and Democratic leaders are taking swipes at each other over both parties ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his associates (italics added). Democratic senators Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, AP reports, received money from Abramoff associates, including Ron Platt, a Democratic lobbyist.

Platts connection to the disgraced lobbyist had first publicly surfaced in December, when the Washington Post listed Platt as part of Team Abramoff, asserting that he lobbied for tribal clients of Jack Abramoff and...contributed money to politicians.

Its true that Platt and Abramoff had worked together on behalf of tribal clients at Greenberg. But the problem with making the link between Platt and Abramoff, as both the Post and AP try to do, is that Platts contributions pretty clearly have nothing to do with Abramoff. His wife contributed to Lincolns 1998 Senate run, three years before her husband started working with Abramoff. And Platt told me that his contribution to Pryor in 2004 came at the behest of the senators mother, an old personal friend. But that doesnt stop the AP from headlining the story, GOP, Dems, trade barbs over Abramoff ties.

The idea that Democratic lobbyists contributing to Democratic politicians were acting as part of Abramoffs scam is absurd on its face. But its an idea that the press, in its obsession with finding an objective storyline, cant resist. And this is just the beginning.

Zachary Roth 1:56 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (170)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

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."

Posted by: Al on January 10, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: reino on January 10, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Powerpuff on January 10, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

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

W: The earth is flat.

Reid: No it's not.

See? Balanced.

Posted by: alex on January 10, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! Political Witchhunt My Ass! on January 10, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

Up here in Canada were having an election and one of the major issues is a kick-back scandal involving the federal Liberals. But even the Liberals arent 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.

Posted by: Joe Canuck on January 10, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Mammon on January 10, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: steve duncan on January 10, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

"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.

Posted by: You Lie on January 10, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: Nemesis on January 10, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Mammon on January 10, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

Remember, Scooter Christ lied for your sins!

Posted by: Mammon on January 10, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: ckelly on January 10, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: WhoSays on January 10, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Liberal media
Liberal media
Liberal media

The sooner we get some, the better.

Posted by: craigie on January 10, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Thinker on January 10, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Stefan on January 10, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Joe Canuck on January 10, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on January 10, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Zachary Roth wrote: But its an idea that the press, in its obsession with finding an "objective" storyline, cant 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.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 10, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Blasphemer!

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

Posted by: Mammon on January 10, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: lib on January 10, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: shortstop on January 10, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

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?"

Posted by: Kman on January 10, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

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!!

Posted by: scott on January 10, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

"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

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 10, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

>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.

Posted by: doesn't matter on January 10, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

>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.

Posted by: doesn't matter on January 10, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: scott on January 10, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: ET on January 10, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: G. Jones on January 10, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

AL you have them 40 names for us?

Posted by: scott on January 10, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Roger Keeling on January 10, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Roger Keeling on January 10, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: nlacey on January 10, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: wishful thinking on January 10, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on January 10, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

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. Whats bad for Republicans hegemony is good for democratic hegemony. The two-party system at its worst.

Posted by: Jon Karak on January 10, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

[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. . .

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on January 10, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

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)
Its 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."

Posted by: susan on January 10, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

"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.

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 10, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: rmck1 on January 10, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: POed Liberal on January 10, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: POed Liberal on January 10, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

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!"

Posted by: steve duncan on January 10, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: elfranko on January 10, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 10, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

RICO: The House of Representative is a RICO.

A repukeliscum-influenced corrupt organization.

Any organization which is REPUKELISCUM influenced is a RICO.

Posted by: POed Liberal on January 10, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on January 10, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

hey osama.......


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

youll get a lot of oops = dead americans


Posted by: thisspaceavailable on January 10, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on January 10, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Eric Paulsen on January 10, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

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".

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 10, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

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. .. ).

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on January 10, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 10, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on January 10, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: POed Liberal on January 10, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: craigie on January 10, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Mazurka on January 10, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Powerpuff on January 10, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: wks on January 10, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Roger Keeling on January 10, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on January 10, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Brad Warbiany on January 10, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: rmck1 on January 10, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Dawn on January 10, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

Democrats were part of the K Street Project?

No?

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

Posted by: theorajones on January 10, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on January 10, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on January 10, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: rmck1 on January 10, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

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

Anything else?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on January 10, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: rmck1 on January 10, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: rmck1 on January 10, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on January 10, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 10, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: rmck1 on January 10, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on January 10, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

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 I even have a link, ooh wait, I have another.

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.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: rmck1 on January 10, 2006 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

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
Since immediately after that you asked
Show me a "tainted Democrat"
And Al is relevant as a corrupt politician.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on January 10, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

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.)

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: rmck1 on January 10, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: rmck1 on January 10, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: rmck1 on January 10, 2006 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

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.)

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 10, 2006 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: rmck1 on January 10, 2006 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on January 10, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: rmck1 on January 10, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

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

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

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on January 10, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

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?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: rmck1 on January 10, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on January 10, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

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

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

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 10, 2006 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

Any comments on the Dukester agreeing to wear a wire?

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 10, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on January 10, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 10, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on January 10, 2006 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

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.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 10, 2006 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with you for once, c-nut. Anyone violating the public trust should pay a steep penalty. Ouster from office, prosecution, prison time not in a federal country club...

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 10, 2006 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK
But the defenders of the working man made sure Swartzenegger's efforts to help teachers control their dues went down.

While it would have changed the default position, and required more frequent action from people who did not prefer that default position, it would not have made it any easier for the public employees (incl., but not limited to, teachers) to whom it applied to control their dues.

As it is now, a public employee union member must act once when they join to set whether or not they want their dues used for political purposes, and then need take further action only if that preference changes as long as they remain in the union.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 10, 2006 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

I just don't see the point of conspiracy nut's posts nor do I see the point in arguing with any of them.

Posted by: Jim J on January 10, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

Apparently not a single Democrat received money from Abramoff.

It's all yours Republicans. Run with it!

Yee haw.

---

Hillary can jump in a lake for all I care. Still, her FEC filing was probably minor and a fine was paid.

---

Gore isn't in office or running. He was never charged with a crime. Doesn't look like he did anything horrible, just impolitic.

---

Oh, btw, Bush is a failure.

Posted by: MarkH on January 10, 2006 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER

Aired January 8, 2006 - 11:00 ET

BLITZER: And welcome back to our special "Late Edition." We're reporting live from Jerusalem. It's been a week of dramatic developments, not only here in Israel, but in Washington as well, with one of the city's most powerful lobbyists pleading guilty in a bribery investigation and a potentially major shakeup among the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill.

Joining us now to talk about all this and more is the chairman of the Democratic party in the United States, Governor Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont.

Governor, thanks very much for joining us.

(Snip)

BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...

BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?

DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.
BLITZER: (Sigh) Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, we got to leave it right there.

Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party, always speaking out bluntly, candidly.

Appreciate your joining us on "Late Edition."

DEAN: Thanks, Wolf. Safe flight back.

BLITZER: Thank you very much.

Posted by: Mazurka on January 10, 2006 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

Can Dorgan bring legal action, for defamation of character?

Posted by: chuckie on January 10, 2006 at 9:00 PM | PERMALINK

The idea that Democratic lobbyists contributing to Democratic politicians were acting as part of Abramoffs scam is absurd on its face. But its an idea that the press, in its obsession with finding an objective storyline, cant resist. And this is just the beginning.

Zachary Roth

The idea that Democrats are not lying through their teeth to save their collective asses is what is absurd on it's face. I love it!

Posted by: Fat White Guy on January 10, 2006 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Canuck, I know what you mean. We here over in the Saskatch Province beg for more corrupt officials. Even the local Mounties take bribes and donate them to the local orphanage... in the name of the briber.

Posted by: bankon on January 10, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: SecularAnimist

You could consider lying about knowing it was a fundraiser when white house internal records repeatedly referred to the 29 april 1966 event as a fundraiser immoral and corrupt.

You could also consider accepting 11 checks for $5,000 from nuns and monks inside a tax-exempt temple immoral and corrupt.

There was also all the corruption involved in organizing this event and luandering the money as well as having to give it back.

You don't have to be guilty or covicted of a crime to be corrupt and immoral. The facts of what Gore and his cohorts did speak for themselves.

Posted by: Fat White Guy on January 10, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

Fat White Guy:

And the fact that you call yourself Fat White Guy speaks for *it*self.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 10, 2006 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINK

And its true that in March 2001, Dorgan held a fundraising event at the MCI Center in Abramoffs skybox.....But Dorgan, who has been working on behalf of Indian tribes far longer than Abramoff has been bilking them, reported the gift as an in-kind contribution at the time. More important, the event was organized not by Abramoff but by Mike Smith, a colleague of Abramoff at the Greenberg Traurig lobbying firm. - Kevin

So he accepted the gift from a person working for Abramoff's company....and claims he thought Abramoff wasn't involved.

Question- when he declared the gift. Who did he list as the giver?

Posted by: Mcaristotle on January 10, 2006 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINK

And the fact that you call yourself Fat White Guy speaks for *it*self.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1

You are right. The fact that I am honest about by appearance does speak for itself.

The fact that you have no response other than to make fun of my appearance and screen name speaks volumes about your lack of intellect. I love it!

Posted by: Fat White Guy on January 10, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK
By continuously pointing fingers at repubes only tells me that you are perfectly happy with the demoncrats corruption...Posted by: Lurker42
There is a major difference between party members here: If a Republican is found guilty, Republicans cry Partisan! Unfair! If a Democrat is found guilty, Democrats say, He betrayed our trust. Out with him
The facts of what Gore and his cohorts did speak for themselves. Posted by: Fat White Guy

Here's the Buddhist Nun story. It was a phony story from the getgo, but a goodie that Republicontariars never tire of misstating like all their other Al Gore stories. It's the old smear and lie syndrome that infects every Bush bitter-ender on the planet.

It's a similar story with Hillary Clinton and fundraising.
Senator Clinton's 2000 Fundraising Committee Fined
A $35,000 fine was levied against a fundraising committee for Senator Hillary Clinton's 2000 election campaign by the Federal Election Commission. The fine was a direct result of Andrew Grossman, who, acting in the capacity of the committee's treasurer, had underreported more than $700,000 in donations raised from a Hollywood celebrity concert fundraiser. The event was held on August 13, 2000 and featured celebrities such as Jennifer Aniston, Cher and Muhammad Ali.
The major financial backer of the fundraiser, Peter Paul, had three felony and fraud convictions from the 1970s and 1980s. Shortly after the celebrity fundraiser, the FBI launched an investigation into Paul's claims that he paid nearly $2 million in expenses for the event, which was far more than originally reported by Clinton's fundraising committee, the New York Sun reported.
Senator Clinton has tried to distance herself from the fundraising scandal, stating she was not involved with the inaccurate reporting. Marc Elias, a lawyer for Hillary Clinton, said the agreement with the Federal Election Commission "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." Yet in the text of the conciliation agreement, it states the Federal Election Commission conducted an investigation and found "probable cause to believe New York Senate 2000 and Andrew Grossman, in his official capacity as treasurer," violated campaign election law.

Unsurprisingly, the Peter Paul is trying to implicate Senator Clinton. He has all the credibility of Ken Starr and CN.

Question- when he declared the gift. Who did he list as the giver? Posted by: Mcaristotle
From the Choctaws Posted by: Mike on January 10, 2006 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK

1. Abramoff looks, talks and dresses like Legs Diamond. No sane person can doubt that he is a gangster. Among things, he is the only figure in this scandal looking at 9/12 years of federal joint time.

2. Abramoff is a Republican. Does anyone wish to dispute that?

3. Abramoff's campaign contributions (and those of Frau Abramoff) went 100% to Republicans.

He is a GOP gangster in a pin-striped suit and an over-priced mouthpiece.

Posted by: Steve High on January 10, 2006 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

The fact that you have no response other than to make fun of my appearance and screen name speaks volumes about your lack of intellect. I love it!

Having locked horns with Bob myself, I can safely say his IQ is probably twice that of yours, not to mention his grasp of history, culture, religion, philosophy, and progressive rock, to name a few.

You're on crack if you think you're even near his league.

Serious, serious crack.

Keep smokin'.

Posted by: Windhorse on January 11, 2006 at 12:32 AM | PERMALINK

Hmm. The "Dems were doing it to" strategy is wholly unnecessary. Allow me to explain why the Abramoff scandal, like so many others before it, will prove to be more devestating to the Dems then it could possibly be to the GOP, much less conservatives.

The Dems bleat daily that they are the "minority" party. That they are the "loyal opposition." Yet who actually does something when a scandal arises? Who opened the investigation into the Plame non-leak? Who is pursuing the leak of an NSA program that threatens national security and possibly civil liberties? Who addressed possible torture at Abu Ghraib? Who is set to clean house over the Abramoff tempest in a teapot that threatens to implicate some of the biggest names in the Republican Party, perhaps the very culture of Republican politics?

Not the "loyal opposition" ... but rather the Bush Administration.

Teh public knows this. Or is growing to know this with each passing day. They, the voting public, will be left to wonder, if the "loyal opposition" cannot even muster the courage to bring such scandals to the light of day, then for what are they good for?

Americans are already starting to realize that if a "loyal opposition" cannot even do its job of defeating the party in powers' corruption and misgovernance (examples of which are legion, apparently), then how can we possibly entrust them with the real job of governing the nation?

Rather, American voters will know they would be wiser to turn to the REpublican Party, which has made some partisan, ideological and hubristic missteps, yes - even engaged in a pattern of criminal behavior it would seem. All those sins, yes, but still the GOP is not so grossly incompetent or lacking in power that it would allow what it has done over the past few years to pass, if it had been the Democrats who had done it.

Truly, the Dems attack the Abramoff scandal at their peril.

Bush has simply to give a speech to the American peoople in which he asks of the Democrats, "Where were you, the party that was supposed to keep us in check, during the troubling 12 months that have recently passed? Keeping politicians honest has been your only job this past few years, but you have failed at that job. America has found you wanting. America needs better from you."

I would not be surprised if some variation of the above were to be included in the upcoming SOTU.

Posted by: William G. Henders on January 11, 2006 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

3. Abramoff's campaign contributions (and those of Frau Abramoff) went 100% to Republicans.

Posted by: Steve High on January 10, 2006 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

I'd dispute that. Can we look it up?

Posted by: McA on January 11, 2006 at 4:45 AM | PERMALINK

免费看电影
恐怖片
动作片
战争片
爱情片
科幻片
动画片
喜剧片
灾难片
连续剧

Posted by: 免费在线看电影 on January 11, 2006 at 4:59 AM | PERMALINK

You know, speaking of ol' Wooden Al and his fancy Red Chinese fundraising, Abramhoff can just claim that there is "no controlling legal authority".

Hey, it worked for Al!

And having an evening to mull this over, I apologize for forgetting the biggie: Senator Chappaquiddick and date drowning in Oldsmobiles.

Seems if you're a Democrat you can get away with anything.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 11, 2006 at 9:03 AM | PERMALINK

William G. Henders:

Your analysis is hypocritical in the extreme. Read the National
Review editorial posted a few times upthread. Read yesterday's
George Will. You guys are supposed to be for limited government.

Criticizing us for not controlling your behavior while you're in power
has all the moral authority of an alcoholic breadwinner blaming his
spouse for his own drinking in the name of keeping the family going.

"But you enabled me!" Yeah. And you're *still* a total asshole.

Corpulent Caucasian Male:

> "And the fact that you call yourself
> Fat White Guy speaks for *it*self."

> You are right. The fact that I am honest
> about by appearance does speak for itself.

Honest about your appearance? What do you think this is, dude,
The Dating Game? This is cyberapce. Appearance, ethnicity, race,
educational credentials, etc. are all totally irrelevant. We post
here anonymously. Some of us here may choose their real names as a
handle, but it isn't required. And it isn't required for a reason.

Wearing your weight, race and gender on your sleeve pegs you.
Before a single word rolls off your keyboard, you've identified
yourself as a stereotypical reactionary. And -- lo and behold --
every post you've written has only etched this in ... blubber :)

> The fact that you have no response other
> than to make fun of my appearance and screen
> name speaks volumes about your lack of intellect.

It speaks volumes about my perceptiveness,
dude. It also comments on how long I've
been debating strangers in these forums.

What's of course most amusing about this is that a "fat white
guy" like yourself no doubt finds blacks, women, gays and other
minorities and groups outside of power (womem are a slight
majority) extremely annoying when they wear their race, gender,
ethnicity, sexual orientation on their sleeves, claiming to be
oppressed. That's, in fact, probably why you chose Fat White
Guy as a handle -- to sardonically mock identity politics.

Am I right?

Of course, whining that I've just "made fun of your appearance"
gives the lie to this whole routine. You'd like to be loved *just
because* you're a fat slob -- just like those other out-groups.

Awwww ... isn't that *special*.

> I love it!

No you don't, actually. Your catchphrase there is a transparent
defense mechanism. You have a personality disorder and
suffer a great deal of self-hatred, which you need to deny.

That'll be all for today. See the nurse
on your way out for your next appointment.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 11, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

cyberapce = cyberspace.

Posted by: rmck1 on January 11, 2006 at 9:53 AM | PERMALINK

Bush has simply to give a speech to the American peoople in which he asks of the Democrats, "Where were you, the party that was supposed to keep us in check, during the troubling 12 months that have recently passed? Keeping politicians honest has been your only job this past few years, but you have failed at that job. America has found you wanting. America needs better from you."

Hell, yes, now that's a slogan: "Why didn't somebody stoooooop us?!"

Posted by: shortstop on January 11, 2006 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

I can't stop laughing at Henders' preposterous argument. You could do a whole GOP campaign on this:

"We're the Robbers...Just Where Were the Cops When America Needed Them?"

"Republicans Are Troubled Children; Dems Have Failed to Set Parental Boundaries."

"America Expects That Every Dem Will Do His Duty... and Lock Us Up."

Posted by: shortstop on January 11, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Seems if you're a Democrat you can get away with anything.

Since it wasn't a crime, there was nothing to get away from.

You, on the other hand, clearly can't get away from your own mendacity and obsession with lies.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 11, 2006 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

McA: I'd dispute that. Can we look it up?

So, basically you dispute the claim before you even have any evidence that contradicts it.

Showing clearly your preconceptions and how they control you.

You look up the proof that the claim is not true and present it.

If you can, moron.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 11, 2006 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

Since it wasn't a crime
Mary Jo Kopechne was not available for comment.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 11, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

Steve High: Abramoff's campaign contributions (and those of Frau Abramoff) went 100% to Republicans.

McA: I'd dispute that. Can we look it up?

Thanks to the power of Google -- yes we can!

Abramoff has made $261,918 in personal campaign contributions, of which $172,933 has gone to Republican candidates and $88,918 to conservative special interest groups. No donations were made to Democrats.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:mWJIL92unOoJ:www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Jack_Abramoff.php+abramoff+campaign+contributions&hl=en

Posted by: Stefan on January 11, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

Kennedy...Kopechne...Cuba...Mao...Soviet menace...Chappaquiddick...communist...Castro...bleep. Blip. Flop.

Posted by: Random Conspiracy Nut Word Generator running through its entire limited vocabulary on January 11, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

Weak attempt; you forgot moonbat, and lefty, and Wooden Al, and Karl Marx.

There's undoubtedly more, but poking fun at you moonbats necessarily covers a wide variety of topics, so a complete list would be difficult.

Oh, and good job leaving this on multiple threads, keeps you from having to think more than once.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 11, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut:

Did you know that Al Gore was at the Buddhist temple fundraiser that you refer to, for less than 15 minutes? Does every whistlestop a politician makes become prima facie evidence that they were aware of the nature of the fundraiser or that they are culpable for any failure to comply with election law by the sponsors? Are you also aware that every penny riased from the Buddhist fundraiser was returned by the Gore campaign? It always helps to understand context, particularly when the source of information is NewsMax, a bastion of journalistic integrity (Richard Mellon-Scaife is on the Board of Directors by the way, when he is sober...).

I, for one, am glad Hillary Clinton's campaign was fined by the FEC. They should have been.

As a long-time observer of politics, there is no question that both parties try to skirt the election laws. That is the American way.

It is the egregiousness of the modern GOP in utterly gutting the laws, that is so remarkable. The Republican Party has evidently concluded that winning elections is more important to them than following the Constitution or the rules of fair play. This attitude will eventually destroy this great country, in my opinion. The Founding Fathers took a dim view of political parties, or factions as they termed them, for this very reason.

Stephen Kriz

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on January 11, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Mary Jo Kopechne was not available for comment.

Neither are over 2000 American soldiers allowed to die by George Bush in Iraq.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 11, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: . . . keeps you from having to think more than once.

And having your lips glued to Bush's posterior apparently keeps you from thinking even once.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 11, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

It's not difficult, on the other hand, to list all of conspiracy nut's inanities on Kevin's blog.

Merely google . . .

"Posted by: conspiracy nut", "political animal"

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 11, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, since a group of Republican judges has now ruled that Ronnie Earle's case against DeLay is not meritless, will the Bushasskissers (conspiracy nut, Steve White, rdw, Mike K, Red State Mike, tbrosz, Freedom F*cker, McAnustotle, Charlie in his various permutations, et al.) proffer their apologies for defaming him?

We won't hold our collective breaths.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 11, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

There's undoubtedly more....

No more...tiny vocabulary depleted...can not add more information to highly limited memory space...whiz...fizz...FLOP.

Posted by: Random Conspiracy Nut Word Generator on January 11, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

Are you also aware that every penny riased from the Buddhist fundraiser was returned by the Gore campaign?
And the Repubs are returning the Abramhoff contributions. So that makes it all OK, huh?

particularly when the source of information is NewsMax
Had you paid a modicum of attention, you would have noticed that my source was not NewsMax.

It is the egregiousness of the modern GOP in utterly gutting the laws, that is so remarkable
Shall I list the multiple times the Clinton campaign got in trouble for taking money from the Red Chinese?

I love the continued attitude that Repubs are evil to the core, and Dems are pure as the driven snow (and yes, I read your drive-by nod in the direction of bipartisanship, but I also read the rest of your comment). But as I've pointed out before, around 75% of people think all politicians are corrupt. Finding out that politicians are corrupt is not going to astonish anyone. Second, everybody thinks their reps are good guys, they just hate everyone elses.

Put these together, and there is going to be a lot of "this ain't news" (public perception here). If their rep is caught up, their rep may well not get re-elected. But if Ted Kennedy is caught up (I see he's also on the receipt list), do you think MA is going to elect a Repub instead? If someone from WY is caught up, do you think they are going to elect a Dem?

At the end of all this, there will be a collective yawn from the voting public. There will be some reps replaced, largely with another from the same party. And lastly, there will be a big "lobbying reform bill" where congresspersons will assure us they've voted to cut off their own bennies. Right.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 11, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Shall I list the multiple times the Clinton campaign got in trouble for taking money from the Red Chinese?

Sure, if you also list the numerous times the GOP got in trouble for taking money from the Red Chinese.

(And btw, are you sure all those Chinese were red, idiot? Cause if you aren't, then you pretty much confirm that you are the fool we all think you are.)

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 11, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: . . . I love the continued attitude that Repubs are evil to the core, and Dems are pure as the driven snow . . .

You've always loved fairy tales.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 11, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Time magazine page 38- graphic showing dems getting money 1999-2004 or 5, from"Abramoff, his wife, the tribes who did business with him and Sun Cruz Casinos" Now I forget when Kidan and Abramoff defrauded Gus Boulis for Sun Cruz and I guess 1999 and 2000 were included to imply Clinton, but I'm from OK where there are 39 tribes so I guess we are all 'Abramoff sources' so the press can lump all money as Abramoff money??? Time sucks

Posted by: k on January 11, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Conservative trolls: The Abramoff and other GOP scandals will have no impact on the upcoming elections - the public will yawn . . .

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Rasmussen begs to differ: In Montana, Republican Senator Conrad Burns has lost a double-digit lead against two Democrats vying for the right to square off against him in November.

BTW: Bush 44% approval and still moldering in the mid-40s. Clinton? Never below 53% his entire second term. It must suck to be a conservative right now, watching their own political movement implode just because they worship a lameass Bush as a god who can do no wrong.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

In the infamous words of Norman and Fat White Lie (are they the same?) . . .

I LOVE IT!

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 11, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

Just because I know you all are interested

A former aide to U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., has negotiated a plea deal with prosecutors in which he is expected to admit to bribery of public officials and conspiracy, the Associated Press has learned. [source]
Once again, good luck separating Abramhoff from all other corruption.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 11, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Once again, good luck separating Abramhoff from all other corruption.

Thanks, but we don't need your wishes of luck.

Jefferson isn't front page news all over the country.

Abramoff, Libby, and DeLay are.

And Democrats haven't been falling all over themselves or changing the rules of Congress to protect and defend Jefferson, like they have with Abramoff, Libby, and DeLay.

So, rather, LOL to you in your desperate hope that the GOP can somehow spin this corruption to taint the Dems with an equal brush.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 11, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

AOG
Jefferson isn't front page news all over the country.
That Republican dominated media is a real force in politics, isn't it?

Anyway, about 75% of Americans already think all politicians are corrupt. You're going to need that luck, better take it.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 11, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

Bush 44% approval and going nowhere fast.

GOP imploding at every level.

In the good ol' USA these days, the Dems are starting to think it smells a lot like napalm did to Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 11, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: That Republican dominated media is a real force in politics, isn't it?

Maybe if conservatives weren't busy fleecing other people they could take the time to be journalists and own papers, but then the idea that the media is a liberal bastion is a conservative myth, so never mind.

Anyway, about 75% of Americans already think all politicians are corrupt.

Only need 51% of the remaining 25% to gain the advantage, so not quite the mountain you would have us believe must be climbed.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 11, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

Bush 44% approval and going nowhere fast.
Here's your clue: Support Bush or support Dems are not the only options available.

but then the idea that the media is a liberal bastion is a conservative myth
Sure, that's why we're hearing all about Hillary and Jefferson's problems instead of Abramhoff. Oh wait...

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 11, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

Bush 44% approval and going nowhere fast.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 11, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

It was a lot lower a month ago. Implying some movement...in an upward direction.

But keep repeating stuff and your bubble wall gets thicker..

Posted by: McA on January 12, 2006 at 2:34 AM | PERMALINK

Its now clear that the GOP strategy for limiting the damage from the Abramoff scandal is to employ the Democrats were doing it too defense. The idea that Democratic lobbyists contributing to Democratic politicians were acting as part of Abramoffs scam is absurd on its face.

Posted by: Cowboy on January 12, 2006 at 1:09 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