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

March 8, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

ABRAMOFF TALKS....Jack Abramoff on his supposedly nonexistent relationship with Newt "My Revolution Has Been Betrayed" Gingrich: "I have more pictures of [Newt] than I have of my wife."

Ouch. I wouldn't want to be Newt or Abramoff's wife.

UPDATE: Here's the full Vanity Fair article this is taken from.

Kevin Drum 12:34 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (49)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Ouch. I wouldn't want to be Newt or Abramoff's wife.

Kind of goes without saying.

Posted by: E. Henry Thripshaw on March 8, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

I love the way canaries sing, but will the MSM air his music?

Posted by: alex on March 8, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Jack Abramoff, the Heidi Fleiss of politics. Wait a minute. You're right. They are in the same business

Posted by: Jeff II on March 8, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

"I have more pictures of [Newt] than I have of my wife."

That's just wrong on so many levels...

Posted by: Gregory on March 8, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

This whole continuing "I have pictures" thing by Abramoff is sounding more and more like the promotion of a bidding war, as though the press might only superficially be concerned about the scintillating "gotcha" that might only be provided by a visual image contradicting GinGrinch. I however have greater trust that the press will hunker down and do the hard work of investigating and uncovering the truth.

Heh.
--
HRlaughed

Posted by: HRlaughed on March 8, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Or any of Newt's wives.

Posted by: Roger Ailes on March 8, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Does any of this matter?

Posted by: lib on March 8, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Does any of this matter? Posted by: lib

If you have to ask that question, the answer would just confuse you.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 8, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

I'm going to have to watch Brokeback Mountain again to get that mental imagery out of my head. Hopefully the pictures are in line with previous "Abramoff photos" and no parts of Newt's anatomy are more than 20 pixels high.

Posted by: toast on March 8, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

I have an image of Newt saying to Jack, "God, I wish I knew how to quit you!"

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 8, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Please-o-please let those be fully clothed pictures of Newt.

(shutter)

Posted by: zoe kentucky on March 8, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Jack! Post them on your blog already.

Posted by: EmmaAnne on March 8, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Or Abramoff's boyfriend?? After all, you put Abramoff, Noe, Cliff May, Grover Norquist and Ken Tomlinson next to each other and you have half the cast of "Prison Bear Daddies Go Wild." Am I right?

Posted by: Brian on March 8, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

The article notes that he was going to sell the pictures of him & the President to the highest bidder (and the bidding reached 7 figures), but then changed his mind because the democrats said they would exploit them. Oops.

Posted by: Ugh on March 8, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

> The article notes that he was going to sell the
> pictures of him & the President to the highest
> bidder (and the bidding reached 7 figures), but
> then changed his mind because the democrats said
> they would exploit them. Oops.

Oops indeed - if that story can be substantiated, then Abramoff is probably looking at another 20 years for blackmail. And of course those pictures would be introduced into the public record at trial...

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on March 8, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

This is such a non-issue. The liberal Washington Post has already said that this is a bipartisan "scandal." I'm sure Abramoff talks at length about how he directed money to Democrats. There are many more important things to be focused on, such as frequently amending the Constitution to define marriage and ban flag burning.

I've said it before: Santorum/Keyes '08!

Posted by: HappyConservative on March 8, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Santorum will certainly have plenty of free time to plan a presidential campaign after this year.

Maybe he'll actually re-establish a residence in the state that he represented.

Posted by: Ringo on March 8, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Cranky -

He was going to sell them to media outlets for publication, not sure where the blackmail comes in (the Dems were going to exploit them after publication, I presume).

Posted by: Ugh on March 8, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

How many Republicans have been indicted, pled guilty, and/or resigned in disgrace over the past year?
We're gonna ride this wave of corruption all the way to victory in '06!

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Santorum/Keyes '08!

No wonder you're so happy, you either drunk, delusional or both.

Since Santorum/Keyes is just about the most nightmarish combo I can imagine, try this baby on for size:

Clinton/Clinton '08!

Posted by: zoe kentucky on March 8, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, Conspriacy Nut, you're just so gosh darn cute!

(coochie, coochie)

Posted by: zoe kentucky on March 8, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

"Not one Dime" Howard Dean. Oops. Okay just a few dimes but less than those other guys. Hey Bush is listening to your phone calls!

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Why do some conservatives still think Keyes is a viable candidate? He gets his ass kicked every time he runs, whether for president or senator of various states.

But by all means, run him again--maybe he could knock off Santorum in the Pennsylvania primary, ensuring a Democratic victory in the fall, and a running mate with an open schedule in '08.

Posted by: Ringo on March 8, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK


Does any of this matter? Posted by: lib

If you have to ask that question, the answer would just confuse you.


What does the wingnuts' response tell you?


Posted by: lib on March 8, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

The constitutional qualifications for Vice-President are the same as for President, which means that twice-elected-President Bill Clinton could _not_ be elected Vice-President.

Posted by: Ironist on March 8, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK
the Dems were going to exploit them Posted by: Ugh at 1:37 PM
That was Scott McClellan's reason for not releasing them. Posted by: Mike on March 8, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, let's everyone lay off of HappyConservative. As a lifelong liberal, I cannot even begin to express the joy I would feel if the Republicans nominated a Santorum/Keyes ticket in 2008. That would make Goldwater '64 look like a smashing success.

Posted by: Doug on March 8, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

"I have more pictures of [Newt] than I have of my wife."

That puts me in mind of a scene on "The Simpsons" where Mayor Quimby and Chief Wiggums were threatening each other:

Wiggums: Back off, Quimby. Remember, I've got pictures!

Quimby: You don't scare me. That could be anyone's ass.

Posted by: Stefan on March 8, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, let's everyone lay off of HappyConservative. As a lifelong liberal, I cannot even begin to express the joy I would feel if the Republicans nominated a Santorum/Keyes ticket in 2008. That would make Goldwater '64 look like a smashing success. Posted by: Doug

Goldwater!? Hell, Santorum/Keyes ticket would have made George Wallace electable.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 8, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Folks, HappyConservative is a parody.

But not as much of a parody as "compassionate conservative"....

Posted by: Stefan on March 8, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

I have more pictures of (Newt) than I do of my wife.

Is that what the young folks are calling it nowadays? Ugh.

Posted by: Tripp on March 8, 2006 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

No.

The "pictures" thing is about trying to twist the Republican Culture of Corruption issue, into a "politics of personal destruction - wah, big mean Democrats control the Liberal Media, and are making up stuff to make us look bad" issue.

Otherwise - I think the photographs issue is utterly irrelevant. If there's a credible connection between Abramoff and Bush - it's going to be on someone's crooked accounting ledger somewhere. Not in a photo. Open the books, Mister President. Oh - you don't have anything to hide?

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on March 8, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

Only King George has the right to privacy. Now you serfs get back to work!

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on March 8, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

Abramoff serves the same purpose as Lewinsky...

Abramoff is playing the role of spoiler to the GOP... he doesn't sound like a gop operative... he is a jewish operative... outing gopers who might stray from the Israeli cause....

The outfit? -- sheer chutzpah.... and a coded message to zionists... that he is one of THEM - not one of us.

Lewinsky and Abramoff... same ticks and fleas from the same beast... Israel within our own country.

Posted by: TJ on March 8, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

That's some seriously wacko stuff TJ.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on March 8, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

Does any of this matter?
Posted by: lib on March 8, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

I seem to remember Democrats asking the same question about Clinton's blowjob. If the Clenis mattered, then a multi-million-dollar Republican corruption scandal involving the likes of Tom DeLay, Grover Norquist, and Ralph Reed (at minimum) surely qualifies.

Posted by: lucidity on March 8, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

I just looked at the article. Not the pictures *I* was hoping for. :-)

Posted by: EmmaAnne on March 8, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

TJ:
I find your theories interesting, and I would like to sign up for your newsletter.

Tell me - what do you think of Larry Franklin, Chandra Levy, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, and Ari Fleischer?

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on March 8, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Oh yeah, and I also forgot.
Madonna too. . .

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on March 8, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

lucidity

Perhaps I should make myself clear.

My question was intended to suggest that unless some big Republican big shot is found screwing a dog in the town green in the nude and in front of a million people, the enablers of the Republican misleaders are going to continue to support the GOP. So in the sense that there will be no discernible consequences to the Republicans in the November election, as is likely to be the case if past is any guide, all this does not really matter.

Posted by: lib on March 8, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

zoe kentucky >"...Clinton/Clinton '08!"

Oh yea !

Great weapon against the ReThuglicans; as soon as it was announced half of them would have heart attacks & that would so over load the medical system that lots of them would die off

Democratic Landslide !!!

Ironist >"...means that twice-elected-President Bill Clinton could _not_ be elected Vice-President."

Uhh, best you go actually read the Constitution because you are very Wrong !

Bill Clinton can never be elected President again but nothing in the Constitution says he can`t be Vice President (or President if the President were to step aside once he were VP...)

"Amendment 22 - Presidential term limits

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once..."

nothing about the Vice President

Many are qualified to be President/VPresident but few are elected (note the difference ?)

"Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime." - Adlai E. Stevenson,

Posted by: daCascadian on March 8, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

Newt Gingrich is a dope-smokin, draft-dodgin, womanizing pervert just like Bill Clinton, whom Newt loved to criticize. Proving my point again, namely Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican.

Incidentally, if only the prosecutors threaten Jack Abramoff with life in prison, we may finally find out who kidnapped the Lindbergh baby, who was on the grassy knoll in Dallas and the secret formula for Coca-Cola..

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on March 8, 2006 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK

Uhh, best you go actually read the Constitution because you are very Wrong !

Bill Clinton can never be elected President again but nothing in the Constitution says he can`t be Vice President

There is considerable dispute of that, centering around the proper construction of Amendment XII's declaration that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States" along with Amendment XXII, which you've quoted the most relevant bit of.

The dominant view among most informed commentators seems to be that the right way to read those together is that Amendment XXII creates a qualification for the Presidency which is within the scope of the Amendment XIIs extension of Presidential qualifications to the Vice Presidency.

The minority view (which I personally hold to) is that the right way to read those is that Amendment XXII, as it goes out of its way to state that it creates a requirement for election to the Presidency, rather than (as Article II does) requirements to hold the office of the Presidency, does not create a qualification for the office, and that Amendment XII only extends qualifications for the office of the Presidency to the Vice Presidency, not any hypothetical (at the time Amendment XII was adopted) additional electoral requirements that are not requirements to hold the office, and, therefore that, indeed, Bill Clinton could be elected Vice President, and could assume the Presidency by succession from the Vice Presidency, or any other office in the line of succession, though he could not be elected to the office of the Presidency again.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 8, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK
Kinda defeats the spirit of that whole Amendment, though, don't you think?

Not really.

Hypothetically, each sitting President could then run as VP with a figurehead POTUS and either officially resign, or defacto continue as President indefinitely?!

Well, the succession process is already a potential back door around the election process if abused; the principal safeguard against that is public vigilance (and, of course, and greed -- who would you trust to be elected President and then voluntarily hand over power to someone else, either de facto or de jure?)

Luckily for those of us in the "reality-based" world, the majority view is correct (and would be upheld by the Roberts Court) maybe daCascadian thinks there's "nothing about the Vice President" because he didn't keep reading the 22nd Amendment - i.e. last sentence: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the Uniteds States."

The last sentence of the 22nd Amendment is "2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress."

I think you are looking at the 12th Amendment. The 22nd is the one with two Xs and two Is.

I won't weigh in on what the present Supreme Court might rule; I'm not aware of any of them writing on any issues closely enough related that it wouldn't be a WAG.

(Though, looking back at Bush v. Gore and the changes on the Court since, I suspect the Roberts Court would follow what I've described as the majority view if Clinton were the two-term President at issue, and with the minority view if GWB were.)

Posted by: cmdicely on March 8, 2006 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, Cheney, about the 22/12 thing that you'd already caught, I opened that comment window up in between your last two comments, and didn't refresh before responding.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 8, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

Tangent to Abramoff and Lobbyists;

Lobbyist Breaks into Car of Democrat Writes Threat Letter

(The Story sets out to Smear the Democrats but it's really a Lobbyist [[think money not party]] that's the Story Here. Say. Just for Grins. I wonder if this Breaking and Entering Lobbyist Knows Abramoff?)
OYE Continues.N.J. Governor Bailed Out Lobbyist
By ANGELA DELLI SANTI
Associated Press Writer

March 8, 2006, 6:24 PM EST
TRENTON, N.J. -- In his first political firestorm since taking office in January, Gov. Jon S. Corzine said Wednesday that he provided $5,000 in bail money to a lobbyist accused of stalking a state assemblyman.

"I reacted as a human being responding to someone in need," the multimillionaire Democrat said. "However, in light of my position as governor, I realize this was a mistake."

Karen Golding, a government relations manager for insurance giant Prudential Financial, is accused of breaking into the government-issued car of Assemblyman Joseph Cryan, a Democrat, and of writing threatening letters and making threatening calls to Cryan and others. Authorities have not discussed a motive.

Corzine said Golding, 36, requested money after her Feb. 6 arrest and he complied because she worked for his 2000 Senate campaign and he remains friendly with her family. He said he did not ask questions about her situation beyond making sure Golding was not a danger to herself or others. He characterized the money as a loan but did not say when it would be repaid.

The bail payment, first reported Wednesday by The Star-Ledger of Newark, drew heated criticism from Republicans.

"Jon Corzine's payment of bail money for Karen Golding doesn't just reek of bad judgment and conflicts of interest but raises the specter that Gov. Corzine's actions were intended to prevent something more damaging from coming to light. Why else would a sitting governor bail out a lobbyist," said Tom Wilson, chairman of the Republican State Committee.

OYE

Posted by: one eye buck tooth [X^B on March 8, 2006 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

I didn`t quote the 12th Amendment cause I think like cmdicely & the rest of that crowd

There is a significant difference between "qualification" and "elected" when it comes to legal wording & I couldn`t care less what the "majority" thinks (in part because it usually isn`t)

The "majority" once thought it was impossible for mankind to fly heavier than air craft, travel to the moon and back, breathe while in freefall & that nuclear weapons would never work

HA !!!

I agree that SCOTUS would most likely rule as suggested

That said I`d love to see the legal fight happen

If for no other reason than all those ReThuglican heart attacks...

"The first lesson of democracy is not to hold the public in contempt." - Ronnie Earle

Posted by: daCascadian on March 8, 2006 at 11:30 PM | PERMALINK

David Margolick was on Keith Olbermann tonight and revealed that any money Abramoff might receive from the sale of his pictures (reportedly "a low seven figures") would be required to go to the tribes he bilked as part of previous plea agreements.

While it might be nice to blame some dumb Dems for talking too early, the truth is that selling the pics wouldn't benefit Abramoff at all.

The "naming names," though, would benefit him--in the form of reduced sentencing come March 29. Maybe that is when we will get our "gotcha" moment.

Posted by: Ken in MS on March 9, 2006 at 1:29 AM | PERMALINK

map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map

Posted by: gfdgdfg on March 9, 2006 at 11:46 AM | 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