Democrats’ continued attempts to discount any connection to the Jack Abramoff scandal have zero credibility. As the Associated Press reported this week, the Abramoff-related ties to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., include nearly $68,000 in political donations, four letters Reid wrote helpful to Abramoff’s clients and a fundraiser held by Abramoff’s firm. This is still an overwhelmingly GOP scandal, in part because the GOP holds all the power. But Democrats don’t deserve a pass and would do well to recognize they have a problem, too. The guiltless act isn’t working.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- ProudMan on Too many exemptions
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
50 Comments
That’s why we need a third party !
The temptation to smirk is strong, but I feel more sadness that there is such corruption at every level, in every party of “our” government.
This is sad proof that politicians of all stripes are for sale.
Sad…very, very sad.
Sorry, Abramoff hasn’t stained anyone. His confessions simply shed light on stains that have existed for years, if not centuries on our political machine. And who’s to blame? All of us; we voted in the bastards and didn’t pay attention to what they did! Whatever else democracy is, it’s not intended to be easy.
McCain Fiengold’s Campaign Fiance Reform didn’t do anything.
There’s a big difference between Abramoff CLIENTS giving money and Abramoff himself.
The Indian tribes that became Abramoff clients used to give MORE money to Democrats before Abramoff got involved.
Anyway, GW never strangely remembers meeting with Abramoff, even though Abramoff remembers meeting with GW on some DOZEN occasions.
Hmmm . . . GW was going to capture Bin Laden and pay down the debt and find the WMD’s and help the poor with “compassionate conservativism” and create a democracy in Iraq.
He doesn’t remember Kenny Boy Lay these days either. Or his first pick for leader of Iraq, Ahmad Chalibi.
Funny how much stuff he “forgets,” isn’t it.
You expect the disease to cure itself?
Democrats are utterly corrupt too? SHOCKING.
Dear ProudLib,
“There’s a big difference between Abramoff CLIENTS giving money and Abramoff himself.”
A difference without a distinction. Only if you suffer under the liberal double-standard that you seem to be afflicted with.
You need to get your head out of your butt. (colorful, not invective)
Hank
“Democrats’ continued attempts to discount any connection to the Jack Abramoff scandal have zero credibility.”
That’s, like, five kinds of dumb. The “Jack Abramhoff scandal” has nothing to do with the fact that Abramhoff was a lobbyist or that his clients made campaign contributions.
The scandal is that Jack Abramhoff stole money from his Native American clients and used it for other purposes, in many cases against their own interests. DEMOCRATS WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THAT ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. How hard is that to understand?
Andy,That was not the point the article was trying to get across. It was simply showing that Democrats were just as guilty of using people like Abramhoff to fund their coffers.
As a guy from up north said, we need a third party. Or we need to straighten the soft and hard money garbage going on in the beltway.
You bet Walker we need that third party and we need it bad!Where is Ross Perot when we need someone like him. Too bad he was such a flake.However he did predict that “large sucking sound” if CAFTA were passed and sure enough we’er hearing and seeing it as we speek.
I may have to put Hank back on “ignore.”
You must have missed the part where Abramoff’s clients such as the Indian tribes gave MORE money before Abramoff than after.
Delay, speaker of the house, resigned over unethical actions. Frist, under investigation for conflict of interest when he passed legislation to help his stock in a “blind trust.” Randy Duke Cunningham cried like a little girl when he was caught with his hand in the till. The Govenor of Ohio . . . oh, hell, why bother.
The right-wing can justify anything when their people do it.
For those that a hard time cutting through the “liberal media’s” wrong-headed belief in “fairness,” here’s the bottom line–
At least in terms of personal donations, Republican Jack Abramoff was all Republican, All the time!
Of the $261,918 that Jack Abramoff has donated to political causes/campaigns over the years, $172,933 has gone to various Republican political candidates while the remainder ($88,985) went to special interests such as “Americans for a Republican Majority PAC”, “Keep our Majority”, and the “Republican Majority Fund”. Zero dollars of his personal funds went to Democrats. (See below for a full list of Donations made by Abramoff and/or his wife)
The Republican “Culture of Corruption” is alive and well. And to help fight that self-inflicted stigma, Republicans have latched on to an extensive list of contributions made to both Republicans and Democrats by various Indian tribes (See the list of these tribes below). GOP operatives argue that a contribution from one of these tribes is to be translated as an ‘Abramoff-linked’ contribution. It is the basis by which they falsely claim Abramoff to be an “equal money dispenser”.
They present no direct evidence, to my knowledge, that any Democrat has accepted any funds known to be ‘directed’ to them by Jack Abramoff or that any of the Democratic candidate’s camps were aware of such arrangements.That is why Howard Dean was absolutely correct when he said:
“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.”
“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.”
http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/1/11/102743/169
One side, the Republicans, start a war in Iraq, and the Democrats are “equally to blame” because they couldn’t stop it.
One side, the Republicans, never saw a finance law that they had to abide by while the other side very occasionally oversteps the legal boundries, but BOTH ARE EQUALLY CULPABLE.
One side, the Republicans, rams through conservative ideologues like Alito and Thomas, while Clinton consulted with Republicans on his Supreme Court nominations, but Dems are just as radical as Reps are.
Media is madly in love with “presenting both sides” when it protects conservatives. When it’s all WMD’s all the time, we didn’t get too much “other side” then, did we.
In the run up to the war, Bill Maher pointed out that we got “both sides of the issue: generals and retired generals.”
I don’t get why Rhonda feels like she has to suck up to the conventional wisdom, which, in this case, is the nonsense that the Abramoff scandal is ‘bipartisan.’ As ProudLib so truthfully documents, it’s nonense.
Maybe Rhonda needs friends among the cool media kids. Or, worse, she’s afflicted with the knee-jerk media fear of what the Wingnuts might say or do. In either case, taking money from Abramoff’s clients isn’t the same thing as taking Abramoff himself, particularly when one accepted their funding long before Abramoff was ever in the picture.
The AP story this week was similiarly nonsensical, with Harry Reid meeting with Abramoff concerning owners of sweatshops in the Marianas Islands. Except one thing: after meeting with them, Harry Reid never did a thing for them. But in the AP and MSNBC stories, apparently, just MEETING with Abramoff is enough to invoke the phony claims of equivalence. Josh Marshall does a nice job discussing this, by the way.
But whatever. Rhonda’s peevish accusation, based as it is in spin rather than facts, is what merits ‘zero credibility.’ But it has had the intended effect, of sucking up to Hank so as to inoculate her from the standard ‘liberal media’ accusation. Way to go, Rhonda!
Has anyone looked at Reid’s voting record. I only made a cursory glance, but it doesn’t seem to me he voted in favor of Abramoff’s position.
Let’s not just focus on this one issue like it’s the only corruption this administration and the republicans are responsible for.
How about the stories coming out on how the NOAA and NASA weren’t allowed to inform the public on the real issues on global warming because it didnt’ fit in with the administrations agenda. At least one of the bush appointed censors George Duetsche has given up his post since it became known he didn’t even have a journalism degree.
Then there is Libby telling a grand jury Bush and Cheney authorised him to ‘out’ Valerie Plame.
Then, there is The CIA Intel who coordinated Iraq Intelligence accused the administration of “cherry picking” intelligence and ignoring warnings to justify their war.
Then there is Brownie telling the world that the whitehouse knew the night of the levee breach and yet still the next day there is a statement by the whitehouse feigning surprise.
A question to the Eagle in general.why is there so little coverage of the Enron trial that is going on?
Of course the stories on the Dems aren’t in the Editorial page, they’re relegated to the Blog. Liberal bias is alive and well :-)
When Joe Blow’s Wingnut reptile brain is addled by the facts, it runs for the mantras that have always comforted it in the past.
Excellent point, Sum1.
Check this from a blogger–
“Instead of the story being about a 24-year-old lying, it should be about this: how did this guy, who already had dubious qualifications, make it into NASA with such an obvious lie on his resume? To work for a federal agency, including NASA, extensive background checks are usually required. If I was able to uncover the truth about Deutsch in one phone call, then he must have been placed in his current position without any investigation, due to his loyal service on the Bush presidential campaign.
“For a president that paints himself as a champion of national security, the NASA incident is a major blow to Bush’s credibility. This isn’t the first time either, with George Deutsch now joining the ranks of Michael Brown, the embattled former director of FEMA, and Harriet Myers, Bush’s Supreme Court nominee who was subsequently withdrawn. Congratulations, Deutsch, this is a pretty elite circle!”
*****
Funny, did anybody see the outrage in the “liberal” mainstream media about a security system so flawed it put in a political hack with a huge lie on his resume (he never “grad-e-ated” college)?
Because I sure didn’t.
Gotta love it…a story about a liberal Democrat got caught with ties to Abramoff, and the libs go into defense and attack mode.
Just change the subject, attack the Republican party on other things and people will forget that the minority leader has accepted almost $70 grand from a lobbyist who has been called the embodiment of evil when tied to Republicans.
Interesting tactic–diversion, but it doesn’t change a thing. There are politicians being bought on both sides of the aisle. The system is broken and needs to be revamped. Regardless of party. Regardless of diversionary tactics, the whole system is bad.
Yes, Ray, the whole system is bad. It’s very, very bad.
Now that we have that profound obviousness dispensed with–do you support the party who gives you some hope of making it better (the Democrats) or do you march lock-step behind the party of DeLay, Gov. Taft, Randy Cunningham, Cheney (who’s still drawing a salary from flipping HALLIBURTON while he’s Vice-President, for Gosh sakes), Bill “20/20 Blind Trust” Frist, etc. etc.
Looks like you’ve chosen the latter.
If you are really asking, I will answer you. I don’t march lock step behind anyone or anything.
I am more interested in a fair and balanced discussion that doesn’t paint every and all Republican as the spawn of the devil and every and all Democrat as saints.
Exactly, idealogues suck.
News this afternoon is, Abramoff’s people may have overstated involvement with Reid. There may have been “quid” from some Abramoff clients, but no “pro quo”.
Well great, Ray. I’m still waiting for your post that doesn’t paint the Repubs as saints and the Dems as devil spawn . . .
Not holding my breath.
Oh ye of little memory. I have stated repeatedly that I do not support several current actions of the administration, I believe the Iraq war to be wrong, and I do not condone illegal surveillance. Just because I do not repudiate every single breath he takes, nor will I join in the mindless hatred does not mean I blindly support anything.
I refuse to be blinded by any “party loyalty” branding all members of one group as good and the other group as bad.
Both major parties have significant flaws. Both major parties have dishonest people. I recognize that…do you?
I think Rhonda makes a valid point. The problem is American campaign finance and its current state.
It’s true that the lion’s share of Abramoff’s lobbying pay-to-play scandal belongs with the GOP. That’s not to say that the Democrats are saints, however. I do not think it follows that Democrats are chaste just because Jack Abramoff gave Republicans tons of money and very little to Democrats.
One of the big problems with Democrats these days, and maybe the biggest reason they aren’t beneficiaries of “the first law of political physics” (scandal favors the party out of power) is that they overplay their hand when they insist the problem lies with Republicans rather than the system.
If Democrats want to “win” then – as their plan to make America a better place to live – they should be pushing to reform the system rather than pushing for burning Republicans at the stake
Not that they don’t deserve burning; the point is that Americans come to that conclusion all on their own and in doing so benefit flows to the Democratic party. To trumpet the corruption of the Republicans over the corruption inherent in the system is to overplay the hand.
It’s a subtle point, but hey Americans are smart enough to “get it,” it being that the Democrat’s anger results in a net subtraction of integrity in American civic discourse. Surely it’s obvious to everyone that Democrats are asking the voting public to buy hype over substantial change, at this time.
Bottom line: the Democrats could benefit mightily from a public display that emphasizes an improvement in our country over an improvement in Democrat political prospects.
“The Iraq War is wrong,” okay, Ray that’s a good start. We agree on that.
“Both parties have dishonest people . . .” Probably true, but since the Democrats have no power in any branch of government, their dishonesty (such as it is) doesn’t have the same impact, does it.
I can remember when the Republicans went ballistic because Al Gore made calls for money from his office (gasp!). Now we’ve got Frist introducing legislation that directly influences the value of his family’s giant health insurance company. We’ve got Cheney drawing a salary from Halliburton while he awards no-bid contracts to them.
Where’s the outrage? Where’re the calls for impeachment? The angry press releases? The breathless front page stories?
When there’s a log in one party’s eye (Republican’s) and a speck in the other’s (Democrat’s), it’s a very misleading to say “they’re both the same.”
“When there’s a log in one party’s eye (Republican’s) and a speck in the other’s (Democrat’s), it’s a very misleading to say “they’re both the same.”
It’s scary that you actually believe this.
Well, don’t take my word for it, NoJo. Take the word of your party’s own pollsters and pols.
Here’s what Tim Russert reported on “Meet the Press, Feb. 5″ (google transcript) when he was interviewing Boehner:
MR. RUSSERT: It was interesting reading some of the speeches that were given in the conference during your election. This was Congressman Paul Ryan from the First district of Wisconsin, “Friends, we’re in trouble. A poll was done last weekend in our 25 most vulnerable districts, and trust me it doesn’t look good.” And then this from Congressman Mark Souder from Indiana, “Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff and the ongoing and disgusting saga of abuse of power and public trust are not made up by the Democrats. We were put in power to be different. What has happened to us? Our entire philosophy is at risk because the American people, and even a large percent of our own supporters, think we have been corrupted as a party. Our re-election numbers are now lower than the Democrats’ were in ‘94. When voters in swing districts were asked, the two things they associated with our Republican Congress were Iraq and corruption.”
It’s scary that Republicans are turning a blind eye to their party’s corruption, scandals and lies.
I just wish Galahad would weigh in on this. No one else is quite as pertinent.
You have to love how bloggers who consider Social Security to be a solid retirement investment are the ones who just can’t follow the money on this. As if Abramoff is the only lobbyist putting money in the cookie jar or that the money he controlled always had his name attached to it.
OneShot–
Is that what your girlfriend calls you?
SS has nothing to do with this issue, but since you bring it up, it actually IS a good retirement investment.
Consider the average retiree gets back all the money they paid in after about seven years. For younger people, it will be more like 12-15 years, but then they’ll be living longer too.
The average age for a woman in the US right now is 92. So, the average woman will take out a lot more than she puts in. Also, figure in that SS provides disability and survivor benefits if you need them, and it’s a damn good deal.
But I guess you think a good deal is paying taxes to fund endless war in Iraq with no benefit to you at all . . . yeah, that’s smart.
Thank goodness Halliburton is doing so well . . . on your dime.
HEY EVERYBODY! I FOUND OUT JOHN MALKOVICH AND TRUTHREGARDLESS IS REALLY IAN HIMSELF! HAHAHAHA!!
Nice work, CruzX.
Nothing is quite as satisfying as exposing a troll for the fraud they are . . .
Thank you, thank you. This will surely provide me with many more Ian jokes in the future! Ah now Ian, where should I put your head on my trophy room wall? You fool! you fell right in my trap! truthregarldess, the self-proclaimed non-racist who just so happens to make racist generalizations, while becoming increasingly belligerent every time I became more critical of Ian’s “condition”, then the sudden appearance of John Malkovich after nearly a day of his being absent from any of the threads. Ah, I feel damn good right now, and it’s all thanks to you Ian! Ahhh, the sweet smell victory!!!Viva la Revoluccion! hahahaha!
Good job choto!! rotflmaosao You forget to mention that I am also ED and da real Galahad and.. oh never mind.
Viva La Chupacabras!!
Deny it all you want. But deep down you KNOW I caught you trolling. I found you out. It was me, Ian, an inferior half-breed that outsmarted you. Have fun trying to sleep tonight knowing that, Ian. Make sure you don’t tell your mother about this, I’d hate for her to be disappointed in you.hahahahaha!
Viva la Revoluccion! Mijo!
My Mom is living in Boston with her husband but I will pass along your kind wishes. You are veritable negro Sherlock Holmes with those keen powers of deductive reasoning!
I am sure that you, like most affirmative action minorities, will spend much time patting yourself on the back over your “triumph”. rotflmosao
Viva La Raza Blanco
To quote “president bush”
“Bring it on!”
Lets have a very full and thorough investigation into Abramoff. Perhaps we could start by bush releasing any and all contacts he had with the guy. Oh but wait. He doesn’t want to do that! He doesn’tknow the guy! Oh but wait! Abramoff isn’t gonna fall on the sword like Brownie did. Seems he doesn’t want to wait for a pardon. Seems he has things to tell that bush won’t!
Did Dems get money from Abramoff! Well of course they did! When you are using money to influence government ya gotta spread it around…….ya know so it LOOKS impartial.
Dif is, Democrats only got funding second hand…..through PACS and such. Nothing direct. Again, something you have to do to make it LOOK right. Not anything you do cause it is right.
So let’s GO! Let’s have full investigation! Hey write your Senator Sam Brownback…..you know the number 10 on the list Abramoff gave the most to?
Yaaaaawwwwnnnnnnn
Ray,It’s proven Reid made contacts with Abramoff over the Marinaris Islands legislation, but how did Reid vote?
CrusaderX,
Well met, hale fellow! (I’m assuming ‘fellow’; you may correct me if I am mistaken).
This means that it was Ian Santiago who we have to thank for the vile poopie smeared all over the board the day of the food fight. What a window into Ian’s long-abused inner child THAT was. It was like the South Park episode where we’re shown the content of Cartman’s dark and monstrous dreams.
Interesting question, Sum1. Lets review that question with the flap about the photo op. How did Bush “vote” on any of the indian casinos?
The emphasis here is that Abramhoff is scum, and anyone associated with him in any way is tarred with the same brush.
I don’t remember you asking how any of the Republicans voted on any of the Abramoff issues…did you?
Nope. Only now do you do the standard, “change the subject and attack” defense.
Typical. The fact that Abramoff has contacts in both parties has not changed. Period.
Throw all the bums out that traded favors for bucks. Dem. or Repub. Can we all agree on that?
Agreed.
You can bet if there was any quid pro quo, the Republicans would have had it out by now.
“If character matters” why aren’t Republicans holding their own to account?