Well, if the guy was slick enough to have bribed 95% of congress, what are the chances that he has not also ensured somehow that his client's cases would be heard by friendly judges?

So, lets just outlaw lobbyists. Because if its evidence of a crime when the person lobbied actually does what he was lobbied for, whats the point?

Maybe the only people allowed to advocate a position are the owners of newspapers. Everyone else has to stick with writing letters to their representatives. Companies are out of luck, as anyone who they send to speak for the company is obviously paid by the company.

Or maybe I am being ridiculous, I dunno.

Ace, you touch on a central point I've often used in teaching poli-sci to college kids.

In politics, do actions follow money, or does money follow actions?

When it comes to 95% of the things Congress votes on, I'd say the latter is invariably the case. Anti-abortion lobbyists won't give Teddy Kennedy their cash, for instance, because it'd simply be throwing good money after bad. Instead, they'd find a congressman who is either a strong vote in their favor, or leaning towards their position, and support them instead.

That said, when it comes down to stuff that *has no* relation to a member's core values-- stuff like Indian casions-- money buys access, and access buys votes.

Fun town, this is.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Ace...Clear something up for me.

I thought the Democrat/Liberal/ and now Rich Lowry talking point was that Abramoff's personal donations were the corrupting influence, not donations made by his clients, because, after all, Republilcans got Personal checks and Demos got Indian Tribal checks.

And yet this article attempts to tie a Delay action to a contribution associated with a Tribal client of Abramoff.

So which is it going to be? Either Delay's tribal money is as pure as the driven snow (as Howard Dean and 40 of 45 Democratic senators apparently believe) or it's equally as bad as Abramoff's cash (as this article makes it appear).

Beat this around:

In the January 5 White House Press Briefing, Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked how many times Jack Abramoff visited the White House. McClellan answered, "Well, I indicated yesterday that I think there were some -- a few staff-level meetings."

In fact, the USA Today has reported that just in President Bush's first 10 months, Abramoff and his lobbying team racked up nearly 200 contacts with the new administration "as they pressed for friendly hires at federal agencies and sought to keep the Northern Mariana Islands exempt from the minimum wage and other laws, records show."

Mary -- Do you have a point?

Abramoff = lobbyist
lobbyist = contacts with goverment officials

Well, yes I do have a point, but one must be able to read and view the comment "objectively" before discussing it. Did you happen to run across the following comment from Scotty?

"Well, I indicated yesterday that I think there were some -- a few staff-level meetings."

A "few" staff meetings? As in: 200 or more??

Get real. If you think this isn't going to spread like wild fire you need your head examined.

Where does it say there were 200 staff meetings at the White House?

Nice try, but "contacts" does not equal "visits to the White House".

There actually is a discussion here on the issue itself rather than cut-and-paste Kos talking points if you'd care to join in. Otherwise you're trolling. And I hate a troll.

Just to play devil's advocate, I'd like to point out that 'making contacts' and visiting the White House are two activities that don't necessarily overlap. That, and 'making contacts' could be something as simple as cold-calling the White House to get someone's phone number. I don't know anything about the specifics of what's being said, but I'm just saying is all.

"...and sought to keep the Northern Mariana Islands exempt from the minimum wage..."

*whew*

Yeah, that's some bad stuff. Why couldn't they just sell some nuclear secrets to the Chinese like the last guys, huh?

I thought the Democrat/Liberal/ and now Rich Lowry talking point was that Abramoff's personal donations were the corrupting influence, not donations made by his clients, because, after all, Republilcans got Personal checks and Demos got Indian Tribal checks.

And yet this article attempts to tie a Delay action to a contribution associated with a Tribal client of Abramoff.

So which is it going to be? Either Delay's tribal money is as pure as the driven snow (as Howard Dean and 40 of 45 Democratic senators apparently believe) or it's equally as bad as Abramoff's cash (as this article makes it appear).

It doesn't really matter who the money came from; what matters is whether there was a quid pro quo. But I don't think too many people are saying that the money coming from Abramoff personally is the only bad money. They are just saying that there's a difference between money from Abramoff and from his clients, and in the interests of truth, let's be precise about which is which.

Right now, it may not seem like an important point (other than showing that Abramoff himself was a Republican, and a powerful one at that). But down the road it might be, so let's get the facts correct now.

That's what I love about this blog.

Any form of information brought in from another source, or that is in disagreement with what you already believe, is dismissed as nothing more than "cut and paste" information that means nothing.

If you actually believe 200 "contacts," vistits or whatever are unimportant, that's your opinion, but I have a feeling the story has "legs."

I guess we'll see.

" but I have a feeling the story has "legs."

Great, thanks for playing.....

That's what I love about this blog.

And what we love about *you* is that you're at the sentencing stage before the investigations have yielded any hard information.

You know what I love about this blog is that a few of us are actually willing to seek an understanding of what a few visits to the White House and 200 administration contacts actually means, as opposed to just blithely throwing an = sign between them. Like who they actually were, what they did, and were there illegal actions.

Likewise the presumption that all government officials and employees instantly become surrogates and allies of the next man to take the oath of office.

Look around Mary. You aren't seeing a lot of sympathy expressed for Jack Abramoff. Duke Cunningham admitted to breaking the law and he's out and that's a damn shame but he should be out.

Do you understand where I'm coming from with integrity?

It's not enough to call for an investigation and, if needed, a housecleaning. We have to buy every single lefty talking point or our much-heralded integrity kick is just so much posturing.

So in an effort to meet these kooks halfway, I concede that Abramoff wears a hat to hide his glowing red horns.

geoff,
When you say: "And what we love about *you* is that you're at the sentencing stage before the investigations have yielded any hard information."

Were you as open-minded during the Clinton withhunt that lasted 8 years and cost taxpayers over 70 million?

We BOTH know the answer to that question.

If you're an ideologue and aren't interested in hearing things you don't already believe or want to believe are so, at least have the balls to admit it.

I'm a liberal and I'm proud of it, but I have many friends who are extremely conservative and we discuss/debate this kind of thing all the time.

Whatever.

"Maybe the only people allowed to advocate a position are the owners of newspapers. Everyone else has to stick with writing letters to their representatives."

No, no, no.

Everyone else has to stick with writing letters to the editor.

Mary,

"We BOTH know the answer to that question."

How do you know the answer to that question?

How do you know the answer to that question?

Because she's not an idealogue, and is interested in hearing things she doesn't already believe or want to believe are so, and she has the balls to admit it.

And therefore she would make no presumptions about what you believe.

Or not. I could have that all wrong.

Dave in NYC,

I appreciate your sentiments, but I think that the Democratic party has been engaged in trying to make this (Abramoff vs Indian Tribe) distinction.

Witness Howard Dean on CNN:

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.

Emphasis mine. (Note...the Dean/Blitzer stuff is at the bottom of the transcript if you are interested n seeing it.)

So what is it gonna be, Howard Dean? Is Delay corrupt based on what this article reports? Or is Delay (in accepting money from Indian tribes) squeaky clean just like, you say, Sen. Dorgan is?

We BOTH know the answer to that question.

I doubt that we BOTH do. I voted for Clinton in '92, and I was oblivious to the political scene all through the '90s.

So you've convicted me before investigating, as well. Par for the course.

I dont think the link showed up in the post...here is the url:

http://transcripts.cn*.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/08/le.01.html

relpace the * with an n. Ace's filter screened it out.

Master of None,
Let's just say I'm taking a wild guess.

Sue me.

geoff,
Okay, I was presumptious.

Were you as "open-minded" during the Clinton investigation?

Let's just say I'm taking a wild guess.

At least you're consistent.

Mary,

Were you as quick to convict the Clinton administration as you are the Bush administration?

Let me take a wild guess.....not so much.

Were you as "open-minded" during the Clinton investigation?

As I already said, I didn't pay it any attention - I just let the wheels of justice turn. I *was* disappointed in Clinton's hypocrisy, quibbling, and perjury. But that was pretty much after the dust had settled.

I'm very consistent.

You just don't like what I have to say.

I was for Clinton and at the same time, hated many of the things he did, especially not owning up to the Lewinsky matter, but I don't think what he did or was finally run out of Dodge over was as important as it was made out to be.

It's not often you have prosecutors chasing a President of the United States around for almost 8 years, especially when the initial complaint involved a 30 year old land deal that few if any made any money off of.

With that said, if YOU think it all very important and the time and money was well spent, we have a difference of "opinion."

Is there ANYTHING you think Bush is doing wrong, or has done wrong?

"Is there ANYTHING you think Bush is doing wrong, or has done wrong?"

Yes, lots of things.

1. Can't control spending
2. Hasn't addresssed immigration reform in a way that curbs illegal immigration
3. Has given up on personal social security accounts.
4. Has yet to properly bitch slap Nancy Pelosi

No response?

Look, Mary, it's like this. Everybody here believes that if an investigation shows that politicians took bribes from Abramoff, Indian Tribes, or whoever, then justice should be served. The only arguments we have been making are: 1) it is not necessarily solely a Republican problem (which the Lowry post contradicts), and 2) the invesigative and court processes should be allowed to run their courses - in lieu of speculation and "wild guesses."

Is anybody here saying the investigation is a waste of time or money? No. So the Clinton case doesn't really provide an appropriate parallel.

If the "wild guess" and loose allegation is your normal mode of argumentation, your conservative friends are either deaf or saints.

Ok, I don't actually think Bush should assualt Pelosi, it's just something I would do....

Geoff,
Boy, for a minute there, when you wrote: "If the "wild guess" and loose allegation is your normal mode of argumentation, your conservative friends are either deaf or saints," you were going to be condescending.

And God know, especially here on this blog, no one wants to hear any kind "loose allegation."

Ace, this one is annoying me. Can we call the Feds and have her thrown in jail? I'll only tolerate her presence for a little while longer if she'll do the BDS dance for my pleasure.

And God know, especially here on this blog, no one wants to hear any kind "loose allegation."

Well, here it is called "loose shit"...

The Warden?

You sound like every woman's dream.

Spend quite a bit of time alone?

So Anyway....

What interests me in this apparent non-story is the fact that evidence in an ongoing investigation was leaked to the press. Of course, this is ok because it's DeLay I guess.

Has there ever been a bigger group of hypocrites than those in the Democratic party? I guess having to lie about your platform for the last 30 years starts to take its toll on you after a while.

No, you dried up, bitter hag; I'm happily married to a doll-faced, double D breasted, size 6 cutie-pie who was raised with good values and votes Republican every fuckin' time. And she can cook.

In other words, a real woman.

But thanks for the attention. Now get out of my face.

Mary M.

Hello.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right_%28fallacy%29

This isn't a Paul Metzler situation. This is predator/prey.