Abramoff directed his clients to give money to Democrats? Doesn't that kinda go against the stated goal of the K Street Project?

Also, Abramoff wasn't lobbying on behalf of Indian casinos, he was screwing them to the tune of millions of dollars and giving these ill-gotten gains to Republicans. You know damn well he has no more motivation to funnel money to Democrats than Tom Delay does, except of course to make a lame argument that this is a "bipartisan" scandal. But he didn't even plan that far ahead.

If an indian casino is screwed by Abramoff and then gives money to Democrats, that does not mean they were screwed by Democrats.

and it is simply absurd to pretend that the millions of dollars flowing out from his clients, directed, once again, by lobbyist Abramoff, isn't the actual issue.

And yet, despite this obvious absurdity, some idiot in this thread will make precisely that claim, before the day is out.

scarshapedscar, it's not a prediction if you do it before I predict it.

screwing them to the tune of millions of dollars and giving these ill-gotten gains to Republicans.

Ummm... yeah? He wasn't doing it to enrich himself? He was giving all these "millions" to Republicans? In $1000 and $2000 checks per election cycle, you mean?

And if he was taking all this money from the tribes and giving it to Republicans... how is it that Patrick Kennedy is the #2 recipient of his clients' money, getting over $128,000 in the past several years? How did Abramoff fail to divert all that money "to his Republican buddies"?

I want some dirty indian casino money!

Me too, Shawn. The lack of bribe money flowing into my bank account is starting to make me suspect that perhaps I'm not as influential as I imagine myself to be. Abramoff, if you're reading this... call me. Let's do lunch.

Demos can say what they want but the one striking thing I have seen since this thing broke is Republicans saying that if Republican politicians did something wrong they should be gone. Democrats on the other hand refuse to acknowledge that there might be dirty poiliticians on both sides of the aisle and Democrats might be tainted by this as well. Speaks volumes.

Despite DUmmies Duplicitous, Dishonest Denials, Democrats Directly Duplicated Dirty Donation Draw (D'uh)

Um, Ace, Dave in Texas, et al, some guy at NRO disagrees with y'all.

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

Nice spin tho'

The surest way to know that all that sweet Abramoff cash was flowing to both sides of the aisle?

The news stories were strangely silent on the full details of just who received it. The best they could muster was repeatedly labeling Abramoff a "Republican" lobbyist.

Just imagine if only the Republicans had been the bennies.

Wait, because Rich Lowry disagrees, Ace et al. must necessarily be wrong?

I was unaware that the Abramoff scandal was one of the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and that "Rich Lowry" was the nom de plume of Pope Benedict.

I assumed that the significance of the Abramoff scandal, and the question of culpability, was something currently under investigation and a topic about which reasonable minds could disagree. Thank you, Larry, for correcting my misapprehension.

Tool.

Hey pompous: You getting paid to write this stuff? Thought not. I'll go with the paid political analysis, thank you, not some crack pot wingnut, OK with you?

(0|2|23(+ |\/|3 1|= 1'|\/| \X/|20|\|6 |@|2|2`/ , |}|_|+ [)1[)|\|'+ @(3 |-|1|\/|$3||= 0|2161|\|@||`/ |*|_|+ |_||* @ |1|\||

|\|0\X/ \X/|-|`/ [)0|\|'+ `/0|_| |_|$3 `/0|_||2 (|21+1(@| +|-|1|\||

Ironic that Ace finished up talking about Deans talking points, cuz Ace is just repeating the GOP talking points.

$0 N0|/\| L0\/\/rj 15|\|'7 4 |\/|e|\/|b3|2 0F 7he G0p? c@|\| yoU 4t LE@$7 be k0N$1+EN+?

Dare we hope that Lawrence of Urbania further endoses this paid political analysis from that expert source.

Naw, must be that "stopped clock" thingy.

Cordially...

Jackstraw: Oh, yeah the Reps are really calling for accountability. Maybe I'd believe you if Do Nuthing Hastert would f-ing start up the ethics committee investigations.

Can you give me a source for your claim that Republicans are calling for crooks to be gone? Leadership would be nice, but I'll take any nationally known Rep voice who has explicitly said this. You give me one, and I'll give you a Dem that says it to, just to prove the lie.

$0 N0|/\| L0\/\/rj 15|\|'7 4 |\/|e|\/|b3|2 0F 7he G0p? c@|\| yoU 4t LE@$7 be k0N$1+EN+?

Spurwing? That you?

Cordially...

Rick: I didn't say he was always right, just more likely to be right (and in tune with mainstream conservative thinking) on this than you fringees.

KAN U 91V3 m3H A 50urC3 PH0R Ur ClA1m 7HA7 R3PU8L1CAN5 R kALl1n' ph0R Cr00x 70 83 90n3?

h0W A80U7 73H pHac7 7ha7 807h D3LaY And n3Y HAV3 833n PH0Rc3d 0u7 0f 7h31R P051710n5 ALr3Ady?

1 D0'N7 533 73h D3M0CrA75 ph0Rc1N' R31D 70 573P d0Wn Y37

Can you give me a source for your claim that Republicans are calling for crooks to be gone?

I don't know enough to get involved in the issue, but I do read a lot of conservative blogs and listen to conservative talk radio. The universal tone on both is that we need to clean up Congress.

Just from impartially reading this thread, I can tell who wants to clean things up and who is a political tool. I'm talking to you Larry.

No its me.

If asking its to oppressive for Larry to spell y*o*u rather than u, then surely he would support my right to speak to him only in |33+

I'd recomend everybody address him so, help him exercise his critical thinking skills.

Howard, Monty is gonna love u. U rool.

Well, so far as I can tell from my extensive discussions with well-minded individuals (listening to morons on the subway loudly reinforce one another's ignorance), the answer seems to be that it's Bush's fault that the Democrats took Abramhoff money.

Can you give me a source for your claim that Republicans are calling for crooks to be gone?

I'm speaking about the people here and if you would stop spewing for a few moments and actually read some of the posts you would see any number of people who have said it. I am not a member of the Republican party, registered Independent thank you very much. As an observer of both I can honestly say that Republicans by and large hold their elected officials to a much higher standard.

Point in case. Hillary compares the Republican controlled House to a plantation at a public event and Democrats rush to her defense. Trent Lott makes an offhand comment about the good old days at a private birthday party and lose his leadership position.

Oh and speaking of Trent Lott, he said that very thing last night on Hardball. Look it up. Your turn.

Ah, Howard Devore proves that conservatives love to celebrate diversity. Why does this bother u so much? Unfortunately, I'm not young enuf to speak l33t. As I've said multiple times before, I'm just a bad, two finger typist lookin' for shortcuts.

If that doesn't get through, how about this: If I start spelling everthing out, watch out for the pig shit falling from the skies, fascist.

I noticed that this "discussion" has gone way far afield. The question is: which money is it that Abramoff gave that's supposed to be corrupting.

If it's the hard money political contributions, then I guess it means all hard money contribs need to be abolished and candidates must fund their campaigns from their own pockets.

If it's the lobbying money, then it is entirely pertinent as to who got the money (or other perks) and what effect this had on their behavior.

I've got an open mind on this, seriously. I highly doubt that all receiving the lobbying money are equally culpable. When it comes to the House, the minority party has very little power. Of course, in the Senate, this is not true.

.... it's Bush's fault that the Democrats took Abramhoff money.

Lawrence,

See, we have Dean's talking points down as well! We're quite receptive to such sophisticated, multi-level (dare-I-call-it-nuanced?) "analysis" that flows from left to right.

Cordially...

w311 a5 añø7#3® ñøñ-7¥þ157 (a5 m¥ 7¥þø5 3a511¥ 5#øw), 1\'m 13ñð1ñ6 5µþþø®7 7ø ¥øµ® ©aµ53 7ø ßa57a®ð1z3 7#3 3ñ1615# 1añ6µa63. ;µ57 7#1ñX ߥ 7¥þ1ñ6 µ 1ñ573að øf ¥øµ ø® ©µ18® ¥øµ m16#7 5av3 a w#ø13 2 53©øñð5 a ða¥. 1ma61ñ3 7#3 þø551ß117135

¥øµ mµ®ð3®1ñ6 ©ømm13 ßa57a®ð 5¥mþa7#1z3®, ¥øµ

Larry the Urbanite: "Can you give me a source for your claim that Republicans are calling for crooks to be gone? Leadership would be nice, but I'll take any nationally known Rep voice who has explicitly said this. You give me one, and I'll give you a Dem that says it to, just to prove the lie."

Didn't you just link to a Republican voice named Lowry who not only said that heads must roll, but that they should be Republican heads? Have you already forgotten about that? Or are you just serially incapable of admitting incovenient facts?

I eagerly await your citation to a Dem voice that says Dem heads must roll. Just to prove the lie.

Larry the urban wrote:
Um, Ace, Dave in Texas, et al, some guy at NRO disagrees with y'all.

Then Larry the urbanite wrote:
Can you give me a source for your claim that Republicans are calling for crooks to be gone? Leadership would be nice, but I'll take any nationally known Rep voice who has explicitly said this.

Larry, meet Larry. You should talk. I think the two of you have a lot in common.

Damn, The Comish (sic) beat me to it. Well, he'll rue the day.

Wow, those lines of 133t are frying my brain without even my attempting to read them!

Bah, I beat the Comish to it too sandy, give credit where credit is due.

Um, Ace, Dave in Texas, et al, some guy at NRO disagrees with y'all.

Some guy at NRO does not say anything about lefty blogs, which was the point of Ace's post, as you can see from the headline.

Some guy at NRO does make the point that republicans shouldn't try to blame democrats for a republican scandal. Ace may or may not agree that this is a primarily republican scandal, I don't know. I do know that Ace and virtually everyone here agrees that anybody (yes, especially republicans) who has acted unethically should get the boot.

Did you really close with "you murdering commie bastard sympathizer, you?" Please don't spark off a flamewar in hacker-speak. Please?

Bah, I beat the Comish to it too sandy, give credit where credit is due.

You say "credit", I hear "blame". :)

Larry the Head-Up-Ass-ite:

See, Larry, here's the dealio. Conservatives care about two things that may sound foreign to you. First, we like to get all the facts and carefully analyze issues according to well-established principles. Second, we demand that those who have committed wrongs (such as accepting bribes or perjuring oneself) step down from office.

Democrats, in contrast, (a) react with the very sort of apoplectic hysteria that you have demonstrated here, substituting your own special brand of screeching and propaganda for a careful inquiry into guilt, and (b) cover-up, excuse and apologize for their leaders when they behave improperly, disregarding all but the pretense of integrity for the sake of The Cause.

Which branch of the Democratic Party is paying you to trot out your talking points, anyway?

Hey he called me a facist (based upon what, my [nonexistent] support of Cedarford?)

So if I'm a facist, hes the antithesis of a facist- a communist. Which of course would require him to support the communists and their Hundreds of millions dead.

Which would make him a bastard too.

But its all based on what Larry the yourbanite would have wanted.

Hey he called me a facist (based upon what, my [nonexistent] support of Cedarford?)

I mean, you don't even look like Michael.

Larry, meet Larry. You should talk. I think the two of you have a lot in common.

pWn3D!!!!1

That's right, sandy. I posted it before you. That's what you get for thinking before hitting "Post," and taking care to make your post comprehensible and well-written. Booyah! (I can't really pull that off, can I?)

And Howard, I'll have to take your word for it that you said it first. I don't speak LSD.

I totally agree, lobbying is the problem. Any politician who takes money in exchange for votes ought to be rode out of town on a rail. I don't care who they are.

But you have to admit that Abramoff was the master at corruption. And that the K Street project exists specifically to grease the skids for Republicans politicians to sell votes to lobbyists. The tragic thing is that Republicans promised to change things for the better. I never imagined that when they said they would run government like a business, that they meant this.

And, I do take exception to the charge that "conservatives" are vastly different than "liberals" on this matter. The problem is that these politicians who sell their votes do not belong to any party at all... they are businessmen. They have no business parading around like public servants, period.

The apalling thing is that Abramoff was selling face time with the President. Letting donors stay in the Lincoln bedroom was bad when Clinton did it. It is wrong now that this President is doing the same thing.

Proving that this face time was worth their money is another thing, and that will come out, and maybe the President will be vindicated or maybe he will be punished. But I would expect conservatives to be screaming at the top of their lungs about how bad this whole thing is instead of making some flaccid appeal to moral relativism (well, the Democrats do it, too). It is so disappointing that Republicans aren't more interested in opening things up for fear that it will cost them politically.

When you spank someone else's kids, it's assault. But when you spank your own, it's discipline. And when we have such a powerful, patriarch in the White House, it's kind of sad to see that he can't keep his own family in line.

Lawrence, did you even read Lowry's piece or just orgasm over the headline?

He makes a point (that many of us agree with) that saying "Dems did it too" is no excuse. If R's have a corruption problem, they should root it out.

Virtually every conservative I see here has agreed with that proposition.

And in kind, virtually every idiot like you I've seen comment on it ignores the objective truth that Dems got millions too.

This is what we call integrity. Do you understand where I'm coming from with integrity? Don't make a fucking maniac out of me.

the antithesis of a facist- a communist.

HowardDevore , since facist and commies are both socialist, how does that make them antithesis?

Fascists supported government control over industry and populations/labor as the state was the highest ideal, wheras Communists supported government ownership of industry and population/labor as the proletariat was the highest ideal and the State was the expression of the proletariat.

OK I was really just going off of the historical clash between Fascists and Communists circa 1930, where fascists claimed that their third way was soo different and that they were the anticommunists.

And when we have such a powerful, patriarch in the White House, it's kind of sad to see that he can't keep his own family in line.

Or perhaps your patriarchal premise doesn't hold up. Examine your assumptions.

I can't recall who said it originally, but somebody once said that under capitalism man exploits man, whereas under communism the situation is exactly the reverse. I think the fascist/communist distinction is pretty similar.

And for crying out loud, will you people start throwing an "s" in there? "Facists" are those people they hire to be judges on Extreme Makeover and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

All totalitarian visions have a lot in common. But these days "communist" is a stereotypical right-wing insult and "fascist" is a stereotypical left-wing insult. This may not make much sense, but that's just the way it is.

In truth I have a hard time getting to the level of outrage Larry would like. Bribing politicians is possibly the second oldest profession around.

Sure this is sleazy and those doing wrong need to be punished. But really, how is this all that different than taking money (and guaranteed votes) from the AFL-CIO or the teachers union? The NAACP lobbies congressional democrats hard and in the last national survey I saw only 2% of blacks identified themselves as republicans. Coincidence?

If the abortion lobby can swing X number of votes to a candidate for support on certain issues, isn't that a form of bribery? Not, I suppose, if the politician planned to vote that way anyway. Which I will guarantee you will be the defense of any politician accused of bribery in the Abramoff mess.

Not saying its right just that amount of hypocritical bloviating coming from righteous democrats is nauseating.

Hey Larry,
On the previous thread you said you work for a for-profit-non-govt entity.
So, let's see. Urban engineer. Spouts the worst kind of lefty, America-hating, BDS-ridden bullshit...

My guess is you work either for the aclu or naral.
They do lots of urban engineering.

Fucking spork.

When you spank someone else's kids, it's assault. But when you spank your own, it's discipline.

And when you spank Ace, it's all the free Val-U-Rite Vodka you can drink, baby.

utron, you imperialist homophobe you!

Larry had to go feed his 27 cats.

Matterson, I didn't say there was anything wrong with being a facist. I'm just advocating a little terminological precision.

Actually, considering the extent to which I judge people on shallow, superficial standards, I'm a bit of a facist myself. Although I believe the actual PC term is "lookist." (Google on "lookism" if you don't believe me. It really is impossible to parody this stuff.)

simple anwer. Non-partisan investigation, throw those that are guilty in jail (republican or democrat) and get on with life.
Now keep in mind that this is coming from a pretty simple minded person :-) and who could really give a crap about the whole thing as long as wrong-doer's are prosecuted.

utron, I guess that makes me a lookist too. And since I'm military, having to conform to and uphold standards and regulations, does that make me a facist lookist or a lookist facist?

Beats me, Matterson. Maybe you'd better just admit that you're a homonymophobe.

utron, I might admit it, if I knew what the heck it was.

Good one!

What happened to Larry?

Did s/he run away once s/he was faced with the others pointing out his/her simple contradiction in his/her posts?

I don't think that the middle of the road voters are going to buy the current Lefty line that their tainted money is just fine but the other's guy's money is just pure evil.

But they can try....

Boy, do I hope the Dem's eventually come to their senses someday. I don't want to live in a single party country.

This&That

Hey pompous: You getting paid to write this stuff? Thought not. I'll go with the paid political analysis, thank you, not some crack pot wingnut, OK with you?

I hate to be self-obsessed here, but can someone explain this to me? I'm less credible because I'm not getting paid to say this?

Also, I merely claimed that "the significance of the Abramoff scandal, and the question of culpability, [is] something currently under investigation and a topic about which reasonable minds could disagree." That makes me a "crack pot wingnut"?

I'm beginning to suspect that Larry is actually Ashton Kutcher, and that I have been punk'd.

Boy, do I hope the Dem's eventually come to their senses someday. I don't want to live in a single party country.

If the Democrats completely implode, then the Republican party will eventually split in two. We won't live in a single-party country for long.

SJKevin, as much as I dislike the Dims, our two party system has acted as a check and balance quite well. For the most part that is.
I wouldn't want a one party system either.

"hrow those that are guilty in jail"

Well, see, that's the thing. When it comes to lobbying in Washington, no one seems to have much of a handle on what the meaning of "are" are.

There are so many dodges and loopholes patched into the system that it'll be almost impossible to get a handle on the extent of corruption in the process. And there are a lot of powerful people on both sides of the aisle who do NOT want that to happen.

I mean, the conclusion may end up being that the presence of money itself is the problem, as is the size and purview of the federal government.

This and That: Srry, work to do. Would love to respond in detail, but the boss is on my ass. See u tommorow.

I'm sure y'all will keep that cross burning in the yard for me, lol

Wow. That guy's really an asshole, isn't he?

Yup, and he uses his real name in his e-mail address. So not only is he an asshole but a stupid one, too.

The solution is incredibly easy... transparency.

Right now, the gravy train has been really nice to both parties, but maybe now we will see some better ideas. I think if people knew which lobbies were donating to which candidates, blogs and watchdog groups could highlight links between certain types of donations and certain patterns, and people could just vote them all out of office. I think it was Ralph Nader who suggested that they wear patches on their suits like nascar drivers.

It wouldn't be a perfect solution, because partisan groups tend to focus their scrutiny on very narrow special interests, hot button issues that are only a caricature of the big picture. But maybe there would be some opportunities for more comprehensive indexes of donations and votes.

It would be interested to see which lobbies these representatives were attached to. It would give the public greater interest in going to the ballot box. And I think we'd see that incumbents, in general, tend to be corrupt (A low turnover in elections is a fairly reliable indicator of corruption).

There would be perils to this, too. Just as some unthinking people tend to gravitate to a very narrow media bubble ("I only watch FOX!" "I only read the Nation!"), there would be stupid indexes. But I think this too is determined by the general lack of transparency that rules in Washington. Use a wider angle, and people will see a bigger picture. They'll want to.

I'm sure y'all will keep that cross burning in the yard for me, lol

Would that be Senator Robert Byrd's yard?

If an indian casino is screwed by Abramoff and then gives money to Democrats, that does not mean they were screwed by Democrats.

And if an indian casino is screwed by Abramoff and then gives money to Republicans, that defintely means they were screwed by Republicans.

Okay, thanks, scar, for clearing that up for me.

P.S. I'm not quite sure, but I have a strong inclination to believe BigTobacco is Tubino.

P.S. I'm not quite sure, but I have a strong inclination to believe BigTobacco is Tubino.

Tubino role-playing as a republican? Intriguing.

Isn't that a bit like C*d*rf*rd role-playing as a rabbi?

I'm late to the game here...

Actually, democrats' excuse is that democrats have always received contributions from indian tribes so it doesn't matter that Jack Abramoff directed them to do it in the last few years.

Not a very compelling excuse.

What exactly about BigToobeano is Republican?

Howard Dean Better face the facts his party also took cash

I don't know. I thought I remembered BigTobacco claiming to be republican, and a pro-lifer.

The apalling thing is that Abramoff was selling face time with the President

And didn't throw in coffee??? No respect for precedent at all. I'm very disappointed.

As I recall it, the purpose of the K Street Project wasn't just to get lobbyists pointing their attentions to the GOP. It was to wean them away from the Dems they had been patronizing (presumably on the expectation of a Dem return to power) well after the GOP became the majority party. The idea was to move the institutional support and power in DC away from where it had been for decades. Not at all pretty, but insider games usually aren't in that town.

Pretty much everyone agrees that any Republican who was up for sale needs to burn, but I'm not all that excited yet. Not until I see actual facts. I've been watching BS ethical charges, indictments, impeachment threats, etc. against Republicans for years and the smoke to fire ratio has not been impressive. Odds are, the charges against Delay are bogus. Certainly the accusations against Bush have been. And those against his judicial nominees. And I'm supposed to assume some kind of widespread guilt here?

I don't think so.

Tom Delay is preferable to error.

Ace,

Hey, I'm a lot late to this thread...

I can take flame throwing as well as anyone, but...

I think this should be disqualifying:

I'm sure y'all will keep that cross burning in the yard for me, lol

Did he really write that?

...

As for you Larry the Urbanite, I have two words for you, and I mean them in the most respectful way, really.

Fuck you.

Got that?

No, really.

Cross burning?

Really.

Fuck.You.

Ace, if you ban me for this, so be it.

What's right is right.

Just sayin'.

Go here:

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff.asp

Why do I doubt that Larry is coming back to this thread any time soon?

Odd that s/he had time to post a quick insult but not a single name of a Dem leader as s/he said would be so easy to do....nor a quick response to his/her obvious error in posting Rich Lowry's link then demanding an example of a righty calling for righty heads....

And I am one of those people who would come back to the Dem's if they simply would become sensible again.....implying I am a cross-burner is a odd way to woo me back.

This&That
(Who prefers burning steaks instead of crosses....Mmmmmm, can't wait for the burn ban to be lifted here in OK land!)

But Ace, Democrats are pure of spirit, they are uncorruptible, they are beings of pure light and wisdom, and their farts not only smell like lilacs but are also an environmentally-friendly source of clean energy.

Hmm... I dare say this one's been hit over the fence. Sorry, guys.

Indian tribes that hired Jack Abramoff gave money to both Democrats and Republicans. That much is indisputable. But was this money "directed" by Abramoff or was it money that the tribes would have given anyway? Brad DeLong notes that one way to tell is to compare the pattern of pre-Abramoff contributions to post-Abramoff contributions:

"For example, the Saginaw Chippewa gave $279,000 to Democrats over 1997-2000, and $277,000 over 2001-2004 (note from scar: this represents a DECREASE), after they had gotten into bed with Abramoff. It is a safe bet that *none* of those contributions to Democrats were "directed" by Abramoff. The Saginaw Chippewa gave $158,000 to Republicans in 1997-2000, and $500,000 to Republicans in 2001-2004 (note from scar: this represents an INCREASE), after they had gotten into bed with Abramoff. It is a safe bet that $340,000 of those contributions to Republicans were "directed" by Abramoff."

Brad then links to a Bloomberg story that provides further evidence of how Abramoff directed his clients' money:

"Of the top 10 political donors among Indian tribes in that period, three are former clients of Abramoff and Scanlon: the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of California. All three gave most of their donations to Republicans — by margins of 30 percentage points or more — while the rest favored Democrats."

So: Indian tribes usually give most of their money to Democrats, while Abramoff clients — and only Abramoff clients — give most of their money to Republicans. Coincidence? I think not.

Yeah, I think that pretty damn well establishes the facts. Let me sum this up:

After Abramoff established his relationship with his "indian cronies", they gave ***LESS*** money to Democrats!

Let me emphasize that one more time:

LESS!

Conversely, to the Republicans, they gave... more.

So, um, yeah. I'm sure your correction will be forthcoming. Or maybe you'll spin this as Abramoff trying to clean up the Democrats' dirty act.

Whoops, left out my name, and the source post at Washington Monthly.