| Big Govt | Breitbart to AG Holder: Investigate ACORN or We’ll Release More Tapes Just Before 2010 Election |
0 |
| Politico | 0 | |
| Ras. Reports | 0 | |
| Patterico | L.A. Times Columnist Uncritically Quoted Star of Latest ACORN Video |
0 |
| ABC News | Major Hasan’s E-Mail: ‘I Can’t Wait to Join You’ in Afterlife |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
The Abramoff Democrats
Gateway Pundit and UNCoRRELATED both have up posts devoted to recapping the close ties between disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Democrats. These are stories you won’t see widely reported in the MSM, for obvious reasons.
Maybe those stories should be forwarded to Howard Dean, who needs to be reminded that Democrats were part of this scandal, too. I’m sure he’ll look into it, right after he gets out of hot water with the DNC after leaving them with less than $5.5 million in their campaign coffers next to the GOP’s $34 million.
AM Update: I forgot to hat tip my friend Fat Tone, who I’d also like to thank for turning me on to the UNCoRRELATED blog. Good reading there. Thanks, FT!
Related Toldjah So posts:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
144 Responses to “The Abramoff Democrats”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Sarge-you obviously don’t know how to read information put for to you..
KC- Thanks for the link…
Survey indicated that Daily Show viewers actually demonstrated more knowledge of current events than viewers of The Tonight Show or the Late Show with David Letterman.
“We have no idea if the smarter folks are learning from the show, or if the people that watch are already smarter,” Young said to the group of about 40.
In a survey of 19,013 adults, Annenberg found that for a six-question political knowledge test, viewers of Letterman scored 2.91, viewers of Leno scored 2.95 and viewers of The Daily Show scored 3.59 items correctly.
ST said: “Incidentally, if either of you have that big an issue with people at this blog, and want to start talking about people here as though they were idiots, I would appreciate it if you’d take that type of moonbatty nonsense elsewhere. For the life of me I have never understood why people would hang out at a blog that they complain about everyone supposedly being idiots and ignorers of the truth on. If we’re so beneath you, find another pasture on which to graze, ‘k, because my patience with you both is getting very thin.”
It’s like that classic Woody Allen bit: The food at this restaurant is TERRIBLE! And the portions are so small!
Where did the republicans get thier 34M? From corrupt JACK-asses. You think abramof is the only one? Yes, both sides take in questionable donations, but the republicans take in more because they give out more “favors” especially to the wealthy. Its a vicious cycle. More money, more donations, more favors. repeat.
fslim,
Get your facts right. The GOP has more small, hard money donors than the donkey party. The donkey party relies on fatcat big donors like Soros.
Give’m hell Sister T !!! Now we have another comment from the peanut gallery (fslim). It is amazing how liberals claim to be open minded but won’t read or watch anything that would shake their foundation. You can not win a war without information on your opposition and the “see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil” liberals are coming to a gun fight with a knife.
fslim wrote, “Where did the republicans get thier 34M? From corrupt JACK-asses. You think abramof is the only one?
You obviously don’t know that Abramoff dispursed over 1 BILLION of money and 1/3rd to Democrats.
You obviously don’t know the difference between hard money campaign contributions and soft money. They are two different set of rules and you are mixing apples and orange and trying to make one party as only corrupt and one party as squeeky clean. History shows that isn’t true.
Conservatives here want all criminals held accountable and your rhetoric mixes apples and oranges and is ALSO PARTISAN.
I obviously didn’t know the difference between hard money and soft money. Now I get it. Yes, dems take in money too, mostly from class-action lawyers with thier own agenda. But compare that to the money taken by republicans from mainly corporations or people on the payroll of corporations, you’ll see a huge discrepency. This “hard” money is from people like Bush’s “rangers” who find 50 friends, family members, pets, or freinds of pets to donate $2000 each. All I was saying was money corrupts and I’ll infer, I think acurately, that since republicans have a lot more of it, they’re more corrupt.
fslim, again you make with the baseless accusations. “Pets and friends of pets”, PULEASE!!!!
Don’t forget Al Gore’s Buddist temple fundraiser, his using his VP office for fundraising,…
Don’t forget Clinton’s Loral donations. His Enron donations. Yes, Ley slept in the Lincoln bedroom after he paid Clinton.
I’m not defending any dems. I just wish the GOP would say “yeah we [edited - ST] up, most of the scandal seems to be on our side of the ailse, lets fix it” instead of “yeah, but the ‘donkeys’ are doing it too.” Does anybody admit error and take responsibility for anything? Should they?
We are looking to hold anyone accountable. What more do you want? Seems you want us to hold people accountable who aren’t criminals and let Dems off too?
To us ALL who are accountable should be held accountable.
fslim wrote, “But compare that to the money taken by republicans from mainly corporations or people on the payroll of corporations, you’ll see a huge discrepency
um. Actually that isn’t true either. It’s a myth that liberals like to say without knowing the facts. Actually corporations give about evenly (in soft money) to Dems and Republicans. During the Clinton years corporations gave more to Democrats. It essentially flows a little more towards the people in power but not as a “huge discrepency” as you put it. The reason? Because our government is leaning towards giving money towards every pet project and this is the reason (as well as Americans want their hand in the pie) that our government has grown every year for over 6 decades. This is why leftist/big government ideas are so OBVIOUSLY not good. We need to wipe out ALL unfairness by making a flat tax with no loopholes or special write ins and not give subsidies, etc. All businesses should be competing on a level playing field without special considerations for this size business in this area or specialty or whatever. We have a 15,000+ tax code for a reason. And it aint just the Repubs.
Your accusation about Hard Money on the Republicans JUST ISN’T TRUE. You have a pattern of making incorrect accuasations. Why do you do that? Is it fun…
Actually the hard money donors to Democrats are less in numbers and each giver are usually richer as the poor constituents do not give. The Republicans have by far way more donors and have an average donation that is far less than the Democrats. This is the reason that Republicans receive way more hard money. Because they appeal to the average middle class and upper middle class voter.
Please. Before you continue with your incorrect accusation do the little bit of research required. It’s great to think in stereotypes due to the misinformation that you’ve been reading over the years but there are facts that are representable…
So, some of Abramoff’s cliets also gave money to Democrats. That doesn’t mean a thing. 0% of money from Abramoff himself went to Democrats. 0% of money from any of Abramoffs phoney charities went to Democrats. That’s why no Democrats are under investigation. Before they were represented by Abramoff, Indian tribes gave almost 100% of their political donations to Democrats. After Abramoff hit the scene, tribes donated 65% to Republicans, who never have legitimately represented the interest of any Indian tribe. Abramoff persuaded the tribes to give less money to Democrats and more money to corrupt Republicans. You Republicans need to come up for air once in a while. The stench of your lies is killing the country.
fslim wrote, “But compare that to the money taken by republicans from mainly corporations or people on the payroll of corporations, you’ll see a huge discrepency”
People on the payroll of corporations? Oh, you mean people with jobs! Yup, that’d explain why the Dems don’t get more of this type of money.
Maybe if they had a message that was appealing more people with jobs would give to them….
delicious baklava- ok so the corps give to whoever is in power. Makes sense. It is neat how a bunch of small individual donations add up to $100,000. Why is it then,if the middle class is giving these donations, that one person (the ranger in this case) take responsibility for the whole $100,000. these rangers are then given special treatment by the president. What is the point of recognizing the ranger? the money is there either way right? or mayber there is a point.
the gov. has grown in the last 6 decades. it has grown in the last 6 yrs. I don’t think republicans are going to change that. they have had a majority in congress with a republican president. I have not seen the govenment shrink yet. in fact it has grown more powerful lately (post 911) under repulican domination no less. perhaps if the elephants were actually “conservative” we would see a smaller gov.
Severian and Baklava are typical of rank-and-file Republicans who have lost the battle of reason and are resorting to throwing out stupid and untrue stereotypes. Face it, your party is bankrupting the country and killing it with corruption. All you have left is the claim that Democrats don’t work. You are pathetic and dispicable. Every time I leave one of these boards I feel like I need to take a shower.
Don’t drop the soap…
Randy says, Every time I leave one of these boards I feel like I need to take a shower.
We agree, the stench came in with you.
I am glad you saw you needed one after seeing us all holding our noses in your presence and our eyes watering.
Sorry couldn’t help myself.
If you take the 100% and divide by the number of donors (hard money) that the Republicans recive it is by far more donors and with an average dollar amount that is less than the Democrats.
You continue to mix hard and soft money. The Abramoff giving of money was mostly soft money and went 1/3 and 2/3 Dems and Repubs respectively.
Receiving money whether directly or indirectly from the Abramoff man or associates IS NOT ILLEGAL and totalled over 1 Billion. There are illegalities according to the law and anyone who did anything illegally will be held accountable whether Democrat or Republican. This isn’t an opportunity to be like McCarthy and or have a witchhunt. It’s an opportunity to hold all wrongdoers accountable.
You are right about the one thing. I don’t think Republicans are going to change government growth. They don’t have enough conservative Republicans to make a majority. There are too many liberals (whether D or R) in Congress. Both parties essentially are to the left of center.
It be great as a centrist/conservative to see that change and it will. Things have slowly shifted over the last decade as people’s minds are changed because the left doesn’t have control over information anymore.
BTW, National Defense is the #1 job of the federal government as prescribed by the constitution. While yes after 9/11 the defense budget has grown but so has spending on domestic spending and far more in the last 5 years than Bill Clinton’s 8 years…..
Randy added to the discussion.
/end sarcasm
Instead of attacking and generalizing give people something they can dialog with.
sorry to link this a nonpartisan site:
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/ContributorsAndPaybacks/pioneer_search.cfm
but as you can see by the convenience of alphabetical order that J.A. is first on the list. I don’t think I am mixing hard and soft. Jack did though. Not only did he give lots of soft money (not disputed), he also took a lot of “hard” money and gave it to the GOP. When you calculate your hard money and divide by the number of donors, you fail to see where it really came from. So now Jack’s taint is also on the hard money (from the middle class working man). There are more like him.
Look at it like this: Jack has 10 slimey friends. they each give him $2000 from themselves, $2000 from thier wives, and $2000 from each of the thier 3 kids. Now you have $100,000 from “ordinary middle class americans.” just a hypothetical.
hard money, is not clean it just looks that way.
The American Prospect hired a non-partisan firm (Dwight L. Morris & Associates) who is a for-profit organization that has conducted many surveys for both parties. The study (linked below) shows the following:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10924
1.) Tribes were giving money to Democrats before becoming clients of Abramoff
2.) After they became clients of Abramoff they averaged 9% less to Democrats and 135% more to Republicans.
Conclusion: There is no evidence that Abramoff directed the tribes to donate any money to Democrats and that the evidence is compelling that he directed money to Republicans.
3.) Jack Abramoff has not personally given a single cent to the Democrats, remember he was the President of the College Republicans.
These are statements of fact supported by examining publicly filed records of before and after amounts contributed by Jack Abramoff’s client list.
I served in the military 18 years and can’t believe I kept serving 10 years after I could have made a lot more money on the outside, just to watch the end of all accountability to the facts by Republicans.
I know I am wasting my time presenting facts to people who do not want to be inconvenienced by a good hard look at themselves, but in the spirit of holding on to my antiquated notion of what America used to be, I feel compelled to try.
This is a Republican scandal, get used to it, embrace the facts, and be part of the reform so this doesn’t happen again to either party.
Julien
LINK
Sarge’s list of Republicans implicated/indicted/pled guilty/ in various scandals forgot to mention Bill Frist under investigation by the SEC and Justice Department and there is also more complete list of people who are guilty in the NH phone jamming scandal with James Tobin:
As of March 10, 2005:
Charles McGee plead guilty in federal court “to conspiring to make anonymous calls to annoy or harass. He also was fined $2,000 and ordered to perform 200 hours of community service. He faced up to 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. … McGee resigned in 2003 after police alerted federal prosecutors to the phone-jamming operation. He denied any wrongdoing at the time. He later admitted paying $15,600 to a Virginia telemarketing company that hired another business to call get-out-the-vote phone banks around the state.” [6] (http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2005/03/10/former_gop_party_head_sentenced_to_seven_months_in_phone_jamming/)
“Allen Raymond, who was president of the Alexandria, Va.-based GOP Marketplace LLC at the time, pleaded guilty to hiring a firm from Idaho to make the calls. He was sentenced earlier this year to five months in prison.” [8] (http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2005/03/10/former_gop_party_head_sentenced_to_seven_months_in_phone_jamming/)
As of October 10, 2005, “James Tobin, who then worked as the Northeast political director for Bill Frist’s National Republican Senatorial Committee and the RNC, is now awaiting trial for his role in the scheme.” [9] (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_10_09.php#006721)
On December 15, 2005, James Tobin was convicted on telephone harassment charges “for his part in a plot to jam the Democrats’ phones on Election Day 2002.” Tobin was acquitted by the federal jury on “the most serious charge against him, of conspiring to violate voters’ rights.” Tobin will be sentenced March 2006 and “could get up seven years in prison and $500,000 in fines.” [10] (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GOP_PHONE_JAMMING?SITE=JRC&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-12-15-20-16-27)
Lets come together and all agree on at least one thing. There are a lot of corrupt politicians. Alot.
Heck, let’s agree on two things! Most of them are Democrats.
filed under: instigation, goading
Julien,
1) Is that illegal. No.
2) Is that illegal. No.
Conclusionary statement: Doesn’t pass the Critical Thinking required to pass a Critical thinking class in college. You simply cannot underline cannot make the conclusion you made based on the fact you have stated AND the evidence is that yes Abramoff did steer money to Democrats (which isn’t illegal). What is illegal is what Kent Conrad and Harry Reid are being looked at for.
3) Direct Contributions aren’t illegal. Why do Democrats keep saying this? Because in the fog of war, misinformation is key to winning. The other sentence concerning the President of the COllege Republicans is McCarthyism/withhunting exampled [Have you ever been or been associated with a College Republican].
I served in the military for 6 years and can’t believe that julien wouldn’t want all who acted criminally to not be held accountable. Is that what you want? For conservatives here, we want ALL who should be held accountable to be held accountable no matter how partisan Democrats want it to be.
I know I am wasting my time presenting a reasoned/logical argument to julien who doesn’t want to be inconvenienced by a good hard look at him/her self, but in the spirit of holding on to my antiquated notion of what America used to be, I feel compelled to try.
This is a scandal. “Get used to” the fact that anyone who should be held accountable will be held accountable because the left doesn’t control information anymore and certainly doesn’t present logical arguments. “Embrace the fact” that all who should be held accountable will. And “be part of the reform so this doesn’t happen again to either party.
fslim- I don’t think anyone here is denying that there are Republicans guilty of taking illegal funds..what we are talking about is the fact that somehow the democrats have absolved themselves of all guilt, which is not the case at all.
Those that keep saying that this is just the reps should keep in mind that a handful of democrats did return money.
As for your 6:23 post….
For the record, Are you stating Julien that no Democrats have ever been convicted/indicted/investigated? Let’s just talk about the last year if that’s what you want to limit it to. Are you saying it for the last year?
Checkmate – as your 6:23 post is partisan and wanders away from the specific “scandal” of Abramoff.
fslim. Look at the earlier post of mine. My claim talked about the 100% pie of hard money dividing by number of donors.
It is true. Your focus on Abramoff hard money donations does NOT negate my statements of fact.
If the Sister and most of you posters are correct, I expect to see just as many Dems as Reps indicted for corruption. After all, a republican-led Justice Department would like to have a few Dems to take down, right?
However, since Abramoff is a life-long movement Republican, a Bush pioneer who helped lead his transition team, the republican responsible for staffing the Interior Department and a proponent of the K-street project, I don’t expect to see any Dems in trouble. Maybe if Abramoff hadn’t given every dime of his own money to Reps and directed his clients to give less money to Dems, I would feel differently.
I confined the Abramoff post to Abramoff. Some Democrats gave money back from the tribes, but again there is no evidence of money being directed to them from Abramoff via the tribes.
The evidence is overwhelming that the Abramoff scandal is confined to the Republicans. If you want to get into a larger systemic discussion of corruption I think that both parties are immensely corrupted by corporate interests.
That being said, we have never seen a scandal on this level with the implications of quid pro quo in the history of our nation, both in dollar amounts and the legislation that followed. I am not the one making the claim that he can show cause and effect, Jack Abramoff did in his written statement in the plea bargain.
No Democrat is under investigation or a party of interest in the Jack Abramoff investigation. Please show me evidence otherwise and I will be happy to change my mind.
Finally, in response to Baklava accusing me of not using my critical thinking skills, you attacked my thinking and character, but you did not rebut the facts presented and only misdirected the argument. Most of the money is not illegal, the apparent direct connection between the money and the actions by the members of Congress after receiving the money is.
I say “most” in the paragraph above because some of the contributions in the form of golf trips to Scotland, event tickets, and direct payments by lobbyists for hotel bills are illegal.
Several Democrats did receive payments of those kind last year, but not from Abramoff, and the totals from the Democrats are dwarfed by the Republicans.
It is so sad to keep hearing the statements over and over again “it’s not illegal to take the money” without the acknowledgment that the money is merely a marker for the crime that was committed later.
If I have said anything factually incorrect, again, show me where I am wrong and I will change my mind.
You continue to make false statements.
I attacked your argument. I don’t know your character. I used a lot of your same words in your last 2 paragraps also.
I dealth directly with your irrelevant McCarthyism type arguments. Additionally, Direct money is not illegal.
Please understand again that Democrats (and yourself) using the direct money argument only does a disservice and does NOT implicate guilt or innocence (as I was trying to say). Please understand also that you were using McCarthyism type arguments with respect to the College Republican President comment.
It doesn’t matter if it was FROM Abramoff or FROM his associates or from Bill Gates or Micky Mouse. Your paragraph about “several Democrats did receive payment of those kind last year” IS THE ISSUE not whether it was direct or not.
Hope this helps. All who need to be held accountable should not just what you seem to be saying (Republicans only).
Again you are misdirecting the argument.
I have not made any “direct money” argument, you are misdirecting again. If this scandal was about just taking money, there would be no investigation, for the 100th time, it is what happened after the money was accepted.
The Jack Abramoff scandal is Republican only. A Republican lobbyist giving money to Republican congressmen with direct legislative actions to show for it.
You keep saying the money is not illegal, but you fail to address the result of the money. Oh by the way, the money is illegal on the part of the Congressman if it was the reason for his action.
If there are Democrats involved in this, then they need to be held accountable just like anyone else, but none are under investigation, none are implicated.
Tell me which Democrat is a person of interest in this matter, by the Justice Department.
There are at last count, six Republicans who are implicated by the Justice department report, no Democrats.
When you acknowledge that the Abramoff scandal is a Republican only scandal, which is a fact, we can have a dialogue about other issues. You might just agree with some of my thoughts about current Democrats.
But you are so invested in your party being right that you are committing a disservice to your country.
If you let the Republicans off the hook on this scandal, what do you think the Democrats are going to do if they regain the Senate? Think they are going to behave much better? You Republicans have to do the right thing for our country or it will just continue to get worse.
Well gentlemen take care. I am writing this from a Starbuck’s 1,300 miles from my wife and toddler boy, both of whom I miss immensely.
Everyday most of get up and go to work, we make ethical decisions, do not steal from our employers or customers, and are just desperately trying to either survive or get a little ahead and face ourselves in the mirror each day.
Fighting among ourselves about our party being right or wrong is such a joke. Very few of those people represent or care about us, they are engaging in a chess match for political superiority while our troops are pawns on a real battlefied.
Take Care
“Dobson neglected to mention–and has yet to discuss publicly–is his own pivotal role in one of Abramoff’s schemes. In 2002 Dobson joined a coterie of Christian-right activists, including Tony Perkins, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, to spearhead Abramoff’s campaigns against the establishment of several Louisiana casinos that infringed on the turf of Abramoff’s tribal clients. Dobson and his allies recorded messages for phone banking, lobbied high-level Bush Administration officials and took to the airwaves. Whether they knew it or not, these Christian soldiers’ crusade to protect families in the “Sportsmen’s Paradise” from the side effects of chronic slot-pulling and dice-rolling was funded by the gambling industry and planned by the lobbyist known even to his friends as “Casino Jack.”"
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060220/blumenthal
God’s party huh?
So tell me, all of you “this is a bi-partisan scandal” fantasy land dewllers, how many democrats were part of the Delay/Abramoff K-Street Poject?
The fact that so many keystrokes have been expended trying to rationalize something this cut-and-dry shows the lengths some will go to in order to distort reality to match their agenda.
It’s really very simple: The Abramoff scandal is THUS FAR a Republican one. Have Dems ever done anything unethical? Yes. Are some engaging in unethical acts now? Possibly.
But, this particular scandal has SO FAR proven to be a Republican one. Whether any Abramoff clients gave to Dems is irrelevant, b/c that, in itself is not illegal.
To suggest otherwise or attempt to implicate Dems is unfounded, desparate, denial of reality . Not only that, it’s irrelevant with regard to taking responsibility for your party.
And to say “we just want all involved to be punished” is a thinly veiled attempt to again imply that the Dems are involved and deflect/spread the blame. You think it’s giving you the moral high ground, but it’s just a cop-out that puts you on the low-road.
Why is it so hard to admit that your party screwed up and leave it at that?
thatnotsoniceguy wrote, “But, this particular scandal has SO FAR proven to be a Republican one.”
So let’s just say we conceded that at this moment in time it is (which it isn’t) a Republican scandal. So what? What’s your point? WE ALL (CONSERVATIVES ANYWAY) WANT ANYONE WHO COMMITTED A CRIME TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. You liberals and Democrats are going to see a government that shrinks finally and will be kicking and screaming because of it and you don’t see that coming for some reason.
It’s hillarious because that’s what matters to conservatives.
Conservativism matters not an individual personality. We are getting stronger because of this “scandal” that is supposedly just “Republican”.
And again… What’s your point? Care to elaborate? Or are you going to go off the deepend as liberals do calling this a culture of corruption that Republicans have. Because that’s a tactic that’ll lose in this debate.
You have no point I think other than to keep saying something incorrect in our eyes but correct in your eyes over and over and over again as if what? To gain political points?
I don’t care about individual personalities.
I care about the fact that I as a conservative LOVE THE FACT that it is VERY apparent now that there are 27,000 registered lobbyists (true number) lobbying 30,000 Congressional staff members because BIG GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM
thatnotsoniceguy wrote, “But, this particular scandal has SO FAR proven to be a Republican one.”
So let’s just say we conceded that at this moment in time it is (which it isn’t) a Republican scandal. So what? What’s your point? WE ALL (CONSERVATIVES ANYWAY) WANT ANYONE WHO COMMITTED A CRIME TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. You liberals and Democrats are going to see a government that shrinks finally and will be kicking and screaming because of it and you don’t see that coming for some reason.
You have no point I think other than to keep saying something incorrect in our eyes but correct in your eyes over and over and over again as if what? To gain political points?
I don’t care about individual personalities.
I care about the fact that I as a conservative LOVE THE FACT that it is VERY apparent now that there are 27,000 registered lobbyists (true number) lobbying 30,000 Congressional staff members because BIG GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM
It’s hillarious because that’s what matters to conservatives.
Conservativism matters not an individual personality. We are getting stronger because of this “scandal” that is supposedly just “Republican”.
And again… What’s your point? Care to elaborate? Or are you going to go off the deepend as liberals do calling this a culture of corruption that Republicans have. Because that’s a tactic that’ll lose in this debate.
Sorry I posted twice ST. I moved my entire paragraph to the wrong place and had to rearrange the post and post again.
“I care about the fact that I as a conservative LOVE THE FACT that it is VERY apparent now that there are 27,000 registered lobbyists (true number) lobbying 30,000 Congressional staff members because BIG GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM”
But you could have a lobbyist argue for privatization. That’s not a big government problem.
Seems the government has been lobbyed more for subsidies and special tax breaks and special projects versus privatization.
Lobbying is not illegal. Neither is big government. But I’d be HAPPY to see people pay attention to the fact that there is TOO MANY people trying to get a piece of the taxpayer dollar pie.
This is great for conservatives!!
BTW, I’ll put in my two cents for 6% of my Social Security contributions going towards a nest egg I can call my own!!!
Baklava: “I don’t care about individual personalities…”
Yet, you seem to be fighting so hard to implicate Dems specifically with misleading statements like: “1/3rd of the over a billion that Abramoff had distruted went to Democrats”.
And why does it matter? Oh, I don’t know. Maybe you should ask the rest of the folks in your party who are working so hard to implicate the Dems. Start here.
You know, it’s funny. I was able to find that page pretty easily on the RNC site, but I had trouble locating the one that talks about the Repubs that were involved and what the party plans to do about it. Can you help me find it?
“On Friday, 21 of Georgia’s 34 Republican state senators _ all Cagle supporters _ signed a letter urging Reed to withdraw from the race, saying his involvement in the Abramoff scandal “threatens to impact the entire Republican ticket.”"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/03/ap/politics/mainD8FHTD1G9.shtml
Huh, but they didn’t mention democrats.
Oh right. Maybe that’s because this is a REPUBLICAN scandal.
Edited. –ST
Funny I read what Baklava says and understand fully.
The majority may be certain repulicans and he does not deny this, but he is just pointing out that this corruption is not limited to just republicans, even if the democrats are trying to act like the crap don’t stink, they too will be having fall out from this, whether you wish to believe it or not.
thatguy wrote, “Yet, you seem to be fighting so hard to implicate Dems specifically with misleading statements like: “1/3rd of the over a billion that Abramoff had distruted went to Democrats”.
What is misleading about it. There are charts and graphs and actual numbers to back up my quote. And my goal is that everyone who broke the law is held accountable. If that happens to be Dems too so be it. You are the one saying no it’s only Republicans…. The partisanship comes through with you. Me? I don’t care!! I care that everyone who broke the law is held accountable.
BTW, Thanks for the link. I didn’t see it before because I never go to that site. Did you read it? I just did. It looks like you/Democrats are plain hypocrites. That’s what that showed. And the trips are still going on the link showed. Democrats have cojones.
I’m just playing with ya. Actin’ all partisan like ya 
You still going to go on with the partisan Dems are squeaky clean rhetoric? ???
Baklava: “What is misleading about it. There are charts and graphs and actual numbers to back up my quote.”
It’s the implication that’s misleading. Given the context in which you mentioned it, it comes off like an attempt to tie the Democrats to the Abramoff scandal. No facts (as of yet) support that. That’s why I said it was misleading instead of wrong.
Baklava: “BTW, Thanks for the link”
Hey, I’m here for you. But seriously, I’m still waiting on you to return the favor and link to the page where Repubs claim responsibility for themselves. I could respect that so much more.
And strategically, it makes more sense: Distance the party from the “bad apples” instead of making all Repubs seem complicit.
Anyway, it seems I inadvertently whipped you into a frenzy with that link and the point I was making with it sneaked by you.
Which was in answer to your original question…”why it matters”.
It matters b/c the party that’s in power has a huge scandal, and rather than openly acknowledge it and earnestly work to restore the public trust, they spend more time trying to deflect/spread blame through a “cloud-the-issue” campaign.
So, their response is to leap into denial and try to make this a Dems issue. It has to make you wonder how well that big cleanup that WE ALL earnestly desire will work out.
nice guy wrote, “the party that’s in power…
The party that isn’t in power has criminals also bud. Some have been convicted (cough Traficant).
Not working to deflect and spread blame. Working to make sure partisans like you don’t get away with ACTING like the Dems are squeaky clean when they aren’t. Honesty is here and not with you.
I’m not leaping to denial as you accused in your last paragraph (nice pattern of libs accuse accuse accuse), I’m the one saying that anyone who’se committed a crime should be held accountable.
I buy groceries from Safeway. I am therefore a client of Safeway. Now if I gave you money, you would have received money from a client of Safeway. What does that mean? NOTHING! Would that implicate you if Safeway were involved in a scandal of some sort? According to FOX, maybe, but in reality no. Did Democrats get LEGAL campaign contributions from clients of Abramoff? Yes. What does that mean? NOTHING. It doesn’t implicate them in any criminal activity or imply in any way involvement in any kind of abuse of power that is going on here. All those lists and numbers about Democrats who “got money from Abramoff’s clients” are MEANINGLESS. Even if they did get money directly from Abramoff, which not one Democrat did, it doesn’t mean they did anything illegal. Shall we go back and see if Monica Lewinski ever kissed a Republican to make that a bi-partisan scandal? The pubs are ridiculous and really reaching here. Either Dems did something illegal or they didn’t, and apparently the only illegal activity is on the Republican side of the isle.
One thing the wingnuts haven’t mentioned is that Abramoff is and has always been a right-wing Republican activist. He was the chairman of the College Republican National Committee, the chief contributor to Delay’s K-street project, and part of the Bush Cheney transition team in 2000. He’s the guy who said “It is not our job to seek peaceful coexistence with the left, our job is to remove them from power permanently.” Why on Earth would he help any Democrats ever? No matter how much the ditto-head talking-point hacks want to spin it with meaningless post-hoc Kevin Beacon connections, it IS a Republican scandal. Period.
Also, the media seems to be completely ignoring the worst crime Abramoff committed. He wrote and produced the movies Red Scorpion. That alone means he should be locked in a basement somewhere and studied like Hannibal Lecter where he can’t harm anyone again.