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:
Follow the money…honey.
Comment by camojack @ 2/1/2006 - 5:12 am
The Democrats know if they repeat a lie often enough it will get traction in the MSM it will go from a lie to editorials both in print and on talking head shows condemning the GOP. Dean has already started the lie and he wasn’t called on it as other Democrats will spew the lie and won’t be called on it. They are counting on the MSM to show it as a Republican problem and Democrats are clean because Abramoff is a Republican and bribed only Republicans. I hope that the Democrats will pin all there hopes of getting more seats in the House and Senate by using this lie against the GOP. I think they will end up with egg on their face just as they did with Judge Alito.
Comment by Jim M @ 2/1/2006 - 7:06 am
Just as long as we don’t forget that Republicans are a part of this problem.
There’s nothing wrong with making sure the Democrats have their noses rubbed in the mess. But they weren’t alone.
Our own house is every bit as filthy in this scandal, much as I wish that weren’t so.
Dean won’t look into this at all, of course. To do so would show a bit of integrity, and Dean has shown repeatedly he has none. But he may put on a “horse and buggy show” for the MSM.
Comment by benning @ 2/1/2006 - 7:16 am
Benning,
You are right members of both parties got caught with their proverbial hands in the cookie jar. But the Democrats are splitting hairs saying that they didn’t receive money from Abramoff “DIRECTLY” but we know that Abramoff steered his client’s money to the Democrats. This is how the Dems are running with it so far and unlike the Republicans the Democrats haven’t returned the money or given it to charity. The Democrats that are pointing their finger at the Republicans should realize that they have three of their own fingers pointing back at them.
Comment by Jim M @ 2/1/2006 - 8:28 am
Wait, so your point is that “hey, the democrats are just as bad as we are!”? That’s some pretty lousy rhetoric. You’re admitting to being corrupt and doing things outside the law, and your defense is to say that other people are just as terrible as you are? Good job! I say take them all down according to what they did. But Abramoff is a Republican, he was involved with the K Street Project which is a completely Republican phenomenon, and the people in charge who have let this kind of corruption go unchecked and who have benefited most, almost exclusively, are Republicans. The problem isn’t the laws: the problem is the Republicans.
Comment by ervington @ 2/1/2006 - 10:02 am
First off, Abramoff didn’t steer his clients money to Dems. He steered it away from Dems and toward Republicans. More money was givenm by these clients to Dems BEFORE Abramoff got involved.
Secondly, there’s no scandal I’m aware of in Abramoff’s clients giving money to Dems (or Republicans). That’s the way our system works, like it or not.
This is what we called a “red herring” before 911 (Sorry, I put that 911 caveat in everything I say).
Don’t follow the money, follow the scandal. Go back and see what Abramoff is charged with. His clients giving money to Republicans and Democrats is not a scandal.
Now, if we want to change the way our LEGAL system works I’m on board. But don’t blame Dems (or Republicans) for playing by the rules.
Thanks.
Comment by Robert @ 2/1/2006 - 10:03 am
When are you guys gonna get it? This is not about deflecting on to Democrats or trying to justify any alleged Republican wrongdoing. It’s simply a request to make sure that we realize that it’s not just Rs who are being looked into on this issue, but Ds too - don’t ya’ll want anyone, whether D or R, involved in any wrongdoing related to Abramoff to face punishment? Or is this just about ‘getting Republicans’?
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/1/2006 - 10:16 am
Sister S, Amen.
That’s what I say when I hear someone saying a prayer, which is what your attempt to conflate Ab’s directing his clients to make contributions to Dems with the actual scandal is.
Comment by Maimonides @ 2/1/2006 - 10:35 am
Yes Sister, we want everyone to be held accountable for criminal wrongdoings.
Problem is, that the prosecutors have only charged Republicans so far. Justice Dept is part of the Executive Branch, which is led by Bush, which makes me think that if any Democrat had a crime going on here, they’d be charged. Funny thing is, no Dems have been charged with any crime, but Republicans have.
Its not about getting Republicans, its about getting corrupt criminals who use their place of power for illegal gain. That’s what its about. Law enforcement (which is generally pretty conservative) has only seen fit to charge who they have charged.
Repubs are in a place of power in the govt now, not Dems. Repubs are in the position to use and “abuse” that power, not Dems. Maybe one day, when Dems get back in power, some of them will get in trouble too. But that isn’t “today’s” topic. Today’s topic is about getting rid of the criminals that are in the govt currently (right now).
Comment by go1 @ 2/1/2006 - 10:44 am
Hey Ervington do I need to draw you a picture! I believe I said that both (That means two) parties got caught. I can’t find anywhere that I admitted to “doing things outside the law, and other people are just as terrible as you are?”. If you missed it Dr. Howard Dean was saying it is only a Republican problem when he knows damn well that there are Democrats involved too! No the problem isn’t just Republicans it is Democrats as well. How do you come up with K Street is a Republican phenomenon I believe there are liberal lobbyists as well as conservative.
Comment by Jim M @ 2/1/2006 - 10:55 am
This is a somewhat difficult issue to parse out, and it is really quite difficult to definitively assign blame for illegal activities beyond just a few incidents. However, it is being argued that these few incidents are symptomatic of a larger “culture of corruption.”
To understand the guilt by association gambit, we can classify money affiliated with Abramoff into three hierarchical pools:
1) money J.A. directly donated
2) money J.A. explicitly instructed his clients to donate
3) money his clients donated, whether it was at the behest of J.A. or not.
These break down into 100%, ~92%, and ~65% to Republicans directly. I would argue that #2 is the fairest category to go by. The problem is that only #1 and #3 are tracked by the government, and the figure in #2 is just the best guess from documents obtained from J.A., and is unofficial.
As far as actual legal culpability goes, it is not illegal (and may not even be unethical by Washington standards) to accept money from J.A. What is important is whether that money was obtained fraudulently, or came with a quid pro quo. I would be highly surprised if any Democrats get caught up in this investigation as a result of following Abramoff money. The Democrats may have their own shady deals, but not with J.A.
Comment by KCR @ 2/1/2006 - 11:11 am
This “six degrees of separation” game is pretty amusing.
“OK, maybe Abramoff didn’t actually give any money to any Democrats, but some people that he worked for gave money to Democrats (about as much as they gave before he worked for them, but never mind), so that’s pretty much the same, isn’t it?”
Comment by trrll @ 2/1/2006 - 11:14 am
What I find interesting is how many faithful GOPers seem to be focusing almost entirely on Reid’s non-existent connections to Abramoff instead of paying much attention to the very concrete, very damning connections between Abramoff and many in the GOP leadership. (For the record, ties to Abramoff’s clients are *not* the same thing as ties to Abramoff himself.) It almost seems like a diversionary tactic or something.
That being said, I find the whole mess disgusting and revealing. Money & politics should not mix, we need serious campaign finance reform, the kind where all campaigns are funded by public funds, not private contributions.
Comment by zoe kentucky @ 2/1/2006 - 11:31 am
How do you come up with K Street is a Republican phenomenon I believe there are liberal lobbyists as well as conservative.
You clearly know very little about K Street. At one point it was both, but now? What do you think the K Street Project has been about?
Comment by zoe kentucky @ 2/1/2006 - 11:33 am
**The Democrats know if they repeat a lie often enough it will get traction in the MSM it will go from a lie to editorials both in print and on talking head shows condemning the GOP.**
Is it just me that finds this incredibly hilarious?
Man, I am starting to get the picture. Republicans DO live in a dream world! but there are so many of them that this world actually starts to influence objective reality.
To the poster, I think you have it backwards. See all FACTUAL matter on the subject before commenting.
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 11:38 am
**Hey Ervington do I need to draw you a picture! I believe I said that both (That means two) parties got caught. I can’t find anywhere that I admitted to “doing things outside the law, and other people are just as terrible as you are?”.**
Yes, Jim. Please draw me a picture. Show me where any Democrat “got caught” doing anything illegal.
Let me know if you want my version of the picture. Hint: There are at least TWO Republicans already implicated, and unlikely that there will be ANY Democrats implicated in any ILLEGAL activity.
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 11:42 am
Hey KC, you do realize that out of the 5 people being investigated, 2 of them are Democrats…
Comment by Severian @ 2/1/2006 - 11:46 am
Here’s one thing for everybody to consider: if you wanted to influence lawmaking over the last say, 10 years or so, to whom whould you give money?
Comment by Justin Case @ 2/1/2006 - 11:52 am
**Hey KC, you do realize that out of the 5 people being investigated, 2 of them are Democrats…**
If you want me to believe the unsourced rumour being forwarded by the GOP, as a tactic of making the congressional minority defend themselves against unsubsantiated charges, then I’ll accept that.
But in any case, a quick glance at the FEC records will show you that NO money was EVER donated by Abramoff to ANY democrat. What tribes did “at his direction” is irrelevant and the facts will ultimately bear this out.
Please spare me the skybox story, as it is nothing compared to the rampant, documented favor buying campaings of Abramoff and the K Street project.
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 12:12 pm
Hey KC, what’s that about no Democrats being involved?
“Law-enforcement authorities and others said the investigation’s opening phase is scrutinizing Sens. Conrad Burns, Montana Republican; Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat; and Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, along with Reps. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, and Bob Ney, Ohio Republican.”
Comment by Severian @ 2/1/2006 - 12:25 pm
Oops, link didn’t take:
LINK
Comment by Severian @ 2/1/2006 - 12:25 pm
Erv wrote, “Wait, so your point is that “hey, the democrats are just as bad as we are!”? That’s some pretty lousy rhetoric. You’re admitting to being corrupt and doing things outside the law
Me: No. We want anyone who broke the law to be held accountable. Simply receiving campaing contributions is not illegal. There are 27,000 lobbyists who are registered and over 30,000 staff members of Congress and big government is big for a reason. To us conservatives this kind of the problem. Everyone wants a piece of the government pie. There are over 180 illiteracy programs for a reason. There are so many pork projects for a reason. And it’s been going on for over 6 decades. Law breaking is the issue and for the mainstream press and Democrats to act like Republicans are corrupt because they received money and Democrats aren’t is ludicrous. It’s not receiving money that is the issue. It’s the crimes that Abramoff is involved in…
Go1 wrote, “Repubs are in a place of power in the govt now, not Dems.” as well as, “Maybe one day, when Dems get back in power, some of them will get in trouble too.”
James Traficant ring a bell? Dems can definitely break laws even though they aren’t in the “majority”. It’s this kind of partisan rhetoric that doesn’t make it anymore because you don’t have control over the media anymore (as pre 1990). There is a reason why there is a conservative movement since 1990 and your partisan rhetoric isn’t going to help you get back into power…
Comment by Baklava @ 2/1/2006 - 12:35 pm
KC you better go back in history more than ten years when Democrats held the majority in the House of Representatives and they were doing the same thing only they didn’t give it a name such as “The K-Street Project” they just did it. There was forty years of Democrat rule in the House with influence on K-Street but the table has turned and it’s not fair any more is it what was good for one is good for all. I don’t want your personal views I prefer facts and I just checked on articles on The K-Street Project and there is a good one in the CSM. I’m not saying that it is right; if we implemented the “Fair Tax Plan” it would eliminate the lobbying problem. Keep saying it unlikely that ANY Democrats will be implicated and you will have to eat your own words so keep up your smugness. You can’t tell me there are no liberal lobby groups what about “Handgun Free America” or “Center to Prevent Handgun Violence” and how about “Million Mom March” I don’t see those as conservative groups!
Comment by Jim M @ 2/1/2006 - 12:44 pm
“Gateway Pundit and UNCoRRELATED both have up posts devoted to recapping the close ties between disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Democrats.”
Its just cut and paste from an RNC press release. You can tell by the capitalized text. Bloggers get too much credit for repetition.
More guilt by association by making indian money illegal
Comment by andrew @ 2/1/2006 - 12:48 pm
Baklava,
You dont get it at all. Who is going to give Dems any illegal money to get laws passed, or appropriations, or other ways of getting influence, when the Dems dont have the power to do any of that stuff right now.
Corrupt people will pay whoever is in power, Dems and Repubs. Both will have their share of people willing to partake in personal gain, even if illegal. But the point is that right now, nobody is giving Dems anything, because Dems cant do anything in return since they have no power on the national level.
That’s why all of the illegal activity is coming down on the Republicans. People who are willing to bribe to get things done aren’t stupid, they know WHO to give bribes to, and it isnt to the guy who isnt in power, they bribe guys who ARE in power, which right now those people are Republicans.
You have to weed out those who CURRENTLY are corrupt, and dont make excuses for them that “everybody does it”. That doesn’t fly.
Comment by go1 @ 2/1/2006 - 12:49 pm
Jim M wrote, “if we implemented the “Fair Tax Plan” it would eliminate the lobbying problem
That’s what I’ve been saying. Flat tax with large individual exemptions. Like Dick Army’s plan. That would have a family of 4 who made $36,000 paying no taxes and a family of 4 who made $37,000 paying taxes on $1,000 at 17% of that.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/1/2006 - 1:11 pm
Baklava,
The Fair Tax is not a flat tax Please check it out a FairTax.org.
Comment by Jim M @ 2/1/2006 - 1:18 pm
go1 wrote, “Baklava, You dont get it at all.
You are in no position to tell me what I get and don’t. This is a pattern of liberals to act like they know what conservatives “feel”, “care about”, “think”, etc. It’s not good debate tactic..
Go1 asked, “Who is going to give Dems any illegal money to get laws passed, or appropriations, or other ways of getting influence, when the Dems dont have the power to do any of that stuff right now.
Are you saying the Dems are receiving no money from anyone? That isn’t true. Big Business when Clinton was in power for certain years gave more to Democrats than Republicans. Now Big Business gives more to Republicans (I believe). But it isn’t a drastic difference. While liberals seem to believe that big business only gives to Republicans it isn’t true. The fact is that INTEREST GROUPS EVERYWHERE are giving LOTS OF MONEY to government officials to try to have laws passed that favor them. And the bigger government grows the worse the problem is. It simply isn’t illegal to donate money. For those that have stepped outside campaign finance laws and documenting due diligence they will be held accountable and for you to act with partisan ship and act like it’s all Republicans means YOU are acting with partisanship. And it doesn’t matter to me. These laws setup by these lawmakers and past lawmakers need to be adhered to and otherwise they should be held accountable. I’m not sure what case you are making except Democrats shouldn’t be held accountable. Is that what you are saying?
go1 wrote, “That’s why all of the illegal activity is coming down on the Republicans.
Oh. to dream..
Comment by Baklava @ 2/1/2006 - 1:22 pm
**I’m not saying that it is right; if we implemented the “Fair Tax Plan” it would eliminate the lobbying problem. Keep saying it unlikely that ANY Democrats will be implicated and you will have to eat your own words so keep up your smugness. You can’t tell me there are no liberal lobby groups what about “Handgun Free America” or “Center to Prevent Handgun Violence” and how about “Million Mom March” I don’t see those as conservative groups!**
So you are left with diversionary tactics? The facts are the facts, and what you are obviously failing to grasp is that THIS scandal is centered around a REPUBLICAN group. I don’t need to do any research on history, because this is a contemporary issue.
The links you mention which purportedly tie Democrats to the whole thing consist of three things:
1) Unsourced, anonymous reports made ONLY in the Washington Times (the most right leaning rag in the land), and repeated ad-nauseum by the GOP and right wing blogs.
2) Publicly available information about how Abramoff is supposedly responsible for having his Indian tribe clients steer money in the Democrats’ direction. Which, by the way, is not illegal. Furthermore, for the MILLIONTH TIME, there is no proof that they directed any money in that direction because of anything he said or did. They donated more money to Democrats BEFORE he began representing them than they did after. Additionally, read another post above where someone points out that the Democrats don’t even have any real power in the current congress.
3) Letters written by Democratic reps. on behalf of concurrent clients of Abramoff. I can cut and paste as well, and you can easily find very reputable explanations for each of these letters which will show you that the policies they were trying to influence directly and indirectly influenced their home constituencies in the matter of Indian gaming. Again, completely LEGAL.
This gets tiring. Cutting through your misinformation is a pathetic waste of my time. Incidentally, I also agree that the tax system needs to be revamped or repaired. We need an open dialog, not legislation benefitting Bush’s business interestests being rammed through congress only because he has a majority.
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 1:23 pm
Jim M. Both are fair to me!! Thanks for the link. I like them both. And have for over a decade.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/1/2006 - 1:25 pm
KC is doing the typical liberal dance, jumping up and down, with fingers in ears, shouting “neener neener neener” as loudly as possible. And then goes on to lecture us about “facts” and “misinformation.”
Face it, liberals and Dems wallow in misinformation, and wouldn’t know a fact if it bit them on the butt. The Republicans are corrupt, but the Democrats are squeeky clean, fair haired bastions of rightousness.
Yeah, right. Harry Reid is looking pretty vunerable over this, and Dean even knows it.
But hey, if you’re of the mindset that keeps chanting “Bush Lied” over and over, you already have shown you don’t have a handle on reality.
Comment by Severian @ 2/1/2006 - 1:32 pm
“Yeah, right. Harry Reid is looking pretty vunerable over this, and Dean even knows it.”
Reid is asking the senate ethics committe to investigate him. Sound quite vulnerable doesn’t it?
Comment by andrew @ 2/1/2006 - 1:48 pm
Good God! Are you for real, Severian?
I give you facts, and attempt to get you to stay on topic. You bring up the OBVIOUS point that A LOT of congressmen on both sides are corrupt. DUH! Others bring up…wait for it….CLINTON!!! I’ve never known any repugs to do that!
But what you have AGAIN failed to grasp is this: THIS TIME AROUND it’s a Republican scandal. The only sketchy linkage to Democrats is unsourced and originated with the Wasington Times!
And whether Bush lied or not, he DID mislead.
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 1:50 pm
“Reid is asking the senate ethics committe to investigate him. Sound quite vulnerable doesn’t it?”
Sure does. I have known more than a few police in my life, used to work in research for the Justice Dept, and the number of guilty people who ask to be searched, or voluteer stuff, thinking they will deflect attention by volunteering to be searched, etc. is absolutely mind boggling.
And KC, you can prattle on all you want, but this scandal is big enough for both sides. Your incessant whining that Democrats aren’t involved only shows you up to be the partisan hack you are. As does the Bush Misled meme. If the Dems went with this with a “there’s too much corruption, we all need to step up and disown it” approach, they’d get some respect, but nooo, they launch into the Goebbels approved “BIG LIE” that NO DEMS ARE INVOLVED. And in doing so, completely discredit themselves, yet again, as a party that has only the most passing acquaintance with the truth.
And just to make you happy, I’ll say it: Clinton sucks!
Or wait, wasn’t he the suckee?
Happy now?
Comment by Severian @ 2/1/2006 - 1:57 pm
The K-Street project, set up by Delay and his top aide, Scanlon, hired Abramhoff to run the program. It was 90% Republican directed money and created the corruption the Republicans find themselves in the middle of. Peace
Comment by steve @ 2/1/2006 - 1:59 pm
Look, I hate “trolls” as much as the next person. And I will sit and debate the facts of the case with you, as I can see most people on this thread are very civilized…no real egregious (sp?) name calling.
But i am starting to understand the right wing thought process. Nobody here seems to be able to focus on the FACTS of this investigation, which clearly implicate Republicans in illegal activities and NOT Democrats (yet, or in any illegal doings!).
The origins of the K Street Project were always Republican in nature, and there was definitely not a “liberal” movement in the past with the strict and stated goal of instilling Democratic hegemony in all of the land. Period. The K Street’s goal was exactly to do that for Republican power.
What you have proven to me is that you are unwilling to step away from the GOP noise and focus on the real, current, up to date issues of this case. It involves a Republican lobbyist, buying favors from Republican congressmen. Is this “partisan”? Well that depends on how you define “partisan”.
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 1:59 pm
Speaking of a pathetic waste of time; KC I hope your still on line. Facts you couldn’t find a fact if you used both hands. “I don’t need to do any research on history, because this is a contemporary issue.” I don’t know of one liberal that wouldn’t love to forget about history and then rewrite it to suit their agenda just ask Slick Willie.
“Unsourced, anonymous reports made ONLY in the Washington Times (the most right leaning rag in the land), and repeated ad-nauseum by the GOP and right wing blogs.”
And I suppose you get all you facts from the NYT? Oh I forgot about those unpartisan letters written by Democratic Reps that are pure facts.
You hop around faster than a frog tossed in hot water.
Comment by Jim M @ 2/1/2006 - 2:00 pm
KC lied by saying, “But what you have AGAIN failed to grasp is this: THIS TIME AROUND it’s a Republican scandal.
I’m sure you’ll eat your words… or die trying. NO need to continue the act with us because you aren’t convincing us that you are the authority on the facts here.
Last sentence was off topic but there are ST posts you could learn from.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/1/2006 - 2:08 pm
Jim,
I’m still online, and what’s your point?
Do you not agree that WT is a very right leaning paper? Do you not agree that these claims are unsourced?
Can you find, in the FEC documents at FEC.gov, any mention of any direct contributions from Abramoff to Dems?
You can for Repubs. He as admitted this, and to breaking the law.
Is it illegal for a congressman to write letters? Not that I know of.
Further, what happened in the past has nothing to do with the GOPs current attempt to conflate the Democrats with this very Republican scandal.
Read my previous post. and quit accusing me of doing what it is that you, yourself and the GOP machine are actually doing.
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 2:08 pm
And please refrain from using the word “meme”. You sound like an elitist snob.
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 2:11 pm
KC wrote, “It involves a Republican lobbyist, buying favors from Republican congressmen.
You obviously didn’t see the Dean interview with Chris Wallace this weekend. Reid was boughten!!!
Comment by Baklava @ 2/1/2006 - 2:12 pm
Direct contributions aren’t against the law.
Abramoff admitted guilt. Yes. He did not admit to being guilty due to direct contributions.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/1/2006 - 2:14 pm
“I have known more than a few police in my life, used to work in research for the Justice Dept, and the number of guilty people who ask to be searched, or voluteer stuff, thinking they will deflect attention by volunteering to be searched, etc. is absolutely mind boggling.”
Also the easiest way to end suspicion. Mind boggling indeed.
Comment by andrew @ 2/1/2006 - 2:16 pm
Nope. The facts end suspicion.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/1/2006 - 2:18 pm
Well, KC, I’ll take pity on you and help you out:
Main Entry: meme
Pronunciation: ‘mEm
Function: noun
Etymology: alteration of mimeme, from mim- (as in mimesis) + -eme
: an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture
Don’t be ashamed to admit it when you don’t understand something. We’ll help you out.
Comment by Severian @ 2/1/2006 - 2:18 pm
Why is ‘direct’ contributions so important to you KC? Indirect ones are unimportant? No one really knows yet which money was used as bribes and which was legal yet. Or do you have some inside information?
Comment by blogagog @ 2/1/2006 - 2:20 pm
In Reid’s case, andrew, he wants the Senate committe to investigate, as he is sure that he can have his Democratic colleagues obsfucate and quash any negative info that comes out. Note he didn’t say he wanted an independant investigation, that would be too uncontrollable.
Comment by Severian @ 2/1/2006 - 2:21 pm
OK, but my point is that he DID NOT make direct contributions to Democrats. Period. Therefore there is no suspicion that he paid any Democrats for favors, which he did with Republicans. That’s all there is to say about that.
And finally, I’d like to clue you all in to what the “liberals” are so pissed about here. While I’m not going to claim that no Democrat will ever be tied up in this, the verifiable facts now and dating back to Ocotober are that ONLY Republicans are being named. We have two who have already admitted wrongdoing. But for some reason, the “liberal” MSM has continuously parroted the GOP narrative that this particular scandal somehow involves Democrats. This is a PR strategy on the part of the GOP which the “liberal” MSM has, for some reason allowed to gain traction.
This is disingenous for many reasons, the biggest of which is that it is, until we have REAL information, an unsubstantiated LIE! Again, I am not saying that no Dems will be implicated, although I do doubt it and would be willing to make a wager, but UNTIL they are, the “liberal” MSM has no business performing as a trumpet for the GOP noise machine, and making false equivalencies by implying that this is not, as of now, a STRICTLY REPUBLICAN SCANDAL.
Flame on.
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 2:23 pm
Oh, and I think it’s pretty clear (at least in two cases) which money was legal and which was illegal.
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 2:24 pm
“The facts end suspicion.”
You thikn an investigation by a GOP congress of the democratic majority leader won’t get you facts? ok.
“In Reid’s case, andrew, he wants the Senate committe to investigate, as he is sure that he can have his Democratic colleagues obsfucate and quash any negative info that comes out.”
I don’t see that in the Washington Times piece. What makes you say that? This is a similar committee to the one that delay was trying to thwart in the house. Why do you get the idea that its so easy for the minority party to run it?
Comment by andrew @ 2/1/2006 - 2:33 pm
Andrew, just look at your Freudian slip. You called Reid the MAJORITY Leader. Reid is a foul ball in the game of life.
Comment by PCD @ 2/1/2006 - 2:37 pm
“I don’t see that in the Washington Times piece. What makes you say that? This is a similar committee to the one that delay was trying to thwart in the house. Why do you get the idea that its so easy for the minority party to run it?”
Because they, the Dems with their fellow travelers in the MSM, have already made a mockery of the ethics committee. Remember when the Republicans wanted to change their rules to match the Democrat rules? That is, you don’t have to resign your leadership posn or committee chair position if you are only indicted knowing that indictments are often used to accomplish an end regardless of proof or guilt. The Dems don’t have that rule, the Reps wanted to change it, as they knew the Dems were playing fast and loose with ethics violations (DeLay and their partisan Texas prosecutor). The whining, wailing and hue and cry from the Dems was deafening, and the MSM was right there cheering them on, all the time not mentioning that the Dems don’t have a similar rule. Really dishonest to call the Republicans dishonest for wanting to play by the same rules the Dems do, when the Dems were unwilling to change the rules. Also, the Republicans wanted to change the rules so that you had to have a majority of members of the ethics commitee vote to recommend action be taken, but the Dems insisted that anyone be able to raise charges outside the committee. The idea was to make it impossible for one partisan party to rake people over the coals if there wasn’t enough evidence to prove anything, if there was evidence of wrongdoing, you should be able to get at least one of the opposing members to support action. But the way the Dems left it it’s open for any partisan manipulation they want. Although, if the ethics committee gets a hold of Reid, he may well wish that rule had been changed.
The Dems have been manipulating the ethics commitee for quite a while.
Comment by Severian @ 2/1/2006 - 2:46 pm
KC wrote, “You thikn an investigation by a GOP congress of the democratic majority leader won’t get you facts? ok.
Ok then… In your mind the situation will never be resolved unless ony Republicans are held accountable? Just a question….
In my opinion. The investigation will turn up some facts and facts will be published and we can pour over them all we want. Your partisanship of Republicans bad and therefore we can’t trust that investigation is a reflection on your writings not ours. We want all wrongdoers to be held accountable here…. Are you ok with that?
Comment by Baklava @ 2/1/2006 - 2:46 pm
**KC wrote, “You thikn an investigation by a GOP congress of the democratic majority leader won’t get you facts? ok.**
Sorry, dude. I never said that. You sourced that quote to the wrong person.
**And I suppose you get all you facts from the NYT? Oh I forgot about those unpartisan letters written by Democratic Reps that are pure facts.**
Yeah, in particular I like Judy Miller’s work.
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 2:53 pm
“Andrew, just look at your Freudian slip. You called Reid the MAJORITY Leader. Reid is a foul ball in the game of life.”
What does ‘foul ball in the game of life’ mean?
Comment by andrew @ 2/1/2006 - 2:58 pm
” Remember when the Republicans wanted to change their rules to match the Democrat rules? ”
That wasn’t an ethics committee thing, but an internal rule of each party.
“The idea was to make it impossible for one partisan party to rake people over the coals if there wasn’t enough evidence to prove anything, if there was evidence of wrongdoing, you should be able to get at least one of the opposing members to support action. But the way the Dems left it it’s open for any partisan manipulation they want. Although, if the ethics committee gets a hold of Reid, he may well wish that rule had been changed.”
Actually the dems wanted to prevent the committee from being a partisan rubber stamp. Precisely what it shouldn’t be.
Comment by andrew @ 2/1/2006 - 3:00 pm
No, andrew, the Dems wanted the committee to continue to be of use to them to sling mud and cast aspersions on people who they know they couldn’t get to legally. The committee is evenly divided between the parties, requiring that at least one member of the opposing party sign off before attempting to destroy a persons career isn’t “preventing the committee from being a partisan rubber stamp.” The current rules allow the Dems to get together and decide that so and so has been too effective, so we’ll knock them down a notch or three, by pushing this false charge here. (For some reason the Republicans never seem to get their ducks in a row to do the same thing to the Dems, unfortunately.) If you can’t convince at least one member of the opposition that your charges have merit, it’s probable they are spurious and partisan and shouldn’t be filed at all.
Comment by Severian @ 2/1/2006 - 3:06 pm
**The Dems don’t have that rule, the Reps wanted to change it, as they knew the Dems were playing fast and loose with ethics violations (DeLay and their partisan Texas prosecutor).**
I’m glad that you guys have already found DeLay not guilty. Hilarious. Too bad that Jack is singing, and Tom’s name is likely to come up.
And I’m sure you all know that the “partisan prosecutor” has just as much history with indicting Democrats.
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 3:20 pm
KC, were you born yesterday? Yeah, he indicted Democrats, Democrats that were political enemies. Sheese, how naive do you have to be to be a leftist anyway? And considering that Delay was indicted for a law that didn’t even exist when the alleged “crime” took place, that doesn’t really give much credence to the charges.
Comment by Severian @ 2/1/2006 - 3:33 pm
To say that there is a level of equivalence between Jack Abranmoff and the Democrats is like to trying make the case that James Carville was tied deeply to the Republican party.
The fact is that no Democrats received money directly from Master Jack. If you are going to go down the path that some of his clients gave money to the Dems then GWB would have to give back well over 100,000 that was directed by Abramoff.
The fact that corruption exists on both sides of the aisles is unmistakable. For audacity and sheer scope nothing approaches the Abramoff scandal. He was a kingpin in the Republican party. To try and pretend differently is laughable.
Comment by Mikeypaw @ 2/1/2006 - 3:34 pm
“The committee is evenly divided between the parties, requiring that at least one member of the opposing party sign off before attempting to destroy a persons career isn’t “preventing the committee from being a partisan rubber stamp.””
Its called making it bipartisan. To republicans that is toxic. To democrats it makes sure the committee is actually sanctioning ethics, rather than partisan, violations.
Comment by andrew @ 2/1/2006 - 3:36 pm
“Leftist”?
Public figures prosecuted by Earle (take note of the ONE political rival):
* Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Yarbrough (Democrat - 1978) - Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Yarbrough was convicted of lying to a grand jury and forgery. He gave up his seat and was sentenced to five years in prison.
* Texas State Rep. Mike Martin (Republican - 1982) - Martin, who represented Longview, pled guilty to perjury and did not run for re-election.
* State Treasurer Warren Harding (Democrat - 1982) - Harding pled no contest to official misconduct and did not run for re-election.
* Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle (Democrat - 1982) - Earle once brought charges against himself, rather than recusing himself and seeking to have a special prosecutor appointed, and secured a conviction, and paid a $212 fine after his campaign filed required campaign finance reports a day late. [15]
* Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox (Democrat - 1985) - Mattox, a political rival of Earle’s,[16] was aquitted of bribery and went on to win re-election.
* Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis (Democrat - 1992) - Lewis pled no contest to charges of failing to disclose a business investment after a plea bargain. He did not run for re-election and was fined $2000.
* Texas State Rep. Betty Denton (Democrat - 1995) - Denton was convicted of listing false loans and contributions on campaign finance reports and was sentenced to six months probation and fined $2000.
* Texas State Rep. Lane Denton (Democrat - 1995) - After funneling money from the Texas Department of Public Safety Officers Association, Denton was convicted of theft and misapplication of fiduciary property. He was sentenced to 60 days work release, six years probation, and fined $6000.
* Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) Members David Bradley (Republican), Bob Offutt (Republican), and Joe Bernal (Democrat) - Earle initiated a criminal investigation against three SBOE members in 2002. Earle accused the board members, who are elected from districts in Texas, of violating the state’s “Open Meetings” law when the three met for lunch at a restaurant in Austin, Texas on the day of an SBOE meeting. The law requires a public meeting when elected bodies assemble in a quorum of three or more persons to conduct business. The SBOE members responded that they were simply eating lunch. Earle turned the investigation over to Travis County Attorney Ken Oden, who in turn indicted the members on misdemeanor counts. [17]
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 3:39 pm
Andrew, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. The Democrats didn’t want it to be bipartisan, they were the ones voting to keep it setup so that they could raise ethics issues without the support of any of the opposing party’s members on the committee. They opposed requiring bipartisanship. Sheese!
Sharp as a tack and twice as flatheaded…
And look, little KC has learned how to cut and paste! We’re so proud!
Comment by Severian @ 2/1/2006 - 3:46 pm
Mikeypaw wrote, “The fact is that no Democrats received money directly from Master Jack
We dealt with this earlier. Receiving money directly or indirectly is not a crime. Deal with the crime and we’ll all hold every criminal responsible whether Democrat or Republican. Are you interested in that Mikey?
Andrew wrote, “To republicans that is toxic.
You’re able to read minds?
Comment by Baklava @ 2/1/2006 - 3:49 pm
**And look, little KC has learned how to cut and paste! We’re so proud!**
And look! Severian has learned that when he doesn’t have an argument, it’s best to comment on irrelevant matters!
I would have just pasted a link, but I didn’t figure your attention span would permit you to scroll far enough down the page to find the relevant information.
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 3:50 pm
***We dealt with this earlier. Receiving money directly or indirectly is not a crime. Deal with the crime and we’ll all hold every criminal responsible whether Democrat or Republican. Are you interested in that Mikey?***
And for the moment (and the last couple of months) the only proven wrongdoing has been Republican?
So I gues we’re finally in agreement on that?
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 3:52 pm
KC, I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid…
Next time, try writing something cogent and understandable, not just cut and paste a ton of BS without references or context.
Sheese, if this is what passes as “proof” no wonder you leftists all believe whatever DU and Kos tell you. I don’t have the time or inclination to go over the history of Texas Democratic politics for you, but it’s one ugly playground. And Earle has been right in the middle of it for years.
Comment by Severian @ 2/1/2006 - 3:55 pm
Facts once and for all:
Democrats did not receive any money directly from Abramoff. Republicans did.
This likely means two things:
1. While Republicans have already been exposed for criminal wrongdoing, Democrats haven’t.
2. Furthermore, Democrats are unlikely to be caught up in this because they did not get any of that direct money, which is what the Republicans in trouble are in trouble for (because the direct monies were used to curry favor and buy votes).
KC, is that you? I’m getting an identical IP# with two different names. — ST
Comment by Ralph @ 2/1/2006 - 4:00 pm
Thanks, Severian. I happen to live in Austin, though so I know a bit about Texas Democratic & Republican Politics.
I also know that Earle is somewhat of a crackpot, although I wouldn’t say a partisan one. Personally, I don’t very much like what I know about the man.
However, it was this investigation, afterall, that opened the Abramoff can of worms - which will probably in turn lead to other, related charges against DeLay.
I’m familiar with the (valid)legal defense in his first indictment re: Ex Post Facto laws, and I think he’ll beat it unless something else comes to the surface. But if you’re going to deny that DeLay is one of the most crooked, dirty politicos out there, then you, my friend need to catch up on your reading.
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 4:05 pm
KC wrote, “And for the moment (and the last couple of months) the only proven wrongdoing has been Republican?
Gosh for the moment you just posted a list of Democrats. The moment’s got you going huh.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/1/2006 - 4:07 pm
**KC wrote, “And for the moment (and the last couple of months) the only proven wrongdoing has been Republican?
Gosh for the moment you just posted a list of Democrats. The moment’s got you going huh.
**
Um..not quite sure what you meant, but at least you sourced the quote to the right person this time! You get a cookie!
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 4:13 pm
**KC, is that you? I’m getting an identical IP# with two different names. — ST**
Sorry, that was me.
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 4:23 pm
Nice town Austin, though it’s a tad too left leaning, especially compared with the rest of Texas, kind of an anomaly brought about by colleges. You should be well aware then that previously in Texas, it wasn’t a question of Dem vs. Rep, it was a case of liberal Dem vs. moderate/conservative Dem, and it was these wars that Earle contributed so enthusiastically to.
Delay is no more crooked than most politicians, which is why they are generally viewed, both parties, somewhat less benignly than used car salesmen and reporters. If he’s going to be sent up the river, I’d prefer it be for something truly wrong, not the manufactured charges of a nutcase like Earle. Abramoff will lead where it leads, and the chips, Dem and Rep, can fall where they may.
Earle’s attacks on Delay are of the most partisan and disturbing kind, being a cynical manipulation of the current Republican rules in order to remove a political enemy from a position of party and congressional power based on innuendo and weak accusations. If the Republican rules didn’t make it required that Delay step down, I don’t believe Earle would have filed any charges. This is as dirty and partisan an escapade as any I’ve seen. Delay may well be guilty of something, I believe if you dig hard enough into any politicians background you’ll turn up dirt (no one has mentioned Pelosi’s $35K fine lately, and then there’s Hillary’s campaign understating the value of a party), but Delay is being prosecuted not because he’s dirtier, but because he’s “The Hammer,” i.e. he’s effective.
Comment by Severian @ 2/1/2006 - 4:24 pm
“Andrew, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. The Democrats didn’t want it to be bipartisan, they were the ones voting to keep it setup so that they could raise ethics issues without the support of any of the opposing party’s members on the committee. They opposed requiring bipartisanship.”
You’re right. They opposed 1 party being able to veto investigations.
Comment by andrew @ 2/1/2006 - 4:27 pm
KC wrote, “Um..not quite sure what you meant
That you are caught up in the “moment”
Trust me there are and will be Democrats and Republicans prosecuted… .whether for Abramoff or not. 1/3rd of the over a billion that Abramoff had distruted went to Democrats. Direct contributions are not illegal. Not sure why you keep saying, “direct”.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/1/2006 - 4:36 pm
My reference to Texas Republican politics is of course to the TRMPAC redistricting debacle.
Yes, this used to be a Democratic state with it’s share of problems. I’d argue that it’s much worse off now.
And on the first indictment against DeLay, I’d agree with you, except that I think Earle is just sloppy, and no real point was served in getting DeLay to step down.
However, DeLay’s pay to play strategy, as well as mega kickbacks and rotating favors to and from corporations and financiers, qualify him as the dirtiest politician around.
See below for some nice summaries:
Hurwitz and the S&L scandal
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-banker8jan08,0,1764103.story?coll=la-home-headlines&track=morenews
DeLay and The Mariana Islands’ non-power plant
http://dailydelay.blogspot.com/2005/04/northern-mariana-islands-abramoff.html
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 4:37 pm
Abramhoff was president of the College Republicans.
He was on Bush’s transition team (Interior Department).
He got jobs for his people in the White House, including Safavian, who was arrested for trying to obstruct the investigation. Now why would they do that if they had nothing to hide?
Oh no, this one is ALL YOURS, Sistah. The GOP owns this one.
Comment by JC @ 2/1/2006 - 4:38 pm
JC wrote, “Abramhoff was president of the College Republicans.
Therefore the college repubs are all guilty. Have you ever been or ever associated with a college republican [referring to McCarthyism for you political newbies]
JC wrote, “He was on Bush’s transition team (Interior Department).
Therefore all on the transition team are guilty! Have you ever been or been associated with the transition team [McCarthyism]
JC wrote, “Oh no, this one is ALL YOURS, Sistah. The GOP owns this one.
Let’s just cancel by populism the investigation against the Minority Leader (Democrat) Harry Reid based on JC’s infallible reasoning technique…..
I think we see a pattern here. Conservatives want all wrongdoers held accountable with due process. What is it that non-conservatives want?
Comment by Baklava @ 2/1/2006 - 4:48 pm
**I think we see a pattern here. Conservatives want all wrongdoers held accountable with due process. What is it that non-conservatives want?**
Same exact thing.
AND to get it through your thick skulls that this particular scandal is a republican scandal.
Seriously, what is it going to take to get you to see this for what it is? The media obviously doesn’t. How much more black and white does it get? Abramoff’s clients gave LESS money to Democrats after he began representing them. LESS implies that they were giving the Dems money BEFORE Abramoff even entered the picture.
Writing letters is not illegal, and it’s a common practice.
Republicans have been implicated in illegal activity.
Democrats have not. And until they are, it is dishonest of the MSM to massage facts in order to conflate the Dems with this mess.
Like I said before, I’d be willing to take wagers on no Democrats being indicted. Is there a web site that facilitates such things?
Let’s clean up Washington (he he, yeah right!), but let’s be honest about the level of discourse in this country and start calling things what they are.
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 4:57 pm
***Trust me there are and will be Democrats and Republicans prosecuted… .whether for Abramoff or not. 1/3rd of the over a billion that Abramoff had distruted went to Democrats. Direct contributions are not illegal. Not sure why you keep saying, “direct”.***
~sigh~ for the last time, let me put this in as clear a manner as I can. Let me educate you on what’s going on:
1) While direct contributions are not illegal in and of themselves, it is an important distinction that Democrats did not receive any direct contributions for three reasons:
a)Abramoff made direct contributions to Republicans. He did not make direct contributions to Democrats.
b)These direct contributions ARE the monies that were used to curry favors and influence legislation.
c)By extension, it is easy to see that since all the illegal activity surrounded the direct contributions, and that Democrats did not recieve any direct contributions, it is unlikely that any Democrats will be implicated in any illegal activity pertaining to Abramoff.
And finally, in order to put it in even starker relief for you, Abramoff’s clients were donating to Democrats well before and after being represented by him. Money to democrats went down subsequent to hiring Jack in nearly (if not) every case. This means that Abramoff/Scanlon convinced them that the Republicans were more likely to help them.
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 5:06 pm
you people crack me up … there’s links from Abramoff to the dems?
What’s next, WMDs in Iraq?
Links between Saddam & Osama?
Intelligent design is science?
Keep it up … you’re just too funny.
Comment by Sarge @ 2/1/2006 - 5:13 pm
Right-wing Socialists, will learn the meaning of extortion and bribery very shortly. Peace
Comment by steve @ 2/1/2006 - 7:29 pm
Steve,
I think you have that wrong its left-wing Socialists look in the dictionary. If the Right-wing learns extortion and Bribery it will be from Democrats who have been using both for years. Continue to get your news from The Daily Show.
Comment by Jim M @ 2/1/2006 - 8:08 pm
Continue to get your news from The Daily Show.
Comment by Jim M
Ironic you should say that, and it sounds like you’re trying to make it a put down.
3 separate content analysis studies have shown that Daily show viewers are better informed, and test higher on tests about current events and facts than any other news viewing audience.
Fox viewers tested lowest.
Oh. It’s those facts that are getting in the way for you again, huh?
Not enough truthiness for you?
Comment by Sarge @ 2/1/2006 - 8:21 pm
I thought you republicans were supposed to be tough on crime??
You should change you party’s nickname to The Grand Ole Docket:
Jack Abramoff - Pled Guilty - To Be Sentenced March 16th for SunCruz fraud
Gus Boulis Murder Trio - Indicted - Trial Date To Be Set March 23rd
John Colyandro - Indicted - Trial Pending Appeals Decision
Duke Cunningham - Pled Guilty - No Future Court Dates Scheduled
Tom DeLay - Indicted - Trial Pending Appeals Decision
Jim Ellis - Indicted - Trial Pending Appeals Decision
William Jefferson - Named by Prosecutors as Unindicted Coconspirator
Adam Kidan - Pled Guilty - To Be Sentenced March 1st for SunCruz fraud
Thomas Kontogiannis - Named by Prosecutors as Unindicted Coconspirator
Scooter Libby - Indicted - No Trial Date Set
Chuck McGee - Pled Guilty - Time Served
John T. Michael - Named by Prosecutors as Unindicted Coconspirator
Bob Ney - Named by Prosecutors as Unindicted Coconspirator
Brent M. Pfeffer - Pled Guilty - To Be Sentenced March 31st
Allen Raymond - Pled Guilty - Appeal to be Decided February 2nd
Warren RoBold - Indicted - Trial Pending Appeals Decision
Tony Rudy - Named by Prosecutors as Unindicted Coconspirator
David Safavian - Indicted - Trial Set To Begin April 3rd
Michael Scanlon - Pled Guilty - No Future Court Dates Scheduled
James Tobin - Found Guilty on Two Counts - Sentencing is Set for March 21st
Neil Volz - Named by Prosecutors as Unindicted Coconspirator
Mitchell Wade - Named by Prosecutors as Unindicted Coconspirator
Brent Wilkes - Named by Prosecutors as Unindicted Coconspirator
Comment by Sarge @ 2/1/2006 - 8:27 pm
Yeah Sarge, people who watch Fox News probably believe that Bush didn’t lie! The bastards!
Comment by Severian @ 2/1/2006 - 8:29 pm
Said Sarge- 3 separate content analysis studies have shown that Daily show viewers are better informed, and test higher on tests about current events and facts than any other news viewing audience.
Fox viewers tested lowest.
Oh. It’s those facts that are getting in the way for you again, huh?
Please provide the link..or did you get it from the daily show?
Comment by Pam @ 2/1/2006 - 8:38 pm
KC wrote, “Same exact thing.
AND to get it through your thick skulls that this particular scandal is a republican scandal.
THen that wouldn’t be the “same exact thing” as you with your thick skulls comment are saying it’s a “republican scandal” and we conservatives want “ALL” wrongdoers held accountable. Again, What do you as a non-conservative want?
Then you went on talking about wagering… Wager all you want but the partisan talk here is coming from you. The people interested in ALL wrongdoers being held accountable is conservatives in general.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/1/2006 - 8:39 pm
Hey Sarge if you are or were in the military, you are a funnyman. That research was done was on Talk Radio Listeners. The Daily Show is on the Comedy channel maybe that is why you are funny something rubbed of on you cause it wasn’t real world facts.
Comment by Jim M @ 2/1/2006 - 8:40 pm
***THen that wouldn’t be the “same exact thing” as you with your thick skulls comment are saying it’s a “republican scandal” and we conservatives want “ALL” wrongdoers held accountable. Again, What do you as a non-conservative want?
Then you went on talking about wagering… Wager all you want but the partisan talk here is coming from you. The people interested in ALL wrongdoers being held accountable is conservatives in general. ***
Partisan talk? How about the truth. Name one Democrat indicted….I didn’t think so.
Same exact thing = all guilty parties being indicted. Right now, it looks like a Republican scandal. Period. I see that all logic is lost on you. Sorry.
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 10:18 pm
Daily Show viewers are more informed. Here’s your link:
http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/11/19/419da865ee9b4
Comment by KC @ 2/1/2006 - 10:20 pm
OK, let me just take two hours out of my life so I can go find that info for you.
I think that the denizens of pajama-load media can wipe the Cheetos dust off of your cocktail-weenie-esque fingers and dig around for it yourselves.
Anyway, as I recall, I think it was CJR, Annenberg and Pew that did the work.
Now go do your own work.
Comment by Sarge @ 2/1/2006 - 10:25 pm
I see there are no more comments or put downs from the “right” tonight. Maybe they’ll bite their tongues until a Democrat is implicated. I find it hilarious that you all think this is really going to result in some sweeping indictment campaign with Democrats involved too.
Let me, in closing, pay lip service to the new political correctness and pledge my support to our competent leaders, even though they still don’t have enough body armor, we still don’t have a legitimate exit plan, the powers that be love to talk the talk on lower taxes equalling more gov’t revenue, our “liberal” MSM faithfully echoing conservative talking points,and to the supporters of the “majority” still unable to grasp that the current scandal is with, of, and about Republican corruption. But I think it’s more of “The Big Lie.” ‘
Never admit you’re wrong.
Never cede any point to the opposition, no matter how logical and valid it may be.
Flame on, idiot right.
Comment by KC @ 2/2/2006 - 12:46 am
Two comments:
1. As a first time visitor, I have been pleasantly surprised to find a site with virulent opposing views and relatively little personal attack. Cool.
2. This is a Republican scandal. Follow, as they say, the money. First, there is NO Democrat who received any money directly from Abramoff. Not one, not one penny. The only donations that matter here are the illegal ones, and those came from Jack. Finally, even the legitimate contributions show Republican fingerprints; the following chart reflects Abramoff’s influence on his client’s contributions:
pre-Jack post-Jack % increase
Dems $82,857 $183,654 122%
Repubs $77,831 $436,451 461%
(Source: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008099.php).
This is all Republican. You can repeat “yeah, but Democrats too” as often as you want, but that doesn’t change the reality that today, corruption is a core Republican value.
Comment by dondo @ 2/2/2006 - 1:12 am
Holy Shite! I just figured you all out again! When it’s someone from your party that is obviously in the wrong, we need to focus on the corrupt institution!
Case in point: Jack Abramoff and his Republican influence and blacklist peddling. This is symptomatic of ALL of Congress, we say!!
BUT, when a representative of the other party has an affair, and then lies about it, it’s indicative of a culture of corruption and lies afflicting the opposition party!
Too bad about:
http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/knowrsex.html
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Republican_Sex_Scandals
http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-ryan26.html
http://www.pww.org/archives98/98-02-14-3.html
http://www.americaheldhostile.com/cheating.html
What is with you people?
Comment by KC @ 2/2/2006 - 1:13 am
Oh, I nearly forgot: then there’s Jeff Gannon.
And fake commercials, and sympathetic “experts” being paid to endorse the party line on MSM talk shows.
And obstruction of justice charges and resignations in the White House.
And..well, Hell! You’d think we’re talking about the Clinton White House.
Do I need to elaborate? Use Google instead, please.
Comment by KC @ 2/2/2006 - 1:17 am
KC,
Rest assured your sanity is in tact and you are still on planet earth.
You may have entered a parallel universe however. This is a very, very strange place.
Looking around on this site, I see that it’s completely impossible to get any real concession from the representatives of the “right” here. Instead of just saying, “yeah, our guys screwed up” in the face of facts and unassailable logic, there’s a systematic response. This is always employed to some degree:
1. Attempt to deflect/spread blame (i.e. the dems did it too, etc.).
2. Attempt to cloud the issue/stray off topic. Red herrings and strawmen are extremely popular here. This includes latching on to some minute detail in your post while ignoring the substance. Like they’re trying to win on a technicality. LOL.
3. Assail the adversary (”leftist”, “lefty”, “meme-spreader”, “liar”, etc.) By lumping you in with a group, they can start the talking points (all while accusing opponents of employing talking points–see #6).
4. Ask for facts, then ignore them when given (or pretend as if your facts are somehow flawed, without offering evidence as to how). They also do this when you offer sound logical constructs.
5. Pretend to have facts that you don’t have without revealing them.
6. Accuse their opponent of doing exactly what they are doing (i.e. crazy-making).
7. Repeat. Repetition is key. It helps them to convince themselves they’re correct, and seeks to wear down their opponent. That’s why you end up repeating yourself a lot when debating them. You’re simply responding to their repetition.
8. Silence. If all else fails and their position is completely and painfully untenable, they fall silent.
It’s hard to know how much of this is strategy to frustrate their opponent, vs. sincere delusion, but I suspect it’s more of the latter. I truly believe they can’t see what they are doing and how much it damages their credibility, as well as the progress of this country.
In any case, it all adds up to a virtually impenetrable bubble in which they operate. They do NOT like having their world intruded upon, and react violently to opposing views.
In fact, the weird thing is that the more you point out flaws in their position, the more entrenched they become. They have no interest in alternative views for moving this country forward. They truly think that if you dissent, you are “aiding the enemy”. You are unpatriotic or simply a “Bush-hater” (which is actually the same thing to them). When Bush said “You are either for us or against us”, they got the message loud and clear.
It is sincerely frightening, but it is very enlightening. It explains how some Bush supporters can give this administration a universal pass, even when his words completely contradict his actions or reality. I honestly don’t know what he could do that would cause them any significant concern.
Anyway, your argument was airtight. Consider their silence your victory. It’s as good as it’s gonna’ get.
Comment by thatniceguy @ 2/2/2006 - 2:05 am
KC there is a good reason nobody’s paying attention to you, you are ranting after midnight and you’re a liberal and could it be that some people have to go to work in the morning. Your link to “The Daily Show” viewers is typical liberal BS this dimwit compared viewers of The Late Show and The Tonight Show there was no mention of FoxNews or Talk Radio Listeners. That’s because if they used people that watched or listened to real news it would show the viewers of the Daily Show to be in bottom percentile of the politically informed. The reason you don’t see any more put downs is the more you ramble on the more it shows your ignorance.
Can anyone explain what Sarge is blithering on about? Or is that another liberal that has lost his last marble?
Comment by Jim M @ 2/2/2006 - 7:21 am
KC,
Are you going to apologize to us when Democrats start getting indicted on this? If not, you are a hypocritical partisan.
Comment by PCD @ 2/2/2006 - 8:15 am
KC and TNG, I dunno if it ever occured to either of you, but the people who post here have lives outside of this blog. Just because the two of you hover closely by your computers eagerly awaiting responses from people here doesn’t mean it’s going to happen on your time frame. In case you haven’t noticed, this thread has garnered quite a few comments from the hated right so it’s not exactly as though the right as this blog have sat back on their laurels without comment.
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.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/2/2006 - 8:46 am
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.
Comment by Pam @ 2/2/2006 - 9:22 am
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!
Comment by Severian @ 2/2/2006 - 9:43 am
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.
Comment by fslim @