<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Lure of Easy Money</title>
	<atom:link href="http://informedspeculation.com/2006/01/08/the-lure-of-easy-money/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/01/08/the-lure-of-easy-money/</link>
	<description>Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:00:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacques Distler</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/01/08/the-lure-of-easy-money/comment-page-1/#comment-10328</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacques Distler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2006 09:02:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/01/08/the-lure-of-easy-money/#comment-10328</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not too pleased to see that Byron Dorgan received a lot of donations from Indian tribes. Given his position on the Indian Affairs Committee, that&#039;s both understandable and unseemly at the same time.

But it&#039;s easy to verify from FEC records that Abramoff did not give a dime to any of the Democrats, and neither did any of his cronies, currently under investigation.

I highly doubt that he directed any of his clients to donate to Democrats. Perhaps he did. More likely, they got the idea to throw a few shekels in the Democrats&#039; direction on their own.

What we&#039;re witnessing is the implosion of the K-Street Project. That is, more-or-less by definition, a Republican undertaking. I dunno how far it will unravel, but the bad news is exclusively concentrated on one side of the aisle.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not too pleased to see that Byron Dorgan received a lot of donations from Indian tribes. Given his position on the Indian Affairs Committee, that&#8217;s both understandable and unseemly at the same time.</p>
<p>But it&#8217;s easy to verify from FEC records that Abramoff did not give a dime to any of the Democrats, and neither did any of his cronies, currently under investigation.</p>
<p>I highly doubt that he directed any of his clients to donate to Democrats. Perhaps he did. More likely, they got the idea to throw a few shekels in the Democrats&#8217; direction on their own.</p>
<p>What we&#8217;re witnessing is the implosion of the K-Street Project. That is, more-or-less by definition, a Republican undertaking. I dunno how far it will unravel, but the bad news is exclusively concentrated on one side of the aisle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/01/08/the-lure-of-easy-money/comment-page-1/#comment-10325</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2006 04:57:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/01/08/the-lure-of-easy-money/#comment-10325</guid>
		<description>Just a followup: I realize you are saying there is a difference between Mr. Abramoff and his clients, but the article seems to imply that was more an illusion than a reality...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just a followup: I realize you are saying there is a difference between Mr. Abramoff and his clients, but the article seems to imply that was more an illusion than a reality&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/01/08/the-lure-of-easy-money/comment-page-1/#comment-10324</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2006 04:54:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/01/08/the-lure-of-easy-money/#comment-10324</guid>
		<description>Jacques, I agree the Republicans stand to get burned more; but I wouldn&#039;t go quite as far as you and say that every indictment and censure will be a Republican.  Still, I freely admit that I have not had the time or inclination to research the link - I just threw some red meat out there.  Do you (not being sarcastic here) have a reason for being so skeptical that none of that money was Abramoff-tainted?...

Here&#039;s one for you: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gopsenators.com/newsdesk/article.aspx?ID=1374&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Senator Byron Dorgan, D - North Dakota&lt;/a&gt;:

The top Democrat on the Senate committee investigating casino lobbyist Jack Abramoff is returning $67,000 in donations after press reports showed that he collected the money from Mr. Abramoff&#039;s gambling clients around the time he took actions favorable to those clients.

Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat, said he hasn&#039;t done anything wrong but is returning the money to avoid the appearance of any conflict.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jacques, I agree the Republicans stand to get burned more; but I wouldn&#8217;t go quite as far as you and say that every indictment and censure will be a Republican.  Still, I freely admit that I have not had the time or inclination to research the link &#8211; I just threw some red meat out there.  Do you (not being sarcastic here) have a reason for being so skeptical that none of that money was Abramoff-tainted?&#8230;</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s one for you: <a href="http://www.gopsenators.com/newsdesk/article.aspx?ID=1374" rel="nofollow">Senator Byron Dorgan, D &#8211; North Dakota</a>:</p>
<p>The top Democrat on the Senate committee investigating casino lobbyist Jack Abramoff is returning $67,000 in donations after press reports showed that he collected the money from Mr. Abramoff&#8217;s gambling clients around the time he took actions favorable to those clients.</p>
<p>Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat, said he hasn&#8217;t done anything wrong but is returning the money to avoid the appearance of any conflict.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacques Distler</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/01/08/the-lure-of-easy-money/comment-page-1/#comment-10321</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacques Distler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2006 04:39:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/01/08/the-lure-of-easy-money/#comment-10321</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Here’s a little something for those who think this is only a Republican scandal&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&quot;Forty of forty five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Jack Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients.&quot;

One could, equally truthfully, have said:

&quot;Forty of forty five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from John Gotti, Fidel Castro, Jack Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients.&quot;

Not a single one of the listed Democrats received a &lt;em&gt;dime&lt;/em&gt; from Jack Abramoff.

Under most people&#039;s definition of the phrase &quot;his associates,&quot; none of them received anything from them either (though, with a suitably expansive definition of the phrase, they can&#039;t help but have received money from &quot;his associate&quot;).

Yes, a lot of Democrats received money from Indian tribes (though, as you can see, not a whole heckuva lot of money).  So what?

Sorry, my friend, this is &lt;em&gt;very much&lt;/em&gt; a Republican scandal. I&#039;m willing to bet that &lt;em&gt;every single&lt;/em&gt; indictment (and every single censure from the Ethics Committee) that flows from the Abramoff affair will be a &lt;em&gt;Republican&lt;/em&gt;.

That&#039;s not to say that there aren&#039;t corrupt Democrats. But this particular nest of vipers is all-elephant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Here’s a little something for those who think this is only a Republican scandal</p></blockquote>
<p>&#8220;Forty of forty five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Jack Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients.&#8221;</p>
<p>One could, equally truthfully, have said:</p>
<p>&#8220;Forty of forty five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from John Gotti, Fidel Castro, Jack Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients.&#8221;</p>
<p>Not a single one of the listed Democrats received a <em>dime</em> from Jack Abramoff.</p>
<p>Under most people&#8217;s definition of the phrase &#8220;his associates,&#8221; none of them received anything from them either (though, with a suitably expansive definition of the phrase, they can&#8217;t help but have received money from &#8220;his associate&#8221;).</p>
<p>Yes, a lot of Democrats received money from Indian tribes (though, as you can see, not a whole heckuva lot of money).  So what?</p>
<p>Sorry, my friend, this is <em>very much</em> a Republican scandal. I&#8217;m willing to bet that <em>every single</em> indictment (and every single censure from the Ethics Committee) that flows from the Abramoff affair will be a <em>Republican</em>.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s not to say that there aren&#8217;t corrupt Democrats. But this particular nest of vipers is all-elephant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

