Comments on: Oh, That All-Republican Scandal?

By: Fargus

Fargus — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:32:32 +0000

And by all means, if that’s a legitimate avenue, it should be pursued and rooted out. Corruption on all sides of the aisle shouldn’t be tolerated. But as I said, there is also value in looking at the context of Abramoff’s involvement with his clients, and how their practices changed after he became involved, as compared to their practices before he became involved. It’s not as though these tribes didn’t exist as entities before Abramoff began lobbying for them.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:25:22 +0000

No, not excusing, just setting the record straight…as in Harry Reid writing the Interior Minister to block a casino, then getting a large donation from the casino’s opponents the very next day…that’s what I mean when I say ‘tainted’…

By: Fargus

Fargus — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:22:51 +0000

I don’t know what constitutes “tainted” in your book, in this case. Certainly money from Abramoff himself, which he stole from his clients, but what of money (on both sides of the aisle) that would have, given historical trends, been given to candidates regardless of Abramoff’s involvement?

Like you said, a sticky situation all around, but I see it being at the least a bigger problem for Republicans than Democrats, and this bi-partisan spin is starting to sound a bit desperate. As though wrongdoing is mitigated by pointing out that somebody else may have done it too.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:55:24 +0000

No doubt, Fargus…there’s something rotten, and the Republicans need to excise it…but I’ve seen people on the left do amazing contortions to convince themselves that they received no tainted money, and it just ain’t so…

By: Fargus

Fargus — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:37:12 +0000

The charge that it’s a completely bipartisan problem doesn’t make sense without looking at how much the tribes were giving to each side before they got involved with Abramoff, and what other tribes not involved with Abramoff tend to give. Other tribes tend to give 2-1 to Democrats, and after Abramoff’s involvement, the majority of his clients kept Democratic donations around the same, or maybe a little lower, while they ratcheted up donations to Republicans by as much as 300% in some cases.

There’s context for every story, and to just blind yourself to it, to say “Dems received money too” and wash your hands of it is just not the entire truth.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 02:23:42 +0000

dmac, it just goes to show that, as only makes sense, corruption is a bipartisan problem…

By: too many steves

too many steves — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 01:40:25 +0000

Ummm… 3/8, 1/8, 1/16, whatever, it’s bad for all of them. Pregnant, not-Pregnant, no half pregnant. Take a $1 take a $1m, it’s all the same.

By: The Politburo Diktat » Blog Archive » Reid Implicated in Indian-gate?

The Politburo Diktat » Blog Archive » Reid Implicated in Indian-gate? — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:52:42 +0000

[...] Decision ‘08 » Oh, That All-Republican Scandal? Say it ain’t so…I’ve been assured by everyone that Abramoff only touched the corrupt Republicans…but here come rumors that Harry Reid is in big, big trouble…Chris Wallace caught Howard Dean this morning with a report from the Center for Responsive Politics: WALLACE: I just want to ask you about this question of the Democratic involvement. I want to put up something from the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. This comes directly from their Web page, and it says, “Here is a detailed look at Abramoff’s lobbying and political contributions from Abramoff, the tribes that hired him, and SunCruz Casinos, which is a company that Abramoff owned since 1999.” It lists recipients by the amount of money they received. Well, the top two are the Republican campaign committees. The third and fourth biggest recipients were Democratic campaign committees. And if you go down the list, Democrats received more than $1 million from Abramoff-related interests. [...]

By: dmac

dmac — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:42:55 +0000

BTW, did you get all the numbers that were released, Mark? Looks like the Dems got about 3/8 of the total Abramoff contributions.

By: dmac

dmac — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:41:21 +0000

Hard to believe that anyone in the general public will be anything but non – plussed in these revelations. Looks like another pox on both houses here, but it would still behoove the GOP to get out in front of this thing – after all, a majority party is supposed to lead, if I’m not mistaken.

But woah, Dean is really the gift that keeps on giving, isn’t he? Saw the same appearance, and as soon as I heard the words out of his mouth, I knew that he’d get nailed for it by Wallace. How anyone in that position of leadership is allowed to continually traffic in statements that he’ll only be forced to backtrack on immediately afterword is a wonder to me.