Posted on 01/04/2006 7:05:21 AM PST by LouAvul
"A whole lot of donating went on. But which "donations" were actually an illegal bribe?"
It's a fine semantic point, frankly. Lobbyists do not donate with no expectations, and they make those expectations known.
I think the problem here that won't go away is that there was a murder involved, also gambling.
I will be waiting to see who Hillary donates her $25,000 bribe to. Has she ever paid for the plane she used to campaign in New York???
I guess we are all even, cause she hates us and herself equally.
It won't take much to find something, these guys pulla lot of S&it. It is just that Democrats are never handed guilt, they work for a Higher Cause, (they think) so that makes them better than the evil Republicans. (sarcasm of course, but that is what they believe.)
I would the question should be how can the GOP clean up its act.
Re: "you go down".
So, do you have proof President Bush, or the Bush Campaign, knew that Abramoff was a scumbag heavily engaged in illegal dealings, at the time they received the contribution?
Do tell.
The thing is this is the result of the huge escalation in campaign spending that has been going on for ages. If we want these things to stop, we have to eliminate lobbying altogether. We also need to change the constitution back to what our founding fathers originally wrote. The senate should be appointed by the legislatures of the states. That way they will represent the state instead of special interests. The other thing that would help is term limits.
I'm with you. I agree with the dems on one thing, which I've stated repeatedly here the last few days. I think this is the most craven, corrupt, arrogant, and in-your-face about it Congress in history. It explains why they've grown government more than any other Congress in history. It also explains why so much is covered up, whitewashed, sanitized, nothing-to-see-here, and buried right before the eyes of those of us who are watching. They're ALL on the take. I find it hard to believe that President Bush would be so stupid, but as for the rest of them, let the chips fall where they may.
(p.s. I still don't think this is going to help the rats in November. They're still a bunch of weak-kneed fairies that wouldn't know how to defend the country even if Mexico invaded and annexed San Diego.)
Sure, but if I am known as someone who supports X, and a lobbyist donates money to me because he works for X, and then I vote for X, how does anyone know if it was a bribe?
That's why this story won't have a long shelf-life in the MSM.
If it was just Republicans, we'd be hearing about this for months.
This is bad. Some of my (few) favorite lawmakers are on that list, and some of the ones I was hoping could take a shot at the Presidency, including Brownback, and Hayworth.
I see that Tom Tancredo's name is conspicuously missing, and that is one ray of light.
"The thing is this is the result of the huge escalation in campaign spending that has been going on for ages. If we want these things to stop, we have to eliminate lobbying altogether."
I'd agree with you, basically. I don't think we should eliminate lobbying, though. I think we should prohibit all monetary donations from lobbyists, instead. Let the lobbyists continue to make their case to legislators, but prohibit all monetary or "in-kind" transfers from any lobbyist to any person connected with government.
Let them try to convince legislators and regulators, but keep it on the information-only basis.
Get the darned elected people out on the stump again, convincing voters. This whole TV-oriented campaigning is BS, in my opinion. Most people have no idea what their candidates are actually doing.
"Sure, but if I am known as someone who supports X, and a lobbyist donates money to me because he works for X, and then I vote for X, how does anyone know if it was a bribe?
"
The thing is, Dianna, that most legislators don't let themselves be known as supporting X. If they did, then there would be no reason for the lobbyist to make those donations, would there? So, they pretend they're undecided, and get that money coming in. It's an ugly business there in D.C.
If you believe the polls that over 50% of the public think elected officials are on the take and that this is just the way things work I do not know that this will be as much trouble to the politicians as the media hopes. Try to get the ordinary person to understand the difference between lobbying and being on the take and watch eyes glaze over.
How about our representatives staying in their home districts and voting and teleconferencing electronically with their peers? That's the prospect they hate the most -- after all, when they physically travel and set up shop in D.C., they are effectively getting away from day-to-day contact with the people they represent.
Traveling to Washington to do some legislatin' is so 1700s.
You can do that yourself pretty easily. Just find any of the tribes looking for favors (read the Abramoff articles), then look up the tribes in opensecrets.org to see if they gave to her. I found one right away: Chippewa.
Nope, I simply stated that anyone, no matter if a R, D, or I comes after their name, needs to go down IF proven to have accepted 'donations' in exchange for special treatment, i.e. bribery.
Did Bush know Abrahmoff even donated to his campaign, probably not. Did Delay, Kennedy, Clinton, etc? Probably.
Let the chips fall where they may, on either side of the aisle.
"Try to get the ordinary person to understand the difference between lobbying and being on the take and watch eyes glaze over.
"
Yeah, well, these days the difference is miniscule. Lobbying is not what it used to be. It's a money game these days.
I see she has had lots of union donations from all sorts of unions. No surprise there.
I notice they don't mention anyone D-any state. But hey, there's no bias in this story whatsoever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.