Replies

Morning AB, All,

Dean saying the quote of the week...I paraphrase

"The difference between Abramoff's contributions to Democrats as opposed to Republicans, the Democrats didn't know the money was directed by Abramoff."

Apparently, there are Republicans who have taken money directly from Abramoff himself (in his name) and no Democrat has done this. Assuming that is true, Democrats are painting themselves as saints due to the fact they have received money from Abramoff's clients he lobbies for and not Jack, directly?

If that is the distinction between ethical and unethical, then I would think it preferable for a politician to get money through the front door from Mr. Abramoff rather than getting it slipped under the back door from his clients.

A direct contribution in the sunlight is how the system works best-- Jack Abramoff is not a special interest group. He has a plethora of clients. A direct contribution from him couldn't possibly be for a vote on an issue or bill. Funneling money from a lobbyist's clients to politicians strikes me as being potentially more sleazy. There is no "sleaze-free zone" when it comes to dirty money. I get the sense that Democrats are celebrating their good character because they took something akin to laundered Abramoff money.

If Jack Abramoff is the equivalent of a poison pill, I get the feeling Democrats are bragging that they took the pill as a suppository rather than by mouth.

"Oh just one more thing Chairman Dean, wait a minute... I got it in my notes here somewehre... ahhh... here it is... you said sir,

'Democrats did no favors for Abramoff's Indian tribe clients and nobody got anything out of the Democrats from Jack Abramoff... that no Democrat delivered anything and there's no accusation and no investigation that any Democrat ever delivered anything to Jack Abramoff.'

I just wanted to get that clear in my own mind sir... thank you, I'm sure that will help me wrap this all up."