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.
What a marvelous way to put it.
Ya know, that's a great point. Which is worse is something I doubt many will consider, and it should be one of the first questions asked.
(snip)
All the outrage on the liberal side of the blogosphere is being directed towards Tim Russert for telling the truth:
LAUER: Katie pressed him [Howard Dean] on that and we did some research. We went to the Center for Responsive Politics and found out that technically speaking, Howard Dean may be correct. But here’s what we found. That 66 percent of the money in this situation went to Republicans, but 34 percent of the money — not from Abramoff, but from his associates and clients — went to Democrats. So, can Democrats wash their hands of this?
RUSSERT: No, they will say it is a primarily a Republican scandal because the personal money of Abramoff went only to Republicans. But Matt, the issue is broad and wide. Democrats also understand that they accept trips from lobbyists and meals and so forth, and that’s why in order to reform all this, it has to be a bipartisan approach. But Democrats get raging mad when you suggest this is a bipartisan scandal.
Excellent point. I totally agree.
In a media battle being waged by soundbites and deceptive terminology, this line has powerful potential. I suggest you send it to Rush, Hannity, et al.
Let me echo those that applaud your phrasing of the "poison pill" analogy. Some politician has GOT to be smart enough to steal that. Let's just hope it's one of ours. I'd suggest that you find some way to trademark or copyright it so that you can control it's use. ;^>
You wrote:
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.
There's an extended scandal here that is being obscured by the ways the dims and MSM are reporting this. It's the Indian Tribe money and I think it could actually end up being a weapon that would be a direct threat to McLame, particularly if he emerges as the Republican candidate in 2008. The so called campaign finance reform legislation, AKA McCain/Feingold, has a loophole that you could sail an aircraft carrier through, thanks to the wording and an FEC ruling (encouraged by McCain). CFR limits contributions from everyone, but the tribes have been ruled exempt from many of CFR and even earlier restrictions (I forget the specific logic). I read that this has had the effect of turning the tribes into giant funnels for all sorts of money, dirty and otherwise. Once money is given to a tribe, for whatever purpose, the tribe can turn around and give it in virtually unlimited, incompletely disclosed and virtually untraceable amounts to a politician. And this includes taxpayer money. The tribes can even get a "finders fee" for laundering the money in many cases.
The dirty money is most specifically not the money Abramoff gave personally to campaigns of people he agreed with politically. By law that must be, and was, disclosed openly. The dirty money is what was laundered through the tribes, which isn't fully traceable or even regularly reported. And McLame and the FEC made it possible. How much of it did HE get?
BUMP!
10. Jack Bull. Another most welcome newcomer. #406. "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."
9. hocndoc. 570. Only one comment but it is a dynamite. " But, most importantly to me, I've never seen examples that would lead me to believe that the government would be a good steward of **my** duty to my neighbor and brothers and sisters."
8. eeevil Conservative. Always the life of the party. Evil deserves a nod just for giving us the tin foil hat photo in #734 but also produced these gems. #470. Did you all see this yet? LPC Blasts Anheuser-Busch for Bankrolling Anti-Alito MALDEF#612 probably because he actually believes in upholding the constitution... he knows it is a document...not a living breathing thing.. the libs are so confused...the CONSTITUTION is living and breathing...Roe V Wade is "DECIDED" Law.... The CONSTITUTION is a living breathing thing.....but an unborn child is a glob of cells...... no wonder they are miserable all the time.....twisting you head into mental contortions like that has GOT TO BE PAINFUL! #771. Just a little 411 about HAMAS and "Palestine"... Let's face it...WE KNOW that Arafat just pimped the Pali's out for power and money for his self.....but WE (most US peeps) DON'T realize is that the PALI's KNOW it too...they KNOW that ARAFAT stole their money....but they didn't care if he did...they DO CARE if ANYONE else does..they adored Arafat because he was the master of creating the PALI situation a GLOBAL issue...no one is doing this for many other LEGITIMATE people and nations facing ACTUAL GENOCIDE, etc....
7. TomGuy #606. Excellent insight on Shadegg. GO Shadegg!!!! 259 "I get the impression that it's all a game to Russert et al. The HasBeenMedia is playing the wrong "game"." 224, 292, 129, 337, 507, 551
6. kcvl. Just demolishes Howard Dean by doing the worst possible thing any Conservative can do to a Leftist. Quote them! 50, 74, 92, 113, 117, 122, 131. 134, 148.
5. maggief. Another "admirer" of Herr Dean. 18. Taking a line from Genesis, the first book of the Bible, Dean explained the first question ever asked by anyone was, "Am I my brother's keeper?" "In the Democratic party we don't forget that. #424. Taking a line from Genesis, the first book of the Bible, Dean explained the first question ever asked by anyone was, "Am I my brother's keeper?"Funny, I always thought that the Dems had more in common with the one who really asked the first question in the Bible. Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" #33 In the Summer of 1989 Kennedy and fellow Senator Chris Dodd were having lunch at famous Washington D.C. restaurant La Brasserie. Kennedy requested the attendance of waitress Carla Gaviglio. According to the Washington Times "When she put in an appearance in their private retreat - 'The Teddy Kennedy Fun Room' - the Massachusetts senator picked her up and heaved her onto a table. The crystal candlesticks and champagne glasses shattered as he grabbed her again and flung her on top of Dodd. "Then Kennedy threw himself on top of the woman. The waitress implored Mr. Kennedy to 'Get off me!' "Another waitress entered to find 'things all tipped over and Kennedy was on top, [the waitress] was in the middle and Dodd was on the bottom.' At that point the sandwich was disassembled." #84 Sooooo many quotable. Just a few. "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for..." -- Howard Dean "My view of Christianity . is that the hallmark of being a Christian is to reach out to people who have been left behind. So I think there was a religious aspect to my decision to support civil unions." "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." "We're going to tell all those white boys who run the Republican Party to stay out of our bedrooms." "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here." "Dealing with race is about educating white folks
4. Phsstpok. Strong showing today!. First a nod for giving us the Saturday morning Pre-show thread. Great idea! 390. Remember, in their day the people cited by Crichton as supporting eugenics were the "progressives" and "liberals." They were the radical reformers and, because they were wiser than everyone else, they thought that they were in the right when they pursued their hairbrained theories and tried to play God.#661. Despite the recent attempts of the George Orwell led Democrat party to rewrite history, support for invading Iraq crossed over party lines very strongly. #732 Were there skeptics? Absolutely! But the mood of the country was to "put a boot in their ass." #808. I ascribe the Bush bashing as simply a function of the echo chamber effect of those within the beltway or in the media, regardless of their politics. You hear something often enough you begin to internalize it, even if it goes against what you know to be true, simply because you're tired of fighting against the tide. 1010 "Sad, isn't it? We need to light up 1,000 more nuclear power plants in order to cut down on pollution (and global warming, if such a thing exists), but his party is owned, lock stock and barrel, by the econazi's and he can't say that. He just dances around the edges with stupid and ineffective slogans instead of actually addressing the problem."408, 454, 481, 531, 569, 632, 864, 870, 889, 908, 965, 976, 987, 994, 1022, 1025, 1055.