Funny stuff:

Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill are privately bristling over Howard Dean?s management of the Democratic National Committee and have made those sentiments clear after new fundraising numbers showed he has spent nearly all the committee?s cash and has little left to support their efforts to gain seats this cycle, ROLL CALL reports.

Congressional leaders were furious last week when they learned the DNC has just $5.5 million in the bank, compared to the Republican National Committee?s $34 million.

Senate and House Minority Leaders Harry Reid (Nev.) and Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), along with the Senate and House campaign committee chairmen Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), have made their concerns — directly or indirectly — known to Dean, claims the paper.

Emanuel was particularly upset last week upon seeing the latest DNC numbers.

?A lot of people are scratching their heads as to what?s going on,? said one senior Democratic aide.

Another Democratic source familiar with the party fundraising apparatus said there is ?obvious displeasure? among the leaders.

Add this to Dean throwing Harry Reid over the cliff yesterday:

WALLACE: You and other top Democrats are going after what you call a Republican culture of corruption, but you deny any Democrats are involved. And let me take a look at an exchange of that.

Question, “In the last couple of weeks, but through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.” Dean, “That’s not true either. There’s no evidence for that either.”

Governor, it is certainly true that Republicans got twice as much money from Abramoff-related contributions than Democrats did, but Democrats aren’t clean in this area either, are they?

DEAN: Yeah, they are pretty clean, Chris, and I’ll tell you why. First of all, every dime of Jack Abramoff’s money went to Republicans. Not one dime went to any Democrat or any Democratic organization ? his personal money.

Secondly, he did direct contributions to mostly Republicans, but a few Democrats. But the Democrats, A, didn’t know that he directed that ? his clients to give them money and, B, they never produced anything for Abramoff.

The problem the Republicans have with this is that they actually did things. Senator Burns did a number of things for Jack Abramoff in exchange for a contribution. And the proximity of those contributions to the actual act of doing something for the lobbyist ? that’s what’s illegal, and that’s what’s going to get them in trouble.

There’s not one shred of evidence that any Democrat, A, knew that he was getting a contribution from Jack Abramoff and, B, did anything in exchange for it. And that’s why this is a Republican finance scandal and not some sort of bipartisan scandal.[...]

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.

DEAN: There’s two points to this. First of all, actually, we ? the DNC actually got $100,000-some odd. Now, I can assure you Jack Abramoff never directed that money. It is possible that some of Jack Abramoff’s clients may have decided on their own to give Democrats money. The key is…

WALLACE: I’m sorry, did you say, I’m sorry. Did you say that you’re sure that Abramoff didn’t direct them to give that money?

DEAN: No, what I said was that it is possible that some Democrats got money from some of the ? yeah. No, what I’m saying is that Abramoff may not have directed some of this money toward the Democrats.

WALLACE: In fact, he did, sir. We’ve got evidence of that.

DEAN: But the point is that not one Democrat either knew it or acted on it. Nobody got anything out of the Democrats from Jack Abramoff. No Democrat delivered anything, and there’s no accusation and no investigation that any Democrat ever delivered anything to Jack Abramoff. And that’s not true of the Republicans.

WALLACE: So if we find ? and I just want to ? we have to wrap this up. But if we find that there were some Democrats who wrote letters on behalf of some of the Indian tribes that Abramoff represented, then what do you say, sir?

DEAN: That’s a big problem, and those Democrats are in trouble, and they should be in trouble. And our party, if the American people will put us back in power in ‘06, we will have on the president’s desk things that outlaw all those kinds of behaviors. Right now it’s a Republican scandal. Maybe they’ll find that some Democrats did something wrong, too. That hasn’t been the case yet.

A few minutes later Wallace drops the bombshell: (Via Uncorrelated)

Wallace then engages in a cordial farewell, come back soon exigence, but after Howard has vacated the studio and during the panel discussion, Wallace interrupts a discussion on Kerry’s bid for a filibuster to make an announcement.

“For those of you who were watching earlier on when we were talking with Governor Dean, he said that no Democrats ever did anything in response to the money that they got from Abramoff or Abramoff clients like the Indian tribes, and if they did, they were in trouble. Well the Washington Post reported in November that Senator Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, wrote a letter to the Interior Secretary back in March 5th, 2002, opposing a casino, that one of those Indian tribes opposed. On March 6th the next day, Abramoff tribal client wrote a $5,000 check to Mr. Reid’s Searchlight Leadership Fund. Mr. Reid’s spokesman said there was absolutely no connection between the letter and the fund-raising, but its worth noting Mr. Reid;s Abramoff-related total was $66,000 between 2001 and 2004. He says he’s not returning any of the money because he has done nothing wrong.”

From Redstate:

Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) failed today to address rumors that Nevada Senator Harry Reid will step down next month as Senate Minority Leader. Reid has been stung by revelations that his political action committee (PAC) accepted more than $60,000 in contributions from Indian tribes linked to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Appearing on CNN’s Late Edition, Biden avoided discussing either the Reid situation or any upcoming changes in Senate Democratic leadership.

Gateway Pundit has even more Democrats who did favors for the tribes and then received cash:

As was Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) : “Harkin Wrote At Least Three Letters In 2003 Pressing The Government To Release Federal Money To Help The Sac & Fox Tribe In His State Cope With The Temporary Closing Of Its Casino Due To A Tribal Dispute, According To Interior Department Documents Obtained By The Associated Press And Records Provided By Harkin’s Office.”

The esteemed Senator Mary Landrieu, (D-La) joins them: “Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., Who Was Engaged In A Tight Re-Election Race In 2002, Sent Her Letter March 6, 2002. That Same Day, The Coushattas Sent $2,000 To Her Campaign And She Received $5,000 More By The End Of That Month. By Year’s End, The Total Had Grown To At Least $24,000.”

As does Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI): “[There Were] Half-Dozen Letters Written Or Signed By 14 Lawmakers On Behalf Of The Tribes. One Was Written Jan. 23, 2003 By [Democrat Sen.] … Debbie Stabenow … On The Saginaw’s Behalf.”

And, don’t forget Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI): “[There Were] Half-Dozen Letters Written Or Signed By 14 Lawmakers On Behalf Of The Tribes. One Was Written Jan. 23, 2003 By [Democrat Sen.] Carl Levin … On The Saginaw’s Behalf.”

Sure looks like a party in a disarray to me. The leader is failing badly at his job while the scandal the Democrats have been attempting to spin is spinning right back at them.

Either way you look at this thing, the Democrats will be hurt along with the Republicans in this scandal. There is no such thing as a lobbyist who works for only one party. Any Democrat who say’s otherwise is just putting their head into the sand. No matter how much they WISH this was only a Republican scandal, it won’t make it so. Poor widdle guys.

Another BIG problem the Democrats have is the direction the far left is taking them. They are a rudderless party at the moment and are slowly sailing to the point of no return. Unless someone with some sanity takes that party by the horns are rights it, they are doomed. Not like I would be disappointed, since this wackiness is a whole lot of fun to watch.

Other’s Blogging:

• Blogs For Bush
• Say Anything
• Inside Larry’s Head
• My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
• The Strata-Sphere

Read the rest of this entry »

The reporter for the Post that got all the liberals in a tizzy has written an answer to the lefties in which she states the obvious.? The scandal is 2/3rds Republican and 1/3rd Democrat.? That’s it…plain and simple.? What I found curious is how amazed she was at the response she received.? I mean come on, look at the pure hatred on display by the left.? They have nothing but rage, no arguments, no discourse, just rage:

Nothing in my 50-year career prepared me for the thousands of flaming e-mails I got last week over my last column, e-mails so abusive and many so obscene that part of The Post’s Web site was shut down.

That column praised The Post for breaking the story on lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s dealings, for which he has pleaded guilty to several felony counts. The column clearly pointed out that Abramoff is a Republican and dealt mainly with Republicans, most prominently former House majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas.

I wrote that he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress. He didn’t. I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.

My mistake set off a firestorm. I heard that I was lying, that Democrats never got a penny of Abramoff-tainted money, that I was trying to say it was a bipartisan scandal, as some Republicans claim. I didn’t say that. It’s not a bipartisan scandal; it’s a Republican scandal, and that’s why the Republicans are scurrying around trying to enact lobbying reforms.

But there is no doubt about the campaign contributions that were directed to lawmakers of both parties. Records from the Federal Election Commission and the Center for Public Integrity show that Abramoff’s Indian clients contributed money to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats between 1999 and 2004. The Post also has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with his personal directions on which members were to receive what amounts.

Michael Crowley of the New Republic said in his blog that “while for all practical purposes this is indisputably a Republican scandal, the narrow liberal-blogger definition of whether any Democrats took money ‘from Abramoff’ — which neatly excludes contributions he directed his clients to make — amounts to foolish semantics.”

These facts have been reported many times in The Post and elsewhere. So why would it cause me to be called a “right-wing whore” and much worse?

Witness three printable examples:

“Yes, the WAPO needs an enema, and Howell should be the first thing that gets medicinally removed.”

“You Deborah Howell, stop lying about Democrats getting money from Abramoff. Democrats do not control anything in Washington, so why would he waste money bribing them. Think and do your research, and stop being an idiot.”

“This rag must be something that I pulled off a barscreen at a sewage treatment plant. Howell is simply a paid liar. How this creature endures itself is something I don’t understand. What a piece of flotsam.”

When you speak the plain truth to these people all they can do is spew venom.? Did they really believe there would be no proof that Abramoff ORDERED these tribes to give money to Democrats also.? It’s like the left has suddenly forgotten how Government works and the job of lobbyists.

Maybe the MSM, at least a few at the Post, have now come to understand the leftist mentality for what it is.? No ideas, just hate.

Mighty curious how the Washington Post was aghast at the vitriol left on their blog after they “dared” to print a story that was actually even-handed.

Have they no knowledge of DummiesU or the KosKiddies? I mean Crude profanity and vulgar personal attacks are the modus operendi of leftists worldwide. They have no argument, they have no common sense, all they do is engage in petty name calling.

Comments Turned Off

As of 4:15 p.m. ET today, we have shut off comments on this blog indefinitely.

At its inception, the purpose of this blog was to open a dialogue about this site, the events of the day, the journalism of The Washington Post Company and other related issues. Among the things that we knew would be part of that discussion would be the news and opinion coming from the pages of The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com…. We knew a lot of that discussion would be critical in nature. And we were fine with that. Great journalism companies need feedback from readers to stay sharp.

But there are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech. Because a significant number of folks who have posted in this blog have refused to follow any of those relatively simple rules, we’ve decided not to allow comments for the time being. It’s a shame that it’s come to this. Transparency and reasoned debate are crucial parts of the Web culture, and it’s a disappointment to us that we have not been able to maintain a civil conversation, especially about issues that people feel strongly (and differently) about.

We’re not giving up on the concept of having a healthy public dialogue with our readers, but this experience shows that we need to think more carefully about how we do it. Any thoughtful feedback on that (or any other issue) is welcome, and you can send it to executive.editor@washingtonpost.com….

Thanks,
Jim Brady
Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com…

Whats this all about? It’s about a reporter who doesn’t let her bias get in the way of her reporting.

The Post’s two-year investigation into lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s dealings is one of the best and most explosive pieces of investigative journalism this town has seen in a long time.

The story has moved inexorably from Abramoff being a top dog lobbyist to his pleading guilty to scamming Indian tribes and fraudulently buying a Florida-based fleet of gambling ships. With Abramoff’s pleas, some members of Congress look as if they are moving swiftly to enact lobbying reform just ahead of the sheriff.

[...]In the fall of 2003, a lobbyist called to tip Schmidt that Abramoff was raking in millions of dollars from Indian tribes to lobby on gambling casinos. Schmidt started checking Federal Election Commission records for Abramoff’s campaign contributions. Lobbyists also file forms with Congress that give information on clients and fees.

Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties.

“It was enough to get me interested,” Schmidt said. She also came across Michael Scanlon, a former aide to DeLay who operated a public relations firm doing business with tribes.

Schmidt called tribal leaders around the country, looking for Indians who had access to information and were suspicious of Abramoff. Her first big story, on Feb. 22, 2004, revealed that Abramoff and Scanlon had taken an eye-popping $45 million-plus in fees from the tribes.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) began a congressional investigation, and the Justice Department started its own probe. Schmidt kept tabs on those, as she had done for six years as the lead reporter on investigations into the Clinton administration, including the Monica Lewinsky case.

One piece of information led to another; Schmidt was often ahead of the investigators. “It was incredibly complicated, an unbelievable, ingenious, enormous web of fragments” around Abramoff’s deals, she said. Schmidt had only one interview — in February 2004 — with Abramoff. She said he lied about having no financial ties to Scanlon; federal investigators later showed they split fees.

Schmidt asked about the purchase of SunCruz Casinos, a story well known in Florida but not in Washington. “His reaction was so startled, so convulsive, that I knew I was onto something,” she said. Schmidt and Grimaldi started looking at Abramoff and his stake in the SunCruz ships that took passengers into international waters to gamble.

Grimaldi and Schmidt spent days in Florida federal courts looking at SunCruz bankruptcy records. Grimaldi came across a bank loan application on which Abramoff listed as references Tony Rudy, then DeLay’s deputy chief of staff, and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.).

“The eureka find was that there were congressional links to this fraudulent casino deal. He had been telling local reporters that he had little to do with SunCruz. Yet the evidence was hiding in plain sight in court records,” Grimaldi said.

[...}One of the troves that kept the story expanding was Abramoff's e-mails. He was an inveterate e-mailer, and those e-mails found their way to Schmidt.

[...]Schmidt, Grimaldi and Smith reported on Abramoff’s ties to members of Congress and their staffs, whom he lavishly wined and dined, took on expensive foreign trips, and gave skybox seats at local sports events. Smith obtained a travel invoice to Scotland and England for DeLay; the invoice had a credit card number. After aggressively working two sources, Smith found out it was Abramoff’s credit card.

Two persistent complaints have come the ombudsman’s way on this story. One, from Democrats, is that The Post is trying to distance DeLay from Abramoff because a Dec. 29 story said the two were not personally close. DeLay had once called Abramoff “one of my closest and dearest friends” and said on Fox News recently that they were friends.

Schmidt and Grimaldi said that their reporting showed that the two were politically, not personally, close. Whatever the degree of closeness, the strength of Schmidt’s and Grimaldi’s reporting has tied the two together inextricably.

The second complaint is from Republicans, who say The Post purposely hasn’t nailed any Democrats. Several stories, including one on June 3 by Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, a Post business reporter, have mentioned that a number of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money.

So far, Schmidt and Grimaldi say their reporting on the investigations hasn’t put Democrats in the first tier of people being investigated.

But stay tuned. This story is nowhere near over.

She reported the facts and that is all. She knows as well as anyone with a minute amount of common sense that the Democrats got plenty of his money, as directed by him. Republicans got the majority of the cash of course since we are the majority in power, as the Democrats were during the Keating 5 scandal. Ring a bell?

So after the typical name calling and “intelligent” discourse by the leftists the Post has to shut the blog down. The author then answers her critics:

Deborah Howell Responds

I’ve heard from lots of angry readers about the remark in my column Sunday that lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to both parties. A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff “directed” contributions to both parties.

Lobbyists, seeking influence in Congress, often advise clients on campaign contributions. While Abramoff, a Republican, gave personal contributions only to Republicans, he directed his Indian tribal clients to make millions of dollars in campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.

Records from the Federal Elections Commission and the Center for Public Integrity show that Abramoff?s Indian clients contributed between 1999 and 2004 to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats. The Post has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with specific directions on what members of Congress were to receive specific amounts.

One of those lists can be viewed in this online graphic, while a graphical summary of giving by Abramoff, his tribal clients and associated lobbyists can be viewed here. The latest developments in the Abramoff investigation are available in this Special Report.

– Deborah Howell, Washington Post Ombudsman

After which you can read the comments left by these dummies. ALL of them come down to “you don’t know why the Indians gave to the Democrats, they are free people you know”

Amazing that when there is just a bit of information that will show the Republicans in a bad light these people jump all over it but they cannot admit that members of their own party are just as dirty. I mean their leader Hillary is one of the most corrupt politicians in the Senate but will they admit it…nope.

So after they shut down the blog the Executive Editor, Jim Brady, responds to a Q&A:

thaca, N.Y.: How is it ever acceptable for a newspaper to silence its critics?

Jim Brady: How has The Post “silenced its critics”? We’re having a discussion right now in which — believe me — I can assure you there are more critics than supporters. We shut down comments on one blog on a site than has 30. You can e-mail or snail mail letters to the editor. Deborah’s e-mail is available on the site. There are plenty of avenues to critique what happens at the newspaper or web site. We don’t have an obligation to keep every one of those avenues open if we run into problems like we did yesterday.

[...]Pensacola, Fla.: After reading the over 400 of the comments in question, which by the way, were saved by someone before they were removed, I saw no hate speech, one four letter word, and I can’t imagine what you found so offensive as to remove them. Could you please explain exactly what problem you had with them?

Jim Brady: You were reading the ones that were posted live. There were a few hundred others that were removed the site altogether, and those would not be on the page you’re looking at.

[...]Chicago, Ill.: I agree that readers calling Deborah Howell a “b****” or a “wh***” or those using other profanity should not have used those words. But why does The Washington Post feel it is necessary to provide a sanitized version of the comments? (this assuming the number of foul comments overflowed your capacity to delete them). The comments obviously are not attributed to your paper. So again, what harm was being cause by letting these comments (along with the rest of the well-researched comments) stand?

Jim Brady: I think it goes to basic human decency. You may not like Deborah Howell or her column from Sunday, but like you, she’s a human being. She shouldn’t have to read people publicly calling her a “b****” or a “wh***,” and we’re certainly not going to allow that on our site. Does anyone out there really think that adds anything to the discussion? If you need to use that language to make your point, I’m sorry, you don’t have one. You want to critique the column, go ahead. You want to say we we wrong, fire away. You want to call one of employees a “b****” and a “wh***,” you should go somewhere else.

In the end it can be quite funny to watch liberals. They are almost exactly like insects. You poke the leftyhill with a stick and watch them run around really fast and insane-like, and eventually settle down, and then you poke them again.

Of course when they hit the bong you have to wait till they gorge themselves and then poke em again.

Read the rest of this entry »

To expand on this whole Dean episode, well…this whole Democratic episode, where they are claiming this is just one big Republican scandal we have to look at what a lobbyist does. A lobbyist finds money from clients and then sends that money to a politician who will advance their agenda. That’s it in a nutshell.

Dean and his minions are chirping that Abramoff gave all of HIS money, meaning his personal money, to Republicans. Well no shit. He’s a Republican. But…..his job as a lobbyist is to have his clients send money to those who will advance their needs, say, like Indian tribes sending money to those Democrats who will make sure their casinos stay open and do well. Like Reid, Kerry and the rest of the gang.

Not too complicated huh?

Ace at Ace of Spades expounds on this much better then I:

The Democratic spin is that no Democrat received Abramoff’s personal political donations, and that he’s personally a Republcian. Well, yeah, and? Those come in scary-huge sizes of $1000 or $2000 per election cycle. And so he supported, with his personal donations, candidates whose policies he agreed with.

But a lobbyist does not lobby — or bribe — Congressmen by passing out his own money. See, were that the case, lobbyists would be bankrupted in a relatively short period of time. And it wouldn’t be a lucrative job– quite the opposite.

Lobbyists funnel money from interested parties to politicians in order to advance their clients’ business interests, not their own personal political preferences.

And Abramoff’s money– the money from his clients, from his lobbying firm’s accounts, from the affiliated organizations he controlled — went to Democrats in large amounts. The Democratic national senatorial committee, for example, received 97% of the money the Republican senatorial campaign committee did.

So, when Howard Dean trots out his talking point about no Democrats ever receiving Abramoff’s money, bear in mind that is a small amount of Abramoff’s personal funds he’s talking about, not the millions that he took from Indian casino interests to buy off polticians in payments of $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 or more at a shot.

And this is why my dear moonbats, you will lose this one too. Sure, some crooked Republicans are going down as they should….but the crooked Democrats are going down as well, your party’s hands are not clean.

UPDATE

Gateway Pundit has much more on a few specific Democrats:

Senator Byron Dorgan, the Vice Chairman Of The Senate Panel Currently Investigating Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, received at least $79,300 from Abramoff and his associates and clients.

Dorgan even held a fundraiser in an Abramoff Skybox:

The Choctaw tribe, an Abramoff client that was a primary focus of the Senate hearings, sponsored a fundraiser on March 28, 2001, for Dorgan’s political group, the Great Plains Leadership Fund. The event treated Dorgan and his donors to a bird’s-eye view of a professional hockey game from a skybox Abramoff leased in Washington’s MCI Center, while lobbyists got the chance to bend his ear.
Dorgan says he will not step down from the investigating committee. (same article)

That oh, so popular, MCI Skybox…

Tom Harkin paid the tribe for use of its Skybox and he failed to account properly for two fundraisers he held in lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s skybox at Washington??s MCI Center in 2002 and 2003.

Washington State Senator Patty Murray received $14,980 from 2002 to 2004 from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe in Michigan(?)

Harry Reid has declined to comment on whether he attended any functions there. But, between 2001 and 2004 Reid received $61,000 from donors with links to Abramoff, Reid’s office confirmed.

Man, it is just hilarious to see these lefties get themselves worked into a lather over something, and then to see their reaction when the rug is pulled from under them. Watch that rug dear lefties.

UPDATE II

Rob from Say Anything has a few things to say:

Abramoff was a go-between for major Indian gambling interests and politicians in Congress. On Abramoff?s directions those gambling interests made big-time donations to a lot of politicians. Mostly Republicans, sure, but a lot of Democrats as well.

To deny that this is a bi-partisan scandal is to ignore the problems at the heart of the issue. There needs to be lobbying reform, but if we allow the issue to be spun off as the corruption of one party and not the other - thus implying that replacing one party with the other will fix the problem - all we will do is sweep the problem under the rug until the next Jack Abramoff comes along, be he Democrat or Republican.

Congress is corrupt. Our politicians clearly cannot resist the temptations posed by big-money lobbyists, so we need to change some of the rules. But before we can do that we have to resolve that the problem resides within the system, not with one political ideology or the other.

Amen.

Read the rest of this entry »

This is a must see video of Howard Dean being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer at the Clinton News Network. Dean is at his most unhinged once again trying to distance the Democrats who took money from Abramoff and his Indian Tribe bosses. He claims that ALL the Democrats took money from only the tribes so now it’s all ok. First take a look at this diagram:

In the above diagram you see the words “The Justice Department is investigating the dealings of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who collected tens of millions of dollars in fees from casino rich Indian tribes and DIRECTED the tribes to make contributions to dozens of lawmakers and political groups”

The diagram breaks down the cash flow plus this one breaks it down even more:

So with all this in mind lets move onto Dean:

BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we’ve looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that’s true.

BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That’s not true either. There’s no evidence for that either. There is no evidence…

BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?

DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They’re not agents of Jack Abramoff. There’s no evidence that I’ve seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They’re scared. They should be scared. They haven’t told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they’re stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

BLITZER: Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, we got to leave it right there.

Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party, always speaking out bluntly, candidly.

Appreciate your joining us on “Late Edition.”

DEAN: Thanks, Wolf. Safe flight back.

BLITZER: Thank you very much.

Nice try Dean. But one reason you HAVE to watch the video:

Is that Blitzer is so stunned by Dean he has long pauses of silence after each Dean statement. And at the end of Deans idiocy he sigh’s……It’s a freakin funny video.

You get the feeling Dean is like Dorothy, clicking her heels 3 times and wishing to make this all go away. They can’t even admit that some Democrats are dirty and need to be thrown out, they think the American people will buy what they are selling and nothing can be further from the truth.

For those moonbats who continue to believe this is a Republican only scandal, read this article in it’s entirity which lays out the Democrat involvement:

“THIS IS A REPUBLICAN scandal,” Harry Reid, the Democrats’ leader in the Senate, told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace in December. Wallace had asked Reid about his relationship with Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who last week pleaded guilty, in two separate investigations, to five counts of mail fraud, tax evasion, wire fraud, and conspiracy. Reid said there was no relationship. “Abramoff gave me no money,” he said. “So don’t lump me in with Jack Abramoff.”

Reid might not have taken money directly from Abramoff, a lifelong Republican and conservative activist, but he did accept donations–some $66,000 worth–from Abramoff’s clients, Indian tribes operating casinos throughout the United States. And Reid’s willingness to do so, and his reluctance to return the Abramoff-related funds, as many of his Republican colleagues have done, suggests that Washington’s latest lobbying scandal may be more complex than partisans have let on, and more difficult for Democrats to make partisan hay out of than pundits now think. Consider another example.

On February 2, 2002, Abramoff wrote an email to his lobbying partner Michael Scanlon. “I’m on the phone with Tigua! Fire up the jet, baby, we’re going to El Paso.”

“I want all their MONEY!!!” Scanlon replied.

Until the previous month, the Tigua tribe had operated the Speaking Rock casino in El Paso, which a Texas District Court, adjudicating a suit brought against the tribe by Texas Attorney General John Cornyn–now a U.S. senator–had declared illegal. Abramoff, Scanlon, and Ralph Reed, the former executive director of the Christian Coalition, had worked behind the scenes on behalf of another tribe, the Louisiana Coushattas, to make sure that the Tigua casino stayed closed. They were successful.

But Abramoff and Scanlon were also greedy. Now that the Tigua were out of luck, they reasoned, wouldn’t the tribe want to see their casino reopened? And wouldn’t they want, further, to hire influence peddlers to petition the government on their behalf? Most important, wouldn’t they pay those influence peddlers a whole lot of money to do so? The answer to all three questions was yes.

Abramoff approached the Tigua and told them that he could use his connections in the federal government to the tribe’s advantage. He also said that his representation would cost nothing; only if he were successful would he ask the tribe to consider putting him on retainer. But Abramoff’s representation would not be enough. The Tigua would also need to hire an expert in “grassroots” politics. He had someone in mind–his silent partner Scanlon. Abramoff “explained to us that Mr. Scanlon was the ‘preeminent expert in grassroots politics,’” recalled Marc Schwartz, a Tigua representative, in a 2004 hearing before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. What’s more, Schwartz testified, thanks to Scanlon’s “experience with Representative Tom DeLay,” for whom he had served as spokesman, Scanlon “had developed a reputation as the, quote, ‘go-to guy’ for the most difficult campaigns.”

Scanlon’s program, “Operation Open Doors,” came at a price: $4.2 million. What the Tigua did not know was that Scanlon planned all along to send half that amount back to Abramoff in the form of a $2.1 million check to Kay Gold LLC., an Abramoff front. The two friends called this arrangement “Gimme Five.”

“As you know,” Scanlon wrote in a January 9, 2003, after-action report to Schwartz, his tribal contact, “the election reform bill was targeted as the vehicle for the necessary legislative language needed to reopen the Speaking Rock Casino.” This was because the Help America Vote Act of 2002, a grab-bag election reform bill also known as HAVA, was a sure legislative bet: It was due to pass Congress quickly, and the president would almost certainly sign it. “Fortunately,” Scanlon continued, “Congressman Bob Ney (R-OH), with whom we have good relations and a solid working arrangement, was managing the House process.” But at that time Democrats controlled the Senate, which meant that Scanlon’s work had to be bipartisan. “Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT),” he wrote, “managed the Senate.”

Schwartz told Sen. John McCain in November 2004 that he recalled “an agreement between Mr. Abramoff and Senator Dodd early in the process. And Representative Ney came on the scene somewhat later.” Schwartz’s testimony jibes with the contents of an April 12, 2002, memo Scanlon sent to his tribal contacts, in which he wrote that “we have Senate support,” but that “they are looking for political cover.”

The route by which Scanlon had supposedly secured Dodd’s cooperation was circuitous. His firm, Scanlon & Gould, aka Capital Campaign Strategies, paid another firm, Lunde & Burger, $50,000 to lobby the Connecticut Democrat. “He called me about the Tiguas’ wanting to reopen their casino,” Brian Lunde, a former Democratic National Committee executive director who in 2004 was the national chair of Democrats for Bush, later told the New York Times. “I checked around, and it was the formal position of the DNC to have that reopened.” Lunde and Burger entered into a $10,000 subcontract with yet another “public relations strategist” to lobby Dodd directly. Enter Lottie Shackelford.

LIKE MANY WASHINGTONIANS Lottie Shackelford came to this city to do good and stayed to do well. She has been a vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee since 1989. She is also a lobbyist. She was the first woman to be elected mayor of Little Rock, Arkansas, and her career has followed the arc of that state’s former governor, Bill Clinton. In 1993 Clinton appointed Shackelford, who had served on his presidential transition team, to the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, an obscure government agency that oversees subsidies for U.S. businesses investing abroad. Also that year she was named executive vice president of U.S. Strategies Inc., a lobbying firm. Later she became executive vice president of another lobbying firm, Global USA, Inc. (Much of her bio can be read on the website of the pharmaceutical company Medicis, on whose board Shackelford sits.)

Among Shackelford’s clients in 2005: FM Policy Focus, which paid Global USA Inc. $45,000 for six months’ work to lobby the House and Senate on “regulatory reform issues” and the “Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005″; the “Metro-Miami Action Plan Trust,” which hired her to “assist with procurement of appropriated funds”; and Hyundai Motor Company, which paid her to work on “issues related to hydrogen fleet and infrastructure demonstration and validation project,” specifically “HR 2419, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006, provisions relating to Department of Energy hydrogen program.”

In 2002, when she contacted Dodd about the Tigua provision, Shackelford was also a registered lobbyist on behalf of Quest Software, as well as United to Secure America, which paid Global USA Inc. $10,000 to influence immigration reform legislation. She was not a registered lobbyist on behalf of the Tigua. She was, however, a member of Dodd’s fundraising committee. “We directed her to make personal contact with the Senator throughout the campaign starting in April and lasting through the passage of the legislation in October,” Scanlon wrote in his 2003 memo. Shackelford, he continued, was “critical.”

In 2004 Dodd delivered a statement to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. Shackelford “did approach my office,” he wrote, “during the waning hours of negotiations over the HAVA legislation.” And Shackelford did “inquire whether recognition provisions for the Tigua tribe could be included in the bill.” However, according to Dodd, “the suggestion was summarily rejected.”

No one seems to have told Bob Ney that. While Scanlon was working with the Democratic lobbyists, Abramoff had been working with the Ohio Republican congressman. On July 25, 2002, Abramoff received some disturbing news. Ney told him that he had met with Dodd to discuss HAVA, and brought up the Tigua. “Dodd looked at him like a ‘deer in headlights,’” Abramoff later wrote to Scanlon, and “said he had never made such a commitment and that, with the problems of new casinos in Connecticut, it is a problem!!!”

The plan, in short, had failed. When the Help America Vote Act became law in October 2002, there was no provision reopening the Speaking Rock casino. Lobbyists, of course, get to cash their checks whether they are successful or not. Shackelford kept the $10,000. That she did so tells us that Jack Abramoff’s story is not simply about how some Republicans work Washington for private gain. It’s also about how Washington really works.

Other’s Blogging:

Bareknuckle Politics, The Political Teen,

Read the rest of this entry »

Ohhh man, is this glass house gonna fall hard:

As the Jack Abramoff saga unfolds, I have to admit, this will be educational to watch.

We will get the opportunity to see what kind of Republicans we have on Capitol Hill. I took a lot of grief a few months ago for calling out Tom Delay, but how the hell are we to say anything about Clintonistas and crooked Democrats if our own house is in disarray.

[...]But of course, there are those who deem the American People dumb as stones and will approach this bi-partisan scandal accordingly. Enter Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi, complete with talking points for her minion, that are sure to come back and bite her….

?Today, Jack Abramoff admitted to conspiring to bribe to Members of Congress ? a despicable action that strikes at the heart of our democracy. Sadly, it is not a surprise because this Republican Congress is the most corrupt in history and the American people are paying the price.

?The Republicans? culture of corruption ? in which Members of Congress cozy up to lobbyists and cronies ? has resulted in the American people paying higher prescription drug prices, higher gas and home heating costs, and has produced the failed Republican efforts to provide relief to survivors of Hurricane Katrina.

?The House Ethics Committee must get to work immediately to investigate pending ethics and corruption cases in the House, including those involving Members with ties to Jack Abramoff. This is a necessary first step to restore a high ethical standard to the Congress.

?Democrats are committed to a Congress that represents all Americans, not just the special interests.?

Speaking of a ?culture of corruption?, let me take you back a few months with this piece by Mike Allen of the Washington Post just last July…

?House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) filed delinquent reports Friday for three trips she accepted from outside sponsors that were worth $8,580 and occurred as long as seven years ago, according to copies of the documents.

?The filing is among hundreds of revisions from members of both parties who have amended missing or incomplete reports as scrutiny of lawmaker travel has intensified.

?The most expensive trip was not reported on Pelosi’s annual financial disclosure statement or on the travel disclosure form that is required within 30 days of a trip.

?A more common violation among members filing corrections was to list a trip on the annual statement but not file the more detailed form about a specific trip. The House ethics committee plans to examine the tardy disclosures after being stalled since January in partisan disputes.

?Committee members have shown no appetite for taking up all those cases and are considering an amnesty for reporting violations, although not for serious matters such as accepting a trip from a lobbyist, which House rules forbid. The data firm PoliticalMoneyLine calculates that members of Congress have received more than $18 million in travel from private organizations in the past five years, with Democrats taking 3,458 trips and Republicans taking 2,666.

?Pelosi, who was elected House Democratic leader in November 2002, said in a letter to the ethics committee: “Although the current travel issue has focused on trips that have taken place since 2000, I have further reviewed my record of privately funded travel prior to becoming part of the Democratic Leadership.” She said that “as a result,” she was filing three forms, two for trips that she had reported on her annual statements.

?The unreported trip was a week-long 1999 visit to Taiwan, paid for by the Chinese National Association of Industry and Commerce, for “meetings with government, military and business officials,” according to a filing Pelosi signed June 30.

The flights cost $3,400 each for Pelosi and her husband. The hotel cost was $940. The sponsor, which has picked up trips for leaders of both parties, paid $300 for meals.

?Pelosi said she had provided “a good faith estimate” of the cost of the other two trips, since her “office records for that period do not indicate the costs.” In 1998, NBC paid for a $200 trip to New York for a “Meet the Press” appearance, according to the filing. In 1999, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee paid $300 for transportation to Delray Beach, Fla., and $40 for meals for Pelosi to appear at a reception and briefing.?

Whoops.

Nancy’s words will come back and bite her, and when they do, she’ll spin, she’ll point fingers, she may even cry. But seeing how this scandal may touch almost every United States Senator, Pelosi may be lamenting how lousy she’ll look wearing orange.

Let’s just wait and see, shall we…?

Sadly, while I would hope this glass house would fall hard, I do not believe it will happen.? When corruption involves the Republicans, the MSM are all over it.? When it’s a Democrat all we will hear from the MSM is “cricket cricket”.

UPDATE

Check out yesterdays post which detailed which Democrats also received money from Abramoff

END UPDATE

More of the same ole’ here with this report from the MSM. They mention Bush and Republicans all over the report but no mention of the Democrats who got money from this guy:

WASHINGTON - President Bush’s re-election campaign will give the American Heart Association thousands of dollars in campaign contributions connected to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the White House said Wednesday, as the government pressed forward with a broad-ranging corruption investigation.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday that Abramoff, his wife and the tribal associates that he helped win influence on Capitol Hill donated thousands to the Bush-Cheney ‘04 campaign. Donations to charities has been the policy in similar situations in the past, McClellan said.

Abramoff raised at least $100,000 for President Bush’s 2004 re-election effort, earning the honorary title “pioneer” from the campaign. It was unclear how much exactly the campaign would be giving to charity since McClellan referred questions about the matter to the Republican National Committee, which did not immediately return phone calls about it.

McClellan said Bush does not know Abramoff personally, although it’s possible that the two met at holiday receptions. Abramoff attended three Hanukkah receptions at the White House, the spokesman said.

In a plea agreement with government prosecutors Tuesday, Abramoff has agreed to tell the FBI about alleged bribes to lawmakers and their aides on issues ranging from Internet gambling to wireless phone service in the House.

The full extent of the investigation is not yet known, but Justice Department officials said they intended to make use of the trove of e-mails and other material in Abramoff’s possession as part of a probe that is believed to be focusing on as many as 20 members of Congress and aides.

“The corruption scheme with Mr. Abramoff is very extensive and we will continue to follow it wherever it leads,” said Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher, head of the Justice Department’s criminal division.

Court papers in Abramoff’s case refer to an aide to then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay who helped stop anti-gambling legislation regarding the Internet. Abramoff, the papers state, paid the staffer’s wife $50,000 from clients that benefited from the actions of the staffer, identified by a person close to the investigation as Tony Rudy, DeLay’s former deputy chief of staff.

In my view this whole problem is the result of the huge escalation in campaign spending. If we want these things to stop, we have to eliminate lobbying altogether.

I mean what exactly does a lobbyist do other then get money from special interest groups for the candidate? Nothing.

Knowing the number of Democrats who received a large amount of money from Abramoff, including Kerry with close to 100 grand and Reid with somewhere around 50k, the MSM will let this story die out. They can only milk the Republican side of this for so long.

But if they continue to only harp on the Republican side while keeping the Barrett report under wraps, things will get quite ugly:

Potentially explosive allegations from a 10-year independent counsel investigation may never see the light of day due to an appropriations bill negotiation that has some conservatives crying foul.

The final report of David M. Barrett, an independent counsel appointed in 1995 to investigate potential felonies committed by one-time Clinton administration Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros, is tentatively scheduled for release on Jan. 19, Barrett told FOXNews.com….

However, Barrett and others say, thanks to an amendment to the November judiciary appropriations bill, key elements in the final report, which was completed in August 2004 and has been sitting with a three-judge panel at the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. ever since, may be heavily redacted before its release.

“As it currently stands, the report will not be released in its entirety,” said Barrett, who didn’t want to speculate why or which portions of the report may not be made public. One decade and some millions of taxpayers’ dollars later, he said he is disappointed that the report may not reflect his careful and diligent efforts.

“I believe after 10 years and the expense of $22 million, the public has the right to see the entire report and make their own judgments,” he said.

And we all know which side is trying to keep this under wraps:

Are Americans ready for another Clinton scandal? Ready or not, if Senate Democrats get their way, the nation can keep its blinders. If GOP Sen. Charles Grassley prevails, the truth will glare through.

Only half a decade out of power, the last administration may have entered that gray zone in which, historians say, the country may be mildly interested in new revelations or ready ? as the old Clinton defenders would say ? to move on.

For his part, William Jefferson Clinton, sporting a snowy coif seemingly designed to yell “elder statesman here,” has undertaken tsunami relief, launched his own “global initiative” to heighten his role as an actor astride the world, and repeatedly broken the unwritten protocol against criticizing his successors.

[...]Fine, but such moral infractions can build into tyrannous executive behavior. Ask David Barrett, a special prosecutor assigned to investigate the forgotten case of Henry Cisneros, Clinton’s first HUD secretary, who was found to be misappropriating funds to pay off a mistress.

When Barrett pulled on that thread, he reportedly unraveled a cloak hiding abuses of the Justice Department and the IRS. If recent teases about what’s in his 400-page report are true, the previous administration was siccing agents on its political opponents.

At the time, various Clinton critics, from the Heritage Foundation to The American Spectator magazine, found themselves under suspicious IRS audits. Was there a deliberate pattern? It’s possible the Barrett report can tell us.

Alas, Barrett’s work could be the first special prosecutor’s report never to see daylight. Clinton operatives have taken advantage of a legal provision letting them blot out anything they feel damages their privacy. And Senate Democrats, with the unwitting cooperation of Senate Republicans, slipped into an appropriations bill a provision that would deep-six the report.

Grassley, the methodical Iowa Republican, wants to revisit all that. Majority Leader Bill Frist should get on board, as well as House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Barrett’s work, in the words of columnist Tony Snow, could be “a bombshell, capable possibly of wiping out Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential prospects.”

Obvious politics aside, we think our fellow citizens will be grateful to have the blinders ripped away. The truth sometimes waits for history to make an opening. No better time than right now.

Does anyone remember what happened to Clinton when he took all those bales of cash from the Chinese?

Nada, zip…nothing. Does the MSM even report on it anymore? No bias here.

UPDATE

This website has a detailed breakdown of Abramoff’s contribution history, very very interesting:

So the party in power received about 2/3rd’s of the money while the minority party gets 1/3. Sounds about right. The majority party can get things done while the minority has a harder time getting things done so of course that’s where the money goes. Either way, no Democrat can wash their hands of this scandal.

Can you believe that some on DummiesU are even trying to say NO Democrats received any money?

Here is the just released NRSC Newsletter with even more info:

Tribal Clients And Associates Of Jack Abramoff Have Contributed Over $3.1 Million To Democrat Party Interests Between 1997 And 2004. (Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, http://www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com/, Accessed December 2005; Political Money Line Website, http://www.tray.com/, Accessed December 2005)

National Democrat Party Affiliated Committees Received Over $1.2 Million From Indian Tribe Clients And Lobbying Associates Of Jack Abramoff. (Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, http://www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com/, Accessed December 7, 2005; Political Money Line Website, http://www.tray.com/, Accessed December 7, 2005; Internal Revenue Service Website, http://www.irs.gov/, Accessed April 21, 2005)

The Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) Received Over ? $430,000 The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Received Over ? $629,000 The Democrat National Committee (DNC) Received Over ? $177,000

Incumbent Senate Democrat-Affiliated Campaign And Leadership Committees Received Over $729,000 From Indian Tribe Clients And Lobbying Associates Of Jack Abramoff*. (Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, http://www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com/, Accessed December 7, 2005; Political Money Line Website, http://www.tray.com/, Accessed December 7, 2005; Internal Revenue Service Website, http://www.irs.gov/, Accessed April 21, 2005)

40 Of The 45 Members Of The Senate Democrat Caucus:

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received At Least ? $22,500 Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Received At Least ? $6,500 Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Received At Least ? $1,250 Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received At Least ? $2,000 Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Received At Least ? $20,250 Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received At Least ? $21,765 Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received At Least ? $7,500 Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Received At Least ? $12,950 Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received At Least ? $8,000 Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received At Least ? $7,500 Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received At Least ? $14,792 Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received At Least ? $79,300 Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least ? $14,000 Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Received At Least ? $2,000 Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Received At Least ? $1,250 Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received At Least ? $45,750 Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received At Least ? $9,000 Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received At Least ? $2,000 Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received At Least ? $14,250 Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Received At Least ? $3,300 Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least ? $98,550 Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received At Least ? $28,000 Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Received At Least ? $4,000 Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received At Least ? $6,000 Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least ? $29,830 Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least ? $14,891 Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received At Least ? $10,550 Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received At Least ? $78,991 Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received At Least ? $20,168 Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least ? $5,200 Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received At Least ? $7,500 Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received At Least ? $2,300 Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received At Least ? $3,500 Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Received At Least ? $68,941 Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Received At Least ? $4,000 Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received At Least ? $4,500 Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received At Least ? $4,300 Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least ? $29,550 Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received At Least ? $6,250 Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Received At Least ? $6,250

The usual suspects:

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Rec. At Least ? $68,941
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Rec. At Least ? $98,550
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Rec. At Least ? $29,550
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Rec. At Least ? $98,550

Shall we just call this the Democratic culture of corruption?

UPDATE

Dafydd at The Big Lizard is one of those who believe this story will go nowhere:

But as an issue to change the face of the Senate and House, or even to cause Republican losses, I think the Abramoff scandal is vastly overrated.

Consider: the point of this scandal is that members of Congress took campaign contributions, then voted the way the contributer wanted as a direct quid pro quo. So let’s try a little gedankenexperiment, as Einstein (and probably Rich Galen) would put it… there are 535 members of Congress (435 House, 100 Senate); out of these 535, how many do you think have, at least once in their careers, accepted a campaign contribution and then done something they would not ordinarily have done because of it?

(Cue the “Final Jeopardy” theme….)

If anybody here did not answer “why, all of them, of course,” I want to know who it is; I think we should put the person in a museum as the last person in America still not jaded and cynical about Congress.

In other words, all that the Abramoff scandal will do is reconfirm to the American people that Congress is crooked. But the fact that both Republicans and Democrats are involved — the CSM claims that “Republicans received 64 percent of that money,” which implies (by my calculation) that 36% of it went to Democrats — means that nobody gets an advantage; nobody is going to care that “more money” went to corrupt Republicans than went to corrupt Democrats; ordinary people will simply roll their eyes and sigh. If they think about it at all, they’ll conclude that the deciding factor was not that Republicans are innately more corrupt but that they’re legislatively more powerful.

(This will become crystal clear when Republicans begin digging into the campaign contributions made by other lobbyists who lean more to the left — such as lobbyist and former official of the FAA Linda Hall Daschle.)

Every election boils down, in the end, to a contest between two (or occasionally three or four) people; you don’t get to have a choice between a named Republican and an unnamed Democratic saint. Unless one of the candidates has actually been charged in the case, the opponent slinging mud will just get mud slung right back, and the mud (deserved or undeserved in both cases) will cancel itself out.

If a particular person gets indicted — Bob Ney (R-OH), for example, is in a lot of danger — he will probably resign from Congress to deal with it. Then everything depends upon the governor of the state (Republican Bob Taft, who has his own corruption problems, in the case of Ohio); the governor in each case will name someone of his own party who never took any money from Abramoff, and who will then run as a quasi-incumbent — but not much of one, since the investigation will take some months — in the November election.

At that point, what will matter is how safe the seat is: in Bob Ney’s case, according to Michael Barone’s Almanac of American Politics, 2006, Ney has won by over 60% in the last four elections (in 2002, the Democrats didn’t even bother to field a nominee against him), and the eighteenth district of Ohio went for George W. Bush by 14% in both 2000 and 2004. This is a safe Republican seat, and the Republican will likely win this year, whether it’s a battle-scarred Bob Ney or someone else.

And that is part of the secret: unless there is a confluence of indictment or much greater than run-of-the-mill congressional corruption for a particular incumbent and one of the tiny number of truly competitive seats and a squeaky clean challenger, this sort of financial scandal simply doesn’t have much impact. It is very different from a political scandal, like Watergate, that actually calls the ability to govern into question.

Anybody remember the Keating Five? It was one of the biggest scandals to rock Congress in the 1980s. The “five” were Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA), Sen. John Glenn (D-OH), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), and Sen. Don Riegle (D-MI). The scandal erupted in 1989. Quiz: how many of the Keating Five were defeated in the election following the scandal?

Answer: none, of course. Three chose to retire: Cranston (who was diagnosed with prostate cancer), DeConcini, and Riegle; the two who actually ran for reelection, McCain and Glenn, were both reelected. One could argue that the scandal persuaded the retirees not to run, but that’s a tricky case to make.

The House banking scandal broke in early 1992 and ensnared far more members (over 350) than can possibly be caught up in the Abramoff scandal… and a greater percentage were Democrats. In addition, the minority leader was Newt Gingrich, far more dynamic and exciting than is Nancy Pelosi today. And back then, there were also a lot more competitive seats. So what happened in the election that year? The Democrats lost 9 seats in the House — and gained 1 seat in the Senate, completely in keeping with the typical electoral play in those days.

But in the 1994 election, which hinged not on a scandal but rather on the Republican “Contract With America,” as well as the performance of the Clinton White House and the Democratic Congress, the Democrats lost 52 seats in the House and 9 Senate seats.

And of course, the political result of Bill Clinton’s impeachment for perjury was that his approval rating skyrocketed in 1998. Yeah… scandal.

I think it’s pretty clear which has more impact: a scandal among the incumbent party, or the challenging party having a positive political agenda in line with the voters’ own beliefs, with the incumbents having either an out of step agenda — or no agenda at all.

Today, we have less play; I would be pretty shocked if the Abramoff scandal at its worst affected more than two or three House seats — and any Senate seats at all.

So relax. Let’s get the bad guys; we don’t want them anyway, especially if they’re Republicans. But don’t bite your nails to the quick, worrying that this will cause significant damage to the Republican Party. It may increase the cynicism of the American voter (if that’s even possible), which is pretty bad by itself. But neither party is going to come off clean enough to benefit from it.

I will just call Dafydd The Wise One from now on.? He put this whole thing into perspective quite easily, and painlessly.

I was thinking about this today.? These things seem to hit the airwaves like a tidal wave, crashing over everything in its path but then quickly recedes.? Not many of them actually turn into a flood and this thing has all the earmarks of being a tiny tidal wave.? Both sides were involved, and all we know right now is that almost every freakin member of Congress received money from this guy.

The one thing that does make me pause tho is the fact he took a DEAL for 10 years.? To take a deal for that long of a incarceration makes me believe he has lots of dirt.

As most of you know, the lobbyist Jack Abramoff pled guilty to Conspiracy, Tax Evasion and Mail Fraud while also agreeing to cooperate in the investigations of up to 20 Congressmen.

While many are saying this could be bad for the Republicans, they also acknowledge that many a Democrat will be going down also. Either way, both sides need to be condemned and jailed. Whether your a Republican or a Democrat. If your corrupt you should go down.

This is the thing, if the left begins to portray the Republican party as a whole as corrupt it will come back to bite them on the ass. We all know this crossed party lines. Corruption has no favorite side of the aisle, it’s who could do the most for you. Democrats will be going down just as hard as the Republicans, and they both should be condemned.

Once-powerful lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud, agreeing to cooperate in an influence-peddling investigation that threatens powerful members of Congress.

In a heavily scripted court appearance, Abramoff agreed with U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle when she said he had engaged in a conspiracy involving “corruption of public officials.” The lobbyist also agreed when she said he and others had engaged in a scheme to provide campaign contributions, trips and other items “in exchange for certain official acts.”

[...]Abramoff’s travels with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay are already under criminal investigation. The lobbyist’s interactions with the Texas Republican’s congressional office frequently came around the time of campaign donations, golf outings or other trips provided or arranged by Abramoff for DeLay and other lawmakers. In all, DeLay received at least $57,000 in political contributions from Abramoff, his lobbying associates or his tribal clients between 2001 and 2004.

Court papers released Tuesday also detailed lavish gifts and contributions that Abramoff gave an unnamed House member, identified elsewhere as Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Administration Committee, in return for Ney’s agreement to use his office to aid Abramoff clients.

Ney’s lawyer, Mark Tuohey, said Tuesday that the charges against Abramoff were “nothing new.” He said they repeated information in the November plea agreement from Abramoff’s lobbying partner, Michael Scanlon.

Read the whole article, do you see any mention of the Democrats under investigation because of these two guys? It’s already started. Whitewash the left side of the aisle while turning the spotlight onto the right side. No bias my ass.

Not one of these folks:

1. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Rec. At Least ? $22,500
2. Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Rec. At Least ? $6,500
3. Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Rec. At Least ? $1,250
4. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Rec. At Least ? $2,000
5. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Rec. At Least ? $20,250
6. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Rec. At Least ? $21,765
7. Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Rec. At Least ? $7,500
8. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Rec. At Least ? $12,950
9. Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Rec. At Least ? $8,000
10. Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Rec. At Least ? $7,500
11. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Rec. At Least ? $14,792
12. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Rec. At Least ? $79,300
13. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Rec. At Least ? $14,000
14. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Rec. At Least ? $2,000
15. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Rec. At Least ? $1,250
16. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Rec. At Least ? $45,750
17. Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Rec. At Least ? $9,000
18. Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Rec. At Least ? $2,000
19. Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Rec. At Least ? $14,250
20. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Rec. At Least ? $3,300
21. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Rec. At Least ? $98,550
22. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Rec. At Least ? $28,000
23. Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Rec. At Least ? $4,000
24. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Rec. At Least ? $6,000
25. Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Rec. At Least ? $29,830
26. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Rec. At Least ? $14,891
27. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Rec. At Least ? $10,550
28. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Rec. At Least ? $78,991
29. Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Rec. At Least ? $20,168
30. Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Rec. At Least ? $5,200
31. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Rec. At Least ? $7,500
32. Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Rec. At Least ? $2,300
33. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Rec. At Least ? $3,500
34. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Rec. At Least ? $68,941
35. Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Rec. At Least ? $4,000
36. Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Rec. At Least ? $4,500
37. Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Rec. At Least ? $4,300
38. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Rec. At Least ? $29,550
39. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Rec. At Least ? $6,250
40. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Rec. At Least ? $6,250

I wonder why? The left side of the aisle better be careful before they start attacking the right:

“It’s very odd that Democrats at the national and state levels have sought to exploit the Abramoff matter for political gain, while in the process throwing countless congressional Democrats under the bus,” said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).

The NRSC has begun circulating among fellow Republicans new reports showing that all but five of the chamber’s 44 Democrats have taken Abramoff-related money. In addition, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have taken more than $1.2 million, according to records provided to The Washington Times.

In total, Senate Democrats and their national committees have accepted $3.1 million, compared with $4.3 million in contributions to Republicans from Mr. Abramoff, his clients and his associates.

Need more?

1. Since 1999, the top recipient of donations from Indian tribes was the Democratic National Committee, which collected $2,015,250 for its non-federal corporate account, according to records publicly available from Political Money Line.
2. The second-largest recipient of tribal donations has been the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee at $1,614,950.
3. The third-largest recipient of dollars from Indian tribes is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee with $1,288,650.
4. The fifth-largest recipient is the Democratic Governors Association, which collected $965,000.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not highlighting these Democrats who got caught in the cookie jar to pile onto the Democrats. I am pointing this stuff out because the left has already got itself into a tizzy thinking this is good for them. It isn’t. It’s not good for either side. The only good thing that will come out of this is that these guys will hopefully be landing in jail.

UPDATE

Here is a good pictorial of the money and where it went.

UPDATE II

It seems curious that Abramoff was involved in these talks with the DOJ for so long over his plea bargain. He must be offering them something substantial. I’m betting when these other folks get hauled in, they will more then likely also try to cut themselves a deal. The end result, a whole deck of cards comes tumbling down.

Meanwhile Sen McCain, whose Campaign Finance Reform took money out of politics, has this to say:

U.S. Senator John McCain said he expects “lots” of indictments to grow out of the federal investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff and that there was “strong evidence” of wrongdoing by some lawmakers.

“This town has become very corrupt, there’s no doubt about it,” McCain said today on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program.

The Arizona Republican is chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and has led a congressional probe of Abramoff’s dealings with Indian tribes who hired him as a lobbyist. The Justice Department is investigating Abramoff’s contacts with lawmakers and congressional staff members.

“There’s strong evidence that there was significant wrongdoing,” McCain said when asked whether he believed some lawmakers have committed crimes. He declined to be specific.

[...]McCain, 69, said the lobbying system needs to be restructured to eliminate fraud and to prevent groups from hiring well-connected people to make deals to pass certain legislation or guarantee funding for key issues. He said he wouldn’t count on the congressional ethics committee that monitor lawmakers’ compliance with laws and ethics regulations.

“I don’t think the ethics committees are working very well,” McCain said.

You think?

UPDATE III

Argh! The networks are pissing me off. Not one word about ANY Democrats involved. Time to reload:

[...]A lawyer for the Louisiana Coushatta Indians said Mr. Abramoff told the tribe to send $5,000 to Sen. Byron L. Dorgan’s political group three weeks after the North Dakota Democrat urged fellow senators to fund a school program Mr. Abramoff’s clients wanted to use.

[...]The revelation came as Mr. Dorgan took to the offensive, saying there was no connection between the $20,000 in donations he got from Mr. Abramoff’s firm and tribal clients in spring 2002 and a February 2002 letter he wrote urging the Senate Appropriations Committee to fund the tribal school-building program.

Mr. Dorgan’s letter noted that the Mississippi Choctaw, an Abramoff client, had successfully used the program and asked lawmakers to consider long-term funding for it. It made no mention of Mr. Abramoff or any of his other tribes that were interested in the program.

Mr. Dorgan sharply criticized a recent Associated Press story that divulged he and a dozen other lawmakers had received Abramoff-related donations near the time they sent letters supporting the school program.

Mr. Dorgan said he had never met Mr. Abramoff, didn’t know about the donations from the lobbyist’s clients near the time of his letter and saw no reason to quit the Senate Indian Affairs Committee investigation of Mr. Abramoff.

“I don’t have any idea what was contributed to me, or by whom. No contribution has been made to me that was ever represented as a contribution coming from Mr. Abramoff, or [what] he was involved in,” Mr. Dorgan said when asked about the $20,000 in donations.

[...]For instance, the Coushattas’ check ledger shows the tribe on March 6, 2002, wrote checks for $5,000 to Mr. Dorgan’s political group, called the Great Plains Leadership Fund, and $25,000 to Mr. Burns. That money ultimately went to Mr. Burns’ Friends of the Big Sky political group.

[...]Other checks listed as being issued that day were written to groups tied to Sens. Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican; Mary L. Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat; Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat; and John Breaux, Louisiana Democrat; and Reps. Tom DeLay, Texas Republican; Charles H. Taylor, North Carolina Republican; and Pete Sessions, Texas Republican, all of whom wrote letters favorable to Abramoff tribal client causes, the ledger shows.

Other’s Blogging:

Rightwing Nuthouse, Stop The ACLU, Tigerhawk, Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin, The Political Teen, The Monroe Doctrine, A Blog For All, Mark A. Kilmer, Wizbang, Say Anything, Sister Toldjah, The Iowa Voice,

Read the rest of this entry »