Jack Abramoff

[poseidon]

I agree that Republicans should be offended by what is going on. I do not believe that it should be a "well the Dems are involved, too," and try to shift focus away from what's going on. I'll now say this a second time (since you've apparently missed the first): Republicans are in trouble over this. I'll go on to say that the bad ones need to be sent packing, because they do not stand for or represent Republican ideals.

At the same time, I also think people are being intellectually dishonest to say that Republicans are corrupt while denying that Democrats are, as well. This scandal is hitting both parties.

[brian_igo]

Jeff, put a name on it. Who are these corrupt Democrats and what did they do? I'll say it again, get away from the baseless generalities and talk about people and acts. Show me the Democratic politicians named as recipients of bribes in federal indictments. Show me the Kerry and Democratic fundraisers and campaign managers indicted and convicted on felonies for acts they did while campaiging. Show me the Democratic politicians who have resigned after pleading guilty to taking bribes. Show me the Democratic pols who changed their votes after taking money from a sleazy lobbyist like Abramoff.

And btw, if you want to feel real moral revulsion, look into what Jack Abramoff was pimping-and what GOP leaders like Tom DeLay and Conrad Burns were supporting-in the Marianas Islands.

Before you dismiss that story as the work of a liberal writer, former Senator Frank Murkowski-no one's idea of a liberal-was repulsed and ashamed by what was happening in the Marianas and tried to stop it. Guess who stopped him? Abramoff, DeLay and Burns.

[brian_igo]

One of the main GOP talking points in the corruption damage control is that (politician/lobbyist/activity) X is an exception to the rule. It is a line that is readily accepted by most of the beltway punditry, even when they are being told that the execption is the rule:

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Joe Scarborough is the host of MSNBC‘s “SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY,” which airs every night at 10:00. He‘s also a former member of the U.S. Congress from Florida. Maybe someday he‘ll be bigger than that, even that some day. Joe, let me ask you, as you watch this from the perspective of former membership in the Congress, and you see all these members now giving back money and obviously getting a little nervous about this guy Abramoff, how does he fit into the picture you recall from the Hill?


JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST, “SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY”: You know, it‘s funny, I remember Abramoff‘s name, I remember certainly that he was attached to DeLay‘s office especially but, you know, there were all always guys that would be coming in talking about Indian casinos.

We don‘t have Indian casinos in northwest Florida. I could never really figure out what that was all about. Now I am starting to figure out what it‘s about. It‘s interesting though—it‘s funny. I‘m listening to Bob Bennett—I guess—you know, I guess my biggest take on this is that this seems so much the way that business was done in Washington, D.C.
Bob Bennett is on and he‘s telling you that some lobbyists take people golfing and expect them to drop bills a few days later and vote with them, and they‘re expecting something in return for their favors. Some? All. All do it. That‘s their job.

They are hired to get Congressmen to vote their way, to drop bills, to put speeches in that attack this group or that group. And, I mean, that‘s the way business has been done, and unfortunately, it‘s a dirty, nasty system. And I got—you know, Chris, in the first week—first—I guess actually first month I was up there, I got, you know—I found out what lobbyists expected.

I had the peanut growers come in and talk to me about peanuts subsidies. I had peanut farmers in my district, and I said well, I‘m against all farm subsidies. They smiled and I smiled back, said thanks a lot, thank you so much for being honest with us, Congressman. They walked out of the office, and the next day I got $10,000 worth of checks. The vote was the coming week.

I ended up voting against their subsidy bill anyway after they gave me $10,000 in checks, an my chief of staff came and goes boy, those peanut guys are—I won‘t say what he said. They‘re really ticked of at you, Joe. I said why? I told them how I was going to vote.

He said that‘s not the way it‘s done up here. They gave you the money, you were supposed to vote their way. And, again, I didn‘t hold it against the peanut subsidy guys. I said, you know—it hit me then that members were dirty. You give them money ...


MATTHEWS: Well ...


SCARBOROUGH: ... they switch their votes.


MATTHEWS: Well, try to decipher this. A member of Congress, somebody you know, once told me that you could go into a subcommittee and you‘d be sitting around a room trying to figure out how to mark up a bill or how to begin to approach it—and you could tell all of a sudden that some guys were tanked, as he said.

In other words, you could tell they were in the tank, the industry had gotten to them, they were basically invasion of the body snatchers types.

And there‘s also guys like you, you know a member of—a lobbyist guy, you respect him, and he‘s a good source of information and maybe a campaign contribution now and then. But you‘re not owned by the guy. He can get in the door, maybe spend 10 minutes with you, but you could also say, “Tough Luck.” Where‘s the line?


SCARBOROUGH: I think the line is, and I saw the report on Denny Hastert getting money from Abramoff, $21,000 at a fundraiser that David Shuster reported. A week or two later, he writes a letter that helps an Indian casino that Abramoff supports. I think that‘s going way over the line.


MATTHEWS: Because he doesn‘t have Indians in his district. He‘s clearly—this guy, Robert Ney making some push in the “Congressional Record” for some business deal down in Florida, trying to screw some enemy of a business deal. There‘s nobody in Ohio that‘s got a casino in Florida.


SCARBOROUGH: No. And that‘s over the line. I think also, I would walk into Armed Services markups, and you would have half the committee screaming about the need for—I don‘t know, I‘m just making somebody up, Apache helicopters.

The other half were against Apache helicopters, but they wanted to have six teams. And, you know, I‘d call my chief of staff over and said, “What‘s this about? What side am I supposed to be on? Why are people so impassioned?” And they‘d say something like, “Well, Grumman makes the Apache helicopters and Lockheed makes the F-16‘s.” Again, I don‘t have the companies right.

But you could tell, this group got money from Boeing, this group got money from Lockheed. And you could tell who was dirty and you could tell who took the money, and whose votes were impacted by that.


MATTHEWS: Must be great to sit next to those guys and realize who‘s in the tank and who‘s not. Let me ask you, what do you got on tonight at 10:00 tonight on M.S,?


SCARBOROUGH: And I feel—I‘ve got to clear this up also though. They‘re also though, pretty soon lobbyists figure out what side you‘re on on issues that matter to you and they‘re the ones that come to you naturally and say, “Since you‘re on our side, we want to support you and make sure you get re-elected in the future too.”


MATTHEWS: Wow.


SCARBOROUGH: That happens too and that‘s people that are actually rewarding you for being on their side. It‘s like the NRA worked against me on my first campaign, said some very nasty things about me. My first meeting with them was, said, “I‘m going to vote the way you guys want me to vote, despite the fact that I hate your guts and would love to destroy you.”

You know, NRA supported me the whole time through, not because I knew I could get money for it, but because we were lined up and they wanted to vote for Second Amendments. You know, Second Amendment issues throughout my career up there.


MATTHEWS: What always amazes me is how politicians stay bought. I mean, if somebody gave you money from the cigarette industry, somebody told me, “You‘d have to vote with them, you probably would, even though if you hated the industry.” I always thought you could, remember the old line from California, Jesse Unruh, “If you can‘t take their money and their booze and their women and vote against them in the morning, you don‘t belong here?” What happened to that spirit?


SCARBOROUGH: Well you know what, actually, that spirit is still there. I mean, the old bulls still say that on the Hill. I always said it too, always told people if they supported me, gave me money, you know, they couldn‘t expect anything.

And I‘ll tell you what, lobbyists figure that out also. They figure out who they can buy, they figure out which guys come from Middle America that are just excited to be there and go golfing in Scotland. And they figure out which ones are kind of cranky and obstinate who they can‘t trust.


MATTHEWS: Like you.


SCARBOROUGH: Yes, and I‘ll tell you what, being cranky in the long run always wins votes. Instead of being bought by lobbyists.


MATTHEWS: As somebody once said, “I‘ve been right and I‘ve been paranoid and it‘s better being paranoid.” Anyway, Joe Scarborough, thanks. Watch him tonight at 10:00.

I saw this last night and I was stunned at how casually Scarborough talked about corruption being so systemic in Congress. I was only slightly less surprised that Matthews was clued in by an unnamed MOC. In the last six months he's often behaved like a battered wife who can't make herself believe that her man really, really is a sleazy, criminal sonofabitch.

But tonight he was right back in form...

fat pollyanna said

You have one guy Tom DeLay who lives in some sort of 20th floor apartment way down on Route 95, nothing special at all — I mean really lives basically, like a regular middle class person. He doesn’t live well at all.

Like a regular guy who calls up a Gulfstream for a ride to his freaking arraignment.

[anderclayton]

brian_igo said

Show me the Democratic pols who changed their votes after taking money from a sleazy lobbyist like Abramoff.

The distinction of before and after seems to be mincing words more than not. If you don't trust someone to do something, you would probably be quite likely to wait until after they do something before paying them. This doesn't mean that there wasn't an agreement to pay made beforehand. Conversely it doesn't necessarily follow that having been paid by a special interest group automatically means that the cash directly influenced the politician.

It is all icky, nasty stuff though and it should cause a shakeup.

Ander

[anderclayton]

brian_igo said

One of the main GOP talking points in the corruption damage control is that (politician/lobbyist/activity) X is an exception to the rule.

While not so long ago the big talking point of the Democrats in the corruption damage control was editing the campaign finance rules ex post facto after having their hands caught in the cookie jar.

Ander

[poseidon]

Brian, I don't have anything to pony up. What I do have is Dems (like Republicans) who are unloading Abramoff money as fast as they can. You don't do that unless you think something might come back to bite you. And, just to be clear, there are REPUBLICANS doing it as well as DEMOCRATS doing it. BOTH are in major trouble if they've been compromised.

So far as changing votes afterwards, I'm going to say that's really stupid and seems rather obvious. But that doesn't mean that the money given BEFORE didn't influence (or buy) a vote.

So, again, to recap, I think members of BOTH parties are in TROUBLE and I do not believe that this is LIMITED to just Republicans, Brian. That doesn't mean that I'm creating an EXCUSE for Republicans or trying to PIN this on Democrats.

I also BELIEVE that there is an OPEN INVESTIGATION and that Abramoff is COOPERATING with INVESTIGATORS and, when he and his buddies are done COOPERATING, we'll see what SHAKES OUT.

If you'd care to badger me some more on this, I'm afraid I can't make my explanation any more clear than it already is. I'm willing to wait to see what shakes out. You're apparently convinced that it is over.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

The conservative National Review Online said

The Abramoff Scandal (R., Beltway)

It’s the Republicans, stupid.

... Back in 1990, Senate Democrats roped McCain into the scandal over savings and loan kingpin Charles Keating on tenuous grounds, just so not all the senators involved would be Democrats.

The GOP now craves such bipartisan cover in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Republicans trumpet every Democratic connection to Abramoff in the hope that something resonates. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), took more than $60,000 from Abramoff clients! North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan used Abramoff's skybox! It is true that any Washington influence peddler is going to spread cash and favors as widely as possible, and 210 members of Congress have received Abramoff-connected dollars. But this is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection.

Abramoff is a Republican who worked closely with two of the country's most prominent conservative activists, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed. Top aides to the most important Republican in Congress, Tom DeLay (R., Tex.) were party to his sleazy schemes. The only people referred to directly in Abramoff's recent plea agreement are a Republican congressmen and two former Republican congressional aides. The GOP members can make a case that the scandal reflects more the way Washington works than the unique perfidy of their party, but even this is self-defeating, since Republicans run Washington...

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/...0601100816.asp

[erik_kosberg]

"Burns says Democrats behind Abramoff scandal"

[poseidon]

Remember the Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy? You know, how Republicans put Monica in the White House, and how they had her beg Clinton for sex, and how he was a good, decent, non-cheating SOB...

Sometimes people, out of desperation, come up with nutty theories to blame someone else.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Remember the Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy? You know, how Republicans put Monica in the White House, and how they had her beg Clinton for sex...

That's just silly. There is, I believe, a vast -- and well-funded -- right-wing conspiracy, but nobody has ever claimed that the Republicans put Monica in the White House or urged her to beg Clinton for sex. That's just a classic straw man argument.

[rmthunter]

I seem to remember the Republicans taking control of the House after the last scandal involving the Democrats, who had taken control after the last scandal involving the Republicans, who had. . . .

Yes, well.

I think, Jeff, that one thing that's causing this particular scandal to be so aromatic, to the Republicans' dismay and, shall I say also, disarray, is that they've been incredibly arrogant about using their power. I don't say the Democrats never have, but that was more than fifteen minutes ago, and people forget. But then, neither do I remember any left-wing special-interest groups demanding particular Supreme Court appointments as payoffs, either. Nor hordes of unqualified recess appointments. A few, from time to time, maybe, but 17? All well-connected to the Bush White House? And that's just the latest batch. The new use of "signing statements" to tell the courts just how they should interpret the law? (See under above, "arrogance.")

Add in DeLay, Frist, Cunningham, Santorum (who actually got off lightly, for some reason) . . . the culture of corruption starts to have a distinctly Republican flavor. Maybe that's not accurate or fair, but that's what's out there.

There's also the fact that Abramoff raised over $100,000 for Bush's campaign, of which $6,000 has been given to charity. (Beam-Me-Up-Scotty, of course, has deflected that whole line of questioning repeatedly. But then, that's what he does.) This one is reaching beyond Congress. Can you say Teapot Dome?

"Moral revulsion?" -- that's reserved for certain groups of perfectly decent people who want to be treated like anyone else.

[realtraveller]

This Congressman could be the next Congressman indicted for bribery (hint, Abramoff isn't involved).

http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/ap/...ap2443434.html

[erik_kosberg]

hint, Abramoff isn't involved

But it's in the Abramoff thread anyway. Go figure.

[realtraveller]

Bribery is bribery. Corruption is corruption.

I'm sure the sense of outrage among the posters will be the same.

[drmomentum[$]]

Rationalization is rationalization.

[realtraveller]

Well, it will be interesting to see what sort of comments, views and interest there is in a "Congressman Jefferson of Louisiana Indicted for Bribery Thread".

[AuntieEmma[$]]

So start one.

[erik_kosberg]

“A Bipartisan Scandal” (read the whole page)

[drmomentum[$]]

erik_kosberg said

“A Bipartisan Scandal” (read the whole page)

Clearly, the Democrats are in it deep! Thanks for straightening that out, Erik. Har.

[erik_kosberg]

poseidon said

The shakeout is going to be rather intersting, starting with, say, Harry Reid.

When pigs fly.

[drmomentum[$]]

To paraphrase Wayne Brady on the Chappelle show:

"Does Harry Reid have to choke a b****?"

-JP "It's the caffiene talking" Burke

[erik_kosberg]

Jack who?