Super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff has copped a plea. He's admitted ripping off Indian tribes and now he's singing. For sure there'll be big-name Congressional Republicans and Bush administration honchos taking a dive or singing some songs- maybe operas- to prosecutors. Maybe a few Democrats, too; but this is a Republican scandal, though it's darn hard to hear a thing about it on right-wing talk radio.
We're especially wondering why syndicated neocon Michael Medved (KTTH m-f, 12-3p ) isn't talking about this on the radio? This is the above-the-fold story of today and yesterday and he could provide some vivid first person color. Medved is on the tu-toi with the notorious Abramoff and sat with him for years on the board of Rabbi Daniel Lapin's (KTTH Sundays 7-9p) charity, Toward Tradition, based on Mercer Island. (Abramoff was finally dumped off the board last summer after he was indicted. Lapin until then had dismissed the whole thing as an accounting error).
Medved must have known him in Los Angeles when he was a movie critic and Abramoff was a maker of bad movies.
Michael owes us some inside insights on how this big operator operates. Cream & sugar or black? Martini up or over? Boxers of briefs? Inquiring minds need to know. And besides, it'd be great radio and a scoop.
As far as we know, Medved hasn't said anything more on the radio about Abramoff since saying, "He's not been charged with anything." That was many felonies ago.
Is Michael disappointed with his old friend for this porqueria? Or is he just another victim of the media?
To refresh your memory, Lapin, "show rabbi of the religious right,"(as New York Times columnist Frank Rich calls him) is the guy who owns the bragging rights to having introduced Abramoff to indicted meanieocon Tom Delay, which is something akin to introducing Leopold to Loeb.
From our June post, Rabbi Daniel Lapin: More National Embarrassment
Lapin is a leader in the national Values Community; friend of such faith-based charlatans as Rev. Ken Hutcherson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Watergate felon turned preacher, and Charles Colson He's a "spiritual advisor" to Newt Gingrich and a hard-ass, pompous, self-aggrandizing, social conservative.
He helped Hutcherson organize and spoke at last year's anti-gay "Mayday for Marriage " rallies in Seattle and Washington DC, that proved so influential in the November election of George W. Bush.
The haughty silver-tongued former South African buys his own radio time Sunday evenings (7-10p) from Entercom’s local KTTH. His talk show is a folksy, “(Everybody needs a rabbi,” he always says) kulturkampf, interlaced with schmaltz, advice to the lovelorn and diatribing political monologues.
He's a champion of marriage between people of the same faith, same species, but different genders, of course.
Lapin has come very much closer to the matasticizing scandal than Medved apparently has- read all the BlatherWatch file on Lapin:
Michael sez, "Super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff has copped a plea. He's admitted ripping off Indian tribes and now he's singing. For sure there'll be big-name Congressional Republicans and Bush administration honchos taking a dive or singing some songs- maybe operas- to prosecutors. Maybe a few Democrats, too; but this is a Republican scandal, though it's darn hard to hear a thing about it on right-wing talk radio."
How nice of you to conveniently ignore that this is being prosecuted by a Republican administration. In fact, how bout an "attaboy" for all the successful convictions of the fraud kings from Worldcom, Enron, etc. by Republicans that were blissfully ignored by the previous Democratic administration. The loony mouthpiece for the Democratic minority in Congrss Senator Harry Reid from my home state of Nevada might find his knickers getting a little tight over this as well as several other Dems. There might be a few other surprises as people start to sweat over Abramhoff's plea deal.
Posted by: Lump | January 04, 2006 at 07:26 AM
Yes, the administration may be Republican, but the Justice Dept. is filled with people of all political stripes, and they are the ones prosecuting these cases. The administration, if it had its way, wouldn't do a damn thing about any of it.
Let's not forget that one of these prosecutions is aimed squarely at the VP's office. Unlike other, more strictly ethical politicos (Ronnie Earl), this administration has never been accused of overly zealous introspection.
Posted by: BruceH | January 04, 2006 at 08:28 AM
Kirby Wilbur is talking extensively about Abramhoff this morning, and he's not cutting anybody, Republican or Democrat, any slack here. This scandal is typical of "politics as usual" in Washington that is finally getting more exposure, and it is prevalent on BOTH sides. Medved has, and with this latest plea, will no doubt go into it deeper today. I haven't heard one talk show host that leans to the right diminish the seriousness of this, and obviously none from the left either. It will be interesting to see how deep this goes.
Posted by: audioslave | January 04, 2006 at 08:43 AM
wow! The Republicans convicted Ken Lay of Enron????? Cool!
Posted by: sparky | January 04, 2006 at 08:55 AM
Lump:
You need to get your news from a source other than talk radio:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/what-was-that-about-abramoff-giving.html
The list is something to be seen, but here is the summary:
"Here is the list of who Abramoff gave money to, per Michael Petrelis' research:
$172,933 - Republican
$88,985 - special interest
total: $261,918
That's 229 donations and not a DIME to Democrats."
Posted by: JDB | January 04, 2006 at 10:36 AM
Harry Reid got a donation from one of the Indian tribes who received money from Abramoff..not from Abromoff directly.
Still, maybe he should give that money back so there is no question.
Posted by: sparky | January 04, 2006 at 11:03 AM
Sparky sez,"wow! The Republicans convicted Ken Lay of Enron????? Cool!"
Former CFO Andrew Fastow and 4 lessor executives have been convicted. Former CEO Jeff Skilling and founder Ken lay have been indicted, plead not guilty and are awaiting trial the end of this month. Fastow has agreed to provide evidence for a lessor sentence as has former chief accountant Richard Causey.
BruceH sez, "Yes, the administration may be Republican, but the Justice Dept. is filled with people of all political stripes, and they are the ones prosecuting these cases. The administration, if it had its way, wouldn't do a damn thing about any of it."
Really? So it's the same justice department as in the Clinton administration? Spin it anyway you want , but under the Dems nothing was done period. The last sentence in you statement is sheer lunacy. No wonder you guys are so easy to roll over.
Posted by: Lump | January 04, 2006 at 12:01 PM
JDB,
Did you research every political action committee and fund on the list to make sure they were all Republican operatives or supporters???? Once you can verify that, AND post the names of the 20 connected to Congress(which hasn't been released yet) then your post might have some credence.
Posted by: audioslave | January 04, 2006 at 12:07 PM
It sickens me to see Patty Murray involved, I hope she can clear up her involvement.
Posted by: Mike Barer | January 04, 2006 at 12:19 PM
Patty Murray took money from a TRIBE, not from Abramoff. The Tribe had received money from Abramoff. She has done a lot of work for various tribes.
go here :
http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Jack_Abramoff.php
to read the list of who got direct contributions from Abramoff. sorry I dont know how to make it a hot link, but you can copy and paste into your browser.
Posted by: sparky | January 04, 2006 at 01:16 PM
ok let me try that again
http://www.newsmeat.com
washington_political_donations/Jack_Abramoff.php
if it doesnt print out right, go to www.newsmeat.com and there should be a link there.
Posted by: sparky | January 04, 2006 at 01:18 PM
For the record, Michael Medved spent his first hour today talking extensively about his relationship with Abramhoff, which amounted to a few dinners with him, his wife and friends. Abramhoff wanted Medved to review a movie that he produced, which upon viewing said it wasn't even worth reviewing, it was so terrible. I didn't hear any pulled punches in his personal indictment of Abramhoff.
Posted by: audioslave | January 04, 2006 at 01:50 PM
I wish all campaign donors had to be listed right under the candidates name on the ballot - or at least on any fancy color campaign ad sent to voters' homes. Unfortunately very few people (voters)check it out. I've found a few just from browsing that so shocked me it changed my intended vote. I hope this scandal shocks more people to do their own homework.
Posted by: K | January 04, 2006 at 02:41 PM
Plenty of $$$ to go around.
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, www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Internal Revenue Service Website, 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, www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Internal Revenue Service Website, 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
Posted by: PeakLimiter | January 04, 2006 at 03:12 PM
And its the same thing on the Republican side too. Indirect contributions of money from a lobbyist through an Indian Tribe is surely no different is it?? AND, If anyone thinks that this is just going to be a big Republican scandal, well, they have got another think coming. Depending how far this particular one goes, and how it is played out in the press will determine if we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg or not. There are people in congress on BOTH sides that are shitting their pants on this one.
Posted by: audioslave | January 04, 2006 at 03:25 PM
Why would anyone bother to bribe a Dem? They have NO power. They were never invited to the part in the first place.
If you have the names of Dems
who have been indicted, charged or who have already entered guilty pleas, I'll add them to my list happily. Or if you have even names of Dems who are 'officially' under investigation, I'll add them to that list also.
But so far, all I have seen is the media's spin that 'both dems and repubs' are involved.
Here are some actual facts:
Republican WH official Safavian, arrested and charged in the Abramoff investigation.
Republican Adam Kidan, entered a guilty plea in the Abramoff investigation.
Republican Scanlon, entered a guilty plea in the Abramoff scandal.
Republican Lobbyist, Abramoff, entered a guilty plea in the scandal surrounding his lobbying activities.
Officially named as under investigation:
Republican Rep. Bob Ney, informed that he under investigation for accepting bribes.
Republican Rep. Tom Delay, informed that he too may be under investigation in the case.
Others being 'looked at' as a result of evidence of their association with Abramoff's crimes:
Republican Grover Norquist
Republican Ralph Reed
Republican Sen. Cornyn
Republican Rep. Burns
Republican Rep. Doolittle
Already convicted, through guilty plea in another crime:
Republican Duke Cunningham is also now suspected of having ties to Abramoff's crimes.
Abramoff did NOT contribute to lawmakers from both sides of the aisle, and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are NOT returning campaign contributions FROM HIM.
If ABC news had accurately reported this morning that some Democrats had received some money from Abramoff clients, and are returning some of that tainted money, then I would have no objections, but they did not. They got it wrong, and I sent them an email telling them so.
If there are Democrats whose votes were bought and whose influence was manipulated by Abramoff's money, then they should be punished too!
So far, the Republicans are in much more trouble than the Democrats, and it is, yet again, typical false equivalency arguments that are saying that all political parties are equally guilty here.
But, in addition, it is even worse than it might seem, when one looks at the historical record.....
It was the Republicans who won their majority by exposing the very real corruption in the Democratic Party after 40 years. They promised to be different. They were different - it only took them a few years to become corrupt, instead of decades. And they got into office by saying they would be more moral. Bush got into office saying that he would be a uniter, not a divider.
Posted by: sparky | January 04, 2006 at 05:04 PM
Sparky sez,"It was the Republicans who won their majority by exposing the very real corruption in the Democratic Party after 40 years. They promised to be different. They were different - it only took them a few years to become corrupt, instead of decades. And they got into office by saying they would be more moral. Bush got into office saying that he would be a uniter, not a divider."
Good point there Sparky. Washington breeds corruption it seems. Again, my position is if you break the law you get punished. As far as Bush and the uniter-divider deal, you can only be sucker punched by the Dems so many times before you pick up your ball and go home. Oh, well there's a new election coming up and we'll see how the political landscape looks. Al-Qaeda is forming a political action committee to support Hillary so they won't have to worry about being blown up or killed.
Posted by: Lump | January 04, 2006 at 05:51 PM
Why are people so afraid of Hillary?
I think she would make a crappy President. But there is no name out there that creates such angst among Republicans as hers. Weird.
Posted by: sparky | January 04, 2006 at 05:54 PM
Out of touch again boys!
And how ironic too. He just had a coplete segment on Abramhoff, his dealings with him, etc. but you guys are always quick to jump on the right. Too bad you jumped the gun. It's a done deal and you missed it.
Posted by: Martel Hermann | January 04, 2006 at 06:37 PM
"It was the Republicans who won their majority by exposing the very real corruption in the Democratic Party after 40 years." (Sparky)
Just curious, aside from ". . . did not have sexual relations with that woman" and travelgate, (White Water turned out to be nothing),what was all that corruption in the Democratic Party? Not being facetious or sarcastic here, I just missed all that corruption. Fill me in please.
If you're interested in a probably very biased run-down of Republican corruption, try
http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/gopcorruption.html
Posted by: joanie | January 04, 2006 at 07:45 PM
Your afraid of comment? Give me one mainstream news outlet that tells the truth without any liberal bias. Willing to debate. - Eric
Posted by: Eric t | January 04, 2006 at 07:55 PM
To what or whom are you referring, Eric?
Posted by: joanie | January 04, 2006 at 08:14 PM
Well girly men? Hows mamas McDonalds coupons for Christmas present doing? Sad. No father with mother, sad. No manly begining sad. Girl without father, half person. Sick liberal. True. Sad people.
Posted by: Eric t | January 04, 2006 at 08:19 PM
With Patty Murray receiving more Abramoff $$$$$ than all other NW politicians combined (including other WA democrats who took $$$), why do you not bring her into the story? Is it because that would not fit your conservative-bashing agenda?? Is it okay that Patty took tens of thousands from him because she's a....Democrat??? I think we see the big picture here. Rs take A money, bad. Ds take A money, good. Okay, just want to make sure we all understand the slant here on your coverage.
Posted by: Meeshy | January 04, 2006 at 08:49 PM
Joanie....Mayor Daley in Chicago comes to mind immediately..I would have to go research a list of names for you. LBJ was hardly the paragon of virtue, regardless of the good things he did for the country. Did you know he once got so mad at Canada's Prime Minister Lester Pearson that he tried to strangle him? It was as much the perception as the reality, as well. Um, Eric appears to be off his meds again.
Meeshy...you get a D- in reading comprehension. You miss recess until you can find the answer in the above posts. We're not gonna do your homework for you.
Posted by: sparky | January 04, 2006 at 09:03 PM
Lumps sez: " Good point there Sparky. Washington breeds corruption it seems. Again, my position is if you break the law you get punished. As far as Bush and the uniter-divider deal, you can only be sucker punched by the Dems so many times before you pick up your ball and go home. Oh, well there's a new election coming up and we'll see how the political landscape looks. Al-Qaeda is forming a political action committee to support Hillary so they won't have to worry about being blown up or killed."
I thought Hillary was big with the pro-Israel groups, so has Al Qusedia aligned themselves with Israel? I think not. If you want to see who supports the Binladen's, remember them? Look to all those binladens who were flown out of the country on Sept 12, when all other commercial flights were grounded. Sounds to me like Bush is the AlQueda lover.
Posted by: chris | January 04, 2006 at 09:11 PM
Chris sez, "I thought Hillary was big with the pro-Israel groups, so has Al Qusedia aligned themselves with Israel? I think not. If you want to see who supports the Binladen's, remember them? Look to all those binladens who were flown out of the country on Sept 12, when all other commercial flights were grounded. Sounds to me like Bush is the AlQueda lover."
Terrorist know that libs are soft on war and past history dictates the cut and run culture with no stomach to fight. Just look at her husbands record on fighting terror. As far as the Bin Laden namesakes, they were all cleared by the FBI to leave the country at the request of the Saudi govenment. So, if they were named Smith then nobody named Smith could get permission to leave? And Bush being an Al-Qaeda lover. Are you really as stupid as your post indicates you are?
Posted by: Lump | January 04, 2006 at 10:06 PM
Sparky, personal eccentricities (LBJ) don't "corruption" make for me. Daley's political machine was certainly one corrupt entity. However, I was thinking more national . . . if we count mayors and governors, I think every city and state in the union could probably boast at least one corrupt government if not more over the last hundred years and probably republican and democrat alike!
Instead of counting corrupt politicians, maybe we should start thinking in terms of which have done the most to benefit Americans. That might be more productive. I can even think of a few Republican administrations I'd include in that count! But they certainly don't include any from the last twenty-five years!
Posted by: joanie | January 04, 2006 at 11:11 PM
Audioslave:
I gave you the link to the research, no reason to re-invent the wheel. Abramoff was a Republican, his minions were Republicans, his ties are all Republicans. The Republicans are in power.
Peaklimiter et al:
There is a difference between getting a legal contribution and influence pedaling. So far, all the accusations are flying the Republican's way. Why? See above. Also see this good article:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200601040007
"[There is] difference between legal and fully disclosed campaign contributions and the other ways in which Abramoff funneled money to lawmakers, which may have been neither legal nor properly disclosed. For example, Abramoff reportedly used a personal credit card to pay for plane tickets for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), and may also have paid for a golfing trip for Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) that was purportedly sponsored by a nonprofit organization. These payments for junkets for DeLay and Ney were apparent violations of House ethics rules and were apparently not accurately reported in their House ethics filings -- a far cry from the legal, and appropriately reported, campaign contributions news organizations have lumped them in with. As The Christian Science Monitor reported on January 4, "not everyone who ever took Abramoff-related money or perks is guilty of wrongdoing.""
Posted by: JDB | January 04, 2006 at 11:20 PM
Oh, at lets not give Medved a pass. His thesis (this is all the fault of big governement), was a joke, and he avoided discussing his good friend Lapin's roll. I give him credit for admitting that this is going to be bad for the GOP, but he was hardly the straight talk express.
I guess after heaing him tie himself up in cortortions trying to explain the domestic spying scandal, though, that this sounded fairly straight forward.
Posted by: JDB | January 04, 2006 at 11:39 PM
Lumpy sez
"As far as the Bin Laden namesakes, they were all cleared by the FBI to leave the country at the request of the Saudi govenment.
Lumpy, so the binLadens are ok with you as long as the FBI sez it's ok and we have the Saudis word on that? Are you really that fucked up to believe that kind of horse shit?
Posted by: chris | January 05, 2006 at 05:45 AM
JDB says:
"There is a difference between getting a legal contribution and influence pedaling."
Yeah, thats fine if the contribution(s) are not coming from, or through a lobbyist group. I can understand you have a partisan view on this investigation, but like I said, if you think that everything starts and ends with Jack Abramhoff and the demise of some congressional Republicans..........just wait. There are plenty of investigations to go around that will make for some good press in the near future. Last time I checked, Democrats are human too...with the same weakness to temptation, power and influence that some Republicans have. Soft money contributions don't come without strings attached to them, and most, if not all politicians in Washington have accepted soft money. The tip of the iceberg.....but keep piling on if it makes you happy.
Posted by: audioslave | January 05, 2006 at 06:22 AM
Thank you for the link Sparky. Geov Parish wacked Patty hard for the contributions and maybe justifiable so, but in this case it looks like Patty is in the right on this one. Fundraising is always a gray issue until we get the proper reform.
I think that people turn a blind eye to this now and I speak about both sides. Unless Sex is involved, people shrug there shoulders, whereas during Watergate, there was a bi-partisan investigation. I don't see cooperation like that ever again.
However if any scandal involves sexual behaviour, then we all have opinions.
Posted by: Mike Barer | January 05, 2006 at 09:10 AM
Audioslave:
I love the GOP defense of this. This is a bipartisan scandal because there just might be a few Democrats so sleazy that they did what we all do.
Abramoff raised over $100K for George Bush. Bush is just giving back the $6K he got directly from Abramoff. Sure, Democrats are human too, but Abramoff was a Republican with Republican associates and henchmen and the Republicans are in power. Hence, while there might be a few Democrats involved, this will fall heavily GOP.
Posted by: JDB | January 05, 2006 at 09:47 AM
Ask yourself these questions:
1) If Abramoff directed a client to give a donation to a congressman/woman, did the congressman/woman know of the link?
(2) Did the donation affect their behavior? In other words, did they vote on something or do a favor for Abramoff in return for the money?
Accepting donations -- even from Abramoff himself -- isn't necessarily illegal (although it certainly looks bad), is it? It's how the money influences the recipient's behavior that could make it illegal. If you are a Congress Critter and you have worked on behalf of Indian tribes, and they donate to your re-election fund, is that illegal?
Also, as far as I can tell, no Democrats were sharing aides with Abramoff's entities. No spouses or family members of any Democrats were hired by Abramoff's entities. And no shell companies or charities affiliated with any Democrats were used to funnel his money around. Democrats have NO POWER. They are in the minority in both houses of Congress. They would be of NO use to Abramoff.
Following Abramoff's money around is important because it illuminates the scope of potential impropriety, but it does not, in itself, proove impropriety.
Posted by: sparky | January 05, 2006 at 10:15 AM
JDB
I haven't heard one radio talk show host that leans right say that this is a "bipartisan scandal"
Enlighten me please.
And I certainly am not a defender of the GOP on this. I'm saying that this doesn't end here, and if you would have just an ounce of objectivity, you might see that too. The blind hatred for the current administration from the extreme left actually hurts the Democrat party as a whole. If Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, et al, represent your view of how the party should move forward......my condolences to you.
Posted by: audioslave | January 05, 2006 at 10:22 AM
"Democrats have NO POWER. They are in the minority in both houses of Congress. They would be of NO use to Abramoff."
Their vote counts just as much as a Republican vote, doesn't it?
Posted by: audioslave | January 05, 2006 at 11:20 AM
"A day after former GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff's first guilty plea, the former House speaker [Newt Gingrich] was in the Hotel Washington yesterday, telling a group of Rotarians how rotten the capital has become -- and warning that the Republican Revolution is being betrayed.
"There are a series of behaviors, a series of attitudes, a series of crony-like activities that are not defensible, and no Republican should try to defend them," Gingrich fumed."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/04/AR2006010402058.html?referrer=email&referrer=email
Audioslave:
You are apparently not listening to Limbaugh today. Or Yesterday for that matter.
That being said, Sparky has it right. I am not saying that there are no Democrats involved. You might not remember, but there were Republicans caught up in the House banking scandal, but corruption hurts the party in power since, after all, they have the power.
Posted by: JDB | January 05, 2006 at 11:35 AM
Sorry, I gave up listening to Limbaugh when his own hypocrisy got the best of him. I have no use for any radio talk host that doesn't walk his talk, i.e. MIke Webb.
Posted by: audioslave | January 05, 2006 at 12:04 PM
Chris sez,"Lumpy, so the binLadens are ok with you as long as the FBI sez it's ok and we have the Saudis word on that? Are you really that fucked up to believe that kind of horse shit?"
Chris, You're such a moron. If you bothered with facts which you and others in the lunatic fringe don't, you know that US airspace was open when the Suadi flights left. And you would know that they had been investigated and cleared by the FBI as suspects in 911. Not all of them were related to Bin Laden and requested to leave because of retribution. Facts certainly don't get in your way when you make such loony statements. I think you must be looking in the mirror when you see somebody fucked up.
http://www.newsaic.com/f911chap3-3.html
Posted by: Lump | January 05, 2006 at 01:21 PM
Does the Democratic vote count? Good Question.
When you are in the minority, not so much. At this point, the Republicans can outvote the Dems on any issue. Its a matter of numbers. The filibuster is about all the Dems have left, and Frist periodically threatens to take that away. So if Im a rich lobbyist, why would I waste my money on a party, where even if they vote as a block, they dont have the votes to carry out my wishes.
I saw a quote attributed to Abramoff, but I dont have a source for it, where he said that the role of the Republicans is to destroy the Democratic party, Even if that is only half true, it doesnt sound like he would waste his money.
Indian tribes paid Jack Abramoff millions and millions of dollars to exert his influence in Washington on their behalf.
Instead, Abramoff gave huge amounts of that money to completely unrelated Republicans (many who are actively against gambling, by the by) to help them get elected.
Indian tribes also donated money directly to candidates they wanted to see elected, just like you and I do.
Point 1 is illegal. Point 2 is not.
Posted by: sparky | January 05, 2006 at 02:31 PM
Does the Democratic vote count? Good Question.
When you are in the minority, not so much. At this point, the Republicans can outvote the Dems on any issue. Its a matter of numbers. The filibuster is about all the Dems have left, and Frist periodically threatens to take that away. So if Im a rich lobbyist, why would I waste my money on a party, where even if they vote as a block, they dont have the votes to carry out my wishes.
I saw a quote attributed to Abramoff, but I dont have a source for it, where he said that the role of the Republicans is to destroy the Democratic party, Even if that is only half true, it doesnt sound like he would waste his money.
Indian tribes paid Jack Abramoff millions and millions of dollars to exert his influence in Washington on their behalf.
Instead, Abramoff gave huge amounts of that money to completely unrelated Republicans (many who are actively against gambling, by the by) to help them get elected.
Indian tribes also donated money directly to candidates they wanted to see elected, just like you and I do.
Point 1 is illegal. Point 2 is not.
Posted by: sparky | January 05, 2006 at 02:34 PM
Uh excuse me Lumps, but the 911 Commision heard this as testimony by Richard Clarke:
Thursday, March 25th, 2004
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/25/1537227
In September last year, Clarke revealed that top White House officials approved the evacuation of 140 influential Saudis, including relatives of Osama Bin Laden, days after the Sept. 11 attacks at a time when all commercial and private flights were grounded.
We covered this story in detail last week when we spoke with Craig Unger who broke the story to Vanity Fair in September and is author of the new book "House of Bush, House of Saud." Commission member Tim Roemer yesterday asked Clarke about the controversial flight. His testimony represents the most extensive comments made by a public official on the subject to date.
So you're telling me that flights had yet to be grounded days after 911?
"Chris, You're such a moron. If you bothered with facts which you and others in the lunatic fringe don't, you know that US airspace was open when the Suadi flights left"
Hmmm. I remember the skies were awfully quiet the afternoon of Sept 11th and for days afterward, except for those planes, carrying Saudis, back home... Now this would of been between Sept 11th and the 15th, just to be fair here..
Posted by: chris | January 05, 2006 at 04:00 PM
Chris sez, "Hmmm. I remember the skies were awfully quiet the afternoon of Sept 11th and for days afterward, except for those planes, carrying Saudis, back home... Now this would of been between Sept 11th and the 15th, just to be fair here."
Read the link, Chris. Study the graph. Call in a friend to explain it to you. Airspace was opened up on September 13. The first Saudis left on the 14. The Bin Laden flight left on Sept. 20. Apparantly you didn't read the link you sent either.
Richard Clark doesn't even know the dates of the Saudi airlift, but quotes:
Someone -- and I wish I could tell you, but I don't know who -- someone brought to that group a proposal that we authorize a request from the Saudi embassy. The Saudi embassy had apparently said that they feared for the lives of Saudi citizens because they thought there would be retribution against Saudis in the United States as it became obvious to Americans that this attack was essentially done by Saudis, and that there were even Saudi citizens in the United States who were part of the bin Laden family, which is a very large family, very large family.
The Saudi embassy therefore asked for these people to be evacuated; the same sort of thing that we do all the time in similar crises, evacuating Americans.
Tim Roemer who was questioning Clark was subscribing to the Ted Kennedy school of speech which is say anything, even if it's not true, but just say it a lot.
Posted by: Lump | January 05, 2006 at 05:18 PM
Does anyone know if Dave Ross is back? Or, when he's coming back? Every time I checked in, Ron Upshaw was still talking. I didn't check in today and am wondering . . . Thanks.
Posted by: joanie | January 05, 2006 at 07:43 PM
"The filibuster is about all the Dems have left, and Frist periodically threatens to take that away."
Frist has only threatened, or mentioned using the nuclear option when it has come to the Supreme Court nominees, which I happen to agree with. After plenty of time to consider, review, and testify before Congress, asking for an up or down vote on the nominee is the right thing to do. Filibustering over judicial nominees has simply gotten out of hand lately, and it has, in my opinion, damaged the process.
Posted by: audioslave | January 06, 2006 at 06:17 AM
audioslave:
How has it damaged the process? Bush has gotten through more nominees than the GOP let through of Clintons. Please enlighten me to how the process has been damaged by the 10-15 people that the Dems have blocked?
Posted by: JDB | January 06, 2006 at 09:41 AM
The GOP is oppossed to the filibuster, much like they have oppossed the 22nd amendment, even though it was their party that wanted to stop popular presidents like Roosevelt from a 4th term.
Posted by: chris | January 06, 2006 at 12:13 PM
Sparky sez, " At this point, the Republicans can outvote the Dems on any issue. Its a matter of numbers. The filibuster is about all the Dems have left, and Frist periodically threatens to take that away."
Pretty much explained that this filibustering is against judicial nominees which is against senate rules. They state "Up or Down vote only." Ironically in the 90's Barbara Boxer and some of her loony friends tried to stop filibustering on legislation because the Republicans were using it and it upset them. And even the head loony of them all, Ted Kennedy was bellering up or down vote when he was in charge. But, things changed when they got the boot. Here's a pretty good link on myths and facts as stated.
http://www.nrlc.org/Judicial/FilibusterMythFact.html
Posted by: Lump | January 06, 2006 at 01:40 PM
People in the minority party will always try to use the filibuster, whether it be Repubs or Dems..which is why several Republicans cautioned against removing the filibuster option because there will come a time when they want to use it again....
Posted by: sparky | January 06, 2006 at 02:39 PM