Michael Medved needs to speak up about jack abramoff

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:

Rabbi Daniel Lapin's Name Resurfaces in Investigation

Rabbi Daniel Lapin: "The Man Who Stands By His Scandal-Ridden Friends"

Rabbi Daniel Lapin: More National Embarrassment

Rabbi Daniel Lapin, A Long Look Backward

The Rabbi With the Tinfoil Yarmulke (and we thought he was just boring...)

Comments

[audioslave]

JDB,

Very simple. When it is clear that a judicial nominee has majority support it is the senate's responisibility to promptly confirm him or her.

Never before has judicial nominee(s) with clear majority support been denied an up or down vote in the Senate by a filibuster.

The Senate’s Constitutional role to advise and consent is in fact being impaired by the unprecedented use of partisan filibusters to block confirmation votes.

[auidoslave]

"Indian tribes also donated money directly to candidates they wanted to see elected, just like you and I do."

I'm afraid you are way off base on that point, otherwise those senators would not be refunding the donations in kind to charity.

[joanie]

Regarding the filibuster threatened over the confirmation of Priscilla Owens, I think the democrats were running scared. I've never been so ashamed of them for not filibustering this extremely poor choice of a judge. It was cowardly. Had nothing to do with rules. Simply cowardice. I think the republicans would have lived with it because they benefit as much from the filibustering as the dems do.

Also, Audioslave, I haven't noticed a whole lot of filibustering going on. It is there for both sides to use and I doubt the republicans want to see it gone. Do you really think they will be in power forever?

Ås for Priscilla Owens, her nomination was another act of cronyism. If I were you, I'd start worrying about that word. It seems to be portending the demise of republican control of congress. (Or am I thinking wishfully? Time will tell.)

[audioslave]

joanie,

There have been 10 filibusters by democrats on judicial nominees by Bush, more than any President in history.

[ExDem]

Filibusters have historically been a tool for the minority party to use to block LEGISLATION, not Presidential appointments. The President can make recess appointments - it's a recognition that Senate approval is not required in order to fill spots in the courts or in the administration. The confirmation process is an exercise of the advise and consent function of the Senate, but that function ultimately was not intended to trump the executive authority to make appointments.

The Democrats, as a minority party, have taken the threat of filibuster (failure to gain cloture) to absurd new places when it comes to Federal judges and Supreme Court justices. During the Clinton administration, the Republicans did not pass a number of his candidates out of the Judicial Committee for an "up or down" vote on the floor of the Senate - that's because the Republicans were the MAJORITY party and controlled the Committee. Clinton could have made recess appointments on any of those candidates. But, keep in mind, that winning elections matters in our representative form of government.

Certain aspects of these governmental functions have become perverted. The Supreme Court has become a body that is more involved in making law than it was intended to be. The reason we want the minority party to be able to filibuster legislation is so that we avoid the risk of having the majority impose immoral/evil laws upon the minority. The Supreme Court is to rule on the Consitutionality of the laws brought before them in disputes that have worked their way through the lower courts. A very serious problem occurs when the Supreme Court basically makes law and circumvents the legislative process. For example, the decision in Roe vs Wade set the parameters and conditions for abortion and that has caused tremendous problems for states to deal with the effects of that. If we allow the Supreme Court to make law, instead of limiting them to ruling on the laws creating by the Congress and disputed in the courts, then we have a truly troublesome situation. There is no redress for parties when the 9 people sitting on the Court make law. In the legislature, minority parties have the filibuster to stop bad law from getting passed in the first place.

Anyway, no one wants to remove the filibuster as a tool for the minority party to exercise in the legislative process. But, I would be perfectly happy if they eliminated the possibility of filibusters for confirmation votes.

[chris]

Priscilla Owens was such a shitty choice that most repubs were against her nomination as well. Writing love letters to the prez does not make a good candidate. If there were 10 filibusters, that should be an indication that this president, who only listens to a very select group of people, can't bring any unity to the table--if he had, the Supreme Court would of been complete by now.

[Trip]

"But, I would be perfectly happy if they eliminated the possibility of filibusters for confirmation votes."

So, I take that to mean you'd have absolutely no problem with any of, say, President Hillary Clinton's nominations to the high Court? That you'd expect a Republican minority in the Senate to cheerfully accept any ol' judge from Berkeley way she decides to install?

Uh huh.

[sparky]

Audioslave....many of the congress critters are giving back money from the tribes even though the money is not related to Abramoff because at this point it all looks bad. Better to return legally donated money, or give it to a charity, than keep it and be accused, although falsely, of accepting tainted money. I disagree with that, but apparently they are in a no-win situation.

Most of the general public cant be bothered to look into the details of which money was donated legally to dems AND republicans...did the politician actually DO something --quid pro quo--as a result of getting that money? Did they push legislation that was far removed from anything their constituents needed or wanted? Politicians rely on donations to fund their campaigns but it is not automatic that the money is tied to a favor. Abramoff was arrogant enough to think he could spread tribal money around for favors unrelated to tribal issues. But that does not mean that all tribal donations were tainted.

[chris]

I was thinking of Harriet Miers, actually. One needs a scorebook to keep track of all the rejects that have come up recently.

[audioslave]

sparky says"

many of the congress critters are giving back money from the tribes even though the money is not related to Abramoff because at this point it all looks bad.

I'm sorry, but most of the donations from the Indian tribes in question, including those in this state, are tied to influence from Abramhoff. I will bet you a steak dinner at the Met, that Murray and/or Cantwell will give back their donations to charity, just to clear their own political conscience.

I will say this for the 3rd time: This is only the tip of the iceberg.

[chris]

Quid.
Pro.
Quo.

[Critter]

I heard on the news last night that Cantwell already gave back her donation. Yep, tip of the iceberg is right. However, just watch the Republicans come out smelling like a rose on this one and it will all be a conspiracy from the left. I'm getting used to that.

[ExDem]

Trip,

You see, the Republicans don't have a track record like this current crop of Democrats. President Bill Clinton's nominee, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was confirmed by a vote of 96-3. The Republicans didn't filibuster and voted to approve, even though she was known to be a liberal judge. Bill Clinton's nominee, Stephen Breyer was confirmed 87-9.

The Republicans were the minority party in both cases. The recent tactics of the Democrats are reprehensible. Filibusters were not intended to be used this way. Your whole Hillary Clinton scenario is bogus - the Republicans certainly had no affection for Bill Clinton yet they not only gave his nominees an "up or down" vote, they actually confirmed them overwhelmingly. When the Democrats were presented a candidate of impeccable character and endorsed by every side of the aisle, they still managed to line up 22 NO votes. So please, don't try to defend these tactics.

[ExDem]

Oops - forgot to include Justice Roberts name as the person that 22 Dems voted against.

[Fremont]

HOLD IT! STOP THE PRESSES! In a Seattle times "scoop", Rabbi Lapin said he "had no idea" that th $50,000 he took from Abramoff clients was part of Abramoff's vast scheme....H-m-m-m! A Man of God...perhaps we've been too hasty to convict!

[ExDem]

I haven't really followed this Rabbi Lapin story. Did he do something illegal too? Or are people jumping on him because he has dealings with a guy that broke the law? Is there some special concern that Lapin is a clergy man? Would it invalidate any moral or political points that Lapin raises because he knows Abramoff? Help educate me here - I don't get the whole thread on Rabbi Lapin and why there's so much attention paid to it on this blog.

[Fremont]

As Sparky said "Do your homework", ExDem, track back and read on..... (BTW, loved your position statements in the highly educational forum supra...)