The GOPFather
Tweet
If I were a Republican congressman and I had dealings with Jack Abramoff of any kind, this image of Jack Abramoff pleading guilty would haunt my dreams for the campaign ads it will inspire:
The GOP line of defense is going to be “he worked with Democrats too – waaaah!”. But there are about 50 Republicans for every Democrat who ever had dealings with Abramoff, and if they’re dirty those guys have to go too. But this is far and away a Republican scandal with Republican politicians and political operatives engaged in a Republican culture of corruption.
93 Responses to “The GOPFather”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Oliver was right, Dugger just missed the “Waaaaah!” off.
When someone is spreading money around in order to buy policy, who looks worse, the majority party who can change the policy, or the others who can’t?
As a Jew myself, I think Abramoff here is going for the “I am a repentant Orthodox Jew” approach. Frankly, I would like to see Abramoff share a cell somewhere with his friend and co-conspirator “Rabbi” Daniel Lapin.
Well if you simply state there is a ratio of 50 to 1 as a Republican scandal, why I’m sure you must be right. And since I have seen a list of 40 Democratic senators who received money from Abramoff or affiliated assocaites, then the Republicans have, what (?) 2,000 Senators? Didn’t know we had that any. Daschle, Gephardt, Reid, Levin, Patty Murray, Kennedy (P), Dorgan come quickly to mind. Guess what they have in common? H*ll, Abramoff even hired a Reid staffer.
“But this is far and away a Republican scandal ”
Rigghhhtttttt!
Dugger
One of the most amazing thing about this most amazing scandal hundreds of millions in slush funds beats Oval Office blowjobs by a mile is that some of the same names in the Abramoff scandal also surface in connection with Mohamed Atta s.
Less than a week before the 9.11 attack, for example, Atta and several other hijackers made a still-unexplained visit onboard one of Abramoff s casino boats.
http://www.madcowprod.com/06202005.html
How many democrats (I assume it is more than the 40 quoted by my friend Dugger) does it take before you consider it a “culture” of corruption too?
Just curious for future reference…..
Washington Post,12/29/2005:
That’s the guy in the pictures? Right now is an odd time for an image makeover.
And cypher, once and for all, what is that?
Abramoff has long been tight with Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed.
So why is anybody trying to pretend he wouldn’t be more deeply tied to Republicans than Dems?
Let’s not get into this debate of who’s dirtier. Corruption exists where
power is tangible and concrete.
The only partisan point I would make is that it seems the soil is most
fertile for shenanigans when republicans are in power. Yeah, I know
there is the Clinton/China connection, and Joe Kennedy, the rum-runner
bought the ’60 election for his son.
Does anyone want to compile a ledger for a.) convicted felons b.) Indicted
defendants c.) Members of congress chastised by that body, and finally,
Impeached or resigned Presidents from both political parites?
Which ledger would be longer? Just take a guess if you don’t want
to go to the trouble of making the list.
Wow. Abramoff hired a Reid ex-staffer! Who knew? Now this changes everything.
Bloomberg says Abramoff himself gave no money to Dems, while giving over 120K to repubs. But who’s counting? Let’s just see what happens and who winds up in hot water. I would expect that many more GOoPers are nervous about this than Democrats. Maybe 50 times as many. We will see.
You don’t give the big bucks to the small fish.
Who runs Congress?
That’s where you will find all the people who are huddled with their lawyers tonight. Just wait til they want to cop a plea!
It will not be pretty for the party in power.
I admit, the “outfit” he wore today was not something I would be wearing if I plead guilty.
Oliver, you’re complaining about the Republicans whining about Democrats’ involvement and you also say there is not many Dems involved. Doesn’t matter, they still are. But hey, it’s okay just as long as Republicans do it too!!
Quaker, I believe you are referring to the infamous “pumpkin does its impression of the Goatse”, more of which can be found here:
http://sam.zoy.org/fun/goatse/
Ha ha!
He looks like a wiseguy in those photos. Is he trying out for the part of Nathan Detroit at the local dinner theater’s production of “Guys & Dolls”?
“It just depends on which dirty rotten filthy liars you most identify with.”
Wrong. It depends on who has power available to sell. In the House, Republicans had the power, so they were the ones able to sell.
Republicans…Democrats…whatever. When Jack the Ripper here pleaded guilty and said he would cooperate in the investigation I was pretty sure I heard a collective pants-shitting on Capitol Hill today.
And truly people…ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE…these people are friggin’ politicians! Are you kidding me in thinking that either party is squeaky clean? Hell no. It just depends on which dirty rotten filthy liars you most identify with.
I disagree. All politicians are dirty. Period. Somebody is pulling their strings somewhere. They’re ALL beholden to some special interest or lobby group etc. There ain’t a one of them that doesn’t owe somebody something no matter how “clean” they seem.
Corruption must be attacked no matter who the perpetrators are. Giving tacit approval by saying ‘the other party does it too’ or ‘everyone is dirty’ is no solution. There’s nothing wrong with vigorous prosection of racketeers. As a Philadelphia resident I have noticed some strange parallels between our Democratic mayor’s arrogant behavior and that of the Republican Bush Administration. Throw the book at all of ‘em.
Quaker,
“So why is anybody trying to pretend he wouldn t be more deeply tied to Republicans than Dems? ”
Who was it on this board that claimed he was more deeply tied to Dems?
Remember your commonly used (and good) analogy about moving the goalposts?
Face it scads from both sides of the aisle took relatively small amounts of money from Abramoff or assocs. Now when we finally get all of the data and you determine that there were more Rs or that Rs got more money and if you feel that warrants OWs excrebale 50 to 1 hyperbole, this thread will then resonate. Otherwise its just a faulty, factually challenged hit piece.
the mighty DUGGER has spoken
BTW, is that some kind of anti – Italian slur?
I resemble that remark…
http://americablog.blogspot.com/abramoffdonation2.gif
Take a look at that list and tell me where the democrats are that money went to?
Dugger the Factual;
Any documentation for the generalization; “scads from both sides
of the aisle”?
Semant,
“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.’
Now that is from the WaTimes who would tend to focus in more on Democrats, but if you Google ‘Abramoff democrats’ you will find NPR, WaPo, Las Vegas Sun and many other sources for Dem ties to Abramoff.
As usual OW has way, way, way, way overstated things for partisan political purposes. If the ratio of 4 to 3 (OW’s 50 to 1, i.e.) is in fact correct, IMO that is reflective of the Rs being in power and that in fact if this is truly a scandal (I am struck by how small the sums actually are – I doubt there was very much real corruption on either side) , it is a bi-partisan one.
Dugger
Dugger;
Lobbyist Money is, in itself, one of the worst venues for corruption
Ethics aside, there is the issue of legality.
You seem to take comfort in the liberal media (especially the
frothy Chris Matthews) falling prey to the talking point “Bi Partisan
Corruption’, similar to the successful campaign ‘Clinton did it too’.
As with most things in life it is a matter of degree. The articles
you cite linking Dems with Abramoff leave an important point
out of the discussion. These were not ‘quid pro quo’ donations
directly to Dems, but were re-directed through the Indian Tribes.
We can discuss the ethics of lobby money all day, and I think you
and I would agree (I assume) on much of that. However the
contributions received as cited are legal.
They become illegal when the contribution is direct and connected
with specific acts. That is why Delay, Ney, Burns et al are under
greater scrutiny. This is what they are charged with. So let’s
really get specific with the facts when we bandy them about.
shall we?
Most of the Republicans (and Dems) received money from the tribes
and the numbers of each may be bi-partisan.
However, those who took money under the illegal methodology,
KNEW it was illegal and took it anyway. The preponderance of
those persons will prove to be MOSTLY Republican, so that
bi partisan canard should be dispensed with henceforth, IMHO
outerspace
Get a life. Do you think you make a point by showing a list of all Rs? On Abramoff’s famous list of the top 25, six are Democrats including a Kennedy and Sen Murray. Thats hardly reason to cheer if you are a Republican but it is also far, far from the dishonest portrayal by OW (50 to 1) and yourself.
Dugger
Jack Abramoff is a Republican operative with Republican politicians wrapped up in his Republican culture of corruption. You guys are really good at creating your own reality, but the court system isn’t as easily swayed as the idiot media (see Dover, PA).
I love seeing the right-wing spinners here talk about “contributions” Of course he spread his money around to both parties. Obviously, not everyone he contributed to was involved in corruption.
The question isn’t just contributions, but overseas junkets, superbowl tickets and more importantly consulting fees and the “Charities”….
Perhaps Dugger can define “Abramoff-related money” and explain why receiving “Abramoff-related money” in and of itself is illegal. The concept of “Abramoff-related money” sounds vague to the point of irrelevancy. How many degrees of separation are counted and what circumstances are considered before “Abramoff-related money” ties one to the crimes Mr. Abramoff has pleaded guilty to committing?
No one that I can recall. But then, I never said anyone did. Take another crack at it, Mr. Reading Comprehension Skills:
Still can’t get it?
I’ll walk you through it. Oliver wrote:
See? Oliver said that Abramoff was tied more to Republicans than to Democrats.
Then someone wrote:
Let’s leave aside the obvious problem of conflating “receiving campaign contributions” with “taking bribes.” Someone is pretending that Mr. Abramoff’s problems don’t affect Republicans more than Democrats.
What’s that? I misread it? I don’t think so:
Now, along comes your humble Quaker who chimes in with:
(It’s true!)
The statement points out that Abramoff has been best buds with the sharpest knives in the GOP drawer for more than 20 years. The question asks: Why would one suddenly try to pretend that Mr. Abramoff isn’t primarily a friend to Republicans?
I could suggest a few possible answers to that question. However, it’s more entertaining to watch you people try to change the subject.
I know I’m going to get slammed for this, but money greases the wheels.
Stealing from the Indians is a crime. Paying for a Congressman’s trip to Scotland is kinderspiel.
Humble Shoe Shine Quakie,
Did you know there was more writing from OW after the last pisture? As Mr. Reading Comprehension, it is my duty to inform you that in trying to excuse OWs excreable hyperbole, you failed to address in any way his central bottom line conclusion, to wit:
“But there are about 50 Republicans for every Democrat who ever had dealings with Abramoff, and if they re dirty those guys have to go too. But this is far and away a Republican scandal with Republican politicians and political operatives engaged in a Republican culture of corruption.”
Now, I may be stretching things ever so slightly, but when you said “Oliver said that Abramoff was tied more to Republicans than to Democrats.” that wouls seem to ever so slightly UNDERSTATE OWs apocalyptic vision of Republican uber-evil contained in the bottom line quotes. I mean 50 to 1 and “far and away a Republican scandal” are a tad bit stronger than “more tied to” aren’t they.
BTW are you trying to imply that Abramoff bud and beneficiary Senate Minority Leader DEMOCRAT Harry Reid is not a sharp knife?
you can call me Dugger, but you doesn’t have to call me Mr Reading Comprehension
You have correctly acertained that OW was employing hyperbole. Congratulations.
“Far and away a Republican scandal” does, in fact, mean “more tied to Republicans than Democrats.
After that, someone posted in an apparent effort to contradict that assertion. It’s that excuse-making that I find puzzling in light of Mr. Abramoff’s history.
You need the obvious explained again? I wrote:
Last I checked, Mr. Reid was one of ours, not a Republican. Further, I believe you are once again confusing “campaign fund contributions” with “bribes.”
We shall soon see if the Bush-appointed prosecutor accuses Mr. Reid of selling his influence to Mr. Abramoff or his clients. If it happens, please call on me again to discuss Mr. Reid’s involvement.
And you’re really revealing your age with that one, Johnson.
this is great! It reminds about the old joke of a guy in a bar who ask a girl is she would sleep with him for $50K, she says “sure”. Then he says, how about $10? She gets all indignant and says “what do you think I am?” He says, ” I think we have already determined that, now we are haggling over the price…”
So the democrats are just a LITTLE corrupt! LOL
Actually, I will withold judgement until we actually get someone convicted…you know, the old presumption of innocence ploy that we republicans get in such trouble for…
You mean the presumption of innocence the right afforded to President Clinton for the eight years of his presidency?
No, he wasn’t.
Man, I love coming here to see the trolls act like they’re getting something over on Oliver.
See as they try and frame the argument as if there was equal culpability among both Dems and GOP. Never mind that Abramoff never donated a dime personally to any Dem candidates. It’s besides the point. All that matters is to stir the shit up so much that nobody can see clearly.
Anyone trying to paint the Dems as equal culprits in this situation is a partisan tool. Stop embarrassing yourselves. It IS “far and away a Republican scandal”. Now stop whining and deal with it.
I don’t know why you get such dedicated stalkers here, Oliver.
yea, right up to the point that he was impeached and disbarred!
I hate always having to point out that clinton was convicted of perjury and subsequently disbarred, but you lefties have a very short memory when it comes to clenis
At least when republicans are convicted of crimes they have the decency to step down, not drag the country through their mud.
If Clinton was the CEO of IBM he would have been drummed out of the business with a gaggle of NOW lawyers on his tail for harrassment, yet the democrats apologize for him, holding the POTUS to a lower standard than the CEO of a corporation.
You should be ashamed….
The only place Clinton was convicted of committing perjury was in your mind. Such a conviction never happened. For an alleged doctor you sure have a slippery grasp of reality.
And of course the question still hangs…..How corrupt do democrats have to be before OW with claim they are corrupt?
How many democrats have to be involved before he will admit to a “culture of corruption” on the left?
Enquiring minds want to know…
But “feeling good about Bubba” wasn’t the point. The point was calling out pedro for posting something blatantly false.
And as long as we’re correcting the record, let’s add:
…right after “impeached.”
“Man, I love coming here to see the trolls act like they re getting something over on Oliver.”
Thank you JSVB. In all modesty, I do think we’re all swell trolls.
BTW, in your math book (assuming), did ratios jump from ’50 to 1′, to ’1 to 1′ with nothing in between? BWAHAHAHAHA.
Quaker and Dave M are right. Impeached, disbarred, yes; but not convicted of perjury. However, Judge Wright said of Bubba: he gave false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process They have no more call to feel good about Bubba than we do about Abramoff having some Democratic connections.
Dugger, Poster, Entertainer, Old Foge Extraordinaire, Reading Comprehension Cop
No. Adding “acquitted” does not ‘correct’ the record. Merely adds to it . For, ‘impeached’ is correct. And, for my 2 cents, the good Dr was, as you might say, ‘incorrect’. ‘Blatantly false’ is a little harsh is it not? if we could all just get along.
Dugger, Imagine there’s no blue states, no red states, Imagine all the people
It might have been, if only he hadn’t chosen to castigate the rest of us for our “short memories.” That little flourish kicked it up a notch.
Once William Jefferson Davis Clinton (his real name, by the way) announced to the world on MTV that he wore “briefs, not boxers” I knew he was a bum (not because he said it, but because it was true).
Nothing he has done to this day has convinced me otherwise.
Hold on, you mean they disbarred the poor fella for nothing?
“The Southeastern Legal Foundation and U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright referred the Clinton case to the court’s committee on professional conduct, saying the president lied under oath in the Jones case by denying he had a sexual relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.”
I think my confusion is understandable given the definition of “perjury as ‘The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath’” and clinton being found guilty of “Ly(ing) under oath.”
My humble apologies to all…..
Oh, and once impeached, always impeached….there is no aquitted.
Lucky for you, pedro, I never tire of repeating myself. Comes in handy when people keep getting the same things wrong again and again. As mentioned earlier:
But I’m glad to see you finally have learned something today:
Do you ever tire of being corrected in public? I do hope not.
Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 4:
Notice that “impeachment” and “conviction” are two separate terms with separate meanings. “Impeachment” is the bringing of charges. “Conviction” means the charges are found true.
You may be wondering what happens when there is impeachment, but a conviction is not achieved.
That would be: acquittal.
“At least when republicans are convicted of crimes they have the decency to step down, not drag the country through their mud.”
I agree. I am overwhelmed by the goodness and decency of the Republicans in Washington lately.
“If Clinton was the CEO of IBM he would have been drummed out of the business with a gaggle of NOW lawyers on his tail for harrassment, yet the democrats apologize for him, holding the POTUS to a lower standard than the CEO of a corporation.”
How was that consensual blowjob harrassment? Did Monica claim she was harrassed? It was probably not even the last blowjob to occur in the White House, but Jeff Gannon and Scotty McClellan would probably know more about that than I.
Hey dude, chill out. I did my mea culpa..
but, don’t be attempting to school me in a civics lesson when you are trying to say that Clenis was “aquitted”. Once impeached,always impeached….he was NOT convicted and thrown out of office as he rightly should have (actually, he should have just done the honorable thing and stepped down), so if you would like to continue your rampant apologism for a disgraced ex-president, you would be more accurate to say “impeached….but (in the same voice as Bill Murray in Stripes…), NEVER CONVICTED!
Ah you democrats should be SO proud. At least the republicans have the honor to step down when they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar (or in clenis’s case, the Nookie Jar….)
Try this.
Maybe you shouldn’t have neglected your civics homework.
You see, when you say someone has been “convicted of perjury,” that means that person was charged with the crime of perjury, stood trial (or copped a plea), and was declared guilty by a judge.
So you might understand how those of us with “short memories” have trouble remembering when any of that happened to Mr. Clinton. You, on the other hand, seem to remember it quite well.
Its alright my francophile friend, dugger.
I have been rightly chastised for referring to lying under oath as “perjury”….it’s my bad and I will take my lumps like a man…..
you see, when I took MY logic class if A=B and B=C then A=C.
You should never take logic to an argument with a leftist
So true.
I have made it my personal mission to try to teach you a few of them.
Actually, the word is “acquitted.” And it means “Not convicted of charges brought. Found innocent.” It correctly applies to public officials against whom impeachment proceedings have been brought without a conviction.
Somebody around here was lecturing those present on the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” earlier. I believe it was in regard to the current unpleasantness among elected officials of a certain persuasion. Any idea who that might have been?
Yes, but the SOMEONE wasn’t the Senate and the something wasn’t perjury. As someone once said (very recently, I think), “words have meanings.”
No idea…..Clinton is properly described as an “impeached President”.
Further, SOMEONE found Clenis guilty of something….or did he just get disbarred because of a “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”?
Like I said, you want to be an apologist for clenis, fine by me, you’re the one who has to look at your hypocritical mug in the mirror every morning, not me.
None of my choices for president have been impeached or disbarred.
BUMA, I am going to leave it up to the ladies at NOW to explain to you how a female intern of the ripe old age of 21 working for the most powerful man in the US might be in a somewhat coercive relationship and whether or not you can have a “consensual” sex act in those conditions.
Cracker I DO get tired of you repeating yourself. Words have meanings…
The fact that you say ” But feeling good about Bubba wasn t the point.”, does not mean that you weren’t being an apologist for him. It might not have been the point, but that was the outcome.
As far as your meaningless Google search, I will repeat, Impeached is Impeached. Once Impeached, always impeached. All the links in the world won’t change that
Dugger the Factual;
Any documentation for the generalization; scads from both sides
of the aisle ?
Did I lose you somewhere?
buma said,
“I am overwhelmed by the goodness and decency of the Republicans in Washington lately.”
Well finally, buma’s pod took over. Buma welcome aboard. I think Quaker, tiring of having to defend that impeached, disbarred, intern-molesting, judicial-process-obstructing ex president, is wanting a nap and then he will be one of us.
Not to worry. You will all be welcome in our big tent. We have the OW pod in the cellar waiting.
Dugger
This
http://www.wonkette.com/politics/kickbackmtn.jpg
cracks me up.
Just had to share.
Dugger, I thought the last memo from Rove said we weren’t supposed to tell them about the “pods”!
Never mind, that was going to be OW’s next scoop anyway…
Don’t go to sleep kids!
Glen Reynolds on NPR Wednesday;
“Some may point to Baucus and Dorgan, but I think it is mostly
a republican scandal.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5126468
It’s kinda funny how, since Abramoff himself gave no money to Democrats, the wingers keep repeating the mantra the ‘Abramoff and his associates’ funneled money to 40 of 45 Democrats. Along the same mein, ‘NOW or Frank and drpedro’ have identified Monica’s White House blowjob as harrassment.
Oliver: The GOP line of defense is going to be he worked with Democrats too – waaaah! .
Actually, no
http://tinyurl.com/7ncxp
NOW or Frank and drpedro have identified Monica s White House blowjob as harrassment.
What is it with you, buma? I didn’t say anything about Clinton and a blowjob; I just said he was, and is a bum…
Was buma’s pod defective?
Semant,
I have been looking for what I think is the definitve list of Abramoff beneficiaries, the so-called Bloomberg list, but haven’t been able to find it. Time constraints do not permit an intensive effort. “Scads’ of course is my vernacular for lots from both sides. You can check WaPo, NPR, Las Vegas Sun, Montana papers and find details of Democratic involvement. My guess is that there might be more overall Republican involvement (certainly no where near OWs uber gross generalization) but that Abe is an equal opportunity corruptor.
Dugger
Frank said:
“Once William Jefferson Davis Clinton (his real name, by the way) announced to the world on MTV that he wore briefs, not boxers I knew he was a bum (not because he said it, but because it was true).”
So Frank, is everyone who wears briefs a bum in your eyes?
I nominate Frank as the first nominee for Asshat of the Year, 2006. Or better yet, the Asshat Lifetime Achievement Award.
You have some tough competition Frank, but I’m pulling for you.
Fine lets dispense with canards completely and wait until someone is convicted.
Proving a direct connection between a contribution and an act is extraordinarily difficult. You may find that not a single elected official is convicted of anything, staff may be another matter
The bottom line is, nothing here proves a “culture of corruption”, regardless of how many times you say it, or how much hyperbole you use….
It doesn’t matter who received contributions from Abramoff and his associates. What matters is if these contributions were improper, and if the contributions led to Abramoff interests having improper sway on legislation.
This “Well, the Democrats took his money TOOOOOOOO” is just more Republican deflection.
Dugger;
I guess you missed this, so here it is again.
Dugger;
Lobbyist Money is, in itself, one of the worst venues for corruption
Ethics aside, there is the issue of legality.
You seem to take comfort in the liberal media (especially the
frothy Chris Matthews) falling prey to the talking point Bi Partisan
Corruption , similar to the successful campaign Clinton did it too .
As with most things in life it is a matter of degree. The articles
you cite linking Dems with Abramoff leave an important point
out of the discussion. These were not quid pro quo donations
directly to Dems, but were re-directed through the Indian Tribes.
We can discuss the ethics of lobby money all day, and I think you
and I would agree (I assume) on much of that. However the
contributions received as cited are legal.
They become illegal when the contribution is direct and connected
with specific acts. That is why Delay, Ney, Burns et al are under
greater scrutiny. This is what they are charged with. So let s
really get specific with the facts when we bandy them about.
shall we?
Most of the Republicans (and Dems) received money from the tribes
and the numbers of each may be bi-partisan.
However, those who took money under the illegal methodology,
KNEW it was illegal and took it anyway. The preponderance of
those persons will prove to be MOSTLY Republican, so that
bi partisan canard should be dispensed with henceforth, IMHO
Whatever Frank. Take your meds.
Factcheck: If you’re going to live up to your name, you’re going to have to learn to read.
You asked me a question, which I didn’t answer.
If the answer to your question is, “No,” I think you should be nominated for Asshat of the Millennium.
Are you done, or is there more stupidity due?
I predict Stanley Tucci will play him in the movie version.
drpedro, January 5th, 2006 at 10:26 am:
Fine lets dispense with canards completely and wait until someone is convicted.
Mark down that time and date. He finally stopped repeating that Ann Coulter lie about Clinton being convicted. With these wingers it’s like pulling teeth from a duck.
factcheck: Apparently, your stupidity supply is endless.
Abramoff claims to have the goods on sixty lawmakers. If he’s not kidding, I’d say “culture of corruption” would be a pretty fair description.
Quaker;
I think the sixty you refer to are what has been reportedly found
on JA’s Blackberry. (The tip of the iceberg?)
You could be right, leo.
It was originally a story in the Wall Street Journal, but it’s behind their subscriber firewall. Atrios and Think Progress both posted scant one-liners about it. However, both of them phrased it as, “Abramoff says…”
Sad to admit it, but most of what Jack Abramoff did with politicians (as opposed to his outright fraud with Indian tribes) wasn’t criminal so much as extreme. The Hollywood arc would have a chain-gang of Congressmen breaking rocks by the final reel, but we are unlikely to get such satisfaction outside of celluloid.
Guess who write that?
Well, if the erstwhile Wonkette says it’s so…
1) I said it already: Jan 4 11:10 am
2) She’s no friend of Bush’s
1) Apparently befuddlement, like misery, loves company.
2) That means we have to believe in her powers of divination?
And I said it at 10:26, Buma wrote it down…!
Quaker, believe what you will. As I have said before, you and your left wing colleagues are now so blinded by Bush hatred that you have wandered into a world of imagination that makes DisneyLand look like the RAND Corporation.
Oh, thank you.
Frank, you posted up some crap from Ana Marie “Penis Joke” Cox as if it was somehow proof of something. (You never said exactly what, but I’m guessing it was something along the lines of “See? See? Even big liberals think there’s nothing to all this talk about corrupt Republicans!”)
Let me give it to you straight. Cox is a joke. She specializes in telling salacious tales and making wisecracks. Her opinion is all “sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
I wouldn’t exactly pick “Wonkette” as the poster girl for deep thinking on politics.
The funny thing is, Cunningham demonstrates EXACTLY the difference between the left and right. He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar…..you don’t see him screaming about left wing conspiracies, or having people send him money to put together enormous groups of attorneys and private eyes to stir up dirt on the people that got him.
He did the honorable thing for both himself and the country and fell on his sword.
Uh-oh.
Time magazine is reporting that Duke Cunningham wore a wire during meetings with parties unknown.
Still want to go out on that limb, boys?
I wonder who the feds overheard Duke talking to.
Yeah, he got caught taking payoffs in return for defense contracts. He’s “honorable”. A real prince.
Semant, Read your post way up there. Mostly agree.
Just for sh*ts and giggles though, I don’t particularly care if my Congressman takes lobbying money. If he votes the way I want – its Ok w/me. So if Senator Sludgepump takes money from Mrs Smith’s and votes for apple pie and motherhood, and Senator Crustacean takes no money and votes aginst AP and MH, I’m voting for ol’ Sludgepump. The point being: I measure him by what he does not by his/her presumed motivation.
Dugger
Dugger;
If only the world were so benign.