’)There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money and we ve looked through all of the F.E.C. reports to make sure that s true& I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They’re scared. They should be scared. They haven’t told the truth. They have misled the American people, and now it appears they’re stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.
If it’s merely “tainted” by an indirect association with Abramoff, then why compare the amounts? Still seems fishy to me. They’re Democrats, but they’re still politicians. Giving the money back is an admission of guilt.
I’m gonna have to call bullshit on this one. I heard a report on NPR the other day about Democrats giving back money that Abramoff contributed to their campaigns. They took much less money than Republicans did, but they took some.
Dr Demento Dean, never willing to let the truth be sufficient, has to add, “They have misled the American people, and now it appears they re stealing from Indian tribes.”
Who? Republicans? When is going to get some therapy?
The distinction is not about WHO got money. Its about HOW they got
the money. This is where the Republican leadership is better at
communicating their ideas to the public.
Money FROM the tribes is not the same as getting money DIRECTLY
from Abramoff. What the prosecution is going to have to prove
is that there was a QUID PRO QUO, or a direct connection between
the money and SPECIFIC ACTS by the legislator.
Dems gave back money that had been tainted by Abramoff, but no Democrats ever received money from Jack Abramoff. (detail here)
And for the record, I think it’s apparent at this point, Bush has demonstrated that the biggest, shyster porno store owning, used car selling, ambulance chasing attorney would have restored more “honor” to the White House than he has.
Ron Jeremy/Crazy Eddie ‘08
Pedro,
You’re still avoiding the fact that the Republicans hadn’t offered any more of a platform, then, than you’re accusing the Dems of offering now.
Blowjob or not, the GOP was no better, and hopefully our history books will be referring to Bush in the same manner as Clinton (ie: impeached), since there’s these little issues re: misleading our nation into war, outing an undercover operative, and ordering warrantless spying on American citizens, on U.S. soil.
Glad to see you are still demonstrating a complete lack of perspective though.
Still a clinton apologist, you have no shame.
And the closet retort you have is “I know you are but what am I?”
Fabulous…..
Shorter: Don t vote for us cause we have any better ideas, vote cause we aren t republicans.
Still plays better than Republicans: Uhhh, some Democrats are just as sleazy and corrupt as the Republican leadership.
By the way, I think Eli Manning took money from Abramoff too. Just putting that out there.
Those republicans and their culture of corruption. They have been in power so long, the country needs a change .
Watch for it, it will likely come in a couple of flavors& .
Hey, it worked for the Republicans when Bush campaigned on wanting to “restore honor and integrity to the White House”, after Clinton. Which he obviously hasn’t done.
So, this tactic isn’t anything new.
Here I agree with Leo….they need to prove quid pro quo.
This is going to be the infamous Rove “Frog March”…the dems get all wrapped around the axle and excited, finally the republicans will trip, and we can catch up.
Lord knows the democrats can’t come up with a decent platform by themselve that anyone will vote for.
By the way, and your heard it here first, here is the next set of talking points: ” Those republicans and their culture of corruption. They have been in power so long, the country needs a change”.
Shorter: Don’t vote for us cause we have any better ideas, vote cause we aren’t republicans.
Watch for it, it will likely come in a couple of flavors….
Everyone can see the financial details at this OpenSecrets site called CapitalEye.
Starting in the 2000 election cycle Abramoff personally gave $204,253, all of it to republicans.
The various Indian tribes gave $4,215,508 to both parties, though republicans received almost twice as much.
Again, all the details are in the public record and you can see how it breaks down through the link.
curmudgeon, you could move the biggest, shyster ambulance chasing attorney (say, Edwards), a used car salesman or a guy who runs a porno shop into the white house and it would be an “honor upgrade” compared to clinton.
Christ, the guy made the secret service swab his cheek so they could cross check his DNA against the cooze he left on Monica’s dress!
A true low point in american history, and why even now he is referred to in history books as the “impeached President Clinton”.
Everything that Dean said is accurate, including especially his reference to the fact that the RNC is attempting to smear Democrats with Abramoff’s bribery schemes. His response to the Wolfman was perfect. You can tell by the Wolfman’s deer-in-the-headlights reaction. The Wolf thought he was talking to a Rollover Democrat.
But since the entire corporate press/media is not only controlled by Republicans, but also financially and publicly invested in Bush and the Republicans, they will just repeat the lie until it becomes accepted as truth.
[...] =”http://sayanythingblog.com/”>
Rob
on January 8, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Howard Dean: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not [...]
That’s right, the Dems never, ever have any corruption on their side. Corruption is only a problem with the GOP, right?
/sarcasm>
The words Dean said should not have been said because it is laying down a stict ultimatum that says there is absoluetly 0 corruption on teh Democrat side of the isle (when there obviously is, there’s corruption everywhere unfortuantely) and when it comes out that there is some corruption somewhere, these words can be thrown back at Dean very easily.
Christ, the guy made the secret service swab his cheek so they could cross check his DNA against the cooze he left on Monica s dress!
Dear Dr. Pedro:
Please brush up on your slang. I’m fairly certain that was not the word you were looking for, unless you mean to imply that Clinton left female genitalia on Lewinsky’s dress. Shall we assume you meant “spooge“?
Sheesh.
Sphagnum, Dean said that the Dems never took corrupt money from Abramoff. It’s a bit of a stretch to claim that he said that Dems never take corrupt money from any source.
Is he parsing his words? Maybe. But a plain English reading of his words does not lead to the interpretation you imply.
“Christ, the guy made the secret service swab his cheek so they could cross check his DNA against the cooze he left on Monica s dress!”
NO, the republican assholes in Congress, inclduing Tom Delay, did via their special prosecutor Ken Starr.
“A true low point in american history, and why even now he is referred to in history books as the impeached President Clinton .”
Clinton was impeached by a bunch of right-wingers who were obsessed with bringing him down because they couldn t defeat him on the issues. Only by smearing him on something that had nothing to do with his official duties as president lying about a sexual affair.
At least Clinton didn t drag this country into an unnecessary war that has killed thousands of American soldiers and civilians. At least his staff didn t leak classified information as to the identity of a CIA agent, because her husband was questioning so-called evidence of a nuclear weapons program that did not exist. At least he didn t go around specific laws regarding telephone surveillance to spy on American Citizens – all of which could easily be considered impeachable offenses if his party didn t have control of Congress in order to obstruct the process.
Clinton did not resign his position but was acquitted (that means not guilty) in the Senate. Tom Delay removed himself today permanently as majority leader, not because of the distraction of the allegations against him as he claims, but because the people in his own party were going to permanently can his ass if he didn t.
Instead of “Clinton did, Clinton didn’t”, how about asking Dr. Demento Dean why he accused the Republicans of stealing money from the Indians?
After all. that was why he so scrupulously avoided saying no Democrats were involved with Abramoff, instead of saying no Democrat received money from Abramoff.
Surely he is delirious if he thinks he can convince the American people that there is no corruption in the Democratic Party.
Great Buma, and when that is a criteria for getting the house or senate majorities the Demo’s will be in great shape!
Now to get the democrats started on amending the constitution so they can start winning some elections…..
drpedro sez:
“Lord knows the democrats can t come up with a decent platform by themselve [sic] that anyone will vote for.”
The Dems in the Senate received more total votes than the Republicans in the Senate. The Dems in the House received more total votes than the Republicans in the House. This dispite the fact that there are more Republicans in both houses of Congress.
Scene on a street corner: Democratic Senator Sludgepump accompanied by Hodean meets Abramoff. Hodean: Hey Jack if you want my man’s vote, you’re going to have pony up the lucre. Abramoff: Ok Deano. heres… Hodean: Hold on just one minute! Who do you think we are?!! Corrupt politicians?! Our principles will not let us take money directly from you. Grabs passing shoe shine boy. Hodean: Hold on son. Jack give the check to the shoe shine boy. Now shoe shine boy, give the check to Senator Sludgepump. Good Senator, fingering the lettuce appreciatively: Ahmm beginning to see the compassionate wisdom of the Abramoff position on this bill.
Dugger, Another Hemingway?
Nice story, Dug.
Is it based on a true story or did you make it all up?
To paraphrase the Great Criswell: Can you prove it didn’t happen?
Dugger
Apparently the secret to gaining house and senate seats is to prostitute legislation for campaign money, a practice Republicans have down pat. I would guess the typical Republican outraises the typical Democrat 2 to 1, or in street terms, the Republican bends over on the corner to move the line along while the Democrat takes the time to lead the customer to a motel room.
Haw! Criswell also predicted that energy rays from outer space would turn all the steel in Denver to the consistency of rubber. And that moose would invade our northern cities.
Oh that has definately happened…the moose I mean. They just do it at night, and wear sneakers so you can’t hear them….
“Criswell also predicted that energy rays from outer space would turn all the steel in Denver to the consistency of rubber. And that moose would invade our northern cities. ”
Yes and where’s the problem?
I think we all know the steel in Denver is rubbery (not like the bunch of Oriental coconuts)
And perhaps you will tell me those yellow moose-warning signs on the freeway around Bangor were figments of my imagination.
“My friend, you have seen this incident based on sworn testimony. Can you prove that it didn’t happen? Perhaps on your way home, you will pass someone in the dark, and you will never know it, for they will be from outer space. Many scientists believe that another world is watching us this moment. We once laughed at the horseless carriage, the aeroplane, the telephone, the electric light, vitamins, radio, and even television! And now some of us laugh at outer space. God help us… in the future. ”
Dugger
That’s OK. As long as we all understand the degree of lunacy in play…
I feel the same way….about most of the leftist posters to this site…
Its really amazing how successful you cons are at changing the subject. We almost never talk about the issue that gets raised…like in this case, that a significant portion of republicans in congress are just whores for corporate money. Like we didn’t already know that, of course, but its always fun to find the evidence for what you had already logically proved…
We are waiting for an actual conviction…you know, like it says in the Constitution….due process and all that?
Come on wolfie, you swore to DEFEND that document….you ought at least read it.
Of course you can continue to maintain your little nocturnal emission that all the republicans will get kicked out, thereby giving the democrats some sort of chance at winning elections. You know, like karl rove got “frog marched” out of the white house?
Oh yea, that never happened….
Money, money, money. Thats wht it takes to get elected. Republicans got it, spend it like drunken sailors and still only manage to hold a slight majority. It funds all those fake science organizations that put out false statistics and information (along with concerned industries) on global warming, pollution, intelligent design…; it funds right wing media like FOX news, Rush Limbaugh; policy centers to develop spin on issues; campaigns. They need it, they’s got to have a ton of it to beat their opponents and this Abramof scandal shows what they will do to get it.
Democrats TOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! But they got a fraction of the money. Get that, a fraction of the money. The individual industries had to go to the individual democratic lawmakers and present a case, instead of using Jack’s list of “for sale” senators and “your law here” congressmen. Disgusting. That is just what republicans promised to stop with their contract with America. Oh well. Don’t get me wrong, Democrats had similar problems when they were the majority power. Just not so obvious, so pervasive, and so hypocritically.
a significant portion of republicans in congress are just whores for corporate money.
I’ll match my corporate whores against your corporate whores any day.
Suddenly a literalist? Seems like just yesterday you were practicign a much looser standard for historical fact.
quickie,
“We almost never talk about the issue that gets raised”
If you want to talk about somemthing with the adults, it must be grounded in reality – not fantasy. Now the whole theme of this item and Hodeans’s weasel words is that “Democrats. No Problem. You see, Abe didn’t physically hand them the money.” Thats the problem evidently. They got Abe’s corrupting money but its OK since it wasn’t direct from Abe. Abe must have dirty hands. See some of us thought the problem being put forth (one I don’t personally agree with) is corruption and the corrupting influence of lobbyist money. But not so evidently.
Squealer with his paint brush has climbed the ladder again and in place of “thou shalt accept no money from lobbyists” We see “thou shalt accept no money -directly- from lobbyists.”
Dugger
Just not so obvious, so pervasive, and so hypocritically.
Only moderately obvious, pervasive, and hypocritically.
Stop it, will you?
Sez the man who justifies his own fantasies by invoking Criswell.
I suppose if the Indian tribes that Abramoff stole from bought a pack of gum, the storekeeper was accepting tainted money as well?
When we see any indication that Abramoff directed money from his clients to Dems, you’ll have a point. Too bad for you we aren’t there yet.
Abramoff-related money?
Maybe we could cut through the fog if we can define that odd little phrase. What makes the money “Abramoff-related”?
As I understand it (and I could well have this entirely wrong), Abramoff’s clients gave money to Democrats. I haven’t seen any scenarios that describe Abramoff providing money to anyone who then passed that money along to the Dems, as your clever analogy suggests.
I’m hearing a scenario that runs more like this: On Saturday, I gave part of my paycheck to Mr. Capone for bootleg liquor; on Sunday, I gave part of my paycheck to Father O’Malley. Now that Mr. Capone has been caught, he claims that Father O’Malley is just as bad as he is.
Poor Quaker,
“When we see any indication that Abramoff directed money from his clients to Dems, you ll have a point. Too bad for you we aren t there yet.”
As additonal details come to light about the 45 Democratic senators that have taken Abramoff related money, we learn the problem is not (a) lobbyists’ money – its evidently OK to take that money for progressive causes (b) not Abramoff money – as long as the man himself did not physically hand you the money we can excuse that and now (c) you can take all the Abramoff organization cash you want as long as it can’t be PROVEN it was personally directed by Abramoff (Says the mobster: I work for Mr Capone and here’s the the money, Mr Chicago Cop, for you to turn your head while we rub out a couple of DAs. Says the Cop: well Ok as long as Mr Capone didn’t personally direct you give it to me.)
Dugger (Maybe Democrats had their fingers crossed when they took the cash)
Hey, good scenario.
I think what you may be paying less attention to, though, is that Abramoff’s clients gained access to the congresspeople via Abramoff and gained same said access to buy influence. I frankly don’t see a moral difference if Abramoff was a middle man to the exchange of funds or the physical entity that passed the bucks. Surely you don’t think these Abramoff affiliated activities are donating money because they like the Democrats wardrobes. Whether by proxy or by person – same situation isn’t it. I mean, per your view, we really don’t know that all of the funds Abramoff PERSONALLY gave were for nefarious purposes, right?
Dugger
I haven’t seen anything, anywhere, that changes this:
Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal.
It is all downhill from here, in spite of the feeble attempts to change focus, or topics, or draw comparisons to events that are no longer relevant. This is happening now, and it is potentially devasting to republicans in general.
What Abramoff and Dean know hasn’t even come out yet! It is only going to get much worse for the Cons. (ervatives) and the only question is how many more, not if there are any more.
Who effin cares about Dems or whatever, the situation is with the corrupt Republican lobbying tactics and bribes, and that is who is indicted and named right now, and quite likely for the remainder of this.
You can argue all you want, Con supporters, but that fact is the fact is the fact is that it is Republicans who are in shit, whatever you wish else was true.
Did I mention the facts yet?LMFAO!!!
Hey, idiots of the right wing. What has been proven, shown and is a given is that several or most republican members of congress had a direct personal working relation with Abramoff. He brokered votes for contributions and access. There are numerous documented examples of republicans going on Abramoff sponsored FREE junkets to vacations, lunches, dinners, golf outings, resorts, free gifts…. All coming from various sources alledgedly for favorable votes on legislation. Here is your time to come forth as a SHINING paragon of right wing investigative reporting by coming up with actual examples of DEMOCRATS who went on these junkets, accepted these gifts and meals and voted favorably for for Abramoff’s clients legislation. i am sure you will find a few examples.
All you show now is that groups gave legal donations to lawmakers they felt would be favorable for their cause, who also used Abramoff to buy favorable votes.
Get Busy.
I mean, it wasn’t campaign contributions that sank Duke Cunningham, was it? It was all the other off-the-books stuff that did him in.
Nor do I. However, I do see a moral difference between those conditions and the Indian tribes donating money to politicians without any involvement at all by Abramoff.
No, I suspect they’re spreading the money around to politicians of all stripes who support their interests.
The crime isn’t in the giving or receiving of campaign money. It’s in the quid pro quo. That, of course, is terribly difficult to prove, and that’s why the prosecutor has granted leniency in exchange for Mr. Abramoff’s cooperation.
Precisely right.
It could be that NONE of the money he gave personally was for anything other than supporting his favorite candidates. Once again, it’s what the congressmen agreed to do in exchange for the donation that makes it a problem.
When Mr. Abramoff starts naming names, we won’t have to speculate about this any further.
Dugger;
Are you just playing around?
(Says the mobster: I work for Mr Capone and here s the the money, Mr Chicago Cop, for you to turn your head while we rub out a couple of DAs. Says the Cop: well Ok as long as Mr Capone didn t personally direct you give it to me.)
Clearly this is a quid pro quo, the line which marks illegality in the world
of Lobby money. Are you just pretending, or do you really think there
is no difference between donations, and donations in (provable terms)
exchange for SPECIFIC ACTS?
dpedro:
I feel the same way& .about most of the leftist posters to this site&
Good for you! Just don’t start letting facts ever enter into your thoughts, and that won’t change, nor will the stupidity of your arguements in general :O)
Quaker,
So you agree that Dean’s argument that Abramoff didn’t himself ‘donate’ the money to Democratic poltiicians is, lets say, insufficient?
As to quid pro quo. Honestly, I bet it doesn’t work that way. I think lobbyists buy mostly non-speciifc cooperation. The lobbyists and the politicians know the law and probably realize some things can’t be openly said – but must be understood. “Here’s a $10,000 donation. How do you think that bill my clients support for a nuclear power plant on Nantucket will turn out?” If Sen Sludgepump doesn’t vote the right way, no more contributions.
Right on Cunningham. Cunningham sunk Cunningham all by his lonesome.
Semant, See above discussion. I don’t know at all, but I doubt it is so obvious. I remember some of the evidene at the Alcee Hastings bribe trial some years back and was struck by how non-specific certain things were. So I htink the line between the two types of donations is probably pretty vague. What if the Senator were going to vote that way, any way, for iinstance? Is it a bribe if he then takes cash from a lobbyist who is known to want all politicians to vote that way?
Dugger
Frank,
Waaay back up there, you wrote:
Which part do you have doubts about? That money was stolen from Indian tribes, or that Dean is blaming the theft on Republicans?
Abramoff (along with his pal, Ralph Reed) bilked several tribes to the tune of several million dollars. They were pretty much caught (ahem) red-handed. A congressional committee has the emails to prove it.
Whether it’s fair to lay this at the feet of “the Republicans” is a matter for discussion.
Yes.
However, if the Abramoff revelations live up to their advance billing, that’s not what happened here. Abramoff is expected to testify that he bought specific cooperation in exchange for favors, junkets, cash, etc.
That he is now cooperating with prosecutors seems to have a number of lawmakers–from just one party–looking nervously over their shoulders.
That doesn’t read quite right. Let me try that once again.
Which part do you have doubts about? That money was stolen from Indian tribes, or that “the Republicans” are to blame?
(Dean is clearly laying the blame on Republicans. No question about that.)
Unfortunately I doubt much will come of this whole investigation, except for Abramhoff getting flayed.
Here is the probable scenario. Abramoff rolls over and plays nice with the feds. In order to keep the feds happy, he says all sorts of things about quid pro quo etc. Unfortunately, there are never any witnesses, or, it is all said to some aide.
Now the defense attorneys come along and say that everything Abramoff said is just to try to get himself a lighter sentence, he is making it all up.
I am not even trying to determine guilt or innocence here, just what I see as the likely legal tactic. It is REALLY hard to prove quid pro quo unless you have a video of someone taking a handful of cash while saying “of course I will change my vote Jack….”
That is why this stuff continues to go on….
Whether it s fair to lay this at the feet of the Republicans is a matter for discussion.
Abramoff is charged with stealing money from the Indian tribes. I certainly believe he did. I believe the issue of corrupting Republicans which, of course, must be considered one politician at a time, is totally separate.
My point was that Dean has some difficulty with truthtelling, as it applies to Republicans. I’m sure there are enough Republicans who will be, at the least, “stained” by this (for the moment, disregarding the Democrats) for there to be no need to make false charges about Republicans stealing from the Indians.
A true low point in american history, and why even now he is referred to in history books as the impeached President Clinton .
Actually, in the history books I see, he is referred to as “the last legally elected president of the United States.
We are waiting for an actual conviction& you know, like it says in the Constitution& .due process and all that?
You mean, the way you are still waiting for an actual conviction of Clinton before you hammered him for his alleged behavior? Or is that the way you have moved on from this incident from eight years ago and have started focusing on the institutional corruption of the party who promised to “bring back civility and morality to DC”?
Oh, wait…
I guess Pedro hasn’t heard about JA’s Blackberry.
Don’t forget Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Safavian. And maybe Mr. Cunningham.
[...] se to the probe said Wednesday in challenging a published report. Once again, Howard Dean is right. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every [...]