Comments on: Abramoff Matters

By: factcheck

factcheck — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:01:38 +0000

Good summary Tom- I will add- when confronted with facts implying a moral, ethical, or legal failing of a Republican or right-wing person, compare the action to an unrelated President Clinton action, and claim the moral high ground.

It’s the Factcheck Universal Clenis Knowledge Evasion Doctrine.

By: (: Tom :)

(: Tom :) — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:01:07 +0000

When the facts are squarely opposed to the spin you’re trying to create about the point that is being debated*, put out lies to “balance” the facts, change the point being debated about (typically known as “moving the goalposts”), and then project your lying hypocrisy onto your opponents. Dugger of the Bloviating Deception Association is a classic example of this standard trick in the Repugnicant playbook.

This has been today’s lesson in Reich Wing Logic** 101

* – like, say, when a Publican bagman with ties to the Mob is caught red-handed bribing Publican officials.

** – or lack thereof

By: Zappa

Zappa — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:01:07 +0000

You can cut and past the link…but it is only a joke…I was hoping for the picture…

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:01:53 +0000

I get this:

ERROR
The requested URL could not be retrieved

——————————————————————————–

While trying to retrieve the URL: http://localhost:10141/blogger/8045/1753/1600/bush_abramoff2.jpg

The following error was encountered:

Access Denied.

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:01:52 +0000

Weird. Must be at your end.

Anyway, it’s a photoshop of “Goodfellas” with Bush’s head on Joe Pesce
and Abramoff’s on the other guy. Bush is blasting away with a .45 at
some hapless schmuck. Captioned;

Wash. D.C
August 23, 2003
Choctaw Casino-Card game goes sour

(You had to be there)

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:01:36 +0000

Yeah, blogger doesn’t allow you in unless you’re on the blog. Can you either post the blog or email me the pic, pls.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:01:49 +0000

‘cleo, are you being funny? Or did your link break?

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:01:48 +0000

It’s working

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:01:07 +0000

Here's one of the photos the WH is reluctant to release. http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/8045/1753/1600/bush_abramoff2.jpg

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:01:18 +0000

Funny thing about that list from the Washington Post that Farris linked a while ago…this one.

The little snippet from the list includes the names of three Democrats who were supposedly on a list titled “Coushatta Requests”: Carnahan, Cleland, and Daschle.

If you go look at the opensecrets.org database, you find that Carnahan and Daschle never received any money from the Coushatta tribe. Cleland, listed for $2000 on the list shown in the Post, received $500.

Like I said…funny.

By: frameone

frameone — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:01:03 +0000

I love it. Save tries to smear Dems by pointing to an article the provides a most succinct description of the utter whorish hypocrisy of the Religious right:

“Abramoff also worked with former Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed to whip up anti-gambling fervor in Louisiana. In the e-mail below, Abramoff tells his associate Michael Scanlon that Reed had recruited evangelical leader James Dobson to provide radio ads opposing any more casinos, and that Abramoff would send Reed money to pay for the ads.”

Reed and Dobson both whip up anti-gambling righteousness to benefit an Indian casino that paid them well for their services?

Wait, look over there, Democrats received legal campaign contributions.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:01:56 +0000

Thanks for proving my point: you have no idea what the scandal is about.

Did Democrats receive campaign fund contributions from Indian tribes?
Yes, absolutely.

Is the scandal involving Mr. Abramoff about campaign contributions?
Not remotely.

Did Mr. Abramoff give money to Democrats?
Never.

Did clients of Mr. Abramoff give money to Democrats?
See above.

Did Mr. Abramoff instruct his clients to give campaign contributions to Democrats?
It would seem so, based on the Washington Post’s reporting?

So the Democrats are involved in the scandal too?
No.

Why not?
The scandal isn’t about campaign contributions. It’s about fraud, money-laundering, and bribery. Mr. Abramoff defrauded his clients, laundered the money through fake nonprofits, and funnelled it to Republicans. Republicans only.

Isn’t accepting a campaign contribution the same thing as accepting a bribe?
Were you born yesterday?

By: TomY

TomY — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:01:52 +0000

Gotta love Abramoff’s own bio from hiw old law firm: “Jack is directly involved in the Republican party and conservative movement leadership structures and is one of the leading fund raisers for the party and its congressional candidates.”

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:01:50 +0000

"Out, damned spot!" Lady McBeth http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007536.php

By: Impor

Impor — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:01:35 +0000

Fact-Henry Ford’s business took money from businesses ‘associated’ with the Nazi Party before WWII! Henry Ford was a Nazi?

Fact-”Not one dime from Jack Abramoff” went to Dems.

Fact-Indian tribes continued to donate to Dems, who they had a long established, well documented relationship with, even after they began donating to convicted briber and publicly documented Republican fundraiser Jack Abramoff.

Fact- Save Farris is not being truthful in his postings on this subject.

Fact-No matter how hard you try you can’t pin accepting money from convicted briber Jack Abramoff on the Dems. Publicly documented facts do not support your position.

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:01:26 +0000

Fact; Several democratic legislators occasionally enjoy a round of golf.

By: TomY

TomY — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:01:24 +0000

Hey, I can get behind the idea that there are dirty Democrats, and even some connected to Abramoff. I can also get behind the fact that Republicans bear the overwhelming guilt in this case. But Dean didn’t lie when he said no Democrats got money from Abramoff. But the Republican strategy on this from the beginning has been to muddy the waters as much as possible in order to make this scandal seem bipartisan. And it isn’t. Abramoff was selling access to the powerful in Washington. And the powerful in Washington these days all have a big (R) by their names. Not only that, but the Republican leadership got to where it is precisely because of it’s comfort selling access, and because of using that salesmanship to make lobbying into a wholly Republican affair. This is a calculated strategy on the part of the GOP that helps them win a base of power in Washington and also to maintain party discipline internally. As a scandal, it has next to nothing to do with the Democratic party at all, and every time you GOP apologists come into one of these threads to vomit forth your “Dems are corrupt too!!” nonsense, you directly aid and abet this type of systemic corruption.

By: Impor

Impor — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:01:12 +0000

TomY-Your argument against abetting illegal influence peddling won’t hold water with S-F. Like many a lottery ticket buyer he imagines that he’s on the gravy train too. In the end he’ll suffer the same fate as the tribal councils, anti-gay marriage whackos, prayer in school advocates, etc. etc., who the Republicans view as a fundraising ATM. Rattle the bars and get some cash out of ‘em but once the dust settles ignore and belittle them. The rich man is not your friend………

By: mjb

mjb — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:01:06 +0000

I have this problem when I talk to my conservative co-workers also. They have a fundamental inability to distinguish acceptible political spin (factual statements which accentuate the positives, while leaving it to your opponent to point out the negatives, ie. “Bush is proposing to lower the retirement age for social security” while leaving it to the other side to say that it’s only for those who are younger than 55 right now) and lies (“Abramoff and his associates gave money to the Dems”). And with this there is no way to spin it so they just lie. They can’t say “Dems accepted money from Abramoff clients” because it’s so easy to blast out of the water as hypocritical. So they just lie and change the entire debate. Wouldn’t you if you had the media trained in the “don’t be a stickler, you know what I meant so lay off” school of journalism?

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:01:04 +0000

What’s wrong?

FACT: Dems accepted money from Abramoff clients.

FACT: Dean lied about these contributions when he said Dems took “not one dime.”

FACT: Democrats want to tar & feather Republicans with receiving “millions of dollars from Abramoff”, yet if Dems are going by the standard of “Indian Tribes don’t count” in order to escape culpability, the dollars associated w/ the Abramoff scandal drops precipitously.

FACT: Republicans are liable for the brunt of the scandal.

FACT: Dems aren’t clean either, yet they’re unwilling to admit it.