Comments on: Abramoff’s Cooperation Reportedly Throws Monkey Wrench Into GOP Machine

By: queer as folks

queer as folks — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:31:46 +0000

great post and comments. I run a blog that focuses primarily on south carolina politics and there is some stuff related to the suncruz deal going on here that I am working on…so I started a new blog called donblackjack.blogspot.com to focus specifically on Jack Abramoff and this scandal. Please come by and check it out and post a comment and get a debate going.

By: The Disenfranchised Voter

The Disenfranchised Voter — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 20:00:53 +0000

President Bush’s re-election campaign is giving up $6,000 from Abramoff.

Unfortunately, that isn’t even 10% of what Abramoff raised for the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign.

“Abramoff raised at least $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney ’04 re-election campaign, earning the honorary title “pioneer” from the campaign.”

See for yourself

By: voicetrack

voicetrack — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 19:33:36 +0000

Tammany Hall! Tammany Hall? Thats the best you can come up with? This is gonna be easy….

By: DumpBlunt

DumpBlunt — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 19:16:09 +0000

We need people to take their places—like Roy Blunt who is in it upto his eye brows!

Please take a look at our site and consider helping!

http://www.draftkreideruscongress.org/

Thanks and this is a good site–keep up the good work!

By: AustinRoth

AustinRoth — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 18:55:40 +0000

I doubt there are very many voters who were affected by a 150 year old scandal.

And there are more voters that know the name Grant than Boss Tweed, as if that matters. But none of them relate today’s politicians with them, anymore than they do Whigs or No-Nothings.

By: DougJ

DougJ — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 17:56:20 +0000

I can’t really believe that any serious follower of politics would reference a corrupt political machine from the mid-1800′s through the early 1900′s as a reason to distrust the current Democrats.

Voters have longer memories than you think. I’ll wager that, even now, more voters know the name “Boss Tweed” than know the name “Jack Abramoff”.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 17:23:10 +0000

If that’s aimed at me then I think you need to re-read my post or see an eye doctor. With that I’m out the door and I really have to choose between posts and comments due to my schedule. I’d only urge you and other readers to read what I WROTE and not what is assumed I wrote again. So far there are in fact no reports that any Demcrats received donations. Again, it is a REALITY that if it turns out that some Democratrs are ensared in this too that the GOP will take that and run with it in 2006. Saying that won’t happen or that the facts might indicate more GOPers were involved or even that it was 99.999 percent a Republican
scandal will not prevent operatives from spinning it that way. It is a fact that this is what will happen in 2006. Right now the talk show hosts are saying its a bipartisan scandal when there is no indication yet that it is. (And I will not be able to do more comments today due to my schedule; it’s either comment or post and I will opt for the latter…and I’m out the door now..)

By: Ed

Ed — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 17:12:06 +0000

Can you really say with a straight face this is not a direct result of the sleazy Delay/Norquist K Street Project creating a slush fund to finance a permanent Republucan Majority? This is a Pay-for-Play influence peddling scheme and saying that a few Democrats also received donations from his clients does not make it bipartisan.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 16:49:22 +0000

But I never said that. I’m talking about in cold, political terms when they run in 2006. Not in my view. I am very intolerant of this kind of stuff. I’ve made no bones about it in other posts and alluded to it above: Gingrich had a point when he railed about the rampant corruption of Congress when the Democrats were in control their last few years. If the Democrats had been smart they would have cleaned up their act at least a bit but if you recall there were some scandals then plus the way it was set up in terms of power politics. What has happened is that the GOP came in pledging to do things differently and have morphed into the Democrats that they once reviled. That’s the real story of what has happened. Have they treated the minority party any BETTER than the way they sought to be treated when they were in the minority? Have they also run a more pristine operation in terms of special interest money? And because the GOP is in control and the situation is bad if more and more revelations come out documenting corruption than there needs to be a change. That’s why our system is set up so there’s more than one group running the show. YES: the crime remains THE SAME even if it shows there is Democratic
linkeage on any kind of a significant ($500 to a Democrat won’t do) scale. But in sheer political terms if this scandal involves a lot of Demcrats as well then it’ll be easier for GOP candidates to say it’s bipartisan. Right now you have that being thrown around on talk shows and by partisans when there is no official indications so far that THIS scandal involves influence peddling to Democrats. This appears to be something tied into the way the GOP runs Congress…which brings us back to my post, and the LA Times piece.

By: AustinRoth

AustinRoth — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 16:48:47 +0000

Tammany Hall? Are you serious? Why not talk about the Grant scandals being the basis for never trusting any Republican administration?

This is why people question if you are real, or just some troll saying outlandishly stupid things to get a response.

There are plenty of more current examples, after all, and for Republicans as well.

By: alan

alan — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 16:35:15 +0000

What irritates me is statements like this:

>The GOP’s saving grace in that would be if the >investigation reveals some equally extensive Democratic >corruption in this as well.

Wrong. The Republicans have been trying to make this claim that if the other guy did it, it’s all ok.

It isn’t. The crime remains the same. The fact that itler killed lots of people doesn’t justify offing your mother.

Now they seem to have persuaded you of their relativistic morality. If both sides are found in massive piggery it just increases the scope of the tragedy.

By: carpeicthus

carpeicthus — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 16:24:53 +0000

Haha, DougJ gets around.

By: K. Gregory

K. Gregory — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:49:13 +0000

So let me get it straight: that means if Newt railed agatinst the Democrats who were once in charge and terribly corrupt, that this means we should forget about or not consider booting Republicans when they do the same thing. Can you work “Clinton did it too” into your sentence? I can BET if this was a Democratic Congress and Abramoff was a Democratic lobbyist you would not be railing against the press about it calling him one. Your whole thing seems to be to respond to each and everything you see on this site with a strictly partisan take on it. But you’re really not scoring points for your team with independent people who read it because it’s so evident that your whole focus is what helps the party you like maintain power. I like reading your comments because it is a different perspective than standing back and just looking at a situation but they are quite predictable, no matter what the issue is. You CAN belong to a party and condemn or at least not condone improper behavior, you know. It actually strengthens a party if members of it insist certain types of behavior are out of bounds. Tammany Hall is irrelevant as a defense for this behavior.

By: DougJ

DougJ — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:37:48 +0000

After Tammany Hall, the Democrats have no credibility on the corruption issue. The Democrats have a horrible record of corruption, and I suspect that most of the illegal deeds done here will be done by Democrats as well.

I find it offensive that the press calls Abramoff a “Republican lobbyist.” What does party affiliation have to do with being a criminal? Would they call Jeffrey Dahmer a “democractic serial killer”? I don’t think they would.

What we’re seeing here is an attempt to criminalize politics. The Democrats can’t win at the ballot box so they try to win in the court room.