PDA

View Full Version : Republicans desperately try to spin Abramoff



ljb5
01-05-2006, 11:35 PM
Predictably, we've been hearing a lot about how the Abramoff scandal was not just limited to one party. The Republicans are desperate to try to cast some blame on Democrats.

Let's keep some simple facts in mind:

</font> Every person yet indicted is a Republican</font> Every person reported to be under threat of indictment is a Republican</font> Abramoff's direct contributions were given only to Republicans</font> Tom Delay's former aide Michael Scanlon has plead guilty.</font>The Republicans are spreading some real whoppers.
For example, they accuse Harry Reid, (D-Nevada) of taking money from Abramoff -- when in fact, he received a donation from one of Abramaoff's victims -- not from Abramoff or any of his co-consipirators.

ljb5
01-05-2006, 11:40 PM
Of course, I'm not saying the Democrats are perfectly clean. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that a few were involved in this mess.

But let's not kid ourselves: this is a Republican scandal. Abramoff was not a closeted Democrat or even a bipartisan player.

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-06-2006, 12:11 AM
Wrong again,ljb. That flurry of Republican activity in the distance is not spinning. Look again. The Neocons are digging foxholes.
They seem to be having limited success because they're trying to delete e-mails at the same time.

Charlie

"Go, go, go Johnny go, Johnny be bad".

Ross M
01-06-2006, 01:33 AM
Bigot:

"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Rick Tyler
01-06-2006, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by ljb5:
Let's keep some simple facts in mind:

</font> Abramoff's direct contributions were given only to Republicans</font>The Republicans are spreading some real whoppers.
For example, they accuse Harry Reid, (D-Nevada) of taking money from Abramoff -- when in fact, he received a donation from one of Abramaoff's victims -- not from Abramoff or any of his co-consipirators.The payment part of it was bipartisan:
From The Washington Post:

Democrats' Travel Costs Linked to Lobbyist

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 4, 2005; Page A01

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff paid at least a portion of the expenses for two Democratic members of Congress and two staff members to then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) during a pair of trips in the mid-1990s to the Northern Mariana Islands, according to a former Abramoff secretary and travel records published on the Internet yesterday.

The payments represent two new instances in which lawmakers and staff members on overseas trips had their expenses initially covered by a registered lobbyist despite a blanket ban in congressional ethics rules on direct payments by lobbyists for travel-related expenses.

The two congressmen were James E. Clyburn (S.C.), now vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, and Bennie Thompson (Miss.), now the senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee.

Jan. 4, 2006, 10:29PM
Lawmakers dump contributions given by former lobbyist
Congressional elections could be harmed by scandal

By JULIE MASON and SAMANTHA LEVINE
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - An encroaching political scandal that threatens to skew this year's congressional elections prompted President Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay and other lawmakers Wednesday to dump campaign contributions from former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

(...)
The Bush-Cheney '04 campaign will donate $6,000 to the American Heart Association, the amount directly contributed by Abramoff, his wife, Pam, and one of his Indian casino clients, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Abramoff raised at least $100,000 from other individuals for the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004, earning him "pioneer" status. McClellan said practice dictates that only the money given directly by Abramoff, his wife and clients be returned.

DeLay's campaign will give $15,000, contributed by the Abramoffs from 1995 through 2003, to unspecified charities in the Houston area.

"We saw this money as no longer wanted by the campaign," said DeLay campaign spokeswoman Shannon Flaherty.

(...)
Lawmakers who decided after his guilty plea to donate to charity the campaign money from Abramoff and his clients include House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. (unspecified amount), House Majority Leader Roy Blunt, R-Mo., ($8,500) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., ($2,000).

Several other lawmakers in both parties donated their contributions well before Abramoff agreed to become a government witness.

But U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison will keep $3,000 from the Tigua Indian Reservation, a client of Abramoff's, in 2002.

"Senator Hutchison does not know nor has she received a contribution from Jack Abramoff," spokesman Chris Paulitz said. "The Tigua Indians are her constituents, they have done nothing wrong, and she will not insult them by returning their contribution."
(...)
Calls for reform
Even so, the Abramoff fiasco had Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and the liberal watchdog group Public Citizen calling for significant lobbying reform.

"This is a once-in-a-generation chance to overhaul the system," said Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch. "The challenge is whether the American public is going to get outraged enough to turn that into action."

(...)
Chronicle reporter Kristen Mack contributed to this story.

Bush joins dozens of lawmakers in shedding funds tied to Abramoff

By Jonathan Weisman

The Washington Post


WASHINGTON Republican Party officials said Wednesday that President Bush will give up $6,000 in campaign contributions connected to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, joining an expansive list of politicians who have shed more than half a million dollars in tainted campaign cash.

(...)
Abramoff raised more than $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign, making him an honorary Bush "Pioneer." The campaign is giving up only the $6,000 that came directly from Abramoff, his wife and one of the tribes the lobbyist represented. The money will be donated to the American Heart Association.

(...)
At least 24 politicians have now pledged to relinquish $515,199 in Abramoff-tainted campaign cash, including some of the most powerful Republicans in Washington. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., will give up at least $60,000. DeLay has pledged to donate $57,000 in Abramoff-linked contributions to charity. And acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt, R-Mo., plans to shed the $8,500 that Abramoff and his wife donated to his political-action committee.

All but three of the 24 politicians getting rid of the contributions are Republicans. The three Democrats Sens. Max Baucus of Montana, Richard Durbin of Illinois and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota have pledged to refund a total of $97,000 in contributions.

A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Reid has no intention of shedding the $47,000 he has received from members of Abramoff's lobbying team and tribal clients.

"Abramoff was a Republican operative, and this is a Republican scandal," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. "Any effort by Republicans to drag Democrats into this is doomed to failure." (emphasis added)

The half-million in pledged refunds are a fraction of the $5.3 million that Abramoff, some of his lobbyist colleagues and tribal clients showered on 364 federal candidates and campaign committees between 1999 and 2004. About 64 percent of that money went to Republicans. About 35 percent went to Democrats, and 1 percent went to candidates unaffiliated with the two parties. (emphasis added)

(...)

ljb5
01-06-2006, 08:21 AM
Rick -- that's why it's called "spin."

Look closely at the donations. Abramoff and the others who have plead guilty, have been indicted or are under threat of indictment donated (almost) exclusively to Republicans.

So if you look at the illegal contributions, it's all Republican.

If, however, you start looking at the legal contributions from those defrauded by Abramoff, those who had some type of relationship with him -- or those who maybe once stood next to him in an elevator -- then yes, you can stretch if far enough to cast a little shadow on some Democrats.

It's just a matter of changing definitions until you find what you want. Like how "absence of WMDs" became "presence of WMDs program related activities." If you don't find what you're looking for, spin it!

Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised to find that a few Dems were involved, but right now, -- if you stretch -- it's still nearly 2-to-1 Republican - and that's counting a lot that clearly isn't illegal.

If you look at the truly illegal stuff, it's darn near 100% Republican. And if you look at the guys going to jail -- they're Republicans.

[ 01-06-2006, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

uncas
01-06-2006, 08:25 AM
I think it makes sense to see who he blows the whistle on before we judge...I think it is more than just Rep...involved....When money is concerned, is there really a political party...It's the individuals, their greed and their high opinions of themselves.......which come right after their election to the congress or senate

ljb5
01-06-2006, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by uncas:
When money is concerned, is there really a political party...It's the individuals, their greed and their high opinions of themselves.I agree with you there.

It's just that, ten years ago, that's not at all what the Reps were saying.

Ten years ago, they said it was just the Democrats. Now they say it's everyone.

When a Democrat gets caught, they say they are different. When a Rep gets caught, they say they are the same. That's why it's called "spin."

In this case, I think it makes a lot of sense to wait until the whistle blows before we judge -- but when the Reps start releasing lists of Democrats, that's not really waiting for judgement, is it?

[ 01-06-2006, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

uncas
01-06-2006, 08:46 AM
I still hold to my previous statement...WAIT!
I have heard that the numbers of congressmen and senators on that list may be close to 100...and as little as 20...They are not all republicans...nor are they all democrats.
This lobbyist...when it comes to making money, did not play party favorites...he was working to line his own pockets...and based on the fine he received...26million...he did very well.
So...WAIT before ya jump....ljb5

ljb5
01-06-2006, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by uncas:
So...WAIT before ya jump....ljb5Sounds like a good plan.

Tell that to the Republicans who are frantically compiling lists of Democrats.

If you'll notice, I drew attention to those who have already been indicted and/or plead guilty.

[ 01-06-2006, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

uncas
01-06-2006, 08:53 AM
Let's reverse this...list those ya think are honest politicians in high gov....I bet no matter who you put on that list...someone will have a story or a negative comment.
They did not nec. get into congress or the senate with their good looks alone...Nor was getting into office cheap...
Ex. the Sen...who died in Dec....from Wis. or MN...One run for the Senate cost him $178.00...now he may have been basically honest...and actually put together an award given to those who accepted...gifts...for pork...
God...can't remember his name...It'll come to me...Died on Dec. 15th...

ljb5
01-06-2006, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by uncas:
Let's reverse this...No thanks, I'm not into diversionary tactics.

"Look over there -- and talk about something else!"

When Republicans are in it up to their necks and tell you to reverse the subject -- that's spin.

(I think that was Bill Proxmire.)

[ 01-06-2006, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

uncas
01-06-2006, 09:03 AM
I was not changing tactics....and certainly not for political reasons here...those who broke the law...regardless of party should be accountable....Dem...Rep...Ind....Idiot...
All I am saying is that...having little faith in any of our higher politicians.....I am just saying that they all have something to hide...
And yes...Proxmire...thanks...

In the old days...Being a politican was an avocation.and a place where one could do "good"..now it is a professional life time job...

uncas
01-06-2006, 09:07 AM
Norman...I'm gonna wait to see who falls..and is indicted....Even the news hasn't listed those on the list...We all maybe surprised....
As far as Kennedy is concerned....He is just following family tradition...as if he needs the money...Like father like son.
Obviously you won't wait...can't help that...
When I was an EMT...and I had a call involving two babies...On arrival..always went to the one who was not making a sound...as that one was most likely in worse shape...the screaming infant...well...he was screaming....Same maybe true here...except we are discussing politicans...

uncas
01-06-2006, 09:16 AM
Yes...to your question about my religion...
Now if you want ratios...Look at the proportion of Kennedy clan members who have been caught...arrested.involved in questionable activities..including in-laws...etc. as opposed to those who havebn't been...
So...maybe the younger Kennedys are expecting us to react like Christians.
There is another saying...the acorn doesn't fall too far from the tree...

and of course Norman...being a rabid democrat...you would not know much about the younger Kennedy from RI.... :D

[ 01-06-2006, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: uncas ]

uncas
01-06-2006, 09:27 AM
OKAY...closet Democrat then... :D
Well...if he returned some money...where am I wrong in my assessment of his ethics....?
I mean ya posted the example....Right.....!!!!! :confused:

uncas
01-06-2006, 10:00 AM
You're referring to Patches? He didn't return the money, arguing that it didn't represent undue influence. (norman)
Now that sounds like a spin....I doubt this lobbyist would have wasted some money on him unless there was a reason...
I think that this whole mess is gonna be lake size in a month or so...Regardless as to party...
Again, I'm gonna wait before I blow my horn on this one...
To me...what is going on in Congress/Senate regarding behavior...is so ingrained...it has nothing to do with party lines.
As far as more republicans being...supposedly on the list I have not seen yet...makes sense...they are tech. a majority...If the roles had been reversed, it would be a majority of democrats everyone is complaining about or pointing fingers at....
This is not a party issue...in the sense of being a rep. or dem...etc...this is all about greed and power....thoise who are greedier, more powerful...well, they are the ones who are suseptable to bribes....Human nature.
Would not be a bad idea to keep the lobbyists outta Washington but it ain't gonna happen.

High C
01-06-2006, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by uncas:
....Even the news hasn't listed those on the list...We all maybe surprised....But they have:

40 of the 45 Democrat Senators have accepted money from Abramoff:

* Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received At Least $22,500
* Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Received At Least $6,500
* Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Received At Least $1,250
* Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received At Least $2,000
* Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Received At Least $20,250
* Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received At Least $21,765
* Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received At Least $7,500
* Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Received At Least $12,950
* Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received At Least $8,000
* Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received At Least $7,500
* Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received At Least $14,792
* Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received At Least $79,300
* Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least $14,000
* Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Received At Least $2,000
* Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Received At Least $1,250
* Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received At Least $45,750
* Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received At Least $9,000
* Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received At Least $2,000
* Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received At Least $14,250
* Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Received At Least $3,300
* Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least $98,550
* Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received At Least $28,000
* Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Received At Least $4,000
* Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received At Least $6,000
* Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least $29,830
* Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least $14,891
* Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received At Least $10,550
* Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received At Least $78,991
* Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received At Least $20,168
* Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least $5,200
* Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received At Least $7,500
* Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received At Least $2,300
* Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received At Least $3,500
* Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Received At Least $68,941
* Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Received At Least $4,000
* Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received At Least $4,500
* Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received At Least $4,300
* Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least $29,550
* Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received At Least $6,250
* Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Received At Least $6,250

Yeah, it's a Republican thing. :rolleyes:

uncas
01-06-2006, 10:23 AM
Who compiled the list...want to see both sides....and compare....
Seems like outta 100 Sen...well...we are gettin up there...if this is a start...
So...gonna wait for the entire list and only the lobbyist in question can accurately give them out...with proof..and not possible accusations of conduct unbecoming...if that exists on the hill. :D

edited...to add...see I'm being fair minded here....a list of democrats is not enough.... :D

[ 01-06-2006, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: uncas ]

ljb5
01-06-2006, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by High C:
40 of the 45 Democrat Senators have accepted money from Abramoff:High C fell for it!

That's not "money from Abramoff" -- it's money from him, his clients, his associates, his victims or anyone who ever met or worked with him, or maybe just passed him in the hallway.

If you cast the net wide enough, you can catch anyone you want.

That's called 'spin.'

ssor
01-06-2006, 10:42 AM
Uncas, Does William Proxmyer ring any bells?

Garrett Lowell
01-06-2006, 10:45 AM
I'm mighty disgusted with the Reps right now. But aside from that, I heard that Abramoff gave out up to 20 mill. Where'd he get that kind of money? If it didn't come from him, then I'd have to say that his "moolah" suppliers must share some culpability as well.

High C
01-06-2006, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
Can you cite the source of the list, High C? Does the list represent lobbying money in general, or money specific to Abramoff? It's money that was funneled through his clients, much of it Indian tribes, and other clients of his, and directly from him. Money that got to individual Senators through his actions.

Some people might think this cash can be laundered with smoke and mirrors, some think otherwise.

I copied this to a text file last night on another computer, so I don't remember the source, but I saw the same list in several places. If I get to the other machine later today, I'll check the history.

Probably rushlimbaugh.com, or freerepublic, or newsmax, right? ;)

uncas
01-06-2006, 10:52 AM
ssor...yup...that's who it was...ljb5 posted his name as well...For the life of me...couldn't remember his name...
A senior moment I suppose... :D

High C
01-06-2006, 10:52 AM
Ahh, here we go, it's from the National Republican Senatorial Committee, a partisan source if ever there was one.

Lying Republicans (http://www.gopsenators.com/hottopics/glasshouses_senate.aspx)

ssor
01-06-2006, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by uncas:
ssor...yup...that's who it was...ljb5 posted his name as well...For the life of me...couldn't remember his name...
A senior moment I suppose... :D Happens to me all the time. The other night my wife and I were reading and I said to what's her name........

troutman
01-06-2006, 11:07 AM
somebody earlier said we should wait and see who's implicated. Waiting is for the courts; we're chatroom people, we're supposed to jump to conclusions. And post bias info from the RNC.
Billy Sol Estes was the Dems. . . .this is a Reep show for sure.

uncas
01-06-2006, 11:08 AM
troutman...guess that was me and I am somebody... :D

High C
01-06-2006, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
... selective extraction of the data...The "selective" data indicates that 40, not 2, Senate Democrats took Abramoff cash.

Are you disputing the data? I'm sure the Democrat counterpart to this Committee will do so, if that's possible. We'll see soon enough....

Garrett Lowell
01-06-2006, 11:28 AM
"A related story: The Pat Roberston pronouncment that Ariel Sharon is reaping the wrath of God for dividing Bethlehem.... how can it be that this guy deserves ANY respect as a religious leader? "

You mean as a human being. Calling Robertson a religious leader is the same thing as calling a dog turd a rose. It is what it is, and so is Robertson.

As far as Abramoff goes, I'm shocked that any Republican or Republican supporter can stand up and say with a straight face "The Dems are so crooked they did it, too". It's quite irrelevant. The Reps need to stand up and say "We're cleaning house, and we're not going to stand for this type of behaviour". I'm disappointed, and I know it's not going to happen. Giving the money back? So would a shoplifter do after the store security guards grabbed him, if that would get him off the hook. The tiny shred of confidence I had left in the Republican leadership is now gone. I can no longer support this group. It's a sad day for me. So much for the reform party. It's likely to turn into the parole party.

uncas
01-06-2006, 11:41 AM
Norman...are ya sure you're not a democrat....?
I mean ya hit republicans in general enough and seem to breeze by any democratic arong doing....
At least your posts are not unbiased...a definite lean to the left...just don't fall over...

edited to add...I rarely see you as being objective...in your statements....In fact, you compete with the rail line...full steam ahead in only one direction...Just an observation...not a criticism necessarily..
Gonna review some of your posts to see if you ever had anything comlimentary to say about anything from a republican...I wonder how far back I'll have to go..., :D

[ 01-06-2006, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: uncas ]

ljb5
01-06-2006, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
... selective extraction of the data...The "selective" data indicates that 40, not 2, Senate Democrats took Abramoff cash.</font>[/QUOTE]No, it doesn't.

Read it again -- carefully.

It says they took money from "Jack Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients."

That's not strictly correct -- they meant to say he took money from Abramoff or his clients.

Heck, last Christmas I got a gift from my wife or Abramoff!

No Democrats have received money from Abramoff -- and there's nothing wrong with having recieved a contribution from a group that was defrauded by Abramoff.

High C
01-06-2006, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
...If you want to assert somehow that the selectively created list from the Republican senatorial site somehow indicates that Democrats are dirtier than Republicans (at least with respect to Abramoff), I'd respectfully say that you're totally full of s#%t....Neither I, nor the long named Rep committee in question, have asserted any such thing. We are both simply pointing out the hypocrisy of those who claim that this is a "Republican scandal".

It is clearly a Congressional scandal of broad scope. A scandal which, BTW, was made possible by the vaunted McCain/Feingold campaign finance bill which exempted Indian tribes from the rules that the rest of us have to follow. Created quite a highway of cash. I wonder how much support McCain has seen from Indian tribes? Hmmm...

uncas
01-06-2006, 11:56 AM
The reason it might SEEM as if I lean that way has more to do with the intransigence of the conservatives that populate the bilge. SOME of them (not all) are about the most poltiically blinded people I've ever conversed with, unwilling or unable to look inwardly and EVER challenge either their own assumptions, or the popular GOP line, on any issue whatsoever. It is THOSE people that I argue with most, here in the bilge.... uselessly, of course (because I already KNOW that even the best of arguments won't EVER make them even slightly moderate their views), and because the more we discuss the issues, the more their prejudices are revealed. (norman)

Well...fine just replace Conservatives or Republicans in your comments with liberals and Democrats and what do ya have...the same thing....
Interesting that only republicans and conservatives are ignorant...from your perspective...of politics...
And as far as moderating views...do you ever do so...?

uncas
01-06-2006, 12:05 PM
Well Norman...look at the bright side...when I put someone's quotes in my posts...I indicate where they come from...better than some who don't.

pss...edited to add...half the time when the quote button is used...have no idea who wrote the original anyway...I find that confusing as well.

[ 01-06-2006, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: uncas ]

High C
01-06-2006, 12:06 PM
Uncas, I've known a number of folks who call themselves "Independent", and register thusly, who are as devoutly partisan as anyone.

I think it's often done to avoid the taint of association with the inevitably slimy characters who go into politics. There's a certain sensibility to that. There's also sometimes a degree of cowardice. I think it best that we take the good with the bad, and accept responsibility for out own part in what takes place politically.

Being an "Independent" is sometimes a transitional thing, an inbetween phase as a person moves gradually from party to the other. It also is often used as a mechanism for "keeping one's hands clean", IMHO. There is no doubt some number of people who are all over the place idealogically, and find no comfortable partisan home, but in my experience those folks are outnumbered by the extreme partisans who are hiding from the stench of their own political bedfellows.

I sympathize with the temptation! ;)

[ 01-06-2006, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

uncas
01-06-2006, 12:08 PM
High C...the only real reason why I am not an Independent is that Independents can't vote in many of the primaries...and many of the political races are determined by those primaries.

uncas
01-06-2006, 12:10 PM
Does anyone know the exact number of Sen/Congressmen...up for re-election this year?
I have heard it is all 435 Congressmen...Time to get the dust buster out..

High C
01-06-2006, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
...early indications will indeed indicate that most of the money went to Republicans... I don't dispute this. It will be good when the figures are fully released.

The Indian tribe exemption from the limits created an attractive loophole which was exploited by characters like Abramoff. Opponents of McCain/Feingold are likely gearing up for one big "I told you so".

Alan D. Hyde
01-06-2006, 12:17 PM
In $ terms, John McCain benefitted more than anyone else did from the Indian tribe exemption to McCain/Feingold.

But, Jack, DON'T FEED THE TROLL. :D

Alan

High C
01-06-2006, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> There is no doubt some number of people who are all over the place idealogically, and find no comfortable partisan home, but in my experience those folks are outnumbered by the extreme partisans who are hiding from the stench of their own political bedfellows. And you're presuming, or assuming, that I'm in the latter category?</font>[/QUOTE]I offered several "categories" from which to choose. Place yourself as you see fit, or offer your own alternative(s).

I have found myself, at various times, in two of those categories.

First, as a young man in my twenties, transitioning away from a Democrat party which moved far away from where I wanted to be.

Later, as one who sorely tempted to register as a Libertarian, but knew that a Libertarian vote was a wasted vote. The percieved immunization from the dirt of major party politics held a strong appeal. But I felt dishonest in calling myself a Libertarian, while voting Republican. So I stuck it out, even though I am profoundly disappointed in the fiscal irresponsibilities of my party. I can do more to make positive change from within than from without, and I can endure my share of the blame for what goes wrong.

High C
01-06-2006, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by uncas:
Does anyone know the exact number of Sen/Congressmen...up for re-election this year?
I have heard it is all 435 Congressmen...Time to get the dust buster out..I heard that, too! :D

A third of the Senate, as well. ;)

Peter Malcolm Jardine
01-06-2006, 12:27 PM
I can endure my share of the blame for what goes wrong. Endure? Ignore would be a better word. It would be the byword of the American conservative movement at this point in history. It's unlikely that upper middle class conservative america wants to 'endure' anything.

Torture? ignore
Scandal? ignore
international law? ignore.

You can call it responsibility in your world, but the rest of the globe finds it to be repugnant ignorance.

High C
01-06-2006, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:

Torture? ignore
Scandal? ignore
international law? ignore.Peter Malcolm Jardine? Ignore

Rick Tyler
01-06-2006, 01:09 PM
Re: spin

My thesis is that Abramoff was a lobbyist who was ideoogically attached to the right, and funneled lots of money to them. He was also a lobbyist who was being paid to influence Congress and obviously funneled money to Democrats, too. Channeling money through partnerships, paper PACs, and friendly individuals is the classic way to circumvent campaign donation laws.

That The Washington Post and The New York Times are going on record as saying that Abramoff gave campaign contributions to Democrats, and in at least one case allegedly paid for a Democrat junket is much better evidence to me than ljb's undocumented assertions. When the Times and the Post recant their reporting I'll change my mind. The Houston Chronicle was just a bonus.

Also, ljb, are you seriously including the Times and the Post in your list of Republican spinners?

uncas
01-06-2006, 01:19 PM
Rick...ljb5 posted a pic of the tropics and said that was where he was off to...Don't expect a reply....Of course...now I have two questions...where is the money to leave like that...and why isn't there a boat in the pic...? Curiouser and curiouser...

ljb5
01-06-2006, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Rick Tyler:
Also, ljb, are you seriously including the Times and the Post in your list of Republican spinners?I'd like to see those articles. I'd like to see exactly what money they are counting as dirty.

Earlier, High C posted some data and said that it showed that Abramoff gave to Dems --- but if you look closely, you see that it says Abramoff or his victims gave to Dems.

That's not the same thing at all.

The Reps are making a full-out effort to muddy the issue and smear some Dems along the way. It wouldn't surprise me at all if some reputable newspapers were suckered by the spin.

(As far as I can tell, you're right about the junket --- but let's not pretend that makes everything even.)

uncas
01-06-2006, 01:21 PM
ljb5...think tropics...think tropics...what happened missed the boat...? :D

ljb5
01-06-2006, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by uncas:
ljb5...think tropics...think tropics...what happened missed the boat...? :D Leaving in about four hours.

uncas
01-06-2006, 01:24 PM
on a boat? :D

Gary E
01-06-2006, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by High C:
[QB

But I felt dishonest in calling myself a Libertarian, while voting Republican. So I stuck it out, even though I am profoundly disappointed in the fiscal irresponsibilities of my party. I can do more to make positive change from within than from without, and I can endure my share of the blame for what goes wrong.[/QB]How do you change that ?
Are you the setter of Repub policy?
Maybe your the accountant that all the money flows through?

ljb5
01-06-2006, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by uncas:
on a boat? :D I'm flying down, but I plan to do some daysailing once there.

uncas
01-06-2006, 01:28 PM
On what?

ljb5
01-06-2006, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by uncas:
On what?Nothing interesting, I'm sure. Probably a Hobie.

Something I can rent for a half day and launch off the beach.

I know, I know --- boring by your standards, but I enjoy it.

[ 01-06-2006, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

uncas
01-06-2006, 01:33 PM
boats are boats....regardless...as to type and size...I grew up in turnabouts...can't get much smaller than that

High C
01-06-2006, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Gary E:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:
[QB

But I felt dishonest in calling myself a Libertarian, while voting Republican. So I stuck it out, even though I am profoundly disappointed in the fiscal irresponsibilities of my party. I can do more to make positive change from within than from without, and I can endure my share of the blame for what goes wrong.How do you change that ?
Are you the setter of Repub policy?
[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, yes. It's called grassroots politics. The parties function with the labor and input of volunteers.

Precinct chairmen, party Executive Committee membership, campaign volunteers, convention delegates, all help to shape the platform, and actions of the party. It's not total control, by any means, but every member of Congress is well aware that he/she wouldn't be there today without the efforts of these volunteers.

Believe me, they have input.

You want to change the direction of your party, get involved in grassroots politics at the local level. You might be surprised to see how it really works.

ljb5
01-06-2006, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by High C:
You want to change the direction of your party, get involved in grassroots politics at the local level. You might be surprised to see how it really works.I'm glad to hear you believe this.

I have some conservative friends and I've often said that, although I don't share their values, I think they deserve someone to represent them other than this bunch of crooks.

Of course, whenever I mention that I believe in changing the system, I get accused of being an 'activist' and people say I'll never change anything...

TomF
01-06-2006, 02:22 PM
At least in the 2 parties I've been involved with up here, grassroots politics both works, and doesn't. YMMV.

Grassroots have a surprising amount of "stroke" when it comes to putting policies into the "book." But much less stroke when a party is actually in power. When the election's won, power to decide when/whether to implement those policies gets centralized to the executive. At that point, it's "the art of the possible."

Gary E
01-06-2006, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by High C:
[QUOTE]
You want to change the direction of your party, get involved in grassroots politics at the local level. You might be surprised to see how it really works.Sounds like GRUNT work... with NO CONTROL of the money...

You think anyone at that level has any money or control??

Rick Tyler
01-06-2006, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by ljb5:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by uncas:
On what?Nothing interesting, I'm sure. Probably a Hobie.</font>[/QUOTE]Nothing boring about sailing a Hobie. Have a great time.

High C
01-06-2006, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Gary E:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:


You want to change the direction of your party, get involved in grassroots politics at the local level. You might be surprised to see how it really works.Sounds like GRUNT work... with NO CONTROL of the money...

You think anyone at that level has any money or control??</font>No question about it. These characters know that without the "grunt" workers, they'll have to get real jobs. ;)