Stink from Abramoff hovers over Congress (San Antonio Express News)
If Congressional ethics committees want to prove they care about Capitol Hill’s image, they have a mountain of work to do.
A recent Associated Press report on lawmakers’ efforts to help lobbyist Jack Abramoff block a Louisiana Indian tribe’s planned casino documented a situation so smelly that a starving dog would be repulsed.
The AP report revealed that nearly three dozen lawmakers joined Abramoff’s battle against the Jena tribe of Choctaw Indians “while collecting large donations from the lobbyists and his tribal clients.”
“Many lawmakers, including leaders in both parties, intervened with letters to Interior Secretary Gayle Norton within days of receiving money from tribes represented by Abramoff or using the lobbyist’s restaurant for fundraising,” the AP reported.
The article detailed the involvement of House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and others.
Abramoff tied to Dorgan donation, tribe says (John Solomon and Sharon Theimer, AP)
New evidence is emerging that the top Democrat on the Senate committee currently investigating Jack Abramoff got political money arranged by the lobbyist back in 2002 shortly after the lawmaker took action favorable to Abramoff’s tribal clients.
A lawyer for the Louisiana Coushatta Indians told The Associated Press that Abramoff instructed the tribe to send $5,000 to Sen. Byron Dorgan’s political group just three weeks after the North Dakota Democrat urged fellow senators to fund a tribal school program Abramoff’s clients wanted to use.
Senator Reid? Senator Dorgan?
But… but… how can that be?
Because if you read lefty blogs, you’ll come away convinced that Abramoff is the devil spawn of the hated Tom DeLay, and that only Republicans are guilty of misbehaving when it comes to money and politics.
8 comments On A Shock For The Reality-Based Community
Things must be getting tough if the best the other side can find is $5,000 in legal political donations for a tribe to support someone who’s been for Indian gambling rights for quite a while.
Really pales by comparison to $190,000 in illegal corporate donations to Texas State Rep. races … or the $300,000 Farmers Insurance pays to keep an already "friendly" State Rep on their good side for a mold claim on his home … or six-figure sums in the way of clear and obvious bribes to a California congressman, doesn’t it? I mean … FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS!!! Whew … glad we’re really starting at the top with all this sudden concern for corruption among Republican bloggers.
I think you missed the point, which was that neither "side" has a monopoly on the problem of corruption, money, and politics, however much ideologues on either "side" engage in spreading that narrative.
Ideologues shape facts to conform to the version of reality espoused by their "side." That was the point of poking fun at the reality-based community on this topic.
Thanks for confirming the point.
As for a certain state rep you smeared but didn’t name, that’s just the sort of behavior I’m not going to allow in the comments, so it’s time for you to go troll somewhere else. I have no feelings for said state rep one way or the other, but prosecutors charged him with NOTHING while stating formally they found "no evidence of criminal misconduct." Investigators from Ronnie Earle’s office even thanked him for his cooperation in the investigation. If Rick Casey and Edd Hendee want to use their media platforms for gossip and smears on that story, that’s their business. But, that’s not the sort of conversation I aim for here (and I’m not really interested in getting sued by said state rep either).
UPDATE (12-02-2005): And just in case it wasn’t clear from above — although it seems perfectly clear — I really meant that you can go troll somewhere else. Your brand of commentary isn’t welcome here. Thanks.
Related. From Reality-Based Matt Yglesias:
"The Republican establishment doesn’t go in for mumbo-jumbo and petty corruption just for fun, they do it because they have a basically unpopular agenda and they need copious amounts of campaign money and spin to disguise that fact." (http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com…)
I discussed with a friend over the weekend the conflict any human-but-lawful society has: The recognition that "everybody does it" met with the belief that it must be fought regardless.
RAW — This admission was kind of interesting to me: "On the other hand, my track record of political prognostication is pretty bad."
Yes, well, that’s one peril of trying to make reality fit one’s preconceived notions.
After the Clinton impeachment when Republican pol after another was getting ousted for sex scandals, some pundit noted the irony that it’s usually conservative Republicans who get busted for sex and socialist Democrats who get busted for money.
In an earlier thread we briefly and tangentially mentioned the phenomenon of the entrenched party abusing its power, and you kind of reinforced that point for me here. Both parties do it, and it is largely a matter of human nature, I think.
Charlie Wilson has always kind of fascinated me. I haven’t read the book, but it’s one of those that I’ve meant to read (I’m afraid that’s a really long list). He appeals to lots of my "sides" as well, several of which coincide with yours, oddly enough. I have a pretty wide small-l libertarian streak myself, but on selected items, thank you very much, and I suspect my professional political life has been markedly different than yours.
I’m with you; there are already enough Dem v. Rep nasty blog wars. That’s what I like about posting here, the discourse, other than my occasional tendency to go into stump speech mode, tends to be fairly high. Thanks for that.
I’ve been a little hesitant to jump into this thread for a couple of reasons. I thought GW was making a pretty good point, and then I got to the place where he made the gratuitous insult and undercut the whole argument. His underlying point remains valid, however; the degree of corruption surrounding Abramoff, especially regarding the whole Indian gambling mess, is heavily on the GOP side of the aisle. Kevin, you’re absolutely right as well. The Dems are a long way from blameless when it comes to questionable ethical decisions, and the sooner we can get rid of our ethically challenged, the sooner we can more effectively level these kinds of charges (minus the insults, of course).
The other reason I’ve held back is that I’ve always been uncertain about whether the gibes about the reality-based community here have been tongue-in-cheek or derisive. Along those lines, I’d like to point out that the mess in Iraq is perhaps this generation’s definitive example of trying to make reality fit one’s preconceived notions.
Just one more thing. I don’t think Jack Abramoff is the devil spawn of Tom DeLay; I think they’re opposite sides of the same coin.
APC: The references to the "reality-based community" are tongue-in-cheek (and maybe also a little derisive). I’m as amused by that self-description as many folks are amused (although some are outraged) by Fox’s "fair and balanced" moniker. Fox offers a right-of-center approach to news, and sometimes the reality-based community seems a little unreal. I like to have a little fun with it, is all. 🙂
The thing is, I have no interest in this devolving into a Republicans v. Democrats nasty blog comment shootout or some bizarre discussion about ME (who cares?!). I don’t really think an honest person can frame the problem of money/politics/corruption as one party’s problem. Even on Abramoff, I think one would have difficulty:
http://www.noagenda.org/200…
Their perspective is not necessarily mine, but it does help to illustrate the point I’ve tried to make.
Now, to the extent that pols and/or lobbyists are found guilty of breaking any laws — and especially laws that involve public business — they should get whatever punishment is merited. Anyone trying to read anything otherwise in this post is misreading it.
To put my perspective a bit differently — Am I surprised when politicians of both parties behave less than admirably when it comes to lobbyists/money/politics? No. Do I think one party has a monopoly on the problem? No. Do I think whatever party holds more power or key offices tends to get in these messes more than the other party? Yes. Do I think that excuses any illegal behavior? No. Do I think there’s any one reform or even a set of reforms that will fix it? No. Do I think part of the problem is human nature? Yes.
I’m finally reading the book Charlie Wilson’s War. It’s a fascinating tale that I highly recommend for many reasons, not least of which is that it reports on some of the dealing that goes on in Congress, and many of Wilson’s clearly illegal activities. Wilson (a Dem) also helped defeat the Soviets and was a foreign-policy moralist who would probably today be regarded as an evil neocon. So, if I view the world via the prism of my "side" (but what "side?" My GOP side? My small-l libertarian side? My defense-and-strategic-studies hawkish side? My post-Objectivist side? My professional political-risk analyst side? Have I made my point yet?), how am I supposed to regard Wilson?
A secondary point I’ve hit before on this blog is that there’s more to understanding the world (and even the world of politics) than simply reducing it to the two "sides" represented by the Republican and Democratic parties (which, as I’ve also pointed out before, exist for the purpose of winning political elections). I think most readers here would probably agree with that, even though many of us probably tend to vote for candidates of one party more than candidates of the other, maybe much more.
Comments are closed.