feminist blogs

Not sure if the nutroots really want to go there.

Maybe, in the interest of bipartisan ... cleanliness ... they should join the American people over here.

Now that the GOP hogfest at the pork trough is over, the profligate President Bush has decided to play at being a fiscal conservative:

President Bush on Wednesday challenged Democrats taking over Congress to join him in balancing the budget within five years and urged them to cut thousands of pet projects from future spending bills.

Whose "pet projects" is he talking about? After all, the Republicans have been running Congress. Does he really want to cut all the Republican "pet projects"? Will the profligate Republicans still in office go along with axing their earmarks?

Of course, since they were too busy -- or just plain lazy -- to be bothered with passing any spending bills for the 2007 fiscal year, the Democratic-run Congress will have to mop up the mess from last year's Republican-run Congress as well.

Dr. S sums it up well:

He talks about balancing the federal budget without mentioning that he was handed a balanced budget when he took office, mentions No Child Left Behind without mentioning what a failure that is, and mentions the USA PATRIOT Act (let’s not forget it’s a clever acronym) without mentioning what an affront it is to the principles upon which this great nation was founded.

The Bush cheerleaders have suddenly gotten the balanced budget religion, too. They love their hero.

As we knows, Democrats are only committed to increasing their power, not working with Republicans for the greater good.

And Cheney, Ney, DeLay, Abramoff, Libby, Bush, et al. are all selfless public servants. Uh huh.

TexasFreds has a more honest response:

Bush must be drinking again… A balanced budget?? In 5 years?? And he has 2 years left?? And he expects a Dem controlled Congress to spend LESS money than his Republican controlled Congress spent?? Maybe he’s NOT drinking, looks more like he has just lost his mind…

As Capitol Hill Blue reports, Bush also wants to make his tax cuts for the rich permanent. The corporate executives need a break, ya know?

In the Chicago Tribune Swamp, Mark Silva writes:

Bush took aim at "dead-of-the-night'' budget deals that funnel billions of dollars to special projects without any oversight, and he vowed that the government will produce a balanced budget by 2012 -- four years after he leaves office.

Bush is good at that -- starting things he can't finish. One might say it's his specialty.

Frankly, I'm surprised Bush even brought the subject up. After all, we had not only a balanced budget, but a budget surplus, when Bush took office. And now he wants the Democrats to clean up after his mess.

Just like the Democratic leadership of Bill Clinton led to the cleaning up of the similar budgetary mess left by Ronald Reagan and George the Elder, even while the GOP-run House was obsessing over The Blow Job.

Oh this is rich, Knight Ridder (via Sirota):

The Democratic plan resembles the reform agenda unveiled by Republicans the day before, tougher in some parts, more lax in others. Democrats would ban more gifts to lawmakers, for example, but Republicans would ban more junkets.

Both plans would leave unchanged the flow of money to political campaigns, which government reform groups say remains a bigger problem than lavish meals, tickets to luxury skyboxes and junkets.

As if to underscore how some things would remain the same, Democrats later Wednesday used their reform agenda as the key to a new fundraising pitch to supporters, seeking contributions of $35 to $500.

With both parties urging reforms, it was unclear if the Democrats could successfully cast themselves as offering a clear alternative to a country that, as of now, thinks both parties are corrupt.

Again! the Republicans will cast themselves as both extremist AND moderate, or, in this case, "reformer". Democrats decline the national conversation 'til late in the game, and thus lose.

End of story, or would be, except they DO wash, rinse and repeat.

"You cannot take back congressional majorities if, like the Democrats, you propose solutions that are easily blurred by the majority," said liberal strategist David Sirota.

Party leaders hope otherwise, betting that the public will blame Republicans for the scandal surrounding disgraced lobbyist and fellow Republican Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty earlier this month to conspiring to corrupt public officials, among other charges.

Implosion, implosion, implosion forever! ... But then, they never do implode! They are cockroaches, can the Democrats not figure this out?

Couple of quotes from a January 16 piece in the SF Chron:

"The danger is that they are going to talk about a variety of proposals that will look more like window dressing than an institutional change in the way they do business," said Chellie Pingree, national president of Common Cause, a watchdog group pushing for broader change. [...]

"Congress as a whole needs to step back and look at the way it conducts its business," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who has advised lawmakers on lobbying reform. "It's not just lobbyists influencing members of Congress, it's members of Congress shaking down lobbyists for money."

I watched the Dems, Reid, Pelosi, Obama and the Blue Etcetera on parade (apologies to Louise Slaughter, but if she is real, they will drown her out).... I have a lot of hope, don't you... ? I feel so renewed and refreshed.

Cover illustration by Andrzej Klimowski
for Harold Pinter's play,
The New World Order

To say that the "other side" is Dreier, Hastert, Blunt, Cornyn and Frist - and the Red Etcetera is meaningless and a flabby argument... Like a "conversation" about their ''investments'' that I once heard between McAuliffe and Marc Racicot, iirc, they both were Global Crossing boyos. Gag worthy.

Yes, now it is Howard and Ken. Well. To be frank, does not mean much. Mehlman has the support of his party and his president, leader of the party. Howard has state Dems who desperately wish for some grassroots money and a voice against the DC Dems. What will happen with Howard (and to Howard), whose heart is roughly, somewhat, pretty much (life is tentative) in the right place? Hard to say right now... we cannot be certain, not 'til it happens.

Cover illustration by Andrzej Klimowski
for Harold Pinter's play,
One for the Road

I say throw them all over.

---

Technorati tags: Congress Democrats discussion Jack Abramoff lobbying politics rant Republicans

...all you need do is look at Right Wing News' list of "The Twenty Most Annoying Liberals In The United States" to cast aside any doubts. Let's go down the list:

20) Sean Penn Spicoli scores again! This is the first time Madonna's former life partner made the list since 2002, but his publicity trip to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was just too good to pass up. Just think about it: Here we have a very liberal, very pompous actor whose first thought after seeing mega-disaster on TV is, "I bet I could get a lot of press out of this if I went to New Orleans."

You can laugh at Sean Penn for coming across like an overly-serious Spicoli, but I don't laugh at him for dropping everything and going to New Orleans to help people who were suffering and stranded. Maybe John Hawkins prefers bloviating Brownie -- or anyone who cheers for the gubmint.

19) The Huffington Post What do you get when you take a bunch of C-List celebrities, irritating politicians, and liberal hacks, almost none of whom are talented writers, and put them all together in one place? Why, you get the Huffington Post where "enormous talents" like Deepak Chopra, Cindy Sheehan, and Larry David write the same drivel that appears on other left-wing blogs, only with 50% less zing, pop, and entertainment value.

Proper role model: Ann Coulter, who spouts right-wing drivel with pizzazz and an abundance of spittle. (Don't forget the throbbing vein in the forehead.)

18) Helen Thomas Despite the fact that Helen Thomas is no longer even a reporter, she is still allowed to haunt White House press conferences like some sort of ghost of biased journalists' past. This is despite her nasty attitude and the anti-war sloganeering that she likes to disguise as questions for White House Press Secretary Scott McCellan.

Damn those hard questions! She must be a ghost! You can't run a proper power-grab with these old crusties sticking their noses into gubmint business!

17) The Daily Kos Markos Moulitsas Z˙niga and his merry band of moonbat diarists over at the Daily Kos make great, although still annoying, copy. In fact, they're so entertaining that you really don't have to do much more than quote them.

Actually, I find it quite amusing to see Daily Kos labeled "liberal" given the anti-progressivism that seems to pervade discussion there. But then, to the right wing, anyone left of Franco is a "moonbat." (Hmmm....that makes these folks "Franco Americans"! Uh oh! Spaghetti-Os!)

16) Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton The peanut farmer and the pervert almost always make the list for breaking tradition and criticizing the current POTUS. However, Republicans are fortunate that they stay in the public eye because it continuously reminds the American people of what lousy Presidents they were.

Never mind that they're out of office, Clinton and Carter are perennial whipping boys for the wingnuts.
Given that these wingnuts love Bush and his massive deficit spending almost as much as they loved Reagan and his massive deficit spending, I suppose it would only be consistent of them to hate and despise the only two presidents who actually reduced the national debt during their terms.

15) Mary Mapes

Last year, Dan Rather made the most obnoxious liberals list for his relentless promotion and defense of the fake National Guard Memos CBS was flogging. Given that Dan Rather was widely panned for his involvement in "Memogate" and that he no longer has a job at CBS, you'd think everyone else tied into those fake memos would be content to let the whole episode drift into the memory hole.

But, no, bizarrely, disgraced producer Mary Mapes, who was unceremoniously fired by CBS for the part she played in Memogate, decided to permanently tie herself to the story by writing a book that defended the memos as real and attacking the bloggers who proved it was a forgery.

Geez, if all you have to do to piss off the right wing is write a book, it's a wonder they don't dehydrate from all their sputtering. I didn't even know who Mary Mapes was until reading this blurb. Of course, not being a dittohead, I'll probably forget about her all over again.

14) Maureen Dowd

Maureen Dowd, the ranting New York Times columnist whom Democratic Senator Zell Miller once famously referred to as a, "high brow hussy," wrote a book this year moaning how relationships between men and women in America are all screwed up because she hasn't gotten married yet. Hmmmm, Dowd is well paid, famous, and not bad looking for her age. So, what's left that could explain why she hasn't gotten married?

Yes, display your chauvinistic patriarchal attitudes in dismissing a woman. That's classy.

13) The Pro-Tookie Williams Protestors

Tookie Williams, who happily has now been executed, was never actually a very sympathetic character. He was a cold blooded killer who snuffed out 4 lives and never admitted his guilt or apologized to the families of his victims. Moreover, he co-founded the Crips, one of the biggest human scum piles ever to exist in North America and even after he had supposedly reformed, he never gave the police any help in clearing up the numerous Crip related crimes he must have known about.

Yet, because Tookie wrote a few lousy children's books that about 12 people read, there were celebrities coming out of the woodwork to plead for his life.

Again with celebrities. I'm beginning to suspect that this guy's real beef is that he's not a movie star. Too bad. He sure has the ego for it. Of course, who has the time when there are libruls out there being critical of the gubmint? Someone has to do all the hating -- even hating the people you never saw except maybe on a 30-second tv news report. The Hawkins moral: protesting is evil, execution is beautiful.

12) Harry Reid

Did Harry Reid have to shut down the Senate with a ridiculous publicity stunt? Did he have to break Senate tradition by threatening to filibuster the judges Bush selects for the Supreme Court? Did he have to lie and claim Social Security is in great shape and doesn't need to be reformed?

And when did Hawkins stop beating his wife?

11) Randi Rhodes

Randi Rhodes is Air America's flakiest liberal host, which is sort of like being the dirtiest pig at a hog farm. Maybe it's nothing to be proud of, but it sure takes some doing. In Rhodes case, not only is she a trench harpy with a nasty disposition, she's also a conspiracy theorist with a peculiar sense of humor.

Careful, John. Your misogyny is showing again. Nice to know you're an Air America listener. It must be so terrible becoming so enamored with her that you can't just change the station.

10) Ted Rall

What would a most annoying liberals list be without Ted Rall, a man who showed up somewhere on the list every year and actually took top honors back in 2003? Unfortunately for Ted, he has been so distasteful, disagreeable, and just plain nails-on-the-chalkboard annoying for so long that it's almost impossible for him to top himself.

Still, Ted has been busy this year being ... well ... Ted, and he has really had it in for America's soldiers.

Not only did he urge liberals to "drop the 'support the troops' shtick now," he put together a grotesque cartoon that essentially accused Iraqi war vets of being rapists and torturers.

Here's someone else I'd never have heard of, if it weren't for the good ol' right-wing "news." Of course, we know that American military and intelligence personnel have been torturing prisoners in a policy that has been staunchly defended by Bush and especially Cheney. But this Rall guy is really evil -- not because he tortures people, but because he drew a cartoon about it!

9) The Mainstream Media's Katrina Coverage

When it comes to the coverage of Katrina by the mainstream media, the question isn't what did they get wrong, it's what did they get right? It's bad enough that the media shamelessly blamed FEMA for almost every single problem that happened while ignoring the culpability of the locals because they were Democrats, but the press was about as careful with the facts as the Weekly World News is in one of their stories about Batboy. The press wildly exaggerated the overall number of deaths (They were more than 9000 high), the number of deaths in the Superdome, the racial make-up of the people who died, you name it.

Yeah, Brownie really was doing a heckuva job, CNN used CGI to make the stranded white people just look black, and only 1300+ people died! I mean, Jesus, how much attention and sympathy should we direct at an un-American city like New Orleans, anyway? Didn't you see the fetus shape in the hurricane clouds?

8) Newsweek's Quran Down the Toilet Story

You ever made a mistake at work? Maybe you've shown up 30 minutes late or didn't finish an assignment your boss gave you on time? Well, the guys over at Newsweek can top it.

They mistakenly claimed that US soldiers flushed a Quran down the toilet and as a result, Muslims across the world became angry at the US and there were riots "throughout much of the Muslim world" (that) "cost at least 15 lives.".

Yeah. The Quran was only pissed on, kicked and ripped apart, and if Newsweek had only made that perfectly clear, Muslims would have danced in the street instead.

7) Dick Durbin

Defining Quote: "...If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners." -- Democratic Senator Dick Durbin

Yes, with one poorly thought out statement, Dick Durbin, the Democratic Whip in the Senate, managed not only to slur our troops doing interrogations by accusing them of being as bad as the torturers in some of the worst regimes in history, he also simultaneously sent a message to Al-Qaeda saying that Americans are such paper tiger wussies that we even get squeamish about making terrorists who want to kill us a little hot or cold.

Fuck yeah! Torture the muthufuckas! We be bad! We get medieval on evil! You think you've seen evil? America is #1 -- we'll out-evil anybody!

6) Blanco, Nagin, Landrieu, and Eddie Compass: Oh, my!

New Orleans was doubly unfortunate on the day that Hurricane Katrina slammed down on them. Not only was the city built below sea level, but it seems like almost everyone in a position of authority in the entire state from the governor on down were the sort of incompetent, 4th rate, clown college drop-outs you wouldn't trust to run a lemonade stand, much less a state.

But remember, Brownie was doing a heckuva job! Wingnuts love Brownie!

5) John Murtha

John "Cut and Run" Murtha is grindingly annoying not just because he wants American soldiers to tuck their tails between their legs and run from Al-Qaeda as fast as possible in Iraq, but also because of the dishonest way he's been promoted.

The fact Murtha is an ex-marine has been used time and time again as a shield against criticism, as an excuse to falsely claim he's a hawk, and to prop up his credibility when he calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Hail the chickenhawks! They may be afraid to fight, but they'll talk tough to appeal to the right wing's fragile ego and pervasive fear of the other. And they'll send other people's kids to go fight their battles. Anyone who speaks against our chickenhawk leaders is just un-American! (Never mind al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq, and hardly is now.)

4) Ward Churchill

How could we make it through all the most annoying liberals of 2005 without mentioning the biggest walking, talking example of what's wrong with our education system, pseudo-Indian hippy professor Ward Churchill?

Here we have a rabidly anti-American lunatic, who has endorsed fragging, compared the people who lost their lives in 9/11 to Adolf Eichman, and who has been accused of lying about being an Indian, copyright infringement, plagiarism, and simply making up research.

Another name that doesn't ring a bell. Hmmmm.... Are the wingnuts having trouble finding prominent libruls to hate? Or are they just trying to impress us with their enthusiasm and zeal? (Is this Churchill guy even a librul? If our buddy John is right, he sounds more like Ann Coulter or someone from Operation Rescue.)

3) The New York Times

The New York Times started off 2005 by calling for the January elections in Iraq to be postponed and then went from there to deliberately trying to scuttle a classified CIA program used to transport Al-Qaeda. That had to be what they were doing since they published lots of unnecessary details like plane tail numbers and the shell companies that were used. Then, in December, the NYT pointed out to Al-Qaeda and the rest of the world the existence of a classified NSA program that listened in on phone calls between the Jihadi and their American pals. This was despite the fact that President Bush personally asked them not to run the story for national security reasons.

Al-Qaeda should send them a thank-you card.

Translation: If you report on illegal gubmint spying on Americans and secret torture camps, you just take all the excitement out of dismantling the Constitution. Fucking newspapers! What do they think this is? A democracy?

2) Howard Dean

At one point or another, Dean also added that Republicans were 'Evil,' 'Corrupt,' and 'Brain-Dead.'

Gee, it's almost as if you're a Republican, Howard Dean is going out of his way to let you know that he really, really, despises you.

Earth to Hawkins: He's not the RNC chairman. He's not speaking to you, he's speaking about you.

1) Cindy Sheehan

How did an uninteresting, not particularly well informed woman, with wacky liberal views manage to become the biggest story in America this summer? By deftly wielding the corpse of her own son like a light saber to deflect criticism, gain attention, and fatten her own pockets.

Damn this woman! Who does she think she is expressing opinions?! Just because she lost a son in a war based on falsified intelligence doesn't mean she has the right to criticize the gubmint! And the gall she has to dare make money! Only pro-gubmint Republican hacks are allowed to get paid to express opinions! What does she think this place is? A democracy?

Now let's try a simpler exercise: The 20 Most Annoying Conservatives in the United States.

1. Jack Abramoff

2.- 20. The Republican Committee on the Advancement of the Culture of Corruption

21.-??? The Culture of Corruption members at-large

Geez, that's just too easy.

---

Technorati tags: misc blogging civil rights corruption crime Downing Street Memo Guantanamo Bay Jack Abramoff Katrina Michael Scanlon politics Republicans Tom DeLay torture White House world issues

Their biggest challenge, in the end, is that they don't want to reform.

"The problem is that power corrupts, and we simply have too much of it," [Arizona Republican Representative Jeff] Flake said.

You think?

Even President Bush is getting into the appearing-to-reform act.

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

I suppose that means Bush is less than 6% repentant.

All but three of the 24 politicians giving up the funds are Republicans. The three Democrats -- Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) and Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.) -- have pledged to shed a total of $97,000 in contributions. A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said Reid has no intention of shedding the $47,000 he has received from Abramoff's lobbying team and tribal clients.

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

We'll see how that plays. It's not like Senator Reid has an impeccable progressive voting record.

But there's one thing the Post is not mentioning: Indian tribes were giving to Democrats before they were Abramoff's clients. In fact, Abramoff got the tribes to give less to Democrats than usual.

Newt Gingrich says Tom DeLay must go.

"At some point it goes 'Tilt,' " Gingrich said. "You don't have to say Tom is guilty of anything to say they need a new majority leader. A very significant number of House members said to me [Wednesday] morning that the entire world has changed in the last few days" because of the Abramoff scandal.

The world looks different when the chickens come home to roost. And it's even worse when they have a political bird flu.

According to court documents, an unidentified House member received several benefits and favors from Abramoff in exchange for a series of official actions. One of those was the placement of a statement in the Congressional Record critical of the former owner of SunCruz, Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis.

Aides to Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) have acknowledged that he was the unidentified congressman. Ney has said he did nothing wrong, and that he was duped by Abramoff.

Ney translated: "I'm shocked -- shocked! -- that there's corruption on K Street!"

These kinds of weaselings by Republicans regarding their "culture of corruption" are drawing harsh criticism from Gingrich, who seems to be positioning himself for a return to public life.

"There are a series of behaviors, a series of attitudes, a series of crony-like activities that are not defensible, and no Republican should try to defend them,'' he said. "The danger for Republicans is to pretend this isn't fundamental or to pretend that they can get by passively without undertaking real reform.''

But so far, all we're seeing is posing -- in the form of "give-backs" and talk about "reform" legislation.

But it is not clear that simply shedding Abramoff's cash will get lawmakers out of the lobbyists' shadow. According to Abramoff's guilty plea, the contributions were aimed at winning specific favors, such as torpedoing legislation or securing federal contracts.

"You just can't give the money back and forget about what the money was for," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

With that in mind, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) asked Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) just before Thanksgiving to draft a package of lobbying restrictions, according to Robert L. Traynham II, a Santorum spokesman. That effort will run parallel to a push from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has drafted his own lobbying legislation. McCain's partner in an earlier campaign finance effort, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), also has a proposal.

"I will be working with colleagues this session to examine and act on any necessary changes to improve transparency and accountability for our body when it comes to lobbying," Frist said in a statement yesterday. "Some members have already made recommendations to me, or introduced legislation. I look forward to working to secure the continued integrity of the Senate."

I look forward to seeing any integrity at all. It's been a while.

---

Technorati tags: news Congress corruption crime House Jack Abramoff lobbying Michael Scanlon politics Republicans Senate Tom DeLay White House

Just how much has the Republican culture of corruption oozed across the aisle? Are Democrats implicated, too? That's what the Republicans want you to believe. Here's a brief timeline on this question.

June 3, 2005

The Washington Post reports that Democrats received tribal donations.

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an associate famously collected $82 million in lobbying and public relations fees from six Indian tribes and devoted a lot of their time to trying to persuade Republican lawmakers to act on their clients' behalf.

But Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.

Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November.

Democrats are hoping to gain political advantage from federal and Senate investigations of Abramoff's activities and from the embattled lobbyist's former ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). Yet, many Democratic lawmakers also benefited from Abramoff's political operation, a fact that could hinder the Democrats' efforts to turn the lobbyist's troubles into a winning partisan issue....

...According to documents and tribal officials familiar with the Abramoff team's methods, the lobbyists devised lengthy lists of lawmakers to whom the tribes should donate and then delivered the lists to the tribes. The tribes, in turn, wrote checks to the recommended campaign committees and in the amounts the lobbyists prescribed. The money went to incumbents or selected candidates in open seats.

Because of the makeup of his team and the composition of Congress, the Abramoff lobbyists channeled most of their clients' giving to GOP legislators, according to a review of public records. Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), chairman of an Appropriations subcommittee that frequently deals with Indian matters, received the largest amount from the tribes as well as from the Greenberg Traurig lobbyists who helped direct those donations: $141,590 from 1999 to 2004, the study showed.

But Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.) ran second, with $128,000 in the same period. From 1999 to 2001, Kennedy chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which solicited campaign donations for House candidates.

December 3, 2005

On Common Dreams, John Nichols of The Nation writes how Democrats stand to gain from the Republican-branded Abramoff culture of corruption:

To be sure, Democrats have a sorry history of running as reformers. The party's inability to exploit the Enron debacle--at least partly because some Democrats accepted Enron-linked donations--shows there's more to hanging a scandal around your opponents' necks than merely watching it unfold. But because of Abramoff's long and close ties to the GOP establishment, the scandal of this particular lobbyist presents a unique opening. Indeed, while the primary focus should be on House and Senate races, one of the most interesting playouts of Abramoff's troubles may come in Georgia, where his pal from college Republican days, Reed, is running for lieutenant governor. Reed's most aggressive Democratic foe, former State Senator Greg Hecht, has created a model for Democrats seeking to make hay from the scandal by banging away at what he refers to as the Abramoff-Reed scandal. It appears to be working. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Georgia Republicans are worried about polls that show Reed's negatives beginning to move ahead of his positives. If Democrats are smart, they'll recognize that these trends can apply well beyond the borders of Georgia.

December 8, 2005

Non-partisan beltway paper The Hill reports Republicans seek to link Democrats to Abramoff:

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is planning a public-relations offensive tying leading Democrats to lobbyist Jack Abramoff in an effort to neutralize accusations that Republicans have been embroiled in a “culture of corruption.”

The campaign will zero in on Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.); Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin, both Michigan Democrats; and the Democratic Senatorial Committee (DSCC), among others, for taking money from Abramoff’s former clients....

Republicans have spent months trying to blunt Democratic ethics charges. But the new communications blitz — which will include disseminating talking points to Capitol Hill Republicans and flooding local media with information linking Democrats to Abramoff — marks a more coordinated effort to halt the anti-GOP tide.

NRSC spokesman Brian Nick said the campaign committee would “be getting the resources” not only to senators up for reelection but to all members of the Republican Conference “so that they can offensively message that Democrats are playing partisan politics with an issue that involves all of Congress.”

You can't envy the Republicans on this, when their best PR tactic is to say, "But the Democrats are as bad as we are!"

December 15, 2005

Indianz.com looks skeptically at President Bush's attempts to brand the Abramoff scandal as Democrat:

Despite Bush's views, the scandals in Washington have touched Republicans so far. In addition to the indictments of DeLay, Cunningham and a former White House official who represented tribes, Michael Scanlon, a former Republican aide to DeLay, pleaded guilty last month in a scheme to bribe another Republican congressman and defraud tribes out of tens of millions of dollars.

And the majority of Abramoff's money went to Republicans, not Democrats. According to a Washington Post analysis, Republican politicians and political action committees received 63.7 percent of the $5.3 million in contributions made by Abramoff's former tribal clients and associates from 1999 through 2004.

News reports also indicate the Department of Justice is looking at the actions of a half of dozen Republicans in the House and the Senate who accepted money from Abramoff, whose former aides went to work for Abramoff or whose spouses received work as a result of their connections to Abramoff.

Two top GOP operatives -- Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and Ralph Reed, a key Bush fundraiser -- took millions from Abramoff's tribes as well, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee's investigation has shown.

The article finishes with reports on how Republicans are turning on John McCain, and Republican Ben Nighthorse Campbell's putting it all in perspective:

Some Republicans have turned their sights on Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), the committee chairman who initiated the Abramoff probe. They have accused him of using the investigation to go after people who opposed him in the 2000 presidential primary against Bush. McCain has ridiculed the charges and has since said he expects "lots" of indictments of people who were involved.

The committee held five hearings on the matter, four of which were held with McCain as chairman and Dorgan as vice chairman. The first occurred under former chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colorado), who was equally hard on Abramoff and his associates before retiring at the end of 2004.

"For 400 years, people have been cheating Indian tribes, so you're not the first one," Campbell told Scanlon at a November 17, 2004, hearing. "You're the problem, buddy, with what is happening to American Indians."

December 19, 2005

Media Matters examines factually inaccurate statements made by New York Times reporter Anne E. Kornblut on Hardball.

New York Times reporter Anne E. Kornblut falsely stated that Democrats accepted campaign contributions from indicted former lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In fact, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (here and here), only Republicans received contributions directly from Abramoff.

Appearing on the December 16 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Kornblut falsely claimed that Abramoff had given contributions to Democrats. Yet a Media Matters for America search of the Center for Responsive Politics database of campaign contributions did not find any contributions from Abramoff to Democrats or Democratic leadership political action committees.

Although Kornblut amended her statement to claim that Abramoff "had his clients donate to Democrats," her comment falsely suggests that Republicans and Democrats are equally enmeshed in the scandal surrounding Abramoff. In fact, while Democrats have received contributions from Abramoff's lobbying groups and his clients, Kornblut's statement ignores the difference between accepting contributions from groups linked to Abramoff, which is legal and proper, and taking contributions in exchange for official actions, which is illegal, and which is at the heart of the ongoing investigations.

A November 25 Washington Post article identified four lawmakers under investigation in connection to Abramoff -- former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), Rep. Rob Ney (R-OH), and Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA) -- all Republicans.

Fuzzy wuzzy.

December 21, 2005

Bloomberg.com analyzes President Bush's repetition of the Republican defense tactic of trying to implicate Democrats in the Abramoff-GOP "culture of corruption."

Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show. At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats.

Bush's comment about Abramoff in a Dec. 14 Fox News interview was aimed at countering Democratic accusations that Republicans have brought a "culture of corruption" to Washington. Even so, the numbers show that "Abramoff's big connections were with the Republicans," said Larry Noble, the former top lawyer for the Federal Election Commission, who directs the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.

"It is somewhat unusual in that most lobbyists try to work with both Republicans and Democrats, but we're already seeing that Jack Abramoff doesn't seem to be a usual lobbyist," Noble said....

... Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff joined with his former partner, Michael Scanlon, and tribal clients to give money to a third of the members of Congress, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, according to records of the Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service. At least 171 lawmakers got $1.4 million in campaign donations from the group. Republicans took in most of the money, with 110 lawmakers getting $942,275, or 66 percent of the total.

Apparently tribal donations to Democrats actually decreased once Abramoff was guiding their contributions.

Abramoff's tribal clients continued to give money to Democrats even after he began representing them, although in smaller percentages than in the past.

The Saginaw Chippewas gave $500,500 to Republicans between 2001 and 2004 and $277,210 to Democrats, according to a review of data compiled by Dwight L. Morris & Associates, a Bristow, Virginia-based company that tracks campaign-finance reports. Between 1997 and 2000, the tribe gave just $158,000 to Republicans and $279,000 to Democrats....

..."Republicans are bending over backwards to exaggerate the links" between Democrats and Abramoff, said Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "This is a Republican scandal that involves Republican lawmakers doing favors for a Republican lobbyist."

Scanlon, Abramoff's former partner, has pleaded guilty to attempted fraud and corruption of public officials and is cooperating with the Justice Department's investigation. His plea agreement refers to efforts to corrupt U.S. lawmakers, including a "Representative No. 1," identified by lawyers in the case as Ohio Republican Robert Ney.

The other names most frequently mentioned in connection with Abramoff are both Republicans: DeLay, a one-time friend who has cut off contact with the lobbyist, and Senator Conrad Burns of Montana.

December 22, 2005

The AP reports that Abramoff steered Indian tribe political donations from the Democrats to Republicans.

This week, President Bush said it seemed to him that Abramoff "was an equal money dispenser, that he was giving money to people in both political parties."

Historically, tribal money had been going to Democrats almost exclusively. Abramoff changed that.

The lobbyist ordered one tribal client to make hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations. A list, obtained by The Associated Press, earmarked $90,000 of the money for the Republican Party, none for Democrats.

Of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that Abramoff directed the tribe to donate to congressional campaigns, the Republican-Democrat breakdown was 11-to-1.

Who benefitted from Abramoff's influence? Democrats? Hardly.

December 23, 2005

On far-right conservative website Free Republic, flattorney makes claims that Democrats received millions from Abramoff, while obfuscating difference between direct, illegal pay for play and legal donations from Abramoff's clients.

Incumbent Senate Democrat-Affiliated Campaign And Leadership Committees Received Over $729,000 From Indian Tribe Clients And Lobbying Associates Of Jack Abramoff*. (Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Internal Revenue Service Website, www.irs.gov, Accessed April 21, 2005)

40 Of The 45 Members Of The Senate Democrat Caucus:

* 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

I'd like to see a similar list of Republicans. And I'd like to see an admission that only Republicans received money from Abramoff.

December 27, 2005

On semi-conservative Democrat-booster site Daily Kos, dengre presents reported evidence that "ZERO Democrats" took Abramoff money:

It is only true to say that some Democrats received donations from co-workers of Abramoff and/or his clients, but that is different than an direct donation or connection to Abramoff.

And all Democrats are auditing all their connections and purging any funds that they find to be connected to Jack by the thinnest of threads.

Let's stop this GOP Talking Points whenever it pops up. And it will be the talking point of the day when Jack makes his deal--which could come before the end of the year.

The Abramoff scandal is an entirely GOP owned and operated affair. The numbers in the LA Times story should make even the most partisan Republican weak in the knees, but it should encourage Democrats to go on the attack and end the GOP Culture of Corruption!

January 3, 2006

The Hill reports on Abramoff's plea deal:

Abramoff faces a maximum of 30 years in prison and restitution bills topping $25 million as part of the plea agreement, although he will not be sentenced until after his cooperation with the Justice Department is complete. The Justice Department indictment refers to “Representative #1,” widely believed to be Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), with whom Abramoff admitted to setting up a bribery scheme trading lavish gifts for legislative favors....

...“He intends to work with the Justice Department and others to fully resolve all matters of interest, to provide restitution to anyone he has harmed, and to seek absolution from all,” Lowell said.

While Ney is the only lawmaker to report receiving a subpoena in the Abramoff case, several other members of Congress are said to be under scrutiny. Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was a guest on one of Abramoff’s now-notorious golf trips to Scotland; Ney’s Scotland trip is cited in the fraud charges against the lobbyist....

...Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) and Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) are among other lawmakers grappling with the political fallout from their ties to Abramoff.

Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) acknowledged that potential testimony from Abramoff raises the stakes for members and staffers fearing entanglement in the Justice Department probe but said it is too early to tell if the case will have any impact on the makeup of House leadership.

“It certainly takes things up a notch,” Putnam said. “The cloud hanging over us is still too vague for [members] to rally a majority of the conference behind an alternative to what we have now.”

Rest assured more is to come.

Meanwhile, Donald Lambro writes in the Reverend Moon rag Washington Times:

"This year still looks very much like a Democratic year, and the only question is how big a year it will be for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Committee," says veteran elections tracker Stuart Rothenberg.

"At this point, Democratic gains appear to be inevitable," Mr. Rothenberg told his newsletter subscribers last week.

And AP reporter Tom Raum puts the political implications in context:

Abramoff, a former $100,000-plus fundraiser for President Bush with close ties to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud. That cleared the way for his cooperation with federal prosecutors in bringing charges against former business and political associates.

The investigation is believed to involve up to 20 members of Congress and aides and possibly several administration officials.

The timing couldn't be worse, politically, especially for Republicans. Lawmakers who may be indicted could find themselves coming to trial this summer, just ahead of the midterm elections. Around the same time, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is expected to stand trial in the CIA leak case.

DeLay, who had to step down as majority leader in September after a grand jury in Texas indicted him in a campaign finance investigation, is awaiting a trial date. And former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., gave up his seat Dec. 1 after admitting he had accepted $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors.

With so many trials and prosecutions in the works, speculation is swirling over whom Abramoff might bring down and on the possible fallout for others.

"Most seats in Congress are relatively safe this year. But they are not safe from a tsunami," said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato, author of a book on political scandals. "Iraq, plus economic problems, plus these scandals, could produce a tsunami. That's what every incumbent on Capitol Hill has to fear."

Most Americans are convinced that corruption reaching into all levels of government is a deeply rooted problem. According to an AP-Ipsos poll last month, 88 percent say the problem is a serious one, with 51 percent calling it "very serious."

People need to know "that government is not for sale," Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher said in pledging to pursue the investigation "wherever it goes."

Get out the brooms and mops.

---

Technorati tags: news Congress corruption crime Democrats Jack Abramoff lobbying Michael Scanlon politics Republicans Scooter Libby Tom DeLay White House

They say all politics is local. Well, it also seems true that all corruption is personal. The biggest Congressional corruption case perhaps in history cracked wide open, Raw Story reports, when Tom DeLay staffer Michael Scanlon jilted his fiancee to marry another woman.

Scanlon was implicated in the Abramoff scandal by his former thirtysomething fiancee, Emily J. Miller, whom he met in the late 1990s while working as communications director for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), three former associates who worked with Scanlon at DeLay’s office said. Colleagues say Miller went to the FBI after Scanlon broke off their engagement and announced his intention to marry another woman.

When there's smoke, there's fire.

Miller was DeLay’s young press secretary and as communications director, Scanlon was her boss. The two began a secretive office romance and Scanlon eventually proposed marriage, associates say.

In 2003, Miller left DeLay’s office to work at the State Department. Scanlon departed too, partnering with now-indicted conservative lobbyist Jack Abramoff in lobbying for an array of Indian tribes. As Scanlon’s star rose, troubles between the couple mushroomed.

In May 2004, Miller found herself at the center of attention when—while live on air—she ordered a cameraman for NBC’s Meet the Press to stop filming Colin Powell. A copy of the transcript shows Miller, who also used to work as an NBC staffer, as a brusque press aide. Powell eventually ordered that the interview continue and asked Miller to step aside.

What many people didn’t realize at the time, however, is that during the Powell interview Miller was upset because her fiancee, Michael Scanlon, had broken off their engagement, two of Miller’s former State Department co-workers said. While still engaged to Miller, Scanlon had started an affair with a manicurist and broke up with Miller because he planned to marry the other woman, three of Scanlon’s former associates at DeLay’s office said.

Why do I find this hysterically funny? Maybe because Scanlon seems like a total jerk, and his two-timing behavior, done in total arrogance, brought his own comeuppance.

I can't say I have the most respect for Miller, though -- not because she got just revenge as a woman scorned, but because she was willing to let such sleazy corruption slide all slide otherwise.

Read the whole story.

---

Technorati tags: news corruption Jack Abramoff Michael Scanlon politics Republicans Tom DeLay