The RNSC is in a state of desperation. It is now becoming obvious that the republicans will lose BOTH the congress and the senate. And they deserve that. In fact it would be good for the country if the republican party splits in 2 after its upcoming defeat. One party with rational conservatives (i.e. Hagel, Guliani, McCain, etc.) and one with the religious radical right (Bush, Cheney, Allen, Frist etc.) that controls the party now.
Blue you're a hopeless optimist for a dying cause (Liberalism).
The GOP is fighting for this Senate seat against a Conservative Democrat, (hopefully the future of that Party?), Harold Ford.
Now I like Ford, not as much as Zell Miller, but I like him. He's a real Conservative, as opposed to the Liberal Joe Lieberman (I-Conn), whom some nitwit Dems call a "Conservative."
The GOP can't really fault Ford on the issues, as he's nearly as Conservative as Bob Corker and the race is a virtual dead heat - Ford by 0.8% with a 3% margin of error.
Talking about Tennessee and the American heartland, Y'all know about that them thar "fertility gap," don'cha?
According to Arthur C. Brooks;
"According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.
"Alarmingly for the Democrats, the gap is widening at a bit more than half a percentage point per year, meaning that today's problem is nothing compared to what the future will most likely hold. Consider future presidential elections in a swing state (like Ohio), and assume that the current patterns in fertility continue. A state that was split 50-50 between left and right in 2004 will tilt right by 2012, 54% to 46%. By 2020, it will be certifiably right-wing, 59% to 41%. A state that is currently 55-45 in favor of liberals (like California) will be 54-46 in favor of conservatives by 2020--and all for no other reason than babies."
Mr. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs, is the author of "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism," forthcoming from Basic Books.
That is good news all around, from my view.
A far more Conservative America is good for our economy, good for our standing in the world and most of all just GOOD for America period, as iut would return us closer to America's founder's design.
Every one of America's Founders would be more Conservative than Patrick J. Buchanan today.
P.S. I don't blame the GOP for going after this seat with ads against Ford, I just think that Montana's, New Jersey's and Maryland's races all offer better opportunities for gains.
Actually we don't "hire" anyone to "run our country."
Elections aren't even chosen by the people - they're chosen, for the most part, by Party Bosses. They get to control who runs for office.
That said, there's nothing innately "evil" about politics or politicians, it's all about self-interest, which is odd, that a nation filled with people primarily devoted to that same kind of self-interest, would have such a huge problem with that.
We naively hold politicans to a standard that even most of us wouldn't reach, I suppose we mistakenly see politicians as innately "better people," when in fact, they are often weaker than the average person, and thus worse.
It takes a special breed to devote one's life to being a Party hack, which is what every career politician really is. They are indeed, in many ways "lesser people" - usually shallow, morally "fluid" and preeningly self-possessed, but that's what "democracy" gives you.
Most of the "smart guys," the "good guys" are running their own businesses and busying themselves doing things and moving things forward.
As they say, "Those who can't do, teach, those who can't teach run for office."
Barely, ANYONE who doesn't believe; "There's nothing innately "evil" about politics or politicians, it's all about self-interest, which is odd, that a nation filled with people primarily devoted to that same kind of self-interest, would have such a huge problem with that.
"We naively hold politicans to a standard that even most of us wouldn't reach, I suppose we mistakenly see politicians as innately "better people," when in fact, they are often weaker than the average person, and thus worse.
"It takes a special breed to devote one's life to being a Party hack, which is what every career politician really is. They are indeed, in many ways "lesser people" - usually shallow, morally "fluid" and preeningly self-possessed, but that's what "democracy" gives you.
Most of the "smart guys," the "good guys" are running their own businesses and busying themselves doing things and moving things forward."
simply doesn't understand what "democracy" really is."
Hint, it's NOT "the public hiring people to run the country."
It IS a competition of competing "special interests," all vying for access to the levers of governmental power.
Yeah, I remember the founding fathers discussing "the competition of special interests all vying for access to the levers of governmental powers" at length so many times ... no wait, that was how they described utter failure.
If you bother to read what they wrote, it is really obvious that they never intended for the people to elect people to represent them, and run the country as patriots and men of honor ... or was it the opposite.
Yeah, it was exactly what I said. What you are saying is relativistic Neocon bullshit.
Chimp is evil, and his magic monkey wand is being taken away ... two weeks.
Actually, the fact of the matter is, America's Founders WERE an organized "special interest."
And no one admires them more for looking out for themselves (wealthy, white property owners) than myself. For in looking out for their own best interests, they fashioned a very limited government that, as they say, "wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire," and advanced an economic system based on the free-for-all capitalism advanced by Adam Smith, a man who greatly influenced all of America's Founders.
As it turns out ALL modern democracies fall prey to the influence of special interests from Labor Unions to Gun Rights advocates, to health care advocates.
The problem is in naively looking at some special interests as "good" and others as "bad."
ALL special interests are equal, that is a Labor Union is a gun rights advocate, is health care PAC is a Free Market advocating PAC. They are all merely organizations intent mostly on prserving their own continued existence.
Of course, some causes are more worthy than others. I think it's obvious that of the above, the Gun Rights advocates and the Free Market PAC are both examples of "very positive, worthwhile causes," while some of the others have, to say the least, a rather checkered past.
For better or for worse special interests are a part of modern politics that are not going away any time soon.
Actually what Jack Abramoff DID was illegal, so it wasn't "Lobbying for a Special Interest."
Moreover, many of the Congreemen he spread the wealth to did not vote in favor of Abramoff's clinets, making his scheme a ripoff to boot.
To his credit, Harry Reid, who took Abramoff client money DID indeed vote for those interest consistently. It appears that at least Harry Reid understands the basic decorum of "Once you're bought, you stay bought.
You initially railed against special interest lobbying and I showed you (1) it is perfectly legitimate and (2) not going away any time soon.
The you retreat to inanely comparing the Abramoff scandal to legitimate lobbying, once again an invidious comparison.
While we're mentioning the Abramoff scandals shouldn;t we also mention the Keating Five, just to be "fair and balanced?"
The Keating Five, involved in the S&L scandals were, "Alan MacG. Cranston (D-Calif.); Dennis W. DeConcini (D-Ariz.); John H. Glenn Jr. (D-Ohio); John S. McCain III (R-Ariz.); and Donald W. Riegle Jr. (D-Mich)."
I'd like to say that illegal behavior in politics is an "equally bipartisan flaw," but even a cursory look around says it's not.
Name the most corrupt States right now - yup, it's got to be LA & NJ and both are run by Democrats, so even on the most local level, the level that's supposed to be the most connected to and accountable to the people, the Democrats still use political positions to pillage the people.
Funny, Abramoff was definitely called a Lobbyist, by everyone in Washington, before his crimes were made public.
Who was dealing with Abramoff?
Tom DeLay
Duncan Hunter
John Dolittle
Bill Lowery
Jerry Lewis
Duke Cunningham
Virgil Goode
Mitchell Wade
Hmmm, all Republicans.
Oh, and who walking away with tens of millions of dollars that the taxpayers had to replace in the S&L scandal?
Why that was Neil Bush!
---
Silverado Savings & Loan
Neil Bush was on the board of directors of Silverado Savings and Loan during the 1980's larger savings and loan crisis. As his father was Vice President of the United States, Neil's role in Silverado's failure was a focal point of publicity.
Silverado cost taxpayers about $1 billion.[2]
The US Office of Thrift Supervision investigated the failure of Silverado and determined that Bush had engaged in numerous "breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest." Although Bush was not indicted on criminal charges, a civil action was brought against him and the other Silverado directors by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; it was eventually settled out of court, with Bush paying $50,000 as part of the settlement, as reported in the Style section of the Washington Post [3].
[edit] Silverado Savings & Loan
Neil Bush was on the board of directors of Silverado Savings and Loan during the 1980's larger savings and loan crisis. As his father was Vice President of the United States, Neil's role in Silverado's failure was a focal point of publicity. Salon magazine says Silverado cost taxpayers about $1 billion.[2]
The US Office of Thrift Supervision investigated the failure of Silverado and determined that Bush had engaged in numerous "breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest." Although Bush was not indicted on criminal charges, a civil action was brought against him and the other Silverado directors by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; it was eventually settled out of court, with Bush paying $50,000 as part of the settlement, as reported in the Style section of the Washington Post [3].
Hmmm, all Republicans. (BH) "Senate Republicans have received new evidence that Michigan Senators. Carl Levin (D) and Debbie Stabenow (D) worked closely with embattled Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) to win federal funds for an Indian-tribe client of indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Democrats have used the controversial funding earmark to attack Burns in a television ad airing in Montana and in their political message about Burns. The earmark cost $3 million.
Levin and Stabenow, along with Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), wrote a letter July 14, 2003, to the Department of the Interior asking about the tribe’s controversial funding after department officials ruled against giving the tribe a grant, according to a log of correspondence. The Department of the Interior released the log in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Burns has defended himself by arguing that he earmarked the Saginaw Chippewa funds at the behest of Levin and Stabenow, not because of Abramoff. That assertion is supported by Levin and Stabenow’s letters to the Department of the Interior and a letter they sent in March 2002 to Burns, then the ranking Republican on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), then the subpanel’s chairman. In the letter to Burns, the Democratic lawmakers write that the tribe’s school buildings cannot accommodate the current student body and urge $4.85 million for new construction.
Cooperation between Burns and Stabenow is also evident from the record of a Senate-floor colloquy Jan. 23, 2003, in which Stabenow thanked Burns and Byrd for obtaining funds for the tribe.
“Thank you for all of your cooperation and hard work on this legislation,” Stabenow told Burns."
Once again, you are sitting back and having your empty head filled by lardass hillbilly heroin junkie Limbaugh:
---
Limbaugh baselessly accused Levin of being 'tainted" in Abramoff scandal
Summary: Rush Limbaugh baselessly accused Sen. Carl Levin of being tainted by the Jack Abramoff scandal for accepting contributions from an Indian tribe. The newspaper articles Limbaugh cited to back up his claim offer no evidence linking Abramoff-directed contributions to Levin's efforts to obtain a federal grant for the tribe.
On the January 4 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh baselessly claimed that Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) is "tainted" by the Jack Abramoff scandal because he helped a Saginaw Chippewa Indian tribe -- an Abramoff client -- acquire educational money "[i]n exchange" for Abramoff-directed contributions. In fact, the articles Limbaugh cited to support this claim present no evidence linking Abramoff-directed contributions to a letter Levin and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) wrote urging Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, to approve the education funding. The Saginaw Chippewa tribe ultimately received a $3 million school grant, although the tribe had to be exempted from requirements otherwise rendering them ineligible for funding normally targeted at impoverished tribes.
According to Limbaugh, Levin "took thousands of dollars from Abramoff's firm" and, "[i]n exchange," the Saginaw Chippewa tribe "got a lot for their money, at least $3 million" because "Levin wrote a letter with Debbie Stabenow [D-MI] ... urging and pressuring Senator Conrad Burns's appropriations committee to give $3 million to the Saginaw Chippewas." To corroborate his claim, Limbaugh quoted the Helena (Montana) Independent Record and the Detroit Free Press, neither of which indicate that Levin's letter in any way resulted from money Levin received from Abramoff himself or from his former employers.
The Helena Independent Record article on which Limbaugh primarily relied to assert that money prompted Levin and Stabenow's letter actually addresses Ryan Thomas, a staffer for Burns whose alleged conduct surrounding the $3 million education grant has come under criticism. The article mentioned Levin and Stabenow once, quoting Thomas:
"I was one of many staffers whose jobs required us to make sure we were being responsive to the requests of senators before the subcommittee [on Interior and Related Agencies]. In this case (Michigan) Senators (Debbie) Stabenow and (Carl) Levin had expressed interest to the subcommittee and submitted a letter of request for the Saginaw school."
There is no other mention of either Levin or Stabenow in the article and no indication of whether or how money from Abramoff may have influenced their efforts on behalf of the Saginaw Chippewa tribe.
Limbaugh then claimed that the "Detroit Free Press says that Levin admits that he asked for the $3 million." The January 4 edition of the Free Press did report that Levin attempted to influence Burns's decision:
Democratic Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow and Rep. David Camp, R-Midland, have said they urged Burns to allow the tribe to get the school money. The tribe's casino is in Camp's district.
The article noted that Levin received $2,000 from the Saginaw Chippewas, but it does not link that funding to or make any statements about Levin's motivations for writing the letter. The article also reported that Levin received $5,000 from Greenberg Traurig LLP, Abramoff's employer at the time, but cited Levin spokesperson Tara Andringa as saying that the contributions "weren't connected to Abramoff or casinos." As the National Journal Hotline weblog noted, Greenburg Traurig, a legal and lobbying firm, operates a political action committee that "regularly gives money to members of both parties."
A spokesperson for Stabenow has also denied any connection between the letter and $4,000 in Saginaw Chippewa contributions (although the Associated Press, which reported the spokesperson's comments, reported Saginaw Chippewa contributions to Stabenow as $4,000, the Detroit Free Press totaled those contributions at $5,000). As Media Matters for America has documented, only Republicans received direct contributions from Abramoff.
From the January 4 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Apparently, the Detroit Free Press is reporting today that Carl Levin, Senator Carl Levin, Democrat, took thousands of dollars from Abrafobs -- Abramoff's firm back then, and -- and -- and from his client, this Saginaw Chippewa Indian tribe. In exchange for that, the Indian tribe got a lot for their money, at least $3 million. According to the Helena Independent Record, Levin wrote a letter with Debbie Stabenow, also a liberal Democrat U.S. senator from Michigan, urging and pressuring Senator Conrad Burns's appropriations committee to give $3 million to the Saginaw Chippewas, one of America's wealthiest tribes, which didn't need the money. Today's Droit -- Detroit Free Press says that Levin admits that he asked for the $3 million. OK, so Levin's gonna be tainted.
"Levin and Stabenow, along with Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), wrote a letter July 14, 2003, to the Department of the Interior asking about the tribe’s controversial funding after department officials ruled against giving the tribe a grant, according to a log of correspondence. The Department of the Interior released the log in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the National Republican Senatorial Committee."
Moreover, Reid and Patrick Kennedy are among the many Dems who took Abramofff monies.
We also must be clear, there's absolutely nothing wrong with lobbying groups, whether they're immigration reform lobbies, pro-gun lobbies, Big-Labor lobbies or Corporate lobbies spending money (donating to campaigns) in hopes of gaining "access" to the inner sanctum of government, nor even for said pols to occasionally vote in favor of the lobbies they've taken money from.
I don't think anyone is insinuating that, but I want to be cler about that.
THAT, as they say, "is how things get done around Washington, D.C." and that's how things have gotten done for many, many decades.
Now there were many Republicans who took Abramoff monies and voted against the deals the Indian tribes were looking for - ALL of those guys should be cleared of any wrong-doing, right out of the box, as they merely took money from a lobbyist (perfectly legal) and didn't let those donations influence their votes (honorable).
I DO have a problem with Harry Reid who took money directly from the Indian tribes and followed up by voting in favor of every piece of legislation they supported.
You always have problems with Democrats. You listen to too much righty talk, so your mind has started to work like the righty talkers.
Here's the Mind of the Righty Talker:
Deny wrongdoing.
Defend wrongdoing.
Attack the messenger.
Dig up past Dem transgressions.
Ridicule the messenger.
Say "Liberals hate America" a lot
Say "Cut and Run" and other mottos
Say Clinton did it first
Accuse the media of being biased for "going on about it"
Let me point out the dumbness of your purported argument;
(1) You claim I "defended" wrongdoing, while without even bothering to look, I can say with unshakable confidence that none of my above posts defended Abramoff's actions.
Show me.
(2) You fail to explain why so many Dems are caught up in the same illegality and employ the very strategy you condemn to do so.
Again, I give you facts and you answer with distortions at best, falsehoods at worst.
Comments
Yeah, poor priorities...and a dumb ad.
Ford has done exactly what most of these "professional pols" do.
Posted by: JMK | October 17, 2006 12:30 PM
The RNSC is in a state of desperation. It is now becoming obvious that the republicans will lose BOTH the congress and the senate. And they deserve that. In fact it would be good for the country if the republican party splits in 2 after its upcoming defeat. One party with rational conservatives (i.e. Hagel, Guliani, McCain, etc.) and one with the religious radical right (Bush, Cheney, Allen, Frist etc.) that controls the party now.
Posted by: Blue Wind | October 17, 2006 03:16 PM
Blue you're a hopeless optimist for a dying cause (Liberalism).
The GOP is fighting for this Senate seat against a Conservative Democrat, (hopefully the future of that Party?), Harold Ford.
Now I like Ford, not as much as Zell Miller, but I like him. He's a real Conservative, as opposed to the Liberal Joe Lieberman (I-Conn), whom some nitwit Dems call a "Conservative."
The GOP can't really fault Ford on the issues, as he's nearly as Conservative as Bob Corker and the race is a virtual dead heat - Ford by 0.8% with a 3% margin of error.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/senate/tn/tennessee_senate_race-20.html
Talking about Tennessee and the American heartland, Y'all know about that them thar "fertility gap," don'cha?
According to Arthur C. Brooks;
"According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.
"Alarmingly for the Democrats, the gap is widening at a bit more than half a percentage point per year, meaning that today's problem is nothing compared to what the future will most likely hold. Consider future presidential elections in a swing state (like Ohio), and assume that the current patterns in fertility continue. A state that was split 50-50 between left and right in 2004 will tilt right by 2012, 54% to 46%. By 2020, it will be certifiably right-wing, 59% to 41%. A state that is currently 55-45 in favor of liberals (like California) will be 54-46 in favor of conservatives by 2020--and all for no other reason than babies."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831
Mr. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs, is the author of "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism," forthcoming from Basic Books.
That is good news all around, from my view.
A far more Conservative America is good for our economy, good for our standing in the world and most of all just GOOD for America period, as iut would return us closer to America's founder's design.
Every one of America's Founders would be more Conservative than Patrick J. Buchanan today.
Posted by: JMK | October 17, 2006 04:35 PM
P.S. I don't blame the GOP for going after this seat with ads against Ford, I just think that Montana's, New Jersey's and Maryland's races all offer better opportunities for gains.
Posted by: JMK | October 17, 2006 04:57 PM
Rove perfected gutter-politics and character assassination. I think it is a fair tool to use, as most politicians really are worthless, evil scumbags.
Notice how nobody doubts the truth of the ad. Just the opposite -- they ALL do it.
We hire the scum of the earth to run our country.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | October 17, 2006 07:21 PM
Actually we don't "hire" anyone to "run our country."
Elections aren't even chosen by the people - they're chosen, for the most part, by Party Bosses. They get to control who runs for office.
That said, there's nothing innately "evil" about politics or politicians, it's all about self-interest, which is odd, that a nation filled with people primarily devoted to that same kind of self-interest, would have such a huge problem with that.
We naively hold politicans to a standard that even most of us wouldn't reach, I suppose we mistakenly see politicians as innately "better people," when in fact, they are often weaker than the average person, and thus worse.
It takes a special breed to devote one's life to being a Party hack, which is what every career politician really is. They are indeed, in many ways "lesser people" - usually shallow, morally "fluid" and preeningly self-possessed, but that's what "democracy" gives you.
Most of the "smart guys," the "good guys" are running their own businesses and busying themselves doing things and moving things forward.
As they say, "Those who can't do, teach, those who can't teach run for office."
Posted by: JMK | October 18, 2006 12:24 PM
No wonder you support the Chimp. He is trying to end "democracy" and implement a shining new Dumbasscracy on America.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | October 24, 2006 02:01 PM
Barely, ANYONE who doesn't believe; "There's nothing innately "evil" about politics or politicians, it's all about self-interest, which is odd, that a nation filled with people primarily devoted to that same kind of self-interest, would have such a huge problem with that.
"We naively hold politicans to a standard that even most of us wouldn't reach, I suppose we mistakenly see politicians as innately "better people," when in fact, they are often weaker than the average person, and thus worse.
"It takes a special breed to devote one's life to being a Party hack, which is what every career politician really is. They are indeed, in many ways "lesser people" - usually shallow, morally "fluid" and preeningly self-possessed, but that's what "democracy" gives you.
Most of the "smart guys," the "good guys" are running their own businesses and busying themselves doing things and moving things forward."
simply doesn't understand what "democracy" really is."
Hint, it's NOT "the public hiring people to run the country."
It IS a competition of competing "special interests," all vying for access to the levers of governmental power.
Posted by: JMK | October 24, 2006 09:56 PM
Yeah, I remember the founding fathers discussing "the competition of special interests all vying for access to the levers of governmental powers" at length so many times ... no wait, that was how they described utter failure.
If you bother to read what they wrote, it is really obvious that they never intended for the people to elect people to represent them, and run the country as patriots and men of honor ... or was it the opposite.
Yeah, it was exactly what I said. What you are saying is relativistic Neocon bullshit.
Chimp is evil, and his magic monkey wand is being taken away ... two weeks.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | October 24, 2006 10:40 PM
Actually, the fact of the matter is, America's Founders WERE an organized "special interest."
And no one admires them more for looking out for themselves (wealthy, white property owners) than myself. For in looking out for their own best interests, they fashioned a very limited government that, as they say, "wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire," and advanced an economic system based on the free-for-all capitalism advanced by Adam Smith, a man who greatly influenced all of America's Founders.
As it turns out ALL modern democracies fall prey to the influence of special interests from Labor Unions to Gun Rights advocates, to health care advocates.
The problem is in naively looking at some special interests as "good" and others as "bad."
ALL special interests are equal, that is a Labor Union is a gun rights advocate, is health care PAC is a Free Market advocating PAC. They are all merely organizations intent mostly on prserving their own continued existence.
Of course, some causes are more worthy than others. I think it's obvious that of the above, the Gun Rights advocates and the Free Market PAC are both examples of "very positive, worthwhile causes," while some of the others have, to say the least, a rather checkered past.
For better or for worse special interests are a part of modern politics that are not going away any time soon.
Posted by: JMK | October 24, 2006 11:51 PM
There is influence, and special interests, and there is bribery and conspiracy.
Jack Abramof practiced the latter, with a large web of Repug co-conspirators.
That is simply criminal behavior. It is evil. It has nothing to do with politics.
Of course, being a Repug, you have a hard time discerning the difference between crime and politics.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | October 25, 2006 09:56 AM
Actually what Jack Abramoff DID was illegal, so it wasn't "Lobbying for a Special Interest."
Moreover, many of the Congreemen he spread the wealth to did not vote in favor of Abramoff's clinets, making his scheme a ripoff to boot.
To his credit, Harry Reid, who took Abramoff client money DID indeed vote for those interest consistently. It appears that at least Harry Reid understands the basic decorum of "Once you're bought, you stay bought.
You initially railed against special interest lobbying and I showed you (1) it is perfectly legitimate and (2) not going away any time soon.
The you retreat to inanely comparing the Abramoff scandal to legitimate lobbying, once again an invidious comparison.
While we're mentioning the Abramoff scandals shouldn;t we also mention the Keating Five, just to be "fair and balanced?"
The Keating Five, involved in the S&L scandals were, "Alan MacG. Cranston (D-Calif.); Dennis W. DeConcini (D-Ariz.); John H. Glenn Jr. (D-Ohio); John S. McCain III (R-Ariz.); and Donald W. Riegle Jr. (D-Mich)."
I'd like to say that illegal behavior in politics is an "equally bipartisan flaw," but even a cursory look around says it's not.
Name the most corrupt States right now - yup, it's got to be LA & NJ and both are run by Democrats, so even on the most local level, the level that's supposed to be the most connected to and accountable to the people, the Democrats still use political positions to pillage the people.
Posted by: JMK | October 25, 2006 10:31 AM
Funny, Abramoff was definitely called a Lobbyist, by everyone in Washington, before his crimes were made public.
Who was dealing with Abramoff?
Tom DeLay
Duncan Hunter
John Dolittle
Bill Lowery
Jerry Lewis
Duke Cunningham
Virgil Goode
Mitchell Wade
Hmmm, all Republicans.
Oh, and who walking away with tens of millions of dollars that the taxpayers had to replace in the S&L scandal?
Why that was Neil Bush!
---
Silverado Savings & Loan
Neil Bush was on the board of directors of Silverado Savings and Loan during the 1980's larger savings and loan crisis. As his father was Vice President of the United States, Neil's role in Silverado's failure was a focal point of publicity.
Silverado cost taxpayers about $1 billion.[2]
The US Office of Thrift Supervision investigated the failure of Silverado and determined that Bush had engaged in numerous "breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest." Although Bush was not indicted on criminal charges, a civil action was brought against him and the other Silverado directors by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; it was eventually settled out of court, with Bush paying $50,000 as part of the settlement, as reported in the Style section of the Washington Post [3].
[edit] Silverado Savings & Loan
Neil Bush was on the board of directors of Silverado Savings and Loan during the 1980's larger savings and loan crisis. As his father was Vice President of the United States, Neil's role in Silverado's failure was a focal point of publicity. Salon magazine says Silverado cost taxpayers about $1 billion.[2]
The US Office of Thrift Supervision investigated the failure of Silverado and determined that Bush had engaged in numerous "breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest." Although Bush was not indicted on criminal charges, a civil action was brought against him and the other Silverado directors by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; it was eventually settled out of court, with Bush paying $50,000 as part of the settlement, as reported in the Style section of the Washington Post [3].
Tsk, tsk, yet another semian criminal.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | October 25, 2006 01:40 PM
"Who was dealing with Abramoff?
Hmmm, all Republicans. (BH)
"Senate Republicans have received new evidence that Michigan Senators. Carl Levin (D) and Debbie Stabenow (D) worked closely with embattled Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) to win federal funds for an Indian-tribe client of indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Democrats have used the controversial funding earmark to attack Burns in a television ad airing in Montana and in their political message about Burns. The earmark cost $3 million.
Levin and Stabenow, along with Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), wrote a letter July 14, 2003, to the Department of the Interior asking about the tribe’s controversial funding after department officials ruled against giving the tribe a grant, according to a log of correspondence. The Department of the Interior released the log in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Burns has defended himself by arguing that he earmarked the Saginaw Chippewa funds at the behest of Levin and Stabenow, not because of Abramoff. That assertion is supported by Levin and Stabenow’s letters to the Department of the Interior and a letter they sent in March 2002 to Burns, then the ranking Republican on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), then the subpanel’s chairman. In the letter to Burns, the Democratic lawmakers write that the tribe’s school buildings cannot accommodate the current student body and urge $4.85 million for new construction.
Cooperation between Burns and Stabenow is also evident from the record of a Senate-floor colloquy Jan. 23, 2003, in which Stabenow thanked Burns and Byrd for obtaining funds for the tribe.
“Thank you for all of your cooperation and hard work on this legislation,” Stabenow told Burns."
http://www.noagenda.org/connections/jack_abramoff/
Try reading a little more.
Posted by: JMK | October 25, 2006 03:26 PM
Try not to be a moron, if you can help it, which I doubt.
You carefully wordsmith around the fact that there is ZERO connection between Levin, Stabenow, and the Republican criminal Abramoff.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200601090004
Once again, you are sitting back and having your empty head filled by lardass hillbilly heroin junkie Limbaugh:
---
Limbaugh baselessly accused Levin of being 'tainted" in Abramoff scandal
Summary: Rush Limbaugh baselessly accused Sen. Carl Levin of being tainted by the Jack Abramoff scandal for accepting contributions from an Indian tribe. The newspaper articles Limbaugh cited to back up his claim offer no evidence linking Abramoff-directed contributions to Levin's efforts to obtain a federal grant for the tribe.
On the January 4 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh baselessly claimed that Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) is "tainted" by the Jack Abramoff scandal because he helped a Saginaw Chippewa Indian tribe -- an Abramoff client -- acquire educational money "[i]n exchange" for Abramoff-directed contributions. In fact, the articles Limbaugh cited to support this claim present no evidence linking Abramoff-directed contributions to a letter Levin and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) wrote urging Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, to approve the education funding. The Saginaw Chippewa tribe ultimately received a $3 million school grant, although the tribe had to be exempted from requirements otherwise rendering them ineligible for funding normally targeted at impoverished tribes.
According to Limbaugh, Levin "took thousands of dollars from Abramoff's firm" and, "[i]n exchange," the Saginaw Chippewa tribe "got a lot for their money, at least $3 million" because "Levin wrote a letter with Debbie Stabenow [D-MI] ... urging and pressuring Senator Conrad Burns's appropriations committee to give $3 million to the Saginaw Chippewas." To corroborate his claim, Limbaugh quoted the Helena (Montana) Independent Record and the Detroit Free Press, neither of which indicate that Levin's letter in any way resulted from money Levin received from Abramoff himself or from his former employers.
The Helena Independent Record article on which Limbaugh primarily relied to assert that money prompted Levin and Stabenow's letter actually addresses Ryan Thomas, a staffer for Burns whose alleged conduct surrounding the $3 million education grant has come under criticism. The article mentioned Levin and Stabenow once, quoting Thomas:
"I was one of many staffers whose jobs required us to make sure we were being responsive to the requests of senators before the subcommittee [on Interior and Related Agencies]. In this case (Michigan) Senators (Debbie) Stabenow and (Carl) Levin had expressed interest to the subcommittee and submitted a letter of request for the Saginaw school."
There is no other mention of either Levin or Stabenow in the article and no indication of whether or how money from Abramoff may have influenced their efforts on behalf of the Saginaw Chippewa tribe.
Limbaugh then claimed that the "Detroit Free Press says that Levin admits that he asked for the $3 million." The January 4 edition of the Free Press did report that Levin attempted to influence Burns's decision:
Democratic Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow and Rep. David Camp, R-Midland, have said they urged Burns to allow the tribe to get the school money. The tribe's casino is in Camp's district.
The article noted that Levin received $2,000 from the Saginaw Chippewas, but it does not link that funding to or make any statements about Levin's motivations for writing the letter. The article also reported that Levin received $5,000 from Greenberg Traurig LLP, Abramoff's employer at the time, but cited Levin spokesperson Tara Andringa as saying that the contributions "weren't connected to Abramoff or casinos." As the National Journal Hotline weblog noted, Greenburg Traurig, a legal and lobbying firm, operates a political action committee that "regularly gives money to members of both parties."
A spokesperson for Stabenow has also denied any connection between the letter and $4,000 in Saginaw Chippewa contributions (although the Associated Press, which reported the spokesperson's comments, reported Saginaw Chippewa contributions to Stabenow as $4,000, the Detroit Free Press totaled those contributions at $5,000). As Media Matters for America has documented, only Republicans received direct contributions from Abramoff.
From the January 4 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Apparently, the Detroit Free Press is reporting today that Carl Levin, Senator Carl Levin, Democrat, took thousands of dollars from Abrafobs -- Abramoff's firm back then, and -- and -- and from his client, this Saginaw Chippewa Indian tribe. In exchange for that, the Indian tribe got a lot for their money, at least $3 million. According to the Helena Independent Record, Levin wrote a letter with Debbie Stabenow, also a liberal Democrat U.S. senator from Michigan, urging and pressuring Senator Conrad Burns's appropriations committee to give $3 million to the Saginaw Chippewas, one of America's wealthiest tribes, which didn't need the money. Today's Droit -- Detroit Free Press says that Levin admits that he asked for the $3 million. OK, so Levin's gonna be tainted.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | October 25, 2006 03:41 PM
Here's the connection;
"Levin and Stabenow, along with Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), wrote a letter July 14, 2003, to the Department of the Interior asking about the tribe’s controversial funding after department officials ruled against giving the tribe a grant, according to a log of correspondence. The Department of the Interior released the log in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the National Republican Senatorial Committee."
Moreover, Reid and Patrick Kennedy are among the many Dems who took Abramofff monies.
We also must be clear, there's absolutely nothing wrong with lobbying groups, whether they're immigration reform lobbies, pro-gun lobbies, Big-Labor lobbies or Corporate lobbies spending money (donating to campaigns) in hopes of gaining "access" to the inner sanctum of government, nor even for said pols to occasionally vote in favor of the lobbies they've taken money from.
I don't think anyone is insinuating that, but I want to be cler about that.
THAT, as they say, "is how things get done around Washington, D.C." and that's how things have gotten done for many, many decades.
Now there were many Republicans who took Abramoff monies and voted against the deals the Indian tribes were looking for - ALL of those guys should be cleared of any wrong-doing, right out of the box, as they merely took money from a lobbyist (perfectly legal) and didn't let those donations influence their votes (honorable).
I DO have a problem with Harry Reid who took money directly from the Indian tribes and followed up by voting in favor of every piece of legislation they supported.
That to me is problematic.
Posted by: JMK | October 26, 2006 09:26 PM
You always have problems with Democrats. You listen to too much righty talk, so your mind has started to work like the righty talkers.
Here's the Mind of the Righty Talker:
Deny wrongdoing.
Defend wrongdoing.
Attack the messenger.
Dig up past Dem transgressions.
Ridicule the messenger.
Say "Liberals hate America" a lot
Say "Cut and Run" and other mottos
Say Clinton did it first
Accuse the media of being biased for "going on about it"
Deny
Defend
Attack
Deny
Defend
Attack
And so on.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | October 28, 2006 12:43 PM
Let me point out the dumbness of your purported argument;
(1) You claim I "defended" wrongdoing, while without even bothering to look, I can say with unshakable confidence that none of my above posts defended Abramoff's actions.
Show me.
(2) You fail to explain why so many Dems are caught up in the same illegality and employ the very strategy you condemn to do so.
Again, I give you facts and you answer with distortions at best, falsehoods at worst.
Posted by: JMK | October 28, 2006 06:55 PM