I don’t usually agree with Howard Fineman, but I do here – the Abramoff scandal (with its big numbers) is bad news for the Republicans (and for politicians in general). If you haven’t already seen it, Gaypatriot has a very good poast.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
Roger,
I think “bad news for Republicans, and for politicians in general,” is actually good news for the rest of us.
It seems that at least once a decade our system, at a national level, requires this sort of (for lack of a better term) pressure towards renewal.
Ralph Peters memorably wrote that “corruption is the most seductive activity human beings can engage in with their clothes on.” (I may not have that exactly right.)
May all those pols — whoever they are and on whichever side of the political divide — found guilty of this kind of corruption, be thrown out.
Jamie Irons
Of course the Abramoff scandal s/b prosecuted to it fullest measure.
This seems more of a “ruling party” affair, and the Republicans are now that party. The Dems were in the same position, and had the same sort of practices, in the decades they were the ruling party in Congress.
I do wonder, however, if the significant amount of gerrymandering, which is now much more scientific than ever before, will mitigate any loss of seats.
It’s just a lot harder to turn over seats from one party to another than it has ever been in the past.
Glenn Reynolds’ brief analysis here is useful and pertinent…
Jamie Irons
“May all those pols — whoever they are and on whichever side of the political divide — found guilty of this kind of corruption, be thrown out.”
Hear, hear.
Jack Abramoff joins Bobby Baker and John Huang in their disgrace. Fortunately, Alberto Gonzales runs a Justice Department rather than Reno’s “what do we cover up today” home for deviants. Republicans will take a hit – and deservedly so. Harry Reid, Patrick Kennedy, et al will also take deserved hits.
For that reason, don’t expect to see tremendous coverage of this. Even though there is a “controlling legal authority” in this instance it’s not going to get the media coverage that it deserves.
“Gaypatriot has a very good poast.”
Okay, I admit to being silly, but I’m wondering if GayPatriot serves toast with his poast.
I agree iwth Jamie here.
It should be bad news for both parties; corruption knows no party, but follows money and power. This will snag several prominent Democrats as well as Republicans. People of every political persuasion should insist on prosecutions and a thorough house-cleaning.
(And I think it’s heartening to see the Bush Justice Department being aggressive on this.)
This is all inside baseball stuff. No one outside the beltway cares. After Tammany Hall, the Dems don’t have a leg to stand on on “ethics”.
What worries me is that this sort of trumped up investigation makes us look weak. Let’s hope the DOJ pulls the plug soon — before the enemey is emboldened by all of this foolishness.
CSpan had a remarkably good (and long) program on this scandal. Its re-play of McCain and Dorgan trying to cross question that blonde friend of Abramoff’s, the one with the Italian name, was hilarious, and if you didn’t see it, tune in for the re-runs!
Anyway. Lobbying is good or bad, depending on whose ox is being gored. Abramoff and co. have been able to steal all that money BECAUSE OF THE INDIAN ACT AND BECAUSE OF INDIAN CASINOS. One phone-caller pointed out that the Indian Casinos, supposedly bringing such wealth to Indian bands, has instead, brought more poverty and drug addiction to most of the Indians. As he said, he saw no Indians actually employed in the Casinos. And I would bet that MOST of this rain of money is going into the pockets of a very few ‘connected’ people.
However, I will bet that not one of the politicians (and especially McCain, sturdy senator from Arizona) will go near that whole mess.
The other problem lies in the gerrymandering of districts, so that Congressional members have an all but lifetime tenure – a sure invitation to corruption. And I will further bet that this problem will not be addressed by the Congress, either.
The third problem lies with “charities.” Yet another bet: the big ones, like the Pew, the Rockefeller, Ford and etc pay out huge ‘salaries’ to the top folk, and are very lightly audited… and this problem will not take up McCain’s time either…
I agree, heather, a lot of the real problems are with charities and their regulation or lack thereof. That is something that I hope we can deal with in the upcoming year: charity reform. Lobbying can be helpful to the government: lobbyists help to shape policy and help to advocate for the companies that help keep the economy going. But too many charities have become fronts for corrupt special interests.
Saw the same program (or parts thereof) that Heather mentioned above. Dorgan (a recipient of Abramoff’s largesse) and McCain looked like fulminating buffoons. Their hectoring of this clueless dupe was strictly for show. The knew they were drilling a dry hole and were simply summoning outrage for the camera.
For a chilling look at the scandal read latest Weekly Standard article by one of the reporters on the C-Span show by the name of Contenetti (sp?) Organized crime has a connection to Abramoff.
Heather, above, links gerrymandering to corruption, which makes sense on the surface, I guess. But I’m not too sure about that. Ten years ago or so, when the Contract with America began the Republican resurgence, a big thing was how term limits would return governance back to the citizens. But it was never explained or backed up with evidence just why facing the end of tenure would compel someone to do the right thing, as opposed to the expedient or opportunistic thing. If I were faced with being turned out, I could be tempted in to cozying up with the very lobbying firms that might be employing me in the future. The idea that Mr. Smith goes to Washington, and leaves with a legacy of nobility is fantasy, to me.
Furthermore, I believe there’s research out there that finds no cause-and-effect linkage between campaign contributions and voting performance.
Every once in a while, the nation gets a big civics lesson, and this (Abramoff/lobbying/corruption/etc.) may be this decade’s version of it. It certainly provides a big stage for some serious grandstanding.
“It certainly provides a big stage for some serious grandstanding.”
Indeed, the real outrage here is the way the Democrats are grandstanding about it, as if they weren’t involved. I expect that the party of Tammany Hall will pay a big price at the polls for their blatant hypocrisy.
I’m still holding out hope that the DOJ will manage to stop this witch hunt against Republican congressmen before it takes down DeLay, but it seems that the liberal MSM is foaming at the mouth to get their teeth into “the Hammer”.
Indeed, the real outrage here is the way the Democrats are grandstanding about it, as if they weren’t involved. I expect that the party of Tammany Hall will pay a big price at the polls for their blatant hypocrisy.
Tammany Hall was a corrupt mess… but it was a corrupt mess that happened over a century ago. Do you honestly consider it hypocritical for people who weren’t alive then, to critize the Abramoff mess today? The Democratic Party (like the Republican party) doesn’t seem to even tend toward many of the political views as it did 100 years ago.
Don’t forget that it was a Democratic Governor (Tilden) that tried to force reforms at the height of Boss Tweed’s run. It was a Democratic President with his New Deal that pulled a lot of power from Tammany Hall and it was LaGuardia, in conjunction with the ALP and FDR that finally wrested the city hall away from Tammany.
Tammany was local corruption at a local level, over a century ago. Abramoff’s situation appears as though it may be national scandal at a federal level, and it is/was happening during this Administration/Sentae/House term.
No one in Congress today, in fact no one in the Democratic party today… oh hell, no one alive today is responsible for Tammany Hall. On the other hand, alive, active and currently elected politicians may be guilty of corruption.
How is condemnation of Abramoff in any way hypocricy?
“I’m still holding out hope that the DOJ will manage to stop this witch hunt against Republican congressmen before it takes down DeLay…”
Are you serious? It appears that Abramoff along with a number of political people engaged in corrupt practices. It appears that DeLay may have been connected. It appears that the majority of people who worked with Abramoff were Republican. And, less than 2 months ago, a Republican Congressman had to leave office because of corruption.
Why would we not want an investigation? Either it will A) Proven False: In which case some people’s careers may be ruined, but the truth would be known; B) Proven True: Then corrupt members of the government will likely be removed. I think this is a good thing.
If the Republican DOJ quashes investigations into possibly corrupt Republican politicans… what sort of field day would Democrats have with such a mess? Esp if we consider that the current administration is, well, not as popular as it once was.
If as Unpopular Administration were to stop an investigation into corruption of that Administrations political allies… methinks there would be a serious backlash and possibly enough political capital for Dems to win ’06 and possibly move to impeach the President.
I think it better to get everything out and into the open, even if it means losing Delay, than risking the reputation of the Republican party and the quickly shrinking support for the President.
Would you rather spend political capital on protecting possibly corrupt politicans, or on staying the course in Iraq?