Jack Abramoff: The DNC Bagman
 

It is reported that 40 out of 45 Democratic Senators received money from Abramoff.

It is interesting that it is portrayed as more scandal for Republicans, when in reality there is no party left untouched.

I think this is more proof of a liberal media spin on something that is really quite disturbingly prevalent, even affecting the DNC golden boys who can do no wrong.

Here is a decent list of all of your outstanding Democrats that received money. This site does a good job of outlining it entirely.

it cracks me up that all of your information comes from sites that are blatantly conservative

i mean BLATANTLY.

Kutlturshock;

Can you please stop jockeying for the position of I-mockery irritant? OAO currently holds the post, and he himself is a vast disapointment. I find your writing style choppy and uncomfortable, not even amusing in terms of being bad, and now you're going to go all conservative on us? Go away or become a more entertaining brand of idiot.

Gingrich: Abramoff Scandal Threatens 'Contract' Legacy

By Randy Hall

Jan 6, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich asserted Wednesday that the legacy of the "Contract With America" -- the agenda he promoted in 1994 that helped the GOP win both houses of Congress -- is "hanging in the balance" because of the scandal involving former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

"That's why I'm speaking out so strongly" on the scandal, Gingrich said to reporters after telling the Rotary Club of Washington, D.C., that Abramoff and any other persons convicted of breaking the law in the matter "should definitely go to jail."

Gingrich told reporters that the more he has "heard about the Abramoff scandal, the angrier I've gotten." The former speaker said he found particularly "troubling" the amounts of money being spent on Washington lobbyists, including more than $80 million by a Native American group.

The Republican Party should "face up to its mistakes" in the matter, he added. "To claim that Abramoff is just 'one bad apple' is foolishness. The GOP should not try to defend his actions in the scandal."

Gingrich also stated that Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who has been temporarily replaced as House majority leader, should rule out any chance of returning to the position "because he will be too busy defending himself" from charges associated with the scandal. "The House has many competent and talented people who can handle the job without becoming a distraction to the party," Gingrich said.

"I think it's very important to understand that this is not just one person doing one bad thing," Gingrich added, and it isn't "about lobbyist corruption, either. You can't have a corrupt lobbyist unless you have a corrupt member [of Congress] or a corrupt staff" involved.

"This is a team effort," Gingrich said to laughter from the audience.

"I'll tell you what this city's first reaction is going to be," he stated. Lawmakers will "turn the scandal into lobbyist bashing, so the same system on the Hill that is unhealthy will protect itself by passing a narrowly drawn anti-lobbyist provision while the same people go to the same [Political Action Committee] fundraisers to raise the same money with the same cronies in the same manner."

Instead, "the Abramoff scandal has to be seen as part of a much larger and deeper problem," Gingrich asserted, before quoting Lord Acton's famous phrase: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

"This is a profound problem, not just a surface-level scandal," Gingrich said. As an example of the unfair advantage wealthy incumbents have in the electoral process, Gingrich referred to New Jersey Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine. "One person spent $100 million to first buy a Senate seat and then buy a governorship while voting for the McCain-Feingold bill to limit every middle-class citizen to $2,500 in an election," Gingrich said.

"There's something inherently wrong with that," Gingrich charged.

Gingrich also criticized lawmakers for "pouring millions of dollars into tax-exempt 527s" and using contributions from foreign governments and other entities to "build a wall of money to protect themselves from America," which he noted is "a bipartisan phenomenon.

"I don't care which party you're in; go look at where the U.S. senators get their money from," he said. "It ain't back home," which is "a serious, profound challenge" to the process of self-government.

"Lobbying is an honorable and legitimate function, but it should be transparent and accountable," Gingrich added. Also, "Americans should expect the majorities of the House and the Senate to put the country first and restrain or defeat those efforts at personal aggrandizement and personal power that undermine the effectiveness of limited government."

The Republican majority "arrived in Washington in 1994 as a reform party," the former speaker told reporters after his speech. "We accomplished a number of changes in the way the House is run.

Therefore, Gingrich's advice to the GOP this year was to return to the strategy that proved so successful 12 years ago. "Republicans should run as reformers who want to make government more effective and return to the concept of the balanced budget," which Congress accomplished for four years in the 1990s.

In doing so, "it will be necessary for Republicans to risk everything by trusting the American people." But if the GOP presses for "very real and substantial reform," the party could do very well in the fall," he said.

http://www.townhall.com/news/ext_wire.html?rowid=46380

(1) We should discuss issues.

If you think the information is false, find a source that notes Abramoff did not contribute to the DNC, because the facts are laid out clearly.

(2) I agree with Newt Gingrich that it was a terrible scandal, and that lobbying should be entirely transparent. It is a scandal for both parties.

It's bigger for the GOP because as far as I know, no Dem called Abramoff "one of my closest and dearest friends".

The facts are startling clear though, even from the site you posted: "From Indian Tribe Clients And Lobbying Associates Of Jack Abramoff".

It factual that Abramoff never personally gave money to a Democrat. All his personal and family contributions went to Republicans. Not one dime of his money went to a Dem. (http://tray.com)

It is also factual that only Republicans have been indicted thus far in the Abramoff scandal. The GOP's efforts to paint this as a bipartisan scandal are understandable, but they are also as transparent as a big brother with his hand in the cookie jar ratting out a little brother who's hand was probably in the cookie jar on some other day.

So don't think I'm saying that Dems aren't scandalous crooks either, but in this instance you are screaming about a mote and overlooking a beam.

http://www.madcowprod.com/06202005.html

Nothing to see here, guys. Move along now.

Re: Jack Abramoff: The DNC Bagman
 

Well, it's portrayed as a Republican scandal, potentially, because it is. Trying to turn it into a "bi-partisan" scandal is sort of cute, but it isn't really in line with the facts.

Yes, a lot of people took money from Abramoff. And yes, Democrats took money from associates of Abramoff, but that is a far cry from the potentially illegal scandals surrounding folks like Tom DeLay and Bob Ney. It's not about the money, it's about whether or not the give and take of some funds violated House ethics rules, or even some federal laws.

For example, Abramoff allegedly used a personal credit card to pay for DeLay's plane tickets, and also paid for Bob Ney's golf trip. If you do a search of the Center for Responsive Politics website, you won't find any direct donations to Democrats from Abramoff. By contrast, the man raised over $100,000 for the Bush campaign. This guy is dirty as hell, and he has found a lot of ways to get money for Republicans. Some legal, others not necessarily so legal. Check out the bogus non-profits he helped set up, one of which was supposed to raise funds for conservative causes, but really went towards Tom DelAy's expenses. The laundry list goes on, and can be found by doing a simple google news search....

To keep it short, this is not a bi-partisan scandal.

I concede defeat.

Um, ok?

Yeah, there is more evidence suggesting that he was working too much with the republicans, and that he was obviously personally as such, and so it is more of a Republican scandal.

This makes my original point incorrect.

Do you understand what that means?

I lose.

Oh shit, what's the code for fatalties? Up Down Circle Forward or Circle Back? FUCK, I never can remember!

I was never aware that you could even win on a message board.

You can win a debate over a phone, in person, over a series of letters, in a newspaper editorial, or even on the internet in a message board format.

Debates are abstract.

Don't pretend to be high and mighty -- it makes me think less of you, even though you are reasonable.

"Yeah, there is more evidence suggesting that he was working too much with the republicans, and that he was obviously personally as such, and so it is more of a Republican scandal."

Why can't you say 'and obviously he was a Republican.' Why in the name of GOD would you choose to say 'and that he was obviously personally as such'. TALK HUMAN!!

It's called character, and that's something your predictable posts are sadly lacking in.

no. it's called verbose.

I like how everyone just pretended that geggy didn't post.

speaking of Tom DeLay, I met the man and he's a pompous shithead.

Huh?

Lost in translation, I guess.

Nothing...to...see...

http://www.texasobserver.org/showFor...p?ArticleID=13

...here....guys. Move along now...