So far, Republican attempts to distance themselves from the Abramoff imbroglio have taken several forms. First, the blatant attempts to re-write history using the press as the scribe to pretend that DeLay and Abramoff, who previously were noted as close personal friends, were simply passing acquaintances.
The second step was the money dump. Everyone who received a penny from Abramoff, and some who may not have directly received money, but indirectly, returned the money. Why they waited until the you-know-what hit the fan is up for you to figure out for yourself.
The third step in containing the damage was an effort to paint the Democrats as complicit as the Republicans. This took a number of forms (Jon Henke has the actual breakdown of direct v. indirect Abramoff money and partisan affiliation). Were the Democrats involved? Sure, I am am willing to bet there will be a few Democrats involved in some minimal way, but this is predominantly a Republican scandal. If nothing else, these attempts to portray this as a bi-partisan scandal have produced some amusing quips, most notably from David Brooks:
I don’t know what’s more pathetic, Jack Abramoff’s sleaze or Republican paralysis in the face of it. Abramoff walks out of a D.C. courthouse in his pseudo-Hasidic homburg, and all that leading Republicans can do is promise to return his money and remind everyone that some Democrats are involved in the scandal, too.
That’s a great G.O.P. talking point: some Democrats are so sleazy, they get involved with the likes of us . . .
The fourth step appears to be a whole slew of new ethics rules in the House. This might gain some traction with the public, were it not for two things. One, this is the same Congress that one year ago was trying to relax the ethics rules to save the Majroity Leader’s seat should he be indicted. The second is that it was not an absence of ethics rules that led to the current scandal- it is an absence of enforcement and an unwillingness of members of Congress to adhere to the current ethics rules. Once it is pointed out that more ethics rules simply means more rules for the crooks to ignore, the reformers will be laughed out of town or ignored by the general public.
The latest step to remove the taint from the GOP appears to be electing new leadership. DeLay has stepped down, and the races are on. Would you be surprised that the front runners are both already part of the rot in the current leadership and have extensive ties to K street? You shouldn’t:
In years past, when the House has recessed for its winter break, Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has decamped for warmer climates and a sailing trip to the Caribbean with some of the city’s top lobbyists, including Henry Gandy of the well-connected Duberstein Group and Timothy McKone of SBC Communications.
Over the summer, they discussed a trip for this year as well, Boehner said yesterday, but last week the lobbyists weighed anchor without him, content to communicate by telephone while the chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee rushed to Washington for a high-stakes run to succeed Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) as House majority leader.
The annual vacation, dubbed a “boys’ trip” by detractors, points to an issue underlying the current House leadership race: Both Boehner and his rival for majority leader, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), have extensive ties to the same K Street lobbying world that stained DeLay’s reputation and spawned the Abramoff corruption scandal.
“Do I have K Street friends? Yes, I do,” Boehner said. “Do I have relationships with them? Yes. And every one of them is an ethical relationship.”
If you are a Republican, and you just groaned audibly and slumped over in your chair, I feel your pain. I am right there with you. Rather than cut the rot, it appears that the Leadership race will be replacing the corrupted with the mildly corrupt, or, giving Boehner and Blunt a little bit of leeway, the easily corruptible. It is inexcusable. It is mind-numbing. It is an example of what is wrong with the inside the Beltway class that they are simply incapable of recognizing that replacing DeLay with his protege, Blunt, is not going to be seen as a breath of fresh air. Whee- we replaced the #2 guy in the house with the #3 guy- don’t you see the CHANGE?
It isn’t that there are not alternatives for leadership- Mike Pence and John Shadegg spring immediately to mind- it is that the majority of the House just doesn’t seem to get it, or care. If Blunt or Boehner succeed DeLay, the Democrats and the press are going to have a field day with the GOP, and they should.
*** Update ***
Good news. Red State has come out with a strong endorsement of Shadegg. It is late in the game, but hopefully this will be the first of many endorsements for the man.
Lines
I wish I could agree with you on that, John, but again, history shows something so totally different that there is just no point anymore in trying to show you how complicit the press and Democrats are in everything that has happened up to now. There is no reason to give me any hope that the Democrats will use this as a level when so many other chances have fallen unused by the wayside.
Lee
How about Ron Paul (R-Texas) for Majority Leader?
Jorge
John,
Please let me know when a Democrat is directly linked to any sort of bribe, kickback or money laundering from Abramoff. And let’s be clear – having an indian tribe make a legal donation to your campaign is not proof or a link. The K street project was all about making the Dems obsolete in legislation and lobbying. Almost by definition they can’t be involved in this scandal.
The fact that it has become PC to say the Dems are probably involved doesn’t mean that there is proof that the Dems are involved. Is it so hard to admit that maybe, just maybe, the Republican party has been infiltrated and mostly taken over by a bunch of corrupt crooks that are much, much worse than the average politician? The right now, the Republican party is crooked in a way that the Democrats are not?
John Cole
I fucking give up.
Did you read the same god damned post I wrote, Jorge?
This wasn’t enough:
That says I am willing to be that a Democrat is involved in some minimal way- that in no way exonnerates the GOP. In fact, everything else in the post flames the GOP, and your only instinct is to come in and tell me I just can’t handle the truth that the Republicans might be corrupt.
Fuck all you people. I quit. Between the reactions to the previous post in which all I did was post what someone else said about the confirmation hearings and in return got crapped all over, and the response here, I just give up on you people. You all are nothing more than mirror images of Rush Limbaugh. Only the party and the politics are different.
The Other Steve
The media isn’t going to cover this scandal. It hurts Republicans, and they’re afraid. If they say anything nasty about Republicans they might lose their access, and they might get screamed at.
Fucking cowards.
Lines
John, I think Jorge just read that single line and misunderstood your intent. I don’t think you’ll find many Democrats that don’t believe someone from the party will be caught up in this scandal in some way, and it could be that the money coming from the Tribes was an indirect way for Abramoff to bribe Democrats. However, since that charge hasn’t been articulated by anyone in the “know”, it’s just going to take time before everything becomes clear. Right now the known facts point to a basic 100% Republican scandal.
Geek, Esq.
JC: You forgot the juiciest part about our buddy Boehner:
searp
The Republicans are the party of money, and will never give up their ties to it. Money is represented by K Street. Republicans do not represent all of us, they represent monied interests and pretend to care about other things. These ugly truths are lost on the public, for reasons that I don’t completely understand, but then I am not a Republican.
My brother, a working stiff, thinks Republicans represent working people while Democrats represent over-educated trust babies and welfare queens. He is severely disappointed in the quality of his representation. We at least agree on that.
searp
I don’t think Democrats will be caught up in this until someone produces a golfing photo with Abramoff and a Democrat.
Jorge
Lines –
You’re right. I reacted to the fact that John threw in the qualifiers “democrats were involved in some minimal way” and “predominantly Republican scandal.”
But I didn’t misread John. There is absolutely no evidence that the Democrats were in any way shape or form involved in this. And while I do admire the way John is willing to objectively look at the Republican role in this, it still bothers me that even the most open minded Republicans feel the need to creat a link, even a minimal one, to the Democrats.
I’m sorry, but this IS a partisan issue. And this isn’t a business as usual issue. We all know that the system in Washington favors money and lobbyist have alot of money. This is about a bunch of crooks ripping people off and using the government to further their own material desires. And yes, as a Democrat, I refuse to sit by and let my party be implicated in this scandal in any way, shape or form if there is no proof.
So John can get indignant all he wants. But if he insists on making ANY unsubstantiated links to the Democrats in the Abramoff scandal then he needs to be called out on it.
One last thing – this issue has nothing to do with being a conservative or a liberal. This scandal does nothing to prove which ideology is “better.” This issue is about folks who are corrupt crooks and how they’ve taken over the Republican Party and Washington DC. Ideology comes into play when people decide to link the leaders of your ideological movement to these scandals even though there is absolutely no proof of those links.
John Cole
Ok. It is confirmed. You can’t read.
I didn’t make any unsubstantiated links to Democrats, and in fact spent the whole post knocking them down. Instead, I said I was willing to bet a Democrat was involved in some minimal way. That is it. No accusations, no unsubstantiated charges, just my guess that there is probably a Democrat involved in some minor way.
You called me out on nothing.
Gratefulcub
They didn’t stay with Delay, even changing the rules to keep him, because they like the guy. I don’t think anyone actually likes him. They just knew where their money originated. Delay and Blount have good friends with deep pockets.
Now that Delay has been forced out, Blunt has the connections to supply war chests for 06/08. If they replace the leadership with unconnected and uncorrupt ‘breaths of fresh air’, they won’t have the connections.
This is deeper than a few corrupt politicians. Gingrich and Delay built a machine. The inevitable corruption has been revealed. They can’t change the way they do business overnight, and they know no other way.
Plus, this is the same party that refuses to deal with facts about Iraq, NSA, Scooter, etc. They believe that everything will blow over, and their lie will be believed if they repeat it often enough. So, “This scandal is a bipartisan issue, and there are only a few bad apples, and Mr. Blount isn’t one of them. He’s a peach.”
Dennis
Hang in there Mr Cole!
The internet can often be an infuriating place (something about the anonymity I suppose) but I love your site and lurk here on most days.
You’ve got a few verbal bomb-throwers (from both sides of the aisle) and there is always the potential for somebody to start arguing with you about what they want to argue about–not what the discussion is actually about.
However if you discard the exytremes and focus on things closer to the mean, this site is a rarity in political blogdom–most of the posters have a clue and don’t just shout “RIGHT ON!” at each other.
And in one final bit of ass-kissery, you read many blogs I wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot DSL modem and cull out a few worthwhile stories out of them so I don’t have to!
(Skulks back to lurker-dom, not wanting to be involved in any flame related activities)
Jorge
John,
You’re still linking Democrats to the scandal. Whether it is your “best guess” or not, you are still going out of your way to find a way to bring up Democrats as being involved with this scandal.
And I notice that now you have a Mooney Times piece that has anonymous sources vaguely linking Democrats to this scandal. But hey, my best guess is that when all the information about Brokeback Mountain in West Virginia comes out at least a few college professors will be implicated as being homophobes who wanted to ban the movies. But I’m not accussing anyone of anything.
And John, I’m being serious but I’m also kind of messing with you here. I’m sorry if I’m causing you frustration. It is hard to gauge people’s moods over the internet.
Gratefulcub
For Christ’s sake Jorge, KOS has a Dems are Saints echo chamber. Use it.
John Cole
No, Jorge. I went out of my way to be on record saying there is no evidence that Democrats are linked, but I state thsat I wouldn’t be surprised if one or two are involved. That is vastly different from what you are accusing me of saying.
Because there aren’t enough people trolling here.
Lines
I take it that its John’s opinion that some Democrat will be uncovered along the way, and he made it pretty clear that it was only opinion. Abramoff is probably very intelligent, and given that would know where he needed to grease some skids, including Democrat skids. The Democrats arn’t Saints, so don’t pretend they are. Like I said, its very probable that he steered money to Democrats through intermediaries
Confederate Yankee
Jorge, 40 of 45 Democratic senators took month from Abramoff or his clients. Byron Dorgan and Harry Reid are two of the five Congessmen being targeted by the Justice Department.
Democrats are not only linked to this scandal, they’re hip deep in it as well.
Confederate Yankee
First link was broken.
Jorge
Confederate –
The “Abramoff and his clients” line is fairly useless. His clients included Indian tribes who give lots of money legally to many folks for legitimate reasons. And that’s the kind of BS linking of the Democrats that I’m talking about.
As far as your link to the Washington Times. So, the partisan Republican newspaper owned by Reverend Moon claims some anonymous DOJ officials say that there are Democrats that are being looked at? Again, more of the unsubstantiated BS I’m talking about.
As far as the silly “Democrats are saints” remark. Show me some proof they are actually involved in this mess. It has become the defense of corrupt politicians to say “everyone is crooked.” Well now, show me how these people are crooked and how they broke the law. There are specific charges that have been levelled against Delay, Scanlon, Abramoff, Duke etc.
When and if a Democrat is actually named in an indictment then we can talk. But considering the severity of the charges being thrown about, it would be irresponsible and stupid to begin throwing the Democratic party under the bus when there is no proof they’ve committed crimes.
But please, someone give me a reason to believe the Dems are involved that has some susbtantiated factual evidence. Give me an official investigation or even one friggin Abramoff e-mail that implicates a Democrat.
Dennis
Confederate Yankee:
You need to edit that post–45-50 democratic senators took money from Abramoff’s clients. So far there has not been a single proven instance where a Democrat recieved money FROM Abramoff himself.
There is a difference you know.
Jorge
Thanks Dennis. Indian Tribes are just as legitimate a special interest group as any other. I don’t think people understand the Indian tribes aren’t codefendents with Abramoff – they are his victims. He ripped them off.
Lines
Jorge, I’m stating that Abramoff most likely would have included Dem’s in his bribary at some point. Even if he did it through intermediaries. Any Dem that did business with Abramoff should be worried, but that in no way condemns the Democratic Party.
On the other hand, when you have a VERY large number of Republicans accepting money directly from Abramoff, in many times ways that were clearly illegal, well, that begins to tar a party, which is what we’re seeing.
No single person is a party.
Confederate Yankee
THANK YOU for making the exact point I wanted you to make.
I seems Democrats (and some Republicans) are more than willing to throw the entire Republican party under the bus and accept any possible Republican connection to Abramoff at all as a guilty verdict.
But when the same standard (which is to say, no standard) is applied to Democrats, you hem and haw, throwing up all kinds of excuses to cover for them.
Enjoy the mirror, Dorian Gray.
Jorge
Wow – spin away Confederate. So, you weren’t actually making your original point you were trying to trick me into making another point?
Jorge
Lines,
And I’m saying that Abramoff was part of a plan to completely shut out Democrats from the system. He was part of the K street project. So no, I don’t follow the line of reasoning that Abramoff must have tried to bribe Democrats as well.
Yes, I get the bigger point that even if a Democrat is involved that it doesn’t implicate the entire party. But I vehemently disagree that logic dictates that Abramoff tried much less actually did bribe a Democrat. Abramoff was the President of the College Republicans, worked on the interior department as part of GW’s 45 person transition team, only donates to Republicans, and was part of Delay’s plot to shut Democrats out of lobbying and legislation. And Abramoff was more interested in milking the tribes than he was in actually getting any sort of results for them. So, until there is some sort of proof that even one Democrat was involved then anyone with a D before their name does not belong in this discussion.
searp
Follow the indictments. There won’t be a single Democrat indicted. That tells the story, not the press. Of course the leak to the Times did the “Dems too” thing – can you imagine this Justice department focusing exclusively on Republicans? Those that are indicted, though, have been and will be, Republicans.
Possibly the worst thing here is that DeLay created a different ball game. The party in power will use its muscle much more ruthlessly, to our detriment. Could this have been the Dems? Sure. Was it? No.
Lines
I’m on the other side of it. I won’t commit to there being zero Democrats until I hear that there are zero Democrats. Right now there are actually zero Republicans, just names with no numbers attached. Some of the Republicans that he’s connected to may only be for legal campaign contributions, while others appear to be totally illegal. Speculation that there will be zero of anything or a million of anything is just speculation.
I’m still just pissed off that Ney is allowed to remain free. That man is 10x Duke Cunningham with even less class.
Jess
John,
Once again I would like to applaud your willingness to take an honest look at the party that has so badly abused your loyalty. I’m seeing a lot of friends, mostly older, old school Republicans, who are now feeling deeply betrayed and disillusioned by what’s happened to the GOP. Those of you who are taking a principled stand against this hostile takeover by the Neocons (or however you want to classify the K-Street Boys) have earned my respect, even though I still think the warning signs have been visible for decades.
Jorge, while I agree with the points you’re making, I think you could have made them without attacking John–that was unwarranted.
Sojourner
The moral of the story is simple – divided government is essential. It’s a joke to assume that the Republicans will police themselves. Gerrymandered precincts and indifferent voters prevent any real accountability.
The reality is this country is screwed for the foreseeable future.
Thanks a lot.
Kay
I’ll admit up front that I’m a democrat and that I found my way to this post via a link from a liberal website.
That said. It’s encouraging to find a republican who understands the Abramoff Scandal for what it is and openly acknowledges it.
It’s also nice to know that at least a couple of republicans are groaning as loudly about Boehner’s election as I am. Well, the truth is that only part of me is groaning – the good government part. The political animal in me uncorked a bottle of champagne to celebrate this incredible act of political stupidity on the part of the house republicans.