• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Seems like a complicated subject, have you tried yelling at it?

Republicans want to make it harder to vote and easier for them to cheat.

if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.

When your entire life is steeped in white supremacy, equality feels like discrimination.

You’re just a puppy masquerading as an old coot.

If you still can’t see these things even now, maybe politics isn’t your forte and you should stop writing about it.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

The rest of the comments were smacking Boebert like she was a piñata.

The gop is a fucking disgrace.

Quote tweet friends, screenshot enemies.

Everything is totally normal and fine!!!

We know you aren’t a Democrat but since you seem confused let me help you.

White supremacy is terrorism.

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires republicans to act in good faith.

The low info voters probably won’t even notice or remember by their next lap around the goldfish bowl.

The next time the wall street journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.

The revolution will be supervised.

Conservatism: there are people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

Balloon Juice, where there is always someone who will say you’re doing it wrong.

Incompetence, fear, or corruption? why not all three?

They punch you in the face and then start crying because their fist hurts.

The republican caucus is covering themselves with something, and it is not glory.

It’s all just conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Popular Culture / The Jack Abramoff Of Sex

The Jack Abramoff Of Sex

by Tim F|  May 2, 20079:38 am| 39 Comments

This post is in: Popular Culture

FacebookTweetEmail

For whatever reason the newsreading public loves them a sex scandal. Maybe illicit sex is easier to understand than white collar crime (to illustrate, please write down what exactly Jack Abramoff did wrong. you have five minutes). It could have to do with that extra dose of personal humiliation. It probably owes more than we would admit to our puritan roots. Whatever the case, the slow-moving train wreck that is Deborah Jeane Palfrey has already taken two scalps and looks to bring down a bevy more before it burns itself out.

The latest from RawStory focuses on a relatively weak scoop (an online client review contained explicit sex talk!), but note this paragraph:

The release of Palfrey’s client list to ABC News has already resulted in the resignation of one top Bush administration, Randall Tobias of the State Department. Tobias has admitted to using Palfrey’s escort service to receive “massages” but insists that he did not have sex with her prostitutes. Earlier today, ABC’s Brian Ross revealed that the “head of a conservative thinktank” was included among her record of clients, and that many key clients will be revealed in a 20/20 broadcast on Friday.

I wait for the day when one of these guys says something like yeah, I paid for sex, just like 30% of the men in America at some point. Maybe that doesn’t make me a saint, but it’s my private life and the only person whose forgiveness I need to ask is my wife. Now get off my lawn. Scandal over, nobody needs to resign.

But that won’t happen, and if it did I could be wrong about it making the scandalmongers go away. Given the insane number of potentates in her alleged client list the Palfrey saga will probably claim as many scalps as Abramoff did. Unlike a public corruption scandal however, in a sex flap like this the fault lies more in the mob than the monster. So as much as I enjoy seeing any public figure taken down on the general principle that turnover is good, don’t look for much boo-yah from me when the unnamed thinktank head resigns or goes through hell to prevent it.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Hey, Teacher
Next Post: The Reagan Diaries »

Reader Interactions

39Comments

  1. 1.

    LarryB

    May 2, 2007 at 10:18 am

    Anyone else notice the wierd synchronicity between the D.C. Madam story and this one?

    Yes, this story will feed yet another lurid media freak show. On the other hand, the “Yes I did it. Now piss off” defense works better when you’re not a sanctimonious, hypocritical prick engaged in a public war to criminalize sex. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.

  2. 2.

    Cyrus

    May 2, 2007 at 10:20 am

    For whatever reason the newsreading public loves them a sex scandal. Maybe illicit sex is easier to understand than white collar crime (to illustrate, please write down what exactly Jack Abramoff did wrong. you have five minutes).

    Just for the hell of it… until Abramoff came along, the lobbying industry — that is, the people who are hired to talk to legislators and make sure they keep legislation friendly to certain groups, with varying degrees of similarity to bribes — were reasonably bipartisan. It was based on personal loyalty, or regional or ideological sympathies, rather than partisan loyalty. Abramoff turned it into as partisan a process as he could. He got jobs with lobbying companies for his cronies, got lobbyists jobs in government, punished lobbyists who continued to support Democrats, and worst of all, froze Democrats out of those not-really-bribes.

    On the downside, my analysis can’t be entirely accurate because as far as I know there’s nothing actually illegal in that. He must, at the very least, have been accused of something criminal, but I don’t know what, unless something I mentioned was a crime and I just don’t know it. On the other hand, I did indeed finish that analysis in about five minutes after I started typing. Do I get a cookie?

  3. 3.

    The Other Steve

    May 2, 2007 at 10:24 am

    By freezing Democrats out of the bribery process, Abramhoff made it easy to use Lobbying as a partisan campaign issue.

    So perhaps we should be thank Black Jack.

  4. 4.

    pharniel

    May 2, 2007 at 10:28 am

    pretty much the short and long of it.
    if you’d caught, say, some liberal ‘has a rep as a playboy already’ could easily get away with ‘ yha, i paid for sex. piss off’
    the ‘president commited high cirems and misdomenors and should be impeched because he lied about getting a blowjob from a chubby intern’ crowd, not so much the working

  5. 5.

    Zifnab

    May 2, 2007 at 10:29 am

    From LarryB’s link:

    The association has already announced that prostitutes would hold a protest in front of the government building in Belgrade if the parliament continues to ignore the issue.

    Hottest. Protest. Ever.

    (to illustrate, please write down what exactly Jack Abramoff did wrong. you have five minutes).

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Abramoff is guilty of a number of crimes ranging from embezzlement of funds from some of those Indian Casinos to attempting to circumvent the cap on donations to political parties to directly bribing government officals for legislation. And there might have been some obstruction of justice thrown in there for good measure.

    Basically, he stole money from Native Americans to give illegal payouts TRAMPAC politicos in order to facilitate legislation that would let him steal more money from the casinos and deliver even more money to DeLay’s coffers.

  6. 6.

    demimondian

    May 2, 2007 at 10:30 am

    I think Cyrus and Larry together kind of nail it.

    People don’t understand why what Abramoff did was wronger than anything else. The idea that a lobbyist really does pay for access, not for a vote, seems alien to everyone who hasn’t actually dealt with lobbying. The idea that there are legal regulations to keep things that way — even stranger to people who don’t deal with the industry. Result: people don’t see what he did as being any more or less wrong than what other lobbyist did. (And, frankly, had he been bipartisan, there’d be a lot less eagerness to investigate him. Lesson to the K street project: someday, you’re going to want bipartisan cover.)

    OTOH, whether 30% of all men pay for sex at some point, we all know that it’s potentially dangerous to a partner who doesn’t know it’s going on. Thus, we all understand why illegal prostitution poses a risk to people who can’t be reasonably expected to defend against the risks. Add in the juiciness of a sex scandal — something we all understand because we all understand sexual temptation — and the hypocrisy, too…it’s a great story.

  7. 7.

    Rome Again

    May 2, 2007 at 10:30 am

    What Abramoff did wrong:

    As a lobbyist, he got involved with shady dealings, such as with Sun Cruz Casinos, which he purchased in a quiet move which was illegal since he was a member of the consultation firm, the deal involved wire transfer fraud… and subsequently ended in murder?

    Enough said!

  8. 8.

    jake

    May 2, 2007 at 10:37 am

    Brian Ross revealed that the “head of a conservative thinktank” was included among her record of clients

    Huh huh! You said “head.”

    So far as Jack A. is concerned, people do understand money and they do understand that people who have a lot of it tend to screw over people who don’t. Hence the attempt to paint Democrats and liberals as lock-jawed elitists while portraying a trust fund baby from Connecticut as a good ol’ boy from Texas.

  9. 9.

    Dreggas

    May 2, 2007 at 10:43 am

    So as much as I enjoy seeing any public figure taken down on the general principle that turnover is good, don’t look for much boo-yah from me when the unnamed thinktank head resigns or goes through hell to prevent it.

    What if it was a figure who was equivalent to a James Dobson?

  10. 10.

    Jimmmm

    May 2, 2007 at 10:44 am

    Would that the GOP didn’t present itself as the morally superior party. Then these sorts of scandals wouldn’t threaten the body politic.

    And fuck you, Tim, for being such a condescending twat (about peoples’ ability to understand and summarize l’Affaire Abramoff.

  11. 11.

    Dreggas

    May 2, 2007 at 10:48 am

    Just for the hell of it… until Abramoff came along, the lobbying industry — that is, the people who are hired to talk to legislators and make sure they keep legislation friendly to certain groups, with varying degrees of similarity to bribes — were reasonably bipartisan. It was based on personal loyalty, or regional or ideological sympathies, rather than partisan loyalty. Abramoff turned it into as partisan a process as he could. He got jobs with lobbying companies for his cronies, got lobbyists jobs in government, punished lobbyists who continued to support Democrats, and worst of all, froze Democrats out of those not-really-bribes

    Actually Abramoff was part of the machine but this part here was more tied to Tom DeLay and those involved in the K Street project. Abramoff bribed public officials and violated several laws involving the “gifts” he gave. Further he embezzled money from Indian tribes and was able to successfully bribe top republican officials to do his and his clients bidding (see marianas Islands and labor laws). He also was running a scheme where he would hire former aides to lobby their former bosses in congress.

    What you illustrate, the packing of lobbying firms with republicans and freezing out lobbyists if they dealt with Democrats and did not hire republicans was part of the K Street project run by the likes of Tom DeLay and lil Ricky Santorum. It was basically the old mob/racketeering practice of “I know someone who does cement work…you’ll hire him”.

  12. 12.

    Dave

    May 2, 2007 at 10:50 am

    So as much as I enjoy seeing any public figure taken down on the general principle that turnover is good, don’t look for much boo-yah from me when the unnamed thinktank head resigns or goes through hell to prevent it.

    If the wing-nuts weren’t so self-righteous, the party of shoving their morals down the country’s throats, I wouldn’t care either. In this case, I’m going to enjoy watching all these bible bangers choke on their hypocrisies.

  13. 13.

    Punchy

    May 2, 2007 at 10:57 am

    I wait for the day when one of these guys says something like yeah, I paid for sex, just like 30% of the men in America at some point

    For most, yes. But when you burn mad calories yelling at others to practice abstinence, eschew condoms b/c fidelity is the virtue, and generally portray yourself and your party as the Jesus-jonesin’, sin-free, Btichin’ Bible Bangers Boldly Believing in Bush, you may have a problem with this type of admission.

  14. 14.

    Tsulagi

    May 2, 2007 at 10:58 am

    I dunno, with this Palfrey thing, really the Pubs should be happy and relieved. At least it seems likely to involve only straight sex with adult women. Sure, it’s sex for money (like those losers are going to get it any other way) and probably cheating on a wife, but you go for the best you can get.

    After Foley, Haggard, Dirty Sanchez, and no doubt countless other unsung family values heroes, the trend line was not good. How long before we were going to hear of Cheney in stilettos and nipple studs hitting on Barney? I don’t think the country could have survived that.

  15. 15.

    Rome Again

    May 2, 2007 at 11:05 am

    I dunno, with this Palfrey thing, really the Pubs should be happy and relieved. At least it seems likely to involve only straight sex with adult women. Sure, it’s sex for money (like those losers are going to get it any other way) and probably cheating on a wife, but you go for the best you can get.

    Straight sex with an adult woman got Clinton impeached.

  16. 16.

    jake

    May 2, 2007 at 11:06 am

    How long before we were going to hear of Cheney in stilettos and nipple studs hitting on Barney? I don’t think the country could have survived that.

    Damn it, pass the mind bleach!
    Anyway, you mean Rove. Cheney is a ball-gag and goat man.

    OT: Old MacDonald took a hike, ee, i, ee, i, oo.

  17. 17.

    carpeicthus

    May 2, 2007 at 11:09 am

    30 percent of men in America? I guess the economy IS booming. Still people need better hobbies.

  18. 18.

    Cyrus

    May 2, 2007 at 11:17 am

    Ah yes, of course, I had forgot the embezzling from the Indian casinos. I remember it now that you mention it, including gleeful e-mails about how he would be soaking them for a lot of money, but it didn’t come to mind as I was writing. I didn’t know about the SunCruz thing or being linked to murder, though.

    And I realize that lobbying is paying for access and a voice, not an actual vote or bill, and a lot of it really is not the same thing as a bribe. I felt that looking anything up would have defeated the purpose of the exercise, and had I not been trying to answer the question quickly, I would have included a lot of caveats and stuff.

    Maybe the difference between sex scandals and white-collar crime is that in the former, the relationships between perpetrators, victims and accomplices are relatively obvious. Not completely obvious, of course — is a prostitute the accomplice in a married man betraying his wife/congregation/whatever, is she a victim in being exploited, or is she (or, um, he) the the perpetrator for ruining the reputation of a john who didn’t actually do something all that unusual? Details matter — but it’s a whole lot more obvious than in white collar crime. There’s a pretty simple and personal story to tell about the Clenis, or Ted Haggard, or whatever. By contrast, well, all the different views of Abramoff, which may be compatible and complementary, but all emphasize a different angle, all cast what happened in varying degrees of bad, and few have one single individual who was directly harmed by what Abramoff did and couldn’t also be plausibly accused of wrongdoing.

    To summarize, in case this is too long-winded: White-collar crime is equally bad, and in some cases just as understandable, but often, harder to see as a criminal vs. wronged victim narrative.

  19. 19.

    Rome Again

    May 2, 2007 at 11:20 am

    And I realize that lobbying is paying for access and a voice, not an actual vote or bill, and a lot of it really is not the same thing as a bribe. I felt that looking anything up would have defeated the purpose of the exercise, and had I not been trying to answer the question quickly, I would have included a lot of caveats and stuff.

    I linked for your benefit, not mine. It was a local story, as I was in FL at the time. Sun Cruz Casino boats worked out of both coasts of FL, with operations just 30 miles from where I lived. It was a local scandal.

  20. 20.

    Tsulagi

    May 2, 2007 at 11:24 am

    Straight sex with an adult woman got Clinton impeached.

    Hillary?

    Anyway, see Rule #1: IOKIYAR. Saying Clinton did it too gives bonus points.

  21. 21.

    Dave

    May 2, 2007 at 12:21 pm

    Straight sex with an adult woman got Clinton impeached.

    Actually he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

  22. 22.

    Nikki

    May 2, 2007 at 12:29 pm

    I’ve been wondering if the DC Madam affair is in any way tied to the Goss/Foggo/Wilkes scandal. Remember Wilkes used to throw poker and prostitute parties at the Watergate.

  23. 23.

    ATS

    May 2, 2007 at 12:40 pm

    “please write down what exactly Jack Abramoff did wrong. you have five minutes”

    Well, let’s see. He took money from people (Chocktaw Indians) whose land land had been stolen in the past, and gave it to a sniper school for people stealing land in the present (West Bank settlers).

    The irony may be profound but the process is simple enough.

  24. 24.

    Pooh

    May 2, 2007 at 12:49 pm

    What Dave said at 10:50. Sex scandals are stupid. Unless you make your bones being a faux moralistic pompous windbag. Then you get what you deserve, Rev. Haggard.

  25. 25.

    Rome Again

    May 2, 2007 at 1:13 pm

    Actually he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

    Wasn’t the the statement that committed perjery “I did not have sex with that woman”?

  26. 26.

    Rome Again

    May 2, 2007 at 1:14 pm

    perjury, sorry, didn’t preview. Too busy working!

  27. 27.

    Kimmitt

    May 2, 2007 at 1:36 pm

    He was impeached for alleged perjury, but he was not convicted, which is to say that he was found not guilty of committing perjury.

    Which is to say that he was impeached for straight sex with an adult woman.

  28. 28.

    gus

    May 2, 2007 at 1:51 pm

    Jimmmmm and Dave got it right. If you’re going to claim that your positions are morally superior, and the other party is the party of acid, amnesty and abortion (or whatever the modern equivalent might be), you damn well better keep your nose clean. It’s the hypocrisy, stupid!

  29. 29.

    Pooh

    May 2, 2007 at 2:34 pm

    Jimmmmm and Dave got it right. If you’re going to claim that your positions are morally superior, and the other party is the party of acid, amnesty and abortion (or whatever the modern equivalent might be), you damn well better keep your nose clean. It’s the hypocrisy, stupid!

    Or, even shorter, “we wouldn’t care about it if you didn’t first”

  30. 30.

    grumpy realist

    May 2, 2007 at 2:52 pm

    Also, we don’t know what these “girls” got up to with whips and chains.

    The “sex fantasy but no, no, not sex!” makes me think there is at least some pseudo-BSDM (what the repubs would think is BSDM) going on there.

    Guffaws and sniggers from this corner, plus an order for extra popcorn. Hey, I don’t care what floats your boat, just as long as you haven’t been a prick shoving your no-sex-before-marriage-pearl-clutching-religious-nitwittiness down my throat.

  31. 31.

    Leader Desslok

    May 2, 2007 at 2:56 pm

    Thus, we all understand why illegal prostitution poses a risk to people who can’t be reasonably expected to defend against the risks.

    The sort of escort agency this was would require that the girls get tested regularly. Imagine what even one case of a client getting an infection would do to the reputation of the agency. People paying thousands of dollars for sex expect a little bit more than the folks looking for $20 blowjobs in the alley.

    Although the industry is not regulated by the government (to the shame of our stupid, irrational society) there a number of online review boards where both providers and clients contribute information in an effort to keep people honest.

    The idea that sleazy pimps and crack whores are the norm in the business is a myth. Such people are universally reviled by johns and madames alike, and are very much the exception to the rule. At least that’s my impression.

  32. 32.

    Leader Desslok

    May 2, 2007 at 3:02 pm

    Hey, I don’t care what floats your boat, just as long as you haven’t been a prick shoving your no-sex-before-marriage-pearl-clutching-religious-nitwittiness down my throat.

    I don’t care either… but it’s worth noting that the pearl-clutching crowd do tend to be into some pretty fucked up shit behind closed doors.

    I make absolutely no secret of my love for the sex, but then my tastes are pretty tame and ordinary. Just give me a cute blonde in a cheerleader skirt and I’m good to go.

    But when the fire and brimstone crowd get horny… man, I don’t even want to know.

  33. 33.

    LITBMueller

    May 2, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    THE CLINTON-LEWINSKY RATIONALE, 1998: oral sex is not sex, per se

    THE RANDALL TOBIAS RATIONALE, 2007 (???): It was just a massage (i.e., she massaged my penis with her vagina)

  34. 34.

    Tulkinghorn

    May 2, 2007 at 4:14 pm

    LITBMueller Says:

    THE CLINTON-LEWINSKY RATIONALE, 1998: oral sex is not sex, per se

    It wasn’t sex according to the definitions stipulated to by the plaintiff’s attorneys.

  35. 35.

    Zombie Santa Claus

    May 2, 2007 at 5:55 pm

    All’s I know is, if she releases my name, it’s bullshit. Santa Claus only loves Mrs. Claus, children! Don’t let any madams, strippers, or harlots tell you anything different!

    Ho ho ho, bitches!

  36. 36.

    ATS

    May 3, 2007 at 6:43 am

    The “head of a conservative thinktank” was included among her record of client” is a misprint. It should read:

    “Head in a conservative thinktank was included among her record of services.”

  37. 37.

    billfry

    May 3, 2007 at 12:28 pm

    the only unforgivable sin in politics is getting caught.

  38. 38.

    ATS

    May 3, 2007 at 2:52 pm

    Oral sex is fine, so long as there is good sound insulation.

  39. 39.

    The Kid

    May 4, 2007 at 12:33 pm

    Tim is right. It is none of our business if some hot shot D.C. bigwigs have been availing themselves of Ms. Palfrey’s services. Except that, for the past two decades, Republicans have made it their business to peek into everybody else’s personal lives. First it was under the guise of morality, then after 9-11, it was ostensibly for security. So now, we live in a virtual police state where neighbors can peek into your bedrooms, women have no control over their own bodies and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove can go through every one of our emails, library records, medical files or banking statements.
    If Ted Kennedy or John Conyers winds up on that list, I couldn’t care less. They’re not the ones that have been pushing for absolute control over every aspect of my morality or personal life. But if it’s a Mitch McConnel or an Orrin Hatch or a Gary Bauer, you’re damn right I wanna know about it. And I relish the thought of their lives being taken apart and destroyed because of it.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Image by HinTN (5/22/25)

Recent Comments

  • Ruckus on Update: Kilmar Abrego Garcia: ‘Keep Him Where He Is’ (May 22, 2025 @ 4:27pm)
  • Omnes Omnibus on Update: Kilmar Abrego Garcia: ‘Keep Him Where He Is’ (May 22, 2025 @ 4:25pm)
  • David Anderson on One Big Bad Bill and the ACA (May 22, 2025 @ 4:24pm)
  • Ruckus on Update: Kilmar Abrego Garcia: ‘Keep Him Where He Is’ (May 22, 2025 @ 4:23pm)
  • zhena gogolia on Proof of Live – Ohio Meetup (May 22, 2025 @ 4:23pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!