Fitz - where are you?
justwondering | 01.16.06 - 9:17 pm | #

Good point Jane. I don't rmember ever reading that Abramoff was appointed the Great Jewish Poohbah of the Native Americans. The GOP is trying to change the rules as usual. We should really try to squash this narrative.
Fallenmonk | Homepage | 01.16.06 - 9:19 pm | #

2) turn the victims into "villains" and then carefully remind Americans that those villains are part of an Other (Indian, Jew) known to be greedy, dirty and immoral.


And 'Chinese', too, for those little colonial outposts in Micronesia and Guam. Abramoff knew who to prey upon: groups that normally get ignored by the GOP, and which can easily be dumped and have the usual racist smears applied to them.

Abramoff didn't 'lobby' for white fundies; that was the other side of the equation, managed by Reed. He went after the groups that white fundies could easily tar as 'not us'.
pseudonymous in nc | 01.16.06 - 9:21 pm | #

Well, I'm glad Willis is game.. I hope he keeps on posting.
Regardless, it is past time for the Wapoo to have an official correction up.
marky | 01.16.06 - 9:22 pm | #

And let's be frank: representing Native American interests is rarely a path to many votes, unless you happen to be in one of the states with a substantial Native population. In which case, you have a duty to represent them anyway.

Before Jack-Off, speaking out for the issues most significant to Native Americans was not a particularly glamorous or lucrative business; as opposed to, say, speaking out for the interests of defense contractors or energy corps.
pseudonymous in nc | 01.16.06 - 9:26 pm | #

Per WaPo: "Scrutiny may be coming, Flake cautioned, now that DeLay is no longer in the leadership. Wertheimer of Democracy 21, in a Nov. 22 letter to House ethics committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), called for a prompt investigation into the events of June 2003, when Hastert held a fundraiser at Signatures, which brought in at least $21,500, much of it from Abramoff's tribal clients. A week later, the speaker signed a letter to Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton, urging her to reject a request from a rival tribe for a new casino."

Anyone for some blackberry jam cake?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp...6011600997.html
.
Muzzy | 01.16.06 - 9:27 pm | #

Bravo, Jane. Keep their feet to the fire, and maybe they'll pull their noses out of Bush's asshole.
Alan S | 01.16.06 - 9:28 pm | #

Has the Post ever presented evidence for this Willis statement? "He did direct his tribal clients to contribute to both Democrats and Republicans"
Semblance | Homepage | 01.16.06 - 9:31 pm | #

By the way, is it possible that Willis is treading on the edge of libel? If it is not true that Abramoff directed Indian tribes to donate to Democrats, then the claim is defamatory and false. And even if Abramoff did direct such payments, if there is no evidence that Democratic recipients were aware of this, and if there was no evidence of quid pro quo, this is again defamatory and false. Am I reaching here?
marky | 01.16.06 - 9:32 pm | #

Oops, second case should read that it is defamatory.. not necessarily false. I don't know libel law, but the first case looks clear cut to me, informally.
marky | 01.16.06 - 9:33 pm | #

Has anyone at WaPo responded to the barrage of emails protesting Deborah Howell's lies that Abramoff encouraged the Indian tribes to give money to Democrats?

I took a quick look at their website this morning but didn't see anything related. Didn't want to stay long, because GOP spin always drives me nutz.
John Palcewski | Homepage | 01.16.06 - 9:34 pm | #

I see that Semblance and I have both also just posted at the WaPoo blog.
I am so bad, I wrote "....I am guessing that the WaPoo blog (sorry---I love that typo!)..."
Whoever came up with that last night---it's a keeper!
marky | 01.16.06 - 9:34 pm | #

Has anyone spoke to tribal leaders about this situation? It ought to be pretty easy to discount this latest bullshit with a few nice quotes expaining how Abramoff directed the tribes to decrease their contributions to Democrats. I can't imagine the Indian tribes would have much incentive at this point to cover the Republicans asses. Anyone read anything?
Mike R | 01.16.06 - 9:35 pm | #

Wasn't the Abramoff/Reed scam just a form of protection racket?

Using Reed, (and tribal money) Abramoff created opposition to the same gambling operations he was supposed to be promoting. Then he convinced the tribes that in order to counter the "opposition," they needed to make "charitable donations" that would create support for the gambling operations.

It's the same as hiring a gang to bust up the restaurant, and then making the owners pay to "protect" them from the gansters.
justwondering | 01.16.06 - 9:36 pm | #

Posted the following at TPM Cafe. I am honesthly hoping to find someone who might know some answers to fairly basic questions.

With your indulgence, I offer my comments and questions here.

Speculating that Cunningham and Abramoff' s significance..

Caught recently does not mean that the practice started recently. Usually, the opposite.

Using Google, I am starting to think that we should be looking for HUD scandals and rogue Cuban-American operatives.

San Diego Union worte:

"By the time Wilkes returned to San Diego in the late 1980s, he had established relationships with members of the House Armed Services, Intelligence and Appropriations committees.
Neither Wilkes, Foggo nor Lowery responded to requests for comment.
By 1990, Wilkes was working for Aimco Financial Management in La Jolla. His chief duty was to bring in politicians, including Lowery, to talk to Aimco clients about how new laws might affect their finances."

First, Where did Wilkes learn the skill? Very unclear.

Second, Wilkes is reported to have "opened" a World Finance Corp office in DC circa 1984, but is that the same as infamous World Finance Corp started in early 70s by Hernandez Cartaya? Not clear.

In early 80s, Hernandez Cartaya is in business with Padreda in Texas S&L (trouble ensues). In mid 80s, Padreda is in business with Jeb Bush. HUD scandal ensues.

Third, Wilkes next moves to Aimco. Timing suggests it is differetn from big Denver housing outfit called Airmco (not public until 1994). But was it?

Denver Aimco cast of characters related to Neil Bush and Silverado.

Fourth, Denver Aimco cast of characters related to Imperial S&L in late 80s. Imperial was centered in San Diego. Don Dixon. Lowery was chums with Dixon.

Did Wilkes have any connection there?

Fifth, what happened in 1990s? If networks existed in 80s, how did they mutate?

Maybe a hint: In 2000, a 78 year old retired lawyer/retired CIA or FBI guy with links to Cuban stuff and anti MLK stuff in the 1960s named Charles W. Kane from Stuart Florida was caught altering absenttee ballots in Martin County Florida. He was also an elector for Bush in Florida that year.

Unusual stuff. In particular, there had been a big scandal about absentee ballots in Miami two years earlier, and I think someone went to jail. Anyway, Kane would have known about that. And being a lawyer and 20 year member of Florida Republican executive something (dating back to time Jeb got on scene), Kane had to know it was illegal, in my opinion. And yet he PERSONALLY got involved with altering ballots.

What was Kane doing 1975 to 2000? Google doesn't say. But he had a HUD connection. Jeb appointed him to something fairly innocuous in 1999.

Pull that string.

Sixth, has anyone besides me noticed that many of Delay/Abramoff cronies at Alexander Strategies etc. were foot soldiers at the fake riot in Miami at county offices in 2000.

Seventh, Mel Martinez, from Florida, was put in charge of HUD.

Eighth, seems like a lot of Hondorus connections. Wilkes, Foggo, Fiers (?).

What does it mean? Dunno.

My guess is that there is something about financing property. S&Ls. Then HUD?

Maybe it is about laundering? Dunno.
jwp | 01.16.06 - 9:42 pm | #

Didn't want to sully the threads on Dr. King and Gore,

E mailed my protest to Downey(sp?) and Chairman, along with e mails to the four tribes -strongly urging them to voice their concerns and demand an apology.

Anyone wishing to do same, there is contact info down post t/b found in the thread under that Crone's picture.
clare boothe lucid | 01.16.06 - 9:42 pm | #

Spot on Jane, but "a few" and certainly not all, tribes were given the impression (by Abramoff et al) they were buying legislation IMO. It's all here...

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/...id=f: 96229.wais

Feel free to blast me if I'm wrong (and I know you will! LOL) but that's what it looks like to me.

If I sell you a box for $1,000,000(shoe size box) where you put a dollar in one end of the box, and a $1,000 bill comes out of the other end, yes, I conned your ass. But hey, you bought the box?
Cozumel | Homepage | 01.16.06 - 9:43 pm | #

Cozumel, is there something in this report that indicated Abramoff directed donations to Dems?
marky | 01.16.06 - 9:47 pm | #

Cozumel -- That the Indian Tribes thought they were paying Abramoff to shut down the competition is not exactly headline news. How exactly does that relate to anything in the post?
jane hamsher | Homepage | 01.16.06 - 9:52 pm | #

jwp, I don't know about the details you're citing, but i believe you're right in concluding that there's a continuing thread of corruption running from Bush I days to the present.
justwondering | 01.16.06 - 9:54 pm | #

Cozumel: "Spot on Jane, but 'a few' and certainly not all, tribes were given the impression (by Abramoff et al) they were buying legislation IMO. It's all here..."

Cozumel, how do you explain that contributions to the Dems from tribes that were Abramoff's clients *went down* once they became involved with him?

This is what it looks like: If Abramoff directed any of the tribes donations to Dems, then he apparently directed them to give the Dems *less* money than they had given previously.
.
JohnGabriel | 01.16.06 - 9:58 pm | #

The key point is whether or not Dems knew that Abramoff directed money towards them, if he did. I think the answer is most likely not. I repeat my question about libel---is it possible that Willis has stepped over the edge?
marky | 01.16.06 - 9:59 pm | #

the multitudinous humorous, clever, witty and barbed comments on the WaPoo Blog have disappeared -- only about 50 are now showing although the official count is 657. An "Opinions Editor" claims a few were deleted for personal attacks. BULLSHIT! Truth is disappearing into a sinkhole of history. Luckily, some have downloaded the unexpurgated complete comments from the WaPoo Blog....
Wilson46201 | Homepage | 01.16.06 - 10:05 pm | #

Your shit detector should go off the moment that Willis writes: "Democrats are hoping ..." The nonsense of putting hope, thoughts, feelings, and desires into the minds of their opponents is the stock-in-trade of the the wingnuts. Anytime you hear some claim to know what someone else is thinking or feeling, watch out!!
Tom | 01.16.06 - 10:06 pm | #

Marky--He is aware Patrick Kennedy is a public person. The rules are different for public people.
karen allen | 01.16.06 - 10:08 pm | #

As I pointed out in the previous post, the race card is at play here. Although I'm most disturbed about the slights - both intentional and through thoughtless stereotyping - toward Native Americans, I'm glad to see Jane bring this to the fore in this post.

Contrary to Wampum's claim, Abramoff's Jewishness has been out there for a long time, as has his manipulation of that background through the diversion of funds from his inner city charity toward the arming and training of militant West Bank settlers. But the two leading journalists bringing attention to some of Abramoff's most unsavory aspects are Jewish - Josh Marshall and Laura Rozen.

But the thesis of Wampum's piece is true - identify the wrongdoing with the "other."
Edward Teller | 01.16.06 - 10:09 pm | #

I have been skimming the page Coz references above. With about 1/3 read, there is no reference to donations to democrats.
marky | 01.16.06 - 10:09 pm | #

Marky, I think you're right about the key point.

As for the newspaper statements --

Are they stupid? Oh yes. Are they enormously presumptuous? Most definitely. But are they actionably libelous? Probably not.

First, (tell me if I'm wrong about this), but they don't seem to identify anyone in particular. Second. even if they did, statements regarding public figures generally need to be made with "actual malice" before there is an actionable cause of action for libel. Here, there is not so much "actual malice" as there is actual shallowness.
justwondering | 01.16.06 - 10:13 pm | #

I put in my 2 cents' worth over at WaPo, too, challenging Willis's assertion. He quotes a WaPo article that gives no primary sources as his source. We reported earlier that Democrats received money, so that's proof they got it at Abramoff's direction. What kind of journalism is that? Told them they were complicit in the WH fecal dispersion campaign.

Glad everone is still on the issue. Every time they come up with another false claim, let's throw it back in their faces.
notjonathon | 01.16.06 - 10:13 pm | #

Writing to one of his key allies in the effort to shut down
the Tigua's casino, Mr. Abramoff's references the tribe's
donations to the Democrats, saying, ``I wish those moronic
Tiguas were smarter in their political contributions. I'd love
to get our mitts on that moolah.'' And that's in quotations.
``Oh, well,'' he continues, ``stupid folks get wiped out.''
Stupid folks get wiped out. I think that about says it all
about their opinion about their very clients, the Tiguas

From the Senate hearings.
Doesn't sound like Jack was telling this tribe to be generous to Dems.
marky | 01.16.06 - 10:15 pm | #

There were well over 600 comments on the WaPo blog, which can be verified here:

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/...m/washpostblog/

The currrent count is 658.

There is now only about 50 posts in the whole thread, which you can verify by going here and counting them:

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/ ...log_maryla.html

Now here's the kicker. When asked about the missing posts, this is what The Washington Post had to say:

Editor's Note:
We've deleted about a dozen comments in this thread that didn't raise any substantive issues and that were simply personal attacks on Deborah Howell or others. Every other comment that's been submitted has been published -- although because of the high volume of comments, it's possible that publishing has lagged a bit behind submission.

Hal Straus, Opinions Editor"

They think they're going to get away without acknowledging this, or printing a retraction.

I don't know why, but I'm actually surprised that they would have the gall, the brass balls, to claim they only removed a dozen posts when it was actually over 600 (612 by my count).

I mean, he's really telling people that they can't believe their lying eyes?

I'm just flabbergasted. And furious.
.
JohnGabriel | 01.16.06 - 10:15 pm | #

The KK (Kristian Konservative) movement is just a modern version of the KKK of the 1920s.
dancas | 01.16.06 - 10:15 pm | #

Well, I don't know about libel law, but I think once you know that public figure A is guilty of bribery, then whenever you say that public figure B, or a short, explicit list of these figures, received money from public figure A, in an article about influence-peddling---in this case, you have stepped over the line.
At a bare minimum, a correction must be printed.
marky | 01.16.06 - 10:17 pm | #

Just Wondering,

Thanks for your response.

It is curuious that several people have noted the same name, World Finance Corp, and yet no place have I seen any effort to verify the same organization as the infamous one (if it is the same). Very frustrating.

Also, the San Diego paper article -- while dynamite -- jumps over several years and just assumes (I guess) that plying Congressmen for cash was learned during the Iran Contra activities. I don't see why. Sloppy. Anyway, missing years are dangerous things.

Anyway, my larger point, I guess, is that any networks we discover now were years in the building.

Also, I am skeptical of any paradigm that has Delay and Abramoff running the K Street project throughout the 90s without monitoring and occasional direction from the Bush networks.

As I am sure you will recall, it was the campaign finance network ALREADY IN PLACE that made George W. Bush a "serious contender" in 1999 -- despite his total lack of accomplishments.

Anyway, enough about that. Hopefully, someone who knows something (unlike me) may chime in with some hard to find details.
jwp | 01.16.06 - 10:17 pm | #

Cozumel: I agree completely with jane hamsher on this.

First I will repeat points that maybe I have posted too many times here, but the whole vote buying scandal is not the big story. The Indian Casino groups were just one of many contributers whose main function was to send money into the Abramoff money laundry for illegal GOP slush funds.

Abramoff never intended to represent many of his clients in good faith. He was dealing with a mix of interest that made it damn impossible to represent them all in good faith. He knew it, he even joked about it repeatedly. And, there is good evidence that Abramoff corrupted some tribal elections and got leaders installed who were on the take too. So he didn't even need to represent their interests to keep getting the money. Even the vote buying schemes were corrupt. The whole lobbying gig was a corrupt fraudulent scheme in the first place to get some money into the money laundry. And it was nothing more.

The vote buying stuff is small potatoes. Just enough was done to keep the money flowing. Representing clients via legal or illegal means was not their main business.

If some representatives get busted for illegal services that were probably the very minimum to keep the money rolling in, well, it is good to nail them whether Dem or GOP. But it is still not the main story.

Look at it this way: since the main point of the Abramoff scheme was to funnel money into GOP scams, why would a Democrat sign up? Why would a Democrat cooperate with Abramoff vote buying schemes, if the main point was to keep money flowing into the GOP?

If some Democrat did do illegal favors for Indian Casino money, it was very probably independent of Abramoff's main business, which was money laundering, not representing his clients. If some Democratic goofus was involved, it was most probably independent of Abramoff, unless the Democrat was really dumb and being used.

I do not see how a normal grownup reporter could miss that. Which is why I think the press is more corrupt on this story than even the FDL posts indicate.


And I do think there is subtle bigotry in the GOP and press take on it. Change some names and see how the argument runs.

Say, some big white bread corporation (how about Maytag, since I don't think it exists anymore as an independent entity?) is making big returns in your 401K, and makes big contributions to your local GOP representative, say, because it has a plant in your district. Some crooks get a hold of the corporation and hire a crooked lobbyist to buy votes from Democratic pols. Crooked lobbyist gets busted. So people of accuse your GOP representtative of being on the take, even though your favorite local GOP representative has been taking contributions to them for years. And press implicitly accuses all Maytag (for example only) contributions to anyone for anything of being tainted and suspect.

Does that argument seem so convincing now?

Do you not think that the GOP and very expensive Maytag lawyers would be screaming bloody murder, defamation, libel and a hate compaign every day? Would they be accusing people of atrocious and unfair guilt by association every day?

They sure would.

thanks very much to FDL for sticking with this. I hope they keep posting on the topic until they get the word out and the current corrupt press con job has to shut down to avoid pubic ridicule.
anon | 01.16.06 - 10:19 pm | #

BTW, there is good summary of Abramoff operation in Wikipedia. From what I know, it seems accurate. Several articles, so make sure you keep searching or linking to get them all. There are at least two fairly long entries.
anon | 01.16.06 - 10:21 pm | #

A Win at All Cost: Governor John Ellis "Jeb" Bush (R-FL) is planning to ask Florida voters to change the state constitution in order allow taxpayer dollars to support private schools. But even supporters acknowledge that approach is risky. Political polls have shown lukewarm support for vouchers. The proposed amendment likely would drive Democrats to the polls during an election year with an open governor's race and U.S. Senate contest at stake. The bottom line is this: The measure could lose and damage Republican political fortunes, as well.


DC's political report
rwcole | 01.16.06 - 10:21 pm | #

By the way, Abramoff-types were also collecting slush fund money from large corporations, disguised at lobbying contributions. TPM covered this quite a while ago.

About the WaPoo blog: is it possible that you can't see comments because of an automatic clock? I'm just asking.
Short of that sort of explanation, it seems that they are stonewalling.
marky | 01.16.06 - 10:22 pm | #

"Abramoff's Jewishness has been out there for a long time..."

And, no one promoted it more than Abramoff himself.
susan | 01.16.06 - 10:25 pm | #

Do you agree with Gore's comments about Bush's domestic spying?
Yes 49%
No 48%
I need to know more 3%
Total Votes: 373,211

please guys go vote if you havent already.
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/ ...116141909990004
triciawrites | 01.16.06 - 10:26 pm | #

marky: thanks for comment. How can a reporter read something like the Abramoff e-mail below and believe that Abramoff was running a straightforward vote buying operation, sending money to anyone in either party who would sell themselves? He wasn't. For some reason the press will not put one and one together. They will not put the basic who what when where and how together and go on to the obviouis why.

********************
Writing to one of his key allies in the effort to shut down
the Tigua's casino, Mr. Abramoff's references the tribe's
donations to the Democrats, saying, ``I wish those moronic
Tiguas were smarter in their political contributions. I'd love
to get our mitts on that moolah.'' And that's in quotations.
``Oh, well,'' he continues, ``stupid folks get wiped out.''
Stupid folks get wiped out. I think that about says it all
about their opinion about their very clients, the Tiguas

From the Senate hearings.
Doesn't sound like Jack was telling this tribe to be generous to Dems.
marky | 01.16.06 - 10:15 pm |
anon | 01.16.06 - 10:26 pm | #

`I wish those moronic Tiguas were smarter in their political contributions. I'd love to get our mitts on that moolah.''

This ought to be shoved down Derek Willis's throat.
Thrasyboulos | 01.16.06 - 10:33 pm | #

I've reloaded the page numerous times over the last hour or two, and the comment listed first keeps changing, so something odd is going on.
Semblance | Homepage | 01.16.06 - 10:33 pm | #

Semblance, there is a set limit to the number of comments appearing, possibly because of a technical glitch. Strauss may not be aware of this. I just posted a question over there.
marky | 01.16.06 - 10:35 pm | #

Jane, I continue to be STAGGERED, no make that DECKED, by the quality and quantity of what you and ReddHedd put out. Your latest piece tonite is just another example. You weaved it in so seamlessly with the National Holiday commemorating a man who imo stands shoulder to shoulder with anyone who has made this country great. If you consider it appropriate or helpful, I would invite you to consider terms such as "white supremacy," legalized white supremacy," "european-American supremacy," and "ethnic cleansing," for racism, if you think they help whatever piece you are crafting. If this helps in any way, great. If not I am concerned that this post might be perceived as me halluscinating that I can give you, a genius talent, advice about diction. Anyone who has read my posts knows that is not the case.
OT not having anything to do with your post tonite: often on this board I read good discussions of sexism and feminism. In my opinion a term such as "male supremacy," sometimes connotes the meaning with the verbal punch that the subject requires.
John Casper | 01.16.06 - 10:35 pm | #

I am not sure but I have the fear that the rulers in Micronesia and Guam was a wise white man and not some Pacific Islander. I think the Great White Man was looking for a way to play Wash D C and Abramoff appeared to help them. The Chinese only entered to set up sweat shops. Whitey needed something for their fifes and quota free import into the U. S. was what was needed to be bought. while these Pacific islands and their inhabitants have their problems. I think with a little exposure the rulers will appear to be no more than scum bags and the islands relationship to the U. S. is no more than sticking their hands into U. S. tax payers pockets.
christofay | 01.16.06 - 10:41 pm | #

I have to share with you the last line of my latest post on the Wapooblog:

"Willis, your explanation here deserves further explantion---is there an ombudsman around?"
marky | 01.16.06 - 10:41 pm | #

Marky - I agree that there's a moral imperative to issue a retraction.
justwondering | 01.16.06 - 10:41 pm | #

Glad you did marky. LMAO.
John Casper | 01.16.06 - 10:44 pm | #

When the Wapo first started with the "poh Christ loving white boy Tom Delay, led astray by Yid" line, I pointed it out in a diary on Kos and was bitterly attacked for it.

But the willingness of the Post, which has published many photos of bare-headed, clean shaven Jack Boy, to write that Tommy was put of by the bearded Orthodox Jew is a stunning low.
citizen k | 01.16.06 - 10:47 pm | #

Ralph Reed ... and his merry band of Christo-crooks and their morality extortion racket...

brilliant! so succinct
punaise | 01.16.06 - 10:50 pm | #

Marky, that's beautiful
RBG | 01.16.06 - 10:54 pm | #

Why aren't reporters hurrying over to the reserves to get the Indian's side of the story?

Answer: They're too afraid.
ghostcatbce | 01.16.06 - 10:54 pm | #

"...is there an ombudsman around?"

After what Jane made us do to her yesterday, I'll bet she's on meds and refuses to come out from under her bed. ;)
susan | 01.16.06 - 10:56 pm | #

What is so interesting about the current Howell imbroglio is how it shows the arrogant tone deafness of a major media institution again. Some minor editing and a little editorial supervision and this issue would not even have arisen. Yet it did and continues because the Post can not bring itself to write a simple correction or clarification. Instead it compounds its errors by introducing justifications that not only don’t address the matter but raise even more troubling issues. They have managed to go from a certain journalistic sloppiness to partisanship to racism. The Post I am sure would like to see itself as a savvy, sophisticated operation but to allow another easily avoided mistake to fester and grow is an open invitation to question the quality of all their work. You would think they would know better but they keep reminding us they don’t.
Hugh | 01.16.06 - 11:00 pm | #

Jane - have you seen the front page story on salon.com? Looks like an insufferable puff piece, but I admit to not having read it through:

"My lunch with an antifeminist pundit

Kate O'Beirne, author of the new book "Women Who Make the World Worse," says most women don't want the things feminists are fighting for.

By Rebecca Traister

...Emerging from lunch an hour and a half later, I didn't have much memory of what had happened. I knew that I'd found O'Beirne immensely likable -- in the way that you might find someone likable if you disagreed with every word that came out of her mouth. A tall, brassy broad, she's the kind of woman you wish you had on your team, a woman who immediately joked that she didn't want to order anything "girly" and that she should pretend to be disappointed that there was no venison on the menu. In short, she had been a fun lunch date...."
punaise | 01.16.06 - 11:01 pm | #

>Ralph Reed is a professional dirtbag

The way GWB is an amateur dirtbag, sure. RR is an ugly, deeply corrupt guy who just barely manages to stay out of jail. He's perhaps tougher than GWB but with less backers, bankers, and Bakers.
Walking With Cheney | 01.16.06 - 11:05 pm | #

Looks like an insufferable puff piece, but I admit to not having read it through:

Traister was totally unprepared. If Kato Burns has any spine, she'll go up against Jane.
pseudonymous in nc | 01.16.06 - 11:06 pm | #

up-page, folks: new thread
punaise | 01.16.06 - 11:09 pm | #

Traister was totally unprepared. If Kato Burns has any spine, she'll go up against Jane.
pseudonymous in nc | 01.16.06 - 11:06 pm | #

wouldn't that be glorious!
punaise | 01.16.06 - 11:11 pm | #

Abramoff is reported to have kept all of his e mails.

If this is true, it seems to me that this "cyber trail" will lead to the truth. We will find out if he recommended that his Indian clients donate money to democrats.

Given the kind of partisan he is, it is very possible that he suggested that they not give money to the dems. Perhaps this is why their contributions to dems decreased.

Let's see the e mails.
susan | 01.16.06 - 11:16 pm | #

Willis says, "He did direct his tribal clients to contribute to both Democrats and Republicans, with Republicans getting the bulk of such funds".

So what Willis is really trying to say is that Abramoff directed his clients to give less to Democrats, and more - bulk more, a shitload more - to Republicans?
Squeaky McCrinkle | 01.16.06 - 11:41 pm | #

As someone with Choctaw ancestry in his background, let me just tell you that the whole reporting of Abramoff/Indian donations, depicting the Republicans as poor, duped innocents is anger-provoking!

I have a better sense now of how my brothers felt when Custer decided to make his last stand.

ENRAGED!!
Ben | 01.17.06 - 1:18 am | #

NPR jumped into the spin on this with a long apparent editorial last night explaining that the real problem revealed by the Abramoff scandal is that there's a loophole in the election laws that allows tribes to give $ where neither unions nor corps can do the same. The distinction between Abramoff money and "client" ...err, VICTIM... money was blurred, and election law reform was called for. Very cool and analytic. And at the very end of the piece, the author is described as "former national GOP attorney..." (didn't get his name as I was in traffic). It's disappointing that even NPR is being arm-twisted by the Rove machine, as surely they are in this case.
Beel | Homepage | 01.17.06 - 5:01 am | #

I think the soundbite here is that Indians had always contributed more ot Democrats because of their positions on Civil Rights. When Abrahamoff got involved, Indian contributions to Democrats dropped. Explain to me how this shows Democrats are implicated as accomplices in Abrahamoff's schemes.
theorajones | 01.17.06 - 7:04 am | #

We need to start challenging the Washington Post to put up or shut up. If they have evidence that Abramoff actually told those tribes to send all that money to democrats, then they need to disclose it. Otherwise, if they are simply assuming that any contributions from Indians are directed by Abramoff without evidence, then they need to apoligize to both the tribes and the democrats they have tarred. And under no circumstances should they be allowed to say that Abramoff gave democrats money. IF they can provide evidence that he directed the tribes to give democrats money, then they can spare the ink and write truthfully, instead of using libellous shorthand. So far, I've never seen any evidence that this is so.
Diane | 01.17.06 - 7:43 am | #

Whatcha talkin bout, Willis?
justmy2 | 01.17.06 - 8:16 am | #

Whatcha talkin bout, Willis?
justmy2 | 01.17.06 - 8:34 am | #

Don't know where I read it (too many blogs, not enough memroy)but the donations to Dems by Indian tribes involved with Jack-Off were down compared to pre Jack-Off days.
mary mac | 01.17.06 - 9:31 am | #

MAYBE JACK DID DIRECT SOME FUNDS TO DEMS. iT IS AN INGENIOUS DEFENSE. IF, AS HAS HAPPENED, THEY EVER WERE TO BE CAUGHT THEY COULD JUST SAY "SEE, THEY DID IT TOO. YOU ARE TRYING TO CRIMINALIZE POLITICS."
CEMACK | 01.17.06 - 9:33 am | #

Former RNC counsel was on NPR last night, giving out the message that the Indian tribes did bad things, giving all that bif, bad money, and it was all through a loop-hole in campaign finance reform that must be closed: Why should Indian tribes (nations, even) use their gambling profits to make donations directly to politicians when corporations may not use their profits directly? Those unfair Indians! Using "dirty" mney in such a dirty way!

No wonder poor little Jack was mislead by the big bad Indians. Lobbyists must be protected from such temptations!
jawbone | 01.17.06 - 12:21 pm | #

Well, shoulda proofed.

BTW, what is shown in the compendium of Abramoff emails and other written records re: "directing" tribes to give money to Dems?

Anyone know?
jawbone | 01.17.06 - 12:23 pm | #

Ben--I am so angry at how the MCM (mainstream corporate media, and even public corporate media) is handling this scandal.

Doesn't take Native American ancestry to make my blood boil!
jawbone | 01.17.06 - 12:26 pm | #

Again, this tarring and feathering of all tribes and all Indians is what is bugging me. I just researched it and Abramoff represented SIX tribes--Mississippi Band of Choctaws, Louisiana Coushatta, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Sandia Pueblo, Saginaw Chippewa, and Tiqua of Ysleta del Sur Pueblo. The other evening I mentioned that there are over 500 federally recognized American Indian Tribes. Thus, when this scandal is discussed it should be discussed with those six tribes in mind not every tribe in America. Also, when the not-very-liberal media talk about donations to Congress people from "Indian tribes", it is way too generic to be fair. The only tribal donations that should be considered suspect are the donations from the six tribes that were represented by Abramoff. However, it is still possible that any or all of those six tribes made donations to Democrats for other reasons and not at the direction of Abramoff. When writers make a statement that Abramoff "did direct his tribal clients to contribute to both Democrats and Republicans", proof of this direction should be provided. In the end, it is only six tribes that were his clients. Any tribe that was not a client of Abramoff and made donations to Democrats should not even be considered part of this scandal.
Nadine | 01.17.06 - 4:06 pm | #

The plain ol fact of the matter is the Repugs go for the lowest common denominator. Racist? Superstitous/UberChristian? Xenophobic? Homophobic? Biggoted? WEEEELL STEP RIGHT (and I DO mean RIGHT!) UP! We gotz a seat right char in da FRONT row in our big tent!
secularhumanizinevoluter | 01.18.06 - 6:33 am | #

poker table rental poker table rental poker table rental. adult black jack strip adult black jack strip adult black jack strip.
sonzx | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 6:07 am | #