As the Abramoff scandals grow, politicians who once eagerly accepted his money are beginning to have second thoughts.
The announcement by two senators last week that they would return $217,000 in contributions linked to the indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff has produced calls for other members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, to follow suit or risk being tainted by the money in next year's elections.
Of the top 25 recipients of Abramoff's money, 19 are Republicans and 6 are Democrats. And one of those 6 is our senior senator, Patty Murray, who is 9th on the overall list. The only Democrat who received more money than Murray is Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island. (There are some, by the way, who say that Patrick Kennedy is not the most brilliant person in the House. Perhaps he and Murray have more than Abramoff's money in common.) Murray received, by the way, more money from Abramoff than did the House majority leader, Tom DeLay.
We should not rush to conclude that Murray, or any of the others on the list, have been corrupted by this money. Many politicians follow Jesse Unruh's advice and take money from lobbyists, but do nothing in return. (Unruh put it more vigorously than I did, and so much more crudely that I won't quote his original statement. If you are curious, you can find it here.) But I do think our senior senator should follow the examples of Democrat Byron Dorgan and Republican Conrad Burns and return Abramoff's money.
(The Volokh site has a long and sensible directive to commenters, which begins with this paragraph:
We're trying something new here, perhaps quixotic but I hope useful. We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, and substantial and repeated exaggeration. Sticking with substance will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
The comments there are, in my opinion, both more civil and more substantive that those at most sites. So their directive appears to have had a good effect. To read the rest of it, go to almost any of their posts, such as this one, and scroll down to the bottom. They have especially good advice for those who are certain they are right.)
Posted by Jim Miller at December 21, 2005 04:47 PM | Email ThisNot according to this information (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/12/12/GR2005121200286.html), which appears to have larger totals than the NY Times chart (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/12/18/national/chart600.923.jpg) that I assume you are referring to.
Posted by: Daniel K on December 21, 2005 08:59 PMDo you think anything will happen to her - probably not. After all, if Bagdad Jim McDermott can go almost 10 years without being convicted of essentially the same thing that the Dems are screaming bloody murder about Bush doing, then doubtful if anything will happen. Just alot of lieing, whinning and crying by the leftist hypocrites about anything that may have a shot at bringing down any Republicans or Bush. Their attitude will continue to suck in 2006...
Posted by: KS on December 21, 2005 10:43 PMMany politicians, Dems and Repubs, are going to be running for cover once the Justice Department flips Abramoff.
I suspect far more Republicans. The track record of late ain't so good....
Dug
Posted by: DugoutNut on December 22, 2005 01:01 AMObviously political fund-raising is often a dirty business. But normally, we don't get a good look at what goes on, and it takes an exceptionally foolish or corrupt politician to get caught red-handed, like Abscam or "Duke" Cunningham. If they do turn Abramoff, we may get an unprecedented look at exactly how cozy it is.
Posted by: Wayne on December 22, 2005 02:25 AMAbramhoff knew to spread his money around. 25 recipients and only 6 Democrats?!?
Lets compare Patty Murray to a certain Republcan State Senator Joe Zarelli. He's reanking member of Ways and Means and gets all kind of contributions from every side of the asile. Same effing thing. I also seem to recall Sen Zarelli recieving taxpayer funded unemployment checks while he was collecting a taxpayer funded salary for representing the voters of the 18th District.
The republicans are a dying breed, you can only lie and cheat the public for so long befire they catch on. You were just fortunate enough to keep the wool over everyone's eyes until just after the 2004 elections. Now people are angry and they have every right to be.
Posted by: LEFT is RIGHT on December 22, 2005 07:55 AMWhat is important, and I hope you can agree, is that DC is corrupted. Normal people (if politicians can ever be called normal, that is) go to DC and get seduced by the culture and the parties and the giveaways by the lobbyists.
Daniel, it is important that you understand it goes both ways. Neither party is exempt. Money talks in DC whether it is D or R.
Murray tries to give the impression she is this innocent mom in tennis shoes persona whereas, it is obviously not true.
Remember how your side demonized Bush on Enron, only to find out Ken Lay was just a chummy with Ds. It is part of the business of buying influence.
It was your side to go after Delay. The other side is now pointing out the hypocricy of the Democrat position.
If you are on my side, you will scream "foul" on both parties and try to minimize the influence of these lobbyists. Ain't going to happen but we can try, can't we?
Posted by: swatter on December 22, 2005 08:12 AMAlso, as far as influence buying goes, the business community is going to have to pony up about 70 percent more to the Democrats as they have in the past . If they don't and Democrats win anyway in '06, it will set the dangerous precedent that you can win WITHOUT massive amounts of corporate money.
You can look to see Katrina revisit you Republicans many times between now and 2006. Thanks for all the free footage of yourselves making yourselves look bad. Who ya gonna blame that on??? you gaggle of paranoid self-pitying freaks?
REPUBLICANS: THE PARTY OF CONSTANT SELF-PITY AND PARANOIA!!! Give us the power to spy on you. Trust us. It's for your own good!
Posted by: Winston Smith on December 22, 2005 08:44 AMHaven't had enough of getting your face stuffed with your rewrites yet?
Posted by: swatter on December 22, 2005 09:49 AMThe post above about global warming is a case in point.
Posted by: Winston Smith on December 22, 2005 10:00 AMFacts are coming out about Katrina everyday that point to the D governor and the D mayor.
It also points to corrupt, bloated and out of control government agencies (i.e. FEMA, this time) that didn't do their job under both D and R presidents.
It wasn't those wascally Republicans by themselves.
Winston, also look at my two posts above.
And Winston, by definition, if you are elected to DC these days you have been corrupted because your victory was bought and paid for by those nasties you say only applies to Rs. It goes both ways.
Posted by: swatter on December 22, 2005 10:58 AMIf Jack Abramoff is a criminal + accepting campaign contributions from him makes you a criminal = Patty Murray is a criminal.
For it has been PROVEN that she accepted money from him. And it was a lot more that the average personal contribution she received from Washington state residents.
So Winston, PAY UP.
Mike
Point to one piece of legislation that Murray changed her vote on because of that donation. You won't because you can't. Don't embarras yourself by asking me to name Rep pols who did EXACTLY THAT after receiving Abramoff tainted contributions. What you guys are doing to smear honest pols like Murray is sickening.
Posted by: Winston Smith on December 22, 2005 11:59 AMTo this day!!! Where's the armor for our soldiers --- and don't lie to us. You're "Support Our Troops" sentiments are about as deep as a magnetic strip.
Posted by: Winston Smith on December 22, 2005 12:04 PMAs for armoured HumVee's in Iraq, that was done over a year ago. Of course, the Mainstream Press has not reported it. It would only make Bush look good. So only people like you and Cindy Shehan don't know this.
Posted by: Mike P on December 22, 2005 12:22 PMBe sure that you state how many soldiers don't have body armor, and give your reference for the number.
Posted by: ewaggin on December 22, 2005 05:45 PMAs the son of a Vet, a Vet myself and member of the "military-industrial complex", Shut up moron.
Mike
Posted by: Mike P on December 23, 2005 06:38 AM"We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like)."
That isn't too much to ask of commenters, especially since you are guests here.
Posted by: Jim Miller on December 23, 2005 07:49 AMYour exhortations toward civility are laudable, but pointless, given the latitude given to the trolls.
Until that time I will continue to point out what a simple-minded mouth-breather "winston" is....
Posted by: alphabet soup on December 24, 2005 08:55 AMYou have the ability to whine because of people like your freinds are doing, not people like you.
I am a "patriot" in every definition or the word, you have yet to prove you are.
And just to add a little perspective for you.
Since the occupation of Iraq, over 700 other US serviceman have died in the line of duty at US military commands outside of the Persian Gulf Theater. This is not unusual but a fact of life in the military.
But what really confuses me about liberals like you. Do you really want the rape rooms of Saddam Hussein back in operation?
Posted by: Mike P on December 26, 2005 09:14 PMThank you for your service!
I don't believe that liberals actually want anything of the sort that you suggest, but, in their irrational hatred of Bush and anything right, they are willing to LIHOP. Theirs is a losing position that will only serve to alienate and disenfranchise themselves further into total irrelevancy. Enjoy the show!
In the meanwhile, let's let folks like alan scott show us a thing or two about Internet etiquette ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on December 26, 2005 09:30 PMSince when do you know anything about me? Where was the whining? You said something that wasn't true. If you had been over there mr "patriotic", the you might know more about it. Who is it that wants to torture people? "patriots" like you? Don't talk to me about the military. I grew up in a military family. Everyone in my family has been in the military.
Posted by: Alan Scott on December 26, 2005 09:42 PMTypical liberal cowards......
Posted by: alphabet soup on December 27, 2005 07:19 AMI have sent family and freinds off to battle including my father for 2 tours in Vietnam. I have been in harms way. You do not have the corner on that market with me.
As for being a patriot, I have put my mouth, body and soul in harms way; not just my words in support of my beliefs. In the last 3 years, four different times I have spent 3-6 months out of state or in a foriegn country away from my family and freinds in direct support of the military. And what have you done?
As for unarmored vehicles, The HumVee is an unarmored vehicle in it's standard configuration. To date there are approximately 2500 "ARMOURED" HumVee's in the Iraqi Theater.
The mission is to establish a stable democratic civilian government in Iraq. Which took over 15 years to do this mission in Japan and Germany after WWII. But you would know that, if you took the time to look into or understood that war's history.
I'm only throwing back at you what you threw at me. We can both make unfounded assumptions about the other. Fun, eh? You began by saying "As for armoured HumVee's in Iraq, that was done over a year ago. Of course, the Mainstream Press has not reported it. It would only make Bush look good. So only people like you and Cindy Shehan don't know this." I take it that you were suggesting that armored vehicles were no longer a problem. You then changed your argument to "As for unarmored vehicles, The HumVee is an unarmored vehicle in it's standard configuration. To date there are approximately 2500 "ARMOURED" HumVee's in the Iraqi Theater." You begin by saying that there is no problem with hummers being unarmored and end by saying that they don't usually come with armor. Well, yes. Hence the problem.
As I have people I care about over there, perhaps I took greater offense to the idea that only liberal idiots thought that enough hadn't been done to armor vehicles and protect our troops. We all care about the safety of our troops, whatever our political orientation. We have a long history of both parties alternating in power, and to suggest that support for one of them is unpatriotic is, well, unpatriotic.
And as for alphabet soup, " the Left - all bluff~n~bluster and nothing to back it up."? Who got us into WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and Korea? Democrats? But I thought they were "all bluff and bluster." Any administration, no matter what party affiliation, who undermines the crediblity of the the military as the current one has, should not be considered the standard for patriotism. The administration has done a lousy job in Iraq and most Americans think so. You don't have to be a Democrat to think so.
So, if being against the administrations policy is unpatriotic, and serving in the army is patriotic, what do we make of the number of Iraq veterans running for office as Democrats who are critical of the administrations policies?
Your second paragraph says it all. You're looking to be offended, and of course (being a liberal) you're going to find it at a conservative website. Everything else is as I earlier put it - bluff~n~bluster.
Your manufactured outrage is amusing, but do you really mean it? Your very words belie that notion. You've created controversy where none exists (between you and Mike P) and now you can't let it go. You say, "I'm only throwing back at you what you threw at me." But it was you that engaged Mike P, not the other way 'round. Mike P may have strayed off topic, but you've taken it way out into the boonies.
Now, in your efforts to prove....well, whatever it is that you're trying to prove, you're showing yourself to be a wheedler.
"The administration has done a lousy job in Iraq and most Americans think so." It this your point? Believe it if you want to, but you're full of shiite (and you know it). Are you offended because your party has become known as the party of cowards? As your spokesmorons at moveon.org say - get over it!
You're shooting with blanks - perhaps that's for the best ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on December 30, 2005 08:01 AMAre you suggesting that only liberals would find this to be a conservative website? What kind of website is it then?
Posted by: Alan Scott on December 31, 2005 07:31 PMIt would be appropriate to find out how the other recipients of the Abramoff money voted. Has Patty Murray voted to limit gambling outside of the tribes that are represented by Abramoff? The spread of gambling beyond the Indian reservations was a big issue in WA state in recent elections, was Abramoff money distributed to state legislators, as well?
Posted by: Donna Shaw on January 4, 2006 11:03 AMThis is BS.
Fire them all.
Rossi for senate!!