A Native American proverb: "Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins." How about tennis shoes?
Dave Ammons reports:
Sen. Patty Murray said... returning contributions from Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff would "taint" the tribes... The donations, from 1999 to 2005, placed Murray second among Senate Democrats and ninth overall in the Senate.... The Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe in Michigan gave Murray $14,980. She received $12,000 from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in California; $9,000 from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; and $5,000 from the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, the report said. A number of lawmakers, including Sen. Maria Cantwell, returned similar contributions or sent the money to charity. Murray's staff announced last month that she saw no reason to do so.Does this mean that Republicans (politicans and non-profits alike) receiving much media grief for accepting lobbyist contributions (or golf trips) from Abramoff have "no reason" to defend these actions? (I doubt it). Isn't the self-righteous bluster of the Democrats all the more hypocritical now?
Kudos to Ammons for investigating both sides of the aisle.
Glenn Reynolds: "I am filled with admiration for her nobility in preserving their untainted status."
Any public service labor unions should be in the same boat. Any entitiy that enters into employer/employee relationship negotiations should be barred from contributing to ANYBODY who could be representing the interests of the opposing side. Would the teamsters allow a Fed/State/Local government to fund the union campaign to get "their candidate" elected to postion of power with the understanding that that individual would act in the best interests of the Government instead of the union membership? Why should the reverse be allowed to continue? Individuals, certainly, as a group no.
Posted by: Patty Problem on January 21, 2006 08:32 PMPublish the list, Brian. You won't do it. You can't. It will expose the hypocrisy of the RightWingNuts.
Shameful!!!!!!!!
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 21, 2006 08:51 PMYep--you got it!
Posted by: Misty on January 21, 2006 09:07 PM(It's OK poopy, just have yourself a good cry and then y'all come back again ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on January 21, 2006 09:22 PMIt is interesting that the Washington Post reports that "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money."
The only point that Left Foot has is that this is a problemm for both parties. There are guilty congressional represetatives on both sides of the aisle. But the point of Brian's article was focused on Patty Murray and her involvement and Left Nut has yet to answer that point. All he can do is try blame everyone...
Posted by: timman on January 21, 2006 09:54 PMI guess he isn't publishing the list because those others don't represent us and Patty does...she's accountable to us as OUR senator. Besides, I'll preach to you what my mother used to preach to me..."Two (or more) wrongs don't make a right, kiddo".
Posted by: Susu on January 21, 2006 10:52 PM
Wayne--what the heck do you think a lobbyist does, anyway, other than to create a relationship between their clients and politicians? And what is the best way to create a relationship with a politician if it isn't large campaign contributions? You don't think lobbyists are influential simply because they're great orators, do you? On the contrary--they're influential because they bring the pocketbooks of their employers in exchange for what they hope is a given position by the legislator in question.
Those who think the tribal money isn't exactly as tainted as direct Abramoff money needs to wake up, and Murray's hair-splitting needs to be seen for the deliberate falsehood that it is.
Posted by: Marc on January 21, 2006 11:15 PMSo these donations would only be tainted if Abramoff was involved in arranging them, correct? That's precisely the evidence that is missing. If the tribes gave the money on their own, I don't see why Murray should give the money back. You are assuming Abramoff was involved just because the money came from these tribes.
Posted by: Wayne on January 22, 2006 12:08 AMi remember reading about senator murray's first bill. it was to tax gun ammunition to pay for hospital care for those with gun shot wounds. too bad that the constituion requires that all bills raising funds orginate in the house, not the senate. but, hey! what does the constitution matter if you're a liberal?
a few years ago i was at seatac airport to meet my son flying in from dc. the first person off the plane was senator murray (guess she flew 1st class, on our dime). her nose was in the air, not making eye contact with her constituents, her aides scurring behind her, bowing and scraping. she certainly had the attitude that she's above the law, too good for the people that put her in office, and like most liberals doesn't care for anything other than staying in power.
i don't like president clinton as a president; but i'd like to have a beer with him. i know that if he were the first person off the plane he would stop and greet the people waiting for their loved ones, even if they weren't waiting for him.
senator murray is a self centered, self absorbed bitch. it's a stain on the state of washington that she's one of our u.s. senators. she has no qualifications. i don't like senator clinton either, but she does have a record of accomplishment, as odious as it is. senator murray, however, is a lucky opportunist that lied her way to office. what a pathetic loser.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on January 22, 2006 12:19 AMNeither party can or will. They are too interested in CYA and then pointing at the opposition and yelling, "Corrupt, Corrupt." (see Left Foot's post).
The problem is that politician use our money, taken from us under the pretense of "promote the general welfare," and hand out political treats in return for donations to get reelected.
Campaign finance disclosure is easy, for a leader with the cajones to actually propose it.
Trash all the existing laws. Put in place full disclosure of all donations within 24 hrs. Failure to comply disqualifies a candidate.
Simple, direct and easy to understand.
The first part is more difficult since it is the source of power in the other Washington. However the bottom line is a major overall of the tax system.
All the scandals are about get legislation passed for tax relief, subsidies, or contracts. The contracting part I'll leave alone because gov't will need to build and buy regardless of anything else.
However by eliminating all the tax "games" will eliminate the need to "game" the system like Abramoff.
How in reality pays the taxes? Does Ford really pay corporate taxes, yea they write a check but where does Ford get the money to write that check? From the shulb who buys the a Ford (I'm a Dodge guy).
Why don't we be honest and say in reality the end user pays the taxes any way and be honest about the bill.
A Ford F150 costs X and the total taxes on it are Y. Purchase cost is X+Y=Z.
No more hidden taxes in the cost of an item.
No need for Ford to send a lobbyist to the other WA to get credits, loopholes, etc...
The system is setup for Abramoff et. al. The (R)s got the lions share because they control congress and control the legislative agenda. When the (D)s ran things they got first crack at the trough.
We need to prosecute those who violated the current law.
But if that is the law then the law is an ass.
The root case is a tax system designed by and for the benefit of the politicians and their power, not the fair taxation of the people and the wise use of the peoples money.
Posted by: JCM on January 22, 2006 07:38 AMThe name changing game, (played as though it somehow it affects me in a negative manner), that the posters on this site use, only serves to prove that the maturity level of the writer is lacking and takes away from the point (if any) of what they have written. I would have thought you would be above that.
My point is valid. You want to box the scandal into 30 neat little boxes then step back and scream, all the while pointing at the Democratic boxes hoping no one will notice the Republican boxes. The only smoke screen you did not use is to holler "terror, terrorist, terroristic tactics, attacking American, making America safe, patriotic, and unpatriotic" which are the talking points everytime a Republican gets into trouble. So do not attempt to paint me the "fallacy of distraction" brush, when in reality that is what your entire post was based on. Look at Patty, look at Patty.
Attempting to portray Sen Murray as being guilty, when she is not, and totally ignoring the true "essense" of the Abramoff scandal. Which is he bought votes. A Republican legislator has publicly admitted his complicity in Abramoff's zealous attempt to have legislation passed that was/is favorable to him personally, and it is this fact you either refuse to see or are so blinded by RightWingNut loyalty that you are willing to bend over, look the other way and accept whatever your leadership sends up your way. Legal or otherwise.
I can't help but notice how Sen. McCain has remained fairly silent. My take is that if he were to speak, the honesty would outrage the rest of his party.
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 22, 2006 11:03 AMYou don't need evidence to have the appearance of a conflict of interest. When a lawmaker has an appearance of conflict of interest, as Murray does, they should do what they need to do to remove that appearance. Senator Dorgan, also a Democrat, gave the money from the tribes back for just such a reason.
This is not a court of law, but a court of public opinion. You don't need the "proof" you require but merely the common sense to know that when tribes from more than a thousand miles away are giving money to senators who happen to be on a key committee that is considering legislation not in the interest of those tribes, and all those tribes who are giving money are coincidentally also the clients of a single lobbyist, and that lobbyist is later to have found out to be involved in influence peddling, the appearance of conflict of interest has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt whether any actual wrong-doing occurred or not.
Posted by: Marc on January 22, 2006 11:17 AMWhere Left doesn't have a point, however, is that this is a website devoted to the politics of Washington, and in Washington the people involved happen to be Democrats, and one in particular is quite prominent. This is why although Left does have a point when looking at the total situation of saying that the GOP congressmen involved should be equally mentioned, in the case of this website that point holds no water. It merely deflects.
Posted by: Marc on January 22, 2006 11:21 AMGreat question but . . . you are making too much sense here.
Reasoned argument? . . . on what Murray means by this? Maybe Murray meant saint or paint?
Cantwell may be right . . . send the money back and this goes away, but then Cantwell is probably
not as smart as Murray. Aren't we lucky to have them both as our senators?
Whoopeeee!!
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 22, 2006 11:39 AMTry this (sorry - don't know how to do links):
http://www.qando.net/default.aspx?tabid=38
Title of item:
Abramoff directed money to Republicans and Democrats
--------------
Quote from Deborah Howell's blog at the Washington Post:
"Records from the Federal Elections Commission and the Center for Public Integrity show that Abramoff's Indian clients contributed between 1999 and 2004 to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats. The Post has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with specific directions on what members of Congress were to receive specific amounts."
Now, I'll admit that the source is the Washington Post, so you can take it as you want it. Are they reliable? Can they be trusted more than Dan Rather and Company? Are the documents "fake but accurate"? Roll your own on that. But absent anything to contradict, there's a little evidence.
ALL THE RECIPIENTS OF JACK ABRAMOFF'S LARGESSE HAVE BEEN REPUBLICANS.
ALL, of them.
There is a big difference between accepting campaign funds from a tribe that has been cheated by REPUBLICAN, Jack Abramoff, and accepting funds from Jack Abramoff in exchange for political favors.
What the Democrats did is to legally and innocently accept donations from Indian tribes who were being ripped-off by RACIST REPUBLICAN , JACK ABRAMOFF.
RepubliCONS, on the other hand, illegally and corruptly accepted money from crooked Republican JACK ABRAMOFF in exchange for political favors. That is the key.
I guess we'll see who goes to jail. I predict that ONLY REPUBLICANS WILL BE CONVICTED AND SENT TO FEDERAL PRISONS.
I HOPE THE PRISONS ARE PRIVATIZED SO THESE REPUBLICANS CAN FURTHER CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS financial wellbeing. Deflecting people's approbation of reality is one common Republican method of lieing. But forthright and absolute misrepresentation of reality ( outright lies } reigns supreme on uSP!!!
Posted by: Rev. A.A. Tappman -- Anababtist on January 22, 2006 11:54 AMBET the Tribes wish they had hired an honest Democrat for lobbying.
Face it, the anger here at uber far right blog--- it is --- that the tribes have manged to have any money and influence at all. Those damn Indians.
All those billions -- all that money was supposed to go the Mafia.
By the way. Now, big time electoral winner, Senator Murray has been working with the local trubes since she was in the State Legislature.
Hah. Hah, Hah, Ho.
Posted by: Urba Smith on January 22, 2006 12:18 PM1. No one is calling for all political contributions ever made by tribes (or anyone else) to be returned, correct? Good. Agreed.
2. Following on point one, the only political contributions that should be returned are those that were connected with illegal conduct such as Abramoff's. Agreed? Good.
3. It is not just the case that Abramoff ONLY donated to Republicans. But after signing on with him, his clients DECREASED their giving to Democrats and INCREASED their giving to Republicans. The numbers: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=arVHles5cKJc&refer=us#
4. Decreasing contributions is NOT a way to attempt to get special favors from Democrats (or from Republicans, for that matter).
5. Until Murray (or any other Democrat) is implicated in receiving ILLEGAL contributions, there's no justification for calling upon her (or others) to return LEGAL campaign contributions.
Got it? Good.
Now, as for those of you who don't follow simple logic, please return to your previously-scheduled attempts to say that EVERYONE who ever received a dime of money from anyone who ever used Abramoff as a lobbyist is GUILTY of misconduct (or the "appearance" of same) and should return the money. But while you're at it, why don't you follow through to the logical conclusion of claims that "all" lobbyist money is tainted by attempts to gain access and influence legislation, and with that call for ALL donations from any source to be returned (and for all such contributions to stop)? That means no more contributions from: all the corporations, all the business associations, all the unions, all the individuals. And if you make that (absurd) call, guess who's going to scream louder -- the Republicans or the Democrats?
Posted by: Bluebeard on January 22, 2006 12:22 PM
Only the article says nothing of the sort. It says Abramoff's clients favored the GOP but says nothing about decreasing contributions of anything. It would seem that instead, contributions increased across the board to all of 'em, but more so to the GOP (which makes sense--Abramoff not only was a member of the GOP himself, but the GOP holds both houses in Congress and you don't get bills passed by only trying to influence the party out of favor).
I would, instead of grasping for straws like most of the Dems on this comment board, suggest reading this article from the hardly right wing Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158_pf.html
"According to documents and tribal officials familiar with the Abramoff team's methods, the lobbyists devised lengthy lists of lawmakers to whom the tribes should donate and then delivered the lists to the tribes. The tribes, in turn, wrote checks to the recommended campaign committees and in the amounts the lobbyists prescribed. The money went to incumbents or selected candidates in open seats."
Consider Murray tainted, and consider this proof enough that she should give it back.
LOL! Thanks for my new favourite joke...
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on January 22, 2006 01:25 PMWhat part of the following don't you understand? "Abramoff's tribal clients continued to give money to Democrats even after he began representing them, although in *smaller percentages* than in the past." (Note, it's not just percentages, but as the numbers in the article show, an absolute dollar decrease in annual donations to Democrats, while donations to Republicans vastly increased.)
The "linchpin" of my argument stands -- and it's based on hard numbers, as presented in the article.
Now, instead of quoting something from another source, how about responding to the facts? Or are they too inconvenient for ya?
Read what you quoted: smaller percentages does not mean they gave less, but that out of a much bigger pie of giving most of the new money went the the GOP and less of the overall pie went to the Dems. That one tribe mentioned with hard numbers got virtually the same amount (the difference is less than .7%), which hardly gives you a solid leg to stand on.
But then again, the truth doesn't matter as long as you can deflect attention away from the stench that is Patty Murray in this matter. Where is your outrage after her being on the Abramoff dole?
Posted by: Marc on January 22, 2006 03:02 PMAnyone notice that it's the Republicans who are outraged about the politicians of both parties, while the Democrats see only the Republicans and not the Democrats.
Which side has the corner on hypocracy(sp)?
Posted by: Bill M on January 22, 2006 05:35 PMWht haks me off were the Republicans wdoing so. I thought they were suppose to be good people ...
Peter
We'll see how well McGavick is able to connect to the voters over the ensuing campaign.
Posted by: KS on January 22, 2006 08:21 PMNow look at the titles of the columns in the table:
There are six columns, with the folliwng titles:
Recipient, Total, From PAC, From Indiv
The fourth column represents contributions from the invdividual (Abramoff).
So ,once again, looking down the FOURTH column of the link we find the following contributions from the individual (Abramoff):
Joe Baca (D-Calif) $500
Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) $1,000
Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) $500
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) $500
David E. Bonior (D-Mich) $5,000
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) $1,000
John Breaux (D-La) $5,000
Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif) $1,000
Tom Carper (D-Del) $2,000
Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) $3,600
Max Cleland (D-Ga) $2,500
Jim Costa (D-Calif) $1,000
Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) $500
Tom Daschle (D-SD) $2,000
Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) $3,500
Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) $11,000
Barney Frank (D-Mass) $11,100
Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) $1,000
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)$2,000
John Kerry (D-Mass) $1,400
Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) $5,500
Jerry Kleczka (D-Wis) $1,000
Mary L. Landrieu (D-La) $4,500
Jim Maloney (D-Conn) $500
Charles J. Melancon (D-La) $2,100
Robert Menendez (D-NJ) $1,000
Patty Murray (D-Wash) $8,000
James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) $3,500
Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) $2,000
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) $2,000
Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) $1,0000
Nick Rahall (D-WVa) $9,000
Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) $15,000
Richard M. Romero (D-NM) $3,000
Brad Sherman (D-Calif) $2,000
Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) $5,000
Gene Taylor (D-Miss) $2,250
Gloria Tristani (D-NM) $1,000
Democrat Congressiona campaign Committee $16,000
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $121,500
Simple question.
That sound we all hear is the din of the Republicans gagging on the answer. Don't know about you, but that is music to my ears.
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 23, 2006 12:16 AM