200.
By on Jan 9th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
200.
Number of contacts Abramoff’s lobbying team had with the White House in the Bush administration’s first 10 months. (Via: Fired Up! America)
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
God. Poor Tom Delay, he is being crucified for being a good Christian. The liberals are attacking this man of God.
Please, someone get him a hot tub, a cigar and a Phillipino whore to get him through these troubled times.
Also, look at the toll it is taking on his wife. Now that she has been denied her monthly Abramoff affiliated salary of $3,500.00 dollars a month. She is starting to look just like that other poor, troubled wife of a man of God, Tammy Faye Baker.
-GSD
January 9th, 2006 at 2:48 pmBush will say he was in Texas the whole time! He had work, lots of work! And he didn’t need to be in Washington to do it, ya know! Phones, faxes, delegation!
January 9th, 2006 at 2:52 pmBut I thought Scott Mclellan said president Bush didn’t know who Jack Abramoff was. He wouldn’t lie to us would he?
/sarcasm off
I have decided to keep a desk calendar this year of all of the important events that happen. I hope all of these scandals don’t fill it up too quickly. ;)
January 9th, 2006 at 2:56 pmMercy! 200 contacts? Even the so-called liberal media will have trouble glossing this over….or…well, maybe not.
Was there ever any doubt though? Abramoff was one of Shrubya’s elite “pioneers”, a title that buy’s some serious juice with crony-boy.
January 9th, 2006 at 2:57 pmSo, the President doesn’t know Jack, huh? What a surprise-NOT!
Smart idea about keeping a calendar, Spudge_Boy, but I hope that keeping up with that doesn’t keep you too busy to post, we’d miss you!
January 9th, 2006 at 2:59 pmGive the shrub a break, you can’t expect someone to remember everyone they meet. He was busy sinking energy companies and baseball teams. It’s hard to enough to find a good coke dealer these days, but to do that, ruin a few organizations, all the while remembering corrupt lobbyists – that’s a lot to ask of a mental midget- clearly his plate was full.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:00 pmBut I thought Scott Mclellan said president Bush didn’t know who Jack Abramoff was. He wouldn’t lie to us would he?
/sarcasm off
C’mon Spudge … because no one else in the White House answers the proverbial phone. “Thanks for calling the White House, this is GWB … how may I direct your call”.
200 contacts come in many forms … wait and see, wait and see, wait and see … it’ll blow up if there’s something there … no need to create a situation at this point.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:01 pmAll I want to see are the Secret Service tapes documenting how many times Abramoff showed up at the White House.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:02 pmGiacomo,
If somebody called my partner at work 200 times in one year, I would know who the hell that person is. If not, I should be fired. Even if I have never spoken with that person and never will.
If you are saying that George W Bush is too stupid to know anything or retain any knowledge because his brain is screwed up from cocaine, then I will buy that arguement. But otherwise, I ain’t buying it.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:06 pm200 contacts? This is an obvious exaggeration, intended to smear the most powerful man in America.
It’s also an attack on George Bush.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:13 pmIf somebody called my partner at work 200 times in one year, I would know who the hell that person is. If not, I should be fired. Even if I have never spoken with that person and never will.
If you are saying that George W Bush is too stupid to know anything or retain any knowledge because his brain is screwed up from cocaine, then I will buy that arguement. But otherwise, I ain’t buying it.
I think you understand exactly what I’m saying but are having more fun playing verbal games.
If I had to guess, the White House fields more calls/contacts than your office. I’m also betting that your secretary wouldn’t tell you about every call/contact that comes into your office (unless you’re a sole proprietorsip or partnership, then maybe). Given that the WH “houses” functions other than the President sheds even more light. It has nothing to do with mental acuity and more to do with volume.
I imagine that the White House (and the US Capital building) get the most contacts per day … you’re saying that one person should know the subtance of these contacts … and not even just one person, the President of the US … I’m betting he has people to handle contacts/calls for him. You know exactly what I’m talking about.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:17 pm#5 wrote “So, the President doesn’t know Jack, huh? What a surprise-NOT!”
Well, then he doesn’t know Jorma either.
I’m curious if that also includes telephone calls or if that’s a separate number.
Theresa
January 9th, 2006 at 3:20 pm(yawn) . . . More guilt by association smears from the “progressive” Left. Let’s see now, assuming that, after eight years of Bill Clinton, a lobbyist like Abramoff had at least 20 clients who might want to establish good relations with the new Bush administration during its first 10 months, this factoid works out to one contact per month per client, or less, with no evidence – zero, zip, nada – of any improper contacts. Thus, this post represents more of the same Joe McCarthy tactics we have come to expect of the fever swamp Left, whose motto seems to be: If you can’t beat ‘em, smear’em.
Wake me when there is something important to discuss.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:25 pmYou may be correct in generality, Giacomo; but most ‘contacts’ don’t hand over 100’s of thousands of dollars just to be given a nose-bleed seat in the arena! Contacts, I’m sure involves more than just phone calls.
Remember Bush saying that the wealthy elite were ‘his base’? Well Abramoff has been a righteous corner stone for the RNC, ArmPAC, and other right-wing organizations. To rip off Native American Tribes; colluding with both sides, all the while demanding more money from them so that they can get a ‘private audience’ with the star players? You honestly think that Abramoff and Bush weren’t on first name terms?
Gia – I know you try to inject some attempt at reasonable rebuttal; but there are times when you need to realize arguing for arguments sake diminishes those points that you do bring up from time to time irrelevant. It’s hard to find a gold nugget in the mountain of bulls**t. Most people give up after the trying to siphen through the first couple of shovel fulls.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:26 pm200 contacts that resulted in Abramoff and his clients getting what they asked for means that somebody fairly high up in the food chain was approving the requests. If not Bush, than one of his “close” advisors knew all about it. Karl Rove anyone?
January 9th, 2006 at 3:28 pmQuid
January 9th, 2006 at 3:30 pmPro
Quo
Pretty darn simple to even to a child.
Remember back in the Clinton days, only ONE visit to the Lincoln Bedroom was considered evidence of corruption.
-GSD
January 9th, 2006 at 3:32 pmI think it is just funny to watch all of these power junkies squirm around. Now, to me, how much it really matters that King George actually “knows” Jack isn’t that important. It will be just a little more pile of crap and the big stink pile that’s already been created. Like I said its just good to finally se karma catch up. I just wish it wasn’t happening to the couontry that I love. Would make a good dark comedy though.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:32 pmOh, and guess who else was Abramoff’s clients? That good ole’ liberal media. Yep, those are his babies too.
And trolls, you aren’t flirty fishing very well. Your defense of criminals doesn’t make your party very attractive. But hey, keep on missionarys of the GOP. Tell us how good we have it.
Can you imagine what could have been if the scum hadn’t taken over your party? Tisk tisk
January 9th, 2006 at 3:32 pm#17 – It’s because of the word “bedroom.” That leads to sex and nothing inflames a repub more than folks having sex. Well, unless it leads to pregnancy and then it is thier business.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:34 pmIf you all are going to villify all of Greenberg Traurig, then you should mention that a lot of Democrats got money from GT and GT had a lot of Democrats working there, including former employees of Harry Reid.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:38 pm#20–or if the sex is between two people of the same gender
January 9th, 2006 at 3:39 pmLet’s see now, assuming that, after eight years of Bill Clinton,
Comment by Blue State Red — January 9, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
I knew it! Somehow Clinton had to be involved in this! It’s his fault -I knew it!
Thus, this post represents more of the same Joe McCarthy tactics we have come to expect of the fever swamp Left,
That’s right: McCarthy was a leftist.
whose motto seems to be: If you can’t beat ‘em, smear’em.
Right again: Coulter, Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage do not smear: They report facts, right?
Wake me when there is something important to discuss.
Funny how you woke yourself up -and took the time- to post this comment about a subject you deem so unimportant.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:39 pmFrom “A Christmas Story”
Ralphy: Flick? Flick Who?
Teacher: I’m sure the guilt you feel is much worse than any punishment I could give you.
Ralphy: Grown-ups love to say that stuff, but us kids know better; It’s always better to not get caught.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:47 pm200 contacts come in many forms … wait and see, wait and see, wait and see
Comment by Giacomo — January 9, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
Don’t be disingenuous. The contacts in this case came in the form of meetings. From the USA Today article: In President Bush’s first 10 months, GOP fundraiser Jack Abramoff and his lobbying team logged nearly 200 contacts with the new administration(…) The meetings between Abramoff’s lobbying team and the administration ranged from Attorney General John Ashcroft to policy advisers in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, according to his lobbying firm billing records.(…)Most of the contacts were handled by Abramoff’s subordinates, who then reported back to him on the meetings.
I’m betting [Pres Bush] has people to handle contacts/calls for him. You know exactly what I’m talking about.
Comment by Giacomo — January 9, 2006 @ 3:17 pm
Right, Pres Bush didn’t know any of these people. Funny how they managed to land cushy jobs in Pres Bush’s administration. Again, from the article: At least two people who worked on Abramoff’s team at Preston Gates wound up with Bush administration jobs: Patrick Pizzella, named an assistant secretary of labor by Bush; and David Safavian, chosen by Bush to oversee federal procurement policy in the Office of Management and Budget.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:50 pmDonations from Abramoff-related lobbyist Michael D. Smith to Democrats:
$1000 to Monica Lindeen (D-MT)
$500 to Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
$4000 to Ben Cardin (D-MD)
$500 to Tom Allen (D-ME)
$4000 to Robert Byrd (D-WV)
$6250 to the DSCC
$800 to the North Dakota Democratic Party
$1000 to Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
$500 to Tom Carper (D-DE)
$1000 to Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
$250 to Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
$4000 to Bob Casey (D-PA)
$250 to Patrick Kennedy (D-RI)
$500 to LINCPAC
$1000 to Ed Case (D-HI)
$1000 to Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
$500 to Dick Durbin (D-IL)
$1000 to Tom Harkin (D-IA)
$500 to Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
$3000 to Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
$500 to Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
$500 to Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
$1000 to the DNC
$750 to Kent Conrad (D-ND)
$500 to Jesse Jackson Jr (D-IL)
$500 to Hopefund
And that was just in 2005.
If you’re going to smear Greenberg Traurig for having employed Jack Abramoff, then you will get burned by the numerous Democrats who work for GT.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:51 pmIt isn’t Greenburg-Turing that’s the problem Gary. It’s Abramhoff. GT did give money to Dems. Abramhoff did not. It’s so nice that you try to slander democrats because you know that. Guess what, we know it too.
But it isn’t nice thinking you can fool us with your sleight of hand.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:53 pm#15 Yeah, we know exactly what you are doing and it is utterly shameful coming to the defense of such greedy characters that have USED our government as their own little piggy bank.
You should feel used, I know I do.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:53 pmGary, Why don’t you post the donations made to republicans by GT? Afraid that there might be a slight disparity in the dollar amounts given to the dems versus repubs? Be fair and balanced, please.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:53 pmWhy don’t the trolls go on the wingnut sites? Because they’re so crazy even a good Fascist recoils in horror.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:54 pm…If somebody called my partner at work 200 times in one year, I would know who the hell that person is. If not, I should be fired. Even if I have never spoken with that person and never will…
Indeed. Think about this a moment. That’s better than one contact per regular work day per week for an entire 10 months!!!
Listen, I work for a company that’s got more staff in it than the entire MonkeyPalace. And if someone called here at least once a day, you better believe someone would know about it. And if they were offering money for influence, you’d better believe serverl of my company’s VPs and that the CEO HIMSELF would know!
BushCo appologists just don’t understand how shallow their defenses of the Sainted Toy King are. I guess someone has to make up the bottom end of the intellegence curve. Funny that it’s filled with Repugs.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:56 pm“Remember back in the Clinton days, only ONE visit to the Lincoln Bedroom was considered evidence of corruption.”
I didn’t bring Clinton up, but if you are going to bring him into this discussion you might as well get your facts straight.
A visit to the Lincoln Bedroom has never been considered evidence of corruption. Literally thousands of Americans have visited that part of the White House over the years, at the invitation of presidents of both parties. These visits all had one thing in common: none of the invited presidential guests was required to pay for the privilege.
President Clinton changed all that by systematically renting the Lincoln Bedroom out to campaign contributors in exchange for donations of $100,000 per night. So it was the quid pro quo of Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers in exchange for large campaign donations that was corrupt in Clinton’s case.
Of course, unlike the Bush DOJ, which has vigorously prosecuted Mr. Abramoff, the Clinton DOJ did nothing. When she wasn’t ordering federal agents to burn religious nuts alive and kidnap little boys, Janet Remo’s sole job was to twiddle her thumbs and look the other way whenever evidence of Clinton’s corruption popped up. She must have wrenched her neck from having to do that so often!
January 9th, 2006 at 3:57 pmBy the way, Gary, the highest amount you mentioned on your list wouldn’t even pay for one golf holiday in Scotland.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:57 pmThe 200 visits were visits by Greenberg Traurig lobbyists, not individual visits by Jack Abramoff.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:58 pmIf you’re going to smear Greenberg Traurig for having employed Jack Abramoff,
Comment by Gary Ruppert — January 9, 2006 @ 3:51 pm
What a lame attempt to change the subject. You really need to brush up your reading comprehension skills. From the USAToday article: “Greenberg Traurig accepted Jack Abramoff’s resignation from the firm, effective March 2, 2004, after Mr. Abramoff disclosed to the firm personal transactions and related conduct which are unacceptable to the firm and antithetical to the way we do business,” spokeswoman Jill Perry said.
Who is smearing Greenberg Traurig?
then you will get burned by the numerous Democrats who work for GT.
This is even lamer yet -don’t say anything because you might hurt Democrats. What a weak point and (misguided) appeal to consequences.
January 9th, 2006 at 4:00 pmI figured I would launch a pre-emptive strike to bring Clinton into the argument, because nary a fight goes by the right doesn’t either use Clinton to bury or to justify right-wing behavior.
-GSD
January 9th, 2006 at 4:04 pmGary
January 9th, 2006 at 4:09 pmWould you kindly post a list of the GT Republican recipients and how much they received? Thank you.
The 200 visits were visits by Greenberg Traurig lobbyists, not individual visits by Jack Abramoff.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — January 9, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
The visits were not done by individual lobbyists, but by GT employees who were members of Jack Abramoff’s team. Again, from the USAToday article:
The meetings between Abramoff’s lobbying team and the administration ranged from Attorney General John Ashcroft to policy advisers in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, according to his lobbying firm billing records.(…)The documents show [Abramoff's] team also had extensive access to Bush administration officials, meeting with Cheney policy advisers Ron Christie and Stephen Ruhlen, Ashcroft at the Justice Department, White House intergovernmental affairs chief Ruben Barrales, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, Deputy Interior Secretary Steven Griles and others.
Stop spouting nonsense. We can all follow the link and read the article -I suggest you do before posting yet another unsubstantial trifle.
January 9th, 2006 at 4:11 pmJack Abramoff’s lobbying team includes Democrats, including Eddie Ayoob
January 9th, 2006 at 4:18 pm#26 You should focus on what might make your party more attrative and less corrupt. The time you take making sure a ‘dem did it too’ shows where your values are.
January 9th, 2006 at 4:19 pmBad boy, Gary. You’re lying again. And where’s the GT Republican list?
January 9th, 2006 at 4:20 pmI’ll say it again:
BushCo appologists just don’t understand how shallow their defenses of the Sainted Toy King are. Someone has to make up the bottom end of the intellegence curve. Funny that the bottom end of the curve is filled with Repugs.
January 9th, 2006 at 4:21 pmRupert, I know people that work(ed) for Greenberg. Whatever you envision them to be is just that – visions.
You know for whom the bell tolls.
January 9th, 2006 at 4:22 pmOK – that seems like a lot of visits. Maybe 200 i 10 months IS an uncommonly high degree of access. But you know – so what. Do you think there will be any real repercussions? Consequences? Pardons? Watch the entrenched Dems squirm, as they quietly flood the charity market with Indian gaming money. Its not about “lobbying reform” – it should be about “government reform.” Gov’t by, of and for the people. And corporations just ain’t people.
January 9th, 2006 at 4:23 pmJack Abramoff’s lobbying team includes Democrats, including Eddie Ayoob
Comment by Gary Ruppert — January 9, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
And your point is?
Abramoff is still crooked, he still has ties to DeLay, to the Bush administration, and still swindled the tribes out of their money -which he used to bribe corrupt government officials, and enrich himself.
January 9th, 2006 at 4:24 pm#11
No Giacomo, what I am really saying is that if you are a ranking member of the republican party and you don’t know who Jack Abramoff is, you are lying or you are not in the republican party.
It is a bald face lie that the president doesn’t know Jack Abramoff. I was being sarcastic before. Now I am telling you straight up, the president had Scott McClellan once again lied for the president.
January 9th, 2006 at 4:26 pmI’ve read with pleasure. Maybe it’s offtopic, but i just wanted to say, that it’s really interesting to read everything this… You discuss here a lot of interesting things on different useful themes. Thanks for that =)
January 9th, 2006 at 4:27 pm#42 But see, their on a mission of turning us around. Let them defend criminals – all will see who they care about. I think if on-the-fencers come here they should probably see the dark side of the shiny happy face of republicans.
Certain of them are so vicious, it could only help those who wish to be informed, be informed. Also, I think we need to see for ourselves that there are still staunch racists and flat earthers out there.
I certainly don’t hang with these types, but sometimes deserve a wake up call that racism and bigotry are FAR from being a thing of the past. And, the past will repeat itself if we don’t keep on top of it. And that we need to bring these folks to light to show others is a good reason to keep their posts available to us.
January 9th, 2006 at 4:27 pmRemember that the Republicans stormed into Congress in 1994 saying that they were going to rout out corruption and that it was unseemly for congressmen to be getting “winded and dined” by lobbyists.
Now that they have been getting fat off the public teat and wining and dining lobbyists and have been called on it, they scream, they did it too!
When you run as a reformer and engage in the same conduct, you have been hoisted on your own petard and have been exposed as hyprocrites.
So, the claim that “Democrats do it too” is a morallly bankrupt argument from the avatars of moral rectitude.
-GSD
January 9th, 2006 at 4:30 pm#48 – Good points.
I guess it’s not enough that the Sainted Toy King has …
- Lied to a nation to gain support for invading a secular nation
- Failed to find and either arrest or kill the purpetrator of a very serious crime, perhaps in part because the bin Laden family were business partners with George the Smarter
- “Outted” a working CIA operative (under cover operative at that!) to get back at her husband, even though she herself was working the issue of WMD worldwide.
- Failed to help the poor in New Orleans after that hurricane raged ashore. He left them to die in the heat.
- Spied on his own countrymen, even though there were laws in place that allowed said spying to take place. He circumvented the whole structure. And for what?
- Stands as a conservative christian, but looks like he’s been on the bottle or back on the coke. All the while working with systematic abusers of political power to take money out of public coffers and redistribute it to friends.
No, the Sainted Toy King’s supporters should be “outted” and shown for what they are. If for nothing else but to show the world that 1) they are evil and a normally civil society and 2) that We The People can clean up our own messes.
January 9th, 2006 at 4:37 pm#50 – …Now that they have been getting fat off the public teat and wining and dining lobbyists and have been called on it, they scream, they did it too!…
What’s amazing to me is that it took the Dems 40 years to reach the level of indentured corruption that the Repugs only took 10 years to achieve. One would think the Repugs had been planning this kind of “take over” for several decades. Or something.
So much for rooting out corruption. Heck of a job, Bushy!
January 9th, 2006 at 4:39 pmThere’s a post over on TPM about Abramoff being a member of the 2000-01 Bush transition team for the Dept. of the Interior. He’s still trying to ferret out the details, but it’s out there.
TPM
January 9th, 2006 at 5:02 pm#52 – Oh yes, he certainly was. And, still learning about his role in trying to stop the recount. He is in deep shitsky all over the map. Hang em high.
January 9th, 2006 at 5:20 pm