UPDATE: Lauer Says ‘Technically Speaking,’ It ‘May Be’ That Abramoff Gave Only to Republicans
UPDATE: Lauer Says ‘Technically Speaking,’ It ‘May Be’ That Abramoff Gave Only to Republicans
Yesterday, Today show anchor Katie Couric falsely claimed that “Democrats took money from Jack Abramoff.” Challenged on her facts, Couric said she “would look into that and clarify that for our viewers.”
Returning to the topic this morning, NBC’s Matt Lauer and Tim Russert both reiterated the right-wing talking point that the Abramoff scandal is bipartisan.
LAUER: Katie pressed him [Howard Dean] on that and we did some research. We went to the Center for Responsive Politics and found out that technically speaking, Howard Dean may be correct. But here’s what we found. That 66 percent of the money in this situation went to Republicans, but 34 percent of the money — not from Abramoff, but from his associates and clients — went to Democrats. So, can Democrats wash their hands of this?
RUSSERT: No, they will say it is a primarily a Republican scandal because the personal money of Abramoff went only to Republicans. But Matt, the issue is broad and wide. Democrats also understand that they accept trips from lobbyists and meals and so forth, and that’s why in order to reform all this, it has to be a bipartisan approach. But Democrats get raging mad when you suggest this is a bipartisan scandal.
Matt Lauer doesn’t get it: Katie Couric’s claim was completely wrong. It simply isn’t true that Democrats received money from Jack Abramoff, and there is nothing “technical” about it.
Moreover, Tim Russert’s response to Lauer was misleading. Prominent Democrats haven’t denied that corruption is widespread in Washington. They acknowledge that ethical improprieties — such as the lobbyist-funded trips that Russert mentions — are a bipartisan problem. But they are right to get “raging mad when you suggest this is a bipartisan scandal,” because the Abramoff scandal is not bipartisan. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), the Democratic “point man” on lobbying reform, summed it up best:
None of us claim that Democrats have a monopoly on virtue. … Although Democrats are certainly not without sin, Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, the K Street Project — those are Republican sins and Republican sins alone.
(HT: Galindo)
Full transcript below:
LAUER: And now let’s talk about the Abramoff scandal. Howard Dean was on this program yesterday and asserted basically that it is a Republican scandal. Let me play you a clip.
DEAN: It is a Republican-financed scandal. Not one dime of money from Jack Abramoff ever went to any Democrat, not one dime.
LAUER: Katie pressed him on that and we did some research. We went to the Center for Responsive Politics and found out that technically speaking, Howard Dean may be correct. But here’s what we found. That 66 percent of the money in this situation went to Republicans, but 34 percent of the money — not from Abramoff, but from his associates and clients — went to Democrats. So, can Democrats wash their hands of this?
RUSSERT: No, they will say it is a primarily a Republican scandal because the personal money of Abramoff went only to Republicans. But Matt, the issue is broad and wide. Democrats also understand that they acccept trips from lobbyists and meals and so forth, and that’s why in order to reform all this, it has to be a bipartisan approach. But Democrats get raging mad when you suggest this is a bipartisan scandal. They’ll say it’s primarily Republican, but we’re willing to help clean it up.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
260 Responses to “UPDATE: Lauer Says ‘Technically Speaking,’ It ‘May Be’ That Abramoff Gave Only to Republicans”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Call me silly, but I believe Obama, and everything I've read and seen, before I believe Matt Lauer or Katie Couric.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:45 amArghh! I can't believe this nonsense. Abramoff is charged with a crime, not his clients.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:45 amThe entire universe is stuck in neutral on this subject. The progs and Dems are splitting hairs and losing their message (again).
January 27th, 2006 at 11:47 amAbramoff is a Bush friend. More than a friend.
Abramoff is a criminal.
Bush is trying to hide his relationship with Abramoff.
Abramoff was a Republican Lobbyist > he never gave any money to Democrats! Some of the Indian Tribes that he swindled, on their own gave campaign donations to Democrats!
January 27th, 2006 at 11:48 amCouric and Lauer talk chicken recipes, shopping tips, parades and Lobby Reform in the span of 15 minutes.
Russert is clearly on the ratings campaign at the floundering NBC along with Matthews.
C'mon, TP! Stick to the message! Bush is hiding his relationship with Abramoff! Simple!
January 27th, 2006 at 11:50 amIs the MAD "dark side" Spy vs Spy, Abramoff's fashion influence?
January 27th, 2006 at 11:51 amRight, Gus. And the media is muddying the message. That's what we are trying to expose here.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:52 am"Tribal clients"
Who gives a crap.
Jack Abramoff != Native Amerians
January 27th, 2006 at 11:53 amBut it's LEGAL to get money, trips and meals from lobbyists and their clients. The bribery and extortion is the scandal. Dems could be involved in "scandal", but so far, not one has been indicted or even mentioned.
Saying that Dems are involved in the "scandal" is just conjecture and false objectivism.
All in all, its the Dems fault. Where the hell are they? Why can't they just make a clear case.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:53 amJack Abramoff himself said many times that he hated Democrats and wished them to be destroyed forever!
He and Rep. Tom Delay were a team in screwing over Indian Tribes for cash to be used to finance their attacks on Democrats!
They were like a MAFIA!!!
January 27th, 2006 at 11:53 amAmericans, not Amerians
Silly typo
January 27th, 2006 at 11:53 am"Ahmurricanz" as Matthews would say.
Russert: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/27/115338/945
January 27th, 2006 at 11:55 amTIME TO FILE SOME
SLANDER
AND
LIBEL
LAWSUITS
AGAINST KOURIC AND LAWLER!
NOW!
January 27th, 2006 at 11:56 amAs for the message, who cares if Dems get caught up in the scandal? Will they not deserve it if they're guity? The important issue the relationship between Bush and Abramoff.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:57 am#6, No I think Boris Badenoff of Rocky and Bullwinkle fame is his fashion influence
e is, I think!
PS I can't take credit for that (another TP poster made the comparison on another thread awhile back)!
January 27th, 2006 at 11:58 amAS for Tim Russert: It has been proven that he is a PAID Bush defender and apologist!
Before he can claim any evidence of sleaze for Democrats, he must admit his own corruption working for the GOP!
His buddy at CNN Wolf Blitzer needs to admit his association with the GOP as a news hitman too!
January 27th, 2006 at 12:00 pm[...] Here’s that “clarification” we were promised by Perky Katie: [...]
January 27th, 2006 at 12:01 pmHoward Dean has said timmy is his friend. I think he has to rethink that relationship. It's pretty clear timmy is purposefully advancing rnc talking points.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:01 pmThe chart is true. Also true is the following ascii graphic:
Abramoff + US citizens within 7 degrees of knowing Jack Abramoff
|||
|||
\ ||| /
\|||/
\|/
Russert + Lauer + Couric
Clearly then, our news media should be jailed for corruption as they are participating in this scandal too.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:02 pmwhere's the troll truthyadayada now?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:02 pmUm, hello?
It's not about who received money, it's about what they did with that money.
It's pretty clear Republicans pocketed the money without ever using it for the reasons it was given...
Y'know, like setting up a children's charity that never pays a dime to children
...and that's what this is really about.
Who gave money to whom and how much is a smokescreen.
Thanks
January 27th, 2006 at 12:03 pmAnd why is Tim Russert giving the "other side" on this little discussion? Rather than ask Dr. Dean or some other Democratic spokesperson on the air, Russert takes it upon himself to say what he thinks Democrats would say, as if that constitutes fairness and balance.
Sorry Mr. Russert; you don't speak for the Democratic party. Please allow us the courtesy, at least, of speaking for ourselves.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:04 pmIs the Angry Left being honest with some of the claims they make? I suspect there is a level of disingenuity here. At least I hope there is...
First: Abramoff. Bad guy. Politicians who took illegal money from him should go down. Yes, he probably only gave money to the GOP. Soros only gives to Dem efforts, and his stated goal was up-ending Bush, et. al. Both parties have a problem with lobbyists. I personally think "reform" will do little. They will just find other ways to line their pockets.
Second: "Domestic Survaillence." Call it what you want, it's a grey area. It's a necessary program, and it's probably run as cleanly as any gov't program. But to suggest that they were spying on average Americans making phone calls to their mothers, the dry cleaners, etc is nuts. Really, to think that, you have really drunk the Kool-aid. They have much better things to do than listen to you ranting about how much you hate Bush to your homosexual hairstylist on your celly. Get over it.
Third: Alito. Did you watch the hearings? If he isn't one of the most boring people to ever make it on TV, my boring threshold is too high. To me, it seems like every decision he has ever made is considered and thought out. But to even pretend that he's "more outside the mainstream than Ginsburg" is also retarded. You may not share his conservative leaning, but a lot of people did not/do not agree with Ginsburg. Win an election and you get to nominate left leaners. It's as simple as that. But when guys like Alito or Roberts, who are superior jurists in every regard are nominate, you should accept that as a reflection of the current political ideological climate.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:04 pm[...] - Sen. Barack Obama [...]
January 27th, 2006 at 12:05 pmTIMAAAAAAAAAAA............................................................................russert
January 27th, 2006 at 12:07 pmThankyou chase for being the Bush apologist on here > lol.
Only Bush lovers drink the kool-aid, not those who dislike him!
January 27th, 2006 at 12:08 pmThank goodness for blogs...all network or cable news is Fox or Fox lite...and GOPnuts still whine about the "liberal press"....
January 27th, 2006 at 12:10 pm#23 Nope, we're absolutely serious about this, thanks.
Now beat it.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:11 pm1. Soros hasn't pleaded guilty to a crime.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:12 pm2. Wire-tapping requires a warrant. The President can't claim the people he's listening to are all al Qaeda without some impartial review AND claim he isn't breaking the law. 3. It is evident that Alito is willing to defer to the Executive whenever he's asked.
Jay: I'm definately not a Bush apologist. He's made his fair share of mistakes and the GOP will pay for it. I really do question the sincerity of the arguments I hear the Angry Left making. Are you guys really this crazy? Do you really think Bush is listening to your every phone call? Do you really think Alito is a "radical"?
I'm not here to flame back and forth. This is a curiosity of mine.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:12 pmTechnically speaking, Russert, Lauer, and Couric may have brains. But here's what we found: Their collective inability to use logic and truth suggests that they don't use those brains. So can they really be called human?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:13 pmOnly on NBC does the ACTUAL truth become the "technical" truth! So when Couric says, "come on, Abramoff gave money to Democrats too" it's not an actual lie, only a "technical" lie. Therefore, Couric's lie can be excused and Dean can be seen as playing word games.
Now, they compound the lie by saying that Abramoff's clients gave money to Dems. While "technically" true, they say this without Dean being there to point out that there is not one scintilla of evidence that Abramoff directed "one single dime" to the Dems.
It's time to put on more heat. Write NBC and tell them you are boycotting all of their networks, GE, and any subsidiaries since they have absolutely no interest in honoring their duty as a national broadcast network using the nation's airwaves in a responsible manner. OK, you can tell them you'll make an exception for Olbermann.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:14 pmThe graphic shown during the Lauer/Russert segment (and displayed on this post) further misrepresents by showing the money donated by "Abramoff + Tribal Clients". Jeez, if they put up one that said "Abramoff + Tribal Clients + Red Cross", they could claim the scandal includes hurricane Katrina victims, too.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:18 pmDemocrats get raging mad
yeah Tim. It's because of the 1000's of lies and misrepresentations you allow on the air as DC Bureau Chief for NBC News.
Thanks for the slam.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:18 pmWhat was the pattern of tribal donations before Abramoff, and what was the pattern since? Why can't one of these big media types tell a sinkin' intern to do 30 minutes of research on that?
My guess is that before Abramoff it was 75% Dem donations, and since it is 66% GOP. So Abramoff's effect has been to reduce donations to Dems. QED. If he could have gotten it to zero, he would have.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:19 pmThe last line of Oscar Wilde's Salome springs immediately to mind.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:20 pmWell, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, George Bush's grandfather was a Nazi supporter in some way and he is also connected to George Bush. Therefore, using media logic, since the two are connected in some way George Bush must be a Nazi supporter by association.
After all, it's not like two totally different groups/people can act independantly of each other if they know each other.
*sigh* The media needs to be taken out back into the field and put down. They are lame and not longer working the way they were meant to. If the media can't figure out for themselves that Abramoff "clients" were giving political donations LONG before they even heard of Abramoff, and that Abramoff encouraged them to give LESS MONEY to democrats, then they should be put down like a lame horse.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:21 pmTell me where Soros has been implicated in criminal activity relating to his donations to political causes.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:21 pmChase most of us don't think bush is spying on everybody, just those americans who disagree with his political goals and are rather vocal when we disagree with those goals. And any supreme court judge who attempts to defend the unitary executive is too radical for me, not with syanding his always siding with a corporate entity, or governmental power... the courts are supposed to be our last resort and Alito would raise the bar so high that most cases that extend liberty would never be allowed in the courtroom, and that is radical.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:22 pm#30, Chase stay on topic dude - this is the 'wot librul media?' thread. The Alito and wiretap threads are elsewhere.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:22 pmNOt to mention the basic FACT, that the media is stretching further and further to try and find ways to connect Democrats to this scandal. First it was "Abramoff gave money to both". Then it was "Abramoff made his clients give to both". Then "Both Abramoff and his clients gave to both."
Now the newest speaking point is "Abramoff gave only to Republicans....but Democrats are just as corrupt because they meet lobbyists too!"
What next? Democrats are just as guilty because they wear suits like the Republicans?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:23 pmChase I am NOT trying to pick a fight with you on here!
Some Democrats in DC are as sleazy as Republicans, like Lieberman and Ben Nelson!
Does the NSA listen to every call in America?
They are data-mining so in a way they do monitor all calls!
Do they listen to average Americans with no interest in politics? No > why should they!
Do they eavesdrop on Cindy Sheehan and anti-war protesters?
Most likely they do!
Do they snoop on thinkprogress threads?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:23 pmYes probably as we are typing > lol.
#23 - Chase,
First: The Republicans got caught with their hands in the cookie jar after taking out a contract on America to supposedly 'restore honorism and dignitude' to the White House. Abramoff gave money to Republicans to influence the legislation system in ways that Republicans have always claimed the Democrats did. Hypocrisy, they party is Republican!
Second: The domestic spying had RULES and LAWS that should have been followed. Simple rules, simple laws, and a rubber stamp court that has only turned down less than 1 percent of one percent of the requests. Pres. Bush could have even asked for permission THREE DAYS AFTER HE SPIED ON CONVERSATIONS! How do we know it was just terrorists that he spied on? Take his word for it? After all the other lies he's told, he's telling the truth now? Wow! Dude, I've got a bridge to sell you, if you'll fall for his crap over and over again! PRES. BUSH BROKE THE LAW! Simple case, simple solution: independent investigation, impeach if guilty. It was good enough for Pres. Clinton, so it's good enough for Pres. Bush.
Three: Judge Alito is not stupid, he's probably smarter than all the Congressmembers who were asking him question. Heck, it was a Republican that made his wife cry (on cue?)!!! What it boils down to is that the courts are the last place the common citizen can go request redress against big business and big government. Rich and powerful buy and sell Presidents and politicians, and not one of them will help out the little guy unless they are forced to BY THE COURTS! Judge Alito has sided with big business and big government over 90% of all his cases. He even said he'd recuse himself if he had to preside over a case where there was a conflict of interest, and he LIED ABOUT THAT TOO! Why do you want someone who's going to tell you: Sorry, bug business and big government win out over you average citizen.
I hate to tell you this, but you're drinking the kool-aid faster than you blame others for thinking for themselves.
Wake up and smell the Constitution being burned out from under you before we end up under King George.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:23 pmI laughed all the way through.
True comedy at it's finest.
They(sic) say that the best comedy comes at the expense of the author.
Well, the humorist in this joke line is the donnor, and special interists. And don't ya think that big 'ole NBC doesn't hold some political clout?
oh my gosh, someone pass a tissue, my eyes are wattering soooo bag, and the laughter makes me have to peeeeeeeeeeee
January 27th, 2006 at 12:24 pmThis is the price "we the people pay" for abdicating our oversight of the public airwaves to corrupt corporate pirates, and our government to extremist right wing plutocrats...
Until we take back this government and the FCC, disband the corporate media monopoly, and make heads roll, we're going to have the anchors on television shilling for their masters...
Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, and Tim Russert work for GE, which is a major contributor to the criminal Bushite junta (and a defense contractor)...
Such is life in Republican-controlled America, where truth and reality are "created" daily...
January 27th, 2006 at 12:24 pmMary: 1. You are correct. I was making the comparsion with regard to their agendas, not their custody status. 2. There are competing statues here: FISA and AUMF. While FISA can be construed to restrict the executive wiretap authority, it does not necessarily question executive ability do tap international communications. Likewise, AUMF can be construed to authorize such wiretaps. But you must admit, it's not cut and dried illegal. It may end up being so, but it's not prima facie illegal. 3. Can you cite the cases where he deferred to executive power and why those cases make him likely to do so 'whenever he's asked'?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:26 pmChase misses the point.
1. Contributing to representatives whose views one supports (if done lawfully) is not a crime. Receiving contributions (if done lawfully) is not a crime. Taking bribes is a crime. Republicans did it in the Abramoff case; Democrats did not. Although some Democrats sometime might have done something wrong, they didn't do it in this case, and it shouldn't be reported as if they did. It's like saying: "There's a whole lot of theft in the world; therefore, we're all guilty of theft." Reporting the news means talking about specifics.
2. If Bush is spying illegally, I don't care who he's spying on or why. Chase obviously doesn't understand the value of the Constitution and the danger of letting the government do things outside the law. Did Chase ever hear of the disappeared people in Argentina and Chile? Yep, they were "average" citizens.
3. Comparing Alito as a conservative version of a liberal Ginsburg is absurd if anyone knows anything about these justices. Ginsburg is not a liberal. She's a middle of the roader, suggested to Bill Clinton by Orin Hatch. Alito is a right winger who apparently supports the idea that the President can do anything the President wants. That's contrary to our entire constitutional history. So I don't think the argument holds merit that just because Ginsburg, who was appointed by a sane Democrat, was confirmed by the Senate, Alito, who's being appointed by an out-of-control Republican (so that the Republican can be even more out-of control), should be confirmed.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:26 pmJudd, TP's position on this is downright asinine. So what TP is saying is that because democrats used nondirect routes to engage in the exact same behavior that they did not receive money in an inappropriate way.
Judd, despite your obvious agenda being dishonest should not be part of the strategy. Do you even realize how bs this is? There are many involved in it and in this case it appears more republicans than democrats. You guys keep it up because you are really looking ridiculous. Dean looks like a child trying to wiggle out of being in trouble over a technicality.
Judd, again you have proven that you are more than willing to be dishonest. This time it's blatant and I am surprised. I am surprised because this one is not close. Think of it like this. When the democrats were getting money from third parties at the encouragement of Abramoff the third parties did not mention that Abramoff was involved in the contribution.? Abramoff does not make the encouragement unless he gets the credit. That would be pretty straight forward don't you think?
Again, I am surprised by your willingness to be this dishonest.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:26 pmDo they listen to average Americans with no interest in politics? No > why should they!
Comment by Jay Randal #42
Jay my friend,
Your statement above implies that you think the government is justified listening to Americans WITH political interests...
Though I don't believe you mean that, please clarify...
January 27th, 2006 at 12:29 pmTruth no longer matters on cable news
January 27th, 2006 at 12:29 pmI went down to the Today Show this morning with my "Katie Lied" placard ready to hoist and wave. I was not allowed into the pen of gushing, squealing admirers, because of the controversial nature of my message. Security was distinctly hostile, and aggressive, seemed prepared. I stood on the corner, watching the show and was aware I was being watched by security at several posts. When I hoisted my sign by the window on 49th St. behind where these dunderheads sit and read, I was beset by security who nearly ripped the thing out of my hand. I didn't have the time, or probably the heart to take this any further, but it all feels so police state like. Help me. A government is widely known to have lied about everything its ever done - war, protecting citizens, setting public policy - and the only thing on the news last night was outrage that a drug addict lied in his bestselling memoir and what this means for the fortunes of Oprah Winfrey. Somebody wake me!!
January 27th, 2006 at 12:29 pmStrawman Ben, this is about Abramoff, not Dean. Try again
January 27th, 2006 at 12:30 pmBen, in this case the exact same behavior would be bribery and the K-Street Project. So far, only Republicans have been implicated. You are being intentionally dishonest if you insist that the real issue is campaign contributions or luncheons. If you want lobbying reform, that is another issue. The real issue here is bribery and corruption.
So address the real issue and stop misdirecting.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:31 pm#51, good for you Frank, have you considered assault charges or civil rights?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:31 pm#48 - I'm surprised by your unwillingness to hold similar standards to both parties and all Presidents.
Let me guess, it was bad for Pres. Clinton to break the 'rule of law' and lie about sex.
But it's just hunky-dory for Pres. Bush to break the 'rule of law' and lie about the reasons for war, spying on Americans, balancing the budget, torturing prisoners, and which corrupt lobbyists with whom he has 'close' relations.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican! Oh, and 'Ben' too!
January 27th, 2006 at 12:32 pmChase, see http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060130&s=rosen013006 for a good discussion by Jeffery rosen on how Alito might respond to overreaching by an executive. As an appellate court judge, he didn't have many opportunities to opine on the issue straight on. His answers to questions are kind of frightening though.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:33 pmJudd and thinkprogress are a hundred times more honest than Tim Russert, so Ben stop plugging for Bush on here please!
January 27th, 2006 at 12:34 pmLOL!!! Good one gang! Talk to me next November after the GOP maintains control of Congress.
Keep an eye on NJ - I hear Cor-slime is already talking about raising taxes. That, coupled with the culture of corruption charge will give the GOP a pick up.
You people don't get it - Dems took money from Abramoff's clients. It is very powerful counter attack and will make all this bipartisan. I think you will hear Republicans saying "everybody does it" alot this year. Sound famaliar?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:35 pm"...it does not necessarily question executive ability do tap international communications. Likewise, AUMF can be construed to authorize such wiretaps."
Comment by Chase #46
Chase,
Every senator that I've seen (from both sides of the aisle) to whom the question of whether or not the AUMF gave Bushiva the power for warrantless wiretaps has said NO!
What part of that don't you people who keep trying to muddle our (thinking peoples') brains with dead/settled arguments...
As for FISA, you people don't want to believe tha Bushiva is breaking the law, but he is...
He has fifteen days (worst case scenario in wartime- which by the way can ONLY be declared by Congress and has NOT been done) to electronically surveille without a warrant...
The ONLY reason Bushiva is "CIRCUMVENTING" (i don't give a da*n how HE spins it) FISA is because he's hiding something illegal...
...like eavesdropping on his political enemies...
January 27th, 2006 at 12:36 pmJudd and thinkprogress are a hundred times more honest than Tim Russert, so Ben stop plugging for Bush on here please!
Comment by Jay Randal — January 27, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
Well for Judd and TP this is not one of those moments.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:37 pm#58, Day 4 for you Innocent Lite - are you servile, unpatriotic or morally treasonous, or some combo of all three....?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:38 pmRepublicans are being convicted of bribery. Democrats are not. "Everybody does it" did not help Democrats in '94, it won't help Republicans now.
I think it would help us a lot if every Republican insists that bribery is the same as legal campaign contributions. That should make for a well-informed electorate.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:38 pmThat, coupled with the culture of corruption charge will give the GOP a pick up.
You people don’t get it - Dems took money from Abramoff’s clients. It is very powerful counter attack and will make all this bipartisan. I think you will hear Republicans saying “everybody does it†alot this year. Sound famaliar?
Comment by Innocent Lite #58
Indecent lowLife,
there's onle ONE thing to be done with right wing Bushite inbreds like you....
January 27th, 2006 at 12:38 pmWhy is it not libel for journalists to take it for granted that Abramoff's clients used their own political donations to funnel money to corrupt politicians at his direction? Abramoff's "donations" were criminal, and if people say that his clients' money is as tainted as his own, then they are being accused of a crime.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:38 pmPost 49 big papa > I am just stating the obvious about NSA spying! Do I think it is right for them to spy on political activists like me and you? NO I think it is wrong and Hitlerian!
Bush bypasses the FISA court because he wants no record of who he is spying upon > it is a violation of the Constitution! Bush must be impeached for it!
January 27th, 2006 at 12:40 pmWhy do they deep saying "associates" and clients? Because associates sounds like his cohorts. Do they ever name any names? I've never heard of any Abramoff associates giving money to Dems.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:40 pmThe rightwing never fails to test my tolerance for stupidity.
Contributions to Democrats from the Indian tribes involved with Abramoff, both legal and historically greater than those to Republicans, actually decreased once Abripoff got involved. The notion that Abramoff and the K St. project did anything to assist Democrats is ridiculous.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:41 pmBen,
Your argument is asinine yet also helps to illustrate Judd’s point. The issue here is that Abramoff is a criminal. The “clients†that Abramoff swindled are not criminals, they are victims. What needs to be determined and exposed is Abramoff’s associates and partners in crime in Washington. That’s it. If they are Democrats or Republicans, it does not matter and no one here would object to a Democrat with DIRECT ties to Abramoff being taken down.
Corruption is the issue. You, as an American, should be up in arms about this instead of trying at all costs to protect your party. This is the United States of America, not the US of Republicans or Democrats. It’s “We the Peopleâ€, not “We the Political Party who hold a majority in government.â€
What is it going to take for people such as yourself to see that what you are advocating is the destruction of our democracy? Is that really what you are after?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:44 pm#62 - "everybody does it." They do and we will slander your leaders the way you have slandered ours. The only difference - we're saving up for when people actually pay attention. Remember the Swift Boat Veterans? Please stop it with the 1994 comparisons - Democrats were not as treasonous as they are now.
Big Papa - what should be done to me? Kill those who dissent?
AND your punishment for your hateful campaign to smear President Bush is Justice Samuel Alito. AND this is just the beginning.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:45 pm#67 - everybody does it.
The left never fails to test my tolerance for stupidity. While you idiots are crying about some two bit scandal, Bush is packing the Court. Good job guys. Thanks for your help.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:47 pmYes, Innocent Lite, it's all about winning right? I mean, screw the people and the issues. Forget about the corruption, the lies, the incompetence, the DEAD. According to you, all that matters is that your team win.
You are a sorry excuse for an informed citizen. I suggest you change your moniker to "Intelligence Lite" as it is much more appropriate.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:47 pmOne of the nice things about living in the Chicago area is that we have the WGN Morning News, which is far more entertaining than Matt, Katie or any of the other network wankery. I haven't watched the Today Show in years.
Not that they're without fault; WGN is owned by the Tribune Company, of course. But it can be funny as hell and gets better ratings in the local market than Today.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:47 pm#69, come on Innocent Lite answer the question...I'm leaning toward servile.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:47 pmShorter Timmeh, Lauer and Miss Colon 2006: Indians have no right to donate money. They should be happy living on their reservations.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:48 pmBut to suggest that they were spying on average Americans making phone calls to their mothers, the dry cleaners, etc is nuts. Really, to think that, you have really drunk the Kool-aid. They have much better things to do than listen to you ranting about how much you hate Bush to your homosexual hairstylist on your celly. Get over it.
Comment by Chase — January 27, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:49 pmBut virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html?ex=1138510800&en=5803fed5119a90a9&ei=5070
#30, Chase,
Do I actually believe that Bush is listening to my phone calls? No, because Bush is too lazy to worry about it. Do I think the NSA is listening to my phone calls? Probably since I've made numerous overseas phone calls. Of course, I don't believe for one minute Bush's story that only phone calls from Al Qaida are intercepted. It would be very easy to get a warrant if that were the case. So one has to ask the question, why would they listen to calls without a warrant? The simple answer is that they're listening to calls that have nothing to do with Al Qaida. Since it's a secret program, and since the administration has not divulged the full scope of the program to anyone, including the FISA Court, how can anyone believe that they AREN'T listening to their phone calls?
As to Alito being a radical, yes he is. In his own writings he's taken extremely radical positions. Read his dissent in the 10 year old strip search case where he takes the position that cops can search anyone without a warrant if they can simply come up with an after the fact rationalization. That's radical. Myself, I prefer the Bill of Rights, when it comes to Bush violating the law or when Alito decides a case.
People should remember that the Constitution is written as a LIMIT on government power, not an endorsement. The Preamble states that The People, not the Government, establish the Constitution. The Bill of Rights in Amendment IX,which states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."; and Amendment X which states; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.";
makes clear that the power of the Government is limited by the Constitution and is secondary to the rights of the people.
Bush takes the position that the peoples' rights are subserviant to his power as President. It is long past time that the people recognized that true patriotism lies in protecting the rights of the people. You're either for the Constitution or you're not. Bush and the Republican Congress have declared their position as being against the Constitution.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:50 pmTotally off topic, sorry...
but I didn't see a more appropriate thread where I could post this.
http://www.johnkerry.com/action/filibuster/
sign the petition for a filibuster.
Thanks.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:50 pm#51
Frank, it is a huge understatement to say that the way you were treated was uncalled for.
Folks, anyone, especially the rightwing trolls, who has not taken at least a few minutes from their daily routines to consider the actions as described in Frank's post need to get a clue. Here we have an honest citizen who just wanted to make a statement. He was no threat to anyone. Given this administration's desire to quash dissent of any type, I could somewhat expect it (but nevertheless disagree) if Frank was trying to display a "Bush lied" sign at a public appearance by the president.
But come on, now. A comment directed at a morning show co-host and "reporter," and an obviously poor one at that?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:51 pm#73 - I support American values which means I have to stop Democrats from ever getting into power again.
#71 - I consider all the things you mentioned and vote Republican. Democrats are corrupt, they sympathize with our enemies and they seek to crush those who do not agree that it's a constitutional right to kill babies.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:54 pmForgive me everyone, I am as left as they come, very progressive, a daily supporter of Think Progress and I support Dean and everyone else... but you have to accept the reality that any broad statement that ALL Democrats are innocent in this case is False and Misleading and does the party more harm than good.
I hated to see Dean make that remark on the program, because it opens and unneccessary can of worms. Not all politicians are bad, but it is the nature of modern politics to accept contributions and favors from lobbying efforts on behalf of their clients. Thank goodness for the honest ones, but not all Democrats are honest.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:56 pm#77 -lol! Kerry is pathetic. Interesting that he will be leading the charge to "swift boat" Sam Alito. Did he cut his ski trip short so he could come back to DC in time to slander Alito? Thank you again for your total stupidity.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:56 pm#79, so you are for a one-party state? Fascism, I presume? Then looks like all three to me: servile, morally treasonous and unpatriotic.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:57 pmSome one help me out with this - didn't President Bush join the gaggle of politicians returning "Abramoff" money thought to be tainted? When he did so he only returned $6,000 of $100,000 because he claimed only that amount was directly from Abramoff and the rest was from Abramoff clients and therefore was not tainted. I think I remember that right. If true then the money donated to Dems by Abramoff "clients" is perfectly clean according to Bush himself! So the whole right-wing meme that Dems are implacated too is contradicted by their own liar in chief. Some one fact check me on this to be sure!
January 27th, 2006 at 12:59 pm#82 - I am for a one party state if the other party includes people like yourself.
Your far-left radical ideology is scary and dangerous. The fact that you throw the word fascist around so lightly shows how unglued you are. You demean those who have truly suffered oppression. So yes, as long as the left has people like you on their side, you will be routed from power.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:02 pmIntelligence Lite,
You prove my point again. If you "consider all the things" but only vote for the party that you are affiliated with, instead of who is most competent and appropriate, then actually you consider nothing.
What a waste. You are throwing away your country and its values and you are too ignorant to see it. I pity you.
And to head off what is so obvious to be your next response, I have voted for republican and democratic and independent candidates for all levels of government.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:03 pmYou're not reading me Optimist - I vote Republican because national Democrats are a DISGRACE. Have I voted Democratic before - yes. But, not when the Democratic leadership and their far left base believe Bush is bigger threat than Bin Laden. NO WAY. So I consider all things, but Democrats and their terrorist sympathizing base will always come up short.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:06 pm#84 and you sir, don't understand fascism. If the brown shirt fits, then you should wear it. At the very least today, you have demonstrated that you are opposed to democracy and to civil discourse.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:06 pm#87 - quite a contradiction, dontcha think.
If there is a party of Nazis in this country it would certainly be the left. They gas unwanted babies and lynch anyone who opposes that practice.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:09 pm#88 oh dear, you just proved my point.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:10 pmLooks like I found it -
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-04-bush-abramoff_x.htm
The claim was "individual donations" raised by Abramoff were not a problem, just his personal donations and one by one tribe. So again, the R's want to split hairs over their contributions but paint with a broad brush on the D side to have the appearance of a bipartisan scandal. I'd like to point out that the Dems have plenty of corruption to answer for on their own but this appears to be a very one-sided scandal. Where is a viable third-party when you need one? Oh, yeah the two cash-cow parties of incompetence and corruption now run our system. We're screwed.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:11 pm#81: It appears you make no distinction between disagreeing with someone's positions and lying about them. Thank you repeating the "Kerry is swiftboating" talking point like a good little lapdog.
And PS, it's glaringly obvious from your comment that you both envy and worship the wealthy. Sad.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:13 pmEural, you make a good point regarding Bush's $6000 return of Abramoff money...and the remainder that he kept. I say investigate hard and prosecute all offenders of the law, GOP or Dem. Then we'll see who's got their hand in the cookie jar and how deeply they reached.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:14 pmIntelligence Lite,
You only vote republican but you consider all things. If you cannot see the monumental logical flaw there then you have a serious problem with cognitive reasoning.
As for your generalization that all Democrats are a disgrace and terrorist sympathizers, you further expose your ignorance.
The real question for you is: Why do you hate America and its Constitution?
January 27th, 2006 at 1:19 pmJay - Do we have proof that Russert has been PAID by the Bush people?
January 27th, 2006 at 1:19 pmWell, given the differences in these definitions...
Liberalism -
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
Facism -
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
...I know which one I choose.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:25 pmThis debate is also covered HERE
We, no doubt, will see a retraction come monday after Matt's and Katie's gruntsmen do their work and peruse the blog boards.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:29 pm#95 WC - pretty concise WC. My last word on fascism on this thread which provides a relatively objective way of spotting the brownshirts (and no, I don't use the term lightly) The 14 points of fascism
This page is occasionally updated with more examples.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:30 pm#46. sorry. no cites, no facts, no essays. i'm practicing my short unsubstantiated smear techniques. i hope to get a job at the white house press office.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:31 pmJust imagine if the news media covered Clinton's indiscretions in this same manner.
The Lewinsky scandal would have been presented as an example of Washinton politicians infidelity (surely not a limited subject) and perhaps would have provoked a consideration on the state of marriage vows in general.
Whitewater would have been presented as an opportunity to point out that rich folk often benefit from connections and power to make even more money. It could have provoked a consideration of socioeconomic polarization in America.
Funny, I don't remember either subject being presented like this.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:38 pm#84
Throw the word "facsist" around so lightly? Did you even bother reading post #51? The man was at NBC's studio to express the opinion that Katie Couric, "America's sweetheart," was not being truthful. Was his treatment necessary? Tell me how this does not define "suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship."
Same goes for reports that co-author of a book critical of Bush, James Moore, has been placed on the No Fly list. Word is that he can fly, but has to go to the airport several hours early for extra screening. He cannot find out why he is on the list, nor can he get off the list. The No Fly list, as I understand it, is designed to keep terrorists or would-be terrorists off the airliners. Again, tell me how this does not define "suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship."
January 27th, 2006 at 1:45 pmWe all have a wicked death wish, cause way deep down we have given up on our own personal struggles with our soul. Now's acceptable time to unload all our unresolved internal conflicts an complexes en masse, on to the "other", out there.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:46 pmI always remember fondly those Bugs Bunny-Daffy Duck cartoons where Elmer Fudd is hunting them and they try to evade him.
Eventually it leads to:
Daffy: "Shoot him now! Shoot him now!"
Bugs: "You keep out of this. He doesn't have to shoot you now."
Daffy: "Well, I say he does have to shoot me now, so shoot me now!" (BANG! Fudd shoots Daffy.)
In the ensuing analysis, Daffy discovers that there was "pronoun trouble."
Daffy: "It's not 'He doesn't have to shoot you now', it's 'He doesn't have to shoot me now'. Well I say he does have to shoot me now, so shoot me now!" (BANG! Fudd shoots Daffy.)
Anyway, this all reminds me of "pronoun trouble." Russert is saying that the Dems are saying "it's" a Republican scandal, and yet he then says that a lot of Dems take trips and accept gifts from lobbyists. He's conflating two different "scandals". Yes, the paid-for trips and gifts are a scandal, but the Jack Abramoff part of it is purely a Republican scandal. And that's what the Dems mean when they say "it's" a Republican scandal.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:47 pmWC - so were John Kennedy, LBJ and the Democrats fascists in the 1960s because Democrats controlled everything? FDR in the 1930s?
What you two nimrods are describing is more of sour grapes than a fascist state. You can't win elections so Bush is a fascist. Makes sense. I would argue that you can't win elections when you accuse your ideological opponents of being fascist.
You also can't win elections with a moron like John Kerry at the top of the ticket. An admitted war criminal, a liar and a repugnant human being. But hey, he served in Vietnam for four months!
January 27th, 2006 at 1:48 pm#102,
Spot on sir!!! However, never in my wildest dreams would I have thought that we would be using Bugs Bunny skits to clarify political communications.
The Abramoff scandal is a REPUBLICAN scandal.
The Lobbyist problem is a WASHINGTON problem.
abidy abidy that's all folks.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:51 pmI thought that, according to the right-wing lapdogs, "swiftboating" was "presenting all of the *facts* to expose the *unpleasant truths* about a person vying for public office."
So, Innocent Lite, in wingnut logic, which is it? Either (a) or (b):
(a) Kerry is exposing nothing but truthful facts about Samuel Alito to point out Alito's unfitness to be nominated to the Supreme Court; or
(b) "swiftboating" does not mean the above definition -- in fact, it means "a slanderous, false attack on a public official's character in the hopes of scoring political points" -- in which case the swiftboating of John Kerry in 2004 was an unjustified attack.
Pick one.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:51 pmMy letter:
Today Show,
Matt Lauer's statements defending Katie Couric only further called into question your show's credibility.
No money, zero money, transacted from Abramoff to any Democrat. How difficult is it to understand? In spite of this, you insist on pushing a story that democrats are engaged in this scandal.
There is no democrat scandal.
Though Lauer acknowledged this fact, he did so while pressing the storyline that Democrats were in a scandal. By prefacing the fact with "technically," you called into question the undeniable fact that Jack Abramoff gave no money, zero money, to democrats, as if there is some "non-technical" way to interpret it.
Lauer showed a graphic and let Russert talk about third parties that gave money to democrats without showing a causal connection with Abramoff. There is no logical or evidence-based reason to make such a connection. Now, it seems, that the Today Show is reporting by insinuation rather than fact.
Furthermore, when Lauer asked if democrats can "wash their hands of this" he implied that there was something that needed to be washed. Democrats hands are clean on this issue. There is nothing dirty on their hands, why would you insist they need to wash them?
I'm sorry if you don't like reporting facts that don't shine well on republicans. However, when a political party erupts in scandal, and the other does not, professionalism requires you to report it without injecting a faux sense of "balance" by creating a fabricated storyline. I'm sorry if you're afraid of the talking heads that will call you the dirty word "liberal," but that's better than "dishonest." To be sure, your reluctance to report the truth, and finally reporting the truth framed in a dirty-hands-democrats storyline, is dishonest.
X
January 27th, 2006 at 1:52 pmSee? This is because you grab them by the balls and squeeze until they tell the truth and you never apologize or back down, not for anything!
January 27th, 2006 at 1:53 pm#99 Comment by Gillete
If only it was as simple as the Clinton dayz,
When a blow job meant something.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:53 pmWC - the no fly crock you are spewing, even if true, does not compare to some of the tactics Clinton's cronies took against the women he sexually harrassed. Clinton also abused the IRS and his attorney turned up dead in a corn field. So, I would argue that Bush is on par with most politicians. OR Clinton was a fascist, too. Take your pick.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:53 pmAh, the familiar refrain from the side with no ideas, only talking points: "Clinton, Clinton, Clinton! He was a BAAAAAAAAAD MAAAAAAAAAAN!"
January 27th, 2006 at 1:55 pm#76 your post is dead on. The constitution is there to protect the citizenry fromt he government. Heck fear of an all powerful government led to the federalist essays being written and posted to various papers simply to stem the fears that this "constitution" was a grab at power.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:55 pm#103, dude, you are not helping yourself with your shotgun mixture of strawmen, ad hominems and strange ideas. You prehaps should decide on a debating style that works for you instead of trying them all at once. Whereas I be happy to engage in a discussion with you about fascism and how close the US is and has been to it over the last 60 years, I really need you to bone up on the concept a little first.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:57 pmIntelligence Lite,
All slander and no facts = Libelous. Please ask your mother to look up that word and read the definition to you.
And that is the last morsel that I will feed that troll.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:58 pm#105 considering Kerry's sole platform was that he served in Vietnam, it was certainly an issue. AND there are ample evidence that he was trying to cover up radical positions he took in the 1970s. Views he still has, just lies about. Ever hear of The New Soldier?
As for Alito, I would say that woman killer Ted Kennedy's tirade over Vangurad and Durbin implying that Alito is racist amounts to "swift boating."
AND it is not a smear to call Ted Kennedy a murderer. He let a woman drown to save his own butt. That is a fact. He is the perfect spokesman for the left.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:00 pmAn aspect of this scandal which continues to be obscured is the tremendous power Ahbramoff , an Orthodox Jew, wields with Indian tribes. Knowing Mr. Abrhamoff's penchant for hats, is it possible he has donned the feathered headress of tribal Super-chiefdom and is revered and implicitly obeyed by all Native Americans whithin the purview (and those who aren't are of course purblind) of the Tribal Council?
January 27th, 2006 at 2:00 pmI suggest a sharp lookout be kept for un-explained mass conversions by Native Americans to Orthoxdox Judaism. This might well be an indicator of the tremendous influence and authourity Abrhammoff might have attained with the tribes.
Don't even waste the ink to write to the simps at The Toady Show. I mean, what do you really expect from a network owned by GE?
January 27th, 2006 at 2:00 pmjesus this new troll is a tool.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:01 pm106 Comment by Five of Diamonds
Thank you, thank U, THANK EUW.
A good cut and paste letter.
I did.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:03 pm:)
You said *Kerry* was "swiftboating" Alito, so where did Durbin and Kennedy come from?
Oh wait, is that the right-wing tactic of "moving the goalposts"? Sorry, your response does not fit the question. Ah well, can't even make a simple (a)/(b) decision. I call not only troll, but USELESS troll.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:04 pmSorry, wasn't paying attention - what troll? Oh no, he's not a tool. If one of you has a herd of pigs and a nearby cliff handy, we can fix him up in a jiffy. Oh, and best of luck when the Rapture comes, everyone
January 27th, 2006 at 2:06 pm#103, you are correct they can not win with a buffoon like Kerry at the top of the ticket. They really need and intellectually vacant and moarally bankrupt individual at the top of the ticket to win. Someone like Bush perhaps.
Anyhow nice harping on Kerry's service. I'm willing to bet that he spent more time in Vietnam than Bush, Cheaney & Rove combined. But still you get props for following the party line of loving the military while hating veterans.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:09 pmMatt Lauer and Katie Couric are media lightweights, whom the fever swamp may attack with impunity. Tim Russert, on the other hand, is an 800-pound media gorilla. If the Left continues to attack him on this point, he will likely prove his point by highlighting Abramoff's bipartisan influence.
I can't wait for Harry Reid's next appearance on "Meet the Press." Looks like he may have to give back that $66,000 after all.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:09 pm#114 is that like when Laura Bush ran her car into her boyfriends car while running a stopsignm
January 27th, 2006 at 2:11 pmHere is the problem: this is not about who gave to whom. It is not really even about lobbyists trying to corrupt politicians (which they are paid by their special interests to do). THIS IS ABOUT POLITICIANS CORRUPTING LOBBYISTS!!!!! ... It's about Republican politicians requiring lobbyists to pay politicians (through contributions from those lobbyists and their clients) and to hire Republican operatives (through the K street project) before the Republican controlled legislature will even deign to consider and/or pass legislation pushed by the lobbyists. This is a disgrace!
January 27th, 2006 at 2:12 pm"If the Left continues to attack him on this point, he will likely prove his point by highlighting Abramoff’s bipartisan influence.
I can’t wait for Harry Reid’s next appearance on “Meet the Press.†Looks like he may have to give back that $66,000 after all."
Comment by Blue State Red — January 27, 2006 @
No bi-partisan influence, and Reid's money isn't tainted.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:13 pmbj holland, bingo!
January 27th, 2006 at 2:18 pm"AND it is not a smear to call Ted Kennedy a murderer. He let a woman drown to save his own butt. That is a fact. He is the perfect spokesman for the left."
Comment by Innocent Lite — January 27, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
And it is not a smear to call Reagan (and now Bush) treasonous scum who would make deals with terrorists (while proudly proclaiming just the opposite)for political gain, regardless of the consequences for the country. That is a fact. They are perfect spokesmen for the right.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:19 pmI can’t wait for Harry Reid’s next appearance on “Meet the Press.†Looks like he may have to give back that $66,000 after all.â€"
Comment by Blue State Red — January 27, 2006 @ "
Then Harry can have the opportunity to point out that these traditional contributors dried up, because Abramoff siphoned off the money as bribes to republicans. I agree, that this would be a good appearance.
Although I forgive you for only having a 'partisan brain', and not being able to reason through things. According to the latest scientific research the partisan types like yourself are acting on animal and emotional instincts, and not using their human brain centers. It's why you generally come off as hateful, fearful and irrational - because you are when you discuss partisan issues. I'm sure you're a very nice person, and that you don't mean to come across as a lunatic. I forgive you for your inability to control your emotions - poor thing.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:22 pm^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BOGUS LIST above
January 27th, 2006 at 2:27 pm#23
1) Taking money for compaigning and taking money to vote a certain way or to call a right wing buddy and have him work to pass laws in his state to block rival tribes casinoes are two different things. One is taking money for campaigning the other is taking money as bribes.
2) There is NOTHING grey here. FISA was setups in the 1970s because of Nixonians abusing the NSA to spy on political opponents. To stop that from happening again FISA was created as a tool to make sure that if a president says he is spying on terrorists then he really is. If Bush can not let FISA know who he is spying on after he already spied then he IS NOT SPYING ON TERRORISTS.
3) Alito is a follower. He looks for ways to judge that will get him a pat on the back at the golf coarse. FAR different from Roberts who seems to be his own man.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:27 pm#129,
HOLY SHIT! You mean that all the Native American Tribes have been indicted and convicted like Abramoff! Wow, this is breaking news.
You're a moron and a liar. But, if you can get over your inferiority complex and resolve your sexual insecurities you may be able to finally see that TRUTH is what will set you free. Not the bag of BS that you are carrying around.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:29 pmWow, John Kerry got $98,550? So that's how he paid for that castle in Idaho! I wonder who paid for his trip to Davos!?
January 27th, 2006 at 2:29 pm"ALL of the politicians in Washington are corrupt, not just the GOP."
Comment by You can't handle the truth! — January 27, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
Thank you for acknowledging the the republicans are filthy with ill-gotten lucre - however your list has already been debunked. Thanks for playing, we encourage you to try again anytime.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:31 pm#133 BSR,
January 27th, 2006 at 2:32 pmSir, you absorb the lies so quickly and readily. Geez, anyone with half a brain can identify a pile of sh*t like that. I would suggest that you stop sniffing glue in your mother's basement and go back to school. Lord knows that you can use the additonal education.
"Wow, John Kerry got $98,550? So that’s how he paid for that castle in Idaho! I wonder who paid for his trip to Davos!?"
Comment by Blue State Red — January 27, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
Money from tribes is not money from Abramoff, silly man. Try again.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:33 pm#129 That list you also posted on another thread is not true here any more that it was true there and you have been debunked there, sorry spreading the same falsehood won't work here, but Karl and company must be paying by the word now.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:33 pmThe fact that Dems got money from some Abrahamoff clients is not indication that they are corrupt. What is painfully obvious with Abrahamoff and this whole scandal and K Street project, is that is all about selling influence within congress.
The dems, since the republicans took power, have had no say whatsoever in how this country is being run. They can climb on board with republican projects etc... But they do not get any influence over those projects. To allow them any influence (which they lost when the thugs got control over both houses and the other two branches of the government) would cause the thugs to lose the "Democrats are a party of no ideas" talking point. Simply shutting them out of the process helps facilitate the talking point.
But in general the lobbying scandal is about buying and selling influence, and in order for the dems to be guilty of this there has to be some sort of influence to sell. If they are guilty there will be some cause and effect evidence to be displayed. The Cunningham case is great for this, as is the Abrahamoff case. He has plead guilty, no problem there. But you can see from following it that tribe A pays $x and two days later they get a meeting with congressman Y who the following day voted in favor of a tribes position etc… If the dems are guilty you can damn sure bet that republicans would be spreading the evidence trail all around the press.
This is not what is happening, not even close. Nope, any money the dems got from those people is at most a gratis gift or at worst a CYA ploy developed by the K Street bad boys to give themselves a case for plausible deniability.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:36 pmMy list has been debunked? Wow, I had no idea. I guess I'll just take your word that it has been debunked as the gospel truth, and forget that the FEC is the agency that released the list in the first place. Yeah, I'll listen to a bunch of Bush haters instead of the Federal Election Commission, and just trust them when say the list is misleading. Sure. Seriously, wake up, man. It doesn't matter HOW Abramoff routed the money to the Dems. It only matters that the origen was Abramoff, and the recipients were the Dems.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:38 pm#139. Your handle should read"I CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!".
January 27th, 2006 at 2:41 pmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/27judge.html?_r=1
Go to Original
Prosecutor Will Step Down from Lobbyist Case
By Philip Shenon and Elisabeth Bumiller
The New York Times
Friday 27 January 2006
Washington - The investigation of Jack Abramoff, the disgraced Republican lobbyist, took a surprising new turn on Thursday when the Justice Department
The prosecutor, Noel L. Hillman, is chief of the department's public integrity division, and the move ends his involvement in an inquiry that has reached into the administration as well as the top ranks of the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill.
The administration said that the appointment was routine and that it would not affect the investigation, but Democrats swiftly questioned the timing of the move and called for a special prosecutor.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:42 pm#129. So, you're saying the GOP is corrupt.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:44 pmThis is INSANE! They are basically saying it's illegal to receive money from an Indian tribe! The Indian tribes are the victims here, folks! just because a Democrat received money from an Indian Tribe, that does not make him a crook. Liberal media my ass.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:44 pmThe Indian Tribes always gave money to the Democrats. But when they got involved with Abramoff, they gave the Democrats much less money than they did before.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:45 pmThe GOP spin machine media likes to portray the Democrats as being equally guilty of taking Indian Tribe money, but the fact is they got less BECAUSE of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
This is a very important point that is not being made.
Your list is debunked when you can not provide a source for it. It is debunked when you say that it is a list of Abrahamoff money, when in fact none of his money went to dems. His clients paid money to them sure, but how much? In what proportiosn did they pay to dems and what proportion did they pay to republicans? The other thing your list does nto cover is what the money got them. You knwo damned well that money given to the dems did not buy influence because they had no influence to sell.
Beyond that I don't think the FEC has a list that says...this is money recived from Jack Abrahamoff clients.
The only thing you state that has any truth to it is that Washingotn in general is corrupt, though I'm only reading this into your posts as you seem to be harping on the dems, I'm simply assuming that you know as a fact the republicans are corrupt.
BTW wasn't abrahamoff a Pioneer/Ranger? Big money winner for Bush and yet Bush seems to have no clue as to who he is or ever doing business with him.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:45 pm#129,
Your list is bogus. Go to citizens for responsive politics and see it for yourself.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:45 pm#139,
Until the Native American Tribes get indicted and convicted, all that counts IS Abramoff money.
If it is a guilt by association issue, then let's play the game out shall we? Let's see, Abramoff is a REPUBLICAN, Abramoff is a CONVICTED CRIMINAL, so, in your pitiful logic, all REPUBLICANS ARE CRIMINALS.
It seems that your moniker should read "I can't identify the truth".
January 27th, 2006 at 2:47 pmI cant handle the Truth!
January 27th, 2006 at 2:47 pmBWAWAWAWAWAW,WHINEWHINEWHINEWHINE,CRYCRYCRYCRY.
IMABABYSPOILEDROTTENCRYBABY.
I will say his list is devoid of republicans, so maybe it is true only dems a guilty...not really.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:51 pm#80 Dean wasnt BSing.
Abramoff was a middle man that setup bribes for the GOP. If you look back at the news after the GOP took over washington you will see they were setting up republican ONLY deals with lobbyists to further erode democratic power. Not by the power of their arguments but instead by the power of threats of exclusion and the offer of money. Thats the same way the mafia works.
Are there democrats that take bribes? Hell yes. Are there democrats that took bribes from Abramoff ...hell no. No evidence I have seen yet shows that and the GOP had been throwing all kinds of info out there and none of it proves anything other than Abramoff hated democrats as a right winger and was willing to do ANYTHING to help the GOP.
Democrats are NOT tied to a right winger that hates democrats.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:52 pm#140 - Of course, he can't handle the truth!
It's common knowledge (except for trolls that stick fingers in their ears and say 'I can't hear you!') that Abramoff didn't give money to the Democrats.
Let me repeat for the hearing impaired:
ABRAMOFF DIDN'T GIVE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS!!!!!
Don't just take my word for it, research it for yourself from a non-partisan site:
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=abramoff&txtState=%28all+states%29&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&Order=N
Don't spew the talking points from ultra-radical right-wing shills. Go to the source!
Unless you can't handle the truth.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:52 pm#145, the list was debunked this morning referring back to the 18th. Chekc this - post 52 Acknowledgements to kindness on this one.
Mr CHTT, you may have a problem with short-term memory loss. You were debunked as a fabricator this morning. I find if I write stuff down that I need to remember it helps me, but I'm sorry I can't help you with your problem confusing facts and fantasy.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:55 pm#129 Your list is debunked by the FEC because you state the origin was Abrarmoff but since this list is money that ORIGINATED with clients of Abrarmoff(who he plead guilty of defrauding), not Abrarmoff, your statement compared with the FEC site debunks your list as "Democrats taking money from Abrarmoff"
January 27th, 2006 at 3:00 pm#153 - I have this feeling that "I can't handle the truth" drops his lie-bombs and then runs away before he's proven to be a liar.
Some people just can't handle the truth about themselves as "cut & run" cowards, or their lies as nothing but calumny.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:04 pm"I did not take money from that thief Jack Abramoff. I only took money from the folks who financed the heist." OK - I understand - you were only an accessory...hmmmmm....
January 27th, 2006 at 3:04 pm#155, nope not getting it. The Tribes are the real culprits here? Is that what you are saying MA? Damn it where are those cholera-infected blankets, boys, there's still two months of winter left!
January 27th, 2006 at 3:07 pm#155 - "I did not take money from that thief Jack Abramoff. I only took money from the people that he was bilking for millions of dollars."
Piss off, troll.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:08 pmObviously that's in reponse to #156, not #155...
January 27th, 2006 at 3:08 pmI own a mutual fund that owns some Dow stock. Does that make me responsible for Bhopal?
January 27th, 2006 at 3:09 pmut, someone deleted something...
January 27th, 2006 at 3:09 pmMA, you and I are in the same camp today.....welcome me to the rank of troll, if you would. :)
January 27th, 2006 at 3:10 pm#155 MA,
No, I guess that you don't understand. But I will clarify for you by correcting your statement: "I did not take money from that lying theiving REPUBLICAN Jack Abramoff. I only received legal and untainted contributions from Native American Tribes who, unfortunately, have been ripped off by that lying theiving REPUBLICAN Jack Abramoff."
There, I hope that helps.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:11 pmHey Terry, the numbers went screwy, sorry... mine was not a response to you :)
January 27th, 2006 at 3:11 pm#155 You can't be accused of financing a heist where you are defrauded at the same time. ....eeert wrong answer please try again.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:14 pmI'd like to point out again that the argument (such as it is) being touted by "you can't handle the truth" and others concerning the source of the money directly and absolutely tars Bush as one of the most heinous criminals in this situation since he has retained over $100,000 of Abramoff's election donations. The rightwing is using a boomerang argument to implicate Dem's which only flies right back into their beloved leader's face. Wow. Such insane, partisan, blind stupidity. Please - let's all grow up, show some back-bone and maturity and actually get our country going again.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:15 pm#163, no probs, I have a thick shell.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:15 pmA pocket rebuttal to "democrats took abramoff money, too." Feel free to use as often as necessary:
A) Jack Abramoff is a long-time Republican, going back to his College Republican days with Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:22 pmB) Jack Abramoff has been an iside-the-belt-way power player in Republican politics since before the Bushistas assumed power. He helped set up the infamous K Street Project.
C) Neither Jack Abramoff or his wife gave dime one to any Democrat in the last election cycle. They did, however, max out on contributions to the RNC and Bush/Cheney '04. Abramoff also bundled $100,000 to Bush/Chaney '04. That makes him either a Pioneer or a Ranger (or maybe a Wonderboy), I forget which.
D) The Indian tribes represented by Abramoff did contribute to some Democrats in the last election cycle. However, by a considerable margin, they dontated more to Republicans and less to Democrats than did other Indian tribes.
E) The Indian tribes represented by Abramoff also donated significantly more to Republicans and less to Democrats in the last election cycle than they did before they hired him.
Then stop calling us the Angry Left asshole.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:23 pm#156 the tribes are somewhat guilty when they paid money to Abrhamoff to buy influence. But what people are missing is that they paid Millions and millions to Abrhamoff's firm to gain influence. They paid it to his firm for that influence, that is key. All the other contributions to candidates and pacs etc... were normal course of business transactions, not influence purchasing. Every business hedges their bets, wellmost do. My company gives to both parties frequently, we give more to the ones currently in power but we still hedge our bets because each election cycle can change things and we want to be covered just in case things do change. The main issue here has been clouded over by the people with the dirt under their fingernails.
Yep candidates of all parties recieved money from various indian tribes. Simply reproducing a partisan list says nothing. It does not indicate where the money came from, when or what any one source paid. What is key is two things 1) abrhamoff clients did give money to both parties, but less and less to dems as time went on. No doubt about that and 2) The tribes gave HUGE amounts to Abrahamoff and he used that money to buy influence. Abrahamoff iused his influence with only republicans to get his/his clients ways. That is why this is strictlya republican problem because all the proven dirt (remember Abrahamoff is guilty) is on their side of the fence.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:26 pmOnly if you are an egomaniacal scumbag like George Bush. Other than that, no it can't. Stop drinking the kool-aid.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:29 pmYes, it sounds just like all of the other lies that the republicans tell.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:36 pm[...] Now Tim Russert and NBC News are in the firing line. This sample from Think Progress is representative: Yesterday, Today show anchor Katie Couric falsely claimed that “Democrats took money from Jack Abramoff.†Challenged on her facts, Couric said she “would look into that and clarify that for our viewers.†[...]
January 27th, 2006 at 3:39 pmYes, because you would relish in everything getting worse than it is now, for party's sake. Party over country right? Dumbass.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:39 pmHard to win elections when your corrupt politicains have the electronic voting machine companies in their back pockets. But, there is hope. Claifornia has already banned them. Retard.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:41 pmThe fact that they are saying things like "democrats get raging mad" gives me a little bit of hope. Finally, the message is getting across that we are not going to be a bunch of push-overs anymore. That's progress......I guess.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:43 pmNope, you dumbasses brought that up. Were you even old enough to vote in 2000?
January 27th, 2006 at 3:46 pmWow, what backwater piece of shit town do you liev in? I couldn't even afford a down payment on a house in California with $98k.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:47 pm#162 - You frame the factual information perfectly!!!
Unfortunately for Woody Allen's "Mighty Aphrodite", the partisan brain doesn't recognize factual information that debases their arguments. It's probably a medical condition, there Woody Allen's "Mighty Aphrodite". I'm sure if you seek professional help you’ll be provided a placard for parking in handicapped spaces.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:47 pmYour list is bullshit, because Abramoffs clients don't matter. Doesn't matter how much you want them to. So sorry. Dumbass.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:50 pmWell said. You are a baby that needs to grow up. Head back over to Nickalodien.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:53 pmhttp://money.cnn.com/
More Jobs & Economy News
• CBO widens budget deficit view
• Mind the gap: Income inequality, state by state
• Bush to push for permanent tax cuts
• Durable orders rise above expectations
• Jobless claims inch higher
• Home sales slide continues
• Gutierrez: US exports up 10% in 2005
• Bush wants tax breaks for health costs
• What's on tap for Bush address
• Energy rights payments said to lag prices
• Mortgage applications climb again
In Focus:
Congress' pension: Nice and secure
Amid the coming pension debate, keep in mind the folks doing the talking have a nice one. (more)
America's pension time bomb
Workers, employers, taxpayers, governments. Meet the key players in the coming battle. (more)
Economists see risks in 2006
The housing market and rising rates are worrisome, but manufacturing, growth overseas may help. (more)
Bernanke may have to grow up fast
Stock market crash greeted Greenspan. Will housing, hedge fund, debt crisis test next Fed chief? (more)
Unemployment rates by state
January 27th, 2006 at 3:54 pmEmployers added 215,000 jobs to payrolls in November up from a revised 44,000 in October. (morehttp://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/index.html)
Thanks Optimist - but another quick question. So all of the Abramoff "associates" were the poor Indians??? Thanks again!!! I always enjoy watching that grand Olympic sport "Progressive Democrat Pretzel Weaving".
SpudgeMan - As so many of the monumental thinkers from the left like to say, "The ends DO justify the means."
January 27th, 2006 at 3:54 pmP.S. We apologize for being so inconsiderate as to label you the "Angry Left" - but when you lob the words "dumba$$", "retard" and "a$$h*le" after a particualarly mediocre argument, we foolishly assume you're not breaking into a chorus of "Kumbayaa".
GDP posts smallest gain in 3 years
January 27th, 2006 at 3:54 pm11:39am
Far less growth than forecasts in the fourth quarter, as economy manages only 1.1% annual rate gain. (more)
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/27/news/economy/gdp/index.htm
What the fvck are you talking about?
January 27th, 2006 at 3:55 pmMay I suggest, that we don't argue with those here, whose only goal is to taunt us, and confuse independants with half truths, distortions and lies.
They are not stupid or morons. They know exactly what they are doing.
They will never concede. They will never put the Republican party in a bad light. You all have seen it.
They are useless and a waste of time. I suggest not arguing with them, but hey its your choice.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:56 pmFord bans competitors' vehicles from lot
Firm's Dearborn Truck Plant will require employees to drive a Ford or park across the street.
By David Ellis, CNNMoney.com staff writer
January 27, 2006: 2:31 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - Employees at Ford's Dearborn Truck Plant in Dearborn, Mich., will have to drive Ford Motor Co. vehicles to work or park across the street, the plant manager announced earlier this week.
The new parking policy, which is scheduled to take effect Feb. 1, was instituted by plant manager Rob Webber just as Ford reported losses of $1.6 billion from its North American auto operations in 2005 and Monday announced plans to close 14 plants and cut 30,000 jobs as it tries to reverse losses and respond to declining U.S. market share.
The Dearborn Truck Plant, which represents one portion of the Rouge facility, has 2,600 union employees and makes the F-150 pickup truck, the best selling vehicle in the United States.
A Ford spokesman told CNNMoney the company supported the move, although it had not been extended to the other North American manufacturing facilities.
Officials with UAW Local 600, who backed the announcement, are scheduled to conduct talks with management next week to finalize the details and discuss expanding the ban across the entire Rouge facility, union president Jerry Sullivan told CNNMoney.
"There has to be something put in place to grab people's attention and to make a statement that this is a serious thing," said Sullivan, whose union represents approximately 8,000 workers at the larger Rouge complex. "It's up to us to stand up and do what is right and to drive a vehicle from the company you work for."
The Dearborn Truck Plant parking policy will allow vehicles made by non-U.S. Ford brands such as Mazda, Volvo and Land Rover, Sullivan said.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:57 pmmighty aphrodite,
I didn't start it, dumbass did with his Angry Left comment. Just as in BSRs first post uses the term fever swamp, which she picked up from you.
As for "The ends Do justify the means" wrong!
January 27th, 2006 at 4:01 pm#182 MA,
I'm glad that you enjoy pretzels, I hear the president does as well.
Now, because you have this disorder with not being able to convey accurate information, I will help you out again.
Mr. Abramoff's "associates" are republicans. The lists that the smear/diversion/misinformation machine is currently pumping out pertain to peoples and groups who have been clients of either Mr. Abramoff himself or for lobbying firms that he WAS PREVIOUSLY employed at. None of the contributions are directly associated with Mr. Abramoff and certainly none of the contributors are his "associates".
I hope that helps once again.
January 27th, 2006 at 4:01 pmyea I agree AkaDad. Unfortunately I don't always have the disposition of Budda to carry out what I know to be better for me and others.
Easier said than done kind of thing.
Hey all, get lucky with your Super Bowl pool bets for Next weekend. Some of us will just have to go through withdrawl for having no pigskin play this weekend.
January 27th, 2006 at 4:03 pmHow the Abramoff/Indian Tribe relationship talking points was explained to Republicans in terms and language they could understand (you know simple and sterotyped):
(Fade in to beautiful mountain scenery and a Native American looking man in Full Head dress)
Ugh! Me Chief Many Trucks of Republigonquin Tribe. I speak true of Big Chief Abramoff (Republigonquin name: Dances with Snakes). Big Chief Abramoff, Chief over all indian tribe under retainer agreement. He tell all tribal councils how to make peace with Geat Father Shrub and Bugkiller. He tell all tribal councils how to spend their wampum to get blanket, horse and cattle. He spend our money however he want. Dances with Snakes and tribal councils all same,no different. I speak true, no forked tongue.
(fade out)
This explains it all, Abramoff had complete control over the finances all his tribal clients money so he just had them exactly where he wanted it to go. So it really is a bipartisan problem.
See how simple that is.
January 27th, 2006 at 4:05 pmOh yeah, MA, you have a little catching up to do. The theme song of liberals and, well, cognitive thinkers is no longer "kumbayaa" but has been "Imagine" by John Lennon for quite some time now. And I find it interesting that you would find thoughts of peace, harmony, and love so offensive. I feel sorry for thee but if you let us help you can overcome your incredible self loathing.
January 27th, 2006 at 4:06 pm#181 have you noticed the pattern yet with budget anouncements and this administration? Early on they anounce that things are looking bad. $400 billion budget deficit this year. Then when the actual budget comes out they tout that they did a lot of hard work and their policies are working because the projected deficit is ony $375 billion. Check it out, it's been a pattern for 5 years now. Oh and for the last three years they have been making an out of budget request for more Iraq money within weeks of the final budget. So be prepared for another 50 - 100 billion request shortly. Seems to be that way with msot financial stats from this admin.
January 27th, 2006 at 4:10 pm[...] Of course when you see graphics posted by the Today Show with Matt Lauer and Katie Couric that show money from “Abramoff + Tribal Clients†going to Democrats and Republicans, 34% to 66% respectively, you can no longer make the claim that you present news. [...]
January 27th, 2006 at 4:12 pmSorry, wasn’t paying attention - what troll? Oh no, he’s not a tool. If one of you has a herd of pigs and a nearby cliff handy, we can fix him up in a jiffy. Oh, and best of luck when the Rapture comes, everyone
Comment by Jesus Christ — January 27, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
ROFL
January 27th, 2006 at 4:14 pm#193,
The current administration and congress (due to party control and leadership) are neither fiscally conservative or responsible. That republicans continue to support them is the largest act of betrayal to ideals ever.
Not to mention that the ruined economy and debt is going to be a burden on the American people for years, perhaps decades, to come. But for some reason they refuse to see.
January 27th, 2006 at 4:16 pmTo Chase: I don't know how old you are, but I remember my innocence during Watergate. A sweet young political virgin, I said, 'Oh no, not even Nixon would do that (enemies list, break-ins, illegal use of campaign funds, etc. etc.)' Nixon did, every time. So, now, I don't buy any of the excuses, manipulations and outright lies coming from the Republican spin machine. Ah, little man, we all have to lose our innocence eventually. Don't cry, it only hurts a little, and when it's over you'll feet much better.
January 27th, 2006 at 4:24 pmIt is a shame that no one on-air ever accuses Russert of holding the Dems to a different standard than Repubs. Abramoff was a Bush/Cheney "Pioneer", meaning that he raised way over $100,000 for their campaign. The White House return of funds by way of charity passed back only $6,000 that they claim Abramoff personally contributed.
January 27th, 2006 at 4:27 pmRussert is claiming that Abramoff associates and clients gave 34% of all contributions to the Dems, but doesn't call for the White House to divest itself of the hundreds of thousands of dollars from associates and clients that Abramoff pressed into giving to the re-election fund.
So is the standard Abamoff's personal contributions or all monies from his associates and clients lists? I guess holding the minority to a higher standard than the majority is the political process's current form of fuzzy math.
Maybe Russert can touch on this during his ethics lecture.
Actually, the facts are that Abramoff's clients, Indian tribes, actually GAVE LESS to Democrats than their counterpart tribes who were not clients of Abramoff. In other words, tribes working with Abramoff were less generous to Dems than other tribes, who typically give their money to Democrats and not Republicans.
January 27th, 2006 at 4:32 pmKeep in mind that there really isn't a criminal investigation into the Abramoff corruption. There is a Gonzales Justice Department "investigation". The lead prosecutor in that so-called investigation has resigned and accepted a serendipitous Dumbya dictatorship appointment as a Federal judge (a lifetime appointment).
At least two U.S. senators have called for a Special Prosecutor. The WH says that these pleadings are political. The WH says this even as they refuse to reveal what Abramoff was up to in executive offices, meeting with the President.
Not unlike the colossal crimes of 9/11 - which were also never criminally investigated - this patronage corruption stench will also not be legitimately pursued.
We have repeatedly seen where there is no impartiality from the Gonzales Justice Department where crimes of the Dumbya Dictatorship are concerned.
We don't need a dictator; we need a criminal investigation tasked by an Independent Special Prosecutor and Grand Jury prosecuting justice with unlimited judicial subpoena power.
January 27th, 2006 at 4:33 pmLet everything keep going in the direction it is going and you won't be able to tell the United States from Iraq prior to the fall of Sadaam. Are we exporting democracy to Iraq in order to import facism? Remember right wing folks out there it is your admired leader who said "This would be easier if I were a Dictator!" Well, after Alito gets confirmed your wishes will come true and we will be looking outside the country for someone to liberate us. You and Bill O'Wrongly are correct, you are not drinking Kool Aid, you guys are smoking Crack!!!!
January 27th, 2006 at 4:50 pm"but he said it first!'
"did not!"
"uh huh! did too!"
"nuh un! did not!"
"i know you are but what am i?"
"i know i am but what are you?
"huh?"
"MOM!!!"
cynical ex hippie said it best on another thread:
IT'S THE BRIBERY, STUPID!
oh, and another good point by bjholland #124
January 27th, 2006 at 5:03 pmTweety and Russert are worried about ratings. If that is the case then why don't they look at the polls and see what a vast majority of the American public sees. If they did they would stop with the right wing talking points and the innuendoes of asociation between Democrats and anything negative. The reality is the only show on NBC or MSNBC which is a ratings winner is Keith Oberman. And Oberman tells it like it is. He does not take sides he does not quote the Republican talking point right after the bad news about a Republican or Democrat for that matter. If Tweety and Russert are so concerned about ratings then they should stop trying to be FOX and begin to give us the real news without the spin.
January 27th, 2006 at 5:11 pm#129 - By the way, I checked on the FE webpage, and I looked under the names of the Democrats you falsely claim got money from Jack Abramoff, and guess what? No, seriously, take a wind guess???
ABRAMOFF GAVE NO MONEY TO DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/disclosure_data_search.shtml
Check iit for yourselves! You can check under the name of the donor, or under the name of the candidate to whom money was (supposedly) given.
Not one Democrat was listed under "Abramoff, Jack", and not one Democratic legislator lists "Abramoff" as a donor.
Looks like yet another lie from the trolls has been shot down! The funny part, is it was the site the troll referenced!
January 27th, 2006 at 5:15 pmI THINK "BIG RUSS" USED TO HANG OUT IN PUBLIC RESTROOMS, LEERING. AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT I HEARD.
January 27th, 2006 at 5:16 pmGet the bigger picture. NBC is owned by GE. Ge is one of the larger war profiteers/defence contractors. Ergo: BushCo to GE, get in lockstep and say what we say, drop programs we don't like (West Wing, Will & Grace, Book of Daniel, all dropped this week) or no more defence contracts. You can't trust any reporting on political issues that come from NBC. This goes all the way down to your local NBC station. This is the face of fascism. Get use to it or do something about it. You can start by boycotting all GE products.
January 27th, 2006 at 5:18 pmEven in "clarifying" their reports, they can't help themselves from equivocating. They just cannot admit they're wrong. Typical Republican Busheviks.
January 27th, 2006 at 5:41 pmOnline Filibuster email to key Democrats...
http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.1387935/k.5362/Fax_to_Filibuster_Alito/apps/ka/ct/contactcustom.asp
It can't hurt...
January 27th, 2006 at 5:59 pmNow he needs to explain this to Katy "Navy Seals Rock" Couric.
January 27th, 2006 at 6:02 pmBut on to a happy note: Progressives, Rejoice! Hamas won the Palestinians election and the anti-Semitic wing of the progressive movement is free to flourish!!! My prediction for the Israeli election - Likud and Netanyahu. Whatever happened to the wildly wealthy Arafat widow????
Another happy note - John Kerry has the opportunity to re-make his "thoughtful wonk" image into that of a manly leader with a filibuster of the Alito nomination - if Teresa will let him.
January 27th, 2006 at 6:08 pmI haven't watched the Today Show in awhile. I tune in this morining and they had that fucker Scarborough talking about
the James Frey debacle. I turned it off before I heard a single mouth from him.
Nowadays it's ESPN. Besides, they're friendlier.
January 27th, 2006 at 6:15 pm#211, perhaps a less effervescent analysis of the Hamas election win might encourage some useful debate, MA? Are Hamas anti-semite or anti-Israel? Do you think a Netanyahu win is good for or bad for the region or US interests?
January 27th, 2006 at 6:17 pmDear Terry - I don't know Terry - with the Hamas' charter calling for the destruction of Israel and small children being photographed with bomb belts (designed to kill Jews in pizzarias and buses) I might conclude that they were both anti-Semitic AND anti-Israel. I think Netanyahu would be a good PM again for Israel. I did understand the logistical stance of abandoning the Gaza strip, but as the Gaza and West Bank were not "occupied" but "won" after a three pronged attack, I understood the deep frustration and heart ache of the settlers.
January 27th, 2006 at 6:32 pmThis is from A Scanlon email:
January 27th, 2006 at 6:33 pm“The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees,†Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. “Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them.â€
I think Netanyahu would be a good PM again for Israel. I did understand the logistical stance of abandoning the Gaza strip, but as the Gaza and West Bank were not “occupied†but “won†after a three pronged attack, I understood the deep frustration and heart ache of the settlers.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 27, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
Netanyahu and Cheney PNAC have been writing War plans sin e 1993 called "CLEAN BREAK" wtfu MaD
January 27th, 2006 at 6:35 pmIf there really were terrorists in this country wouldn't they drive some Truck Bombs up to the glass houses at NBC News, FOX News, and ABC News LIVE? Not much different than the COIC of the US Armed Terrorist Forces Bombing AlJazeera!
January 27th, 2006 at 6:37 pmAbramoff Scandal Could
January 27th, 2006 at 6:37 pmEnd Netanyahu's
Likud Takeover
Whadya think of this MaD...
By Wayne Madsen
1-14-6
Abramoff scandal could end Netanyahu's and Cheney's plans for Likud takeover in Israel. Informed sources in Washington report that Vice President Dick Cheney and his advisers David Addington and John Hannah are working behind the scenes to ensure that former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu succeeds acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. With elections scheduled for March 28, Cheney and his neo-con cabal are hoping that Olmert's Kadima Party -- formed by Ariel Sharon and his more moderate ex-Likud allies -- is defeated in the elections.
"The Angry Left" sounds pretty good to me. Anyone in this country who isn't angry about what has been happening in the past 5 years just hasn't been paying attention.
And the outrage directed at Couric (and Howell [and earlier Blitzer]) stems from their simple misuse of the English language. Their mistake, and thus the fact that allows Dean to be "technically" telling the truth when he states that no Democrat received Abramoff money is that the media speakpeople always confuse Abramoff money with Abramoff-related money. (And, of course, if Dean is "technically" telling the truth, then they are "technically" lying.)
Now Abramoff-related money can presumably come from anyone who was associated with Abramoff in any way shape or form, as opposed to Abramoff money that came out of Jack Abramoff’s pocket. Abramoff-related money has about the same relation to Abramoff money that weapons of mass destruction-related program activities have to weapons of mass destruction.
The US invaded Iraq to rid it of weapons of mass destruction but 2200 dead Americans and God knows (literally, because no one else does) how many dead Iraqis later, all that has been found is weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.
Thus, when Republican shills say that Democrats received Abramoff money, it is like saying that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq when what was found was weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and what Democrats received was Abramoff-related money which may or may not have had any actual connection with Abramoff.
The only thing that would make money given to candidates "Abramoff money" would be if Abramoff gave the money to his clients and instructed the clients to give the money to specific candidates or PACs. The idea that Abramoff gave millions to tribal councils to be disbursed to Democrats is ludicrous. That would be money laundering because individuals are limited in the amount they can contribute to campaigns. The actual flow was in the opposite direction. Abramoff was paid at exhorbitant rates by the tribes and a significant part of this money was laundered through bogus charities or reported as donated to legitimate charities that never received it, but which turned up in Republicans' pockets or slush funds.
Anyone claiming that someone whose stated goal was the permanent removal of Democrats from power would funnel campaign contributions to Democrats simply defies logic as I understand it.
January 27th, 2006 at 6:38 pmThere seems to be a proliferation of pro Israeli shills all over the blogs this morning. Quite easy to spot actually. They are the ones bringing up the Hamas vote on a board discussing filibusters...or any other subject... some of them are quite lame, and obviously rookies at this.
Fuck the Fascist Zionist Terrorists!
No Peace with Occupation.
January 27th, 2006 at 6:39 pmYour far-left radical ideology is scary and dangerous. The fact that you throw the word fascist around so lightly shows how unglued you are. You demean those who have truly suffered oppression. So yes, as long as the left has people like you on their side, you will be routed from power.
Comment by Innocent Lite — January 27, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
What do you think Fascism is? Fasicism was the German Reich and the Politico Corporate Financing that brought the unitary executive into power, removing the peoples rights, the very opprsssion you speak of, I dont need to remid you of the rest of the story of fascism, no matter what country, and the dangers of a Unitary Executive, or Military dictator as what it really is.
January 27th, 2006 at 6:41 pmWhy did Super Zionist Jackoff Abramafia give money to the 911 hijackers and President Bush?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jack+abramoff+mohammed+atta&btnG=Google+Search
Is Jack Abramoff the Israeli Spy MEGA?
IS ISRAEL BLACKMAILING AMERICA?
January 27th, 2006 at 6:42 pmhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israel_index.html
Could Israel be blackmailing the entire US Government and media.
Bushco financed Fatah and they lost, now the Neo-kooks are trolling the Media, aka 'Pundits'
January 27th, 2006 at 6:44 pmWhy don't we hold Katie and the Today Show accountable for their words?
It is really disheartening when these folks in the media say things, but they provide no facts to back it up.
It has to be easy enough to tally the Republican monies & crimes, with Democratic monies and crimes. Someone should start a web site, like a wiki, where people can vote or comment but actual documents or research is done, that sums up a score for a party based on the crimes of the individuals. Catch a politician in a lie, add 1, they apologize substract 1/2 a point, they take gifts from lobbyists add 50 points, they publicly decline bribes/oops gift subtract 150, etc.
Katie, be a real journalist for once in your life, provide some facts, do some research; start naming names and parties, and let the chips fall where they may.
If the Democrats are doing it, they should be held accountable. See the difference is the people that make up the power in the Republican party don't care about ethics, values, truth... the James Frey syndrome. Watch what they say, and then watch what they do.
January 27th, 2006 at 6:46 pmCross posting, sorry:
Abramoff is a lobbyist. Abramoff clients are constituents. Dems accepted donations from their constituents. Dems did not accept money from the lobbyist Abramoff.
It seems pretty clear and simple to me.
To all those who especially like to point the finger at Harry Reid; he is a Nevada Senator. 20,000 Native Americans live in Nevada. Ergo, Harry Reid has 20,000 Native American constituents. Constituents who make legal campaign contributions.
January 27th, 2006 at 6:47 pmuneducated innocent lightweight enjoys being talked down to by the likes of Michael Savage,amongst others, who spew this preposterous DOO DOO on their radio programs every day.
January 27th, 2006 at 6:49 pmI've run out of things to say here, but I was struck by the difference in response between the Republicans ('everyone is doing it') and the Democrats per Howard Dean (Tim Russert: 'Democrats get raging mad when you suggest this is a bipartisan scandal'). It reminded me of the two women who fought over a baby and came to Solomon for judgement.
Clearly only one woman was the true mother and so Solomon had to find out which. Being a fair man he ordered the baby chopped in half and given equally to both women. One woman said 'Sure, no problem', but the other broke down and said she would rather the other woman have her baby than see it killed. Guess who got the baby in the end and who was telling the truth?
January 27th, 2006 at 6:56 pm#211 MA,
It's been a long week so I'm not really in my normal cheerful mood. /snark
I do have to inquire about something, though. You seem like someone who has the capacity for intelligence. At the very least you have a vocabulary that indicates an education beyond 11th grade which is uncharacteristic for a garden variety troll. Do you have a conscience? Do you have morals?
Here's why I ask those questions. Your comment:
But on to a happy note: Progressives, Rejoice! Hamas won the Palestinians election and the anti-Semitic wing of the progressive movement is free to flourish!!!
The implication in that statement is (1) Progressives (aka liberals) are terrorist supporters and (2) Progressives are anti-semetic. These implied accusations are absurd, malicious, and baseless. Does it make you feel "good" inside to slander your fellow americans? Or, do you consider liberals, progressives, or independents to be americans at all? Would you prefer that we were all rounded up and, say, concentrated into a single location so that we can be controlled and/or eliminated?
I ask these questions sincerely because I am trying to comprehend how you think. I have a sister that won't talk to me because I do not support the war or bush. Yet this same sister just kicked her son, my nephew, out of her house because he joined the navy without asking her permission first. So I need to understand how you all think so that I can reconcile the hateful and ludicrous actions that you take towards fellow americans and, it seems, family members as well.
I welcome your input.
January 27th, 2006 at 6:57 pmTP was not only concerned with donations that came "directly" from Abramoff when they posted this a
few weeks ago.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/05/how-much/
President Bush is donating $6,000 in campaign contributions linked to Abramoff to charity. He is donating money raised from Abramoff, his wife and a Native-American tribe he represented. But that’s a small fraction of the amount of money raised for Bush by Abramoff, which is at least $120,000 and potentially much more.
Now that argument is coming back to haunt them. What's the saying, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
January 27th, 2006 at 7:14 pmOptimist - please explain to me and others what the Indians were hoping to purchase with Mr. Abramoff's influence. I would like to see NO MORE lobbyists. Period. NO more bundled influence of Emily's List, defense contractors, environmentalists, pro-choice, pro-life, manufacturers, realtors,unions - NONE!!!!!! Raise the individual contribution limit to $10,000.- per election cycle (you can choose to split between candidates and party) and that's it!!!! I would like to see no candidate contributions unless it is from a constituent.
January 27th, 2006 at 7:17 pm#229 The RNC keeps track of its fund raisers. That $100,000 came from supporters and was channeled through Abramoff. Big difference with money coming from Indian tribes that happened to be Abramoff's clients.
But all this is just speculation. We should all be pushing for a full and public investigation, before the 2006 elections so voters can make a fully informed choice. Unlike 2004.
#230 Individual contributions of $10,000? Why not just hand government over to the top 5% richest individuals? Because nobody else can afford that. Public financing of elections is the only real answer, IMHO.
January 27th, 2006 at 7:27 pm#214. It is a dangerous analogy to draw but only electoral legitimacy by the IRA, forced the British to deal with Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland which then brought the IRA to the table, but then the IRA were not calling for the destruction of the British state. Hamas will probably find noone will deal with them at all as a legitimate government with that element in their charter. And I can't sympathise with any movement that brainwashes its kids to kill.
Anyway electoral success (similar to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt) may force them to soften their stance simply because open hostility will get them nowhere and win them no allies outside the Isalmic world. The Hamas election seems more to do with the failure of Fatah to deliver anything to the Palestinians and on Fatah's corruption than an endorsement of the destruction of Israel. I personally think that Palestinians are mostly sanguine about the fact of Israel - they can gain a lot without Israel's destruction. Nevertheless Hamas demonstrated their willingness to deliver, both in standing up to Israel and in their social welfare activities. All in all I think Hamas will tread more carefully now that they own the china shop.
Across the concrete wall, I don't think Netanyahu will be good for the region. I think the Iranian president has helped his chances a lot. I see Israel becoming more abrasive just when their chief opponents in Palestine will be having to move to a less abrasive stance. Of course it could all just blow up in everyone's faces.
I'm not going to get into the issue of 'occupied' versus 'won' - but either way if Israel takes responsibility for the people in the borders of Greater Israel, then why does it resemble South African Apartheid more than a state that respects the human and civil rights of any soul within its borders?
January 27th, 2006 at 7:30 pm#230 MA,
As far as what the Native American Tribes were after for the hiring of Mr. Abramoff, only they and he know for sure. You and I can speculate, probably accurately, that they were trying to buy "influence" for certain issues to be resolved in their favor.
Do I agree with this practice? No. I am in complete agreement that lobbyists and special interest groups are contrary to our democracy. And I actually thought that back in the 90's when the republican party launched its Contract With America that perhaps we would see this problem addressed and reigned in. Unfortunately, and I think that you would agree, the problem has only gotten worse. Much worse.
What the fix is going to be, I don't know. I don't know about the limit you propose but I do like your idea that it be constituents only. That would be interesting.
Oh, and I would still appreciate some input on my previous question. It may seem trite to you, but as you can see it is a family issue for me.
January 27th, 2006 at 7:32 pm#229 - Steed, you have no point. I read the old post. There's nothing to suggest TP was accusing Bush of illegally raising more than the $6000, just that Abramoff was clearly a major fund-raiser for Bush. Since that post, more details have emerged, TP has focussed in on the illegalities. Stay on the case Steed, follow the illegal money.
January 27th, 2006 at 7:35 pm#231 - Cynical - public election finance in some way is probably the only way - I agree.
January 27th, 2006 at 7:38 pmAll of these talk show hosts have multi-million annual incomes and are bought and paid for with the Bush tax cuts...
January 27th, 2006 at 8:10 pmI don't want Kerry to run but Senator Russ Feingold would make a great President. GO Go Russ Feingold!!!!
January 27th, 2006 at 8:18 pm"Optimist - please explain to me and others what the Indians were hoping to purchase with Mr. Abramoff’s influence. I would like to see NO MORE lobbyists. Period. NO more bundled influence of Emily’s List, defense contractors, environmentalists, pro-choice, pro-life, manufacturers, realtors,unions - NONE!!!!!! mighty aphrodite"
Wow, that was a relative reasoned and almost non-partisan response - I'm impressed! I knew you had it in you! Now if you can just get yourself to use that portion of the brain that caused you to be coherent here with the rest of your political perspectives, you'll most certainly be on your way to consistently sounding rational - instead of the experience I've had with you since arriving.
Are you sure you're the same person even? Because this post is virtually nothing like the snide, hate filled and partisan comments you normally make.
But did it dawn on you that there's nothing wrong with those people 'lobbying' their interests, but spending money, offering jobs, and other acts of bribery versus free speech is the real problem? After all, a realtor might have an interest in educating a politician, but when they take them on a golf trip - that's a problem. This is not a hard issue to solve, but politicians and partisans of all parties prefer the cash over the integrity. And no group expresses that more than republicans - from what I've seen at least. There has never been the degree of or attitude toward accepting corruption in this country that republicans have brought to DC.
It's really sad, but the saddest part is how many people prefer to deal with it through 'partisan brain', instead of realizing that the current republican leadership is rotten.
I can see from this posting of yours, that you really are a person who wants to do the right thing, so I forgive you for the previous posts you've made that are so irrational and regressive. I'm sure that if you try hard you can continue to think for yourself instead of knee jerk attacking everyone who isn't in your partisan clutch. You've done it once, surely you can do it again! Go on old girl, give it a try!
January 27th, 2006 at 8:27 pmInteresting posts everyone! Jack Abramoff was a Republican operative and swindler of Indian Casino Tribes! He NEVER gave money to Democrats because he hates them! Some of the Indian Tribes on their own have given campaign contributions to Democrats, but NOT for Abramoff!
January 27th, 2006 at 9:11 pm#242 I think I'm on to understanding the wingnut position,
1.The money that Jack gave was his so there is no disagreement there.
2. The money that the indian tribes gave keeps getting attributed to Jack, and i started to wonder why...I mean isn't the money that the indians had in their bank accounts theirs? I thought about this then AH HA...the money can't belong to the Indians since they aren't "real" americans like those who came here on ships in order to spread their religious view. Since the Indians weren't on those ships they can not possibily be "real" americans. They don't do as real americans do, and they aren't really smart enough, so that the big bad (for "real" americans) government must take care of them through the Interior Department, I mean we don't have a "Real American" department. Since they are being taken care of by the government they are really sorta like those "welfare queens" that the right warned us about. Well if they are like welfare then they can't possibly have all that money so it had to come from someware, hence Jack gave it to the indians to give it to jack so he could give it to his friends in DC so the Big Government would keep taking care of those poor indians. Now since "real americans pay all those taxes we are taking care of those indians, and therefore we get to tell them whose money it is and where to give it.
January 27th, 2006 at 9:45 pmJanuary 27th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
Please send you disspleaure to NBC and to their ADVERTISERS ...Tell NBC you will be telling the advertisers that you will not use their products while disshonesty abounds on News or Current Affairs programs.
Screw them all ... it's time to fight back!
January 28th, 2006 at 12:25 amI really feel sorry for you people. You absolutely never win anything! No wonder you so full of hate.
On the other hand, we win everything (of course, I know, we cheat, we steal elections, we spy on Americans, we hit list our political enemies, we hypnotize the silent majority [that's a new one - right!) -- but, what the heck -- you can't seem to do it.
So, we win -- and win -- and win -- and win -- and win -- and win.
By the way: Have you noticed your pattern? You hype about how you are going to take the White House, how you are going to take the senate, the house -- you rattle your sabres on filibustering -- then, you lose! Everything -- always!! First you rant about deception, manuevering, diebolt -- you name it. Then you start hyping again for the next event.
On the other hand, we are sitting happy savouring our victories -- and they just keep coming -- and we just keep winning -- and winning -- and winning -- and winning.
Poor, poor liberals -- you don't know how to win -- and you sure don't know how to lose.
January 28th, 2006 at 12:31 amAbramoff "and his associates" is the operative word. You could also be 100% accurate to say "Katie Couric and her audience had multiple abortions in 2005" It would be disingenuious, but also correct. Truth tellers must address this same issue with the same outrageous examples. We can't correct them, we need to teach America to use logic and tear their false-logic apart. "Can their leagailistic argument be interprited another way?" That will lead people to actually think - not just repeat.
January 28th, 2006 at 8:24 am#247 This is very much like the Rove tactics. During the Republican primaries, Bush campaigners asked questions like, "Did you know John McCain has a black daughter?" The truth is, he is not the father, as they want you to assume. He and his wife adopted a black girl. During the presidential campaigning, they asked such questions as, "If you knew Kerry was a drug user, would you vote for him." "Techinically" that's not a lie because of the word "If." But again, the uninformed may assume he is.
January 28th, 2006 at 9:43 amPost 245 > I guess you like an America that is fascist and run by a clown bent on wars of aggression? Germany under Hitler was NOT a fun place! Bush is destroying America daily, but you do NOT care! Lol > you think he won the election, but he cheats to win > makes you proud huh?
January 28th, 2006 at 10:38 amwhat should be done to me? Kill those who dissent?
AND your punishment for your hateful campaign to smear President Bush is Justice Samuel Alito. AND this is just the beginning.
Comment by Innocent Lite #69
Idiot Lowbrow,
Your Bush worshipping isn't dissent, it's treason...
As for ScandaAlito, Tom'ass, Robber'ts, and Scumlito nothing impeachment and trials for treason can't fix...
Kill it (politically) before it grows...
January 28th, 2006 at 11:24 amWell, I don't know how much more obvious it has to be that (the current administration is corrupt and inept) before America rises up and demands impeachment of bush. First blatently stealing the 2000 election, then the "response" to 911, re, my pet goat, letting Bin Laden escape, etc, then starting an unprovoked war on a piss-ant little (but full-of-oil) country when we already had control of their skies, and president cheney so obviously awarding lucrative contracts to his former(present?) company/cronies, over 100 million dolars missing/unaccounted for, then stealing the 2004 election, can you say "Diebold?" Then Katrina, then...
January 28th, 2006 at 12:42 pmWell the mind boggles, there are many more complete foul-ups, but isn't what is listed here more than enough to outrage the average American? Apparently not, and the bushies know this; they are stomping over our land (and the rest of the world) as they use the constitution for toilet paper and commit murder in the name of Christ(Kill those brown-skinned heathens!) You can laugh at the hippy-dippy-hippies of the 60's, but by gawd they got off their butts and into the streets and raised hell about things which were NOT right; I guess Americans asses have grown too fat and complacent to get off their collective couches and leave their TIVOs and wide-screen TVs to do something as gauche as protest in the streets....
To voter #245,
It's a hoot watching these criminals destroy our country piece by painful piece, huh? Every win for the GOP and the Bush admin (regardless of whether it was legitimate or ill-gotten) is another nail on the coffin in which our democracy currently rests. This isn't fringe thought or rabid partisanship, it's the truth.
For now, you are my enemy and I will fight you until my side wins and this country can reestablish its former status as a beacon of hope and peace and true fredom. I hope you're ready for this fight, I expect it to be bloody and long and I'm ready. Good luck.
January 28th, 2006 at 1:53 pmWell said, Jay. We'll see what happens in the '06 elections won't we? I have a friend who is a volunteer in the Democratic party(I'm a registered Independent myself, but side with the Democrats for the most part when it comes to important issues), and he is convinced people are beginning to see "the light", as he has the data to prove it, or at least so he says. He is convinced the winds of change are stirring, and by golly, I hope and pray he is right.
January 28th, 2006 at 3:08 pmCollege Republicans Still Silent on Corruption Charges
Last week, the Seattle Times brought an expose on the deceptive fundraising practices of the College Republicans (Abramoff Rove Norquist), a group that spends "nearly 90 percent ... to direct-mail vendors and postage expenses, according to records filed with the Internal Revenue Service."
An Oct. 28 Seattle Times article said the College Republican National Committee raised millions of dollars since 2001 partly by using official-sounding names such as "Republican Headquarters 2004" and "Republican Elections Committee" in a direct-mail fundraising campaign. The story said that many voters in their 80s and 90s donated to the groups, which they thought were affiliated with the Bush campaign. Instead, most of the money was spent on the direct-mail program and postage expenses for the college group.
the group's finance chair in 2002. "He has more than tripled the output of direct mail program while cutting costs, resulting in an exponential increase in CRNC fundraising," the site (www.crnc.org) said.
YaY Rip OFF the Elderly Citizens! YaY College Republican Conservives" and CRNC! YaY oh YaY.
January 28th, 2006 at 3:38 pmHeres the Cretins Method, SPIN SPIN SPIN, Its all about 'misleading keywords' PARROTS
Nothing but a Bunch of Lying Parrots that will SAY anything OVER AND OVER.
ennyhoo Enjoy a Trip into 'WIMPVILLE'
We’d just returned from the first College Republicans meeting of the semester. The Northwestern group is a branch of the College Republican National Committee, whose membership has more than tripled in the past six years. On the surface, it had looked like any other gathering of college kids: about a dozen students sitting around a classroom, sipping Diet Coke and munching on Papa John’s pizza. But as the group started discussing its agenda, I realized I was witnessing something extraordinary. If you’ve ever wondered where the legions of conservative pundits are trained and schooled, where the talk-radio hosts and cable news guests and best-selling authors of jeremiads with inflammatory titles come from, it all starts here, in little classrooms like this one. These humble gatherings, full of kids in Greek-lettered T-shirts and sweats, are the incubator for the future of the right wing.
What the entire meeting would boil down to was message discipline. College Republican President Henry Bowles III, a junior whose vintage T-shirt and carefully tousled hair made him look like the lead singer of an indie-rock band, got things started. He told the group that for the duration of the semester, each session would start with a presentation on some important issue. This week Ben Snyder, a member of Students for Life, would give a PowerPoint presentation about the upcoming Supreme Court battles titled “Us vs. Them.†And next week, said Henry, someone would be talking about the flat tax.
“Fair tax. It’s fair tax now,†said a guy in the front row wearing a Zeppelin T-shirt.
“Right,†said Henry. “Fair tax. That’s the euphemism.â€
A little later, as Ben discussed the impending battle over Supreme Court nominees, he mentioned the possibility that Senate Republicans would rewrite filibuster rules so Democrats couldn’t filibuster judicial nominees. This strategy is often called the “nuclear option†because it could provoke a war between the two parties, but has, Ben told the group, “now been renamed the constitutional option.â€
Guy was the most vocal person in the room, gently correcting his comrades’ facts and terminology, offering up tidbits and arguments that others might want to employ when arguing with liberals. It was clear that he’d done his homework. When Ben talked about renaming the nuclear/constitutional option, Guy raised his hand and provided some background. While liberals express outrage at the thought of amending Senate rules, he said, the practice of filibustering nominees “is at the very least extraconstitutional, perhaps unconstitutional.†Everyone in the room listened intently. In fact, he went on, during the Constitutional Convention no less a figure than James Madison had taken the president’s power to appoint his cabinet to be so strong he proposed that a two-thirds majority be required to vote down a nominee. “So,†he concluded, “I think that’s an interesting tool to use when you’re debating this issue with people.†The other kids nodded, looking serious.
I graduated from college four years ago, and I happen to have spent a good percentage of my time as an undergraduate talking about politics – in my case, sweatshop labor and other lefty causes – with my activist friends. With the possible exception of a few mild admonitions for language that wasn’t sufficiently PC, I never saw anyone interrupt anyone for slipping off message. I was also surprised to see the Republican kids collectively generating arguments to use when fighting with liberals, sharpening their talking points, and preparing for battle. My fellow liberals and I didn’t see ourselves as engaged in a war of ideas. We probably didn’t even realize there were any conservatives around to fight with.
The meeting ended with an announcement that the club would soon be conducting elections for officers. Someone asked Guy if he was going to run for president, since he seemed the obvious successor to Henry. Guy demurred, though, saying he thought an official position with the College Republicans might limit his future journalistic career.
January 28th, 2006 at 4:11 pmLiberals Still Control Washington, In Both Parties
http://www.savethegop.com/
This story in the Christian Science Monitor should keep us ever vigilant.
During the first five years of President Bush’s presidency, nondefense discretionary spending (i.e., spending decided on an annual basis) rose 27.9 percent, far more than the 1.9 percent growth during President Clinton’s first five years, according to the libertarian Reason Foundation. And according to Citizens Against Government Waste, the number of congressional “pork barrel†projects under Republican leadership during fiscal 2005 was 13,997, more than 10 times that of 1994.
This is even worse… folks things are bleak because of the liberal Republican establishment that has a hold on Congress, and yes, the spending policies of the White House.
____________________________________
Now the "College Republicans" can see that ROVE and BUSHCO have LIED and misled the "Neo-Conservatives" yet they are still so Media-ized, they STILL revert Back to 'liberal' thunk. Even though Congress and Buschco have run the Ship, Still its the 'Invisible Liberals" they fight..ODD.
Ya know this Person that wrote above, is an 'Intellectual' in her own circles, yet clearly the problem with her "vision' is because shes stuck on Opinions and Bias
Id like to hear from MaD or Gary Or Ruppert, or one of these 'College republicans', come out come out whereever you ARE!!
January 28th, 2006 at 5:37 pm#201 - "We don’t need a dictator; we need a criminal investigation tasked by an Independent Special Prosecutor and Grand Jury prosecuting justice with unlimited judicial subpoena power." Comment by Joe Buckstrap Van Winkle
January 28th, 2006 at 6:09 pm****Dear Mr. Van Winkle - You mean like we handled the first WTC bombing under the brilliant foresight of Presidents Clinton & clinton and General Reno?? Are you in a remedial history class?? Remedial reading???
#252 - "For now, you are my enemy and I will fight you until my side wins and this country can reestablish its former status as a beacon of hope and peace and true fredom. I hope you’re ready for this fight, I expect it to be bloody and long and I’m ready. Good luck."
January 28th, 2006 at 6:21 pmComment by Jay — January 28, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
**** "....as the beacon of hope and peace and true fredom (sic)" - except if you disagree with progs. Well Jay, you know what they say - with the bygone era of pre-terror fixed indelibly in your rear view mirror, don't be surprised to lose the mid-term elections. (The inability to re-capture the House or Senate should see big sales increases for Prozac and Valium in our elite urban-centers.) Your defense/national security viewpoint is seen as impotent by the majority of Americans. Does that mean they like warrantless spying - no! But it does mean they aren't stupid enough to bring a knife to a gunfight.
#228 - Dear Optimist - I apologize for the delay in answering your questions. My only suggestion: Personalize only what I direct to you personally - many of my observations reflect my views of common progressive traits.
"...beyond 11th grade which is uncharacteristic for a garden variety troll. Do you have a conscience? Do you have morals?" - Optimist
***** Optimist, there ARE many educated liberal snobs, but contrary to your snotty comment, many conservatives are highly educated. Those of us who have not attained advanced degrees often have an amazing amount of common sense and inate intelligence. Of course I have a conscience - your question was foolish but not surprising as liberals often feel superior to other mortal beings. To wonder about a person having a conscience is to imply three things:
a.) one is a sociopath.
b.) one is not fully human.
c.) the question reflects poorly on the questionner.
Re: your question about my morals. Reflexively, I would refer you to a,b, and c above; but that would be intellectually lazy on my part.
I am not perfect - but I have learned from my mistakes, (or stupidity). But those who keep making the same mistakes continually - I have little patience with. I will compare my personal morals with yours any day of the week - I won't be surprised to see your high moral score - but I'll suggest you not score yourself too highly in the "humility" department - as your questions reflect your strong sense of moral superiority.
"The implication in that statement is (1) Progressives (aka liberals) are terrorist supporters and (2) Progressives are anti-semetic." - Optimist -
January 28th, 2006 at 8:57 pm*****
*MANY (note I did not say "you") progressives "understand" the intense hatred terrorists violently display. Viewing the "imperialism" and influence of the US with great disdain, progressives appear to lean toward the "little guy". I didn't see the Federalist Society filing friend of the court briefs on behalf of terror suspects. I DID see the ACLU (widely considered to be a "progressive" organization) defend and sue on behalf of our enemies.
***Every progressive is not an anti-Semite. But when watching large anti-war demonstrations on C-SPAN, (or demonstrations re: WTO or IMF) I see the pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel message in the mix. I do not see conservatives (with the exception of the anti-Semite Pat Buchanan) bashing our closest ally in the Middle East. But since my word is tainted with bias, check out the websites many contributors here at TP direct you to. Plunger and the former liberal sage RyaNNe are only two of the various prog contributors here who ascribe most Middle East evil to the Mossad including 911.
[...] The thing I love about this lie is how it doesn’t even try to be plausible. The Center for Responsive Politics shows that life-long Republican activist Jack Abramoff donated $0.00 to Democrats. Shocker. After being alerted to the fact that the reference Couric cited plainly disproves her claim, NBC’s Matt Lauer and Tim Russert respond as any responsible media figure would respond - by moving the goalposts: LAUER: Katie pressed him [Howard Dean] on that and we did some research. We went to the Center for Responsive Politics and found out that technically speaking, Howard Dean may be correct. But here’s what we found. That 66 percent of the money in this situation went to Republicans, but 34 percent of the money — not from Abramoff, but from his associates and clients — went to Democrats. So, can Democrats wash their hands of this? [...]
January 29th, 2006 at 12:48 amAbramoff Clients Shifted Donations To GOP
by Scott Shields
The American Prospect commissioned a study of the political donations given by Indian tribes that had hired Jack Abramoff. The analysis was conducted by the non-partisan, for-profit campaign finance-specific research company Dwight L. Morris and Associates. The company's work has been cited heavily in the past by numerous media outlets, including the Republican-friendly Fox News and World Net Daily. Something tells me they won't be reporting this data, however.
• In total, the donations of Abramoff's tribal clients to Democrats dropped by nine percent after they hired him, while their donations to Republicans more than doubled, increasing by 135 percent after they signed him up;
• Five out of seven of Abramoff's tribal clients vastly favored Republican candidates over Democratic ones;
• Four of the seven began giving substantially more to Republicans than Democrats after he took them on;
• Abramoff's clients gave well over twice as much to Republicans than Democrats, while tribes not affiliated with Abramoff gave well over twice as much to Democrats than the GOP -- exactly the reverse pattern.
It's a no-brainer that the Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal. That's even the view held by more than a few Republicans. But the traditional media has been having trouble wrapping their heads around the idea, claiming over and over that both sides are equally guilty. Some solid data like this, definitively disproving that claim could very well go a long way in changing the conventional wisdom in the media.
http://www.mydd.com/
Get that? The Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal, pure and simple. No ifs, ands, buts or slimy journalistic quibbles. Abramoff gave only to Republicans and he directed his tribal clients to give more to Republicans. There is nothing bi-partisan about this scandal. It's Republican at its rotten roots (Abramoff and DeLay) and it's Republican in its poisonous fruits.
Please see following for true facts.
ACCURACY IN REPORTING --
"It is not our job to seek peaceful coexistence with the Left. Our job is to remove them from power permanently."
-- Jack A. Abramoff
Â
Incoming
    By William Rivers Pitt
    t r u t h o u t | Perspective
    All of official Washington is at this moment waiting with bated breath for the avalanche. Jack Abramoff, the disgraced super-lobbyist, has made a plea agreement in the massive prosecution against him and his cronies. Every talking head who has spoken on the subject has stated bluntly that the fallout from this plea deal will almost certainly result in the largest scandal to hit the capital in decades.
    The questions, of course, are straightforward: Who is involved? Who took money from this guy? Who is on his pad? Most significantly, who did Abramoff name when he decided to sing to the prosecutors?
    Republicans, nervous about the bad noise to come, have attempted to paint this as an equal-opportunity crime. To wit, the Democrats are into Abramoff as deeply as the GOP. The facts, however, do not bear this out. According to campaign donation information gathered by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, the following officeholders and candidates have received political donations from Abramoff since 2000:
    Tom DeLay (R-Texas). John Ashcroft (R-Mo.). Frank A. LoBiondo (R-NJ). Eric Cantor (R-Va.). Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). John Ensign (R-Nev.). Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.). Charles H. Taylor (R-NC). Chris Cannon (R-Utah). Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Mark Foley (R-Fla.). Richard Pombo (R-Calif.). Christopher S. "Kit" Bond (R-Mo.). Curt Weldon (R-Pa.). Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.). Doug Ose (R-Calif.). Ernest J. Istook (R-Okla.). George R. Nethercutt Jr. (R-Wash.). Jim Bunning (R-Ky.). Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.). Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). Dan Burton (R-Ind.). Eric Cantor (R-Va.). Suzanne Terrell (R-La.). Rob Simmons (R-Conn.). Charles W. "Chip" Pickering Jr. (R-Miss.). Connie Morella (R-Md.). Gordon H. Smith (R-Ore.). James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.). James M. Talent (R-Mo.). John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.). John Thune (R-SD). Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.). Bob Smith (R-Fla.). Bob Ney (R-Ohio). CL. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho). Carolyn W. Grant (R-NC). Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.). Elizabeth Dole (R-NC). Heather Wilson (R-NM). J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.). Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). James V. Hansen (R-Utah). John Cornyn (R-Texas). Kimo Kaloi (R-Hawaii). Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.). Mike Ferguson (R-NJ). Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). Ralph Regula (R-Ohio). Ric Keller (R-Fla.). Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). Dave Camp (R-Mich.). Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.). Tom Young (R-Ala.). Bill Janklow (R-SD). Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.). Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.). William L. Gormley (R-NJ). Bill McCollum (R-Fla.). Bill Redmond (R-NM). Bob Riley (R-Ala.). Claude B. Hutchison Jr. (R-Calif.). Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.). Francis E. Flotron (R-Mo.). George Allen (R-Va.). Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.). Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-NC). Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). Bob Smith (R-Fla.). Joe Pitts (R-PA). Charles H. Taylor (R-NC). Bob Ehrlich (R-Md.). Charles R. Gerow (R-Pa.). Ed Royce (R-Calif.). Elia Vincent Pirozzi (R-Calif.). Jerry Weller (R-Ill.). Mark Emerson (R-Utah). Tom Davis (R-Va.). Van Hilleary (R-Tenn.).
    Also:
    Americans for a Republican Majority, Leadership PAC of Tom DeLay (R-Texas). Republican Majority Fund, Leadership PAC of Don Nickles (R-Okla.). Keep Our Majority PAC, Leadership PAC of Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). Leadership PAC, Leadership PAC of Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio). Rely on Your Beliefs, Leadership PAC of Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). Friends of the Big Sky, Leadership PAC of Conrad Burns (R-Mont.). Senate Victory Fund, Leadership PAC of Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). American Liberty PAC, Leadership PAC of Bob Ney (R-Ohio). Battle Born PAC, Leadership PAC of John Ensign (R-Nev.). Fund for a Free Market America, Leadership PAC of Phil Crane (R-Ill.). Team PAC, Leadership PAC of J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.). The Republican Party of New Jersey.
    Also:
    George W. Bush (R).
    Notice anything similar? Each and every name listed, each and every PAC, has an (R) after it. The Center for Responsive Politics does not have one Democrat - not one - listed as having received a donation from Jack Abramoff. The amounts given to the Republicans listed above amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
    In extremis, Republicans have taken to bandying about the name of Byron Dorgan, Democratic Senator from North Dakota, as evidence that this Abramoff thing is a two-party scandal. Dorgan received $67,000 from Native American tribes represented by Abramoff - not from Abramoff himself - and has since returned the money. Furthermore, he got the money before the tribes had any dealings with Abramoff. In short, Dorgan's so-called involvement in the matter is a red herring.
    As for Mr. Bush, he has given the Abramoff money he received to charity, according to the White House. DNC Chairman Howard Dean pegged the total amount Bush received from Abramoff at $100,000. Abramoff attended three Hannukah receptions at the Bush White House - Hannukah? What happened to fighting the War on Christmas? - but Bush denies knowing him. "The president does not know him and does not recall meeting him," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "It is possible that he could have met him at a holiday reception or some other widely attended event."
    Heh. Sounds like what we heard from Bush about Kenny "Boy" Lay.
    It is going to be an interesting year.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010506Z.shtml
January 29th, 2006 at 4:06 amThat Matt Lauer... He's just so.... GLIB!!!
January 29th, 2006 at 11:43 am[...] (Think Progress has the full transcript): [...]
January 29th, 2006 at 10:46 pmYour defense/national security viewpoint is seen as impotent by the majority of Americans. Does that mean they like warrantless spying - no! But it does mean they aren’t stupid enough to bring a knife to a gunfight.
Comment by mighty aphrodite #258
Puny Hermaphrodite,
Let's take a stroll through the defense/ foreign policy successes of the Republiscum criminal Bushite junta:
9/11...received PDB entitled "bin Laden poised to attack on American soil" or something to that effect...
Bushite response: golfing vacation...
Iraq: free elections held, Iranian forces in firm control of Shi'ia majority...
Iran: "got nukes
S. America: Viva la 'leftist revoluccion!
N. Korea: got nukes?
Afghanistan: I just wanna get high, baby...
Shall I continue?
January 30th, 2006 at 1:13 pmbIG dADDY - You can continue all you want - your observations are over stated, your analysis- plaigerized redundancy, and your humour, non-existent. Could you please find some original material out there???
January 30th, 2006 at 6:43 pmMA.
Bush has been a total disaster in policy.
The rest of the world was just getting to like the US when you attacked Iraq for no apparent reason (Sure Saddam was a dick, but so is Mugabe) other then oil.
Your internal economy is running on empty and China, the quiet communist super-power now more or less owns it in partnership with Saudi Arabia.
Your oldest civil rights are being systematically destroyed.
Congress is more corrupt then ever.
Social services are being cut back.
The educational sector isn't exactly happy either.
The average American wage has not even risen with inflation.
And your soldiers, fighting as a result of GWBs policies, are being forced to pay for treatment for their injuries sustained in combat.
Oh, and lets not forget how well the veterans are being treat by this pro-war administration.
Osama is still out there making tapes. Which seem to appear whenever there is an election. Which makes one think he actually likes the Bush Administration.
January 31st, 2006 at 5:39 am