PHOTO: Abramoff and Interior Secretary Gale Norton
By on Jan 28th, 2006 at 10:53 am
PHOTO: Abramoff and Interior Secretary Gale Norton
The Interior Department has released a February 2002 photo of Jack Abramoff (far right), Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton (Center) and representatives of the Choctaw Indians, one of Abramoff’s tribal clients:
It wasn’t the first time Norton and Abramoff met. The AP reports “The lobbyist [Abramoff] and one of his clients, a member of the Louisiana Coushatta tribe, dined with Norton on Sept. 24, 2001, at a private fundraising dinner.” The 2001 meeting was arranged after Abramoff clients donated $50,000 to an “environmental group” founded by Norton.
The Abramoff scandal is not just a Congressional scandal, it’s also a Bush administration scandal. According to news reports the Bush/Abramoff photos should be surfacing shortly.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Say cheese!
January 28th, 2006 at 11:00 amA photo of Abramoff and Gale Norton
Obviously you leftists are using your time well.
Just having your picture taken with somebody is meaningless.
January 28th, 2006 at 11:09 amGary,
If you read this post, it’s not just the photo. Norton and Abramoff had private meetings. And those meetings occured after Abramoff clients gave a large sum of money to Norton’s private group.
Also, if we are wasting are time what are you doing observing us wasting our time?
January 28th, 2006 at 11:11 amWhat about the White House security logs? They might shed some light on when Jack A’f was there.
January 28th, 2006 at 11:21 am#A photo of Abramoff and Gale Norton
Obviously you leftists are using your time well.
Just having your picture taken with somebody is meaningless.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — January 28, 2006 @ 11:09 am
Gary doesnt read. He OPINIONS, he doesnt have nor use facts, that would destroy his house of smoke and mirrors he has so carefully constructed around his “reality” of Hatreds. If you notice GARY hates everything and is just another Neo-kook whos lied for so long and for so often that he cant even tell the TRUTH anymore from Bush Lies, The Televison to Gary is like the Magic Mirror. Gary is just a Hater. He hates Whites, Blacks, Rich poor, and he dooesnt hate it yet, if the LEFT, or what he thinks is LEFT, Says something its Auto Hate or Auto Lie, if Bush Lies about it its Truth, or So what if he Lied?
Gary Will self Rationalize anything to make it fit his Snow Globe world.
January 28th, 2006 at 11:28 amAnd as Such Gary, you are Useless as a Human and offer nothing to society. Anne Coulter would Joke About Poisoning you.
January 28th, 2006 at 11:30 amHeres why Gary is Gary;
Polls Show Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush
Blind Ignorance
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Two recent polls, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll and a New York Times/CBS News poll, indicate why Bush is getting away with impeachable offenses. Half of the US population is incapable of acquiring, processing and understanding information.
Much of the problem is the media itself, which serves as a disinformation agency for the Bush administration. Fox “News” and right-wing talk radio are the worst, but with propagandistic outlets setting the standard for truth and patriotism, all of the media is affected to some degree.
Despite the media’s failure, about half the population has managed to discern that the US invasion of Iraq has not made them safer and that the Bush administration’s assault on civil liberties is not a necessary component of the war on terror. The problem, thus, lies with the absence of due diligence on the part of the other half of the population.
Consider the New York Times/CBS poll. Sixty-four percent of the respondents have concerns about losing civil liberties as a result of anti-terrorism measures put in place by President Bush. Yet, 53
January 28th, 2006 at 11:40 ampercent approve of spying without obtaining court warrants “in order to reduce the threat of terrorism.”
And why PEOPLE should not WATCH FAUX NEWS
Half of the US population is incapable of acquiring, processing and understanding information.
Much of the problem is the media itself, which serves as a disinformation agency for the Bush administration. Fox “News†and right-wing talk radio are the worst, but with propagandistic outlets setting the standard for truth and patriotism
Except as we have shown many many many times FAUX news isnt FAIR nor Balanced but Propaganda ala Kristol AEI war monger Media, presenting itself thru Slimey Laywers and 3grade name callers such as Anne or Rush. Some ‘Patriotism’ or Truth, in fact its just the Opposite.
January 28th, 2006 at 11:44 amIsn’t it amazing how well the Bush team has been at suppressing the 5 photos that were described in the Time article? What this administration knows is that the appearance of being dishonest is much more important than actually being dishonest. I bet the White House has a crew that has been strong arming people to not release these photo’s soley because of how damaging the image of Bush and Abramoff together will be. That the typical right winger would not read the news but if they see a photo they might change their opinions.
January 28th, 2006 at 11:46 amHells Bells! more photos
January 28th, 2006 at 11:51 amOh! Ouch! They have pictures!!! It’s the end of Bush and the conservative movement for sure.
That the typical right winger would not read the news but if they see a photo they might change their opinions.
Comment by Colorado Jyms
I think you’re projecting Colorado. The typical conservative is smart enough to know that having your picture taken doesn’t mean squat to anyone but a DUmmy.
January 28th, 2006 at 11:59 amJudd,
Your not feeding the trolls are you. I thought we were supposed to ignore them, so they will go away.
I know, I know, sometimes you just can’t resist responding to their idiocy. :)
January 28th, 2006 at 12:10 pmPlease read this and then please help me get an answer from the Times. Thank you,
To the Public Editor:
In today’s Times, PHILIP SHENON and ELISABETH BUMILLER write about Noel L. Hillman, chief prosecutor in the Abramoff investigation (Prosecutor Will Step Down From Lobbyist Case, Jan. 27, 2006). The following assertion is made:
“”The White House had been poised to nominate Mr. Hillman for the bench last year.” Top of paragraph 20, third from the bottom.
They do not attribute this assertion to anyone or anything (like a press release). The sentence is just ‘out there’, very awkward. Please read it http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/27judge.html?pagewanted=print .
This led me to call Mr. Shenon, who had been very gracious a few weeks ago about a different question. When I asked him what the source of the assertion was he replied, “Other reporting, I think.” When I asked him to point me in the direction of a source he testily said, “It’s not my job to fact check with a reader, line by line.” I told him that I agreed with him that he needn’t fact check with a reader but that he should fact check. I asked if there might perhaps be some kind of White House announcement from last year (though why the White House would announce a potential nominee is beyond me). Mr. Shenon said something about ‘googling’ but failed to mention any keywords. So I just asked straight out if this assertion had been fact checked and he abruptly rang off.
The sentence is crucial in that it creates a distinct impression about the White House’s motives in nominating the subject of the article.
Thank you,
January 28th, 2006 at 12:12 pmIRI- The smart conservative knows to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT before more shit comes out of this useless and flaccid administration. Is it possible Bush and his minions can do any worse? What about Hamas? Now let’s see what the “Idiot-in-Chief” thinks about a democratic election by the people of Palestine. Will Bush talk with the elected administration? Or will he continue his diatribe about so-called “terrorists”. So much smoke and mirrors for “Bush’s “democracy”, now let’s see if he participates.
January 28th, 2006 at 12:13 pmRove and his thugs know perfectly well how oppo strategists can use a photo of Bush shaking hands with an indicted gangster who, on top of everything, denies the existence of the Lord Jesus Christ. My oh my, what will Georgie’s evangelical amigos think?
January 28th, 2006 at 12:14 pmI-RIGHT-I,
That is the best you can come up with. Sheesh, you’re slipping man. Maybe you need a vacation from fending off all this Bush hate. Go ahead, we will still be here when you get back.
January 28th, 2006 at 12:16 pmJudd,
Your not feeding the trolls are you. I thought we were supposed to ignore them, so they will go away.
I know, I know, sometimes you just can’t resist responding to their idiocy. :)
Comment by SpudgeBoy
You just can’t help yourself can you? Didn’t Ryan’s little run in with the Man teach you anything?
January 28th, 2006 at 12:28 pmI don’t think there’s any proof of that happening.
January 28th, 2006 at 12:30 pmIsn’t it funny when guys like I R I and Gary try to argue the obvious . When Good Fella Jack gets hauled off to prison in shackles { and there will be a photo or video } will they say a photo doesn’t mean anything .
January 28th, 2006 at 12:31 pmI-RIGHT-I,
That is the best you can come up with. Sheesh, you’re slipping man.
Comment by SpudgeBoy
Well, I’m hungry and to be honest this Abramoff thing pictures and all just doesn’t have that much meat on it.
I wish Judd would find some fault with our enemies once in awhile and post about that. That might be fun but of course it would not be within the scope of the Think Communist project as defined by the Soros Gang.
January 28th, 2006 at 12:34 pmI think Judd is smart enough to know when somebody is joking and when they are attacking. And I don’t see Judd as “the Man.”
January 28th, 2006 at 12:38 pmBecause you’re stupid and can’t read or that is just your opinion?
January 28th, 2006 at 12:39 pmNorton was in the bag. Her and her assistant J. Steven Griles are up to their titties in corruption.
All of them. Bush and his friend Kenny Boy Lay..Lay had secret meetings with Deferrment Dick Cheney to to hatch a plot to get gas prices up to $4.00 a gallon and it has worked well.
The imperial powers are smashing and grabbing all the cash on hand before the economy hits the shitter and the US is reduced to being as influential in world politicas as Uganda.
Heckuva job asshats.
Way to bankrupt the nation, stretch the military thin and agitate the world so that all of the extremists are in power just in time for an economic collapse and internal strife.
Nice work Bush, Rove, Lay, Frist, Delay and the rest of the crony thiefs and thugs and rapists.
-GSD
January 28th, 2006 at 12:39 pmI R I I think you’ve jumped around too much on these message boards , this one’s about Abramoff , do yourself a favor pick up something and read it . Right side up and not “my pet goat” .
January 28th, 2006 at 12:40 pmLame!
Dude, go get something to eat and come back when you’re nice a full and ready to debate.
January 28th, 2006 at 12:41 pmRuppert ain’t worth the sweat off anyones ballsack. He is some British national who is still bitter that the powdered poofters who run his country weren’t able to keep the British Empire from collapsing. Now his nation is reduced to playing power-bottom to the big imperial power and his people are reduced pinata filling in Islamic bus bombings. Even old Imperial victim India will be walking all over the UK soon enough.
Heckuva job Ruppert, I will have sugar with my tea and jelly with my crumpets..Chop, chop old boy and I’ll take a reacharound while you are at it luv.
-Cheers
-GSD
January 28th, 2006 at 12:44 pmJust remember, photographs disassemble…which means THEY LIE!
January 28th, 2006 at 12:48 pmGSD should lay off of the crazy glue
January 28th, 2006 at 1:03 pmRuppert, bringing it on. Nice of you to bring a rubber dildo to a knife fight.
-GSD
January 28th, 2006 at 1:04 pmThe olny crazy person here is you Gary Ruppert. Is it hard to breathe with your head so far up in the clouds?
January 28th, 2006 at 1:06 pmI’m sure that’s not Karl. That guy’s too thin. Karl’s at least 50 lbs heavier, even back in ‘01. He’s probably 70 lbs heavier now.
January 28th, 2006 at 1:08 pmGawd, I love photos! They are so sexy, especially when they are incriminating!
January 28th, 2006 at 1:50 pm#17, if it is any consolation, this has been covered extensively on Air America radio and liberal blogs. People are asking questions. Of course, that doesn’t mean anything, but one of these straws will break the camel’s back and their lying abuses of power will be their undoing.
January 28th, 2006 at 2:17 pm“Norton and Abramoff had private meetings. And those meetings occured after Abramoff clients gave a large sum of money to Norton’s private group.”
–Judd
I don’t think there’s any proof of that happening.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — January 28, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
It is amazing to see someone in such deep denial of the world around him -like Mr. Ruppert is. No matter how much evidence contradicts him -as it does over and over, or how much people point it out to him -as we do over and over, he will cling on to his cherished notions.
I wonder if Mr. Ruppert is a Young Earth Creationist or a Bible literalist. Holding on to one’s beliefs inspite of overwhelming contradictory evidence requires years of special training.
Back on topic -let’s see what has been reported regarding Abramoff’s dirty dealings with Gale Norton:
WASHINGTON — Investigators have unearthed e-mails showing Rep. Tom DeLay’s office tried to help lobbyist Jack Abramoff (search) get a high-level Bush administration meeting for Indian clients, an effort that succeeded after the tribes began making a quarter-million dollars in donations.
Tribal money went both to a group founded by Interior Secretary Gale Norton (search), the Cabinet secretary Abramoff was trying to meet, as well as to DeLay’s personal charity.(…)
The tribe eventually scored face-to-face time with Norton and her top deputy, Steven Griles, on Sept. 24, 2001, at a private fundraising dinner arranged by CREA. Tribal chairman Lovelin Poncho and Abramoff sat at Norton’s table while tribal attorney Kathy Van Hoof sat with Griles, Faircloth said.
Report: DeLay’s Staff Tried to Help Abramoff
Here is another article:
Within weeks of the Coushattas’ contribution, Federici — who had worked on Norton’s political campaigns in Colorado before she became interior secretary — sent a note to Norton’s scheduler requesting a meeting for the tribe’s chairman, Lovelin Poncho. The meeting did not take place.(…)
In September, tribal chairman Poncho finally got his meeting with Norton. Abramoff arranged for him to attend a CREA dinner in Georgetown with the secretary and Griles, records show.
Casino Bid Prompted High-Stakes Lobbying
And another one:
The e-mails released by the committee on Thursday certainly presented a damning case. At minimum, it appears Abramoff believed he was buying access to the Interior Department through Federici. (…) He offered Federici skybox seats at Redskins games and paid the bill for her meals and cocktail parties at his downtown restaurant, Signatures.
At the same time, Federici appeared to be catering to Abramoff’s every wish. (…) She even organized Georgetown dinner parties, under the cover of CREA, so Abramoff’s clients could meet with Norton and Griles. “Thanks for all you do for my clients, the cause and me personally,” Abramoff wrote her in a 2002 e-mail.
The greening of Italia Federici
“no proof of that ever happening”? Riiight. Very few others haven been proven wrong so consistently here at Think Progress as Mr. Ruppert has.
January 28th, 2006 at 2:22 pm“Also, if we are wasting are time what are you doing observing us wasting our time?”
Reminds me of Obiwan Kenobi’s line about “who’s more of a fool, the fool or the fool who follows him.” Something like that…
January 28th, 2006 at 2:37 pmRightPunch,
Yes, I haven’t forgotten your explanation on the partisan/reptilian brain. Sometimes I wonder if it’s not a flat out pathology.
Such deep denial is simply not within the range of normalcy. It’s like arguing the Sun revolves around the Earth. Or that men have one less rib than wommen. So sad.
January 28th, 2006 at 2:40 pmI think you’re projecting Colorado. The typical conservative is smart enough to know that having your picture taken doesn’t mean squat to anyone but a DUmmy.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 28, 2006 @ 11:59 am
Yea, too bad the typical conservative isn’t smart enough to actually read the story attached to the photo.
I guess that home schooling program didn’t work out too well for you I-LLITERATE-I?
Oh well, theres always hope.
Try Hooked-On-Phonics, or perhaps a Speak-and-Spell.
I hear they work wonders. :|
January 28th, 2006 at 3:36 pmNow publish the nude pics of Bush, Abramoff, and Gannon in a hot tub together > lol.
Have to have humor because the Bush Junior Administration is the most corrupt in US history!
January 28th, 2006 at 3:44 pmIgnore them. They have no answer to Judd’s question, just shrill and absurd comments that make them look foolish. Judd should really ban them because I happen to think they keep real conservatives with legitimate and credible opposing views from contributing. There are thousands of them out there, like that trooper guy from the other thread on Rumsfeld, who left Freep years ago and never got sucked into the LGF cesspool.
January 28th, 2006 at 3:55 pmWorfeus,
Reading and comprehending requires using the part of the brain not active in partisans.
Comment by RightPunch
I disagree. You have to consider the possibility of another pathology at work here. They are sociopaths and pathologically incapable of being truthful. Pathological liars. When you consider that George Soros’ manipulation of the financial free markets in eastern Europe led to the collapse of communism, a fact which he proudly claims responibility for:
Opposition to the Soviet Union
According to Neil Clark (writing in the New Statesman): “(t)he conventional view, shared by many on the left, is that socialism collapsed in eastern Europe because of its systemic weaknesses and the political elite’s failure to build popular support. That may be partly true, but Soros’s role was crucial. From 1979, he distributed $3m a year to dissidents including Poland’s Solidarity movement, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and Andrei Sakharov in the Soviet Union. In 1984, he founded his first Open Society Institute in Hungary and pumped millions of dollars into opposition movements and independent media. Ostensibly aimed at building up a “civil society”, these initiatives were designed to weaken the existing political structures and pave the way for eastern Europe’s eventual colonisation by global capital. Soros now claims, with characteristic immodesty, that he was responsible for the “Americanisation” of eastern Europe.”
Comments like this:
I wish Judd would find some fault with our enemies once in awhile and post about that. That might be fun but of course it would not be within the scope of the Think Communist project as defined by the Soros Gang.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I
… are as I said, absurd and ludicrous, and only believed by Faux news watching idiots.
I also realize that Judd can’t ban them without going to a more expensive HID method, using hardware and individual computer IDs.
January 28th, 2006 at 4:30 pmAnd The Poorman Institute’s piece on the Abramoff issue is priceless.
January 28th, 2006 at 4:34 pmGordon
I see you are a keyboard cowboy…a silicon samuri?
Nice.
January 28th, 2006 at 4:36 pmTry this
January 28th, 2006 at 4:47 pmGordon
I see you are a keyboard cowboy…a silicon samuri?
Nice.
Comment by WORFEUS
I wish! Not like you… I’m just vaguely familiar with the problem and solutions.
RightPunch,
Just being a contrarian and throwing around some terms and concepts that will send them Googling and to the library for awhile.
January 28th, 2006 at 5:16 pmIn either case, sociopaths are also physically ill, and they deserve our forgiveness as well. They can’t help themselves, and should be treated more than scorned. I say invest research into finding cures for these sociopathic and partisan brain syndromes if you want to clean up politics. Otherwise it’ll be just more terrorists blowing up FBI buildings and abortion clinics.
That’s just my opinion of course :)
Comment by RightPunch
Can we kill them before or after we study them?
/sarcasm off…
I’m opposed to state sanctioned execution and capital punishment, and many states are revisiting the question again. But as a realist, situational ethicist and pragmatist I realize that sometimes individuals and even states and nations may need to employ non-negotiable lethal force in the real world. Ted Bundy and his ilk should have been studied before we executed him, not after.
January 28th, 2006 at 5:23 pm“Consider the New York Times/CBS poll. Sixty-four percent of the respondents have concerns about losing civil liberties as a result of anti-terrorism measures put in place by President Bush. Yet, 53
January 28th, 2006 at 5:33 pmpercent approve of spying without obtaining court warrants “in order to reduce the threat of terrorism.—
-wolfputz
****Wolfgang, There’s a difference between “wishful thinking” (the la-la-land inhabited by progs since 9/11) and reality. NO ONE wants to sacrifice liberties – I’m sure criminal defendants during the Civil War could not grasp the necessity of some of President Lincolns’ measures. But as my friend Karl was generous enough to point out, having a pre-911 viewpoint is naive, and wrong. Different enemies, different threats sometimes require a modified game plan. Now in “la-la-land” Dennis Kucinich is the Secretary for the Dept. of Peace and Hamas has decided they are for a two state solution.
Yet more guilt by association from the left. “Abramoff clients” (Judd’s term above) also gave money to Democrats.
January 28th, 2006 at 5:47 pm“So clients of a criminal makes all actions of those clients criminal?”
That seems to be Judd’s argument. Thank you for agreeing it’s hogwash.
January 28th, 2006 at 5:54 pmSo if an “Abramoff client” gives money to Gale Norton, that’s evidence of malfeasance, but if an “Abramoff client” gives money to Harry Reid, it means nothing. Clear enough. Very nonpartisan!
January 28th, 2006 at 5:57 pmBoy you are stupid aren’t you.
That is the arguement from the right you doofus. The right is saying that the democrats got money from Abramoffs clients, therefore they are corrupt.
That is not Judd’s arguement. It is the arguement of the right. You need to pay attention to what your leaders are doing and saying.
January 28th, 2006 at 6:20 pmIt is one or the other idiot. Judd’s point is to show the Hipocracy of the right winger.
If it is guilt by association as the right wing would have us believe then both Harry Reid and this chick are guilty.
But if it isn’t guilt by association, the left wing point of view, then this chick and Harry Reid are innocent.
Pick a side, be a man and stand by it.
You cannot argue our stance against us retard.
January 28th, 2006 at 6:24 pmSpudgeBoy, Judd’s argument is that Norton is somehow corrupt because she received money from “Abramoff clients” (his term).
The generalized case of that argument would be “a person who received money from an Abramoff client is guilty.”
Harry Reid and other Democrats in fact received money from “Abramoff clients.” Therefore, by Judd’s standard, they are guilty. Or he’s engaging in a blatant double standard, take your pick.
Why so hostile? Are you incapable of basic civility?
January 28th, 2006 at 6:26 pm“But if it isn’t guilt by association, the left wing point of view, then this chick and Harry Reid are innocent.”
So ThinkProgress’s point here is to argue that Norton is innocent? That’s the argument they’re making? HAHA, funny one, SpudgeBoy.
January 28th, 2006 at 6:28 pmRightPunch, like I said before, I’m not interested in your petty insults.
January 28th, 2006 at 6:38 pmPre-9/11 viewpoint, Mutt? Exactly what does that mean? Drivel. Like pre-Pearl Harbor viewpoint. Rhetorical drivel. Save it for the rubes and yokels. At least be clear and honest about it with those of us who don’t fit that description, any thinking person: Pre-nuclear and WMD. There’s your paradigm shift. Once the Genie gets out of the bottle… and who was it gave Iran their first nuclear technology? Republicans.
January 28th, 2006 at 6:51 pmMutt is MA. Jeff is I-R-I. And now I know whay RightPunch means. I like it.
January 28th, 2006 at 6:52 pmRightPunch, like I said before, I’m not interested in your petty insults.
Comment by Jack
He’s interested in your incisive criticism, witticism and bon mots, and grandiose insults, they are a more appropriate response to his grandiose notions and delusions of grandeur. He’s in a fugue state.
January 28th, 2006 at 6:56 pmLet’s be clear for Jack, who doesn’t know himself, except in the carnal sense:
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:
(…)
Can anybody tell me what “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†means? What “situationâ€? What point does he think he is making? Abramoff stole money from Indian tribes. He defrauded his creditors when purchasing the SunCruz casino (and the guy he bought it from later turned up dead.) He has agreed to testify against his Republican friends about an unknown number of shady doings. That’s what the story is. Leaving aside for a moment the fact that Jack Abramoff feeding money to Democrats makes about as much sense as having Grant receive reinforcements from Nathan Bedford Forrest, what point does Lauer imagine he’s making? Willful And Malicious Receiving of Money From Indians is not, to the best of my legal knowledge, a punishable offense, nor is it unethical, except in the way that the funding of our whole political system is sleazy. Suppose Democrats got 100% of the money from Indian tribes – I don’t get what that would prove, aside from that what we think of as “reality†is merely one of Jonah Goldberg’s particularly implausible wet dreams. That Jack Abramoff was a double agent? That Tom DeLay is secretly a Democrat? That Michael Moore is svelt? I don’t get it.
I honestly don’t think the problem is partisanship. If the problem was partisanship, they could come up with an angle that makes some sort of sense. (It’s not like Democrats haven’t learned a thing or two from Tom DeLay’s success.) I think that the problem is just that Lauer, Couric and Russert can’t, or won’t, understand the not-especially-complex issues at hand. Somehow, however, the concept that “Jack Abramoff has cooties†has managed to penetrate thick crust of hair-spray residue that protects their vestigal brains from potentially-confusing facts. Now – if my theory is correct – these journalists have decided that, in order to protect the public from a potential cooties pandemic, they need to determine who touched Abramoff, and who touched anyone who touched Abramoff, etc. Not being a epidemiologist, I can’t speak learnedly about the vectors of cootie transmission, but I suppose you should be always err on the side of caution when dealing with these sorts of things. Anyway, that’s my best guess. That, or they’re all fucking wankers.
January 28th, 2006 at 7:02 pmBecause I am sick of retards like you.
Not with retards like you.
January 28th, 2006 at 7:11 pmWhy so hostile?
You reap what you sow. You are the Christians. Most of us, even the Christians, are also secular humanists, too. You turn the other cheek so we can slap that one, too
Are you incapable of basic civility?
Not with retards like you.
Actually, I know of no developmentally disabled people as disturbed and dense as any of you Bush supporters, and would rather converse with a person with severe Downs syndrome. They are apt to be sharper.
January 28th, 2006 at 8:49 pmSpudge,
Yanno what? When they do this:
Why so hostile?
Are you incapable of basic civility?
Ask ‘em if Rover knows they want to give a suicide bomber a hug. Damn, I wish they would. Right before he hit the switch.
January 28th, 2006 at 8:52 pmAbramoff signed checks to Republicans, but he NEVER gave any to Democrats! Some of his former Indian Casino Tribe clients on their own gave campaign donations to some Democrats, but Abramoff was NOT involved! In fact he was pissed that some Tribes helped Democrats!
January 28th, 2006 at 10:25 pmSo, where are the photos of Abramoff with Dick Cheney?
Oh, you know, because Abramoff was one of the top dogs in the Republican Party leadership, then there must be a whole bunch of photos of him with other top dog Republicans. Ralph Reed? Grover Norquist? Tom Delay? George W. Bush? Dick Cheney? Dennis Hastert? Bill Frist? Alberto Gonzales?
You know. Photos (or what I like to call them, mug shots) of Abramoff with all the other top dog members of the Corruptlican Party.
Oh, how much you want to bet that the Corruptlican leadership is looking for ALL damaging photos linking Abramoff to them.
The Corruptlicans should all be brought up on racketeering charges, because (just like in Abramoff’s courthouse steps photo) they all are looking and acting like a bunch of low-life mobsters.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:03 amMeanwhile, keep those Bush/Libby shots coming.
January 29th, 2006 at 5:54 amGotta just weigh in here about how hilarious it is for the right wingers to be poo-pooing the importance of these pictures. Of COURSE they don’t necessarily mean anything. That’s what’s so funny. The Bushies THEMSELVES are the ones who have elevated this nonsense to ultra-significance. How? By scrambling around trying to expunge every such picture, like Stalin’s guys airbrushing out images of unpersons from official photographs.
It’s YOUR GUYS who have made this into the game it has become. Absolutely nothing is more viscerally damning than to be caught trying to hide evidence, even if the evidence is completely innocuous. Actually, all the more so if it’s innocuous, because it just REEKS of guilty conscience.
YOUR GUYS are the ones trying to hide these pictures. For people who have nothing to hide, these peope sure seem to spend a stupendous amount of time and effort hiding things.
January 29th, 2006 at 9:34 am[...] (via thinkprogress.org) The Interior Department has released a February 2002 photo of Jack Abramoff (far right), Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton (Center) and representatives of the Choctaw Indians, one of Abramoff’s tribal clients: [...]
January 29th, 2006 at 11:46 amREPUBLICANS ARE LIKE SHEEP — THE TRUTH AND THE FACTS DON’T MATTER
January 29th, 2006 at 1:00 pmNot Bush, Not Yet…
Gale Norton, Bush’s Secretary of the Interior, in the middle. Abramoff on the far right. The other three are some of Abramoff’s Native-American clients (aka one of the groups he would eventually screw over). Very interesting. [ThinkProgress]……
January 30th, 2006 at 9:50 amHas anyone considered the idea that Bush won’t release the photos of him and Abramoff because people would confuse the pictures of stills from Brokeback Mountain?
January 30th, 2006 at 2:30 pmI am an idiot!
January 30th, 2006 at 5:42 pmLord… I am dumber than I-Right-I and it admits it is an idiot.
January 30th, 2006 at 5:46 pm[...] The Denver Post reports that Interior Secretary Gale Norton will announce her resignation today. Here’s a photo to remember her by. 12:37 pm | Comment (0) [...]
March 10th, 2006 at 12:42 pm