True enough. I should have explained myself a little better. The Democrats, when in power, did steer business to their allies, but with nowhere near the same degree of exclusion as DeLay and his co-conspirators.
From Abramoff's plea this afternoon. My bolding. "The preceding statement is a summary, made for the purposes of providing the court with a factual basis for my guilty plea to the charges against me. It does not include all the facts known to me concerning criminal activity in which I and others engaged." I think the operative words around the Hill, and in the GOP part in particular, will be, "Oh-f**cking-oh....".
I think we are at a crossing point in American politics. Certainly, a good majority of the people who have been paying attention realize that the swamp on the Potomac has always been a place where the vote of the individual has been shoved aside as money bought access and power. But this setup, where DeLay and his ilk apparently recruited corporations to donate items for votes is a real, tracable quid-pro-quo and needs to be a lightningrod to start change -- real change, in our government. Write your congressperson and DEMAND that something be done about this. Write often, call their office, do what it takes to take out the trash. A real investigation, not just some window-dressing. And make sure it sticks. If this is allowed to pass by unanswered, I fear for this country.
The Dems have a rare opportunity to put out a strong reform agenda as a counterpoint to the majority party corruption.
That's only true as long as people expect that think tanks have the credibility of used car salesmen. As long as the Cato Institute wants me and you to take them seriously, they have a huge credibility problem and need to institute a strong code of ethics.
Neither side has any real interest in reform, if reform is defined as "cutting off the flow of lobbyist/corporate campaign contributions." That's biting the hand that feeds them, and that's just not the way the game is played. As somebody already mentioned, short of something like a constitutional amendment mandating public financing of campaigns, nothing is really going to change. You can expect the Dems to make as much political hay as they can, and both parties will rush to pass some sort of paper reform, and within a year or two everybody will figure out the loopholes and it will be business as usual in this town.
The idealist in me says you're wrong, but the realist in me says you nailed it. It's no wonder people don't vote.
I really think McCain would have made a greater difference in this respect -campaign finance reform- had he been the nominee and gotten to become president ...Instead of the watered down version that if IIRC was passed...... And i'm no Republican on many issues.... but i would have seriously considered voting for him in 2000 and maybe in 2008....
I would've voted for him in 2000. However I've lost every bit of respect I had for the man when he sucked up the BushCo during the '04 campaign, and I would never even consider voting for McCain again.
That and the institutionalization of 20-30 years to life terms for the violation/going around of such Amendments...and the fast-tracking of such cases through the legal system such that justice is not only done, but seen to be done in the MSM culture...there's got to be a real cost attached as well, because we, surely, have learned that just because something's actually in the Constitution does not mean that everyone up and down the chain of governance actually cares about it being in the Constitution...
A topic for a whole 'nother thread, but I've long thought it's ridiculous that somebody who holds up a 7-11 with a gun and nets $23.86 can get years in a max facility where somebody who steals millions in a white collar crime ends up raking out sand traps on an Air Force base while doing min. security time. Equalize the sentences based on the financial impact, and let some of these clowns do real time. A couple lobbyist/lawmakers/corp. execs being rented out as bitches at the nearest Super Max would have more impact than all the legislation in the world. I'm done with the soap box now. Somebody else can have it.
There are hidden angles on this story. McCain was stopped in his drive for the 2000 Republican nomination in South Carolina by the Bush/Rove/DeLay attack dog crowd. McCain licks his wounds and remains a "reform" Senator in his attempt to make people forget his kingmaker Charles Keating. Fast forward to February, 2004. McCain leads the charge to investigate charges by Arizona American Indians that good ole Jack defrauded them. The wire stories immediately link DeLay to the scandal. While the scandal percolates, McCain remains the loyal soldier in the Bush reelection drive. January, 2006: The fallout from Abramoff hits full force. DeLay and possibly Hastert are dead meat politically and Rove is on the ropes. Norquist, Reed and other kingmakers are tied to the scandal. A large number of Republican congressmen are fearful that their pig trough will be taken away. Future: McCain hopes that fallout will put him in line for the nomination in 2008. Republicans need a conservative war hero who is "clean" and McCain has a golden opportunity to place his people in position of authority in the Republican party. Add Rudy Giuliani to your ticket and you might become the next POTUS. It's called a party coup d'etat, ladies and gentlemen.
DNow! rapping with ABC News' Brian Ross, who exposed in 1998 the horrific labor conditions in the U.S. territory of Saipan.
Sweet: http://www.bucyrustelegraphforum.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060107/NEWS01/601070301/1002 (Are these finally gonna work for me?)
The corruption in congress scandal grows. This tree is going to be giving fruit for a long time. Consider these articles in today's papers: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-banker8jan08,0,1246773,print.story?coll=la-home-nation And, Delay, Inc: This one is gonna be great, because its now clear the sleaze goes beyond just Jack Abramoff. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/politics/08alexander.html
Since i'm bored....searched for "Abramoff bush" in google news.... the following came up among the hits: Bush trying to round up all photos of President with Abramoff "Aides to President George W. Bush are trying to identify all the photos that may exist of the President and lobbyist Jack Abramoff together, TIME’s White House Correspondents Mike Allen and Matt Cooper report in Monday editions......." ...... Bracing for the worst, Administration officials obtained from the Secret Service a list of all the times Abramoff entered the White House complex, and they scrambled to determine the reason for each visit, TIME reports. Abramoff attended Hanukkah and holiday events at the White House, according to an aide who has seen the list. Press secretary Scott McClellan said Abramoff might have attended large gatherings with Bush but added, “The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever meeting him.” Abramoff Met With Bush In May 2001 ... "It’s not just possible, it happened. The Texas Observer reports that Abramoff met with Bush on May 9, 2001, with his clients, the Coushatta tribe. (The chairman of the Coushatta tribe initially denied the meeting occured, but subsequently admitted that it did.) Abramoff charged his client 25,000 to arrange the meeting. " A lobbyist's wretched excess ..... His suddenly forgetful friends include dozens of members of Congress and other influential names over the last five or six years, which is to say that most of them are Republicans, because they have had the most influence. They include former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), under indictment in Texas for an unrelated campaign-finance dispute, who used to describe Abramoff as a friend. Also cooperating with investigators is Abramoff associate Michael Scanlon, a former DeLay press secretary, who pleaded guilty in November in a separate case in Washington. Even President Bush's campaign returned $6,000 in Abramoff donations, although that does not include the more than $100,000 in donations Abramoff solicited from others to qualify him for the exalted "Pioneer" status among Bush donors. Some Republicans have been quick to point out that Abramoff had Democratic friends too. ..........
Same here. I guess McCain figured his only hope for '08 was to massage the mouth-breathing wing of the party. I really think in his heart he is diametrically opposed to everything Bushco stands for. Especially the war & torture.
Howard Dean: Abramoff is a problem only for Reeps Near the end. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/08/le.01.html
Man some of that stuff is unbelievable: "Our standing with the new administration promises to be solid as several friends of the CNMI (islands) will soon be taking high-ranking positions in the Administration, including within the Interior Department," Abramoff wrote.....the records show at least 195 contacts between Abramoff's Marianas lobbying team and the Bush administration from February through November 2001.....By mid-2003, Abramoff had raised at least $100,000 for Bush's re-election campaign, becoming one of Bush's famed "pioneers." I don't hate the guy Abramoff, I love him. If he keeps shooting his mouth off, and better yet if he's truly sorry for what he did (go figure?!), this guy may be one of the best things to ever happen to this country.
I think it's become obvious that Dean is a great spokesman for the Democrats. I hope he goes after the Republicans hard on corruption...check that of course he will he's Howard Dean lol