Search This Blog

Saturday, May 27, 2006

Democrats and Abramoff???

For those who still believe it is a "Republican scandal."

Democrats Don't Know Jack???

“It’s very odd that Democrats at the national and state levels have sought to exploit the Abramoff matter for political gain, while in the process throwing countless congressional Democrats under the bus,’ said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).” (Charles Hurt, “Dorgan Returns Abramoff Money,” The Washington Times, December 14, 2005)

An NRSC Report Shows That Nearly 90 Percent Of Senate “Democrats Have Taken Abramoff-Related Money.” “The NRSC has begun circulating among fellow Republicans new reports showing that all but five of the chamber’s 44 Democrats have taken Abramoff-related money. In addition, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have taken more than $1.2 million, according to records provided to The Washington Times.” (Charles Hurt, “Dorgan Returns Abramoff Money,” The Washington Times, December 14, 2005)

“The NRSC Report Is Part Of A New Counteroffensive By Republicans To Neutralize An Issue That Democrats See As Central To Electoral Gains In 2006.” (Charles Hurt, “Dorgan Returns Abramoff Money,” The Washington Times, December 14, 2005)

“If The Democrats Are Alleging That Republicans Are Guilty Of Any Wrongdoing, They’re Sitting In The Same Boat.” “Democrats have run two television advertisements in Montana, castigating Burns for his activities on behalf of Abramoff, but as the lobbyist’s taint spreads, its political impact may dissipate, said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. ‘If the Democrats are alleging that Republicans are guilty of any wrongdoing, they’re sitting in the same boat,’ he said. ‘It just becomes a nonstarter.’” (Jonathan Weisman and Derek Willis “Democrat On Panel Probing Abramoff To Return Tribal Donations,” The Washington Post, December 14, 2005)

Tribal Clients And Associates Of Jack Abramoff Have Contributed Over $3.1 Million To Democrat Party Interests Between 1997 And 2004. (Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com, Accessed December 2005; Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed December 2005)

National Democrat Party Affiliated Committees Received Over $1.2 Million From Indian Tribe Clients And Lobbying Associates Of Jack Abramoff. (Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Internal Revenue Service Website, www.irs.gov, Accessed April 21, 2005)

* The Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) Received Over – $430,000
* The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Received Over – $629,000
* The Democrat National Committee (DNC) Received Over – $177,000

Incumbent Senate Democrat-Affiliated Campaign And Leadership Committees Received Over $729,000 From Indian Tribe Clients And Lobbying Associates Of Jack Abramoff*. (Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Internal Revenue Service Website, www.irs.gov, Accessed April 21, 2005)

40 Of The 45 Members Of The Senate Democrat Caucus:

* Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received At Least – $22,500
* Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Received At Least – $6,500
* Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Received At Least – $1,250
* Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received At Least – $2,000
* Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Received At Least – $20,250
* Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received At Least – $21,765
* Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received At Least – $7,500
* Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Received At Least – $12,950
* Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received At Least – $8,000
* Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received At Least – $7,500
* Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received At Least – $14,792
* Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received At Least – $79,300
* Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least – $14,000
* Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Received At Least – $2,000
* Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Received At Least – $1,250
* Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received At Least – $45,750
* Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received At Least – $9,000
* Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received At Least – $2,000
* Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received At Least – $14,250
* Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Received At Least – $3,300
* Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least – $98,550
* Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received At Least – $28,000
* Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Received At Least – $4,000
* Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,000
* Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least – $29,830
* Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least – $14,891
* Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received At Least – $10,550
* Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received At Least – $78,991
* Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received At Least – $20,168
* Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least – $5,200
* Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received At Least – $7,500
* Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received At Least – $2,300
* Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received At Least – $3,500
* Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Received At Least – $68,941
* Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Received At Least – $4,000
* Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received At Least – $4,500
* Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received At Least – $4,300
* Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least – $29,550
* Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,250
* Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Received At Least – $6,250

Hat tip to loboinok who tried to link to this story at another link that would not work = NRSC

~~~~~~~

DIRTY HARRY REID: NOW AND THEN by Michelle Malkin

Guess I can get back to creation/macroevolution tomorrow............

15 comments:

loboinok said...

Thanks radar for fixing that link.

Ironically it was posted at FR by a FReeper named "radar101".

A "Salute" to all those who have fallen, have served and are now serving.

I hope all who can, enjoy their day!

radar, pass our thanks and best wishes to Rob.

creeper said...

I thought Dan already rebutted this whole approach in a comment in the previous post on this subject. Dan, do you want to repost it here?

Could anyone point me to a reliable summary of the Abramoff scandals that objectively compares the levels of Republican and Democratic involvement?

creeper said...

To answer my own question, here's one.

A Hermit said...

When you actually look at the numbers you find that Abramoff's clients all reduced their contributions to Democrats and increased the amounts to Republicans after hooking up with Jack, so if he was influencing them at all it's pretty obvious where that influence was heading.

A Hermit said...

But look at who was really working with Abramoff:

"In August 1999, political organizer Ralph Reed's firm sent out a mailer to Alabama conservative Christians asking them to call then-Rep. Bob Riley (R-Ala.) and tell him to vote against legislation that would have made the U.S. commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands subject to federal wage and worker safety laws..."

"...A year earlier, the Department of the Interior -- which oversees federal policy toward the U.S. territory -- presented a very different picture of life for Chinese workers on the islands. An Interior report found that Chinese women were subject to forced abortions and that women and children were subject to forced prostitution in the local sex-tourism industry."

Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, worked with convicted felon and Republican activist Jack Abramoff to protect the rights of pimps and slaveowners.

Heckuva job...

A Hermit

radar said...

By the way, I am not radar101, in case anyone wondered. Thanks by the way, lobo!

It looks like more money went to Republicans than Democrats (although the very strident Harry Reid is one of the bigger recipients) to the tune of maybe 64% to Republicans and 36% to Democrats. But those are preliminary figures. We'll see how it all sorts out.

loboinok said...

Here is a pretty good site that has a "summary" as well.

Capital Eye

A Hermit said...

"It looks like more money went to Republicans than Democrats (although the very strident Harry Reid is one of the bigger recipients) to the tune of maybe 64% to Republicans and 36% to Democrats. But those are preliminary figures. We'll see how it all sorts out."

Here's how it shakes out:

Dems Don’t Know Jack

# 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.

Also see some debunking of the lies floating around about Byron Dorgan and Harry Ried here, here and here.

Note that, unlike the Christian Coalitions Ralph Reed, Harry Ried voted against the slave traders and sweatshop owners in the Marianas.

A Thorough Hermit

creeper said...

Hermit,

Guess this is one of those comments Radar's going to do a runner on.

"Q" the Enchanter said...

Here's a schematic of the Abramoff matter:
__________________
(1) Tribes give money to Democratic and Republican congressmen. No one disputes that these campaign contributions are legal.

(2) Tribes also give money to Abramoff for lobbying services. No one disputes (however much they might lament) that at least generally such lobbying services are legal.

(3) Abramoff used at least some of the money given him by the Tribes to bribe Republican congressmen. No one (certainly not Abramoff) disputes that the bribes were totally illegal.
__________________

You quote with frank approval a set of Republican talking points that refer to all the cashflows described in (1)-(3) above as "Abramoff-related money" ("ARM"). Which would be fine--except that the entire purpose and effect of the "ARM" label is to elide the rather crucial distinction (see above) between legal contributions and fees, on the one hand, and illegal bribes, on the other.

Now, as it happens, only one party has received any money of the illegal type. One guess as to which party that is.

FOOTNOTE: For clarity, I abstracted out of my schematic one aspect of Abramoff's modus operandi, which was to exert effective (but not nominal) control over clients' bank accounts. So, e.g., Abramoff promises quid pro quo to Senator X. Senator fulfills the bargain, and receives a "campaign contribution" from Tribe Y. But in fact Tribe Y had given Abramoff control of its bank account.

The effect is that the payment looks like a legal campaign contribution, but in fact is part of a corruption scheme. I've seen no evidence that any congressional Democrats ever received any "Abramoff related" contributions of this sort.

creeper said...

The distinction as you lay it out would seem pretty clear to a non-apologist. Thank you, enchanter.

radar said...

Q is suddenly an authority? Hey, Q, I suppose Jefferson is innocent as well?

You can hem and haw all you like, as Harry Reid did yesterday when it was pointed out that he got free tickets to boxing matches provided by opponents to a bill he was working on...and he thought that was just fine!

You want to excuse the Democrats who got Abramoff money but go after the Republicans because you are more concerned about idealogy than you are truth.

highboy said...

Well said Radar. The party of corruption, as the Dems want to call it, can be seen on their side of the aisle as well. Jefferson has been under investigation for a while now, and here we are. Harry Reid is just as guilty, but I guess truth isn't the goal anymore, just partyhack nonsense. I'm suddenly reminded of Democrats defending you know who right after he committed bold face perjury.

creeper said...

"Q is suddenly an authority?"

Q summarized the situation very well; if you disagree with it, then take it apart on its merits instead of throwing an ad hominem at Q.

"You can hem and haw all you like, as Harry Reid did yesterday when it was pointed out that he got free tickets to boxing matches provided by opponents to a bill he was working on...and he thought that was just fine!"

Did he? Doubt it. Bet he thought he'd get away with it though. Corrupt politicians need to be punished, doesn't matter whether Dem or Repub.

"You want to excuse the Democrats who got Abramoff money but go after the Republicans because you are more concerned about idealogy than you are truth."

I doubt anyone here wants to excuse the Dems who got Abramoff money. The point is that it appears that very few, if any, of them did get "Abramoff money". From the looks of it, once Abramoff appeared on the scene, contributions were steered away from Dems.

"Q" the Enchanter said...

As creeper noted, you were quite free to point out any errors in my comment. Odd (or indeed suggestive) that you did not bother to do so.