shotbanner.jpeg

January 06, 2006

Dump 'Em

The WSJ Editorial Board calls for kickiing the Abramoff Republicans to the curb:

Republicans won't escape voter anger by writing new rules but only by returning to their self-professed principles. Gradually since 1994 they've decided they want to reform and limit government less than they want to use government to entrench their own power, and in the case of the Abramoffs to get rich doing so. If Speaker Dennis Hastert, interim Majority Leader Roy Blunt and other GOP leaders are too insulated to realize this, then Republicans need new leaders, and right away.
The editorial notes - correctly, I'm afraid - that the more likely response to the Abramoff scandal will be more feel-good "reforms" that, unfortunately, coalesce even further with the left's idea of "ethics":
Most "lobbying reform" also accepts the liberal premise that private money is somehow corrupt while government money isn't. More disclosure is fine by us, but any new rules should also apply to AARP, the Sierra Club, Harvard University and "nonprofit" lobbies or foundations, including their grants from the government and George Soros.
But let's try to get one thing straight here:
This isn't to say we agree with the media hype that the Abramoff scandal is of "historic proportions." That's true only if your "history" starts around 1994, after Jim Wright sold his "book" in bulk to the Teamsters, after Tony Coelho of "Honest Graft" fame, after Abscam, the Keating Five, Clark Clifford and BCCI, and any number of other famous episodes of Capitol Hill sleaze. Mr. Abramoff and his pals are stock Beltway characters.

Posted by Mitch at January 6, 2006 07:15 AM | TrackBack
Comments

I've attended exactly two local caucuses in my life. The first was DFL, when I was young and thought of myself as Democrat. The second was Independence Party, when I was a little older and had realized the DFL base was insane.
That being said, I am now solidly conservative, but have never been a Republican. I like Tim Pawlenty. I think he's doing a good job under tough circumstances.
The point is, the Democrat party left me behind, much as it did Zell Miller. The GOP can do the same.

Posted by: Kermit at January 6, 2006 08:18 AM

You sound a lot like my husband and I, Kermit...except we've never been Democrats. when I was 16 I probably espoused alot of the crap they do now as "adults", but...anyway, we are solidly conservative but more and more e have loosened our ties to the Republican party (use to be delegates but now we no longer even contribute money after a couple of the debacles of the last year or so....). BUT, a person wants to align with a party that has a ghost of a chance at winning...the Constitution Party has a fantastic platform...but who knows anything about them "out there"?

I wish men such as Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman and the (seems like a handful) truly conservative Republicans would get together and start something up.

Posted by: Colleen at January 6, 2006 09:17 AM

Here's the GOP scorecard on Abramoff connections and contributions and other scandals....


http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/gopscorecard.htm

Posted by: jackscrow at January 6, 2006 11:45 AM

I concur entirely with the WSJ Editorial board on this one, all donations should be public.. but wait, that's pretty well already the law. Beyond that since when did the Sierra Club become a public entity? What the WSJ DIDN'T say, which is important because I suspect they knew the difference, is that all GIFTS should be public and declared. Now generally, you're not supposed to take gifts over $75 (or some such) w/o declaring them, but apparently THAT law is fuzzy to some folks *cough*Delay*cough* (and Democrats too, but not really from Abramoff).

The real question is not whether Sierra donations are public (which they are), but whether gifts are declared (which they are generally not), WSJ's editorial misrepresents the issue (shock, Gasp!).

The meat of this case is did quid-pro-quo activity occur among Abramoff, and those HE gave gifts to (as well as did Abramoff defraud his clients.

Mitch's ability to state nearly nothing while taking up space is bottomless. The only cogent point, that reform is highly likely to be superficial, I agree with, but that's something we all have to look in the mirror for an answer to. You want real reform, stop electing folks who start out for sale and become truly corrupt once they hit the door.

PB

Posted by: pb at January 7, 2006 08:46 AM

Well thats one down, several more to go.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10704050/
Any predictions on whose next?

Posted by: phipho at January 7, 2006 05:08 PM

I realize that many of you have finally wised up after the last 5 disasterous Bush years and seem bound for somewhere else - as long as it's not with the Republican Party. That's good news. It sure saves some of us posting time. However, for those not yet wiser, take a gander at these results. You may want to change your minds.

http://www.jbs.org/poll.php?vo=1

Posted by: Teena at January 7, 2006 11:30 PM

Gee thanks Teena..Howard Dean looks better already..but I'm still having problems "comitting".

The big stumbling block that I, and I suspect most of my conservative chums have with diving into the fever swamp head first is the requirement to have half of our brains sucked out with a straw before becoming one with the "reality based community".

Tell us, does that proceedure hurt as much as we think it must? And will we have to dress like twerps and drive rust-buckets too?

Posted by: Swiftee at January 9, 2006 06:54 AM

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=N

List of Abramoff's contributions to both parties.

Posted by: Greg at January 9, 2006 09:22 AM

However, for those not yet wiser, take a gander at these results. You may want to change your minds.
Posted by Teena at January 7, 2006 11:30 PM

Wow, a poll! I let polls dictate all of my opinions. It's so much easier than taking the time to think through all those nasty issues and take a stand based on principals. Thanks Teena! I can go back to watching the Price is Right now.

Posted by: Kermit at January 9, 2006 09:55 AM

stodgy!Irving enjoys innate?sunbeams budges inimical!- Tons of interesdting stuff!!!

Posted by: at June 27, 2006 11:09 AM

academia theoretic Cornelius?elitist losses mends aforesaid illuminating

Posted by: at July 1, 2006 03:56 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi