Skip to main content

View Diary: Dean sets Wolf straight (240 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hm. (none)
    Not one to trust blindly in anything any politician says, I decided to look into it on my own. Some very cursory websearches found this:

    The Capital Eye (fair warning, I found it suffering through freep1) shows a lot of democractic recipiants of Abramoff monies.

    From what I can see, the distinction people are making is, while Jack personally handed money to a crapload of Republicans, he never personally handed money to any Democrats. However, Jack's money did reach several democrats via PACs and Special Interest Groups, which is why there are Democrats returning (or donating) money across the board.

    It seems to me like that's a very fine line to walk, and, while it was fucking awesome to see Wolfy get flustered, how many Americans are really going to care about the nuances there? I think it's been proven, more than once, that the Republicans have a much better spin-game than Democrats, and I fear this issue will spin their way, if only to the point to make it into a "all politicans are corrupt assholes" instead of "Republicans are corrupt assholes."

    1Why is it every right-wing blog I come across has god-aweful formatting? Do these people not care for style at all?
    •  Read harder (4.00)
      The money given by the tribes was the tribe's money, not the money of Jack Abramoff.

      Once again.. THE TRIBE GAVE THEIR OWN MONEY. THE TRIBE DIDN'T CONTRIBUTE TO DEMOCRATS WITH THE MONEY OF JACK ABRAMOFF.

      The tribe giving money is not the issue here. In fact, the tribes were the victims of a bigotted lobbyist who they employed and trusted to advance their interests. (Abramoff refered to the tribes as "monkeys" in e-mails to his friends).

      The issue with the contributions involves money that was essentially a blatant bribe.

      The crime with the tribes is mainly not in their contributions, but in how Abramoff and his friends ripped off the tribes.

      "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

      by RBH on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 08:30:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly! (4.00)
        The tribe giving money is not the issue here. In fact, the tribes were the victims of a bigotted lobbyist who they employed and trusted to advance their interests. (Abramoff refered to the tribes as "monkeys" in e-mails to his friends).

        As Dean made clear, the Indian tribes were NOT Abramoff's partners in crime, but his biggest VICTIMS.  He took over $66 million from them so that he would represent their interests in Congress -- and instead he lobbied AGAINST their interests.

        The Republican effort to imply that all Indian donations are bad is not just dishonest, it smacks of racism.

        •  The whole "return" nonsense is too much (4.00)
          It's not a freaking return if you give the money to a third party.

          If you give me $1000, and then you turn out to be a tax criminal, and I give your money to a charity, i'm not returning it, i'm merely surrendering your money for a political gain.

          Then again, the whole "announcing donations to charity" thing contradicts my intrepretation of Matthew 6:1 thru 6:3 (which basically says 'don't just help the poor to be seen helping the poor' and 'give in secret'). If the groups wanted to mention the donation, it would be their choice, but I wouldn't just donate for a blatant CYA manuever.

          The Indian Tribes were the victims of a lobbyist who they hired and trusted who was using them for his own monetary gain.

          Anyways, if Republicans want to press Harry Reid to do anything with his money, they might want to talk to J. D. Hayworth, who is keeping his donations too. In fact, from what I read, Hayworth is also keeping his donations on request and because he was their Congressman for 8 years. (J.D. is probably waistdeep in this scandal, but he's not going to be done in purely due to tribal donations, but by other actions)

          "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

          by RBH on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 09:05:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Tainted money (none)
            It has to be given to charity, and publicly so, otherwise there is no way to show that they didn't just buy a boat or a bridge in Alaska with the money.  I agree that public charity isn't teleological charity, but the have to publicly divest the "tainted money" or else be lumped in with the "tainted people".  i.e. - Giving in secret keeps it a secret.
      •  ..to play devil's advocate.. (none)
        What's the difference between hiring a lobyist who gives some crooked politician money and giving some crooken politican money yourself?

        I get that the tribes were the ones that gave money, from their own coffers, in these cases (I'll refrain from saying 'every', because I personally haven't checked 'every' case, but at this point, it's a safe bet).  

        Looking at the data from the above link, it does a poor job of seperating "Abramoff Gave Money To These People" and "Tribes Gave Money To These People", to the point that it is all basicly labeled as "Abramoff" money.  Or am I reading it wrong?  I'm curious because I know what really happened, but this sort of makes it seem shifty.

        •  Then again (none)
          I can't automatically assume that money was given for crooked reasons.

          As well, I can't say if the tribe really knew much about the tactics used by Abramoff to influence people.

          But then again, in this case, it wasn't about the lobbying, or getting things done for the tribes, it was about money. Jack Abramoff wanted money for himself, not a higher standard of living for Native Americans.

          It'll be the influence-buying that gets more people in trouble than just the money.

          As well, these phony charities will also get some people in a lot of trouble.

          But when it comes to the information on the donations, it's very blurry. It's blurry enough so the Republicans benefit.

          They're the ones who will have to use a fog machine to obscure their tentacles in this mess.

          "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

          by RBH on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 10:14:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Just because... (none)
          ...you give money to a politician doesn't mean that the politician is crooked. People support politicians who push for the things they want, and that support often includes money. The money that the Indian tribes gave to Democrats were entirely standard political donations - they're completely legal.

          The only money that carries the taint of corruption is the money handled directly by Abramoff - and ALL of that money went to Republicans.

    •  Which is why... (4.00)
      ...we need to be clear as Dean was.  No money went from Abramoff to Dems.  Abramoff's money only went to Republican recipients.

      Rinse, Repeat.

      It's that simple.

    •  ew37 (4.00)
      sort by donor.  Donor=Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela--zero dem recipients.  Donor=Indian tribe--dem recipients. I don't know how reliable your link is, but it makes Dean's point: money from Abramoff's clients, from whom he was stealing, aint the same as money from him.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site