Skip to main content

View Diary: Is The Washington Post Online A Tool Of The Right Wing? (145 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  re: (none)
    "There is NO evidence WHATSOEVER that Abramoff directed donations to Dems. Indeed, it makes no fucking sense. Why would you steer money to ANY Dems if you are Abramoff?

    The Dem can not give you a gawddam thing."

    I think that is why I used the term "suggested".  It's more like evidence that there might be evidence.  The WAPO never closes the loop and gives us the real evidence

    But I think that you're incorrect in your last statement.  As FireDogLake has pointed out, the Democrats are the Native Americans' natural ally in Federal government.  Sure, Abramoff was primarily interested in securing money for Gooper causes, but even he had to recognize that Dems could help sway some votes or even help (through gooper subterfuge) secure more money from the Indians for Abramoff and GOP causes.  Maybe (if he did "direct" donations) it could be for cover for his real agenda.  The Dem donations helped to give legitimacy (in the client's mind) to the rest of the list.

    In a pure game scennario, yes.  There seems to be no good reason to argue that a Republican bag man would do anything to enrich Democrats, but it's not a pure game and there may be some reason to retain a semblence of bi-partisanship to the recipient list.

    •  Hmmm (none)
      I disagree to be honest. I think the giving was out of habit.

      I think except for earmarks, Dems have not been able to do a damn thing in the House.

      Abramoof was right sort of, it WAS dumb to keep giving money to Dems.

      The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

      by Armando on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 08:09:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  quick follow-up (none)
      Just to wrap up:

      It is clear that Abramoff gave personal money only to Republicans. It is also clear that his Indian clients gave most of their donations to Republican clients.  Abramoff was involved in money laundering, bribery, false billing, and other criminal and unethical behavior and that the Republicans benefited from this behavior and build thier current majority using his talents and crimes.

      The story has shifted to focus on the degree to which Democrats also benefited from Abramoff money and the picture has been muddied by incomplete evidence and sloppy, self-reinforcing media accounts.  We need to move past the part were we are defending Democrats for their minor to non-existant involvement in the scandal and reinforce the real story:  The Republican majority owes its existence to a huge stack of illegally obtained donations.

      Maybe it will take the inevitable perp-parade of Republican representatives marching off to their indictments and the conspicuous absence of any Democrats in that line-up.  I am not optimistic that the press will present that image without its tendency to draw false equivalencies.  No doubt "unindicted co-conspirators" or "democrats also received donations" of "when will the Justice Department start investigating Democratic recipients" will continue to be a part of contemperanous reporting until the issue fades totally from the public consciousness.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site