Back on January 4 I posted
a dairy titled
dKos Hyprocrites Defend Corruption, Censor Criticism. It pointed out that one-third of the Abramoff keiretsu's "contributions" went to Democrats, and took the liberals here to task for lying about that and for imposing
de facto censorship on me for departing from the group-grope orthodoxy.
Naturally, I was called every name in the book in response, for hell hath no fury like that of a Stalinist scorned. No, I'm not coming back here other than post this, and of course, to read the comments from the peanut gallery when I point out that the latest issue of The New Yorker signed on the essence of my reading of the Abramoff scandal.
Check it out, if you dare. It's in their
Talk of the Town section, page 25, the January 16th issue. It's the lead article, titled
Abramoffed.
By the standard of straight (apparently legal) campaign contributions, the scandal is sixty-four percent Republican: of the $5.3 million Abramoff funnelled to candidates and LACs through clients and associates from 1999 through 2004, "only" $1.9 million went to Democrats.
I'd say that's close enough to one-third for horseshoes.
Later in the article:
The attractions of a K Street sinecure are actually more perilous to the souls of Democrats, who are supposed to be tribunes of "working families." Still, many of them succumbed to its lure when their party was in power. (Some still do in the unlikely event that they can get a job there.) But hypocrisy tinges their prosperity with shame. ...
"The scandal is not what's illegal. The scandal is what's legal." So goes Michael Kinsley's Law of Scandal, handed down many years ago by the iconoclastic writer. By this definition -- probably the most pertinent one (emphasis added) -- the Abramoff scandal is not just a Republican scandal, and not just a "bipartisan" one, either. It's simply the moment's most visible excrescence of a truly national scandal: the fearful domination of private money over public interest. And it's going to take something a lot more serious than the fall of Jack Abramoff -- or an outbreak of bogus charity -- to fix it.
Maybe now that The New Yorker has signed onto my thesis, the lemmings of Daily Kos can rush to worship it. What a bunch of children you are. Have you noticed how much difference you're not making?
I will respond to the comments by adding to the diary. It's the only surefire way around the liberal censorship here, at least until the Kossacks (nice term, by the way -- czarist police) formally ban me.
Here goes:
To Elwood Dowd, who said it's not article but a commentary
Are you really that stupid? Maybe you are, you I guess I'll have to inform you that a commentary is one of many kinds of articles that a magazine can publish. Okay, now you can enter fifth grade.
To SheriffBart, who said that people should look at my first diary, and that he thinks I'm actually Chris Wilson
Apparently the Sheriff can't read, because the comments on that diary made it clear that the similarily between my handle here and Chris Wilson was purely coincidental. By the way, on that subject, Wilson was sprung from jail but cut a plea that will require him to close the site.
Score a victory for liberal puritanism. You know, back in czarist Russia the Kossacks were the rightwingnuts of the day. They hated freedom then, and you hate freedom now. How sad for both of you.
To calipygian, who posted Abramoff's direct "contribtions"
It's truly sad that you don't believe in anything. Remember campaign finance reform? I guess you weren't serious, were you? See, it's not about the law. Washington is full of lawyers, whose job it is to make things legal. The real scandal isn't what's illegal, it's what's legal. And by the way, the contributions you listed were perfectly legal so what are you bitching about? That Democrats didn't get the loot?
to ETinKC, who says that not one dollar of Abramoff's money went to Democrats
None of his personal "contributions" did, but his keiretsu gave one-third of its "contributions" to Democrats, and Abramoff directed them. So, when you claim that none of Abramoff's money went to Democrats you are lying by omission.
to sendel42, who "begs" me to put up a tip jar
Hey, I have already been troll rated here. It took one day for that to happen. That's how long it takes to get banned from a wingnut site, too. Fact is, the echosphere is the same wherever you go.
to superba, who says if you want to be taken seriously then act like a gentleman
Who in the fuck do you think you are kidding? There are all kinds of diaries here that are anything but "gentlemanly." Just like your brothers under the skin on the wingnut side of the echosphere, you define anyone who calls you for what you are as an ungentlemanly troll
to grmic, who says I should have quoted the parts of the article that he/she chooses to focus on
Take a class in reading comprehension. Yes, The New Yorker takes note of the Republican tilt. They emphasize it more than I did. But The New Yorker's conclusions are almost exactly what mine are, and to say otherwise is a big, fat lie.
To Theo McCarthy, who wants to hide behind the idea that the "contributions" came from entities other than Abramoff
Hey, I've got this bridge to sell you. Runs from Manhattan to Brooklyn and I can get you a real good price.
To Dem in VA, who says I am a "patological asshole"
You're right, I am. Might I also point out that it takes one to know one?
to shpilk, brendani, Cedwyn and realnrh who want me to be formally banned -- and to markos, for that matter
I'm going to write what I've written on many a wingnut site in the echosphere: Please ban me. Make my day. Show your true colors. Show that you hate freedom and hate your country. In in this particular case, show that the liberal blogosphere is at one with FreeRepublic.com and the milblogs. In fact, for all we know, markos has a partnership with them. If not, he ought to because the two sides share a whole lot more in common they think, starting with a hatred of freedom and a pathological unwillingness to consider contrary arguments.
To Mike20169, who writes, see you in November, all I can do is tell you that the Democrats don't even expect to win either chamber back. They are accustomed to losing. That's why they take bribes. Beats working at politics.
To DocGonzo, who called me a fascist, a liar and a Republican I ask: Did all that dirty talk give you a raging hardon? Did ya come?