Republicans are playing this all wrong. The strategy of downplaying relationships with Abramoff is a failing one, especially with so much evidence linking Abramoff to just about everyone in the party. The strategy of insisting that Abramoff gave to Democrats, too, was a better idea -- but couldn't work because it was such an obviously dishonest stretch (and everyone knew it.)
Instead, the Republicans need to find some corrupt lobbyist who only (or primarily) gave to Democrats. We all know they're out there. The fact that there (hopefully) isn't anyone even approaching Abramoff's level of corruption won't matter -- if they can find someone, anyone, who they can exploit, then they have a chance of neutralizing the story in an "everybody does it" way.
Fox News and the Wall Street Journal would run this mini-corrupt Democratic lobbyist in big-type stories. Other networks and newspapers would have to follow suit, or face a constant attack that they're "biased." O'Reilly would point out how the "liberal mainstream press" wrote 3,229 stories on Abramoff, but only 14 stories on the guy on the "other side". The DNC's cries of "but... but... their guy was way worse than our guy!" will sound shrill and desperate.
Democratic voters, who didn't support the Republicans before Abramoff, still wouldn't, and independent Republicans, who might have been swayed by their party's corruption scandals, will be comforted by the "everybody does it -- and the liberal media exaggerates Republican baddies while protecting their own" defense, and ultimately their support will return to normal levels. By election-time, the Republican marketing machine will have already positioned themselves as the perfect "antidote" to money-based corruption that has "plagued both our parties." And once again, they will have turned potential political embarrassment into opportunity.