I'm still sorting out how I feel about Jack Abramoff's rebirth as the new spokesman against money in politics. I understand he's selling books and each TV appearance and media mention puts cash in his pocket. But if it's the message that's important, does it matter that the messenger is someone whose very name is synonymous with political corruption?
Well, of course, it matters. Abramoff did for the fedora what Dracula did for the cape. Has he really turned a new leaf or is he just doing what he has always done, scheming and conniving and being generally ill-intentioned?
As I wrote on the Project On Government Oversight's blog, is it more surprising that he has landed a blogging gig for Republic Report, a site dedicated to "investigating how money corrupts democracy"? Or is it stranger that the majority of comments posted on his first entry seem to be from fans and well wishers?
On Monday, Abramoff will be speaking at Public Citizen (where I once worked), an organization that played no small role in getting new, stronger lobbying rules passed in the wake of the Abramoff scandal. (And as a matter of full disclosure, POGO did include Abramoff's book in "10 Books that Matter: POGO's Winter Reading List")
We're truly living in strange times.
From Jack's first post:
There is a rising tide of outrage in our land about the abuse in our system. Sadly, in my former life as a lobbyist, I participated in this dysfunctional and byzantine world. But now, in these pages, and with my other efforts, I intend to do what I can as we all attempt to repair our democracy.
I'm going to reserve judgement since I don't necessarily believe in Abramoff but I do believe in the message.