Hi Gang,
The Washington Post had a very interesting story about the indicted Republican lobbyist and fundraiser Jack Abramoff. If you can't log on to the story directly, just register with the Washington Post for free. It's more private the accidentally visiting the NSA's website for 10 seconds! Typical of modern journalism, this story buries the lead. The real meat of the article is on page five under the subheading "pressure to plead." There are rumors flying around Washington that he is going to start cooperating with prosecutors in exchange for a leniency. Former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) said he has spoken with Ambramoff's attorneys and his impression is that this is bigger than ABSCAM in which a half a dozen House Reps and a Senator were convicted of taking bribes from disguised FBI agents. Most of the implicated lawmakers are Republicans. The only Democrat mentioned in the story is Senate Minority Leader Ried (D-NV). The closest links with Abramoff are with senior Republicans in Congress and in the executive branch.
I am tempted to just summarize the entire article but you're better off just reading the Post's original. I'll finish by just saying that if Abramoff "rolls over" on high profile Republicans it could be a huge boost for the Democrats in 2006. If nothing else it will create more open seats.
Are we about to see a perfect storm of scandal? Will Abramoff's corruption scandal brings down enough Republicans so that the Democrats get control of at least one house of Congress in 2006 which enables full investigations of everything from Cheney's secret meetings with Enron during the California electricity crisis to the NSA domestic spying case? I won't deny that is my fervent hope!
Time will tell.
Impeach Bush!
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Will the Abramoff Case Open the Flood Gates?
Posted by Raised By Republicans at 4:58 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Wow, I had no idea how deep this went. My concern is he may take down a few Democrats as well. And, I suspect, it will shine a bright light on K street.
The day of reckoning is upon us!
BTW: I don't feel very sorry for the Indian tribes in this story. You stink like the one you danced with, as far as I am concerned.
// posted by USwest
Thanks for the solid takes on the Congress of Corruption. Over at Words Have Power we have been looking at some of Abramoff's California friends, including John Doolittle, who is clearly a close friend of Jack's.
// posted by RJB
One of the halmarks of the Bush era has been that the Republican leadership in Congress has systematically shut out most of the lobbyists who work with Democrats. They do this to monopolize the campaign money. Now they are going to reep the whirlwind. But shutting out Democrats, they have largely immunized them as well. As far as the Post article reports, Ried is the only Democrat even indirectly connected with this guy.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Okay, a question or two from afar. My impression of the Democrats so far has been that they have not run with the ball when the opportunity is there. In previous Bush potential failings -- well ones that I saw in 03-04 when in the US -- they've barely managed to bleat.
So, assuming the Democrats get control of one of the houses in '06, what would it take to start the investigations you are talking about? What is needed for impeachment or criminal charges? Would the democrats have the balls to start such events? What would the outcome likely be: anything more than the usual democrat/GOP shots across the bow? What could be done, and what are the chances the dems will actually do it?
// posted by Koala Boy
What we saw in 2002-2004 was a Democratic party that was in the minority in every branch of government...a rarity. At the same time, every time they spoke up, they were accused of outright treason by their Republican opponents. Because of the war frenzy following 9/11 and whipped up by yellow journalists like Judith Miller, many Democrats who had been thought to be safe were beaten with this strategy. Despite that many Democrats did speak up and call the Republicans on their failures. But they couldn't do anything about it because of their institutional position.
Something many people both here and abroad ignore completely is that the Democrats represent nearly half the population but are shut out completely from access to institutional power. So the now cliche accusation that Democrats are hopeless losers is not obvious based on vote shares and has more to do with their institutional position than anything else.
At the same time the Democrats have scored a series of major victories in the last year - social security, Patriot Act renewal, and arguably preserving the filibuster in the Senate.
What I think we are about to see is a combination of a financial scandal and constitutional crisis in which the White House and the Republicans in Congress will be pitted against not only the Democrats but the judiciary as well. That should give the Democrats a lot of cover from wild accusations from frothing at the mouth right wingers. And it is all going to break in the middle of the elections in 2006 in which all of the House or Reps and a third of the Senate are being contested.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
I hope RBR is correct. The other thing he mentions is the yellow journalism. We did not have a press in this country for the first 5 years of the Bush scandal. In fact, we have been in the mists of a crisis in the 4th estate. The corporitization of the media has made it lazy and money driven rather than truth driven. There are still great journalists out there working hard on the beat, but who can't get published. In fact, I would say that it was the loss of a critical media was the first sign that the train was running off track. After 8 years of ravaging Clinton, they just rolled over for Bush in the most amazing way. So, not only did the Republicans have all the reigns of government, the lobbists, the Churches, and the think tanks, they had the media, thanks, Kola Boy to your guy Rupert and his "fair and balanced" Fox News- News for Patriotic Christians and programming that pushes the limits of decency for even the most a-moral among us (The Simpsons excepted, of course).
What turned the media is when the Republican machine turned on their own journalists. It started when CBS fired staff over Bush's National Guard records (remember, the reports were never contested. They just failed to authenticate 1 document.) But tt was the Wilson Affair that really started the ball rolling.
The 4th estate in this country is key to helping keep oppositions politicians brave. Without the public protection that the media provides, without that outlet their message can't get out. There are no guardians between the public and the smoke screen that is Washington. I think that more than anything, was a completely shock to Democrats. Even when Democrats controlled the White House and Congress, there was still room for a viable opposition party and no attempt to shut down the media. The bottom line is that Republicans play very, very dirty.
// posted by Uswest
I think Bush's low approval ratings will encourage the press to be more aggressive with him. Which will make things get worse and worse for Bush.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Hey! Rupert is an American! At least you guys let him become one. I think that means he can do anything including be a director of a US company (except be President, but why bother doing that if you can own him instead... :-)
// posted by Koala Boy
Abramof has plead guilty and will cooperate . The emphatic denials have begun to kick into high gear...Representative Bob Ney (R-OH) denies any wrong doing in accepting lavish travel packages from Abramoff.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Yeah, we let Rupert in. I admit it. And we don't even get the tax dollars with all those exemptions and cuts.
And I think RBR is being optimistic when he says 1/3 of the Senate may be up for grabs in 2006. That would be about 33 seats. Not with districting the way it is. Sorry.
// posted by UsWest
I just meant that 1/3 of the Senate will be up for reelection. I didn't mean to imply it would all be seriously contested.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
What re-districting can they do for Senate elections? Aren't they state-based, ie everyone in the state can vote if a Senator's place is up for re-election?
Australia, which I use for comparison since I think our system was loosely based on yours, has twelve senators per state, half up for election every three years. Everyone votes for the same senate candidates, with preference voting.
// posted by Koala Boy
Yes, Senators are fixed (2 per state) and their isn't any districting. I didn't read RBR's comment carefully and got it confused with the House.
1/3rd of the Senate is up for elected every 2 years. And each Senator has a 6 year term. So there are 6 year cycles.
// posted by USWest
Post a Comment