Why aren't any of the Democrats named in scandal coming forth??

[kentuck]

..to explain how they took the contributions? To explain that they were not connected to Jack Abramoff? Why are they sitting silent at this time? Why are they letting the media paint them as equally involved as the Republicans? Are they innocent or not?

[Cha]

1. Did you see this?..

"Despite Chris Matthews’ minimization of the Jack Abramoff scandal, a November 25, 2005 Washington Post article identified four lawmakers under investigation in connection to Abramoff -- former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), Rep. Rob Ney (R-OH), and Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA) -- all Republicans. Our search of the Center for Responsive Politics database of campaign contributions did not find any contributions from Abramoff to Democrats or Democratic leadership political action committees.

Despite those facts, we have documented Washington Post staff writer Jeffrey H. Birnbaum miscasting the rising tide of ethics investigations and corruption scandals plaguing primarily Republican officials as a bipartisan problem. We have also noted a number of national media figures that have cast the recent spate of political scandals as "nonpartisan," while the vast majority of government officials who have been indicted or are under investigation are Republicans."



http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/abramoff-only-gave-money-to.html

[TheFarseer]

7. who is that according to?

A liberal blog is not a good source to bring into a debate

[Cha]

8. It's true information..so yes..

it is a good source to bring into a debate.

[bryant69]

19. That's kind of a tautology

One step away from saying; this information supports what I think so it is a good source.

A better response is to reference the origional post at Media Matters.Org, and the Center for Responsive Politics data-base. Anybody who believes that Abramoff gave to Democrats is free to search the database and prove that he did; but if they can't come up with any names, than they are stuck with the conclusion that Abramoff gave exclusively to Republicans.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Cha]

23. You're right..thanks!

I was being quick and stubborn :)

[mzmolly]

16. I posted about it too. It is also on newsmeat.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2347727&mesg_id=2347727

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. Because all of the indictments will be on Republicans

and Dems speaking out only gives support to the media myth of their "participation".

[kentuck]

5. Sounds like "swiftboat" all over again....

Don't address the problem - it will only give it more attention. I don't agree with this strategy. I think someone needs to challenge the media stories and these claims befoe they set in ...

[frylock]

17. for real..

was just gonna suggest the same thing. The Dems better address this, pronto.

[Cocoa]

3. they are

[ThomWV]

4. Because There AREN'T Any

Get this right and do not let anyone tell you different.

Jack didn't give a dime to any Democrats.

People who contributed to Jack also contributed to some few Democrats, but Abramhoff never gave a single dime to any Democrat

It was REPUBLICANS HE BRIBED not Democrats.

[kentuck]

6. You know that but how many people are reading you?

The people get their opinions and "facts" from television and newspapers by and large. It is a dangerous game to sit idly by and let people paint you into a corner. Hopefully the Democrats will address this on TV just as you have in your post.

[ktlyon]

9. Bill Press tried to address this on CNN yesterday

but was only given about 30 seconds and the host and another guest tried to interrupt him. Time will show this is a Republican scandal.

[LostinVA]

22. God, I know -- NO DEMS TOOK HIS MONEY

Not one. It was explained very nicely and visually in the NYT today. Geez.

[no_more_rhyming]

10. Because here are soo many repugs involved

it will all get swept under the rug and Dems will go free too.

[sendero]

11. I agree with you....

... I just don't understand what is happening. As is so often the case here, I'm trying to see what is happening and understand it, and it makes no sense to me at all.

The mere FACT of INNOCENCE will not save public perception from being otherwise.

[SidDithers]

12. Which Democrats are named?...

and by whom?

Sid

[stewert]

14. Here You go.........

Three Democrats got Abramoff-Related money, but it did not come from Abramoff directly.

1) Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND)

DORGAN RECEIVED NEARLY $95,000 FROM ABRAMOFF’S CLIENTS: “In all, Dorgan got nearly $95,000 in Abramoff-related money between 2001 and 2004.” In Dec. 2005, Dorgan announced he will return $67,000 received from Abramoff’s tribal clients.

SAGINAW FUNDING — BURNS AND DORGAN WROTE LETTER ON BEHALF OF ABRAMOFF CLIENTS: “Senator Conrad Burns, a Montana Republican , helped win a $3 million government award for the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan to build a school.” The federal funds were intended for “impoverished Indian tribal schools” and in 2003, the Interior Department ruled the Saginaw tribe, an Abramoff client, too rich to participate.

On February 11, 2002, Burns and Dorgan sent a letter to the Interior Department benefiting the Saginaws. “Nine days later, Dorgan’s campaign got $2,000 from the Choctaw and by late spring Dorgan’s political action committee had received $17,000 more from three other Abramoff tribes and his firm.” But Dorgan had also initially expressed support for the program in “six months earlier” than the February letter.

2) Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)

HARKIN RECEIVED $22,000 FROM ABRAMOFF’S PARTNERS AND CLIENTS: Harkin received $22,000 in 2003 and 2004 from Abramoff’s partners and his clients.

GIFTS — HARKIN USED ABRAMOFF SKYBOX: “Harkin twice used Abramoff’s skybox for fundraisers — once in 2002 and again in 2003 — without reimbursing.” Harkin reimbursed Abramoff’s clients in fall 2005.

3) Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

REID RECEIVED $66,000 FROM ABRAMOFF’S CLIENTS: “Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations from 2001 to 2004.”

COUSHATTA CAMPAIGN — ENSIGN AND REID LOBBIED ON BEHALF OF ABRAMOFF CLIENT: One of Abramoff’s tribal clients, the Coushattas, “opposed a plan by the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians to open a casino at a non-reservation site, expected at the time to be outside Shreveport, La., not far from a casino owned by the Coushattas.”

Ensign and Reid sent a letter to Norton on behalf of the Coushatta tribe on March 5, 2002. “The next day, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana issued a $5,000 check to Reid’s tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second Abramoff tribe also sent $5,000 to Reid’s group.”

http://www.thinkprogress.org/abramoff

And that's from a liberal blog, so they are reporting it, and the vast majority of the people who got money from Abramoff are REPUBLICANS.

[KharmaTrain]

20. Abramoff "CLIENTS"...Note That Word

These were the tribes...most that operated and voted within the state of the Senators (notice no Democratic Congresscritters) who took the money.

Now these "clients" aren't under indictment or investigation are they? In the case of several of these tribes, they were victims. But why ruin the only talking point these goons have to hang on.

I agree with the calls for a real thorough investigation here. Let's get an independent prosecutor appointed and let's rumble! Let's pry this scandal open like an oyster. And while we're at it, throw in the one looking for the "leaker" of the wiretapping. Let's see what the laws really say about what's going on here.

Cheers!

[sinkingfeeling]

13. Both Harry Reid and Patrick Kennedy's offices have made statements.

[txindy]

24. Yes, they have, although Reid got criticized here today for responding.

Apparently, responding made him look suspicious, while not responding would make him look suspicious, too. :eyes:

[CBHagman]

15. Bear in mind Abramoff has long been associated with the GOP.

We are talking about someone who has been involved in Republican politics since his college days.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/11/AR2005081101752.html

"As a Bush 'Pioneer,' Abramoff also raised more than $100,000 for the president's reelection in 2004. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was 'a very close friend,' according to Abramoff's description, as well as a participant in costly trips to Moscow and Scotland arranged and partly subsidized by Abramoff or his clients."

Note the word "ideologically" in the next section:

"The saga of Abramoff's career is the tale of an ideologically committed lawyer whose financial ambitions repeatedly pushed him toward the boundaries of legal and ethical propriety."

(SNIP)

"Abramoff got his start in politics as an organizer for Ronald Reagan while attending Brandeis University in 1980. Shortly afterward, he made his first connections to others who would command influence in Washington when he became the head of the College Republican National Committee in 1981. One of his predecessors was Karl Rove, and three of his colleagues in the group at the time -- Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed and Amy Ridenour -- would later play helpful roles in Abramoff's Washington work."

Remember, too, that Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) has sought to shut Democratic lobbyists out of K Street as much as possible. Google "K Street Project" for more information.

The GOP is in power, and one should follow the money and the political history of Abramoff, not starting tut-tutting that he was contributing to Democrats. :eyes:

[leftofthedial]

18. that is their role

to act more guilty than the actual criminals so that they can be scapegoated and the repukes can get off free or very light.

this is pro rasslin, not actual opposition politics. The same corporations own the good guys (repukes) and the cartoon villains (the Dems). They all work from the same script.

[librechik]

21. They have nothing to explain

and besides, let's wait for the indictments.

I think Dean should come out with a statement explaining the nuts and bolts of why the Dems are not involved in the scandal, even if they got a donation.