Centerfield

DeLay as Speaker? I thought Hastart was the Speaker (or the Charlie McCarthy Speaker, anyway) and the hammer was the Edgar Bergen power behind the throne.

My bad, not enough caffiene this morning. "House Majority Leader." Fixed.

Must go grind more Aged Sumatran beans....

LOL! Good luck with that.

Oh.... my.... gosh.... I.... am..... so.... bored... with.... this.... story. THEY ALL TAKE MONEY AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER! How 'bout instead of giving back the dough, know who you are taking it from in the first place? I puke a little everytime I see a press release announcing that some politician has returned Abramoff money. Please, like you didn't spend it already.

Grab your popcorn? More like, change the channel.

Furthermore, we all know know that in fact Delay WAS the Speaker, and Hastert is his bitch that was rewarded with a title.... I hope the door doesn't slam him in the ass on his way out... Here is to hoping he does us all a really big favor by not running again.

I'm on my third cup in as many hours.

Bob Scheiffer from CBS news was on the Ronn Owens show (KGO810AM) this morning talking about the Abramoff scandal. He's of the opinion that now that there have been actual convictions that while acknowledging that some democrats might be in trouble, this is on a serious roll and that the fallout for the GOP could be as bad as the post-Watergate elections because they're in charge.

With a certain amount of hilarity this morning I noted the WH efforts to claim that Bush 'didn't know' Abramoff.

yeah, and my 12 yr old daughter still believes in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.

He's of the opinion that now that there have been actual convictions that while acknowledging that some democrats might be in trouble, this is on a serious roll and that the fallout for the GOP could be as bad as the post-Watergate elections because they're in charge.

You know what the difference is between Watergate and Abramoff? People actually paid attention to Watergate in the end, they aren't going to ever really care about this. You know why? Because nobody believes that anything would be different under the Democrats.... For the most part, they are right. The sooner we stop looking at this as a partisan issue and admitting that there is a fundamental break down in the campaign finance system, and both sides are guilty, the better off we all will be.

With a certain amount of hilarity this morning I noted the WH efforts to claim that Bush 'didn't know' Abramoff.

I actually believe this, but think it is part of the problem. These guys take money all of the time without asking from who or what, and then pass it off like they cannot help who supports their campaign. We shouldn't be asking if Bush knows Abramoff, but rather, why he doesn't.

With a certain amount of hilarity this morning I noted the WH efforts to claim that Bush 'didn't know' Abramoff.

They're not alone.

Democratic lawmakers who responded to inquiries for this article said that any money they received from the tribes had nothing to do with Abramoff. They were quick to say they did not know the man...Of the 18 largest recipients of tribe contributions directed by Abramoff's group, six, or one-third, were Democrats. These included Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), who chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from 2001 to 2002, and Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.), a leader in Indian affairs legislation.

We're gonna hear a lot of that song. For example, I noted that two of DeLay's former top aides went to work for Greenberg Traurig LLP--but so did one of Harry Reid's. Dorgan used Abramoff's skybox at MCI Center for a fundraiser, but denied he knew Abramoff....

Burns (R) of Montana ran first in the Abramoff collections contest, but close behind in second was Pat Kennedy (D) of Rhode Island. For direct Abramoff donations (as compared to directed ones) Bob Ney shares the spotlight glare with Reid, Daschle, and Doolittle of California.

Welcome to RealPolitik.

Newsweek's Howard Fineman writes this regarding the fallout

WINNERS: Third-party reform movement: If Sen. John McCain doesn’t win the Republican presidential nomination, I could see him leading an independent effort to “clean up” the capital as a third-party candidate. Having been seared by his own touch with this type of controversy (the Keating case in the '80s, which was as important an experience to him as Vietnam), McCain could team up with a Democrat, say, Sen. Joe Lieberman. If they could assemble a cabinet in waiting — perhaps Wes Clark for defense, Russ Feingold for justice, Colin Powell for anything — they could win the 2008 election going away.

Matthew - people have a hard time grasping the constitutional issues about wiretapping but everyone can relate to money and they can especially relate to lots of money going to influence votes and to who is in charge. If the Democrats were in trouble then I'd say the GOP would be ripe for a breakout. But they're basically out of power and not in the public's eye. I also ask you to remember 1994. History does repeat itself and anyone would be a fool to ignore that.

Secondly the Bush administration is just asking people to test their incredulity level. Abramoff was THE big money man. He also has a past involvement with various aspects of GOP politics. Distancing will not work. Giving money back will not work. There's going to be trials and pressure to hasten those trials or to push plea bargains. It's going to be wonderfully messy.

There are very different degrees of criminal lobbyist behavior.

Was it gifts given to politicians who already had a long habit of voting for interests aligned with the lobbyist, for whom a gift would not change their vote? (I am not condoning this)

Or was it a politician taking a corrupt gift, in direct exchange for the misappropriation of large public funding and changed votes? If a court can show this kind of quid pro quo, it is an especially severe criminal betrayal of the public trust.

Not every politician associated with this scandal will fall in the latter category, but woe to those who do.

There will be some Dems who get burned on the Abramoff deal. Good riddance, IMO.

But this truely is a GOP scandal. 63.7% of the money Abramoff spread around went to Republicans. During the 2002 cycle, Republicans recieved double what the Democrats did.

Abramoff was also a hefty donor to the President, whose campaign returned a large amount of money today.

Of course, Carla. The GOP was the majority, they got the most lobby money. But the total amount of money isn't the determining factor, it's the total amount of actually demonstrable corruption. Everything else is just hot air.

Because, frankly, unless you can hook the money to illegal or suspicious activity beyond a reasonable doubt, it's all just business as usual in the Beltway. As Susan points out, it's no shock when lobbyists favor those who are on their side in the first place. Nor is it illegal.

Harry Reid, BTW, refuses to return his Abramoff money. And Dorgan was the senior Democrat on the Senate Committee "investigating" Abramoff at the same time he was getting piles o' goodies. Heh.

In prison, Tom DeLay will likely be known by his block-mates as "The Hummer"

Harry Reid, BTW, refuses to return his Abramoff money. And Dorgan was the senior Democrat on the Senate Committee "investigating" Abramoff at the same time he was getting piles o' goodies. Heh.

Actually Reid hasn't refused. His spokesperson said it was under review. If it turns out Reid took money and it was somehow tainted..then kick his butt out too.

In terms of "business as usual" in the beltway..this Abramoff thing wouldn't be such a big deal if that were the case. Quite clearly this is of such scope and scale (and illegality for more than a few) that its causing a major reverb in DC. Even David Brooks (who is generally a blathering idiot when it comes to criticizing his own) is pissed at the way the GOP have allowed their party to erode.

This is far and away the majority party scandal. The problem would still be in place if there were 5 parties. It's about influence peddling, power and money.

In terms of "business as usual" in the beltway..this Abramoff thing wouldn't be such a big deal if that were the case. Quite clearly this is of such scope and scale (and illegality for more than a few) that its causing a major reverb in DC.

Bull, Carla. It's exactly what goes on every day in both parties, and is extraordinary in neither scope nor scale. Lobbyists arrange donations to those who either already back their client's issues, or who might be swayed to back their client's issues. They give the most to those in the positions of greatest influence, but they spread it around. For there to be illegality attached, there has to be an explicit quid pro quo, an actual "sale" of influence or votes. What's causing the "reverb" is Abramoff's indictment.

I could list pages of questionable deals involving Congresscritters. Volumes. Feakin' encyclopedias, for both sides of the aisle. Reid alone could fill a book, and DeLay could be the companion volume. I saw the original December interview with Reid. He said he hadn't done anything wrong and wasn't returning the money, and then tried to say that only Republicans who took Abramoff's coins were corrupt. I almost split a gut laughing at that one. His PR flack saying "It's under review" is simply hilarious--Reid still has the money. How long does he need for those reviews? It's been weeks. Hillary returned hers. (Rangel and Kennedy both join Reid in continuing to hang onto the coinage.)

The complete up-to-date list of the Abramoff-linked donations can be found here, ranked by amounts. Great reading. A very interesting list of over three hundred recipients covering both parties. Looks to me like anyone who didn't get donations should probably be offended at being left out. (Ted Kennedy, summon your outrage flack...)

Wasn't Reid the guy that tried to strangle the mobster that was trying to bribe him? The FBI had to literally pull him off the guy?

And then he spent a year starting his car by remote because they found a bomb on it?

How much money/gifts did he receive from Abramoff? And how much did Delay? Next to Presidential campaigns, Senatorial ones are the most expensive, and I could easily believe that if Abramoff gave Reid a few thousand dollars, or rather, his clients, as Abramoff only gave his own personal money to Republicans, that Reid never even knew about the money, or where it came from.

Delay, on the other hand, comes from a largely uncontested district, and is a representative at that, meaning a much cheaper, relatively, campaign. Yet he received how much more? Trips to where? I find it easy to believe he knew something wasn't kosher there, but chose to ignore it.

There were plenty of Reps involved in the House Banking scandal back in '93, too, including Newt Gingrich, but since the Dems were the majority then, they were the ones to take the blame Same deal here, never mind the usual "everybody does it."

In the banking sandal, the behavior was clearly unethical across the board. Here it's just business as usual. The total Abramoff-gang donations were a bit under $4.5 million spread voer several years, and going to over 300 politicians on both sides of the aisle. That's less than a third of the money one union donated in the last election cycle.

Ah, but what % of the 300 were GOP and what % were Dems? And just which party controls all three branches of the government?

Irrelevant, Jean. I know the Dems would love to be able to tag it all to the GOP, but that's theater and partisan religion, not reality.

Really--go check the link and do your own head count. The top four receivers of cash were the NRSC, the NRCC, the DSCC, and the DCCC.

Unless you can show illegality, the bounceback is limited because there's so much to spread around, and everybody got some. You might curse the GOP for getting more, but when the list of the favored includes most of the leadership of the Dems as well, it rings kinda hollow. Check out the number of state Dem parties that got cut in, and compare to the state GOP parties. The Dems win 3 to 1. See what I mean?

This is standard deep-pocket Washington lobbying on parade. Spread it around, and come issue vote time, remind the recipients of your kindness. If you went through the donation lists of any major lobbying firm on K Street, you'd see similar distributions. Trying to play tit-for-tat with it will just convince the public that all of Washington is sleazy (which is true enough) because each side can pull out endless lists of similar nature.

Prediction: The big winners out of this will be McCain and other moderates, both sides of the aisle. But McCain in particular because of his association with finance reform.

And to REALLY crack me up, there's an email in my inbox from John Lapp at the DCCC crowing about Abramoff's "dirty money" and GOP'ers "tripping over themselves" to return it. Not a word from the DCCC about when they'll return the $354,700 that THEY got from Abramoff and crew. Or when Rangel will throw back his $36,000, or Pat Kennedy his $42,500, orHarry Reid his $30,500, or...

You just gotta love it. More popcorn? :-)

Just to beat my point to death....

Sen. Clinton 2000 campaign group fined over Hollywood gala

The organization, New York Senate 2000, agreed to a federal finding that it failed to report $721,895 spent on the fundraiser to boost the former first lady's campaign for the Senate...

That's over $700k in illegal funding on ONE Hillary fundraiser. And we're supposed to get excited about $4.4 mil spread over more than three hundred bi-partisan politicians and a decade and both party's congressional committees.

And you don't hear me calling for Hillary's head (or that of her party) on a pike, although this story's not exactly new.

Agreed. Scandal may be the only thing that DeLay is willing to share with Democrats, but once again, who's in charge here? The GOP. And what party does Abramhoff belong to? The GOP.
What party does Tom DeLay belong to? The GOP.

Yes, we can rehash all the usual "Oh-if-even-one-Dem-is-involved-then-that-makes-it-a-bipartisan-scandal" talking points, but it doesn't matter what weird policy wonks like us think. The folks who read the first paragraph of the page one story (and watch the first five minutes of the news) are going to see "Republican Jack Abramoff pleads guilty, implicating House Majority Leader, Republican Tom DeLay. What impact is this going to have on the GOP's control of Congress?" and that's what's going to matter.

But I agree with your main point; the Bugman is history. Pass the popcorn, indeed. :-)