Decision ‘08

Oh, That All-Republican Scandal?

Say it ain’t so…I’ve been assured by everyone that Abramoff only touched the corrupt Republicans…but here come rumors that Harry Reid is in big, big trouble…Chris Wallace caught Howard Dean this morning with a report from the Center for Responsive Politics:

WALLACE: I just want to ask you about this question of the Democratic involvement. I want to put up something from the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. This comes directly from their Web page, and it says, “Here is a detailed look at Abramoff’s lobbying and political contributions from Abramoff, the tribes that hired him, and SunCruz Casinos, which is a company that Abramoff owned since 1999.”

It lists recipients by the amount of money they received. Well, the top two are the Republican campaign committees. The third and fourth biggest recipients were Democratic campaign committees. And if you go down the list, Democrats received more than $1 million from Abramoff-related interests.

DEAN: There’s two points to this. First of all, actually, we — the DNC actually got $100,000-some odd. Now, I can assure you Jack Abramoff never directed that money. It is possible that some of Jack Abramoff’s clients may have decided on their own to give Democrats money. The key is…

WALLACE: I’m sorry, did you say, I’m sorry. Did you say that you’re sure that Abramoff didn’t direct them to give that money?

DEAN: No, what I said was that it is possible that some Democrats got money from some of the — yeah. No, what I’m saying is that Abramoff may not have directed some of this money toward the Democrats.

WALLACE: In fact, he did, sir. We’ve got evidence of that.

DEAN: But the point is that not one Democrat either knew it or acted on it. Nobody got anything out of the Democrats from Jack Abramoff. No Democrat delivered anything, and there’s no accusation and no investigation that any Democrat ever delivered anything to Jack Abramoff. And that’s not true of the Republicans.

WALLACE: So if we find — and I just want to — we have to wrap this up. But if we find that there were some Democrats who wrote letters on behalf of some of the Indian tribes that Abramoff represented, then what do you say, sir?

DEAN: That’s a big problem, and those Democrats are in trouble, and they should be in trouble. And our party, if the American people will put us back in power in ‘06, we will have on the president’s desk things that outlaw all those kinds of behaviors. Right now it’s a Republican scandal. Maybe they’ll find that some Democrats did something wrong, too. That hasn’t been the case yet.

Well, Dean certainly did his best to weasel out, but even some hardcore Kos Kidz know better (hat tip to A.J.). Here’s what we’re talking about:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said the Abramoff scandal affects both parties. He questioned why his Democratic counterpart, Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, hasn’t returned more than $60,000 in contributions connected to Indian tribes who were among Abramoff’s clients.

“I don’t understand why he didn’t give the money back,” said Frist, saying he had returned $1,000 of “Abramoff-tainted money” he received.

Dean said that “there’s no accusation and no investigation that any Democrat ever delivered anything to Jack Abramoff.”

Dean said that, if any Democrat wrote a letter on behalf one of Abramoff’s tribal clients, “that’s a big problem, and those Democrats are in trouble.”

Reid wrote Interior Secretary Gail Norton in 2002, asking her to block a Louisiana tribe from opening a casino, according to an Associated Press story in November. The next day, Reid’s political action committee received a $5,000 donation from the Louisiana Coushattas, which opposed the new casino. Reid says the letter and the donation are unrelated.

Yes, as are the warmth of the earth and its position from the sun…

Related: What, another Democrat? How can that be…?

10 Responses to “Oh, That All-Republican Scandal?”

1 dmac Says:
January 29th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Hard to believe that anyone in the general public will be anything but non - plussed in these revelations. Looks like another pox on both houses here, but it would still behoove the GOP to get out in front of this thing - after all, a majority party is supposed to lead, if I’m not mistaken.

But woah, Dean is really the gift that keeps on giving, isn’t he? Saw the same appearance, and as soon as I heard the words out of his mouth, I knew that he’d get nailed for it by Wallace. How anyone in that position of leadership is allowed to continually traffic in statements that he’ll only be forced to backtrack on immediately afterword is a wonder to me.
2 dmac Says:
January 29th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
BTW, did you get all the numbers that were released, Mark? Looks like the Dems got about 3/8 of the total Abramoff contributions.
3 The Politburo Diktat » Blog Archive » Reid Implicated in Indian-gate? Says:
January 29th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
[…] Decision ‘08 » Oh, That All-Republican Scandal? Say it ain’t so…I’ve been assured by everyone that Abramoff only touched the corrupt Republicans…but here come rumors that Harry Reid is in big, big trouble…Chris Wallace caught Howard Dean this morning with a report from the Center for Responsive Politics: WALLACE: I just want to ask you about this question of the Democratic involvement. I want to put up something from the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. This comes directly from their Web page, and it says, “Here is a detailed look at Abramoff’s lobbying and political contributions from Abramoff, the tribes that hired him, and SunCruz Casinos, which is a company that Abramoff owned since 1999.” It lists recipients by the amount of money they received. Well, the top two are the Republican campaign committees. The third and fourth biggest recipients were Democratic campaign committees. And if you go down the list, Democrats received more than $1 million from Abramoff-related interests. […]
4 too many steves Says:
January 29th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Ummm… 3/8, 1/8, 1/16, whatever, it’s bad for all of them. Pregnant, not-Pregnant, no half pregnant. Take a $1 take a $1m, it’s all the same.
5 Mark Says:
January 29th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
dmac, it just goes to show that, as only makes sense, corruption is a bipartisan problem…
6 Fargus Says:
January 30th, 2006 at 7:37 am
The charge that it’s a completely bipartisan problem doesn’t make sense without looking at how much the tribes were giving to each side before they got involved with Abramoff, and what other tribes not involved with Abramoff tend to give. Other tribes tend to give 2-1 to Democrats, and after Abramoff’s involvement, the majority of his clients kept Democratic donations around the same, or maybe a little lower, while they ratcheted up donations to Republicans by as much as 300% in some cases.

There’s context for every story, and to just blind yourself to it, to say “Dems received money too” and wash your hands of it is just not the entire truth.
7 Mark Says:
January 30th, 2006 at 7:55 am
No doubt, Fargus…there’s something rotten, and the Republicans need to excise it…but I’ve seen people on the left do amazing contortions to convince themselves that they received no tainted money, and it just ain’t so…
8 Fargus Says:
January 30th, 2006 at 8:22 am
I don’t know what constitutes “tainted” in your book, in this case. Certainly money from Abramoff himself, which he stole from his clients, but what of money (on both sides of the aisle) that would have, given historical trends, been given to candidates regardless of Abramoff’s involvement?

Like you said, a sticky situation all around, but I see it being at the least a bigger problem for Republicans than Democrats, and this bi-partisan spin is starting to sound a bit desperate. As though wrongdoing is mitigated by pointing out that somebody else may have done it too.
9 Mark Says:
January 30th, 2006 at 8:25 am
No, not excusing, just setting the record straight…as in Harry Reid writing the Interior Minister to block a casino, then getting a large donation from the casino’s opponents the very next day…that’s what I mean when I say ‘tainted’…
10 Fargus Says:
January 30th, 2006 at 8:32 am
And by all means, if that’s a legitimate avenue, it should be pursued and rooted out. Corruption on all sides of the aisle shouldn’t be tolerated. But as I said, there is also value in looking at the context of Abramoff’s involvement with his clients, and how their practices changed after he became involved, as compared to their practices before he became involved. It’s not as though these tribes didn’t exist as entities before Abramoff began lobbying for them.