Nora O'Donnell & Matthews make it sound like the Abramoff

scandal is just as much with the dems as the republicans. She also stressed the fact that Reid won't give his money back. She was really heavy on this is as much the dems scandal as republicans.

Seems to me for a man that calls himself a republican lobbyist.

A man that was Chairman of the Young Republicans.

A man that was a speaker at one of the republican conventions.

a man that raised over $100,000 for Bush and is a Pioneer. A few of the things that she did not mention. This is a republican scandal that will spill over to a few democrats.

No big money is going to those who don't have the reins of power.

Humpty Dumpty couldn't stay on his wall. Just remember that.

peace.

like Jack-Off was just a high stakes playa who got carried away.

and Chris will have a harder time of trying to drag the dems into this mess.

did you notice the "information" banners at the bottom of the screen?

They were listing all the politicians who gave "Abramoff Money" back d they prominently listed Hillary Clinton as one who gavey $2,000 in Abramoff Money. Now if I understand it correctly, Dems got money from Abramoff's Clients but the Repubs got money directly from Abramoff

So in effect they have already muddied the waters.

the indictments. This is what I am going to tell myself, anyway.

They were saying his staff was telling him he had to give the money back. But he says he is keeping it. Anyone know what the story is on that.

He performed work for the Indian tribes, not favors for Abramhoff. I heard some others aren't the least concerned either that they should give the money back. One was Nadler and another one Robert Kennedy. Right in your face.

That shows me they dare somebody to prove they took a quid pro quo like the other republicans will be proven to.

I like it.

same reason.

"Rep. Kennedy Defends Cash Tied to Abramoff

WASHINGTON - Rep. P, , ), citing his support for American Indian causes, says he has no plans to return any of the $42,500 he took from tribes represented by GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Kennedy, D-R.I., was the top congressional Democratic recipient of Abramoff-linked funds, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign watchdog group that analyzed contributions from 1999 to 2005. He was eighth overall among members of Congress.

Kennedy was never lobbied by Abramoff or any of his associates and he did not receive any checks from Abramoff, Richardson said.

While President Bush and other top Republicans scrambled to give away contributions from tribes linked to Abramoff, Kennedy aides said the congressman‘s family, beginning with his late uncle Robert F. Kennedy in the 1960s, has championed American Indian causes. "

http://www.leadingthecharge.com/stories/news-00120245.html

thats like saying..

well the victims are the guilty ones!!

abramoffs clients were the victims of abramoff..why should a dem return money donated by the victims of the crime committed by abramoff not the victim...???????????

as long as they got the money legally..why should the dems be punished by taking money from the victims??????????????????

no dems got money from the criminal..abramoff!

and give the money back even though those contributions weren't illegal. Seems to me that giving the money back at this point would just make him look guilty when he isn't and would make his constituents (the tribes) look like crooks in the bargain. Not good.

Journalistic Whores

GOP call girl.

The fact that Abramoff never gave 1 dime of his personal money to a dem
does not seem to matter ...... BTW "Tweety" Matthews made several appearances
@ Abramoff sponsored charity fund raisers ...... Abramoff seemed to
be his favorite charity ..... i wonder how much "tweety" got?

ber that he was once a democratic-leaning talking head.

voicebox.

I have this patient who is a Univ. Prof.- pretty senior guy. so he starts telling me that he has a real fetish/fantasy for Maureen Dowd. I tell him the story that guy on Stern once told about finding his father pleasuring himself watching Lynn Russell on Headline News. Then I show him the pic of Norah. He was impressed, but said that she's till a press ho. But he kept staring at the pic.

He couldn't stop laughing. Still has the fetish for Mo, tho.

I just saw the same graphics on CNN. And the same posts around here too, actually.

NGU.

If the Dems are found to have done nothing wrong in taking money from an Abramoff associate, if not the man himself, then they will argue that the Repubs who did take money from the man himself are also innocent. And if the Repubs are found guilty but not the Dems, they will renew the cry about activist judges.

some of it was sure to hit some Dems. It's kind of surprising they would give some to Democrats when the Dems were virtually shut out of the legislative process. What would be the point? they have been passing whatever legislation thay wanted with or without Democrats votes.

Most pundits are on the RW payroll.

lol.

You have to pay her first.

So much so that I'm waiting for a poll showing a plurality of Americans believe this is primarily a Democratic scandal.

In a way very similar to WMD's in Iraq the media is failing in it's role to inform the public by taking it easy on Republicans.

(not to mention it was a whistleblower and not the media uncovering this story in the first place.)

But then on KO a reporter said it was definately a "REPUBLICAN SCANDAL".

Either that or they're just media whores. But there was a young lady on cspan this a.m. that explained the Abramoff scandal beautifully to the ignorant masses out there. Although every repuke caller was whining how "democrats did it too!"...she would correct them and explain the difference. She was great.

"this is a republican scandal" Not exactly a left leaning paper.

I'll bet he paid for telling the truth today at the office.

the preliminary reports I get from my "plugged-in" friends indicate this is going to be a big mess.

As for a Republican lobbyist probably not spreading as much money to Democrats, you need to review how things work. The members of committees in congress, both majority and minority, are selected somewhat on what they "can bring to the table". Sometimes it's comity, i.e. I'll vote for your pork, if you'll vote for mine. Sometimes, it's an insurance policy - my largest contributor has a plant in my opposition's state, and if I give him some perks, he won't be so hard on my contributor. You get the picture. A lobbyist is just as likely to grease the hands of one party as another. It's all part of the game.

peddling influence is - and since we have basically a bunch of republican whores running a one-party system, it is they who will be up to their eyeballs in this mess. By the way, you are not fooling anyone.

Democrats and Republicans too--who took money from Abramoff's clients DIRECTLY have nothing to worry about.
Republicans who took money DIRECTLY from Abramoff DO--the money is dirty.
The clients didn't dirty it--Abramoff did.

She can't understand the difference between Abramoff's clients - the Tribes - and Abramoff.

The Tribes did nothing wrong. Abramoff did.

How fucking simple can that be?

for his campaign?

Only reason I can think for a WH reporter to be as un-reporterlike as she is.

The media are throwing these contributions to Dems in with the contributions from Abramoff for services performed (Rep. Ney). I said before and I''ll say it again REpublican Congressmen and Senators should all be required to register as lobbyists. The only difference is the Congressmen have offices in the Capital building, the lobbyists just hang out there (they have much nnicer digs over on K street).

good post

Here is the link mentioned in the above post showing contributions to Dems all came directly from Indian tribes:
Indian Tribe contributions to Dems