Winning this year off the back of Abramoff is not a pipe dream. "Collateral damage" might include losing a seat of two of some "ethically challenged" Democrats who partook of the water at the Abramoff Trough...but Sam Rosenfeld nails this:

Historical parallels can be dicey, but Democrats would do well to consider some math here: Let's say, as has been hinted for the last month or so, that a dozen people end up facing indictments due to the Abramoff probe. (As one FBI official put it to Anne Kornblut, "With most cases, the plea is the end, but with Abramoff, the plea is just the beginning.") Would Democrats see this as a scandal worth pushing -- and running on -- if, say, two out the 12 were Dems? How about a 3 to 9 Dem-to-Republican ratio? One can imagine the answer Newt would give if the situation were reversed. Achieving a "throw the bums out" congressional takeover is not a delicate business -- you can't do it carefully threading a needle. Either Democrats run on ethics full-bore and accept the collateral damage, or they don't run on ethics to win.

Losing an ethically-challenged scumbag is not a major concern for me, if we gain either house of congress in November. Losing one or two of them and making the greater gain of committees with subpeona power is more important, we need to end the reign of Preznit FuckKnuckle forthwith, and getting his mis-administration exposed to the disinfectant of sunlight is far more important than protecting a good ol' boy or three.

As I said before, this is about as "bi-partisan" as I am Xtian, so I'm not overly worried about too many Democrats being scooped up in Abramoff's net, but there's gonna be some collateral damage by the shit-flinging that's a-comin'.

Pass the popcorn.