Are these, my fellow Democrats many of whom I admire just fucking brain-dead or what? Here's a simple "brightline" rule that even Clarence Thomas could figure out ... if it SMELLS like Abramoff lucre, then get rid of it. All of it. Just because you got paid and provided a service, there's no need to appear like such a bunch of greedy fucks for bucks. Damn. Are you spineless and stupid?
While dozens of lawmakers are dumping contributions from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his clients, others including Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid smell no taint and plan to keep the money.
Still other officials and lawmakers, from Republican
President Bush to Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record) of New York, are splitting the difference. They say only some of the money linked to Abramoff is tarnished.
As recently as Wednesday, Rangel refused to return any of the money he received from Abramoff-linked clients or firms. On Thursday, his spokesman said the congressman would give up $2,000 from a law firm where Abramoff once worked — donating it to the Boys Choir of Harlem — but would keep the rest, some $47,000.
"He has no problems with his contributions from native American tribes and he's not returning any of that," said spokesman Emile Milne. "It would be ridiculous for us to assume that these tribes would be forced or directed by Abramoff to help congressman Rangel."
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a fellow New York Democrat, is taking the opposite tack, donating $2,000 received from tribes Abramoff had worked with but deciding to keep contributions from lawyers at his firm.
...
Others who plan to keep Abramoff-related money include Sen. Patty Murray (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash., with $41,000; Rep. Patrick Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-R.I., $42,500, and Sen. Maria Cantwell (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash., $10,000.
The issue is taking a stand and the higher moral ground, not taking the fucking cash. There will be rewards for those members smart enough to figure this out, and there is good possibility of obscurity for those who are bent on keeping the money. Said it before, say it again...losing some shitbags who love the money more than doing the right thing is no loss at all.
Stand up or stand back. There's no choice here, no gray area...get rid of the money, or be face being gotten rid of. How do you like them apples?
Addendum
In comments there is a bit of a discussion about this. The Mighty Wurlitzer/Rove BlastFax is not going to discriminate in terms of who in our party got money, or whether it was obtained legitimately, they are going to use the words "Money" "Lobbyists" "Special Interests" "Tribal Interests" and Abramoff's name interchangeably to smear any Democrat who took dime one legitimately or not. It's their way, we've seen it before: they Swiftboated John Kerry, smeared Max Cleland; and have done countless other things with less raw data than is provided by campaign finance statements.
If the folks who are keeping this money can't see what's coming, based on past performance of the shitbag republicans, then they're gonna get dragged through it. I don't want to see Charley Rangel's (or anyone elses) distinguished career tossed down the shitter because they feels compelled to hold on to some extra cash on some noble "principle", and hope that it can be explained away as "clean" without massive semantic contortions. A simple, "I could not be sure, so I gave it all away" would sound much better than hauling out the green eyeshade brigade everytime the subject of dirty money comes up even periperhaly. I suspect that voters will reward that behavior come this November and for many Novembers to come.
Perception is reality, and the Wurlitzer exists to keep it that way. We need to be one step ahead, not playing catch up here.
posted by Jo Fish on 01.05.06 at 09:53 PM
Comments:
Not with you on this one Jo.
If there is evidence that a tribe gave money at the direction of Jack then of course you give it back. But there are legitimate reasons tribes give money to their own state senators and this process of automatic guilt by association just serves to re-marginalize Native Americans.
My Senator Patty Murray got money from the tribes because she has a strong record of supporting tribal interests. She doesn't know Abramoff, she is a staunch liberal deeply despised by local Republicans and probably the least likely legislater in the country after Barbara Lee to be getting donations directed by Jackoff.
It's not the donations, it is what Jackoff and the recipients did with the money. The indictments will revolve around no-show jobs and phony charities and legislative favors not related to tribal affairs.
Tribal money is not inherently dirty. Even if some of that money ended up in the pockets of Abramoff. The Tribes are the victims of fraud, not the fraudsters.
I agree that tribal money is certainly not inherently dirty, but I think that DemVet is saying that any money that came from JackASs or one of his shady firms IS inherently dirty, and should be returned or given to charity. And I agree with that.
I agree if it is associated with Abramoff singing like a canary,it would be best to donate it to charity,like I told fat Cat it is mostly Republicans feeling charitable these days,in Kentucky they got some dirty money to,no Dems. here yet though but Fox's poster boy McConnell got some and J.Bunning and congressman Rogers,they are all in the holiday giving spirit,along with the Kentucky Republican Party giving back a cool $10,000.
Onevet'svoice - I hope that is what DemVet is saying now, and was my point to start with, but that is not what he was reacting to originally:
"On Thursday, his spokesman said the congressman would give up $2,000 from a law firm where Abramoff once worked" donating it to the Boys Choir of Harlem" but would keep the rest, some $47,000.
"He has no problems with his contributions from native American tribes and he's not returning any of that," said spokesman Emile Milne. "It would be ridiculous for us to assume that these tribes would be forced or directed by Abramoff to help congressman Rangel."
Rangel struck exactly the right balance here and to my mind Jo went too far in denouncing him and others who were not willing to give up legitimate funds not connected to Abramoff simply on the basis of appearances.
posted by: Bruce Webb on 01.07.06 at 07:20 AM [permalink]
Ahh, but perception is reality. Whether the monies came legitimately or not, don't for one second think that Republicans will not use this to their advantage. They will attempt to roast Dems right along with themselves on this.
"See, we're not the only ones who took dirty money!" is what they'll say, truth be damned.
If there's the slightest chance that it could be viewed as dirty, give it back. At least that's what I think Jo is hinting at.
Doesn't matter if the amounts were small, or influence irrelevant. It smeared Gore enough to make his other potential donors leery of such scrutiny, and it wasted time better spent explaining his plans to govern better than W.
posted by: cgeye on 01.09.06 at 05:01 PM [permalink]
