guilt by abramoff & association

by skippy, Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 09:41:55 AM EST

we are constantly amused by the top-down corporate media's attempts to smear democrats with the same "are they corrupt" brush as repubbblicans in the abramoff scandal.

they do this by simply adding the words "or his clients" to the sentences about who got money from abramoff (as in, both repubblicans and democrats received money from abramoff, his associates, or his clients). and, in this case, his clients are usually american indian tribes. bosglobe:

us representative patrick j. kennedy, who has collected more donations from tribal clients of once-powerful lobbyist jack abramoff than any other democrat, intends to keep the money, joining a number of democrats who have decided that abramoff's plea bargain on conspiracy and fraud charges won't alter their decision.

we discuss this dishonest approach after the jump:

the problem with this guilt by association tactic is that it's weak, and not even a real debating point.

for example: skippy is in show business. suppose skippy hires a public relations firm, let's call them abramoff & associates, to publicize his career. ergo, skippy is abramoff's client.

and let's say skippy also pays some of his own money to backstage west for an ad touting skippy's appearance in "blogtopia! the musical!" at a 99-seat equity waiver theater at the complex.

then, for the sake of argument, let's say it turns out abramoff & associates is run by the mafia, and they are bribing television studios with payola to hire their actor clients. by the same logic, then backstage west is affiliated with the mafia, and involved in the bribery scandal. because, after all, skippy is abramoff's client, and backstage "took money from abramoff, his associates, or his clients."

even worse, let's suppose abramoff & associates cheated skippy out of his money. so now it's a case of blaming the victim. newsobserver.com:

those prosecutors say the high-flying abramoff wined and dined lawmakers, gave campaign contributions and paid for trips in order to influence legislation. they also say that through kickbacks, he bilked the indian tribes he was representing as a lobbyist of millions of dollars.

and, the houston chronicle:

an abramoff plea will finish a crucial phase of an investigation that began more than a year ago into charges that abramoff and scanlon cheated indian tribes out of about $82 million after being hired to pave the way for gambling casinos.

[ed. note: emphasis ours].

so somehow, the democrats who took money from people that abramoff cheated, are themselves cheaters.

we have but one word to say to that: hah?

the other point we wish to make is, weren't there any of abramoff's white clients involved? why do the top-down corporate media insist on singling out the evil redman as the devil involved in scandal? what kind of bigotry is this?

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

7 Comments

Sort by

permalink

comments?

and (except for that one guy who gets pissed off when i ask for mojo) mojo?

by skippy 2006-01-06 09:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

comments?

and mojo?

by skippy 2006-01-06 09:44AM | 0 recs

permalink

sorry

didn't mean to post it twice! i'm not that desparate!

by skippy 2006-01-06 09:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

Yay, skippy.

I think I'll start a tally - those who "get it", and those who....

by MBW 2006-01-06 10:20AM | 0 recs

permalink

This seems so simple

Very good example of just how silly our M$M really is skippy. You would think that even the shallow thinkers in our nation's pressrooms would be able to figure this one out. Even as low as my opinion is of the M$M, I was shocked when I read reports about the media making a direct contribution from Abramhoff equivalent to a contribution from an Indian tribe.

This is such a new low in moral equivalence that you would think Democrats would be raising the roof with complaints. Maybe you can help me out skippy. Has Harry Reid complained about being included by some M$M sources on the Abramhoff scandal sheet?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-01-06 05:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

False "balance"

The media is addicted to false balance and seems to be willing to go to any lengths of distortion to hit that note. Blaming the victims? Of course, since they are not part of the Beltway Bandits or media.

Nice job, Skippy.

by David Kowalski 2006-01-07 04:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

Scandal Is Bipartisan

Let me start by saying that I am a Democrat. Born and raised, through and through, truest blue. 48 years old, voted for two Republicans in my life and none of them in presidential races. Gave $14K to Democratic candidates, the party and 527s since 2004. But I'm not buying the party line on Abramoff.

According to OpenSecrets.org, Abramoff ran a keiretsu that made $4.4 million in "contributions." All of those contributions were legal, as far as we know. Of the $4.4 million, about 5% came from Abramoff and his wife. That money went entirely to Republicans. Another $4.2 million came from Abramoff's cronies. One-third of that money went to Democrats.

The Democrats who've been commenting on-line about Abramoff want people to look only at the tip of the iceberg. I think people should look at the whole berg. Honesty demands it. I don't like corruption, to put it mildly. But it especially outrages me when I see it in my Democratic Party.

Democrats have been part of "The K Street Government" for decades. The more we get sucked into it, the less we do for the working American. As a result, we see voting participation having declined from roughly three-quarters in the early 1960s to one-half today.

I think most of those dropouts are natural Democrats. The non-voters are on the economic margins. They're working two jobs to feed themselves and their families. They see both parties totally ignoring them, and have turned their collective back on the political system because they see no hope in it. The Democratic Party -- MY Democratic Party -- bears part of the responsibility for this horrible state of affairs.

As for the claim that looking at the crony contributions is "guilt by association," I have a few things to say about this.

Abramoff's personal "contributions" were legal, too, but I haven't seen any Democrats refraining from pointing fingers at Republicans for accepting them. But somehow the crony "contributions" are off limits to mention? Sorry, but that doesn't pass the smell test.
Legalistic defenses are ridiculous. Washington, D.C. is full of lawyers, and lawyers exist to make things legal. Just because someone hasn't gone to jail (yet) doesn't make it right. You might fool yourself with that argument, but the public sees right through it.
The K Street Government is busy circling the wagons to protect its own. Will the Internet now be simply their pawn tool? Whatever happened to the promotion of campaign finance reform? Was that just a tactic, too? What do Democrats believe in? Anything?

Now, I'm a Democrat. A cranky, independent Democrat born and raised in Wisconsin. People who aren't from Wisconsin might not be familiar with that state's progressive, clean-government tradition. It's been eroded a little bit in recent years, but "back in the day," corruption wasn't tolerated.

How strict was Wisconsin? When I was in college in the 1970s, there was a scandal over unauthorized long-distance phone calls made by state legislators. I saw a story in one of the papers about a legislator repaying four dollars and change.

So, that's where I come from on corruption. I don't think Democrats should make excuses for corruption. I further believe that every single dollar "contributed" or directed by a lobbyist is corrupt money, because it is contributed with the expectation of a favor of some kind.

"Everybody's doing it" is not an excuse I'd accept from a child, and it sure as hell isn't one that I will accept from adults. So, the pawns who want to join the Permanent K Street Government in sweeping the Democratic Party's role in this thing under the rug can do it without me, anyway. I don't tolerate corruption. Period, end of paragraph, end of story.

by cwilson 2006-01-07 08:40AM | 0 recs