« Separation of Church-State Called Into Question Yet Again | Main | The Manly Norquist Approach versus the Emasculating Laura Approach »

September 27, 2005


The trouble with lists of "most corrupt" is that we don't usually find out who really is most until somebody is indicted, and that, frankly, happens all too rarely.

Maxine Waters is a no-goodnik?

"The objection is in writing, and I don't care that it isn't signed by a member of the Senate."

This Abramoff thing stinks to high heaven. Tip of the iceberg stuff, the Watergate of the 21st century. This story has everything, even murder.

Terry Neal calls the scandals 'broadening' - a good descriptor.

Is it 1994 all over again?

Dark and ominous clouds are gathering over the Republican party these days, with a series of ethical and legal scandals that threaten to further damage a White House and Congress already reeling from a sharp drop in public approval ratings.

Rep. Tom, Delay (Tex.), Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.), and a top administration official (David Safavian, chief of staff of the General Services Administration) have all been ensnared in highly embarrassing ethics scandals recently.

The latter two scandals touch, in some way or another, on a broadening scandal involving a former top lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, who was thoroughly connected among GOP politicians and activists.

I guess if scandal of the Abramoff type helps weaken or even topple Team Bush, I'm down with it. But I'd sure like to get these guys for their other criminality.

Kick them when they're down, MB. Their friends will desert them when they're hanging from a limb.

I want to use this open thread to thank you all -- all amoung my favorite contributors from dkos past -- for this website. Keep up the strong work.

It's not 1994; it's 1973, but we don't have Congress. So the question is how much we can get out there so we can get Congress in 2006 so that 2008 = 1976 and we gwt back the WH.

Much to my amazement, Mimikatz, it actually seems increasingly to be getting out there. Was it Fineman (!) who said that what Katrina did was to prompt people to "rewind" the Bush presidency and take a new look at everything since 2001? I think -- I hope! -- that's happening some in the media as well (if they're taking their cue from the poll numbers, it should be). But while this sure is looking like the Republicans' 1973, the country needs it to be more like our 1931. We need Watergate to lead to the New Deal, not just a quick housecleaning followed by yet more antigovernment wolves in sheeps' clothing.

That's a great expression of what I fear rj: a 4 year interregnum of Carter, followed by twelve more years of the same shit, sold by a new and improved salesman.

Beating them on narrow grounds like Plame and Abramoff is not going to cut it. Beating them on broad grounds -- undermining the CIA and experts generally, and being power-mad above all other principles including "fiscal discipline -- will do them lasting and richly deserved damage.

We can use narrow scandals to get our hooks in, but we have to keep our eye on the big sins.

I'm afraid the press won't be there, our institutions will be weak and unfocused, and this will be like Iran-Contra or even less.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad