Scandal: What's In Store

by DemFromCT

No, not that scandal. Or that one. This scandal.

The Justice Department has signaled for the first time in recent weeks that prominent members of Congress could be swept up in the corruption investigation of Jack Abramoff, the former Republican superlobbyist who diverted some of his tens of millions of dollars in fees to provide lavish travel, meals and campaign contributions to the lawmakers whose help he needed most.

The investigation by a federal grand jury, which began more than a year ago, has created alarm on Capitol Hill, especially with the announcement Friday of criminal charges against Michael Scanlon, Mr. Abramoff's former lobbying partner and a former top House aide to Representative Tom DeLay.

The charges against Mr. Scanlon identified no lawmakers by name, but a summary of the case released by the Justice Department accused him of being part of a broad conspiracy to provide "things of value, including money, meals, trips and entertainment to federal public officials in return for agreements to perform official acts" - an attempt at bribery, in other words, or something close to it.

I'm thinking that would not likely be the party of John Murtha they're talking about (although Dems are not off the hook when it comes to this far-reaching scandal). Roy Blunt, the current Republican playing Majority Leader is on the list. Bob Ney (R-OH) is on the list:

Ney had tried to slip a provision in the 2002 election reform bill to help the Tigua Band of El Paso, Texas, reopen a shuttered casino.

Ney said he only agreed to do that because Abramoff, who was representing the tribe, told him Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., with whom Ney was working on the election bill, also supported the provision.

When Ney found out Dodd wasn't on board, the provision was not included in the bill. Ney said later that he was "duped" by Abramoff.

There's Richard Pombo (R-CA), with accusations filed by political opponents:

Pombo continues to receive funds and direct the distribution of funds from Indian gaming interests with legislation before the Resources Committee. Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Pombo's biggest contributor, directed the Indian gaming funds to Republican candidates in exchange for influence in Congress. Mr. Abramoff is now busy but the tribes continue to make contribution anyway."

It's enough to make RedState file this post entitled (tongue in cheek) God Is With The Democrats. Alas, gerrymandering is with the incumbents. But this is turning out to be a scandalous year for Republicans and for some of them, that may not be enough.

As Charlie Cook puts it:

Democrats' chances of capturing the House of Representatives depend on the answers to two questions. First, will the 2006 political environment and issue agenda enable their party to win a large portion of the competitive races? Second, are there enough reasonably strong Democratic candidates running against vulnerable Republicans and for open seats to take advantage of any climatic advantages that Democrats might enjoy?

For the time being, the answer to the first question is easy: Yes. The political playing field is tilted about 45 degrees in favor of Democrats. While the generic congressional ballot test question that pollsters ask is a very rough gauge of a party's prospects of gaining House seats, asking voters whether they would prefer to vote for a Democratic House candidate or a Republican does reveal in which direction and how strongly the wind is blowing. Recent polling indicates the Democrats have an advantage of 7 to 17 percentage points, which meteorologically speaking could be anything from a Category 2 to a Category 5 hurricane in their favor.

Whatever your complaints and concerns about this President (and I have a few bones to pick, myself), 2006 is the only way to readjust the relationshipo between the Congress and the WH. If you want Congressional oversight, you'd best elect a few more Democrats. Else there'll be more of the same for the next three years. And for so many reasons, from Iraq to scandal resolution, that would be a national tragedy.

Comments

[notthisnorthat]

One can but hope that this will hamper the ability of that clown Pombo to ram through the legislation opening Federal lands (Say MY Land out loud) to mining interests.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/politics/20land.html?ei=5094&en=09d9305542db647f&hp=&ex=1132549200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

[DemFromCT]

note the backdrop of the scandal:

Conservatives' mission: save Bush presidency

Everybody from the top leaders (including Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld) to the grassroots bloggers (who are trying to persuade radio stations to play a new pro-war song titled "Bush Was Right") has been enlisted in the cause. The goal is not merely to boost wartime morale on the home front. Ultimately, the goal is to save the Bush presidency.

That's how conservative leaders view this historic moment. As Iraq hawk William Kristol put it the other day: "If the American people really come to a settled belief that Bush lied us into war, his presidency will be over. He won't have the basic level of trust needed to govern." And David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, contended: "The Iraq war "is the Bush administration. ... The President has to defend, champion and explain the war - or else be destroyed by it."

But Frum fears that Bush's unpopularity "will be very hard to reverse." Indeed, Bush's predicament is dire, because he first ran for president on a vow that he, unlike Bill Clinton, would not become trapped in Credibility Gap. Character was Bush's calling card. He promised that he would "restore honesty" to the White House; yet today, nearly six in 10 Americans tell pollsters that Bush is untrustworthy.

It may be too late for Bush to win them back. As a number of historians and pollsters contended the other day, most Americans by now have developed a shorthand about Iraq: Bush cited weapons of mass destruction as his prime rationale for war; then we went to war and didn't find any. This shorthand has been embraced by swing-voting independents; according to pollster John Zogby, only 28 percent now side with the president.

Zogby said by phone: "Trust is like virginity. Once you've lost it, you don't get it back. That's what happened to Lyndon Johnson during Vietnam, and Nixon during Watergate. And Bush doesn't have much wiggle room to improve his status anyway, because, at this point, half the nation already hates his guts."

I have been saying thgis all along.

[al-Fubar]

Their latest hope is now the December election in Iraq, but that has a short-term and long-term problem. The short-term problem is that this is the third time dipping into that well, so far as US public opinion is concerned.

The long-term problem, which is of course the core problem of this whole misadventure, is the non-likelihood that any credible Iraqi government will emerge. It may well be legitimate in the eyes of the Shia. It will at best remain a tolerable flag of convenience for the Kurds, but their real loyalty remains with Kurdistan. But as for the Sunnis, what is the chance that it will offer them any deal they find acceptable?

Well, I'm off to Juan Cole's Informed Opinion, where I'm sure I'll find plenty of cheerful stuff to brighten my Sunday morning.

-- Rick

[Meteor Blades]

"Bush was Right" sung to the tune of Garryowen?

[RonK, Seattle]

The week should not pass without noting that Republicans are now passing last-ditch soak-the-poor provisions by hair-thin margins ... margins they could not sustain without the votes of members indicted or soon to be indicted for their own personal piggery.

IT'S A RAID! The jig's up, the vice squad's breaking in, and some of the players are grabbing what's left on the table and stuffing it down their pants on the way out the back door.

[TCinLA]

Over at another blog, someone posted last night that the Republicans win because they are the "party of convictions," to which I responded that they are the party that lacks convictions, i.e., Rove's not in jail, etc.

Looks like that's going to change this coming year.

Time to go stock up on popcorn and dark beer - the circus is coming to town!!

TCinLA

[Mary]

RonK, you got that right. Looking at the fact that Rep. Pombo is on the list makes me frantic in thinking that his comeuppance won't be in time to save our public lands from his plans to sell them off to the highest bidder. Can't we get this scandal going faster so we have a chance to save something from these crooks?

[Mikevotes]

With Plame, Abramoff, Iraq war intel follies, Franklin/AIPAC, Delay's indictment, Frist's investigation, Cheney(subtopics: torture, renditions, guantanamo, Halliburton,) and the rest, we are witnessing scandal's perfect storm. The amazing thing to me is that all of these investigations are looking into criminal behavior committed in the last four years.

So, I guess the Republicans weren't lying, to them, 9-11 really did change everything.

[michael72]

and speaking of Abramoff and the old domino theory. in the Boston Globe it looks like up to 36 congresspeople were in on this scam.

"Almost three dozen members of Congress, including leaders from both parties, pressed the government to reject an Indian casino in Louisiana while they collected large donations from rival tribes and their lobbyist, Jack Abramoff.

Many intervened with letters to Interior Secretary Gale Norton within days of receiving money from tribes represented by Abramoff or using the lobbyist's restaurant for fund-raising, an Associated Press review of campaign records, IRS records, and congressional correspondence has found.

Legislators said that their intervention had nothing to do with Abramoff, and that the timing of donations was a coincidence."

what a coincidence! I was just thinking that myself! I wouldn't simply couldn't in my wildest imagination believe that there was any connection between say a $20,000 'donation' to some politician's PAC, and his writing a letter to dear sweet gail norton at Interior about some native american casinos.

and further on the article notes something about.....ethics....remember the word 'ethics'? oh I almost forgot, after 11 years of republican control that word has fallen out I mean been pushed out of the popular political lexicon and the public's consciousness.

"Congressional ethics rules require lawmakers to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in performing their official duties and in accepting political money."

avoiding conflicts of interest. ethics. you don't say! now the press, ahem, reminds them, and us!!

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/11/20/legislators_who_took_tribal_donations_also_pressured_interior/

[michael72]

and I like this quote from a Knight Ridder story. they seem to do a good bit of investigative reporting.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/ ...id=aLHX6Q_LZC4A

"Beyond the potential legal concerns, Scanlon's cooperation with authorities may spell political jeopardy for Republicans leading into next year's elections, especially if he helps draw other lawmakers into the investigation. ``He knows where all the bodies are buried,'' said a congressional aide who worked with Scanlon."

all those bodies! it's going to be quite an exhumation, folks!!