WP: Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations (Abramoff Issue May Affect Dems)

[Pirate Smile]

Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations
Abramoff Issue May Affect Both Parties

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Derek Willis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 3, 2005; Page A01

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an associate famously collected $82 million in lobbying and public relations fees from six Indian tribes and devoted a lot of their time to trying to persuade Republican lawmakers to act on their clients' behalf.

But Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.

Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November.

Democrats are hoping to gain political advantage from federal and Senate investigations of Abramoff's activities and from the embattled lobbyist's former ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). Yet, many Democratic lawmakers also benefited from Abramoff's political operation, a fact that could hinder the Democrats' efforts to turn the lobbyist's troubles into a winning partisan issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158.html

[notadmblnd]

1. well, let them suffer the consequences too.

nt

[Robbien]

2. Of course Democrats got money from Abramoff

They are politicans.

But notice that the Washington Post puts Abramoff money to the GOP in small articles printed in the back pages of the paper, but puts a long two page article on Democrat donations on page A01.

They will be actively pursuing and reporting on this angle in the next few weeks. Hey, the Dems do it too, so leave Delay & Co alone implies the WaPo.

[Straight Shooter]

3. They're going to shoot themselves in the foot with this one.

Reid will provide the bullets. He wouldn't be so ferocious in his condemnation of bush if he felt he had anything to hide. They're not going to make him whimper and whine.

Excellent point about the placement of the article. But for certain it will get people interested now, eh?

[xchrom]

4. let the chips fall where they may.

if there's one thing i love about liberals more than anything else -- when it comes to this crap -- we don't defend anybody.
even our own.

this only goes to underscore the how bone deep corpuption can go.

[Judi Lynn]

5. Sorry, I don't see how accepting campaign contributions from these tribes

even if Abramoff channeled the money to certain Democrats implicates them in any crimes.

Thanks, and goodbye. :hi:

[Platonium]

6. Legal and moral are not the same ...

The fact that it is legal doesn't make it right.

My greatest concern with America's political system is that what is considered corrupt and illegal in most countries is perfectly legal over here.

H.

[newyawker99]

10. Hi Platonium!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Ian David]

7. I'll be especially glad to see Daschle get nailed. n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

8. I don't care WHO got Abramoff money...

They all should suffer the consequences!:thumbsdown:

[OzarkDem]

9. Let them donate to charity

Just like Bush and the GOP are doing with contributions stolen from Ohio taxpayers.

[gratuitous]

11. Of the named Democrats, only one is still in office

Hmmmm. And while I decline to go to the Post's site (they don't let me look for free), I'm going to go way out on a limb and guess that the amount of money given to Democrats is a lot less than the money given to Republicans. But the Post, in its unerring sense of creating false equivalencies, will now proclaim how calculatedly evil the Democrats are, but how saintly (if a bit hapless) the Republicans are. Okay, the Republicans did the same thing only worse, but golly, isn't that the way things are done? An odd admixture of the cynical and the callow from the Post.

I don't care who's dirty; let's sweep all the corrupt bastards out of office.

[calimary]

12. It'll compare the same way a cement block compares to a grain of

aquarium gravel. The same way Enron contributions to "both parties" did.

Also, I'd go way out on a limb and speculate that some spinmeister like robert novak or some other Pox "news" shill planted this little insinuation - "well, the DEMOCRATS did it, TOO!!!!!" to disarm the attacker.

That's beside the point.

What must be emphasized REPEATEDLY is - WHO TOOK MORE?!?!?! AND FOR HOW MUCH LONGER??!?!??!?

[TankLV]

13. They got no more excuses - so they fall on the "but everyone does it"

excuse.

Well - good - get 'em all.

Vichy dems anyway.

Clean the house. Let the chips fall where they may.

Get a REAL opposition party in place before so we can take over the congress.

[Justitia]

14. Oh brother, so typical of the WaPo. A little perspective, please?

I have no idea as to the $$$ we are talking here (going to the Dems), but I am convinced it is like leaving the tip at lunch compared to the bags 'o cash Tom Delay had shoveled into his coffers.

I must say, from the very first word (and title), the theme of this "article" is truly pathetic.

The true scumbags always "tip" the Dems - time honored tradition.
Uh, Ken Lay donated to the Dem party too for precisely this reason - deniability. The kicker is that it is always some unnoticed, paltry sum. Never mind he actually paid for Bush's inaugural and sent him his private jet.

The WaPo mistakes us for morons yet again.