I sent an e-mail to the guy who writes "Prickly City," and got a reply:

[RandomKoolzip]

Back in January, the conservative comic strip "Prickly City" ran some strips criticizing Dems for taking money from Jack Abramoff. I sent them an e-mail, not expecting a reply, but I got one anyways.

The first part is Stantis's reply; my original e-mail follows. I was stunned at this guy's reasonableness...and yes, I DO indeed disagree with him. :evilgrin: But it is encouraging that he wasn't frothing at the mouth while he typed (I guess).


Enjoy.





Thank you so much for writing us. In the January 26th Prickly City strip addresses the incident in which Howard Dean denied that Democrats took money that originated with Jack Abramoff. The following is taken from the transcripts of CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer for the January 8, 2006 show:

"BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence..."


Untrue. While he did not personally give money to Democrats, he did direct money to them. The Capital Eye lists the lobbying and political contributions of Jack Abramoff which includes Democrats ( www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=N). The Associated Press reports that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid did assist Abramoff clients (see www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/09/D8FLPHO80.html).

This is overwhelmingly a Republican scandal, but the Democrats are not pristine either. However my main intent was a criticism of Dr. Dean.

While I am a conservative, I want a viable Democratic Party. Reasoned debate is important and good for the country. To be frank, right now the Republicans have so much control that they have become arrogant and are not acting like true conservatives. They need a viable opposition to force them to act like conservatives. Unfortunately, I do not believe Howard Dean is the person to lead the Democratic Party into the future. Of course, you are free to disagree, that is simply my opinion.

We found what you had to say of special interest. So much so that we are adding it to the list of e-mails we are considering for inclusion in the Prickly City Podcast. There's a new one posted every week at www.pricklycity.com. Give it a listen and you may hear us discuss your e-mail.

You may also be interested to know that the first collection of Prickly City is now available through www.Amazon.com .

Thank you again for taking the time to write.

Please continue to read and enjoy Prickly City.

Scott Stantis

On 1/26/06, RandomKoolzip> wrote:

Many republican pols accepted money DIRECTLY from
Abramoff.

Some democrats accepted money from Indian tribes. Most
of the Indian tribes gave Dems money BEFORE their
association with Abramoff. After Abramoff began
"working" with those tribes, the tenor of their
donations changed; more of those tribes began
funnelling money to right-wing politicians. NO
DEMOCRAT RECEIVED MONEY DIRECTLY FROM JACK ABRAMOFF.

I know it's awfully convienient to claim that the
Abramoff scandal is a bipartisan phenomenon, but it's
untruthful to do so, and unhealthy for a number of
reasons, the least of which is that it contradicts the
old rule that 'Two wrongs don't make a right." The
right seems to think that if BOTH parties can be
implicated in wrongdoing, then it isn't wrongdoing
anymore. You see this time and time again when the
right is confronted with accusations of malfeasance.
Instead of vowing to do better, they stamp their feet
and yell, "hey, the other kids do it too!"

Here's a quote from the Philadelphia Enquirer:

'Abramoff was a rich kid from Beverly Hills when he
took over the College Republicans in 1981, aided by
two friends: Grover Norquist (now one of the most
influential conservatives in Washington) and Ralph
Reed (later the face of the Christian Coalition, now
running for Georgia lieutenant governor). In 1983,
Abramoff explained his views: "It is not our job to
seek peaceful coexistence with the left. Our job is to
remove them from power permanently."'

Read those last two sentences again and tell me that
this is a bipartisan scandal. Why would Ambramoff give
money to the very group he sought to extinguish? It
wouldn't make sense.

Please do the decent thing: do some more research and
issue an apology. After all, your strip is actually
pretty funny when it's not telling half-truths about
Democrats.

Thanks

[whitestarz]

1. All this back-and-forth...

I get so tired of all the finger-pointing and 'they do it too'! Our party will not regain it's leadership position until we develop standards of behavior that are the right things to do, and act that way regardless of how the Republicans act. Bouncing everything off them makes us followers--not leaders.:patriot:

[myrna minx]

2. Welcome to DU, whitestarz.

:hi: I think we give the repubs far too much power. I agree, we need to stand up for what is right and not what the repubs will think about our ethics. They'll just scream about whatever we do whether it is moral or not.

[newyawker99]

8. Hi whitestarz!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Kurovski]

9. The Republicans are the ones who have said "they do it to".

It's their MO. The Dems have done the "right thing" regarding the Abramoff Scandal, and did so all along.

RandomKoolzip was correcting an injustice, and I'm proud that he took the time (and the lead) to do so. i do not think he was merely "bouncing everything off them".

Are you a Republican seeking refuge from a party you've become disillusioned with? if so, That would be great, and welcome!

[babylonsister]

3. Thanks for sharing; sounds like a decent exchange both

ways, and you might get published! :evilgrin:

[myrna minx]

4. That was quite a reasoned response.

I think some conservatives are fretting about the future of a one party state that proclaims to be conservative yet has not conservative principles at all.

[Gold Metal Flake]

5. "Democratic Leader Harry Reid did assist Abramoff clients..."

Here we go again.

"Abramoff clients" were also Abramoff victims. American and American groups may donate to members of Congress. They may seek them out to obtain representation on an issue. They may seek out and employ lobbyists to do the job for them. So, when someone, a group of native Americans for example, deal directly with a Senator such as Reid, and they do so legally, what's the problem?

Stantis is trying to say, as others have, that since people who were clients of Abramoff (and who were therefore being ripped-off by Abramoff) tried to seek the representation denied them by going directly to certain congresspeople, that that makes the congresspeople as dirty as Abramoff. That is simply a lie.

Abramoff's function was to obtain millions of dollars for a Republican slush fund. Abramoff was committed to destroying all political opposition in this country. Giving money or "directing" money to Democrats runs counter to his goals. It's a lie. Stantis is a liar. What the fuck is so reasonable about lying?

[RandomKoolzip]

7. I haven't changed my position at all.

I was using the word "reasonable" to describe his tone, not his content. Yes, he's wrong about Abramoff and the Democrats. But the fact that he chose to actually reply in a tone that wasn't utterly bellicose and over-the-top insulting was a surprise. Hell, I wasn't even expecting a reply.

And you betcha: that's fucking sad. To be pleasantly surpised that a conservative doesn't call me a "idiot commie lib pussy-ass traitor wimp demonrat" when debating just shows how far the GOP has lowered the discourse.

[Rob H.]

6. It's a lie to say Abramoff directed tribes to give money to Democrats

After Abramoff got involved with the tribes, he actually told the tribes to give less money to Democrats! They were also already giving money to Democrats before Abramoff arrived on the scene.

More information can be found in this article, "A False Balance" by Paul Krugman.

Excerpt, with emphasis added by me:

So Mr. Abramoff is a movement conservative whose lobbying career was based on his connections with other movement conservatives. His big coup was persuading gullible Indian tribes to hire him as an adviser; his advice was to give less money to Democrats and more to Republicans. There's nothing bipartisan about this tale, which is all about the use and abuse of Republican connections.

Yet over the past few weeks a number of journalists, ranging from The Washington Post's ombudsman to the "Today" show's Katie Couric, have declared that Mr. Abramoff gave money to both parties. In each case the journalists or their news organization, when challenged, grudgingly conceded that Mr. Abramoff himself hasn't given a penny to Democrats. But in each case they claimed that this is only a technical point, because Mr. Abramoff's clients -- those Indian tribes -- gave money to Democrats as well as Republicans, money the news organizations say he "directed" to Democrats.

But the tribes were already giving money to Democrats before Mr. Abramoff entered the picture; he persuaded them to reduce those Democratic donations, while giving much more money to Republicans. A study commissioned by The American Prospect shows that the tribes' donations to Democrats fell by 9 percent after they hired Mr. Abramoff, while their contributions to Republicans more than doubled. So in any normal sense of the word "directed," Mr. Abramoff directed funds away from Democrats, not toward them.

I'm with Opposite Reaction: Stantis is a liar. I'm just one guy with Google and time to kill and this was the first article I found using the words "abramoff tribes less money". Stantis would've been able to find the same information I did--if he were genuinely interested in looking for it.

[johnaries]

11. And Reid was not "helping the tribes", he was helping NEVADA!

He worked toward stopping new casinos, but he already explained that it was not to help any Tribe Gaming interests, it was to help the gaming interests that were his constituents in Nevada.

Reid was simply doing his job and representing the people that elected him.

[Kurovski]

10. K&R. A terrific, responsible job well done!

Thank you for standing up for truth.

[Kurovski]

12. kick.(nt)