The Daily Muck
In Silver Spring, Maryland, a hobbled, embittered, dangerous man is brooding in his suburban home. The NY Times reports that Abramoff is watching from the sidelines as former friends snipe at him, contrite but privately insistent that his dealings were "business as usual."
When he's not talking to prosecutors or tying to scare up some income (Looking for real estate in the Silver Springs area? He may be your man.), Abramoff has been "writing a commentary about the Torah." He must be becoming quite an authority on the law.
Big news: the Post reports that Alexander Strategy Group, one of the titans of K Street and home to ex-DeLay aides Tony Rudy and Ed Buckham, is shutting down. Rudy has been implicated for behavior while still DeLay's top aide, and Buckham's firm was the one that employed DeLay's and Doolittle's wives. They also have a role in the Duke Cunningham case: Group W, a firm run by Duke sugar daddy Brent Wilkes, hired ASG to lobby on defense appropriations.
Buckham says they're closing because all the bad publicity is scaring away clients (not because the two most senior members are the subjects of a criminal probe). The Post observes that DeLay's departure seriously diminished their clout - DeLay was their business. Tony Rudy has left the firm. Despite all this, Buckham is philosophical:
"I'm at peace with all this.... I'm not bitter. I'm not resentful. I harbor no ill feelings toward anyone. The important thing in life is having a clean heart and I do. I'm not even upset with the press."
The LA Times reports that Duke Cunningham's lawyers denied he had "worn a concealed microphone to gather evidence against other public officials but declined to specify whether he wore one in conversations with private individuals." In other words, he may have gotten other lobbyists on tape, but no members of Congress or other public officials.
Two polls out in the wake of Abramoff's plea show that voters think the scandal is serious - but the GOP bamboozlement about this being a bipartisan affair seems to be working. The USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll showed that 43% of adults thought that this was a bipartisan scandal, with only 38% saying Republicans would be hurt most by it. 73% of the respondents to The Washington Post-ABC News poll said there isn't "much difference" between the parties when it comes to ethics and honesty.
Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) makes an observation Dems can agree on: "We simply have too much power." That lead story in USA Today does a good job of delineating this as a Republican scandal and helpfully outlines the features of the current Congressional ethics system.
Flake has been causing trouble for Reps. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and John Boehner (R-Ohio), the frontrunners to replace DeLay as Majority Leader. Yesterday, he along with Rep. Charles Bass (R-N.H.), circulated a petition that Republicans should seek a candidate who's stronger on reform. Those same two circulated a petition last Friday that DeLay should step down.
Backing Flake and Bass up, there's an excellent piece on Bloomberg this morning that details Blunt's and Boehner's closeness to lobbyists.
In other muck:
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint with the Justice Department against Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Cal.) yesterday, alleging that Lewis got way too cozy with a lobbyist named Bill Lowery. Lowery's clients have received big contracts from the House Appropriations Committee (of which Lewis is the Chairman), and Lowery poured money into Lewis' political committee. One of Lewis' staff members even left to work for Lowery, and then came back to work for Lewis again. For more on this, read Josh's post on Lewis and Lowery back in December.
And finally, Rep. Dana Rohrabachar (R-Cal.) thinks Jack Abramoff is getting a bad rap. Refusing to "kick a friend in the teeth when he's down," Rohrabacher, a friend of Abramoff's since college, wants everybody to know that Abramoff is "a good person who's done bad things and has to be punished for doing bad things."
January 10, 2006 5:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I only nitpick because I live there... it's Silver Spring, Md... there's just one spring.
The fact that these criminals are still in operation is sickening. It's important that Democrats paint this as a Republican scandal.. because that's exactly what it is. The Republicans have all the power, for God's sake! You can't peddle for a bribe if you have effectively no power.
January 10, 2006 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
True, big donors will think twice if they're smart before they give money to the Republicans. There's no honor among thieves and not only will their money be used to perpetuate the RNC's ongoing financial fraud, they themselves may be implicated and sold down the river as the bigwigs act to save their own skins.
And as for Abramoff's religiosity, isn't that par for the course in American politics? It's just a matter of time before Rep. DeLay morphs into Rev. DeLay . . . .
January 10, 2006 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are we still considering the NYT a credible source...
January 10, 2006 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not Jewish, so perhaps I have no right to "go there." But an orthodox Jewish friend advises that when one goes to Heaven, the first question one is asked is whether one was honest in financial dealings. What's next - Bible Study with Ken Lay? Martha Stewart's Concordance?
January 10, 2006 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
re Cunningham: I'm not surprised that he did not wear a wire with his colleagues. My first reaction to the story that Duke wore a wire was that it would probably be unconstitutional for the FBI to put a wire on a member of Congress in his dealings with colleagues. It would probably violate the "speech and debate clause." If it was business dealings outside of the Capitol, it might be no problem.
January 10, 2006 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
The single most absurd thing about the current focus on "lobbying reform" or on passing new laws to stop the corruption should be obvious to all: how do you stop illegal behavior simply by passing new laws?
If a cohort of people are determined that they are going to defy the laws, and behave like criminals, how is passing a new set of laws possibly going to stop them? First and foremost, the law breakers must be brought to justice, and shamed, so that it sets an example for all others who might think of following in their footsteps.
Republicans, who most of all think that severe punishment is the greatest possible deterrent to future crime should understand this. Who is surprised that in this instance you don't hear a peep from them about this, but instead constant talk about reforming the laws?
January 10, 2006 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although he's most famous for his zero tolerance approach to crime, what's less well known is the first major "reforms" were directed to root out corruption in the NYPD. Regardless of your views of the man, he was right on this point of straightening out the NYPD as a priority.
The analogy to Congress is obvious. Real reform involves first booting every stinking thief out of office. Only then can lobbying reforms, whatever they are, really carry meaning. In management-speak, we need to "change the culture" of politics. That will only happen if we have new elected representatives, without DeLay...
January 10, 2006 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect your Orthodox Jewish friend was pulling your leg, riffing on the old canard that the only things Jews care about is money. The main thing is to be there for your fellow human beings (you could even chow down on bacon if that would save some other person's life), so I think the first question would probably be about that.
January 10, 2006 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, his Orthodox friend was correct. As an ortho myself, I can tell you that indeed the Talmud says the first thing we'll be asked on High is whether we were honest in our business dealings. However, this has nothing to do with the canard about Jews and money. Rather, it's meant to suggest that if one was scrupulously honest in business - where temptation and opportunity abound (cf. Abramoff) - then it can be deduced a priori that one treated his fellow creatures honestly and respectfully in all aspects of life.
January 10, 2006 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
We can agree the real problem is in the corruptable nature of many contemporary Republicans -- but we also can't afford to let Gingrich become the hero of Lobby Reform.
My own preference is for reforms that build a wall between the matter of lobbying -- which should be honorable, and is constitutional -- and the matter of political fund raising and campaign finance. It is the relationships between these functions that is the core of what is corruptable. Any reform worth anything would build a wall between them, and then have strong enforcement built in to the process.
January 10, 2006 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
<pre>Y'all said: <BLOCKQUOTE>"Rohrabacher, a friend of Abramoff's since college..."</BLOCKQUOTE> </pre><pre>That's only partly true.
</pre><pre>Jack Abramoff attended Brandeis and Georgetown in the late 70s & early 80s.
Dana Rohrabacher attended:
California State University at Long Beach, BA, 1967-1969
University of Southern California, MA, 1970-1971
As someone who attended college with Dana, I can assure you that the above dates
and places (re: Dana) are correct. I can also assure you that Mr. Abramoff, who
is approximately 10 years younger than Dana and I, was not a 10-year-old prodigy
who sneaked on to the campus to hang out with us. </pre><pre>I can also assure you that I am proud, nay, ecstatic, to have never met Mr. Abramoff. I could not afford all the Fels Naptha required to clean up after an encounter.</pre><pre>--snorkster </pre><pre> </pre>
January 10, 2006 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink