Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (16650)	1/6/2006 2:50:20 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

That some Republicans are just as corruptible as some Democrats won't surprise students of human nature. But it is an insult to the conservative voters who elected this class of Republicans and expected better. Cleaning House Banish the Abramoff Republicans. Wall Street Journal Editorial Friday, January 6, 2006 12:01 This week's plea agreement by "super-lobbyist" Jack Abramoff has Republicans either rushing to return his campaign contributions in an act of cosmetic distancing, accuse Democrats of being equally corrupt, or embrace some new "lobbying reform" that would further insulate Members of Congress from political accountability. Here's a better strategy: Banish the Abramoff crowd from polite Republican society, and start remembering why you were elected in the first place. This isn't to say we agree with the media hype that the Abramoff scandal is of "historic proportions." That's true only if your "history" starts around 1994, after Jim Wright sold his "book" in bulk to the Teamsters, after Tony Coelho of "Honest Graft" fame, after Abscam, the Keating Five, Clark Clifford and BCCI, and any number of other famous episodes of Capitol Hill sleaze. Mr. Abramoff and his pals are stock Beltway characters. What's notable so far about this scandal is the wretchedness of the excess on display, as well as the fact that it involves self-styled "conservatives," who claimed to want to clean up Washington instead of cleaning up themselves. That some Republicans are just as corruptible as some Democrats won't surprise students of human nature. But it is an insult to the conservative voters who elected this class of Republicans and expected better. On the other hand, it's worth pointing out that Mr. Abramoff and his coterie aren't getting off easy. His plea deal includes a likely 10-year sentence, which is the same as the one handed to Enron's Andy Fastow. Co-conspirator Michael Scanlon has also copped to a felony, and others are expected to follow. No one can accuse the Bush Justice Department of giving these GOP scoundrels a pass, in contrast to the way Janet Reno's Department went soft on Harold Ickes and others after the 1996 campaign-finance shenanigans. It's also notable how few Members of Congress so far have truly been implicated, beyond accepting entirely legal campaign contributions. The most culpable is Ohio's Bob Ney, who has been cited in a "criminal information" for receiving trips and other favors in return for statements entered into the Congressional Record. Mr. Ney says that he too was duped, but there's no question he was willing to tap dance on cue for Mr. Scanlon, and that alone is sleaze-by-willing-association. If the House Ethics Committee serves any useful purpose, sanctioning Mr. Ney ought to be it. The bigger political target is former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, more of whose former aides may end up striking plea deals. This doesn't implicate Mr. DeLay directly, but the cloud around him clearly isn't going to dissipate even if he prevails (as he probably will) against his politicized Texas indictment by Ronnie Earle. When we first wrote about Mr. DeLay's travails last March ("Smells Like Beltway"), some of our friends said we were unfair. But Republicans would be far better off now had they taken our advice to do more to distance themselves from the Abramoff taint. The prospect that Mr. DeLay might still return as leader has contributed to the GOP's recent dysfunction; he and they should move on separately. More broadly, however, the Abramoff scandal wouldn't resonate nearly as much with the public if it didn't fit a GOP pattern of becoming cozy with Beltway mores. The party that swept to power on term limits, spending restraint and reform has become the party of incumbency, 6,371 highway-bill "earmarks," and K Street. And it's no defense to say that Democrats would do the same. Of course Democrats would, but then they've always claimed to be the party of government. If that's what voters want, they'll choose the real thing. One danger now is that, rather than change their own behavior, Republicans will think they can hide behind the political cover of "lobbying reform." While this has various guises, most proposals amount to putting further restrictions not on Congress but on "the right of the people . . . to petition the government," as the Constitution puts it explicitly. Lobbyists per se aren't the problem; most of them are hired to protect Americans from a federal government that wants to take more of their money or freedom. Mr. Abramoff could make so much hay with Indian tribes only because he and they knew that Congress had given Washington the power to make or break fortunes simply by rediscovering "lost" tribes and giving them the power to sponsor casino gambling. The root of the scandal is this Beltway discretion and its misuse, not the lobbyists who attempt to protect their own interests. Most "lobbying reform" also accepts the liberal premise that private money is somehow corrupt while government money isn't. More disclosure is fine by us, but any new rules should also apply to AARP, the Sierra Club, Harvard University and "nonprofit" lobbies or foundations, including their grants from the government and George Soros. Republicans won't escape voter anger by writing new rules but only by returning to their self-professed principles. Gradually since 1994 they've decided they want to reform and limit government less than they want to use government to entrench their own power, and in the case of the Abramoffs to get rich doing so. If Speaker Dennis Hastert, interim Majority Leader Roy Blunt and other GOP leaders are too insulated to realize this, then Republicans need new leaders, and right away. opinionjournal.com

To: Sully- who wrote (16650)	1/6/2006 3:03:24 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35834

While the Left rallies around their leaders, we on the right are often too quick to abandon ours. No, we're not Clinton sycophants. He was actually held in contempt for lying to a federal judge. And no, we're not like the Left in that we tolerate virtually any transgression by our leaders in hopes of retaining or pursuing power. However, there are in fact times when principle and loyalty are one and the same. Based on what is known, I believe DeLay deserves the benefit of the doubt. Don’t Rush on DeLay Now is the time for principled loyalty. Mark R. Levin National Review Online So, what exactly are the federal criminal allegations against Tom DeLay? Well, there aren't any. He participated in a golf junket? He says that he thought a nonprofit paid for it, as they often do. He flew on private jets? Is that unique for members of Congress, let alone a crime? Well, he flew on private jets frequently! That may be bad policy, but it doesn't make it a crime. Oh, his wife was employed by a nonprofit. So what? Many congressional families are two-income households. They work for nonprofits, companies, lobbying firms, and the government. And I'm sure I haven't exhausted the list of inferences of impropriety — which is all they are right now. We don't know where the Abramoff investigation will lead. Clearly the guy was (is) a class-A crook, as evidenced by his own confessions. He gave lots of money and perks to lots of politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike. And if any congressmen sold their offices, they should be prosecuted. I admit I haven't undertaken a statistical analysis to determine which party may have received more largesse — although I am repeatedly informed by the media that this is a Republican scandal. It's more than notable that the plea agreements in this case say nothing about DeLay, while they do implicate another congressman. The purpose of such agreements is to set in concrete key details of the defendants’ criminal conduct for use down the prosecutorial road. But no such testimony respecting DeLay has been secured. None of the inferences of impropriety in the New York Times, Washington Post, AP, and so forth, have made their way into the plea agreements. As I say, we certainly don't know where all this will lead. As for the politics of this, I personally am not comfortable with urging House Republicans to abandon DeLay as a leader (or urging DeLay to simply step aside) based on the information that's publicly known, which, at this time, amounts only to innuendo. Yes, it's possible that after reinstalling DeLay as majority leader (once the Ronnie Earle farce falls of its own weight), Abramoff-related events will create a legal or political scenario requiring DeLay to step down. But that's nothing more than speculation. There's also the issue of loyalty — not blind loyalty, but loyalty in which the benefit of the doubt is afforded to someone who has been targeted and demonized repeatedly by his political opponents, who've been agitating for his downfall for years. And why do they detest DeLay? Well, despite what even some conservative critics have said, and some of it warranted, DeLay has been a remarkably effective leader. The truth is that most conservative legislative initiatives have originated in the House, where conservatives hold a very thin majority. While the Left rallies around their leaders, we on the right are often too quick to abandon ours. No, we're not Clinton sycophants. He was actually held in contempt for lying to a federal judge. And no, we're not like the Left in that we tolerate virtually any transgression by our leaders in hopes of retaining or pursuing power. However, there are in fact times when principle and loyalty are one and the same. Based on what is known, I believe DeLay deserves the benefit of the doubt. — Mark R. Levin is author of the best-selling Men In Black, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, and a radio talk-show host on WABC in New York. nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (16650)	1/8/2006 10:34:31 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Read 'Em and Weep! By rightwingprof The Blue State Conservatives The list of Democrats taking money from Abramoff, courtesy of the FEC, via Mark in Mexico. * Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received At Least – $22,500 * Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Received At Least – $6,500 * Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Received At Least – $1,250 * Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received At Least – $2,000 * Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Received At Least – $20,250 * Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received At Least – $21,765 * Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received At Least – $7,500 * Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Received At Least – $12,950 * Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received At Least – $8,000 * Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received At Least – $7,500 * Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received At Least – $14,792 * Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received At Least – $79,300 * Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least – $14,000 * Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Received At Least – $2,000 * Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Received At Least – $1,250 * Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received At Least – $45,750 * Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received At Least – $9,000 * Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received At Least – $2,000 * Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received At Least – $14,250 * Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Received At Least – $3,300 * Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least – $98,550 * Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received At Least – $28,000 * Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Received At Least – $4,000 * Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,000 * Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least – $29,830 * Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least – $14,891 * Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received At Least – $10,550 * Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received At Least – $78,991 * Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received At Least – $20,168 * Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least – $5,200 * Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received At Least – $7,500 * Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received At Least – $2,300 * Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received At Least – $3,500 * Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Received At Least – $68,941 * Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Received At Least – $4,000 * Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received At Least – $4,500 * Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received At Least – $4,300 * Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least – $29,550 * Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,250 * Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Received At Least – $6,250 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $423,480 Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $354,700 Democratic National Cmte $65,720 Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) $42,500 Patty Murray (D-Wash) $40,980 Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) $36,000 Harry Reid (D-Nev) $30,500 Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) $28,000 Tom Daschle (D-SD) $26,500 Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) $20,600 Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) $19,000 Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) $17,500 Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $15,500 Chris John (D-La) $15,000 John Breaux (D-La) $13,750 Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) $13,600 Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) $12,000 Mary L. Landrieu (D-La) $11,500 Barney Frank (D-Mass) $11,100 Max Baucus (D-Mont) $11,000 Maria Cantwell (D-Wash) $10,000 Nick Rahall (D-WVa) $10,000 Ron Kind (D-Wis) $9,000 Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) $8,500 Joe Baca (D-Calif) $8,000 Dick Durbin (D-Ill) $8,000 Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) $7,523 Tim Johnson (D-SD) $7,250 Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) $6,000 David E. Bonior (D-Mich) $5,000 Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) $5,000 Fritz Hollings (D-SC) $5,000 Jay Inslee (D-Wash) $5,000 Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) $5,000 Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) $5,000 Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) $5,000 Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) $4,500 Tom Carper (D-Del) $4,000 Kent Conrad (D-ND) $4,000 Jerry Kleczka (D-Wis) $4,000 Sander Levin (D-Mich) $4,000 Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) $4,000 George Miller (D-Calif) $4,000 Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) $3,500 James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) $3,500 Charles J. Melancon (D-La) $3,100 Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) $3,000 Cal Dooley (D-Calif) $3,000 John B. Larson (D-Conn) $3,000 David R. Obey (D-Wis) $3,000 Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) $3,000 Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) $3,000 Richard M. Romero (D-NM) $3,000 Brad Sherman (D-Calif) $3,000 Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) $3,000 Max Cleland (D-Ga) $2,500 Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) $2,500 Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) $2,500 Bill Luther (D-Minn) $2,250 Gene Taylor (D-Miss) $2,250 Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) $2,000 Ken Bentsen (D-Texas) $2,000 Dan Boren (D-Okla) $2,000 Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) $2,000 John D. Dingell (D-Mich) $2,000 Doug Dodd (D-Okla) $2,000 Ned Doucet (D-La) $2,000 Lane Evans (D-Ill) $2,000 Sam Farr (D-Calif) $2,000 John Neely Kennedy (D-La) $2,000 Carl Levin (D-Mich) $2,000 Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) $2,000 Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) $2,000 Robert Menendez (D-NJ) $2,000 Adam Schiff (D-Calif) $2,000 Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) $2,000 Adam Smith (D-Wash) $2,000 Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif) $2,000 Mike Thompson (D-Calif) $2,000 Maxine Waters (D-Calif) $2,000 Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) $1,500 Norm Dicks (D-Wash) $1,500 John Kerry (D-Mass) $1,400 Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) $1,000 Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif) $1,000 Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) $1,000 Jim Costa (D-Calif) $1,000 Susan A. Davis (D-Calif) $1,000 Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) $1,000 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $1,000 Tim Holden (D-Pa) $1,000 Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) $1,000 Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) $1,000 Jim Maloney (D-Conn) $1,000 David Phelps (D-Ill) $1,000 Charles S. Robb (D-Va) $1,000 Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) $1,000 Pete Stark (D-Calif) $1,000 Gloria Tristani (D-NM) $1,000 Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) $1,000 Rick Weiland (D-SD) $1,000 Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) $1,000 Ron Wyden (D-Ore) $1,000 Bob Borski (D-Pa) $720 Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) $500 Howard L. Berman (D-Calif) $500 Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) $500 Democratic Party of Washington $500 Barbara Lee (D-Calif) $500 Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) $500 Democratic Party of Montana $5,000 Democratic Party of New Mexico $6,250 Democratic Party of South Dakota $9,500 Democratic Party of Minnesota $9,000 Democratic Party of North Dakota $10,000 Democratic Party of Oklahoma $15,000 Democratic Party of Michigan $23,000 Mark in Mexico (R-Oax) $.09 Grand Total $1,541,682 radiobs.net markinmexico.blogspot.com

To: Sully- who wrote (16650)	1/9/2006 12:38:11 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Bringing faith into contempt by Jeff Jacoby townhall.com Jan 9, 2006 By his own admission, Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff is a crook. But that isn't the worst that can be said about him. He defrauded his clients of millions of dollars, bribed public officials, cheated on his tax returns, and deceived lenders to qualify for a loan. But that isn't the worst that can be said about him, either. He made himself at home in and contributed to the swamp of corruption that fills Washington with its stench. His e-mails to cronies, with messages like "Can you smell money?!?!?!" and "I'd love us to get our mitts on that moolah!!", oozed greed and boorishness. Behind their backs, he crudely mocked those who hired him, calling them "morons," "monkeys," "troglodytes," and "the stupidest idiots in the land." He played fast and loose with what were supposed to be charitable funds. But not even that is the worst that can be said about him. The worst is that Abramoff is a Jew. Not only a Jew, but an Orthodox Jew -- someone who claims to be committed to strictly observing Jewish law and faithfully adhering to the Torah's ethical standards. But instead of upholding those ethical standards Abramoff trampled on them, and a "religious" Jew who behaves so corruptly disgraces not only himself but all religious Jews. He brings his faith into contempt. He is guilty of what Jewish tradition calls, with disgust, chillul ha-Shem -- a desecration of God's name. For me -- also an observant Jew -- that is the worst thing of all. Honesty in financial dealings is not optional in Judaism; it is mandatory. The Talmud teaches that when a person is brought to judgment in the world-to-come, the first question the heavenly tribunal puts to him is: "Did you conduct your business affairs in good faith?" A Jew who takes the values of his religion seriously must be scrupulous in his transactions with others. To be sure, even the saintliest people -- not to mention the rest of us -- sometimes fall short of the values they profess. But Abramoff's criminal deeds and sleazy manner are a lot worse than mere lapses in judgment. One who behaves so unethically and illegally drags more than his own reputation through the mud. He is an embarrassment to his religion and his community, and that comes close to being unforgivable. Far from disguising his Orthodox Jewish identification, Abramoff paraded it publicly, as if that would cleanse his unkosher activities. He produced a violent, expletive-filled movie (1989's "Red Scorpion"), then turned around and created something called the Committee for Traditional Jewish Values in Entertainment. He fired off gross and insulting e-mails, but fastidiously rendered "God" as "G-d." ("This is a Jewish tradition," he explained to a reporter for The New York Times, "to not write out God's name in something that might be destroyed.") As the legal stormclouds gathered over his head, he cloaked himself in piety. His "political activities, like everything in his life, were informed by his religious beliefs," his spokesman told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. "While he did not always meet the standard of his faith, he certainly aspired to do so." For his appearance in the US District Court in Washington last Tuesday, Abramoff made a point of wearing a black fedora -- an element of attire that is de rigeur for men in certain Orthodox Jewish circles. But his show of devoutness was lost on those who looked at that black hat, and the black trench coat he also wore, and saw something considerably more sinister. "He looks like if he would open that raincoat, he's got half a dozen machine guns inside," Newsweek's Howard Fineman commented on MSNBC. "He looks," replied Chris Matthews, "like the guy in 'Godfather II' going after Hyman Roth." Within the Jewish community whose values he so dishonored, there is little sympathy for Abramoff, who is likely to receive a prison sentence of 10 or 11 years. But Jewish tradition also teaches that it is never too late to repent, and that God's hand is always extended to the wrongdoer who is genuinely contrite. "For all of my remaining days, I will feel tremendous sadness and regret for my conduct and for what I have done," Abramoff told US District Judge Ellen Huvelle last week. "I only hope that I can merit forgiveness from the Almighty and from those I have wronged or caused to suffer." By themselves, those words will not undo the damage Jack Abramoff has done. But they make a good start. Right now, that that may be the best that can be said about him. Jeff Jacoby is an Op-Ed writer for the Boston Globe, a radio political commentator, and a contributing columnist for Townhall.com. Copyright © 2006 Boston Globe townhall.com

To: Sully- who wrote (16650)	1/9/2006 2:32:30 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

PREDICTION Jonah Goldberg The Corner This exchange from CNN yesterday will come back to haunt Howard Dean: BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back? DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true. 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... BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan? DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (16650)	1/9/2006 3:51:33 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Glass Houses Power Line The National Republican Senatorial Committee is reporting that 40 of the 45 Democratic Senators received contributions from Jack Abramoff, his associates or his Indian tribe clients. In general, I think the Indian tribes have supported Democrats more than Republicans. They seem to be the Abramoff clients who are getting most of the attention. powerlineblog.com nrsc.org

To: Sully- who wrote (16650)	1/11/2006 3:17:27 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

"Potentially delicious" scandal bias by Brent Bozell Townhall.com Jan 11, 2006 You can just feel the media's euphoria over lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleading guilty to fleecing clients and throwing goodies at legislators. Overnight, Rush Limbaugh could play an audio montage of various anchors and pundits proclaiming it was the biggest scandal to hit Washington in decades. Everywhere you turned, it was "huge," of "historic proportions." Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz called it "potentially delicious." The joy was reminiscent of old Post editor Ben Bradlee's line about Iran-Contra: <<< "We haven't had this much fun since Watergate." >>> This scandal is big -- no questions about that. But by what measure is this story so huge and historic? How does it compare to the House Bank scandal of 1992, which resulted in a number of congressional careers ended? How does Abramoff compare to the related mess at the House Post Office, which led to the eventual conviction of House Ways and Means chairman Dan Rostenkowski? There was no glee in the newsrooms then, when it was Democrats. When Speaker Jim Wright was forced out in 1989 for dozens upon dozens of ethical violations? "Mindless cannibalism," Wright called it, and they agreed. When Majority Whip Tony Coelho scooted away behind Wright, the media mourned America's loss. How does Casino-gate, or whatever we're going to call this one, compare to the Asian fundraising scandal of 1996? No one mentioned that, either. Investor's Business Daily published a very informative graphic showing that 22 foreign figures and Democrat activists plugging away for Clinton-Gore and Democratic candidates were convicted by the federal probe of that scandal. (And that figure does not include the people that fled the country rather than testify.) How is the Abramoff plea already bigger than that? As expected, Democrats and their gaggle of supportive bloggers are claiming it's outrageous for anyone to suggest that Jack Abramoff could be connected to Democrats. They argue that because Abramoff was Republican and the majority of his funding went to Republicans, the discussion should end there. After all, the GOP is the Party of Corruption, is it not? The very idea that Howard Dean & Co. think they can suggest to the public that it is Republicans who represent a "culture of corruption," and not the party of the Clintons, Rosty, and Wright, is an exercise in self-delusion -- or outright fabrication. Last week, yet another old Democratic fundraising scandal emerged again, with barely a peep from the liberal media. The Associated Press sent out a squib of an article by reporter Devlin Barrett. The news? Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate committee agreed to pay a $35,000 fine to the Federal Election Commission for under-reporting the cost of a Hollywood fundraiser by more than $720,000. This is no tiny boo-boo in oversight. In fact, understating the fundraiser's budget was essential to enable Hillary to hoard more "hard money" dollars in the late months of the campaign. To an ethical midget, the game was clear: cheat now, win the seat, pay a tiny fine later, and watch the liberal media whisper right past it. Hillary Clinton is constantly touted as our next president, and it's going to be amusing watching this cattle-futures bribe-taker running against a "culture of corruption." But just as her husband could look straight into a TV camera and lie through his teeth, so, too, will Hillary pounce on rhetoric that is one part disingenuous and two parts hypocritical. She'll do it because no one in the Run, Hillary, Run media club will expose her. How was Hillary's Hollywood-party fine covered? On Jan. 6, The Washington Post just carried the 325-word AP dispatch inside the paper. The New York Times gave it little more than 100 words on page B-4 in a "Metro Briefs" section. It was buried even further still as story number six in that column. Nothing emerged on ABC. Or CBS. Or NBC. Or NPR. (CNN mentioned it briefly on "American Morning," right before its brief item on the "Bubble Gum Bandit.") USA Today, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News? Nothing. Dave Pierre at Newsbusters.org had some fun exploring the bias by omission at the Los Angeles Times. This paper had no Hillary story, but on Jan. 6, it did carry 2,315 words in two articles on NBC's liberal "Book of Daniel" premiere, 1,431 words on liberal Jon Stewart hosting the Oscars, 182 words on Pat Robertson's bizarre Ariel Sharon remarks, and another 1,477 words (starting on Page One) on the decline in the popularity of tennis. Pierre was especially wincing over this factoid: The offending Hillary fundraiser was held in Hollywood, smack-dab on the paper's stomping grounds. But let it not be said that the Los Angeles Times doesn't cover corruption. The day before, the front page carried a big, long Abramoff story with a tiny mention of Hillary Clinton's Abramoff connection. Brent Bozell is President of Media Research Center, a Townhall.com partner organization. Copyright © 2006 Creators Syndicate, Inc. townhall.com

To: Sully- who wrote (16650)	1/11/2006 6:22:16 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Bipartisan Scandal Power Line The Washington Times reports that investigators in the Abramoff probe are focusing their attention on five "top tier" Congressional suspects: - Senators Conrad Burns, Montana Republican; - Byron Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat; and - Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, along with - Reps. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, and - Bob Ney, Ohio Republican. If that's true, the Democrats will have a hard time painting this as a Republican problem. And, as we've said before, what has been publicly disclosed about the claim against Congressman Ney is less than overwhelming. In more concrete scandal news, an aide to Democratic Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana is expected to plead guilty this afternoon to "bribery of public officials and conspiracy." It appears that the target of the investigation is Jefferson; news accounts focus on a telecommunications deal Jefferson was involved in in Nigeria. Given the public's inclination to believe the worst of both parties, I think it will be hard for the Democrats to paint the current round of investigations as a Republican problem. The public, for example, never perceived the Charles Keating savings and loan scandal as a Democratic issue, in part because John McCain, who was on the periphery of the investigation, was nominally included as one of the "Keating Five." powerlineblog.com washtimes.com forbes.com