Abramoff and his associates.

 

The AJC has their emphasis backwards here. They should have had it "... from Abramoff's associates."

No, their emphasis is not the problem. It's the statement itself that's false, has always been false, and has been the rightwing talking point since forever.

The one convicted of a crime was Abramoff. Not his PAC, not his associates. It's his contributions, and not those of his associates, that are therefore suspect.

If it's not from Abramoff, it doesn't merit mention. The only way that Republicans could attempt to counter how bad Abramoff made their side look was to promote that false talking point that it mattered what his associates and his clients did. But it doesn't matter. His clients were not convicted of the crimes he was convicted of.

Have I shared my latest finding about McCain's top lobbyist? It's precious. I sure wish I could afford to wrap my x-mas presents in sheets of US currency. What a great, elitist idea!

Monday, August 11, 2008

POWER HOUSE

Super lobbyist, McCain donor and loathsome GOP figure Ed Rogers decided to talk to the Washington Post about Barack Obama last week:

John McCain's celebrity ad was effective. It wasn't uncontroversial and it didn't please all the political scientists, but it sure got noticed, and it made Barack Obama overreact. Questions about Obama's desire for celebrity status will linger. He now has to be very careful about intersecting with Hollywood, pop culture and entertainment. Lee Atwater said the worst thing you can do in American politics is play to your negative stereotype. Well, Obama's negative stereotype now includes the idea that he may be a little too glitzy. (Speaking of negative stereotypes, when Obama was talking about the pictures of presidents on dollar bills, was he introducing the presumptuous notion that his face belongs on American currency? I wonder whom he thinks he should replace.)

At least he was able to refrain from mentioning Obama's middle name while calling him "glitzy."

In other news, NBC has just completed the pilot for their new show, POWER HOUSE. In the first episode, we get to see how Ed Rogers and his wife live in their "Republican Shangri-La" -- an 18-thousand square foot estate in McLean, VA.



Looks just like my livingroom. We must have the same architect.



The genuine cowhide toilet-seat cover really says "I shit you not" with class. The golden studs around it aren't the least bit ostentatious.

And finally, we get to see why the lobbyists and hedonists with whom McCain has surrounded himself have proclaimed Americans to be a bunch of whiners:



That's right. She's standing in front of rows of her designer shoes cutting up sheets of freshly printed U.S. dollar bills with a pair of scissors so she can use them as wrapping paper.

This is an example by mmfa of the "eyes wide shut" brand of partisan journalism.

Was Abramoff an influence peddler? You bet.

Were democrats in on the deal? You bet.

Were republicans the main beneficiary? You bet.

Is this type of partisan reporting a reflection on today's malevolent media? You bet. 

 

OT, but I did appreciate your link yesterday from the politico about racism and Obama. I thought you were being quite fair and balanced providing that piece.

Thanks snoopy...we disagree on a lot of issues...and I try to remain open minded...well, sometimes anyway.

I'll tell you this for nothing...I just about swallowed my cud when I read "shoes" making the statement that Obama was not a natural born citizen because he may have been delivered by c-section.

You've got'em on your side...and so do I...so I guess we'll just soldier on. 

As long as you're trying, I will too. Maybe that means we ain't that far gone yet? ;)

Wesley said

Was Abramoff an influence peddler? You bet.

Were democrats in on the deal? You bet.

Were republicans the main beneficiary? You bet.

But what's the truth? Abramoff was the one who was convicted, and he gave no money to Democrats! Democrats weren't "in on the deal".

What we see in Wesley's post is another attempt to paint the Democrats as doing the same thing as Republicans when they haven't been. This is a common distracting theme by the righties, and I hope they keep it up. People can't stand it anymore, and every time they make that false comparison and people realize that the Dems aren't doing what the Republicans are doing, it's another nail in the coffin of the Republicans who are in power today.

Democrats didn't get contributions from the convicted person. Republicans did.

Ds didn't, Rs did.  At least this time around.

That's enough, Oscar, quit making Wesley look stupid. You're supposed to defend him. What kind of Republican are you?

A. The kind that makes it much more difficult for me to post my broad-brush insults. Damn you Oscar !!!

At least this time around.

Well, we should at least wait for someone to actually DO something corrupt before labelling them as such.  It's just more sporting that way.

They got the wrong Reed - it was Ralph Reed, not Harry Reid...

"Were democrats in on the deal? You bet."

Name some then.

Ask and ye shall receive: 

Abramoff and democrats