Note to O's editors: Jack Abramoff is a Republican (updated)

I'm not sure what the editors at the Oregonian's editorial board were smoking when they came up with this lousy editorial about the massive corruption scandal surrounding uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.  They have the audacity to suggest that Abramoff pushed his weight around within the Republican party simply because that was where the opportunities existed:

There's no question that Abramoff wormed his way deeply into the Republican power structure, whether because he was loyal to it or whether it was simply where the opportunity for influence was.

This ridiculous statement implies that Abramoff's influence wasn't about the current Republican power structure, but instead about his own desire for power.  Abramoff didn't "worm his way" into the GOP power structure, he helped create the current Republican power structure. 

Perhaps the O's editors are in denial, but Abramoff has been hard at work creating the Republican culture of corruption since he was in college.  He was elected chairman of the College Republican National Committee through a campaign managed by Grover Norquist (starve the beast - see Katrina aftermath) and Ralph Reed, Jr., former head of the Christian Coalition.  A law firm Abramoff once worked for described him as:

...directly involved in the Republican party and conservative movement leadership structures and is one of the leading fund raisers for the party and its congressional candidates.

How much more Republican can one get:  Grover Norquist?  Ralph Reed?  Chairman of the CRNC?  One of the leading fund raisers for the party?  And it's no surprise that both Norquist and Reed are part of the Abramoff investigation.

Then the O goes even further by suggesting this scandal is not a Republican one, but one that ensnares both parties:

...Abramoff contributed to candidates of both parties, proving again that greed doesn't vote a straight party ticket.

Ah, yes, there will be a few Dems caught up in Abramoff's stink, and the O's editors along with the rest of the MSM will surely put extra focus on those few in order to lull people away from the Republican culture of corruption meme that's beginning to take root in the American psyche.  But make no mistake about it, this is through and through a scandal brought to you by the Republican party and its operatives.

As Bloomberg News notes, all of Abramoff's own donations went to Republicans only:

Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show.

He directed his Indian tribal clients to give some money to Dems, but most of it went to Republicans:

At least 171 lawmakers got $1.4 million in campaign donations from the group [tribal clients.] Republicans took in most of the money, with 110 lawmakers getting $942,275, or 66 percent of the total.

The O's editorial board have turned themselves into Republican apologists by trying to muddy the waters on this.  Who are they trying to protect?  Certainly not the readers.  Maybe they have word that their darling Gordon Smith might be one of the 60 lawmakers Abramoff is fingering.  After all, it wouldn't be the first time Smith got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Update:  Speaking of Gordon Smith, Jack Abramoff and cookie jars, Willamette Week has the scoop (link via Blue Oregon) 

Comments

[Jeff Bull]

In The O's defense, you're over-simplifying. Sure, Abramoff's a creature of the GOP; their point is that his main interest was power. Given his age - mid-40s, right? - we're looking at the days of GOP ascendancy. If you were an ambitious and over-so-slightly amoral person, where would you have gone in, say, the mid-1980s? In any case, the Dems shifted to the big business soft-money bonanza in the mid-1990s readily as you like; had their star been on the rise, I'm pretty confident Abramoff would have given to them and they would have accepted just as readily.

Their concern is the periodic cycle of corruption in American politics and it's not an unreasonable point.

As to Abramoff's personal donations, big whoop. The man was a Republican; in any case, his personal donations are a pittance next to the cash he encouraged others to move around; that's the frickin' story. Bloomberg's figure is less than a sideshow.

Anyway, I'm basically with you, especially with regard to Abramoff (LINK, LINK). I just find it depressing that the Democrats and liberals are so eager to have half-honest talking point mills of their own.

[Jeff Bull]

Curse my long-windedness. My basic point is, why do you expect The Oregonian to promote your political program? That used to be the exclusive domain of the GOP.

They're talking about a larger theme.

[Sid]

JB-
I don't expect the O to promote my political program. In fact, I don't expect much from them at all except when it comes to protecting Gordon Smith and the national GOP in general. Last I checked a majority of the editorial board members were registered with the Republican party.

This scandal has the potential of changing the outcome of the midterm elections. It's huge, and the corporate owned MSM will do it's best to focus on the few Dems who will be caught up in the scandal. Yes, shame on those Dems. But the reality is, as Molly Ivins puts it, the Republican party has taken corruption to new levels.

Of course Abramoff's personal donations were a pittance compared to what he moved around from the tribes, but face it, he gave to Republicans and because he's at the center of the corruption scandal, who he gives to matters even if it's just $127,000.

And as to the half-honest talking point mills your refer to, I found the O's editorial on Abramoff exactly that: a half-honest talking point that was an attempt to blur the lines by failing to disclose Abramoff's history with the GOP and its operatives.

[Jeff Bull]

(I thought I'd post my little mea culpa here as well as on my site - it came out of this post...I added a thing or two as it has occurred to me...oh, and absent the comment you left to my post, half of what I had before didn't make sense).

My gripe with all this has more to do with the duplication of the same idea over and over - that's the underlying gripe behind the 3/4 comment (apparently, I count a 20% difference between content that I don't put much stock in and stuff that no one should have bothered posting). In the comment you posted over on my site (see link....crap this didn't go well), you closed by saying "If every blog were like yours then why would anyone want to read different blogs?" In a lot of ways, that's what I'm reacting to: the same line of argument migrates from Kos down to smaller and smaller local blogs; everyone talks about the same subjects (kind of like the MSM) and so on. This week it's Judy Miller, next week it's NSA, next week it'll be Alito.

If you've read anything I've written since my return from Christmas, you'll know that I've got a major bug up my butt. At root, that grows from a sense of frustration that despite a shit-stack of information readily available, good - or, more to the point, enlightening - conversation is hard to come by. I feel like I know less and, worse, that the information I'm receiving from numerous sources moves through ever-increasing numbers and varities of filters, whether it's bogus think-tanks or bloggers of unclear provenance and competence; part of that's the function of spin, a phenomenon I feel blogs aggravate. Underlying all this is the fundamental fear (and semi-paranoid - can't omit that) that I just won't know what the hell is going on anymore. For some reason, that just freaks me out.

Anyway, don't take it personal - I didn't actually have you - or anyone specific in mind - when I posted. It's the bug up my butt talking. It also behooves me to take my own advice: if I don't like it, I shouldn't read it. And, when I comment, I really ought to take the other bit of my advice: engage on the level of ideas and arguments.

[he who is known as sefton]

.
Thanks to my perusing your blog, specifically, "New Frames", I have arrived at what I believe is a defensible inference. Both you and your readers would welcome news of in-your-face overt opposition to your "smirking chimp", my "dum'ya botch".

In plainer terms, I want to run for Representative for Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District on a platform calling for the impeachment of President George Walker Bush.

Incidentally, I deliberately referred to your blog, to indicate that I visited your blog as an individual, and not as a spammer. Yes, that last is an illustion to a "pre-deconstruction" chick flick with a rating of two and a half hankies.

Ah, before you click on any of the enclosed hyperlinks, please read the entirely of my comment. For example, the three planks I nailed together in my platform out to get me elected. "impeach bush" is the first plank. The second is "impeach bush". The third is like the second, "impeach bush".

To continue, the first hyperlink below leads to the opening salvo of my campaign.

http://hewhoisknownassefton.blogspot.com/2006/01/danger-senator-specter-danger.html

As for the second hyperlink, it leads to evidence that my candidacy is about more than opposition solely for the sake of opposition.

http://hewhoisknownassefton.blogspot.com/2006/01/dispelling-stench-in-oval.html

toodles
......\
.he who is known as sefton

oh, yeah, I should add that, in Epimethean Comment, I make the case that nominating Judge Alito to the Supreme Court is tantamount to treason.