Abramoff/ Gaming Scandal pulls in Senators Reid and Landrieu/Must Read

[KoKo]

(Who are the three dozen lawmakers from both sides. This article doesn't name all them, but if there are other Democrats we should know about it,shouldn't we.)


Abramoff Tribes Donated Funds to Lawmakers

By JOHN SOLOMON and SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press WritersThu Nov 17, 4:42 AM ET

Nearly three dozen members of Congress, including leaders from both parties, pressed the government to block a Louisiana Indian tribe from opening a casino while the lawmakers collected large donations from rival tribes and their lobbyist, Jack Abramoff.

Many intervened with letters to Interior Secretary Gale Norton within days of receiving money from tribes represented by Abramoff or using the lobbyist's restaurant for fundraising, an Associated Press review of campaign records, IRS records and congressional correspondence found.

Lawmakers said their intervention had nothing to do with Abramoff, and the timing of donations was a coincidence. They said they wrote letters because they opposed the expansion of tribal gaming — even though they continued to accept donations from casino-operating tribes.

Many lived far from Louisiana and had no constituent interest in the casino dispute.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051117/ap_on_go_co/tribes_letters___dollars&printer=1;_ylt=Al3wNat_qADUC451zHpROUeMwfIE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

[Mass]

1. So, now that Delay is down, AP is rushing to find the Dems involved

Did they do anything illegal, btw. The article does not say.

(Still, I dont like that Reid is in the list. Landrieu, at least is senator from LA).

[ProfessorGAC]

15. Well, If They're Dirty, There's No Defense

Sorry, but i don't care whether there's a D or R after their name. If they're dirty, they should pay. It's that simple.
The Professor

[Mass]

16. Operative word: IF. That;s that simple.

Talking about that is exactly what the GOP wants: let us think that Dems are as corrupted as the GOP.

We can choose to fall for that and repeat their talking points, or we can wait until there is some proof that they were some wrongdoing.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. See, I Used "If" For A Reason

And i don't care what the GOP wants. I'm free to talk about anything i'd like, and if they somehow delude themselves into believing that i think dems are as dirty as repubs, let them. I couldn't care less what their strategist think i'm going to think. There's a 99.9% chance they'll be wrong anyway.
The Professor

[KittyWampus]

36. You're also free to engage in damning innuendo just as this article is.

you should stop beating your spouse if that's what you're doing.

[ProfessorGAC]

40. Unbrilliant

The Professor

[DS1]

58. ugh

[KharmaTrain]

20. Agreed...No Parsing, Either

Aren't we against a lot of the special interest money corrupting the beltway? What message does it send when we say it's ok if "our guys" take the bribes and then hop all over Repugnicans who do the same thing.

The Democratic party is starting to move away from the big money K Street types and hopefully the Abramoff scandal will rip this street to shreads...and if this scandal includes Democrats, and I don't care which one it is, they should be exposed as well.

[ProfessorGAC]

21. K Street Needs An Enema

Those people have ruined the concept of gov't by, for, and of the people.
The Professor

[nickyt]

2. Check post #3 . What the hell does this mean?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1930609

[liveoaktx]

4. Frankly, I want ethics in government.. period... I'd be sorry to

see that be true about Reid and Landrieu, but if it getting rid of the unethical Republicans means also catching some Dems by the same net, so be it. I want ethics from everyone in Congress.

[nickyt]

7. Same here, painful as it is. I'm very bummed over this...

[LaurenG]

3. I'd like to hear more about this from Reid and Landrieu

themselves. There was no mention about Reid's reason's for writing and then getting $. Not good at all. :(

[Brotherjohn]

5. So? If they were guilty of a crime, indict them. This smells like politics

... to me.

Groups of all sorts donate to all sorts. I'm sure these senators were opposed to the expansion of tribal gaming. That doesn't mean they can't take donations from tribes that already have gaming. There's much more (illegal) shenanigans involving Delay, Abramoff, et al.

I suppose if Mary Landrieu is opposed to building a new hospital in Baton Rouge (say she wants one in New orleans, to help rebuild), she can't campaign for the one in New Orleans if she took money from that group?

[KoKo]

9. The article mentions the "Keating Five" that McCain was involved in...

that might answer your question.

It sounds to me like Abramoff was giving money for favors and it's the same to me as Exxon-Mobil giving money to a Congressperson and them signing on to a bill to support something Exxon wanted. :shrug:

This is the problem we have. Our Congress is infested with these lobbyists. It needs to be cleaned up. It's so massive it's destroying our country.

[Brotherjohn]

11. I agree that it's a problem. But it's the system as it stands now. If we..

The kind of reaction to these charges that I'm already hearing on this thread is exactly what Repubs are after. Next thing you know, prominent Dems will be saying "well, maybe they went a bit too far", Harry Reid will be publicly apologizing, and every pundit will be saying "This is just politics as usual" (including Abramoff/Delay).

Well, problems with too much money and lobbyist influence on our system is one issue. That's a problem that will take long-term addressing.

But conspiracy, fraud, and whatever else they've got on the Abramoff/Delay bunch (via actual indictments) are another thing altogether.

Let's try to keep them separate, shall we? Because there's nothing the Repubs would like is for them to be viewed as the same. I'm sure that's exactly what's behind this story.

[BJW]

53. right on! It's a repub PR move to muddy the issues

Read the article and compare the amounts received. The article lists nine REPUBLICAN congress people whose total take is muy impressive.

The article lists two Democratic Louisiana congress people, whose initial funds from the Coushetta tribe was small potatotes, and whose total funds received was NOT all that great compared to the Republicans.

The Coushetta tribe wanted to operate in Louisiana, so it is not out of line to donate to campaigns of congress people in Louisiana, which is what they Cousheeta tribe did--but they gave ALOT more to the republican congress person. The REAL issue isn't who received funds from this tribe. This is part of the public record, and isn't necessarily illegal.

The REAL issue is whether some such funds received were illegally received, or disguised, and whether the congress person voted against their public pronouncements (i.e., against gambling but voted to allow casinos), or if the congress persons manipulated the voters about their vote (i.e., the Scanlon "whackos" e-mail about manipulating religious Christians to unknowingly support one Indian casino at the expense of another).

The case for illegal activity via Abramof/Delay money laundering activity doesn't mean that these two Dems are "caught up" in any wrongdoing whatsoever.

[gordianot]

6. Ouch

Abramoff a gift that keeps on giving, does it sound like a good house (Senate) cleaning time is in order? Nominated

Old Russian Proverb

Every day is a shit sandwhich and you have to take another bite.

[sandnsea]

8. Did they report it? Send it to the DNC?

While I am sick of this shit and I think it's got to stop, what Delay is being accused of is different. He's being accused of sending the money to the RNC so they could recycle it back into Texas. That's illegal. He also didn't report all the trips either, also illegal. I would call this behavior unethical, but I'm not sure whether it's illegal.

[Brotherjohn]

10. Geez! It's already worked. One story and even DU people are saying...

... "well, maybe they're guilty of the same thing, too!"

We have a branch of government to handle things like this, you know. It's not the Fouth Estate, it's the Judicial Branch.

Abramoff, Delay and his pals will have their day in court. IF (and that's a big IF) there is anything to any Dems involvement, they will have their day in court, too.

Right now, this just looks like somebody did some creative digging into donations, letters, and tried to find a suspicious link/quid pro quo, where there probably is none (other than Senators campaigning for issues for which they believe in; which - gasp! - happen to correspond to people who donate to them).

[gordianot]

13. This sort of tactic is an old ploy.

If you are a really big crook spread around the joy in anticipation for the day you might get caught. The heat must be really getting to the real crooks to turn loose of these cards. At the least some are probably guilty of having staff problems that did not alert to the possible dangers. On the other hand those that have returned the money probably knew Abramoff was a big crook when they returned the money.

Just goes to show you there no such thing as a free lunch.

[FreedomAngel82]

22. Could be

They could be using this to get the democrats and say they're no better than the republicans. Right now there are so many problems going on with the republican party they need some focus away from them for 2006.
Only thing I saw about this with Reid and Landrieu is they once got money from Abramoff. :shrug:

[ProfessorGAC]

18. Why Does That Matter?

If they're guilty they should pay. Right? I'm not suggesting they are dirty, but i'm not willing to give any lawbreaker a pass based upon what letter they put after their name in the paper.
The Professor

[KittyWampus]

25. Then why don't you expand on what the Democrats MIGHT be guilty of?

because what the article talks about isn't illegal, as opposed to what Abramoff and Delay are being investigated/indicted for.

I mean illegal as in BROKE A LAW?

And that's the whole point. GOP'ers break the law and then to get themselves out of hot water in the realm of public opinion point to Democrats doing something that is NOT illegal... and DU'ers take the bait EVERY TIME. :(

[ProfessorGAC]

28. What Bait Are You Talking About?

I've taken no bait. It's hubristic of you to suggest that somehow you have figured out something others can't. You are missing my point, and then lectured me? That's seems unjust.

The point being made by many on this thread is that the media is after the dems now to show that they are also as dirty as repubs. My question was why that would matter. If a dem is also dirty, they deserve to take a fall. I accept no dirty politicians, no matter which party they claim.

How does that mean i've taken the bait? Answer: It doesn't. Do we now have a DU litmus test that i've failed because some idiot GOP strategist thinks that if i talk about dirty politicians i'm buying into their smear tactic?
The Professor

[Brotherjohn]

32. But that's just it. It DOES matter if the charges are not the same, but...

... the media plays them out to be.

That's how scandals blow up, or die. That's what influences political bodies to take action, or not.

How the media portrays this scandal will have great effect on whether Congress feels the pressure to really go after anyone who has actually broken the law. It can even influence potential juries. It can certainly influence elections.

No one here is saying if a Dem is dirty, they shouldn't take the fall. They're saying there's no real evidence of a Dem being dirty yet, and the worry is that the press and even many Dems, will "take the bait" and equivocate the two, thus largely diffusing the scandal and lessening the chance that anyone who has actually committed crimes will "take the fall".

[KittyWampus]

33. One word. Sorry. But then again, what illegal behavior MIGHT Democrats

be responsible before?

Sure you said if...

If what, specifically?

You should stop beating your spouse if you're doing that.

It's called innuendo and it's what the article and you are engaging in.

[Brotherjohn]

37. Okay let's step back. I agree with you in this entire discussion. But..

...you probably should have left this post titled "One word. Sorry."

Professor was feeling a little put upon, and it was a genuine response which I thought pulled things back a bit.

I don't think the Professor buys into this claim that "the dems are as dirty as the repubs" (on this scandal or in general). I don't think he/she is engaging in innuendo, either (although the article does).

I think we're having different discussions.

The Professor is saying any dem guilty of such shenanigans is as bad as the repubs. You and I are discussing how this story might play out in the press, and worried that it will influence what comes of this.

The Professor is making an argument on principle, that it shouldn't matter if they are all guilty. I think we would all agree. You and I are making an argument based on the practicality of what will come of this story, which we worry will re-cast the CV so as to distract from real crimes. I think we can all agree that is a risk.

[ProfessorGAC]

49. Brotherjohn Is Correct

Thanks, brother.
The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

38. Let Me Be As Clear As I Can

My objection was to the idea in several of the posts in this thread. That idea amounted to "the media is now trying to implicate dems."

My question is why it should matter whether it's a dem or r IF a law has been broken. I'm not suggesting one has been broken. The article does sound to me that something untoward was set up, but that doesn't mean a law was broken.

But, IF one is, i don't care what party the perp is from. That's all i'm saying.
The Professor

[Brotherjohn]

42. Well, I see your objection and I don't. Explaining...

I have been one of those supporting the idea that "the media is now trying to implicate dems."

Going back over the article, however, I don't necessarily see that is what this article is doing. It doesn't help that the thread was titled something about the scandal "pulling in" Dem Senators. That's not really what the article says. It mostly just gives factual information about who got what and what actions they took on related issues (and when).

That being said, I do think there is some innuendo in it implying more than the facts cited prove, and I don't think anything illegal is cited. And you can bet most pundits will run with the innuendo/Dems implicated part of this. THAT is our (at least my) concern.

As my last post below points out, the article's actual title doesn't even apply to the Dems cited, as they received money AFTER their actions were taken.

[ProfessorGAC]

43. Like I Said Before, Fair Enough

The Professor

[Brotherjohn]

47. Sorry. Get too wordy sometimes. Got to get back to work. eom

[Brotherjohn]

34. More concise reply: It WOULDN'T matter, if they WERE as dirty.

But this story does not suggest that to me.

[ProfessorGAC]

39. That's A Fair Point

I was questioning the motivation of posters for whom it would matter what letter was after their name. (At least that's how i read a few of these posts.)

But, i can easily agree with your reply.
The Professor

[Brotherjohn]

30. I'm not either. But here we have one story, based on MANY unproven...

... assumptions, and even we here at DU are already equivocating the two. Delay and Abramoff are indicted. Landrieu, Breaux, and Reid took money from groups involved with Abramoff and Delay, in an issue that Breaux and Landrieu, at least, had constituencies directly influenced by their actions.

If they had sided the other way, one could then say THAT was suspect because "they continued to accept donations from casino-operating tribes".

To me, this story smells like politics. An attempt to brand the Dems "as bad as" the Repubs on this specific scandal.

In fact, it seems as though there are a lot more Repubs involved (even based on this story), and their actions were taken only after receiving large sums from the groups opposed to the new casino, and they used Abramoff's facilities, and sometimes failed to report that use (illegally).

Yes, there are problems with the system. Yes, there is the possibilty of a quid pro quo. But there is also the possibility, specifically in this case, that Landrieu and Breaux (and even Reid) simply backed a decision they felt a majority of their constituents wanted (or at least the most vocal ones), and those constituents then donated to them based on their actions.

It's one thing to take an action based on donations (quid pro quo - very hard to prove, though). But it's entirely normal for a group to make contribution based on a politician's position they agree with. Why in the world would they contribute to a politician who opposes them?

[Justice Is Comin]

12. An important distinction

that has to be made is that Reid sent his letter before any money was sent to his political fund. If an appreciative donation is made and it is not a quid pro quo, that certainly is not illegal.

The 66k was also received over a period of 3 years. I am more than confident this was no favor for money. Reid possibly may never even have known.

[FreedomAngel82]

23. What about Landrieu?

So Reid could be okay? I think Reid is way smarter than that. :shrug:

[...of J.Temperance]

45. Senator Landrieu is just as smart as Senator Reid

And EVEN if she's involved in any hanky panky...you can bet she's left NO damaging paper trail with which to hang her.

[blitzen]

50. Let's hope that Landrieu goes down....

Before you flame me--I have voted for her twice.

But she decided that she had to be Big Oil's tool--and the repuke's right-wing swing vote on several other issues.

[BJW]

54. You should actually read the article

and compare the monies received, as well as the votes casts, as well as whether the law was actually broken by receiving and reporting these monies, AND the public pronouncements (not included in the article) made by candidates on this issue before you go after Landrieu like this.

BTW I seriously doubt that any congress person in Louisiana can win without some big oil support--which pretty much IS the state economy, no?

[...of J.Temperance]

61. No, let's not hope THAT...I WILL continue to support Senator Landrieu

In 2008 I will support her and I'll donate more money, and I'll go to some fundraisers and on election day I'll get out there and go door to door and street to street and bar to bar and EVEN brothel to brothel * and get as many people as I can out to vote for Landrieu.

* Yes, I did enter two brothel 'um Lobby areas, front desk whatever you want to call them. I did go into two brothels one time and say "When they've finished, if they haven't voted, we're leaving a vehicle around the corner and they can all hop in and they'll get a free ride to go and vote."

Senator Landrieu is the ONLY Democrat that can win statewide, in my opinion and only minor named Democrats are going to have the guts to even challenge her...and whoever she faces from the Repuke side, she'll whoop their ass all over, just like she did with Terrell.

I'm NOT always happy with her, I was furious with her over her Gitmo vote last week. However I understand the complex situation she's in and Louisiana IS an oil state, so she HAS to be pals with the oil industry, that's just the way it is.

I don't support 100% of what Landrieu votes for, but I do support 90% of what Landrieu votes for...and 90% is good enough for me.

Politics is a dirty business, and sometimes you have to sell a bit of yourself in order to get something you might want for your state...and this is something that just has to be done sometimes in politics.

Myself, I'm planning on running for office, so I know how dirty Louisiana politics can get...I'm going to run for the State Legislature and HOPEFULLY I'm going to be unopposed, so I have to wait for a retirement, so I can get that safe seat and then hopefully not have an opponent.

[dkofos]

14. If this is not illegal it should be

Is this why Dems only get a 25% approval rating in congress

[Justice Is Comin]

17. I'm not defending it one way or the other.

I'm just pointing that out. If there is impropriety it should be put under the microscope. If there is the "appearance" of impropriety and there is none, that comes with day to day function of the mere fact of being a lawmaker in Washington.

Everybody who ever gives a dollar gives it for a reason.

[KittyWampus]

27. It ISN"T illegal and that's the freaking point. GOP'er BROKE LAWS and this

article is an attempt to paint Democrats as 'just as bad'.

When the hell are DU'ers going to stop taking the GOP bait?

As for it should be illegal, I might agree with you. Just realise that the Sierra Club is also a lobbying group.

[BJW]

56. EXACTLY!!!!!!

I'm appalled at how many DUers are so ready to swallow this REPUBLICAN TP, hook, line and sinker and NOT THINK IT THROUGH!!!!!

The post's title was really misleading here too. When you read the article it's almost exclusively about the republicans who got beau-coup bucks, and only at the end does it mention the two Louisiana Democratic congress people--whose interest in this matter is obvious and proper, and who reported the monies received and who they received it from PER THE LAW--because they REPRESENT Louisiana!!!

[Brotherjohn]

24. Okay, three Dems (2 from La. and the Dem leader) got involved.

The Louisiana Senators have a clear interest. I would think it's probably common for them to ask for support of the Dem leader.

Opposing "the expansion of tribal gaming" is not inconsistent with "accepting donations from casino-operating tribes". You're opposed to it's expansion. One or two controlled casinos in an area are often acceptable to many constituents. A "vegas strip" in every town is not.

The article quotes Kent Cooper as saying "This is one of the largest examples we've had to date where congressional action was predicated on money being given for the action." First of all, no where do I see evidence that action was predicated on money being given, even in the case of the Repubs (although there may very well have been some back-room deals). In the case of each dem mentioned, money was not given until after the action (usually a letter) was taken. You can argue that they gave money conditional upon the action, but certainly it is not a case of the action being taken "predicated on money being given".

Wouldn't it be worse for loads of money being given before, and THEN action being taken? I would EXPECT a group to wait and see if a politician is going to back them before donating to them, and the turnaround could be very quick indeed for groups in the middle of a heated, imminent battle, during a heated campaign. They are trying to send a message (of support or opposition) to politicians. It would be no more or less unethical of Landrieu had NOT written a letter, and had NOT been given a contribution.

The truth is, you could make an argument either way. But the fact is, the LA. Senators have a vested interest in the issue, and I'm sure are on record well before the letters as being opposed to the expansion of tribal gaming.

You could make a similar case to this on almost any issue in politics. And it is not because everyone is crooked. It is because there is so much money flowing in and both sides donate to

Yes, there are problems with our system. Undoubtedly, politicians feel pressure to side with groups that may benefit them the most. But unless there is a blatant conflict of interest (like reps taking money from Keating and intervening on Keating's behalf WHILE they're investigating him), or a proven quid pro quo, it is hard to say a pol isn't just working for their constituency.

[KittyWampus]

29. Thanks, for your very thoughtful post. The article seems to use innuendo

in trying to paint Democrats as engaging in illegal behavior similar to what GOP'ers Delay and Abramoff.

[Norquist Nemesis]

26. Abramoff spread ALOT of money around

but Tom DeLay was the one who got into bed with him...figuratively speaking.

[SpiralHawk]

31. Casinos and Republican corruption. Hopi elder Thomas Banyacya

now in Spirit, once told me that the final straw that brought on the Great Flood to cleanse the Third World was gambling. He told me the Great Flood was the same one spoken of by Plato and the Bible and in dozens of other cultural tales around the world, including the stories of Atlantis. In the Hopi understanding of the Great Flood, he told me, the turn to gambling was the final insult that upset the balance of life on our Mother Earth. Then came the Purification by the element Water.

Some people survived the Great Flood by taking off in boats, as in the story of Noah, others by retreating to mountain summits. The Hopi say some of their ancestors survived the flood by going underground and living for a time in sealed caves. Right now, Grandfather Thomas told me, we are in the Fourth World and facing the Fifth World close on.

I mention all this because I see the rot around gambling today. I especially see it in the Abramoff case, and its occult money dealings with the Indian casinos. Clearly the BushCo Republican NeoCon cabal is enmeshed and entwined within the unholy casino cash cow. As I see it, nothing good comes from this web of relationships. It brings only Greed Medicine to the people. This is not the way forward.

All people involved in this web of gambling money and Republican political funding should step back from it, breath the Great Breath, and consider the color of the path they are walking. It's always possible to respond to truth. That's not something I believe; it's something I know.

Miigwich, SH

[Brotherjohn]

35. "Lawmakers Acted on Heels of Abramoff Gifts"? Not the Dems cited!

Reid, Landrieu, and Breaux all "acted" (wrote their letters) BEFORE the tribes sent them any money.

The article's title itself is misleading regarding the Dems mentioned in it. They acted, and THEN received donations from tribes who agreed with their action.

Name me a more open, above-the-board way for a group to donate to a politician than to wait and see how that politician will act, and then donate to them if they agree with these actions.

[Don Claybrook]

41. Some here understand the concept of doing what is right

no matter what the consequences are.

But I see several posters talking about how this plays into the GOP's hand, etc. That's garbage. Get the big Truth Gun out, and it will take down whoever it takes down. If Reid and the rest had nothing to do with it, wonderful. I really like what Harry Reid has been doing recently. But if he needs to be investigated, so be it. However, I won't compromise my personal integrity by sounding like the bizarro world version of the GOP. I won't make excuses for any Democrat who may be involved in scandal.

This is my view irrespective of what Republicans say, irrespective of what their agenda is. I don't care what the freepers might say about it. I don't care if the media smears Democrats over it (well, I care, but the media is going to do this anyway, so I acquiesce). I demand a government that is by the people and for the people, no matter that our government hasn't fit that definition for a long time, if ever. It's still the ideal to strive for.

Shine the light of truth on everything and everyone. Those who remain standing represent the people of this country. Those who don't need to be run out on a rail, no matter who they are.

[bicentennial_baby]

44. Agreed!

"Shine the light of truth on everything and everyone. Those who remain standing represent the people of this country. Those who don't need to be run out on a rail, no matter who they are."

:applause:

[Brotherjohn]

46. I agree, "if Reid needs to be investigated, so be it". But this is just...

... one story with really pretty little substance. It's not an investigation, nor even a hint of one. It doesn't suggest to me anything illegal (possibly unethical, but still open to interpretation).

The concern is, in this political and media environment, this one story can blow up into a needless multi-year investigation (Whitewater, anyone?), or endless media declarations that "they're all the same", both of which could actually influence elections.

We're not saying we would hold a Dem less accountable. We're saying there's nothing yet to be held accountable for. One of my first posts said that there's a branch of government for this: not the media, but the judicial. If there's a crime, indict and investigate.

But we're trying to pre-emptively address what we see as a witch-hunt, and the inevitable equating that will be made between this one story and every Republican political scandal going on right now. Frankly, with this bunch, you come to expect a backlash that would come in the form of this kind of story, or at least the entire media establishment taking this kind of story and blowing it up to much more than it is, in the name of "equal time" (and under intimidation from the constant barrage of Repub talking points).

[Don Claybrook]

52. I understand your point, and I am somewhat pragmatic

But that seems to me that the media are more complicit in this sort of thing than the GOP. Sure, it was the GOP that pushed Whitewater (a ridiculous waste of money), but it never would've gotten off the ground without the media incessantly pushing it.

If Reid did something wrong, I'd like to know about it. I would feel really bad about malefescence on his part, because as I said above, I really do like what he has been doing, and he's made me proud. But I have to keep that in a different container than this possible Abramoff connection.

Thanks for your reply.

[Brotherjohn]

57. Good point about the media. You have to expect partisanship from...

... partisans. A party will speak to their base.

But the media is supposed to be the ultimate check, something they've failed so miseerably at the past few years. One can blame that on the incessant whining from Repubs, but they shouldn't have been so easily intimidated into providing "equal time" on issues where the issue is rather clear.

They've let the Repubs get away with the verbal equivalent of murder so often, it's no wonder repubs take it even further and further.

[BJW]

60. think it through AND read the article please!

and please also read other posters info before jumping to conclusions that the Dems cited here did something wrong or illegal or misled the voters about the position on gamgling. They DIDN'T!

It's knee-jerk responses like this that in fact DO play into Republican strategy.

[Don Claybrook]

62. Please let me know where I misspoke

I'll be happy to retract anything I said that was wrong. I'm wrong with depressing regularity, and I'm more than ready to admit a mistake. But if you would, please point out what that mistake is first.

[CornField]

48. Why is the AP ignorning the link with Ralph Reed?

Seems to me the juice there is much more sweet than this line of speculation. Reed & his consulting company is hired by Scanlon and Abramoff to stir up the Christians in the area to oppose the casino expansion... the issue goes directly to how the GOP, in general, uses their constituents to better their own economic forecast.

[BJW]

51. TITLE OF POST MISLEADING!!!

Read the article and compare the amounts received. The article lists nine REPUBLICAN congress people whose total take is muy impressive.

The article lists two Democratic Louisiana congress people, whose initial funds from the Coushetta tribe was small potatotes, and whose total funds received was NOT all that great compared to the Republicans.

The Coushetta tribe wanted to operate in Louisiana, so it is not out of line to donate to campaigns of congress people.

The REAL issue isn't who received funds from this tribe. This is part of the public record, and isn't necessarily illegal.

The REAL issue is whether some such funds received were illegally received, or disguised, and whether the congress person voted against their public pronouncements (i.e., against gambling but voted to allow casinos), or if the congress persons manipulated the voters about their vote (i.e., the Scanlon "whackos" e-mail about manipulating religious Christians to unknowingly support one Indian casino at the expense of another).

The case for illegal activity via Abramof/Delay money laundering activity doesn't mean that these two Dems are "caught up" in any wrongdoing whatsoever.

[maximovich]

55. Ahhhh... Thanks for the Clarification (nt)

[Brotherjohn]

59. Article's title also misleading (see my post #35 above). And that's...

... just what Yahoo called it. Most outlets ran with the original AP headline as at the beginning of the OP (but not the title): "Abramoff Tribes Donated Funds to Lawmakers"

MUCH less damining.

Oh, and all three dems got money only AFTER they made a stand the Coushatta tribe agreed with. What else would one expect? That they got the money first, and then took their action, I think would be much more damning (but neither proves a quid pro quo).

[KoKo]

63. It's what they will hit us with....better to get it out..and discuss which

has been done here. Article says three dozen...but doesn't give more names. So are Reid, Breaux, Landrieu the only Dems...or are there more.
:shrug: I was hoping another DU'er might have seen an article with the full list.

If it's all Repugs we are golden...if there are more Dems it would be good to know if they only got small donations and possibly were not aware. Although all of the Dems listed "DID" write a letter to Norton...so that part doesn't look good.