Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Abramoff, Delay, how far will it go?

  1. Jan 7, 2006 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Interesting: Even the ultra-conservative talking heads are predicting that this Abramoff scandal will be huge. One must wonder about the timing of Delay's resignation which came at the request of other leading Republicans. And not only how wide, but just how deep this goes is still up for grabs.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/08/AR2005120802232.html
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 7, 2006 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    NBC reports that Delay once called Abramoff "one of his closest friends".
     
  4. Jan 7, 2006 #3

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    One of the talking heads said that this could bring down something like 30 republican and democrat congressmen. They were some big names being tossed around too like obviously DeLay and Pelosi and other leading representatives.
     
  5. Jan 7, 2006 #4

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    DeLay finished as majority leader
    Texan says he will not try to regain post, will seek re-election
    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/07/delay/index.html

    DeLay Ends Bid to Regain Post as G.O.P. Leader
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/politics/08delay.html (registration required)

    Abramoff lobbying scandal suddenly a boon for charities
    Politicians scramble to dump tainted campaign money
    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/06/MNG8MGIDEJ1.DTL

    :rolleyes:

    Even Hillary Clinton was dumping money. :rolleyes:

    Charles Wrangel was giving back/away money. :rolleyes:
     
  6. Jan 7, 2006 #5

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    haha yah its like a scramble to get rid of your money. Well that's a first.

    *tear* politicians corruption is once again leading the fight against heart disease.
     
  7. Jan 7, 2006 #6
    Well according to Simple Scotty Bush doesn't know Jack Abramoff, and can't recall whether he ever met him.

    http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?nid=78&sid=287204

    Which is interesting since Abramoff raised $100,000 for his re-election campaign.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10711523/site/newsweek/

    He was also a member of his transition team.

    .

    I guess it is just another "coincidence".

    I must say I question anyone's motives who can still argue that Bush and his administration are honest.
     
  8. Jan 7, 2006 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    On the Mclaughlin Group, I think it was Eleanor Clift [Newsweek]who was talking about something like sixty people being involved, though she doesn't expect that many indictments. And most seem to agree that this is a Republican problem. I'll post the transcipt when it becomes available.
     
  9. Jan 7, 2006 #8

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    heh, most agree its a republican problem. :wink:

    Sounds like 06' will be a nice chance for those 3rd parties to fire their guns
     
  10. Jan 7, 2006 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There was legal money and then illegal perks. And yes, even some conservatives [I think Buchanan for one, again, I'll post when they come online] are calling this a republican problem. But even the legal contributions may have came from stolen money.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2006
  11. Jan 7, 2006 #10
    The reason it is a republican problem is;

    Why give money to Democrats? They can't get any legislation to the floor, let alone get it passed.

    Seriously though, it is because of the K street project.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=K_Street_Project

    [edit] Here is some more on the k Street connection.

    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/5977.html
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2006
  12. Jan 7, 2006 #11

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    First, the Republicans are the majority party that controls Congress and the White House. Second, Abramoff is a Republican, and so far most of the names on the short list connected to Abramoff are Republican.

    Perhaps, but what ever candidate people will vote for, the constant scandals aren't good for Republicans.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10740963/

    In the article Rich Bond, a former Republican National Committee chairman says “If the Democrats had any leadership or any message, they could be poised for a good year.” The Democrats do have a message, which ironically looks more Republican than the present Republican Party does. Even if there was no message, I believe people would vote for Democrats just to regain balance and therefore accountability in Washington. And these days we vote against a candidate more than we vote for a candidate (the better of two evils). I like it when Republicans are arrogant, like DeLay. It is part of the reason why they are in trouble.
     
  13. Jan 8, 2006 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well the Democrats have been sorely lacking and that has been part of the problem all along. I found Kerry preferable to Bush, but since I despise few people in this world as much as I do Bush, his father, and [esp] the company they keep, that ain't saying much. But hopefully most people are finally starting to realize who they have put in power; if they don't yet, it appears that the courts will explain it to them.

    The good thing is that this will almost certainly plague the Republicans well past the election no matter what the Dems have to offer. And with a little luck, after November we can impeach Bush and finally hold him accountable, which is IMO the thing that must happen in order to restore this country to a Constitutional government. This administration must not be allowed to set precedence for future administrations.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2006
  14. Jan 8, 2006 #13

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    This won't change the majority in Congress.

    Congressinal districts are now drawn up to create much fewer "swing" districts. There might be around 40 some districts that are actually up for grabs. Some of those are already Democratic districts. Democrats need to sweep nearly 100% of contested Republican districts to grab a majority.

    Democrats already hold 17 of the 33 Senate seats up for grabs this year. Democrats need to hold all of their seats, plus win 7 of the 15 Republican seats up for grabs (one of the Senators up for re-election is an Independent).

    What this will do is to increase the dependence on PACs (McCain's campaign finance reforms will hit stiffer opposition). Funneling money into PACS that can't be directly tied to a politician will provide a safety buffer. After all, it's not like you have politicians getting rich off of lobbyists - the money is used to run election campaigns and increase a politician's chances of getting re-elected. Independent campaigns by PACs can accomplish the same thing with less risk.
     
  15. Jan 8, 2006 #14
    I agree. If Bushco can get away with the shenanigains they have pulled so far it will spell the beginning of the end of the great American experiment.

    Just like with Nixon, an example must be made. A strong statement that says America is a country ruled by law, not cabals!
     
  16. Jan 8, 2006 #15

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    One of the articles I provided a link to discusses this. But IMO a majority by either party is precisely what we (Americans) shouldn't want. If the Dems can pick up a few more seats (in addition to some Independents) it would help prevent power grabs and abuses.

    Of course it would be nice if we had a multi-party system, but who knows if the U.S. can ever evolve toward this. Right now the Libertarians are unhappy with the NSA spying etc., and maybe they will separate themselves from the Republican Party along with fiscal conservatives, etc.

    Back to the main topic, it's amazing that DeLay still asserts he is innocent of any wrong doing after Abramoff pleaded guilty to a list of crimes, and it is public knowledge how closely connected the two are. I think DeLay needs to be committed to a psychiatric ward. If he is re-elected, I will need to be committed to a psychiatric ward.
     
  17. Jan 8, 2006 #16

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Probably, however, we may have as many as thirty indictments coming up.

    I have faith in the depth and breadth of the corruption in the Rep party on so many fronts... I am counting on a few more earth shaking revelations before November. I am also hoping that the American people will finally get a grip.
     
  18. Jan 8, 2006 #17

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It's actually over-whelming. Requests were still being made for Congressional investigation into the Downing Street Memo and the "fixing" of intelligence, when the leak of Plame’s identity was brought to the public’s attention. I’m still waiting to hear what’s up with Karl Rove, and now there is the debate over the legality of NSA spying. I feel like we aren’t getting answers to very important questions, not just because of a Republican majority, but because each new scandal pushes the earlier scandals to the wayside.

    So now we have the Abramoff investigation. It represents the same underlying problem we have with our country as a whole, and that is people gaining position/power with money/connections instead of talent/merit. Look at Bush, DeLay, etc. none have qualifications to be high-ranking leaders of our country. And to add insult to injury, they lack ethics too yet their base is the religious right. :yuck: :bugeye:
     
  19. Jan 8, 2006 #18
    I agree that with scandal upon scandal that the American public is desensitized right now. However, these issues are not going to go away before the election, so hopefully there will be a day of reckoning in November. If enough of us stay alert and keep the pressure on we may just be able to elect some real statesman this year.

    When asked by a conservative friend why I did not want GW Bush for president I replied, "Because he has never accomplished anything in life on his own." In typical right-wing fashion their reply was, "Well neither have you.":rolleyes:

    That is why I like PF. The conservatives here for the most part don't follow the doctrine of, "Don't debate the issue attack the person's character."
     
  20. Jan 9, 2006 #19

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  21. Jan 9, 2006 #20
    It is kind of ironic, Abramoff dropped a big smelly bomb on the Capital. The NSA didn't see it coming,
    The CIA isn't allowed to look in that direction,
    The FBI probably saw it coming but no one acted on it,
    And Homeland security was too busy checking the shoes of little old ladies.
    :rolleyes:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Abramoff, Delay, how far will it go?
Loading...