Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Lobbyist admits to kickbacks, fraud

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: barry2952

Lobbyist admits to kickbacks, fraud

Abramoff agrees to cooperate in Washington corruption probe

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/...lea/index.html

Are you guys going to blame this on MSM or Clinton?

Posted by: mach8

I'm going to blame it on the apathetic population of America. If YOU can't see fit to spend the time to oversee the actions of YOUR representatives YOU deserve what you get.

It's the old 'you reap what you sow' thing that has been around for centuries.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Vote for Perdo

Posted by: pepperman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Vote for Perdo

Godfather, you taking spelling lessons from Rich

I couldn't resist it. It's ( Vote for Pedro )

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Lobbyist admits to kickbacks, fraud

Abramoff agrees to cooperate in Washington corruption probe

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/...lea/index.html

Are you guys going to blame this on MSM or Clinton?

Isn't it interesting that the article didn't mention that he gave money to Bryon Dorgan and Harry Reid, isn't it Barry?

Posted by: 97silverlsc

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Isn't it interesting that the article didn't mention that he gave money to Bryon Dorgan and Harry Reid, isn't it Barry?

Typical Repug response, they burn the country to the ground but find greater bad in the fact that a democrat gave them the matches.

Anyone involved deserves to go down, doesn't matter which incompetent, thieving, lying party he's from!!!

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by 97silverlsc

You're being to harsh, he [Abramoff] said he was sorry and asked forgiveness from God, I'm sure the GOP will welcome him back with open arms.

I found this interesting though:

Abramoff is a longtime associate of several top GOP leaders, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Americans for Tax Reform director Grover Norquist, and former Christian Coalition chief Ralph Reed.

Birds of a feather flock together................

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Boo, Deville, you failed to read my post before you posted. Did you find THIS interesting?

Dorgan Tangled in Abramoff Web

By James V. Grimaldi and Susan Schmidt

Monday, December 5, 2005; Page A05

Revelations about the activities of Jack Abramoff continue to cause discomfort for the many lawmakers who received meals, trips and campaign contributions from the former powerhouse GOP lobbyist.

Democrats are hoping to capitalize on Republican ethical woes. But as The Washington Post reported in June, some prominent Democrats, including former senator Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), Sens. Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.), were among beneficiaries of the largest campaign contributions from Abramoff's associates and clients.

Now Dorgan, ranking Democrat on the Indian Affairs Committee, is receiving some heightened attention.

Dorgan has asked some of the toughest questions in the committee hearings probing the $82 million Abramoff and Michael Scanlon charged their tribal clients. As the Associated Press reported last week, Dorgan had his own dealings with Abramoff's circle. Dorgan acknowledged to the AP that in the fall of 2003 he pushed Congress to approve legislative language urging government regulators to decide whether the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe of Massachusetts deserved federal recognition. About the same time, Dorgan met with the tribe's representatives and Michael D. Smith, an Abramoff associate.

Dorgan's spokesman said the tribe asked him to be involved and that Massachusetts senators supported his taking action.

In 2001, Dorgan held a fundraising event in an MCI Center skybox during a hockey game. The fundraiser was organized by Smith and the skybox was leased by an Abramoff company. The senator said he believed that the box was controlled by the Greenberg Traurig lobbying firm, not by Abramoff.

Dorgan also signed a letter to the Interior Department urging the continuation of a program that would have the federal government and tribes share the cost of building tribal schools, a program pushed by Abramoff's clients. The Post reported earlier this year that a $3 million grant from the program went to an Abramoff client, one of the richest tribes in the country, as a result of pressure from Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.).

I found it interesting that those names I bolded were omitted from Phil's article.

Posted by: 97silverlsc

Once again, take down ALL the offenders, but I'll bet you even money, the majority will be Repugs.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 97silverlsc

Once again, take down ALL the offenders, but I'll bet you even money, the majority will be Repugs.

Oh, REALLY?

Another Lost Poll – Bush Better For Washington Ethics Than Democrats
Posted by Noel Sheppard on January 4, 2006 - 01:06.

National Public Radio released a poll recently with some rather startling results that the media are likely not going to share with the public. After months of focusing America’s attention on “scandals” surrounding Valerie Plame, I. Lewis Libby, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, and Bill Frist, the nation’s mainstream press outlets must have been very disappointed to see the following numbers concerning the citizenry’s view of politics and ethics. The pollsters asked 800 Americans the following question:

"Now I would like to read you a list of issues and for each one please tell me whether you think George W. Bush or the Democratic Party would do a better job handling that particular issue. Improving ethics in Washington, D.C."

The results? 43 percent answered “George W. Bush,” while 41 percent said “the Democratic Party.”

Ouch.

Next question:

"When it comes to ethics in Washington, D.C., do you think that the ethics and corruption issues with the current Congress are more than usual, about the same as usual, or fewer than usual?"

The results? 27 percent said “more,” 7 percent said “fewer,” while 63 percent said “same.”

Double ouch.

"In Washington, D.C., today, do you think the problems with ethics and corruption are more with the Republicans or more with the Democrats today or about equally with both parties?"

Results? 19 percent said “more with Republicans,” 14 percent said “more with Democrats,” 65 percent said “about the same.”
"Thinking more about ethics -- I am going to read you two different viewpoints on ethics and after I read them please tell which statement comes closest to your own opinion.

"Democrats say that Republicans have created a culture of corruption in Washington today, with lobbyists winning favors as never before. The number of lobbyists has doubled in five years, the Republican leaders of the House and Senate are under indictment or investigation, and up to ten Republican members of Congress are also under investigation for taking lobbyist-paid trips and favors. Democrats say it is time to clean up this corrupt Congress. While, Republicans say there are a few individuals in both political parties who have been caught up in scandals. Republicans say Democratic leaders such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have ethics problems of their own. Republicans say ethical problems are the fault of the individual in both parties who do wrong, not the fault of one political party or the other. Republicans say individual congressmen should be punished, but the election should be decided on issues, not a few bad cases.

"Which statement comes closest to your own point of view?"

The results? As amazing as it might seem, after months of mainstream media representatives writing and speaking about “a culture of corruption,” only 38 percent of those polled expressed such an opinion. By contrast, 56 percent said that what is going on in Washington today represents “a few bad cases.”

Once again, the media’s [AND PHIL'S] views represent a minority opinion.

I'LL TAKE THAT BET.

Posted by: 97silverlsc

Gee fossten, does that mean I should hand over the money now? Wow, you really showed me this time. Really damning too, a poll of people who probably aren't even aware of the unfolding scandal involving Abramoff . woooey, guess I'm

again. Damn, can't win against you.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Boo, Deville, you failed to read my post before you posted. Did you find THIS interesting?.[/size][/color][/b]

If some of the people that dirtied their hands are Democrats, then screw em, they need to go down too. But I have a feeling the majority of the scoundrels will be Republicans. Funny that your article citied the Washington Post, guess they're not biased lying liberal news after all.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

If some of the people that dirtied their hands are Democrats, then screw em, they need to go down too. But I have a feeling the majority of the scoundrels will be Republicans. Funny that you're article citied the Washington Post, guess they're not biased lying liberal news after all.

I remember seeing the results of some study a month or so ago that graded the MSM outlets from "most liberal" to "most conservative". The most "liberal" outlet was (surprise!) the Wall Street Journal, and the most "conservative" outlet was (no surprise) one of the Fox News programs. So apparently all the BS spewed forth on this site by the RWWs about the "liberal" NYT, WP, LAT and the "fair and balanced" FoxNC is, like we've always expected, just that.......

Posted by: barry2952

From CNN.com

"Abramoff raised at least $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney '04 re-election campaign, earning the honorary title "pioneer'' from the campaign. But the campaign is giving up only $6,000 directly from Abramoff, his wife and one of the Indian tribes that he worked to win influence for in Washington."

I'd say everthing this guy touched is dirty.

Posted by: 97silverlsc

Lobbying Plan Was Central to GOP's Political Strategy
By Janet Hook and Mary Curtius
The Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,3655468.story
Wednesday 04 January 2006

Abramoff was key to the "K Street Project," designed to extend the party's influence. Changes are urged to avoid "huge black eye."

Washington - The corruption investigation surrounding lobbyist Jack Abramoff shows the significant political risk that Republican leaders took when they adopted what had once seemed a brilliant strategy for dominating Washington: turning the K Street lobbying corridor into a cog of the GOP political machine.

Abramoff thrived in the political climate fostered by GOP leaders, including Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who have methodically tried to tighten the links between the party in Congress and business lobbyists, through what has become known as the "K Street Project."

GOP leaders, seeking to harness the financial and political support of K Street, urged lobbyists to support their conservative agenda, give heavily to Republican politicians and hire Republicans for top trade association jobs. Abramoff obliged on every front, and his tentacles of influence reached deep into the upper echelons of Congress and the Bush administration.

Now, in the wake of a plea agreement in which Abramoff will cooperate in an influence-peddling investigation that might target a number of lawmakers, some Republicans are saying that the party will need to take action to avoid being tarnished.

"This is going to be a huge black eye for our party," said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), a senior member close to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). "Denny's going to have to be very tough and really speak out against people who are indicted. He's going to have to do it quickly and decisively and frequently."

Hastert moved Tuesday to inoculate himself from the scandal by announcing that he would give to charity about $60,000 he received from Abramoff and his clients. He is the latest of several lawmakers who have returned or redirected money they received from Abramoff-related sources.

One Senate Republican aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Republicans soon will unveil ethics reform legislation in an effort to blunt criticism from Democrats that they have fostered a "culture of corruption" in Washington.

The controversy may also increase the prospect that Republicans will shake up their leadership after Congress reconvenes at the end of January. House Republican moderates are calling for new leadership elections to permanently replace DeLay, who stepped down temporarily as majority leader after he was indicted in an unrelated case.

"Let's get a permanent leadership and begin moving forward and overcome the problems that are on the table right now," said Sarah Chamberlain Resnick, executive director of the Republican Main Street Partnership, a caucus of GOP moderates in Congress.

Conservatives are worried about possible political fallout for all Republicans, not just those who might be implicated, once Abramoff starts cooperating with prosecutors.

"This is the one thing that could result in a change in who controls the Congress," said Paul Weyrich, a conservative activist.

Abramoff pleaded guilty Tuesday to corruption charges in connection with allegations that he bilked his Indian tribe clients and conspired to bribe a member of Congress. He also will plead guilty to charges in a separate case in Miami, in connection with a deal to buy a floating casino fleet, SunCruz Casinos.

Although Abramoff admitted Tuesday to illegal conduct in some of his dealings, much of what he did to influence Congress amounted to larger-than-life versions of legal practices common among lobbyists.

Abramoff did not just ply lawmakers with meals; he opened a restaurant and plied them with his meals. He did not simply hand out tickets to sporting events; he offered access to several luxury skyboxes. He did not arrange garden-variety golf outings; he brought golfers to the world's most exclusive courses.

"The connections between Congress, congressional staff and lobbyists have been a problem for many years," said Dennis Thompson, author of the book "Ethics in Congress."

"In the last few years it's gotten out of control," Thompson said. "But Abramoff has taken it to a new level."

For investigators, the question is whether any lawmakers returned Abramoff's favors by using their offices to benefit him or his clients, which could violate federal law.

Critics of the campaign finance system say it would be a kind of rough justice if Republicans were hobbled by their relationships with a lobbyist, because they worked so hard to increase coordination between their party and K Street.

Republicans said their efforts were no different than what Democrats did for years to raise money and organize support from their constituencies, including labor unions and civil rights advocates. But Democratic critics said the GOP went much further in linking political money to policy outcomes, and that Abramoff was a master at maneuvering in a system that required lobbyists to "pay to play" on Capitol Hill.

"Jack Abramoff is a classic example of the pay-to-play system carried out in the extreme," said Fred Wertheimer, head of Democracy 21, a campaign-finance watchdog group.

According to a study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, 296 members of Congress since 1999 have received contributions from Abramoff, his Indian tribe clients or SunCruz Casinos. Abramoff and his wife contributed $204,253 - all of it to Republicans.

In addition, Abramoff also leaned on his Indian clients to give to key lawmakers. The center found that Abramoff's clients gave almost $4.2 million, more than half to Republicans.

His most famous golf outings took members, including DeLay and Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), to the fabled St. Andrews course in Scotland. Such trips are against House rules if they are paid for by a lobbyist. DeLay and Ney said they believed the trips were properly paid for by a nonprofit group, but prosecutors are reportedly looking at whether Abramoff initially picked up some of the expenses.

Favors done for DeLay and Ney have drawn particular scrutiny because they took aggressive steps to help Abramoff or his clients on issues that seemed remote from their own constituents' interests. When Abramoff was trying to buy the Florida floating casino fleet, Ney inserted a statement in the Congressional Record critical of Abramoff's rival.

Abramoff had been hired to stall legislation raising the minimum wage for the US-administered Northern Mariana Islands in the Pacific Ocean, and DeLay was credited with helping him do so. DeLay also was an ally in Abramoff's effort to fight legislation to allow the taxation of Indian tribe gaming revenue.

DeLay and Ney, like other lawmakers who helped Abramoff, said they took action on the merits, not because they received favors from him.

The last time Washington lobbying came under such broad legal scrutiny was in the Abscam scandal of 1980, when an FBI sting operation led to the conviction of seven members of Congress on corruption charges.

That episode was widely viewed as a scandal involving isolated individuals, the proverbial "bad apples."

But some critics of the current campaign finance system say that the Abramoff scandal could have broader significance if it is seen as an indictment of a corrupt political system, not just individuals.

Posted by: TheDude

'Culture of Corruption'... Sounds about right.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Both of you (johnny/deville) are full of it. The fact is that the story broke in dozens of different places. I just used the Post source because I knew that that lib rag was the only one you'd give any credibility to. Can't win no matter what. Post the truth from my source, you discredit it. Post the truth from your source, you discredit me.

Do you people even know HOW to debate on the issues, or are you only good at personal attacks?

Posted by: 97silverlsc

The $4 Billion Industry That Is America's Guilty Secret
By Rupert Cornwell
The Independent UK
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle336396.ece
Wednesday 04 January 2006

Lobbying is Washington's grubby secret. Some say lobbying is part of the democratic process. Others claim it is legalised bribery, even corruption. But love it or loathe it, it is the way Washington works.

Usually you hear little about the quiet meetings, the lavish lunches and junkets that lubricate American politics. But every once in a while something comes along to open the system to what it hates most: daylight. The case of Jack Abramoff, influence-peddler extraordinaire, is one of those somethings.

Once Mr Abramoff claimed to have done nothing illegal, that his only sin was to have been too good at his job. But now his career is in ruins, a jail term of nine years or more beckons - an incarceration that would be even longer but for the plea bargain he reached yesterday with federal prosecutors.

For Mr Abramoff only contrition is left: "Words will not ever be able to express my sorrow and my profound regret for my actions and mistakes," he said in court yesterday. As for the two dozen members of Congress and their aides reputedly under investigation, they can only tremble.

If Mr Abramoff spills the beans, they may soon be contemplating a similar fate. This is potentially the biggest Congressional scandal of the modern era. It is largely (though not exclusively) Republican, and may mark the beginning of the end of the party's 11-year dominance of Capitol Hill.

Lobbying per se is nothing new. The right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" is enshrined in the first amendment of the Constitution. Back in 1913, Woodrow Wilson said Washington was "swarming with lobbyists ... you can't throw a brick in any direction without hitting one".

But the 28th president cannot have imagined how access-peddling would blossom into a $4bn industry. There are 14,000 registered lobbyists, and as many again who are not registered. Between 1998 and 2004, foreign companies spent $620m (£350m) bending ears in Washington.

Lobbying thrives in the US for two reasons. In the US the executive and legislative branches are separate. The former is headed by the President, the latter consists of Congress, which writes laws and appropriates money for government spending. Although George Bush's Republicans have majorities in both House and Senate, he has no direct control of the bills they consider. That power rests with dozens of powerful committee chairmen and ranking members, all with their fiefdoms, whose yea or nay is decisive.

The other key ingredient is money, the colossal sums needed to fight election campaigns. In Britain, the curbs on such spending are strict. In America, by contrast, the sky's the limit. Total spending for the 2004 elections, presidential and congressional, reached $4bn.

The summit of extravagance was the 2004 Senate race in South Dakota, one of the least populous and less affluent US states. The two candidates spent a combined $40m. In an average state, the cost of defending a Senate seat is $20m. This means an incumbent has to raise $9,000 every day of his six-year term. At which point, enter the lobbyists.

The trade-off is simple. Corporate and other donors provide cash in a bid to secure the legislation they want. The intermediaries between the two sides are lobbyists. And the more people a lobbyist knows on Capitol Hill, the more effective he or she is.

Unsurprisingly, ever increasing numbers of them are former legislators. The Washington-based pressure group Centre for Public Integrity, says almost 250 former Congressmen and senior government officials are now active lobbyists.

Jack Abramoff and his ilk are key figures in Washington's power networks. And no network was mightier than the one embracing Mr Abramoff, the former House majority leader Tom DeLay and Grover Norquist, president of the arch-conservative Americans for Tax Reform, one of the most powerful special interests groups in Washington.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

That wasn't a personal attack, I have no idea how you took it as such..It was an observation to that fact that you blow-off any news as being 'liberally biased' when it doesn't flow with your feelings, but will use it as a source when it does.

Posted by: RB3

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Wrong (no surprise)...

Here's the study, again:

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

Date: December 14, 2005
Contact: Meg Sullivan ( msullivan@support.ucla.edu )
Phone: 310-825-1046

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.
These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

1. "Flow with my feelings?" What the heck is that crap?

2. See, I knew you couldn't read. I already explained my reasoning.

Here, really big so you can see it even with your coke bottles:

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

The fact is that the story broke in dozens of different places. I just used the Post source because I knew that that lib rag was the only one you'd give any credibility to. Can't win no matter what. Post the truth from my source, you discredit it. Post the truth from your source, you discredit me.