Yet Another Reason Why Politics Is Not For Me
Several days ago I wrote about the dirt-digging that's already begun by political 'research' teams. In that case it was a fishing expedition by a Democratic operative looking for information on Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts and possible 2008 presidential candidate. I wrote:
I'm fairly certain that politics is not for me. You have to be willing to have your every utterance and activity exposed for all the world, and you have to be slimey enough to do the same to your opponent. And virtually none of it has anything to do with ideas, character and governance...
So here we go again, with the mudpit that is American politics. Lobbyist Jack Abramoff is pleading guilty to three felonies in a congressional corruption scandal, and is cooperating with prosecutors.
"I plead guilty, your honor," Abramoff said in flat, unemotional tones, accepting a plea bargain that said he had provided lavish trips, golf outings, meals and more to public officials "in exchange for a series of official acts."
Rick Moran hits the nail on the head.
What is it about politics that seems to attract these kinds of amoral people? Politics is a deathly competitive calling and the character of people who are more and more being attracted to the political culture in Washington (and to a lesser extent statehouses across the country) seem to reflect a kind of casual turpitude where venality and cynicism vie with high ideals and patriotism in a horrible mish mash of colliding special interests and grasping for power.
This is what Whitewater and cattle futures were all about - politicians getting special treatment and special opportunities because of who they were and what kind of back rub they could provide for the people rubbing their backs. This current scandal is likely to hit more Republicans than Democrats; they're in power, and have been for some time. A smart corrupt lobbyist would work hardest on the majority party members. Democratic partisans are feeling their oats in this. Fine. Uncover the dirt and send the offenders to the clink. I've got no use for 'em. But when those same partisans insist that it shows that the Republicans are the "party of corruption," I have to laugh. Put the Dems in the majority and the roles would be fully reversed. You think I'm kidding? Well, I'm not.
Call me a pollyanna, but politics is just not for me.
1/3/06 2000: Others -- Jay at Stop The ACLU
Looks like old Harry Reid may be involved in the scandal as well. It really is significant news that has great potential to reshape Washington. A scumbag is a scumbag whether they have a D or an R in front of their name.
Clearly the Abramoff case has the potential to be a major problem for Republicans, but if the investigation are really is as widespread as are rumored it could become a problem for all incumbents regardless of party...
Oh, and there's this, at Bloomberg News:
Some 220 lawmakers received at least $1.7 million in political donations from Abramoff, his associates and nine tribal clients between 2001 and 2004, according to a review of Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service records. Of those, 201 are still in Congress. Republicans received $1.1 million, or 64 percent of the total.
That would be, what, $600,000 or 36% for the minority party?
Several lawmakers are giving back the money they took in from Abramoff's clients and associates. Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, the top Democrat on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, said Dec. 13 he was returning $67,000 in donations.
1/4/06 0600: Missing link added to update.
1/4/06 1315: More from Ace of Spades, who believes that specific politicians should be affected, but not an entire party.
Notice how that's phrased [in the NY Times article]. "Even Democrats, many of whom also benefited from his largesse, acted skittish." Well, if they benefited from his "largesse," why the hell wouldn't they be skittish? What's that "even" doing there? Are they not in the exact same position as Republicans who took money from Abramoff and his cronies?
Apparently not. Republicans are presumed guilty, Democrats are presumed... well, desperate for money and just doing what needs to be done to win elections.
And the passive voice is cute: While Mr. Abramoff is most closely linked to Republicans... Linked by whom? Well, by NYT reporters, among others.
Jack Abramoff is linked to specific Republicans and specific Democrats, not chiefly "the Republican Party."
Comments