Saturday, December 31, 2005
Decision Time for Jack Abramoff
In this New York Times story it is reported that Jack Abramoff, a powerful Washington lobbyist under indictment for fraud in Florida, has until 3:30 on Tuesday, January 3, 2006 to inform the Court if he is taking the deal offered him by the Justice Department prosecutors or is going to trial on the 9th. Washington is all atwitter because the deal is apparently a global one and would require Abramoff to name names and describe all that he has done.
The story calls Mr. Abramoff a Republican lobbyist but I don't know if that means he is himself a Republican (which he is) or if the scandal the press is hoping will break wide open soon will only involve Republican office holders. Of course, since the Republicans are in the majority in both the House and Senate, wouldn't a lobbyist pursue influencing those in power over those not in power?
I admit I never did get lobbyist. It seems to me that there are only three realities to what they do: 1. They are gifted speakers who for money will try to influence the vote of a politician on an issue of importance to their client; 2. They are frauds who have no influence whatsoever and take the client's money and only produce the illusion of influence or persuasion; or, 3. They are conduits for corruption who influence our representatives by bribes in many forms. Only one out of three seems good. The last seems the worst because not only are the lobbyists criminals but the bribe takers as well (and possibly the client who knowingly offers a bribe through the lobbyist). Perhaps the last is the closest to reality, but I've always been partial to number 2.
As to the power of Abramoff to hurt only the Republicans if he takes the deal, I am a little skeptical. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), the Senate minority leader, said on Fox Sunday show two weeks ago that this is a Republican scandal. Rumors of corrupt influence with Democrat Senators Reid and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) are often repeated, however. A smart guy would take the deal, name only Democrats and hope for a pardon in January, 2009. Time will tell.
The story calls Mr. Abramoff a Republican lobbyist but I don't know if that means he is himself a Republican (which he is) or if the scandal the press is hoping will break wide open soon will only involve Republican office holders. Of course, since the Republicans are in the majority in both the House and Senate, wouldn't a lobbyist pursue influencing those in power over those not in power?
I admit I never did get lobbyist. It seems to me that there are only three realities to what they do: 1. They are gifted speakers who for money will try to influence the vote of a politician on an issue of importance to their client; 2. They are frauds who have no influence whatsoever and take the client's money and only produce the illusion of influence or persuasion; or, 3. They are conduits for corruption who influence our representatives by bribes in many forms. Only one out of three seems good. The last seems the worst because not only are the lobbyists criminals but the bribe takers as well (and possibly the client who knowingly offers a bribe through the lobbyist). Perhaps the last is the closest to reality, but I've always been partial to number 2.
As to the power of Abramoff to hurt only the Republicans if he takes the deal, I am a little skeptical. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), the Senate minority leader, said on Fox Sunday show two weeks ago that this is a Republican scandal. Rumors of corrupt influence with Democrat Senators Reid and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) are often repeated, however. A smart guy would take the deal, name only Democrats and hope for a pardon in January, 2009. Time will tell.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 7:44 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Roger,
Not only is Washington "all atwitter" but some elected officials are probably not straying too far from the commode so as not to soil themselves. Probably, most of these are Republicans, however, a good lobbyist hedges his bets. Today's majority is tomorrow minority and it takes votes to get one's pet piece of legislation out of comittee. Remember, that merely because a party is in the minority, that party is not totally w/o power, even though the current majority party tends to act as if this were true.
Don't you remember in law school, we were taught the axiom: "People who get A's in law school become law school professors; people who get B's become judges; and people who get C's become lawyers." To which I add my own corollaries: that people who get D's frequently run for public office while people who get F's become lobbyists.
Your analysis is faulty, and you, of all people should realize the trinitarian nature of the lobbyist. All three realities apply, to varying degrees, at various times.
I agree, it would be smart of Abramoff to name only Democrats, however, if he takes the deal, I don't think that will be an option.
At this juncture, I think it would behoove you to cease all implicatons that "the press" is somehow liberal. The NYT may be liberal, but for every NYT, there is a WSJ and then some. Bashing the press for being liberal or conservative is cheap and unbecoming someone of your intellect. Bashing the press because a particular position is silly, inconsistant, or untruthful is not only justified, but may rise to the level of duty.
By the way, what are Ms. Coulter and Mr. Limbaugh saying about Mr. Abramhoff?
Not only is Washington "all atwitter" but some elected officials are probably not straying too far from the commode so as not to soil themselves. Probably, most of these are Republicans, however, a good lobbyist hedges his bets. Today's majority is tomorrow minority and it takes votes to get one's pet piece of legislation out of comittee. Remember, that merely because a party is in the minority, that party is not totally w/o power, even though the current majority party tends to act as if this were true.
Don't you remember in law school, we were taught the axiom: "People who get A's in law school become law school professors; people who get B's become judges; and people who get C's become lawyers." To which I add my own corollaries: that people who get D's frequently run for public office while people who get F's become lobbyists.
Your analysis is faulty, and you, of all people should realize the trinitarian nature of the lobbyist. All three realities apply, to varying degrees, at various times.
I agree, it would be smart of Abramoff to name only Democrats, however, if he takes the deal, I don't think that will be an option.
At this juncture, I think it would behoove you to cease all implicatons that "the press" is somehow liberal. The NYT may be liberal, but for every NYT, there is a WSJ and then some. Bashing the press for being liberal or conservative is cheap and unbecoming someone of your intellect. Bashing the press because a particular position is silly, inconsistant, or untruthful is not only justified, but may rise to the level of duty.
By the way, what are Ms. Coulter and Mr. Limbaugh saying about Mr. Abramhoff?
# posted by 
: 11:21 AM
: 11:21 AM
"Don't you remember in law school, we were taught the axiom: "People who get A's in law school become law school professors; people who get B's become judges; and people who get C's become lawyers."
You obviously don't know many judges.
You obviously don't know many judges.
# posted by : 12:48 PM
: 12:48 PM
I think you neglect the more benign possibility (which seems to me to be the most generally probable) that lobbyists are very knowledgeable about matters for which they are paid to be interested. They are thus generally credible sources of information about the costs and benefits of policy choices. (Note that if they aren't perceived to be generally credible, they will lose influence, which acts as a brake--though certainly not a bar--on rampant self-dealing.
It is also my understanding that much (most?) legislation is written by lobbyists, not by time-serving politicians or their intern staffs. Some of this is offensive; some is pretty good. One hopes (without actual expectation) that said politicians and their staffs actually look at the legislation they propose. In theory, that's what we pay them for, after all.
It is also my understanding that much (most?) legislation is written by lobbyists, not by time-serving politicians or their intern staffs. Some of this is offensive; some is pretty good. One hopes (without actual expectation) that said politicians and their staffs actually look at the legislation they propose. In theory, that's what we pay them for, after all.
Tony, Denver's own Dave Koppel had a column yesterday about metrics to show the liberal bias is real. Take a look and tell me, if you can, how he or the guys he writes about are wrong. What we perceive as left leaning is actually being out of touch with the rest of America. That's always bad I think. The best metric is readership and viewership. The NYT, LAT, CBS, NBC, ABC, are all losing. Fox, which is closer to the hearts and minds of America is growing. Draw your own conclusions. I can't recall Ann Coulter mentioning Abramoff. Rush Limbaugh talked about him a little but nothing too memorable. Oh, yea, only the WSJ editorial pages are conservative.
Doug, your thoughtful, as usual, comment raises some good points, but being well informed and being a persuasive speaker is really the same thing with slightly different emphasis. A lot of legislation has an origin with a lobbyist to be sure and I am not at all sure a majority of the legislators read it thoughtfully. I just hope someone close to the leadership does. Happy New Year guys.
Doug, your thoughtful, as usual, comment raises some good points, but being well informed and being a persuasive speaker is really the same thing with slightly different emphasis. A lot of legislation has an origin with a lobbyist to be sure and I am not at all sure a majority of the legislators read it thoughtfully. I just hope someone close to the leadership does. Happy New Year guys.
According to the latest news, he`s going to name names.........
What do think his life span is likely to be if he does.......?
Post a Comment
What do think his life span is likely to be if he does.......?
<< Home
