Redstate

last night on Brit Hume's show they discussed the Abramoff case. krauthammer made the point that a lot of the activity they are talking about is called lobbying and is legal within the guidelines. Money buys access and a chance to talk to congressman on issues. Its Legal.

Now what Abramoff did was swindle his clients and take kick backs from shell PR firms which he hired and had the Indian tribes pay for. Abramoff got 50% kickback and was paid outrageous sums.

But can his efforts with Congressman be broken down into two categories??

1. Typical and legal lobbying under the rules where trips are reported, meals are reported, contributions to campaigns or to packs are reported.  with those donations comes legal access to make a presentation and argue the merits of what your clients want.

The Congressman decides based on his understanding of those arguments Pro and Con.  In fact the Congressman may recieve campaign contributions from both sides of the the issue.

That is called Lobbying and if that is illegal than you might as well put bars on every office in Congress.

2. The second illegal category would be expensive gifts over the limit to congressman or their spouses. California Congressman that resigned recieved expensive antiques and Oriental rugs for example.  

If family members of Congressman or Senators received business based on lobbying efforts or based on Congressman's decisions than they should be investigated too.

Salaries paid by campaigns to family memebers like for Nancy Pelosi's family or Lobbying efforts for Harry Reid's 4 Sons and sweet intervention by Dad on their behalf.

Pox on both sides of the aisle, lets clean house and put in new conservative candidates if needed.

Unlike Democrats who defended Clinton and excused his perjury. Republicans will not excuse and will call for resignation of House memebers if we are true to our convictions.

But if Congressman were within the law and were being legally lobbied than the true Criminal was caught Jack Abramoff.

will become a test of conservative integrity.  Will conservatives use bailing-wire-and-string defenses to guard their own, or will they show the integrity that they have claimed the left is lacking?

I'm hoping that conservatives join the fight to roust out whatever corruption this situation exposes. I've heard such noises in the early going, but the flame hasn't been fully turned up yet.

As a right-leaning moderate and Bush supporter, I have seen more integrity from the right than I have from the left over the past few years (it's one of the reasons for my leaning). Because of this, I expect that conservatives will not simply jump to the defense of their own, but will instead be honest and forthright.

My fear is that conservatives will become defensive because of a tit-for-tat sort of reflex responses.  We'll see.

of it seems like legal lobbying to me. If the Gvt. can prove a quid pro quo on votes, then that politician has crossd the line and needs to go. But, except for Ney, I think it's going to be hard to prove.

No conservative should have any business defending the slimy practices of Abramoff and those who were bent to his influence.

More than anything else, I was terrified of this eventuality when I had my initial email conversations with Abramoff, back at the time the Weekly Standard was lampooning him and the mass exodus of his friends was really becoming clear in the wake of the almost entirely one-sided media reports about his activities.  That partially explains my reticence about writing anything in his favor -- and I'm glad I heeded that impulse of wariness, because as a relative ingenue having a dialogue with someone of his formidable persuasive gifts I found that it was very easy to like Mr. Abramoff personally, especially after having heard some of "his side" of the story.  In fact, it was more than easy to like him -- it was easy to want to take the next step and defend his actions, and that "reality distortion field" began to set off red flags for me.  

At one time or another, everyone has known someone like Jack Abramoff, I think -- although perhaps not everyone has been acquainted with the genuine article as closely as I have been.  I had a friend in high school who had a similar personality, and because of that I had the sense to wait and see what else developed before I committed to writing anything even slightly exculpatory on his behalf.  This other person was a wrestling and weightlifting champion who received a full scholarship to an extraordinary University and, in his senior year, he experienced a similarly Icarian fate when a number of his schemes collapsed like a house of cards under the weight of his narcissism.

I hope the Republican leadership is smart enough to realize that being duped by the likes of Abramoff should be a sobering wake up call and a lesson in the power of persuasion that everyone would do well to draw a lesson from.    

And he did it at precisely the worst time possible to hurt the GOP, in the scheme of things.  These guys live in their little universe inside the Beltway and frankly they're wrecking the chances of the party nationally, because people who are moderates who might be inclined to trust the GOP look at Abramoff and say:  "Why?"  And that's already being exploited inre: Alito.  I said before that I think Abramoff should have plead insanity -- at least it would have been more honest.  

Abramoff's [expletive] hit the fan and frankly everyone in this party has been splattered by it.  If Alito goes off the rails, I hope everyone sends letters to Jack in his cell.