Batfink's Beep -- 1-4-06

Abramoff noise

January 4, 2006

By now it is well known that Mr. Abramoff, who copped a plea the other day and is presumably spilling his guts as we speak, was a bad boy, giving campaign money to notable members of both parties for political favors of various sorts. It is not my purpose here to get into the minutae of that story; it is all over the news, and should be easy for anyone who is interested to get information on. What I find fascinating, though, is the different ways the 2 parties are approaching the situation in these very early days.

As I said, Abramoff was pretty much an equal opportunity political skid-greaser, giving money to the campaigns of politicians as varied as Tom DeLay and Harry Reid. It is pretty clear that both sides of the aisle have some reason to sweat, though it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility that the sins of each side will more or less cancel each other out as political liabilities. How ever that goes, this much is clear: neither side has an open view to go pointing fingers.

As one would expect, the GOP is keeping its own counsel, and waiting for the investigation to reveal its facts. If they're worried, they are keeping it to themselves. As befits an organization that may have some exposure in the matter, it is not out throwing stones, and is more or less sticking to other subjects in its press forays for the time being. It is, after all, rarely helpful and generally dangerous to speculate without the facts. This wait-and-see approach is generally reflected on the right wing side of the blogosphere, as well, being both the prudent as well as the reasonable thing to do.

For a party with just as many potential buns in the fire, the Democrats, on the other hand, came out of the gate swinging. As soon as the matter broke, Dem leaders were screaming about the latest "GOP scandal". Nancy Pelosi has said for attribution that the GOP congress is the "most corrupt in history", and offers the Abramoff situation as her latest proof. Now, to be fair, she has thrown this accusation before, and with even less proof; what ever else you say about it, though, she is certainly not letting her own party's involvement in the current matter restrain her political rock-throwing. Indeed, professional Democrats of all stripes are eager to make of the matter what they have failed to make of so many others, namely, the silver bullet that will finally "get" the Bush administration in particular, and Republicans in general. And all that is nothing compared to the waves of hysteria from the left side of the blogosphere. You'd think that after all the times they rang the scandal bell and got nothing but embarrassed for their trouble, they'd be showing more circumspection, especially given their own heroes potentially on the hook in this particular case; but, you'd be wrong.

Now, politics is what it is, and political attacks are how the game is played. Too, this is an election year, and the last one where the beleaguered Dems can potentially salvage at least a little face after all the ones that came before during the Bush II era, where they even lost seats in the off-years. History is on their side, after all -- the in-party always loses seats in the off-years... at least until the first off-year of the GWB administration, anyway. That would certainly explain the enthusiasm of the out-party to seize at any reid, er, reed, that might finally give them the ammunition that they have had so many cruel mirages of, heretofore. But they would do well to try to remember that, in politics, desperation smells, and voters tend to shun parties and politicians that smell. Making up scandals out of thin air (see the "Bush-lied" effort, for example) has more than a whiff of it. But to scream about the malfeisance of the other party in a case they are as buried in as anyone, positively reeks of it.

top

Visitors since Dec 1, 2005:

Revised: 05/19/08 08:07:03 -0400 .