PZ Myers. 2006 Jan 08. Dean shows off superpowers, annihilates foes. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/dean_shows_off_superpowers_annihilates_foes/>. Accessed 2006 Feb 13.

Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Sunday, January 08, 2006

Dean shows off superpowers, annihilates foes

Ah, what could have been. If only Howard Dean had been our nominee, rather than Kerry…I ♥ how plain spoken and uncompromising he is.

And I think, frankly, that Joe [Lieberman] is absolutely wrong, that it is incumbent on every American who is patriotic and cares about their country to stand up for what's right and not go along with the president, who is leading us in a wrong direction.

There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

Crooks and Liars has the video of part of the interview. The other striking thing is how pathetic and desperate Wolf Blitzer looks—he tries to spin the whole thing into the usual Republican talking points, and Dean just burns him to the ground with a glance of his laser-beam eyes.

Seeing the Forest makes similar points—Republicans are trying to turn this into a "Democrats do it too" issue, and while we've got some sleaze here and there, in this case it's straight up partisan corruption.

This corruption scandal is about people breaking existing laws. This is about Republican Congressmen and White House officials indicted for illegally taking bribes. They took payments in exchange for abusing their power, providing favors to cronies, and for using their power to block investigations and oversight.

Please, please, O Democrats: this is what we need, more straight-shooters and take-no-prisoners responses. Throw out the Lieberman and Biden wafflers, and get some more fiery liberals on the national stage. Maybe Dean is in the right place to push us in that direction…at least I hope so.

(via Atrios)

Posted by PZ Myers on 01/08 at 07:41 PM
Politics • 0 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
  1. Over the last several months and even past few years they're practically giving the democrats several seats in congress, and an excellent shot at president... I just hope they can cash in.
    #: Posted by  on  01/08  at  07:16 PM
  2. There needs to be more than us versus them. The ethics problem does not fall entirely along political affiliations as there have been corrupt Democrats throughout recent history as well. Don't get me wrong, those Republicans that are involved in this are absolutely wrong and I entirely agree with Howard Dean, but the black and white us versus them is no better than Bush's "You're either with us or against us" bullshit. I wish there were more choice of political party out there that would not be a wasted vote....
    #: Posted by BWJones  on  01/08  at  07:37 PM
  3. and Dean just burns him to the ground with a glance of his laser-beam eyes
    Shouldn't that be Dean Cain not Howard Dean:

    #: Posted by  on  01/08  at  07:48 PM
  4. Right on, PZ! I couldn't agree more.

    By the way (I'm sure this has been said a million times, but) I love the words in your "submit the word you see below" thing to keep the spammers away. For some reason I get a lot of satisfaction typing ev bio words in there.
    #: Posted by Kate  on  01/08  at  07:50 PM
  5. Well, Professor Myers, we finally agree on a matter of politics. I would have been delgihted with Dean as the Dem nominee.
    #: Posted by The Commissar  on  01/08  at  08:13 PM
  6. It's time the Democrats stopped being polite, civil, and accommodating with the crooks in power. Let these hypocrites and law-breakers have a taste of some of the medicine they were all too happy to dish out to Clinton for the lie he told about his inconsequential affair.
    #: Posted by  on  01/08  at  08:14 PM
  7. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) received $67,000 in donations from Indian tribes represented by Abramoff, which he's returned.

    He hadn't met Abramoff.

    "Aides conceded that the senator did advocate for programs pushed by Abramoff's clients around the time he was accepting tens of thousands of dollars from associates and clients of the lobbyist."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121301582.html
    #: Posted by Jim Lippard  on  01/08  at  08:23 PM
  8. Some of us get to say ' I told you so '. How does a religious 'ethical' voter justify her votes for Bush and his compatriots in the House? I remember well those cries of 'at least he isnt that lying sleazeball Clinton'. Clinton lied, and did many things to make the world a better place. Bush lied, and keeps on lying, and ... the results are all around us. No way out of Iraq, 'reformed' Medicare that leaves people without needed care, attempts to trash Social Security, torture, corruption, bribery, incompetent administrators of crucial agencies, continually climbing deficits, religious intrusion in public institutions, and on and on it goes.

    Dean told the truth and he was called crazy.

    On a scale of 1-10; for ethical and principled leadership:

    Dean 8
    Kerry 6
    Bush -6
    Delay -666

    The Republican Party may just get their just desserts next fall, but the damage will already be done. The Supreme Court will be set on a track to make peoples lives worse for years to come.
    #: Posted by  on  01/08  at  09:46 PM
  9. Thanks for the "MST3K" moment, SEF........and we wonder why most folks are cynical about their politicians. And, as he left the courthouse, do you think Abramoff could've looked more like an extra from "The Untouchables" if he tried??
    #: Posted by Fire Ant  on  01/08  at  09:59 PM
  10. And I think, frankly, that Joe [Lieberman] is absolutely wrong, that it is incumbent on every American who is patriotic and cares about their country to stand up for what's right and not go along with the president, who is leading us in a wrong direction.

    I have a dream in which American politicians stop telling everybody that anyone who doesn't think or act as they do is unpatriotic. I have a dream in which they stop throwing around words that really mean "What I currently think" - freedom, justice, patriotism, and liberty all mean exactly that in American politics.

    There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican.

    That's not enough to exonerate the Democratic Party. No Republican had an election rigged for him by Richard J. Daley; does it mean Democrats rig elections more than Republicans do?
    #: Posted by Alon Levy  on  01/08  at  10:45 PM
  11. Blitzer just looked like a deer in the headlights. Dean finished speaking, there was a moment of silence as Blitzer stated wide-eyed into the camera, gave a heavy sigh, and said "Unfortunately, we have to leave it there..."

    That was beautiful.
    #: Posted by Heliologue  on  01/08  at  11:49 PM
  12. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) received $67,000 in donations from Indian tribes represented by Abramoff, which he's returned.

    Though, as Dean pointed out, you can't exactly call the tribes "agents" of Abramoff. They were clients. Not exactly the same thing.
    #: Posted by  on  01/09  at  12:28 AM
  13. Quoth Howard Dean:
    There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff

    For those who missed it, Think Progress has a summary of the Abramoff scandal. And yes, the list of players includes three Democrats:

    Byron Dorgan, as Dean mentioned, received money from Indian tribes. Tom Harkin received $22,000 from "Abramoff's partners and his clients" and used Abramoff's skybox for fundraising purposes, and was late in reimbursing him for it. Harry Reid received $66,000 "in Abramoff-related donations", and wrote a letter on behalf of the Coushatta Indians who were also Abramoff clients.

    So Dean appears to be right. The "partners and clients" phrasing is smear-by-association: Abramoff stole from tribe X, which also gave money to politician Y; therefore, Y is in cahoots with Abramoff. As events unfold, it may turn out that some Democrats were involved (and should be punished to the extent of their guilt, same as Republicans), and there are a few gray areas, but so far, the statement "The Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal" seems as incontrovertible as "ID is creationism".
    #: Posted by arensb  on  01/09  at  12:54 AM
  14. Abramoff is going to jail for defrauding the tribes. They're the victims. The recipients of contributions from the victims are hardly complicit in the fraud.
    #: Posted by  on  01/09  at  01:52 AM
  15. Who Howard Dean?
    (see my location for reason to Q. )

    It won't do any good.

    Hilary Clinton will be elected in2008, do 2 terms, then the christians will just "win" in 2016, arrange a Reichstag fire, suspend your constitution, and then it's "Handmaid's Tale" time .......
    #: Posted by  on  01/09  at  02:16 AM
  16. I like Tom Toles's Jan. 8 cartoon on the subject:
    #: Posted by arensb  on  01/09  at  04:00 AM
  17. As of now Howard Dean is officially the only national Democratic politician for whom I have any respect. I wish he could perform a spinal-column transplant on some of our pathetic wishy-washy members of Congress.
    #: Posted by  on  01/09  at  07:23 AM
  18. Speaking of Hilary Clinton, the NYT reported that her office was donating funds that were some how associated with the scandal; add that to the list of other Dems identified by earlier comments and Dean's straight-shot is missing the broad-side of the barn. Even acknowledging the distinction between taking money from Abramoff and taking money from his clients, claiming that only Republicans are part of the problem is misleading. The whole lobbying system as it actually functions is sleezy and problematic and some people got caught this time, but I'm not sure the political party of the participants has a whole lot to do with it.

    That said, Dean appears to be the only Democrat with backbone, so its fine by me if his rhetoric gets ahead of him occasionally.
    #: Posted by Paris  on  01/09  at  07:58 AM
  19. If you really think Abramoff was funneling money to Democrats, I believe you need to Google "K Street Project" and get a clue as to what the Abramoff / DeLay machine was all about.
    #: Posted by  on  01/09  at  08:02 AM
  20. That said, Dean appears to be the only Democrat with backbone, so its fine by me if his rhetoric gets ahead of him occasionally.

    Remind me, what is his position on trade, again?
    #: Posted by Alon Levy  on  01/09  at  09:01 AM
  21. Oh, and I forgot: every politician who said "we need to create high-paying jobs and keep them away from China" needs to be treated with the same respect mainstream Americans treat those who say "we need to keep good jobs away from niggers."
    #: Posted by Alon Levy  on  01/09  at  09:03 AM
  22. I admittedly part company with many Democrats in that I strongly favor free trade, whose benefits I frankly think they don't fully understand. Nevertheless, if you really think advocacy of keeping jobs here rather than seeing them migrate to a foreign country, is logically or ethically equivalent to advocating keeping them away from a particular ethnic group within the country, you're cognitively in about the same shape as Ariel Sharon is in right now. More likely, you're just randomly bullshitting.
    #: Posted by  on  01/09  at  09:12 AM
  23. Free trade has many positives, but the complex regulatory treaties passed in recent decades called free trade agreements aren't. Of course, the US government has a long history of misleadingly named laws, such as the Patriot Act and Clean Skies. Many of the "free trade" agreements, especially in the area of copyrights and patents, are precisely the opposite of what they claim, greatly expanding existing monopolies by pushing the US's pro-DRM copyright maximilist position on other nations.
    #: Posted by  on  01/09  at  09:23 AM
  24. add that to the list of other Dems identified by earlier comments and Dean's straight-shot is missing the broad-side of the barn.


    That is what bothers me about the approach Dean takes. I very much agree it's an attractive attitude and we probably do need it--but it tends to come at a price. Making such bold, absolutist statements almost always glosses over some minor details. No matter how insignificant they are, they can still be exploited to make the speaker look foolish or dishonest. You don't need more than this to establish Republican talking points. I guess my complaint is just that I'd like Dean to do a tiny bit more research, so he could append at the end of his statment "I think a few Democrats had contributions from some of Abramoff's victims."

    Also, I believe I've heard on Chicago-area news that Durbin is returning a (very small) contribution that he thinks is Abramoff-related.
    #: Posted by  on  01/09  at  09:26 AM
  25. "Dean's approach" has the singular advantage of being the truth, rrt. And Dean DID say he had gone over the FEC reports to make sure. Getting a contribution (paltry compared to what they gave Republicans) from an Indian tribe that had been an Abramoff client is NOT AT ALL the same thing as getting money FROM ABRAMOFF. That really shouldn't be hard to understand! (Dean certainly had no trouble making it clear on CNN.) And anyone who comprehnds the purpose and methods of the DeLay machine will immediately understand that it's completely implausible that Abramoff would have been involved in channeling money to Democrats.
    #: Posted by  on  01/09  at  09:40 AM
  26. Contrary to Dean's absolutist statement, cupidity is a failing to which people of all political persuasions succumb. However, that said, more Republicans will be found guilty of greed for the simple reason that they have the currency that Abramoff coveted: Power and the will to use for nefarious purposes. The Democrats are like eunuchs in a harem; they have nothing to bestow, so Abramoff cultivated few of them for favors. Scandal is one of those things that rears its head when one party gains too much power. The voters usually correct the imbalance in the next election. The only difficulty is that given our rigid political system, the nation must suffer for three more years of Dubya's abuse, unless the Dems can regain control of both houses of Congress and impeach and convict Dubya of high crimes. The downside to that, of course, is that we get snarky Dickie for president, unless Congress can impeach both!
    #: Posted by  on  01/09  at  09:55 AM
  27. Let's do this in real short, simple sentences. There are ethically challenged Democrats. That's obvious. But not one got money personally from Abramoff. Not one got money from an Abramoff front group. (No, an Indian tribe that happens to have previously hired by Abramoff is NOT the same thing. They're allowed to lobby anyone, you know.) Abramoff is a strictly Rethug scandal. Those are facts. Please keep them straight.
    #: Posted by  on  01/09  at  10:04 AM
  28. From a politics standpoint, a bold, clear statemtent is always preferable to a qualified one.

    Even if the statement is overly broad. The simple explaination is that those people who oppose the statement will do so regardless of any qualifiers. Those people who support the statement will do so regardless of qualifiers. Those people who have not formed an opinion will judge by the statement, which will be less persuasive if there are qualifiers.

    Adding qualifiers reduces the impact of the statement. Would Roosevelt have been as memorable if he had said, "This is a day which shall live in infamy, aside from The Maine, and, oh, Gettysburg, ... and some other important historical battles." Or Lincoln saying, "A house divided against itself cannot stand. Unless the walls are leaning at a particular angle, maybe." Anyone who brings up the qualifiers subsequently can be labeled as a whiner. Haven't we seen this very clearly in the simplified, unqualified, republican rhetoric?

    This is not science. It is not a quest to understand reality, with all the qualifiers and hesitation of a good researcher. This is oratory, rhetoric, propaganda, and partisianship. Summed up in a single word, this is politics.

    -Flex
    #: Posted by  on  01/09  at  10:07 AM
  29. I thought my comment that "we've got some sleaze here and there" was clear -- I don't think Democrats are pure and innocent. I am appalled at seeing the media trying to turn a partisan scandal into equal opportunity bashing at Democrats to try and diffuse the blame.

    If Tammany Hall were renascent, would they try to avoid pinning the fault on one particularly corrupt political regime, too? Finding a few people outside the core of the rot who are also corrupt does not change the fact of the real problem.
    #: Posted by PZ Myers  on  01/09  at  10:14 AM
  30. Abramoff's is not a bipartisan scandal for exactly the same reason warrantless wiretapping is not one either: these are abuses of power. The political power of a Democrat, for some time now, is a commodity made of unobtainium. What would the going rate have been for the influence a Democrat could peddle?

    Blaming Dems for GOP brand sleaze is the same sort of misdirection as prosecuting the NSA whistleblowers, or claiming domestic wiretapping was authorized by Congress. It's transparent blame-shifting that gets plenty of play by this administrations enablers accomplices in the fourth estate.
    #: Posted by Ken Cope  on  01/09  at  11:00 AM
  31. "Oh, and I forgot: every politician who said "we need to create high-paying jobs and keep them away from China" needs to be treated with the same respect mainstream Americans treat those who say "we need to keep good jobs away from niggers." "

    So, a politician supporting the creation of good jobs in their own country, as opposed to a different country, is somehow the same as a politician supporting the economic marginalization of a minority group *within* their own country? Last I heard, the job of US politicians is to serve the interests of US citizens, which doesn't exactly apply to citizens of China.
    #: Posted by  on  01/09  at  11:13 AM
  32. I recognize that the contributions to Democrats that have been identified thus far (at least that I know of) are indirectly linked to Abramoff at best. My point was that I didn't think that would prevent Republicans from credibly (to the majority of the American public) claiming that Dean was making things up.

    Flex is suggesting that in this case, the links are so indirect, and the value of unqualified statements is so high, that it's better to go with the strong language. I don't necessarily dispute that--my concern was that it might not be weighted that way...for example, all I heard in that Chicago media report was, in effect "Senator Durbin is also returning funds linked to Abramoff."

    I'm not expert enough to say what the general public will ultimately think about this. I'm just suggesting (and worrying) that it can backfire, even though Dean is apparently quite right. Certainly, the Republican rank-and-file can use it to convince themselves that lots of Democrats were on the Abramoff take too. I'm VERY open to arguments that this won't be the case. ;)
    #: Posted by  on  01/09  at  11:30 AM
  33. Shouldn't that be Dean Cain not Howard Dean

    Dean Cain is a Bush supporter, btw.
    #: Posted by  on  01/09  at  02:40 PM
  34. rrt,

    It is completely dishonest for Republicans to make the statement that "Abramoff and his clients" donated to Democrats, because, near as anyone has been able to determine after going through all of the FEC filings, Abramoff hasn't donated a penny to any Democrat. These sorts of distortions need to be challenged at full tilt, without qualification, no ifs, ands, or buts.

    The American public will believe the clearest (read: simplest) argument which comes from someone they trust. Trust is earned over time by telling the truth and being proven out. Democrats have squandered major opportunities to build trust, by allowing Republican distortions to stand unchallenged. No more.
    #: Posted by  on  01/09  at  04:13 PM
  35. Alon,

    There is a world of difference between the assertion to keep jobs away from China and being racist about Chinese, as your comment implies. China is a political entity that engages in certain political activities controlled by its government, such as paying substandard wages to expand a foothold in international markets. This is one of the many reasons that the US government and US based corporations participate in trade agreements to support fairness among trading partners.

    Those who are concerned about how China treats its people would be just as concerned about purchasing clothing from France if the did not treat their people well.

    It is quite an unjustified comment to equate those who are concerned about the treatment of Chinese workers and citizens with slaveholders and the Klan.
    #: Posted by  on  01/09  at  10:09 PM
  36. What if they did find just one democrat that took the money? Would you change your mind on Howard “yeaaaeeeeehooorrhh” Dean? Because he would be liar. You don’t support liars.
    #: Posted by  on  01/09  at  11:02 PM
  37. NSM,

    If in the future they find a Democrat who took the money that would not make Dean a liar today, unless he already knew of the violation.

    It must be fun to live in a world where when your icons speak one truth they are forevermore good, but if your adversaries make one error they are forevermore wrong.

    PZ and others acknowledged that Democrats are not squeaky clean; but this particular scandal is part and parcel of the Republican plan to control all branches of government working in hand with the lobbyists on K street.

    This is a Republican scandal brought on due to the approach to government taken by this particular bunch of Republicans. Even if you agree with the ideals professed by the Republican party, you do not have to agree with using illegal and unethical means to achieve those ideals ... especially since cleaning up government is one of the ideals professed.

    I believe syncophant is the word to describe your role.
    #: Posted by  on  01/09  at  11:29 PM
  38. If a Democrat were found who took Abramoff's money, then I would expect Dean to revise his claim. As he said, he reviewed the information we now have, and no Dem was listed.
    #: Posted by PZ Myers  on  01/09  at  11:37 PM
  39. I admittedly part company with many Democrats in that I strongly favor free trade, whose benefits I frankly think they don't fully understand.

    You misunderstand. In March 2003, Dean said he supported the basic framework of NAFTA and only favored minor corrections. By November, his position had changed to the standard position of Gephardt and the unions.

    So, a politician supporting the creation of good jobs in their own country, as opposed to a different country, is somehow the same as a politician supporting the economic marginalization of a minority group *within* their own country? Last I heard, the job of US politicians is to serve the interests of US citizens, which doesn't exactly apply to citizens of China.

    Honestly, if Dean had said "We need to create good American jobs," I wouldn't have been so pissed. I still think it's high time Americans are disabused of the notion they have some God-given right to have jobs in the US rather than in India, but such a statement is to be expected of an American politician. My problem is that he said "keep jobs away from China" without saying anything about keeping jobs in the US. When an American politician uses China as a synonym for third-world countries that employ people for low wages, it's not because he honestly cares about Chinese human rights abuses, but because he wants to invoke a yellow-hordes emotion in his constituents.

    China is a political entity that engages in certain political activities controlled by its government, such as paying substandard wages to expand a foothold in international markets. This is one of the many reasons that the US government and US based corporations participate in trade agreements to support fairness among trading partners.

    If Dean honestly cared about this, he'd single out China for protectionism not only in his rhetoric but also in substance. However, he doesn't, and in fact as far as I know the trade agreement he worries about the most is NAFTA, even though Mexico is freer than most third-world countries.

    Those who are concerned about how China treats its people would be just as concerned about purchasing clothing from France if the did not treat their people well.

    No, they wouldn't. France can retaliate with tariffs; China can't. There's a reason American tariffs on European and Japanese goods are much lower than on goods from developing countries.
    #: Posted by Alon Levy  on  01/10  at  12:24 AM
  40. Alon,

    You are being disingenuous. My statement was that you inappropriately compared government economic policies to racism. Your latest response is to claim that the appropriate comparison is between Mexico and 'third world countries'. Why is not the appropriate comparison between China, or Mexico, or Singapore and the US?

    My comment about the PEOPLE caring about mistreated WORKERS brought a response from you about the relative positions of the French and Chinese govenments. Again you are changing the subject.

    And why cant the Chinese impose tariffs just as France can?

    Again, I am no enemy of open and fair trade, but your arguments are misleading and inaccurate.
    #: Posted by  on  01/10  at  12:34 AM
  41. Points have been made by some that Dean succumbed to pressure to act as a 'politician', and that those acts are somehow deserving of derision and ulimately casting one's vote elsewhere.

    Dean's virtue was that he actively pursued the central Democratic principles of economic fairness and opportunity in addition to honoring the Bill of Rights. This is in contrast to prior generations of Democrats who focused on specific 'liberal' interest groups, but tended to ignore the core of the New Deal coalition.

    If he didnt insult the corn alcohol subsidies in Iowa,of he didnt, doesnt make him dishonest or devious, it just recognizes that politics is an art of compromise and relativity.

    His ability to say out loud things that arent 'polite' though true just adds to his attraction for some people.

    Whether or not he wailed too loudly had nothing to do with my support, while his central political values had everything to do with said support.

    Being pissed at a politician for an occasional equivocation is simply immature and unrealistic. Democracy is a messy business.
    #: Posted by  on  01/10  at  12:57 AM
  42. ' in Iowa,of he didnt, doesnt'

    Oops,.... , if he didnt,
    #: Posted by  on  01/10  at  01:03 AM
  43. You are being disingenuous. My statement was that you inappropriately compared government economic policies to racism.

    It's not so much government economic policies as political rhetoric. "Yellow hordes" is an example of rhetorical racism; racism in policy is imposing special immigration restrictions on Asians.

    Your latest response is to claim that the appropriate comparison is between Mexico and 'third world countries'. Why is not the appropriate comparison between China, or Mexico, or Singapore and the US?

    Well, if you want to compare, then not only is Mexico the second freest of the countries on this list, but also I'd argue that Mexico is closer to the US in its degree of freedom than to Singapore. The bottom line is, Mexico doesn't have abuses of workers of the type found in China, Nigeria, or even India, so logically if Dean genuinely cared about human rights, he'd largely let NAFTA off the hook while concentrating on China and Nigeria.

    And why cant the Chinese impose tariffs just as France can?

    Because France imports from the USA a lot more than China does, and in addition France is backed by a 12-trillion-dollar juggernaut and China isn't.
    #: Posted by Alon Levy  on  01/10  at  01:24 AM
  44. "You misunderstand. In March 2003, Dean said he supported the basic framework of NAFTA and only favored minor corrections. By November, his position had changed to the standard position of Gephardt and the unions."

    As they ought to be. In any reasonable definition of "not conservative", support of the needs of labor is key, and not having their jobs outsourced to the third world is pretty much their most important concern at this point. I know this is hard to remember in a world where in Britain, the "labor" leader Blair seems to have as much contempt for the working stiff as did Thatcher.

    I really don't get people who claim to be Democrats and then proceed to swallow all the rhetoric about "free trade" created at Republican "think tanks" like the Cato Institute.
    #: Posted by Jonathan Badger  on  01/10  at  06:24 AM
  45. That's not my point. I'm not arguing over whether free trade is good; I'm arguing over whether Dean flip-flopped on trade which by all accounts he did. When his support base consisted of urban liberals who don't care about workers in Pittsburgh more than about workers in Hanoi, he championed free trade; when he needed to be more friendly to American labor, he became a protectionist.
    #: Posted by Alon Levy  on  01/10  at  10:33 AM
  46. It's really kind of amazing that the last 7 comments have been unrelated to the original topic.

    In the sense at least as the original topic was praising Dean for a clear statement of a legitimite problem with republican money-raising to a complaint about how Dean has shifted his political ground slightly over the past few years.

    I suspect it means that everyone on this forum is convinced that Abramoff and those who have received money from him and his clients are guilty.

    BTW, I suspect that if a democrat was found to have been involved deeply in the Abramoff scandel, I think the DNC would likely revoke his membership in the democratic party. I don't know that it could be done, but it is an obvious move for any party to disassociate themselves from scandel. I wonder why the republicans haven't done it?

    Cheers,

    -Flex
    #: Posted by  on  01/10  at  11:33 AM
  47. BTW, I suspect that if a democrat was found to have been involved deeply in the Abramoff scandel, I think the DNC would likely revoke his membership in the democratic party. I don't know that it could be done, but it is an obvious move for any party to disassociate themselves from scandel. I wonder why the republicans haven't done it?

    When that day comes, we'll see whether you were right.
    #: Posted by Alon Levy  on  01/10  at  12:15 PM