Abramoff Dems fail the Dean Test
Gateway Pundit:
Democrats have been more than weird when it comes to using Abramoff's troubles as a political prop. One of the weirdist aspect is an attempt to make what law professors call a distinction without a difference by arguing that since they did not get money directly from Abramoff, they somehow avoid the taint of association. But when confronted with the contributions that Abramoff directed his clients to make to Democrats they argue they were powerless to effect policy, though their letters suggest otherwise.
They wind up making themselves look bad by trying to ignore the obvious. The Republicans are playing this situation in a much more adept fashion by saying that if anyone did something that violates the law they should be prosecuted. If the Dems had done the same thing they would not have come across as people with something to hide.
Since Abramoff's offenses centered on his cheating of his clients, if representatives of either party were unaware of this cheating, then it is likely that neither has committed a criminal offense. The wise course for Democrats would be to quit acting like they have something to hide and move on. There problem is they do not see the obvious political advantage in doing so.
Many Democratic Senators Continue to Fail the "Dean Test".There is much more.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is just one Democratic Senator who fails.
"Chairman Dean set a new standard for Abramoff Democrats today and it's clear that Sen. Reid did not make the cut. Dean specifically stated it was 'a big problem' if any Democrats wrote letters on behalf of Abramoff Indian tribes, which is exactly what Harry Reid and other Democrats did. Howard Dean has displayed a stunning level of hypocrisy on this issue, however it now appears that he may be interested in holding his fellow Democrats accountable."Brian Jones
RNC Communications Director
January 29, 2006
Democrats have been more than weird when it comes to using Abramoff's troubles as a political prop. One of the weirdist aspect is an attempt to make what law professors call a distinction without a difference by arguing that since they did not get money directly from Abramoff, they somehow avoid the taint of association. But when confronted with the contributions that Abramoff directed his clients to make to Democrats they argue they were powerless to effect policy, though their letters suggest otherwise.
They wind up making themselves look bad by trying to ignore the obvious. The Republicans are playing this situation in a much more adept fashion by saying that if anyone did something that violates the law they should be prosecuted. If the Dems had done the same thing they would not have come across as people with something to hide.
Since Abramoff's offenses centered on his cheating of his clients, if representatives of either party were unaware of this cheating, then it is likely that neither has committed a criminal offense. The wise course for Democrats would be to quit acting like they have something to hide and move on. There problem is they do not see the obvious political advantage in doing so.
Comments
Post a Comment