The correct response to GOP trying to turn Abramoff scandal on Dems...

[yurbud]

Confess, apologize, and say "This just goes to show the corrosive effect of corporate money and lobbyist on our government. I plan to make amends for this by proposing a ban on corporate soft money and replacing our current campaign system with public financing of elections. Further I will propose that once they retire, no congressman, senator, president or Pentagon official of colonel grade or above can work for a private corporation for pay, especially as a lobbyist. We must extinguish even the perception that our government is for sale. I will not let a lobbyist even buy my lunch, and every word of every meeting I attend with business leaders will be recorded and available to the public, so they can decide if I am truly working for the public interest. I look forward to my Republican colleagues making the same pledge."

[Fridays Child]

1. How is it being turned on Dems?

Didn't Abramoff and DeLay practically wipe each other's butts?

[yurbud]

I read a story that this is how they are going to try to "neutralize" it

show that others took Abramoff money.

Even if they did it legally and ethically, it could cloud the issue enough.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. Strange partisan math

A transgression involving at least 60 Republicans and 2 or 3 Democrats is a "MASSIVE, BI-PARTISAN SCANDAL!!" Even if it turns out later that the Dems were only tangentially involved, if at all.

But if they can't find a Democrat to try to take down with them they'll just do what they always do. Talk about Clinton's penis.

[yurbud]

5. I am shocked! SHOCKED! that he had sex with a member of the opposite

sex.

Why can't he call Jeff Gannon like the GOP?

[NewJeffCT]

16. Heck

If you saw the satiric post last week about Ken Mehlman lauding the 6 GOP members of Congress (out of 267) that were not involved with Abramoff, you'd have seen my sarcastic follow-up that was something like, and if it was 267 Republicans involved with Abramoff and one Democrat had Abramoff hold the door open for them, it would still be a bi-partisan scandal in the eyes of the media.

[yurbud]

20. yep--that's why we need a simple response that moves the ball

down the field

[Hello_Kitty]

29. Didn't you say the Democrat would be Lieberman too?

:rofl:

[Toots]

19. Check out this chart and report back

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5577143

[yurbud]

25. that shows why some are blowing a gasket here--I hit a nerve

It's not enough to replace one corporate whore from the republican team with another who is nominally a democrat.

[yurbud]

26. My idea would give these guys cover BUT they would actually have to want

to do it.

As you can tell by their shills here, they don't.

They are like a monkey trying to get a nut out of a coke bottle.

The got their fist around the corporate money, but they can't their hand out of the bottle unless they let go--and they won't let go.

[Hello_Kitty]

28. OK, you're right that looks bad

However, merely taking money from a lobbyist doesn't necessarily mean you are complicit in every bad thing they are doing, though I'm not giving these Democrats a pass. They had to know what Abramoff was about and should have known better. It's still worse for the GOP because Abramoff has extensive ties going way back with that party and especially with Delay. But if these Dems want to have any credibility they should all give the money back immediately.

[yurbud]

30. think about how that flies as a defense with the public "We're not as bad"

That seems to be the DLC response to everything.

Why don't they just say "We seem nicer and won't get caught?"

To make a positive impression, they need to say Abramoff business stinks AND here's what we are going to do to fix it long term.

I am amazed that I got people's knickers in a knot about something that shouldn't be controversial.

[sandnsea]

2. Why are you assuming guilt? n/t

[yurbud]

4. Not. If innocent, just change first couple of sentences

[sandnsea]

7. Why do Dems react that way?

We're ready to throw away the key when there haven't even been any accusations made. All there are is rumors of possible accusations, and people are ready to believe the worst. This party can't put up a defense on anything when the supporters have that kind of attitude and are ready to cave at the slightest hint of pressure. Even posting this topic adds fuel to the right wing fire. I do not understand why people continue to do this.

[yurbud]

9. This isn't caving, it's chess--thinking a couple of moves ahead

[sandnsea]

15. Claiming guilt if you aren't??

Great strategy. Excellent.

[yurbud]

22. you really want to hold on to those lobbyists and corporate money

that what pushed your buttons.

The accusation will probably come whether guilty or not.

What's the best response:

A) They did it not me.

B) This shows why we need to reduce the power of these parasites through campaign finance reform. Here's my proposal--ask my GOP colleagues if they will support this to fix the problem.

The first, while truthful, will get brief or no play.

The second turns the camera back toward those who profit from the current corrupt system.

[sandnsea]

27. Lead the rock throwing pack

Go ahead. Throw rocks at the whole pack, but don't come back here and wonder why Republicans don't get damaged by the scandal. We're doing the same thing with Iraq. Stopped throwing rocks at Bush and started throwing them at each other. Happens time after time. We're a stupid party, we really are.

[yurbud]

31. Do you agree or disagree with the idea of reforming lobbying and campaign

financing?

You have made a very strenuous objection without addressing the content of my post.

[yurbud]

32. We have to do what lawyers and even football coaches do--scope out

the other team, predict their moves, and plan how to counter them.

Your attack on me for even bringing this up is not going to help when the media starts following Karl's instructions and painting this as a "bipartisan" scandal, as this graphic shows they already have the ammunition to do.

If we just say the GOP is worse, voters will likely say "screw both parties" and stay home for the election. We have to say we are going to fix it to move the ball down the field.

[yurbud]

10. It is also a way to SET the agenda rather than simply react or wait for

the other side to fuck up

[yurbud]

12. Which part of the rules I mentioned do you object to?

Is it a significant change to replace republicans at the trough with Democrats?

[Peter Frank]

6. The correct response is to tell the facts...

The few Dems who may go down are nothing compared to the number of corrupt Reps who will not evade scrutiny.

This tactic by the GOP will only preach to the dwindling choir.

[global1]

8. It's Interesting To Note That The Feds Made Hospital Purchasing.....

groups personnel eliminate all lunches, trips, honorariums, etc - essentially anything that smacks of $'s and bribes - cut this all out. This was to prevent favoritism to award business to certain pharmaceutical and medical companies that sponsored these perks.

They should practice what they preach.

[yurbud]

11. exactly. Why should Congress hold itself to lower ethical standard?

[mattclearing]

13. What Dems favor entirely publicly funded elections?

If they exist, they sure are quiet about it.

[yurbud]

14. There must be some in Clean money states (LINK)

Arizona and New Mexico have it.

http://www.publicampaign.org/

We should ask Democrats (and Republicans) if they support it and if not, WHY.

[mattclearing]

17. I know why they don't.

Republicans claim its a waste of taxpayer money and that clean elections laws stifle (paid) political speech.

[yurbud]

18. the correct response is that our current system costs more in pork and

lives

[mattclearing]

21. Yes, but how often do politicians respond correctly when asked

simple questions?

[yurbud]

23. when their donors interest and the public interest are the same

[mattclearing]

24. You are clearly not a politician.

:)