Jan 08 2006
Fly By 01/08/06
I have been so fixated in the FISA-NSA imbroglio that I have not even done a Fly By (quick round up on various topics) in weeks! Talk about being obsessed.
First off, some fun. Go Skins! They somehow were able to stumble through to a win against Tampa Bay. I have to admit, I was seriously disappointed in the announcers, who were just a tad too on the Bucs’ side. Theisman was just drooling and rationalizing all sorts of insanity. The Bucs screwed themselves the first time they went on 4th and short (1 yd I believe) instead of going for the fairly easy 3 points. That would have made the score 17-13 and would have allowed them to avoid being too desperate in the next opportunities. And the Skin’s defense just stood up at the right times to deny the Bucs. The 4th and short, plus two third down series (one for 10 one for 3) that stopped the Bucs, who were on a roll, from getting points. Hey, a win is a win. I was at the Seattle game earlier in the season – Skin’s have a real chance next week.
The other fun item I wish to briefly indulge in is the return of Battle Star Galactica. Now I liked the season premiere a lot. And the characters are getting better and the gratuitous sex scenes are still being somewhat moderated. But I have my beefs and this is why Hollywood is losing the country. In the first season of Battle Star the gratuitous sex (and at times violent sex) was so bad (and unnecessary) that Mrs. Strata and I felt uncomfortable watching with our then 15 year old son. They toned it down, but then brought back the brutal sex again with the attempted rape of a female Cylon. This has really kept Battle Star from being a great series. Then they bring in a murderous version of Admiral Kane, which is really off the mark from the original series. While the first series was too goody-two-shoes, this version overplays the dark side of humanity. And in that I mean everyone is dark, unlike reality were only a few are truly dark. The Admiral Kane character was a take off of General Patton. He wanted to risk all in pursuing purely military goals. The modern version of Kane is some serial killer who steals equipment and resources from refuges, and then enslaves the best minds and bodies by killing their families (woman and children). Sounds more like Saddam Hussein than Patton. So while I am enjoying the new series, I am also lamenting the destruction of the original series. In that series, and Star Trek, humanity was always able to pull off the win by being true to their values. The more dangerous the challenge, the more good it brought out in humans, not the more evil. Hollywood needs to get a grip on their ’emotional issues’. Most of us are not in a mood to share them any more.
And what is it with that stupid Snickers ad and those idiotic Bud Light commercials? There once was a theory that you wanted the product remembered so the ad could be outrageous. But these ad companies have taken it to the point where you remember the product, but have no intention of ever, ever being associated with that product! I like Snickers, but I am not buying it if their ‘image’ is some guy crying in his car wearing a fake wig of Snickers bars. Thankfully I am not a Bud Light drinker. The guy doing those idiotic challenges reminds me of someone dealing with serious bowel issues. Is that the image Bud Light drinkers want to be associated with?
OK, back to the real world. Tom Delay: good move. He took one for the cause and I am confident the GOP can survive without his leadership. It better be able to! I hope he clears his name and someone takes Ronnie Earle to court for abuse of power. Delay could do more for this country making this happen than being one of 232 Republicans in the House.
Abramoff? What a sleaze ball. The DA probably screwed up making a deal with him. He was a con man. And all the DA did was get the con man to turn evidence on his victims. Seriously folks, it is not a crime to be duped by your naivet̩ and good intentions. Unless they have something on these people as they did on Rep Duke Cunningham (clear bribes), this could end up as nothing more than a media witch hunt Рand further erode our legal system. Too many times the truly crafty slip by and the well intentioned ones decide to face the music. We shall see.
Real Clear Politics linked to this excellent opinion piece on how the Democrats are overplaying their hand and emphasizing their weaknesses on National Security. Being the champions of people here in the US who are contacting known terrorists overseas is not going to help the left at all. The dems are in full self destruct mode. My position is that, once all the details come out, there will be no issue. Just hyperventilating over normal process. But the dems are really screwed here, as Mark Steyn points out
It shouldn’t be necessary to point out the obvious. But, unmoored from reality, wafting happily into fantasy land safe in the hermetically sealed Democrat-media bubble, Sen. Barbara Boxer and her colleagues are apparently considering impeaching the president for eavesdropping on al Qaida calls made to U.S. phone numbers. Surely, even Karl Rove can’t get that lucky.
By the way, I’d love to see the witness list for that trial: Muhammad al-Jihad testifying that a week before he blows up a Bali nightclub he always makes a perfectly innocent call to his cousin in Milwaukee to ask how the kids are; Abu Musad al-Zarqawi testifying that he only called Howard Dean to issue a formal complaint about congressional Democrats stealing his rationalizations. Etc.
You think Late Night comedians and political cartoonists will have a field day with this?
Alito? The Democrats have already imploded with their pathetic attempt to smear Alito, which resulted in a multiple Appellate Court Judges coming to Alito’s defense. Now the Democrats will face the horror of smearing someone who is being supported by sitting judges
Seven current and former federal appellate court judges will testify on behalf of Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. next week, an extraordinary role for the sitting judges who will be dealing with a colleague who could be positioned to uphold or overturn their rulings.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said yesterday that he agreed to allow the judges — all current or retired colleagues of Alito’s on the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit — to address the panel because they can speak to some of the most contentious issues surrounding the nominee.
Historic. The Dems sure know how to pick a fight.
Have a great Sunday folks!
I am reading about the Abramoff scandal too, AJ.
I don’t know what I think about this scandal yet, but here are some tentative initial impressions.
Even an annonymous blogger named “Moredock” is weighing in about Abramoff, but just so he can castigate Denver’s Rocky Mountain News for trashing Indians; “Moredock” fails to shed any light on the Abramoff scandal. [Friday, January 06, 2006 The Metaphysics of Indian Hating 15 ] http://www.tryworks.blogspot.com
Moredock claims that he is not Ward Churchill, but that he “likes the guy.” Churchill is the infamous fake Indian, plagiarist/ghost-writer, and UC Boulder professor of Ethnic Studies who celebrated 9-11 and says that we need more of them.
It seems to me that “Moredock” is a day late and a dollar short if he wants to be credible as an advocate for Indian issues. I never read that Churchill and his Band of Merry Men in the schismatic faction of Colorado AIM [American Indian Movement] ever expressed any concerns about Abramoff ripping off Indians, either.
And Moredock was really incoherent. I couldn’t even tell what he was spitting mad about. It’s not like he provided any evidence that Abramoff failed to deliver on promises he made to Indians.
The Washington Post had a story about that the other day. The Indians quoted by the WAPO claimed they were duped and ripped-off. I think I even read that the criminal Abramoff supposedly wrote that the Indians were “morons” in his e-mails.
On the other hand, it could be that these are the Columbo Indians just pretending to be morons. Indians are not always bumpkins who just tumbled off the turnip truck. And they had the big bucks to hire help like Abramoff.
If Churchill is really an advocate for Indians, why didn’t he write about this lobbying/gambling issue in his own name? How come it is left to the blogger “Moredock” to rave insanely about the Rocky Mountain News after the Abramoff horse is out of the barn? Why doesn’t “Moredock” at least rave about Abramoff?
I don’t know how Abramoff was caught, but one thing is for sure: it wasn’t by “Indian-friendly” Ward Churchill who has not written about the issue of gambling and lobbying.
More likely it was the Indian-friendly FBI that cracked this case. Sometimes it happens that the FBI and the Indians collaborate to catch people who victimize Indians.
I am going to start following the Abramoff scandal and plan to begin by reading just what Abramoff pled guilty to. Was it for bribery or for ripping off some Indians or both?
The above are only initial impressions of an inexperienced Washington-watcher. I may change my mind.
Why is it that Abramoff donations require an investigation while Abdurahman Alamoudi donations get hardly any mention. Are the donations from a lobbyist whose intent is greed deemed worse than a lobbyist whose intent is to destroy and terrorize the American people? Or is it the fact that the Alamoudi was a friend of the Clintons?
Friends of Hamas in the White House
Wall Street Journal | March 13, 1996 | Steven Emerson
The contacts between the White House and the Islamic radicals began on Nov. 9, 1995, when President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore met with Abdulrahman Alamoudi, executive director of the American Muslim Council, as part of a meeting with 23 Muslim and Arab leaders. A month later, on Dec. 8, Mr. Clinton’s national security adviser, Anthony Lake, met with Mr. Alamoudi at the White House along with several AMC board members and other American Islamic leaders. By Feb. 20, Mrs. Clinton was allowing the AMC to draw up the Muslim guest list for the first lady’s historic White House reception marking the end of Ramadan.
Then there is this story that should out do any Republican so called “greed scandal”, but didn’t.
The Nation
Insight on the News, Nov 24, 2003 by J. Michael Waller
Wahhabi Lobby Spreads Its Wealth; Terrorist sympathizers Abdurahman Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian used donations to federal lawmakers as a means of manipulating antiterror policymaking
I’m beginning to wonder if these NSA attacks have an alterior motive. It seems to me that the Dems are going after the Republican political fundraisers while trying to get their previous big fundraisers out of jail just in time to help elect Hillary as President.
If the NSA wiretaps can be proven to be unconstitutional, then terrorist criminal lobbyist such as Alamoudi could get set free. I am sure they will show their appreciation by helping their fundraising operations.
SBD
This is an informative article about Abromoff. Here are a few points.
Of course, there is a difference between getting money from Abramoff and taking a bribe.
“The Justice Department says Abramoff and Scanlon defrauded casino-owning Indian tribe clients out of more than $50 million in fees.”
“Some 220 lawmakers received at least $1.7 million in political donations from Abramoff, his associates and nine tribal clients between 2001 and 2004, according to a review of FEC and Internal Revenue Service records. Of those, 201 are still in Congress. Republicans got $1.1 million, 64 percent of the total.”
“Abramoff also raised more than $100,000 for President George W. Bush’s re-election campaign and served on Bush’s Interior Department transition team. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush doesn’t recall whether he ever met Abramoff. “If laws were broken, he must be held to account,” McClellan said of the lobbyist. ”
Greenberg Traurig LLP, the firm Abramoff worked for at the time, represented SPI Spirits Ltd., a Cyprus-based importer of Russian vodka. The lobby-disclosure form that covers that period lists at least three former congressional employees as lobbying for SPI on “trade with Russia and intellectual property rights.” SPI Spirits gave $25,000 to Abramoff’s charity in 2002, Internal Revenue Service records show.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aDq6Gy_i0shA&refer=top_world_news
Alamoudi and Abramoff both seem to stink to high Heaven.
The thing I have noticed, at least according to this article, is how much Abramoff and Scanlon defrauded from the Indians (50 million) versus how little ended up with politicians (1.7 million).
Many of the donations to politicians are almost cosmetic— just a few thousand. Some politicians got a lot more, of course. And some were definately bribed.
I think that Abramoff took a lot of money from the Indians and didn’t do anything for it–even pay bribes. He kept it, maybe.
Well, this is a very complicated subject. More will probably come out.
Abramoff Democrats Investor’s Business Dailywww.investors.com January 9, 2006 Monday
January 9, 2006 Monday
NATIONAL EDITION
SECTION: ISSUES & INSIGHTS; EDITORIALS; Pg. A18
LENGTH: 521 words
HEADLINE: Abramoff Democrats
BODY:
Campaign Finance: Nearly all Senate Democrats took money steered their way by Jack Abramoff, and Hillary Clinton’s fundraising committee has agreed to a $35,000 fine. Republicans aren’t the problem. The system is.
It’s absurdly hypocritical for Democrats to try to use the Abramoff scandal against Republicans. Any recent instance of Republicans playing fast and loose with campaign laws can be topped by a similar case on the part of prominent Democrats.
Sen. Clinton, for instance, was under investigation by the Federal Election Commission starting in 2001 for understating in-kind donations. Last week, The New York Sun reported that her “New York Senate 2000” fundraising organization conceded the falsity of its campaign filings and agreed to pay a penalty of tens of thousands of dollars for underreporting donations.
The in-kind contributions of shady entrepreneur Peter Paul, who was convicted of three drug and fraud felony counts in the 1970 s and 1980 s and has also admitted to stock manipulation, were understated in the committee’s filings by nearly $722,000. Paul claims he spent nearly $2 million on an August 2000 celebrity concert at a Brentwood, Calif., estate for President and Mrs. Clinton.
Then there’s Sen. Charles Schumer, head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) no less, who in 2003 quietly paid a $130,000 FEC fine, plus $120,000 in refunds to 77 donors, for violations by his 1998 campaign. But with a $26 million war chest and facing an unknown, cash-strapped GOP challenger, it was hardly a bump on the road in Schumer’s 2004 re-election. He got 72% of New Yorkers’ votes.
The DSCC and Hillary’s campaign jointly set up the New York Senate 2000 committee for the express purpose of bypassing the $2,000 limit on contributions from individuals. It’s that phony limit that empowers the likes of Abramoff, whose clients and associates gave Sen. John Kerry close to $100,000, according to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid apparently got nearly $70,000 from Abramoff sources, and Schumer himself benefited to the tune of nearly $30,000. All but five Democratic senators have taken Abramoff cash, says the NRSC.
And how about Charles Rangel, ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, who took $36,000 from Abramoff’s Indian clients, then gave the New York Post a Marx Brothers skit in response: “I don’t know Abramoff, have never met Abramoff and have never accepted a political contribution from Abramoff. But if I do find that any contribution I have received was made at the behest of Abramoff, I will return it.”
Abramoff — and all the sleazy middlemen who may never be caught — are byproducts of the misguided post-Watergate campaign reforms that actually encourage political money laundering. We need an end to individual contribution limits and to stealthy political action committees. We also need full and immediate transparency regarding those who give — personal details, occupation, etc.
Only a system based on public visibility will prevent future Abramoffs — and make sure those we elect aren’t being bought off.
LOAD-DATE: January 6, 2006
SBD