Paper Shutters Blog After Ombudsman tells truth, and Dems react.

[Desertdog]

The Dems just don't want the truth to come out. Lobbyist don't care what party they are giving money to. They just want result. They are not political, they are looking for results. If the Dems were in full power, the lobbyist would be giving them the most money.

Paper Shutters Blog After Ombudsman Post
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/19/D8F82TA80.html


The Washington Post shut down one of its blogs Thursday after the newspaper's ombudsman raised the ire of readers by writing that lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to the Democrats as well as to Republicans.

At the center of a congressional bribery investigation, Abramoff gave money to Republicans while he had his clients donate to both parties, though mostly to Republicans.



In her Sunday column, ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote that Abramoff "had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties," prompting a wave of nasty reader postings on post.blog.

There were so many personal attacks that the newspaper's staff could not "keep the board clean, there was some pretty filthy stuff," and so the Post shut down comments on the blog, or Web log, said Jim Brady, executive editor of washingtonpost.com.

"We're not giving up on the concept of having a healthy public dialogue with our readers, but this experience shows that we need to think more carefully about how we do it," Brady wrote on the newspaper's Web site. "There are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech."

 

[Nitrogen]

Abermoff never gave money directly to Democrats.
I'm splitting hairs here, but facts are facts. Abermoff told some of his clients to give money to Democrats (and they did), but Abermoff never directly gave money to dems.

No matter what the facts are, shutting down the blog was a horrible idea; it just gives more power to the other side, right or wrong.

I'll agree with you here, that the only reason that the Dems might come out smelling of less Male Bovine Excrement than the Repubs are only because they aren't in power.

Power Corrupts, wether you're a repub, or a dem. The Republicans got to be the reformers while the Democrats were in power not-so-long ago. The fact that these same republicans that came out so hard for reform now need reforming shows me how easily our system can be corrupted by money and special interests, no matter what side of the political spectrum you're on.

 

[Camp David]

Abermoff never gave money directly to Democrats...

Be that statement as it may, and rather than cite large references to the contrary, let's argue the larger point: Should Democrats be criticizing republicans on this point; i.e., accepting lobby contributions? Aren't politicians of both aisles guilty of this in large measure?

A neighbor of mine works at a local pool company in northern Virginia; he says he does quite a bit of business at homes of politicians of both parties and that bills are often paid by others. Proof positive of corruption and it knows no particular party as both are guilty.

 

[Nitrogen]

Be that statement as it may, and rather than cite large references to the contrary, let's argue the larger point: Should Democrats be criticizing republicans on this point; i.e., accepting lobby contributions? Aren't politicians of both aisles guilty of this in large measure?

A neighbor of mine works at a local pool company in northern Virginia; he says he does quite a bit of business at homes of politicians of both parties and that bills are often paid by others. Proof positive of corruption and it knows no particular party as both are guilty.

My fianceé is a teacher. When she has to discipline a child, she hears all sorts of lame excuses; a very popular one being, "Well, Johnny was doing it, too!"

Wrongs are wrongs, no matter who is doing them, and who is doing the accusing.

My bigger point was that the SYSTEM is corrupt, not individual parties. The Dems feel they can be the heros because they are the minority party right now. The republicans felt they could be the heros years ago because they were the minority party. Both parties take money from lobbiests, and both parties' hands are dirty. The whole thing is reminiscent of a schoolyard argument. "Johnny's hitting me!" "Timmy hit me last week, don't listen to him" ad nausieum.

I'd love to see a special prosecutor go at this issue, so that everyone guilty of taking money from that snake gets ink on their face, Republican or Democrat. I don't want dirty snakes in my government, no matter what party they hold themselves loyal to, but it won't fix the underlying issue: Anyone with money to throw around can influence policy.

 

[Camp David]

Wrongs are wrongs, no matter who is doing them, and who is doing the accusing...

Exactly right... no truer words were ever spoken...

But the Jack Abramoff issue is not one for Democrats to stand virginal and hurl antagonistic attacks at Republicans, simply because that lobbiest was caught... Corruption of politicians is a shared vice which knows no party.

Several plans have surfaced to address the issue and I suggest it is time to stop the back-room deals that companies use to influence legislation.

It is this reason alone that many bad politicians enter politics and spend millions on campaigns; to be in a position to effect legislation and be paid for their vote, one way or the other.

We should address the problem... finally.

 

[cuchulainn]

Did they shut down the blog, or did they shut down the comment function of the blog? The way I read it, the blog is still up, but you cannot post a comment.

 

[shermacman]

Nitrogen:
OK, I'll play...

Abermoff never gave money directly to Democrats.
I'm splitting hairs here, but facts are facts.

Fact 1) His name is Abramoff, since you can't even get his name right we have to be suspicious about the other claims:

Fact 2) You are not just splitting hairs, you are under cutting your arguement. The Republicans at least had the integrity to file the correct paper work. Your sainted Democrats hid behind the very constituents they supposed to represent. As just one example: Byron Dorgan, D-ND and ranking Democrat on the Indian Affairs Committee.

So lets go to your next point which is that they system is corrupt. How is that? We can't hire people or organizations, like the NRA or BASS, to lobby for us? That is ridiculous.

 

[k_dawg]

Jack Abramoff Lobbying and Political Contributions, 1999 - 2006


http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=R

Data for the current election cycle were released electronically by the Federal Election Commission on October 31, 2005. Figures include contributions to federal candidates, PACs and party committees.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

old rural legend . . . . to good not to repeat

Back when Tennesse only allowed "Special Deputies" to carry
guns, business men who felt naked making an after-hours night
deposit at the bank without a gun, made sure they contributed
to both candidates for sheriff to keep their "Special Deputy"
badges. That was a discretionary permit law, so beloved by
the Brady Campaign.

 

[Camp David]

The important part of this thread should be repeated:

"The Washington Post shut down one of its blogs Thursday after the newspaper's ombudsman raised the ire of readers by writing that lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to the Democrats..."

So much for tolerance...why can't Democrats handle facts?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Lobbyist money is attracted to political power, the sucking law
of politics. The fact that Abramoff or his stand-ins gave so
much to Democrats, shows he is an equal opportunity corrupter.
If Democrats had been in power, the porportion of giving
might have been different.
Arbamoff bad. Republicams bad. Democrats bad. Now go sit in
the corner and think about what you have done.