Dividers to the right, please.

The reason Democrats are nearly silent on Abramoff

Because not only is this going to be the downfall of Delay, but the net is cast very wide indeed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/12/12/GR2005121200286.html

Republicans win the horse race with $3.41E6 compared to Dem's $1.88E6. But what the hell.

I hope he spills his guts all over the Senate floor. Should be great entertainment.
Permalink hoser 
January 5th, 2006
Forgot one thing:

It'll come down to who did the "quid pro quo".

Wonder if he'll squeel on Dems or Reps worse. Who is running the justice department these days?
Permalink hoser 
January 5th, 2006
So now we have the answer, Republicans are 81% more corrupt than Democrats!
Permalink Kasey 
January 5th, 2006
Yep, you win. :)

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 5th, 2006
Actually, to be fair - he was spending the money where it mattered, and since the Republicans have been the majority party, they own all the committees...

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 5th, 2006
> they own all the committees...

And what you own you can apparently sell.
Permalink son of parnas 
January 5th, 2006
Hey, a man's gotta eat ...





















truffle-stuffed lobster served on a bed of caviar ...
Permalink trollop 
January 6th, 2006
The individual dollar amounts don't seem very impressive though. $70K for a house majority leader? I couldn't even get the car I want at that price. Hey, maybe I'll get a Toyota and own a chunk of the US legislature instead!
Permalink jz 
January 6th, 2006
If a Senate seat costs about $1M to win, 70k is about 7%... not exactly huge, but still significant.
Permalink KC 
January 6th, 2006
jz, remember Hannsen, the FBI agent who turned over 20 years of secrets for like a couple hundred thousand dollars and some jewelry? It's amazing how low some people's price is.
Permalink Phil 
January 6th, 2006
I think the Democrats are nearly silent so they won't be accused of "piling on", or so they won't trigger the "it's only politically motivated dirty tricks" tactics.

Besides, the system is working fine without the Democrats saying anything.
Permalink AllanL5 
January 6th, 2006
"I think the Democrats are nearly silent so they won't be accused of "piling on", or so they won't trigger the "it's only politically motivated dirty tricks" tactics."

LOL yeah cuz that happens.
Permalink Phil 
January 6th, 2006
>The reason Democrats are nearly silent on Abramoff...
when your enemy is running off a cliff, you don't stop them. Let the rethugs self destruct by themselves.

Since the media in the US is controlled by the rightwing, the media will be less than forthright on the scandal.
Permalink Peter 
January 6th, 2006
> The individual dollar amounts don't seem very impressive though.

The price for treason is small. Russia paid people very little to get them to turn. Politcians are equally cheap.
Permalink son of parnas 
January 6th, 2006
"Since the media in the US is controlled by the rightwing"

So Fox News == CNN?

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 6th, 2006
I don't think that CNN is particularly left-leaning these days, Philo. Maybe they're what seems to PASS for left-leaning in the US, I guess.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 6th, 2006
"I don't think that CNN is particularly left-leaning these days, Philo."

Are you pissed off half the time you watch?

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 6th, 2006
More than half, I think.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 6th, 2006
Since the definition of left wing now adays is anybody who deviates from the script provided by the RNC, most every news outlet can be considered left leaning.
Permalink son of parnas 
January 6th, 2006
Okay muppet - if you're pissed off more than half the time you might be right. :)

I get all my news from OT, news radio, and Jon Stewart.

(This means if it's not funny, local, or weird I don't know about it)

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 6th, 2006
Ted Turner, Republican extraordinaire...

10-15 years ago I could have pointed to a plethora of factors that would lead to a left laaning press:

1. The mythic status of "All the President's Men" and Bob Woodward's roll model for Nixon's enemies.
2. Literary leaning people are left leaning people.
3. Real conservatives chose business - where the money is.

(Well I thought there were more, but I don't take too much time to obsess over liberal/right wing press conspiracies.)

So, if the press is reall right leaning since, say, 1995 (?), what happened in the years between 1990-2000 that made it so. Because before then it certainly was not.


.
Permalink hoser 
January 6th, 2006
I get my news from NPR and Google. TV news is an oxymoron.
Permalink hoser 
January 6th, 2006
Fox News made the media shift to the right IMO. Ratings = $. Fox News has completely drained every other networks ratings, and they are trying to play catch up.
Permalink Phil 
January 6th, 2006
Corporatization of the news, growing dominance of the media by business managers (righties) as opposed to journalists (lefties), exacerbated by the sheer enjoyment righties get from tormenting lefties.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 6th, 2006
It's not just about how much CNN or Fox lean right or left wing - it's about how the news is managed behind the scenes. That's becoming more and more of a factor since good investigative journalism simply doesn't pay. Onscreen bitchfests generate huge ratings so they pay much better.

Ironic as it may seem, privately owned news media can be easire to manage by the government than publicly owned independent media. The former has to generate revenue for shareholders (provided by aforementioned bitchfests) whereas the latter can have a mandate to report what the state wants it to (like Xinhua) or follow a set of ethical journalistic guidelines (like the BBC).
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 8th, 2006

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: January, 2006 Other topics: January, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics