20 (lawmakers) may be under scrutiny--"parallels drawn to 1992 scandal"

[rainbow4321]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/stories/122205dnnatabramoffprobe.f2fda44.html

Justice Department officials are focusing on as many as 20 lawmakers and aides in a congressional corruption case involving ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a source close to the case said.

The inquiry has caused turmoil on Capitol Hill as Mr. Abramoff's lawyers and the Justice Department try to negotiate a deal for the ex-lobbyist to tell everything he knows. And Mr. Abramoff knows a lot.

The person close to the case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing, said Mr. Abramoff could decide suddenly to take a deal and a plea could happen quickly, before the end of the year. The expectation, the person said, was that it wouldn't happen until the new year.


Not since the 1992 House banking scandal that led to the retirement or ouster of 77 lawmakers has a corruption probe struck fear in so many hearts on Capitol Hill.

[wyldwolf]

1. How many here actually remember "Rubbergate?"

There were 350 House members caught up in it and it led to the Democratic loss of the House in '94.

Of course, there are those who believe the DLC did something diabolical that caused the losses in '94.

In the early days of the scandal, when the media began reporting on the loose practices, Republican Minority Whip Newt Gingrich, along with 7 freshman Republicans referred to as "The Young Turks," made the strategic decision to exploit the scandal in a bold attempt to sweep the Democrats out of power and take over the House of Representatives. Gingrich realized that far more Democrats could be implicated in this "scandal" than Republicans, and so he made the shrewd decision to "let the chips fall where they may."

Rather than work with the Democrats to mitigate the damage and limit it only to the handful of House members who actually broke the law, Gingrich took steps to ensure the voting public viewed the overdrafts - even ones that were paid back - as scandalous and wrong, despite the fact that the House Bank often waited as much as seven weeks to post deposits (wiki)

An article in the Boston Globe took up the issue of Democratic losses a week before the last presidential election. When a party holds power for too long, Adrian Wooldridge, reporter for The Economist, said in the article, "it grows fat and happy, it also grows corrupt." The classic example, he pointed out, is the Democratic Party of the 1970s and `80s, which, spoiled by generations of congressional power, "became a party of insiders and deal makers without any sense of the principles they stood for and eventually collapsed" when they were turned out in 1994.

[spaniard]

2. I do, and you're right

There are a few historical revisionists on the left who either overlook the effects of rubbergate or simply don't know about it.

Even yesterday, we got this load of crap:

However, the DLC's leadership and misplaced priorities along with their complete abandonment of the traditional labor base of the party have lost us all three branches of government. That can't be disputed. It is a fact.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2327464&mesg_id=2327488

[The Judged]

6. Is this revisionist history too?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2330153

In 1971 President Nixon nominated I. Lewis Powell, a corporate attorney who wrote the "Powell Manifesto," to the SCOTUS.

In 1973 Opec cause the "Oil Crisis."

In 1978 corporations were granted "personification" by SCOTUS, with the majority opinion written by Justice Powell.

In 1979 The Iranian Hostage Crisis began.

In 1980 President Carter authorized the a failed rescue mission to free the American hostages.

In the 1980 Presidential Election, the American Public responded to extreme inflation, the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and the failed Iranian Hostage rescue mission by resoundingly electing the charismatic Republican, Ronald Reagan, to be President of the United States of America.

In 1981, two months after being inaugurated, President Reagan was shot by a bullet that was just six inches away from making, former CIA Director and then Vice President of the United States, George H. W. Bush President.

In 1984, the Republican Party made ground toward taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives, while maintaining control of the U.S. Senate. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) created.

In 1986, the era of Republican appointed "Strict Constitutional Constructionists" to the SCOTUS begins, with Justice Antonin Scalia being confirmed.* Democratic Party wins and takes control of U.S. Senate to control both houses of Congress.

In 1988, the Republicans maintain the presidency and the Democrats maintain control of both houses of Congress.

In 1990, the Democratic Party adds to its control over both houses of Congress.

In 1992, the Democratic Party takes control over the Presidency and maintains control over both houses of Congress. President Clinton presides over 8 years of "centrist" policies, while the Republican's control Congress for 6 of 8 years during his Presidency.

In 1994, the Republicans win and hold both houses of Congress for the first time since the 1950's.

In 1996, the Republicans add to their control over both houses of Congress.

In 1998, the Republican Party maintains their control over both houses of Congress.

In 2000, the Republicans win and hold the Presidency and control of both houses of Congress, after the Republican Party appeals to the SCOTUS to reverse a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court to recount votes, and the SCOTUS reverses that ruling for lack of agreement among the SCOTUS Justices on a legal remedy that can satisfy existing Florida law and NOT cause Florida's Presidential Electors to fall outside of the safe harbor provision, so the recount was stopped.

In 2001, a defection by U.S. Senator James Jeffords, R-VT to Independent causes the Republican Party to lose a majority hold on the U. S. Senate, and results in a 50-R to 49-D to 1-I split.

In 2002, the Republicans regain a majority hold on the Senate and hold both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

In 2004, the Republicans add to their congressional majorities.

In 2006, will the Republicans achieve a Super-majority in Congress, while maintaining control of the Presidency and achieving a majority of "Strict Constitutional Constructionists" on the SCOTUS? Stay tuned. We all want to know.

****************************************************************************

*Note: Republicans would hold the presidency for 5 of the 7 terms since Reagan became President, and would go on to appoint 6 of the 9 current SCOTUS Justices, with a 7th appointment pending, and 95 of 155 current Court of Appeals justices with 15 appointments pending.

[wyldwolf]

7. no, but good timeline

...showing events that led to the eventual GOP control of things.

I would point out in your timeline for 1986 that when that "Democratic Party wins and takes control of U.S. Senate to control both houses of Congress," 6 of the 8 Democratic Senators elected and who gave the Senate back to the Democrats were advised and/or were members of the DLC or were centrists in their own right - they were moderates Barbara Mikulski (a participant in the DLC's National Service Tour), Harry Reid (who recently said Democrats have to "swallow their pride" and move toward the middle), Conservative Democrat Richard Shelby, DLCer Bob Graham, DLCer Kent Conrad, and DLCer Tom Daschle.

I would also include Rubbergate in 1992 as a major contributing factor to Democratic losses in 1994.

I would also include in 1998 that Democrats picked up seats in congress when we weren't expected to.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

4. I vaguely remember it.

While it was kind of shocking to see the overdrafts etc, I basically dismissed it as mostly a nominal scandal.

I didn't bother to learn a great deal about it, because it seemed to be a common practice that was taken out of context and blown up to create something that became far more than the sum of its parts.

I don't doubt it impacted those elections, but with so many on both sides involved I can only assume that Newt played it for all it was worth and any scandal clings to the party in power.

OTOH, the stuff that Abramoff has been involved with is beyond wrong, immoral, unethical, cynical, and sinister.

Bilking Indian tribes both in ending gaming and then bringing it back in one instance, while making crude comments about them.

He and DeLay holding up virtual forced labor, forced prostitution, and forced abortion for the prostitutes who got pregnant or they'd lose their jobs. And they were like indentured servants who had to work off a debt in order to leave.

Al Franken has played the tape many times of DeLay telling the main garment manufacturer on Saipan, Mariana Islands telling these folks they were great examples of what America stands for. And were promised that any legislation to require labor laws to apply to the Mariana Islands would never make it to the floor of the house.

Etc, etc.

[girl gone mad]

5. I hope Dean and others take note. n/t

[progressoid]

3. Abramoff seems to be too much of an egomaniac to accept a deal

If we are lucky, this will explode and take out more than just a handful.