Political parties don’t stop to think twice very often. They should.
Yesterday, not four hours had passed after Gov. Mark Sanford announced that Ken Wingate would step in as interim treasurer, and the state Democratic Party already had a singularly nasty release out pounding away at the guy.
Parties do that, I suppose. But it’s grotesque when Democrats and Republicans in South Carolina engage in the kind of trashy, slash-and-burn rhetoric that we normally see out of Washington on those 24-hour TV "news" channels. It’s like children imitating their dysfunctional parents.
This one is particularly egregious because it’s off-base. It accuses Mr. Wingate, by strong implication, of being a hateful racist. Here’s how it does that:
Wingate’s appointment brings a new cloud of suspicion over the
Treasurer’s office, however. In 2002, when he was running in the
Republican gubernatorial primary, the S.C. League of the South endorsed
Wingate.The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the league a
"neo-confederate hate group." The group "opposed removing the
Confederate flag from the State House dome in 2000," and "opposes state
funding for education" (The State, 10/1/2004). The league "also
supports secession as an option for protecting states’ rights."Wingate has repeatedly refused to denounce his association with the hate group or express disagreement with their positions.
At the end, there’s a quote from party chair Carol Khare Fowler that says in part:
Ken Wingate has refused many times to denounce his association with a
hate group, and for that reason he should not be considered for the
interim position. I don’t know why anyone would want to be associated
with a group that expresses so much hatred and division, and I can’t
understand why the Governor would appoint someone who does. I hope
Governor Sanford will rescind the appointment and strongly consider
someone who isn’t a hate group candidate
Well, golly, he must be a pretty hateful guy then, huh? Well, not so as I’ve been able to notice. But then, I get exposed to actual hateful people a good bit — out in the world and right here on my phone and in my e-mail — and I’ve had trouble seeing a resemblance between them and Ken Wingate. As I said before, he’s a pretty decent sort.
The League of the South is a serious bunch of yahoos. (Just ask them; they’ll tell you they’re serious.) They would like to see South Carolina secede again. They want to see the United States flag removed from state government buildings. I am not making this up.
But they are at least smart enough to avoid overtly racist statements (and if I missed something on their Web site, or you have some other proof, show it to me; I don’t mind being corrected, and it won’t be a terrible shock). Yes, I think disbanding the United States is a hateful idea, in that it would be disastrous for the whole world, including South Carolina, which remains too large to be an insane asylum. And yes, it is disingenuous at best to pretend that the Confederacy would have existed without this state’s powerful desire to keep black folks in bondage. Such willful obtuseness is also hateful.
But to leap from that to Ken Wingate being hateful — and that’s what the release is trying to make us think — is a reach. And a hateful one, if you despise scorched-earth partisanship as much as I do.
Here’s what Mr. Wingate had to say in 2004 when confronted about the League’s former endorsement of him in 2002:
I don’t know anything about them, their issues, their policies, what they
try to do or what they’re involved with…. I have not sought the endorsement of the League of the South in this race
or, as I recall — and it’s been more than two years ago — in that race.
Not exactly a ringing denunciation, but neither is it an expression of appreciation to the League for its "help."
That’s not to say that Ken Wingate doesn’t deserve criticism for some of his past associations. I’ll have more about that later.
Related Posts
That Democratic Party release is partisan politics at its worst. Thanks for sharing it.
I thought Wingate made a good impression when he ran for office, and thought it seemed like a good appointment.
With a republican controlled house fighting with a republcan senate, and everyone disagreeing with a republican governor, you’d think the democrats’s could capitalize on all that. What a lack of leadership.
Brad, you didn’t exactly make a strong case that Ms. Fowler’s comments are out of line. Wingate’s lack of a strident repudiation of the SC League of the South suggests a tacit sympathy for the group, well in line with her statement: “Ken Wingate has refused many times to denounce his association with a hate group”. The fact that Mr. Wingate is so willing to actively pursue policies that take away a legal form of recreation (video poker) from state citizens is reason enough to believe he is capable of supporting other intrusive measures.
I’m a Democrat and I think Ken Wingate is a pretty good guy. I was pleased when I heard that Sanford appointed him interim treasurer, and I’m disappointed in the SCDP for issuing a press release trashing him.
The SCDP has some issues. Since moving to SC in 2000, I’ve gotten the impression that the Party’s old guard is very partisan, very strident. It seems they’d rather toe the national party line than reach out to the undecided or unaffiliated people of the state.
I was hoping that a new chair might help change things, but apparently it hasn’t.
I bet Wingate is opposed to homosexual marriage too. Wonder what Mzzz. Fowler would say about that? According to people like she, conservatives must be on clear public record as opposed to anything the Ms. Fowlers of the world don’t happen to like. She needs to get a life. I bet if we scrutinized every whacked out group that SHE supports we’d have enough to keep us busy a while. Wingate will be a good treasurer. We (and Mz. Fowler) should just let him. How typical of democrat rock- throwers not to want to. Ed
This should be easy to settle. I think we all agree that the SC League of the South is a pretty shady outfit that is at least in spirit a racist organization. Did this sizeable organization support Ken Wingate in either his 2002 or 2004 political bids? If so, then Mr. Wingate has an affirmative obligation to denounce this group and reject it’s endorsement. Otherwise, Mr. Wingate is guilty by association. In that context Ms. Fowler’s comments are right-on.
Why is this so hard to understand? A hate group supports a candidate. When confronted by that hate-groups support the candidate does not clearly repudiate that support. Therefore that candidate must be considered supportive of that hate-group’s major stands on issues. Ms. Fowler is simply pointing out a fact. All Mr. Wingate has to do is denounce the hate group and his name is cleared. Nothing could be simpler. The fact that no one attacking Ms. Fowler can actually come up with any evidence that Mr. Wingate repudiates the SC League of the South, a group who apparently supported his candidacy, suggests THEY are the partisans.
Ms. Fowler is not totally off base here. I seem to remember last summer there was a slight controversy over Mr. Wingate’s puritanical and ultimately futile attempt to censor the summer reading selection at Clemson (where his daughter was attending) because the novel dealt frankly with issues related to sexuality and gender. Like his non-repudiation of the League of the South, there seems to be a pattern here. His refusal to rebuke the League’s endorsment and his silly attempt to control Clemson’s curriculum raise questions not only of character but of intellectual judgment.
Obviously, this has nothing to do with his ability to very temporarily administer the state’s financial transactions (which seem more than adequete), but it does raise the question of whether or not South Carolina is capable of having officals who aren’t completely right-wing extremists. The implication of Ms. Fowler’s statement is not that Wingate is racist or hateful, but that he, like many others in the SCGOP, are willing to tacitly tolerate the most extreme ideas on the right, which in turn gives the appearance of an endorsement of those hateful positions.
Not if ed and Sanford have anything to say about the selection of officials.
Brad, otoh, would have trouble recognizing a right wing theocrat if he were being drowned during a forced protestant baptism.
I used teh Google, and it looks to me like Ms. Fowler’s remarks are pretty much dead on target. No one uses overt racist language any more, they talk about things like “voting fraud”, or “universal ID”, or they talk about how if Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948, we wouldn’t have all these problems we have now. The League of the South stuff goes even further than that, most of it looks like Thomas Dixon could have written it.
Wingate was endorsed by an extremist racist group; he declined to denounce them. Ms. Fowler pointed that out. How that’s “nasty”, I fail to understand.
If denouncing racist hate groups is “scorched-earth partisanship,” and making excuses for them is “bipartisanship”, well, let me be a scorched-earth partisan.
I guess my question is: Who did she want the Governor to appoint? A democrat? Would she have been pleased with any other conservative appointee? I think the answer is probably not. I don’t know. I’m just sick of people like this woman who make no real contribution to anything positive that I know of, and yet are primed and ready to find fault less than 24 hours after the Governor appoints someone to fill in and get a job done under less than optimum circumstances. How small and petty and puny this is. It demonstrates a pretty clear lack of character to me. I’m just sayin. Ed
By the way, if Mz. Fowlers’ problem IS that she really wanted a liberal person appointed to this job, I say tough nuts! In order to get your people into positions of power, you need first to win elections. What is difficult to understand about that?
Again, Wingate will be a good treasurer, and fault-finders and nit-pickers who lose elections and then spend their time casting stones at people who are trying to get the job done ought to LET him be a good treasurer. I wonder how his affiliation with whatever group this is really impacts upon his performance as treasurer? Could Mz. Fowler explain how she thinks his acceptance of campaign contributions from whoever will affect his performance? Of course not. She has no point, she simply has an agenda.
And for moderate dem: Acceptance of a campaign contribution does not make Wingate a right wing “extremist” and for you to imply that it does makes you look silly. If you really believe this foolishness, you ought to check into who exactly contributes to your favorite democrats. Ed
Gee Brad – I wish the rest of us could be as smart as you. You are so wise.
This was a big issue in Wingate’s most recent losing campaign. Why shouldn’t the Democrats bring it up? Is the release factually wrong? You don’t like the tone? Is that your problem? Well, I don’t like your beard.
There’s no question that you are your own biggest fan. That is usually the case with faux intellectuals.
In a way you unite the two parties. Republican, Democrat or liberal or conservative .. Everyone agrees that your writings make you seem like a self-righteous tool bag.
Doesn’t Midlands Tech need an adjunct government professor or something? I think you’d be good at that. Maybe people would listen to you there.
“A self righteous tool bag”…hmmm. I’ll have to file that one away for future use. Although we disagree, nicely said John. Ed
I don’t understand how an endorsement says anything about the candidate endorsed.
Charles Manson in his own perverse way endorsed the Beatles, but that didn’t put the Beatles in bed with him.
Sounds like S.C. Democrats don’t have enough to do.
Precisely so and well said, Weldon. Ed
Fail elementary logic, ed and Weldon?
When an organization endorses a candidate the implication is that the candidate and the endorsing organization have much in common.
And, indeed, a look at the modern SCGOP and neo-confederates certainly confirms this.
So, if the candidate wishes to disassociate himself from the endorsing group then he should clearly, emphatically and unmistakably reject not only the endorsement but the aims of the group itself.
Otherwise, people might accurately conclude that the candidate doesn’t really reject the group’s aims– just the unwanted notoriety that goes with being tagged as a sympathizer.
Wingate knows that underneath the hoods/robes and neo-confederate rhetoric, the League of the South strikes a chord with his supporters. He can’t denounce the group, their historical revisionism, and their bizarre philosophy. It appeals to much to his base.
Note to Susanna, I agree that the old guard SCDem leaders have problems– but the problems are almost exactly opposite of what you cite.
In fact, the SCDem leadership is far too much LIKE the SCGOP leadership to be too shrill or partisan.
Only in your world RTH. Politics being what it is these days, we’re long past the days when what you assert was true.
If I have failed anything, it wasn’t my logic course, it has been in getting you to see/admit the truth. Ed
Ed, I’ll try to put it a little more simply, and maybe then you can understand it.
1. The League of the South is a neo-confederate hate group. “States’ rights,” as everyone knows, is a code word for establishing and maintaining a system of racial oppression without interference from the federal government. They want the federal government to allow states to establish racist societies.
2. The agenda of the League of the South is one that every decent person denounces in clear and unequivocal terms.
3. Ken Wingate was confronted with an endorsement coming from the League of the South. He had an opportunity to denounce them and their agenda, to declare that he was opposed to racism, that the days of maintaining a racist society in South Carolina or any other state of the United States were long past, and that the racist society to which the League of the South longs to return was a long, hideous chapter in American history, one that we are glad to be rid of.
4. Wingate did not do this. Instead, he pretended to be unfamiliar with the League of the South. Instead of denouncing them and stating that he wanted no part of them and their agenda, he said that he “had not sought their endorsement.”
Understand now?
Screw you and your condescending tone Hal. I don’t need lectures from agendized liberal fools.
My point remains: Wingate will be an outstanding Treasurer. Period. You and people like you need to let him be just that. None of this foolishness will have one iota of impact upon how Wingate functions as Treasurer, and you bloody well know it. This kind of nit-picking and fault-finding is the stuff brought forward by little minds, who don’t have anything else. And, it is sad…typical, but sad. Ed
Well, Ed, you need lectures from someone, because you don’t understand how evaluation of officeholders by the public is supposed to work. I guess you don’t understand how America is supposed to work.
Your point, apparently, is that Wingate’s agreement with the goals of the League of the South, or at any rate his failure to repudiate those goals, and the attempt by the group to associate itself with him, doesn’t involve financial issues, and is therefore irrelevant. Fine. But that’s your view, it’s not binding on others.
Following your line of reasoning, Ravenel’s apparent coke problem should be winked at because it didn’t affect his functioning as treasurer.
Basically, your argument is, you like Wingate, so you can think up excuses for him, and because you can think up excuses, everybody else is obligated to accept your excuses.
Well, they aren’t. Ms. Fowler takes a more expansive view of the role of public servants than you do. She doesn’t see them as confined to one narrow area, with scrutiny similarly confined to that narrow area. She feels that the whole person should be evaluated, and someone should be judged as fit or unfit for public office based on the evaluation of the whole person.
Someone who agrees with the goals of the League of the South is immoral. Someone who, when presented with an attempt by the League of the South to associate themselves with him, fails to denounce them, is immoral. Ms. Fowler feels that this manifestation of immorality on Wingate’s part disqualifies him for public office. You don’t.
That’s the essence of your argument. Your argument is that Ms. Fowler disagrees with you, and anyone who disagrees with you should be silent. Well, tough. Ms. Fowler doesn’t care whether you think she should be silent, I don’t care, no one cares. Make your argument all you please, persuade everyone you can that your viewpoint is correct, but understand, whether you like it or not, that other people are going to make their arguments and try to persuade other people that their viewpoint is correct.
My point remains: Wingate will be an outstanding Treasurer. Period.
-ed
That’s not a point at all, that’s an assertion. Since the right-wingers generally supported Ravanel it calls into question their judgement about who would make a good treasurer. We had plenty of evidence to show that Ravanel was a spoiled brat, unqualified shill for the conservative right. Many of us with a brain saw through his screeching assault of so-called liberals in the 2006 campaign. We dismiss completely and utterly the rantings from the right concerning yet another blow-hard right-wing politician. Wingate’s refusal to thoroughly dismiss a hate organization seriously calls into question the moral fiber of this man. But who do the right-wing shills attack? The messenger, Carol Fowler. For shame.
Wake up people of South Carolina. You listen to the right-wing spin machine at your peril. The result will be more of the same: A state that underperforms every other state in the nation on just about every measure of quality of life.
I need lectures and you’re just the guy to do it eh? Not a chance pal.
In any event, it is curious to me that nearly every liberal democrat congressman and senator presently in office has taken campaign contributions from the evil and sinister Jack Abramoff, but strangely it’s only a problem to cynical ideologues like you when conservatives have taken them.
Then of course we have slick Willy, the lecherous and deviant liberal boy president whose pecadillos were only matters of private life…or at least so you liberal sycophants told us ad nauseum.
You have not a shred of credibility on the Wingate thing, Hal. NONE. You traded it all away when you were busily defending the indefensible and supporting the unsupportable for all of your liberal office-holders.
I know that you sit in the slow part of the class, so I’ll tell you again, slowly: Wingate IS the Treasurer in this state. He will do a fine job, nit-pickers and nit-wits like you notwithstanding. Get over it. When your guys start winning elections, you can get your people into positions of power. Until then, it sucks to be you, doesn’t it? Ed
nearly every liberal democrat congressman and senator presently in office has taken campaign contributions from the evil and sinister Jack Abramoff
That is false, ed.
No it isn’t, and when I get more time tonight, I’ll support it with facts. Don’t let the fact that you may not want it to be true blind you to what IS the truth, kc.
For the time being, I simply point out that the senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, had admitted to accepting contributions from Abramoff. This came out and was widely reported back last year when liberal hit men were attempting to run conservatives out of town for accepting contributions from him.
I am sorry that the facts don’t support your particular version of reality, but they are the facts nonetheless. And I don’t care what you support, neither do I care whether Hal likes the fact that Wingate IS Treasurer…you and he can think and say whatever you want, but you don’t get your own personal version of the truth. That may fly in the pages of the newspaper, and it may fly in the liberal circles you inhabit, but it won’t fly with me and I intend to point out your hypocrisy when I see it. Ed
By the way, I probably exagerated a little when I said that “nearly every” liberal in congress has accepted contributions, but if so I didn’t by much. Again, I’ll provide the facts later for anyone not so agendized that they actually care about the truth.
In the meantime, for the special-ed folks in the class like Hal, I’ll be perfctly clear: The reason I brought up Senator Reid and Jack Abramoff is because the intellectually vacant like Hal go around trying to make a huge case against Wingate because he is associated with some group, when this exact kind of association goes on all the time between politicians of all stripes and their donors/supporters. Hal doesn’t want or like this point made when it concerns liberals, but he’s all over it when he thinks he can make hay with a conservative. Again, the hypocrisy of people like Hal is thick and plentiful. Ed
contributions from Abramoff
The Jack Abramoff mess is strictly a Republican scandal. All the major players were Republicans. Right wing talk radio has tried to make that a bi-partisan scandal to include Dems but that is just a big, fat lie.
In a similar vein, Sean Hannity recently tried to portray the Iraq war as Hillary’s fault. Is there no lie too outrageous for conservatives to utter? I guess they feel if you can convince enough people with outright lies to win elections then why not?
RTH,
If I announce I like a woman and she says nothing, that doesn’t mean she likes me back.
Likewise with politicians, particularly good politicians..
I got an ‘A’ in logic, by the way. Here’s how it works: If x then y doesn’t mean if y then x or xy or z or z square.
In this tempest in a teacup Wingate dilemma, if the League of the South is a bunch of snakes, no one should assume that just because the snakes prefer Wingate, he is a bad thing. Some snakes like water, but that doesn’t make water a bad thing. Heck, some people I like actually like Bill Clinton. That makes me wonder about them, but not enough to condemn them.
By the way, I love it when the “but wait a minute, I’m smarter than you” defense is used to prop up an obvious fallacy. Makes for a double-play disproof, so to speak, a triumphant stride into the cow pie.
Ed, you won’t be able to support it, because it isn’t true.
Abramoff did not give any money to Democrats. All his personal contributions went to Republicans.
Some of the clients he lobbied for did contribute to Democrats. I imagine that’s what you’re thinking of. But it’s false to say that any Democrats took contributions from Abramoff.
Weldon, if you got an “A” in logic then you’ll recognize your analogies as false and erroneous.
Rejecting an endorsement doesn’t ipso facto mean that the candidate rejects the group and it’s aims.
The candidate leaves open the reasoning behind the rejection if he doesn’t denounce the aims of the groups.
A snake “likes” water because it serves the snake’s purposes. I’m betting that the League of the South likes Wingate (and vis-a-versa) for the same reason.
If I announce I like a woman and she says nothing, that doesn’t mean she likes me back.
-Weldon VII
Conservatives are pros at spouting irrelevant analogies. This is a whopper of irrelevancy. If you like a women then her feelings toward you affect only you, nobody else.
But in politics if an organization likes a particular interest then it becomes very relevant to the voters. It’s useful information that we can use to decide if a candidate is worthy of our vote. In the case of Wingate his support from a hate group is relevant information to the decision we make in the voting booth. If said politician is not aware of the hate group’s support than reduces the relevancy of the hate groups support but does not eliminate it. After all if a hate group supports a candidate there must be a reason.
In the case of Wingate not only do we have a hate group supporting him in 2 consecutive elections we have Wingate’s extremely lukewarm rejection of that support. The rejection was so weak in fact it is not clear whether he actually rejects the hate group’s message. Brad’s quote from Mr. Wingate does not make it clear on that point. I have to assume Mr. Wingate is ok with their hate message. That’s good information for me to have. And I thank Ms. Fowler for bringing that to my attention. It’s about time some of the dems started growing a spine and calling the right-wingnut on their reprehensible behavior.
Ready to Hurl and Bud, your points, while legitimate, don’t get the the heart of the issue, whcih is that Ed and Brad want to silence points of view that are different from theirs, for no reason other than that those points of view are different from theirs.
The point isn’t whether or not the view that Wingate is unfit to hold public office has been unequivocally proven, the point is whether this view is a reasonable one, one with some factual basis, and I have demonstrated above that it is. If Weldon wants to talk about logic, here is my argument, expressed as a syllogism.
A. All persons who fail to denounce the aims of the League of the South when the League of the South tries to associate with them are unfit to hold public office.
B. Wingate failed to so denounce the aims of the League of the South.
C. Therefore, Wingate is unfit to hold public office.
You may agree with proposition A, or you may disagree with it, but certainly the view it expresses is a legitimate one.
I think we are all agreed that proposition B is true.
Proposition C follows from propositions A and B. If both proposition A and proposition B are true, proposition C is true.
Ed’s false statement about who Abramoff contributed to, and his phobia of the Clenis aren’t important. What’s important is the fact that Ms. Fowler was entitled to present her point of view whether Ed agrees with it or not.
You can argue that failure to denounce the League of the South doesn’t make one unfit for public office. You can argue that Wingate did denounce the League of the South. You can argue that a return to the days of lynching would be a good thing. But what you cannot do (not if you wish to be entitled to think of yourself as a believer in America) is argue that those who take a contrary view should refrain from speaking because you disagree with their viewpoint.
Bud, it most certainly is not. I know you’d like it to be, but the facts reported widely around the time the Abramoff thing came to light clearly showed many democrat senators and congressmen who had accepted bribes..er, donations from him. The facts are not debatable. You may want to quibble and equivocate, but it is inargueable if you care about the truth. That this is true is exactly why democrat mobsters have ceased trying to make political hay with this issue: They understand that there are as many “dirty” democrats as republicans. And it’s why we don’t hear anything much about Abramoff any more.
Again to my point about Wingate: Sadly I admit, but it is true that this is the nature of our political system. People attempting to get themselves elected associate with all kinds of groups and factions. Hillary associates with homosexuals and abortionists. So does Guiliani. Sometimes it is so they can appear to be on the “correct” side of an issue. Often it is to solicit monetary contributions. Whether these associations have any impact on what that person does once in office can be argued I suppose, but for Hal to act like Wingate is the only one who has ever done it is silly, and he knows it. If Wingate associated with some neo-Confederate group to solicit campaign donations, according to Hals’ logic, what am I supposed to conclude? That as Treasurer he’s going to refuse to sign the paychecks of black state employees? How exactly is his association going to affect his performance of Treasurer? Is the state going to stop doing business with black contractors? What is it Hal? Is Wingate going to hire only white people on his office staff? Put a huge rebel flag on the wall behind his desk? I want to know exactly how pin-headed Wingate bashers like Hal think this association is going to affect Wingates’ performance as Treasurer. Ed
but the facts reported widely around the time the Abramoff thing came to light clearly showed many democrat senators and congressmen who had accepted bribes..er, donations from him.
No. They didn’t.
Abramoff never gave money to any Democrat. Sorry, Ed. You’re just plain wrong.
to be completely fair, no one knows that Wingate did not repudiate the endorsement. all they know is that they are not sure whether he repudiated their endorsement.
Another argumebnt could be this: “What kind of stupid politician would repudiate an endorsement?” I don’t remember these Democrats asking Hodges to repudiate the flag supporters when he was asking for their votes against Beasley.
I believe someone said in an earlier post that this was a tempest in a teapot, and they are correct. I am an intelligent person, and I have taken a position. I believe very strongly that I am right about it. Other intelligent (I reckon) people have disagreed with me.
In the end, we have a conservative governor who has made what he thinks is the right appointment to fill a job under less than optimum circumstances, and the appointee will do a fine job. When the people who disagree with me (and the governor) win the governorship, they can have their guy appoint whoever they want to these offices. And the sneaky little truth that they’ll deny to the death is that whoever the other side gets into office then will be essentially no “cleaner” than Wingate is now. Only global warming zealots and flat-earthers can disagree with this truth, in their heart of hearts.
I am tired. Arguing with fenceposts can be a vexing and tiresome business. Time to move on and cast some pearls elsewhere. Ed
By the way Hal, I thought I was through with this but your last inanity cannot be allowed to stand.
First, Mz. Fowler got her opinion out there. I in no way impeded her right to say whatever she wanted. About the only thing I said concerning her was that I thought her eager readiness to find fault and nit-pick so quickly, after the governor handled a difficult pop-up situation, demonstrated a pretty clear lack of character on her part. I still think she is a small and petty person for doing this. People like her (and you) can clearly say and or believe whatever silliness you want. And people like me are perfectly free to point out your errors and hypocrisy as we see fit.
Second, here is an abbreviated list of Democrat senators and congressmen who took money from Abramoff btween 1996 and 2000 (source: Capitaleye.org):
Patty Murray D-Wash $40,980
Charles B. Rangel D-NY 32,000
Patrick J. Kennedy D-RI 31,000
Harry Reid D-Nev 30,500
Byron Dorgan D-ND 28,000
Tom Daschle D-ND 28,000
Brad R. Carson D-Okla 18,300
Chris John D-La 15,000
Tom Harkin D-Iowa 14,500
The list continues for dozens and dozens of democrat names, but I am tired of listing them. Again, democrat worthies have taken just as much dough from Abramoff as have republicans, and this is quite simply why the democrat mob on the hill have largely dropped it. They’re as dirty as any republican they’ve attempted to slime with this. This pretty much devastates your silly arguement that it isn’t true Hal. And I don’t make the point just to show that you’re being either wrong or untruthful about it (although it’s one or the other), I simply make the point to show that these types of associations are pervasive in politics. Wingate is guilty of nothing more than any of these people, democrat or republican, have done. And yet people like you and Fowler come along and try to may hay with it. It doesn’t pass the smell test, and anyone with half a brain who is interested in the truth should be able to see and expose your bias, your hypocrisy, and your agenda. Ed
make hay
ed
And the cow jumped over the moon…
kc, are you TRYING to be wrong? You simply couldn’t be more wrong if you WERE trying. See above. Democrat senators and congressmen are FI-filthy with Abramoff money, and have been for a long time.
Now, you can drink the koolaid and go on spouting left wing talking point foolishness if you want, but you need to understand that you have no facts supporting your position…whatever it is. I don’t know what your position is, other than one of looking silly. It’s more than I can figure out. Your brand of blind partisanship is what the democrat party depends on, I suppose. It’s largely a cult, and you’re in it. Good luck with that. Ed
Gee, guys, maybe Wingate just thought if he couldn’t say something nice about the League of the South, saying nothing would be better.
By the way, just because I haven’t denounced mass murder or drilling for oil at the Columbiana Mall, that doesn’t mean I favor either.
This is all about posturing, anyway, striking the politically correct pose. Let’s cancel freedom of speech and mandate that everybody who runs for office say all the right things and make sure nobody leaves anything out.
That would make every a cookie-cutter liar, but, until somebody actually did something, nobody’s feeling would be hurt, and all the Democrats could believe they had fixed something, when what they’re really good at is mucking up things that work.
But Ed, I looked at Capitaleye, and I found the chart you are talking about, and I matched up the names with the contribution amounts you put down, and there ARE NOT any contributions from Abramoff to Democrats. Capitaleye lumps all the contributions together and refers to them as coming from “Abramoff and his clients”, but in order to find out whom Abramoff actually contributed to, you don’t select “Contributions by Recipient,” you select “Detail by Donor,” and for the donor, you select. . .JACK ABRAMOFF!
If you do that, you get this long list, consisting exclusively of Republicans and Republican organizations, without a single Democrat on the list.
It is as kc has said, Abramoff did not contribute to Democrats. Your own source demonstrates that. Now, Ed, I know you’re intelligent, and I know a lot of those kids that ride the regular bus to school tease you and laugh at you, but some of them are kind and helpful, and when those kids told you “no, no, you have to choose to view the contributions by donor,” and offered to show you how to do it, you should have let them help. They were just trying to be nice.
Instead of that, you have gone on and on and on, falsely claiming that Abramoff contributed to Democrats, mocking people who tried to tell you that he didn’t, citing what you believed was reliable authority that he did, and finally discovering that your own authority demonstrated that what you have believed all this time was completely and utterly false, and no doubt making yourself feel like the biggest fool in the world.
Excellent Weldon. An oasis of reason in a desert of washed up, loser liberals. Ed
Hal, it is the associations that politicians make while campaigning that I am demonstrating, and you know it. I don’t care whether Abramoff signed the checks to democrats himself or directed money from his clients to them, they received it. And they did so gladly. Harry Reid was proud last year when he announced he would not return any of the money he got from Abramoff cronies. You pick an obscure detail that completely avoids my devastating point, and you focus on that rather than the underlying truth. Which is, every politician in Washington (and here for that matter), whether they have a D or an R after their name, take these funds and associate with these people when campaigning. I am not saying it’s right. I am not defending it. I am not saying republicans are any purer than democrats. I am merely saying that it goes on constantly, and Wingate is no different.
Using your logic, I want to know what I am supposed to conclude. How exactly in your mind will Wingates’ association with this group during his campaign affect his performance as Treasurer? Do you expect him to fire all of the black people on his office staff? Stop signing the paychecks of black state employees? Cease state business with black contractors? Hire only whites? Participate in Klan rallies? What is it Hal? What precisely do you want people to believe his sinister association means, now that his evil plan has succeeded and he’s made it into office?
Nitwit. Ed
I know Hal, the evil and sinster Dr. Mengele Wingate intends to force us all to shave our heads and get swastikas tatooed on our forearms. He just hates them jews, and we can expect him to persecute them once his dark plan is implemented. Again…nitwit. Ed
Ed, when you say over and over and over that Abramoff gave money to Democrats, the fact that he didn’t is not an “obscure detail.” The source you cited PROVES that Abramoff DID NOT give any money to Democrats. So some of Abramoff’s clients gave money to Democrats, so what? That doesn’t establish an association between Abramoff and the Democrats to whom Abramoff gave money.
When Abramoff took on a client who had traditionally given money to Democrats, typically that client’s contributions to Democrats went down. So basically, Abramoff tried to keep his clients from giving money to Democrats, and you are saying that when he was not 100% successful, that is the same as saying that Abramoff gave money to Democrats?
And Ed, I know that you’re intelligent, so intelligent that you ride a special bus to a special school, but in the regular schools where regular buses take the regular kids, we have gone through all this last year. Abramoff did not contribute to any Democrats. There is no evidence that he “directed” any money to any Democrats. Some of his clients gave money to Democrats, but there is no evidence that any of the clients who contributed to Democrats are corrupt, or that there was any corrupt influence causing them to contribute money to Democrats.
I understand that you want to say that Abramoff contributed to Democrats, but he didn’t.
And check out this headline from Capital Eye (remember, the source you cited):
“Like Abramoff, Lobbyist Rudy Backed Republicans”
That is the headline to a March 31, 2006 story that begins like this:
March 31, 2006 | Congressional aide-turned-lobbyist Tony Rudy, who went through the revolving door and now appears headed behind bars, was a generous political contributor like his co-conspirator Jack Abramoff.
According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the Center for Responsive Politics, Rudy and his wife donated $80,000 to members of Congress, political action committees and other candidates for federal office since 2001, when Rudy left the House office of Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) to join Abramoff’s lobbying practice.
All but $500 of the couple’s contributions to candidates and leadership PACs went to Republicans. Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) received the most in contributions from the Rudys—$16,250, largely to his leadership political action committee, Superior California Federal Leadership Fund. DeLay received $6,000, mostly to his campaign committee.
Jack Abramoff was a diehard REPUBLICAN pushing conservative issues. His personal donations are the most relevant issue here. Jack Abramoff was actually responsible for stealing from some of his clients so to make the assumption that a donation from an Abramoff client is the moral equivalent to a direct donation is a distortion of logic. Talk radio would like it’s listener’s to believe this very REPUBLICAN scandal is bipartisan. The facts when examined in depth as Hal has done reveal the truth beyond the narrow surface evaluation that ed has done.
Talk radio has a way of using revisionist history to distort the truth. The ed’s of the world take comfort in the voice of Rush. Sadly the country suffers from this lack of an open mind.
This statement, from Capitoleye, says it all:
Unlike Abramoff himself, who along with his wife contributed $225,000 of their personal money to Republicans only, his clients were less partisan in their political contributions. While some gave almost exclusively to one party, on average they gave 73 percent of their money to Republicans and the remainder to Democrats.
So even by ed’s bogus standard that clients contributions count as much as direct money from the Abramoff family the “tainted” Abramoff money went to REPUBLICANS three-fourths of the time.
ed, how does it feel to be hoisted on you own petard?
News flash: Another corrupt Bush crony/appointee falls to Abrahamoff scandal.
Judge Sentences Admin Official to 10 Months
Prosecutors had asked for only five months imprisonment, coupled with five months house arrest for Steven Griles, the former #2 at the Interior Department who’s pled guilty to lying to Senate investigators about his relationship with Jack Abramoff.
A federal judge, apparently unconvinced that Griles had learned anything from the whole affair, today sentenced him to twice that. From the AP:
The Interior Department’s former No. 2 official was sentenced to 10 months in prison Tuesday for lying to senators in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, the highest administration official sentenced in the probe….
“Even now you continue to minimize and try to excuse your conduct,” [Judge Ellen] Huvelle told Griles.
Griles had asked for three months home confinement and community service in the form of pro bono lobbying.
Great find RTH. Abramoff certainly did a heckuva job lobbying for conservative interests.