www.dartemis.net
Rodney G. Graves

Roston's Hammer

Much more recently (December of 2005)

Rodney Graves replied to Mister Roston

You're still stuck on law enforcement. Only now your applying that hammer to POLITICS and POLITICAL PERCEPTION instead of warfare.  Whereas before you were just outgunned, now you are treating a pile of sh1t as a nail, with predictable results.

Mister Roston had written:

The idea that anyone who took an illegal contribution 
should be removed is something I agree with. However, while the idea is simple, the mechanics are complex.

I never said anything about the law or the legality of the transactions. 

Deliberately.

I want them ALL out of office. Subsequent prosecution where violations of 
the law can be established are entirely beside the point. The point is throw 
them all out at the ballot box..

I'll start by assuming that you know that there is a difference between a legal and illegal campaign donation. I'll also assume that you want the honest people of either party to stay in Congress, and that you want to remove the dishonest people - that is, you want to remove all those who took illegal contributions.

Frankly, I'm more interested in turning over the House and Senate to folks 
who have not been continuously exposed to the corrosive lobbying of 
Washington DC for years or decades.

Complexity 1.) Not everyone who took a legal contribution from Abramoff or his clients also took an illegal contribution.

So. What. 

It's not about law enforcement, its about politics and political perception. 
Throw them ALL out.

Complexity 2.) People who didn't take a legal contribution from Abramoff might have taken an illegal contribution which was laundered through a fake charity or think tank..

Let the prosecutors indict who they can and prove what they can in a court of law AFTER we throw them all OUT.

Complexity 3.) Abramoff might have handled some issues for clients but not others. In other words, a client might make legal contributions (on their own) in response to issue A, and make illegal contributions (through Abramoff) in response to issue B. The legal and illegal contributions might be made to the same people, or to different people..

Again, So. What.

Anyone caught up in the "throw the bums out" backlash who is subsequently 
found innocent can always run the next time around. Two or more years back in the real world would do most of them a whole lot of good..

Complexity 4.) Some people have legitimate reasons to receive donations from the various Indian tribes involved - the tribes are in their district, they sit on a committee which handles Indian affairs, or they regulate a business in which the tribes are engaged, most probably the casino business. Other politicians received monies according to Abramoff's directive to the tribes - for reasons which were important to Abramoff but not the tribes..

The collateral damage will be regrettable, but well worth it for the thorough 
cleaning of the House and Senate.

So I'm not a hypocrite - there's no need to hit - I've simply considered the complexities. I don't just want to throw the bastards out - I want to throw out the right bastards for the right reasons, after a careful assessment of who did what.

I didn't call you a hypocrite. I said:

News Flash, the subject of the thread is "Abramoff's beneficiaries, chuck them all out." Which you initially agreed to. Is there a congruence between the less thorough list you now forward and your modified position? Do we detect the increasingly strong odor of hypocrisy?.

Your change of position does indeed bear a strong congruence to what one 
would expect when someone suddenly discovers their own pet ox stands to be well and truly gored as well.

Mister Roston's reply (Hilarious, but be warned, strong language) can be found here.

Class of 1987
Si vis pacem, paret bellum.

Your Host
"It's not the years, it's the mileage."

Less Peaceful than it appears
Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci taion