Obama's New Assignment

Thank you for this well-balanced representation of Sen. Obama's role in ethics reform for the Democrats. The senator is correct when he states that "neither party has a monopoly on virtue," but his focus on Jack Abramoff and the Republicans makes it clear that the true purpose here is not reform but political advantage. How disappointing it is to see someone so new to Washington dive so deeply into politics as usual.

One other note: I don’t find it surprising at all that Good Morning America did not include a Republican counterpart in their segment. I’m sure one was available if only they had asked.

This is a brilliant personnel choice to have Obama be the face. Simply put, he is a uniter. He will not use this assignment to divide the parties further, which is what nearly everyone else would do.

I predict the Republicans will respond in a divisive way.

The only shame about Obama is that he will be too inexperienced to run for President in '08. This is a shame because our country and, more importantly, the world stage needs him now more than ever.

It is a great marketing move to use Obama, he comes across as an untouchable (like Elliot Ness, not the lower Indian caste). But the it looks more like the real failure is not simply Congress and the lobbyists that use them, it is a whole host of issues, like bills that are the size of phone books that no one can make heads or tails of before votes are cast. The press, who we trust to parse data like that never seems to make heads or tails of it either. Since information is a commodity, only the informed people are in on the game and right now, lobbyists are the only informed people.

I have no expectation of the press to tell me who is lobbying who to what end, but I do need to make sense of legislation before there is a vote on it and there the press has failed me magnificently.

Sen. Obama has, in the past, done what he said he was going to do. Especially when it comes to the environment. Which is not a very popular topic. However, it is important that someone stand up and do what is right in our national and world wide interest. His voting record stands on it's own and that in and of it's self is something we all can be proud of.

This is too good to pass up! Did not Abramoffs' net include some very prominent Democrats?
This is politics as usual and everyone knows it.
Perhaps the Dems are putting Obama in the forefront as their "spokesperson" because of the
"plantation" comment? Obama shouldn't get too heady-remember "pride goeth before the fall"!

Hilarious. As the saying goes: the best thing the Republicans have going for them is (still) the Democrats.

Obama had no choice but to admit to Democrats taking money from lobbyists - Abramoff contributed to congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle. The fact that Reid put him up to this is not news - Harry can't be the voice for everything that counters Republicans, or he'll be seen for what he is: a guy who can only react negatively to what the other side has done. I can hear Reid's advisors now: "Let the prodigy (Obama) take the rap on this - it'll make him look good, and you won't look like you're opposing the Republicans at every turn". You know, I have heard very few substantive ideas come from the Democrats, just a lot of complaining about Congressional Republicans and the White House (Sens Clinton, Pelosi, and Waxman have made a career of it). Conversely, I've seen just a few good ideas from the Republicans (and some really bad ones), but at least they're floating SOMETHING out there other than the Democrats' scorn and "response" bills to counter Republican-sponsored legislation.

Yes, we've needed lobbyist reforms for quite awhile. (I wonder if there are lobbyists dedicated to lobbying for these reforms...you name the cause, they've got somebody in Washington, so it wouldn't surprise me in the least). But there are things wrong in Congress that these reforms won't fix. You've got the ruling party, and the whining party. While the rulers keep coming up with band-aid solutions, the best that the whiners can do is threaten filibusters and run to the CSPAN cameras to complain. I swear, the last time I watched CSPAN for more than an hour, it sounded like 3rd graders at recess, complaining that someone didn't want to play kickball with them.

I have a political viewpoint, but I don't care whose party logo is on the reforms that get passed. I just want the right reforms to occur. If that means Obama gets the credit for this lobbyist reform, so be it. But what we really need are things that make more sense, like line-item vetoes, relevancy limits on bills (no tacking porkbarrel stuff onto a clean-air bill, for instance), term limits, and less leeway being granted to committees that iron out the differences between separate but similar bills passed in the House and Senate. We need Congress to LISTEN to expert testimony in the fields that they are legislating, not decide that Position X is a "Republican" position, and Position Y is the "Democratic" position. Sure, there are times that such distinctions make sense, but there are others where the best solution to a problem is neither the conservative one or the liberal one, but something different (not necessarily in-between). Also, we need limitations on the ever-continuous redistricting for political gain. Have you seen a map of some of these districts? I swear they must be using an Etch-A-Sketch to come up with these boundaries (either that, or demographic studies to make sure that they maximize their core constituency to prevent being voted out).

A lot of things need to be fixed in Congress, not just the lobbying reforms. But as long as they're meaningful, that's a good start. I just hope that this doesn't turn out to be the same 3-ring circus that we've seen so much of lately.

How do you feel about the idea that almost all of us lobby the government in some way or other? I express concern to someone that we release some people so we can get some of our citizens or friends back in Iraq. I express concern to NASA that the Space Station can capture interstellar matter that has more pure crystals. I express concern to FEMA that people not be on the floor of the SuperDome. Is this not lobbying?

Maybe we do not want to limit lobbying, but increase the knowledge of how it is done ethically. I know this sounds weird but I honestly feel that there are people in the federal pen who were taking their sick child to the doctor when a story was running about a law the person did not understand or know about.

Some lobbyists are just people who try to get reimbursed for work that non-profits do? Obama might not like this, but many democratic groups do lobbying...Jesse Jackson is something of a lobbyist or am I wrong? I might be confused. ALA lobbies government. Many democratic or civil rights groups do lobbying?

am I wrong or confused?

take care,

James T. Struck

I am tickled pink to learn Sen Obama got this high assignment, I hope he looks into Dem. Sen. Harry Reid and the 67K he got from Abramoff, what did he do for this money, a song and dance. Cliff Zeider Port St. Joe Fl. 32456

SENATOR OBAMA IS ON THE RIGHT TRACK, HOWEVER UNLESS
HE RECEIVES SUPPORT FROM ALL THE ENTRENCHED GOOD OLD BOYS (BYRD, KENNEDY, KERRY, AND THE STALWORTH REPUBLICANS) HE IS BEING USED BY HIS PARTY TO BE THE WHIPPING BOY. THE DEMOCCRATS ARE GROOMING HIM AS A
PRESIDENTIAL CANIDATE.

I think the Democrats will go far with Obama as their spokesperson for ethics and lobbying reform, because he is such a charismatic person and a great speaker. It just strikes me as odd that it is not someone with a little more experience and first hand knowledge of the lobbying game in D.C.

Sure'n it'll take a foine Irishman like Paddy O'Bama to call out them Rebublicans for the hippo-crits they be!

Dear, Tribune

1. I would like you to inform the public that this Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal, because no Democrat is being investigated at this point and every right wing talking head is trying to make like this is a bipartisan issue.

2. Please stand up for our democracy by denouncing this Preidents contention that he has the right to spy on us without judicial oversite.

3. Please tell both parties to get rid of the crooked "earmarking" that goes on in Washington that is so disgusting to many voters like myself.

It seems to me that it is high time that all political factions in Washington clean up their act. I certainly agree with Sen. Obama that both major parties are expected to involve themselves in ethical reform. Do it this soon.

Maybe the reason the Democrats chose Obama is because he's the only one of them who hasn't been around long enough to get offered money by Abramoff.

I congratulate the Senator for taking on this responsiblity. I pray that his impact on this issue be greater. Peace and blessings.

Harry L

Please name one Democratic congressional leader that Abramoff contributed to.

>>>The only shame about Obama is that he will be too inexperienced to run for President in '08.

I am sure any lobby reform will have so many loopholes in it that lobbiest will be able to drive trucks loaded with cash right through them. Remember contribution reform?

Jimbo is right - not ONE Democrat was given money directly by Jack Abramoff - if Harry and the rest had read ANYTHING about his past, he would know that Abramoff would not give one dime to a Democrat. Once again we have the Bush White House selective memory - remember "Kenny Boy" Lay?? I find it very had to believe that Georgie NEVER MET a man who was one of his pioneers, and was on the Bush transition team in 2000.

The only way we can get real reform in DC is to put the House back into the hands of the Democrats, so that we can start those Bush impeachment hearings.

Harry - time to turn off Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly and try listening to Air America for what is really happening.

This is just what I found in a few minutes on the web...Harry Reid ring a bell??? any of the others Jimbo2k6?

More than 70 of our lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, are rushing to return tainted campaign cash from lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his clients. Lawmakers have so far coughed up more than $700,000 of donations out of an estimated 4.5 million handed out by Abramoff and his clients the last five years.

But other Congressman, many of them Democrats, flatly refuse to give that money back. Those include Congressman Patrick Kennedy, who received some $42,000 in Abramoff client donations, Senator Debbie Stabenow, who received 4,000, Senator Carl Levin, $2,000, Congressman John Dingell, Congressman John Doolittle and Senator Patty Murray also refusing to give that money back.

And, as previously reported here, the leading Democrat in the Senate, Minority Leader Senator Harry Reid refuses to give back $61,000 in donations from Abramoff's clients. Other Congressman on the fence, Senator Arlen Specter for one says he can't decide whether to give back $6,000 in net cash.

I'm all in favor of congress trying to clean up its very dirty act, regardless of from whence it is initiated relative to the aisle. The Members have considered themselves a privileged class for far too long. Why not start by banning the practice of exempting themselves from the limitations (but not the benefits) of the legislation they consider?

Jimbo & Bob,

Senator Byron Dorgan, D-ND, not only received $67,000 from Jack Abramoff, but also used his skybox. And that's the only one I could remember - there was at least one other. Perhaps its time for YOU to turn off Air-America, and start getting the full story.

BTW - Not unlike his Republican counterparts, Sen. Dorgan has decided to "donate" his $67,000 in fees to a worthwhile cause. I wonder if he can donate his use of that skybox as well....

I don't have to rely on Al Franken to get the facts, like you two drones do. Just repeat after me "You're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, Air America only tells you what they want you to hear".

PS - If you're going to comment on my post, at least get my name right - it's HOWARD L. If you can't even get that right, how credible is your recollection of anything else you're claiming? Based on your source of (mis)information, I'm not surprised that you cannot recognize the truth when it's told to you.

Obama is an excellent spokesman for the Democrats on this one. After all, he is so polished and smooth and slick. However, before we all rush to anoint Sen. Rock Star as our next president, let's remember something here: the man has yet to actually win a real political race. He was elected to the State Senate in Chicago -- not hard for a Democrat, I've observed. And his only real competition in the 2004 Senate race (if it was competition at all) was bounced out of the contest compliments of a rather unjustified Tribune headline ("Bombshell" ring a bell?). It would be intriguing to see how Obama might respond -- and how much of a "uniter" he would be -- if his competition in the next race was someone along the lines of, say, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell or other prominent Republicans who could not be so easily disposed of or trumped. One DNC speech does not a president make.

GoBama! GoBama!

ethics

As always, I am proud to see my senator as one of the lead voices to respond to the corruption in Washington. He was correct, honest and truthful when he said that Abramoff was clearly a Republican sin. Further, I believe that Republicans are showing their true colors when they try to downplay the significance of this additional example of corruption by elected members of their party. I can recall vividly when the Contract for America political upstarts began their assault on President Clinton and everything for which they believed he represented. Now, the tables are turned, and they are not as loud, but they are definitely not contrite. The Bush administration had a hand in outing a CIA agent, and the Republicans are quiet. The Bush administration has done everything to silence an Army Corp of Engineers procurements official who spoke out against contracting abuses and violations. The Republicans are quiet. The Bush administration completely blew the pre-war intelligence on Iraq and the management of its intelligence operations. The Republicans are quiet. Lastly, the Bush administration has completely failed at effectively managing the military operation in Iraq. Again, the Republicans are quiet. Were this a Democratic administation, we wouldn't be able to gag and tie down the Republicans. What you say and what you do show who you are. The Republicans have shown the American how they are.

According to the Tribune's own Clarence Page on January 11, 2005, only Republicans received donations directly from Abramoff. Although some Democratics received donations from Abramoff's clients, no Democrats received donations directly from Abramoff. Amazing what you learn by reading the paper! Republicans, of course, are trying to make this a bipartisan issue, but this won't stick -- Abramoff simply had no interest in giving to Democrats. Kudos to Clarence Page for trying to clarify a muddy situation.

I like the way that certain folks are stuck whether the money was given directly or indirectly. So, you are saying that for the Democrats to get the money, it had to be "laundered" first. I hate to tell you, but it's just that kind of shell game that is what this type of legislation needs to be fixing. Look, if I give you money directly, or indirectly, what's the big difference. You took a contribution from me, even though I directed a 3rd party to give it to you. You sat in my skybox, but I didn't give you cash. To act as if that is somehow different than taking money directly is just another way to play partisan politics on an issue that most Americans agree on - this type of graft casts serious aspersions on the ethics of those make the laws in our country. That is not a partisan issue, unless you try to make it one, as folks on both sides of the aisle have taken large sums of money from lobbyists - not just Jack Abramoff.

I'm sure the same people on this board who are making the distinction between "direct" and "indirect" are the same ones who were horrified to find that some local and state politicians had received free trips paid for by lobbying groups in Illinois. Isn't that an "indirect" contribution? Somehow that's not good when its a Republican Assemblyman, but if a Democratic Senator gets money this way, it's somehow more ethical.

You can add all the adjectives you want to how the money made it into their hands, but the fact is that Democrats took money directed by Jack Abramoff to them. Stop playing games with semantics, and get on board with making some reforms. It is this type of "well, we're not as bad as THEY are" that has eroded public confidence in the Democratic party - they spend too much time mugging for the CSPAN cameras to actually bring any substantive ideas to the table. Even some of the Democratic columnists in the Trib have been saying that for years.

I am so tired of people like Dianne Decker, above, repeating the GOP talking point lie that "prominent Democrats" were caught in Abramoff's net (by which I believe she means that they received money from Abramoff). NOT ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT EVER RECEIVED A PENNY FROM JACK ABRAMOFF. Did any of his clients donate to any Democrats? How is that relevant? Jack Abramoff was a power broker, a money launderer and a crook. His clients were those seeking access to lawmakers.

Enron was a crooked company. Its clients were people who needed natural gas and electricity to run their furnaces and appliances. I understand that some of the gas I received from Peoples' Energy was purchased via Enron. Does this make me a crook, because some of the gas which heated my house came from Enron? That is the tortured logic the GOP is using to try to duck the FACT that this is a 100% Republican scandal. As the gipper once read from a cue card, "Facts are stubborn things." But then, logic isn't the only thing some in the GOP are in favor or torturing.

Some Democrats received money from Indian tribes. The same tribes also gave money to Jack Abramoff who promised them access, and called them "neanderthals" in his private emails to Ralph Reed, a GOP operative and former head of the "christian coalition". Ralph's business model was to deliver the votes of his followers to whomever would pay him to do so. He was using peoples' FAITH to manipulate their votes and get paid by powerful interests to do so! Anyone not deeply offended by this is clearly not a person of faith, unless that faith is in the Almighty Dollar, which would make one an idolator.

This is the level of moral depravity in the cabal of Abramoff, Norquist, Reed and DeLay. It is enough to outrage any person with a conscience.

Of course it matters, Howard. Democrats prefer their graft to be direct; Republicans prefer indirect bribery.

It makes all the difference in the world!!

No democrats directly received money
from Abramoff.

Check out this link: http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp

You need to click on each entry
(Senator/organization) to
find out where the money came from.

Stay informed. Examine the facts.