Corruption: Democrats and Republicans
US President George W. Bush calls indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff "an equal money dispenser" who helped politicians of both parties. Campaign donation records show Republicans were a lot more equal than Democrats. Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show. At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the US to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats...
Scanlon, Abramoff's former partner, has pleaded guilty to attempted fraud and corruption of public officials and is cooperating with the Justice Department's investigation. His plea agreement refers to efforts to corrupt US lawmakers, including a "Representative No. 1," identified by lawyers in the case as Ohio Republican Robert Ney.
The other names most frequently mentioned in connection with Abramoff are both Republicans: DeLay, a one-time friend who has cut off contact with the lobbyist, and Senator Conrad Burns of Montana. Burns, who is facing criticism in his home state for being the top recipient of Abramoff-related donations, said on Dec. 16 he planned to give back to the tribes about $150,000 in contributions from Abramoff, his associates and tribal clients.
So the Abramhoff scandal is SOLIDLY a REPUBLICAN scandal. Any claims to the contrary are quite simply wrong.
But Democrats CAN be corrupt. As I have written on this blog, my local Brooklyn Democratic Party machine is a prime example of corruption. But there is a difference, and I am not just making excuses. The Republicans seem to wallow in their corruption and cirlce the wagons around even their most corrupt members (e.g. DeLay, Ney, the Blunts...). In Brooklyn, the former corrupt head of the corrupt county committee was actually brought down by the DA (a fellow Democrat) and a judge (also a fellow Democrat). DEMOCRATS brought down the corrupt head of the DEMOCRATIC party in Brooklyn. Repubolicans don't do that! There is also a reform movement from within the party fighting the corrupt party bosses. I haven't seen that happening in the Republican party to the same degree. They seem much softer on corruption than Democrats. The simple fact of the matter is that BOTH parties can breed corruption, but Democrats are far less tolerant of corruption within their own party while Republicans actually DEFEND their most corrupt members as if they are PROUD of them. Republicans are more tolerant of corruption than Democrats are. That is the bottom line. So when Republicans claim that both parties are corrupt, make sure you point out how weak of a defense that is. That in NO WAY excuses Republican corruption, nor is it really true. Republican corruption is currently the norm, with the military complex and the Republican party engaged in a disgusting dance of corruption that is raping our nation as well as other nations. Democratic corruption is something that the Democratic party actively fights against. I only wish that Republicans were as anti-corruption as my fellow Democrats are.