Everyone is saying so.
From The Daily Kos, to Juan Williams of Fox News, to Rush Limbaugh, the buzz is all about how badly the revelations of Jack Abramoff's lobbying corruption will hurt the GOP in 2006. With his double dealing, his supplying large sums of money, trips and other gifts to members of Congress, and his apparent bilking of millions from various American Indian tribes who wished Congress to favorably review their gambling interests the Abramoff scandal seems like a political powder keg just waiting to go off.
Rabid Republican haters, like the Daily Kos, are gleefully rubbing their hands together in anticipation of a wooden stake through the GOP's heart just before the 2006 midterm elections and GOP supporters are filled with dread and foreboding. One thing is sure, a political soap opera is about to loom into public consciousness.
But, how far reaching will this scandal be? Will the public take to it and follow it like they did Nixon's Watergate, Reagan's Contra affairs, or Clinton's zipper problems? Will it so define the public's feelings about the GOP that it will adversely affect the 2006 Midterm elections throwing victory to the Democrats?
At the risk of making a prediction ... I say no. Unfortunately for Democrat supporters, I don't feel this story will mean any major harm to the GOP specifically. It will further erode the public's confidence in the entire political system, however, a problem for both Democrats and Republicans.
I am not saying this scandal is meaningless. In fact, I think it is a good thing to come to light, but not for the reason as the Democrats. The Dems want to spin this as revelatory of Republican corruption, but it isn't. It does reveal the corruption endemic in lobbying and the complete failure of McCain/Fiengold, but this isn't a Republican problem. It is one that equally impacts everyone inside the Beltway.
And therein lies the problem for those who wish to see this Abramoff thing hurt the GOP.
The public may ascribe some of this to the GOP because the mainstream media will bend over backwards to make that sole connection even though there are numerous Democrats involved. But, I do not believe that it will materially harm the GOP's image because Jack Abramoff is not a "politician" in the normal sense of the word. He is a lobbyist.
Abramoff holds no office from which this corruption was launched. He is not a committee member in Congress nor is he an elected official from any state. He makes no law and he is not personally accountable to the voting public. He is not even connected as an operative or employee to any particular candidate or elected official. Therefore the public will not necessarily identify him officially with any Party or office even though he has a long history of assisting the GOP.
To a critical degree he will still be seen as an outsider by those who know anything about the scandal. The public just won't be able to say he is a this or a that, politically, with confidence and he will stay a shadowy figure in the political landscape, hard for the public to put a finger on. This will mean that many will turn away from this story without it materially affecting their feelings about politics.
And that isn't the only reason.
Most people in the public really don't understand what it is a lobbyist does in the first place. So, when they hear of this scandal, they will have to become familiar with what it is he does and this learning curve will also blunt the initial impact the story has. And once people find out he is paid to peddle influence and push his clients' interest, they will be somewhat unsurprised that he is being accused of peddling influence and pushing his clients' interest.
On top of all of that, when people that bother to delve into the story see the double dealing, double dipping, and obfuscation he is involved in they will ascribe it more to Abramoff's lack of ethics than any particular Party's. This lack of ethics will, however, add more affirmation for many that Congress is hopelessly corrupt itself. But this is a general feeling of corruption that the public casts upon the shoulders of people from both Parties.
According to an AP-Ipsos poll, almost 90% of the respondents felt that corruption is a serious problem in Congress. The Abramoff scandal will deepen this suspicion, but will not send it spiraling into the stratosphere because it is already assumed to be a fact of life inside Washington D.C.
So, remember what I said here. This story will not ring the death knell for the GOP as the Democrats hope it will. Remember you heard it from me that this is going to be a humbug of a story for most Americans. And when my prediction comes to fruition, give me the hearty handshake of satisfaction for my political prescience.
But, if I am wrong ... forget I said anything and ascribe my rambling to a still lingering hangover from my New Year's eve office party.
By Warner Todd Huston
http://www.americandaily.com/article/11060
Question: If there are just as many Democrats names involved in this why is it simply a problem for Republicans????
What If They Had a Scandal and Nobody Cared?
By Thomas Lindaman (01/05/06)
Washington, DC, is in a tizzy with Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleading guilty to three counts of fraud. What makes his story garner so much attention is that he's given a lot of money to Republicans. (He's given a lot of money to Democrats, too, but why would the media care about that silly little detail?) The media have been doing their jobs and painting this scandal as a serious problem, especially for the Republican Party. And the Democrats are doing their jobs and pointing fingers at Republicans for doing what they have done.
hen, there is the recent scandal regarding potentially illegal wiretapping done by the Bush Administration in an attempt to ferret out terrorists. The media have lamented the loss of liberties, and the Democrats have even called for the dreaded I-word (though, Im not quite sure what icing has to do with wiretapping).
Meanwhile, outside of the Beltway, were wondering what the big deal is.
These two scandals, much like Plamegate and Enron, appear to be little more than partisan constructs designed to divert attention away from the fact that Democrats have fewer ideas than Paris Hilton. But what Democrats didnt bank on was that most people really dont care about the scandals. No matter how much they talk about the importance of how bad Bush has been for the country, we just dont see it.
This begs the question of why nobodys paying attention to the Democrats on these matters. Well, kids, the answer lies in 1998 when Democrats far and wide (and in the case of Ted Kennedy, far to the left and reaaaaaaaalllly wide) lined up to downplay the perjury and obstruction of justice committed by Bill Clinton. By saying the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal was just about sex and a partisan smear job, Democrats lowered the bar for all future politicians. It worked on a short-term basis, as Clinton was able to avoid punishment from the Senate.
But on a long-term basis, its coming back to bite them. Now instead of Republicans being the ones being the partisan attack dogs against the President and raising a stink over minor things, its the Democrats. And just like with the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, people are tired of it and are tuning out the complainers.
This is one reason why I think the Abramoff and Snoopgate scandals will amount to much ado about nothing. As the House Republicans from the late 90s will tell you, if you cant get the people behind you, scandals go from important to irrelevant quickly. Plus, the Democrats have overplayed their hands repeatedly with other scandals that burned out fairly quickly. Remember how Enron was going to bring down Bush? What about Bush going AWOL? What about the Tom DeLay indictments? The more you raise scandals with no payoff, the less likely people are to pay attention when you come across a real scandal. Its the boy crying Wolf too many times, or closer to the truth, the Democrat crying Wolfowitz too many times.
In the Abramoff case, go out and ask 100 people on the street who Jack Abramoff is. Youll be lucky to find 5-10 people who know, and even luckier if you dont get a response that Abramoff is the new goalie for the New York Rangers. Not to mention, most people think politicians are on the take anyway. Why would we get upset over being proven right?
With Snoopgate, early polling data shows the American people dont have a problem with what the Bush Administration did to secure the country. No matter how you try to spin it into a violation of the 4th Amendment or a King George situation, you cant argue against pubic opinion. The people see the wiretapping as necessary and not impacting them whatsoever. In short, theyre saying, I have nothing to hide, so its nothing to worry about. And the Democrats arent making a good case to give people a reason to worry about it, so its not connecting with anyone but the rank and file.
While Democrats pull out their hair trying to figure out why they arent taking advantage of Bushs unstable poll numbers, its not really that hard to see. They simply arent listening to the people and, as a result, we arent listening to them.
And that leaves the Democrats very lonely, indeed.
http://www.americandaily.com/article/11058
