Shrubville

STANTIS LIED. Simple as that. No Democrat received money from Abramoff. Only Republicans. Maybe Stantis should have checked with the ombudsman at the Washington Post Online before LYING about the Abramoff scandal.

STANTIS - YOU'RE A LIAR.

Apologize if you have any balls.

Yeah, Democrats not receiving money from Abramoff. That'll keep me up at night. No, wait...that'd be practicing the organ solo keeping me up. Oh no I didn't!

What does Bill Clinton have to do with Jack Abramoff? That's right - Nothing - just like the Democrats of today.

And Sacki, your subscription to Newsmax just arrived. Turn down Rush long enough to read it.

Abramoff didn't write any checks to Democrats, although he did have some of his Indian-tribe clients write checks to them. God forbid Abramoff consort directly with Democrats!

Doonesbury has proven that a comic strip can be meticulously reported. But Garry Trudeau never got his slot on the funny pages out of a pathetic conservative affirmative action program, a la Scott Stantis.

Of course, Stantis doesn't need real reporting. He is morally superior to the left! Just like all those Republicans who took money from Abramoff directly.

What a remarkable likeness of Howard Dean! Score another triumph for the brush of Mr. Stantis.

Newsmax or New York Times...who can keep track? Each reporting in their partisan way on the sliver in the eye of their "enemy" while ignoring the log in their own.

Point being, party loyalty is for suckers.

But lying is lying. And Stantis lied.

FWIW, IIRC, coyotes do not talk either, unless NAACP stands for something else. Stantis has been lying to us all this time! I know how that feels, old buddy, old pal.

Meanwhile, in today's La Cucaracha:

http://www.ucomics.com/lacucaracha/2006/01/26/

Where're the Dems?:
http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Jack_Abramoff.php

No direct Abramhoff contributions to Democrats. No documentation of indirect ones, either, so even the "Abramhoff had his clients contribute to Democrats" assertion is unproven. (And may remain so--until a couple of months ago, Jack would have suffered mightily at the hands of his GOP patrons had word gotten out of such direction.)

In any case, the campaign contribution angle is a distortion. Abramhoff and the GOP have run a classic machine:

1) Party uses gubmint to spend public money on Private Interest.
2) Private Interest kicks some of the public money back to the Party.
3) Party uses money to expand hold on gubmint and spend more public money on Private Interest. Cycle continues.

Everybody wins! Well, except for those who expect efficient gubmint services or pay taxes. The campaign contributions are just tastes--the real money is in the private charities set up to employ relatives inflated salaries for consulting, the free meals, the comp hotel stays, the honoraria, the private jet travel, the hiring of cronies to hire other cronies to hire other cronies, etc. Poor old country boy small businessman Tom Delay's feet didn't touch the ground for about a decade, much less feed himself food he bought, personally. He lived the life of Louis XIV, and wielded immense power through his personal, and you paid for his lifestyle, indirectly, and your tax dollars were the grease that made his machine work.

So, it's not an "the all do it" scandal. When was the last time the GOP wanted to share credit for anything? And, now, they're suddenly being generous to Democrats?