Republicans are liars (again)
Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo writes:
The American Prospect commissioned the analysis and it was carried out by Dwight L. Morris and Associates, a for-profit firm specializing in campaign finance and has done research for many media outlets.Oops. New study by non-partisan research firm says no dice to claims Jack Abramoff was steering tribal money to Dems like he was to Republicans. In fact, the study suggests opposite.
Some nuggets ...
The analysis shows that when Abramoff took on his tribal clients, the majority of them dramatically ratcheted up donations to Republicans. Meanwhile, donations to Democrats from the same clients either dropped, remained largely static or, in two cases, rose by a far smaller percentage than the ones to Republicans did. This pattern suggests that whatever money went to Democrats, rather than having been steered by Abramoff, may have largely been money the tribes would have given anyway.and this ...
The analysis shows:in total, the donations of Abramoff's tribal clients to Democrats dropped by nine percent after they hired him, while their donations to Republicans more than doubled, increasing by 135 percent after they signed him up;
five out of seven of Abramoff's tribal clients vastly favored Republican candidates over Democratic ones;
four of the seven began giving substantially more to Republicans than Democrats after he took them on;
Abramoff's clients gave well over twice as much to Republicans than Democrats, while tribes not affiliated with Abramoff gave well over twice as much to Democrats than the GOP -- exactly the reverse pattern.
The truth is that only idiots and liars (actually, I guess the liars 'say' but don't 'believe') think the Abramoff operation was really bipartisan in any meaningful sense. But here's at least some more data points to add to the mix.
Greg Sargent of The American Prospect writes:
[F]our out of seven tribes -- Saginaw, Chitimacha, Coushatta and Mississippi -- saw their contributions to Republicans increase significantly, even vastly, after they became Abramoff's clients.
At the same time, two of those four tribes -- Saginaw and Chitimacha -- saw their giving to Democrats drop or remain static. The other two -- tribes Coushatta and Mississippi -- did see their giving to Dems rise under Abramoff, but by amounts that were dwarfed by the increases in giving to the GOP.
These patterns strongly suggest that Abramoff's representation of the tribes manifested itself largely in a dramatic rise in contributions to the GOP. And it also suggests it's likely that Abramoff had little impact on giving to Democrats.
Nor does it appear likely that Abramoff steered contributions to Dems from the remaining three tribes who didn't see their giving to the GOP climb. Of those three tribes, one tribe -- Pueblo of Sandia -- saw a negligible shift in donations to both parties. The second -- Agua Caliente -- slashed its contributions to both parties, but even so, the percentage of that tribe's giving that went to Republicans still rose dramatically. The third -- Cherokee Nation -- simply stopped giving altogether.
The big picture is also compelling. Taken together, Abramoff's tribal clients gave $868,890 to Dems before hiring him; afterwards, they gave $794,483 -- a decrease of nine percent. By contrast, the tribes' donations to Republicans went from $786,560 pre-Abramoff to $1,845,975 after he became their lobbyist -- an increase of 135 percent. In other words, when Abramoff entered the picture, contributions to Dems dropped, while donations to Republicans more than doubled.
Are they that obsessed with power that they need to lie to the American people in their feeble attempt to retain control of Congress?
The entire article can be read here:
New proof Republicans are liars
The American Prospect article can be found here:
Dems Don't Know Jack
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home