<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\758902050\46blogName\75Daily+Dissent\46publishMode\75PUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\46navbarType\75BLUE\46layoutType\75CLASSIC\46searchRoot\75http://dissent.blogspot.com/search\46blogLocale\75en_US\46v\0752\46homepageUrl\75http://dissent.blogspot.com/\46vt\75828381949394443668', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt


Questions, comments, tips? Send me an Email.

Windows Media Player for Mac Users

Saturday, February 18, 2006

American Justice

Because of an obvious conflict of interest, the Democrats asked Attorney General Alberto Torture Gonzales to recuse himself from the Abramoff investigations. After all, it's reasonable to think that a guy (Gonzo) who's boss (Bush) is heavily financed by a bagman (Abramoff) might be tempted to keep any information about that connection between the accused and his boss quiet, or even 'throw' the investigation.

But of course, with divine insight, Gonzales says he's not going to step aside because he's above any conflict of interest. Speaking for the National Republican Committee, Tracy Schmitt (is she related to Jean?) said
"Considering 28 of the 31 Democrats have received Abramoff-affiliated funds themselves, it appears their hypocrisy has exceeded even their partisanship,"

Well speaking of partisanship and conflicts of interest, it seems that the Bush White House is using the Justice Department to defend DeLay's illegal (by definition) gerrymandering of the voting districts in Texas, and the Bush-packed Supreme Court has approved of that team.

And as to the allegation of hyprocisy exceeding partisanship, that is partisan-shit. You can find info on who received how much from Jack Abramoff here, and a nice spreadsheet with a couple of sort options here. I copied and pasted that spreadsheet myself to do a little additional analysis - just basic stuff mind you.

Jack spread the jack all over town, but let's be specific. There are 197 Republican recipients on that list, 99 Democrats - a two to one ratio. The Repugs received $2.58 million, the Dems $1.12 million - again a two to one ratio. Now, if the ratios of numbers in Congress were 2:1 that would be more or less equal per capita donations on each side. But those numbers in Congress aren't 2:1. They are much closer to 1:1.

And guess what? 20 Dems received over $10k, 45 Republicans did. The largest donation to any Dem recipient? A hair under $300k, while the largest to a Repug recipient was $450k. See a pattern? A ratio roughly approaching 2:1 no matter how you slice it. Makes me wonder what the plan was behind it all.

Return to the main page.


Take what you want, leave what you don't.

© 2005 Daily Dissent

Powered by Blogger