Revenge of the "wackos" ?

November 3, 2005 9:49 PM

"The wackos get their information through the Christian right" "The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees," Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them." - Mssrs. Scanlon and Abramoff betray GOP attitudes concerning the Republican base ?
posted by troutfishing (24 comments total)

"That ought to hold over the little SOBs!" -Gabbo
posted by clevershark at 9:51 PM on November 3, 2005

Perhaps a deliberate betrayal, a warning to the unindicted co-conspirators of the kind of havoc that can be wreaked if presidential pardons are not forthcoming?
posted by Sara Anne at 9:51 PM on November 3, 2005

I can't get to salon. Is it down or is it just me?
posted by loquax at 9:53 PM on November 3, 2005

... actually the quote was Kent Brockman's, but it *was* actually related and in the same episode.
posted by clevershark at 9:54 PM on November 3, 2005

This has been the GOP strategy for a while. Rally the Christian Right to go along with all of their ruinous legislations, in exchange the GOP promise to bring forth legislation that is patently unconstitutional (e.g. big fucking Jesus statues everywhere), then blame the Dems and the liberal media for it not happening. Repeat process, ad infinum.

This is just a confirmation of what a lot of people already knew.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 9:58 PM on November 3, 2005

The old "never mind troops dying in Iraq and the lack of WMDs, vote against teh gheys!" strategy.

I'm getting a little surprised that the US media is waking from its intellectual slumber long enough to realize that this is the real deal with today's GOP. I'm more used to the image they've been showing us for the past 5 years or so -- brownnosing, contemptible lickspittles parroting every talking point Karl Rove's ever pulled out of his arse.
posted by clevershark at 10:01 PM on November 3, 2005

This is just a confirmation of what a lot of people already knew.

Well I can't read the article, but you do realize that not all 51% of the population that voted for Bush were Christian fundamentalists, right? And if you replace "Christian Right" with "labour union" you have the basic Democratic election strategy. Right?
posted by loquax at 10:02 PM on November 3, 2005

I find it comforting to have it confirmed that even Republican political flacks think the Christian right is a bunch of nutters.
posted by fleetmouse at 10:03 PM on November 3, 2005

"...you do realize that not all 51% of the population that voted for Bush were Christian fundamentalists, right? And if you replace "Christian Right" with "labour union" you have the basic Democratic election strategy. Right?"

I do realize that. Every party panders to special interest groups, but the GOP panders to the CR disengeniously. They can give a rats ass about the CR and in reality give them really little by proposing things that are patently unconstitutional. The GOP is about money, not the promotion of god.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 10:14 PM on November 3, 2005

but you do realize that not all 51% of the population that voted for Bush were Christian fundamentalists, right?

Bush enjoyed his highest support, at 78%, from the fundie/evangelical segment of the population (source: CNN poll that I'm too lazy to dredge right now). This level of support also exceeded any demographic that Kerry got, IIRC.

Some good reading on the poltical/religious divide...

81% conservative Republicans say they are pretty religious.
72% of moderate/liberal Republicans
80% of conservative Dems
52% of liberal Dems




Criminalizing abortion is probably the most single-issue driver in politics today, and its very interesting seeing how White Evangelicals stand out from the crowd on this issue (58% favor stricter laws, compared to 18-37% for every other demographic, including white catholics (37%)).
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:20 PM on November 3, 2005

Bush's support from the fundies is because he has funneled billions of dollars to them through his "faith-based" programs. How do you think he got all those black preachers in Ohio to support him?
posted by any major dude at 10:25 PM on November 3, 2005

Very detailed CNN polling showing 78% of the fundies voted for Bush in 2004.

Fundies were 23% of the electorate. To get 78% of 23% was the clincher. Rove is indeed something of a genius.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:27 PM on November 3, 2005

Bush's support from the fundies is because he has funneled billions of dollars to them through his "faith-based" programs.

He got a lot of support from big business because he funnelled hundreds of billions of dollars to them.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 10:29 PM on November 3, 2005

"I find it comforting to have it confirmed that even Republican political flacks think the Christian right is a bunch of nutters."

I couldn't have said it better myself, except to start christian with a 'c'. ;-P
posted by mischief at 10:38 PM on November 3, 2005

Another lesson from the Abramoff-Scanlon school: Pad your public numbers. In October 2001, the lobbying team decided to inflate the amount they were billing Indian tribes so Abramoff could make it into a "top ten" ranking of Native American lobbyists. They planned to tell the Coushatta tribe that $1 million was needed for a "public affairs" strategy. Then, by apparently falsifying an invoice from Abramoff's law firm, Greenberg Traurig, they would reroute the money to a charity Abramoff had founded, which was paying to build a school for his children and give "sniper training" courses in Israel.

Hopefully this leads to prison. Don't drop your soap.
posted by caddis at 3:55 AM on November 4, 2005

Bush's support from the fundies is because he has funneled billions of dollars to them through his "faith-based" programs.

Knowing many conservative Christians who support Bush, I can say with confidence that his 'base' doesn't see funds from faith-based programs. Their support for him is ideological, but they don't seem to grasp that talking the talk does not necessarily make him 'One of the faithful' in terms of motivations and real decisions.

Helping the poor and getting rid of corruption are values that should be even more important to a Christian than, say, lowering the estate tax.
posted by verb at 6:35 AM on November 4, 2005

clevershark, you were right the first time: Gabbo said "That ought to hold the little S.O.B.s" live on the air (Bart had taken control of the TV camera by telling the cameraman about a dirty limerick on the men's room wall).

Kent Brockman then repeated the comment live on the air after editorializing that Gabbo's language had no place on television.

And as for politicians disparaging their voter base ("The Great Unwashed")... next thing you know CEOs of major corporations will start being contemptuous of their shareholders.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 6:44 AM on November 4, 2005

Thanks for the post troutfishing.

President Jimmy Carter spoke about this issue this morning on NPR.
He talked about how the GOP was exploiting the truly religious people in the US.
Douglas Rushkoff, on the other hand, thinks perhaps Bush exploits politics in order to push his religious agenda, which could be a much scarier scenario!
posted by nofundy at 8:27 AM on November 4, 2005

I guess if you operate a fundamentally cynical political strategy, you should not be surprised if cynics take it over and exploit it for their own ends.

You can have a charity that funds "sniper training courses"? That's a new one on me.
posted by carter at 8:38 AM on November 4, 2005

Thou shalt not kill.

Funny that.
posted by bardic at 8:39 AM on November 4, 2005

Douglas Rushkoff, on the other hand, thinks perhaps Bush exploits politics in order to push his religious agenda, which could be a much scarier scenario!

Nah; I think Bush knows where his real allegiances lie. In his own words:

Some call you the elites; I call you my base.

Overall, his policies have tilted heavily in favor of his business partners. If I were a fundamentalist, I might start worrying that Bush is starting to look more and more like this guy than like an agent of God... After all, it could be argued that Bush is the modern day equivalent of the "Prince of this World," since his father was practically a King as President of the most powerful nation in the world. How long was it exactly that Rove said he planned for the Republican party to dominate American politics? A thousand years? Hmmmm...
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 10:17 AM on November 4, 2005

Here's the article for those of you who can't access...

Abramoff-Scanlon School of Sleaze

Wednesday's Senate hearings yielded more scandalous revelations about how the dynamic lobbying duo bilked American Indian tribes out of millions and used the money to win elections for their Republican clients.

By Michael Scherer

Nov. 03, 2005 | Up-and-coming Republican hacks would do well to watch closely the ongoing Senate investigations of superstar lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his former business partner Michael Scanlon. The power duo stand accused of exploiting Native American tribes to the tune of roughly $66 million, laundering that money into bank accounts they controlled and then using it to buy favors for powerful members of Congress and the executive branch.

But they sure did know how to play the game.

Consider one memo highlighted in a Capitol Hill hearing Wednesday that Scanlon, a former aide to Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, sent the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana to describe his strategy for protecting the tribe's gambling business. In plain terms, Scanlon confessed the source code of recent Republican electoral victories: target religious conservatives, distract everyone else, and then railroad through complex initiatives.

"The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees," Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them." The brilliance of this strategy was twofold: Not only would most voters not know about an initiative to protect Coushatta gambling revenues, but religious "wackos" could be tricked into supporting gambling at the Coushatta casino even as they thought they were opposing it.

Another lesson from the Abramoff-Scanlon school: Pad your public numbers. In October 2001, the lobbying team decided to inflate the amount they were billing Indian tribes so Abramoff could make it into a "top ten" ranking of Native American lobbyists. They planned to tell the Coushatta tribe that $1 million was needed for a "public affairs" strategy. Then, by apparently falsifying an invoice from Abramoff's law firm, Greenberg Traurig, they would reroute the money to a charity Abramoff had founded, which was paying to build a school for his children and give "sniper training" courses in Israel.

It worked like a dream, mainly because nobody knew what was happening -- not the tribe, not the law firm, and certainly not the readers of the "top ten" ranking. Oversight was so lacking that it did not even matter that someone misspelled the name of Greenberg Traurig on the fraudulent invoice. "I doubt we would be issuing an invoice with our name misspelled," said Fred Baggett, the head of Greenberg Traurig's governmental affairs shop, who once worked closely with Abramoff. Asked to describe his former colleague, Baggett offered this faint praise: "He is an amazingly gifted person at having two sides to him."

Others were less kind. Kevin Sickey, the chairman of the Coushatta Tribe, described Abramoff as greedy and corrupt. "He is the golden boy gone bad of the American political system," Sickey said. William Worfel, a former Coushatta Tribal Council member, was even more blunt about the lobbying team. "In my mind, they are educated thieves who must be brought to justice," he said.

Wednesday's hearings provided just the latest in a long line of scandalous revelations about Abramoff's lobbying operation, which is now under investigation by two Senate committees and the Justice Department. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who chaired the meeting, said his committee was preparing "many" legal reforms that could prevent a repeat of the Abramoff debacle. "We'll be coming out with that in about a week," he said. The Indian Affairs committee is scheduled to hold one more hearing on Abramoff before issuing a report; it still needs to gather testimony from Italia Federici, a close associate of Interior Secretary Gale Norton. Federici is accused of setting up a meeting for Abramoff with Interior Department officials after her nonprofit company, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, received six-figure donations from Abramoff's clients. Environmentalists charge that Federici's company -- which was founded by Norton -- is a front for big industry polluters. Federici was scheduled to testify Wednesday, but has so far ducked a Senate subpoena. "I believe U.S. marshals will do their duty," McCain said. "She has been unable to be located."

Abramoff, meanwhile, is already facing the prospect of significant jail time. He has been charged with fraud in connection with an unrelated casino deal in Florida, which ended in a gangland-style killing of the man Abramoff is alleged to have defrauded. (Several people have been charged with that killing, including two employees of a company controlled by Abramoff's business partner, Adam Kidan.) At the same time, the former top procurement official in the White House, David Safavian, has been arrested on charges of lying about a trip he took to Scotland with Abramoff. Another former White House official, Timothy Flanigan, recently withdrew his nomination to become deputy attorney general, after it became clear that he would have to testify under oath to the Senate about his relationship with Abramoff.

On Wednesday, a third former Bush administration official, J. Steven Griles, was asked to account for his relationship with Abramoff, which is detailed in dozens of e-mails obtained by the Senate. Griles claimed that he had never done Abramoff's bidding, despite Abramoff's own boasts that Griles was working on his behalf, and might even consider a job at Greenberg Traurig after he left government. "I can't reconcile what Mr. Abramoff put in e-mails to anyone," said Griles, a former coal industry lobbyist who recently served as deputy secretary of the interior.

Griles' denials were disputed by Michael Rossetti, a former counsel to Interior Secretary Gale Norton, who said Griles had shown a "very keen interest" on one matter where Abramoff had an interest. "Mr. Rossetti has a different memory on that issue than I do," said Griles, who appeared distraught, at times, during his testimony. "I don't want to dispute a former friend of mine and a former colleague." After the hearing, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the conflicting testimony created confusion about the facts. "Mr. Rossetti is very credible," McCain said. A reporter asked if Griles was also credible. "He is certainly sincere," said the senator.

There was much less doubt, however, about the skills of Abramoff and Scanlon. They collected huge amounts of money from their unwitting clients. In September of 2001, Abramoff wrote to Scanlon asking how much money he was set to collect from two of their Native American clients. "I need to assess where I am at for the school's sake," he wrote, in an apparent reference to his children's Jewish day school, the Eshkol Academy, which Abramoff was secretly bankrolling with the Indian money. Scanlon wrote back, "Your project on the project as proposed is at least 800k." All in all, Abramoff was set to earn "a total of 2.1" million dollars, Scanlon wrote.

Abramoff responded to his business partner, "How can I say this strongly enough: YOU IZ DA MAN."

If political infamy is the measure of a man, nobody in Washington doubts that now.
posted by mert at 11:37 AM on November 4, 2005

reposting protected content is maybe not such a good idea...
posted by Suck Poppet at 1:09 PM on November 4, 2005

This is just a confirmation of what a lot of people already knew.

A lot of people. Not the people who trust the current administration, however.

I have had several conversations with lifelong republicans who believe that the people in a republican government always -- always -- have the best interests of the people at heart, and anything that goes wrong was a mistake or an oversight, not a deliberate effort to mislead or commit fraud.

Granted, you could probably find dems who feel that way about the democratic party, too.

Me, I prefer the democratic party because I assume that all politicians are corrupt, but the dems are easier to catch and hoist, which makes them easier to control.
posted by davejay at 1:22 PM on November 4, 2005