Wining, Dining and Knee-jerking

I think Brother Glitter misunderstood the point of my most recent posting. The posting was in no way meant to understate the role of Abramoff's Republican sympathies, but rather to point out the fact that, very clearly, media attention in the case has been focused on him as an exception to the rules, rather than the example on which to base some sort of wider analysis of lobbying in America today. For many in the mediocre-at-best press--which is what most Americans read, watch or hear--it has been much simpler to just dwell on Abramoff, which is the problem I see.

In the news that most folks get, there is only Abramoff coverage and nothing more. But the Abramoff case can and should cause concern down on K Street.

It [the Abramoff plea] has people shaking in their boots a little," said Celia Viggo Wexler, the vice president for advocacy at Common Cause. "What he did goes beyond the pale, and not what a typical lobbyist would do. But there are plenty of lobbyists wining and dining out there.

Let it not go unsaid that though the Abramoff scandel is overwhelmingly tied to Republicans, it does not leave unscathed people like Minority Leader Harry Reid.
Democrats should be tough in the pursuit of justice in this case, but at the same time, should be careful not to cast any blame that cannot be in turn cast back at them.

The lobbyist and Indian tribes contributed $2.9 million to Republicans and $1.5 million to Democrats in the past five years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

What I'm arguing here, Glitter and the world at large, is that though we should be particularly attentive to the Republican underpinnings of said scandel, this is simply not enough. What really needs to occur at some sort of meaningful level--in the media and among American citizens--is a discussion of democracy today, of the public interest and of how, why and where the big bucks are spent in Washington. To paint the picture two dimensionally is, well, sorta flat.

--Credibility