As Abramoff explains in the video all should view again online, his main modus operandi was approaching folks in public service and saying something to the effect, "After you leave your public function, we'd really like to have you join our business."
In his offering a job that way, once the hook became set by the marked individual talking in response to an offering suggestion about jobs and possibilities, Abramoff said he and associates knew from experience that was the point where they owned that individual for all practical purposes. He openly called his approach "a bribe."
Abramoff was critical of all those in the system, liking it and seeing no evil in terms of what they might change and reform. He said if there is no vigilance, no criticism, how low a denominator will we reach? He contended that his being made an example really has not changed a thing. The single DC politician who took a fall along with Abramoff for criminal conduct and his key staffer, also appear in the Stahl-Abramoff segment.
The entire fifteen minute item from last November is available on YouTube and everyone approaching this year's election and wondering about how to vote should view that web item.
So, follow this link, to watch the entire Stahl-Abramoff civics lesson on the insinuation of corruption among political actors, (where the most obvious good faith answer is Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No"}.
Here is a screen capture from the video of the man explaining his callous practices. (As always, click the image to enlarge and read.)
 |
| This link. This web search. |
Slimy. The screen capture I posted above was deliberately enlarged from the still video capture box to include some comments down to the one viewer comment judging things in discussion with the word "slimy." It seems appropriate wording to me.
That in a nutshell is why I believe we all should recall and again judge the earlier recent Crabgrass post about the justified press coverage some of Norm Coleman's family's conduct attracted. It was coverage about his living arrangement where a crony gave a discounted sweet rental situation in DC where there was the appearance that the crony may have attained unfair leverage over the Senator and his actions. Coverage of Coleman also was about where money was routed from a Nasser Kazeminy business entity, through the Coleman wife, or allegedly so, for work not performed or with money in amounts out of line with prevailing compensation levels for such work - and why was Laurie Coleman picked for the Kazeminy largesse and not Laurie Diddlezilch unrelated to any officeholder - and, lastly, with all conduct subject to the presumption of the reasonable old saying, where there's smoke there's fire.
What were people thinking? It is totally appalling to me that the man only lost reelection by a scant 300 votes after all that was publicly exposed. We need better citizen awareness and judgment.
If you wonder about how someone on the receiving end of a questionable job offer situation of the kind Abramoff described could ever do such a thing, how could they compromise themselves by injuring their reputation in the political community and tainting the political process and the trust it should merit - my guess, they are ethically weak and prone to rationalizations or else so callous as to think everybody does it and I'm getting mine.
They lack a "Just Say No" mentality when the favor is dangled before their eyes. The offer entices and the will and integrity to do anything but just say yes dissolves.
But Abramoff, that is DC (where everyone does it?) and we should demand and expect that our local politicians and candidates are to be pure as the driven snow and free from any such taint. If not we should want to cull early, the earlier the better in a political career, before it can make it to DC.
Moreover, you can have somebody dumb and so clueless that there is no consideration of questionable job acceptances and how they might appear to citizens. Also, you can have someone so arrogant and self-centered that they are dismissive of a citizen will to want to know or judge or care. Finally, you can have someone so greedy or desperate for a cash flow, another cash flow, that they forgo good judgment for bad; with the enticement overriding all else. However it happens, there is a taint.
--------------------------------
I suppose with an election soon, a good attitude is that those with too large an ego and arrogant personality, or with any signs of a will to compromise when the rules of good conduct are reasonably clear, should be unceremoniously but decisively defeated at the polls.
Defeat at the polls can sometimes be the only remedy - a point that needs an example. So, for an example of how politicians can juggle rules to insulate themselves from any effective remedy the public should hold to oust offenders of the Abramoff corrupted kind; of the Colman corrupted kind; consider that in our little town, Ramsey, they have this nice charter, with a nice section 5 on "INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM AND RECALL," and wow, what are the recall processes we need to know if we ever believe there is malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance?
I am at a loss to know what this "in its descretion" stuff is supposed to mean: "The council shall, at its next meeting, by resolution, provide for the holding of a special recall election within ninety days after such meeting, the council may, in its discretion, provide for the holding of the recall vote at that time." To me it means "may or may not" so that cronyism can scuttle an otherwise fine and proper citizen petition effort, and it can happen regardless of the merit of the underlying charges if the council "in its discretion," i.e., for any reason or for none, decides the glove don't fit, per the famous O.J. Simpson trial oneliner. That's within their power, per the charter, even when the glove does fit.
Does it make any sense whatsoever to you to provide for a recall that a council possibly tainted by cronyism can scuttle in a heartbeat, for an otherwise valid citizen initiated procedure, and that there is no standard of judgment beyond "at its discretion?"
That's a blank check, folks. Brought to you by local government.
And it seems to make us a government of men and not of law, where the founding fathers had something to say about the best practice being the other way around.
Swallow that if you can, but then you encounter that part about how big a vote they demand in a recall election. It can only be then an issue at a general election, and it will be down ballot and inadequately reviewed in advance by the bulk of voters.
Essentially, they say you have a recall right, yet practically, you do not. A great thing to know, isn't it? Until you are aware of something you cannot begin to clean it up. To provide a remedy. And it is the duty of the establishment press to point out situations of questionable conduct, as was done in the Coleman situation and should be done by reporters whenever they know of questionable situations - or as someone split hairs with me recently, when there can be a perception of a questionable situation. It is a duty to inform the public.