Looks like Cerebus Capital Management hedged their bets by timely campaign donations to Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA):

One day after a New York investment group raised $110,000 for Republican Rep. Jerry Lewis, the House passed a defense spending bill that preserved $160 million for a Navy project critical to the firm. The man who protected the Navy money? Lewis. . .

Lewis himself had criticized the Navy-Marine computer project in October 2002, telling The Washington Post he was not satisfied with its progress. He also said he was concerned about MCI's involvement. "When you have a big piece of the pie in trouble, it just gums up a process that already has great difficulty," he said. . . .

In the early summer of 2003, Lewis said, he heard that "some business people in New York" were interested in giving money to his political action committee, the Future Leaders PAC. At the same time, the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, which Lewis led and which oversees Pentagon spending, was considering the 2004 defense budget.

On June 16, the Defense Appropriations subcommittee preserved the money for the Navy-Marine Corps network. Lewis said he changed his mind and supported full funding for the program because the Navy maintained that management of the program had improved. On June 26, the full committee followed suit.

On July 7, Lewis traveled to New York for a fundraising dinner with Cerberus executives and their spouses, lawyers and business associates. They gave the Future Leaders PAC more than $110,000 that night and more in the following weeks, bringing the total to nearly $133,000 that month.

The day after the dinner, the House passed Lewis' defense spending bill that preserved all of the funding for the Navy project. And two months after receiving the Cerberus money, Lewis led House negotiators working out a House-Senate compromise on the Pentagon bill that finalized the $1.6 billion for the Navy project

I thought I'd throw this out there because I don't think the media will pick up on it in any significant way, but much of what allows them to call the Abramoff scandals a bipartisan affair revolves around Democrats receiving money from Indian tribes Abramoff represented and is basically a non-story.  As this Bloomberg article explains Abramoff didn't need to direct contributions to Democrats because these tribes had already been giving almost all of their political contributions to Democrats for years. 

What is interesting, and what the article shows, is that once Abramoff became a lobbyist for the tribes in question, those tribes significantly cut back on giving to Democrats and suddenly gave most of their political contributions to Republicans.  In fact, Bloomberg notes of the top 10 tribal political donators, only the three tribes represented by Abramoff gave more money to Republicans than Democrats. 

In effect, Abramoff brought Indian tribes with strong casino interests into the Republican "pay to play" legislative system and then traded off his relationship with Tom Delay and others in the Republican Congressional leadership to bilk them for millions of dollars.  End of story. 

Now, some of you will write in asking why a few Democrats decided to give back money received from the three tribes represented by Abramoff and I don't have an answer other than they felt that was a prudent thing to do.  In fact, please send their offices a note if you're truly concerned, but don't deny that most of Abramoff's crimes are wrapped up in his participation in a much larger effort by the Republican party to create an institutional linkage between their legislative/political agenda and the big time lobbying community in Washington DC.  The truth is without Republican control of Capitol Hill and corrupt initiatives like the K Street project Jack Abramoff would be pretty much a nobody to most Americans outside a select group of die-hard conservative Republican operatives already based in DC and that's the story that most journalists seem afraid to touch.

Watching the disastrous roll-out of the new Medicare prescription drug plan kinda makes me wonder  how badly the Bush folks would mess up Social Security if given the chance. Uff da!

Top Conservatives fed up with Bush's power grabs.  Apparently, even Grover Norquist thinks the Dear Leader is off the reservation.

Ohio Rep. Robert Ney personally lobbied the then Secretary of State Colin Powell to relax U.S. sanctions on Iran.

These are the men who speak of defending the country.

Any of you labor lawyers out there know what the Special Assistant for Conservative Outreach at the Labor Department does?

I had heard brief reports about companies selling private cell phone records to just about anyone willing to pay money for them but I don't think it really hit home until John Aravosis publicized his purchase of Gen. Wesley Clark's cell phone records.  I know that corporations have been buying and selling personal information for years but how the hell is this legal?

The Daily Show provides some pointers for those of you confused by what is now permissible and not permissible when it comes to "responsibly" debating the Iraq War. 

Just remember: "This is America, and in America you're welcome to say whatever he wants."

This piece by Mickey Kaus would make sense if he'd never read an Adam Nagourney article in his life, however since I don't think that's the case I'm lead to believe he's just making shit up for the hell of it. 

Nagourney article headlines look more like this short list from the last presidential campaign; see anything approaching Mickey's "GOP always on the ropes" theme?  Me neither.  Besides perhaps this one article, can anyone point to a Nagourney article where Democrats aren't politically inept, divided and totally without hope of ever winning the White House or Congress?   

I think I'm beginning to understand why James Wolcott labeled Kaus the classic example of a "counterintuitive" pundit. 

William Jefferson of Louisiana.  Although not a part of the gigantic "culture of corruption" that is the K Street machine under DeLay and Abramoff, there is no doubt that corruption comes in all shapes, sizes and party affiliations.  Let's see if there's a difference here in the way each party handles the fallout.  Expect Jefferson to resign in a week.

Now if we can get the Army to spring for a retractable dome over this town they might be able to stop mortar and rocket attacks, too.

Just a little example of what we're talking about from TPM Cafe:

From an E-mail conversation between Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition and a current Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Georgia and Jack Abramoff:

Reed writes:
"Jack, would you be willing to contribute personally to my state chair campaign?  This race is costing me $50-100K, and i'm asking my friends to help."

Abramoff responds:
"Sure. Give me the name of the entity."

Reed deadpans:
"The actual committee is "The Reed Family Retirement and Educational Foundation." It is a 501(c)(3). The address is 200 Bay Drive, Grand Cayman, BCI, R59876."

Abramoff:
"Ha ha ha. Make sure you get me the proper committee name."

After Reed responded with the real name ("Reed for Chairman"), Abramoff wrote:
"Seriously, I'll get you the $10K this week or next from a source which owes me money."

The source that owed Abramoff money?  The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. 

Like to see more?  Check out the exhibits from the Senate investigation.  Ralph Reed's name is all over the exhibits.

Before you get too caught up in how Newt Gingrich has become the public face of Republicans urging ethics reform in Congress and nostalgic musings of how the glory days of the 1994 Republican revolution have been overshadowed by scandal, one need only look at Digby's rundown of Newt's own ethically challenged reign as Speaker to understand that this all didn't just start with Tom Delay and Newt "The Ends Justify the Means" Gingrich really doesn't have a lot of credibility on the issue.

Think Progress brings us this video of Tom Delay's ironic description of the wide ranging and brutal partisan conspiracy to deprive him of his leadership post.  As told by Mr. Delay that conspiracy includes 8, yes 8, separate grand juries.  Absolutely insidious!  I wonder where this plot goes next?

Conventional wisdom is that because some indian tribes who were represented by Jack Abramoff gave money to a few Democrats, it was Jack Abramoff who directed those contributions.  But is there any evidence whatsoever for this?  Check out the exchange between Governor Dean and Wolf Blitzer from CNN yesterday:

BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...

BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?

DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

The contributions to Republicans that are drawing scrutiny from prosecutors are known to have been directed by Abramoff because he E-mailed everyone under the sun to make sure they've occured.  But I have yet to see a single instance of Jack Abramoff telling a tribe to contribute to a Democrat.  If anyone does have evidence of Abramoff directing a contribution by a tribe to a Democrat, please put the link to it in the comments.

Looks like the White House had a lot of dealings with this guy, too.

News Flash:  White House going out of its way to distance President from man most responsible for shoving his agenda through Congress.  No word yet on whether Mr. Delay will be scrubbed out of official White House photographs.

Way ahead:

   Sanders:   75%
   Tarrant:    25%
   Undecided:04%

   Sanders:   75%
   Parke:      24%
   Undecided:04%

If the Republicans can only capture that 4% undecided they will lose by less than 50%.  Get crackin' boys!

From AP: 

Embattled Rep. Tom DeLay decided Saturday to give up his post as House majority leader, clearing the way for new leadership elections among Republicans eager to shed the taint of scandal, two officials said.