>>AR282, can't you just once play it straight? This is a bad scene no matter who took the money but to throw the blame at one party with the 4:1 odds is bad math on your part.<<

Last I counted, 57 members of Congress had taken Abramoff-related money and 14 or so were dems. That's about 4:1. Since then, I've read of a few more dems and a few more pubs going on the list but the ratio does not appear to be changing much.

>>Look up above and see Repubs; $4.3 mil, Dems; $3.1 mil<<

That hardly seems likely considering the dems were overwhemingly NOT the movers and shakers in Congress. It is inconceivable that lobbyists would waste a lot time with them unless they are influential dems willing to work and vote closely with pubs.

>>Sorta' looks like a 4 to 3 ratio to me, not 4 to 1.<<

4:3 is not credible as I said. My aim is not to say dems are blameless. They simply held no particular power that would give Abramoff reason to woo them (not to mention that he loaths them). When we get down to the core of Abramoff's congressional scammers, I would be surprised if there are more than one or two dem insiders. May not be any. Abramoff never dealt with them personally, as far as I know.

>>Did you ever stop to think that people read this stuff and can arrive at their own comclusions.<<

Really?? Wow, that's a real shocker. I could have sworn that everyone converts to my views and outlook as soon as they read my golden words.

>>Obviously, you don't and if you want to continue looking like a fool, so be it.<<

So, anyway, the blood spillage looming over Congress will be 4:1 pub. But I see it like a lightning-strike forest fire. Looks bad for a while but it clears away old growth and promotes new. Whether that new growth is any good or any different is largely dependent on what we do at the polls this November.