Skip to main content

Johnson, Murphy and the Sleaze merchants

One can well understand why U.S. Rep Nancy Johnson would wish to put a ten foot pole between herself and Jack Abramoff, the beltway lobbyist and wheeler dealer recently sentenced for sleaze peddling.The once powerful Republican Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, Tom DeLay, this morning announced he will be resigning his seat, news reports indicate, because he failed to put a ten foot pole between himself and Abramoff.

And so, smeared by a MoveOn.org ad that “links” Johnson with Abramoff, the Johnson campaign called upon her likely Democrat opponent, Christopher Murphy, to condemn the add.

The “link” between Johnson and Abramoff is more than tenuous; it is non-existent. Johnson had never accepted money from Abramoff, unlike Democrat Party Chairman Harry Reid who, according to a February Associated Press report, “collected nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff’s firm, lobbying partners and clients” over a three year period.

The MoveOn.org ad “links” Johnson with more than $300,000 in campaign contributions from the energy industry during her 24-year tenure in Congress. An announcer then paints “Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney, and Jack Abramoff ’’as protective of Big Oil. “And now Nancy Johnson,” the announcer continues, “Another Republican caught red-handed.”

The ad does not explain what, precisely, Johnson was caught doing. No less sleazy than Abramoff himself, the ad probably will pass a legal sniff test. It does not specifically accuse Johnson of accepting bribes from Abramoff, but the senior citizens Johnson has been in the habit of courting during her campaigns are not likely to note such subtleties. The object of such ads is to throw mud and hope some of it sticks to the innocent victims of the ads.

Often described by the main stream media as “a liberal advocacy group,” MoveOn.org is an offshore, extra-party political apparatus of the Democrat Party in hiding. The left-wing anti-Republican apparatchiks are financed by George Soros, a multi-billionaire funny money handler who made oodles of cash years ago breaking the Bank of London.

On “Black Wednesday, September 16, 1992, Soros earned a little more that $1 billion when he capitalized on the reluctance of the Bank of England to raise its interest rates or float its currency. By buying stocks and selling short, Soros became known as “the man who broke the bank of England.” And during the 1997 Asian financial crisis, he was accused by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad of bringing down the Malaysian currency, the ringgit.

“Most ways of earning money,” Henry David Thoreau once said, “lead downward.” But not always: Abramoff went down; Soros went up.

Johnson’s campaign responded quickly to the MoveOn ad by releasing an ad that says, “"A radical group whose ads have been called `shameful' and `misleading' is at it again - helping politician Chris Murphy. This group compared America's leaders to Nazis."

Murphy responded to the Johnson ad by pointing out that he is not connected to MoveOn.org and accusing Johnson of hypocrisy. "The difference,” Murphy said, “is she controls the content of her ad. I don't control or have anything to do with the content of the MoveOn.org ad. It seems totally hypocritical to respond to an ad that she thinks unfairly links her with Jack Abramoff with her own ad that unfairly links me to MoveOn.org."

The Johnson campaign called upon Murphy to address and denounce the content of the MoveOn ad -- which should be a snap for someone who does not seek to benefit from his non-connection to MoveOn.org, Soros, Abramoff or Nazis.

The real villains here are extra-party organizations financed by groups of people who, because they operate outside major political institutions, are answerable to no one. Murphy’s campaign probably would not have released the objectionable Johnson ad because Murphy would have been held responsible for such patent misrepresentations by Connecticut voters – who have no influence upon MoveOn.org or its financiers.

This mess is a perfect example of the downside of campaign finance reform: Regulations that trim the influence of political parties increase, at the same time, the influence of both lobbyists like Abramoff and extra-party political activist groups like MoveOn.org. A party capable of funding all its own candidates, both incumbents and challengers, would need neither Abramoff nor MoveOn. org.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

PCBs, GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH

By Gerald and Natalie Sirkin c2007 A front-page story on PCBs in the March 9 News-Times is just wrong. The first thing to know about PCBs is that they never killed a single person nor did they ever cause cancer. The second is that although they are invariably called “cancer-causing,” that designation comes chiefly from a single rat study. The third thing is that the subject rats were exposed daily for 21 months to 100 parts per million (ppm) of PCBs containing 60% chlorine. (The 100 ppm was about 5,000 times the tolerable daily intake of PCBs set by FDA in 1973.) When rats were exposed to PCBs containing less chlorine, they developed no cancers. The fourth, that when the exposed rats were allowed to live out their lives, they had fewer cancers and lived longer than the unexposed rats. PCBs is a family of chemicals known as polychlorinated biphenyls. PCBs contain chlorine ranging from 12% to 70%. They were used in two General Electric plants that manufactured electrical equipmen...

Taking The Fifth, After Esty

Whether or not U.S. Representative Elizabeth Esty will serve the remainder of her term or resign immediately is very much an open question. But, in any case, the battle for Connecticut’s 5 th U.S. Congressional District has begun with a show of unexpected fireworks. For many years, the 5 th District was a toss-up proposition; both Republicans and Democrats have held and surrendered the seat. Geographically the 5 th District touches the border of New York from Connecticut’s northern-most point to Danbury in the southern quadrant and includes much of Litchfield county and parts of Fairfield, Hartford and New Haven counties. Party affiliation is competitive, in round figures, 30 percent Democrat, 25 percent Republican and 45 percent unaffiliated. Over the years, the Democrat Party in Connecticut has moved from the center to the left, but the 5 th District has been a moderate preserve. During the Obama presidential election, Republican moderates within Connecticut's U.S. ...