I watched an interesting installment of Tim Russert this afternoon that dealt with Jack Abramoff where he held a round table discussion with three elite media reporters that have covered the story.

There was actually a lot of useful information brought forth, particularly about the nature of Indian Casino operations in the U.S.

All of the panel members, Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post, Evan Thomas of Newsweek and Karen Tumlty of Time, agreed that Abramoff's crime was ripping off his clients. That elevated my expectations of the program immediately since I fully expected this to be a "culture of corruption" program judging by its title It was precisely the kind of stuff I eat up--the players, the motivations and the deals.

Abramoff was involved with the college Republicans in college, where he came to know and befriend Ralph Reed, but unlike Ralph who became a political operative, Abramoff went to Hollywood to make movies with the liberals and learned to do business the Hollywood way. When the Republicans wrested power from the Democrats, Abramoff dumped the movie business and became a lobbyist.

Evan Thomas had a great comment about lobbyists--they are great at getting paid for doing nothing.

From this perspective, its hard to swallow the accusation that he was ripping off his clients--he's a lobbyist, its a given. Yet Abramoff was taking it to new heights. Abramoff used Ralph Reed (who is anti-gambling) to help him kill an Indian casino in Texas, but not surprisingly, it was the Lousiana tribes that were paying Abramoff to do it (the mark's greed makes the con possible...). Next he turns to the dispossed tribe and says, "Hey, pay me 'x' dollars and I'll get your casino opened again..."

Nice work if you can get it, but business as usual for mercenary lobbyists.

By playing off anti-gambling forces against the Indians, Abramoff cleaned up on both sides, supporting the aphorism that fear is a better motivator than profit. There are no innocents here.

On the other side of this question was the Congressional dynamic--Abramoff's end game was to become the ultimate powerbroker in Washington D.C. You get that by spending money, and his connections with the Indian tribes provided money on an unprecented scale. What becomes clear from the conversation is that calling it a Republican scandal really misses the scope of what Abramoff was doing--he cultivated people everywhere--Repubicans, Democrats, and most importantly-bureaucrats. That Republicans were the largest beneficiaries of Abramoff largesse is no surprise since they have the lion's share of federal power, but the main criteria to become a friend of Jack was your power to get something done for him, which is why Robert Kennedy and Harry Reid were getting the big bucks.

The money was even going to congressional spouses; usually to charities they supported. Its as if Washington was covered with liquid money to the depth of six feet--the money found its way into every possible nook and cranny it could go.

I've said this before, but when you have guys handling billions of dollars surrounded by guys making millions of dollars and get paid $162,000.00 a year, you have a problematic dynamic. Occasionally squeezing out the sponge gets rid of the problem temporarily, but the sponge can help but absorb the available "moisture".

Small government anyone?

The political effects are up in the air. The Republicans are taking it seriously, but lurking is the prospect of some possible high-profile prosecutions. A recent poll demonstrates the problem--65% of respondents thought Congress routinely took bribes. Now that is certainly not an accurate view of the matter, and the Crats should consider that its inevitable that they are going to get tarred with the same brush. There are a lot of comparison with the Repubicans in the 90s, but the Republicans had clean hands back then. Distinctions without a difference like, "I didn't get it from Abramoff directly" are no shield against public disapproval anymore than "no controlling authority" was for Gore.

If the prosecutions end up fruitless, or simply nail a bad actor or two, it won't have a significant affect on this electoral cycle (especially considering how much Iran will be weighing on all our minds...). Nevertheless, the Republicans have to conscientously clean up the mess if they want to keep the revolution on track. Frankly I doubt there are two many conservatives who are unhappy about the Abramoff scandal--it appears to be just the thing we needed to get the party on track with small government conservatism.