So I'm browsing the NYT this morning and an Abramoff op-ed catches my eye. Then I look at the byline and its none other than Ana Marie Cox of Wonkette fame

Ana Marie was always the soul of brevity, so it interesting to read something a little more extensive. I find that I largely agree with her.

Despite the desperate glee of the editorializers and the almost-as-desperate rinsing of Abramoff funds from Republican coffers, the smell in the air is panic, not blood. In order to cast their net beyond Diamond Bob Ney, the feds would have to, as one Republican source told the Times, "pursue a different definition of bribery" - that is, prove that "if somebody were to give a gift or a campaign contribution in the same time period as a member took an official action, that in and of itself would constitute bribery." And you thought Patrick Fitzgerald was criminalizing politics.

Sad to admit it, but most of what Jack Abramoff did with politicians (as opposed to his outright fraud with Indian tribes) wasn't criminal so much as extreme. The Hollywood arc would have a chain-gang of Congressmen breaking rocks by the final reel, but we are unlikely to get such satisfaction outside of celluloid.

The difference between panic and blood in this case is that one if for the political while the other is for the legal. Not surprisingly, Democrats are trying hard to tar Republicans as corrupt with the theme of "pay to play". I can't say I blame them, but neither do I expect that it will be too effective.

When it gets right down to it, most Americans have some sort of lobbying representation in Washington, whether its the NRA, the NEA, or some group trying to prevent Congress from taxing your timeshare or closing your off-road trails. That Congress solicits "contributions" is nothing shocking, and thats what Democrats would need to engineer an electoral upset--something shocking.

Let's just pull back a second and look at the big picture here--Your Congressman makes a low six figure income for his efforts in Washington, which doesn't go very far in maintaining a residence in the home state and in D.C. (where realestate has been going through the roof...). It takes millions of dollars to run for office. Furthermore, even a freshman representative or Senator has a say in the disposition of millions and even billions of dollars, directly or otherwise. Should they happen to be in the majority and have seniority, their influence is exponentially greater.

What you have here is a situation very much like college football--an extremely lucrative franchise where the rainmakers don't get paid--a recipe for corruption, either formal or informal.

Just as there is very little point in blaming a kid from the ghetto for signing a letter of intent in exchange for a house for his Mom, we are engaging in vile hypocrisy to complain about the fact that Congresspersons take money from lobbyists.

Frankly, I'm surprised there aren't more problems than there are. The system we have works pretty well because it avoids naive beliefs about human nature. Politicians will take money because they have to, but they live in what are essentially two economies--money and politics. You can't just sell you're vote because that has political ramifications and on the other hand, you can't ignore the economic interests of the nation either. Successful politicians learn how to balance economic and political interests while those who don't get retired, or if they step out of line, go to jail.

Collectively, the economic and political interests of the nation (yes, I know that I am making too hard a distinction here...) find balance between the parties.

We take separation of powers for granted, but its a unique paradigm in the world. Other democracies, say our neighbor to the North, have no such tensions in their system and consequently all the payoffs happen out of the public eye. As the poor man said to the rich man after listening to his complaints about taxes--"I wish I had those problems..."

BuzzMachine: "Ana is looking a little worse for wear." I think this qualifies as a sexist comment. Does Jeff want to read Ms. Cox or date her?

Ann Althouse doesn't like her imagery. She's right, but its a petty complaint.

Instapundit

ShushPile

Let’s recap…

Monday: Quits her day job

Tuesday: Gets reviewed in the New York Times

Wednesday: Signs a mid-six-figure book deal

Thursday: Gets profiled in the New York Times

I suspect this is the main reason we are getting so many snide comments about her. The dirty little secret in the blogosphere is that many of us are NOT doing this for love. Ana Marie Cox has accomplished what many others hoped blogging would do for them--get them a slot on a cable news channel, a book deal or a regular column, but more basically--get paid big bucks for writing and/or talking. In retrospect, Ana Marie was positioned for this kind of success in almost every respect--she's young, attractive, liberal and salacious and she apparently sleeps with the right people. Its not the only way to be successful, but its probably the best way...