New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | February 6, 2006

Jonathan Rauch makes a full disclosure of his absence of a relationship with a disgraced Republican lobbyist.

Comments

Rich Ard|2.6.06 @ 10:34AM|#

Hilarious - if this hasn't yet been submitted to McSweeney's then it should be.

|2.6.06 @ 11:12AM|#

Seems like Rauch should have done an article describing everyone he has gotten money (or other valuable consideration from) in the last 5 years or so, rather than focussing on one guy he hasn't gotten money from.

An article framed as a full disclosure, instead of a full disclaimer, would provide us readers with a lot more meaningful info (which we like), and, presumably it would also do a lot more to establish and highlight Rauch's lack of economic bias.

Maybe next time.

|2.6.06 @ 11:16AM|#

Dave W., you need to read between the lines a little. He was clearly mocking the notion that Abrahamoff is the only problem out there, and things will be peachy once the guys who got caught back away from the one guy that they got caught with. He was arguing that the problem is much bigger, a point that I suspect you might actually agree with.

And if I neglected to say anything that you think I ought to say, let's just say that I meant to say it but forgot.

Dave W.|2.6.06 @ 12:34PM|#

I understood what he was doing, T. I was mocking his mocking and challenging him to do of his own free will what all journalists should be doing of their own free will, specifically disclosing everybody who pays them at all times for as long as they hold themselves out as journalists.

Sure, I like the stones Rauch is throwing, but really people who live in brittle houses . . .

|2.6.06 @ 12:44PM|#

LMAO. Nice article.

What has always struck me about bribery scandals is this: Did 100% of the people Abramoff tried to bribe take the money?

If not, then why did they remain silent? If you think bribing our elected officials is wrong and therefore you won't take the money, isn't it a moral obligation of yours as an elcted offical to snitch him out? Don't you want to rid Washington of their stench and malinfluence, and return our capital/capitol (assuming it was ever there to begin with) to an honest utopia of pure, bribe-free government largesse? (Ron Paul being the exception to the rule of wanting government largesse).

If 100% of them took bribes, then doesn't that basically mean that virtually 100% of congress are crooks? And of course he couldn't possibly be the first to bribe elected officials, on either side of the aisle.

Yet another reason to vote libertarian, with a lower case l, not excepting upper case L's. Libertarians all want government restrained and reduced. How do you bribe someone to spend money on your client when they always vote against government spending and regulation?