Very quietly, back in 2006 the meticulous records of who visited Dick Cheney's private residence were placed under lock and key. Why should we care how many times Satan and Tinky Winky came to tea at the Cheney manse? Well, the timing of the decision, it turns out, is a bit revealing:

The letter regarding the vice president's residence was in addition to an agreement quietly signed between the White House and the Secret Service a year ago when questions were raised about visits to the executive compound by convicted influence peddler Jack Abramoff.

The non-profit watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, has filed a lawsuit to have a gander at who has been dropping by the Cheneys' in recent years, so the log books now reside with the Secret Service, who had planned to hand them over to the vice president and, no doubt, an arsenal of paper shredders. In fact, it was Cheney's office who requested the tight lid on the records in the first place, and you can read the somewhat blurry letter in question at CREW's website.

When the Democrats forcefully re-took control of Congress, they did so with promises to "drain the swamp" of the culture of corruption. With stern new legislation, we would rid ourselves of the likes of Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, and Tom Delay. Specifically, they pledged to address the evils of the lobbying industry and its untoward influence of our lawmakers. Since taking power, there have been some victories on this score:

House Democratic leaders say they have already adopted tighter ethics rules than Republicans managed to approve, including a prohibition on receiving gifts and trips from lobbyists. Another new rule requires the identification of the sponsors of earmarks, the special projects inserted at a member's request into complex spending bills.

OK. A fine, if not modest, start. But if Democratic members of the House think they've somehow done enough, they are in for a rude awakening. As right-wing blogger Patrick Casey points out in a recent post, some in the party are simply behaving in a way that is all too reminiscent of their predecessors. John Murtha, in particular, seems forever lost to the smash-mouth, ends-justify-the-means, brand of politics that has dominated Washington for too long. If, as some in the party suggest, they do not limit the lobbyist-fundraising connection, they will be seen as nothing more than blatant hypocrites. And deservedly so.

Note to Democrats: Really follow through on your promises to drain the swamp, or prepare to be drained, yourselves.

There a great article by Jeanne Cummings over at The Politico on the state of the Democrats' reform proposals, upon which they rode to victory in November 2006. Titled Congress' reform promises fizzle, it's a scathing review on the substance of the Democrats' actual reforms, based on what they promised voters and how they attacked the "Culture of Corruption" of the Republicans.

It's a familiar backpedaling pattern emerging early in the new Democratic-controlled Congress. From lobbying reforms to anti-corruption proposals to curbing earmarks, Democratic lawmakers who railed against Republican corruption a year ago have flinched from imposing the harshest standards on themselves. Consequently, this Democratic Congress may end up no better prepared to police itself than the Republicans were when the Jack Abramoff bribery scandal broke and the spate of criminal convictions it spawned surfaced as a primary reason for voters' angst last fall.

I've been harping on these points for the past several months. If the Democrats are to be held accountable in 2008 based on the promises they made, it looks as if they are going to be judged abject failures by any reasonable person. They won't even be able to blame Republicans, because more often than not it has been the Democrats' own internecine struggles that have doomed them.

The two major issues Democrats ran on were 1. ethical reform and 2. the Iraq War. So far, they've failed at dealing with either to the satisfaction of both their supporters and the swing voters. Some might say I'm judging these issues early, but I have a lot of faith in the Democrats...

As Lewis Black said: "You just can't keep track of these guys. I haven't come up with a name for the Ports scandal and they start talking about bombing Iran, DeLay quits and the Veep shoots his best friend."

In case you missed it in the dismantling of Boy George's best friend and personal lawyer, two congressmen have resigned from key committees in a bid to save their jobs. Rick Renzi stepped down from the House Intelligence committee and John Doolittle quit the mighty Appropriations Committee. Apparently being best friends with Jack Abramoff isn't as much fun as it used to be.

Homes and offices were searched by the FBI and it led to statements like this from Doolittle:

"I understand how the most recent circumstances may lead some to question my tenure on the Appropriations Committee," the conservative nine-term congressman wrote in a letter to House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). "Therefore, I feel it may be in the best interest of the House that I take a temporary leave with seniority from this Committee until this matter can be resolved."

This from a nine termer who barely won re-election by some 7,000 votes last year. Might be a special election in his district before next year. And Congressman Renzi?

Details of the raid on Patriot Insurance Agency in Sonoita, Ariz., were not immediately available. Renzi's most recent financial disclosure form lists the business as an asset belonging to his wife, Roberta, and valued at $1 million to $5 million. Little is known about the inquiries into Renzi's activities, but according to media reports the Justice Department has been running a two-track investigation into Renzi regarding a land deal, as well as a piece of legislation he helped steer that may have improperly benefited a major campaign contributor.

Let's be clear. These are just two more Republican Congressmen caught doing what their leaders have been showing them how to do. Take bribes. It's about power, it's about corruption and the Republicans in Congress and the Bush administration are full of it. From Halliburton, through Abramoff, through the oil deals, the tax giveaway to the richest 2%, the pharmaceutical giveaway, the amazing, ever-growing national debt, DeLay, Ney, Cunningham, Cheney, Libby, it just goes on and on. Yes, it all pales next to the Worst War Ever and it's just two more bricks in the wall. And before anyone says both parties are the same it's like comparing a shoplifter with a guy who has held up a dozen banks.

There's no comparison, these Republicans are in a class by themselves.

So, CREW published a photo of Bush and Jack Abramoff together. Click here to view it. They declare that the photo is "proof" that a "relationship exist[ed]."

Let me be the first to tell you, this photo proves nothing of the sort. The photo was taken at a fundraiser. Like any fundraiser, individuals who managed to donate a significant amount of money to the President's campaign got to take a photo with him. While I've never been one of these, I know people who have, and they have their own photos with the President that look just like this one. This photo was most certainly taken along with plenty others who donated to Bush's campaign who waited in line for the opportunity... does anyone believe that Bush had a "relationship" with all those individual donors?

Convicted uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff wants to talk and the country needs to hear what he has to say:

Sources close to the investigation say Abramoff has provided information on his dealings with and campaign contributions and gifts to "dozens of members of Congress and staff," including what Abramoff has reportedly described as "six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators."

The sources say Abramoff was about to provide information about Bush administration officials, including Karl Rove, "accepting things of value" from Abramoff.

Of course, Rove is not an elected official and thus doesn't fit into the category of say a Harry Reid or others in Senate leadership. Let Abramoff speak and let's conduct investigations. If Rove was involved, he should be fired. If any sitting senators were involved, they should be impeached as we are now entering the era the Democrats say will be the most ethical ever. They have a great chance to get the ball rolling and prove it by allowing Abramoff to speak and then follow up with thorough inquiries.

I say, investigate all of them who took so much as a piece of gum from Abramoff.

What the heck is happening in Montana? Reportedly, Democrats are starting to worry about a race they thought was basically locked up, even if it wasn't going to be a blow out. A Zogby poll has Tester ahead of Burns by a mere 1%. But Rasmussen has just moved the race back to "Lean Democrat" saying that Tester has a four point lead (five, if you pull out leaners).

The President came to town yesterday, but his impact has not yet really been measured. 5,000 Montanans showed up to the event, but Rasmussen finds that 40% of the state strongly disapproves of the president's performance and Dems are noting an uptick in volunteering following the announcement that he was visiting to stump for Conrad Burns.

Meanwhile, one of Jack Abramoff's old friends is swearing that Burns' staff ate all the sushi they wanted at Signatures, Casino Jack's restaurant.

So what's going to happen? The race still leans in Tester's favor, no doubt. But it's definitely a ground game in Montana. My advice? If you haven't yet, get on down to the courthouse on Monday morning and vote. Then when folks start really pestering you to vote on Monday night and Tuesday, you can tell them that your ballot has already been cast.

It's a chilly 14 degrees in Billings, Montana today, but the news is hot off the griddle. One of the big issues in the state's senate campaign is the extent and nature of incumbent Republican Conrad Burns' relationship with disgraced lobbyist and jailbird, Jack Abramoff. On numerous occasions, Burns has denied he peddled influence on behalf of Abramoff and his clients. He hardly knew Abramoff, Burns has said. So what if Jack donated $150,000 dollars to his campaign, that doesn't mean anything. Purely accidental.

But it seems that even Abramoff has his loyalists. One of them, GOP media consultant Monty Warner, finally decided he'd had enough of Burns' hypocrisy, and wrote a letter to a Montana newspaper detailing the Abramoff/Burns relationship. From the Billings Gazette:

...Burns' staff ate so many free meals at Abramoff's restaurant, people joked they would have "starved to death" without the lobbyist.

"Frankly, it was widely viewed in D.C. that Mr. Abramoff effectively exerted implicit control over Mr. Burns whenever he and his team needed to get something accomplished."

Democrat Jon Tester recently took the lead in this contest. Is it any wonder?

Jack Abramoff reportedly now has a desk to work from in the FBI -- a result of his willingness to spend up to four hours a day explaining the ins-and-outs of his dealings on Capitol Hill. The big question is, who should be most terrified by Abramoff's new found catbird seat with law enforcement?

• Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) -- The Montana lawmaker in the race of his life has now shelled out nearly $100,000 to high-priced defense attorney Ralph Caccia. That spending includes nearly $30,000 in September, reported on Burns' latest campaign report. Burns "went to bat" for Abramoff clients like the Marianas and the Saginaw Chippewas. Abramoff told "Vanity Fair" that Burns' staff hooked the lobbyist up with "every appropriation we wanted." Nice.
• Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) -- Doolittle did a lot for his lobbyist friends. He took $140,000 from Abramoff and his associates. His wife actually did work for Abramoff. Staffers used the revolving door to leave Doolittle's office and work for Abramoff. He signed letters helping Abramoff clients. To top it all off, Doolittle's wife has a consulting firm that takes a 15% cut of all donations to his campaigns -- not a bad way to augment a Congressman's salaries.

Before going any further, it's worth remembering that Republican Senator Tom Coburn predicted one senator and six representatives would follow Casino Jack to the slammer. That's not to say that Coburn was right, but with Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) on his way and Casino Jack talking to law enforcement, it's a sure bet a few people are sweating bullets.

While awaiting to learn the amount of time he'll have to spend in jail, Ohio Congressman Bob Ney has lots of "loose ends" to see to in Washington. This is the justification Mr. Ney has offered as to why he continues to draw on his $165,200/year salary even though he has admitted to taking illegal gifts from Jack Abramoff and then trying to cover them up on disclosure forms.

Perhaps eve more galling is the fact that once he's out of prison, the disgraced congressman will be eligible to receive a Congressional pension of $30,000/year. No doubt a lucrative lobbying position awaits Mr. Ney as well. My question is, why should our tax dollars help enrich him further?