Sing, sing a song...(Abramoff plea) UPDATED

Indicted Washington Uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff has pled guilty to three counts. Okay, this is going to be something of a link festival, which I normally don't like to do. But this is a big story, so...

Firedoglake reports:

What this means is that Jackie Boy has agreed to offer substantial cooperation, in the form of information, evidence and testimony against members of Congress, staffers and others involved in these schemes. The DoJ will hold that promise of cooperation over him and will withhold any sentencing in the matter until that cooperation has been completed. If he cooperates fully and gives meaningful evidence and testimony, the DoJ will make a favorable sentencing recommendation. If Abramoff tries to weasel out of the deal, the recommendation will not be so favorable.

In AmericaBlog, Joe says:

So much for Bush controlling the news this week.

ETA: Mark Evanier weighs in:

it's about time politicians of all kind saw that there can be accountability (i.e., prison time) for selling out the public trust for lobbyist dollars. I don't care what party they belong to or even which party did more of it in this particular case. I mean, if Democrats took less or took it indirectly, that may just be because Democrats are not in power and therefore not positioned to do as much for donors as Republicans. I also think that if I were a crooked politician -- a life's goal that seems less and less attainable with each passing year -- I'd feel a lot safer about taking bribes if my party controlled the government. So even if a lot more Republicans get swept up in the Abramoff investigation, that doesn't mean Democrats didn't or wouldn't. Throw all the rascals out, I say

ETA, again: In Hullabaloo, Digby takes on what seems to be the heavy GOP talking point for this scandal-that it's bi-partisan, that Democrats will be found to be just as tarred as Republicans. 'Taint true, Magoo.

I just saw CNN's Henry again say that this was a bi-partisan scandal and that Democrats were going to find it very hard to make the "culture of corruption" charge. This was not "he said/she said" --- he was editorializing in his piece and his opinion is either uninformed, myopic or biased. This piece was followed by another from William Schneider in which he helpfully points out that while the public indicates that it thinks Democrats are less corrupt than Republicans that's only because the public understands that it's because the Republicans are in power and have more opportunity.

This characterization of the scandal as being "bi-partisan" is typical bad mainstream journalism, particularly the emphasis they are placing on the very small handful of Democrats who've even been mentioned (much less included in any legal procedings.) Not only are they creating some equity and illegality where none exists, by doing it they are missing the real story, as usual.

This isn't a story about power corrupting or about a few bad apples. This is about a corrupt political machine --- a system of money laundering and public corruption on behalf of one political party. It's about a party that has used every tool at its disposal to legally and illegally enrich itself and enhance its power. It's right there. It's unravelling before our eyes.