Editorial: Jack Abramoff Must Be Stopped

9 March 2006

By an Anonymous United States Senator

Greetings from the Hill, my fellow Americans.

It has been brought to my attention that the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act will once again come to the Senate floor for a vote.

I oppose this legislation for a number of reasons. First, and foremost, it is my belief that what Americans do in the privacy of their homes is their business and it is not up to the government to dictate how they spend their entertainment dollars.

Further, it has been proven time and again that the Justice Department cannot effectively prevent foreign gambling sites from targeting American citizens. Thus, it is in the best interest of our consumers to be thinking along the lines of protection rather than prevention.

Lastly, I firmly believe that . . .

Wait. . . .What's that you say? Jack Abramoff lobbied against the Internet Gambling Prohibition? Well, this changes everything. All of the thoughts and beliefs I previously held on this issue must surely have been contaminated by Mr. Abramoff's influence on Washington. I thought I had come to my conclusions by my own free will, but now it is clear to see that I am a victim of this man's evil agenda.

Come to think of it, Internet gambling is really, really . . . REALLY bad. It can poison our youth as well as put tens of thousands of Americans in irrecoverable debt. Plus, online gambling is a profit machine for organized crime as well as a tool through which terrorists can easily launder money. Jack Abramoff prevented me from realizing all this, but it is all clear to me now.

Yes, I will definitely vote for the Internet Gambling Prohibition bill, and afterward I will distribute a press statement with the big, bold headline: "Sen. [name withheld] Helps Save America from Jack Abramoff."

Yes, on this day I am proud to be a representative of the good people of this nation.

Now, if you will excuse me, I'm off to vote against a bill that would legalize child labor in industrial regions. It's amazing that such a disgusting proposition would even be considered, and I am most adamant about . . .

Excuse me? You say Jack Abramoff lobbied against the 2006 Child Employment and Enrichment Act.

Then I surely must not have been given all the facts on this issue. In fact, with so many of our good people overseas fighting for freedom, we need our grade-schoolers to fill important vacancies at our factories. It's either that or give jobs to immigrants.

Huh? What' that? You were kidding about the Abramoff-Child Employment and Enrichment Act connection?

Oh, yes, of course you were . . . Naturally I was too. I'm definitely voting against it.

Wait. . . . You weren't kidding about the Internet gambling bill too, were you?

Okay, good, because we certainly must remain diligent in our mission to reverse everything this man has done. In fact, maybe we should consider legislation that automatically reverses the vote on every bill influenced by Abramoff money. This would save us a lot of time and would surely wash our hands of everything Abramoff.

And while I'm at it, maybe now is a good time to reintroduce my bill to prohibit wearing fedoras. You know, Jack Abramoff wears a fedora. Obviously, they are bad news. Maybe the measure can be attached to the new lobbying reform bill. Perhaps this will draw attention from the heat I'm taking for accepting so much money from the men's hair restoration lobby.

(Note to self: maker sure the lobbying reform bill contains language that will allow me to continue taking money from the men's hair restoration lobby.)

Isn't it fascinating how Washington works?

Now that all is in order, I must be on my way to vote against this nasty child labor law.

As you know, senators work around the clock, so there's never a moment wasted. For example, in the car ride to the Capitol, my advisors and I will be working on my campaign slogan for reelection. We are considering changing it from "Vote for [name withheld], or the terrorists win" to "Vote for [name withheld] or Jack Abramoff wins." I'm partial to the latter, but we'll see what the rest of the team thinks. Perhaps we'll stick with the old one if there's another attack on U.S. soil (although this will be impossible with the renewal of the PATRIOT Act).

I love this town!