Actually Dean had also said earlier that no Dems that he knew of had taken money directly from Abramoff. As far as I know that is still the case. We already knew that Reid had taken money from a tribe that also did business with Abramoff. I saw the interview & Dean's later reply I think was meant for any Dem who took money directly from Abramoff would be in big trouble. Otherwise his remark doesn't really make sense.
I do agree that corruption in general is a problem for both parties but if the electorate holds their reps accountable for it in '06 the GOP has a much bigger problem keeping it's control of the government. The Dems are talking & proposing some agresive reforms that I think voters will like.
BTW, in another thread you argued that one Republican doesn't make something bipartisan. I would assume you would also apply that standard here where there hasn't been any Dems directly connected directly to Abramoff yet. According to your own argument this isn't a problem for the Dems until at least more than one is found directly tied to Abramoff like the President & the many members of the GOP congress.
