The Abramoff scandal is a Republican thang

[NT]

January 30, 2006

Op-Ed Columnist

A False Balance

By PAUL KRUGMAN

 

"How does one report the facts," asked Rob Corddry on "The Daily Show," "when the facts themselves are biased?" He explained to Jon Stewart, who played straight man, that "facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda," and therefore can't be reported.

 

Mr. Corddry's parody of journalists who believe they must be "balanced" even when the truth isn't balanced continues, alas, to ring true. The most recent example is the peculiar determination of some news organizations to cast the scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff as "bipartisan."

 

Let's review who Mr. Abramoff is and what he did.

 

Here's how a 2004 Washington Post article described Mr. Abramoff's background: "Abramoff's conservative-movement credentials date back more than two decades to his days as a national leader of the College Republicans."  In the 1990's, reports the article, he found his "niche" as a lobbyist "with entree to the conservatives who were taking control of Congress. He enjoys a close bond with [Tom] DeLay."

 

Mr. Abramoff hit the jackpot after Republicans took control of the White House as well as Congress. He persuaded several Indian tribes with gambling interests that they needed to pay vast sums for his services and those of Michael Scanlon, a former DeLay aide. From the same Washington Post article:  "Under Abramoff's guidance, the four tribes ... have also become major political donors. They have loosened their traditional ties to the Democratic Party, giving Republicans two-thirds of the $2.9 million they have donated to federal candidates since 2001, records show."

 

So Mr. Abramoff is a movement conservative whose lobbying career was based on his connections with other movement conservatives. His big coup was persuading gullible Indian tribes to hire him as an adviser; his advice was to give less money to Democrats and more to Republicans. There's nothing bipartisan about this tale, which is all about the use and abuse of Republican connections.

 

Yet over the past few weeks a number of journalists, ranging from The Washington Post's ombudsman to the "Today" show's Katie Couric, have declared that

Mr. Abramoff gave money to both parties. In each case the journalists or their news organization, when challenged, grudgingly conceded that Mr. Abramoff himself hasn't given a penny to Democrats. But in each case they claimed that this is only a technical point, because Mr. Abramoff's clients — those Indian tribes — gave money to Democrats as well as Republicans, money the news organizations say he "directed" to Democrats.

 

But the tribes were already giving money to Democrats before Mr. Abramoff entered the picture; he persuaded them to reduce those Democratic donations, while giving much more money to Republicans.    A study commissioned by The American Prospect shows that the tribes' donations to Democrats fell by 9 percent after they hired Mr. Abramoff, while their contributions to Republicans more than doubled.

So in any normal sense of the word "directed," Mr. Abramoff directed funds away from Democrats, not toward them.

 

True, some Democrats who received tribal donations before Mr. Abramoff's entrance continued to receive donations after his arrival. How, exactly, does this implicate them in Mr. Abramoff's machinations? Bear in mind that no Democrat has been indicted or is rumored to be facing indictment in the Abramoff scandal, nor has any Democrat been credibly accused of doing Mr. Abramoff questionable favors.

There have been both bipartisan and purely Democratic scandals in the past. Based on everything we know so far, however, the Abramoff affair is a purely Republican scandal.

 

Why does the insistence of some journalists on calling this one-party scandal bipartisan matter? For one thing, the public is led to believe that the Abramoff affair is just Washington business as usual, which it isn't. The scale of the scandals now coming to light, of which the Abramoff affair is just a part, dwarfs anything in living memory.

 

More important, this kind of misreporting makes the public feel helpless. Voters who are told, falsely, that both parties were drawn into Mr. Abramoff's web are likely to become passive and shrug their shoulders instead of demanding reform.

So the reluctance of some journalists to report facts that, in this case, happen to have an anti-Republican agenda is a serious matter. It's not a stretch to say that these journalists are acting as enablers for the rampant corruption that has emerged in Washington over the last decade.

 http://select.nytimes.com/2006/01/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=login&pagewanted=print

HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS!!

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ImpeachBushNOW

 

 

[Walker]

NT wrote:
> January 30, 2006
> Op-Ed Columnist
> A False Balance
> By PAUL KRUGMAN
>
> "How does one report the facts," asked Rob Corddry on "The Daily Show," "when the facts themselves are biased?" He explained to Jon Stewart, who played straight man, that "facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda," and therefore can't be reported.
>
> Mr. Corddry's parody of journalists who believe they must be "balanced" even when the truth isn't balanced continues, alas, to ring true. The most recent example is the peculiar determination of some news organizations to cast the scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff as "bipartisan."
>
> Let's review who Mr. Abramoff is and what he did.
>
> Here's how a 2004 Washington Post article described Mr. Abramoff's background: "Abramoff's conservative-movement credentials date back more than two decades to his days as a national leader of the College Republicans." In the 1990's, reports the article, he found his "niche" as a lobbyist "with entree to the conservatives who were taking control of Congress. He enjoys a close bond with [Tom] DeLay."
>
> Mr. Abramoff hit the jackpot after Republicans took control of the White House as well as Congress. He persuaded several Indian tribes with gambling interests that they needed to pay vast sums for his services and those of Michael Scanlon, a former DeLay aide. From the same Washington Post article: "Under Abramoff's guidance, the four tribes ... have also become major political donors. They have loosened their traditional ties to the Democratic Party, giving Republicans two-thirds of the $2.9 million they have donated to federal candidates since 2001, records show."
>
> So Mr. Abramoff is a movement conservative whose lobbying career was based on his connections with other movement conservatives. His big coup was persuading gullible Indian tribes to hire him as an adviser; his advice was to give less money to Democrats and more to Republicans. There's nothing bipartisan about this tale, which is all about the use and abuse of Republican connections.
>
> Yet over the past few weeks a number of journalists, ranging from The Washington Post's ombudsman to the "Today" show's Katie Couric, have declared that

> Mr. Abramoff gave money to both parties. In each case the journalists or their news organization, when challenged, grudgingly conceded that Mr. Abramoff himself hasn't given a penny to Democrats. But in each case they claimed that this is only a technical point, because Mr. Abramoff's clients - those Indian tribes - gave money to Democrats as well as Republicans, money the news organizations say he "directed" to Democrats.

>
> But the tribes were already giving money to Democrats before Mr. Abramoff entered the picture; he persuaded them to reduce those Democratic donations, while giving much more money to Republicans. A study commissioned by The American Prospect shows that the tribes' donations to Democrats fell by 9 percent after they hired Mr. Abramoff, while their contributions to Republicans more than doubled.
> So in any normal sense of the word "directed," Mr. Abramoff directed funds away from Democrats, not toward them.
>
> True, some Democrats who received tribal donations before Mr. Abramoff's entrance continued to receive donations after his arrival. How, exactly, does this implicate them in Mr. Abramoff's machinations? Bear in mind that no Democrat has been indicted or is rumored to be facing indictment in the Abramoff scandal, nor has any Democrat been credibly accused of doing Mr. Abramoff questionable favors.
> There have been both bipartisan and purely Democratic scandals in the past. Based on everything we know so far, however, the Abramoff affair is a purely Republican scandal.
>
> Why does the insistence of some journalists on calling this one-party scandal bipartisan matter? For one thing, the public is led to believe that the Abramoff affair is just Washington business as usual, which it isn't. The scale of the scandals now coming to light, of which the Abramoff affair is just a part, dwarfs anything in living memory.
>
> More important, this kind of misreporting makes the public feel helpless. Voters who are told, falsely, that both parties were drawn into Mr. Abramoff's web are likely to become passive and shrug their shoulders instead of demanding reform.
> So the reluctance of some journalists to report facts that, in this case, happen to have an anti-Republican agenda is a serious matter. It's not a stretch to say that these journalists are acting as enablers for the rampant corruption that has emerged in Washington over the last decade.
>
>
> http://select.nytimes.com/2006/01/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=login&pagewanted=print
>
>
> HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS!!
>
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ImpeachBushNOW

ABRAMOFF DIRECTED INDIAN TRIBES TO DONATE TO REPUBLICANS, STUDY SHOWS:

[link:www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10924|report
on the study]

THIS STUDY SHOWS THAT ALL THIS CRAP THEY'VE BEEN SPREADING ON
CORPORATE NETWORKS THAT JUST AS MUCH WAS DONATED TO DEMOCRATS BY INDIAN
TRIBES IS BULL. THE STUDY CONCLUDED THAT:

[B] "the donations of Abramoff's tribal clients to Democrats
dropped by nine percent after they hired him, while their donations to
Republicans more than doubled, increasing by 135 percent after they
signed him up"[/B]

WE NEED TO TELL THE NETWORKS TO CORRECT THIS DISINFORMATION THEY HAVE
BEEN SPREADING. We must stand up and object to this disinformation
campaign. This is the kind of crap that leads to people voting against
their own interest.

[link:www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/media/|Congress.org/mediaguide]
has it set up to make it easy to send a email to congressmen AND
networks and local network affililiates. Google Congress.org, then
CLick on "Browse MEDIA GUIDE". This gives you three options.

Choose 2) Individual Search -- Editors, Reporters & Producers
[b] OR 3) Organization Search: Newspapers, TV, radio, etc..[/b]

choosing "Organization Search: Newspapers, TV, radio, etc" you can
enter NBC, CBS etc. and compose or paste in a previously composed
message.

IT's really easy and you will feel better afterward. People, there
is more to participating in democracy than just voting every four
years. Here is your chance to do more.

[b] HEre is a sample message for your consideration:[/b]

"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
I have heard a number of commentarians/talking heads/ (or insert
name) state or imply that Jack Abramoff, the Super Lobbyist
Republican-operative directed Indian tribes to give as much money to
Democrats in Congress as to Republicans. This assertion turns the
facts on their heads. A
[link:www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10924|study]
("www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10924")
performed by the Dwight L. Morris and Associates concludes that:

[div class="excerpt"][b] "the donations of Abramoff's tribal clients
to Democrats dropped by nine percent after they hired him, while their
donations to Republicans more than doubled, increasing by 135 percent
after they signed him up"

"five out of seven of Abramoff's tribal clients vastly favored
Republican candidates over Democratic ones;"

"four of the seven began giving substantially more to Republicans than
Democrats after he took them on;"

"Abramoff's clients gave well over twice as much to Republicans than
Democrats, while tribes not affiliated with Abramoff gave well over
twice as much to Democrats than the GOP -- exactly the reverse pattern
(that has been reported by the media)."[/b][/div]

The statements made by your reporters apparently were made without
their making any efforts to determine the facts of the matter. Any
responsible and legitimate news organization would apprise the public
of these FACTS so as to correct the completely erroneous impression
made by your organization's irresponsible reporting of this significant
development.

NOw that you have been made aware of the truth to this matter any
disinclination to correct the erroneous understanding of Abramoff's
activities craeted by your personnels statements would be tantamount to
complicity in promulgating willful disinformation.

Accordingly, I would expect you to correct this misapprehension of
this situation which your personnel helped to create.
"------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"

Now this is just a sample. I'm sure many will have other ideas. But
it is better to keep it 'short and sweet'. But it doesn't have to be
'great literature'. What is important is that something is sent and
seen. If they get a lot of e-mails it can make a difference. I believe
that.

[Walker]

NT wrote:
> January 30, 2006
> Op-Ed Columnist
> A False Balance
> By PAUL KRUGMAN
>
> "How does one report the facts," asked Rob Corddry on "The Daily Show," "when the facts themselves are biased?" He explained to Jon Stewart, who played straight man, that "facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda," and therefore can't be reported.
>
> Mr. Corddry's parody of journalists who believe they must be "balanced" even when the truth isn't balanced continues, alas, to ring true. The most recent example is the peculiar determination of some news organizations to cast the scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff as "bipartisan."
>
> Let's review who Mr. Abramoff is and what he did.
>
> Here's how a 2004 Washington Post article described Mr. Abramoff's background: "Abramoff's conservative-movement credentials date back more than two decades to his days as a national leader of the College Republicans." In the 1990's, reports the article, he found his "niche" as a lobbyist "with entree to the conservatives who were taking control of Congress. He enjoys a close bond with [Tom] DeLay."
>
> Mr. Abramoff hit the jackpot after Republicans took control of the White House as well as Congress. He persuaded several Indian tribes with gambling interests that they needed to pay vast sums for his services and those of Michael Scanlon, a former DeLay aide. From the same Washington Post article: "Under Abramoff's guidance, the four tribes ... have also become major political donors. They have loosened their traditional ties to the Democratic Party, giving Republicans two-thirds of the $2.9 million they have donated to federal candidates since 2001, records show."
>
> So Mr. Abramoff is a movement conservative whose lobbying career was based on his connections with other movement conservatives. His big coup was persuading gullible Indian tribes to hire him as an adviser; his advice was to give less money to Democrats and more to Republicans. There's nothing bipartisan about this tale, which is all about the use and abuse of Republican connections.
>
> Yet over the past few weeks a number of journalists, ranging from The Washington Post's ombudsman to the "Today" show's Katie Couric, have declared that

> Mr. Abramoff gave money to both parties. In each case the journalists or their news organization, when challenged, grudgingly conceded that Mr. Abramoff himself hasn't given a penny to Democrats. But in each case they claimed that this is only a technical point, because Mr. Abramoff's clients - those Indian tribes - gave money to Democrats as well as Republicans, money the news organizations say he "directed" to Democrats.

>
> But the tribes were already giving money to Democrats before Mr. Abramoff entered the picture; he persuaded them to reduce those Democratic donations, while giving much more money to Republicans. A study commissioned by The American Prospect shows that the tribes' donations to Democrats fell by 9 percent after they hired Mr. Abramoff, while their contributions to Republicans more than doubled.
> So in any normal sense of the word "directed," Mr. Abramoff directed funds away from Democrats, not toward them.
>
> True, some Democrats who received tribal donations before Mr. Abramoff's entrance continued to receive donations after his arrival. How, exactly, does this implicate them in Mr. Abramoff's machinations? Bear in mind that no Democrat has been indicted or is rumored to be facing indictment in the Abramoff scandal, nor has any Democrat been credibly accused of doing Mr. Abramoff questionable favors.
> There have been both bipartisan and purely Democratic scandals in the past. Based on everything we know so far, however, the Abramoff affair is a purely Republican scandal.
>
> Why does the insistence of some journalists on calling this one-party scandal bipartisan matter? For one thing, the public is led to believe that the Abramoff affair is just Washington business as usual, which it isn't. The scale of the scandals now coming to light, of which the Abramoff affair is just a part, dwarfs anything in living memory.
>
> More important, this kind of misreporting makes the public feel helpless. Voters who are told, falsely, that both parties were drawn into Mr. Abramoff's web are likely to become passive and shrug their shoulders instead of demanding reform.
> So the reluctance of some journalists to report facts that, in this case, happen to have an anti-Republican agenda is a serious matter. It's not a stretch to say that these journalists are acting as enablers for the rampant corruption that has emerged in Washington over the last decade.
>
>
> http://select.nytimes.com/2006/01/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=login&pagewanted=print
>
>
> HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS!!
>
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ImpeachBushNOW

ABRAMOFF DIRECTED INDIAN TRIBES TO DONATE TO REPUBLICANS, STUDY SHOWS:

[NT]

Yes - the Bush-MSM believes that Facts should be "balanced"

with equal time for Repubs and Dems - to hell with the Truth.

But Truth has a way of rising to the surface - like Bush's

Top Man at the OMB on a Friday last Sept -- handcuffed and arrested

om Mon. for his involvement in the Abramoff scandal.  That makes

2 White House employees - very close to Bush --indicted in 3 months ---

and the damn thing is just beginning.

[Ladyof...@aol.com]

You see no problem with Abramoff giving money to Democrats? I see a problem with him giving money to republicans,so I don't think any politicians should get away with it. Apparently, if it's your "party", then there's no problem with corruption and lobbyists paying off your politicans, so they work for the lobbyists and not the American people.  I call it a bipartisan lobbyist problem.  Krugman is a pundit, which makes him partisan(like we don't know that already), since he contradicts what the Washington Post declared.  Since I'm not a PAID PUNDIT such as him, as an American citizen, I don't appreciate lobbyists of both sides of the political spectrum, paying off politicians to accomplish the goals of the lobbyists, and making legislation that isn't in the American people's best interest.  The only lobbyist group that obeys the U.S. Constitution and works for the American people is the NRA, IMHO. 

[NT]

FYI - I'm not condoning anyone taking Abramoff funds.  And as I've stated

before - let the chips fall where they may.  However, in this case -

the Republicans are the only ones to receive Abramoff donations.

In the case of the tribes - Dems and Repubs received donations from them

LEGALLY before Abramoff arrived.  His goal was to steer them from donating to Dems. 

The Washington Post CORRECTED their misinformation!

[Ladyof...@aol.com]

My complaint wasn't toward you, it was toward Krugman, sorry.  He seems to not have a problem with Abramoff giving money to Democrats, even if he "steered it away" from them.  It doesn't negate the fact that money was, in fact, given to them.  I've called Abramoff a trojan horse before, it opened up a lot of questions, one being how much influence do lobbyists have on politicians.  I really don't know much about lobbyists, being that there are so many of them, it concludes special interests.  I know it was Senator McCain that held a serious problem with stuff like that in the Senate.