choice Abramoff tidbits
1. A complete list of Jack Abramoff's political donations, to the tune of $261,918. You'll note, no Democrats on that list. Point anybody who talking points "Dems are involved too!" to that link.
2. According to Americablog, Chris Matthews, Tony Snow, and Britt Hume were all involved in fundraising for one of Abramoff's fake "charities" that funnelled money to pro-GOP causes. Now, I know good people get duped by phoney or shady charities too. But it's hard to give them much of the benefit of the doubt when it seems they willingly joined in a mendacious scheme to raise money for the Republican machine. These guys are sometimes granted the title of "journalists"... how can we expect any objectivity when they're in bed with the power-brokers they're supposed to be watch-dogging? And of course none of them will mention this publically, all the while they spin whatever the talking point for the scandal is for the day.
I'm curious what the talking point can be today, though, when...
3. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Abramoff has the goods on sixty (yes, 6-0) lawmakers. Now, I don't want to pull a CNN and buy that number without question... Abramoff may be exaggerating, the WSJ may be hyping the story (that liberal rag), and the info may not lead to criminal charges in most cases. But even if the figure is off by a factor of ten, that's still huge.
I feel some unseemly gloating coming on.
ETA (6:02 pm EST): [background on the K Street Project of which Abramoff was a part] And, more on the bullshittery of the press: The AP is parroting false White House talking points:
The Democratic National Committee called the situation the latest installment of a Republican "culture of corruption." That notion was disputed by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who denounced Abramoff's activities as "outrageous" and noted that the lobbyist and his clients contributed to both parties.
"Noted"? No, I think the word you want there is "claimed", or perhaps "asserted". Those who might use "lied" would not be out of bounds, because when you say, "Abramoff and his clients gave to both parties," the strong implication is that Abramoff gave to both parties. Otherwise, you'd just say, "Abramoff's clients gave to both parties." Such sophistry strains the bounds of honesty. And then, and then! They follow it up with a quote from someone from the American Enterprise Institute.
That may be so, said Norman Ornstein, a political analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, "but it will disproportionately affect Republicans. They are the majority party and because Abramoff is a conservative Republican."
Sounds like he's coming down against the Republicans, right? Except for two tiny details: one, The American Enterprise Institute is a right-wing think tank, "one of the leading architects of the Bush administration's public policy"; and two, it is NOT so, and no impartial and well-informed observer would say it was.
Shame on the AP. I think I may send a cranky email. It's pressure from the right that pushes them in the direction of court stenographers. Even if it does no immediate good, it's important to push back. If you'd like to join me, the address is feedback@ap.org.
2. According to Americablog, Chris Matthews, Tony Snow, and Britt Hume were all involved in fundraising for one of Abramoff's fake "charities" that funnelled money to pro-GOP causes. Now, I know good people get duped by phoney or shady charities too. But it's hard to give them much of the benefit of the doubt when it seems they willingly joined in a mendacious scheme to raise money for the Republican machine. These guys are sometimes granted the title of "journalists"... how can we expect any objectivity when they're in bed with the power-brokers they're supposed to be watch-dogging? And of course none of them will mention this publically, all the while they spin whatever the talking point for the scandal is for the day.
I'm curious what the talking point can be today, though, when...
3. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Abramoff has the goods on sixty (yes, 6-0) lawmakers. Now, I don't want to pull a CNN and buy that number without question... Abramoff may be exaggerating, the WSJ may be hyping the story (that liberal rag), and the info may not lead to criminal charges in most cases. But even if the figure is off by a factor of ten, that's still huge.
I feel some unseemly gloating coming on.
ETA (6:02 pm EST): [background on the K Street Project of which Abramoff was a part] And, more on the bullshittery of the press: The AP is parroting false White House talking points:
The Democratic National Committee called the situation the latest installment of a Republican "culture of corruption." That notion was disputed by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who denounced Abramoff's activities as "outrageous" and noted that the lobbyist and his clients contributed to both parties.
"Noted"? No, I think the word you want there is "claimed", or perhaps "asserted". Those who might use "lied" would not be out of bounds, because when you say, "Abramoff and his clients gave to both parties," the strong implication is that Abramoff gave to both parties. Otherwise, you'd just say, "Abramoff's clients gave to both parties." Such sophistry strains the bounds of honesty. And then, and then! They follow it up with a quote from someone from the American Enterprise Institute.
That may be so, said Norman Ornstein, a political analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, "but it will disproportionately affect Republicans. They are the majority party and because Abramoff is a conservative Republican."
Sounds like he's coming down against the Republicans, right? Except for two tiny details: one, The American Enterprise Institute is a right-wing think tank, "one of the leading architects of the Bush administration's public policy"; and two, it is NOT so, and no impartial and well-informed observer would say it was.
Shame on the AP. I think I may send a cranky email. It's pressure from the right that pushes them in the direction of court stenographers. Even if it does no immediate good, it's important to push back. If you'd like to join me, the address is feedback@ap.org.