« Al Queda Comparisons | Main | Welcome Echo Chamber »


January 21, 2006

Bipartisan Scandal? (With Update)

-- by Dave Johnson

At Political Animal...

Some math ... then,

So: Indian tribes usually give most of their money to Democrats, while Abramoff clients — and only Abramoff clients — give most of their money to Republicans. Coincidence? I think not.

Surely some enterprising reporter could do this kind of simple analysis for all of Abramoff's tribal clients?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_atrios_archive.html#113802490296040969

Update - Thanks to Atrios, this at TPM Cafe, One More Look at the Washington Post Clown Show...,

Washington Post reporter Susan Schimdt, February 22, 2004: "Under Abramoff's guidance, the four tribes -- Michigan's Saginaw Chippewas, the Agua Caliente of California, the Mississippi Choctaws and the Louisiana Coushattas... 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..."

And the late David Rosenbaum, New York Times reporter, April 3, 2002, page A1: "Mr. Abramoff says he represents only those [clients] who stand for conservative principles.... ''All of my political work,'' he said, ''is driven by philosophical interests, not by a desire to gain wealth.''...

So the Post's reporters have printed the facts, and management ignores those facts and spreads the lie that the Abramoff scandal involved Democrats as well as Repubicans and therefore "they all do it" which is a strategic narrative leading to the conclusion "don't bother to vote." It look smore and more like the self-described "Leninist" conservative movement has infiltrated the Washington Post now.

Posted by Dave Johnson at January 21, 2006 10:31 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.fcgi/1417


Comments

Here's another tidbit. According to some investigation done by Bloombergs, the indians that Abramoff bilked began to give less money to Democrats than they had prior to hiring Abramoff. If Abramoff was actually responsible for "directing" their contributions, it was to give less to Democrats.

But please don't lose sight of the goal. Any lobbyist worth their salt would recommend political contributions, so at least their client's calls were returned. It sucks, but it's totally legal.

The Abramoff scandal has nothing to do with who he directed his rubes to send contributions to. It's about money laundering through bogus charities to Republicans; it's about illegal gifts like carte blanche at an upscale resturaunt, free Superbowl vacations, and golf outtings to Saint Andrews; and finally about quid pro quo, or essentially bribing Republicans.

Don't let the GOP dictate the terms of the debate.

Posted by: Dick Tuck at January 22, 2006 4:05 AM


The fascist Bush & Co . media is still trying sooo " Desperately " to involve Democrats ! ... STILL !

THANK -GOD FOR BLOGS ! I am done with the useless and worthless Bush & co . media !

It should have dawned on me when I had to hear about Bill Clinton's BJ 24/7 that the news was not the NEWS -

Posted by: Susan Easley at January 22, 2006 8:49 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?



Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Return to main page