WP ombudsman's column (re Abramoff) was "inartfully worded," says Kurtz

[Newsjock]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/01/10/DI2006011000885.html?nav=left

From Howard Kurtz's chat transcript:

Fort Washington, Md.: Reporter Sue Schmidt and ombudsman Deborah Howell have both asserted repeatedly that Jack Abramoff gave money to Democrats as well as Republicans. The FEC shows no record of any Democrat getting any money from Abramoff, period. Some Indian tribes who were among Abramoff's victims contributed funds to some Democrats, but suggesting that that somehow is a donation from Abramoff defies logic. How does the Post justify passing on what appears to be nothing but GOP spin as fact?

Howard Kurtz: Howell's column Sunday said that a number of Democrats "have gotten Abramoff campaign money." That was inartfully worded. I believe what she was trying to say, and I have not discussed this with her, is that some Democrats have received campaign cash from Abramoff clients, and that this may have been orchestrated by the convicted lobbyist. That's why you have a number of Democrats (as well as many Republicans, now including Denny Hastert) giving back the tainted dough or donating it to charity. Even National Review Editor Rich Lowry says this is basically a Republican scandal -- we are talking about a Bush fundraiser and Tom DeLay pal -- but where the tangled web has extended to Democrats, we need to mention that too.

[aquart]

1. Still lying. Still trying.

[MrModerate]

2. New WaPo Ombudsman sucks massively . . .

Seems totally focused on covering selected WaPo asses and utterly disinterested in working with WaPo's constituency (which I define as both dead-tree and electronic subscribers -- as I am).

[farmbo]

3. Just what is it about "no Democrats" that she can't understand?

"Inartfully worded"? Is that the new Kurtzian euphemism for "vomiting vicious lies to cover Bush's sorry ass".