BREAKING: WAPO OMBUDSMAN TRIES TO CLEAR UP HER SHODDY REPORTING

[Halliburton]

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/2006/01/deborah_howell_.html

I've heard from lots of angry readers about the remark in my column Sunday that lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to both parties. A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff "directed" contributions to both parties.

Lobbyists, seeking influence in Congress, often advise clients on campaign contributions. While Abramoff, a Republican, gave personal contributions only to Republicans, he directed his Indian tribal clients to make millions of dollars in campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.

Records from the Federal Elections Commission and the Center for Public Integrity show that Abramoff’s Indian clients contributed between 1999 and 2004 to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats. The Post has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with specific directions on what members of Congress were to receive specific amounts.

One of those lists can be viewed in this online graphic, while a graphical summary of giving by Abramoff, his tribal clients and associated lobbyists can be viewed here. The latest developments in the Abramoff investigation are available in this Special Report.

:wow:

[EFerrari]

1. She's still running with the Thug spin which is silly on its face.

On edit: On the other hand, I may just have a bad 'tude. :)

[wryter2000]

2. Hmmm

The first evidence he told tribes to contribute to Dems (if it holds up). I'd say 195 to 88 is hardly balanced. It would be interesting to see what the dollar amounts are.

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. Keep back paddling

What a _itch. Well at least we know where she's coming from. No wonder she doesn't want to respond to angry readers any more.

[ClintonTyree]

4. She still doesn't have the common decency to apologize....

one hasty mention that Abramoff never gave Democrats a dime an then back to her non-stop bullshit about him "directing" money from his clients to Democrats and other meaningless shit.

This woman obviously has no shame and is a bush administration apologist. Fucking douche-bag. :mad:

[glitch]

11. I would certainly like to see her back up HER claim that the tribes'

donations to Dems were directed by Abramoff. Saying it just don't make it so.

What a blatant skank, her words are just insulting. Along the level of Adam Nagourney or Susan Schmidt or Elisabeth Bumiller or Judy Miller - sense where I am going with this?

[Sydnie]

5. Was she in Abramoff's pocket the whole time?

Does she have one ounce of evidence that he directed these tribes/groups to give money to one single Dem? If she has such evidence she needs to produce it or step off. A graphic that they created doesn't prove anything. We could (and should probably) create our own graphic to show just where Abramoff directed the money ... and it wasn't to a Dem. That would have shown weakness. It would have shown that he couldn't move and shake as well as he claimed he could if they needed to be instructed by him to hedge their bets by giving Dems money.

I call BULLSHIT!

[ewagner]

9. She says the Post

has the letters from Abramoff to the tribes....

She bloody well better produce it!

[displacedtexan]

6. Actually, tribal donations to Dems DECREASED after Abramoff...

started handling the tribal donations.

I will post facts and links in tomorrow's DU Blog Box column.

[Tactical Progressive]

23. That would be some good info

Maybe put it out here in GD as well.

[displacedtexan]

37. Here's the text from tomorrow's DU Blog Box...

When Republicans try to bundle Abramoff with legitimate lobbyists (educators, disability rights groups, Indian tribes, and homeless advocates), they can cry Reform! and further destroy the ability of legitimate lobbyists to gain access to elected officials. Two birds, one stone. Upper Arlington Progressive Action (UAPA) debunks the Abramoff/Indian tribes crap that major media conglomerates are still peddling daily. In fact, UAPA notes that the tribes always donated to Dems, but their donations to Dems actually decreased after they hired Abramoff.

Also hot on the "Abramoff Is A Bipartisan Crook" debunking trail is Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo tome post, Summa Abramoffica:

More generally, I think you'll see over the course of the next year that these federal 'hard' money contributions - either from Abramoff or his clients - aren't where the real game was being played. The real action was in money funnelled (sic) or laundered through various DC-based non-profits or de facto cash payments to members of Congress or their staffs.

And color me a new fan of Taylor Marsh (The Antidote To Right-Wing Talk):

Because since Abramoff is involved with Grover Nordquist (sic) and Ralph Reed & Co., with Scanlon, Ney and Tom Delay, you can be sure Bush-Cheney re-elect is not far behind. After all, these guys weren't meeting just to elect House members. They wanted the whole shebang, and baby, they got it, so I hope they get it.

As Kenneth Branagh whispered in Dead Again, "This is far from over."

Links:
http://www.uaprogressiveaction.com/archives/2006/01/why_does_the_me.html
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007441.php
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=1720

[Kalisiin]

24. Yeah...Because Abramoff Probably DIRECTED His Clients To Give LESS

than they had, in previous years, to Democrats.

So, DIRECTING CUTBACKS to Dems. campaign contributions is "Abramoff directing money to Democrats" Oh, fucking please...you might as well say the tax cuts given to the wealthy were, in fact, tax increases!!

Jesus Fucking H. Christ, these right-wing media whores are DETERMINED to tar and feather the Dems with the same vigor as they are unwillingly being forced to do so to Repugs...but they are EAGRLY doing it to Dems, and very reluctantly doing it to Repugs. Liberal Media my aching ass!!

[marylanddem]

7. This is still totally misleading! Abramoff may have "suggested"

that Native Americans contribute to one or other congressman, democrat or republican. This does not mean they followed his recommendations because he made them. "Directing" contributions my ass. The ombudswoman is scrambling. AND the supposed images supplied with this "retraction" don't prove anything, they don't do what she says they do - prove that he told them to give specific amounts to specific congressmen. They are as much bullshit as her column. She is furiously backpedaling, it's absurd.

[papau]

15. My read also. :-( The ombudswoman is scrambling.to hide her bias and

her following GOP written handouts.

[Dhalgren]

18. No, not "scrambling"; she is lying. Pure and simple, lying.

If her "graphs" and "numbers" are at all misleading (and they are), we have to assume that they are intentionally misleading; therefore, lying...

[JAbuchan08]

8. Apparently they're no longer taking comments on this blog

fire her.

[papau]

10. Tribes that always gave to Dems gave to Dems during Abramoff also

Indeed this stupid photo the GOP gave the post indicates Burns (R) getting $25,000 while the Dems got one and two thousand only.

She claims Abramoff directed "millions to Dems" - but I guarantee she does not have the lists that this photo was part of and can therefore not add up the Abramoff requested money so as to compare to the total tribe giving to Dems.

Of course the GOP loving Wash Post never admits its bias - even when caught like it is now.

[0rganism]

12. Doesnt mention tribes' contribs to Dems DROPPED under Abramoff's direction

Let's just wait & see how the indictments pan out, shall we?

[gratuitous]

13. So is the Post now saying they have evidence?

Is the Post claiming that they have evidence that Abramoff directed (their word) his clients to contribute to Democrats? Letters, phone recordings, emails, stuff like that? That's the sense I get from that second paragraph: Abramoff "directed his Indian tribal clients to make millions of dollars in campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties." What is the Post's substantiation for this bald, unequivocal allegation? And will they be turning over whatever evidence they have to the proper authorities?

[glitch]

17. Because if they do they'd certainly better provide. Their words are DIRT

until they do.

[jsamuel]

21. exactly my question... that is an awesome statement to make without

substantiation...

[Synnical]

14. Graphic

Puh-leeze!

[marylanddem]

20. Right! This graphic is b.s., doesn't prove anything.

For instance, the only thing linking the list to the Coushatta tribe is the little ripped-out word "Coushatta" - wonder who contrived this "proof" ?

[myrna minx]

34. As if this little graphic lends her any credibility?

For crying out loud. *I* could have typed that up. What a toadie.

[frylock]

40. note the figure of 20000 at the bottom of the list..

under Tom Daschle. Kinda looks like it was redacted with white-out. Guess they didn't want us seeing DeLay's name listed.

[chat_noir]

16. Wow! She is really getting nailed on that blog.

:evilgrin:

[blm]

19. Tribe money wasn't DIRTY until Abramoff used it to bribe his pet Repubs.

.

[baldguy]

22. GOPers got got money from Abramoff. Dems got money from his VICTIMS.

[cybildisobedience]

29. THAT's the talking point!!!

Why don't Dems get it -- Repukes got money from the sleazy crook, Dems got money from the victims.

It's so easy that a mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging FOX watcher could get it.

[Stephanie]

25. What utter bullshit

If you have the lists, show us ALL of the lists, not just the first five names. And what does this prove? Here are the names and amounts listed in her "graphic" that Abramoff supposedly was directing from the Coushattas:


Burns, Conrad 25000
Callahan, Sonny 1000
Campbell, Ben 1000
Carnahan, Jean 2000
Chambliss, Saxby 1000
Cleland, Max 2000
Cochran, Thad 2000
Crane, Phil 5000
CREA 100000
Daschle, Thomas (amount illegible)
(Name Cut OFF) 20,000 (5000 hard/15,000 soft) DeLay's leadership PAC

[Roland99]

26. She Has Transcripts of Meetings Proving This???

Sounds like some libel, to me.

[democrat_patriot]

27. Abramoff worked for the tribes - not the other way around.

Dems recieved from tribes, not Abramoff.

[Oreo]

28. She was getting hammered in the comments

So what better for them to do but delete them all. There were at least 100 comments and now they're gone.

Link is now Email a comment
Deborah Howell Responds

I've heard from lots of angry readers about the remark in my column Sunday that lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to both parties. A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff "directed" contributions to both parties. Lobbyists,...

By washingtonpost.com | January 19, 2006; 11:30 AM ET | Email a Comment

as opposed to all the other posts that are like this:
By wpnieditor | December 12, 2005; 06:02 PM ET | Comments (980)

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

30. Skinner got 'em!!!!!

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=185787&mesg_id=185787

[Oreo]

32. Cool.. thanks

[Oreo]

31. Announcement of comments being turned off indefinitely

I guess they couldn't take a little criticism

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/2006/01/shutting_off_co.html
Comments Turned Off

As of 4:15pm ET today, we have shut off comments on this blog indefinitely.

At its inception, the purpose of this blog was to open a dialogue about this site, the events of the day, the journalism of The Washington Post Company and other related issues. Among the things that we knew would be part of that discussion would be the news and opinion coming from the pages of The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com. We knew a lot of that discussion would be critical in nature. And we were fine with that. Great journalism companies need feedback from readers to stay sharp.

But there are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech. Because a significant number of folks who have posted in this blog have refused to follow any of those relatively simple rules, we've decided not to allow comments for the time being. It's a shame that it's come to this. Transparency and reasoned debate are crucial parts of the Web culture, and it's a disappointment to us that we have not been able to maintain a civil conversation, especially about issues that people feel strongly (and differently) about.

We're not giving up on the concept of having a healthy public dialogue with our readers, but this experience shows that we need to think more carefully about how we do it. Any thoughtful feedback on that (or any other issue) is welcome, and you can send it to [e-mail].

Thanks,
Jim Brady
Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com

[Robb]

33. "Great journalism companies need feedback from readers to stay sharp"

I wonder who he was talking about. :eyes:

[jsamuel]

36. my response

I understand. However, you must realize that when one of your reporters makes a statement like - “he directed his Indian tribal clients to make millions of dollars in campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties” - and doesn’t source it, it is going to cause some serious feedback that no one would want on ABC Family. There is a level of professionalism that was absent from the information the reporter gave and that same absence of professionalism was reflected right back in the blogs. I suggest you find a way to resolve the non-sourcing issue with this reporter and post it on the website as well. I am sure that the blog respondents will be much more professional when your reporter’s comments are.

[Tactical Progressive]

38. They could have a moderator remove personal attacks

and profanity. Actually, the profanity could be screened out mostly by software if they wanted.

I think what they probably didn't want was to hear about themselves, and the personal attacks and profanity-laced comments they received were just an excuse to do away with all of it.

The Washington Post has been outed as just another journalistic whorehouse for right-wing establishment ideology for some time now; a perspective daily gaining credence with progressives long-swayed by memories of the WaPo bringing down Richard Nixon. But that star is now thirty years faded, and with Woodward himself seen as little more than a shill for the establishment right it is tarnished in addition to faded. Watergate is looking more and more like a solitary aberration for the Washington Post - two young and idealistic reporters following intrigue that led their paper to a place it wouldn't even bother to seek out in this new age of corrupted political journalism.

If the Washington Post, or the entire Washington establishment they represent for that matter, were half as tough on Republicans as it is on Democrats, impeachment talk would have started floating around in print on 9/12/01.

[madrchsod]

35. this is an exclusive photo of her leaving the post yesterday

yes, it`s the tried and true-"talk to the hand" but i guess it didn`t work all that well for her.

[Javaman]

39. Needless to say, that logic makes absolutely no sense....

So according to her and her desperate back peddling, abramoff told the American Indians to give money to his rivals legally while he gave money to his constituents illegally...

Yeah, that reallllly clears up everything.

What a colossal fuckwit.

Can someone fire her already?