Washington Post Blog cutoff story made CNN!

[Coexist]

short, not much info - but it made it.

[mom cat]

1. Good...WaPo is really looking stupid.

[stop the bleeding]

2. Looking???? - they are stupid (CNN and WAPO and NYT) n/t

[mom cat]

43. Remind me again why we can use them as sources and not some more

independant sources.

[MakeItSo]

3. What exactly did Howell say that was incorrect??

Looks to me like lots of Democrats accepted money from the Indian casinos that Abramoff represented.

The reason they took in less than the Republicans is that they don't have leadership positions, so are worth less to the lobbiests.

I have no doubt that the Republican leadership, along with the Bush Adminstration, is criminal in nature.

But when it comes to the lobbiests and the way things operate in our country today, I've seen no significant difference between the parties. They all pretty much play the game of accepting money from groups to fund their campaigns.

[SPKrazy]

4. oh boy

:popcorn:

[stop the bleeding]

9. I'm laughing right now at your response

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Maybe they don't know who Howard Dean or Wolf Blitzer is?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WCGreen]

6. The thing is the Tribes did not increase their contributions

to Dem's after Abramoff... They always favored the Dem's over republicans... What is significant about the contributions from the tribes is that the GOP was getting money at all...

That is the lazy part about this reporting....

[MakeItSo]

12. But that's because the GOP has more power, isn't it?

If you were going to pay for influence, wouldn't you go right to the top?

Does anyone here honestly believe that Democrats don't rely on PAC money just as much as Republicans?

The system is BROKEN.

[stop the bleeding]

15. Please you just wasted your own argument

If you were going to pay for influence, wouldn't you go right to the top?

With that logic then why did the DEMS get any $$ at all - after all they are NOT at the top - right??:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[Lerkfish]

20. in fairness, its really hard to debate if you must juggle so many

contradictory republican talking points.

talking points don't do well when you place them side by side.

since the sheeple can only hold one thought at a time, the talking points never bump into each other in their heads.

not that I'm saying this poster is a sheeple. I'm speaking in generalities.

[stop the bleeding]

24. this is fun, I love talking points - Pray for me I am surrounded by

sheeple and have to debunk talking points everyday.:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[MakeItSo]

40. Democrats accept PAC money

Corruption is bad. Delay, Cheney etc. are among the most corrupt political figures ever to plague this nation. My opinion, though, is that THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE SYSTEM is fundamentally flawed.

I liked Bill Clinton. I voted for Bill Clinton twice. But under Clinton, the SUV was declared exempt from the same fuel consumption regulations that automobiles must follow.

Do you think this was just a random accident.

I fear that the Internet is encouraging people to go down their own personalized wormholes, warm lil' cocoons where people who agree are welcome, and those who do not find their own wormholes.

Have you ever noticed how less nasty those "evil conservatives" seem when you talk to them in person?

[stop the bleeding]

42. I am surrounded by sheeple every day even have several friends

who are sheeple. I pound them every day with facts and truths, however I don't see my friends as "evil", in denial and delusional - YES.

Have you ever noticed how less nasty those "evil conservatives" seem when you talk to them in person?

[Lerkfish]

16. do you even know about "K street"?

if not, fasten your safety belt, you're in for a bumpy ride.

when the abramoff deal unfolds, its really gonna suck for ya.

[Coexist]

23. Here, I'll help! Your report is due Monday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010301536.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0307.confessore.html

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/13/16918/4682

[MakeItSo]

36. Oh I get it, Democrats are the opposite of Republicans

If Republicans are bad, then Democrats must be holy and decent and GOOD.

I am a registered Democrat. That said, I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two parties at this stage of the game.

Your Democratic "leadership" green-lighted Bush's War, his Patriot Act, and let his irresponsible tax cuts slide.

Maybe I'm done with Democratic Underground. Or is it Democrat Underground. I'm certainly not going over to Free Republic.

I wish there was a place on the web dedicated to something other than dividing the world into two simplistic camps.

[mtnester]

38. Circular tracks back to FR are the same as direct ones..n/t

[Coexist]

39. The Democratic party has enough problems without

people assigning undeserved ones to them. Get it? If you read this board - or my posts - you will see I have several issues with party leaders, but this scandal isn't ours and I don't want it tied to us.

Peace.

[Catrina]

47. But the issue here is not 'political corruption' or the 'corrupt system'

If you want to have that debate, it's a valid debate, and badly needed.

But you're mixing it up with a particular crime. Or I should say, mulitiple crimes, the extent of which is not yet fully known, spreading across the globe to China, Israel, Britain, Russia.

It involves murder, forging of documents, theft, deception of 'clients' to steal their money ~ it involves violating even the questionable Campaign Laws currently in place, because even if as you say, they are not tough enough, even they were TOO TOUGH for the machinations of these criminals.

It involves payoffs to protect the opperation of criminal sweatshops in the Mariana Islands, and blocking Democratic legislation to protect men, women and children being exploited there ~ and it involves the Fundamentalist rightwing religious 'wackos' (Abramoff and Scanlons term, not mine), being bought and paid for through Ralph Reed, choir boy moralist currently running for office.

It involves, possible, 9/11 hijackers (not hyperbole, the FBI is currently investigating this) travelling on Abramoff's Suncruz gambling Casinos off the coast of Florida. This extends beyond the borders of the US. Come back in a year and tell us this is 'just business as usual'.

There's more, too much to post here, but never before has there been anything like this. So your attempt to equate this to anything we are accustomed to, will get a reaction from those who are familiar with the scandals ~

And calling them criminals is not hyperbole. Several of them have already been CONVICTED and guess what, all of the Convicted are Republicans.

Several others are about to be indicted, and again, guess what, all of them are also Republicans

Even more are currently under investigation, and they too are Republicans

You mention some controversial legislation by Clinton? I would agree, and so would others here, that legislation by both parties, is often for the benefit of corportations. There's no argument there.

But you are mixing CRIME, outright, serious crime, involving even Mafia figures, with something else altogether.

It's obvious that you have not followed this story ~ and I'm not criticizing you, just warning you that when you do eventually hear the facts, you will begin to see why people in DC are so terrified now of having their names associated with Abramoff. The man was a first rate criminal. He as not just a politician using the system to satisfy corporations, which is par for the course in DC.

There simply is nothing in recent history to compare to this.

[MakeItSo]

48. You're right about all of that, and I agree

I personally think the guys in power now are fascists, that they had a hand in 9/11, that they used it as a pretext to an illegal war.

I hope and pray that Fitzgerald can uncover all the crimes they have committed.


That said (aside from just a few) WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRATS ON ALL OF THIS?

If we want to create an new party and call it the Democratic party, that's fine. But the status quo doesn't work for me.

Rolling over and playing dead isn't my idea of a smart strategy.

[Strelnikov_]

49. No, It's 'Democratic' Underground. 'Democrat' Is A Luntz Construct

A product of Reich-Wing propaganda.

Thanks for asking.

[MakeItSo]

52. democratic means open to a range of opinions

My point is that this is a partisan website (i.e. Democrat) because time and time again anyone who says anything remotely critical of Democrats is blasted as a "Freeper." If it were truly a "democratic" website, people of varying viewpoints would be able to discuss ideas out in the open in a democratic manner.

I am a registered Democrat, by the way. But if I had my druthers I'd replace all of Congress with people randomly chosen out of telephone books and I think we'd all be the better for it.

And that includes the Democrats (except Conyers and McKinney and maybe a few others).

[Strelnikov_]

53. " . . Anyone Who Says Anything Remotely Critical Of Democrats . ."

So the innumerable posts concerning how numerous Democratic politicians are corporatist sellouts and only concerned with re-election, which are generally greeted with affirmation, are all a ruse?

You asked what Ms. Howell said was inaccurate, and numerous responses were posted that accurately answered your question.

You then drop back into the 'everyone does it' 'corruption is bipartisan' Right-Wing meme. Numerous responses were posted that while most here are not happy with lobbying, they accurately pointed out that since the Right-Wing takeover in 95, it has been a whole new ball game regarding primarily GOP corruption (K Street project, etc.).

What more can anyone here say? I suspect nothing.

[MakeItSo]

55. putting words in peoples' mouths, another common occurence here

I've also noticed a pattern here of people putting words in my mouth that I do not say as a sort of debate tactic. I never said Dems and Republicans are breaking laws in equal measure. They aren't. But a system that allows lawmakers to take wads of money from corporate interests and then spend that money on unlimited TV advertising to win elections is itself corrupt.

You can put Abramoff and Bush and Delay and all the rest in prison and the next day the same corrupt system will remain in place.

[Strelnikov_]

58. "Democrats Accept PAC money . . Corruption Is Bad"

If you were going to pay for influence, wouldn't you go right to the top? Does anyone here honestly believe that Democrats don't rely on PAC money just as much as Republicans?

But when it comes to the lobbiests and the way things operate in our country today, I've seen no significant difference between the parties. They all pretty much play the game of accepting money from groups to fund their campaigns.

Your words.

Around and around and around it goes . . .

[WCGreen]

37. It's not that....

It's that they only went to Abramoff to cut this specific deal which was onorous by any stretch of the immagination...

[Catrina]

46. Howell repeated the two lies from the RNC talking points memo

The first they knew would be debunked fairly quickly because there is a record of lobbyist donations available for all to see.

However, they KNOW that the lie will get out there to enough people before it is debunked and then, when it is, they follow up with the second lie.

Lie #1 (debunked but still published by Howell which started the firestorm) 'Democrats took money from Abramoff'!

When challenged on that, as expected, but the value of repeating the lie, is well researched by, well, by the Nazi and other totalitarian regimes, Howell, like clockwork went to:

Lie #2 ~ this is the one you inadvertently supported, as expected. This is the more complicated lie, and the more difficult to debunk, as your post shows.

Notice that she did not allege that 'taking money from Abramoff's clients' was illegal. However, most people will THINK that is the allegation. She couldn't do that, because it was not illegal.

However, buried in her sly 'implication' which if challenged, she can always do as you just did, turn to 'I didn't SAY it was illegal, I merely pointed out that it's sort of hypocritical for Dems to act as though they never received Abramoff money, when they did receive money from his clients'.

This is the REAL lie. And it is a RACIST lie to boot. The 'clients' this talking point is referring to are the Indian Tribes.

Can you explain to me, how the Tribes giving money to Democrats = Democrats getting Abramoff money?

Did you even think of this when you veered off (I'm not criticizing, just pointing out the success of their strategy) into a discussion on the evils of lobbying, which is a whole other debate, but that is what they WANTED you to do.

Had you and everyone else asked the pertinent question, instead of being distracted by a different issue, you would have noticed the outright lie she told.

The answer is, the Indian Tribes gave THEIR OWN money to both Democrats and Republicans who they felt represented their interests (important, any Dem or Repub who accepted that money did so LEGALLY, under the existing law) And THAT MONEY WAS THEIRS. Abramoff TOOK money from the tribes, he did not GIVE IT THEM. This is what started the whole Abramoff investigation. He was stealing from and cheating the tribes.

Secondly, and even more importantly, Abramoff encouraged the tribes to donate the money they usually gave to Dems, to Republicans, assuring them it was in their best interests. As a lobbyist, this too was legal. And they listened, and as a result rather than GETTING MONEY, even NON Abramoff money, Dems received LESS money from the tribes than they had in the past.

So, lie #2 as told by Howell ~ 'Democrats received money from Abramoff's clients' while not an outright lie, IMPLIES that the tribes were giving Dems Abramoff money, and that the tribes were somehow complicit in Abramoff's crimes, when in fact they were the victims of his crimes.

Abramoff had clients other than the tribes, btw, who also donated to Dems, but it is the Tribes the racist Republicans mention each time they push this 'implied' allegation that there was something wrong with the tribes donations, when in fact there was NOT.

Having said all of that, what you wanted to do was talk about the system of lobbying. That is a whole other matter, separate from the Abramoff affairs, but you see how you fell for the strategy and continued to 'imply' that there was something suspicious about Dems taking donations from 'Abramoff's clients' when in fact there was nothing illegal (a questionable system maybe, but NOT illegal under current laws) at all about it. NOR WAS IT ABRAMOFF MONEY.

Howell has not explained why she so expertly delivered the two talking points exactly as prescribed by Rove et al, to her readers. She was totally shocked, as was the Post at the reaction she received. I guess they underestimated the intelligence and knowledge the more than (according to Brady) 1,000 responders demonstrated. We are not supposed to uncover their deception, but simply go 'ooh, yes, they are ALL corrupt, I suppose, so this must be a Washington, not just a Republican scandal' and then yawn and lose interest.

This is a totally Republican scandal, that the press and the Republicans have known about for nearly two years, and have kept quiet about it. It was unfolding in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, but got ZERO coverage in the MSM who were protecting their masters, as usual. Those hearings were explosive at times, and had they been covered on the MSM, there would be NO doubt in anyone's mind, that this is a disgraceful, shameful, deliberately corrupt, intentionally criminal, Republican scandal. What makes it THEIRS, ironically, was their own SUCCESS with their vile 'K Street Project' which over ten years, directed most lobbying money to Republicans.

If only we had a free press ~ and to answer your question, Howell either fell for the 'they all do it' talking point, or she is one of them, and delivered the lies as she was instructed to do. If it is the former, she needs to resign, her readers showed more journalistic integrity and acumen and many sourced their responses, than she did. If it is the latter, she should be fired. There should be no place for a propagandist in the free press of a democracy.

PS ~ the Indian Tribes are being smeared each time this lie is perpetuated. Some have spoken out in anger about it, others have refused to accept the 'tainted Abramoff money' some Politicians have tried to return to them.

[MakeItSo]

56. good response

I've been a devil's advocate here, I admit. This is a criminal investigation. We're not talking about the system, but corruption within the system. If you knew me, you'd know which side I am on.

[PassingFair]

60. Did democrats accept money from indian tribes and use it to

...pay for illegal settlements in Gaza?

The tribes were being BILKED to pay for 'puke scams.

Try READING.

[napi21]

7. From what I've read, the Indian tribes always gave $$ to the Dems.

When Abramoff took over, they gave LESS to the Dems because he told them the only way they could get what they wanted was if they signed on with him.

[Hubert Flottz]

8. Is That You Ralph?

?

[Horse with no Name]

10. Name ONE.

I'll be right here waiting and sharing my popcorn.:popcorn:

[Coexist]

11. Do your homework

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff

Lots of organizations donate money to politicians. That is not a crime. That is not a scandal. How that money was used and funneled is.

[stop the bleeding]

13. you can lead a horse to water but there is no guarantee that the horse

will not die of thirst.

Fool me once shame on you - fool me again -

shit I can't even say it how * says it - he is so F&^ked up with his sayings.

[MakeItSo]

26. Abramoff is a side-note: the real story is about money/influence

To me, Abramoff is a side-note. It's too bad for the Indian tribes, they got ripped off. That's bad but irrelevant to my life.

What IS relevant to my life is a system that allows corporate entities for all intents and purposes to BUY access and PURCHASE legislation via PAC donations.

Both Republicans AND Democrats use this money to purchase broadcast TV time to wage negative campaigns against their opponents and win elections.

The reason you don't hear a lot of outrage about this in the MSM is because the MSM makes huges amounts of money broadcasting these commercials.

[Coexist]

29. You just DESCRIBED the K Street Project

which the REPUBLICANS implemented and FORBADE the lobbyists from hiring or working with DEMOCRATS - therefore it is a REPUBLICAN scandal.

[stop the bleeding]

34. And Abramoff is hardly a side note - my republican indictment counter

is still ticking and is quite active.

[Lerkfish]

35. LOL! ok, that was funny.

um...I can't really say WHY.

[Catrina]

50. Yeah, about Republican money and influence.

17 prosecutors and mulitiple government investigative agencies, don't agree with you that Abramoff is just a side note, but whatever.

You are talking again, about Republican influence. It was the K Street Project, Tom Delay's little scheme to make what you describe happen, that created the current system you describe. Together of course, with all of his Repub buddies.

The tv ad legislation, was opposed by Dems, but again, they did not have the power. So once again, you are making the case that this current climate in DC is an all Republican creation. Why are you insisting otherwise? Don't you know, until Abramoff started talking, they WERE PROUD OF IT! They set it up, bullied, threatened and fought every campaign reform bill that Dems tried to implement.

Keep posting, you keep reminding me of the last ten years of total Republican control and what it has done to this country.

When the Dems have any control, we'll blame them, but you're making the case yourself, with each example you post, that this is what we got as a result of Republican control for the past ten years.

[rpgamerd00d]

17. Here, I'll explain it to you (READ)

[Coexist]

18. Happy Friday to me - that is hysterical!

[stop the bleeding]

19. man I wish I could nominate this post right here - that is damn funny &

TRUE!:popcorn::popcorn:

[rpgamerd00d]

22. original thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x176320#182057

[Jackpine Radical]

25. Wow, that one's worth saving. Oughtta be some way we could

engage Grovelbot to post that every time somebody with less than 50 posts types in anything with "Abramoff" & "Democrats too" or "bipartisan scandal."

[beltanefauve]

32. Thank you

for this valuable public service, rpgamerd00d! I'll be sure to forward your handy guide.

[Batgirl]

41. awesome graphic! nt

[democrat_patriot]

21. WTF is a lobbiests?

This is a republican scandal. Get over it.

[Jackpine Radical]

27. I think "lobbiests" is how Hugh Moran!!11!!! spells "lobbyists."

[stop the bleeding]

30. where are their morels? seriesly

[Lerkfish]

31. I'm series! that's Hugh!

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MakeItSo]

45. I see, this is sort of like the borg in Star Trek

You need to drink the Kool-aid to take part here. This is a warm 'lil cocoon for people to agree with each other or go away. How stimulating!

There appears to be a Pavlovian reflex going on here at Democrat Underground: When one doesn't speak the party line (Republicans evil, Democrats God's gift to mankind) then one is a "Freeper."

I agree with your motto in one respect: The Republicans (the leadership that is) ARE evil.

I think George Bush and his regime are the greatest threat to our country since the Civil War. Problem is, the Democrats have pretty much given him a pass on his most egregious crimes. Tom Dachle, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry green-lighted the war that seems clearly to be his most destructive decision. They eagerly accept PAC money from all sorts of groups and this money sways the way they vote.

I do think the Republicans have broken laws and quite a few should go to jail. But Democrats and Republicans alike are part of system that is itself corrupt.

I'm not a "Freeper." I'm just trying to be a realist. I have voted Democrat down the line in my nearly 20 years of voting (except once, in gubernatorial race). I am registered as a Democrat. But I'm not going to be pals with someone just because he calls himself a Democrat. And I'm not going to be enemies with someone just because he calls himself a Republican.

[Catrina]

51. There are many DUers who would agree with a lot of what you just

said.

But again, this thread is about the Abramoff scandals and the lie the Washington Post's ombudsen told regarding THIS PARTICULAR SCANDAL.

For someone who is concerned about corruption in DC, this should really concern you. They, Republicans, accomplished their goal, and it WAS their goal, of 'one party rule'. Have you read ANYTHING about ANY of this?

Post the name of a Democrat who was involved in this scandal. You started out by saying you didn't know what Howell did that was so wrong. Post after post explained that to you, but you have not acknowledged any of them.

Not a single person here will protect any Democrat who is involved in the Abramoff scandals, as Howell has stated. But she has yet to produce a single one. When or if she does, that person will be judged as harshly as those Republicans already convicted.

I take issue with your implication that DUers will turn a blind eye to a crooked Democrat. Where did you get that idea?

If YOU can name one, please do so, and remember, this thread is about the flap at the Washington Post when their ombudsman told two lies, which you should be concerned about also, as a person who wants honesty in government. We can't have that, without an honest press.

I know I'm wasting my time, but if you're sincere in what you say, you will stick to the issue at hand. Abramoff was a Republican scandal. The Post LIED about it.

If this is not true, then address it, if you have proof that the Post did not lie, please post it. I want a press that reports the truth. Maybe you are not concerned about this.

[MakeItSo]

57. Thanks, I understand

I totally agree. Off my meds yesterday or something :)

[stepnw1f]

54. Duh... Pooof... Guilt Through Association?

Bush's family has done biz with the Bin Ladens. That should make the whole Bush family an enemy of this country by your way of logic.

[Catrina]

59. Excellent analogy. If you don't mind, I will use it from now on

rather than try to explain to Bush apologists how taking donations from Indian tribes who happened to be clients of Abramoff, doesn't translate into being part of his crimes. That's way too complex for them to grasp, given their intense desire to believe the media lies, which continue unabated, no matter how many emails, phone-calls, links, lists of convicted Republicans they get!

This is perfect for ditto heads! :rofl:

Might want to send that to the dumbed-down media talking heads who continue to make that erroneous connection.

[MakeItSo]

61. I'd pretty much agree with that statement

[Halliburton]

28. what did they say about it?

knowing CNN I'm sure they defended the Post's actions and their inaccurate reporting.

[Coexist]

33. Here's your answer:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x195766