Just for the fun of it, I went through the comments sanitized by the Post versus the unsanitized archive and pulled out all of the comments which the post decided to delete. Below are all the comments that the post decided to remove.
I haven't gone through these to see what, if anything, can be learned from it. As the administrator of a large discussion forum with rules and moderators and plenty of deleted posts, I know firsthand how arbitrary and inconsistent moderation can be (or can seem to be to the outside observer), so my inclination is to give the Post the benefit of the doubt here. My gut feeling is that the removal of many of these posts was totally legitimate, but many of their choices seem very arbitrary. As someone who has been in the discussion forum business for a long time, I do feel that the Post did not handle this particularly well, and probably could have easily contained much of the uproar by simply closing down visitor comments rather than making all of the comments disappear. I think that Jim Brady did the post a disservice when he claimed that the comments disappeared because Ms. Howell was being attacked as a "f****** b****." As a forum administrator, I do not doubt that some jerks actually did use those terms. But a cursory glance at the archive shows that there were not any posts like that on the page at the time when the comments disappeared (presumably because they already succeeded in removing them). So their pretext for removing all the comments was not entirely accurate.
To their credit, the Post brought back a large number of posts which made the most important points: That Ms. Howell blew it when she tried to pass off her previous column as poorly worded rather than factually incorrect. And that in the place of her previous error, she inserted a new assertion for which she failed to provide evidence.
Anyway, for what it's worth, here are the deleted posts. I have excluded a small number of posts which appear to have been deleted because they were duplicates. If anyone feels like double-checking my work, I would not be offended -- this was rather tedious, and I can't guarantee that it's completely error-free. --Skinner ##########
I ask again, why was my comment removed?
I said that maybe you weren't a liar.
That maybe you weren't even first class at obfuscation.
But I DID say you were INCOMPETENT.
Is that it? Being called incompetent yanks your chain?
Posted by: garyb50 | Jan 19, 2006 3:49:13 PM | Permalink
##########
The graph that Howell links to has been repeatedly shown to be meaningless and misleading (by independent sources, and even by conservative ones).
The document she links to has been shown to be misleading and manipulated (the joys of Photoshop!) Whoever produced this hack job (Willis?) needs to be fired and/or sued.
Why is the Post so intent on lying about this story?
Brothers and sisters, we have lived to see the day when the Post is to right of even Rich Lowry at the National Review! Katherine Graham, may her soul rest in peace, fortunately has not.
Posted by: Mike Wolf | Jan 19, 2006 3:45:00 PM | Permalink
##########
Deborah, you've made a mistake, when pressed about the mistake you don't apologize, you excuse yourself
tribes giving money to politicians has nothing what so ever to do with the republican influence machine
democrats ARE NOT implicated in this scandal
you have to distance them from this scandal and apologize for making the association.
by the way
how did wapo think you might be qualified for this position?
it would seem you are as unqualified as a brown was to fema
Posted by: me to me | Jan 19, 2006 3:44:11 PM | Permalink
##########
I have another point.
In your earlier post on this issue, you confessed to receiving talking points from one of the right wing think tanks.
I applaud you for telling us where you get your information, but I'm a little curious if this is good journalism.
Specifically, shouldn't reporting on this story begin with public records? After consulting public records, wouldn't it be appropriate to contact any Congressmen which you mention in the story for comment. You tarred Reid and Dorgan but gave them no chance to explain themselves.
After consulting with the Congressmen directly, I see no problem contacting the official party offices for a statement.
Finally, at the end of the chain, you could talk to outside institutes.
Does this sound like a reasonable way to approach this story?
If it is not how you did your reporting, I would find it helpful to know more about your process---of course, any contacts that require confidentiality *cough* *Rove* can be respected.
Posted by: Marky | Jan 19, 2006 3:41:26 PM | Permalink
##########
Whatever you do, Debby, don't let on that you were shopping at Nordstrom instead of doing your job.
Posted by: Brownie | Jan 19, 2006 3:40:40 PM | Permalink
##########
Ms. Howell, your recent writings and the tone of them have been false, and demonstrably antithetical to shareholder value.
Mr. Abramoff is one of the most powerful men in the country. He is also a stridently partisan Republican, even once holding the coveted office of President of the Young Republicans, the well-known college drinking club for political aspirants. In the main, such an individual does not nor ever will "direct" his clients to give contributions to Democrats; if rare exceptions occurred, they were likely the result of shoddy vote calculation on the Republican side of the aisle. This fact should already have been obvious to a keen legal mind before it was abundantly amplified by thousands of concerned subscribers protesting your disastrous columns.
Well outside your personal area of expertise, your remarks above fail to mend fences, as should have been their purpose, and I believe they cause much further harm. You have helped your management in what appears to be a scurrilous campaign to deceive a distressingly shrinking readership on the decidedly partisan nature of the Abramoff scandal, but you have not helped well.
I believe it scant coincidence that the Washington Post Company's shareholders are now suffering as a result of what has become an obvious prostituting of journalistic integrity once of such proud repute, with share prices having fallen sharply. I believe this fall in price is highly correlated with the purposeful intent to disseminate falsehoods. In order to avoid further loss, I have instructed my family's trust to end what has been a long and profitable relationship, and to take appropriate steps to eliminate our WPO holdings.
Posted by: Karen Marriott | Jan 19, 2006 3:35:42 PM | Permalink
##########
"A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff "directed" contributions to both parties."
Shouldn't you thank Howard Kurtz for that little bit of unattributed spin? He trotted it out in an on-line forum recently; it sounded just as corrupt when he said it.
Posted by: dano347 | Jan 19, 2006 3:34:41 PM | Permalink
##########
Let me lay it out for Deb one more time. Deb, suggesting something to a client is not the same as directing, as evidenced by the fact that various donations suggested by Abramoff were NOT made by the tribes.
But here is the more important point. Do you really expect that Abramoff would suggest to tribes that had traditionally contributed primarily to democrats that they start giving exclusively to republicans. Wouldn't Abramoff -an avowed republican lobbyist - have thereby risked an inference being drawn by the tribes that he was more interested in his cause than theirs? Should Abramoff really be credited with "directing" these tribes to do what they'd been doing all along, i.e., contributing to democrats? Or should the Post instead be emphasizing that this republican lobbyist directed these tribes to reverse their longstanding preference for democrats and instead contribute disproportionately to republicans?
If Abramoff's purpose was to direct as much money as possible from the tribes to his favored republicans he would do exactly what he DID do. He would gently and gradually attempted to influence them to shift their contributions to republicans. He most assuredly would NOT have "directed" them to suddently stop all contributions to democrats. To have done so would have caused suspicion that he was looking out for his own interests and not those of the Tribes. Which, as we all now know, was exactly what he was doing.
Really, Deb, as ombudsman for the Post you should have been able to figure this out for yourself. But we're here to help you, Deb. We're here to help.
Posted by: Thomas C | Jan 19, 2006 3:34:17 PM | Permalink
##########
With only 15% of Americans reading the newspaper, you sure are trying to push that number down aren't you? Katherine Graham must be rolling in her grave. You're a dispicable ombudsman; and until they get rid of political hacks like you, I'm done with the post.
Posted by: rick | Jan 19, 2006 3:34:01 PM | Permalink
##########
Ms. Howell hasn't quite yet mastered the art of 'truthiness' because the essence of that is avoiding the appearance of 'wronginess'. She's being called out by the readers by her inartfulness. We need an ombudperson for the ombudsperson!
Posted by: | Jan 19, 2006 3:33:42 PM | Permalink
##########
With only 15% of Americans reading the newspaper, you sure are trying to push that number down aren't you? Helen Graham must be rolling in her grave. You're a dispicable ombudsman; and until they get rid of political hacks like you, I'm done with the post.
Posted by: rick | Jan 19, 2006 3:33:33 PM | Permalink
##########
The factually proper statement is that the Indian tribes REDUCED their contributions to Democrats after contact and association with Abramoff. The scandal is that the mainstream press has not looked at historical patterns of Indian political donations, but only at overall giving. It's in the details, that's where the spinners lie.
Deborah Howell, you owe your readers, and the Post, a retraction and correction.
Posted by: Kevin J-M | Jan 19, 2006 3:33:23 PM | Permalink
##########
Posted by: Tom3 | Jan 19, 2006 3:25:16 PM
What about Ginger? Did she abstain? Oh gosh, what did I just say?! I hope no one takes that to mean I'm implying Ginger isn't abstinent. Gosh, there I go again. Abstinence. Is that the word? Oh well.
Buh Bye Deborah. Been nice. Do write. See ya.
Posted by: | Jan 19, 2006 3:31:49 PM | Permalink
##########
Mrs. Howell,
You are an embarrassment to your paper.
Do the right thing and resign.
Posted by: Michael Buckley | Jan 19, 2006 3:29:00 PM | Permalink
##########
Let's see, here's your logic:
1) Donor A was a donor to Democrat B;
2) Donor A is extorted/conned into hiring Republican C;
3) Donor A reduces its share of donations to Democrat B;
4) Republican C is shown to be engaged in a gigantic criminal enterprise;
5) your conclusion: Democrat B and Republican C are in a criminal enterprise together.
The mendacity blows the mind. And I hope you do know you're being dishonest -- if this comes out of stupidity I'm even more frightened about how low our media has reached.
The only real story in town regarding corruption is the K-Street Project -- which over more than ten years sought to not only illegally funnel money to the Bush Republicans, but also to illegally abuse Congressional power in order to punish campaign donors to the Democratic Party. Abramoff, Delay, Santorum, Frist, Rove, Reed, Norquist and the other players in the K-Street project engaged in corruption and extortion in a completely unprecedented scaled in the pursuit of their goal to establish a de facto one-party rule. Contrived 'balance' in reporting on this is an unprofessional and cowardly lie. Why are the media afraid to factually and *fairly* report this story?
Posted by: Mike Wolf | Jan 19, 2006 3:25:23 PM | Permalink
##########
Is it my imagination, or has the WaPo now bottled out completely and removed the Technorati links from it's pages? I found these really helpful in locating other sites that had commented on the articles and had insight and information to add.
Or is that why you removed them? My god, you're cowards.
Posted by: Avedon | Jan 19, 2006 3:25:19 PM | Permalink
##########
Debbie, there's a HUGE difference. Abramoff was trying to buy influence. That's what lobbyists do. How on earth do you buy influence if the recipient doesn't know the money is from you? Unless you have proof that the Democratic recipients of tribal donatios knew it was actually being directed by Dirty Danny, you can't make an honest comparison.
Posted by: Farty McBreakwind | Jan 19, 2006 3:23:42 PM | Permalink
##########
Deborah, what's all that fuss about up there? It took me forever to scroll down across it to get to this comment box. Good luck with that.
What I'm writing about is to ask you if you see Sally Quinn this afternoon, tell her to call me. It's urgent. We need to finish up planning our Spring Cotillion. Thanks. You're a dear. Kiss Kiss
Posted by: Fannie | Jan 19, 2006 3:18:36 PM | Permalink
##########
Been following this shameful episode through the various media and I do hope the Post is seriously considering the swift termination of this imbecile...
Posted by: Ratpuppy | Jan 19, 2006 3:09:58 PM | Permalink
##########
Ms. Howell,
You are a disgrace to your paper, to journalism and to the very concept of an ombudsman. It is time for you to resign. Take the pain. Eat the rat.
Posted by: G. Gordon Giddy | Jan 19, 2006 3:05:33 PM | Permalink
##########
Howell: "A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff "directed" contributions to both parties."
WHAT??? ARE YOU KIDDING.
So, in your 'opinion' the tribes are agents of Abramoff?? They took marching orders from him???
Really, again I will say it; no wonder the WAPO circulation is going down faster then DARTH CHENEY's.
You are a transparent agent for the GOP. Sickening.
Posted by: sutioc | Jan 19, 2006 2:59:46 PM | Permalink
##########
Do tell, what happened to the Deb Howell who was once so worried about doing a good job as a journalist that she cared about details and made corrections for SCHOOL LUNCH LIST errors, which affected, say, 1000s of people?
Now, she doesn't care about political lies and shell games that affect the whole nation. What was her price?
Posted by: WhaHoppa? | Jan 19, 2006 2:59:24 PM | Permalink
##########
Howell wrote: "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."
Howell's intellectual dishonesty (and her support of the Post's twisting of this story) is astonishing.
The "online graphic" that she refers to, when compared to actual FEC filings, (
http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_donor.asp?Name=Coushatta+Tribe+of+Louisiana )demonstrated precisely the opposite of what Howell claims. The list, which Howell says shows Abramoff "directing contributions" to Democrats, shows that....
1) While Abramoff supposedly "requested" $2000 each for Jean Carnahan and Max Cleland, and $5,000 for Tom Daschle, the tribe in question gave Carnahan and Daschle NOTHING, and Cleland on $500.
2) Every GOP incumbent who was running for re-election that is mentioned on the list got at least $1000 --- the total "contribution" to the GOP names found on this "graphic" exceeded $15,000.
Perhaps more to the point, the Post went out of its way in "photoshopping" the graphic to make it appear that Tom Daschle was a recipient of Coushetta tribe funds "directed" by Abramoff (the FEC filing shows he wasn't), they "whited out" the line directly below Daschle's name -- in which some kind of "contribution" was directed to Tom Delay through the lobbying firm of Williams and Jensen (that is the firm whose address is 1155 21st St NW, #300 see
http://www.williamsandjensen.com/principals.asp?id=15 ) -- a firm where Tom Delay's former chief of staff found a very lucrative job the same year that Abramoff is "directing" $20,000 to that firm.
The other graphic, which makes it appear that there was a substantial increase in donations from Native American tribes to Democrats thanks to Jack Abramoff, disguises one key fact --- these tribes had been giving to Democrats for years-- the "increase" in contributions for Democrats is a reflection of Abramoff getting these tribes as clients, NOT an increase in tribal contributions to democrats per se.
Ms Howell needs to explain why she thinks the "graphic" she linked to is evidence that donations were "directed" to Democrats when the FEC filings prove that this document was virtually ignored when it came to Democratic politicians, but GOP incumbents listed on the "graphic" all received funds that year.....
She also needs to explain why she won't admit that she lied about Jack Abramoff giving money to "both parties", and giving money to Harry Reid and Byron Dorgan.
It didn't happen -- and it is inconceivable that Howell could have "done her homework" on the Abramoff scandal and yet have written what she wrote. How has to acknowledge that she was careless and incompetent -- that her sole purpose in writing the original column was to defend "Steno Sue Schmidt" and here efforts to disassociate Tom Delay from Abramoff, and to suck up to the GOP that wants to make the WHOLLY REPUBLICAN Abramoff scandal into something "bipartisan."
Its bullshit, pure and simple. Howell lied, and she continues to lie.
Posted by: paul lukasiak | Jan 19, 2006 2:59:15 PM | Permalink
##########
As a longtime reader of the Washington Post, I am appalled at Deborah Howell's performance as the paper's ombudsman. I am a former reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and I can not imagine an editor at my former paper allowing such poorly researched material to get into print--whether as a news story, opinion column, or God forbid, an ombudsman's essay.
There is NOTHING of an ombudsman in Deborah Howell's approach to her job. An ombudsman's role is to represent the voice of the reader in the paper; to examine the paper's--and its writers'--intentions in the articles that the paper prints. Ms. Howell does none of this; she has a palpable agenda, and her tone is authoritarian (certainly not authoritative). I can only imagine how she came to be hired for this position, but it reflects very poorly on the Post that she has performed in such a careless and biased way so soon in her (one hopes, brief) tenure.
The Post need a REAL ombudsman, not some hack who sees her job as lecturing readers on the errors of their points of view, and whose own point of view is so transparent and partisan.
Posted by: Kevin J-M | Jan 19, 2006 2:51:15 PM | Permalink
##########
Methinks we're dealing with someone who cannot admit to a mistake. Which, by the way, sounds very similar to a certain someone now "leading" our country. A mentor perhaps?
Face reality: As a pig with lipstick is still a pig, a blatant lie gussied up with a shiny new verb is still a blatant lie.
An ombudsman nobody believes. Congratulations Washington Post.
Posted by: Rick | Jan 19, 2006 2:39:18 PM | Permalink
##########
A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff "told his clients that Democrats were just as crooked as Republicans, so the clients should make" contributions to both parties.
It's all there, in the graphic.
Now, on to my next column, where I will criticize the Post not for failing to cover the demotion of the U.S. prosecutor investigating Abramoff's dealings in Guam, but for failing to mention that Decmocrats stood by while a U.S. prosecutor was pulled off an investigation in Guam.
/phony ombudsman
Posted by: Ottnott | Jan 19, 2006 2:16:27 PM | Permalink
##########
Ms. Howell,
Why don't you write a note saying you've heard not only from critical readers who think you're a bought-and-sold GOP conduit, but also from readers who think you're practicing responsible journalism.
You can say the proportions were about equal.
Just think: It'll be just like telling the Abramoff story all over again.
Posted by: LMAO | Jan 19, 2006 2:10:21 PM | Permalink
##########
A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff "begged his clients to make" contributions to both parties.
No, I don't have any evidence that Abramoff did that, but did you see the shiny graphic I linked to?
/phony ombudsman
Posted by: Ottnott | Jan 19, 2006 2:06:46 PM | Permalink
##########
"directed"?
WTF, Deborah?
Posted by: Ottnott | Jan 19, 2006 1:59:49 PM | Permalink
##########
Hey, What's this about Okrent getting payola after shilling for the GOP---link?
Posted by: Marky | Jan 19, 2006 1:59:48 PM | Permalink
##########
I'm just gonna start calling Howell "Mrs. Daniel Okrent" and get the obvious out of the way.
Same thin skin, same complete lack of respect for the people she's supposed to be representing, same unending right-wing spin, not matter how ludicrous it makes her look.
Same big fat paycheck with a right-wing front group when she finally quits - if she's not getting it "under the table" now.
You have no credibility left, lady - and neither does the Post.
Posted by: dave | Jan 19, 2006 1:52:08 PM | Permalink
##########
Ms. Howell, I look forward to the Washington Post printing a pie chart of this spreadsheet:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/washington-post-ombudsman-repeats-lie.htmlWhen one sees $172,933 contributed to Republicans and $0 contributed to Democrats, one can reasonably conclude "the remark in my column Sunday that lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to both parties" requires a full retraction.
As an ombudsman, does your job not entail representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints reported by individual citizens?
Please read the comments above and the comments to follow with the interests of the Washington Post's readship in mind.
Posted by: bartkid | Jan 19, 2006 1:42:10 PM | Permalink
##########
Mrs. Howell, does the RNC just leave plain brown envelopes stuffed with cash on your doorstep, or is there an offshore account involved? I'm really curious how they pay you off to lie and obfuscate. Or can you be bought off for just not being scowled at by Republicans at D.C. dinner parties?
If you think that you don't need credibility in order to stay in your position, there are countless unwashed masses who will work tirelessly to prove you wrong. I would say "for shame," but in your case, it's already proven to be a waste of breath.
Posted by: wapo_has_no_clothes | Jan 19, 2006 1:28:50 PM | Permalink
##########
Does flat-out lying and refusing to issue retractions affect the public perception of the value of your brand?
The people who watch the bottom line might want to know:
>>>The Washington Post Company
1150 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20071
202.334.6000
TWPCoReply@washpost.com
Ann McDaniel
Vice President
Rima Calderon
Director - Corporate Communications
>>>Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
P.O. Box 17370
Arlington, VA 22216
703.469.2500
Tim Ruder
Vice President - Marketing
>>>The Washington Post
1150 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20071
202.334.6000
Eric Grant
Director of Public Relations and Contributions
Lisa Bolton
Public Relations Manager
Posted by: Shystee | Jan 19, 2006 1:12:25 PM | Permalink
##########
The GOP, via hacks like Howell, has gotten away with this crap for way too long.
You're exposed, Ms. Ombudsperson.
Quit, or enjoy laughing-stock status.
Posted by: Awake American | Jan 19, 2006 12:57:37 PM | Permalink
##########
"It's obvious that Ms. Howell has an agenda, to wit, to make sure that the readers are confused about the main targets of Abramoff's campaign contributions, so that it is not viewed by them as just a Republican scandal."
by lib
And indeed, not just Ms. Howell and Steno Sue, but also the LA Times. And the press will do ANYTHING to make it an equal affair of the Democratic and Rebuplican parties. To whit, front page LA Times: 'Culture of Lobbying May Resist Reform' and inside, 'Democratic Legislation similar to GOP.' Nice. The hedes tell the story.
Posted by: Max Renn | Jan 19, 2006 12:54:01 PM | Permalink
##########
Hacktacular!
Posted by: Karin | Jan 19, 2006 12:52:38 PM | Permalink
##########
More obscurantism from Ms. Howell. She says it would have been better to have said that Abramoff "directed" these contributions by his clients, but in fact there is no evidence that he directed these contributions. These tribes had contributed to democrats for years before their association with Abramoff, and we know that their contributions to democrats declined during the time they were represented by Abramoff. There is every reason to believe that contributions made by these tribes to democrats were made DESPITE Abramoff, not because of any direction received from Abramoff.
While Howell and the Post tar dems for taking contributions from these tribes, Bush gets a pass on his decision to return contributions from Abramoff but keep contributions made by his associates and clients. From Howell's and the Post's perpective the question of whether Abramoff "directed" contributions all depends on who received the contribution, not who made it.
Ms. Howell, you are a disgrace. Go peddle your RNC talking points somewhere else.
Posted by: Thomas C | Jan 19, 2006 12:43:11 PM | Permalink
##########
Ms. Howell,
Your failure to print a direct retraction of your completely false statement is highly unprofessional.
Also very disturbing is that you used your previous article to promise that Democrats would be the subject of more "Abramoff-related" scrutiny in the future.
On what basis is the Post pursuing stories about connections between Abramoff and Democrats? Abramoff's crimes involve only Republicans, as far as we know. For you to report on criminal activity of Republicans, and Democrats accepting legal campaign contributions ---not from Abramoff---side by side is the worst sort of journalism.
Whatever legal activities Abramoff's clients were involved in has as much relevance to Abramoff's crimes as the fact that he is writing a commentary on the Talmud---precisely none.
If you want to improve the reporting, then why don't you distinguish between those actitivities of Abramoff which were illegal or suspected to be so, and those "Abramoff-related activities" which have no taint of scandal whatsoever.
Oh, and you should resign... but if you don't, I think your lack of credibility and professional standards leads me to inquire whether you have received any compensation from any organization besides the WaPo for any of your "journalism-related actitivities".
Truthily yours,
Marky
Posted by: marky | Jan 19, 2006 12:40:59 PM | Permalink
##########
Ms. Howell,
Your failure to print a direct retraction of your completely false statement is highly unprofessional.
Also very disturbing is that you used your previous article to promise that Democrats would be the subject of more "Abramoff-related" scrutiny in the future.
On what basis is the Post pursuing stories about connections between Abramoff and Democrats? Abramoff's crimes involve only Republicans, as far as we know. For you to report on criminal activity of Republicans, and Democrats accepting legal campaign contributions ---not from Abramoff---side by side is the worst sort of journalism.
Whatever legal activities Abramoff's clients were involved in has as much relevance to Abramoff's crimes as the fact that he is writing a commentary on the Talmud---precisely none.
If you want to improve the reporting, then why don't you distinguish between those actitivities of Abramoff which were illegal or suspected to be so, and those "Abramoff-related activities" which have no taint of scandal whatsoever.
Oh, and you should resign... but if you don't, I think your lack of credibility and professional standards leads me to inquire whether you have received any compensation from any organization besides the WaPo for any of your "journalism-related actitivities".
Truthily yours,
Marky
Posted by: marky | Jan 19, 2006 12:39:56 PM | Permalink
##########
This is pure B.S.
Posted by: res | Jan 19, 2006 12:39:35 PM | Permalink
##########
You're a hack, Howell.
Posted by: Old Hat | Jan 19, 2006 12:29:28 PM | Permalink
##########
Wow, I didn't think there was anything you could do that would be worse than ignoring the lie you printed about Abramoff's dealings but you figured out something worse. You defended the lie and dug yourself deeper into an ethical morass from which you are unlikely to drag yourself out of. Step One: Stop lying. Step Two: I really think you should hire an assistant ombudsman to keep you in line. Anyone who knows the facts and hasn't signed any pledges to be faithful to RNC spin would probably be a good minder for you. There's no doubt that you need the help.
Posted by: eRobin | Jan 19, 2006 12:26:43 PM | Permalink
##########
Ms. Howell's pants are on fire.
Posted by: NTodd | Jan 19, 2006 12:11:57 PM | Permalink
##########
The point, Ms. Howell, is that there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that any of the money "directed" to Democrats by Abaramoff via his clients was in exchange for votes or favors granted.
The mere fact that some of Abramoff's clients gave oney to Democrats doesn't equal "Abramoff funneled bribes to Democrats through his clients, wink wink, nudge, nudge say no more."
You clowns in the media nee dto start reporting the fricking truth for a change, and not sucking up to the whiney rigtwing establishment.
Posted by: Hesiod | Jan 19, 2006 12:04:04 PM | Permalink
##########
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
