NY Times failed to note that Abramoff raised $100,000 for Bush campaign

[NNN0LHI]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601050009

Summary: The New York Times reported that President Bush and other Republican lawmakers were moving to return or donate to charity campaign contributions by lobbyist Jack Abramoff in the wake of his plea agreement. However, the Times omitted any reference to the more than $100,000 Abramoff reportedly raised in his capacity as a Bush-Cheney campaign "Pioneer," which the Republican National Committee, apparently speaking for the Bush campaign, said the campaign has no plans to donate or return.

A January 5 New York Times article reported that President Bush and other Republican lawmakers were moving to donate to charity or return campaign contributions by Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff in the wake of Abramoff's plea agreement, the carrying out of which, the lobbyist said, could implicate as many as 60 lawmakers and staff, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, the Times article omitted any reference to the more than $100,000 Abramoff reportedly raised in his capacity as a Bush-Cheney '04 campaign "Pioneer," which the Republican National Committee (RNC), apparently speaking for the Bush campaign, reportedly said the campaign has no plans to donate or return. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said that the RNC will donate to the American Heart Association the $6,000 contributed directly by Abramoff, his wife, Pam, and a single Abramoff client; McClellan directed questions about the $100,000 bundled contributions to the RNC. In contrast to the Times article, reports in The Washington Post and Newsweek.com mentioned Abramoff's Pioneer status in the campaign and Bush's refusal to relinquish the funds Abramoff raised.

Anne E. Kornblut and Abby Goodnough wrote in the Times:

President Bush and senior Republican lawmakers moved on Wednesday to dump thousands of dollars in campaign donations from Jack Abramoff, the former lobbyist, hastily distancing themselves as he pleaded guilty to two more criminal counts under his agreement with prosecutors.

Mr. Bush will donate $6,000, the amount he received from Mr. Abramoff, Mr. Abramoff's wife and a lobbying client in his re-election campaign in 2004, to the American Heart Association, a spokesman said.

[formercia]

1. And Fearless Leader won't return the money

he needs it to pay his attorneys.

[acmavm]

2. The things that the NYT fails to mention (time after time) are just sooooo

conveeeenient for the bush** administration.

[glitch]

3. Thanks for posting - looks like a lot of people are getting it now

check out the blogs under the article. Poor pukes trying to paint this as a bi-partisan scandal and getting slapped down with the facts.

Sweet :)

[Igel]

4. It's difficult to keep track of all the distinctions, and how

they have to be applied (and must not be applied) to reach the required result.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2356246 seems to be saying that the metric we should use is whether Abramoff actually wrote the checks, in order to absolve any funds that went to dems from the stigma of being tainted by Abramov's epidermal cells. I'll leave aside as irrelevant to my point whether or not all the money listed on this particular thread was part of something illicit on the part of the policitians or not.

Personally, I don't think we can have it both ways without starting to smell a bit: only monies donated personally by Abramoff count, when there's a (D) after the politician's name, but we can be more liberal with assertions of impropriety when there's a (R). Say that my simple mind is beset by hobgoblins, if you like.