Things Get Even Funnier (Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? Department)

Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell says "Uncle."

She changes her line on why no Democrats are in the first tier being investigated in the Abramoff scandal from "stay tuned" to "it's not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal."

---

Deborah Howell, January 15, 2006:

Getting the Story on Jack Abramoff : Schmidt started checking Federal Election Commission records.... Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties. "It was enough to get me interested," Schmidt said.... Republicans... say The Post purposely hasn't nailed any Democrats [in the Abramoff scandal]. Several stories... have mentioned that a number of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money. So far, Schmidt and Grimaldi say their reporting on the investigations hasn't put Democrats in the first tier of people being investigated. But stay tuned...

Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell, January 22, 2006:

The Firestorm Over My Column : I wrote that he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress. He didn't.... My mistake set off a firestorm. I heard that I was lying, that Democrats never got a penny of Abramoff-tainted money, that I was trying to say it was a bipartisan scandal, as some Republicans claim. I didn't say that. It's not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal, and that's why the Republicans are scurrying around trying to enact lobbying reforms...

I would like to know why Deborah Howell thinks various Indian tribes' contributions to Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) are "Abramoff-tainted" or "Abramoff campaign money." And I would like to know how to interpret "stay tuned" other than a a claim that the Abramoff scandal is a bipartisan scandal. But I'm happy that she's changed her line on why Democrats aren't in the first tier of people being investigated from "stay tuned" to "it's not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal."

Comments

[Ottnott]

Damn, that was nice.

Sure, she tossed in as much facs-saving as she dared, but at least she's more or less straghtened out what the story SHOULD have been in the first place.

I hate to give credit to someone who missed the first several times to do her job right, but it must have been difficult to back down after she'd been so stubborn about being so wrong.

[Ottnott]

Oops. Spoke to soon. I just read her column, and she is still insisting that: "I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties."

Perhaps he did, but her evidence so far is evidence only of what the tribes did, not evidence of why they did it.

Given that association with Abramoff is highly correlated with (1) donations tilted heavily toward Republicans, and (2) reductions in contributions toward Democrats, she is making her leap of logic into a strong headwind.

[AlanDownunder]

Maybe she should acquaint Jim Brady with the new party line because Brady said this to Hugh Hewitt at http://www.radioblogger.com/#001326

"Well, they...they objected originally to the fact that she...that when she stated it, she made it seem as if he personally was donating to Democrats. But what she meant to say was that he was directing money to Democrats, which as I said, is beyond any kind of argument. So I'm not sure why her clarification yesterday didn't solve the problem, but it didn't. It just inflamed things even more."

Not, as noted, that Howell's slow departure from GOP spin still hasn't a way to go but she's leaving Brady in her wake - at least the Brady who spoke to Hewitt as opposed to the Brady who spoke to Jay Rosen at http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/01/20/jmb_qa.html

[Quacks]

This only makes sense when you remember that INDIANS HAVE NO BRAINS. Since they were under the influence of Abramoff, clearly those of us with souls and rationality can conclude that Abramoff was responsible for all of their political actions.

[roger]

The 'fact" that Abramoff directed contributions to the Democrats is really the fact that contributions from the Indian tribes that hired him went to the Democrats. If this is the Post's standard -- that everything an organization does can somehow be attributed to all members or associates of the organization -- I can't wait until I read the headline, "Rumsfeld directed torture at Abu Ghraib."

[ogmb]

So has she called you yet?

[P.M.Lawrence]

Well, surely "stay tuned" on its own isn't a positive statement of conclusions but reporting developments so far, with further information not amounting to backtracking/surrendering at all? It certainly doesn't imply any positive conclusion on its own. Of course, it wasn't on its own - until Brad Delong made that statement about what "stay tuned" meant in and of itself.

[Saam Barrager]

The ideal response would be to focus and difuse. Concede that Abramov is a Republican operative, that absolutely this is a Republican scandal. But bribery generally is the real scandal. Abramov was unlikely the major player in governing energy policy, as far as I know Abramov was not triaging Iraqi reconstruction contracts, nor is he involved in Katrina contract efforts. (Etc. etc. etc.)

Surely Democrats are doing some downright nasty things. By pulling back we can get good context on how much in relation to Republicans (and in relation to historical Republicans and Democrats). This would be great context and it would satiate the inane desire to be bipartisan in all things.

[RedWolf]

Pressure does help. Liberal pressure is rare and should be used more frequently. How about cancelling subscriptions to the WP. 100,000 cancelations may change the WP back to its heydays.

[JS Narins]

There are no federally recognized tribes in New Hampshire.

But the entire NH congressional delegation (Sununu, Gregg, Bass and Bradley) took some of this pro-gambling money.

It's important to not forget that on top of it all, this is a case of "values" Republicans lobbying for more gambling.

And also not to forget that organized crime is definitely, 100% certainly involved with _some_ of the Native American gambling interests.

[LibertyGuard]

I read her column too - its 1 step forward 2 steps backward. She ate a few words, and regurgitated more into WaPo, ending with this

"To all of those who wanted me fired, I'm afraid you're out of luck. I have a contract. For the next two years, I will continue to speak my mind.

Keep smiling. I will."

sitting pretty with a 'contract'? does a contract have no non-performance/inadequate performance clause? I like Redwolf's suggestion - a petition with 10,000 signatures threatening subscription terminations should resolve WaPo's Resource Planning dillemma. When the ombudsman is the problem rather than the solution, its time to say good-bye to WaPo, which I have a daily subscription to - hate to think, my $25 dollars or whatever, monthly helps keep her from early retirement.

[Dubblblind]

I hereby *direct* all the readers of this blog to consume, and even over-consume, less than healthy food during the course of 2006. Now any unwanted weight gain you may experience is clearly all my fault.

You're welcome! ;)

[aiontay]

Maybe I'm overly sensative, but do I detect an attempt to demonize "Indian money"? Isn't the real issue not where the money came from but the fact that the contributions were illegal?

I'd further argue that the reason Abramhoff targeted the tribes is that they are a politically weak group with a lot of money, and if you look at the past 200+ years of Indian history, you'll see that if Indians have something white folks want, well the Indians lose it. Therefore, Abramhoff smelled the opportunity for a shakedown. So, I'd argue it should be refered to more accurately as "protection money Abramoff extorted from Indians".

Actually, that should be refined further. As anyone who's spent time in Indian Country knows, there's a difference between the tribes and tribal governments. This was money donated by Indian tribal governments, not Indians per se. If I'm not mistaken one of the early cracks in Abramoff's scam came when the LA Coushatta voted out their tribal government and started questioning some of the payments the old government had made.

[camille roy]

The Republicans are showing their true colors on the topic of responsibility by trying to spin this as a 'bipartisan' scandal, when they have set up the power structure that produced this scandal.

That's what has become of 'conservative values'.

Meanwhile, this rebellion to Howell and WaPo shows that a rebellion against Republican spin is out there in the land, getting more hot and bothered as the months of corruption and war drag on.

[Density-land]

Howell's "mis-remembers" her column. This week she says she'd written that Abramoff was a Republican who dealt mainly with Republicans. Sadly, no.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/21/234316/401

I think we need to hammer home the point that Abramoff's "direction" was for his clients to reduce their contributions to Democrats. That will stop this talk about a "bi-partisan" scandal.

[p.lukasiak]

What I love about this story is that Howell supports her contention that campaign funds were directed to Democrats with "fake but accurate" evidence.

See, Howell references an excerpt from a list purported compiled by Abramoff for the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana. (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/01/18/GR2006011801026.html )

There are three Democrats mentioned on this excerpt. According to an analysis of FEC records, this list, and various other reporting, this list was generated in March 2002. And According to FEC records, numerous contributions were probably generated as a result of this list, including to a few Democrats (like Tom Harkin), however, of the three democrats that appear on the excerpt cited by Howell...

1) Jean Carnahan never got a dime from the Coushatta Tribe (and not the $2000 found on the list)

2) The contribution of $5000 to Tom Daschle's PAC did not come until months after the list was compiled (specifically, June 30, 2002) and was not "directed" by this particular list

3) Although the FEC records Max Cleland did as getting $500 from the Coushatta Tribe (and not the $2,000 found on the list), that contribution was made to "Friends of Mary and Max", a joint fund-raising committee for Mary Landrieu and Max Cleland that apparently held a fundraising event in Louisiana in mid-July 2002. The contribution to the fund was $1000, and is dated 7-17-2002, but FEC records show that the Cleland campaign is credited with only $500 of that money. Thus, its HIGHLY unlikely that the money that Cleland got from the Coushatta Tribe was connected in any way to the Abramoff list.

There is also testimony that Abramoff did "direct" at least one contribution from a tribal client to a Democrat (Dorgan) but there is no evidence that there was anything close to approaching a relationship of any kind between Dorgan and Abramoff himself.

In other words, "fake but accurate" -- Howell's right, Abramoff DID probably direct money to at least one Democrat, and lists were generated by Abramoff that resulted in contributions to Democrats --- but Howell obviously doesn't have a clue what she's talking about, because the evidence she cites to back up her contention actually contradicts her.