Sunday, January 22, 2006

She Just Doesn't Get It

And I doubt if she ever will. Her mind is closed, completely wrapped in the blanket of righteousness and unwilling to understand, that at the heart of the lobbying scandal is not that he directed Indian tribes (who he obviously didn't respect and was using for another purpose) to give money to both parties, but what he expected in return. Who benefited? That is what the firestorm is really about, but let's not worry our little heads over that detail.
The Firestorm Over My Column: "I wrote that he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress. He didn't. I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.

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.

But there is no doubt about the campaign contributions that were directed to lawmakers of both parties. Records from the Federal Election Commission and the Center for Public Integrity show that Abramoff's Indian clients contributed money to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats between 1999 and 2004. The Post also has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with his personal directions on which members were to receive what amounts.

Michael Crowley of the New Republic said in his blog that 'while for all practical purposes this is indisputably a Republican scandal, the narrow liberal-blogger definition of whether any Democrats took money 'from Abramoff' -- which neatly excludes contributions he directed his clients to make -- amounts to foolish semantics.''

These facts have been reported many times in The Post and elsewhere. So why would it cause me to be called a 'right-wing whore' and much worse?"
Whore, a person who prostitutes and it doesn't have to be for sex. The ombudsman can no longer be trusted to correct misinformation. The WaaPoo will remain an information source, but one that forces you to suspend belief and has to be checked, sort of like the National Enquirer.

No comments:

Post a Comment