Matthews trumpeted comparatively small Abramoff client donations to Sen. Clinton, virtually ignoring larger donations given to Bush, Hastert
SUMMARY: On Hardball, host Chris Matthews repeatedly mentioned Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) decision to donate to charity $2,000 in campaign contributions received from American Indian tribes represented by lobbyist and felon Jack Abramoff, yet virtually ignored the $6,000 and $69,000 in campaign contributions received from Abramoff and his clients by President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), respectively -- contributions both have also pledged to donate to charity.
On the January 5 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews mentioned during three separate segments Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) decision to donate to charity $2,000 in campaign contributions received from American Indian tribes represented by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who on January 3 pleaded guilty to felony charges of conspiracy, mail fraud, and tax evasion and on January 4 pleaded guilty to conspiracy and fraud charges in a separate case. Despite repeatedly noting Clinton's receipt of the donations from Abramoff's clients, Matthews virtually ignored the $6,000 and $69,000 in campaign contributions received from Abramoff and his clients by President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), respectively -- contributions both have also pledged to donate to charity. Moreover, no mention was made of the more than $100,000 Abramoff reportedly raised on behalf of Bush's re-election campaign that the president has refused to relinquish. Matthews did not inform viewers that Bush had received money from Abramoff and his clients at all and gave only passing mention to the contributions Hastert received, and only in response to remarks by MSNBC host and former Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL), a guest on the program.
Clinton's re-election campaign announced she "would return $2,000 in donations from tribes that were Abramoff clients," according to a January 4 Associated Press article. Bush's 2004 re-election campaign will donate $6,000 in campaign contributions received from Abramoff and some of his clients to the American Heart Association, The Washington Post reported on January 5. But Bush's campaign has no plans to return or donate more than $100,000 Abramoff raised on the president's behalf as a Bush campaign fund-raiser, the Post noted. Similarly, Hastert has announced he will donate $69,000 he received from Abramoff and his clients to charity, the Chicago Tribune reported on January 5.
Although the amount of money Clinton received from Abramoff's clients was far smaller than the amounts Bush and Hastert received from Abramoff and those he represented, Matthews mentioned Clinton by name with regard to Abramoff-connnected donations during three separate segments. During the introduction to the program, Matthews remarked that "those $1,000 gifts [are] being sent back to charity like Christmastime fruitcake. Even Hillary Clinton's got some hot Abramoff cash to shed." Similarly, during the introduction to a panel discussion featuring Bloomberg News chief political correspondent Roger Simon and MSNBC chief Washington correspondent Norah O'Donnell, Matthews stated: "Everybody is giving away their money, giving it away. Hillary Clinton even giving a thousand bucks away." After a commercial break, Matthews reintroduced Simon and O'Donnell, then stated: "So far, most of the names on the short list connected to Abramoff are Republican. There are some outlying names that keep popping up. Hillary Clinton gave back $1,000 today."
Matthews never informed his viewers that Bush had received money from Abramoff or his clients. It was left to O'Donnell, who remarked that "when it comes to personal contributions by Abramoff and his wife, he only made personal contributions to Republicans. Those Republicans have got to return those personal contributions, just like President Bush returned those contributions." At no point were viewers made aware that Bush has decided to keep more than $100,000 in contributions that Abramoff raised for the campaign during the 2004 election.
Matthews gave only passing mention to Hastert's receipt of Abramoff-related money, after Hardball correspondent David Shuster and Scarborough mentioned Hastert in two separate segments. During his report, Shuster stated:
SHUSTER: The Boston Globe reports Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert at a fund-raiser two years ago at Signatures, Abramoff's Capitol Hill restaurant, and collected [sic] $21,000. A week later, Hastert wrote to Interior Secretary Gail Norton, urging her to reject an Indian casino in Louisiana. Abramoff's clients feared that casino would be a new competitor. Hastert told Norton the new casino would, quote, "run counter to congressional intent."
Later, Scarborough mentioned the donations to Hastert, which Matthews briefly acknowledged before changing the subject to Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), who also received money from Abramoff and his clients, and could face indictment for "allegedly receiv[ing] favors from ... Abramoff in return for supporting legislation beneficial to one of Abramoff's clients," The Los Angeles Times reported January 4.
During the exchange, Scarborough stated:
SCARBOROUGH: I saw the report on Denny Hastert getting money from Abramoff, $21,000 at a fund-raiser that David Shuster reported. A week or two later, he writes a letter that helps an Indian casino that Abramoff supports. I think that's going way over the line.
To which Matthews responded:
MATTHEWS: Because he doesn't have Indians in his district. He's clearly -- this guy, Robert Ney, making some push in the Congressional Record for some business deal down in Florida, trying to screw some enemy of a business deal. There's nobody in Ohio that's got a casino in Florida.
From the January 5 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Johnny, we hardly knew ye. Suddenly, the biggest big shot on K Street is the man nobody knows. Suddenly, the man who handed out campaign cash like Johnny Appleseed is watching those $1,000 gifts being sent back to charity like Christmastime fruitcake. Even Hillary Clinton's got some hot Abramoff cash to shed. Let's play Hardball.
[...]
Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews, and welcome to Hardball. As disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff gets ready to dime out his pals on the Hill, the politicians who grabbed his campaign cash keep rushing to give it back, showing charity doesn't begin at home, but rather with hysteria. Tonight, as a public service from Hardball, we'll be listing the names of politicians, congressmen and senators returning or donating Abramoff-related contributions. You can read on the banners at the bottom of your screen. It's a public service. But will returning the campaign cash cleanse lawmakers of their sins in time for the midterm elections this November? And the big question today in Washington: Will Congressman Tom DeLay, "The Hammer," get nailed by the Abramoff scandal? Prominent conservative voices are already calling for DeLay's banishment as majority leader, with reports that some GOP House members are already campaigning for his job.
[...]
SHUSTER: The Boston Globe reports Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert at a fund-raiser two years ago at Signatures, Abramoff's Capitol Hill restaurant, and collected [sic] $21,000. A week later, Hastert wrote to Interior Secretary Gale Norton, urging her to reject an Indian casino in Louisiana. Abramoff's clients feared that casino would be a new competitor. Hastert told Norton the new casino would, quote, "run counter to congressional intent."
[...]
MATTHEWS: Try to decipher this. A member of Congress, somebody you know, once told me that you could go into a subcommittee and you'd be sitting around a room trying to figure out how to mark up a bill or how to begin to approach it -- and you could tell all of a sudden that some guys were tanked, as he said. In other words, you could tell they were in the tank, the industry had gotten to them, they were basically "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" types. And there's also guys like you, you know, a member of -- a lobbyist guy, you respect him, and he's a good source of information and maybe a campaign contribution now and then. But you're not owned by the guy. He can get in the door, maybe spend 10 minutes with you, but you could also say, "Tough luck." Where's the line?
SCARBOROUGH: I think the line is, and I saw the report on Denny Hastert getting money from Abramoff, $21,000 at a fund-raiser that David Shuster reported. A week or two later, he writes a letter that helps an Indian casino that Abramoff supports. I think that's going way over the line.
MATTHEWS: Because he doesn't have Indians in his district. He's clearly -- this guy, Robert Ney, making some push in the Congressional Record for some business deal down in Florida, trying to screw some enemy of a business deal. There's nobody in Ohio that's got a casino in Florida.
[...]
MATTHEWS: For more on this, we turn to Roger Simon, chief political correspondent for Bloomberg News -- and he's one of the best there is in politics -- and MSNBC's chief Washington correspondent Norah O'Donnell. Thank you, Norah. Let's -- I want to start with Simon here -- Roger, because you've covered so many campaigns, you've covered so many politicians, you write beautifully, and these guys are all shedding like the dogs in shedding season. Everybody is giving away their money, giving it away. Hillary Clinton even giving a thousand bucks away. I've never seen so many people giving so much money away to charity overnight because they don't want this Abramoff money.
[...]
MATTHEWS: We're back with Bloomberg chief political correspondent Roger Simon and MSNBC chief foreign -- chief Washington correspondent Norah O'Donnell. Norah, let me go through the settling out of this thing, the way we set it up. So far most of the names on the short list connected to Abramoff are Republican. There are some outlying names that keep popping up. Hillary Clinton gave back $1,000 today. [Senate Democratic Leader] Harry Reid's [D-NV] got a little connection through some Indian tribes. Conrad -- what's the other guy's name?
O'DONNELL: Burns.
MATTHEWS: Burns -- [Sen.] Conrad Burns [R-MT] involved here, at least tangentially. Is this a partisan problem in the main?
O'DONNELL: It's a great question. Is this only a Republican Party problem? Listen, when it comes to personal contributions by Abramoff and his wife, he only made personal contributions to Republicans. Those Republicans have got to return those personal contributions, just like President Bush returned those contributions.
people on the right keep parroting the same line about its both a republican and democrat problem but accepting the money is not the problem. I do not have a problem with all of them keeping the money if it was donated legally. The right wants to focus on the "everyone" part but the fact is that the actual illegal dealings(scotland golf trips,superbowl trips, bribes for legislation,etc.)as of right now look to be only a republican politician problem. The fact is if we keep focusing on the non-illegal parts of it and giving the right a freebie. This corruption would go down alot smoother for them if we agree and say "everyone" right along with them. Robert Ney, Tom Delay, republican aides and staff, Michael Scanlon, Duke Cunningham are the ones being looked at not Hillary or Hastert.
Chris Matthews:
... was a speechwriter for President Carter (D),
... was the top aide to Rep. "Tip" O'Neill (D-MA),
... worked on the staff of Sen. Frank Moss (D-UT),
... worked on the staff of Sen. Edmund Muskie (D-ME).
Matthews is hardly a beacon of "conservative misinformation." He is much tougher on Republicans. Links: [link to newsbusters.org] , [link to newsbusters.org] , and [link to newsbusters.org] (a few examples).
Media Matters is stretching here - big time.
...and Dick Morris was a longtime Clinton advisor who now spreads conservative misinformation every chance he gets.
Matthews has stated he is "more conservative than people think" and said, "I've voted Republican many times, (including) for George W. Bush in 2000."
[link to mediamatters.org]
He has also helped advise his brother Jim, who recently announced that he was a Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania.
Who you advised in the past really means nothing. Even former Democratic advisors can spread conservative misinformation.
Chris Matthews was also hired by none other than Roger Ailes of FOX News fame, in 1994 when he started NBC's first cable network "America's Talking" for a show called In Depth, and when MSNBC took over "America's Talking" in 1996, Ailes moved Matthews to CNBC for a half-hour show called Politics with Chris Matthews, which was renamed Hardball in January 1997. [Info almost verbatim from now-defunct Brill's Content article, "Chris Matthews Won't Shut Up," by Gay Jervey, September 1999.]
Zell Miller, Ronald Reagan and whole lot of other sane people either went nuts or sold out and became GOP shills. Matthews is no different and the rare bashings meted out to Republicans by Matthews usually involve such blatant and obvious transgressions that even he is obligated to mention them lest he be thought to be a Rush Limbaugh imitator.
Do you just have a bunch of snippets you keep around ready to cut and paste at will? You say the same things over and over and over. You're so pathetic.
I'm starting to think "Left045" is being paid to post on this website.
Unlike most of the other conservatives who post here, his goal does not seem to engage in any actual debate on the topics. His only goal seems to be to debunk or spin anything Media Matters says. He never even responds to any arguments presented to him.
Conservative politicians and media pundits have to be terrified at the affect Media Matters is having. I wouldn't put it past them to pay someone to sit and write post after post on this website.
Other's have pointed out that "Left045" runs the "frankenlies" website. Could he have been chosen for that very reason? O'Reilly has even promoted the "frankenlies" website in the past.
By the way, for a website which debunks "frankenlies", go here:
[link to frankenlies.blogspot.com]
What is this thing about Matthews that requires people to deny that he is into the conservative misinformation business? Why would he possibly single out Hillary's miniscule gift and not cover Hastert and many of the other Republicans. He is no better than the rest, except that he screams at the microphone. He looks to me like a Tim Russert wannabee for the right. He is an ardent Hillary hater and he tries to hide it, unlike the toe sucker who tries to turn it into a cottage industry.
"I have talked to a number of conservative Republicans, and to them he [Matthews] is the Democrat who's had the road-to-Damascus experience. He has become their poster boy, as ironic as that may seem."
-- former Hardball segment producer Clara Frenk, as reported in Brill's Content, September 1999.
Whatever Matthews was in the past, today he is a republican front man. He has displayed, on more than one occasion, his school-girl crush on GWB and his reporting reflects his infatuation.
Matthews is just another Republican-paid hack. He may be smarter than Armstrong Williams and so has not yet gotten caught. His bias is evident on every performance on MSNBC. Isn't his brother running for office in Maryland as a Republican?
You are beginning to sound like a message board troll - that is, someone with nothing original to say and ultimately should be ignored.
The fact that Chris Matthews has worked for democrats doesn't negate the fact that his Hardball program was not fair and balanced. It is a fact that ,while Democrats were sometimes given "token" contributions by Abrahamoff and his associates, the Republicans "made out like bandits" and Bush was one of the great benefactors. Chris had a responsibility to mention this and failed to do so. He should be taken to task for this serious omission. Telling only "half of the story" is a clever way of misleading.
Don't be fooled by Chris Matthews's CV. Despite the fact that he worked for President Jimmy Carter, Matthews's is not a liberal or progressive. During the run-up to the 2004 elections, he routinely did not challenge any of the lies made by the Republican spin machine (Frum, Mehlman, et al). He deliberately misleads by conflating facts. Indian tribes gave money to Senator Hillary Clinton. Indian tribes were clients of Abramoff. Matthews conflates this into a statement that Hillary Clinton is returning Abramoff cash which is not true. Abramoff did not donate to Sen. Clinton. The Indian tribe did.
Lighten up a bit........Chris Mathews at this point doesn't know exactly where he stands on the issues...I'd call him a "fair weather" friend if anything, as is MSNBC...they only go where the winds blow..........they fired Phil Donohue, even though it was their most popular show because it was considered by them and "only them" to be "too liberal"...didn'tseem to be in th "politically correct" mainstream. Now they are doing it again...showing how out of touch they truly are by hiring Maury Povich and his widfe Connie Chung!!!! Give me a break!!!!!
in the second line I should have used the word scandal instead of problem. Corruption is ultimately everyones problem.
It's as much what you don't say as what you do.
Matthews is a popinjay who long ago abandoned any liberal tendencies he may have had (nice list, LEFT045 - I guess people never sell out, right?) for the sweet, sweet life of the Washington Pundit.
Ah, the fancy parties! The Nantucket breezes! The soirees with Jack Welch! And the power, oh the power... (someone please tell Chris how small is audience is).
And nothing pissed off Matthews and his friends in the punditocracy more than those trailer-trash Clintons, messing up their swank social scene with their talk of policy (what, you expect us to RESEARCH this stuff?) and actually being interested in the riff-raff. Better expose Bill's and Hill's personal failings right away (no, not EVERYONE'S, just theirs).
So, as with all of Matthews' type, we must NEVER pass up a chance to take a swipe at Hillary Clinton: an accomplished lawyer, children's advocate, and fine mother; a woman who actually worked to keep her marriage from falling apart; and, a smart politico who won her first race for public office and kept a New York Senate seat Democratic in the face of a nationwide Republican sweep.
(In short, a woman who's done more with her life than Matthews could ever dream of doing.)
Because she's a PHONY! Unlike Chris. By the way, the president looks great in that flight suit! Al Gore wouldn't have been able to fill out that codpiece! You're with me on that, right?
Right?
Hello? Anybody there?
(chirp)
You are not making fun of Gen. Chuck Yea ..., I mean George W., are you?
Listening to these rightwing pundits, we could reconstruct almost word for word the "strategery" the White House is putting out daily on every issue.
With Abramoff, it's the old standby, "everybody does it." Pundits are instructed (suggested?) that they should miss no opportunity to say the DEMS ARE IN THIS AS DEEP AS THE REPUBLICANS.
Since the Matthews/Hannity/Limbaugh message is a united front, this tells us that the mechanism to direct the news BIAS from the White House is still up and running strong.
And, for GOD'S SAKE, don't tell the TRUTH, that Abramoff made and was "involved" in many contributions, in his own name, and on behalf of some of his clients, and some of them were perfectly LEGAL. Others were ILLEGAL. Others were ILLEGAL to make, and it is also ILLEGAL to take such contributions for a quid-pro-quo exercise of legislative power.
Abramoff is currently filling his deposition with names, amounts, and what was delivered in return by his request. I hate to burst the rightwing's bubble, but Hillary's name will not be among those who were involved in the ILLEGAL acts. No matter how much they wish the public to believe that Dems are "just as bad".
Agreed Tex!!
Wow!
If you haven't seen this exchange between Wolf Blitzer and Howard Dean, you owe yourself a treat!
[link to www.pastpeak.com]
Wolf is exasperated trying to promote the White House's "everybody does it" line, and receiving in return TRUTH to which he has no response, other than a deep (and telling) sigh.
Question: Does Howard Dean look "unhinged" or "insane" to anyone?
This shouldn't be a partisan argument. Bottom line: if you took a policy position because somebody bribed you, you shouldn't be in Congress. End of story. Maybe the scandal hurts more Republicans, but if some Dems have to get shown the door, than so be it. What I worry about is that the conservative media outlets like Fox News will be working so hard to make sure that Republicans don't get a black eye, that NOTHING will get done to correct this horrific trend in our so-called Democratic society. This is why your vote DOESN'T count, people. Because somebody richer than you is sitting on Capitol Hill laughing at you as you pull the ballot because h'e s got the REAL ballot pull inside his friggin wallet! I used to think Robespierre and the French Revolutionaries were nuts for beheading all those people. Now I'm starting to understand. Not that I condone violence, but this really pisses me off.
What really pissed me off was Matthews insisting on Friday's show -- contrary to any expert who has looked honestly at the situation -- that we don't need any new laws, we just need to enforce the laws we already have. I don't know if he really believes what he says, or if he is just trumpeting the results of some poll he knows about as a big-time Beltway insider. I am beginning to suspect that he never says anything contrary to popular public opinion -- with which of course he may in fact often agree -- which (if true and not disclosed) I think should probably disqualify him as a professional journalist.
I heard Matthews trying to minimize Abramoff and the scandal saying that the Indian tribes were small potatoes, B players I think he called them, that got hooked up with this cartoonish character sort of a freak of the system. I just finished reading CNN which said Tyco is now admitting they worked with Abramoff. How long will it take the Republicans and by extension corporate media to just admit they were in thrall to this guy.
I wonder why it's just the Indian Tribe lobbying that is one of the focal points here ... I guess these pundits seem to forget that Abramoff defrauded them for one.
Why don't we here about the lobbying efforts of big oil or big pharma?
I wonder how many more politicians have been bought off by those interests. The Indian tribes are small potatoes with respect to the bigger picture of influence peddling...
What Ellington and Tex said!
out of the rightwing playbook: whenever things get too hot, always fall back on your bread-and-butter play - BLAME CLINTON.
Ellington and Tex, you have my thanks for some fine, dead-on postings. Your comments reaffirm my belief that truth is the most effective antibiotic against conservative lies.
It must e very desolate and lonely on the right as it is absent of friends like "Truth" and "Integrity" and "Honor." Still, I do think it's a shame that they love their president more than they love ther country.
You don't think Chris knows what he's doing? He'd better minimize the significance of this scandal if he wants to keep his job. Remember, Bush is returning three times as much as Hillary, and that doesn't even include the other 100k that he refuses to return. I bet he almost pissed his pants when he learned Hillary received money. GOTCHA!
Lefty045 must be a paid operative. Notice how his post's are always hit and run. He posts something schlock early on, then never replies to any who comment on his posts.
As for Matthews and MSNBC, we gotta note ALL their advertisers contact info and release them into the blogosphere. MSM producers and personalities have no financial interest in what viewers think. They will, however, trample their own frail grandmothers to please advertisers. Despite (maybe, because of) all of the many provable instances of misinformation by the corporate media, advertisers feel no compunction to worry about a sullied reputation because they're not hearing from viewers who are offended and who pledge to buy from competitors.
I've already compiled a detailed contact list of advertisers for one network news program and intend to post it soon on Daily Kos.
If all of us worked on this, I believe we could make a difference.
...they're talking about it. I agree with someone's earlier post that this should not be a partisan issue. If politicians are for sale, then they need to be exposed as being for sale. I don't care if it's Hilary Clinton or Dennis Hastert.
The silver lining in this is that we have conservative Scarborough stating that Hastert stepped over the line. I think that is a GOOD thing.
Yea, Matthews is definitely trying to tie the links between notable Democrats and Abramoff, probably out of a need to provide some "balance". It doesn't excuse ignoring the notable Republican connection to Abramoff but I guarantee Matthews is taking a huge beating from conservative media watchdog aka "smear" sites for his "biased" coverage.
Besides, I enjoyed watching Mathews and Panetta make Ed Rogers squirm the night before. Rogers got so flustered he started accusing Panetta of past shady dealings...with only hearsay of course. But he was on the verge of losing it.
Imho, Matthew's Hardball is the only cable shout show worth watching.
BUT..
When you do have a situation where clearly one party has been indicated by a wide margin over another, it is an exercize in "false balance" to attempt to say both parties are equally guilty.
Fact is,so far more Republicans (including shrub) have been caught up in this Abramoff affair.
Yeah, the party of moral values....
There's more dirt to come. I for one would like to see investigations into all sectors of lobbyist influence - not just Indian tribe contributions. (Reminding people that Abramoff and company basically fleeeced the Indian tribes)
Of course they'll explain it away by saying "Blame Clinton"....
This is all just quite lovely, actually. The neocons are following their script like obedient little stormtroopers. 1. Deny the charges. 2. Claim "You don't have any evidence, you've got no proof (Much akin to Al Capone's famous line, "You got nothin' You got nothin'") 3. List a litany of "enemies'" transgressions along the same lines. However, if I'm in front of the judge with a speeding ticket, he really doesn't care if "other people were speeding as well." 4. Back to denial. 5. Repeat.
I knew the Clinton example would happen 7 nanoseconds after the initial revelation. So what. It's their M.O. Deny. No Evidence. The Dems did it first. I know you are, but what am I?
To: Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 10:58 AM Subject: Finally... Bush was right
when he said If you're not with of us, you're one of them!
Chris, in case you haven't noticed your reputation is also at stake in this Abramoff affair. Like so many infotainers on today's screens you've bet your career on the neocon train ride. And that was your right and choice, arguably a good one until recently.
Trouble is in doing so you also became one of the blow pipes in the fog of demagoguery machine, shouting out your adversary rather then arguing your case, tainting the messenger so as to obscure the message. (must be frustrating to see the end in sight without ever having come close to the likes of a Limbaugh or O'Reilly). Nevertheless your bear a direct and heavy share of responsibility for the swindling of America (mostly the vast majority or honest true conservatives that allowed themselves to be such easy prey) in the last 5-6 years. Until Abramoff it might have all been obscured by your fog machine.
Abramoff is not an aberration in the conservative ranks... he IS today's conservative, devoid of moral principles and integrity, the end justifying the means, believing its own demagoguery having shouted it out for so long (Pavlov's dogs!) and above all flaws, having chosen to be partisan first, no matter the cost to the nation or one's own integrity, all the while having lost that moral compass that checks one's actions against its consequences. So Chris, Bush is finally right. It's come to a point when talking heads like you have a clear choice... acknowledge the neocon con game... the "conning of America" so to speak... or be recognized as one of the con artists.
What'll be Chris?
PS: I recall in the early days of the age or darkness when you were a guest of poor Phil Donahue (poor guy should have known he didn't have a chance). Anyway during that show he was commenting on the demeanor and behavior of conservatives and used a body gesture akin to "strutting your stuff"... remember? You immediately jumped on him taking him to task for it... Look back now Chris...at your partners in crime and at yourself... see a resemblance?
Unless of course Matthews' role is primarily to spin the DC media, in which case he and his higher-ups are not really concerned with his ratings in the rest of the country. As long as he is still watched to any extent in the federal government's company town, I suspect he just might be fulfilling his mandate.
(No more preview >_< my html might be messy)
While Howard Dean's http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/08/le.01.html>exchange with Wolf Blitzer was http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/08.html#a6627>replete with dismissive responses running down DNC-this and RNC-that, the Wolf came out rather dissapointed at failing to make Dean say something that could be twisted.
It was quite funny, mind you. Wolf made no attempt to hide his one-sided take on the Abramoff issue.
Finally - someone saying something without the "spin"!!
Of course I realize that those who can't stand Howard Dean will just say to ignore him, but it was so nice to see the CNN segment where Mr. Dean flat out tells Blitzer that "No democrats took money from Abramoff"
additionally - and this is the best part!!
from the transcript on Atrios:
"DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this."
score one for Howard Dean.