Dobbs repeated AP report that omitted key facts about Reid's alleged connections to Abramoff
SUMMARY: CNN's Lou Dobbs reported on an Associated Press article published that day that he said demonstrated "the huge influence of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff in Congress" by showing that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had written "at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Abramoff." But the AP article left out important details of two incidents that purportedly link Reid to Abramoff -- details that undermine Dobbs' assertion that it demonstrates any influence Abramoff had with Reid.
During the February 9 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, host Dobbs reported on an Associated Press article published that day that he said demonstrated "the huge influence of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff in Congress" by showing that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had written "at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Abramoff." But as Media Matters for America previously noted, the February 9 AP article by staff writers John Solomon and Sharon Theimer left out important details of two incidents that purportedly link Reid to Abramoff -- details that undermine Dobbs' assertion that it demonstrates any influence Abramoff had with Reid.
The AP article suggested that Reid coordinated with Abramoff to sabotage proposed legislation that would have raised the minimum wage in the Northern Mariana Islands -- a U.S. territory represented by Abramoff -- without noting that, in fact, Reid was a co-sponsor of that legislation and spoke on the Senate floor in favor of its passage. The Northern Marianas minimum wage provision was part of a broader bill to raise the U.S. minimum wage. The article mentions Abramoff associate Ronald Platt several times, describing him as a member of the "Democratic team" at Abramoff's firm, and quotes Reid spokesman Jim Manley saying that Reid met regularly with Platt to discuss policy issues. But while the story notes that Reid met with Platt in June 2001 to discuss the minimum wage bill, and reports that Platt "began billing for routine contacts and meetings with Reid's staff" in March 2001, it did not quote Platt at any point. Further, blogger Joshua Micah Marshall reported Platt's assertion that the AP reporters did not even attempt to contact him for the article.
Marshall also asked Platt whether Reid had taken any action against the minimum wage bill following their meeting, to which Platt responded, "I'm sure he didn't." According to Platt, the purpose of his contacts was to see what information he could get about the timing and status of the legislation. Reid's position on the minimum wage issue was well known and there would have been no point trying to get his help blocking it. That's what Platt says. "I didn't ask Reid to intervene," said Platt. "I wouldn't have asked him to intervene. I don't think anyone else would have asked. And I'm sure he didn't." At no point during the AP story were readers informed about Platt's contention that the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss Reid's position on the legislation.
The AP also failed to note what subsequent action Reid took on the legislation; in fact, Reid spoke in support of the bill's passage in a May 6, 2002, speech on the Senate floor:
REID: The Fair Minimum Wage Act would increase the Federal minimum wage by $1.50 over 2 years. We are not asking it be kept up with inflation from when it was first established. About 80,000 Nevadans and about 9 million Americans would get a raise up to $6.65 during the next 2 years. This modest proposal would bring the real value of the minimum wage within a penny of the value it had in the 1980s.
The AP story also noted that Reid opposed legislation to approve a Michigan casino for a Native American tribe that would have rivaled a casino owned by a tribe represented by Abramoff. But the article omitted the fact that Reid said at the time that he opposed the legislation because it would create a "very dangerous precedent" for the spread of off-reservation gambling -- something Reid had opposed for nearly a decade. The AP further noted that Reid deemed the bill "fundamentally flawed" but neglected to mention why Reid said he reached that conclusion:
Reid went to the Senate floor to oppose fellow Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow's effort to win congressional approval for a Michigan casino for the Bay Mills Indians, which would have rivaled one already operating by the Saginaw Chippewa represented by Abramoff.
"The legislation is fundamentally flawed," Reid argued, successfully leading the opposition to Stabenow's proposal.
In fact, Reid said the legislation was flawed because it would allow the Bay Mills tribe to build an off-reservation casino "under the guise of settling a land claim." From the November 19, 2002, Congressional Record:
REID: [A]llowing a tribe to settle a land claim and receive trust land hundreds of miles from their reservation for the express purpose of establishing a gaming facility sets a very dangerous precedent.
This pursuit of off-reservation gaming operations should continue to follow the procedures outlined in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Public Law 100-497, which authorizes tribal gaming operations on off-reservation ''after-acquired lands'' where the land to be acquired has no relationship to the land upon which the claim was based.
Let me say that the first gaming compact ever approved with an Indian tribe in the history of the country was done in Nevada. So it is not as if Nevada is here opposing this request. The first compact ever approved in the country was in Nevada. That is still an ongoing operation and a very successful one.
The proposed casino would be located just north of Detroit on a major link to Ontario that is in the lower corner of the lower peninsula. Bay Mills is located in the upper peninsula. The legislation is fundamentally flawed because it allows Bay Mills to establish gaming facilities under the guise of settling a land claim.
The land claim is simply -- and everybody knows this -- an excuse to take land into trust for off-reservation gaming. I object.
This position was entirely consistent with Reid's longtime opposition to off-reservation gambling. As early as 1998, Reid supported the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which generally prohibited Indian gaming on non-tribal lands. He proposed separate legislation in 1993 "prohibit[ing] states from opening gaming operations on off-reservation land" [AP, 5/28/93].
From the February 9 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
DOBBS: And a new report tonight, apparently demonstrating the huge influence of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff in Congress. Senate Minority Leader Senator Harry Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Abramoff, according to The Associated Press. Senator Reid reportedly collected nearly $70,000 from groups associated with Abramoff. Abramoff himself has pleaded guilty to fraud and bribery charges. He is now helping federal prosecutors investigate lawmakers and their staffs. Tonight, Senator Reid's office said he did not write the letters to Indian tribes on behalf of Abramoff and Senator Reid has never taken contributions from Abramoff.
So Reid never received $$ directly from Jack the Rip-offArtist, but doesn't one of his sons (or other close relative) work for the related law firm? Not illegal in any way, perhaps, but still doesn't smell quite right.
All I can find is that some of Reid's relatives are lobbyists and that after this became an issue in regard to some legislation, they are no longer allowed to lobby Reid's office. I can't find a thing about any connection to Abramoff.
I think it is important to look at how business is done in Washington. However, the issue in the Abramoff matter is not legal practices. All the flap about campaign contributions is just blowing smoke. The issue is bribes. Bribes are illegal.
If you object to practices that are currently legal, you should urge your congressman and senators to address this. However, I think it would require a complete overhaul of our electoral system to eliminate the need for cash that leads candidates to exploit every legal means of gaining contributions.
If lobbying by former legislators and family members of legislators were outlawed, there would be a real shortage of lobbyists in Washington. Not that I'm saying that's a bad thing!
i heard that reid's second cousin's babysitter's brother in law once flew on the same plane as abramoff. must be something there huh? you know, where there's smoke....
It gives you something to do I guess. Trying desperately to tie Abramoff to Reid.
Personally, I think it's a little sisyphean. You'll never get that boulder over the hill.
Reid is as clean as the floor in an operating room.
While I agree with your assertion about the Neo-Cons trying to show something...anything that might tie even one Dem to Abramoff (in this case Senator Reid) to get any other issue on the TV before it attacks their boy king George (though its likely to late for that)......
I have to disagree with you on only one minor thing......no politician is as clean as an operating room floor......
Do I believe that Reid is dirty.....Heck no!! But he, like every politician is influenced by money......because (this leads to what WANDERWOMAN said) the system is such that private money (corporate donations/lobbyists/soft money.....etc is to easily accessible.....to many loopholes and to tempting to say "NO" too!!
Which is why "WE THE PEOPLE" need to demand a complete overhaul of the Campaign Finance Laws so that every dollar the politicians get are from "US!!" and not greedy bastards like Defense Contractors, Drug Companies, Banks, OIL & ENERGY cronies (like Haliburton: Which by the way, Dick still gets compensation from)
While I agree with your overall gist, you said:
"While I agree with your assertion about the Neo-Cons trying to show something...anything that might tie even one Dem to Abramoff...
But here, it's not the "Neo-Cons" trying to tie Reid to Abramoff - it's the AP and Lou Dobbs of CNN. You know, the "Liberal" media.
Why in the world is the "objective" press trying so hard to make this a bipartisan scandal when it is clearly a Republican one? Why are Dobbs and the AP straining to connect Reid to Abramoff when the Republican connections are so strong?
If we really had "liberal media bias," this story would never have run - and yet, here it is.
This is yet another example of how foolish and stupid it is to believe that the "mainstream" media is liberal. This isn't Fox or the National Review: it's CNN and the AP.
They've been hounded for over 30 years by the right about their "bias," and now they strain to make every story about conservative corruption and failure "balanced."
about Dems like Tom Harkin of Iowa got help from Abramoff.
If you are for cleaning up the system, I am sure that includes getting rid of 527s like moveon.org, mmfa, swift boats.
"...Dems like Tom Harkin of Iowa got help from Abramoff."
What do you mean, "got help"? Not one Democrat received money directly from Jack Abramoff. As the American Propect showed, money to Democrats from Abramoff's clients decreased when they hired Abramoff.
Please be clear: how did Abramoff "give help" to Harkin, and what did Harkin do in return? And it would help if you cite your sources.
"If you are for cleaning up the system, I am sure that includes getting rid of 527s like moveon.org, mmfa, swift boats."
MMFA is not a 527; it's a 501(c)(3). As such, it cannot engage in political activities on behalf of a political party or candidate.
The problem with the Swifties wasn't their tax status: it was the fact that they were brazen liars, and the mainstream media allowed them access to the press without properly vetting them.
As to MoveOn.org - they support candidates who espouse their beliefs. They don't, however, lobby politicians on behalf of special interests. For example, they don't take money from two different Indian tribes - one seeking to build a casino, one seeking to stop that building - and then seek to get special favors for one over the other by bribing public officials.
They don't give money to politicians to get them to make laws that allow garments made in the Mariana Islands to display "Made in America" tags while denying their sweatshop workers the American minimum wage.
I'm all for cleaning up the system, and public financing of candidates and free TV time would be a good start. But let's please get our facts straight before we begin the debate.
Why in the world is the "objective" press trying so hard to make this a bipartisan scandal when it is clearly a Republican one?
Apparently, Reid accepted some money, $68,000, from some clients of Abramoff immediatly after Reid had sent some letters supporting Abramoff's client's position. It also appears that there was substantial contact between Abramoff people and Reid's people during this period of time. Neither instance is of itself proof of wrongdoing, but isn't that worth "looking into?" Most of you consider merely a "picture" of the President with Abramoff to be proof positive of high crimes and misdemeanors, but see nothing untoward with Reid. Hmmmmmmmm.......
leatherhelmet: harkin got help from abramoff. what, specifically? lodi: there were substantial contacts between reid and abrahamoff's people. you mean more substantial than abrahamoff being a bush "pioneer", a level of fundraising that gets you personal meetings with the president? like i say, typical right wingers, all innuendo. why doesn't the white house just release the records of abrahamoff's meetings with bush? this is pretty much the same as bush: "mr. lay? i think he supported my opponent, ann richards." and you people accept this lying, which makes you as dishonest also.
you mean more substantial than abrahamoff being a bush "pioneer", a level of fundraising that gets you personal meetings with the president?
AnyoneTEN'S OF THOUSANDS of times, does not constitute "direct political action."
you mean more substantial than abrahamoff being a bush "pioneer", a level of fundraising that gets you personal meetings with the president?
Anyone can be a "pioneer." Not just anybody can get a politician to take direct political action on your behalf as is the case with Reid. Shaking someone's hand, and smiling for a camera, as any President does TEN'S OF THOUSANDS of times, does not constitute "direct political action."
Anyone can be a "pioneer."
Really? Anyone can pledge $100,000 to the Bush campaign. Wow, silly me, I though only the rich and powerful could raise that kind of bread! I guess we can tell all those students who are getting loans cut and people being throw off of Medicaid that ANYONE can get access to the president!
And, yes, I'm sure Jack Abramoff was just another tourist in in at the White House, what with that $100,000 pledge he made. No special treatment there...
once again, because reid may have taken money from abramoff "clients", does not mean he took any direct political contributions or actions on abramoff's behalf. you are trying to claim reid did, but the fact is he didn't. at the same time you ignore his much closer contacts with republicans.
once again, because reid may have taken money from abramoff "clients", does not mean he took any direct political contributions or actions on abramoff's behalf. you are trying to claim reid did, but the fact is he didn't. at the same time you ignore his much closer contacts with republicans.
I agree, nothing is proven in this case, AND nothing has been proven as it relates to any Republicans. Let me say this very clearly. Anyone, ANYONE caught and proven to have taken a bribe or otherwise acted clearly in violation of laws with malice and intent, SHOULD BE LOCKED UP. I'm not talking about this nick nack crappola, I'm talking about the "Cunningham" type violation. Cunningham, as far as I'm concerned, should spend a LOT of time in jail, A LOT!! But jumping the gun, about Reid, or Delay, or Clinton, or Frist, or anyone is wrong. Let the justice system work. I'm more pointing out the double standard. Innuendo and rumor seems to be all it takes to convict a Republican, yet that same innuendo and rumor is just that around here when its a Democrat.
First, Bush and Abramoff:
No, there is nothing inherently wrong about having your picture taken with Jack Abramoff - unless you LIED about not knowing who he was!
This is shades of "Kenny-Boy" lay all over again. Abramoff was a Bush Pinoeer, raising $100,000 for the 2004 campaign, and he has given detailed descriptions of his meetings with Bush. Yet Bush claims he doesn't know the man, just like he claimed he didn't know Lay.
The pictures are proof that Bush LIED about this. Do you think your president should be LYING? I seem to rememebr the last president getting a lot of grief about lying - why don't you care about whether Bush is a LIAR?
As to Reid:
Please reread the above item. For over 10 years, Harry Reid has been against the building of tribal casinos. Why? Gee, do you think it might have something to do with him being the senator from NEVADA?
They've got this little town there called Las Vegas, and another one called Reno, and I hear there's some gambling going on in each. Maybe the senator from NEVADA wouldn't like it too much if other parts of the country started building casinos; maybe that would take away business from NEVADA, which, I'm guessing, wouldn't be too good for the senator from NEVADA's political career.
Now, if you were an Indian tribe trying to stop another tribe from building a casino, and there was a senator from NEVADA with a 10 year track record of opposing that building, would you think it was a good idea to give him a contribution?
Let's be clear - this system stinks. It stinks on both sides of the aisle, and I don't claim for a second that Democrats are pure.
But what Abramoff did was illegal. What Delay is accused of is illegal. No one has shown any indication that the same can be said for Reid.
Reread the above item. The AP report left out substantial facts that provide a context for understanding this.
You are right....it isnt fair for me to lump the AP and CNN (Lou Dobbs) in the same group as Fox Opinion......but considering the nature of MSM now-a-days its hard not to!!
Should Dobbs know better? He should......but lately....there doesn't seem to be any motivation in the TRUTH!!
Except the money that comes in from all those wonderful advertisers!! And the prospect of being patted on the head by Karl Rove!!
Your point is well taken. CNN and Fox are practically indistinguishable at this point.