Atlanta Journal-Constitution propagated false claim that Reid received contributions from Abramoff
SUMMARY: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported as fact the false allegation that Sen. Harry Reid received political contributions from Jack Abramoff. While Reid received contributions from Abramoff's firm's PAC (to which Abramoff did not contribute) and from some of Abramoff's partners and clients, a Center for Responsive Politics breakdown of Abramoff's donations confirms that Abramoff himself made contributions only to Republicans, not Democrats.
An August 14 Atlanta Journal-Constitution article about an upcoming fundraiser for Sen. John McCain hosted in part by former Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed reported as fact the false allegation that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) received political contributions from convicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Referring to Republican National Committee spokeswoman Katie Wright, the Journal-Constitution reported: "Democrats have Abramoff's dirt on their shoes as well, she said, noting that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) accepted nearly $70,000 in contributions from Abramoff and his associates." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, while Reid received contributions from Abramoff's firm's PAC (to which Abramoff did not contribute) and from some of Abramoff's partners and clients, a Center for Responsive Politics breakdown of Abramoff's donations confirms that Abramoff himself made contributions only to Republicans, not Democrats. In a December 21, 2005, article, Bloomberg News reported: "Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show."
As Media Matters documented, an August 12 Atlanta Journal-Constitution article uncritically quoted Wright's false assertion that Reid "took nearly $68,000 from Abramoff."
From the August 14 Atlanta Journal-Constitution article:
The Georgia Democratic Party was even more blunt. "John McCain says he takes the high road, and then he comes to Atlanta and chows down on shrimp cocktail with an unindicted co-conspirator," party spokesman Martin Matheny said.
The Republican National Committee struck back. Katie Wright, a spokeswoman, called the attacks "baffling" considering McCain led efforts to uncover Abramoff's corruption. McCain, she said, "has a solid record of integrity."
Democrats have Abramoff's dirt on their shoes as well, she said, noting that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) accepted nearly $70,000 in contributions from Abramoff and his associates.
Abramoff and his associates.
The AJC has their emphasis backwards here. They should have had it "... from Abramoff's associates."
No, their emphasis is not the problem. It's the statement itself that's false, has always been false, and has been the rightwing talking point since forever.
The one convicted of a crime was Abramoff. Not his PAC, not his associates. It's his contributions, and not those of his associates, that are therefore suspect.
If it's not from Abramoff, it doesn't merit mention. The only way that Republicans could attempt to counter how bad Abramoff made their side look was to promote that false talking point that it mattered what his associates and his clients did. But it doesn't matter. His clients were not convicted of the crimes he was convicted of.
Have I shared my latest finding about McCain's top lobbyist? It's precious. I sure wish I could afford to wrap my x-mas presents in sheets of US currency. What a great, elitist idea!
Monday, August 11, 2008
POWER HOUSE
Super lobbyist, McCain donor and loathsome GOP figure Ed Rogers decided to talk to the Washington Post about Barack Obama last week:
At least he was able to refrain from mentioning Obama's middle name while calling him "glitzy."
In other news, NBC has just completed the pilot for their new show, POWER HOUSE. In the first episode, we get to see how Ed Rogers and his wife live in their "Republican Shangri-La" -- an 18-thousand square foot estate in McLean, VA.
Looks just like my livingroom. We must have the same architect.
The genuine cowhide toilet-seat cover really says "I shit you not" with class. The golden studs around it aren't the least bit ostentatious.
And finally, we get to see why the lobbyists and hedonists with whom McCain has surrounded himself have proclaimed Americans to be a bunch of whiners:
That's right. She's standing in front of rows of her designer shoes cutting up sheets of freshly printed U.S. dollar bills with a pair of scissors so she can use them as wrapping paper.
This is an example by mmfa of the "eyes wide shut" brand of partisan journalism.
Was Abramoff an influence peddler? You bet.
Were democrats in on the deal? You bet.
Were republicans the main beneficiary? You bet.
Is this type of partisan reporting a reflection on today's malevolent media? You bet.
Thanks snoopy...we disagree on a lot of issues...and I try to remain open minded...well, sometimes anyway.
I'll tell you this for nothing...I just about swallowed my cud when I read "shoes" making the statement that Obama was not a natural born citizen because he may have been delivered by c-section.
You've got'em on your side...and so do I...so I guess we'll just soldier on.
Wesley said
Was Abramoff an influence peddler? You bet.
Were democrats in on the deal? You bet.
Were republicans the main beneficiary? You bet.
But what's the truth? Abramoff was the one who was convicted, and he gave no money to Democrats! Democrats weren't "in on the deal".
What we see in Wesley's post is another attempt to paint the Democrats as doing the same thing as Republicans when they haven't been. This is a common distracting theme by the righties, and I hope they keep it up. People can't stand it anymore, and every time they make that false comparison and people realize that the Dems aren't doing what the Republicans are doing, it's another nail in the coffin of the Republicans who are in power today.
Democrats didn't get contributions from the convicted person. Republicans did.
That's enough, Oscar, quit making Wesley look stupid. You're supposed to defend him. What kind of Republican are you?
A. The kind that makes it much more difficult for me to post my broad-brush insults. Damn you Oscar !!!
At least this time around.
Well, we should at least wait for someone to actually DO something corrupt before labelling them as such. It's just more sporting that way.
"Were democrats in on the deal? You bet."
Name some then.
Ask and ye shall receive:
Abramoff and democrats