Debbie, Debbie, Debbie
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
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.''
No you didn't.
The Washington Post ombudsman didn't just use the New Republic
to back her up. That simply isn't possible. Or maybe it is.
Oh, darlin', where to begin.
First, it's obvious that this dumb broad needs a job description,
or at least the actually definition of what she's supposed to be doing.
ombudsman: a man who investigates complaints
and mediates fair settlements, especially between aggrieved parties such as
consumers or students and an institution or organization.
Nowhere in there does it stipulate that you're supposed to give
your two cents about anything regarding the Abramoff scandal. Or is Debbie trying
to say she's going to mediate between Republicans and Democrats on this? She
doesn't have the chops.
Her mistake in the “firestorm” was weighing in when
she didn't know the facts, or was too poor a writer to explain the facts to
her readers. Or is she truly so dimwitted as to believe that if the Washington
Post ombudsman says something it will be taken as gospel. If so, Ms. Howell
has not been paying attention. Those days are gone with Bob Woodward.
It seems we've gone from Bush, to Oprah channeling Bush, to Debbie
Bush couldn't admit his mistakes on the WMD and, well, everything
from that point forward.
Oprah couldn't admit she'd been had, backed a con artist artist,
but couldn't admit it.
Now we've got Debbie saying this was all about not being clear,
but what she really meant was that though both parties took money, it's really
a Republican scandal.
The crap is so deep you need a second story to escape the stench.
There was never any doubt whatsoever that Democrats took lobbying
money. EVERY politician in Congress takes lobbying money. If they didn't they
wouldn't be in Congress.
But not one Democrat took money in a pay to play pay off like
Tom Delay, Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham and all the rest.
Campaign contributions from lobbyists are legal. Bribes are not.
The distinction is the whole ball game.
Simply stated, Ms. Howell and the Washington Post didn't think
they would ever be questioned by the masses. She can talk about profanity and
gutter language emails all she wants. Welcome to web reality, babe. I feel your
pain. However, I couldn't care less about it.
Like the incident with Chris Matthews' calculating slander against
Michael Moore, Ms. Howell thought she could just throw out her false statements about Democrats, thinking her power bubble would protect her, and that people wouldn't know the difference. Both Matthews
and Howell felt the blowback from we the people progressives who really are sick and
tired of dictims coming down from on high, masquerading as truth, but which are actually being used to assault the opposition party.
As for the New Republic, Michael Crowley and his “the narrow
liberal-blogger definition of whether any Democrats took money,” he is plainly
being obtuse. Again, for the dimwitted at TNR, taking lobbying money from gaming companies
or tribes is not illegal. It's business as usual. The problem is giving money
for access, pay to play pay offs, while taking trips, receiving gifts, stipulating earmarks, or letting lobbyists write the frickin' bills in Congress. Oh, then there's
that thing about Congressman Ney actually trying to help Abramoff and the Bushies
do in a businessman in Florida, who just happened to end up whacked by the mob.
Is that a “narrow liberal-blogger definition” Mr. Crowley?
Democrats did not put earmarks in legislation to help their lobbyist
friends like Bush Republicans did.
Democrats did not take cash for putting comments in the Congressional
Record like one certain Bush Republican did.
Democrats did not take a private Learjet to Texas to be arraigned
after being indicted like the House majority leader did.
Democrats do indeed love their lobbying money. But what the Democrats
took in doesn't smell of slave labor in the Marianas, where little girls are
forced into work, forced to have abortions, with work conditions comparable
to slaves. That's not only something Tom holier than thou Delay set up, but condoned and championed, as ABC reported.
Yes, Abramoff is a Republican scandal. As for Matthews, Howell and Michael Crowley and everyone else who doesn't get it yet, what was it that Newt Gingrich said? Oh, yeah, now I remember… (here's our version)
We Democrats clearly fascinate them… We're much more intense,
much more persistent, much more willing to take risks to get it done. Since Matthews,
Howell, Crowley and others of their ilk think it is their job to run the plantation,
it shocks them that some progressives are actually willing to lead the slave
We're speaking truth to power, baby, and we're not going to stop until we pull the plantation down.