While reading a
Media Matters entry, I came across a
quote from everyone's favorite Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz.
The quote, if true, makes Howard Dean's statement on CNN (link -- at bottom of entry) a few days ago look very misleading and disingenuous.
I want to know if Howie is full of crap. Rather than duplicate some research that some Kossack has probably already done, I decided to just throw this out there.
(rest on flip)
OK. Here is the quote from the Media Matters article:
Howard Kurtz: I don't believe the media are saying this is an equal opportunity scandal. It is a scandal about a Republican lobbyist and fundraiser and friend of [former House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay [R-TX], that has already implicated another GOP congressman (Bob Ney [R-OH]), and most of those who are nervous are Republicans. The coverage, in my view, has fairly reflected that. However, it's also true that Abramoff, in the process of ripping off his clients, steered contributions to some Democrats as well as Republicans, and some of these Dems have since returned the money or donated it to charity.
The facts, as I understand them, are that no Democrat received money directly from Abramoff and that all of the money given to them through "Abramoff-related" sources came from Abramoff's Indian tribe clients who then contributed to various Democrats.
The Democrats contend that the Indian tribes were the victims in this affair and it is thus unlikely that any of their political contributions constituted evidence of malfeasance against the reciepient.
Kurtz's assertion that Abramoff actively "steered" contributions to Democrats is in direct conflict with the Democrats' position. Is there any evidence that Abramoff was channelling money through the tribes to Democrats, or is Howie just making things up?