This is a follow-up to a
post that I made a few days ago. In that post, I quoted Howard Kurtz and wondered aloud if he was lying. I wanted to see if anyone here knew more than I did and, perhaps, could
prove that he was lying.
Naturally, most of the people who responded to the post figured I was a troll; I even got a nice escargot recipe out of it.
Anyway, for anyone interested, Josh Marshall addressed this question directly earlier today over at Talking Points Memo. He's the expert in all things Abramoff, so that's about as definitive as it gets.
The question is one you're likely familiar with. The media have been recklessly saying that both Democrats and Republicans received "Abramoff-related" money.
We all know that they are misleading their viewers, of course, and we need to keep hounding journalists who continue to say things like that.
My question is on a slightly different subject. Kurtz is aware that no Democrats received money directly from Abramoff, but went one step further and said the money they received from Abramoff's clients should be considered dirty:
Kurtz: 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.
(emphasis mine)
That quote is in direct conflict with Howard Dean's comments on CNN:
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 at -- directed any contributions to Democrats.
(emphasis mine)
If you see any journalist out there saying that contributions from Indian tribes to Democrats are dirty money, I suggest that you send them a link to
Josh's post.
It apparently is possible that Abramoff might have done what Kurtz is saying, but it is also possible that he might have X-Ray vision and the ability to jump over tall buildings in a single bound. I'm sure anyone who reads TPM regularly would agree -- it is very unlikely that Howard Kurtz knows more about the Abramoff scandal that Josh Marshall does -- and Josh says there is no evidence to support that claim. Anybody up for writing a letter to the editor of the Post?