Daily Kos

WaPo Ombudsman Regurgitates GOP Lies, Chapter XXXVII

by Califlander

Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 07:37:20 AM PDT

Once again, the Washington Post ombudsman, Deborah Howell, displays her comprehensive ignorance of the facts as she rushes to embrace the GOP's latest lies.

More below the fold ....

Today's column, Getting the Story on Jack Abramoff, starts off as yet another breathless, sloppy wet kiss for the Post's Steno Sue Schmidt:

Susan Schmidt, a Post veteran of 23 years, has been the lead reporter since the story began to unfold in the fall of 2003; she was later joined by R. Jeffrey Smith and James V. Grimaldi. Their work has been supervised by editors on the national and investigative desks.

Schmidt is known at The Post for a remarkable ability to dig and develop broad and deep sources from all sides of a story.

Schmidt, of course, is mostly known in the reality-based community for her remarkable ability to dig Republican spin and spew it into the pages of her once-proud paper while simultaneously ignoring evidence presented from all other sides of the story.

I almost turned away from this heart-fluttering little puff-piece (Our reporters are so great!  That's why being ombudsman for the Post is such a faaaaabulous job!) before I came across this:

In the fall of 2003, a lobbyist called to tip Schmidt that Abramoff was raking in millions of dollars from Indian tribes to lobby on gambling casinos. Schmidt started checking Federal Election Commission records for Abramoff's campaign contributions. Lobbyists also file forms with Congress that give information on clients and fees.

Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties.

There, in black-and-white in the pages of the Post, is the lie the Republicans have been working feverishly to push out into the public discourse: that Jack Abramoff, he of the decades-long Republican pedigree and tireless efforts to promote the GOP while simultaneously shutting out the Democrats, isn't the public face of a Republican scandal, because he gave to both parties.  

Except, of course, that he didn't.  But why should the middle-aged matrons of the Post let trivial things like the truth interfere with their obedient recitation of their lords and masters' talking points?

How does such crap wind up being printed in the Post?  Well there are a number of possible factors:  


    1.  Howell has no idea what the facts are
    2.  Howell doesn't care what the facts are
    3.  Howell has been successfully cowed by a GOP intimidation campaign
    4.  All of the above

Evidence for the third option is contained in her column, and it suggests that we in the netroots need to take a more active role in pushing back on this issue:

The second complaint is from Republicans, who say The Post purposely hasn't nailed any Democrats. Several stories, including one on June 3 by Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, a Post business reporter, have mentioned that a number of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money.

So far, Schmidt and Grimaldi say their reporting on the investigations hasn't put Democrats in the first tier of people being investigated.

But stay tuned. This story is nowhere near over.

The Republicans are aggressively working the refs to get their dishonest version of events out into the public sphere.  Are we working as hard to get the truth out?  I urge everyone to contact Howell at the Post via e-mail to set the record straight, but more importantly, keep an eye out in your local media for this lie and be prepared to push back, hard, in letters to the editor and whatever other means are available to counter the GOP lies.

Tags: Jack Abramoff, Republicans, Washington Post, activism, Recommended (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 57 comments

  •  Democrats (4.00 / 26)

    Democrats took donations from the victims of Abramoff.  Victims of the crimes that Abramaoff has pleaded guilty to.

    Abramoff.

    Abramoff pleaded guilty to crimes.

    Crimes.

    Victims of Abramoff's crimes also gave to Democrats.

    Indian tribes were victims.

    Abramoff has admitted so in a court of law.

    Abramoff will probably go to prison for victimizing the tribes.

    The tribes are the victims.

    Some of these tribes contributed to Democratic campaigns, but they have done so before Abramoff ever came along and I presume that they will continue to do so after he is gone, simply because Democrats are allies of the tribes and Republicans are White Nationalists who despise them.

    Wahoo!

    by bink on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 07:43:39 AM PDT

  •  Forgot the tip jar (4.00 / 14)

    If you think it's relevant, please cross-link this diary at other progressive blogs or feel free to use it as a departure point for your own posts.  

    It's important that we not allow this lie to gain any further ground in the public consciousness.  The GOP created Jack Abramoff in the bowels of their college movement, and nurtured him until he burst forth like a canker on the national polity.  

    They own him.  Let's not let anyone forget that.

    by Califlander on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 07:52:02 AM PDT

    •  Abromoff directed the tribes to give to Repubs (4.00 / 4)

      http://www.bloomberg.com/...
      <div class="blockquote">Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show. At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats.</div>
      ...
      <div class="blockquote">Abramoff's tribal clients continued to give money to Democrats even after he began representing them, although in smaller percentages than in the past.</div>

      by qw3rty on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 10:40:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "more money to GOP" = some money to Dems (none / 0)

        Does anyone have an actual numerical breakdown of Abramoff's donations?

        I'm predicting the Post's ombudsman will argue Abramoff's donations were "substantial" to both parties - and then argue that "substantial" can mean anything. But this Bloomberg article does imply that Ambramoff's Indian tribe did give money to Democrats.

        Of course, the Post's ombudsman boxes herself in by saying that ABRAMOFF gave the substantial contributions. This is untrue. As I understand it anyways, Abramoff himself only gave money to Republicans.

        We should try to nail this down - with references - to give our complaints more credibility.

        by densityland on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 11:29:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Who else thinks she's on the Bush payroll? (4.00 / 2)

    -6.75, -4.77

    by The Truffle on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:15:35 AM PDT

  •  Lets all Email the Ombudsman! (4.00 / 6)

    Harry Reid on Abramoff--link

    http://www.foxnews.com/....

    WALLACE: I just have to pick up on this, because you've been mentioning corruption several times here. One of the biggest scandals in Washington right now involves Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist who's under investigation, and his clients.

    It turns out that you received $66,000 in campaign contributions from Abramoff and his clients. Some of your colleagues...

    REID: Chris, Chris...

    WALLACE: May I ask the question?

    REID: Don't try to say I received money from Abramoff.

    REID: I've never met the man, don't know anything...

    WALLACE: But you've received money from...

    REID: Make sure that all your viewers understand -- not a penny from Abramoff. I've been on the Indian Affairs Committee my whole time in the Senate.

    WALLACE: But you've received money from his firm. You've received money from some of his clients. The question I'm asking if I may get the question out, Senator. Some of your colleagues, both Republican and Democrats, have given back campaign contributions that had any taint of Abramoff to it. Are you going to do so?

    REID: Well, first of all, Chris, make sure that -- again, I'll repeat, Abramoff gave me no money. His firm gave me no money. He may have worked a firm where people have given me money. But I have -- I feel totally at ease that I haven't done anything that is even close to being wrong.

    And I'm going to continue doing what I've done for my entire tenure in Congress. My record -- any money that I've received -- it's a federal law. You can look who gave it to me, how much, when they gave it to me, and what their occupations are.

    So don't lump me in with Jack Abramoff. This is a Republican scandal. Don't try to give any of it to me.

    WALLACE: Senator Reid, we're going to have to leave it there. We want to thank you so much, and please come back soon, sir.

    Fact check Obama spins on Hillary http://facts.hillaryhub.com/

    by timber on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:26:25 AM PDT

    •  Why the subtlety... (4.00 / 4)

      Reid should have said...

      "Enough!!! If you ever want me or any members of my caucus to come on your TV show again, you will stop peddling unverified stories.  You are a journalist, not a politician.  You just said I received money from Jack Abramoff's firm and Jack Abramoff, IN FRONT OF ME.  I think I know who I received money from.  What is the source of this story.  Did you even take five minutes to research this story?  Before we move on, please provide your viewers with your proof of this outlandish accusation.  You know, I don't even care if your show is fair and balanced, can you at least be fair and FACTUAL"

      They need to cut out the he said/she said....

      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you...then you win -- Mahatma Gandhi

      by justmy2 on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 09:21:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Response by Reid... (none / 0)

      ...after letting Wallace finish, should be:

      As part of your question, you just stated that I received money from Abramoff or from the lobbying firm he managed.  This is legally actionable slander. I have not, nor has any Democrat received money from Abramoff. I want to know whether you stand by your statement, and I want a simple yes or no answer. If it's no, I want you to retract and apologise right now. Otherwise this interview is over and you'll be hearing from my lawyer.

      by miholo on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 11:08:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My letter to Ms. Howell (4.00 / 3)

    First, thanks for posting this.  

    Second, the staff of the Post reads email.  I hope she responds to me.  I encourage you to write her as well.

    Of course Republicans will complain.  However, you have fallen into their trap by publishing such complaints.  Had you looked into the facts of the matter, instead of the noise, you would have seen that not one Democrat has ever accepted campaign money from Jack Abramoff.  Not a single one.  

    Your column matters.  Many readers look to you be an arbiter of news and put forth facts.  When you simply repeat Republican spin, you do yourself, your newspapers, and your readership a grave disservice.  If you are not interested in doing your job correctly, perhaps you should resign.

    by dsgitlin on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:26:31 AM PDT

  •  Please see the excellent diary (none / 0)

    already posted on this topic.

    marc in MD shares his LTE with us along with analysis.



    by dwahzon on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:30:37 AM PDT

  •  Demand apology and retraction (none / 1)

    I hope Reid, Dorgan and Democratic Senators correct this right away--demand apology and retraction or sue them for libel.

    Fact check Obama spins on Hillary http://facts.hillaryhub.com/

    by timber on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:37:42 AM PDT

  •  My letter to that lady. (4.00 / 6)

    Here's my letter to Ms. Howell.

    Dear Ms. Howell:  

    Can you please tell me the names of the Democrats who actually received money DIRECTLY from Jack Abramoff as you so state in your article on January 15, 2006.  Mr. Birnbaum also states this in June 3, 2005 Birnbaum article that you referred to as well.

    I think there is a big difference between getting money from Abramoff versus getting money his clients.  You will note that the Bush campaign received $100,000 in Abramoff related funds.  Why are they only returning $6000?  Because that is the amount that came directly from Abmramoff.  

    So, once again, who are the Democrats that have received actual Abramoff money as you so state?  

    Debra Howell wrote on January 15, 2006:

    "including one on June 3 by Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, a Post business reporter, have mentioned that a number of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money."

    Jeffrey Birnbaum wrote on June 3, 2005:  

    "Over that period, while Abramoff and his lobbyists directed nearly $4 million in funds from the tribes to lawmakers, they also gave from their own pockets. Two-thirds of the total went to Republicans and one-third was handed out to Democrats, according to The Post's calculations."

    However, neither you or Mr. Birnbaum state which Democrats actually got Abramoff's OWN money.  Please let us know.  Why the secrecy?    

    Thanks.  

    by funcha on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 09:04:16 AM PDT

  •  letter to Howell (4.00 / 5)

    Dear Ms. Howell,

    I encourage you to visit Califlander's (http://www.dailykos.com/...) and Marc in MD's (http://www.dailykos.com/...) diaries on DailyKos for a sense of the outrage your article on page B06 has generated. Some of the posts are ad hominem, but please read the original posts and understand that the majority of responses are heartfelt reactions to the one-sided nature of your treatment of the Post's coverage of the Abramoff scandal. In particular, as the diaries points out, two statements you make are fictions that also match perfectly the RNC talking points on the story.

    First, you state: "Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff . . . had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties." That is false, and not supported by any Schmidt article. Schmidt instead parrots the Republican line by studiously using formulations like "Abramoff's associates and clients" (December 5, 2005 "Dorgan Tangled in Abramoff Web"). Had either you or Ms. Schmidt been interested in balance, the DNC point that Abramoff had not made substantial contributions to Democrats would have been mentioned. As it stands, you mischaracterize Schmidt's articles already misleading formulation. Funny how at each point, the Post coverage tilts to the right.

    Second, you state: "Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money." This is again false, and would only be consistent with Post (again, 12/5/05) reporting if it said "Abramoff associates and clients" instead of "Abramoff". And that is not nitpicking. The list of Abramoff's colleagues and clients is long indeed, and nowhere have I seen a comprehensive list of which Senators have gotten the most money from those folks. The allegations are, of course, whether pay for play was involved, and all we know now is that Abramoff has pled. So characterizing contributions from associates as contributions to Abramoff is the journalistic equivalent of guilt by association. Again, records show Abramoff directly gave only to Republicans. But you wouldn't know that from reading the Post.

    I am forwarding this message to some of the Post's Associate Editors. My own reaction to this article is simply this: I expect this spin from the reporters like Schmidt, or the notoriously pro-War editorial page. But the whole conept of having an Ombuds position is to reflect on the writing of news, and for this reason your increasing the slant of the reporting is more egregious. I don't know why you are intent on dragging the Post rightward from the already pro-Bush slant of Ms. Schmidt's reporting, but I urge you and the Post to immediately post a correction, and consider assigning an Ombuds Ombudsperson to deal with errors like this and whether there is a reason they keep popping up.

    Best,

    MarkC

    "Stare at the monster: remark/ How difficult it is to define just what/ Amounts to monstrosity in that/ Very ordinary appearance." - Ted Hughes

    by MarkC on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 09:12:50 AM PDT

  •  Here is an email I just sent to that fool (4.00 / 8)

    ombudsman@washpost.com
    To Whom It May Concern:

    I read your piece ("Getting the Story on Jack Abramoff") today, and was deeply disappointed by the following inaccuracies that it contained.

    First: You claim that "[a]nd he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties." It is my understand that Jack Abramoff has not in fact personally made any contributions to any Democratic politican. For your reference, please follow this link (from the website opensecrets.org): http://www.capitaleye.org/...

    You'll notice that every single contribution from Abramoff went to a Republican. Not a single Democrat on that list. If you have some secret evidence that the FEC & Campaign Finance watchdogs lack which proves Abramoff contributed to Democrats, maybe that should be an page A-1 story ;). If you don't, please correct your inaccuracy.

    Second: Near the end of your piece, you claim that "a number of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money." As shown above, this is false. Please correct it.

    I suppose you may be operating on the following misunderstanding. You may believe that since Abramoff was closely connected with & defrauding the Indian tribes (which did contribute to Dorgan & Reid), that the contributions from the Tribes to those Dems was somehow "Abramoff campaign money."

    That would be rather poor logic, however. Receiving donations from Indian tribes is neither in and of itself illegal nor unethical.  Indian tribe money is not implicitly dirty money. Receiving money from tribes Abramoff cheated & bilked does not automatically mean that those recipients are also guilty of bilking or cheating those tribes. It's rather simple really. If you have information that the conduct of Dorgan & Reid was improper in the same way that Abramoff's conduct was, then please share. Otherwise, if your tarring of them finds no support beyond the mere existence of a donation from tribe to democrat, then you should correct your story.

    Thank you very much.

    Madrid, cabron, saluda al campeon --- Samuel Eto'o

    by Lefty Law Student on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 09:24:14 AM PDT

  •  Shocking (none / 0)

    Wait!! You're saying that someone who works at the Washington Post is lying her ass off?? What?? I'm shocked. SHOCKED.

    "We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality."

    by Marshall on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 09:58:00 AM PDT

  •  this is what I just sent to her (4.00 / 3)

    Mrs. Howell,

    I was thoroughly disappointed to read the Republican National Committee's talking points today in your column entitled "Getting the Story on Jack Abramoff."

    If you had checked the facts, you would know that no Democrat has taken any money from Jack Abramoff.

    Money from Indian Tribes is only "Abramoff-related" if there is evidence (or, if you're an amateur, at the very least an allegation) that Abramoff played a role in directing it to a candidate in exchange for a specific service rendered.

    There is NO such evidence, nor even any allegation, that this is the case with respect to Democrats.

    You know this, or at least you ought to if you dare to call yourself a professional.

    To claim that you have done research and found that "Democrats have taken Abramoff money" is a bold-faced lie. It is a deliberate distortion of the facts of this case, and for you to repeat this lie makes clear who issues your marching orders.  

    I have some advice for you:

    Stop re-printing the Republican Party's talking points and start doing your god damned job.

    You're a disgrace to your paper and you do a dis-service to your customers by acting as a mouthpiece for the RNC.

    - Richard Carlucci

    by Richard Carlucci on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 10:10:49 AM PDT

  •  I emailed (4.00 / 2)

    the WaPo the following:

    CANCEL MY SUBCRIPTION.

    Oh, wait...I don't subscribe to your egregarious example of spin, misleading articles and Bush administration propaganda so I cannot really cancel my subscription....

    But if I did......

    This post at AmericaBlog would cause me to do so. In all seriousness why have an ombudsman at all if that person cannot do their job.

    I define that job as making sure your newspaper prints some reasonable facsimile of the objective truth.

    Perhaps you have another standard.

    It would certainly seem so.

    It's little wonder your subscription is declining.

    FDR

    "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth"

    Suggest all Kossacks do something similar.

    'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

    by Nestor Makhnow on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 10:13:37 AM PDT

  •  WOW (4.00 / 2)

    This is freaking hacktastic.

    Writing my own letter to this ombudsidiot right now.  It will not be as civil as the ones downthread.

    "A person is as free as they believe themselves to be off." - Fortune cookie

    by The Termite on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 10:17:17 AM PDT

  •  A point (none / 0)

    You dont have to "work the refs".. when you have them on the payroll...

    Until we eliminate corporate money from politics the people will never have the power. Unfortunately that would upset the status quo. And that is something both parties will wage a battle to the death to stop.

    I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

    by cdreid on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 10:17:38 AM PDT

  •  don't bother writing to Howell (4.00 / 4)

    Write to every single member of the board of directors.  Call Newsweek (owned by WaPo) at 212.445.4000 and explain that they need to make a fuss about this because their readers are not unaware of the connection and that puts their credibility on the line.  Pick a WaPo/Newsweek advertiser that you might actually be interested in doing business with and let them know that you are pissed off and that if they want their business they should let their sales rep know that they heard from you.  

    In particular, write to Warren Buffett and explain to him -- politely, because he's a reasonable man -- that the Post's Ombudsman is literally and demonstrably misrepresenting the facts.  Tell him that Deborah Howell's actions will ultimately cost the company money, that a lot of people are justifiably very angry about this, and that if he cares about the bottom line then he needs to have a word with David Graham before it's too late.  

    Be polite and be reasonable.  You don't have to be an asshole because you are on the side of the angels.  In honor of MLK, think of yourself as a freedom rider.  Think of it as sort of a Salt March...

    Support Citizen Journalism.

    by radish on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 10:43:39 AM PDT

    •  We overloaded the Switchboard? (none / 0)

      "The switchboard has been temporarily dis-abled. Please try again in a few minutes."

      If you do get through, be clear, be firm - and be polite. We want them to listen to us - not write us off as cranks for the internet...

      Besides, there's no point taking it out on the Sunday receptionist... :)

      by densityland on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 11:12:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Do all of that... (none / 0)

      ...and write to Howell as well.  You can be both polite and righteously angry at the same time in the letters you write. The one you write to Howell, however, doesn't have to be particularly polite.

      by miholo on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 11:14:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Email addresses for directors? (none / 0)

      The only email address I found on that page was for the Corporate Communications office.

      TWPCoReply@washpost.com

      by densityland on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 01:36:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Email addresses for everybody at the rag (none / 0)

        If it's email addresses you want, the following ones are all listed on the Washington Post's web site. There's bound to be someone important in here.

        achenbachj@washpost.com; ahrensf@washpost.com; aizenmann@washpost.com; alexanderr@washpost.com; allenh@washpost.com; allenm@washpost.com; andersonn@washpost.com; aranam@washpost.com; argetsinger@washpost.com; armaoj@washpost.com; asherm@washpost.com; babcockc@washpost.com; babingtonc@washpost.com; bahrampourt@washpost.com; baltzc@washpost.com; balzd@washpost.com; barkerk@washpost.com; barnesbob@washpost.com; barnesk@washpost.com; barrc@washpost.com; barrj@washpost.com; barrs@washpost.com; beckerj@washpost.com; benningv@washpost.com; bernsteina@washpost.com; bernsteinp@washpost.com; beyersd@washpost.com; blumenfeldl@washpost.com; blumj@washpost.com; bonesteelm@washpost.com; boodmans@washpost.com; boorsteinm@washpost.com; boothb@washpost.com; boustanyn@washpost.com; bredemeier@washpost.com; brennerr@washpost.com; brittd@washpost.com; broadwayb@washpost.com; brooksd@washpost.com; browndl@washpost.com; brownw@washpost.com; brulliardk@washpost.com; carlsonp@washpost.com; castanedar@washpost.com; cauvinh@washpost.com; chod@washpost.com; clarkel@washpost.com; clarkp@washpost.com; cohensh@washpost.com; cohnd@washpost.com; coopermana@washpost.com; copelandl@washpost.com; craigt@washpost.com; davenportc@washpost.com; davisp@washpost.com; dawsone@washpost.com; dayk@washpost.com; deanec@washpost.com; deaned@washpost.com; defords@washpost.com; deinerj@washpost.com; demasion@washpost.com; denunzioj@washpost.com; devised@washpost.com; deyoungk@washpost.com; dirdam@washpost.com; dobbsm@washpost.com; donovanc@washpost.com; drezenr@washpost.com; dugganp@washpost.com; dukel@washpost.com; duttj@washpost.com; dvorakp@washpost.com; dwyert@washpost.com; edsallt@washpost.com; eggend@washpost.com; eilperinj@washpost.com; elboghdadyd@washpost.com; elvingb@washpost.com; emersons@washpost.com; erlichmanj@washpost.com; escobarg@washpost.com; estradal@washpost.com; fahrenthold@washpost.com; fallisd@washpost.com; fanm@washpost.com; farhip@washpost.com; fearsd@washpost.com; fehrs@washpost.com; fergusona@washpost.com; fernandezm@washpost.com; finkeld@washpost.com; fisherm@washpost.com; flahertym@washpost.com; fleishmans@washpost.com; fletcherm@washpost.com; foreign@washpost.com; forgeyb@washpost.com; frazierl@washpost.com; freyj@washpost.com; gailm@washpost.com; garreauj@washpost.com; gellmanb@washpost.com; gerharta@washpost.com; gillisj@washpost.com; ginsbergs@washpost.com; glassers2@washpost.com; glodm@washpost.com; goffs@washpost.com; goldenbacha@washpost.com; gonzalezf@washpost.com; goos@washpost.com; gowena@washpost.com; grahamt@washpost.com; grantt@washpost.com; groera@washpost.com; gugliottag@washpost.com; hadarm@washpost.com; hagej@washpost.com; haggertym@washpost.com; halseya@washpost.com; hamblins@washpost.com; hamiltonm@washpost.com; hanksd@washpost.com; harringtonr@washpost.com; harrisj@washpost.com; harristonk@washpost.com; havemannj@washpost.com; haygoodw@washpost.com; haynesd@washpost.com; hedgpethd@washpost.com; heldermanr@washpost.com; hendersonn@washpost.com; hendrixs@washpost.com; henrys@washpost.com; hernandezn@washpost.com; highams@washpost.com; hilzenrath@washpost.com; holleyj@washpost.com; hopkinsonn@washpost.com; horwitzs@washpost.com; howarda@washpost.com; hsus@washpost.com; hulla@washpost.com; huslina@washpost.com; hutchinson@washpost.com; irwinn@washpost.com; israelm@washpost.com; jackmant@washpost.com; jenkinschris@washpost.com; jenkinss@washpost.com; johnsond@washpost.com; johnstones@washpost.com; johnstonn@washpost.com; jordanp@washpost.com; joycea@washpost.com; kalitam@washpost.com; kaufmans@washpost.com; kavanaght@washpost.com; keatingd@washpost.com; keeganm@washpost.com; kellyj@washpost.com; kendrickp@washpost.com; kennicottp@washpost.com; kesslerg@washpost.com; kingc@washpost.com; kinzies@washpost.com; kleina@washpost.com; kleinaf@washpost.com; knightj@washpost.com; konciusj@washpost.com; kovaleskis@washpost.com; kunklef@washpost.com; kurtzh@washpost.com; labbet@washpost.com; lacanforaj@washpost.com; lamby@washpost.com; lanec@washpost.com; lanswortht@washpost.com; larism@washpost.com; laytonl@washpost.com; leducd@washpost.com; leecj@washpost.com; leeg@washpost.com; leenj@washpost.com; lehmannc@washpost.com; leibyr@washpost.com; lengela@washpost.com; lenhartj@washpost.com; leonnigc@washpost.com; leveyr@washpost.com; levines@washpost.com; loop@washpost.com; loosec@washpost.com; lynchc@washpost.com; lyp@washpost.com; mallabys@washpost.com; marcusr@washpost.com; marmerg@washpost.com; martineaug@washpost.com; mastersb@washpost.com; mathewsj@washpost.com; mayerc@washpost.com; mccaffreyr@washpost.com; mccombsp@washpost.com; mccrummens@washpost.com; mckeonn@washpost.com; medfordl@washpost.com; meltonr@washpost.com; meridak@washpost.com; merler@washpost.com; milbankd@washpost.com; millerb@washpost.com; millern@washpost.com; milloyc@washpost.com; mintzj@washpost.com; montgomery@washpost.com; montgomeryl@washpost.com; moores@washpost.com; morelloc@washpost.com; morenos@washpost.com; morgand@washpost.com; morinr@washpost.com; morses@washpost.com; moshera@washpost.com; moskm@washpost.com; mufsons@washpost.com; muiy@washpost.com; mundyl@washpost.com; murphyc@washpost.com; musgrovem@washpost.com; myersp@washpost.com; nakamurad@washpost.com; nakashimag@washpost.com; nichollsw@washpost.com; nightwatch@washpost.com; nortonm@washpost.com; obrianb@washpost.com; oharat@washpost.com; oharrowr@washpost.com; oldenburgd@washpost.com; ombudsman@washpost.com; ortonk@washpost.com; osullivanm@washpost.com; ottawayb@washpost.com; ottom@washpost.com; pancakej@washpost.com; parsonsn@washpost.com; pattons@washpost.com; pearlstein@washpost.com; pentagon@washpost.com; perlp@washpost.com; perlsteinl@washpost.com; pierrer@washpost.com; pincusw@washpost.com; pollackm@washpost.com; powellm@washpost.com; presslerm@washpost.com; priestd@washpost.com; reelm@washpost.com; reevest@washpost.com; reida@washpost.com; reillyp@washpost.com; reinl@washpost.com; religion@washpost.com; ringlek@washpost.com; riverar@washpost.com; robertsl@washpost.com; robertsr@washpost.com; robinsong@washpost.com; rogersp@washpost.com; roigfranzia@washpost.com; rosinh@washpost.com; rowej@washpost.com; rowelld@washpost.com; russakoffd@washpost.com; salmonj@washpost.com; samuelsca@washpost.com; sanchezr@washpost.com; santanaa@washpost.com; sarasohnj@washpost.com; sawyerk@washpost.com; schneiderg@washpost.com; schulteb@washpost.com; schwartzman@washpost.com; sedgwicks@washpost.com; semelm@washpost.com; seymourl@washpost.com; shapirai@washpost.com; shaverk@washpost.com; shearm@washpost.com; shenf@washpost.com; shrodert@washpost.com; shumansk@washpost.com; sietsemat@washpost.com; singletarym@washpost.com; skrzyckic@washpost.com; slevinp@washpost.com; smithd@washpost.com; smithl@washpost.com; snyderd@washpost.com; solomong@washpost.com; sottilic@washpost.com; spinnerj@washpost.com; spivackm@washpost.com; squiress@washpost.com; stephensja@washpost.com; steppl@washpost.com; stgeorgedr@washpost.com; stockwellj@washpost.com; stoltzc@washpost.com; straussv@washpost.com; stueverh@washpost.com; sullivanp@washpost.com; summersk@washpost.com; tanabef@washpost.com; tellme@washpost.com; thomasa@washpost.com; thomasmf@washpost.com; thomason@washpost.com; thompsonc@washpost.com; thomsond@washpost.com; timbergc@washpost.com; townsendc@washpost.com; trafforda@washpost.com; trejosn@washpost.com; tresscottj@washpost.com; trimarchim@washpost.com; tuckern@washpost.com; tysona@washpost.com; verdonl@washpost.com; vinzantc@washpost.com; vised@washpost.com; vobejdab@washpost.com; vogels@washpost.com; vondrehled@washpost.com; walkerl@washpost.com; warrickj@washpost.com; wattsa@washpost.com; weeksl@washpost.com; weingarten@washpost.com; weinraubj@washpost.com; weismanj@washpost.com; weisse@washpost.com; weissr@washpost.com; wheelerl@washpost.com; whitehouse@washpost.com; whitej@washpost.com; whitlockc@washpost.com; whoriskeyp@washpost.com; wilgorend@washpost.com; wilkinsont@washpost.com; williamsp@washpost.com; williamsv@washpost.com; wiltzt@washpost.com; wisem@washpost.com; woodleey@washpost.com; woodwardb@washpost.com; wtnoguchi@washpost.com

        If you do write to any of these addresses, please be polite and indicate that you are only doing it because the paper no longer has an ombudsman.

        by MillionthMonkey on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 02:27:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  If Jason Blair can be fired (4.00 / 2)

    for making up stories for the NYT, what does it say when Deborah Howell starts making up "facts" for the WP?

    For years, Republicans have stated that Government is incompetent. Now they are in charge, and proving it.

    by B Rubble on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 10:47:58 AM PDT

  •  just sent her an email (none / 1)

    demanded a correction. asked how this error could have been made.

    I will keep an eye on my local papers, but I am in SF, so doubt there will be the same error there.

      thanks for the post.  nice work.

    by stampey on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 11:23:41 AM PDT

  •  Send this (4.00 / 3)

    Chicago Tribune

    WASHINGTON -- It is not healthy to blow your favorite evening beverage through your nostrils. But that's how surprised I was to hear Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean deny that any Democrats had taken money from Jack Abramoff, a formerly well-connected Republican who has pleaded guilty to federal charges tied to his lobbying operations. Right-wing bloggers and others pounced on Dean and flailed away, since a number of Democratic senators and representatives had already handed over their Abramoff-associated money to charity. How, then, could Dean say otherwise?

    But I checked it out and, guess what? Dean was right. Although Democrats and Republicans did, in fact, receive money from Abramoff's clients, only Republicans received personal donations from Abramoff.


    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 11:38:50 AM PDT

    •  More good work by Howard Dean (none / 0)

      He was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer and had the following to say:

      transcripts.cnn.com :

      HOWARD DEAN, DNC CHAIRMAN: I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They are scared. They should be scared.

      They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they are stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

      The next day Wolf interviewed Ken Mehlman and played Dean's quote and and asked for Ken's reaction (You know they're guilty when Ken doesn't want to be "pointing fingers":

      "MEHLMAN: Well, Wolf, when I -- when you look at this scandal, there's no question both Democrats and Republicans received money. And Jack Abramoff raised money for Democrats and Republicans.

      Harry Reid, for instance, he raised a bunch of money for. I was interested when Harry Reid said this is a Republican scandal.

      I just look at it differently. The way I look at it, we shouldn't be pointing fingers. What we ought to be doing is looking in the mirror and saying we all have positions of public trust, and what kinds of reforms do we need to undertake? In some cases, lobbying disclosure reform."

      ...

      BLITZER: What Howard Dean said yesterday -- and we've checked. Mark Preston (ph), our political editor, went back and checked. What Howard Dean said, Chuck Schumer said -- the Democratic senator from New York -- is that Abramoff directly giving money only to Republicans. Harry Reid, Byron Dorgan, they received money from tribal interests, but not directly from Jack Abramoff. All of his cash went only to Republicans.

      From that point on Mehlman stops trying to accuse Democrats of taking Abramoff money. He then closes with this hilarious leap of logic:

      So I think, again, the attempt to try to say we're going to try to partisan -- use this for partisan gains is wrong. Instead, what we need to do, both sides, is come together, reform the process, and make sure that people who are guilty of wrongdoing deserve and serve the punishments they deserve.

      WTH? I don't think anyone accused them of trying to make this a partisan issue.

      Sorry this is such a long post, but this is why we need every Democrat to be out there stating simply and repeatedly:

      "THIS IS A REPUBLICAN SCANDAL. NO DEMOCRATS TOOK MONEY FROM ABRAMOFF"

      The Republicans have a fundamental problem with telling the truth - Howard Dean.

      by NYC Sophia on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 01:45:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here's The Letter I Sent (none / 1)

    Dear Ms. Howell

    It seems you're too wrapped up in how your reporters got this story to notice some statements that are just not true. To wit:

    1. "Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties."

    If anyone on your staff had bothered to fact check that last statement you would have found that Jack Abramoff did not give a single contribution to a democrat.  Some Indian Tribes gave contributions to democrats. Indian Tribes have been donating to democrats for decades. Jack Abramoff does not own any Indian Tribes (he just cheated them). And he never gave any of that ill gotten money to any democrats. Why would he? They couldn't do anything to help him in his criminal enterprises. They're not in power.

    2. "One of the troves that kept the story expanding was Abramoff's e-mails. He was an inveterate e-mailer, and those e-mails found their way to Schmidt."

    Surely she would have told us all if any of those e-mails were to or from democrats.

    3. "The second complaint is from Republicans, who say The Post purposely hasn't nailed any Democrats. Several stories, including one on June 3 by Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, a Post business reporter, have mentioned that a number of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money."

    Again, niether Harry Reid nor Byron Dorgan have ever received any money from Jack Abramoff. They have both received campaign contributions from Indian Tribes...actual Indian Tribes that live in their respective states, whose interests they represent.

    Even I, who lives deep in the Ozark Mountains, easily found this information on a number of different web sites. This information is not classified, but is actually open to the public so we can see just who owns our politicians. Surely a the major newspaper that publishes in the nation's capital has researchers and fact checkers that could save you from such slanderous statements as "a number of Democrats, indluding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten campaign money." But then perhaps fact checkers and researchers were the positions that were done away with due to falling revenues. I can assure you your revenues will continue to fall as people continue to just stop reading newpapers that do not report the news, but merely parrot what they were told by political operatives dressed up as "sources."

    And you really could use an editor to help you learn to use the two letter state abbreviations without periods.

    from the mountains...

    "Think not that you can remain passive and indifferent to the common danger, and thus escape the common fate." ~ Tecumseh

    by Arkinsaw on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 11:56:58 AM PDT

  •  Howell's bio per WaPo (none / 0)

    Deborah Howell is a native of San Antonio, Tex., and became a reporter and editor, first at her high school newspaper and then at the Daily Texan at the University of Texas (BJ '62). She was a reporter at the Austin American-Statesman, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times and the Minneapolis Star. She became the city editor at the Star and then the managing editor and editor of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. She was the Washington Bureau chief and editor of Newhouse News from 1990 until 2005. Howell joined The Washington Post in October 2005 as an ombudsman. In that capacity, she promotes public understanding of the newspaper and journalism. She also writes a weekly column.
    WaPo

    Dems will not hold impeachment hearings while Bill is campaigning with Hillary.

    by annefrank on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 11:59:31 AM PDT

  •  Howell's closing comments say it all (none / 1)

    The second complaint is from Republicans, who say The Post purposely hasn't nailed any Democrats. Several stories, including one on June 3 by Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, a Post business reporter, have mentioned that a number of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money.


    So far, Schmidt and Grimaldi say their reporting on the investigations hasn't put Democrats in the first tier of people being investigated.

    But stay tuned. This story is nowhere near over.

    She's saying, in effect, "Don't worry Republicans. The Post has Steno Sue Schmidt on the case and you can be sure that we're going after those dastardly Democrats."

    Anyone have any info on Ms. Howell's own past political affiliations? As an ombudsman she's an ombust.

    by Romberry on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 12:27:06 PM PDT

  •  Cancel the Sunday Post and tell them why (none / 0)

    I get the post delivered 7 days a week.  I'm cancelling the sunday edition tomorrow and telling them to call me when they fire Howell and get someone who represents their readers.  

    How about the rest of you in the DC area?

    by EliRabett on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 12:43:17 PM PDT

  •  It was clear for her column (none / 0)

    That Deborah Howell, (the Washington Post ombudsman) does not read her paper.

    While it is not in the lead of every story, the reporting of the Schmidt, Grimaldi and Smith makes it clear that Democrats are not involved with Abramoff in any meaningful way.

    Howell should read the paper she writes about.

    I suggest that we ask her exactly where in the reporting did any Washington Reporter say that Abramoff gave money directly to any Democrat.

    It is not there.

    From Jack's clients? Yes.

    From co-workers of Jack? Yes.

    Any reported proof that Abramoff directed those donations? No.

    The reporters have been very careful of what they say in the stories and who they link directly to Abramoff.

    Howell puts words in their mouths and makes links that the reporting does not support.

    It is the job of the ombudsman to correct that behavior, not to engage in it.

    While I condemn Howell's work, I want to say again that the work of Sue Schmidt, James Grimaldi and Jeffery Smith is excellent.

    Despite any flaws in their work, their reporting is the reason that the Abramoff Scandal is front page news.

    They continue to break new ground and I'm glad to see the Washington Post commit so many resources to this GOP scandal.

    By comparison, the NYT, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, USA Today and many other "news" outlets have been missing in action. The best most of them have done is pick-up the occasional AP or WaPo piece and do a re-write (often with errors).

    The real media failure is the widespread failure to dig into this scandal.

    A quick look at the Diaries under the Jack Abramoff tag will reveal dozens of Abramoff scandal threads these outlets could report if they got in the game.

    Time to clean up DeLay's petri dish! Help CNMI guest workers find justice! Learn more at Unheard No More.

    by dengre on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 12:54:25 PM PDT

  •  My letter to the WaPo (none / 1)

    I don't typically write news organizations to demand an apology, but it is beyond acceptable to report blatant lies as though they are facts.

    On Sunday January 16th, Deborah Howell the so-called "ombudsman" regurgitated GOP mythology as though she knew what she was talking about.

    "Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties," Deborah Howell wrote.

    This is a lie. Jack Abramoff did not make one contribution to a single democrat. I would love to see the evidence Ms. Howell used to make this fraudulent claim. Where in the FEC reports did she find this? Such liable should never be tolerated at the Washington Post, yet here we are.

    The "K-Street Project" was designed and headed by DeLay, Abramoff, Scanlon and Norquist for the sole purpose of starving the Democratic Party into extinction. Through the actions of the K-Street Project, they insolated Democrats from ever participating in this 100% owned and operated Republican scandal. But you know that already, which makes this reporting beyond the scope of acceptable behavior. You are supposed to be the watchdogs of our government, not lapdogs in heat.

    Report the facts! Stop manufacturing them. We have enough "Judith Millers" in the media already whoring themselves out to the highest bidder. The Washington Post should be above the bottom dwellers and exercise some journalistic ethics, yet here we are again. It's getting harder and harder to tell the difference between the Washington Post and the New York Post. It's almost like the world of pink fluffy bunnies and unicorns holds more sway than the reality-based world.  

    Shame on you!

    Sincerely,

    Stacey Tallitsch
    Candidate for Congress
    Louisiana's 1st District
    http://www.lafirst.org

    Author of "Bare Naked Truth: on the Religious Right"

    http://www.barenakedtruth.net
    Book Cover

    by Stacey Tallitsch on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 01:12:55 PM PDT

  •  My letter (none / 0)

    I emailed the Ombudsman, cc-ing the corporate communications office and the address for Letters to the editor. (letters@washpost.com - but then you need to include your home address plus home and business phone numbers.)

    =====================================================
    There's a serious misrepresentation of the truth in your January 14 column by Ombudsman Deborah Howell.

    To say Jack Abramoff "made substantial campaign donations" to both parties is disingenuous. Even the June 3 article cited by Howell specifies that Abramoff's lobbyists "channeled most of their clients' giving to GOP legislators."

    There's political pressure to re-make this Republican scandal into something else. But people desperately calling for "balance" in this story are actually seeking "unbalanced" reporting exonerating the Republicans.

    In fact, Jack Abramoff once said that "It's not our job to seek peaceful coexistence with the Left. Our job is to remove them from power permanently."

    by densityland on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 02:12:19 PM PDT

  •  Couple of problems (none / 0)


    It is irrelevant who Abramoff "directed" the tribes to donate to. And that is the central flaw in the graphic Howell cites in her reply today.  

    Why single out tribal dollars out of all of the billions going into lawmakers' coffers? The question is what was the wrongdoing?

    What is noteworthy is to show that official, including legislative action, was taken as a result of and in close proximity to donations. Or, to show congress critters let lobbyists pay their way.

    RNC says that's why it is a bipartisan scandal; the media has done a terrible job of showing why that's not true. However, the article in WP today, strangely enough, does just that. I tried to show that today but it floated off dkos before anyone read it. http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Reprise of the Ten Commandments on leaving Iraq

    by skywriter on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:52:38 PM PDT

Permalink | 57 comments