Why What We Write Matters

I have been having an ongoing discussion with my liberal step-father over the Abramoff Scandal.  He is a big reader of the NYT and get much of his news from the internet, although mostly corporate sites.  I have been pushing the point that this is republican only scandal, and he insists that Dems are involved too.  I have been avoiding the minutiae detail and sticking too ONLY Republican took illegal money from Abramoff, and in fact no Dem has gotten a dime from Abramoff period.

He was skeptical and today sent me an email quoting from an article saying that Dems benefited from Abramoff as well.  This was my response:

ALL of this money comes from his associates (which are just people who work in a large lobbying firm and his Client, which are the Indian tribes that he has pled guilty to ripping off.)  In fact, overall, dems got comparatively less money AFTER these clients hired Abramoff than BEFORE he was advising them.

He accused me of "cutting it very fine"  and sent me two more articles:

Democrat on Panel Probing Abramoff to Return Tribal Donations
By Jonathan Weisman and Derek Willis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 14, 2005; Page A04

Abramoff Coverage by The Post
The Post stands by its reporting that Jack Abramoff directed campaign money to some Democrats.

But before I could tear those down, and show why they were staw man articles, he sent me the following, which took the wind out of my sails and is why what we write matters and why we need to be careful about what we write :

January 23, 2006
Abramoff Clients Increased Donations to Democrats
by RonK, Seattle
In the howl over a flat-out false assertion (that Jack Abramoff donated to both parties), WaPo ombudsman Deborah Howell amended her position, granting that Abramoff was a GOP player, that his scandal is a GOP scandal, and that he contributed exclusively to Republicans.
She then asserts that donations were "were directed to lawmakers of both parties". The left blogosphere went beserk -- insisting that Abramoff directed his clients to reduce their established levels of donation to Democrats.
In this instance, Howell is correct....

Posted at the Next Hurrah, my own much valued and quoted blogeshpere being quoted against me.

Now the title and much of what Ron writes in that piece is technically correct.  Dems did get more money under Abramoff, but there are so many ways to read that data that say the opposite, why would we want to ever promote it in this way.

Much of what he uses to make his case, is spun such that it could have come right from Fox news.  Take this part for example, where he is breaking down the data.

Consider first the Coushatta of Louisiana -- who made NO contributions in the immediate pre-Abramoff (1999-2000) election cycle.
In the 2001-2002 cycle, they gave $10K to the New Democrat Network, $10K to DSCC (and related accounts), 2.5 to DCCC accounts, 4 to Mary Landrieu, 3 to Tim Johnson (and 3 to the SD Democratic Party), 1 to Harkin, 2 to Breaux, 5 to Harry Reid's Searchlight fund, 5 to Daschle's DashPAC, 5 to Dorgan's Great Plains Leadership fund, and 5 to the Blue Dog PAC .. all net increases in dollars to Democrats.

Sure looks like a increase to me.  Damn, guess he is right.  Now look at the numbers in context. (From an article in the American Prospect- Great info on this issue btw)

3) Tribe: Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 4/2001): $1,000
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 4/2001): $750
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (4/2001 - 6/2004): $40,500
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (4/2001 - 6/2004): $168,750

I am sorry, but using this data to make a point about Dems getting more money under Abramoff is like the media saying that recounts of the 2000 election in Florida would have elected Bush anyway.
In the case on this Abramoff scandal, I am not asking that we ever lie or cover-up Dem involvement. However, in fact that NO Dem has been indicted or even directly implicated, why would we want to help the right with there meme that this is a bipartisan scandal.  And this is by no means limited to this scandal (nor is it meant as a slam at RonK specifically) but just a plea that we give Dems the benefit of the Doubt around here, because no one else will.

Oh, and watch what you write, because it can come back and bite you in the ass.

•  While I am all for being critical of the Democrats

  when they <cough>Lieberman<cough> deserve it...I think we too often are willing to get sucked into the finer points of an argument that is meant to distract us from the message and what it takes to win.

  by ETinKC on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 10:49:40 PM PDT

•  I followed this whole thing closely

  (mostly because I'm drawn to a shitstorm like moths to a flame). Ronk wasnt' saying that this was a bipartisan scandal. He was saying that Dems risked looking stupid by repeating a talking point over and over again when it wasn't really correct, especially when itw as such an irrelevant one. This scandal wasn't about contributions. It was about bribery and a host of other things, but lobbying wasn't one of them.

  by AnnArborBlue on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 11:04:01 PM PDT

  •  I got that, but my step father didn't

    I also think you can make a fairly clear argument that Democrats did get less money in the only place it counts, as compared to republicans...much, much less.

    So the progressive point about Dems getting less has validity, why go out of our way to strike it down?

    by ETinKC on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 11:09:11 PM PDT

    •  I don't think you do have it

      You said

      I also think you can make a fairly clear argument that Democrats did get less money in the only place it counts, as compared to republicans...much, much less.

      So the progressive point about Dems getting less has validity, why go out of our way to strike it down?

      Democrats got more money from Abramoff's clients.

      One CANNOT make a fairly clear argument that Democrats got less money from Abramoff's clients.

      But it does not MATTER that they got more money from Abramoff's clients, because the clients have not been indicted.

      One cannot argue against the facts. "The progressive point about Dems getting less" does NOT have validity. It's NOT true that they got less.

      by slouise217 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 11:39:19 PM PDT

  •  Think about it more

    I guess I am trying to argue that yes our framing needs work.  We should be really saying

    Only Republicans Took Illegal Money From Abramoff

    however, if someone on the left does stray into a grayer, less clear area, instead of adding to the chorus that Dems took money to (I am sure he got that through a google search) we need to be sticking to our guns if we don't like the talking point our side is using, then ignore it and use a better frame, just don't spend time tearing it down.

    by ETinKC on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 11:14:28 PM PDT

    •  Don't say "illegal money" .. .

      say "Only Republicans took bribes . . . "

      by Daimon N D Ruff on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 11:25:45 PM PDT

      •  You are correct, Much better

        ONLY Republicans Took Bribes From Abramoff

        by ETinKC on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 11:30:19 PM PDT

        •  Much better....

          The convicted felon Abramoff only gave contributions to Republicans.

          Because it is NOT just the bribes that are the issue.

          He gave LOTS of money, and only a small amount of it can be directly tied to bribes and quid pro quos.

          But because he DID give money in return for a quid pro quo, ALL of his donations are tainted.

          by slouise217 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 11:35:37 PM PDT

        •  If you say

          Only Republicans took bribes from Abramoff...

          That does not expose the fact that Abramoff ONLY gave to Republicans.

          What it says is that of THOSE that Abramoff gave to, only Republicans got bribes from Abramoff. It does NOT say that Abramoff ONLY gave contributions to Republicans.

          And that allows people like your stepfather to allege that it is a bipartisan issue.

          It really helps to frame it around Abramoff's guilty plea. It is the fact that HE was found guilty that makes HIS contributions tainted.

          Of COURSE his contributions that were a quid pro quo are bad. What WE want to do is taint those that got money from him, EVEN if they have not been directly associated with bribes.

          ALL his contributions are tainted. All his contributions went to Republicans.

          Bribes are always bad.

          Those that bribe are suspect, even if we cannot prove that they bribed others. Only Republicans got money from a convicted felon who made bribes to Legislators.

          This is REALLY different from the way you have phrased it, and the impact of the difference is significant.

          by slouise217 on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 12:06:16 AM PDT

    •  Turn that around and get better results

      It's NOT that ONLY Republicans took illegal money from Abramoff.

      It's that the ONLY people that a person convicted of campaign financing violations gave money to is Republicans.

      It's WHO Abramoff gave money to. It's Abramoff who's the issue. It's a convicted felon giving money that taints the donations.

      And that tainted money only went to Republicans.

      by slouise217 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 11:33:14 PM PDT

•  Most Voters Don't Understand The Difference.

  The money that came directly from Abramoff involved a quid-pro-quo of some kind (a favorable vote, or favorable language in legislation, or a tactical ploy to keep an unfavorable bill off the floor, etc.) and, hence, was a bribe. That all went to Repubs.

  The money that came from Abramoff's clients or associates was campaign contribution money. No direct quid-pro-quo. That went to both Dems and Repubs, but mostly to Repubs.

  The problem is that both parties are awash in campaign contributions. It's therefore impossible for either party to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

  Most voters don't give a shit whether there was a quid-pro-quo or not. Both categories look like corruption to the average voter, because both categories involve lots and lots of dough from corporations and other organizational donors.

  I doubt that the Abramoff scandal is going to make voters think that only Repubs are corrupt.

  by Daimon N D Ruff on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 11:18:33 PM PDT

  •  Which is Exactly why we need to stick to the

    talking point that No Democrat Took One Cent From Abramoff...repeat after me, NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA...

    And when they bring out the Abramoff Clients Straw man, we can rightly say that while the clients that Abramoff ripped off had alway given Legal Contributions to Democrats, he direced them to give More money to Republicans on his crooked watch.

    by ETinKC on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 11:28:22 PM PDT

    •  That'e true, but beside the point.

      My point was really that there's way too much corporate money in federal politics. Most of it has nothing to do with Abramoff. Yes, it's important to Jackhammer Jack's Repub pals, but I'm guessing that most voters will chalk Abramoff up as just one more episode among many others, together comprising a Congressional "culture of corruption."

      I hope I'm wrong about that come November.

      by Daimon N D Ruff on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 11:35:20 PM PDT

      •  The point needs to be made about reform

        There is overall campaign finance reform, and then there is the issue of a man convicted of campaign finance violations giving money to ONLY Republicans.

        I have not had ANY trouble with people understanding this issue when I have framed it this way.

        by slouise217 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 11:41:51 PM PDT

      •  I am totally with you on this one

        and support 100% publicly financed campaigns, but since the bills on this being proposed by Democrats can't find there way out of committee until we control the committees, I am focused on doing what we can to win now...which means whenever possible, helping Joe Sixpack understand in Simple terms that republican's couldn't care less about him and his family, and it is time for a change.

        by ETinKC on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 11:43:38 PM PDT

        •  ;-) good job!

           ETinKC,

          you all are helping out this Joe Sixpack-ette!  my pea-sized brain was having a hard time with all the MSM info out there.

          by sc kitty on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 01:32:28 AM PDT

  •  as an average voter...

    you explanation is great.  it helped me understand the whole abramoff scandal much better!

    thanks.

    by sc kitty on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 01:24:53 AM PDT

•  Well, you need to know RonK

  He is NOT a standard bearer for the general message that liberals have been sharing about the Abramoff scandal.

  It IS true that Democrats got more money from Abramoff's clients after they became Abramoff clients than before.

  The percentages went down. The dollar amounts went up.

  If you CANNOT deal with the facts in arguing with your relative, then you need to stop arguing. It IS a fact that Democrats got significantly more money after Abramoff than before.

  Democrats are NOT involved, however.

  The issue is NOT campaign contributions from potentially tainted sources. The issue is NOT funding that MIGHT have bought votes or influenced legislators.

  The issue is campaign contributions from a man who was indicted and pled guilty to buying influence from legislators.

  Only one man, Jack Abramoff, has been convicted of those crimes. And so it is ONLY his contributions that are tainted.

  You say "ONLY Republican took illegal money from Abramoff." But that's an inaccurate way to phrase it.

  ONLY Abramoff has been indicted and found guilty of doing illegal things. Not ALL the money that he gave out was ILLEGAL. ONLY those campaign contributions that resulted in a quid pro quo were illegal. But SINCE Abramoff was convicted, ALL his contributions are tainted by those few contributions that have actually been found to be illegal.

  It's likely that many of his contributions were NOT illegal. But because he was convicted of campaign financing crimes, ALL of his contributions are tainted. It is THIS strategy that will NOT allow your stepfather to conflate donations by Abramoff with donations from Abramoff associates.

  It is the fact that Abramoff was convicted of violating campaign finance laws with a few of his donations that makes all of his donations tainted.

  Campaign finance reform is a different issue than tainted donations from a convicted vote buyer.

  If YOU sent him an email saying that Democrats got less money after Abramoff than before, then you were wrong. Democrats got MORE money.

  They DID get a smaller percentage. And I think that the smaller percentage is QUITE relevant, and relates to the directions that Abramoff gave his clients.

  Let's say that you give 10% of your income to your church, and since you make $40,000 a year, you give $4,000. Then, you meet and marry a girl who has a father who owns a business, and he hires you as an executive - sons-in-law get special privileges. You are now earning $200,000 a year.

  You still want to tithe 10%. Your wife, however, directs you to give half of your 10% to a charity of HER choice, different than your church. So, you give $10,000 to your church. If NOT for your wife's direction, YOU would be giving $20,000 to the church.

  So, you are giving the church MORE money, but overall a smaller percentage. It would be UNFAIR to suggest that your WIFE directed you to give more to the church, wouldn't it? Your wife's directions caused you to give LESS than you would have WITHOUT her direction. She told you to give LESS to the church. She DID direct you, but she DIRECTED you to give less than you would have without her direction.

  Jack Abramoff directed his clients to give a smaller percentage of their overall donations to Democrats than they ever did before his representation began. Other Indian tribes that were NOT associated with Abramoff did not show this same donation percentage change.

  Acknowledging the FACT that Indian tribes DID give more to Democrats after Abramoff came into the picture does NOT, as you allege, "help the right with there(sic) meme that this is a bipartisan scandal."

  The reason that it is NOT a bipartisan scandal is because the ONLY person who has been indicted and convicted of illegal campaign contributions ONLY gave contributions to Republicans.

  The amounts of money that his clients gave to Democrats is irrelevant, since none of his clients have been convicted of a thing.

  by slouise217 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 11:28:32 PM PDT

  •  This was not meant as a swipe at RonK

    and I possible should have made that more clear in my Diary, that while I was getting his point and understand the details, a clear thinking liberal used at as proof that Dems are involved in the scandel as well.

    Also, while my point (now amended thanks to help above) that ONLY Republican's took Bribes from Abramoff may not be proven in a court yet, but in the court of politics, it is fair game.  I am not saying that all of his money, or his clients money to republicans was illegal, but of his illegal activities, ONLY republicans were involved in those, so I stand by that statement.

    I have tried making the very detailed (and valid) arguments such as the one that you put out there, but they do not work for the large percent of the population that do not read beyond the headline and first 3 paragraphs.

    I also think that in the Case of RonK diary on this at the last hurrah, he did leave out important data that while sill proving his point that "dem's got more money" left out the important point that republicans got even more money.

    by ETinKC on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 11:40:13 PM PDT

    •  time for bed soon

      I did not say that it WAS a swipe against RonK.

      You say that a clear thinking liberal used the fact that Abramoff's clients gave more dollars to Democrats AFTER they became his clients than before to assert that it was a bipartisan scandal.

      But THAT's because he is confusing the issue. And you let him do it.

      The issue has NOTHING to do with what Abramoff's clients gave to Democrats. The issue has NOTHING to do with the UNDENIABLE fact that Abramoff's clients gave higher dollar amounts (but lower percentages) to Democrats after he began representing him.

      Because the issue is, as I said VERY clearly, that ONLY Abramoff was convicted of bribery. So ONLY his contributions, and NOT those of his clients, are tainted.

      See, I don't think that you are as well informed as you like to THINK you are. For example, you say in this post that "ONLY Republican's(sic) took Bribes from Abramoff may not be proven in a court yet."

      And THAT is why that phraseology is flawed. It has been proven in court that Abramoff gave bribes, and he ONLY gave money to Republicans. So, there is CLEAR evidence that a convicted briber did not give ANY money to Democrats. We DO know that Abramoff ONLY gave money to Republicans - there is clear evidence that he did not make ANY contributions to Democrats.

      You continue to concentrate on the Republicans, instead of concentrating on Abramoff. It's NOT that only Republicans got money from Abramoff - it's that the only convicted felon, Abramoff, only gave money to Republicans.

      I HAVE made these arguments, and been very successful, and it appears clear that you have NOT made the argument in the way I have recommended, as you have repeated this concentration on the Republicans rather than on Abramoff.

      RonK was fighting a clear argument that MANY on the left were trying to use - that Democrats got less money after Abramoff came into the picture, and that was not true, and he argued that using false information to bolster an argument is not a valid way to argue a point, and he was and is right about that point.

      His point was that Democrats did NOT get less money, but in fact got MORE money. That was his point, and he made it. Denying that point is not a winning way. Expanding that point to discuss percentages WILL win arguments, but the issue is NOT the money that his clients gave out ANYWAY.

      And it was YOUR buy-in, it appears, to your stepfather's argument that Democrats getting more money means it is a bipartisan issue. The fact that his clients gave more money does NOT make it a bipartisan issue. The reason it's not a bipartisan issue is because the convicted briber ONLY gave money to Republicans.

      by slouise217 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 11:57:55 PM PDT

      •  I agree that it is time for bed...way past time

        and I am not making my point well.

        But THAT's because he is confusing the issue. And you let him do it.

        I agree he is confusing the issue, but it is not me who is letting him do it, it is the media who is pusing the repub meme that both parties got moey from abramoff, and therefore it is a bipartisain issue.

        You know that is bullshit.  I know that is bullshit.    But that is not what the general (i.e. not the informed blogoshpere) is hearing.

        If we focus just on Abramoff, without making hte clear point that only republican's benifited from Abramoff, then the narative will be politic's as usual, bth sides benifited.

        You will note from my original post that I was sticking to the very argument that you suggest, that only republicans took abramoff's tainted cash, but it is hard to stay on that message, when our own side is posting stories saying that the left is wrong, Dems benefited too.  I know he had a more refined point to make, but isn't that fact that people are using this post to point out that Democrats are implicated too, evidence of its failure to move the conversation back to the relevant topic.

        In addition, while a few liberals were mistakenly saying Dems got less money under Abramoff's guidance, most we correctly pointing out that Republicans got a much higher percentage than before, and, back to the point of my original post, for someone in the liberal blogesphere to spend time tearing down those few for something that isn't the point anyway, hurts more than it helps.

        by ETinKC on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 12:25:16 AM PDT

        •  Yes you DID let him do that

          YOU are the one that continued to frame the story as "only Republicans got bribes from Abramoff". You are the one that denied a fact, the fact that Democrats got more money from his clients after Abramoff's involvement than before.

          It is THAT phraseology that allows the mistaken impression to stick around.

          It is NOT that "ONLY Republicans got money from Abramoff". Republicans and Democrats got money from Abramoff's clients.

          It is that ONLY Abramoff has been convicted of bribery, and ONLY Republicans have gotten money from a convicted felon!

          You claim that you were sticking to MY argument, that only Republicans got took Abramoff's tainted cash. MY argument is NOT that only Republicans took Abramoff's tainted cash. MY argument is that a convicted felon ONLY gave money to Republicans.

          RonK did NOT argue, as you assert above, "that the left is wrong, Dems benefited too." RonK did NOT do that. RonK clearly discussed the invalid talking point about money that Dems got from Abramoff's clients. That's different. Once again, it is YOU that appears to be less than well-informed about this.

          The fact that YOU failed to correct your stepfather's mistaken impression that contributions to both parties from Abramoff's clients have anything to do with the contributions from the convicted felon to ONLY Republicans is your fault. RonK was NOT trying to move people BACK to discussing Abramoff's contributions. He was trying to STOP THEM from misrepresenting the contributions to Democrats from Abramoff clients. Most people, for quite a while, were NOT arguing the percentage decrease. Very FEW, in fact, were arguing that. Many, many people were incorrectly saying that Abramoff's clients gave less to Democrats after they became his clients. They may have MEANT percentage-wise, but they were NOT saying that.

          Stopping people from making factual errors, and scolding them for those factual error, so that they address the real issues in a factual way, is a GOOD thing. It is NOT something we should shy away from. Acknowledging that it IS true, but irrelevant, that Democrats got more money from Abramoff's clients after they became Abramoff's clients IS more effective than denying that fact.

          Let's look at this real life example! YOU denied that fact. YOUR stepfather then came back and used YOUR mistake against you, didn't he? Yes, he did. Had you acknowledged that, in fact, Democrats DID get more money, but a smaller percentage, while adding that Abramoff's clients' money is IRRELEVANT because the convicted felon ONLY gave money to Republicans, and it is HIS status as someone convicted of bribing a Legislator that taints ALL of his contributions, you would NOT have been hit with your stepfather's debunking of your false assertion. This path DOES work. Acknowledging facts is the ONLY correct path. Acknowledging this fact has not hindered my ability in ANY WAY to state that contributions from Abramoff's clients are not relevant because they are not convicted felons.

          I have tried in about 7 different ways to get that message to you - I am giving up now.

          by slouise217 on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 12:48:39 AM PDT

  •  thank you , slouise217

    your church tithing example really helped me out...it is an easy way to help explain to others (like me).

    by sc kitty on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 01:29:15 AM PDT