I've
written about Abramoff for some time now and researched him since 1999. Tonight I am worried.
The current focus on the WaPo, NBC and every media blip, burp or hiccup about Democrats and money from Abramoff is a big success. It is all anybody is talking about (unless they go on about the hunt for photos of Bush with Abramoff). We are organizing to take down these villains of the media once and for all. New Web sites are going up. New campaigns are being activated. We are ready to direct the full force of the Netroots at the Press.
Somewhere Karl Rove is smiling. We are doing his work for him.
Against all odds, WE are helping Karl and the GOP push Abramoff off the front page. In fact, Jack is now a sideshow.
The BIG story is the fight between the "Left" and the "Media" over the depiction of Abramoff and his relationship with Democrats.
We are grabbing Karl Rove's tar baby. We need to stop.
If the Abramoff Scandal becomes a "Media story" we loose. Karl wins and the GOP holds onto Congress, the Senate, the White House and the Courts come January 2007.
Please follow me on the jump...
I was an early proponent that
there are ZERO Democrats who took Abramoff money. While I stand by that statement, I have always pointed out that it meant that Abramoff NEVER made a direct donation to a Democrat.
That said, it is also true to say that some Democrats received donations from co-workers of Abramoff and/or his clients. While that is different than a direct donation or connection to Abramoff, there is the possibility that Abramoff had a role in some of those donations. So far, the evidence is inconclusive, but it is there. I know, I've looked for it and found enough to know it is there. More on that later.
While the Washington Post was doing great work on the Abramoff Scandal, breaking new details left and right, it was the AP that spent time and energy trying to link Democrats to the scandal. Remember those stories linking Dorgan, Reid, etc from last year? When you trace them down they lead to the AP, not the Washington Post.
Now the WP did reference these connections to Democrats in some stories, but for the most part they did not follow the lead of the AP.
Why?
Because the reporters at the Washington Post, Sue Schimdt, James Grimaldi and Jeffery Smith (along with their editor Jeff Leen) knew that the Democrats were immaterial to the scandal. Of course some Democrats would be there (every Lobbyist shop gives to both parties and so did GT), but it would not matter. They knew this is a GOP scandal.
Of course, news organizations need balance, so a line here and there referenced the Democratic connection. But the reporting made it very clear that this was a Republican scandal.
As I recall, it wasn't until last December that the WP put up some online Abramoff Scandal resources. That is when they followed the AP and included data about Tribal donations. One item of note was that chart of Abramoff donations, it equated All Tribal donations as being directed by Abramoff and therefore the same as Abramoff money.
I think the "chart" was one of their few mistakes. As it did not make the distinction between Tribal donations and Tribal donations with a paper trail leading back to Jack Abramoff.
However, we should not take the failure to lay out a paper trail as proof that no link exists.
Over at the Senate's Indian Affairs Committee they have the document dumps from several hearings. They are large PDF files and hundreds of pages of emails, letters, records and more. The Government Printing Office also has PDFs and links to all the hearings held before August 2005.
These documents provide the links that justify reports of Democrats receiving donations from Abramoff co-workers and Abramoff clients. There are other records that make these links as well.
For example, take this exchange between Richard Milanovich, the Chairman of the Agua Caliente Tribe and Senator Daniel Inouye from the testimony during the September 29, 2004 Committee Hearing (scrolled way down as two Hearing are in this file), the Chairman was Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbel (emphasis added):
Senator Inouye. Chairman Milanovich, you indicated that you were provided with a list of candidates to support.
Mr. Milanovich. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye And you supported these candidates with money?
Mr. Milanovich. Some of the candidates were, it was agreed to support, make contributions to the recommendations list, yes, sir. [snip]
Senator Inouye Were the candidates Federal candidates?
Mr. Milanovich. There were some Federal candidates, yes, sir.
Senator Inouye Were they from the State of California?
Mr. Milanovich. I do not remember. The list was long, and I questioned and the vice chairman also questioned certain names on the list because we did not know who they were. As SubChief Sprague states, there were PACs, there were charitable organizations, and we did not know who they were. We questioned, but again there was a forward movement of some tribal council members who said just approve it.
Senator Inouye Were you told that by supporting these candidates that your tribe would benefit?
Mr. Milanovich. In so many ways, yes, sir. Sometimes they did say that we need to make these contributions in order to convince. Other times, it was a just a good organization and it will make somebody else happy.
Senator Inouye Were you receiving any benefits from these candidates?
Mr. Milanovich. Not that I am aware of.
Senator Inouye Have you received any since then?
Mr. Milanovich. Not that I am aware of.
Senator Inouye Were any of the contributions made to political party organizations, like the presidential committees?
Mr. Milanovich.I do not recall a presidential committee, but perhaps the two party committees.
Senator Inouye Democrat and Republican?
Mr. Milanovich. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye To the campaign committees? Were they congressional or senate campaign committees?
Mr. Milanovich.Both, sir.
Senator Inouye Both?
Mr. Milanovich.Both.
Senator Inouye And they were made out by check?
Mr. Milanovich.Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye And you have the list and you can provide it to the committee?
Mr. Milanovich.It has been submitted, yes, sir.
Senator Inouye You have a copy of it now?
Mr. Ross. If the chairman would allow?
The Chairman. Yes; go ahead and proceed. Identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Ross. [Steven Ross of Aiken Gump, Counsel for Agua Caliente.] The committee has already received from documents previously produced, documents that included the recommendations that Mr. Abramoff's firm had made to the tribe. The production was not made by us, but by counsel for Greenberg Traurig.
Senator Inouye Did you make out the checks? Or did Mr. Abramoff make out the checks?
Mr. Ross. I think copies of the checks, which were made out by the tribal administration, have been produced to the committee already. [snip]
Senator Inouye When these contributions were made, were
you told what sort of benefits you may anticipate?
Mr. Milanovich. Would you restate the question please?
Senator Inouye When you made these contributions, were you advised as to what the nature of benefits you might be able to receive from the recipients of your contributions?
Mr. Milanovich. Not directly, no, sir. It as mailed to us. If we had questions, we questioned Mr. Abramoff or one of his staffers with Greenberg Traurig. Why are we doing this? Why this contribution being made to this person or this candidate or this organization? Many times, it was just because it is for the best interests of the tribe.
Senator Inouye Do you recall if any of the recipients are on this committee?
Mr. Milanovich. No, sir.
Senator Inouye Thank you.
OK, there is a lot there. For one thing, this Tribal Chairman says that he was directed to give money to both Democrats and Republicans. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians gave a bit to both parties. One should note that their 2004 donations to Democrats increased after the scandal broke, but there were donations in 2002 while they worked with Abramoff. And the tribe was second in over all donations--$1,157,998 according to the WP Chart.
Then there is the list that Abramoff gave to the Tribe and the testimony that they pretty much did whatever he asked. That list, supplied to the IAC by Jack's old firm GT was not in the document dumps, but it is in the hands of the press.
This is one Tribe. The same may be true for other Tribes and Abramoff clients. For example some days ago jorndorff wrote about South Carolina's James Clyburn and Mississippi's Bennie Thompson and their 1997 travel to Northern Mariana Islands on Jack's dime.
And the Nov. 18, 2005 Indian Affairs document dump does not make Team Abramoff Democrat Michael D. Smith look very good.
There are many other examples of Abramoff Scandal threads that could lead to Democrats. These are stories of the greedy who populate every community. They are also irrelevant to the Abramoff scandal.
Democrats are not involved, but you can find some connections at the edges.
For months, I've been calling out the lazy AP reporting that equated all tribal donations with the same weight as a check from Jack.
Progress was made. The distinction that Democrats are only tied to this scandal through co-workers or clients was breaking through.
That's good, because the focus needs to be on the GOP Culture of Corruption. Abramoff was a 25-year bagman running a slush fund for GOP causes from Apartheid to George W Bush to Medicare.
The trouble is we are losing focus. We are helping the GOP turn this from a scandal about their corruption to a story about the media. And as the talking heads love to talk about themselves, Abramoff is becoming yesterday's news.
It is a problem. If this becomes a media scandal we loose and Rove wins.
We need to stop the obsessive focus on the media and get back to driving facts about this scandal.
We are in danger of handing the GOP a victory on Abramoff.
To paraphrase the 1992 Clinton Campaign:
"It is the Culture of Corruption, stupid!"
While I'm all in favor of holding the press accountable, (and Peter Doau's recent post on the Triangle was spot on--go and read it if you haven't) I am getting concerned about the current focus.
We are making this a media scandal. Abramoff is becoming a bit player.
This isn't political. We are making it tribal. That helps the GOP and hurts us.
I think reporting resources that two weeks ago were directed at Abramoff and the GOP are now being diverted to defending colleagues and to chasing down thin Abramoff Scandal threads (like investigating Democrats) instead on moving the scandal forward.
And the netroots is more interested in the fight with the Washington Post than following this scandal. As an example, can you find any posts talking about the Lobbying Reform hearings that were held yesterday? I couldn't by looking at the Jack Abramoff tag. And it is not above the fold. And other major Abramoff Scandal news does not break above the fold.
It is irrational. The press knows that Democrats are immaterial to the scandal. We know that the real problem is the GOP culture of Corruption. And yet a small war is brewing between the Netroots and the press.
We are both pissed off that the other side dissed a friend. Called somebody a cunt or a crook or a thief or a toady or a liar or a ...
What the fuck?
Meanwhile, Karl Rove is back. Abramoff is a sideshow. Who cares about the details of the scandal when there might be photos. Or when it is more fun to attack the reporters who broke the damn scandal in the first place.
I do not care about the Ombudsman, or the cable talking heads. I care about the reporters. They are doing excellent work and they are also getting slammed. Sue Schmidt, James Grimaldi, Jeffery Smith and others at the WaPo are the reason Abramoff has become a household name. Without their work, Jack would still be running the slush fund on K Street.
It was Susan Schmidt's Feb. 22, 2004 article A Jackpot From Indian Gaming Tribes on Jack's Tribal casino scam that led McCain to start his investigation. And the many other investigations that followed. In fact you can read it in the 11-2-05 document dump posted on the Senate's Indian Affairs website. It starts on page 291 of the PDF. Along with the article you can read the email reactions of some members of "Team Abramoff".
Another good response is on page 74 of the September 29, 2004 dump. Here is Jack Abramoff's reaction to the 2-22-04 story:
I wanted you to see this piece in yesterday's Washington Post. As you can tell, the reporter was quite biased, and frankly fairly bigoted.
On the next page Jack offers more thoughts about Sue Schimdt in another email:
Not sure if __ had sent this to you yet, but this hit piece was in yesterday's Post. Let me know if you want to chat about it. The reporter was a real racist and bigot, but that seems pretty obvious with the implication that Native peoples don't have the same rights that companies do to defend themselves. Oh well.
Wow, Jack sounds like one of us. Neat.
The mistake is to focus on the errors of Howell or any commentator in print, online or on TV. Hell, they are almost always wrong.
We have to stay focused on the Culture of Corruption. That has to be the story. We have to stop moving the ball to another field of play.
We loose if this becomes a story about the media. We loose if we make this clan warfare.
The press will work overtime to defend colleagues--as would we. They will divert resources away from the Abramoff scandal. They will chase thin leads that link to Democrats, even if they are irrelevant.
And it makes me sick.
We need these news organizations to embrace this scandal. To go for it and follow the money to where it leads. We need to support that effort. We are not. We are letting anger get in the way.
And the Netroots is more focused on our (extremely valid) anger with the media than on Abramoff and the GOP Culture of Corruption.
I feel that our anger is providing cover for the GOP. I'm not ready to spend my rage that way. I want my country back. I want to focus my rage in that effort.
The other day Frank Abramoff wrote about George Clooney making Jack's 12-year old daughter cry when the actor made fun of her father. It was a funny story, until I started thinking about the thousands of young women that Jack helped to enslave in sweatshops and the sex trade. I don't guess Frank ever shed a tear for them or thought about the impact of his son's work on real people, but I have.
Jack and the GOP Culture of Corruption need to be the focus. They need to be brought to justice. We should be spending our energy exposing the scandal. Connecting it directly to every GOP Candidate. Spreading the word about the forced abortions, the sexual slavery, the greed, the money, and the absolute corruption of the DeLay/Bush/Abramoff one-party rule.
BriVT had a great post yesterday that quoted Ghandi.
He channeled his rage into nonviolent action. He changed the world. That is a great role model. I wish we could use him as an example and not just a source of quotes.
Let's keep our eyes on the prize.
Sorry for the rant, but now is the time to get these bastards. I do not want them to get away.
It is 2006 and we have a Country to take back...