Right-wing bias in the mainstream media
 

The Jack Abramoff scandal is not gtting fair attention from Fox and the other RNC-loyal sources.

But it also isn't getting fair coverage by mainstream media.

You'll see references in most media to the Abramoff scandal 'affecting both sides of the asile.'

But Jack Abramoff only gave money to Republicans (and a writer for the Cato Institute).

Re: Right-wing bias in the mainstream media
 

Are you suuure?...;)

Re: Re: Right-wing bias in the mainstream media
 

Yup.

Re: Re: Re: Right-wing bias in the mainstream media
 

tech...dude, at least you used to offer a fight.

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received At Least – $22,500
Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Received At Least – $6,500
Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Received At Least – $1,250
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received At Least – $2,000
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Received At Least – $20,250
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received At Least – $21,765
Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received At Least – $7,500
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Received At Least – $12,950
Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received At Least – $8,000
Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received At Least – $7,500
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received At Least – $14,792
Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received At Least – $79,300
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least – $14,000
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Received At Least – $2,000
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Received At Least – $1,250
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received At Least – $45,750
Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received At Least – $9,000
Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received At Least – $2,000
Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received At Least – $14,250
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Received At Least – $3,300
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least – $98,550
Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received At Least – $28,000
Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Received At Least – $4,000
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,000
Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least – $29,830
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least – $14,891
Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received At Least – $10,550
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received At Least – $78,991
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received At Least – $20,168
Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least – $5,200
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received At Least – $7,500
Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received At Least – $2,300
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received At Least – $3,500
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Received At Least – $68,941
Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Received At Least – $4,000
Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received At Least – $4,500
Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received At Least – $4,300
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least – $29,550
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,250
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Received At Least – $6,250


Geez...Unfortunately it takes the internet to expose the leftist press for the propagandists they are.

Let the Dems wallow in the "(im)plausible deniability" for the moment... The truth will be acknowledged soon enough...

Man Tech, even Hardball had a running ticker of politicians who were giving back Abramoff donations last night and about 30% were Democrats. You are usually better informed than this....

Re: Right-wing bias in the mainstream media
 

Now it's getting some more attention...
Read CAREFULLY:
Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158_pf.html

Re: Re: Right-wing bias in the mainstream media
 

Read carefully. The Democrats didn't get any money from Abramoff.

The tribes had every right to give money to anyone they wanted, and did. Just like big tobacco and the gun lobby.

But Abramoff used tribal money to buy specific votes -- the 'cause and effect' is easily tracked. As the below linked article says:

"Favors done for DeLay and Ney have drawn particular scrutiny because they took aggressive steps to help Abramoff or his clients on issues that seemed remote from their own constituents' interests."

This article is clearer and more comprehensive than the one in WaPo:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess4jan04,0,3655468.story

Re: Re: Re: Right-wing bias in the mainstream media
 

Strikes me as a distinction without a much of a difference... but I'll grant you that it appears at this point that more Repubs were involved, and more directly involved, with this character than were the Dems.

How much clearer can it be??

"But Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.

Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November."

"Clearer and more comprehensive" = says what I want it to say...

Sorry, Tech, Democrats are guilty on this one too. Not as much as Repubs for sure, but their hands are dirty.

Any issue that makes both Republicans AND Democrats look bad gets swept under the rug. If this had been a Rebublican only issue, look out, we have breaking news!

Bingo!!!

Nice try, but the tribes gave money to Dems in traditional lobbying relationships. Abramoff himself gave money specifically as bribes -- and got Republicans to involve themselves in legislation that had nothing do do with their own constituents. The article's wording is foggy, but this is the truth behind it.

A short aside:

NEW YORK - Ted Koppel, who ended a quarter-century run on ABC News' "Nightline" in November, will join NPR.
NPR announced Thursday that, starting in June, Koppel will provide commentary about 50 times a year to its programs "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered" as well as "Day to Day," its new midday newsmagazine. He also will serve as an analyst during breaking news and special events and contribute to the NPR Web site and the network's podcasts.
"I have been an unabashed fan of NPR for many years and have stolen untold excellent ideas from its programming," Koppel said. "It's time to give something back."
Koppel's deal is for one year.

"traditional lobbying relationships" Hahahaha.

That's when you give money with the expectation of getting something in return *wink wink*.

As opposed to horrible criminal bribing, which is when you give money with the expectation of getting something in return *shake hands*.

I wonder if the voters will be willing to play such silly semantic games, or if they'll realize that the give money = get something means sleaze no matter how you slice it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Right-wing bias in the mainstream media
 

This corresponds with the data that I have seen as well.

Ted must be drinking malt liquor these days on that budget. ;)

I think it is very sad in my State of Washington that the media has decided to focus on high ranking Republicans, rather than all individuals in both parties, especially when OUR Senator was the second highest Democrat on the list. That appears to just be more left wing journalism to me (i.e., mainstream media).

The Abramoff scandal has been in the news for almost two yrs. I first started paying attention to it then, when the Wash. Post had a huge story in the Sunday edition on this. Since most people have no idea about the specifics of what PAC's, registered lobbyists and 501C3's are allowed to donate to and what they can't donate to, this story is kinda hard to explain in a cocktail party answer.

Any lobbyist who tells a client to only give to one side is not serving that client's interests. There's nothing sleazy about donating money to politicians' campaigns who can help keep the gubint off your back or whose views you share.

When I interned on the Hill I remember two letters specfically my boss got from businesses in his district. One letter was from a company in my boss's district that milled the paper sold to the U.S. Bureau of Printing and Engraving used in the $1 bill. The letter was urging my boss to not support the $1 coin or Sacagewa Dollar. Big surprise.

Another was from a factory in his district that was, so they claimed, the only remaining domestic producer of the propellers used on certain US Naval ships. Both companies had very legitimate concerns and had jobs at stake in legislation that my boss could affect. Had these companies been larger, richer and more sophisticated, they would have hired professional lobbyists to make their cases for them to plenty of elected officials on both sides of the aisle. I don't know if they did or not, but I think this is a good example of how lobbying can be good. It's not like these companies would be well-known to Congressmen and Senators outside their home state.

Cool, maybe now they'll axe Daniel Schorr. That guy just gets on my nerves. How many times does he have to tell us he had something-or-other to do with the Watergate reporting? Jeez. :rolleyes:

You know there is one practice that has never made sense to me. In my humble view, outlawing this one practice could potentially improve our political and economic system far more than any other single tweek. If I could change the system in one way only, this is the change I would make:

Corporations cannot vote. They are independent legal and economic entities (unfortunately.....and this is one of the issues on which Fastpat and I agree), but not citizens. To vote, you have to be a human being. Why then, do we allow corporations to become involved in politics?

Of course, some will say their interests and our interests are aligned. I say that I've got a bridge in London and some undeveloped land in Florida that would make great investment properties. And I say there are enough of us to speak for ourselves. Even if interests were aligned, corporate involvement in politics would then be superfluous.

Some will say it is impossible to negate corporate influence. Okay, but we can sure reduce the money exchange by 90%.