Thursday, May 11, 2006
# Posted 12:02 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
Game set match?! Are you kidding?You quote over 180 words from Russert's set-up, and 3 words from Pelosi's reply. She went on to point out that 18 months separated those two remarks, and that circumstances had changed enough to merit a shift in her viewpoint...A second issue for criticism was Russert's treatment of the Abramoff-Harry Reid connection. No one seems to have thought much of Pelosi's response, but they think the facts may not be on Russert's side:
Abramoff took money from damned near everyone. But he only gave money to Republicans. Only Republicans. Russert's figure of $20M vs. $17.8M was labelled as "lobbyist" giving, not Abramoff giving. It appears that Russert was being deceptive here, and Pelosi, being a bit of a hack herself, fell for it. (Author: Anonymous)I'll comment on the Abramoff issue here, since I haven't followed the scandal closely and don't have much to add. Russert stated that Abramoff's firm hired one of Reid's top legislative aides to lobby for its clients, including Native American tribes. That aide then organized a fund-raiser for Reid at Abramoff's offices.
As whispers points out, one has to be careful here to avoid guilt by association (even if the Democratic strategy for dealing with the Abramoff scandal is to use it to tar the entire GOP via guilt by association). However, it seems interesting that Reid was so close to Abramoff that one of his aides would change sides and then hold a fundraiser at Abramoff's offices. For Pelosi to blithely insist right after Russert points out those connections that her party "is standing for honest leadership and open government" sounds somewhat absurd. (1) opinions -- Add your opinion
"However, it seems interesting that Reid was so close to Abramoff that one of his aides would change sides and then hold a fundraiser at Abramoff's offices."Post a Comment
There is no scandal here. Many of Abramoff's clients were Indian tribes, and some of those tribes have reservations in Nevada. Are you suggesting that Reid should not have paid attention to what Abramoff was doing for his constituents?
Abramoff never gave a dime to any Democrat, not even Reid. The closest Abramoff ever came to giving money to a Democrat is the deal he made with Reid, letting him use his offices to raise money himself. Russert's (and, I'm afraid, your) attempts to equate this with the grotesque corruption of the Republican party is deceitful.