>You are a complete tool to repeat rightwing talking points. There are
>plenty of decent leftwing criticisms of the Democrats, but if you parrot
>the
>O'Reiley Report lies, you just show that you have zero credibility.
>
>-- Nathan
-I don't live in America and therefore do not watch O'Reilly and the Fox -troupe of wankers. However, I did read in the Washington Post that leading -Democrats were given tribal money by Abramoff, and I assume this wasn't a -gift. If I've got this wrong, I apologise, but can you explain this to me: -http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158.html
The first explanation is that the Washington Post has become a reliable font of rightwing spin these days-- look at their coverage of the Iraq War.
And as for the lies in the Washington Post piece, start with the idea that all Indian tribes suddenly became wholely owned subsidiaries of Abramoff and thus any native american contribution to a politician, no matter how long that tribe had been supporting that politician, reflects Abramoff's hand. Abramoff may have influenced where new money was going -- mostly in to his own hands as it turned out via kickback schemes -- and that new lobbying money went to Republicans
In fact, analyses has shown that tribal clients of Abramoff generally shifted their support towards Republicans and away from Democrats.
See http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10924
"The analysis shows that when Abramoff took on his tribal clients, the majority of them dramatically ratcheted up donations to Republicans. Meanwhile, donations to Democrats from the same clients either dropped, remained largely static or, in two cases, rose by a far smaller percentage than the ones to Republicans did. This pattern suggests that whatever money went to Democrats, rather than having been steered by Abramoff, may have largely been money the tribes would have given anyway. "
-- Nathan Newman