Krugman on White House Abramoff Stonewall:
By on Jan 20th, 2006 at 9:07 am
Krugman on White House Abramoff Stonewall:
“So I have a question for my colleagues in the news media: Why isn’t the decision by the White House to stonewall on the largest corruption scandal since Warren Harding considered major news?”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
There isn’t any stonewalling, the White House is cooperating and will cooperate here.
The White House has nothing to stonewall, because they have done nothing wrong here.
January 20th, 2006 at 9:17 amThere’s a media blackout on the White House’s involvement with Abramoff because he was just as cozy with the Bush administration as he was with Tom Delay. Here is an example of msm that had the courage to actually report the facts:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-06-abramoff-bush_x.htm
January 20th, 2006 at 9:21 amBecause the media has to tell the gullible that Osama Bin Laden is a Democrat, silly!
January 20th, 2006 at 9:23 amAnd here’s another. Of course this story broke on May of last year, so Krugman is right to ask the question now. The MSM, managing the truth one scandal at a time.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/05/05/national/w234745D97.DTL
January 20th, 2006 at 9:24 amOoooh, ABC had it in May too. Either they need to get on this story, or they have some splainin to do:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=733460
Nothing wrong eh Gary? Now, if it were a couple or even a handful of contacts you might give the Bushies the benefit of the doubt. 200 meetings in 10 months adds up to a weekly meeting. How can that be spun?
January 20th, 2006 at 9:28 am#1 – What flavor is the Cool Aid today? If it is the same flavor as GW’s ass it could explain a lot. These people are public servants and the people have the right to know the level of involvement the White House had with Abramoff.
January 20th, 2006 at 9:34 am#1 – That’s right, nothing to see here. Move along, move along.
Too bad Pres. Clinton wasn’t able to pull this one off duuring the impeachment trials. So much for the liberal media.
I guess Pres. Bush gets a free pass on any/all scandals because he worked so hard to restore honorisms and dignitude to the White House.
January 20th, 2006 at 9:40 amGood morning Gary. Today’s menu includes regular saltines or a tasty buttery club cracker. You may take your pick, you parrot.
January 20th, 2006 at 9:41 amDon’t investigate the Whitehouse or they’ll investigate you.
It is called intimidation.
It is done by goons and thugs.
-GSD
January 20th, 2006 at 9:41 amWell according to Chris Matthews this isn’t a big deal~
January 20th, 2006 at 9:41 amIf they have nothing to hide, why are they scrabbling to locate pictures of Bush with Abramoff? They are in deep and they know it. Abramoff was as welcome in the WH as Jeff Gannon – 200 meetings in ten months.
January 20th, 2006 at 9:42 amSafavian Taint, #1
January 20th, 2006 at 9:43 amRight on GSD, see: Dan Rather, Joe Wilson, and Richard Clarke for examples of what happens when you try to tell the truth about the Bush White House. You fu*k with them and you get railroved.
January 20th, 2006 at 9:44 amSure, they have nothing to hide, that is why they hide everything.
This Whitehouse is more secretive than the old Kremlin.
They are botching the Afghan war just about as bad as the Kremlin too.
Now, Bin Laden is back on Al Qaeda Air taunting us. Dick Cheney is bragging about not being hit. Too bad the big hit came while he was in office. He was busy eating steaks and rich food a getting his gouty foot up in a dander about how best to collude with Enron in order to make more money.
Thanks for the worst terrorist attack in the history of America on your watch. Now terrorists are killing about 2 Americans every day. Heckuva job, Dick Cheese.
-GSD
January 20th, 2006 at 10:05 amIt was reported in my local paper that when Bush was recently in town, he told the local Republican officeholders who were invited to hear him speak that he appreciated them because they always do what Tom Delay tells them.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:05 amBut Bush doesn’t associate with Delay, Abramoff, and the like – he barely knows them – just like Ken Lay.
#1 Gary,
LOL, thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:06 amGoogle turned down a search request by the Bush Administration. Bush wants to search porn sites.
http://articles.news.aol.com/business/article.adp?id=20060119120609990032&ncid=NWS00010000000001
http://www.huffingtonpost.com and the New York Times also has the story.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:09 am#5 Jay
“…200 meetings in 10 months adds up to a weekly meeting.”
I don’t mean to nit-pick but 200 meetings in 10 months equates to 20 per month or about ONE PER DAY for each working day. It males your argument ever more persuasive.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:11 amIt’s not major news because dear Leader says it is not news and it shall not be reported.
Thank you.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:14 amBushco says that so long as we american citizens have nothing to hide, then we shouldn’t object to their listening in on all our phone calls and reading all our e-mail.
Funny how when we use the same reasoning to ask for information reguarding VP Cheney’s secret energy meetings, NSA warrentless searches, and this – bushco’s ties to an admitted felon Abramhoff, that bushco says no way!
Why is it OK for them in the one instance, but not OK for us in the other. What are they hiding Gary? You can’t have it both ways. One is right or the other. You pick which one is correct.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:17 am#16
You beat me to it! I was going to post the same thing.
#1
So, Gary. How much are they paying you to post? I hope it’s not based on a “per post” basis judged by quality, because you really shafted them on #1.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:21 amI hate to write off-topic posts, but I was hoping people could help me find a type of website I’ve been looking for for a while.
I listen to Howard Stern now that he’s on Sirius (this darn southern state I moved to never carried him on regular radio) and they were talking about these indecency hearings going on yesterday.
They brought up the PTC (Parents Television Council) and how it’s barely an organization yet it gets so much press as being such huge activists.
I was wondering if there are some similar websites as theirs, websites that have an area that can be used to compose form-letters to representatives that are in the interest of what liberals think. The PTC is basically for censoring everything, including satellite and cable now, and it’s ridiculous, so I was hoping to find sites that combat that sort of thing that have pre-made letters like PTC does.
Thanks.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:21 am20.
Its the hypocracy. Like a really bad parent.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:43 amClyde # 18,
You’re right, another way to describe Abramoff’s access to this administration would be to say he was as close to it as a man could be without being apppointed to a cabinet post. Almost hard to believe, until you realize what these people think the federal government is for. They’re like kids in the proverbial candy store and all of us are footing the bill.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:49 am#1 – Dream on, Gary. You’re going to be SO disappointed.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:06 am#22, I heard the same thing this morning and it scared the crap out of me…yesterday and today Howard 100 news was talking about Sen Stevens holding decency hearings
January 20th, 2006 at 11:12 amStashu,
the PTC website is link
they do discuss recent indecency hearings, but not regarding satellite radio, only cable tv (they want to make every channel be chosen seperately instead of grouped)
January 20th, 2006 at 11:25 am#20 – excellent point. Do as I say, not as I do, is it?
January 20th, 2006 at 11:47 amKrugman is a lefty parrot.
Not commenting on a scandal that has nothing to do with you is now called “stonewalling”? Classic liberal spin. Compare this to the NYT buying virtually all of Clinton’s lies and denials until the evidence became overwhelming and they had to report the truth.
This is why subscriptions to the NYT are falling steadily — nobody goes to them for the truth anymore.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:55 am#1 Your dirty jedi tricks don’t work with us, Darth Gary.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:59 am#29 So buying a President’s denials is an inherently stupid thing to do? If only Republicans would apply that same standard today.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:59 am#31 — we’re talking about the MSM, o cynical one, not the party loyalists.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:10 pmof course with the Dems that’s the same group
January 20th, 2006 at 12:10 pmCC,
Which of the three links that I dropped at the top of the thread detailing Abramoff’s 200 meetings with the Bush administration in the span of 10 months didn’t sink in?
Seriously.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:19 pm#34 — Jay, so now meetings constitutes corruption? Can we please just wait until some evidence comes out?
January 20th, 2006 at 12:24 pm#29
“Not commenting on a scandal that has nothing to do with you is now called “stonewallingâ€? Classic liberal spin. Compare this to the NYT buying virtually all of Clinton’s lies and denials until the evidence became overwhelming and they had to report the truth.”
CC – I’m sorry, refresh my memory… what lie did Clinton tell that had to do with me? Sorry, but I think influence peddling has a greater effect on the public than a blowjob. But then I’m not a tight-assed Republican parrot.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:36 pmEvidence of what? We know that Abramoff has been indicted for multiple felonies and that he was at the heart of the K Street Project whose sole purpose was to funnel money through front firms for favors from the GOP via both the executive and the legislative branches. He was a member of Bush’s transition team for the Interior Dept.. 200 meetings in 10 months.
You’re telling us that Not commenting on a scandal that has nothing to do with you is now called “stonewallingâ€?. All I’m saying is that either you’re not too swift or you’re dishonest. I don’t particularly care what your motives are, but it’s obvious that those are the choices with Concerned Conservative.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:40 pmGee, I wish I was as smart as you Jay. Then I could use logic like: “Bush admin. dealt with Abramoff, Abramoff guilty of a crime, ergo Bush guilty of same crime.
Brilliant!
January 20th, 2006 at 1:01 pmOh wait, you’re right TonyC, Clinton was guilty of the same thing Webb Hubbell went to prison for, right?
How many times did Bubba meet with Webb, Jay?
January 20th, 2006 at 1:04 pmNot commenting on a scandal that has nothing to do with you is now called “stonewalling”? Classic liberal spin.
Comment by Concerned Conservative — January 20, 2006 @ 11:55 am
This is a bribery issue: Abramoff has pled guilty to, among other things, conspiracy to bribe public officials, i.e., members of the Senate and Congress.
You do know that the US is a democracy (at least in theory), don’t you? You do understand that members of Congress are supposed to represent your interests? You can comprehend that bribing a public official is a perversion of the democratic representative process, that as such it does affect you, and has a lot to do with you? Unless, of course, you are not a US citizen, in which case your ignorance and indifference are understandable.
Compare this to the NYT buying virtually all of Clinton’s lies and denials until the evidence became overwhelming and they had to report the truth.
I did -this one is much worse. Again, it is a perversion of the democratic process.
Why are you trying to change the subject?
This is why subscriptions to the NYT are falling steadily — nobody goes to them for the truth anymore.
After the WMD/Judy Miller fiasco, it does not surprise me at all. But, what’s your point? And why are you trying to change the subject again?
January 20th, 2006 at 1:11 pmCC,
The Bushies didn’t just meet with Abramoff, maybe that’s the part that’s not sinking in for you. He was meeting with them three or four times a week and he was on the transition team for the Interior Dept.. This wasn’t a matter of harmless interaction or chance, he was an insider. Repeat after me: “Three or four times a week”. Say it: “Three or four times a week”. Under what circumstances do you suppose that someone with that much contact with the highest levels of the executive branch was granted such a degree of access? Damn you guys just can’t admit it. You support the most corrupt and dangerous president in American history.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:32 pm“Gee, I wish I was as smart as you Jay. Then I could use logic like: “Bush admin. dealt with Abramoff, Abramoff guilty of a crime, ergo Bush guilty of same crime.
Brilliant!
Concerned Conservative”
It takes two people to sell favors. One to sell, one to buy. Abramoff was buying, and according to the 25,000 per meeting with Bush, he was selling. They don’t have to be guilty of the same act, in order to be a party to the same crime. I’m sure when you think about it more, it’ll make sense.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:34 pmperhaps you all don’t remember how heavily the NY Times came down on Clinton in his time of trial. Maureen Dowd was among the most vociferous. No free pass was given.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:38 pmI even remember Don Imus’ disgusting remarks in front of Hillary and Bill…..do you? I’m not a fan of the Clintons, but they were ram-rodded by the Scaife thugs….and the neo-con hypocrites like Newt. Turnabout is fair play. Let’s see some fair play for a change, eh?
RightPunch,
Don’t be so sure, these guys just cannot face the truth. Call it cognitive dissonance, call it putting party before country, whatever it is…it’s destructive to American democracy.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:39 pm#40 — Gregor, I am not changing the subject. The subject is a claim by an NYT columnist that the Bush admin. is stonewalling — with the implication of guilt by association.
JJJ, I’m not talking about Monica — I really couldn’t care less about that. I’m talking about his association with sleazy characters and criminals. I don’t remember the NYT columnists suggesting that Clinton was guilty simply by associating with corrupt people.
That said, Jay makes a good point that Abramoff was actually on the team, which makes this analogous to John Huang being placed in the Commerce Dept. by Clinton.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:49 pmJay, so now meetings constitutes corruption? Can we please just wait until some evidence comes out?
Comment by Concerned Conservative — January 20, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
But evidence has already come out. It’s everywhere. You can easily find it, it’s making headlines.
Here is yet another one:
White House claims that President George W. Bush doesn’t know corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff may soon rank up there with “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky” as a blatant public lie destroyed by mounting evidence.
Abramoff, the GOP loyalist who White House spokesman Scott McClellan claims Bush doesn’t know, was a key player in Bush’s transition team after the disputed 2000 Presidential election. Abramoff, working on Interior Department transition issues, attended a number of meetings with Bush during the transition.
“Bush tapped Abramoff as member of his Presidential Transition Team, advising the administration on policy and hiring at the Interior Department, which oversees Native American issues,” writes Richard Wolfe and Holly Baily in Newsweek. “That level of close access to Bush, DeLay and other GOP leaders has been cited by many of the Indian tribes who hired Abramoff with hopes of gaining greater influence with the administration and Congress on gaming issues.” (Emphasis added)
January 20th, 2006 at 1:49 pmMounting evidence proves White House lied about relationship with corrupt lobbyist
And don’t get me wrong folks — if Bush is guilty, then let’s get rid of him. But I’m willing to wait until more comes out until I sentence him. That’s all I saying on this.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:51 pmGregor, you are the man! You have provided conclusive evidence that Bush knows who Abramoff is! Lock him up before he meets more people!
January 20th, 2006 at 1:54 pmYou have provided conclusive evidence that Bush knows who Abramoff is! Lock him up before he meets more people!
Comment by Concerned Conservative — January 20, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
Good we agree that there is conclusive evidence that Pres Bush does know Abramoff. So, when Bush claims not to “ever have met” Abramoff, Bush is lying -yes?
January 20th, 2006 at 1:56 pmhonorisms and dignitude
Somebody channeling Colbert this morning?
January 20th, 2006 at 1:59 pmWell according to Chris Matthews this isn’t a big deal~
If Tweey has weighed in (pun intended), then I guess that settles it. You don’t get named “Misinformer of the Year” for nothing.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:01 pmThe standards that Pres. Clinton was held to should be just as appropriate for Pres. Bush.
Pres. Clinton tried to kill Osama binLaden, so he MUST be trying to distract us from his impeachment!
Pres. Bush is trying to stonewall on his relationship with Abramoff, so it naturally follows that he MUST be trying to cover up his oh-so cozy relationship with Abramoff!
Sorry to point out the radical-right-wing logic flaw, but if you couldn’t wait for Pres. Clinton to be tried before automatically finding him ‘guilty’, then don’t cry a river when Pres. Bush is treated 9somewhat) similarly.
Of course, it won’t ever be exactly the same, because the so-called liberal press wont hold him responsible for his own actions. So much for the party of “personal responsibility”.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:07 pmThe winger refrain that “Clinton did it too” is so predicatble and ridiculous. Clinton is long gone and I’m quite sure that if he was involved in anything that even resembled impropriety or dirty dealing that the GOP noise machine and the GOP leadership raked him over the coals for it.
Clinton is gone. Get over him.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:13 pmTo take a step back for a moment, has anyone ACTUALLY ASKED a friend in the media why they don’t ask these types of tough questions? Has someone asked a buddy in the White House pool something like, “As a favor to me, do you think you could ask Scott McClelland (fill in the blank)?”
What would the answer be? That they are not allowed to go that far? That they could never do such a thing? That, hey, that might not be a bad idea! What’s the answer?
January 20th, 2006 at 2:17 pmIt’s not that Clinton did it too — it’s the inconsistent treatment of Bush vs. Clinton by the NYT (and other MSM). As I said above, if guilty then get rid of ‘em — whether you’re talking about Clinton or Bush.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:22 pmGregor, I am not changing the subject. The subject is a claim by an NYT columnist that the Bush admin. is stonewalling — with the implication of guilt by association.
Comment by Concerned Conservative — January 20, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
See? You can read and comprehend what’s put in front of you. You have described, in a nutshell, what the thread is about and what the issue is.
But then you go on to say:
That said, Jay makes a good point that Abramoff was actually on the team, which makes this analogous to John Huang being placed in the Commerce Dept. by Clinton.
Why do you trot out Clinton again? With this you are trying to:
1) Deflect
2) Change the subject.
You clearly know what the topic is. Can you make an effort and stay on it?
January 20th, 2006 at 2:26 pm54- The only responses I have ever gotten is that they must have incriminating photos of all the WH press corps except Helen Thomas.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:29 pmIt’s not that Clinton did it too — it’s the inconsistent treatment of Bush vs. Clinton by the NYT (and other MSM).
Unfortunately, that doesn’t hold much water. The Clintons were investigated for years, YEARS. They were pilloried in the (not liberal) press, also for years. Inconsistency? Hell yes, just not the way you claim. Bush has not been subjected to anywhere near the level of scrutiny that the Clintons received. No investigations of deals he was involved in years, or even decades, before. There has been no equivalent of the “Whitewater” fishing trip. Certainly no meaningful, non-partisan, investigations of the justifications for the Iraq war. Special counsel for the NSA spying? Not if Gonzo has his way. I’m sorry, but that is a false equivalency.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:37 pmpny #54,
When it comes to the media and their lack of truth-seeking journalism, I think that there are a number of things at work and unfortunately none of them are good for journalism or democracy.
1. The vast majority of the D.C. media are very much a part of this insider network where asking the “right” questions (or avoiding the wrong ones) keeps you on the good side of the people that have the power to grant you access, give you scoops, essentially keep you on the inside. People always refer to the cocktail party circuit and in D.C., where money and power flow like champagne at a wedding…everyone is in on the action.
2. The consolidation of major media outlets has completely undermined the function of journalism as a means of keeping the citizens informed and instead is concerned primarily with being profitable, and at a terrible cost. If you want to dig into the details of how this trend toward media deterioration got started, search for “The Fairness Doctrine”, which was reversed by the Reagan administration.
For most of these hacks and cowards, they see this as a time-tested game. Rather than jeopardize their high-paying, insider status and their all-important access…they do what the powerful politicians and their corporate masters ask them to. Everybody on the inside wins, democracy and the American public loses.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:59 pm#58
The argument that Bill Clinton is a popular ex-president certainly has support on this board, as much as the wingers like to bring him up. Since we are talking about him…
Let’s not forget the fact that within months after he was sworn in to office, members of the Republican party started talk of impeaching Clinton. Not that they had any reasons to do so, they just wanted to do it.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:01 pmFor a comprehensive look at the Fairness Doctrine and why it was so important (and why we need it back):
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm
January 20th, 2006 at 3:03 pmJust rereading the CommonDreams article by Steve Rendell, I had forgotten that the judges that were responsible for the vote that repealed the Fairness Doctrine were Bork and Scalia. Unbelievable.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:07 pmJay, thank you very much.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:49 pm62- Unfortunately, all too believable.
January 20th, 2006 at 4:02 pm#60 – It was a wet dream the radical-right had from the moment Pres. Clinton was declared the winner of the election: impeach him in retaliation for Pres. Nixon getting caught for illegal activities and having to resign before he was impeached.
I just wish that the same amount of money would be spent in investigating Pres. Bush and his illegal actions since he was chosen by the Supreme Court to be President. Maybe, when the American people were informed as to his tainted past and present, they would realize that ‘high crimes’ does not just mean ‘getting it on with a staffer’.
January 20th, 2006 at 4:08 pm#39
“Oh wait, you’re right TonyC, Clinton was guilty of the same thing Webb Hubbell went to prison for, right?”
Do you always make orange huice with apples, CC? I admire your ability to make things up out of thin air(like most Republicans), but Clinton was not “guilty of the same thing.”
The more educated Whitewater fan will know that Hubbell spent 18 months in jail for bilking his law clients and his former employer, the Rose Law Firm of Little Rock, Ark. But education isn’t your guys strong suit, is it? Sure, talking about is big, but the actual learning part is a little beyond you.
If you will recall with your limited intelligence and short memory, a funny little guy on your team named Ken Starr spent, what, 3+ years and 40-something million dollars of our money trying to prove that but just couldn’t do it. Enjoy your time while you can.
January 20th, 2006 at 8:54 pm