Does the Right Know Jack?

Does the Right Know Jack?
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 6, 2006; 8:27 AM

This is a real test for conservative commentators.

The Jack Abramoff guilty plea this week puts the crooked lobbyist smack in the center of what could balloon into the biggest congressional scandal in decades. Abramoff happens to be a Bush Pioneer, a DeLay pal, and generally someone who was deeply embedded in the Republican power structure.

What's more, Abramoff is a symbol of a capital awash in tainted cash and legislative favors, a system that turns on golfing trips to Scotland and congressionally earmarked bridges to nowhere--in short, a very fat target for editorial disapproval.

But even though Abramoff steered some client cash to Democrats, this is, for the moment, a largely Republican scandal. So do folks on the right unload on Jack and his enablers, or stick to the defensive party talking points?

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that, according to Nexis at least, Fox's Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly uttered not a word about Abramoff this week. And if this was a convicted lobbyist who funneled big bucks to Hillary Clinton, they'd be just as bored by the story.

There are, however, a number of conservative prognosticators who have stepped up to the plate, starting with the NYT's David Brooks:

"I don't know what's more pathetic, Jack Abramoff's sleaze or Republican paralysis in the face of it. Abramoff walks out of a D.C. courthouse in his pseudo-Hasidic homburg, and all that leading Republicans can do is promise to return his money and remind everyone that some Democrats are involved in the scandal, too.

"That's a great G.O.P. talking point: some Democrats are so sleazy, they get involved with the likes of us.

"If Republicans want to emerge from this affair with their self-respect or electoral prospects intact, they need to get in front of it with a comprehensive reform offensive.

"First, they need to hold new leadership elections. As Newt Gingrich and Vin Weber told me, Tom DeLay needs to take care of his own legal problems and give up the dream of returning as majority leader.

"But Republicans need to do more than bump DeLay. They need to put the entire leadership team up for a re-vote. That's because the real problem wasn't DeLay, it was DeLayism, the whole culture that merged K Street with the Hill, and held that raising money is the most important way to contribute to the team . . .

"Finally, today before noon, fire Bob Ney as chairman of the House Administration Committee. For God's sake, Republicans, show a little moral revulsion.

"Back in the dim recesses of my mind, I remember a party that thought of itself as a reform, or even a revolutionary movement. That party used to be known as the Republican Party. I wonder if it still exists."

National Review takes on Abramoff's closest political pal:

"Since 1994 Tom DeLay has led the Republican House majority ably and loyally. Now he needs to perform yet another act of service by not seeking to return as majority leader.

"We have been among DeLay's staunchest defenders in his battle with Ronnie Earle. The Texas prosecutor has brought a flimsy, political case against DeLay. DeLay appears to have done nothing more sinful than end a Democratic gerrymander of his Republican state. Letting Earle end DeLay's career in the House leadership would have rewarded a Democratic political power play.

"The equities in the Abramoff case are different. First, assuming that DeLay is cleared in Texas, it would be a substantial political risk for Republicans to bring DeLay back to the leadership while the Abramoff cloud is hanging over him, as it appears it will for some time to come. Why would they want to carry on under a formerly former majority leader, only to face the possibility of having to remove him from leadership yet again should he be further implicated in the Abramoff mess?

"The Abramoff case is not the figment of a fevered partisan prosecutor's imagination. People have pled guilty to crimes -- not just Abramoff, but former DeLay aide and fellow Abramoff rip-off-artist Michael Scanlon. The allegations touch on other former DeLay staffers, Ed Buckham and Tony Rudy. It might be that DeLay was unaware of all the greedy, and perhaps criminal, practices swirling around him, but his colleagues can be forgiven for wanting to take a 'wait and see' attitude."

That's right--the plea deal removes any argument that this is a trumped-up case.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page has a long history--when it comes to Democrats, at least--of asking, "Who Is Bill Clinton?", "Who Is Webb Hubbell?", "Who Is Vince Foster?" and so on. But on Abramoff, observes Slate's Jack Shafer x, not so much:

"You'd think, as the Jack Abramoff scandal burned its way through the Republican establishment faster than the space monster's blood dissolved the Nostromo's bulkheads in Alien, that the Journal editorialists would be exercising their own fangs.

"All the traditional themes that populate an outraged Journal editorial can be counted. An out-of-control majority party; dishonest lobbyists; a president who looks the other way; kickbacks and bribes; 'shells' laundering political money; influence peddling; corrupt members of Congress; self-dealing; campaign flimflammery; questionable junkets; colorful scoundrels; principals in the scam copping pleas (Abramoff and Michael Scanlon); well-known politicians and political operators being implicated; and tendrils reaching into the White House.

"Alas, no scathing 'Who Is Jack Abramoff?' editorial has appeared on the Journal page. In fact, none of the four editorials retrieved in a Factiva search keyed to the words 'Abramoff' and 'editorial' indulge in the page's old shoot-the-wounded style. They examine the issue with tweezers. They are considered . They are thoughtful . They tut-tut . They assure readers that it's not a Republican scandal, but the inevitable product of Washington power. 'Alleged crimes aside, even their legal influence peddling shows how Washington power can corrupt absolutely,' said the page about Scanlon and Abramoff on Nov. 25."

Alleged crimes aside?

MSNBC's Tucker Carlson , not a fan of the Rev. Lou Sheldon or Ralph Reed, unloads:

"Why were supposedly honest ideological conservatives like Sheldon and Reed and anti-tax activist Grover Norquist involved with Jack Abramoff in the first place? Keep in mind that Abramoff's business wasn't just gambling, which by itself should have been enough to scare off professional moralizers like Sheldon. Jack Abramoff was a lobbyist for Indian gambling. Over the years Abramoff and his now-indicted partner took more than $80 million from a half a dozen tribes in return for their efforts to keep Indian gambling revenues tax free.

"Step back and think about this for a second. Indian tribes get a special pass from the federal government to run a high-margin monopoly simply because they are Indian tribes, which is to say, simply because of their ethnicity. This is the worst, least fair form of affirmative action, and it should be anathema to conservatives. Conservatives are supposed to support the idea of a meritocracy, a country where hard work not heredity is the key to success and everyone is equal before the law. Conservatives should despise Indian gambling on principal.

"And some still do. But others got rich from it, and now they're likely headed to jail. I'll be cheering as they're sentenced."

Peggy Noonan sees the scandal as a metaphor for out-of-control GOP spending:

"There's a lot of talk among Republicans that since the Abramoff scandal involves politicians and staff on both sides of the aisle, the public will not punish the Republicans. This assertion is countered by the argument that while the public will likely see the story as one of government corruption, Congress and the White House are run by Republicans, so Republicans will pay the price. I think this is true, but I think it misses a larger point: In some rough way the public expects the party that loves big government to be pretty good at finagling government, playing with it, using it for its own ends. That's kind of what they do. They love the steamroller, of course they love the grease that makes it run. But the anti-big-government party isn't supposed to be so good at it, so enmeshed in it. The antigovernment party isn't supposed to be so good at oiling the steamroller's parts and pushing its levers. And so happy doing the oiling and pushing."

But Power Line's John Hinderaker is not terribly excited:

"From listening to the press coverage, one almost gets the impression that campaign contributions and Congressional junkets are illegal. They are not. (As I understand the rather arcane law surrounding junkets, their legality depends on the identity of the entity that ultimately paid for the trip). It is possible, of course, that Abramoff has lots more to say, and that the prosecutors, for some reason, chose to showcase only one of their less substantial claims in the information. Time will tell how much of the Abramoff story is smoke, and how much is fire."

Red State says the left is trying to brand Bush as a miner-murderer:

"After the recent explosion in the Sago coal mine, before it had even been determined whether the miners trapped inside were alive or dead, two popular liberal websites were discussing all the ways that Bush was to blame for an explosion of still undetermined cause in a coal mine in West Virginia. Frankly, the only thing that surprises me about this revelation is that the elected Democrats have not picked up the siren call of their fundraising masters as of yet - but not to worry, if they could shoehorn Katrina into the Roberts hearings (over and over), I'm certain at least one of them will find a way to grill Samuel Alito about the President's responsibility in preventing coal mine explosions next week . . .

"The first liberal reason that Bush is to blame is that (wait for it) Bush didn't spend enough federal money to prevent the problem from happening . . . Ah, yes, the wonderful canard that if you throw enough government money at a problem, it will simply go away. It's worked so well on poverty, why not try it on coal mines? The only problem with this analysis, or any other analysis pulled from the AFL-CIO, is that it's not exactly rooted in reality."

What drove the media's botching of the mine disaster? Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi has a theory:

"Everyone wanted a miracle, from the families of the trapped miners, to the mine company owners, to cable TV. When this miracle turned into a disaster, newspapers paid the price.

It is hard to read the cruelly incorrect stories from Sago, W. Va., that were published in many Wednesday morning newspapers, including some early editions of the Globe, and not entertain grim thoughts about the challenge faced by print media.

"The old journalistic adage, get it first but first get it right, is both an albatross and a savior for modern newspapers. The struggle to keep up with the rush to news makes contemplative journalism a marketer's nightmare. On the other hand, mistakes, no matter how honestly made, hurt the old-line print media more than they hurt cable TV or online journalism.

"The new media can correct course in real time. The old media's mistakes are cruel jokes and collector's items that greatly undercut credibility."

The following story could be headlined "Bubble? What bubble?"

"President Bush yesterday sought to counter press reports of insularity by soliciting advice on Iraq from a dozen former secretaries of state and defense from Democratic and Republican administrations," says the Washington Times .

"'Not everybody around this table [agrees] with my decision to go into Iraq,' Mr. Bush said in the Roosevelt Room at the White House. 'But these are good solid Americans who understand that we've got to succeed now that we're there.' . . .

"Participants in the unusual meeting included representatives of every administration in the past 45 years, starting with Robert S. McNamara, who was defense secretary during the Vietnam war under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. Also present was Madeleine K. Albright, who was secretary of state under President Clinton."

What's next: a Cindy Sheehan sit-down?

Was a prominent foreign correspondent overheard by NSA surveillance? I have no clue, but Josh Marshall , picking up on a scoop by Americablog , wonders. He notes that NBC deleted the following from its transcript of Andrea Mitchell's interview with NYT reporter and author James Risen:

"MITCHELL: Do you have any information about reporters being swept up in this net?

"RISEN: No, I don't. It's not clear to me. That's one of the questions we'll have to look into the future. Were there abuses of this program or not? I don't know the answer to that.

"MITCHELL: You don't have any information, for instance, that a very prominent journalist, Christiane Amanpour, might have been eavesdropped upon?

"RISEN: No, no I hadn't heard that.

"Despite the fact that it's framed as a question, Mitchell inevitably becomes in some sense a fact witness for the underlying claim. She legitimizes the question and strongly suggests she has at least some evidence that it is true.

"Okay, so someone at NBC screwed up. Mistakes happen. But the bell can't be unrung.

"In their response NBC confirms that they not only were but are in fact continuing to investigate whether Amanpour was in fact a target of one of these 'wiretaps'.

"Now, that really puts this into altogether different territory."

Tired of hearing about the MSM? So is Kos :

"I've recently been on a crusade against the term 'mainstream media' or MSM. The fact that it's a right-wing construct doesn't help. But the chief reason is that interactive media is now mainstream. In fact, there are tons of blogs and wikis and email lists that have larger readerships than most of the so-called 'MSM'. If Daily Kos was a newspaper, it would rank #5 in circulation (it would've been #3 last October, in the run-up to the election). The top blogs have more readers than most cable news channel shows have viewers. And while their circulation numbers and ratings fall, our numbers continue to grow.

"So really, why do we continue to self-marginalize by pretending we're not mainstream?

"Furthermore, MSM has become a negative word. While that plays nicely into the Right's efforts to destroy objective journalism ('reality' is their enemy), we just want journalists to do their job better and report without undue influence from the conservative reality distortion machine.

"That's why I call old-school media the 'traditional media'. It's political neutral, it has no negative connotations. It doesn't put old media on a pedestal, as though it was more 'legitimate' than new interactive media. It doesn't imply that we are tiny niches while they speak to the mainstream and the masses.

"It's time to proudly take our place in the mainstream. But to do that, we first need to stop implying that we're not with that stupid 'MSM' moniker."

Okay, how about the BBM--Big Bad Media?

Copyright by the Washington Post