« Where Is Abu Zubaydah? | Main | Culture of Corruption »

January 29, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200d8342e2b7f53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Abramoff Intermission: Bloomberg and Prospect:

Comments

RonK-> I have not read your post, I will do so when I get a chance. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I would like to hear it, but imo everybody owes you a debt of gratitude for your prior article about the Tribe's contributions, FEC records, Abramoff and Debbie ("nobody can say fuck except me") Howell. Based on the information I have now, the WaPo's Jim Brady was willing to go on Air America and on the Lehrer News Hour and NOT disclose that Debbie's "correction" was more defensible than Debbie and the Post apparently realized when she posted her correction. The only possible reason I know of why Brady would not have released these stale WaPo articles on AirAmerica and the Lehrer News Hour was because his bosses, John WATB Harris and Bob Woodward were baiting a hook for Jane Hamsher in the WaPo's Interactive Ethics chat, Howard Dean, and everyone else who isto the "left" of them. I suspect that your article and the storm it created at FDL played a significant role in preparing Jane, but I know it helped people who read the comments at FDL wrt to comments to their friends and collegues. How much it helped Dean is anyone's guess but from the reports I got of his interview with Katie Couric, he was very disciplined in his Abramoff comments. If I am inflating the actual good your article did, I hope someone will point it out to me. I am sorry to inform you that several commenters at FDL, who I normally respect, still have doubts about your credentials as a Democrat, most do not. emptywheel's timely post was decisive, a metaphoric cavalry charge of support, for you and your loyalties. Her comments at FDL carries enormous influence with Jane, ReddHedd and everyone else. I am basing my opinion largely on some comments by an FDL poster, RBG, about what Debbie told him she knew in an email. Later according to RBG, the WaPo posted this identical information according to RBG.

The idea of questioning RonK's data is understandable. It's arcane stuff, even tough to understand under review.

The idea of questioning RonK's credentials, otoh, are ridiculous. Thanks for your comment, John Casper.

The key here for me remains the use of the word "directed".

The Post needs to define it -- because by and large most donations appear to have been "suggested" by Abramoff and/or his "team", some of whom were democrats.

A couple of things I've noticed....

A far larger percentage of contributions to "Democrats" were to Democratic Party committees, rather than to individual campaigns or "Leadership" PACs controlled by individuals, than occurred with Republicans. With the GOP, most of the campaign money went to individual campaigns and "Leadership" PACs controlled by individuals.

Secondly, the Coushatta Tribe contributed to quite a few non-local (i.e. Louisiana) House races and House based "Leadership" PACS --- but ONLY for GOP candidates/officeholders. Both GOP and Democratic Senators got money for their campaigns and PACs however.

This pattern probably has a LOT to do with the fact that in 2002, the Democrats controlled the Senate, and Greenberg Taurig could not afford to completely alienate the Democratic leadership of the Senate.....

lulasiak -- This post has nothing to do with the "directed" semantics ... but I will deal with that in forthcoming posts.

Meanwhile, here's and interesting time series:
100.0%
85.9%
91.1%
66.8%
31.2%
29.9%
42.8%
4.8%

What do you conclude from it? (A lot of people use the F-word when I draw conclusions from labeled data, so I'll make it a blind taste-test.)

What do you conclude from it? (A lot of people use the F-word when I draw conclusions from labeled data, so I'll make it a blind taste-test.)

I don't draw much at all from it, since I have no idea what it refers to (I mean, it could mean the percentage of cloud cover over an eight day period --- and I can't imagine drawing any conclusions about anything from that!) :)


Well, OK. I'll give a little more detail ... but not enough to bring out the F-word (I hope).

1991-1992 100.0%
1993-1994 85.9%
1995-1996 91.1%
1997-1998 66.8%
1999-2000 31.2%
2001-2002 29.9%
2003-2004 42.8%
2005-2006 4.8%

Here's another time series of interest -- again, labels partially obscured to protect my delicate ears.

Cycle over cycle increase/decrease:
1991-1992 n/a n/a
1993-1994 450.0% n/a 540.0%
1995-1996 681.8% 366.7% 637.5%
1997-1998 437.2% 2638.1% 633.1%
1999-2000 -23.8% 237.4% 63.0%
2001-2002 234.6% 254.9% 248.6%
2003-2004 5.3% -39.9% -26.4%
2005-2006 -99.3% -89.8% -93.9%

The obvious conclusions are left to the reader.

Hmm. That didn't format well, did it?

I may add it formatted in a later post ... maybe after the revised Prospect data are published.

i dont know where all this is going but i love to see the numbers laid out like this in great detail.

and i'm learning a lot about how tricky following the money can be.

it takes a lot, a lot, of time to work thru data like this.

and a fair amount of time to put it down in comprehensible detail.

but it sure makes arguing points a lot more solid when we have detailed numbers and data to argue over.

thanks ronK.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad