All Blog Posts from Public Eye

The big political news today, at CBSNews.com and many other outlets, is that there might be photos of President Bush and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Together. Possibly Shaking Hands And Everything.



Why is it such a big deal that there are, according to Washingtonian and Time magazines, "about a half-dozen" photos showing the pair together? Well, actually, it's probably not. To explain why, let me begin by quoting someone I wouldn't normally: White House counselor Dan Bartlett. (This isn't a knock on Bartlett specifically – it's just a title like that is essentially a flashing neon sign warning of disingenuousness.)



Here's Bartlett's spin, which for once rings true:

"I don't think that would be fair to jump to any conclusions just because the president took a picture with somebody. People understand that the president of the United States goes to events like these all the time in which there will be people who get their pictures with the president."

The events about which Bartlett speaks are the countless functions that take place at the White House and other venues; according to White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, "the president has taken tens upon thousands of pictures at such events." I'm not sure exactly how much "tens upon thousands" is, but the guy does take a hell of a lot of photos. Hell, he hosted 26 Christmas parties alone this year. There aren't photos taken at every one of these, of course, but a quick pause, awkward handshake, and weary smile from the president in the direction of a camera can be is one of the easiest, cheapest, and most effective ways to reward an ally. He or she gets a picture with good buddy Dubya to put on the office wall to show off access and power; Bush, in turn, locks up another "pioneer" for the next election cycle. For a president, pausing for a few thousand pictures is a no brainer.



So is it really a surprise that the man who until recently was the most well connected lobbyist in Washington seems to have scored a few photos with Bush?

Read full post…

The Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal has ushered in all of what usually accompanies the advent of a government scandal: lawmakers are unleashing plans for “massive” reform – or at least repeating the word “reform” over and over on public affairs programs -- and the nation’s newspapers have begun to unleash a flurry of editorials lambasting lawmakers for the lack of such reform until now. But, as a New York Times editorial seethes today that “it should not take scandal to drive home the need for reform,” some are criticizing the Times and its brethren for similar transgressions -- that it should not take scandal to drive home the need for more aggressive reporting about what may eventually become a scandal.



In his story today about the “great rush among lawmakers who have been living high on the special-interest hog to carry the banner of ‘reform,’” Howard Kurtz unloads on the media’s handling of the lobbying industry:

“I think the press, with a few exceptions, had been snoozing about this issue until the Abramoff tale heated up. Only recently do we read that the number of lobbyists in Washington has doubled in the past few years, to 35,000. Only recently do we read that half the former members of Congress are lobbyists."

Read full post…

Readers of The Washington Post aren’t happy with its ombudsman, Deborah Howell, after her weekend column praising the paper’s investigative reporting on Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. It seems they’re so unhappy that they may have overloaded The Post’s blog. Here’s what Washingtonpost.com Opinions Editor Hal Straus writes on post.blog:

“Some of the comments posted to this blog's entries aren't appearing on the site. We're working with our blog software vendor to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.



The problem may be related to the large number of comments (more than 700 so far) received over the weekend concerning Deborah Howell's Sunday, Jan. 15 column on The Post's coverage of the Jack Abramoff story.



We may also have unintentionally caused or made the problem worse by trying to remove a few comments -- about a dozen -- that failed to make a substantive point and were simply personal attacks on Howell and others.



We apologize for the problem and will post updates here.”

Reading through the comments, it seems that most are upset over Howell’s assertion that Democrats “have gotten Abramoff campaign money.” We’ve been through this before, and it’s worth revisiting.



The root of the problem here is semantics and spin. Republicans would very much like the Abramoff investigation to snare a few Democrats so they could say this is a bipartisan issue. Democrats would like nothing more than for this to become seen as a Republican scandal heading into a crucial midterm election year. What can be said at the moment is not quite so clear.

Read full post…

Reader Robert S. of Hayward, California, has concerns about the way CBS Correspondent Gloria Borger has characterized the scandal revolving around Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Specifically, Robert asks:

“Why does Gloria Borger insist on saying that Abramoff ‘gave money to both Republicans and Democrats,’ when it is NOT true? While Jack Abramoff gave numerous personal checks to Republicans, including the President's reelection campaign, he never gave a thin dime to Democrats. Ms. Borger said this on the 6 O'clock News on Saturday, and even though I'm a Republican, I'm tired of hearing this lie repeated.
Now I understand that Abramoff's allies and clients gave money to Congressmen, including Democrats, but by that standard, the amount given to Republicans becomes astronomical.



What those few of us who love the truth want from you is a CONSISTENT standard of what constitutes a ‘contribution,’ or ‘giving money,’ to be applied equally to all parties in this emerging scandel.



Please answer or at least address my concerns. I think it's very important to our Democracy.”

We spoke to Steve Chaggaris, a CBS News producer who works with Borger, about this question. Here’s his response:

Read full post…