The title to this article is exactly how I'd write it if I were a political hack trying to drum up a faux controversy for use by other political hacks in the mainstream media. Which is exactly what Sam Stein of the Huffington Post did on February 12th as he broke out the yellowkid journalistic mold for a fantasy leftist hack attack on John McCain headlined in giant font, McCain Received $100,000 From Firm Of Abramoff Notoriety.
Before I comment further on the idiocy of Stein's assertions it is only fair that I mention that there is nothing in his article that isn't true just as there isn't anything untrue in mine here. Barack Obama did in fact receive over $80,000 from the same firm that Stein tries to hang John McCain with. In addition both John McCain and Barack Obama were eclipsed by the $162,450 amount received by Hillary Clinton from employees of the same jaded firm.
All figures are compiled by OpenSecrets.org by doing a donor lookup with "Greenberg Traurig" as the donor occupation and each respective candidate in question as the recipient. You must search for recipients using "lastname, firstname" to get the full results.
With the above information in mind I'd like to invite you to take a look into the play book of journalistic hackery and dissect how activists twist and spin the facts to convey their own illegitimate fantasies of republican corruption.
On the stump, Sen. John McCain has touted his work tackling the excesses of the lobbying industry to bolster his reputation as a "maverick" reformer.
"Ask Jack Abramoff if I'm an insider in Washington," McCain often contends. "You'd probably have to go during visiting hours in the prison, and he'll tell you and his lobbyist cronies of the change I made there."
But how much change did McCain actually effect? And is he all that removed from Washington's special interests?
A review of campaign finance filings shows that the Arizona Republican has accepted more than $100,000 in donations from employees of Greenberg Traurig, the very firm where Abramoff once reigned.
Those donations include several thousand dollars from registered lobbyists who represent, or have represented, businesses such as NewsCorp, Rupert Murdoch's media empire; Spi Spirits, a Cyprus based company that has fought with the Russian government for the rights to the Stolichnaya vodka brand name; El Paso Corp, a major energy company; General Motors; and the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, a group of businesses and trade associations "concerned" about the shortage of lesser skilled and unskilled labor.
All told, McCain has received more than $400,000 from lobbying firms, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And among his major fundraisers ("bundlers") 59 have been identified as lobbyists by the non-profit organization Public Citizen.
There is nothing illegal about these contributions. But campaign watchdog groups and McCain's opponents view them as more than just a reflection of political irony. McCain, they argue, has on occasion been far more bark than bite when it comes to taking on lobbying interests.
Indeed, this past week, the Democratic National Committee put together a memo challenging McCain's assertion that he was a corruption hound while investigating Abramoff. The document and some government watchdog groups note that while McCain put pressure on Jack Abramoff and several prominent Republicans, he also went out of his way during the Indian Affairs Committee hearing to spare his congressional colleagues.
This is what passes as investigative journalism nowadays. You'd have to be stupid to pass this off as a story. What's worse, that Sam Stein is waiting for e-mails from the DNC to write such a moronic story or that neither of them can separate fact from fantasy when ignoring the fact that other groups Stein might not be critical of received money from employees of the same firm such as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte, 21st Century Democrats, DNC Services Corp, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte, Moving America Forward, Moveon.org, Democratic State Central Cmte/Maryland, New Hampshire Democratic State Cmte, New Millennium PAC, To Organize a Majority PAC, New Hampshire Democratic State Cmte and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte?
If you are going to sling mud you might as well do some credible research. Keep that in mind as you read Stein's latest salvo, an equally thin piece that is being parroted by the likes of Keith Olbermann alongside Air America's Rachael Maddow that implies that McCain protected some in the GOP from the Abramoff scandal. Coincidence? Hardly. Hack job? You bet.
Terry Trippany is the editor and publisher at Webloggin.














Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Great, a 3000 word (just
February 28, 2008 - 09:41 ET by motherbeltGreat, a 3000 word (just guessing here) hit piece on McCain of "guilt by association" and not even a "PS" noting the fact that Obama and Her Royal Clintoness also received donations from the same firm.
What a shocker.
If you are going to sling mud you might as well do some credible research. -TT
Credible research??? Surely you jest.
Once again......
February 28, 2008 - 09:50 ET by OldSailor88I stated this in another thread on media coverage today. NOT covering a story can cause as much or more damage as blasting it all over the networks. The MSM by carefully choosing WHAT to report is determining HOW the election will play out.
Stultus est sicut stultus facit
Read more of their agenda and bias
February 28, 2008 - 10:24 ET by kgRead More: McCain And Abramoff, McCain And Campaign Donations, McCain And Corruption, McCain And Greenberg Traurig, McCain And Lobbyists Donations
Am I blind or do they have an agenda.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
We all see it through our own lenses
February 28, 2008 - 10:03 ET by sarcasmoI see these stories as yet-more proof of the bipartisan corruption I continually talk-about, especially when it comes to the gambling marketplace and politicians.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
sarc, a story about
February 28, 2008 - 10:12 ET by motherbeltsarc, this story may be about "bipartisan corruption," but that's only because Terry brought up the Democrats here. The original HuffPo piece referred to completely ignores the Democrats; only discusses McCain. And that's Terry's point.
True
February 28, 2008 - 10:17 ET by sarcasmoFor me, the problem is the idea that ANY of these people are in any way "reformers" when it comes to lobbyist-money. That dog won't hunt around here, and I'll make fun every time it tries. NB can try to claim the McCain part's thin, Huffypo can try to claim the part that implicates Democrats is thin, but the bipartisan truth is plain to those of us who don't give much of a crap about either of the "major" political parties these days...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
For me the problem is the clear bias
February 28, 2008 - 10:41 ET by c5thendisplayed in their typical guilt-by-association hit piece.
Individuals are allowed to give to who ever they choose. Why is it that because one employee of a company was found to be guilty of improper donations, all the employees of the said firm are implied to be "tainted" by the liberal media? And you, Sarc, buy into that thinking as if there is no probalem with it.
Does that mean that all the former employees of Enron and WorldComm are all crooks? Are all employees of Adelphia Communications narcisistic theives?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
I buy into it
February 28, 2008 - 11:32 ET by sarcasmoIn exactly the same way as others bought into "all Ron Paul supporters are racists." In other words, "not." But some are certainly corrupt, including some not-currently-in-jail. And if you're trying to deny what I HAVE actually said, which is that gambling bought a bunch of politicians ON BOTH SIDES OF the aisle, then you've got a few issues to explain...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
I don't think Terry or
February 28, 2008 - 11:22 ET by motherbeltI don't think Terry or anyone is saying that the McCain part's thin. The point is that only McCain is targeted for criticism, even though Obama and Clinton both got money from the same firm.
Also, I agree with c5...the piece is clearly an attempt to paint any firm ever associated with Abramoff as corrupt, and then, by another degree of separation, McCain for accepting money from a firm that has been painted as corrupt by association.
Guilty by association with a firm that is guilty by association....it gets a little ridiculous.
Believe me...
February 28, 2008 - 11:38 ET by sarcasmoI've got more than a little experience, right here, of guilty by association "logic," so accusing me of it sounds more than a little hollow, especially since I'm not-guilty. The lobbyist issue on McCain is THERE, like it or not, and it will-be for the duration of the election. Those who want to deny it are getting into the "unintentionally-funny" category. Part of their problem is the fact that McCain has had so many spats with so many conservatives over the years that Kos has plenty of material. To put it mildly...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
sarc, I wasn't accusing you
February 28, 2008 - 11:43 ET by motherbeltsarc, I wasn't accusing you of guilt-by-association..I don't think I even mentione you. What are you talking about and why are you making this personal?
My apologies, then
February 28, 2008 - 11:52 ET by sarcasmoI'm used to being attacked lately, and you replied to me whether or not you directly mentioned me. I still think there are ethical/lobbyist issues for John McCain which will be getting more coverage soon, just as more Obama issues will probably come out. I'm somewhat familiar with the gambling business and the widespread political corruption in this area. "Barely scratched the surface" describes what the media has currently done WRT this issue of bipartisan corruption...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Apology accepted. I may
February 28, 2008 - 13:54 ET by motherbeltApology accepted. Replies sometimes get a little confusing with which one goes with which comment. I may have read more into it than you intended. If so, apologies here also.
Hi sarc... Funny we both
February 28, 2008 - 20:01 ET by bigtimerHi sarc...
Funny we both put links about this in a thread the other day about McCain and his connections...he is such a hypocrite and I hope more comes out...the sooner the better...but I have my doubts...he is the msm's pick..he will be protected to an extent.
bi-partisan
February 28, 2008 - 11:41 ET by kdizzydazeSarc -
Bi-partisan chicanery? Why is it, then, that the only ones that ever get brought up by the media are (gasp!!) Republicans. The few Democrats that ever get brought up are put on page 12 of the style section and their party moniker is usually not even introduced in the article until the second to last paragraph. Oh, and some "redeeming quality" of this Democrat politician will be placed somewhere pomptly in the article just to ensure that he or she is humanized in some form.
This article (as the other thousands that have appeared on NB) only lend more credence to the existence of NB.
I'm not talking coverage
February 28, 2008 - 11:48 ET by sarcasmoI'm talking corruption. I'd be the last person here to deny the media is biased -- indeed, I've busted media bias that NB sometimes refuses to admit exists! I readily admit NB busts anti-conservative media bias, while at the same time saying-so when NB does an often-crappy job on anti-libertarian bias.
I call 'em like I see 'em, and I'll certainly stand by my call of bipartisan corruption in this case, because I believe it's the truth. I just think there needs to be another media bias bustin' group specifically dedicated to anti-libertarian bias, because it's so-pervasive and because it's so poorly-busted by the current groups.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
this makes no sense
February 28, 2008 - 12:38 ET by candanceBut...Leon promised me there wouldn't be any more hit pieces on McCain, especially after Super Tuesday when he started locking up the primary.
Were we all psychic to see this coming or was it common sense?
On this day in 2007 Barrack
February 28, 2008 - 15:49 ET by ConservativeRexOn this day in 2007 Barrack Hussain Obama said that the muslim call to prayer was the prettiest sound on Earth.