GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

LA Times Highlights Abramoff’s Braggadocio in Order to Slime Rove

by

When I picked up my copy of the LA Times this morning, it seemed I was looking at the print version of the Daily Kos. So amusing — and biased — did I find its headlines that I thought of setting up a new category on this blog devoted to coverage of bias in my hometown daily and calling it L.A.D.T.D.K. (Los Angeles Dead Tree Daily Kos). I could comment on the paper’s latest on the Vice President’s hunting mishap “Hunter Suffers Setback as Criticism of Cheney Grows,” but given that I’ve already blogged on that here and here and have had a busy day, I’ll focus on the other amusing article.

What really got me going this morning was that a Log Angeles paper would find it newsworthy that disgraced lobbyist Jack “Abramoff Bragged of Ties to Rove.” Let’s see we live in a town where people trying to make it in the entertainment industry routinely brag of ties the business’s movers and shakers. Would it be news that a shady agent, who had plead guilty to siphoning money from his clients, bragged of ties to Stephen Spielberg? Only if the Times were out to “get” Spielberg since such bragging is what agents do every day.

Just as an agent needs high level contacts in order to help his clients, so do lobbyists need similar contacts so that can help their clients influence legalization and government policy. By bragging of ties to Karl Rove, Jack Abramoff was just being a salesman, trying to make himself appear more powerful, in part so he could better attract clients. It might be newsworthy if he had met with Rove in the White House, but the article doesn’t indicate that such a meeting ever took place.

Indeed, while the paper notes thatf Abramoff bragged on numerous occaions about his access to the president’s top political advisor, it does not reference records of a single phone call between the lobbyist and the president’s top political advisor The closest the paper comes is to note that a former Abramoff associate “was the only person to observe Abramoff’s direct contacts with Rove, and he heard only Abramoff’s end of the conversation.” (Emphasis added.) Abramoff has pleaded guilty to crimes involving hiding funds so as to deceive the federal government. A man who deceives the government is a man likely to deceive his associates and potential clients.

No, there’s no new story, just a little more information about the “vaulting ambition” of man I once admired. Just like sleazy agents try to burnish their credentials by exaggerating their access to Hollywood big shots, so do greedy lobbyists exaggerate their access to the powers that be in our nation’s capital. A paper which serves the town where America’s entertainment industry is headquartered should realize that an influence-peddler’s braggadocio isn’t news; it’s the way business (or politics) is done. But, if it could be used to slime the media’s second favorite nemesis (after President Bush), then they’ll try to dress up a shady lobbyist’s boasting up as Karl Rove’s scandal.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

UPDATE: Calling our hometown daily “the Left Angeles Times,” Hugh Hewitt notes how in an article in this morning’s paper, writers Ronald Brownstein and Peter Wallsten “dip into their bag of mystery sources” to slam the Administration’s handling of the Vice President’s hunting mishap. Seems I’m not the only one who finds that in “articles critical of the president — and indeed the Governor for that matter, this paper routinely relies on unnamed officials.” Anyway, Hugh’s got a great piece, so read the whol e thing, indeed, he’s got a number of other posts on his blog with good coverage of the media handling of this mishap.

Comments

  1. Dan, Dan, Dan…you’re STILL reading the Times???

    I know you like to stay well-informed, but you could save yourself the subscription fee and just check in at DK or DU every morning.

    The fact that I have to even look at the front page of that rag every morning when I stop in for my coffee & doughnut at 7-11 is enough to put me off my bear claw.

    Eric in Hollywood

  3. Dan, you may have a point regarding things I don’t know because I don’t read the LA Times. Things like headline, phrasing, story placement, etc.

    But I disagree with your main premise. This is a news story.

    So what if a Hollywood agent brags about town of ties to a major producer. It might be news in Hollywood but it isn’t newsworthy in my town. But if an indicted Washington lobbyist brags of his ties to the president’s top aide, it’s news here and everywhere — whether it’s true or not.

  5. And that’s the bottom line. Empty braggadocio from a confessed liar, with no significant evidence.

    Sorry Jack, I’m with Dan – either it isn’t news, or at the very least, it’s “small” news and there is undoubtedly more important stuff in the world that the LAT could have devoted their limited dead-tree space to.

    #1 – I view it this way: Dan reads the LAT so I don’t have to 🙂

  8. GPW,

    You have a point about the LA Times’ accusations using Abramoff’s bragging about Rove. The documentation is a bit thin. But it apparently includes other staffers.

    The WH line differs on this, but it should be really easy to prove the LA Times’ accusations incorrect (release the records – telephone calls, other records showing how the meeting was arrainged).

  9. I read the cited LATimes article 3 times. Where is the implication that the article is trying to slime Rove? It is directed to Abramoff’s braggadocio.

    Regarding V the K — February 16, 2006 @ 7:58 am – February 16, 2006

    I know the newsmedia are going to obsess over the “new” Abu Ghraib photos.

    And why should they not?

    A small portion of them were first published in an Australian publication, the Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/ftimages/2006/02/15/1139890768716.html Not exactly good public relations for the American military. It’s doubtful that the American media will publish many if any of them, so cowed are they by the Bush administration.

  12. The WH line differs on this, but it should be really easy to prove the LA Times’ accusations incorrect (release the records – telephone calls, other records showing how the meeting was arrainged).

    Um, no. In this case, the LA Times made the accusation; let them prove its truthfulness. After all, they’re supposed to be reporting, not speculating. Why don’t THEY have better sources? Why didn’t THEY corroborate the story?

    Because it’s bashing Bush, and they know they get a free pass whenever they do that.

  13. NDXXX, you know that Tom of Utrecht was just being snarky and devious in his suggestion that the WH should release telephone logs, appointment books, entry/exit logs, lists of those with credentials to enter the West Wing, etc. That way we can prove the LA Times was wrong. (And then what? An apology from the Times? Right.)

    It’s an old game in DC… “gheez, just release the records so we can go on a hunting expedition”… much like they wanted when Cheney was under fire for holding “secret” meetings with fatcat oil execs… it’s an old game played by the opposition. “Just the records”. The GOP did it when VeepHillary was holding those uber-secret conferences on health care reform.

    Tom’s just being a snarky little cus and you caught him dead in your sights…. opps, that’s not a good metaphor to use anymore, is it?

    Well you nailed it anyway. I’m still waiting for all the proof that the Cheney shooting was influenced by alcohol. Particularly since the press and Democrats raised Cheney’s past DUI charges as proof he’s irresponsible with liquor.

  14. #7 – Isn’t it amazing, and frankly disgusting, that the public has a clear “right to know” every last OLD Abu Ghraib photo in the MSM… and yet, it doesn’t have an MSM right to know EVEN ONE of the tame and inoffensive Mohammed cartoons that Muslims are currently rioting and destroying embassies over?

    #11 – I love it when rag does all my work for me.

    #13 – “Just the records”; yeah sure, but when Kerry stalls on releasing records for 2 years – and then STILL DOESN’T release them, because the much-publicized “release” in reality was to 3 very friendly Kerry campaign reporters only; not to the public – all the sudden, records don’t matter. 🙂

  15. I’m waiting of the first insinuation that the just-released Saddam tapes were timed to deflect from the drunken gun-toting, media manipulating, evil, heartless, chicken-hawk, vice perp Dick Cheney.

    How was that for an anti-Cheney rant. What did I leave out???

  16. How was that for an anti-Cheney rant. What did I leave out???

    YOu left out the fact that Cheney hid behind a woman’s skirt (or pants) and had her give the announcement to the press, instead of acting like a man and making the announcement himself.

    Cheney didn’t have to take questions while he was making the announcement. But behind his snarls and scowls on Sunday morning TV shows, he really is a wimp.

  17. Now, the Saddam tapes are news!

    Let me be very precise: Not to me… but surely they’re news to all the LAT readers, who mostly believe “BUSH LIED!” ™ type of rubbish.

    How many important stories can we count that are being conveniently driven out by all the DNC-promoted Cheney nonsense?

    Hmmm. The Saddam tapes; the AlWhore sedition and treason; the latest Mohammed Cartoon rioting; MSM dereliction of duty (“double standards” is much too weak a phrase) in not publishing the cartoons; Iran uranium enrichment; booming economy; Dow hitting 11,000; …. ?

  18. #11 V the K — February 16, 2006 @ 9:50 am – February 16, 2006

    #9 — rag, we are already well aware of your disdain for the troops.

    I’m sure that you are capable of citing to the comment thread and comment wherein I expressed such an opinion. I was unable to find a search function here, but I’m sure that you will be able to back up your assertion.

    No paraphrasing. Although I’ll admit that there seems to be a lot of that going on around here.

  21. rag is one I generally don’t want to bother with

    Hm, let’s see argue, with the intellectually and generally dishonest on-the-rag, or compose 10 more fart jokes for my own blog. Which will be more life-affirming?

    Well, that wasn’t hard

  22. Raj, #9, the headline suggested as much as did the large picture of Rove on the jump page. Given the paucity of actual facts in this piece, this seems more a subject for a one paragraph blurb on page A17 on Abramoff’s braggadocio, but not a Page One Article with mega column inches on the jump page.

  25. #22 GayPatriotWest — February 16, 2006 @ 12:44 pm – February 16, 2006

    Three points. One, the on-line version doesn’t have the picture of Rove that you are referring to; the only pictures related to on-line advertisements. Perhaps the picture was only in the print edition.

    Two, I don’t agree with you regarding the title of the article. The title (according to the on-line version) was “Abramoff Bragged of Ties to Rove.” It And I saw nothing in the article to suggest that Rove gave much if anything to Abramoff based on whatever ties Abramoff might have had to Rove.

    Three, regarding the length of the article, you may be right that it deserved little more than a paragraph or two, but I suspect that the authors were obligated to deliver articles of so-many words, every so-often. Assuming that you have the print edition, you might want to see how many ads are on the pages around the article. I’m not sure what the point of the article is anyway since Abramoff has already pleaded guilty.

  26. #24 V the K — February 16, 2006 @ 12:47 pm – February 16, 2006

    You made an assertion of fact, and are unable to back it up with evidence. Do you engage in such tactics when you’re appearing in court?

  27. #26 — Um, not to burst your bubble, on-the-rag, but these are comments on a weblog, not a courtroom. Nothing said here is of any consequence. Entertainment purposes only.

    And you did diss the troops in a previous threat, and Calarato made you his bitch for it. And I still don’t give a crap.

  29. On the off-chance that anyone gives a crap, I am referring to the thread in which rag sneered at the notion that a soldier giving his life in service to America was heroic. It’s telling that rag doesn’t even go to the boilerplate ‘of course I respect the troops’ thing most libs do, but goes to the weaselly ‘I never explicitly stated the contempt I have for soldiers’ place instead.