M/esse: How We Learned To Stop Worrying About Abramoff

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

[Guest posted by Ryan]

It's not a good day to be a GOP lackey, and the Malkins, who have been harshly critical of Abramoff since his indictment back in August, are bracing for the "A-Bomb's" blast.

As per the Malkin Method of Minimal Content Roundups, there is very little to wade through:

As I've noted before, Abramoff spread his stench across both parties. But principled conservatives must call Abramoff what he is--a sleazebag plain and simple, as I've noted before--and condemn his criminal activities unequivocally.

(Emphasis mine, and I also corrected the "sleazebag" link mistake the Malkins made.)

A casual perusal of Think Progress' Abramoff page would have brought the Malkins to this recent Bloomberg article:

Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show. At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats.

The Malkins are attempting to minimize fallout by smearing Democrats as a whole. Note that they do not condemn any of the politicians who have received money from Abramoff or his associates. The lobbyist merely "spread his stench". The Malkins would prefer that the details of Abramoff's dealings remain out of the "MSM" spotlight, leaving him to be painted as some kind of rogue, satellite activist taking advantage of the helpless Republican party.

Pundits like Malkin know that there exists a pervasive image of Republicans as the more corrupt helmsmen of American government. This is the legacy of Watergate; not an imaginary media bias. For the rest, I defer to digby:

Anybody who looks at Jack Abramoff and sees anything but a hard core GOP influence peddler who was paid very well to finance the GOP machine is either a shill or a fool.
...
This characterization of the scandal as being "bi-partisan" is typical bad mainstream journalism, particularly the emphasis they are placing on the very small handful of Democrats who've even been mentioned (much less included in any legal procedings.) Not only are they creating some equity and illegality where none exists, by doing it they are missing the real story, as usual.

Read the whole thing, Messe.