You have a talent to put words on a page that can conjure images. That talent is far better than my own, which is why you have a contract to do that for a living and I don’t.

With that contract and those words comes a certain responsibility. Not just to the truth but to the accuracy of the image you conjure. Factually I can find nothing amiss in your article. However, after reading it, I’m left with an image that, somehow, Democrats are still implicated in this whole sordid lobbying affair.

I thought about it and I came to the conclusion that the word I was looking for was “misleading“. It is entirely possible to give certain facts while omitting others and create a false image of something while still telling the truth.

Because of your previous article, which started the furor, I cannot dismiss the misleading nature of this article as an accident or mere happenstance.

You mention the numbers that are most likely to create an image that this is a bipartisan scandal (that 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats have received money from Abramoff’s Indian clients) but omit so many other facts that surrounding those numbers that would put them in context, including:

- How much smaller the Democratic donations were.
- The fact that the Indian tribes in question actually donated less to Democrats once they became Abramoff clients.
- That the other top Indian tribes (in terms of political dollars donated) all gave far more to Democrats than Abramoff’s clients.

All of which indicate a trend of discrimination (in terms of dollars) towards Democrats.

Moving beyond that one damning number that you placed, out-of-context, in your article, is whether or not receiving money from a client of Abramoff matters in any way at all.

Suppose that, year after year, I, as a public citizen, give $20 to local Democratic candidates. One day I receive a letter from Jack Abramoff directing me to give $10 to the same Democratic candidates. After receiving that letter, I continue to donate to Democratic candidates. What, on God’s green earth, does Abramoff have to do with it?

Do you not see how misleading it is when you fail to put facts in context? I have some hope that, after the firestorm you’ve just been through, that you will take this message and messages like it to heart. I hope that your next column will provide a context for the facts that are in it. I have no doubt that the facts themselves will be accurate.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.