All Intensive Purposes

Here's the new column.

This is progress:

"It's not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal...."

This is not progress:

"[T]here is no doubt about the campaign contributions that were directed to lawmakers of both parties. Records from the Federal Election Commission and the Center for Public Integrity show that Abramoff's Indian clients contributed money to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats between 1999 and 2004. The Post also has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with his personal directions on which members were to receive what amounts.

Michael Crowley of the New Republic said in his blog that "while for all practical purposes this is indisputably a Republican scandal, the narrow liberal-blogger definition of whether any Democrats took money 'from Abramoff' -- which neatly excludes contributions he directed his clients to make -- amounts to foolish semantics.''

Why is it so hard for Howell (or Crowley) to grasp that Abramoff's Indian clients were donating money to Republicans and Democrats before they retained Abramoff? If you want to identify "Abramoff-tainted" money -- that's Howell's phrase -- then you have to make some sort of effort to sort out what he told his clients to do, what they did, and what they had would have in any event.

I'll ask again: When Howell decides to attribute Abramoff's clients' donations to Abramoff, why does she refer only to his "Indian clients?" It's not an Indian scandal. Abramoff had other clients. Were they all savvy enough to resist his direction? It's hard to dispel the sense that there's some unthinking contempt for these Indians at work here. The only other thing I can think of is that the Post is so intent on showing that Abramoff was bipartisanly corrupt that they keep pointing to the subset of his clients most likely to donate to Democrats.

Watch: I hereby direct Deborah Howell to make pointless references to the First Amendment (no one in the government is censoring anything here) and to proclaim that she will not be intimidated.

There is no more fervent believer in the First Amendment than I am, and I will fight for those e-mailers' right to call me a liar and Republican shill with salt for brains. ...

To all of those who wanted me fired, I'm afraid you're out of luck. I have a contract. For the next two years, I will continue to speak my mind.

For my next trick, I'm directing the weather in Washington D.C. on Monday to be mostly cloudy, with periods of rain, and highs in the 40s. Like a good lobbyist, I plan to take full credit if this comes to pass.