WaPo's Jim Brady Sends Me an E-mail

After reading this article (here) by Jim Brady, I felt it necessary to write him an e-mail, to wit:

Jim,

I'm very much afraid you still don't get it. You're *still* using the line about Abramoff "directing money" to Democrats, when you've never presented anything in the pages of the WaPo that would indicate any such thing ever occurred.

It is misleading to say that Abramoff's "suggestions" of amounts that his Indian tribal clients should give to Democrats equate to "direction," since we do not know that the tribes gave the suggested amounts, nor do we know exactly how much money the tribes had given those same Democrats prior to their dealings with Abramoff.

If I'm wrong on these points, please let me know.

Otherwise, I think the WaPo *still* owes Democrats an apology.

-J.P.
Nashville, TN

Mr. Brady responds:

Jeff,

Thanks for your e-mail... Deborah and The Post's senior editors have posted links to articles and graphics to support the paper's reporting on the Abramoff issue at http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/2006/01/abramoff_covera.html and http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/2006/01/deborah_howell_.html. Obviously, you're entitled to your opinion of the conclusions, but wanted to pass on those links.

Thanks,
Jim Brady

Now did I miss it, or was there anything in there at all that addressed how much these tribes had given to Democratic politicians prior to their dealings with Abramoff?

UPDATE: In response, I sent the following to Mr. Brady:

Jim,

Thank you for your timely response.

If I may, I'd like to clarify only one point with you: Do you feel the issue of how much money these tribes had given to Democratic legislators *prior to* their involvement with Jack Abramoff is irrelevant to the WaPo's choice of wording, in re: "directed," versus "suggested?"

Thanks again,

-J.P.
Nashville, TN

.