Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Vanity Fair's Margolick on Apologizing / Abramoff says he played Hardball.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:03 PM
Original message
Vanity Fair's Margolick on Apologizing / Abramoff says he played Hardball.
Edited on Mon Mar-13-06 12:04 PM by KoKo01
He's on C-Span's WJ and he keeps repeating that Democrats took money from Abramoff and he seems to be defending him at every turn and saying how sad it is that Abramoff is such a "devoted family man." His five children call him every day and its so said to see such a family man suffering.. :eyes:

He says he speaks to his parents every day and he made money for the Indians so he was just playing sucessful "Hardball."

Callers were angry and telling him that Democrats took not ONE penny from Abramoff and he kept saying that Democrats did. He said 1/4 of the money went to Dems and every time he was confronted he kept saying that Kennedy and others who didn't have tribal connections took the money and so while Repugs got most of the money that Dems are involved.

He seemed to be portraying Abramoff so sympathetically that anyone who heard iti would think that he feels sorry for Abramoff. He wouldn't answer any questions about Abramoff's involvment with the "Sniper Camps" in Israel or any of his other dirty deals.

I wonder how much money he's getting to spew this crap...:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. and Vanity Fair is supposed to be better than the NY Post?
I think not. :argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. From what I could tell, Margolick was just plain lying!
And of course the c-span lady was egging him on.

Who is this guy???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. David Margolick who wrote the big Vanity Fair article on Abramoff..
It's disappointing because "VF" has done some good work in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. That's why I was shocked.
Is he some sort of mole?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. Wow three more callers after he left are bringing up Mariannas, UAE and
all of other his other ties! :toast: to those callers!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
4. I heard a part of that as I was getting ready for work this a.m.
As soon as it is archived, I'll listen in full. But this guy was definitely an apologist for Abramoff. He continued to spout that this is both a Rep and Dem scandal. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wetzelbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
6. I'm actually reading his book about Joe Louis and Max Schmeling right now
Edited on Mon Mar-13-06 12:18 PM by Wetzelbill
hahaha

Ironic.

Literally reading it right now, I just stopped to listen to Franken's show and check out DU. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. I hope you can believe what he says in that book then....
:eyes: He's pretty arrogant and was totally offbase in the way he spun Abramoff on WJ...and I guess in the article which I haven't read yet..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wetzelbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. he seems pretty accurate so far
based on the stuff I already know about them etc. You always have to take this stuff with a grain of salt. Best to get a variety of sources on a topic and put it all together from those various perspectives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
7. Don't get me started on David Margolick
Shifty little bastid. I know some folks that bought into his game. It's gonna bite them in the ass one day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Oh, please do get started!
I'd never heard of the guy before I saw him on cspan today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Yes....tell....tell...I don't know anything about him either..
Edited on Mon Mar-13-06 12:23 PM by KoKo01
He someone we Dems need to watch. Another Tweety...who can't tell a straight story for anything and Margolick's use of "Hardball" made me wonder if he's a Matthews buddy, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. I'll just say
that I gave him a damned good tip on old Jeff Gannon for that puff piece in VF. - and that is all I'll say
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. Here's an interview Keith Olbermann did with him about Abramoff:
He really does seem a "suck up" even in this interview...

===================

KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST, ‘COUNTDOWN’: From your interchange with him, how much does it appear to rankle Mr. Abramoff, anger him, perhaps, that all these politicians he used to associate with are not just distancing themselves, they're claiming never to have met him?

DAVID MARGOLICK, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, “VANITY FAIR”: Well, I think it really gets under his skin. I mean, he's somebody who's generally very careful about what he says these days. He doesn't give many interviews. He's very concerned about the sentencing that he's going to get from the judge. Everything hangs in the balance. And he's a man who measures his words. But clearly, he's very annoyed when people pretend never to have met him.

OLBERMANN: Why not, then, prove that he has met them, prove his association? Certainly he could do that with the president if he released the photographs of the two of them together, even selling them for what would be a huge sum of money? Did Mr. Abramoff offer a reason to you why he has not done that, or at least has not yet done that?

MARGOLICK: Well, this is an interesting thing. I mean, despite everything, Jack Abramoff is still a very partisan man. He's a partisan Republican. And when the Democrats said they were going to make great hay out of any White House picture showing him with Bush, he promptly changed his mind about selling the pictures. He was originally tempted to do it, but he instantly decided that, you know, why give aid and comfort to the enemy? So he decided not to do it.

I mean, another interesting dimension to that is that he would not get to keep the money, any money that he made from the pictures. There was—there were offers in the low seven figures for these pictures, but the money would go to the Indians, who are owed restitution under Abramoff's plea agreement.
Related content

* Read Keith's blog: 'Bloggermann'
* 'Countdown' homepage

OLBERMANN: Now, as to this other symbolism here, as we're seeing again with this endless videotape, and the hats and the weight gain, did he talk about this, about the 50-pound weight gain and the, and the, the wearing the black fedora to, to court that day, that, that, that this becomes his image? Did, did, did this come up in your conversations with him?

MARGOLICK: Well, we talked about it a lot, because the symbolism in this case is very important. I mean, the weight gain, I think, is personally very embarrassing to him. This is a seriously physical fit guy, generally. I mean, he was a weight lifter in high school, he set records that stood in his high school for many, many years. He's somebody who has always taken care of himself, and he's gone to seed. And I think he's embarrassed by that.

The black hat business is really kind of a bum rap. And on this, I feel very sympathetic to him. He's an Orthodox Jew, he's been an Orthodox Jew for 40 years, or almost 40 years. Orthodox Jews cover their heads when they go out, they wear yarmulkes or they wear hats. And in fact, he put on a black hat because he thought that wearing a yarmulke would subject him to charges that he was excessively and recently pious.

So he put on his black rain hat instead, and he got pilloried for it. And I think that part of it all is rather a bum rap.

OLBERMANN: And the way you phrase it, it certainly sounds that way.

MARGOLICK: Well, you know, in fact, he didn't, you know, he didn't subject his clothing to a focus group. He put on what was in the closet.

OLBERMANN: Let me ask you about this upcoming sentencing. You wrote in the article that, quote, “The best guess is that Abramoff will be sentenced in a year or two and spend at least a few years behind bars.” But since your article, closed, there were changing events in this, a judge Monday refused to delay the sentencing by more than to weeks, it's going to go to the 29th of this month, even though the lawyers for both sides favored a longer delay, Mr. Abramoff's lawyer now threatening to name names unless the sentencing is in fact postponed.

And two questions are necessary about that. Do you feel the Jack Abramoff you met is ready to follow through on his lawyer's threat to sell out, even though those are his fellow Republicans, get those names out there completely? And would Mr. Abramoff be adequately prepared for the possible long prison term might begin sooner rather than later?

MARGOLICK: Well, Jack Abramoff at this point doesn't have a lot of cards to play. I mean, basically, he's exchanging all of the information he knows for a more lenient sentence. And I don't think anything is going to deter him from that.

I mean, the reason that these events in Miami throw things off is because the prosecutors and Abramoff have a deal. And if there's kind of a maverick judge in Miami, as opposed to the sentencing judge, the other sentencing judge, in Washington, it could throw a monkey wrench into the whole deal.

But Jack Abramoff's deal requires him to talk, and talk freely and fulsomely, and that's what he's doing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11746562/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sutz12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
8. It's the neo con way.....
if you shout it long enough and loud enough it becomes truth. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
14. So Vanity Fair has been compromised?
That's what is seems like to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cassandra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. I await seeing Wolcott's comments on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seaglass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Not with James Wolcott writing for VF. I don't think you can
judge VF on one piece of shitty reporting - and that's what I think this is. Margolick was either intentionally trying to be gentle with Abramoff or he is really uninformed.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jane Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
16. Abramoff is a con man. Con Men are always charming.
(If they weren't charming, they couldn't make it as con men.)

Abramoff is one of the most successful con men in recent history.

Therefore, Abramoff is very, very charming.

What a surprise that he was able to charm and con the author of an high-profile article about him. (NOT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cassandra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
17. I noticed this morning the spin that...
Indian tribe money is somehow inherently corrupting; that Democrats who got it were actually being bribed rather than getting the money because they were fighting for their constituants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. It annoyed me that he mentioned Joe Kennedy's name twice....like
he had a thing maybe about the Kennedy's. He said Joe Kennedy doesn't have any Indian tribes in his state so why did he take money.

I believe I read that Kenndy has a commission on working for Indian rights...but Margolick never mentioned that. He seemed to intentionally leave out anything that would clarify any thing to do with Dems.

I didn't feel he thought Abramoff did anything wrong. I wonder if he could have been a friend of Abramoff or crossed paths with him somewhere that he was so sympathetic to him. Googling him showed he's written some very well received books on Civil Rights issues with African Americans. I couldn't find anything linking him to Neo-Cons but then I didn't do a deep search.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. He also made note of the fact that Patrick is Teddy's son.
Edited on Mon Mar-13-06 01:20 PM by barbaraann
And Ted Kennedy is a GOP hot button name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seaglass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Just an FYI...it's Patrick. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Thanks for the correction.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
25. "It's indisputable, Democrats took money from Indians"
he finally said.

YES BUT THAT IS NOT TAKING MONEY FROM ABRAMOFF!!!

What an idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC