« Would You Like Some Old Cheese With That? | Main | Duck Duck Goose »
February 26, 2006
The Big One
Today Carmen and Winslow find themselves under a microscope, and they don't like it much. Message: President Bush, please don't spy on us illegally. Can't disagree with that. But you scaredy cat Republicans voted this administration back into office, and if you're not willing to sacrifice your rights to privacy, then you're like us progressives and you hate our freedom. Oh, and you want to give the terrorists therapy. Sucks to be us, donit?
Enough of the opening act - let's get to the headliner.
On January 26th, 2006 Prickly City ran a strip tackling the Abramoff scandal. It referenced the Howard Dean appearance on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, where Wolfie tried his best to make it a bi-partisan issue - when in reality this was all about the corrupt Republican party. Apparently this ruffled the feathers of one Mr. Scott Stantis, so he took it out on Dr. Dean - first with the worst possible drawing ever of a real life person, and then lying about what happened.
Now normally I'm not the type of person to write in and complain about something. Sure, I might disagree with Scooter on the issues, but ultimately it's his opinion and I respect that. But here we have a case where the facts are clear, and yet Stantis chose to lie in order to make a funny. And that irritated me something fierce. You see, Jack Abramoff never gave any money directly to Democrats. Now some Republicans tried to make the argument that Abramoff "directed" his clients, the Indian Tribes that he was ripping off, to give money to Dems. But even that's not true. The Tribes have always given money to both parties - and under Abramoff, they were directed to give LESS money to the lefty loons. So when Stantis has little neo-con tot Carmen say that 80 Dems have taken money from Abramoff, it's a flat-out, no good, very bad LIE.
So I did what any good American would do when challenged with this situation: I bitched about it. I sat my butt down at the ol' electric machine and whipped me up a good ol' fashioned letter to the editor - the editor here being Mr. Scott Stantis. Here's what I wrote on January 26th, 2006 - the day the comic was published:
Dear Mr. Stantis:
In today's edition of your comic strip "Prickly City," you make the statement, "At least 80 Democrats took money from Mr. Abramoff," a reference to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. That is absolutely, positively FALSE. If you have ANY proof that Jack Abramoff personally donated money to any Democrat please provide it - because no such information has been presented and the FEC has documented that ONLY Republicans have received money from Jack Abramoff.
Come on, Mr. Stantis - you're a smart guy. You must see what's happening over at the Washington Post website, where their ombudsman Deborah Howell made a similar mistake. She refused to apologize, and now it's a major embarrassment for the paper. Do you wish the same for all of the papers that publish your comic?
Please apologize immediately for the comic strip AND implying that Howard Dean is a liar. Or provide proof that Jack Abramoff made personal campaign contributions to Democrats. And please, don't embarrass yourself with the whole "Oh, well he told his clients the Indian tribes to donate the money to both..." - That flies about as well as Winslow. For one, there's no proof Abramoff directed his clients to donate any money to anybody. And that's not what you say in the strip, and unless you correct it - you're the liar.
***
Now granted I was a little peeved when I wrote this, and I wonder if I had waited an hour or two if I still would have sent it. But looking back I would have. Let's face it, there isn't any debate here. Stantis lied, Winslow cried, and something had to be done.
Imagine my surprise when I got an email from "Scott Stantis" in my mailbox this week.
That's right: the big one himself wrote me back. Well, probably not him, most likely it was Toby or some lackey intern, but even still - this was an official letter from the boys at Prickly City. In most cases I wouldn't publish an email without first asking the original party for their permission. However, as you'll see in the email, Mr. Stantis and crew take it upon themselves to possibly discuss my email on their podcast, so all bets are off. You don't ask, I don't ask. So let's get to the down and dirty - how would the PC Police respond to my outrage?
***
From: "Scott Stantis"
[Add to Address Book]
To: me@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: 1/26/2006 Prickly City
Date: Thursday, February 23, 2006 4:59:14 PM [View Source]
Thank you so much for writing us. In the January 26th Prickly City strip addresses the incident in which Howard Dean denied that Democrats took money that originated with Jack Abramoff. The following is taken from the transcripts of CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer for the January 8, 2006 show:
"BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.
DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence..."
Untrue. While he did not personally give money to Democrats, he did direct money to them. The Capital Eye lists the lobbying and political contributions of Jack Abramoff which includes Democrats ( www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=N). The Associated Press reports that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid did assist Abramoff clients (see www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/09/D8FLPHO80.html).
This is overwhelmingly a Republican scandal, but the Democrats are not pristine either. However my main intent was a criticism of Dr. Dean.
While I am a conservative, I want a viable Democratic Party. Reasoned debate is important and good for the country. To be frank, right now the Republicans have so much control that they have become arrogant and are not acting like true conservatives. They need a viable opposition to force them to act like conservatives. Unfortunately, I do not believe Howard Dean is the person to lead the Democratic Party into the future. Of course, you are free to disagree, that is simply my opinion.
We found what you had to say of special interest. So much so that we are adding it to the list of e-mails we are considering for inclusion in the Prickly City Podcast. There's a new one posted every week at www.pricklycity.com. Give it a listen and you may hear us discuss your e-mail.
You may also be interested to know that the first collection of Prickly City is now available through www.Amazon.com .
Thank you again for taking the time to write.
Please continue to read and enjoy Prickly City.
Scott Stantis
***
Wow. Take a deep breath. I wonder if this is how it feels to be touched by god himself with one of his many arms (assuming he, she, or it even has arms). I feel blessed. For one of the minions at Prickly City to take out time to respond - with links! - to my email was a shock to say the least. It's just all too unfortunate that, once again, Stantis gets it wrong.
Down below I'm going to include the body of my email in response to the one sent by Scott "Don't Call Me Scooter" Stantis, blowing his response out of the water or off the face of an elderly man. But just for fun, I want to waste some time and break down his email bit by bit. Maybe we can get a better idea of how the mind of Stantis works.
***
From: "Scott Stantis"
Thank you so much for writing us.
You are very welcome.
In the January 26th Prickly City strip addresses the incident in which Howard Dean denied that Democrats took money that originated with Jack Abramoff. The following is taken from the transcripts of CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer for the January 8, 2006 show:
"BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.
DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence..."
No complaint there. You've quoted from a transcript. That's a good start. And I remember watching it as it happened, so I'm your confirmation on this one.
Untrue.
Huh?
While he did not personally give money to Democrats, he did direct money to them.
Whoa - slam on the brakes there, Scotty. This was never about "directing" money to anyone. Even though he didn't do that either, that wasn't the point of your strip. You had your version of Howard Dean say not one Democrat took money from Abramoff - period. End of story. But let's see if you can dig your way out...
The Capital Eye lists the lobbying and political contributions of Jack Abramoff which includes Democrats ( www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=N).
Take a very close look. They confirm that Abramoff personally didn't give any money to Democrats. Associates of his? Yes. Clients of his? Yes. BUT...
The Associated Press reports that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid did assist Abramoff clients (see www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/09/D8FLPHO80.html).
I was hoping Stantis would bring this up. You see, this is a common tool used by Republicans when arguing that this is somehow a Democratic and Republican issue. "Harry Reid works with Indian Tribes - Indian Tribes work with Jack Abramoff - Harry Reid worked with Jack Abramoff!" Yup, twisted logic at its finest. As I mention in my email response to Mr. Stantis, not only was the story he mentioned debunked, we now know that Abramoff had his clients direct LESS money to Democrats, not more. Ouch, that's gotta hurt.
This is overwhelmingly a Republican scandal, but the Democrats are not pristine either.
It's so overwhelmingly a Republican scandal it's ONLY a Republican scandal. Now that's overwhelming. Granted there are plenty of corrupt Democrats out there, but they weren't working with a convicted felon named Abramoff, who loved to get his picture taken with W.
However my main intent was a criticism of Dr. Dean.
Yeah, I noticed that when you drew him as a fat slob.
While I am a conservative, I want a viable Democratic Party. Reasoned debate is important and good for the country. To be frank, right now the Republicans have so much control that they have become arrogant and are not acting like true conservatives. They need a viable opposition to force them to act like conservatives. Unfortunately, I do not believe Howard Dean is the person to lead the Democratic Party into the future. Of course, you are free to disagree, that is simply my opinion.
This is priceless. At least Scoots admits he's a conservative, which is bold of him. But he claims he wants a "reasoned debate?" The guy who calls Michael Moore fat and portrays Ted Kennedy as a drunk and calls Bill Clinton a rapist wants REASONED debate? He's kidding, right? It's nice to see him admit that the current administration is arrogant, but I'm not so sure that they're not acting like true conservatives. And personally I'm happy knowing that Mr. Stantis doesn't want Howard Dean in charge - that's good news to us, because it means they're afraid of him. Granted Dr. Dean has his quirks, but he's doing a great job of getting this back down to a state and local level - and that's pissing off the "conservatives."
We found what you had to say of special interest. So much so that we are adding it to the list of e-mails we are considering for inclusion in the Prickly City Podcast. There's a new one posted every week at www.pricklycity.com. Give it a listen and you may hear us discuss your e-mail.
I did. It wasn't on there. Instead he went with another guy saying something similar, but I don't think he backed it up with the facts - like I do in my below email response. Instead Stantis went with the whole "but he directed money" line and then moved on quickly to saying that the Democrats killed Coretta Scott King or something like that.
***
Of course knowing that I might be mentioned on a world famous podcast I had to write back quickly and reiterate my point that Stantis lied. Here was my response:
***
Thank you for taking the time to respond. Looking back I might have been a bit terse in my original email, but I do stand by my reason for writing.
I think we're both in agreement that there's a need for a reasoned debate in this country, and that both parties have their problems. However I still have to take issue with what's been written. You've admitted that Jack Abramoff didn't donate anything to Democrats - yet that's precisely what you had Howard Dean say during his appearance in PC. He didn't say, "took money directed from Jack Abramoff." Maybe it's just a matter of semantics to you and many of your other readers, but unfortunately it misrepresents the facts. Would it have been so hard to include that one little word?
And even still your argument for Dean being a liar is weak - unfortunately the story you've cited concerning Harry Reid's involvement with Abramoff has been debunked. Please see here ( http://mediamatters.org/items/200602100001 ) and here ( http://mediamatters.org/items/200602130005 ). If anything, Abramoff directed his clients to give LESS money to Democrats ( http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10924 ). While Dr. Dean might have his own little quirks, lying about the Jack Abramoff scandal doesn't seem to be one of them.
I understand your wanting to take a little "creative freedom" when writing your strip, much like your implying that Hillary Clinton wanted to send both Rosa Parks and Betty Friedan to the plantation when she did nothing of the sort (unless Parks and Friedan are in charge of the Republican-controlled Congress). And maybe including a word like "directed" in there would cut back on the funny. But ultimately you're writing political commentary, and I would hope that your standards would be high enough that you're factual in what you state. As much as I hate to admit it, Dr. Dean was correct - and you strip was wrong. But hey - nobody's perfect.
If you do decide to include my email in your podcast, I hope you include my response and corrections. I'd also like to put in a little plug for www.shrubville.com - I'm sure it's a website you'd be interested in.
***
See, I can include links too. And they weren't all that hard to find - it would be nice if Scotty could have Toby spend more time doing research instead of setting up podcasts only a handfull of people will listen to. Who wants to bet most of his listeners are people who wrote in and he told might get mentioned on the pod?
So there you have it. My brush with greatness. I haven't felt this giddy since I got Chris Elliott's autograph. AND I got in a plug for Shrubville, so there's a really good chance that someone at PC will check out the site and see that we're keeping tabs on them (if they're not already).
I'm glad I wrote in - it's not every day you can tell someone they're wrong and if they don't correct it they're lying, only to have them respond that they knew they were wrong, lied anyway, and now they're going to try to justify it by lying some more. Ah - conservatism at its finest.
Thanks Scott Stantis - you made my weekend. Now quit lying and BE MORE FUNNY.
Comments
Enjoyed reading that.
Stantis explained why Abramoff directed LESS money to Democrats in his podcast few weeks ago: Republicans are in charge of the country AND Abramoff is a Republican himself (gee...what a surprise).
Posted by: Charles Brubaker at February 26, 2006 09:10 AM
Exactly. The tribes have always given money to both parties - it just makes sense since one or the other is going to be in charge. But Abramoff can only encourage them to direct MORE money to Republicans, since they're always going to give money to Dems but he's a Republican. That's why it's so irritating - don't say he directed money to Democrats because he did no such thing. But saying, "Abramoff directed less money to Dems" doesn't exactly fit into Stantis's joke.
Posted by: The Furnace at February 26, 2006 09:23 AM
