Customer Reviews

The Perfect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of Lobbyist Jack Abramoff

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

A few years ago, Gary Chafetz wrote a book on a notorious malpractice case in which he countered the easy, even lazy, journalistic narrative that dominated the headlines. The story had it that an elite Harvard psychotherapist led an unfortunate, confused working-class medical student to despair and suicide. Chafetz' research uncovered a quite different, and more plausible, story that re-focused he narrative and largely exonerated the psychotherapist from the most serious charges leveled against her. It also told a story of a successful professional, who had done much excellent work and was destroyed by the financial costs of defending herself. In his new book he examines Jack Abramoff, whose name has come to exemplify the rotten core of K Street Republican politics. Chafetz's book should be read widely, not only because he casts doubt on this most recent narrative of villainy...this time the story of the evil, powerful lobbyist who has robbed and defrauded naive Native Americans, but also, and more importantly, because he deals quite harshly with the role of John McCain in the affair. According to Chafetz, McCain's desire to destroy Abramoff arose more out of a personal grudge than from his desire to root out corruption nd in the process he was both unethical and dishonest. McCain, in Chafetz's analysis, shows a vindictive and deceitful side, one far from the "straight talk express" so beloved of the sound-bite corporate media. One doesn't have to accept all Chafetz's argument about Abramoff's activities to appreciate what he has accomplished in writing a carefully researched book against the grain of common wisdom and even against such fair-minded commentators as Bill Moyers. It may be that a very flawed man operating in a deeply flawed political culture has been made a scapegoat while another greatly flawed man is now the Republican candidate for the presidency. At any rate, voters should see this book soon.

What I find amazing is how did this this reporter ever get Abramoff to talk to him without his own lawyers and the federal prosecutors knowing about it. It's nice to hear the other side of the story...so persuasively and carefully documented. I don't think I'll ever believe anything I read in the newspapers again without a huge dose of skepticism.

This book seems to be well researched and makes the point that selective, one-sided, political arguments--political propaganda actually--are the norm in Congress, the Executive Branch and the Justice Department. I think we thoughtful voters realize all that and find it despicable, but what can we do about it? More about this later.**

As you read the book, you realize that corporate money, not the individual voter, runs the country and a majority of our politicians. Greed, an easy term to toss around, often seems to be the politicians' bottom line.

Though I believe he was rooked by McCain and other chameleons I don't come away feeling sorry for Mr. Abramoff, because I do believe that with his experience among the high rollers and his own high intelligence he should have realized that corrupt politicians and their minions play worse than dirty. All one has to do is read the legal loopholes that are often cleverly embedded in lawmakers' bills and you realize they and their staffers have profitably been gaming the system.

The discussion in the book does make me wonder how much we really need to know about McCain's POW days. Some argue that if he were to became president in Jan. 2009 it is not unlikely that he could be blackmailed by those who know the whole truth about his so-called collaboration with the N. Vietnamese while he was their prisoner. Of course, the KGB archives could have additional negative info about McCain's days as a POW, and certain factions could TRY to blackmail him, but at this stage in his life that might be a futile effort on their part. We would know their motivation and perhaps wonder how we ourselves would have withstood inhumane treatment.

**Our beloved country is a mess. I'm discouraged, and I sometimes wonder why an honest person would bother to run for office any more. Campaigning is a dreadfully expensive system AND OFTEN BORING for viewers. But as a registered independent, I would argue that we need to register and vote our concerns, but first we need to (1) study the issues and the politicians, (2) cancel out the many lies spewed out by the candidates and their staff members--who apparently think ALL voters are stupid--and (3) dare to speak the truth ourselves.

I gave the book only three stars because of the appalling lack of editing throughout. You will find, as I did, that the reader must do an unusual amount of work: re-reading sentences three or four times to figure out which words were missing or incorrect, and there were a number of those! Publishers used to hire proof readers to do such editing, but I guess those individuals are a dying breed who cost the publishers too much money? There's that bottom line again. Still, I think the book is worth reading, and I do recommend it.

I must start my review by saying I have not read the book. My only experience with Chafetz was in 2008 when I approached the Huffington Post with my story and paperwork. After receiving my work in exchange for the offer of money to publish my work to generate publicity for a publisher, I was knocked off the Huffington Post and replaced with Chafetz who was essentially touting my same story. My paperwork (which implicated Scott Reed in the set up of Abramoff) and a sample chapter I shared with the HuffPo wound up Jo Becker's article in the New York Times (The NYT owns the Chafetz's employer, the Boston Globe.)Neither Becker nor Chafetz had access to my sources, so what happened was very curious.

The paperwork wasn't being handed out like candy at the tribes. I actually went through thousands of documents, and shared the document on Reed with the HuffPo, on condition of publishing my articles, which then wound up in Becker's article. I'd like to know how she got it.

According to the Indians, Chafetz only briefly (for one day?) passed through the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe and didn't visit the rest, whereas I lived on the reservations and worked for the tribes for years to piece together the story.

It was very disappointing, therefore, to see my original work apparently lifted by Becker and Chafetz without permission, attribution, or compensation appear under their bylines. I even saw statements I provided to the Huffington Post -- in response to questions they asked showed up in Chafetz's work which were attributed to Abramoff. However, Abramoff gave no interviews. My opinion was simply my opinion -- I was not spouting someone else's, much less Abramoff's.

Chafetz claims an exclusive to Abramoff, but only showed up in prison once unannounced on a family visiting day. Chafetz may not be aware than Abramoff saw many reporters in prison (myself included) and that his precondition on meeting him was that he could not discuss the cases or answer any questions about the federal investigation. If you are in any doubt, consider that CREW's Melanie Sloan took the DOJ to task for not allowing Abramoff to have video cameras in prison or to speak about the cases to filmmaker and Casino Jack creator Alex Gibney.

Gibney is not only a Huffington Post contributor but he is a friend of Chafetz's.

I had the story -- in 2006/2007 and endeavored to publish it in 2008, but was sabotaged. The book is out now:

Lynched! The Shocking Story of How the Political Establishment Manufactured a Scandal to Have Republican Super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff Removed from Power.

For more information, you are welcome to visit my site: [...].

You will see that my book is fully footnoted and that Abramoff was not a source of my book, nor was he a source of anyone's. I acquired the original paperwork and interviewed hundreds of sources and single handedly pieced together the scandal behind the scandal. My book fully exonerates him and proves his innocence.

Rather interesting is that Gibney and Chafetz always referenced and promoted each other in the media over the Abramoff story -- even though Gibney created a movie, filled with propaganda supplied by PR firms, one of which is the HuffPo's PR firm on record -- and that Gibney worked with lobbyists close to McCain for his information, including Tom Rodgers.

Chafetz met Rodgers, who said that Chafetz did not have a good command of the story. Rodgers should know since he coordinated McCain's Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearings. My tribal sources said that Chafetz was pressuring them to tell him what they knew about my story (after I shared it with the HuffPo) and to give it to him on threat of sabotaging my book (which happened anyway).

By his own accounts, Craig Shirley, conservative PR maven extraordinare, was in touch with Chafetz in 2008 -- when McCain was the Republican nominee for president. Shirley was working for McCain's campaign.

I am not sure what was going on -- though it occurs to me that maybe Chafetz and Becker were set up or enlisted by lobbyists close to McCain's camp to take the essence of my story and then spin in beyond recognition. Becker's story essentially acknowledged the Reed set up Abramoff but that Abramoff was guilty anyway and was trying to "steal" clients like the Mashantucket Pequot. (Actually Abramoff never had his eye on that tribe. My reference to the MP in the chapter I shared with the HuffPo was to tribal membership fraud, which paralleled that with the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, an Abramoff client.) Not having done much of her own work, nuances and interpretation were lost on Becker.

In his take, Chafetz essentially acknowledged the set up and then said that Abramoff told him -- and since Abramoff was cast as a liar in the media, the conclusion could automatically be dismissed, as who would believe a liar, afterall? Many of Chafetz's conclusions were wrong -- and even some jokes I made to the Huffpo about the case -- wound up in Chafetz's work as fact and attributed to Abramoff.

I am very disappointed with Chafetz and Becker's conduct in 2008. Rodgers even shared an email with me in which Becker was gushing to him with gratitude over his help with her article.

Is Chafetz's book an effort to bury the truth -- by spinning the real story or attributing it to someone (Abramoff) who could not possibly have spoken about the cases? Who knows. Originally Chafetz told everyone he was writing a book about McCain -- and at the last minute, shoved my scoop into his own book and raced it out to print, while encouraging Indians to picket for him to sell copies by claiming he had reported the fraud within their tribe. After picketing for him, the Indians were disappointed to see that they had been misled.

Becker and Chafetz should have had no problem doing their own work given that they are both Pulitizer Prize winners. Why didn't they -- unless they have grown accustomed to relying on lobbyists to give them information on behalf of special interests to attack others.

The full story is in my book. I had it first. I had it right. My story is factual and balanced and I did not rely on any special interest groups/lobbyists or take money to do it. I interviewed people all across the spectrum to acquire the complete story with no agenda in mind beyond the truth.

If you are so inclined, I would encourage you to please read Lynched and decide for yourself.