Washingtonian’s Kim Eisler: “There Was a Good Jack and a Bad Jack”
by Pamela LeaveyKim Eisler, national editor for the Washingtonian magazine recently made public some details of his relationship with Jack Abramoff. Snippets of emails that Eisler received from Abramoff have made quite a stir in the blogosphere, as they were first published on ThinkProgress on February 8.
In a bit of a Democratic Daily exclusive, Eisler left a comment in my thread here on the story, “Jack Knows George,” a short time ago. After confirming that the comment was indeed from Kim Eisler, and sharing some further thoughts on this with him, I am posting his comment here on our front page (which clarifies his comments in WaPo) with his thanks (and a couple of typo edits):
Kim Eisler Says: February 12th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
I did not mean to say that I thought I was talking to a “fellow reporter.” I think what I said was that I thought I was talking to a print reporter working a magazine article. I did not release “emails” to her, but rather two grafs from one email. Thus she did not actually have even one complete email, much less emails.
As for being “sympathetic,” my position is that Mr. Abramoff was like a lobbyist on steroids, but the prevailing notion that he cheated his clients, as opposed to doing all this to promote their interests, is not accurate. All the things he did was for his clients, so to believe he cheated them, seems contradictory.
In any event, he is a human being with twins, a dog and a cat, and doesn’t really need to be turned into the villain of the century. After all, the money he allegedly “stole” all went to build a school for Gods sake. Not like it was going to Duke Cunningham’s yacht. The last point is obviously debatable, I’m just trying to show some humanity here to a man I know is not all bad.
There was a good Jack and a bad Jack. Most people today only know the bad Jack. I didn’t know that man at all. The Jack I knew was funny engaging and after hours he was decent and true to his beliefs. Apparently he had some misguided impression of how to influence government.
-Kim
Personally I find the entire Abramoff scandal to be a sad, sorry mess. Our nation’s first people put their trust in this man and ultimately for whatever reason, he violated that trust. Kim Eisler, as a friend to Abramoff obviously saw a side of Jack Abramoff that other’s have not. For what it’s worth, I can appreciate his willingness to share that and also what he knows about Abramoff’s relationship with Bush.
UPDATE: There’s a grouping of photos of Jack Abramoff and Bush here. It turns out the photos in question were a Hoax.
UPDATE 2: The WaPo ran a story about the school that Abramoff funded on January 24th: Incidental Victims of Abramoff’s Largess.
“Eshkol “was a noble idea,” says Joe Sweeney, who taught English at the school. “Very few people are altogether corrupt. Jack Abramoff had this notion of a new model for an Orthodox Jewish school: the best secular education, the best Judaic studies and sports.”
But the school was utterly dependent on the money Abramoff channeled to it. The cash came in fits and starts, often meeting payroll at the eleventh hour, in the form of mysterious payments from the Capital Athletic Foundation, another Abramoff creation.” More here…
Filed under: Congress, House Of Reps, In The News, Politics, Republicans | Get Permalink or trackback |
“After all, the money he allegedly ’stole’ all went to build a school for Gods sake.”
You mean the school that went bankrupt before a single class was held? The school that supposedly had a million-dollar endowment that is now missing? That school?
I do feel sorry for Abramoff’s kids, though, the same way I feel sorry for any mobster’s kids. They didn’t ask to be raised by a person like that.
Mnemosyne
Thinking of Abramoff’s kids makes me think of the Matt Damon character in Syriana. For the sake of Kim Eisler is pointing out, there was a good Jack Abramoff and a bad Jack Abramoff – his kids got caught up in what the bad Jack did. Kids never deserve that.
i just like the idea that the national editor of Washingtonian magazine, email correspondent with Jack Abramoff And ThinkProgress source for de-bunking bu$h’s “I don’t know Jack” myth, reads and comments here and follows up his contribution to the comments by being a willing source for your Democratic Daily exclusive. i just think that is cool. Way to go Ms Leavey!
may start calling abramoff, “Black Jack Abramoff”? … i just like the way that sounds.
i never found any date(s) for when these emails were sent. they’re recent? these are Black Jack directed shots at shrubya’s denial’s?
somehow, i just have a lot more sympathy for the native american victims of his swindles than for his privileged, pampered twins, ill-fated spawn though they may be.
… but it could be carry-over from how i feel about the shurbettes.
…
“After all, the money he allegedly ’stole’ all went to build a school for Gods sake.”
At least more than just a school. One of them was reputed to be a sniper school, equipping and training civilians to kill civilians. Probably a capitol offense under the Patriot Act.
Yellowdog Jim
I give Kim Eisler a lot of credit. Not only has done a great job debunking the Bush don’t know Jack myth, but he’s added a whole separate dimension to the mess, that gets lost in the vilifying.
Priveleged or not the kids are innocent victims, but I agree I have far more sympathy for the Native American victims, who always seem to get a raw deal in this country.
If you appreciate the history of how we’ve wronged our First People, the Independent Lens program on PBS is going to be airing a documentary on legendary Native American activist John Trudell, on April 11.
I’ve seen it and I highly recommend it – the trailer is here: http://www.trudellthemovie.com
m Says: February 13th, 2006 at 12:29 am
???
ms leavy -
i do appreciate the first folk’s history and i will have to mark my calendar for pbs, trudell, april 11th, right?
would you be familair with “Soldier Blue” (1970)?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066390/
i saw it at a drive-in when it came out.
hard to watch.
gruesome.
i agree that Eisler’s cool.
And he is conveying abramoff’s (recent?)refutation of bu$h’s denials, right? who on our team can’t appreciate that?
thanks, kim!
and thank you, ms leavey.
(pbs … trudell … 4/11)
There was a good Ted Bundy and a bad Ted Bundy.
He has twins and a dog and a cat, so he shouldn’t be made out to be the villain of the century?????
Villains have children and wifes and assorted pets. That doesn’t excuse anything. It isn’t their families or their possessions that make them villains. It is what they do. And Jack Abramoff BOUGHT the republicans party, and yes, Jack Abramoff CHEATED his Indian clients. THAT MAKES JACK ABRAMOFF A VILLAIN, AND ONE OF THE BIGGEST VILLAINS OF THIS CENTURY.
In any event, he is a human being with twins, a dog and a cat, and doesn’t really need to be turned into the villain of the century.
The Nazis were human beings too, last time I checked. Hitler loved animals, yada yada.
And no, to anyone stupid enough to need the explanation, this isn’t “comparing” Abramoff to the Nazis. It’s using an extreme example to starkly illustrate the lack of logic in such a dumb statement. I shouldn’t have to explain that, but I’ve noticed a distressing inability in the blogosphere to understand the basic concept and purpose of an analogy.
It’s fine to understand that Abramoff had two sides to him, and certainly a good thing that people can separate Abramoff’s misdeeds from his innocent kids. But…
The Indians who got ripped off also had kids. The millions of ordinary Americans whose lives are made more miserable by the policies of the politicians Abramoff helped fund have kids. The Asian workers held captive (literally and figuratively) in the Marianna Islands while Abramoff lobbied to keep U.S. labor laws from applying there probably had kids, or were kids themselves.
Not to mention the more abstract damage done to the very underpinnings of the system in which we all live.
Feel sorry for Abramoff’s kids, his wife, his friends, anybody you want to. If so inclined, forgive Abramoff. But do not forget what he did, and do not mistake forgiveness for letting him off the hook for his actions.
And it is not at all uncommon for a person to be the very personification of sleaze in a context where wealth, power, and influence are at stake, while being a jolly old shmoozer in other contexts. I hope to God we all learn that one day, so we can all exercise the necessary skepticism when meeting jolly old shmoozers.
Once upon a time there was a good Jackoff and a bad Jackoff.
The good Jackoff was like a lobbyist on steroids who had kids and pet fish and built a nice school that helped to train poor, underpriviledged Jewish snipers.
But the bad Jackoff was very bad and got caught cheating people out of their money.
For this, bad Jackoff had to plea bargain his sentence down from 50 – 70 years in prision, to 9 – 12.
I feel sorry for his kids and the pet fish. It’s only all those other parts of his life that I find appalling.
Me Says February 13th, 2006 at 4:45 am
Eisler intial comment in here was in response to a piece I wrote about the emails from Abramoff, debunking the myth that Bush did not know Abramoff.
Eisler pointed out that Vanderhei of the WaPo misquoted him and clarified that he knew a different side of Abramoff. Eisler isn’t excusing Abramoff’s wrong’s he simply stating he knew a side of Abramoff that others didn’t. Couple that with Eisler’s willingness to offer evidence that Abramoff knew Bush, it’s just another dimension to the whole mess.
Lee Russ Says:
February 13th, 2006 at 7:30 am
I don’t get that Eisler is letting Abramoff of the hook, and I certainly am not either. I posted this because Eisler made the point of clarifying he was misquoted in the WaPo in responding to my intial post about the email story, and he clarified that he knew a different Abramoff. That “different” person exists in the everyone who commits wrongs. It doesn’t make their wrongs right however.
Yes, a lot of kids got screwed outside of Abramoff’s own kids. I think Eisler’s comments point out the very real fact that a jolly old schmoozer can oull one over on the best of us.
Quote from Eisler:
“After all, the money he [Abrahamoff] allegedly ’stole’ all went to build a school for Gods sake.”
Did Eisler mean that Jack had built that school for the sake of God; or was he [Eisler] just taking God’s name in vain?
Tom
Evidently taking God’s name in vain. I really get that Eisler was blindsided by the Abramoff he knew and what Abramoff did. Admirable that he is willing to expose the truth that Abramoff knew Bush.
And I think I remember that the school purchased TWO Zamboni machines which they really needed since it didn’t have an ice rink. Wonder what happened to them.
Gwen
No doubt a lot of money was squandered.
Gwen
I just posted an update in the thread with a link to the WaPo story about the Zamboni’s.
“Abramoff’s lawyers have told the teachers’ lawyers that the Zambonis, school buses and other Eshkol assets have been sold, “but we haven’t seen a dime,” Rubin said. “We don’t know where that money went.” –
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301672_2.html
Eisler is playing the Politically Correct game in behalf of one of their own. A secular Jew sticking out for a Zionist.
Otherways how you explain that Abrannoff was sending money to an Israel death squad snipers school ?
Not that it does not happens in other religions, but casting aside a religious ideology is quiet a deal.
Censor Furtado, 2/13, thinks Eisler’s comments on there being a “good Jack” indicate that he’s “A secular Jew sticking out for a Zionist.”
Didn’t take long for the Anti-Jewish angle to poke its head up, huh? That’s ridiculous.
Are people defending the sleazy DeLay because they share his evangelical beleifs? Would you have even thought to mention the similar heritage if Abramoff and Eisler were both Irish? English? Greek?
Lee
Censor seems to forget the fact that Eisler has made a point of letting people know that the myth that Bush does not know Abramoff is false, and yet somehow that has alterior motives.
Wednesday’s Worst
If I can post the best each day, why not the worst?