Now why would the Washington Times run a story that is so easily verified as bogus? I can't figure out the motivation in this instance. Sure the WT is not exactly at the peak of journalistic excellence and honesty, but are they really this sloppy? Or could they just be trying to get a meme started about Reid's culpability, even if it is ultimately false.

The WT never had much credibility in my book, and I would expect that only the most rabid of those on the Right would either cling to belief in the Wa Times false story or consider the WT more trustworthy for having rushed it to publication.

Surely most conservatives aren't that brain-dead.

The Washington Times has an agenda, and they post articles like this one to further it. I read the Washington Times for a 6 month period, and literally 80% of the days I read it there was something disparaging about Hillary Clinton. Coincidence? I think not.

Where is Tim? There hasn't been an new post in the War Room blog since 1400 ET yesterday. I'm sure there's news going on.

The things that everybody ignores when going on about how Sen. Reid and Sen. Dorgan, in particular, got donations from "Jack Abramoff's clients" is that these senators' political interests coincide with the tribes' interests. Sen. Dorgan has supported the tribes' interests for years and would do so even if nobody'd ever heard of Jack Abramoff. After all, he represents a state with a large Indian population. And Sen. Reid represents Nevada -- you know, Las Vegas, Reno, existing gambling establishments; of course he's going to vote the way the tribes would want him to, because they and he both have reason to limit new gambling establishments.

The question should be not whether politicians received contributions from "Jack Abramoff's clients", but why they did. In the case of the Democratic recipients, the answer definitely is not "because the contributors were Abramoff's clients".