Pro-business libertarian thinktank CATO institute caught in Abramoff scandal

[Sauron]

One more reason to distrust libertarians and their connections to this administration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/po...rtner=homepage

WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 - A senior scholar at the Cato Institute, the respected libertarian research organization, has resigned after revelations that he took payments from the lobbyist Jack Abramoff in exchange for writing columns favorable to his clients.

The scholar, Doug Bandow, who wrote a column for the Copley News Service in addition to serving as a Cato fellow, acknowledged to executives at the organization that he had taken money from Mr. Abramoff after he was confronted about the payments by a reporter from BusinessWeek Online.

"He acknowledges he made a lapse in judgment," said Jamie Dettmer, director of communications at Cato. "There's a lot of sadness here."

Copley suspended Mr. Bandow's column.

Efforts to reach Mr. Bandow through the Cato Institute and at home were unsuccessful.

The revelation caps a year of disclosures about partisan payments to seemingly independent writers, including Armstrong Williams, the conservative columnist and television host, who received payments from the federal Education Department at a time when he was promoting the Bush administration's education policies in his columns. The administration has been under mounting pressure to become more transparent in its communications after accounts that it paid for and printed articles in Iraqi periodicals as part of its overseas propaganda effort.

[godfry n. glad]

Another stooge!

Oh, my...oh, my...oh, my. What has become of our untainted critical sources? Bought and paid for!

[alphamale]

From the New York Times, eh? Garsh, everyone can believe every word of that!!

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Another stooge!

Oh, my...oh, my...oh, my. What has become of our untainted critical sources? Bought and paid for!

It's interesting that the article brought out the point I made to weeniemale the other day: the American Enterprise Institute - like CATO - makes money from pushing these opinions and as such, cannot be considered an unbiased source:

A second scholar, Peter Ferrara, of the Institute for Policy Innovation, acknowledged in the same BusinessWeek Online piece that he had also taken money from Mr. Abramoff in exchange for writing certain opinion articles. But Mr. Ferrara did not apologize for doing so. "I do that all the time," Mr. Ferrara was quoted as saying. He did not reply to an e-mail message seeking comment on Friday.

At Cato and similar institutions, adjunct scholars are not always prohibited from accepting outside consulting roles. But at Cato, said Mr. Dettmer, and at the American Enterprise Institute, said a spokeswoman there, rules require scholars to make public all their affiliations, and there is an expectation that scholars will not embarrass the institution.

So to translate: both organizations are paid arms of the business lobby.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by alphamale

From the New York Times, eh? Garsh, everyone can believe every word of that!!

Except that the author himself, Doug Bandow, admitted it in public.

Oh, yes - the familar conservative whine about the Times. The NYT does make mistakes - but they've always been in favor of the administration. Remember when they reported the made-up claims for WMDs in Iraq? And all the rosy war reporting?

But that's what America is stuck with: a conservative media that accepts the govt/business line far too often, without critically examining the claims. Wish we had a real press, like in Europe.

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by Sauron

One more reason to distrust libertarians and their connections to this administration.

Because of a single scholar who took a bribe from Abramoff? And then roundly criticized by Cato for doing so? That's a helluva stretch. I get that you don't trust Cato because of its obvious ideological bias. To conclude that libertarians as a whole have unsavory connections to the Bush Administration doesn't follow from this news item. In fact, many libertarians have been just as critical of Bush policies as, say, Greens.

I hesitate to link Reason magazine, since they often publish garbage such as "Why global warming might be a good thing," and other such happy horseshit. But it's the best example I have of a libertarian group consistently and vociferously criticizing Bush policies.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet

One more reason to distrust libertarians and their connections to this administration.
Because of a single scholar who took a bribe from Abramoff?

I didn't say that this was the killer end-all reason to distrust libertarians.

I said it was one more reason.

Having discussed libertarianism over the years, I have come to the conclusion that it is primarily a rationalization for basic greed. A backgrounder:
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...8976#post58976

[Sock Puppet]

Fine; I still see it as a rather feeble reason to distrust an entire group based upon the actions of one individual, especially since his own Institute repudiated his acceptance of the bribe. Even as "one more" reason, it's a feeble one.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet

Fine; I still see it as a rather feeble reason to distrust an entire group based upon the actions of one individual,

You are still confused. I distrusted that group and its philosophy before I ever read this article about this author from CATO.

especially since his own Institute repudiated his acceptance of the bribe.

So? I'm supposed to be impressed by that? I would expect a brothel owner to be shocked - SHOCKED - at such conduct by its members as well. But I would expect the brothel owner to keep taking the money anyhow -as CATO does.

CATO admits that (like the American Enterprise Institute) it accepts "pay for play" work. They *admit* being a policy advocacy firm, and will write articles and/or do research for money. So CATO's problem with its member author is not that the he received money for spinning articles. The problem that CATO had was the lack of disclosure.

Even as "one more" reason, it's a feeble one.

No, it exemplifies the key characteristic of this (alleged) philosophy: libertarianism as a rationale for basic greed.

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by Sauron

You are still confused. I distrusted that group and its philosophy before I ever read this article about this author from CATO.

Oh, if I was still confused, it most definitely wasn't about that.