Don Luskin has caught Paul Krugman getting his facts wrong again. Claiming that Abramoff’s clients actually gave less to Democrats after retaining him, Krugman cited a study commissioned by The American Prospect. Problem is, both TAP and Krugman spun the study incorrectly. Luskin talked to the president of the company that did the study, who said, “To say it dropped nine percent is silly, because you can’t compare those two timeframes. We did not prepare that number for them. In fact, it was not even in the reporter’s original draft.”

Responding to an e-mail from Luskin, NYT public editor Barney Calame wrote, “Given that Mr. Krugman cited only one factor in classifying tribal donations — whether they occurred before or after the tribe hired Mr. Abramoff — I don’t think his statement constitutes a factual error. Is it unfair? Yes. But the fairness of columnists is beyond the mandate of the public editor.”

Apparently, that mandate only extends to shilling for management and running letters. As for Krugman, getting him to correct an error is like getting your bags back after an airline loses them — an incredibly frustrating experience that involves multiple layers of bureaucracy, long delays and sometimes yields no results at all.