College Democrat Leader Can't Quote Things Honestly

What I find particularly amazing with the new College Democrat President, Seth Flaxman, is his inability to actually quote documents or statements accurately. I already have noted this in the past on this blog (see "Funny College Democrat Mistake") a way down. In a letter to the editor in the Spect today, though, Flaxman asserts that:

According to the College Republican’s Constitution (Article III Section II) they require that “Formal votes, pertaining to internal College Republicans policies and procedures, go to a vote at the next general meeting, with the majority of members present being sufficient to pass the proposal.”

What Flaxman ignores, however, is a small section in the middle of that line that he conveniently removed without even adding a "..." to indicate anything was cut. In reality, the section reads:

"Formal votes, pertaining to internal College Republicans policies and procedures, shall be initiated by any member of the general body. The proposal shall then go to a vote at the next general meeting, with the majority of members present being sufficient to pass the proposal."

It pertains to votes that originate from the general membership on ideas they might want to raise. It is intended to get a vote on any issue and to encourage new ideas, not to make every decision the result of a vote of the general board. Indeed, directly after that section, the constitution establishes the authority of the Executive Board to take decisions in its own name to recognize policies or groups, provided that it is established as a vote of the board:

"If such policy positions are initiated by the Executive Board and are not brought up for a vote, these positions must be stated as the position of the Executive Board of the Columbia University College Republicans, not as of the group as a whole."

And then he asserts how Democrats let anyone hear their speeches and question them, which, of course, is crap. When Hillary Clinton was running for NY Senate, she came to my High School and I could hear her alright, but when it came time for questions her staff insisted on filtering them first and allowing the ones they liked. Some openness.

And notice how Flaxman never refutes my point that the College Democrats stifle anyone who is not in their majority? Instead, he confirms it.

Rather than take aim at Columbia College Republicans for stifling its members, he cites a claim about the RNC. I won't argue that, even though I could. I will point out to Flaxman if I ever meet him, though, that the College Republicans are not the RNC, and that the College Democrats are not the "Big Tent." That we can prove beyond doubt.

Haha... That Was Close

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/nyregion/metrocampaigns/14york.html?hp&ex=1126756800&en=c642938faf70b189&ei=5094&partner=homepage

It seems that Ferrer might have only won 39.949% of the vote in the Democratic Primary, just short of the 40% he needed, and that he may now have to have a run-off competition with Anthony Weiner, who has been gaining steam.

Where was that 0.041% when he needed it, eh? Classic.

Funny College Democrat Mistake

I can't believe I didn't catch this until now, but bear with me....

Last semester, I published a piece in the Spectator about the Democrats for Bloomberg issue within the College Democrats. Specifically, I was very critical of Seth Flaxman (their then Membership Director and current President) and his slogan that, as College Democrats, "We should stop ‘just talking’ about politics and focus on getting good Democrats elected. Less talk and more activism.”

In response, Seth Flaxman accused me of twisting his quote out of context. As he wrote:

I thought the quote of mine he used in his editorial was clear: “We need to do more than just talk about issues and work on getting good Democrats elected.”

Notice anything wrong?

Well, if you didn't, the quote he refers to is not the same as the quote I used in my piece. My quote I took from an earlier spec article about the Mayoral race. The quote used by Flaxman does not show up in that article, or in mine. Basically, he changed his own message in his response, perhaps hoping that nobody would realize. There is a difference between "stop 'just talking'" and "do more than just talking," and that's an awfully big typo to happen just by mistake. He ignores his latter part of the quote, "the less talk" part, entirely too.

I could, of course, discuss the myriad of other points in Flaxman's response that were lacking, and if comments ask for it perhaps I will. But I think its just another case in which Democrats twist what they actually said after they are challenged on it. Where's the accountability again? Certainly, not with the College Democrats.

Although I would certainly like to meet Mr. Flaxman. Too bad I didn't see his response until now.

The Liberal Supreme Court Rhetoric vs. The Reality

Shortly after President Bush selected Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., for nomination to the Supreme Court, liberal groups began to attack the choice as “out of the mainstream.” As the Chicago Tribune notes, “Some liberal advocates called for an all-out war to stop the nomination,” with people like NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan declaring that “President Bush has consciously chosen the path of confrontation, and he should know that we, and the 65 percent of Americans who support Roe, are ready for the battle ahead.”* ( http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0507200185jul20,1,147122.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed )

So, how does the rhetoric match up to the reality? Let’s look at the most established (and reliable) liberal news sources in the country: the New York Times and the Washington Post. As the New York Times reported,
“Now the question is whether Judge Roberts, if confirmed, will, like those two justices, commit himself to recapturing a distant constitutional paradise in which the court was faithful to the original intent of the framers or whether, like the justice he would succeed, he finds himself comfortably in the middle rather than at the margin.
His résumé suggests the latter, as does his almost complete lack of a paper trail. There are no flame-throwing articles or speeches, no judicial opinions that threaten established precedent, no visible hard edges.
To the extent that as a judge he has expressed a limited view of federal power, that is consistent with the views of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom he is being named to succeed, and would not change the balance on the court.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/national/20legal.html?ei=5094&en=8f7eadf2245decd8&hp=&ex=1121918400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print)
As the Washington Post adds, “the president passed over a number of highly conservative judges whose nominations would have been seen as far more ideological and polarizing than that of Roberts. Given that this was the first but probably not the last Supreme Court vacancy he will be asked to fill, Bush signaled a less confrontational approach toward the Senate than he has adopted with his lower-court nominations.” So much for Keenan’s declaration that Bush has “Bush has consciously chosen the path of confrontation.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071901946.html)

Of course, these liberal groups would prefer a liberal Democrat on the Court to a Republican “comfortably in the middle rather than at the margin” in the words of the New York Times. Yet maybe they should focus on trying to win elections and communicating better with the American public rather than attacking what John A. Rogovin, a Washington lawyer who served in the Justice Department during the Clinton administration and as general counsel of the independent Federal Communications Commission, recently called “one of the most measured, thoughtful judges out there."

Then again, character assassination of good federal judges is nothing new to these groups.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* As a side note, let's putaside for the moment that 6 out of the 9 Justices on the Court today support a Constitutional right to abortion, so that the shrill liberal scream of "save Roe! save Roe!" -- implying that Roe is at stake in this confirmation -- is a deliberate tactic to mislead Americans. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/07/dorf.scotus.elections/) This confirmation will not change the balance on Roe v. Wade, no matter how conservative a justice Bush could pick. With the most recent case in 2000 (Stenberg v. Carhart), 6 justices supported Roe and 3 opposed it in their opinions. In fact, according to Keenan's own numbers, those who support Roe are actually OVERrepresented on the Supreme Court at the moment -- albeit not by much -- assuming that 65% of American support Roe. Let's set aside for the moment whether I support Roe too -- which I believe I do. The fact is, the sreams of "save Roe" are mere tactics in a political war, and representative of these groups' heated rhetoric that twists facts to pursue their own transparent agendas.

Hell... frozen over... already?

"[Chirac] has become a commentator of political and international life ... without offering any solutions."

Sound like it was written by a Republican?

Well, it was from Francois Hollande, first secretary of the French Socialist Party. At least the American left still loves the man, because "[p]olls show that French President Jacques Chirac has lost the confidence of more than 60 percent of his [own] countrymen."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20050718-101343-2579r.htm

Combine that with Schroeder's recent drops in the polls (with those polled indicating that his government has moved too far away from the U.S.), and you have justice. :-P

State Run Healthcare

For those who want state provided universal healthcare, this article is a must. It details the corruption following a program "created 40 years ago to provide health care for the poorest New Yorkers" which, as the NY Times claims, was "once a beacon of the Great Society era." (I didn't know the terms "beacon" and "Great Society Era" could possibly be put together in the same sentence. Leave it to the NY Times...) Yet even when the corruption is clear, as The New York Times notes is the case with Medicaid in New York, "State health officials [have] denied in interviews that Medicaid was easily cheated, saying that they were doing an excellent job of overseeing the program." Now, some would argue that the state should be providing healthcare for everyone as a given right. Can you even imagine how costly and ineffective that would be?

Affordable and adequate healthcare should be available for every American. But, as New York's Medicaid fiasco shows, it would be irresponsible to trust state bureaucracies to accomplish it. Surely there is a more effective, and less overbearing, alternative. The Great Society, in the end, would seem anything but Great. I'll choose economically-sensible efficiency over Johnson-esque "Greatness" anyday.

Great timing...

Recently, a few British papers came out with a story about a "Muslim scholar denied entry to U.S." after Customs officials found that "his answers to basic questions were not 'in alignment' with his background check or documentation."

Outraged about his case and two similar high profile cases that had made the press earlier, "A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, Inayat Bunglawala, said: 'This is extremely worrying following on from the refusal of the US to admit Yusuf Islam and Tariq Ramadan. It seems the US has very little knowledge about British Muslims. These are all mainstream people who have no record of involvement in unlawful activities. They are stigmatising ordinary Muslims.'"

The timing of this statement is priceless: only eight days after what happened in the city of London? Hmmmm...

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,9959,1529297,00.html

For All Those Who Attack No Child Left Behind....

Take this: Younger Students Show Gains in Math and Reading .

"Nine year old students born in the mid-1990's, on average, earned the highest scores in three decades, in both subjects." -- These are students who've been through the system largely after No Child Left Behind was passed (assuming school entrance at 5 or 6).

There is still a way to go, nobody will argue that. But for all the Democrats that claim No Child Left Behind failed, please explain the record levels of improvement nationally (for instance, the test results cited in the link) and in NY State.

I'm sure people will have their own ways to brush the results off. But the fact is that NCLB is getting results, and was a piece of legislation passed by BOTH Democrats and Republicans under President Bush's leadership. Democrats would have been able to take some of the credit for it (Ted Kennedy was a sponsor for crying out loud), but instead even its Democratic backers have flipped sides and attacked it as empty. These results are not empty. Democratic rhetoric, however, is.

Big City Union Shifts Support to Bloomberg

Big City Union Shifts Support to Bloomberg

I think the title says enough.

It is sad when journalists can't read...

Below is a letter to the editor I just sent off to the Washington Post (and to ever editor's e-mail I could get my hands on...). It's not intended to be published (way too long and I don't have time to be concise today), but it is because this column contains the same old Democratic arguments about Ambassador Wilson's supposed report debunking the Niger-Iraq connection (albeit, he recognizes Rove didn't break the law, but instead focuses on Cheney). My intent in sending the letter was more to point out his incompetence to his colleagues rather than make a public point. This site is my public point. ;) Well, here's the letter:

To the editor,

Having read Richard Cohen's recent column "Rove Isn't the RealOutrage," I was astonished to see such a poorly researched piece could ever make it into the Washington Post. It is an embarassment to your paper and, while merely an opinion piece, substantially lowered my regard for your paper. It seems the days of Woodward's investigative reporting are clearly gone. Mr. Cohen seems incompetent of even reading a simple, albeit long, Congressional report!

As Cohen wrote, "It was Plame ... who chose her husband to go to Africa to see if Saddam Hussein's Iraq had tried to buy uraniumin Niger. He went and later said that he found nothing, but George W. Bush said otherwise in his 2003 State of the Union address. It was supposed to be additional evidence that Iraq had, in the memorable word uttered by Vice President Cheney, 'reconstituted' its nuclear weapons program. That, of course, is the real smoking gun in this matter...The inspired exaggeration of the case againstIraq, the hype about weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda's links to Hussein, makes everything else pale in comparison...Wilson was both armed and dangerous. He claimed the truth."" Clearly, Cohen did not read or take into account the U.S. Senate's bipartisan "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq" before writing his piece, even though that is the authoritative report of theCongressional investigation into Iraqi WMD estimates before the war. (available here)

As the report notes about Wilson's trip to Niger and his subsequent statements to Congress and the press, "The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article (“CIA DidNot Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid,” June12,2003) which said, 'among the Envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.’' Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have 'misspoken' to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were 'forged.'"

The report continues to cite repeated inconsistencies in Ambassador Wilson's Congressional testimony and other statements. As it notes, for instance, "First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraqand, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Nigercould have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report ... noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium. Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Nigeruranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki... DIA and CIA analysts said that when they saw the intelligence report they did not believe that it supplied much new information and did not think that it clarified the story on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. They did not find Nigerien denials that they had discussed uranium sales with Iraq as very surprising because they had no expectation that Niger would admit to such an agreement if it did exist. The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerien Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales."

Rather than debunk the reports of Iraq-Niger uranium sales, then, Wilson's reporting only confirmed to DIA and CIA analysts that, according to the former Nigerian PM, an Iraqi delegation had likely visited Niger to discuss those sales. And even so, "Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. For the same reason, CIA’s briefer did not brief theVice President on the report, despite the Vice President’s previousquestions about the issue." Rather than serve as additional evidence of the Vice President's statements as Cohen claims, then, the report confirms that Wilson's report was never briefed to the Vice President or used for further analysis for the Administration at all.

What the Senate's bipartisan "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq" demonstrates, if anything, is that Ambassador Wilson either is armed with a terribly poor memory or a politically-motivated streak of dishonesty. Hardly, however, "the truth" as Cohen claims.

Neither is Cohen, and he does a disservice to your paper and its readers with his recent column. I prefer to think that Cohen was either too lazy to actually read the Senate's report or did not know it existed. Then the inaccuracies in his column would be gross negligence above all else. I suspect, however, that he did read the report and chose to ignore it, casting aside the most comprehensivegovernment report on the issue to suit his ownpolitically-motivated goals. How ironic that, in accusing Vice President Cheney of ignoring government reports, exaggerating his claims, and lying to make political gains, Richard Cohen would be guilty of all three.

Chris is too conservative once again

With his estimates I mean. According to NY Times reporting this morning, "an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion." So much for possibly as high as 90 billion. As the article notes further,

"Most of the increase in individual tax receipts appears to have come from higher stock market gains and the business income of relatively wealthy taxpayers. The biggest jump was not from taxes withheld from salaries but from quarterly payments on investment gains and business earnings, which were up 20 percent this year. That was similar, though much smaller than a sharp rise in tax revenue during the stock market boom of the late 1990's, which was followed by plunges in revenue when the market bubble burst." (The full article is available here)

Now, for all the Democrats that cite President Clinton for balancing the budget, take note. According to Dick Morris, Clinton's chief political advisor at the time (eg Clinton's Rove -- "The Architect" -- for his 1996 success), the budget was balanced not because Clinton reduced spending (in most areas he did the opposite), but because of the huge increases in tax revenue from the stock market's boom. With more tax revenue, the government could afford to spend what it had been all along. Add to that a Republican-controlled House at the time which refused to approve the drastic increases in spending that Clinton wanted (which would have unbalanced the budget), and a balanced budget took form.

Then, when the stock bubble burst, the increased tax revenue that the bubble brought suddenly disappeared, returning the government to an unbalanced state -- beginning with the recession started just before Bush took office.

There are a few things that should be noted there. First, the Clinton administration's "balanced budget" was not the result of "Clintonomics." Clinton wanted to spend more, but, when Republicans retook the House in 1994, they would not let him. Their constraints, tied to a stock market boom and the tax revenues from it, were what led the budget to be balanced at all. As Wikipedia even notes, "The Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 led to a push for a balanced budget, forcing President Clinton to agree to reducing the deficit. Major economic growth and GOP led spending controls such as Welfare Reform allowed for a balanced budget (when Social Security surplus was counted as revenue) by early in Clinton's second term in 1997 - considerably earlier than what Clinton's own projections for this had indicated."

Second, the surplus only came in Clinton's SECOND term, even though the economy began heating up late into George H.W. Bush's term (too late to help him in the election), and booming early into Clinton's first term. Even with a booming economy, Clinton did not balance the budget until the beginning of his second term in office -- when Republicans in the House rejected 4 budgets in which Clinton proposed huge spending increases and only affirmed the fifth budget that Clinton sent to Congress which eliminated much of the increased spending the Clinton proposed.

Third, unlike the very end of George H.W. Bush's Presidency when the economy began to really heat up, at the very end of Clinton's Presidency the economy began to really sour. When George W. Bush came to office, it was the beginning stage of a recession. Despite this, in the past election, Democrats hammered Bush for not balancing the budget in his first term -- which Clinton could not manage to do in his first term even as the economy began to boom by the time he took office in 1993!

Fourth, the increase in tax revenues under the Clinton administration were based on a bubble. When stock prices were inflated, more money came in from capital gains tax. But those revenues could not be sustained. In essence, they were based off a huge structural gap that inevitably had to burst. Not only were they unstable, then, but they were unnatural and not based on actual economic performance. The fact was that investors though stocks were worth more than they really were worth and that they thought the economy was in better shape than it really was -- the definition of a bubble, after all, is when the price of stock diverges significantly from its actual value. Clinton's increased tax revenues were ultimately based, then, more on the faulty judgments of economic agents rather than sound economic theory.

Fifth, part of the bubble was caused by CEO's like those at Enron and Worldcom cooking their books to make it look like their companies (and therefore their stocks) were worth more than they really were. The fact that such CEO's were not as regulated as they should have been during Clinton's economic boom, and held more accountable, may have caused tax revenues to increase in the short term under Clinton, but, when the bubble burst, it also made the damage all the worse. While most liberals I've seen have blamed Bush for the actions of the CEO's (and draw all sorts of connections), the fact is that most, if not all, of the crimes they committed were during the stock market boom UNDER CLINTON.

Sixth, Clinton's success with reducing deficits, along with the shrinking deficit now under Bush, reflect victories of conservative economic theory that the budget can be balanced through increased economic activity rather than through tax hikes that reduce that hamper that activity. There's a reason why the U.S. is outperforming the E.U. these days (bringing the Euro back down and making many investors clammer back for dollars): the Europeans have the huge handicap of excessive, excessive taxes that make the competition for economic performance a no brainer. The E.U. is working with one hand tied behind its back, and the best part is that it is E.U. nations themselves, and not any outside force, that tied it. The way to reduce deficits is in large part to promote economic growth, which will naturally bring in more revenues with the tax rate remaining constant, rather than increase taxes and decrease economic activity. Yes, it sounds supply side. But there's a reason Columbia's Professor Mundell received a Nobel Prize for his theory, even if it -- like all economic theories -- has its fair share of problems.

Seventh, in probably the only point that staunch Democrats will agree on, Congressional restraint is necessary to balancing the budget too. Republicans in Congress must push the administration to reduce what has been at times reckless spending. If Congress defeated 4 of 5 budgets Clinton proposed in one year alone because of reckless spending, Congress certainly can be stricter with Bush about his own reckless spending in his budgets. That's its job, regardless of the party that controls it. And, in the end, Bush himself will look a lot better after his second term if part of his legacy is restoring a balanced budget along with economic growth after the recession, much like Clinton's legacy looks more rosy to people who lionize him for balancing the budget -- even though he fought all he could for budgets that would, had they have passed Congress, results in further deficits rather than fiscal sanity.

Finally, Republicans should recognize that, despite Democratic rhetoric, Democrats are not really interested in balancing the budget at all. If they ever retake both the White House and Congress together (G-d forbid!), you can be sure they will spend the same amount which they've always wanted to spend. After all, at the same time as Democrats blast Bush for deficits, they have attacked him for not spending enough on education (even though he increased the budget of the Department of Education by 58% in his first four years), healthcare (universal health care, right?), et al. If the Republican Party is really the party of fiscal responsibility, it must act the part now while it has the reigns and prove that, when a Party has power, it does not have to just spend more and more pork. Republicans in Congress should make Bush's budget a bit more Kosher and eliminate the pork. That, combined with the robust but more stable economic performance that has taken root over the past two years, would be a great financial legacy for this Pax Romana of Republican dominance and will set the legacy of the Republican Party for years to come.

What goes around comes around...

So, while Democrats attack Tom DeLay for accepting campaign funds from Indian tribes, below is a great article showing how Democrats benefited from the same operation. In fact, "Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November."

In response to these connections, the best line the article shows is Reid's spokesman's defense of these connections: "'There's nothing sinister here,' Manley said. Reid is a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee with strong relations with Indian tribes, he explained." But, since Reid was in charge of legislation affecting these groups, shouldn't it have been MORE important that he refrain from accepting political favors from them? Apparently, having good relations means accepting kickbacks for legislative favors.

Democrats started this fight, and I hope they pursue it to their own finances as well. Clearly, they won't. But at least the Washington Post, that bastian of Conservative thought, will help them pursue those leads in public.


-----------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158_pf.html

Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations
Abramoff Issue's Fallout May Extend Beyond the GOP

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Derek Willis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 3, 2005; A01

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an associate famously collected $82 million in lobbying and public relations fees from six Indian tribes and devoted a lot of their time to trying to persuade Republican lawmakers to act on their clients' behalf.

But Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.

Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November.

Democrats are hoping to gain political advantage from federal and Senate investigations of Abramoff's activities and from the embattled lobbyist's former ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). Yet, many Democratic lawmakers also benefited from Abramoff's political operation, a fact that could hinder the Democrats' efforts to turn the lobbyist's troubles into a winning partisan issue.

"It wouldn't surprise me to see the Abramoff controversy impact both parties," said Tony Raymond, co-founder of PoliticalMoneyLine.com, which gathers lobbying and campaign finance information.

Democratic lawmakers who responded to inquiries for this article said that any money they received from the tribes had nothing to do with Abramoff. They were quick to say they did not know the man.

Federal investigators are examining the millions of dollars in lobbying and public relations fees that Abramoff received from the tribes. They are also looking into his dealings with members of Congress and their staffs, lawyers involved in the inquiry said.

Most lobbying firms here are bipartisan, to give their clients access to key lawmakers of both major parties. Abramoff's group was no exception. Although he was recognized as a Republican lobbyist who was close to DeLay and other party leaders, Abramoff was careful to add at least two Democratic lobbyists to his group during his five years at Greenberg Traurig. By the end, seven of his lobbyists were Democrats.

"Lobbying shops typically direct contributions to both parties because they want contacts on both sides of the aisle," said David M. Hart, a professor of public policy at George Mason University. "Lawmakers in the minority can also have a lot of clout."

According to documents and tribal officials familiar with the Abramoff team's methods, the lobbyists devised lengthy lists of lawmakers to whom the tribes should donate and then delivered the lists to the tribes. The tribes, in turn, wrote checks to the recommended campaign committees and in the amounts the lobbyists prescribed. The money went to incumbents or selected candidates in open seats.

Because of the makeup of his team and the composition of Congress, the Abramoff lobbyists channeled most of their clients' giving to GOP legislators, according to a review of public records. Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), chairman of an Appropriations subcommittee that frequently deals with Indian matters, received the largest amount from the tribes as well as from the Greenberg Traurig lobbyists who helped direct those donations: $141,590 from 1999 to 2004, the study showed.

But Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.) ran second, with $128,000 in the same period. From 1999 to 2001, Kennedy chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which solicited campaign donations for House candidates.

The Indians' largess flowed to higher-ranking Democrats as well. Senate Democratic leaders Reid and Daschle each received more than $40,000 from the tribes and from lobbyists on Abramoff's team during the period. Gephardt got $32,500.

Of the 18 largest recipients of tribe contributions directed by Abramoff's group, six, or one-third, were Democrats. These included Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), who chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from 2001 to 2002, and Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.), a leader in Indian affairs legislation.

Over that period, while Abramoff and his lobbyists directed nearly $4 million in funds from the tribes to lawmakers, they also gave from their own pockets. Two-thirds of the total went to Republicans and one-third was handed out to Democrats, according to The Post's calculations.
The six wealthiest tribes that had hired Abramoff's group were the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana and the Tigua Indian Reservation.

Greenberg Traurig declined to comment. An Abramoff spokesman said: "Each tribe has its own protocol for approving political contributions made by the tribe. Mr. Abramoff and his team provided recommendations on where a tribe should spend its political dollars, but ultimately the tribal council made the final decision on what political contributions to make."

Democratic lawmakers sought to distance themselves from Abramoff.

A spokesman for Kennedy said the congressman's donations from the tribes "have nothing to do with Abramoff." Kennedy traces the money's genesis to his family's long-standing commitment to Indian causes, to the fact that he co-founded the Congressional Native American Caucus in 1997, and to his personal relationship with Mississippi Choctaw Chief Philip Martin, whom Kennedy met in 1999 on a fundraising trip for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "They just became close friends," said Kennedy spokesman Sean Richardson.
James Patrick Manley, Reid's spokesman, also asserted that Reid's connection to tribes was remote from Abramoff. He said that Reid does not know Abramoff. But Abramoff did hire as one of his lobbyists Edward P. Ayoob, a veteran Reid legislative aide. Manley acknowledged that Ayoob helped raise campaign money for his former boss. Lawyers close to the Abramoff operation said that Ayoob held a fundraising reception for Reid at Greenberg Traurig's offices here.

"There's nothing sinister here," Manley said. Reid is a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee with strong relations with Indian tribes, he explained.

Daschle was familiar with another of Abramoff's Democratic lobbyists, Michael Smith. According to Steve Hildebrand, who was Daschle's campaign manager last year, Smith "helped with a lot of Democratic campaigns." In addition, Daschle was a favorite of Indian tribes and received donations from 64, including five Abramoff clients. "We took about $150,000 in this last election cycle from Indian tribes around the country," Hildebrand said. "Tom is viewed as a champion of Indian issues. We have nine tribes in South Dakota, and they worked hard for him."
Murray also was said to have never laid eyes on Abramoff. "Our office has not had any contact with Jack Abramoff," said the senator's spokeswoman, Alex Glass. "She's been active in Indian health care and in supporting their sovereign governments; that is why they decided to contribute to her. They see her as an advocate."

During the time Murray chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Abramoff's major tribes were significant contributors. Election reports show that the grand total from the tribes to that committee in 2001-2002 reached $175,500.

In March 2001, Dorgan held a fundraising event during a hockey game in a skybox leased by an Abramoff company at MCI Center. But the senator said he believed that the box was controlled by Greenberg Traurig. The event was organized by Smith, the Democratic fundraiser, he added.

"I was unaware that Abramoff was involved," Dorgan said.

Lt. Ilario Pantano Resigns His commission

http://euphoria.jarkolicious.com/journal/2005/06/03/448/
The Lt.'s comments to his supporters:

The support of your network has been tremendous and I hope you can help me express how much I still love the Corps to your vast readership. Leading Marines in battle has been the pinnacle of my professional life. There are so many things about being a Marine that I will miss now that I have submitted my resignation, but my priority must be taking care of my family after what can only be described as ‘one hell of a year’.

Molon Labe
Ilario Pantano


And to Congressman Jones, his staunchest supporter in the House:


Congressman Jones, You once shared a verse with me:

Greater love hath no man - than to lay down his life for his friends.

That spirit of sacrifice defines the soldier and Marine. And it defines you sir. You know in your heart and your soul what is right and you are willing to fight for it. Even if it is at great risk to you and your career.

As my family and I faced our darkest hours you fought for us, and in doing so…You fought for every man and woman in the uniform, past present and future - not because of the opportunity to challenge the military, but for the opportunity to protect it from itself.

Day and night you appealed to any that would listen. You were tireless in your defense of me, and for that I will be eternally grateful.

My family and I want to thank you for your courage and your leadership.

First, I present to you my innocence, known to you and many many others from the outset, but proven finally by our justice system after a yearlong investigation and prosecution.

Congressman Jones, You weren’t just brave to defend me. You were RIGHT.

And finally, from one warrior to another, I present to you my most cherished possession: my sword. My love of corps and country will never be broken or diminished, but now it is my love of family that I must honor most with my decision to resign.

I have taken up arms for my country and my corps in two wars and it has been my privilege to serve beside real heroes- some of whom are here today.

Even as I step aside it is my greatest hope that young men and women continue to follow in the footsteps of those who have gone before… To push themselves…To rise to the challenge of becoming Marines. Our country needs you and we will always be grateful to you.

The Marine Officer’s sword represents the highest ideals of military excellence and professionally, one of my greatest achievements.

Honor, courage and commitment are principles by which we Marines LIVE AND DIE.

You, Congressman Jones, through your actions, have demonstrated that you live by those principles as well.

And I, for one am grateful that you do.
Thank you Sir, may god bless you and your family and may God Bless America.


The Lieutenant is a hero of mine, for having cast aside his posh yuppie life to serve his country. He was a credit to the Corps and the country, and was a fine officer by all accounts. His presence will be missed in the Corps.