The AZ Rep has a *special* article on its website, a heartrending tale of woe, a heartfelt plea for help.
The article chronicles the plight of nativist former Congressman-turned-radio-talk-show-blowhard JD Hayworth, who still faces hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills stemming from his fight against a federal corruption investigation.
The AZ Rep article cites as a source an entry in Hayworth's personal blog (http://www.jdhayworth.com/blog/?p=33).
The blog entry puts forth Hayworth's argument that he was unjustly accused and smeared for political purposes, and that while he has been 'vindicated', he incurred large bills to defend himself. Now that he isn't an elected official receiving regular contributions, his campaign coffers are empty and can no longer be used to pay those legal bills.
He sort of glosses over the fact that it was campaign contributions, particularly those from imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his friends, that got him in trouble in the first place, but I digress... :)
Anyway, Hayworth's plea moved me, deeply.
I can't afford to give him money right now (he graciously advised/hinted to his supporters of the IRS's gift limits of $12,000 per person/$24,000 married couple), I can make this pledge.
Thanks to JD's eloquent cry for help, I hereby pledge that if he is eventually convicted and imprisoned, I will send him...
Letters.
Yup, I'll become his pen pal. (Rather thoughtful of me, isn't it? LOL)
All sarcasm aside, if he or any other reader wants to read about an investigation, conviction, and imprisonment that truly *was* politically motivated, read about the plight of Don Siegelman, former governor of Alabama.
If anything that has happened in the last 7+ years that will put Karl Rove behind bars, what he and the Bush-run Justice Department did to Gov. Siegelman will be it.
Later!
Showing posts with label Abramoff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abramoff. Show all posts
Friday, March 28, 2008
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Short Attention Span Musing
...Is state Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) trying to move up? Right now, most of his blog coverage is limited to "That's our Jack! Isn't he a nut?" posts, but a bill that he has proposed for the looming session of the Arizona lege may support moving him from the "loon" category of coverage into the "follow the money" category.
If passed and enacted, his SB1042 would remove from state law the provision that a privately operated toll road is allowed "only if a reasonable alternative route exists."
In other words, it would allow the creation of 'sole option' toll roads. Such roads would compel members of the public, without consideration to their financial status, who wanted to travel to a destination served by that road to pay a toll because they would have no other options.
When someone who is elected as a public servant does something that seems to only screw over the public that he was hired to serve, it raises some questions about his motivations.
So far, anyway, I haven't any direct financial links between Harper and the toll road industry. The closest link that I could find in a few hours on a Saturday was a number of campaign contributions to Harper over the years from lawyers with the national firm Greenberg Traurig, a firm that has worked with PBSJ Corporation, an engineering consulting firm that specializes in, among other things, toll roads. Both Greenberg Traurig and PBSJ have offices in Phoenix.
That link is *not* strong enough to start throwing around corruption allegations. However, it is strong enough to serve as a guide to further investigation.
It should be noted that Jack Abramoff is a former employee of Greenberg Traurig.
Edit on 12/30 to clarify - I suppose a better way to put it is that there is smoke here, but that doesn't mean there is fire, just a very good reason to look for fire.
End edit.
...Is protecting Iraq's finances the primary motivation behind Bush's latest veto?
George Bush is set to 'pocket veto' HR1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. He objects to a provision that allows victims to sue state sponsors of terrorism (the relevant section, 1083, starts on page 334 of the .pdf file linked above.)
He believes this could unfairly penalize the current government of Iraq for crimes committed under the rule of Saddam Hussein.
The vast majority of Hussein's victims were Iraqis; in fact, the only Americans that I could find that could be reasonably considered to victims of Hussein were American soldiers captured during the Gulf War in 1991. According to the VA, there were 47 American POWs during the Persian Gulf War.
The provision at issue was proposed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Iraq doesn't seem to be the primary target of his proposal.
From the New York Times, via the SF Chronicle -
Consider this -
- Left unsaid is the likelihood that as a senator representing New Jersey, a number of Lautenberg's constituents were victims of the 9/11 attacks; a number significantly larger than 47.
- Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; in fact, Osama bin Laden, 14 of the 19 hijackers, and a significant part of the financing for the attacks were Saudi, not Iraqi.
- And Saudi Arabia has far more money than Iraq these days.
Combine those considerations with the Bush Administration's well-documented predilection for protecting its Saudi friends and the fact that there has never been an unfettered investigation into the events of 9/11.
Is Bush really protecting Iraq, or is he using Iraq's interests as a front for his real reason for the veto?
The transcript of the White House press briefing where the veto was announced is here.
I have one question (of the non-snarkily rhetorical variety) - A pocket veto takes place when the President doesn't sign a bill within 10 days and the Congress is adjourned, and that seems to be the situation right now, with all of the members of Congress home for holiday break.
However, the Senate has been holding 'pro-forma' sessions every few days to block the president from utilizing 'recess appointments' to get around the confirmation hearings required for most of his nominees.
Do those session obviate the effectiveness of the pocket veto? Do they in fact mean that the Congress is legally in session, so that instead of vetoing the bill after 10 days, it actually becomes law without the President's signature?
Does anybody with a better knowledge of Constitutional law than me know the answer? Thx.
...One of the few good points in the aftermath of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been that many of the presidential candidates from both sides of the aisle are waking up to the need for a cogent foreign policy campaign plank.
So why isn't the MSM talking to and about the candidate with more nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize (3) than all of the other candidates combined (0)?
Why are the media pundits inviting the likes of Clinton, McCain and Edwards (or their reps) to pontificate on the assassination of Bhutto and its effects on Pakistan and stability in the region?
Why are they ignoring the only one among the entire gaggle of candidates that has real diplomatic experience?
Why aren't they shoving a microphone in the face of Bill Richardson?
The Patriots are on national, non-premium cable, TV in a little while. Should be fun... :)
Later!
If passed and enacted, his SB1042 would remove from state law the provision that a privately operated toll road is allowed "only if a reasonable alternative route exists."
In other words, it would allow the creation of 'sole option' toll roads. Such roads would compel members of the public, without consideration to their financial status, who wanted to travel to a destination served by that road to pay a toll because they would have no other options.
When someone who is elected as a public servant does something that seems to only screw over the public that he was hired to serve, it raises some questions about his motivations.
So far, anyway, I haven't any direct financial links between Harper and the toll road industry. The closest link that I could find in a few hours on a Saturday was a number of campaign contributions to Harper over the years from lawyers with the national firm Greenberg Traurig, a firm that has worked with PBSJ Corporation, an engineering consulting firm that specializes in, among other things, toll roads. Both Greenberg Traurig and PBSJ have offices in Phoenix.
That link is *not* strong enough to start throwing around corruption allegations. However, it is strong enough to serve as a guide to further investigation.
It should be noted that Jack Abramoff is a former employee of Greenberg Traurig.
Edit on 12/30 to clarify - I suppose a better way to put it is that there is smoke here, but that doesn't mean there is fire, just a very good reason to look for fire.
End edit.
...Is protecting Iraq's finances the primary motivation behind Bush's latest veto?
George Bush is set to 'pocket veto' HR1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. He objects to a provision that allows victims to sue state sponsors of terrorism (the relevant section, 1083, starts on page 334 of the .pdf file linked above.)
He believes this could unfairly penalize the current government of Iraq for crimes committed under the rule of Saddam Hussein.
The vast majority of Hussein's victims were Iraqis; in fact, the only Americans that I could find that could be reasonably considered to victims of Hussein were American soldiers captured during the Gulf War in 1991. According to the VA, there were 47 American POWs during the Persian Gulf War.
The provision at issue was proposed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Iraq doesn't seem to be the primary target of his proposal.
From the New York Times, via the SF Chronicle -
"My language allows American victims of terror to hold perpetrators accountable - plain and simple," Lautenberg said in a statement.
Consider this -
- Left unsaid is the likelihood that as a senator representing New Jersey, a number of Lautenberg's constituents were victims of the 9/11 attacks; a number significantly larger than 47.
- Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; in fact, Osama bin Laden, 14 of the 19 hijackers, and a significant part of the financing for the attacks were Saudi, not Iraqi.
- And Saudi Arabia has far more money than Iraq these days.
Combine those considerations with the Bush Administration's well-documented predilection for protecting its Saudi friends and the fact that there has never been an unfettered investigation into the events of 9/11.
Is Bush really protecting Iraq, or is he using Iraq's interests as a front for his real reason for the veto?
The transcript of the White House press briefing where the veto was announced is here.
I have one question (of the non-snarkily rhetorical variety) - A pocket veto takes place when the President doesn't sign a bill within 10 days and the Congress is adjourned, and that seems to be the situation right now, with all of the members of Congress home for holiday break.
However, the Senate has been holding 'pro-forma' sessions every few days to block the president from utilizing 'recess appointments' to get around the confirmation hearings required for most of his nominees.
Do those session obviate the effectiveness of the pocket veto? Do they in fact mean that the Congress is legally in session, so that instead of vetoing the bill after 10 days, it actually becomes law without the President's signature?
Does anybody with a better knowledge of Constitutional law than me know the answer? Thx.
...One of the few good points in the aftermath of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been that many of the presidential candidates from both sides of the aisle are waking up to the need for a cogent foreign policy campaign plank.
So why isn't the MSM talking to and about the candidate with more nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize (3) than all of the other candidates combined (0)?
Why are the media pundits inviting the likes of Clinton, McCain and Edwards (or their reps) to pontificate on the assassination of Bhutto and its effects on Pakistan and stability in the region?
Why are they ignoring the only one among the entire gaggle of candidates that has real diplomatic experience?
Why aren't they shoving a microphone in the face of Bill Richardson?
The Patriots are on national, non-premium cable, TV in a little while. Should be fun... :)
Later!
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
News Roundup for Wednesday, November 15
...with some opinions thrown in for good measure. :)
- - - Jack Abramoff went to federal prison today in PA. In an email to friends sent prior to entering the prison, he bemoaned the "nightmare political scandal" that he's involved in. (Yahoo! News)
Awwww.
- - - Robert Novak, like many, keeps associating JD Hayworth's (and others') loss last week with his stance on immigration. (Human Events)
He lost because he was a loud, mean-spirited, arrogant, deceptive blowhard whose favorite topic was immigration.
He lost because he campaigned on fear, distortions, and outright lies.
He lost because Harry Mitchell was a better candidate, and the voters of CD5 recognized that.
- - - The 2008 Presidential Prognostication Pundits are warming up their crystal balls already.
Novak did it, calling John McCain, Governor Tim Pawlenty of MN (both from the Republican side), Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Governor Brian Schweitzer of MT (from the Democratic side) the "winners" of the 2006 election cycle, and John Kerry and Mitt Romney, as well as the aforementioned immigration hawks, the "losers" of the cycle.
Of course, one week before the election, Darth Novak predicted that JD would win reelection.
- - - Of course, the 2010 Governor Guessing Game has begun in earnest, too.
Writing in the Phoenix Business Journal, Mike Sunnucks discusses potential candidates. He specifically mentioned Congressfolk JD, Rick Renzi, Jeff Flake, as well as Mary Peters and Rick Romley as possible Rep contenders, and Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon and AZ AG Terry Goddard as possible Dem aspirants.
Interestingly enough, a couple of us spoke about this very topic just last week. Our conversation was mostly about the Dem contenders, and we came to the same conclusions as Mr. Sunnucks about Phil Gordon's plans.
We saw the same "Phil Gordon is everywhere at once" phenomenon this cycle and thought that his efforts were for one of two reasons:
1. He's trying to increase his name recognition both with the Democratic Party faithful and with the voters in general; or
2. He's an attention whore.
In the end, we agreed that it was likely that both statements are accurate. :)
BTW - Rick Renzi as Governor???? I'm not even sure he'd consider it, unless the State of Arizona begins awarding defense contracts.
Mantech just wouldn't get enough of a return on their investment otherwise.
- - - In what was perhaps the least surprising news of the week, Arizona Senator Jon Kyl was elected as Republican Conference Chairman in the Senate.
- - - Writing in the Arizona Republic, Bob Schuster observes that by elevating uber-conservative Thayer Verschoor to the position of Senate Majority Leader, the AZGOP is sending a message to Governor Napolitano.
That message?? Get ready "for another long, needlessly contentious legislative session."
Anyway, more later!!
- - - Jack Abramoff went to federal prison today in PA. In an email to friends sent prior to entering the prison, he bemoaned the "nightmare political scandal" that he's involved in. (Yahoo! News)
Awwww.
- - - Robert Novak, like many, keeps associating JD Hayworth's (and others') loss last week with his stance on immigration. (Human Events)
He lost because he was a loud, mean-spirited, arrogant, deceptive blowhard whose favorite topic was immigration.
He lost because he campaigned on fear, distortions, and outright lies.
He lost because Harry Mitchell was a better candidate, and the voters of CD5 recognized that.
- - - The 2008 Presidential Prognostication Pundits are warming up their crystal balls already.
Novak did it, calling John McCain, Governor Tim Pawlenty of MN (both from the Republican side), Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Governor Brian Schweitzer of MT (from the Democratic side) the "winners" of the 2006 election cycle, and John Kerry and Mitt Romney, as well as the aforementioned immigration hawks, the "losers" of the cycle.
Of course, one week before the election, Darth Novak predicted that JD would win reelection.
- - - Of course, the 2010 Governor Guessing Game has begun in earnest, too.
Writing in the Phoenix Business Journal, Mike Sunnucks discusses potential candidates. He specifically mentioned Congressfolk JD, Rick Renzi, Jeff Flake, as well as Mary Peters and Rick Romley as possible Rep contenders, and Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon and AZ AG Terry Goddard as possible Dem aspirants.
Interestingly enough, a couple of us spoke about this very topic just last week. Our conversation was mostly about the Dem contenders, and we came to the same conclusions as Mr. Sunnucks about Phil Gordon's plans.
We saw the same "Phil Gordon is everywhere at once" phenomenon this cycle and thought that his efforts were for one of two reasons:
1. He's trying to increase his name recognition both with the Democratic Party faithful and with the voters in general; or
2. He's an attention whore.
In the end, we agreed that it was likely that both statements are accurate. :)
BTW - Rick Renzi as Governor???? I'm not even sure he'd consider it, unless the State of Arizona begins awarding defense contracts.
Mantech just wouldn't get enough of a return on their investment otherwise.
- - - In what was perhaps the least surprising news of the week, Arizona Senator Jon Kyl was elected as Republican Conference Chairman in the Senate.
- - - Writing in the Arizona Republic, Bob Schuster observes that by elevating uber-conservative Thayer Verschoor to the position of Senate Majority Leader, the AZGOP is sending a message to Governor Napolitano.
That message?? Get ready "for another long, needlessly contentious legislative session."
Anyway, more later!!
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
What is it with the Hayworth campaign?
Let me apologize now for the awkward linking...still learning blogging the hard way....
All sorts of stuff going on over there...first, as noted on Tedski's http://rumromanismrebellion.blogspot.com/, a legislative assistant from the Hayworth office is spotted at Harry Mitchell's campaign kickoff in Tempe (see pic), and then the Republic's "Plugged In" has a story (http://www.azcentral.com/blogs/index.php?blog=85&title=hayworth_aide_plugged_innuendo_is_more_l&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#comments)about how JD's Chief of Staff (and presumably, the good Congressman himself) is upset over the coverage of JD's connections to the Abramoff scandal (receipt of $60K - $250K, depending on your source and the criteria used). So upset, that he sent a harsh response to "Plugged In" suggesting that it's name get changed to "Plugged Innuendo".
Wonder if they are feeling the pressure of having to mount a real campaign, when they expected something resembling a walkover?
Note: while I would love to post over the weekend, and will try to do so in the future, my work schedule of Sat - Mon, 12 hours each day, sort of makes that tough.
Good night!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)