Friday, October 27, 2006

War News III

The Congressional election battle between Rep. John Sweeney and his Democratic challenger, Kirsten Gillibrand, rages on. Episodes:

THE SWEEP. Mr Sweeney made a swing through GreeneLand yesterday, appearing at events where he reminded attendees of grants allocated from Federal programs to local projects thanks to his efforts. In Coxsackie, at a function organized by the county’s Industrial Development Agency, he reminded listeners that he had previously procured a $725,000 allocation of Federal funds for road and infrastructure improvements at Kalkberg Industrial Park, and then he announced (as quoted by reporter Donna Rich) “I got more, with $750,000 in Federal funds for Routes 9W and 81 upgrades.” In Catskill, at the Village fire station, he either announced a $40,000 Federal grant for the local police department or (depending on how one reads the report by Andrea Macko) he reminded auditors of the already-received grant that helped with the purchase of two high-powered cars. He also presented an American flag to Fire Chief Floyd Prince. In addition, he spoke of achieving an increase in funding for programs that bring Federal money to local fire departments, of rescuing subsidy programs that the Bush Administration had sought to eliminate, and of bring $21 million to the 20th congressional district in grants since 2001 in support of judiciary programs.

MEDIA COVERAGE. The foregoing account is drawn from reports in today’s Daily Mail. Coverage of Mr Sweeney’s swing through GreeneLand occupied nearly all of that newspaper’s first page. By contrast, the cited events elicited no coverage at all in the TimesUnion or on television last night. Conversely, the political event that did winparamount attention in today’s TU, as well as in last night's television newscasts, got no coverage at all in The Daily Mail.

OTHER STOPS. Yesterday’s GreeneLand stops served to confirm what the TU’s Tim O’Brien noted yesterday: that Mr Sweeney is currently “touring the district daily to discuss how federal funds he appropriated are being used.” In Clifton Park on Wednesday, the Congressman spoke at the new Northeast Technology Center for Individuals with Disabilities, to which he steered $200,000 in Federal money. The center eventually will contain a testing area where people with disabilities work with customizing technologies to fit their needs. And in addition to his GreeneLand stops, Mr Sweeney was in Malta yesterday, where he took part in a groundbreaking ceremony for a road that will connect the Luther Forest Technology campus with Route 9. Centerpiece of that site will be a gigantic semiconductor plant. According to the TU’s Eric Anderson, Mr Sweeney said the road improvements will be paid for in part with $20-25 million in Federal money. And he “reminded reporters he was well-positioned on the House transportation appropriations subcommittee, where he is vice chairman, to obtain the federal money ‘to make this happen’.”

THAT OTHER EVENT. In the eyes of the capital district’s news media, the main political event yesterday was the morning rally at Albany Airport for Kirsten Gillibrand, with former President Bill Clinton as the star attraction. A cheering crowd of “nearly 500” (Mark Humbert, Associated Press) or “about 1000” (Bill Lambdin, News Channel 13; Tim O’Brien, TU) heard Mr Clinton characterize Ms Gillibrand as “a candidate you can be proud of” and voice confidence that she “will win.” He urged supporters to reach out heartily not only to loyal Democrats but also to independents and discontented Republicans. The Federal government, he declared, has come under the control of a “narrow piece”—“the most right-wing, the most ideological, the most Special Interest-oriented” piece of the G.O.P. “It’s time to put an end to this divisive, partisan, paralyzing, ideological politics and go back to…commitment to the common good, go back to believing we can build a better future together.” Following his Albany stop, Mr Clinton flew to Syracuse for another rally, and then to Long Island, and finally to Manhattan for his wife’s birthday.

CANCELED. The Glenns Falls Post-Star reserved a hall in the local civic center for a Thursday evening (10/26) debate between the Congressional candidates, but then canceled after the Republican refused to participate. Mr Sweeney cited the reason he has given for previous refusals, namely, Ms Gillibrand’s refusal to release her income tax report. The Gillibrand camp calls that excuse his fourth phony pretext to evade an encounter.

FLANK ATTACK. In her attacks on Mr Sweeney, Ms Gillibrand’s accuses her opponent of being unduly loyal to the Botch Administration and being greedily servile toward insidious Special Interests. Mr Sweeney’s response, apart from personal smears, consists of arguing that his sole master is The District. Hence the emphasis on tangible projects. At any rate, the Special Interests thesis received a boost on Tuesday (10/24) by way of a blistering “report” called Sweeney For Sale: Top Ten Times John Sweeney Has Sold New Yorkers Out for Special Interest Money. The “report” emanates from a self-described “progressive” organization, Citizen Action, which the Sweeney camp stigmatizes as a liberal front for Democrats. It cites campaign funds given to Mr Sweeney by various corporate or interest group contributors, and links those donations to votes cast or other activities favoring those groups. Readers are invited to believe that the donations bought the votes and that the votes served the interests of the contributors (“Insurance Industry,” “Big Tobacco,” “Big Oil,” “Clear Cutters,” “Outsourcers”) at the expense of New Yorkers. (Check it out at www.citizenactionny.org ).

KISS OF DEATH? By an interesting coincidence, Citizen Action's list of malign Special Interests served by Mr Sweeney starts with “Big Pharmaceuticals.” The Congressman allegedly “took $42,900 from big drug companies and [sic.] voted for a Medicare bill that gives the drug companies a $139 billion windfall.” (We linger here over the suggestive thrust of that sentence. Explicitly, it names two events, linked with the conjunction “and”. But it also prods us to draw a causal inference, namely, that Mr Sweeney took the companies’ money AND THEREFORE supported that Medicare bill). The precedence given to drug costs, as it happens, is peculiarly timely. Tuesday’s mail brought to elderly GreeneLand voters here (and in selected electorates around the country) another big color card from those dear folks at The Seniors Coalition of Fairfax VA (www.senior.org; 800 325 9891). We reported last week about a mailer from TSC. It lauded the new Medicare drug program, saluted John Sweeney for helping people to get registered for it, and urged recipients to convey thanks to Mr Sweeney for his services to seniors. In short, it was a thinly disguised piece of pro-Sweeney electioneering--disguised to the extent necessary to retain classification as a non-profit. Well, the new Seniors Coalition greeting again gives special prominence to Mr Sweeney: He “helped [seniors] to sign up to save on their prescription drugs”; we ought to telephone him ([518]371-8839) and “thank him for fighting for seniors.” In addition, however, we now must heed a warning: “Right now, there are real threats to the new Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. The Seniors Coalition Needs Your Help.” Those “threats” consist of a bill that has been introduced in the House of Representatives: H.R. 752. With regard to that measure, Congressman Sweeney “must be a leader now more than ever.” While thanking him for “fighting for seniors,” please “Urge him to oppose H.R. 752.” Translation: were it not for the risk of being reclassified as a tax-paying political organization, we would directly urge you to vote for Sweeney, because he is opposed to H.R. 752, which is bad for seniors. And just what does H.R. 752 prescribe? In essence, it eliminates current prohibitions whereby the Government is barred from negotiating with drug companies over the prices to be paid for drugs that will be dispensed under Medicare to seniors. It also would lift prohibitions against the use in Medicare of cheaper therapeutic equivalents of standard drugs. It eliminates, in short, the legislative sources of what Citizen Action calls the pharmaceutical industry’s $139 billion “windfall.” Mr Sweeney evidently opposes lifting those prohibitions. As for The Seniors Coalition, it is self-described in the latest mailer as “the nation’s leading, non-profit, free market education and advocacy organization representing America’s seniors.” As is noted on the web sites of the AARP and The Public Citizen, however, it is funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

Friday, October 20, 2006

War News Update

Events have overtaken our Monday comment about the dearth, in GreeneLand media, of news about the 20th Congressional District election. Thursday’s Daily Mail gave top billing to a story headlined “Sweeney may have violated ethics rules.” Drawn from the TimesUnion by way of the Associated Press, the story concerned a trip that Rep. John Sweeney took to the Northern Marianas Islands, in company with a Jack Abramoff sidekick. An altogether different story also attracted substantial coverage in district news media yesterday (but not in our Mid-Hudson papers, and not this morning). It has to do with straw poll results. Drawing on most of the stories, we will review the two episodes. Then we will add a story.

I. STANDINGS: Sweeney is still ahead—or isn’t

Widely reported in district news media yesterday was the story that, according to the latest Siena Research Institute poll, Congressman Sweeney still held, as of mid-October, a substantial lead over challenger Kirsten Gillibrand. The new figure, based ostensibly on responses from a representative sample of likely district voters, put Mr Sweeney in the lead by 54% to 39%. That figure marked a gain since late August for Ms Gillibrand of 5 percentage points. Media coverage of the Siena finding eclipsed coverage of other polls. These seemed to show a very close race or even a substantial lead for Ms Gillibrand. The coverage worked greatly to Mr Sweeney’s advantage. (The bias, we feel sure, was not intentional. It probably was a product of how the relevant information got to the reporters. Only the Siena results, apparently, were delivered in the form of a news release. In other cases, Press coverage has worked to Mr Sweeney’s disadvantage). There seems to be huge disparity here between the findings of various pollsters—all of them reputable. The surveys indicate that in mid-October, Mr Sweeney was ahead by about 14 percentage points, that Ms Gillibrand was ahead by about 13 points, or that the race was neck and neck. At any rate, all of those results were collected before the big outburst of news yesterday about an ethical issue.

II. ETHICAL QUESTIONS

News about straw poll results came right on the heels of a story that in various guises was disseminated in over 120 newspapers and newscasts. The most common headline said “Sweeney Trip Raises Ethics Questions.” Immediately at issue was whether, following a trip in January 2001 to the Northern Marianas, far to the west of Hawaii, Mr Sweeney complied with requirements to identify sponsor(s) and costs. What has come to light, thanks apparently to sleuthing by TimesUnion reporters, is a denial by the Marianas government that it paid for the trip. That denial is important because the relevant laws say government-sponsored trips, unlike privately-sponsored trips (and other favors) do not need to be reported. Mr Sweeney did not file disclosure forms about this trip. His spokesperson, Melissa Carlson, says he did not do so because he believed that he went out there as a guest of the trust territory’s government. Mr Sweeney now has written to the House Ethics Committee, indicating that the trip may have been funded by a private organization, and soliciting guidance about how he should proceed from here. Many aspects of the case remain to be illuminated. In the interim, Mr Sweeney’s challenger has seized the occasion. “It is is no surprise that John Sweeney is in trouble again," Ms Gillibrand commented. "It's not clear what's worse: his failure to disclose that a criminal paid for his trip abroad, or that he was willing to sing the praises of an island of sweatshops and child prostitution." What could come to light is evidence that in making this trip, Mr Sweeney was serving as a tool of that super-star of criminal influence peddlers: Jack Abramoff. Here is a grab bag of facts and hunches: *Escort. Traveling with the Congressman on this long journey was Tony Rudy, who had recently left the staff of Rep. Tom DeLay (yes, that fellow) to join Abramoff’s lobbying firm. *Connection. The Marianas government was a major client of Abramoff. Its major asset was the right to print “Made in USA” on products manufactured in the territory while eluding obligations to meet State-side wage and safety standards. *Front? Mr Sweeney suggests now that his trip was sponsored by the private Saipan Chamber of Commerce, and paid for out of receipts from the meeting at which he gave a speech. That is patently preposterous. Airplane travel far to the west of Hawaii, to a seldom visited siteThe trip costs thousands of dollars. If the Chamber paid for it, somebody paid the Chamber. *Tour. Mr Sweeney says he made a tour of garment factories in the trust territory and found nothing “untoward.” His Congressional colleague, George Miller (D-CA), responded that “the only way you could avoid seeing the abuses”—low wages, child labor, health hazards, forced prostitution—“is if you were deliberately looking the other way." *Speech. Mr Sweeney’s talk to the Saipan Chamber of Commerce was mostly about how to avoid bad Press in the United States. *Credentials. On the subject of how he came to be invited to visit the trust territory and address the Chamber of Commerce, Mr Sweeney refers not to his position in the Congress but rather to his pre-Congressional experience as New York State’s commissioner of labor for two years. And but that presumably formative stage of his career is not even mentioned on Mr Sweeney's campaign web site. (It is mentioned in the biographical section of Mr Sweeney's official web site. Also puzzling: the official web site says naught about Mr Sweeney's personal life, whereas the campaign site says "...resides in Clifton Park…with his wife and has [sic.] three children.”).

III. NEW ETHICAL QUESTION

Another matter of ethics has come to our attention. In Monday’s issue of Seeing Greene, we devoted attention to widely distributed letter from Mr Sweeney’s camp, appealing for active campaign support in the way of letters to newspapers and calls to talk-in broadcasters. We can now report that Mr Sweeney is augmenting this effort by urging supporters, or beneficiaries of his political largesse, to send letters that are drafted by his staff. And what’s most peculiar about the project is nature of the suggested letters. Mr Sweeney does not ask for testimonials, in which the sender praises the Congressman for particular services rendered. Instead, he asks for attacks on the Democratic nominee. And he asks the addressees to pretend that they by personal investigation they have made discoveries that make Gillibrand look bad. Of that kind of request, one recipient told Seeing Greene, “To be asked for open recognition of benefits received is fair enough. But this kind of request is offensive. It’s outrageous.”

War News Update

Events have overtaken our Monday comment about the dearth, in GreeneLand media, of news about the 20th Congressional District election. Thursday’s Daily Mail gave top billing to a story headlined “Sweeney may have violated ethics rules.” Drawn from the TimesUnion by way of the Associated Press, the story concerned a trip that Rep. John Sweeney took to the Northern Marianas Islands, in company with a Jack Abramoff sidekick. An altogether different story also attracted substantial coverage in district news media yesterday (but not in our Mid-Hudson papers, and not this morning). It has to do with straw poll results. Drawing on most of the stories, we will review the two episodes. Then we will add a story.

I. STANDINGS: Sweeney is still ahead—or isn’t

Widely reported in district news media yesterday was the story that, according to the latest Siena Research Institute poll, Congressman Sweeney still held, as of mid-October, a substantial lead over challenger Kirsten Gillibrand. The new figure, based ostensibly on responses from a representative sample of likely district voters, put Mr Sweeney in the lead by 54% to 39%. That figure marked a gain since late August for Ms Gillibrand of 5 percentage points. Media coverage of the Siena finding eclipsed coverage of other polls. These seemed to show a very close race or even a substantial lead for Ms Gillibrand. The coverage worked greatly to Mr Sweeney’s advantage. (The bias, we feel sure, was not intentional. It probably was a product of how the relevant information got to the reporters. Only the Siena results, apparently, were delivered in the form of a news release. In other cases, Press coverage has worked to Mr Sweeney’s disadvantage). There seems to be huge disparity here between the findings of various pollsters—all of them reputable. The surveys indicate that in mid-October, Mr Sweeney was ahead by about 14 percentage points, that Ms Gillibrand was ahead by about 13 points, or that the race was neck and neck. At any rate, all of those results were collected before the big outburst of news yesterday about an ethical issue.

II. ETHICAL QUESTIONS

News about straw poll results came right on the heels of a story that in various guises was disseminated in over 120 newspapers and newscasts. The most common headline said “Sweeney Trip Raises Ethics Questions.” Immediately at issue was whether, following a trip in January 2001 to the Northern Marianas, far to the west of Hawaii, Mr Sweeney complied with requirements to identify sponsor(s) and costs. What has come to light, thanks apparently to sleuthing by TimesUnion reporters, is a denial by the Marianas government that it paid for the trip. That denial is important because the relevant laws say government-sponsored trips, unlike privately-sponsored trips (and other favors) do not need to be reported. Mr Sweeney did not file disclosure forms about this trip. His spokesperson, Melissa Carlson, says he did not do so because he believed that he went out there as a guest of the trust territory’s government. Mr Sweeney now has written to the House Ethics Committee, indicating that the trip may have been funded by a private organization, and soliciting guidance about how he should proceed from here. Many aspects of the case remain to be illuminated. In the interim, Mr Sweeney’s challenger has seized the occasion. “It is is no surprise that John Sweeney is in trouble again," Ms Gillibrand commented. "It's not clear what's worse: his failure to disclose that a criminal paid for his trip abroad, or that he was willing to sing the praises of an island of sweatshops and child prostitution." What could come to light is evidence that in making this trip, Mr Sweeney was serving as a tool of that super-star of criminal influence peddlers: Jack Abramoff. Here is a grab bag of facts and hunches: *Escort. Traveling with the Congressman on this long journey was Tony Rudy, who had recently left the staff of Rep. Tom DeLay (yes, that fellow) to join Abramoff’s lobbying firm. *Connection. The Marianas government was a major client of Abramoff. Its major asset was the right to print “Made in USA” on products manufactured in the territory while eluding obligations to meet State-side wage and safety standards. *Front? Mr Sweeney suggests now that his trip was sponsored by the private Saipan Chamber of Commerce, and paid for out of receipts from the meeting at which he gave a speech. That is patently preposterous. Airplane travel far to the west of Hawaii, to a seldom visited siteThe trip costs thousands of dollars. If the Chamber paid for it, somebody paid the Chamber. *Tour. Mr Sweeney says he made a tour of garment factories in the trust territory and found nothing “untoward.” His Congressional colleague, George Miller (D-CA), responded that “the only way you could avoid seeing the abuses”—low wages, child labor, health hazards, forced prostitution—“is if you were deliberately looking the other way." *Speech. Mr Sweeney’s talk to the Saipan Chamber of Commerce was mostly about how to avoid bad Press in the United States. *Credentials. On the subject of how he came to be invited to visit the trust territory and address the Chamber of Commerce, Mr Sweeney refers not to his position in the Congress but rather to his pre-Congressional experience as New York State’s commissioner of labor for two years. And but that presumably formative stage of his career is not even mentioned on Mr Sweeney's campaign web site. (It is mentioned in the biographical section of Mr Sweeney's official web site. Also puzzling: the official web site says naught about Mr Sweeney's personal life, whereas the campaign site says "...resides in Clifton Park…with his wife and has [sic.] three children.”).

III. NEW ETHICAL QUESTION

Another matter of ethics has come to our attention. In Monday’s issue of Seeing Greene, we devoted attention to widely distributed letter from Mr Sweeney’s camp, appealing for active campaign support in the way of letters to newspapers and calls to talk-in broadcasters. We can now report that Mr Sweeney is augmenting this effort by urging supporters, or beneficiaries of his political largesse, to send letters that are drafted by his staff. And what’s most peculiar about the project is nature of the suggested letters. Mr Sweeney does not ask for testimonials, in which the sender praises the Congressman for particular services rendered. Instead, he asks for attacks on the Democratic nominee. And he asks the addressees to pretend that they by personal investigation they have made discoveries that make Gillibrand look bad. Of that kind of request, one recipient told Seeing Greene, “To be asked for open recognition of benefits received is fair enough. But this kind of request is offensive. It’s outrageous.”

Monday, October 16, 2006

War News: 20th C.D.

GreeeneLanders who rely on local newspapers or radio stations for news (as we noted last Friday) would scarcely be aware of the fierce contest that is raging over who shall represent them in the United States House of Representatives. While the contest—the pitched battle, the firefight, the exchange of incivilities—has been covered actively by TimesUnion and other upper-Hudson reporters, our local print media (in Columbia County too) have rendered it almost invisible. We can ascribe their neglect to the facts that (i) the contestants have made few personal appearances here, appearances that would prompt stories by local reporters, and (ii) the coverage that is given to the candidates in Albany and above does not turn into low-cost Associated Press rewrites that can be published here. Rarely will the A.P. pick up stories that are of immediate interest only to people in a single electorate. So: it behooves Seeing Greene to make up for the deficiency. We undertake to recount, and in some places to appraise, episodes in the 20th District contest between John Sweeney, the four-term Republican incumbent, and Kirsten Gillibrand, his Democratic challenger. There is a heavy load of material.

>New rating. The respected handicappers at Congressional Quarterly have just re-classified the Sweeney-Gillibrand contest, from “Leans Republican” (and before that, “Republican Favored”) to “No Clear Favorite.” That estimate of probabilities—in a substantially rural, sprawling constituency (200 miles in length, from Poughkeepsie to Lake Placid) where Mr Sweeney won his previous four races easily, where George Bush took 53 percent of the votes for President in 2004, where registered Republicans out-number Democrats and otherwise-inclined voters (198,000 to 113,000 to 109,000)—is one of many re-assessments, by CQ and by other touts, all in a pro-Democratic direction. A likely consequence is that the 20th District race will become even hotter. Ms Gillibrand will get more campaign money because she now looks like a serious contender; and Mr Sweeney will get more money because some other Republicans now seem dead politically while he seems to be seriously imperiled.

>The Weekend. Yesterday’s television talk shows and other programs were punctuated by two pro-Sweeney and two pro-Gillibrand commercials. The pro-Sweeney ads, in contrast to the pro-Gillibrand ads and to most of his previous spots, were positive testimonials. They publicized Mr Sweeney’s success in getting Federal money for local hospitals and in promoting legislation that facilitates the search for missing children. The latter spot recalls an earlier (“Kathy Brown”) thank-you commercial. It also is noteworthy for the closing frame in which Mr Sweeney emphasizes friendship with Sen. John McCain rather than with President George W. Bush. (All ads coming directly from the Sweeney camp are accessible at www.sweeneyforcongress.com.) One of the pro-Gillibrand ads was a re-run of a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee-sponsored attack on Mr Sweeney’s record. The other, a new spot from the Gillibrand camp, calls the Republican incumbent “corrupt.” On behalf of that thesis, the ad cites Mr Sweeney’s inclusion in an interest group’s Top 20 list of recipients of Special Interest largesse. It also says that the Congressman voted for successive pay raises for himself while voting against raises and other support for our troops, and that he “personally pocketed” $76,000 of donations to his campaign treasury. Those charges, according to Sweeney’s spokesperson Maureen Donovan, as told to Tim O’Brien of The TimesUnion, are “outrageous and slanderous.” On behalf of the “Top 20 in corruption” charge, the Gillibrand ad cites a September rating by an organization called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics. But CREW, says Donovan, is a Democratic front. As for the pay raise votes, they did not happen. (Yes; but Mr Sweeney did refrain from trying to block otherwise-automatic pay raises for House members). As for the “personally pocketed” charge, Tim O’Brien guesses that “this refers to the cash Sweeney paid to Creative Consulting, a company owned by his wife, Gayle, for fundraising services.” To equate that payment with personally pocketing campaign funds “might be pushing the truth envelope a bit.”

>Indirect pro-Sweeney ad. Delivered to GreeneLanders by mail late last week was a circular announcing “Medicare Prescription Drug Re-Enrollment Begins November 15th” and offering “Medicare Prescription Drug Re-Enrollment Information.” The circular’s touted information is hard to find. Most of its verbiage consists of saluting the “real savings” that seniors are achieving thanks to “the new Medicare prescription drug benefit.” In addition, however, the circular advises recipient that "Congressman John E. [sic.] Sweeney” (pictured front and back) “has helped seniors across his district to sign up for the new…benefit.” Readers are directed to “call him to get important information” about the program and to “Thank him for helping.” The circular comes from an organization called The Seniors Coalition of Fairfax VA. According to its web site (www.senior.org) the Coalition is “the responsible alternative to AARP.” As an “advocacy organization” it is dedicated to restoring “ethics and morality to politics” as well as “traditional American family values,” to protecting “the Free-Market from Government encroachment” and—oh, by the way—to privatizing portions of Social Security accounts and to keeping cheap foreign-made prescription drugs out of American hands.

>No-Show. The star attraction-to-be for a Sweeney fund-raiser on Thursday (10/12) didn’t come after all. He is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, J. Dennis Hastert. The cancellation of Mr Hastert (not explicitly announced) was one of many across the country.

>New anti-Sweeney ad. The Gillibrand camp last week unleashed a new video attack ad. It depicts the incumbent (“…doesn’t know when to say when”) as a bibulous party animal who also is too friendly with lobbyists. (It is accessible, along with the candidate’s other television and radio ads, at www.gillibrand2006.com ). To this attack Mr Sweeney responded with a Saturday news release denouncing Ms Gillibrand “for yet another ad full of mudslinging,” in contrast to his “positive” testimonial ads.

>Conditional Consent, maybe. In an open letter last Thursday, Mr Sweeney came close to saying that he would agree to “debate” Ms Gillibrand if she would accede to his demand that she release her income tax reports (“as almost all other candidates have done”). This promise was hedged, however, to the extent that Mr Sweeney stated that if his condition were met, he would authorize his staff to “work with” Gillibrand counterparts “to plan" the encounters.

>Counter-demand. To the Sweeney camp’s insistence that she divulge various kinds of personal information, including (especially) her income taxes, Ms Gillibrand has lately retaliated with calls for candor on his part. In a press release last Tuesday (10/10) she urged Mr Sweeney to tell about (i) past “run-ins with the law (a 1978 drunk driving arrest, a 1977 arrest for allegedly turning in a false fire alarms) and (ii) a driving accident in which he allegedly plowed into a telephone pole, leaving skiers at Willard Mountain stranded on the tow. Mr Sweeney’s press secretary has replied that the cited cases are matters of public record. The Gillibrand camp has suggested that the relevant records are sealed.

>Bid for vocal support. The Sweeney camp mailed, far and wide, a campaign letter (dated Oct. 2) touting the Congressman's “independence, dedication and commitment to NY’s 20th Congressional District” and appealing for active help in the form not of money but of letters to newspapers, calls to talk shows, and the like. The need “to get the truth out” was deemed urgent because Ms Gillibrand is waging a “nasty, dishonest campaign” and is abetted by outside “radical left-wing organizations” (MoveOn.org) that spew “lies and distortions.” Mr Sweeney allegedly is handicapped by the absence of “outside groups coming in to fund commercials” on his behalf.

>Mocking rejoinder. Responding to the incumbent’s bid for vocal support, the Gillibrand camp put out a release headed “Sweeney Begs for Support.” The Congressman’s appeal was construed as a confession of local weakness. According to Ms Gillibrand’s press secretary, “being one of the most corrupt members of Congress probably does not foster a robust grassroots campaign.”

>Talking Points Pro. Accompanying Mr Sweeney’s call for epistolary backup was a page of “Talking Points For John Sweeney” and a page of “Talking Points Against Kirsten Gillibrand.” Conspicuous in those menus was an absence: an absence of verbiage about contemporary issues. Suggested pro-Sweeney talking points are that he is a regular local guy; that he is “independent minded” and “thinks of his district before anything else”; that he is “committed to securing our borders” (=glancing reference to a policy matter); and that he has brought in substantial material benefits to the 20th district. (The border security problem is expressed in exactly these words: “If 14 million illegal immigrants to cross our borders, terrorists can as well.”)

>Talking Points Contra. As for the Sweeney campaign’s talking points against Ms Gillibrand, they are aggressively personal, as distinct from programmatic or philosophical. The challenger is chronically “deceptive and hypocritical”; is “a rich, elite trial attorney from New York; is “a carpetbagger who is trying…to buy herself a ticket to Washington”; refuses to release information about her background. Also, her ownership of shares in “one of the largest contractors in the Iraq War” puts Gillibrand into a conflict-of-interest situation (not identified). Moreover, to the Gillibrand judgment that “we ‘need a new direction in Iraq’” the Sweeney camp responds with a rhetorical question: “What exactly is that ‘new direction’ she speaks of?”

>Fresh dirt? Conspicuous in Mr Sweeney’s October 2 letter too was the absence not only of verbiage about public policy, but also of allusions to favorite earlier line of attack, focusing on Ms Gillibrand’s work during 2000-01 at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. On this occasion, however, the Congressman voiced new accusations: that Ms Gillibrand refuses to talk about her husband’s occupation, and that she “has refused to talk about the fact that she is being sued for insurance fraud.” Actually, she had not refused to talk about those matters, because they had not previously been brought up. According to Tim O’Brien of The TimesUnion, the insurance case is one in which Ms Gillibrand incurred losses of personal effects from a fire in a storage facility (Green Line) in Mt Vernon. Her $26,700 claim was accepted by the insurance company (Hanover), which paid her and then sought compensation from the storage company, whose lawyer says the goods weren’t worth that much.

>Nil Response? So far, in GreeneLand at any rate, Mr Sweeney’s appeal for epistolary and talk-in support evidently has not been heeded. On the other hand, a letter in the Daily Mail last Monday (10/9) from a Peggy Tompkins characterized Ms Gillibrand as “the candidate who is offering thoughtful proposals,” whereas Mr Sweeney traffics in “smears and jeers.” That assessment is at least half true. Ms Gillibrand has indeed expatiated on contemporary issues and policy proposals (see, again, www.Gillibrand2006.com ) while Mr Sweeney has not. But Ms Gillibrand and her allies have not been shy about hurling smears and jeers.

>Sweeney on Gillibrand’s campaign. In the past two weeks, Mr Sweeney has distributed two campaign mailers, each consisting of an 8-by-11-inch cards printed in color. The first attacks Ms Gillibrand’s “record”; the second attacks her “campaign.” According to the latter (and its televised companion) the Gillibrand campaign is rife with “slander,” with “lies” (“repeatedly,” “consciously,” “deliberately”), and with “negative personal attacks.” Two features of this attack ad (apart from the suggested concept of a positive personal attack) deserve special attention. ***One is tacit rejection of the notion that electoral combatants should deal with current controversies. Rejection is implicit in the terms of what precedes the sentence saying “Instead, she [Gillibrand] is running a personal smear campaign against John Sweeney.” The charge, as it turns out, is not that Gillibrand is waging a slander campaign instead of addressing the issues of the day. It is that she conducts a smear campaign instead of divulging aspects of her personal history. ***The other oddity in the latest Sweeney mailer is lack of specifics about Gillibrand’s “lies.” Recipients are offered subject-matter categories (“his record,” “his patriotism,” “his family”) without contents. They are given clues, however, in the way of what Mr Sweeney chooses to affirm about himself, namely, that he has shown independence from the President, has never voted to give himself a pay raise, has “always voted for our troops, for their well-being, their health care and increased salaries,” and that he has “always voted 100% for the people of Upstate New York.” Readers could plausibly infer from this selection that Ms Gillibrand has voiced contrary versions of Mr Sweeney’s record. That inference would be correct. It applies also to the anti-Sweeney ad, “Stay the Course?” that was sponsored by the independent group MoveOn.org.

>Sweeney on Gillibrand’s HUD record. Last week’s glossy mailer from the Sweeney camp took aim, as did its complementary television advertisement, at the challenger’s past career. Paramount attention was given to Ms Gillibrand’s performance as special counsel to the head of the U.S.Department of Housing & Urban Development. Ms G allegedly “drove HUD projects right into the mud”; she “presided over” and “mismanaged” an organization that “wasted BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars and was rampant with corruption.” In support of that indictment, the Sweeney ad cites four articles that were published in 2000-01. From these sources, or ostensible sources, the ad draws putative quotations: “$59 Billion Missing From HUD”; “overwhelming evidence of corruption”, rampant with fraud”; “’reckless, borrow-and-spend binge’”. We checked out those citations. Some findings: ---Two of the quotations are from articles in a “magazine” called Insight. The magazine is not a TIME or Newsweek or Wall Street Journal. It is an on-line-only, polemical, organ of the unabashedly “conservative” Washington Times. The cited articles are not products of investigation; they offer interpretations of matters reported elsewhere. The "publication" dates are in October and November of 2000—that is to say, in the heat of the Bush-Gore presidential election contest. ---One of the cited Insight articles is either mis-dated (“Oct. 14, 2000”) or spurious. ---One of the quotations comes from an article in the New York Post (5/11/01). It offers interpretation of putative evidence reported elsewhere. ---The fourth quotation is from a TimesUnion story (7/3/01) and is billed as a quotation from the Executive Committee of the Adirondack Association of Towns and Villages. The cited story actually is about what Republican supervisors said about a project (Canal Corridor Initative) formerly operated by HUD. ---While the cited sources do impute waste, fraud and/or corruption to HUD programs and managers, the alleged failures date from times long before Ms Gillibrand’s nine-month employment at HUD. ---None of the cited articles makes mention of, or even refers indirectly to, Kirsten Gillibrand.

In short, none of the evidence cited by Mr Sweeney supports, much less sustaining, his claim that his challenger “mismanaged” HUD and drove its projects “into the mud.” The evidence accordingly lends credibility to what Ms Gillibrand has said about her HUD days, namely, that they came after the messes cited by the sources cited by the Sweeney camp, and that, as special counsel working mostly on legislative proposals, she had no managerial role. Reporter O’Brien of The TimesUnion asked Mr Sweeney’s staff for substantiation. In his words (9/30/06), “Asked to provide supporting documents to back up the ad’s assertion, [Maureen] Donovan did not return calls and sent an e-mail saying only that Gillibrand ‘either exaggerated her role at HUD or she is now trying to run for cover from her role in the massive corruption and mismanagement scandals at HUD’.”

Friday, October 13, 2006

Swindlers & Other Newsmakers

THE BATTLEFRONT. GreeeneLanders who rely on local newspapers or radio stations for news would scarcely be aware of the fierce battle that is raging over who shall represent them in the United States House of Representatives. Consequently, Seeing Greene must make up for the deficiency. The material, however, is superabundant. We'll save it for a second blog, to be posted at the end of today or by tomorrow. Meanwhile:

IMPENDING ATTRACTIONS

TONIGHT (Friday the 13th) Opening of “Three Sisters” with a sterling local cast, from 8 pm., at Beattie-Powers House in Catskill. The play dwells on young adults who, feeling suffocated by provincial life, get awkwardly entangled amorously while longing for an imagined life of excitement in the big city. No, the setting is not GreeneLand in 1950, or 1960, or 1990. It’s rural Russia in 1900. Seating is limited to 40. Additional performances will be given tomorrow night, next Friday and Saturday nights and on October 27 and 28, plus matinees at 3 pm. Sunday and the following two Sundays. Reservations: (518)943-2680.

Screening of “Stephanie Daley,” the made-in-GreeneLand independent feature film; at the Catskill Mountain Foundation’s theater in Hunter,in conjunction with the Woodstock Film Festival; from 6:30 pm. Tilda Swinton! Amber Tamblyn! Timothy Hutton! Vincent Seeley! (263-4908) Also screened tomorrow night at Woodstock’s Tinker Street Cinema. TOMORROW (10/14) In Catskill, after the morning Farmers’ and Artisans’ Market at The Point, with music by folky/jazzy/bluegrassy Doug Marcus, comes the Village’s Second Saturday Stroll on Main Street, this one enhanced by Halloween costumes and festivities. Among the attractions will be a free movie, “Casper the Friendly Ghost,” at 1:15 in the Community Theatre. Local portrait photographer Rob Shannon will be set up to take shots of (not at) ghosts and goblins. Shops will be open, along with restaurants and galleries. Trick Or Treaters can hit Main Street stores until 5 pm. Two galleries will unveil three new shows. At the M, from 5:30 pm., the extraordinary photographic art of Fawn Potash and Thomas Teich will be on display. And up the street at the Arts Council, there will be openings of new exhibitions on the ground floor (“RSVP”; 6 local artists) and upstairs (“Playing with Fire”=Leslie Greist Yolen). NOT slated for this Saturday is another spectacular fireworks display sponsored by Cone-Y Island ice cream. Last week’s dazzling outburst (the final until next summer) was produced locally, by Rich Pilatich of Misbehaven Fireworks (755-4561), and was every bit the equal of the Village’s great explosion last July 4th. [ADDENDUM: make that 3 galleries with 4 new shows. The Wilder Gallery also has a show AND, after 9 pm., music.]

Best alternative to Catskill’s Saturday in the way of GreeneLand fun could be the Mountain Pumpkin Festival, from 11 am., at Bear Creek Landing in Hunter (Routes 214 and 23A). It’s a craft fair with pumpkin carving, hayrides, baking, vendors, mini-golf, horseback rides, prizes. (518)263-3839.

SCHOOL SUSPENSIONS. When a dozen Hunter-Tannersville High School students incurred two-day suspensions last week, Daily Mail reporter Jim Planck said they were punished for “expressing their civil liberties before the end of the school day.” But that is a quirky version of what happened. The students took part in demonstrations, in front of the school and then in downtown Tannersville, against the U.S. government’s Iraq ventures. To do so they walked off campus at noon, without permission, after being warned of the consequences. The kids did not just exercise their rights of expression. They broke rules. They accordingly earned their suspensions. For their evident concern with urgent public issues, they also earned applause.

GASOLINE in GreeneLand still is a price gouge. Regular costing $2.46 or so per gallon here sells for $2.29 in, among other places, ritzy Great Barrington MA. The national average yesterday was $2.26. GreeneLand prices were about equal to the State-wide average, to be sure, but New York City gas prices lately have been well below the State-wide prices; the latest Big Apple average is $2.274 per gallon.

SALUTED, by way of a big profile in The Daily Freeman’s People & Events section (8/10), not for surviving amid 11 siblings in Athens, nor for his sinister knuckleball strikeout record in Europe, nor even for achieving three retirements and chemotherapy before the age of 64, but for energetic, sustained immersion in good local causes: GreeneLand’s own Jim Riley.

DIED, on Wednesday, in Sarasota FL, at the age of 63, of cancer, after a sterling business career in New York and energetic participation in the cultural life of GreeneLand: Carol Theodos Savage. After retiring in 2001 as a global and communications executive with American Express and then Citigroup, Ms Savage became a full time resident, with her husband, Michel Goldberg, of Cairo, and in 2005 she ran for a seat on the town council. In addition to indulging her enthusiasm for boating, tennis, golf and skiing, she served on the advisory councils of Hudson Valley Technology and Commerce, the Hudson River Classics Showcase Theater, and the Manhattan School of Music. She sat on numerous committees of the Olana Partnership, and she chaired the board of governors of the Thomas Cole National Historic Site. Donations in her memory can be made to The Raymond Beecher Fund for Programming at Cedar Grove, P.O. Box 426, Catskill NY 12414. [Added to blog at 3 pm. Friday]

MARTHA CHRONICLES III. Sentencing of serial GreeneLand scam artist Martha Ivery has been postponed for the third time. The new date is November 29th, in the Federal District Court, in Syracuse. Which means that a year probably will elapse before Ms Ivery, having been convicted of multiple counts of defrauding would-be authors of books, sees prison bars. If she ever does. Defense attorney Richard Mott has filed a memorandum with the court, arguing that although his client plucked at least $400,000 and as much $1 million from at least 50 suckers, she should not be incarcerated, except perhaps on weekends when she’s not working or being treated. Instead of heeding official guidelines that point to a five-year imprisonment, Mr Mott urges the court, put Ms Ivery on probation for five years, under stated conditions. Among conditions proposed by Mr Mott would be performing some community service, undergoing psychotherapy, and accepting an obligation to compensate victims of her book publishing/literary agent frauds. If she is not imprisoned, she’d be able to continue working (as a flagger on road construction crews at $1600, for example) so that she could make restitution payments. If, at the age of 58, she is consigned to prison, then by the time she is released she would be limited financially to Social Security checks. That menu of obligations, Mr Mott respectfully submits,would “bring adequate deterrent to others, reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense.” In further support of that correctional recipe, Mr Mott points out, Mr Mott points out that Ms Ivery has not committed crimes of violence, was not drunk or stoned while defrauding would-be authors by pretending to be an authentic publisher (and editor and literary agent), and, until these last few years of scamming, does not have a criminal past—except for passing bad checks and bigamy. Ms Ivery’s childhood, she recounts, was wretched. Her first pregnancy (of three) came at the age of 17. Husband number one was a brute. When she married number two, bigamously, she did so to avoid testifying against him on an arson In the estimation of psychologist James Thalmann, as submitted by Mr Mott, Ms Ivery's career as scam artist was rooted in a “delusional disorder” which impaired her grasp on reality, including her own status as a lawbreaker. Ms Ivery was or is subject to “the flux of her own enigmatic attitudes and contradictory behavior.” “The end result is substantial impairment” of ability “to understand the wrongfulness of her behavior and thus to exercise control over her ongoing behavior.” That assessment will be pondered by Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. It could pave the way for a sentence that, in relation to the offenses, is lighter than normal. It also could support an apprehension that if she were at liberty to do so, Ms Ivery would readily revert to the habit of delusion-bound swindling. That apprehension would be fortified by an FBI finding that even while she was under indictment for fraud, Ms Ivery tried to work her wiles on another would-be author.

SECOND SCAMMER STORY. While Martha Ivery (of Catskill) preyed on would-be authors, Christine Owad (of Windham) evidently bilked undocumented immigrants. She has been ordered to pay them back. Responding to evidence presented by the staff of New York’s Attorney General, State Supreme Court Justice Thomas J. Dolan ruled that Ms Owad owes $198,000 in remuneration to 55 identified victims of her Green Card scam, plus additional remuneration to additional victims who make themselves known by December 15th, along with $105,000 in civil fraud penalties. The civil judgment was meted out three weeks ago. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer characterized it (in a statement to The Irish Echo) as “a good day for those concerned about protecting immigrants” against “scam artists like Christine Owad” who “preyed upon peoples’ desires to make better lives for themselves.” According to Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Garin, a “handful” of additional claims have eventuated so far. Each one cites a payment to Ms Owad in the $2000-$4000 range in return for the false promise of being allowed to remain and work legally in the United States. Potential claimants may be inhibited by fear of expulsion as undocumented visitors, but they are offered assurance of confidentiality, with their identities redacted from court records. (Inquiries can be voiced to the Consumer Helpline at 800-771-7755 or, for confidential talks with the attorney general’s staff, to 845-485-3913. The attorney general’s web site is www.oag.state.ny.us). No payments from Ms Owad have been received so far, Mr Garin told Seeing Greene; and it seems likely that the obligation will eventuate in the seizure and sale of Ms Owad’s main asset: a farm in Prattsville. Ms Owad said last August (to The Daily Mail and to Irish-American periodicals) that she has defrauded nobody, and instead is being made the victim of a witch hunt conducted by Russian Mafiosi who want to grab that farm. A telephone call on Thursday (10/12) by Seeing Greene had not been returned by noon today.

Friday, October 06, 2006

The Weekender

UPCOMING To commence a busy weekend tomorrow in GreeneLand, you could check out the produce at the Farmers’ and Artisans’ Market, at Historic Catskill Point, from 9:30. Or join a little woodland walk and bulb-shopping expedition at the Mountain Top Arboretum in Tannersville, from 10 am. (www.mtarbor.org). Buy apples and other fresh food at the Apple Harvest Festival, in Cairo’s Angelo Canna Park, from 10 am. Join “Advocates for Game Farm Animals” in a demonstration along Game Farm Road, from 10 am., voicing solicitude for the fate of the 1000 animals to be auctioned October 18th after the permanent closing of the Catskill Game Farm. Bring food and/or money and friends to a fund-raising pot luck lunch plus silent auction at Beattie-Powers Place in Catskill, starting at 1 pm. Escort your dog(s) to Pruyn Park (top of Main Street, Catskill, across from Team G, behind the VFW Building) to the opening festivities, from 2 pm., of Park for Paws, where pets are welcome and, for this opening occasion, will be given special treats. Accept invitation to indulge in “creative loitering”—listening to CDs at Crow & Wolf Music on Route 32 (from 11 am.; big collection; free coffee). Better yet, or additionally, drive up with the kids to the Catskill Mountain Foundations red barn in Hunter, for live music: “Peter and the Wolf,” narrated by the distinguished actor Patricia Charbonneau and played by the Windham Chamber Orchestra. If this builds up a thirst, relief will be available nearby, at Hunter Mountain’s Oktoberfest (which will have started in the morning). Then, perhaps, it’s back to the Mountain Foundation’s red barn for another Windham Chamber Orchestra performance, at 8 pm., this one featuring music of Mozart, Vivaldi, Wagner and—what’s this?—Joplin. Yes! Scott Joplin, inventor of elegant syncopations known as Ragtime. For this occasion, conductor Robert Manno has done arrangements. Alternatively, there’s live music at St John’s Hall in Greenville, where All Arts Matter is sponsoring a Harvest Moon Dance featuring the Michael Benedict Big Band (966-4838 for information).

As for Sunday, the Oktoberfest at Hunter Mountain continues (from 11 am. on) and so does the Apple Harvest Festival in Cairo. But the most special event of the day is the Mountain Ginseng & Medicinal Herb Festival, at Historic Catskill Point, from 10 am. Comprehensive treatments of uses, cultivation, harvesting, marketing of the “green gold,” plus sales of the plants and other goodies. 943-0989.

PEDODONTIST. We now have one: Trevor Keller, who has come to GreeneLand via Newburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland and Guilderland. Saw his first four local patients last Monday (10/2) in the Greene Medical Arts Building. The practice is called Greene Pediatric Dentistry, because it’s all about kids’ teeth. 943-0780. “I plan to practice for the next 30 years," says Dr Keller. "We are trying to accept as many insurance plans as we can. Our goal is to serve our community and help children who have significant dental decay and/or severe dental pain.”

WHO’S ON THE MAP? The latest (10/06) issue of National Geographic includes a big map supplement covering the United States. The map’s New York State portion shows Catskill, along with Saugerties and Hudson and Ravena, but not Kingston. BANKING BLUES? Net income of GreeneLand’s foremost bank, in the latest fiscal year (2005-06), has declined. At $2.2 million, as reported in the annual report of its holding company, the Bank of Greene County’s profit was lower by about a fourth than in 2004-05 and lower even than in 2003-04. Does that mean that the BGC is in trouble? Hardly. Loan volume, deposits, and assets have boomed, and the directors have been laying the foundations, literally, for more growth. Columbia County will soon have three BGC full-service branches. Southern Albany County will have two branches. Bigger, better branches in Cairo and Coxsackie opened during the fiscal year. A new branch will be sited between the prospective Lowes home improvement center and the Super WalMart in Catskill Commons. Fiscal 2005-06 will be remembered as the year when, for the first time, the bank’s total assets passed $300 million mark (to reach $307.5 million). The past few years have been great for the bank—because they have been great for the county. “The markets we serve,” says bank president Bruce Whittaker, “are all places we call home. We know them well--their people and pastimes, peak and valleys their hidden possibilities. So when we choose to grow, our success is in large part determined by how well we develop and preserve these personal connections.” About 35% of all bank deposits in GreeneLand now are BGC deposits. Twenty years ago, the figure was 20%. BATTLE DISPATCH. The Democratic Party’s Congressional Campaign Committee evidently has decided that the race in New York’s 20th district (including GreeneLand) is winnable. For the first time, the DCCC has allocated resources to that contest: a 30-second, $60,000 commercial attacking the Republican incumbent, John Sweeney, as a lapdog of the Botch Administration. Mr Sweeney has uncritically supported the President’s “stay the course” position on Iraq, says the ad, while voting against “expanding health care for reserve and National Guard soldiers coming home from the war” and against “bonuses for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan,” but for a raise in his own pay. According to Sweeney staffer Maureen Donovan, as quoted in The TimesUnion, the ad is “patently false.” The DCCC’s decision to put resources into this race marks a shift from the belief that the seat is safe for Republicans. It reflects increasing optimism about the prospects of Democratic candidates all over, plus special regard for the quality of the campaign run by the Democratic nominee, Kirsten Gillibrand. AUSPICES. Increased Democratic optimism seems to be warranted. Among sources of heightened hope is the latest Battleground Poll. For this estimable survey, conducted jointly by a pro-Democratic and a pro-Republican firm under George Washington University sponsorship, interviewers confined attention to respondents who said they are registered to vote and intend to vote. Among them, 62% agreed with the judgment that the country is “on the wrong track” and 49% said they would prefer a Democrat-led Congress (vs. 41% voicing the contrary preference). The respondents were interviewed during September 23-27, before Bob Woodward’s State of Denial revelations and before the Mark Foley mess. DRAWING CARDS. For the pro-Sweeney rally on Wednesday in Saratoga Springs, the star attraction ($150 a ticket) was Laura Bush. For a more private and pricey pro-Gillibrand fund-raiser in Manhattan on Thursday, the star attraction was Barack Obama. COUNTER-CHARGES. Mr Sweeney’s campaigning during the past week, in televised commercials and in a direct mail piece, is noteworthy on several counts. (1) It’s another attack, as distinct from the kind of ad in which the candidate’s own achievements and/or popularity are touted. (2) It imputes to challenger Gillibrand responsibility for “scandals” at HUD (the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development), when the cited events happened (her people say) when she was not working there. (3) It faults Ms Gillibrand for refusing to make her income tax report public. (4) It suggests that Ms Gillibrand’s wealth disqualifies her as a representative of the 20th district. (5) It renews the charge that Ms Gillibrand is a “war profiteer.” That charge is based, as TimesUnion reporters have recounted, on the fact that Ms Gillibrand’s husband owns shares in a company that makes military hardware. The traditional “war profiteer”insinuation is that the profiteer dotes on wars because they bring for profit. But Ms Gillibrand has in fact condemned the Iraq venture. Finally, (6) the TV ad closes with a picture imputing virtue to Mr Sweeney by association with Sen. John McCain. That picture is noteworthy in light of Mr Sweeney’s previously close and boasted coziness (as “Congressman Kickass”) with President Bush.

“THE TIME HAS COME that the American people know exactly what their Representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and dined by special interest groups? Or are they working hard to represent their constituents? The people, the American people, have a right to know.” -- Tom DeLay, 11/16/95. “ANYBODY who doesn’t think I’m smart enough to handle the job is underestimating.” --George W. Bush, 4/3/00