You Can’t Clean the Stench Out of the Straight Talk for Lobbyists Express

The WaPo placed the news that Tom Loeffler, McCain’s Fundraising Chair, has left the campaign because he was unwilling to give up his lobbying gig, on A1.

Tom Loeffler, the national finance co-chairman for Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign, resigned yesterday because of his lobbying ties, a campaign adviser said.

With five high-level resignations in the last week or so and the prominence of coverage about those departures, you might think McCain is really cleaning house.

But here’s the thing. Even with just the resignations of the last ten days, McCain has shown a real inconsistency about what kind of lobbying ties compromise his campaign. With Loeffler and Eric Burgeson, there seem to have been two problems. First, both were active lobbyists, who lobbied the Senate for clients whose issues fell squarely in the purview of the Commerce, Armed Services, and Indian Affairs Committees on which McCain serves. In addition, both represented foreign "countries," Loeffler Saudi Arabia and Burgeson the Kurds.

charlie-black-fisa.png

Of course, that’s true of Charlie Black, as well. For example, Black lobbied the Senate on FISA, and has had an affinity for representing evil dictators throughout his career. So why is okay for Charlie Black to stick around while Loeffler and Burgeson take their blackberries and go home?

John McCain has a ready explanation: Charlie Black (and Rick Davis, someone else McCain couldn’t afford to lose) aren’t really lobbyists anymore:

Charlie Black and Rick Davis are not in the lobbying business; they’ve been out of that business,

Today’s WaPo story provides a little more detail about what that really means.

Until recently, his top political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., was the head of a Washington lobbying firm. Black retired in March from BKSH & Associates, the firm he helped found, to stay with the campaign. Davis ran a lobbying firm for several years but has said he is on leave from it.

Indeed, Black does seem to have stepped down from his lobbying work sometime before the quarterly disclosure forms were submitted starting on April 18. So by "out of the business," McCain must mean "out of the business for a whopping month and a half." But there are two problems still.

First, how do you wipe clean all the lobbying Charlie Black did from the Straight Talk for Lobbyists Express? Black was, by his own admission, lobbying from McCain’s campaign bus.

Black said he does a lot of his work by telephone from McCain’s Straight Talk Express bus.

How do you separate either the policies McCain espoused because Charlie Black–lobbyist for AT&T–or Eric Burgeson–lobbyist for liquid coal and nuclear energy–or Tom Loeffler–lobbyist for Saudi Arabia–advised him to adopt those policies? And how do you dissociate McCain’s primary victory from the work these folks did? It sure seems like McCain’s primary victory is, and will always be, tainted by Mr. AT&T, Mr. Nuclear Energy, and Mr. Saudi Arabia.

So the next time you hear McCain spouting his "green" images, ask him if Eric Burgeson’s clients bought that green image for him.

Finally, there is one even greater inconsistency in McCain’s new vetting policy (aside from the fact that his wife escapes all notice). Doug Goodyear and Doug Davenport resigned from McCain’s campaign because they had lobbied for the military junta in Myanmar six years ago.

"It was our only foreign representation, it was for a short tenure, and it was six years ago," Goodyear told NEWSWEEK, adding the junta’s record in the current cyclone crisis is "reprehensible."

So the McCain campaign has already accepted that the taint of questionable lobbying deals lasts at least six years. That would make Charlie Black’s representation of Ahmad Chalabi, just to take one example, fair game. You know–the guy who, more than any other, has ensured the Iraq invasion benefited Iran?

Obviously, with all the inconsistencies of ousting Eric Burgeson but keeping top campaign aides Davis and Black (and shielding Cindy’s investments from scrutiny), this so-called vetting process is just one big whitewash–which the McCain campaign readily admits.

"The campaign over the last week or so obviously had a perception problem with regards with this whole business of lobbyists and their work," spokesman Brian Rogers said. "This is really all about setting a policy so that we can just get through that perception problem and the issues that come up with regards to lobbyists affiliated with the campaign and move on." [my emphasis]

The McCain campaign employed a number of people who were actively lobbying the Senate on subjects central to McCain’s interests. That’s not a perception problem, it’s a real ethical problem, a stench the campaign can’t cleanse simply by considering it a "perception problem." McCain’s campaign and McCain’s policies have been bought and sold by lobbyists, something that doesn’t appear to be changing anytime soon.

image_print
111 replies
  1. Leen says:

    Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have picked up all of John Edwards talking points with the exception of committing to “no lobbyist in their administrations” as Edwards had committed to. Hmmm

    • PetePierce says:

      I’m not sure Leen that Obama has been asked to commit to no former “lobbyists” in his administration and refused. Where have you heard that?

      There is an important distinction here whether you mean serving in the current campaign or in the administration and that distinction is people who are federal lobbyists.

      Camp Clinton conference called a lot in Jan that Obama had lobbyists in his campaign, but none of these lobbied federally, in Washington, at Congress. One in particular who was mentioned lobbies in New Hampshire, but never federally. During the NH campaign, Clinton conflated Obama’s New Hampshire co-chair, Jim Demers as a federal lobbyist. He has never done that and lobbies only in NH with the Demers Group. Billy Vassiliao in Vegas lobbies for casinos only in Vegas; Kipper Tew lobbies only the Indiana Legislature, and none of them lobbies federally.

      Mark Penn, until recently Chief Strategist of the Clinton campaign has always been a major federal lobbyist, and Schoen and Berland Associates his firm, and Penn, have continued to actively provide polling advice and advice to the campaign and Geoff Garin and Howard Wolfson many times a week.

  2. AZ Matt says:

    McCain’s Magic Bus – it is full of illusions. And has it’s own little potty on board.

    • emptywheel says:

      I addressed that a little when it came out. Me, I’m still worried about the fact that Bush’s secrecy policies have already proven to be worth less than the crayola crayons they are written with. So long as Dick CHeney has carte blanche to selectively leak anything, BushCo DOESN’T have a secrecy policy, IMO.

      • Hugh says:

        So long as Dick CHeney has carte blanche to selectively leak anything, BushCo DOESN’T have a secrecy policy, IMO.

        I thought this was the Bush secrecy policy. They hide what they want and leak what they want.

        • emptywheel says:

          Well said, Hugh. I guess that’s why I’m more focused on the sheer kafkaesque nature of something pretending to be a policy. Given his stance on secrecy, I would expect President Obama to reverse this policy and institute one that was intended to make more things transparent, as this policy was intended to do.

  3. Hugh says:

    The largest loophole in McCain’s current set of lobbyist guidelines is that it does nothing to address lobbyists who may be “inactive” now but who, if McCain is elected, will be able to use the access they are developing now to lobby McCain and a McCain Administration in the future.

  4. Leen says:

    If Obama or Clinton were willing to commit to “no” lobbyist (as Edwards had, and we witnessed what happened to him) in their administration. How would this change the race?

  5. bmaz says:

    Oh, come on now, boys will be boys on the Straycock Express; but which ones are now riding the SugarMomma Express?

  6. obsessed says:

    Here’s a long DKos diary on this subject:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..572/518116

    What catches my eye is the claim that McCain suppressed and continues to suppress 97% of the Abramoff related documents. Can’t somebody file a FIA request or something?????

  7. GeorgeSimian says:

    I guess this is O/T….

    Anyone seen the Manchurian Candidate? I’m beginning to suspect that McCain is the Manchurian Candidate. He fits the profile completely. He was tortured in Vietnam, but isn’t it just as possible that he was brainwashed by Commie Russians at the same time? Or even by the CIA? How else do you explain the sudden turn away from everything he used to campaign on a few years ago? His support for tax cuts, for Bush in Iraq, for torture, etc. Sure, you could say he simply sold out, and that’s probably what happened, but, isn’t it possible that someone just flashed him the Queen of Hearts and he fell into his hypnotized spell and then did whatever they told him to do?

    I’m thinking that this needs to be looked at more closely.

    • emptywheel says:

      See also Vicki Iseman.

      No, seriously, I suggested and Larisa speculated that Iseman might have been a honeypot designed to bring McCain in the fold of the NeoFeudalists aiming to retain control of the world. They got a woman who fits the profile of McCain’s affairs perfectly, and got him to endorse a bunch of outfits consolidating media in conservative hands (leading to the Stolen Honor gig in 2004). And Paxson, at least, is close enough to whoever flew the Saudis out after 9/11 to lend them his plane (his was the plane that flew a bunch of Saudis out of FL).

      Now I’m not sure how far I buy Larisa’s argument. But it is clear that something happened after the 2000 election.

      • GeorgeSimian says:

        The only problem is that their plan sucks because McCain isn’t going to win! I don’t think he’s got a chance in hell.

        • emptywheel says:

          Oh, pretending for a moment it WAS a honeypot operation, I think its end goal was to ensure that McCain, the Chair of Commerce, was kept solidly in the neofeudalist pocket.

          That the neofeudalists are losing more generally is due to the fact that 1) their policies suck and 2) their attempts to control the media are slowly failing.

          Though, again pretending we know it’s a honey trap, I think they’d certainly consider it gravy if McCain were elcted.

          • GeorgeSimian says:

            Maybe. But he’s kind of old to fall for a Honey Trap, isn’t he? Although I guess in DC, they all get off on hookers and stuff. Power and sex go hand in hand. Why else would Bob Dole be pitching Viagra?

            • demi says:

              There seems to be a contradiction here…
              But he’s kind of old to fall for a Honey Trap, isn’t he?
              and
              Why else would Bob Dole be pitching Viagra?
              Different kind of honey pots?
              Or not, considering what motivates humankind.

        • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

          I wish that I agreed with you, but the Dems are going to have to earn it.

          Check out what Sen Jim Webb said on “Meet the Press” yesterday. The Republicans have treated the military like shit, and the Dems need to step up to the plate and call bullshit and — more importantly! — explain how and why national service is good for individuals, and also good for the county.

          People are pissed, but the Dems still have to earn a win.

          • bmaz says:

            And, sooner or later, they have to lose the fear of talking about taxes. You are exactly right about taking care of the troops and rewarding them for their service. Arguably that part of the deal for the returning “Greatest Generation” is what built the US into what it is, or at least was before the Goopers started drowning it in the bathtub. The Goops blather so much about their fucking investment society and market this and that and completely ignore that what built the society and infrastructure to permit all that was good government policies and investment into the people as a whole, and the infrastructure behind them, that came out of the New Dealers. You can’t have one without the other, at least not for very long, and they have now proved that obvious point. It is time to reinvest in America. That is going to require tax increases, and I mean to everybody, not just the rich; the rich should have bigger increases than the poor, okay, but it is time for everybody to take stock of who we are and put our money where our egos and mouths are. It is not as if this is some unheard of idea that has never been tested; unlike the crap we have been subjected to by the Goops, this has been done and worked marvelously. National service IS good; say so and reward it as such and let it blossom once again. People are ready for this. If this tact had been taken in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 like it should have been, oh what a different country and world this would be. Time is running out though, the effort has to be started while there is still some semblance of a foundation to start from.

            • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

              Oh, stop, please! I’m getting swoony *g*

              Just landed on this little gem, via a link at TPM — it’s good for giggles: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com…..39056.aspx

              Here’s a teaser:

              Black said that the flurry of debate over former lobbyists’ work for the campaign is “complete inside-the-Beltway nonsense.”

              And to underscore Sara’s point, Black and Abramoff go back to the late 1970s — follow sailmaker’s link @5, to a Kos post by dengre. The two are entwined like mangrove roots.

              Which just makes Charlie’s comments to msnbc all the funnier.

            • masaccio says:

              A good way of dealing with the absolute need to raise taxes is to tie it to rebuilding infrastructure. Among the many advantages, building for the future (and trying to overcome the challenges we aging baby boomers are leaving for our kids (I’m feeling a bit old today)), the economic benefits of the employment from construction and manufacturing jobs (we can force a lot of them to stay here), there is one I really like.

              The Libertarians will have to face the fact that we are going to tax the crap out of them and build all kinds of things and they won’t get the benefits. Megan McArdle and her gang of Randians will explode.

              • bobschacht says:

                A good way of dealing with the absolute need to raise taxes is to tie it to rebuilding infrastructure. Among the many advantages, building for the future (and trying to overcome the challenges we aging baby boomers are leaving for our kids (I’m feeling a bit old today)), the economic benefits of the employment from construction and manufacturing jobs (we can force a lot of them to stay here), there is one I really like.

                Another good framing for this is called “investing” in the future. Most people “get” that.

                Bob in HI

      • Minnesotachuck says:

        Marcy, do you have a Larisa link? Apologies if it’s already down-thread; I’ve only had time for an occasional scan this morning. Thanks. For all you do!

  8. MarieRoget says:

    OT- As someone reminded me over @ FDL Central, David Iglesias is starting his book tour this week for In Justice: Inside the Scandal that Rocked the Bush Administration. I’m betting he might be interested in doing a Book Salon, which was already suggested over @ FDL.

    For anyone in the area, Iglesias will be @ Bookworks in Albuquerque this evening for a lecture & signing. When I come across other places/dates, will post them:

    http://www.bkwrks.com/NASApp/store/IndexJsp

  9. HelplessDancer says:

    The important thing is not that he is purging his campain of lobbyists, it’s that he filled it with lobbyists in the first place.

    • dosido says:

      Ding.

      Plus, generally speaking, even if they were “lobbyists” in name only, what kind of influence and character the Kept Man is surrounding himself with.

      • dosido says:

        oops, first comment of the day. I meant to type “even if they were not lobbyists in name only”…sorry.

      • Adie says:

        s’cuse… what is definition for “lobbiest in name only?”

        no clients? fired? never hired? nameplate on a door to the broom closet?

        • dosido says:

          I was clumsily referencing this part of EW’s post:

          John McCain has a ready explanation: Charlie Black (and Rick Davis, someone else McCain couldn’t afford to lose) aren’t really lobbyists anymore:

          Charlie Black and Rick Davis are not in the lobbying business; they’ve been out of that business,blockquote>

  10. GeorgeSimian says:

    How did all the Republican op-ed writers suddenly appear with the same editorial in the last couple of days: that McCain can win even if the GOP loses. The GOP really has an amazing media machine in place. They’re so good at staying on their talking points and keeping their votes in line. It’s so sinister.

    • dosido says:

      Yep. I noticed the orchestration also. same word choices as well as same ideas…lazy petards.

  11. Badwater says:

    If a lobbyist quits a high level camaign position to keep lobbying, that means the lobbyist doesn’t think the campaign will win.

    • emptywheel says:

      One quote I took out of this post, btw, was Black saying in February that he might suspend his relationship with BKSH. So it’s not clear whether his “retirement” is any such thing.

      Which would be saying something, since Rick Davis, too, considers his lobbying career to only be suspended.

  12. dosido says:

    McCain seems to be able to sniff out money like a pig for truffles. Maybe not voters, but money, yes.

    The more contrast between the throngs of people turning out to see Obama vs. a group of folks waiting at a bus stop for the BS express, the better.

    • GeorgeSimian says:

      Except that he’s broke. McCain doesn’t stand a chance. No one’s giving him money because everyone knows he’s going to lose. Before people vote with their votes, people with money vote with their dollars. There’s no question who’s winning that race right now. People with money give to the winners, because the losers can’t help them.

      • Petrocelli says:

        I think the Repubs and Neocons will throw up some 527s to do their dirty work while keeping St. McCain at a safe distance. Those and Diebold will impact this election, unless the groundswell grows exponentially to put all 50 states into play and keep them busy defending traditionally safe seats.

  13. justbetty says:

    Did anyone see Mark Halperin of Time magazine on ABC News saying that these resignations prove how serious McCain is about distancing himself from lobbyists? Unbelievable! By the way, I also heard him say on CNN that McCain was coming up with good ideas, like having the President be questioned by Congress as is done in the UK. He said Obama better start coming up with some good ideas like that if he hopes to win. Double unbelievable!

  14. Mutant Poodle says:

    The perception problem is that people are staring to perceive, accurately, that McCain has surrounded himself with lobbyists. And the good news is there’s plenty of Mitt Romney tape saying just that…

  15. Hugh says:

    Maybe. But he’s kind of old to fall for a Honey Trap, isn’t he?

    Why do I find this so funny? Everyting in McCain’s past history indicates this is exactly what he would fall for.

    Mark Halperin

    He’s a conservative wannabe who has made a career out of pushing Republican spin and calling it journalism.

    • bmaz says:

      McCain is exactly the kind of guy to run the Honey Pot on; he is a guaranteed mark and has the history to prove it.

      • emptywheel says:

        I was waiting for my AZ backup to help me out with this argument. Just in time–I didn’t want to have to speculate whether McCain is too old for this kind of thing.

        Ick.

        • bmaz says:

          Well, I think Mrs. McCain has not been impressed with his “performance” for a very long time now, but that’s another story. I am sure the four hours (after which you simply must consult a doctor) is plently long enough for a Honey Pot foray.

          • Petrocelli says:

            Lawd … having to make out with McCain for 4 hours ?

            … should have earned her a Medal of Honor (or dishonor)

            • skdadl says:

              Aw, gee. Are you guys making fun of geezer sex, or just some geezers and sex? (No, I’m not as old as McCain. Gosh, I just looked him up. Why does someone that age want to be president?)

              Hope you’re having a good Victoria Day, Petrocelli, and Ishmael and any other colonials who happen to be around. (Yes, we are celebrating Queen Victoria’s birthday today. I’m not making that up.)

              • Petrocelli says:

                LOL … Happy Victoria Day, skdadl and fellow Canucks ! Am I a traitor for celebrating with Belgium & Argentine Beer ? *g*

                Anyone who is paid to make out with McCain for 4 hours should be felicitated with honor, for going above (and under) the call of duty …

      • Petrocelli says:

        I know exactly how you feel … I’ve been pulling 18 hour- days getting this book finished and looking for an agent …

  16. Adie says:

    this is sort of like a trail of crumbs, the bad type.

    how could McSame possibly have thot it wouldn’t come out?

    ahhh. our old friend, arrogance…

    • Mutant Poodle says:

      It goes back to cognitive dissonance. I think McCain really believes he’s a “Straight-talkin’ Maverick”, and (post-Keating) incorruptible – so he can do whatever without getting sullied. That he has on numerous occasions done legislative or influence-type favors for big donor constituents doesn’t faze him, because, after all, he is the straight-talkin’ maverick.

      Which is why he’ll probably explode one day on one of these issues, and that’s an event I’ll want my popcorn for.

  17. cbl2 says:

    Good Morning Empty!

    USA Today adds to McLiar’s ‘perception problem’

    WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain secured millions in federal funds for a land acquisition program that provided a windfall for an Arizona developer whose executives were major campaign donors, public records show.

    this may be a prev discussed story here at FDL – but national coverage by McPaper is a good thing . crikey! 700 comments to the story

  18. JohnLopresti says:

    A lobbyist I knew used to demur, when confronted by the revolving door disparagements, that expertise was the reason industrialists engaged him. Even giving McCain credit for sufficient conservative wit to look for people with developed concepts, the fact his early campaign machine was rife with lobbyists, to me, seems to point to his candidacy as a K-Street favorite sonship in the wake of the loss of several among their Bush era numbers to scandal and commensurate sanctions.

    I have begun looking into the Burgeson exit and its history and find legislative analyst workers for prominent Republicans in revolving doors with sporadic campaigns. It is pretty much what those folks do for a living, in various permutations. Burgeson appears to be interested in the energy lobby foremost.

    OT, Allred has deferred to Scotus in re Hamdan, viz Boumedienne issues ostensibly TBA sometime in August 2008.

    • cbl2 says:

      how could McSame possibly have thot it wouldn’t come out?

      doncha know ? McClueless claims he didn’t know about the Burma ties until he read it in Newsweek –

      now Adie, my good friend, this klown has been wheelin’ and dealin’, slicin’ and dicin’ for years. as long as he taussles their hair in that jocular, older-boy-we-admire fashion, they aint a gonna be a lookin’

      really don’t know what set Issikoff off to take a peek at this last week, maybe McCain didn’t include him in an atomic wedgie session or somethin’

        • Adie says:

          now, my good friend. get yer little peeps in a row before ya start pumpin’ up that cute lil’ weapon ya got there.

          i’m still getting over the pic of that strait-tawkin’ huggerbugger.

          and… of course, “pitch” could have any one of a number of definitions.
          hm-m-m. sell, toss, ickygoop, …

          don’t bother… i have no idea, myself, what i’m talking about at this point.

          i just don’t want another of “those” guys in the oval-ofc. EVAH!

          *wanders back into swamp veggie garden, muttering to self*

  19. rwcole says:

    McBush is preparing for the general election- cleanin out the ship and navigating toward the center.

    He’s got time to do this- but he’s smart to be starting now…looked for a while as if he was going to work on placating his own base until the convention.

    He’s got a big fund raising disadvantage and has ties to the most unpopular president in US history- bout time he changed course.. Will it be enough? Doubt it.

  20. Mutant Poodle says:

    You know, one of the things I think people miss is that toughness isn’t measured by punishment dished out, but rather withstood. It’s the reason McCain is universally respected. I may think he’d be a terrible President, but he did endure a horrific experience as a POW. (That said, until then, his wartime experience was a distant one – impersonal, from thousands of feet – which makes me wonder whther he thinks of the horrors of war as being akin to his POW experience or if he has a real understanding of what the grunts on the ground go through.)

    Calling someone names doesn’t make one tough – although that seems to be the accepted definition these days. It’s the ability to take those shots and keep standing.

    I think both Obama and Hillary are waaaay tougher than W. Neither of them does the macho-posturing version of it, though, so they don’t get written up that way.

    • dosido says:

      I absolutely agree with this comment.

      Swagger is not toughness. It’s easy to respond when provoked. It’s easy to be a hot head. It’s harder to exercise good judgment to know when force is required and when it isn’t.

      In addition, I am absolutely sick of these guys putting their own interests way way way ahead of the interests of the American people and common good. It’s one thing to profit from those efforts of making things better. It’s another thing altogether to flush things down the toilet and make money off sewage.

  21. dmac says:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories…..5387.shtml

    and craig shirley–
    ”The campaign also asked Craig Shirley to resign from McCain’s Virginia leadership team after the Politico reported that he was behind an independent group that has been criticizing Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama on the Internet. McCain’s new policy also states that no one with a campaign title or position may participate in so-called 527 groups, which can raise unlimited amounts of money for television ads not controlled by campaigns. ”

    ====
    from same article-
    loeffler-everybody keeps leaving this out—EADS

    ”Among Loeffler’s clients is the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the parent company of plane manufacturer Airbus. Northrop Grumman Corp. and EADS won a lucrative contract to provide air refueling tankers for the Air Force. McCain helped scuttle an earlier contract in 2004 that would have gone to a competitor, Boeing Co.

    Loeffler’s firm also has lobbied for other foreign interests and foreign governments. Newsweek reported over the weekend that Loeffler’s firm was paid $15 million by Saudi Arabia. The news magazine also said Loeffler listed meeting McCain along with the Saudi ambassador to ”discuss US-Kingdom of Saudi Arabia relations,” even though Loeffler told a reporter last month that he had not discussed his clients with McCain. ”
    ========
    friday, diane rehm mentioned craig shirley on the news roundup, but he’s a little fish, so, i wrote in to mention what about the other top three….and chevron/burma ties…i had already written earlier in the week for the friday show…so, sent it again…..they put it on the air, in the second hour, i pictured mccain’s pr people scrambling….
    i couldn’t believe they actually brought both things up on the air….they did.

    =====here’s part of it—-
    mccain’s top three campaign people are lobbyists for dictatorships

    starting with charlie black.

    from fdl-”three lobbyists in particular: Charlie Black (McCain’s senior counsel and spokesman), Tom Loeffler (McCain’s national co-chairman), and Peter Madigan (a leading fundraiser). ”

  22. dosido says:

    o/t

    Exxon Proxy Fight

    Four U.K.-based investors and a British proxy advisory firm publicly joined a group of dissident shareholders calling for an independent chairman at Exxon Mobil Corp. on Monday….

    “Despite top-notch individual directors, the company’s record over the last decade, particularly regarding climate change, demonstrates that debate has been lacking,” said Karina Litvack, director of governance and sustainable investment at F&C Asset Management. Litvack added that an independent chairman will help avoid “over-dominance by management.”

  23. rwcole says:

    Political “wars” are 100% bullshit—candidates bluster and try to look meaner than a junkyard dog- but there’s no war- no contact- nothing risked- they might as well be filming a movie.

  24. cbl2 says:

    interesting that in a matter of days, Rick Davis is no longer spokesman as he was just last week

    fyi – Campaign Spokesman on all this: Tucker Bounds

    worked for Bush/Cheney 04
    worked for RNC
    “left” McCain campaign last summer when they were running out of money

    in between gigs, he worked for American Insurance Institute – a lobbying concern, n’est-ce pas ?

  25. al75 says:

    Ahmed Chalabi appears to have systematically manipulated a string of US dupes, starting with the CIA, then the State Dept, scores of neocons – to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. At present, he appears to have thrown his lot in with Iran (at least till something better comes along).

    This doesn’t make Charlie Black an “appeaser” of Chalabi and his Iranian handlers — it makes him something worse, a paid employee of a man who appears to be facilitating US enemies in a time of undeclared war — or open war, if the neocons are actually right.

    And he’s doing it out of McCain’s bus? Isn’t this a campaign issue?

    • cbl2 says:

      Ahmed Chalabi appears to have systematically manipulated a string of US dupes, starting with the CIA

      who couldn’t do crap without Iraq Liberation Act 1998

      suspect Mr Black’s fingerprints are all over this – along with the usual suspects (which include a number of the pay-for-say Pentagon generals)

      • al75 says:

        I think you’ve got a really good point when you say:

        Ahmed Chalabi appears to have systematically manipulated a string of US dupes, starting with the CIA

        who couldn’t do crap without Iraq Liberation Act 1998

        suspect Mr Black’s fingerprints are all over this – along with the usual suspects (which include a number of the pay-for-say Pentagon generals)

        The “Iraq Liberation Act” was one of those critical events – right in the middle of Lewinsky/BS-gate/Impeachment – where the Dems and Big Bubba caved. It’s a moment when the entire US power elite bent to the will of the neocons.

        After 9/11, pushing the rest of the way to war was easy.

        Where was this guy Black when all this was going on? What other lobbyists were working on the bill, and who bankrolled them?

        Anybody know?

    • Minnesotachuck says:

      IIRC, the CIA had put out a burn notice on Chalabi back around ‘96. It was the neocons who brought him back inside the tent over the agency’s objections. Or at least the objections of the underlings who’d been scorched by him. However Tenet didn’t support them when push came to shove.

  26. Sara says:

    Want to connect Charlie Black with Jack Abramoff?

    To accomplish this I have to take you back to Yesteryear, infact about 1991, and the HUD hearings that Tom Lantos chaired. These involved fairly massive fraud involving Republican Loyal contractors who participated in a grant and cost-plus contract arrangement in a HUD program to restore/renovate targeted public housing projects. In essence it was a kick-back scheme, which Lantos carefully uncovered, and it actually landed Samuel Pierce then Sec. of HUD with a plea bargin, and the step-daughter of John Mitchell got Jail Time, as did a few others.

    One little side scheme run with this was a partnership between Charlie Black and our friend Jack Abramoff, that involved selling expensive tickets to those who wanted these HUD grants, for the benefit of a charity with which Jesse Helms was involved, which was dedicated to retaining the Apartheid Government in South Africa, by sending vast sums of private charity to the Zulu Chairman, Chief Boutholeizi (sp), who it was hoped would divide the tribal structures against the ANC and Mandela. Abramoff ran the money through the International Freedom Foundation, of which he had been chair. In essence this was a means of taking a piece of the action on the kick-backs on the HUD contracts, and making the funds available to anti-apartheid forces for whom Abramoff then worked. Lantos’s hearings connected Charlie Black up with this scheme — in fact Abramoff and Black were partners.

    Sadly, while Lantos did a scathing report, and sent DOJ information that should have led to indictments all around, after Clinton was elected they quietly closed it down with a few plea bargins, and a small number, (mitchell’s stepdaughter) going to trial. But the Charlie Black and Abramoff partnership is all there in the sworn committee records if someone can get to it — 1991 is pre-internet days, so someone who could go to a Federal Depository and find the Lantos record.

    I think Black and Abramoff in cahoots to raise money to ruin Mandela might go a piece down the road to getting McCain to dispense with Black.

    • dosido says:

      Geez! this is something! I need to take a shower after reading it and I wonder why everything was quieted down, hmm. wonder if this could be damaging to hrc as well as mccain if clinton admin pushed it into hush-hush land?

      • Sara says:

        Geez! this is something! I need to take a shower after reading it and I wonder why everything was quieted down, hmm. wonder if this could be damaging to hrc as well as mccain if clinton admin pushed it into hush-hush land?

        I don’t think it hurts the Clinton’s really. I think they took the attitude that if cases were in process and were low hanging fruit, they went ahead with them, but with the difficulty they had getting Reno confirmed, and then with WACO right on top of that, they were not putting more resources into cases that were on the side of the main case, which was about multi-million dollar fraud at HUD. It is important now, however, because Lantos took sworn testimony in committee, and it does connect Black with Abramoff. But the lesson is, I suppose, that it is the seemingly minor players running a sub-fraud on the main-fraud who can come back and bite years later. Moreover, by the time Clinton came to office, the deal to release Mandela from Prison, and let the ANC run him for President was already in the works. In otherwords, Black and Abramoff’s little game did not pan out.

    • skdadl says:

      I think Black and Abramoff in cahoots to raise money to ruin Mandela might go a piece down the road to getting McCain to dispense with Black.

      Yes.

      Re the sp: Buthelezi. Great shame.

    • bobschacht says:

      Sadly, while Lantos did a scathing report, and sent DOJ information that should have led to indictments all around, after Clinton was elected they quietly closed it down with a few plea bargins, and a small number, (mitchell’s stepdaughter) going to trial. But the Charlie Black and Abramoff partnership is all there in the sworn committee records if someone can get to it — 1991 is pre-internet days, so someone who could go to a Federal Depository and find the Lantos record.

      I wonder if those records might be in the great pile of documents from the Senate Indian Affairs Committee’s investigation of Jack Abramoff.

      Unfortunately, the Democrats for some crazy reason have agreed not to open those archives without McCain’s permission. Daxxit, those archives have historical and legal importance!!! They must be pried loose!

      Bob in HI

      • Sara says:

        I wonder if those records might be in the great pile of documents from the Senate Indian Affairs Committee’s investigation of Jack Abramoff.

        No, a transcript of a public hearing which was broadcast on C-Span would not be closed. The Committee did a full transcript, wrote a report, and made referrals to DoJ based on testimony, and DoJ took it up, appointed a prosecutor, took it to a grand jury, and got indictments. Aside from the Grand Jury, all this would long be on the public record. Before the Internet full copies of Congressional Hearings were sent to Federal Repository Libraries. (For instance the University of Minnesota is such a Repository). Sometimes if you contact a congressional office they can get a copy of old commmittee records. I don’t know to what extent the Library of Congress has posted such stuff in digital form.

        • bobschacht says:

          In response to bobschacht @ 94 (show text)

          I wonder if those records might be in the great pile of documents from the Senate Indian Affairs Committee’s investigation of Jack Abramoff.

          No, a transcript of a public hearing which was broadcast on C-Span would not be closed. The Committee did a full transcript, wrote a report, and made referrals to DoJ based on testimony, and DoJ took it up, appointed a prosecutor, took it to a grand jury, and got indictments. Aside from the Grand Jury, all this would long be on the public record. Before the Internet full copies of Congressional Hearings were sent to Federal Repository Libraries. (For instance the University of Minnesota is such a Repository). Sometimes if you contact a congressional office they can get a copy of old commmittee records. I don’t know to what extent the Library of Congress has posted such stuff in digital form.

          But the transcript of the hearing only reveals a very small slice (8,000) of what is in the 750,000 pages of documents collected by the committee. See Dengre’s work on this in the links.

          Someone else posted a few scant details on the “gentleman’s agreement” among Senators that is keeping these documents covered up, but unfortunately I’ve lost the reference.

          Bob in HI

          • PetePierce says:

            Someone else posted a few scant details on the “gentleman’s agreement” among Senators that is keeping these documents covered up, but unfortunately I’ve lost the reference.

            And these agreements make all the difference in the world between a facade Senate and Congress and a real one. There are many of them.

            I haven’t found the context/reference yet but here’s one for you Bob.

            Bush Just Coined the Acronym CUI “Controlled Unclassified Information.

            • bobschacht says:

              And here’s another one. Remember Nixon’s “Enemies” list? Paltry and primitive. Check out Digby today, and her post on Main Core. Cheney & Co. apparently consider Nixon a piker, and have updated Nixon’s technology with new data mining techniques straight out of Admiral Poindexter’s notebook. Your name, and mine, could be on their list:

              “There exists a database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic, might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived ‘enemies of the state’ almost instantaneously.” He and other sources tell Radar that the database is sometimes referred to by the code name Main Core. One knowledgeable source claims that 8 million Americans are now listed in Main Core as potentially suspect. In the event of a national emergency, these people could be subject to everything from heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning and possibly even detention.

              All for the sake of “Continuity of Government (COG)” in times of an emergency. Um, how about October? Would that be a good time for an “emergency”?

              Bob in HI

              • PetePierce says:

                Thanks for the interesting link to Digby’s blog. It will take a few years, but the power of data mining and good search techniques may rewrite or certainly can be used to enhance history.

          • Sara says:

            But the transcript of the hearing only reveals a very small slice (8,000) of what is in the 750,000 pages of documents collected by the committee. See Dengre’s work on this in the links.

            Someone else posted a few scant details on the “gentleman’s agreement” among Senators that is keeping these documents covered up, but unfortunately I’ve lost the reference.

            Bob in HI

            Bob, I think you have two investigations mixed up. Yes, it is true that the McCain Indian Sub-committee did not put its evidence in the public domain. I am not even sure they wrote a report or sent official transmittals to DoJ. None the less, DoJ did its own investigation, and nabbed Abramoff and a number of his associates and the congressmen he bribed. This was all during the first term of Bush II. 2001+

            My intent here is to call attention to a totally different investigation that was conducted by Tom Lantos as chair of a sub-committee with oversight authority over HUD, with the investigation conducted in 1991. Lantos’s objective was to provide strong sunlight on a multi-million dollar fraud that took place in the last years of the Reagan Administration, that involved a grant/contract program for repairing/restoring a significant number of older public housing units. Under Samuel Pierce’s leadership (Reagan couldn’t remember his name, called him “Mr. Mayor”) HUD gave these contracts to Republican Operatives who clearly were, as the evidence showed, expected to kick back funds to Republican Parties, committees, candidates, and various operations such as think-tanks and all. The hearings were on C-Span for several weeks during the summer of 1981, and were quite interesting. Eventually Lantos’s committee wrote a report, and made criminal referrals to the Justice Department. Pierce took a plea bargin (the testimony revealed that he spent about two hours every day in his office watching soap operas — not a good administrator), and one of his executive assistants, who was the step daughter of John Mitchell, went to trial and did jail time. A number of other HUD political appointees likewise either went to trial or took a plea.

            My point is that a side show of this kick-back scheme was one run by Charlie Black and Jack Abramoff that involved pushing those who had received contracts to rebuild public housing, to buy tables and tickets to a very expensive dinner for charity, the money going to an outfit that worked under the sponsorship of Jesse Helms, and gave money to Zulu operatives in South Africa, who wanted to destroy the political fortunes of the ANC and Nelson Mandela. Lantos put the whole story on the record, but given the scope of the fraud against HUD — this Black-Abramoff effort was a small side-show getting a small share of the kick-back funds on the margins of the major scheme. Lantos used it as an illustration as to how operatives in the Republican Orbit were using the fruit of fraud against what was US public policy, because by that time congress had voted against a foreign policy that supported Apartheid.

            Right now our political interest is in connecting Black to Abramoff — and taking it back in history sufficiently so as to underscore the story as a pattern — one that identifies Black as partner in fraud with Convict Abramoff. In fact, as Fraudsters they were total failures. Today Nelson Mandela has a Nobel Prize and is an honored Senior World Statesman. That is hardly what they intended. In terms of questioning why McCain has Black on his staff, a story about how fraud against HUD (and public housing and thus the US poor) also involved a small scheme by Black and Abramoff to support Apartheid in South Africa — well it is a nice illustrative story suggesting why McCain should divest himself of Black. It is the combination of racism and fraud/corruption that underscores this argument. The value of this story is increased by the fact that all the elements of it were brought to the fore under oath.

  27. TeddySanFran says:

    Additionally:

    John McCain’s campaign sent a top advisor packing after questions surfaced over his role in a 527 group — the kind of organization that is barred from coordinating activities with political campaigns.

    Consultant Craig Shirley, a public relations veteran, got the heave-ho after a reporter for Politico began asking questions about his role in the “Stop Her Now” 527 and his former spot as a paid advisor to the McCain campaign (he apparently was most recently an unpaid volunteer).

    Shirley wasn’t violating McCain’s stupid “ethics policy.” Shirley was violating the law. Not that that matters in McCain’s campaign, which violates campaign finance law every single day.

    But still.

  28. behindthefall says:

    There’s still work to do on perception:

    Guy working at the house says: I live in a free country; nobody can tell me where to go or what to do. It’s the best country on earth. There is no poverty in the U.S. McCain in a hero. President Bush could have accomplished great things, and he tried hard, but Congress, particularly the Democrats in the Senate, wouldn’t let him. Obama is a socialist. Hillary will do anything at all to get into power. I’m for McCain. McCain is a hero. [lather, rinse, repeat]

    Is it talk radio?

  29. PetePierce says:

    You all say you’ve had it with Bush and McCain’s tactics I think. Make sure you bring 200 votes with you when you vote for the general election candidate the Democrats run during Sept.-Nov.

    HRC’s supporters are going to vote for McCain they say to the tune of 25% if she is not the nominee, and if she is not the nominee (there is a reasonable chance that will be the case) then the other candidate and the downticket candidates will need hefty voter turnout.

  30. PetePierce says:

    Bush and McCain will do a fund raiser in Phoenix May 27. How about McCain using Cindy’s father’s (James Hemsley’s) Anheuser-Busch plane.

    As Mr. O’Donald says it’s pathetic that McCain has to use a joint appearance with someone with an 18-20% approval rating and who has put this country in the toilet with Iraq spending and killing even if the Constitution had not been decimated.

Comments are closed.