Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (5127)	12/30/2003 8:26:02 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 6358

Part II: URL:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40030-2003Dec29_2.html Page 2 of 2 < Back Way-Off Year BUSH WON '92 RACE, SUPREME COURT RULES -- Surprise Decision Throws '04 Race Into Turmoil. WACHOWSKI BROS. PLAN "MATRIX 4: THE ERROR MESSAGE" -- New Film Will Consist Entirely of Monologue by Laurence Fishburne as Matrix Program Fails to Boot Up. MUSIC DOWNLOADERS TO BE HELD AS 'ENEMY COMBATANTS' -- Copyright Piracy 'Materially Aids' Terrorism, Ashcroft Says. BAGHDAD BOB TO DEBUT AS FOX NEWS HOST -- Murdoch Calls Latest Hire 'Strong, Unbiased.' DEMS VOW FILIBUSTER AGAINST JUDGE JUDY NOMINATION -- Bush Calls Foes of High Court Nominee 'Anti-Feminist.' CAMILLA PARKER-BOWLES DIVORCES PRINCE CHARLES -- Prince of Wales Protests: 'We're Not Married!' JOEY MARRIES ROSS IN 'FRIENDS' SHOCKER -- Rachel to Elope With Barman Gunther in Final Episode; Phoebe to Become CEO of Enron. SADDAM'S MEDICINE CHEST OF DOOM -- Toppled Honcho Kept Stockpiles of Preparation H, Gas-X, Rid in subterranean lair. STEINBRENNER OFFERS TO BUY SELIG -- Baseball Commissioner Would Report to Yankees' Owner; Lottery Proposed for Runner-Up in World Series. FRENCH COURT RESCINDS LOUISIANA PURCHASE -- New Orleans, St. Louis, Chicago, Denver All Renamed 'Chirac.' All kidding aside, we could use some brighter news in 2004. This past year had too many worries -- and far too little to joke about. Some of the loudest laughs I heard all year were from U.S. soldiers in Iraq and good-hearted Iraqi civilians, who somehow managed to keep up their spirits in the middle of a war zone. Here's hoping that the New Year will bring us all something to smile about. davidignatius@washpost.com

To: calgal who wrote (5127)	12/30/2003 8:31:10 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6358

Mr. Smith Leaves Washington Tuesday, December 30, 2003; Page A18 THAT SOMETHING UGLY happened to Rep. Nick Smith (R-Mich.) on the long night of the House Medicare vote last month seems beyond dispute. With his party lacking the votes to muscle the prescription drug bill through, Mr. Smith was subjected to intense -- and quite possibly criminal -- pressure to induce him to abandon his opposition. As Mr. Smith related it the next day, "members and groups" offered financial and political support for his son, Brad, who is running for his father's seat, if only he would vote for the bill. "The first offer was to give him $100,000-plus for his campaign and endorsement by national [GOP] leadership," Mr. Smith elaborated a few days later. When he refused, he said, he was threatened, "Well, if you don't change your vote . . . then some of us are going to work to make sure your son doesn't get into Congress." Mr. Smith has since recanted, rather unconvincingly. He said he "was told that my vote could result in interested groups giving substantial and aggressive campaign 'support' and 'endorsements,' " but that "no specific reference was made to money." But a report by The Post's R. Jeffrey Smith -- quoting Republican lawmakers present at a stiffen-your-backbone dinner of GOP opponents of the bill before the Medicare vote -- reinforces Mr. Smith's original assertion that money was indeed mentioned, and makes clear that members of the Republican leadership were involved. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) recalled Mr. Smith's saying that "someone had said his son . . . would be the beneficiary if he would vote for the bill, up to the tune of about $100,000." One response to all this has been to suggest that what happened to Mr. Smith was no more than hardball-as-usual on a close and important vote. True, lawmakers understand full well when they cast a critical vote that it is apt to affect their ability to obtain campaign contributions from the affected industries or interest groups. Yet there is a distinction between an implicit understanding of the likely financial consequences of an important vote and an explicit quid pro quo of campaign cash for a vote the desired way. The federal bribery statute makes it a crime to offer "anything of value" to a public official "with intent to influence any official act." House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was among those importuning Mr. Smith in the final hours of the Medicare vote, though Mr. Smith has said he was not referring to Mr. Hastert. But Mr. Hastert has been resolutely incurious about -- and seemingly unperturbed by -- what has been reported to have occurred on his watch, and by the reported activities of his lieutenants. "Well, they looked and there was nothing of substance there," Mr. Hastert said, referring to an inquiry by his own staff. The Justice Department should fully investigate this matter. If Justice declines to proceed, the House ethics committee must step up to the plate. It may be -- though only an investigation will determine it -- that what happened with Mr. Smith falls short of a prosecutable criminal case. But that doesn't make it ethical -- no matter what Mr. Smith now says. To bludgeon a lawmaker to switch his vote in exchange for campaign cash, to threaten retribution against the lawmaker's son if he votes his conscience -- this is well beyond the line of acceptable arm-twisting. House ethics rules require lawmakers to act "in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives." Does the House leadership think that standard was met in the case of Mr. Smith? © 2003 The Washington Post Company