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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (241306)	7/13/2005 10:23:07 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574106

Young: Just an honest bag man -- Tuesday, July 12, 2005 'Good government' can be had for a price – an awful price The headline in the Dallas paper was, “Firm gave to access DeLay.” I read it once, then twice. Diagramming: That's “access” as verb, “DeLay” as object. I don't know what it does for you. For some reason it reminded me of a scene in The Last Picture Show: On a slow night – aren't they all in Anarene, Texas – the boys pool gas money to buy slow-witted Billy some backseat time with Jimmie Sue, the part-time prostitute. OK, that's the movies. In the case that made the newspapers, it was Kansas energy firm Westar paying $25,000 to “access” Tom DeLay. Westar wanted favorable treatment in an energy bill. To share a golf cart with the House majority leader, it was told to write the check to Texans for a Republican Majority, DeLay's political action committee. The story reported by The Dallas Morning News: For the first time a corporation was admitting it donated to DeLay's PAC, and why? To “access” DeLay. (I am now reminded of the caution advised to me years ago, as a newcomer to Texas, in using “service” as a verb. I was unaware that, in some parts, it described how racehorses reproduce.) Defenders will say, what's wrong with that? That's not payola to good ol' Tom. That's just good ol' soft money, the stuff that makes the political world go 'round. What's wrong? Well, for one, DeLay's PAC donated $1.6 million to Texas legislative candidates in 2002. Corporate and union donations to state officials are one of the few things Texas campaign finance law forbids. What's wrong might also be that DeLay helped massage legislation just so for Westar. Indeed, the company had the bill language it wanted -– until investigators started looking into allegations of illegal corporate contributions. Then the language was dropped. Several lawmakers, including House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, have denied that campaign contributions from Westar resulted in language to exempt it from key energy regulations. If it had, the transaction would be a crime. The corporate contributions in Texas aided DeLay and the Republicans in their quest to claim the Texas House and to redraw congressional districts for a second time in a decade that was still young. Two of DeLay's fundraisers have been indicted by a Travis County grand jury. Another was held liable in a civil suit brought by Democrats who say he funneled corporate dollars into campaigns to beat them. This is why, when they say, “Why pick on ol' Tom? Everybody solicits cash in the political world,” it's not exactly the same. King Perry – no, not that one Campaign contributions have always been a coin of the realm for both parties. But some have more coin than others. The most powerful man in Texas may not be anyone in the House or Senate but a man who builds houses, Houston builder Bob Perry. Perry is the unquestioned king of campaign finance in our state, giving $6.9 million to Republican candidates over a four-year period. (He also bankrolled the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against John Kerry.) In return? Well, in 2003, Perry got something he wanted: a new commission to avert civil suits against builders. It was posed as pro-consumer. The extent to which it is pro-industry was made clear when Perry Homes' in-house attorney was made a commissioner. All of this is in the name of good government. Believe it when they say it. To allegations that a contributing corporation might have been done a favor, a DeLay spokesman said “anyone who works with Tom DeLay knows that his legislative efforts are based on sound public policy alone.” What Westar did for DeLay, and what Perry did for a host of Texas lawmakers, may sound like good government in Austin and Washington. But it would have raised whispers in Anarene. John Young's column appears Thursday, Sunday and occasionally Tuesday. E-mail: jyoung@wacotrib.com.

To: combjelly who wrote (241306)	7/13/2005 1:49:59 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574106

;~) Won't Defend? Then Attack! By Dan Froomkin Special to washingtonpost.com Wednesday, July 13, 2005; 12:54 PM How do you defend Karl Rove? The way he himself has so effectively defended President Bush over the years, of course. You attack. The White House yesterday officially stayed mum regarding Rove's role in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, its only concession being a generic expression of confidence in all who serve the president. And this morning , asked directly if he had spoken to Rove about the matter and whether he felt Rove's conduct was improper, Bush simply refused to say, citing the ongoing criminal investigation. "I will be more than happy to comment on this matter once this investigation is complete," he said, joining in the White House stonewall that began on Monday. But Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman yesterday began a pro-Rove media charge. His message, summed up by these talking points, is not as much a defense of Rove against the various charges leveled against him as it is an attack on the credibility of Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV -- Plame's husband, and the person who Rove was trying to discredit when he mentioned Plame in the first place. Mehlman won't say whether he talked to Rove about his approach, but either way, his methodology is tried and true Rovian genius. As I wrote in my June 24 column, back when some Democrats were calling on Rove to apologize for describing the liberal approach to national security as being weak and possibly even treasonous: "Rove has a brilliant and so far unbeatable strategy when it comes to political warfare." He doesn't defend, he doesn't apologize, he attacks. But there are some warning signs this time. For example, not everyone in the Republican Party is playing along. An awful lot of senior members of Bush's party are sitting this one out for now. And Rove and the White House face adversity on three fronts: · There's a possible criminal charge looming. · There's a credibility issue based on all the denials that Rove was involved in any way with the Plame case. · And there's the context in which this took place: Rove, after all, was attacking a report by Wilson that cast doubt on the administration's case against Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction. The White House was at the time desperately -- and effectively -- waving the media away from any doubts about Bush's rationale for war. But Wilson was ultimately proven right on the issue of WMD, and the White House was ultimately proven wrong. The pro-Rove attacks don't really engage on any of those three fronts -- but rather attempt to open a fourth. Will the public's focus shift so easily? It's an uphill battle. Meanwhile, the unofficial scuttlebutt from the White House is that the only way Bush will ever jettison his friend and chief adviser is if he is criminally indicted. But the furor shows no signs of abating. And all sorts of interesting developments that will keep media coverage at a fever pitch just keep on coming. Among the latest: Byron York of National Review Online's revealing interview with Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin. Luskin has previously said that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald had told him that Rove was not a "target" of the criminal investigation. All that would mean, however, is that Fitzgerald was at that point not ready to actually declare his intention to indict Rove. But Luskin has now told that National Review that Fitzgerald identified Rove, among others, as a "subject." In grand-jury talk a subject -- unlike an ordinary witness -- is someone who faces possible indictment. And investigative reporter Murray Waas blogs today that his sources tell him that columnist Robert Novak -- the first person to publish Plame's identity -- has in fact spoken at length to prosecutors. That would explain why Novak isn't in jail. But, Waas reports, the prosecutors don't necessarily believe what Novak told them, which is why they want to talk to other reporters about what Novak's sources told them. continued............... washingtonpost.com