New West Feature of the Week
Trading on Teddy Roosevelt’s Name
Italia Federici, once the self-styled doyen of GOP environmentalism, is suddenly nowhere to be found. A new Senate Finance Committee staff report casts more light on her connection to jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff and her organization's conservation work - or lack thereof.
By Todd Wilkinson, 11-03-06
This is a rhetorical question: Is it a contradiction or, closer to the point, is it mutually exclusive to be both a committed Republican AND a devoted environmentalist?I was in the middle seat recently somewhere over Ashton, Idaho on a Delta flight to Bozeman, Mont. from Salt Lake City, when my fellow hefty passengers squashing me from the right and left lit into a diatribe against greenies.
I didn't know the occupations of my plane mates — one boasted that he had a "Sierra Club Sucks" bumper sticker on his pick-up; the other wore a camo baseball cap — but for the sake of preventing the already stuffy space from becoming more depleted of oxygen, I kept quiet, closed my eyes and listened.
Between them, I heard a lament repeated over and over again: Environmentalists, they asserted, love to invoke the name of Republican President Theodore Roosevelt.
"It just isn't right," the guy in the cap said.
My fellow travelers were terribly incensed by that. I heard it suggested that the environmental movement trades on Teddy as if he were some valuable illegal contraband. Preservationists exploit TR's Republican Bull Moose cred, they said, using him as a ruse for cloaking their real agenda of "locking people out of public lands", "toppling civilization," and "giving the woods back to the animals."
I continued to listen.
I pretended to be asleep.
Had I decided to join the commentary, my modest observation might have gone something like this:
Speaking of those who use Theodore Roosevelt to suit their own ends, how many Americans remember the reign of the self-touted great modern Republican environmentalist Italia Federici (her tenure occurred circa 1998-2005)?
Unless you're a wonk or an avid C-SPAN watcher, her name may escape you. It did indeed escape the recall of my friends on the plane when at last I asked them if they had ever heard of the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA).
Federici's name surfaced again recently in a U.S. Senate Finance Committee minority staff report on Jack Abramoff's use of tax-exempt organizations to throw money and political influence around. (Click here to download the full 600-page PDF of the report.) The report alleges that CREA and Federici operated as an arm of the Abramoff lobbying operation, receiving large sums of money and other favors from Abramoff and his clients in exchange for arranging access to CREA founder and former Interior Department Secretary Gale Norton and other officials, including Norton's sidekick at Interior, J. Steven Griles. Both Norton and Griles left the Interior department as the Ambramoff scandal began to heat up.
The report's discussion of CREA and four other groups linked to Abramoff - Americans for Tax Reform (headed by anti-tax crusader and Republican power-broker Grover Norquist), the National Center for Public Policy Research, Toward Tradition, and Citizens Against Government Waste - should elicit attention from any non-profit organization that calls itself a 501(c)3 or, as in CREA's case, a 501(c)4. The 600-page report paints a colorful picture of non-profit groups trafficking in access and cash, and while an ATR representative told the Los Angeles Times that the release of the report was politically motivated, the many emails quoted in the document would seem to speak for themselves.
But I digress.
For readers who still have no recollection of Ms. Federici, let me refresh your memory.
She was one of those media darling activists who invoked the ethic of TR often. Federici and her mentor, Norton, told us that George W. Bush was TR's second coming. She convinced many people it was true. They did everything they could to position CREA as the one true free-market oriented champion of the environment.
In 2001, Federici posted this credo at the top of CREA's web site: (Visit it. You may find it interesting if you're a fan of TR.)
"Like the great GOP President, Theodore Roosevelt, we are Republicans who believe conservation benefits all Americans."
So far, so good. The plug goes on to add: "The Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA) is committed to preserving America's natural resources, air, water and scenic beauty for future generations."
One could read this and believe that Federici was a tree hugger.
For many months, word on Capitol Hill was and is that Federici boasted not only that CREA presented itself as the reincarnated spirit of TR, but that she had close personal connections to Interior Secretary Norton. The two of them had founded CREA in 1997 or 1998, along with Norquist. Neither of them - never once until fairly recently - distanced themselves from Federici's public pronouncement of close friendship and collegiality.
Federici was a volunteer during Norton's failed bid for the U.S. Senate in Colorado, and when President Bush was first elected, she was never far away from Norton. As soon as Bush and Cheney were in office, CREA under Federici's direction began issuing a barrage of press releases in support of the Administration. One email from an insider described CREA as the group that continued to promote Norton's free-market environmental beliefs.
Federici and CREA, Bush and Norton — these were the true landscape protectionists, she would assert. Those OTHER groups you may have heard of - the Wilderness Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, Trout Unlimited, the National Parks Conservation Alliance, the Nature Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, the Trust for Public Land, Environmental Defense, Earthjustice, yes, perhaps even the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership - those were "eco-extremist" groups, CREA implied. They were fronts for pretenders and, egad, special interests!
In a word, Ms. Federici pinned on those groups and their millions of dues paying members the label of obstructionists. What were they guilty of obstructing?
CREA, in contrast to them, supported oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge based on the argument that it would help end, once and for all, the national energy crisis we find ourselves in. At least 70 percent of the oil America uses is imported and the number continues to rise even under a scenario with more drilling rigs interspersed among the caribou.
CREA also wanted commercial logging to ramp up again on millions of acres of national forest that were placed off limits to road construction by the previous administration. Just recently, a federal judge overturned attempts by the Bush Administration and industry groups to repeal the so-called Clinton-era Roadless Rule which protected tens of millions of acres of national forests that serve as filters for drinking water reaching tens of millions of Americans at the tap; it represents some of the last best habitat for fish and wildlife; and it serves as an ongoing sink for carbon dioxide. CREA hated the Roadless Rule.
It also touted Republicans who say climate change is a big, fat hoax. It argued in support of Norton's mantra called "the Four Cs" promoting the idea that industry should be granted the chance to voluntarily regulate itself where environmental protection is concerned rather than having the federal government serve as a watchdog.
All of this was wrapped in the idea that Teddy Roosevelt himself would have signed on as one of CREA's charter members.
One can only guess how Ms. Federici in her meetings with Norton, deputy Interior undersecretary Griles and lobbyist Jack Abramoff explained away Teddy Roosevelt IV—TR's living, namesake great-grandson.
TR IV proudly describes himself as a Republican capitalist businessman and fiscal conservative. He's also a traditional hook and bullet outdoorsman who has served over the years on the board of directors of several of the "radical" groups mentioned above that CREA often maligned.
TR's namesake heir has never mentioned CREA when he's been out in public as a group worth supporting. Instead, Ted Roosevelt has sent membership dues to another group called Republicans For Environmental Protection. Check them out at http://www.rep.org
Ms. Federici, if you've been paying attention, started to drop from the radar screen of conservative talk shows roughly a year ago, and since then has been as visibile as a Dodo.
"CREA has been exposed for what it is," says Chuck Porcari, the communication director for the League of Conservation Voters. LCV tracks the environmental voting records of all 525 members of Congress on behalf of many of the mainstream conservation groups mentioned above and it compiles scorecards.
"If you look at the scores of some of the individuals in Congress who have allowed themselves to be associated with CREA and compare them to other members of their own party who actually have an environmental ethic, I can generally add up their scores on two hands and still have extra fingers left to count," Porcari says. "The fact is that if verbosity contributed to global warming, CREA's membership would be at the top of the list of emitters."
Federici's "15 seconds of fame has come and gone" Porcari says, noting that in contrast to CREA, he has praise for REP and adds that there are a lot of excellent Republicans who support real environmental protection.
"It must have been extremely difficult for Italia Federici and those she surrounds herself with to talk about being committed environmentalists by seemingly always having one hand behind their backs and their fingers crossed," Porcari added. "They are not what they claimed to be. The problem is that most Americans lead busy lives and don't have the time or inclination to scratch beneath the surface and find out who and what was really behind this group."
I wondered if either of my plane mates had memberships in CREA or REP?
I didn't ask, but I can tell you this: The last press release CREA issued is dated November 4, 2005, about the time that Ms. Federici was called to testify before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee while it investigated ties between now admitted felon Abramoff and money allegedly paid, at Abramoff's insistence, to CREA by Indian tribes desiring to build casinos and hoping to find a friendly ear at the Interior Department.
Here's one of the damning, unvarnished passages from the recent Senate Finance report:
"After Ms. Norton became Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Abramoff arranged to meet Ms. Federici and, e-mails show, directed his clients to make payments to CREA. Later, he referenced those payments when encouraging Ms. Federici to make his clients’ arguments with senior officials at the Department of Interior. In her responses, Ms. Federici seemed eager to comply. Ms. Federici raised funds from Mr. Abramoff’s clients, and then contributors were given a chance to speak one-on-one with Interior Department officials. "
The Finance Committee report uses the Latin legal term quid pro quo.
Abramoff wrote in one email of CREA:
"This is a 501c4 group which used to be chaired by Gail (sic) Norton. They are the unofficial outside advocacy group for [Department of Interior] and are going to be holding a series of dinner meetings, the first of which is with Norton...Griles and others. . . . CREA does advocacy for environmental issues and has been incredibly helpful on the insurance issue... (its current head is Italia Federici who is very close to Griles)."
Finance Committee investigators added: "Mr. Abramoff served as a fundraiser of sorts for CREA, soliciting funds for the group from his tribal clients."
Here's one example from the report on how it all worked:
"On March 22, 2001, Mr. Abramoff wrote to Kathy Van Hoof, Coushatta attorney: 'I met with the Interior guys today and they were ecstatic that the tribe was going to help. If you can get me a check via federal made out to ‘‘Council for Republican Environmental Advocacy’’ for $50K that would be great. This is really going to help.' Mr. Abramoff wrote to Ms. Federici on April 19, 2001, regarding the chief of the Coushattas: 'Do you think we could get him a meeting with Secretary Norton and Steve [Griles]? I’d also like him to meet you, since I want to go back to the well and get more $ from them soon for CREA.'"
Federici's alleged role as a gatekeeper between Abramoff and Interior officials typically involved classic backroom politics pertaining mainly to casino approvals. Sometimes tribes were pitted against tribes. So lucrative were Abramoff's lobbying adventures that the proceeds enabled him to open up a popular restaurant in Washington, D.C. called "Signatures." The Finance Committee report notes: "CREA began hosting dinners at Mr. Abramoff’s restaurant, Signatures, and Mr. Abramoff picked up the tab."
So cozy, apparently, was the relationship between Federici and Abramoff that on July 19, 2002, Ms. Federici sent an email thanking Abramoff for his recommendation of an accounting firm that apparently did a fine job of presenting to the Internal Revenue Service how CREA was allegedly spending its money to meet its mission: "Anyway," Federici wrote to Abramoff, "the report to the IRS shows that 71.5% of the money we took in went to 'fostering environmental education through grassroots education and research—program services.' That’s a good number. We are also on track to show growth for our next report—thanks to you— which is the type of thing that the IRS looks for. Thanks for everything Jack!"
And, notes the Finance Committee report: "Ms. Federici continued hosting events at Signatures at no charge to CREA."
To the best of anyone's knowledge, few, if any, of those sessions had anything to do with landscape conservation, protecting air and water, or green things of that ilk.
Meantime, early in 2003, Federici wrote to Abramoff asking for a favor with CREA fundraising: "I hate to bother you with this right now, but I was hoping to ask about a possible contribution to CREA. As usual, we budgeted and spent all of our money from last year, on last year, and have started out the new year with practically nada. I thought I’d see if there was any way you could help us reach out to some of your folks [i.e. tribal clients] who were so generous last year?"
Federal investigators note that Abramoff wrote back: " Absolutely. We’ll get that moving asap. The Coushattas [a native tribe] are coming to DC next Thursday so I’ll hit them immediately. By the way Gov. Foster (Louisiana) just sent Gale [Norton] another letter pushing a new [gaming] compact....Can you make sure Steve [Griles] knows about this and puts the kibosh on it?"
Perhaps the most poignant declaration to emerge from the Finance Committee report is this observation:
"It is apparent from e-mail communication that CREA became an extension of Mr. Abramoff’s lobbying operation. Mr. Abramoff arranged for his clients to donate to CREA; then he called in favors for those clients through Ms. Federici’s connections at the Department of the Interior."
Of the legal tax implications with the IRS and the hundreds of thousands of dollars it received, the report adds: "Lobbying for a fee should be viewed as inconsistent with CREA’s (or any other nonprofit’s) tax-exempt purpose. It could be argued that CREA was acting on behalf of Mr. Abramoff’s firm for purposes of lobbying the government, which should not be an exempt purpose for CREA."
While the Finance Committee document of October 2006 is revealing in its own right, if you're one who enjoys dramatic real-life theater based on actual events in the nerve center of power, skip this report or reruns of The West Wing and track down instead a C-SPAN recording of U.S. Senators John McCain, chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and Byron Dorgan, a Democrat, grilling Federici about her emails.
(McCain has said in the past there is no evidence to suggest that Norton had any knowledge that Federici was dropping Norton's name).
McCain and Dorgan insisted that Federici, who was under oath, divulge what tangible environmental advocacy work she had advanced for Native Americans, given all of the money she received, she was suddenly tongue tied, her verbosity gone.
Give one example of the conservation work you do for Indians, they asked Federici again.
Just one, McCain implored.
Federici couldn't do it.
When McCain pressed her further, Federici then accused McCain of conducting a witch hunt, implying that his interrogation was motivated by the fact that Federici and CREA allegedly spent huge sums of money trying to defeat environmental legislation McCain had co-drafted to curb carbon dioxide emissions to address climate change. The irony of CREA's leader openly acknowledging that she worked to kill a bill aimed at protecting the environment by one of the most prominent GOP senators in Washington was not lost on many people.
On the CREA website today, the accomplishments of Norton's successor at Interior, Dirk Kempthorne, are now touted. Under another section on the website touting "CREA In The News" there isn't a mention of the hundreds of stories that have appeared with Abramoff's name in them. And since Federici appeared before Congress last year, the organization has stopped issuing formal press releases, though it still plays on the cachet of TR.
What would TR think of Federici and CREA invoking him as the inspiration for the way their organization has been run?
Today, Abramoff is in prison. Will he re-emerge as a witness for the government in fully explicating Federici's role, if any, and, if she's shown to be guilty of anything, will she point the finger at others?
Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley and Montana Sen. Max Baucus have sent the Finance Committee findings over to investigators with the Treasury Department, IRS and Justice Department "for review." However, the report states: "It appears that lobbying, public relations work and, in some cases, disguising the source of funds was conducted by the nonprofits examined in this report. A variety of tax-law standards for the operation of nonprofits may have been violated." Among the more serious possible charges for the groups targeted by the Committee are perjury for filing false tax returns and tax evasion.
At the very least, in part owed to Italia Federici, she may have achieved government reforms though not of the kind she probably imagined. Leaders on the Finance Committee promise to bring changes to the murky shadowlands where non-profit organizations and lobbyists meet to do business.
I didn't mention any of this to my fellow passengers on the airplane as they continued to rant about "those radical, unethical, extremist, special-interest-driven, deceptive environmental groups" exploiting the great President Theodore Roosevelt. Why argue? I realized that with at least one organization, they were dead on.
AN AFTERWORD: As mentioned earlier, there is a bonafide conservation organization to which Theodore Roosevelt IV belongs as a lifetime member: Republicans for Environmental Protection. "REP represents the very best of the Republican Party. It's pragmatic," Roosevelt said in a testimonial.
REP was founded in the mid 1990s by Martha Marks, who ran as a "green Republican," prevailing in the primaries of her own party and in the general election to win consecutive seats on the Lake County, Illinois Board of Supervisors. Lake County encompasses a huge part of metropolitan Chicago.
"People ask me all the time, 'If you care so much about the environment, why don’t you just become a Democrat?' That attitude is not only a shame, but it’s a totally ineffective way to make meaningful, permanent progress," Marks says.
Where does REP stand on issues? Not much differently than the mainstream groups vilified by CREA. REP is:
- Opposed to drilling in ANWR
- In favor of taking action on global warming by providing incentives for business to reduce carbon emissions, supporting the same Climate Stewardship Act co sponsored by McCain that CREA spent money to kill.
- Supportive of protecting national forest roadless lands akin to the plan to protect more than 40 million acres drafted by the Clinton Administration;
- Behind a plan that would transfer management of the Forest Service to the Department of Interior so that public land management is coordinated with other agencies like the Park Service, BLM, BIA and national wildlife refuges.
- In favor of small-scale logging to keep small family-run timber mills in business
"It advocates policies that are good in their own right," Ted Roosevelt IV has said." It represents the mainstream of Republican thought. I encourage all conservation-minded Republicans to join me in supporting the work of REP in America."
Adds Martha Marks, "Great things can happen in this country when the leaders of both parties get behind an idea and push it through to completion. We saw bi-partisan cooperation on environmental issues in the 1970s, and our country is the better for it now. Unfortunately, we haven’t seen much bi-partisan cooperation on environmental issues since then. It’s gotten so bad that people nowadays routinely make the assumption that if you’re an environmentalist, or even a land conservationist, you’re probably a Democrat."
Marks continues: "I like to point out that as long as one party routinely ignores environmental voters, and the other party takes them for granted, no further progress will be made. We environmentalists should be working to make BOTH parties compete for our vote, and we should hold them BOTH accountable for their actions. Only then will we see environmental gains that won’t be wiped out when control of the government swings from one party to another." [End of article]
...another good article. Norton, Federici, Abramoff, and CREA were a witches' brew from the beginning. I won't throw any particular rocks at REP; but, I do wish that Republicans in general would be a little more careful in telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about their party's relationship with Teddy Roosevelt. Allow me to elaborate. Teddy Roosevelt was a youthful, fit, energetic, charismatic war hero, but still just a minor player in the party, when the GOP found itself with its top ranks filled with pretty much nothing except corpulent old men whose public service had never involved moving out of a well-stuffed leather chair, a public image that matched the facts, and rapidly declining fortunes in the polls as a result. The party latched on to TR to breath some life into the ticket, but only as a well-leashed VP. When McKinley's assasination propelled him into the presidency, he leapt into "progressive" policies, like conservation, support for the rights of labor unionists and fair labor laws, support for progressive income tax, a strong central government, and protection of federal public lands. All of these policies and beliefs are the stuff of the modern Democratic Party and vilified by Republicans today and in Roosevelt's time. In fact, as soon as the GOP could find a way, they turned on him and his policies, forced him out of the party in a party floor fight, and forced him into an independent bid under the Bull Moose banner. Teddy Roosevelt was truly one of our geatest presidents; but, if any politician was ever betrayed by his own party, it was TR and yet the GOP continues to have the gall to haul TR's legacy around as a body shield. It's dishonorable to say the least.
Comment By George, 11-04-06Several Republicans were leaders on conservation measures in Congress in the 1960s and 1970s. I knew Rep. John P. Saylor (PA), a leader for the Wilderness Act, Wild & Scenic Rivers Act, new national parks, and many other measures. He was a conservative Republican in step with his party on most issues, but he loved to join efforts across party lines with Democrats such as Reps. Morris Udall (AZ) and John Seiberling (OH). For John Saylor, conserving natural resources and wilderness was an integral part of his conservative philosophy. I believe this view is re-emerging with a new generation of Republicans, and we’ll see more in the years ahead. An excellent biography of Mr. Saylor recently appeared: “Green Republican: John Saylor and the Preservation of America’s Wilderness,” by Thomas G. Smith (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2006).
Comment By an environmentalist forester, 11-04-06What's in a name? - apparently not much when a group can label itself one thing and actively work for the opposite. Even groups claiming "environmental" in their title cause environmental harm when they repeat half truths to end sound conservation based forestry. TR would have found them using his name as contradictory as well.
Certainly TR was one of our greatest presidents and we owe a huge debt to him and Gifford Pinchot for the legacy of National Forests and other public lands. He also would be completely un-electable today with the scrutiny of our modern media. We are well advised to disregard labels, however convenient they might be and look a bit deeper to see just what they stand for. The NRA doesn't represent me as hunter though they might paint themselves that way. Groups that prevent sound forest management to save "old growth" that is not really old growth or describe every potential timber project as "the last remaining forest primeval" (wait didn't you use that for the one before?) don't really pass the "environment" test either. Foresters have allowed groups to paint them as anti-environment - somewhat like saying a pediatricain must not like children.
Teddy wouldn't conveniently fit one of our labels today either even though he had far more positive effect on the environment and the conservation movement that anyone since.
I bleieve the spirt of TR is embodied in the TRCP. http://trcp.org/insidethetrcp.aspx
>>>>>
“It is not what we have that will make us a great nation; it is the way in which we use it.” -Theodore Roosevelt, 1886
The TRCP Organization: The TRCP is a non-profit organization driven by a Board of Directors and a Policy Council made up of leaders from many of the country’s top hunting, fishing and conservation groups. We have a national focus on access and conservation issues affecting hunting and angling and are supported by our own nationwide network of over 90,000 sportsmen and women and more than 1,400 affiliated local and state-level clubs and organizations, that themselves represent nine million Americans.
Our Mission: The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership is a coalition of leading hunting, fishing and conservation organizations, labor unions and individual grassroots partners working together to preserve the traditions of hunting and fishing by a.) expanding access to places to hunt and fish, b.) conserving fish and wildlife and the habitats necessary to sustain them, and c.) increasing funding for conservation and management.
<<<<<<
The scoundrels need to don the orange jump suits and pick up roadside trash for the next 10 years.
It could certainly be argued (and has by many historians) that Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt essentially saved U.S. capitalism from its own excesses, rescued a struggling middle class, reined in an increasingly arrogant business elite (remember the Robber Barons?) and forestalled labor unrest of such intensity that it could well have plunged the nation into civil war.
Both were villified as betrayers of their (upper) class brethern, and it was only with the passage of time that conservatives could stomach embracing some of TR's legacy.
FDR is now being embraced by neocons for his war-time leadership -- not because they admire him, but because it becomes a handy club to bludgeon today's "cut 'n run" Democrats.
We do need another TR to save us from today's excesses. I once thought that might be McCain, but as a prospective candidate for '08, he's not the maverick he used to be.
A powerful story, Todd. And one with information that needs to have much greater currency among the citizenry, especially among those like your seatmates on the plane.
Roosevelt was known as "that madman" by Republican boss Mark Hanna, and his position in the vice presidency was meant to render him harmless to the forces that were partitioning the nation to serve their own greed. It did not work, as history tells us.
Roosevelt saw very clearly, in the ruination of the land and of the wildlife, the ruination of the American experiment in freedom and democracy. He and others—Grinnell, etc-- saw the squandering of the resources and realized that there were interests in America that recognized no loyalties, that would just as thoughtlessly squander our chances to create the greatest national experiment in liberty and democracy in the history of the world.
Roosevelt’s presidency is the basis of the unique American conservation ethic that people like Norton, Watson, Norquist, etc. work tirelessly to destroy.
But why do they do this? What motivates them?
Is it nihilism? Is it a kind of cynicism? What am I missing? I mean, it seems clear to me that what we are discussing is not a difference of opinion. It’s the difference between hardball business and criminality, isn’t it? It is about people in government turning over the resources of the nation to a few private interests, right?
But why?
I want to know how people like Norton or Federici feel about what they do. I want to know if Steve Griles is proud of his part in the explosive expansion of mountaintop removal coal mining, or if he thinks about it at all. Does he fear prosecution?
What happened to us? Is the evangelical belief in apocalypse so rampant that nobody cares what happens to the wildlife, the clean water and air? How does Grover Norquist sleep at night, after his "drown the government in a bathtub" ideals have played out in New Orleans, in Iraq?
How can he and Norton and others watch the news of China's surrealistic pollution of air and loss of drinking water to chemical spills, and then work diligently to destroy the laws that prevent such disasters in the US?
And where is the accountability that could slow down some of this type of illegal behavior? It is important to point out what has happened, as Todd has done here so well, define for to us the lies told, the money that changed hands. But it is not enough for the perpetrators to simply resign, and go back to their lucrative lobbying positions working for extractive industries, or take up desks in "think tanks" that manufacture fresh rationales for the same old looting and and greed and theft, turning out new reasons why America must remain enslaved to the old guard corporate powers. Working so hard to explain to us children and country bumpkins why America– for so long considered the world’s best hope-- must not lead the world in finding innovative solutions to the most pressing problems on earth.
Somewhere, as Craig put it so well, there has to be an orange jumpsuit, and some work picking up trash beside the highway. Otherwise, my friends, and I don’t use that term lightly, I think we are looking at something awful coming down the road right at us.
Occam's Razor is the principle that the simplest explanation is most apt to be correct. I would submit that the simplest explanation is not political or economic ideology, but simple greed -- that by facilitating unrestrained access to and development of natural resources, as well as emasculating regulators and regulations, these key Bush officials are anticipating future rewards as paid lobbyists, company officials, directors on company boards, even as stock-holders. They've seen it happen in past administrations, so there's every reason to anticipate corporate rewards now.
Ironically, this anticipated wealth will not buy -- at least for the long term -- splendid isolation in pristine enclaves such as Cheney's Jackson Hole. The effects of global warming, growing inequalities of wealth and shrinking resources can only be temporarily staved off.
First of all Abramhoff is the poster child why ALL lobbyists should be kicked out. Virtually everyone in the country has access to phones and or internet, and can make their wishes known, so they are not needed except by politicians trying to scam the system. The whole mess along with all of the money he passed out on both sides of the isle, including the $69,000 to that icon of purity, Harry Reid, shows that they do far more harm than good.
I have never heard of either the groups nor the lady you wrote about, however I have heard of T. Roosevelt, and I doubt that either he nor Franklin would appreciate being lumped together. Their similarity seemed to split beyond their both being born rich.
There is an interesting little book called "Old Yellowstone Days", which is a collection of writings and memoirs written by earlier visitors to Yellowstone.
A couple of TR quotes during his 1903 visit that might be interesting: Among his comments on the vast herds of pronghorn antelope and deer. he says: "Although there are plenty of coyotes in the Park, there are no big wolves, and save for very infrequent poachers the only enemy of the antelope, as indeed the only enemy of all the game is the cougar."
Then he wrote about the preservation of wilderness areas: "They cannot in the long run be kept as forest and game reservations unless the settlers roundabout believe in them and heartily support them; and the rights of these settlers must be carefully safeguarded, and they must be shown the movement is really in their interest. the Eastern sportsman who fails to recognize these facts can do little but harm by advocacy of forest reserves."
Compare that with the attitude that wolves were necessary to Yellowstone, and the ranchers were in the way and deserve what they get. Never mind that there is no evidence that wolves were ever present in Yellowstone in any numbers until modern man decided they were necessary.
I think Brodie is right on target in explaining part of what's eating Hal (it troubles me too, terribly). But Brodie, you still don't answer the part that bothers me most. Why do we (as in voters) continue to enable this charade? Clearly your explanation describes how pols and their appointees and "tink-tank" cronies might be motivated more by greed (or the expectation of its fruits at some future date). But how can so many voters, with nothing to gain and so much to lose, be swindled into buying what Grover et al. are selling?
Comment By Brodie Farquhar, 11-05-06Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas" is the best explanation I've seen as to why middle-class, working Americans vote against their own economic interests when they vote for GOP candidates.
The thesis of the book is that both Democrats and Republicans have sold out middle-class interests by supporting globalization, free-trade and the export of well-paid factory jobs to offshore plants where labor is much cheaper.
Frank further states that the middle-class is socially conservative, whereas much of the Democratic Party is not. Confused and often upset by gay rights, abortion and other issues, blue-collar Americans realize there's no help from either party on economic issues, so they turn to Republicans for help on social issues, figuring that if they can get social issues straightened out, then they can turn to economic, populist, progressive issues.
The big question is whether the Democrats will turn away from fat-cat political contributions (and the attached strings) to public financing of political campaigns and embrace policies that will end this relentless drive to the bottom in terms of wages, labor rights and environmental protection as corporations take manufacturing jobs out of the country. Sen. Dorgan has a new book about this trend which is enriching corporations and pauperizing the middle-class. Yes, we do have a low unemployment rate, but trading a $30/hr. job for $7.50/hr. is not a good deal for the worker. Stressed out and losing faith in the American Dream, that worker may well turn to the faith of his forefathers for answers, only to be told from the pulpit that ending abortion or protecting the institution of marriage is more important than economic justice.
Go figure.
The only person who should be allowed to lobby a member of Congress - by phone, postal mail, e-mail, in person or otherwise - is the American citizen.
Comment By Brodie Farquhar, 11-10-06Alan: you're right, of course, which is why the only hope for this "Grand Experiment" is to ban private money from politics. My greatest fear is that the Democrats will not go far enough in cleaning out the swamp, and will fall into the same trap as corrupted the GOP -- exchanging specific votes for campaign cash.
The problem is less what party is in power than who holds the purse strings that finance political campaigns. I would submit that it is far wiser to have public finance of political campaigns, so that candidates can campaign on the basis of ideas, platforms and healthy debate, rather than furthering the agendas of special interests at the expense of the greater whole.
I don't think public fnance would help anything, the fact is those who are willing to spend tons of money to buy a job worth a lot less money are looking for power, pure and simple. Term limits are the only thing that will clean things up, well not the only thing, the lobbyists need to go....fast.
Now Brodie, you talk about cleaning out the "swamp", do you really think Chappaquidick Ted will go, or Land deal Harry? Or Red Light Barney? You notice that Dems were as fast to ti the can to Frozen Assets Jefferson as fast as Republicans did Foley didn't you? He was the highest vote getter in Louisiana even though he faces a run off.
I think both sides of the isle would do well to scrub their own houses before they worry about dusting the other side's house.
On the other hand we do have Al Queda cheering the election results.
Public finance is fundamental to making it more difficult for special interests, left or right, to buy votes and indeed buy senators and representatives on either side of the isle. Power always corrupts and that's why our Constitution calls for checks and balances.
I am sympathetic to term limits, but of the many Republicans to pledged to limit themselves to X number of terms in 1994 (coming to power because of Democratic corruption), how many carried through and honored that commitment? The ultimate term limiter is you, the voter, because you can throw the bums out -- of either party -- when they get too arrogant and too corrupt. And you cannot diminish lobbyist power until you get rid of their ability to buy votes.
I am not talking about voluntary term limits, I'm talking about mandatory term limits. As long as it is voluntary and as long as the particular state legislator is promising to bring home the pork so to speak, the whole thing is not going to be solved. Humans are humans, those hungry for power will do whatever is necessary to get and keep power, those who feel entitled to what others have worked for will keep voting to get it.
The system will never be fair entirely, look at the effect the mainstream media has had the last couple of elections, but we can try.
The lobbyists simply must go. Abramhoff may have been an extreme, he was passing money out on both sides of the isle, Reid got 69,000 for instance. Republicans definitely turned out those who were the most egregious in their party, taking big bucks has no effect on Dems apparently.
Marion: "Republicans definitely turned out those who were the most egregious in their party."
Names?
Is this a quiz???? Conrad Burns and J.D. Hayworth come to mind right off. That is in the elctions, of course, Foley is gone, DeLay, neither of which has been convicted, in additon to Ney who has. Enough for now? How many sleazy Dems are gone? Sure not Kennedy, nor Reid, nor Jefferson, Studds is gone now, but not when he got a standing ovation from the Dems for seducing a young teen page.
Comment By Brodie Farquhar, 11-12-06Polling data indicates that the GOP did NOT turn against "those who were the most egregious in their party." What happened is that independents broke in a big way for Democrats in revulsion to the culture of corruption (pay to play) established by Abramoff, Delay, Norquist, etc. The reason that "sleazy Dems" are not under inditement or in the news (save for Jefferson) is that they were not in power over the past 12 years and therefore could not do the kind of favors sought by lobbyists that Republicans could and did perform. I do not believe that Democrats are immune from sleaze -- all politicians and all political parties are tempted. My call for public financing of political campaigns is simply one approach to lessen the degree of temptation, just as is your call for mandatory term limits.
Comment By Craig Moore, 11-12-06Brodie, in my opinion public financing is not the answer. We need real oversight with muscle. The congressional ethics committees are a joke. I suggest something similar to a GAO that would focus on political and legislative practices and aggressively pursue violators. The Jefferson matter tells me that both parties are equally tainted amd impotent to do the job.
Comment By MBW, 11-15-06Brodie, in my opinion public financing is not the answer. We need real oversight with muscle.
This is the bottom line in the whole sordid CREA scandal - no oversite, whatsoever. For the last six years, CREA has filed (when it has filed) with the IRS predominately under the pseudonym "Renew Our Urban Centers", and, other than one quarter in 2000, has reported any income of any kind, particularly not the half-million retained from Abramoff's six tribal clients.
One should look, however, at the true genesis of CREA (originally the Committee of Republican Environmental Advocates.) While Norton asserts it was her brainchild, CREA's kickoff fundraiser was hosted by Congressional Republican leaders like Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, as well as sponsored by BigOil/Gas/Mining interests such as Exxon and BP. Ironically, the first public mention of CREA appears in the archives of the Texas DEP in 1997, when George W. Bush was president. Norton was brought on very early to the Bush presidential campaign (1998) and CREA was used almost exclusively to undermine Al Gore's very extensive environmental credentials. One could argue they were successful, as Gore shied away from pushing those credentials during his 2000 campaign.
We should also look to Italia Federici's very friendly, and profitable, relationship with Washington social queen Julie Finley, now US Ambassador to Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Finley hosted many of the dinners and receptions where CREA brought together members of the Interior Department with executives from Big Oil/Gas/Mining and other interested lobbyists (and a few monied tribal leaders, clients of Abramoff.)
I could go on and on (I already have, for the past few years over at my home blog, Wampum) on this subject, but I'm frankly just very happy someone else has discovered CREA. Well done!
Republicans for Environmental Protection is the only pro-conservation organization working solely to change the policies of Republican office holders, candidates and parties at the federal and local levels. Conservation, indeed, is a conservative value. Anyone who has read Russell Kirk or the other "fathers" of conservative thought knows that conservation is a bedrock value of conservatives.
Gov. Schwarzenegger and Sen. Snowe won landslide re-election (the common denominator is their pragmatic leadership and willingness to lead on environmental issues). The fact that the hardcore conservative State of Wyoming had the highest percentage of voters switch to Democrats this year (anyone notice the dramatically changing landscape there over the past four years with oil and gas exploration almost unchecked in the last, best place?) coupled with the big wins by the Governator and Sen. Snowe makes a compelling argument that next to the Iraq War, the environment was one of the key issues on voters' minds.
19 of the 28 candidates endorsed by REP won, most easily, in the 2006 mid-terms. The candidates who lost, lost small, and to unusually conservative Democratic candidates.
If you have a strong interest in environmental protection, please consider joining us! http://www.rep.org