BOOKS AND ARTICLES 0N POLITICS
By
JERRY ZEIFMAN
Former Chief Counsel
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House or Representatives
Most Recent Posting 4/2/08
(c) All rights reserved
Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff, Jerry Zeifman:
Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior
By Dan Calabrese
As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing
sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged
in a pattern of lying.
The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary
Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate
investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back
farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old
Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the
investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who
was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair.
When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee
staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three
people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
Why?
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was
an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the
rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of
confidentiality.”
How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it
by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including
Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel
(and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who
engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right
to counsel during the investigation.
Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared
putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be
cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the
goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have
made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s
purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.
The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of
top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill,
that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along
with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on
the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon.
And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal
brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.
The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an
impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief
arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an
impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment
attempt in 1970.
“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House
Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary
Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman
said.
The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus
establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the
documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public
files. So what did Hillary do?
“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was
located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,”
Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was
no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an
impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.
The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would
have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.
Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded,
members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied
the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even
participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.
Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending
Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished
manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a
diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if
anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have
known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary
Rodman would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.
But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical
behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed,
even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who
is still asking us to make her president of the United States.
© 2008 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book By Democratic Chief Counsel Exposes Why
Hillary Clinton Is "Ethically Unfit to Hold Public Office.”
Hillary's Pursuit of Power
Jerry Zeifman, a former counsel to the House Judiciary Committee for 17 years,
takes you to a behind the scenes account of Hillary Clinton, in a book based on
his personal experiences in dealing with her. In 1974, he had supervisory authority
of a staff that included Hillary Rodham – who was then engaged in a variety of self-
serving unethical practices in violation of House rules. In 1998, as consultant to a
member of the Judiciary Committee that impeached President Clinton, he gained
extensive personal insights into the unethical practices of Hillary Clinton in her White
House “West Wing” office.
A lifelong Democrat, Jerry Zeifman has concluded that Hillary Clinton is ethically
unfit to be either a Senator or President – and if she were to become President, the
last vestiges of the traditional moral authority of the party of Roosevelt, Truman and
Johnson will be destroyed.
A Availability of Hillary's Pursuit of Power
Digital Edition $4.90
Autographed Paper Back $14.90 (free shipping)
Or send check or money order to: Marianne Zeifman
32 Walnut Tree Hill Rd, Sandy Hook, CT 06482
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIOR BOOK by Jerry Zeifman
Without Honor: Crimes of Camelot
and Impeachment of President Nixon
collectors item
Out of print hardback first edition $13.00 (free shipping)
Autographed and inscribed to purchaser if requested
Or send check or money order to Marianne Zeifman
32 Walnut Tree Hill Rd., Sandy Hook, CT 06482
REVIEWS
Publishers Weekly: The House Judiciary Committee's recommendation in 1974 that
Nixon be impeached was nearly thwarted by a sham congressional inquiry, according to
this blistering expose. Zeifman was chief counsel to the committee during the
impeachment inquiry… He charges that John Doar, special counsel to the inquiry,
intentionally orchestrated a charade because he feared that a thorough investigation of
the Nixon administration's government-sponsored crimes would let out of the bag
Kennedy- era sanctioned murders carried out in the name of national security… Finally,
Zeifman maintains that Doar aide Hillary Rodham (now the First Lady) helped Doar gain
control over the investigation through unethical tricks and faulty legal opinions
John Dean: The House Judiciary Committee's recommendation in 1974 that Nixon be
impeached was nearly thwarted by a sham congressional inquiry, according to this
blistering expose. Zeifman was chief counsel to the committee during the impeachment
inquiry… He charges that John Doar, special counsel to the inquiry, intentionally
orchestrated a charade because he feared that a thorough investigation of the Nixon
administration's government-sponsored crimes would let out of the bag Kennedy- era
sanctioned murders carried out in the name of national security… Finally, Zeifman
maintains that Doar aide Hillary Rodham (now the First Lady) helped Doar gain control
over the investigation through unethical tricks and faulty legal opinions. Jerry Zeifman..
provides unique, often startling insights into the incomplete impeachment of Richard
Nixon. I found this book to be a real page turner… It provides missing information that
cannot be ignored by students of the period, the Nixon presidency, Watergate, and
Congress.
Saul Bellow (Nobel Laureate) I got a kick out of Without Honor. I liked it a lot. I
sometimes try to imagine myself functioning in the political circles of Washington. I
wouldn't have had the patience to cope with it. They would have had to send me
home in a wheel chair.
Edward Mortimer (Financial Times) The story is utterly fascinating and the
extraordinary quotes from his diary taped at the time surely make it a primary source
of considerable importance.
Henry Hyde (Chairman, House Judiciary Committee) After I started Jerry
Zeifman’s extraordinarily insightful book I could not put it down -- and finished it in
one sitting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some currently relevant
Prior ARTICLES
by Jerry Zeifman
*******************************
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Still Abusing His Guests
Knowing that Kate Michelman, a preeminent abortion rights advocate, supports Barack
Obama, Chris Matthews' below-the-belt verbal assault on her was: "How does it feel to
have abandoned the cause of your life?" The Hardball master then badgered her by
asking how a feminist like her could support someone other than Hillary Clinton.
Ms. Michelman has spoken out well for herself. She has also succeeded in making me a
bit ashamed of myself for not having spoken out sooner of my own following
experiences with Chris Matthews.
In 1995, at the request of my literary agent, Matthews met in private with John Dean and
me to discuss my then recently published book Without Honor: The Crimes of Camelot
and Impeachment of President Nixon, which had previously received the following
review in Publisher's Weekly:
"The House Judiciary Committee's recommendation in 1974 that Nixon be impeached
was nearly thwarted by a sham congressional inquiry, according to this blistering
exposé... Zeifman charges that John Doar, special counsel to the inquiry, intentionally
orchestrated a charade because he feared that a thorough investigation of the Nixon
administration's government-sponsored crimes would let out of the bag Kennedy-era
wiretaps, burglaries and sanctioned murders carried out in the name of national
security...Finally, Zeifman maintains that Doar aide Hillary Rodham (now the First Lady)
helped Doar gain control over the investigation through unethical tricks and faulty legal
opinions."
John Dean had written the introduction to the book, which was based on a private diary
that I kept of closed door Judiciary committee meetings. Although he and I had assumed
that Matthews would discuss my book, he treated me discourteously by engaging in no
discussion with me-and conversing with John Dean only about matters other than my
book.
As I left his office, I reminded him that I had worked with his former boss Tip O'Neill to
oppose Ted Kennedy's efforts to keep Nixon in office and quoted the former Speaker as
follows: "the Kennedys are not real Democrats like you and me. They've got their own
Camelot Party. I was born a Democrat before I was baptized a catholic." Matthews reply
was, "What did he mean by that?"
Matthews is certainly not alone in the mainstream media in continuing to perpetuate the
Camelot myth and idolization of JFK and RFK by never mentioning the "Crimes of
Camelot" documented in my book.
Despite the efforts of my well-paid publicist the only TV interview of me ever given in
Washington related to my book was that by Reed Irvine of Accuracy in media-which
occurred within days after the book appeared in Washington book stores.
In retrospect I now find it amusing that Chris Matthews did not want me as an adversary
on his show. However, I regret that I have not spoken out sooner urging readers to
boycott him-and MSNBC for as long as he is in their employ.
Posted 1/29/2008
ELEANOR ROOSEVELT
DENOUNCES HILLARY
ENDORSES OBAMA
Last night as I dosed off I recalled that Hillary Clinton has told the press that
while in the White House she often “talked with” Eleanor Roosevelt --
whom I had known and worked with in support of John Kennedy in 1960.
Later, Mrs. Roosevelt came to me in a dream -- and I questioned her
regarding the current presidential campaigns. Here’s how the “interview”
went.
JZ: What are the most critical issues in the Presidential primaries -- and for which
Democratic candidate would you vote ?
ER: It seems to me that this may be the most critical campaign since President Lincoln
warned that a “House divided cannot stand” and resolved to use federal troops to
save our Democracy.
Today we are engaged in two wars. One is against Islamic terrorism from abroad. The
other is a culture war at home that was incited in part by Hillary Clinton, who branded
her critics as engaged in “vast right wing conspiracy.” As a result I am
tempted to urge Democrats to vote for “Anyone but Hillary!” If she wins the
nomination I would vote for a conservative Republican. But politics is “the
art of the possible” — and I would urge our party to unite behind Senator
Obama.
JZ: Why Senator Obama?
ER: As you will recall, in 1960 you and I originally campaigned for Adlai
Stevenson, whom we considered the most experienced. But in the end
supported to young Jack Kennedy, who was more charismatic. As
Democratic pollster Peter Hart recently noted, Obama’s supporters say that
as president he “would be inspirational, motivating, charismatic, and
compassionate.” After praising Clinton's experience and intelligence, they
say she “would be demanding, difficult, maybe even a little scary.”
JZ: If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, why would you vote for a
Republican?
ER: “A little scary” is an understatement. I see her as dangerously corrupt. I
agree with columnist Peggy Noonan who wrote: “Mrs. Clinton is the most
dramatically polarizing, the most instinctively distrusted, political figure of
my lifetime. I also agree with liberal journalist William Greider who wrote in
the Nation that, on the surface the Clintons are: "High minded [but]
smarmily duplicitous underneath… They are a slippery pair and come as a
package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for
four years."
JZ: Please elaborate further
ER: As you will recall, during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, former
Watergate prosecutor Henry Ruth, a life long Democrat published an article
in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Clinton Has Corrupted His Party's Soul,"
Ruth wrote;, " Here are the credos for which the party seems to stand
today: (1) Character doesn't count. (2) Lying to a federal judge and a grand
jury is OK, at least in a sexual harassment suit, because everybody does it
and it is a private matter. (3) A CEO may take sexual advantage of a young
employee as long as the employee consents. (4) As with professional
basketball players, so too with presidents: It is unfair to expect them to be
role models. (5) All presidents lie. (6) Presidents may use executive
privilege and the secrecy privilege with government lawyers to defend
themselves against personal wrongdoing.
During that same period New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley – a former Hall of
Fame basketball player -- was so disenchanted with the Clinton presidency
he resigned from the Senate during Clinton’s second term, explaining that
“the system is broken.” He then wrote a memoir asserting that “The
Democratic Party is in danger of losing its moral authority – a danger that
few understand.”
In 2OOO as an advocate of reform of our Clinton-corrupted party Senator
Bradley had run unsuccessfully against former vice president Al Gore in the
Democratic primaries. Today Senator Bradley is campaigning in support of
Barack Obama. Similarly, Senator John Kerry our party’s unsuccessful
candidate for President is also now supporting the nomination of Senator
Obama.
I have compassion for Mrs. Clinton’s personal tribulations, but it seems to
me that her credo is “The truth is precious use it sparingly!” Because of her
lack of ethics and corrupt lust for power I pray that she doesn’t win the
Democratic nomination.
JZ: Can you give specific examples of her lack of ethics?
ER: Yes, a large number of them are described in the book Hillary’s
Pursuit of Power [see www.Jzeifman.com]. As the book documents, most
of the allegations of her misconduct were not the concoctions of what she
defensively characterized as a “vast right wing conspiracy.” Instead her
scandals were first exposed by Democrats. For example, in 1992 when
Hillary and Bill Clinton were campaigning for their “two for the price of one”
presidency, their fraudulent “Whitewater” transactions were first exposed in
the pro-Democratic New York Times by Jeff Gerth an investigative
journalist.
Early in their first term Hillary headed the “Presidential Task Force on Health
Care Reform” that the General Accounting office found cost the government
$13.4 million dollars. It also cost the government $434,000.00 for legal fees in
defending challenges to the secrecy of its proceedings. Since the task force
operated in violation of federal “Sunshine Laws” Mrs. Clinton and others
were fined $285, 864.00. The final plan was 1,324 pages long and was
summarily rejected without debate by the Democratic controlled Congress.
When she unveiled her plan Democratic Senator Pat Moynihan the then
chairman of the Senate subcommittee that had jurisdiction over it, was
adamantly opposed to it. Because her plan allowed the insurance carriers to
manage the practice of medicine and denied patients freedom to choose
their doctors -- he was unwilling even to hold hearings on it. Similarly liberal
Democratic Congressman Pete Stark of San Francisco, chairman of the
House Subcommittee on Health Insurance. also refused to hold hearings on
what the media called “Hillarycare.”
Of all the criticism of Mrs. Clinton’s White House role one of the most
incisive was by New York Times editor Abe Rosenthal -- who over his entire
career had been a bulwark of support for liberal Democratic causes. He
wrote that:
In concept, the First Ladyship… evades anti-nepotism statutes and avoids
the responsibility that should go with authority…the First Ladyship has
become a government center. In lieu of salary it provides the jobholder with
staff, luxury, and that most important of all perks -- power.
On March 4, 1994 an editorial appeared in the pro-Democrat New York Times
entitled “White House Ethics Meltdown,” stating that after the apparent
suicide of Vincent Foster, the deputy counsel:
Chief White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum interfered with the
investigation by the National Park Service and transferred secret files to Mr.
Clinton's private lawyer. All this paints a picture of a White House dedicated
to short-cutting justice if that is what it takes to shield the financial affairs of
Mr. Clinton and his wife from scrutiny.
President Clinton then requested Nussbaum's resignation. Eventually, more
than 30 other top officials of the Clinton administration were investigated,
indicted, convicted or forced to resign. Three associates of Hillary and Bill
Clinton pleaded the 5th amendment privilege against self incrimination --
and others fled the country.
During their 1996 campaign Hillary Clinton, and her White House staff were
used receive campaign money illegally. Her office was frequently visited by
Johnny Chung, a Chinese-American entrepreneur who had known the
Clintons in Arkansas. Chung made a total of $366,000 illegal contributions to
the 1996 Clinton campaign.
On August 22, 1997 in an editorial entitled The White House Turn Stile the
New York Times commented on still other activities that Chung had
disclosed to Tom Brokaw of NBC News:
Mr. Chung said he gave $50,000 to a Hillary Clinton to help pay for a
Christmas reception in the executive mansion. Hillary Rodham Clinton said
she had no recollection of such a meeting.
Finally, before departing the Clintons took moving vans filled with
government property from the White House, including china, antiques, and
other furnishings. Also more than 140 last minute pardons were granted that
were highly questionable. As result the Clinton offended the sensibilities of
some fellow Democrats who finally spoke out.
Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal -- and previously Bill Clinton’s staunchest
defender on NBC’s Capital Gang -- said on February 24, 2001: “They leave
a stain that is bigger than anything in impeachment…I think the damage is
severe. I think it is lasting. It’s on Bill Clinton’s legacy. It’s on Hillary
Clinton, and it may well be on the Democratic Party.”
Jimmy Breslin, New York’s liberal Democratic columnist, had known Hillary
since 1974 when she worked on the Nixon impeachment. On January 31,
2001 he wrote in Newsday: “Bill Clinton was taking arm chairs and coffee
tables as he left the White House…Every time Hillary Clinton passes a bank
the alarm goes off. Her name now and forever more is Senator Shoplift.”
Paul Goldman of the Democratic National Committee published an article in
the Wall Street Journal of February 15, 2001 titled Democrats Must Censure
Clinton, stating “Clinton didn’t just take the White House China, he took its
soul and flushed it down the toilet.”
The eleventh hour pardons were granted in violation of guidelines that had
been in place for decades in the office of the Justice Department and
followed by all past Presidents. One of the last minute pardons involved
Hillary in particular. In 1999 six of the leaders of a Hassidic group in
Rockland County New York had been convicted in for swindling $40 million
in federal funds in the form of fictitious Pell Grants. In her campaign for the
Senate had visited the group and promised to help their leaders.
Two other pardons were granted to Edward and Jo Gregory over the
strenuous objections of the Justice Department. They had been convicted of
bank fraud in 1982. The pardons came in March 2000 during Hillary’s hotly
contested Senate Campaign – to which the Gregory’s made contributions.
The guidelines were also ignored to grant pardons to several felons who had
paid Hillary’s brother Hugh Rodham fees of $4,000 for representing them.
The most notorious pardon was of Marc Rich, a multi-national financier who
was on the FBI’s most wanted list. Rich had ties to Castro in Cuba and
Gaddafi in Libya, had abandoned his American citizen, and fled to
Switzerland to escape arrest here. Rich and his wife Denise then had an
amicable divorce and she began to represent him in the United States.
As was reported in Time Magazine on February 13, 2001: “Marc Rich's
socialite ex-wife has donated an estimated $1 million to Democratic causes,
including $70,000 to Hillary Clinton's successful Senate campaign and
$450,000 to the Clinton presidential library fund. She also lobbied heavily for
Marc's pardon.”
Some of the Clintons’ strongest prior Democratic supporters denounced
the Rich pardon. For example, liberal Massachusetts Congressman Barney
Frank said: “It was a terrible thing he did…It was just abusive. These are
people who forgot where the line was between public service and what was
personally convenient for them.” Democratic Senator Joe Biden of
Delaware said “I think the President had an incredible lapse of memory or
was brain dead.”
One of the most forceful criticisms of the Clintons was by President Carter’s
former Chief of Staff, Hamilton Jordan. On February 21, 2001 Jordon
published an article in the Wall Street Journal titled The First Grifters, stating
that in describing the Clintons:
A word comes to mind: grifters -- a term used in the Great Depression to
describe fast-talking con artists who roamed the countryside, profiting at the
expense of the poor and the uneducated, always one step ahead of the law,
moving on before they were held accountable for their schemes and half-
truths.
JZ: Why is that so such Democrats as Senator Biden, Barney Frank, and
Jimmy Breslin, who previously criticized Mrs. Clinton, are not speaking out
against her candidacy these days?
ER: At that time they did not believe it possible for her to become
president and had no fear of her retaliation. Sadly, today they seem to have
forgotten the maxim that a “For evil to prevail simply requires that enough
good men do nothing.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer on the Presidency
Wall Street Journal 10/29/96
Sadly, as a life-long Democrat and chief counsel of the House Judiciary
Committee at the time of the Nixon impeachment inquiry, cannot in
good conscience vote to re-elect Bill Clinton. Having reached this
decision, I am proud to be among those Democrats who have chosen
principle over party. Defeating Mr. Clinton would help revive the
traditional moral values of the Democratic Party -- as they existed under
Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Carter.
Having long championed traditional Democratic causes, I simply cannot
accept Mr. Clinton's shameless election-year surge to the right as his
chosen means of winning a second term. And like most if not all
traditional Democrats, I have grave reservations about the Clintons'
morality and ethics. In my view there is now probable cause to consider
our president and first lady as felons, who are likely to be indicted after
the Nov. 5 election.
The misdeeds of the Clinton administration have fallen into a pattern of
deceit and corruption that now clearly justifies denying Mr. Clinton a
second term in office. To date more than 30 high administration officials
have been investigated, fired or forced to resign, and the White House
has illegally obtained more than 900 confidential FBI files. Four
independent counsels have been appointed, three to investigate cabinet
members and one to investigate the president himself.
The White House suppressed documents under subpoena. The
Department of Justice, the FBI and the Treasury Department have been
politicized and misused to prosecute or investigate innocent staffers of
the White House Travel Office. The president's Health Care Task Force
operated secretly in gross violation of federal disclosure laws, misled
the federal courts and ignored conflict of interest laws.
The most recent scandal, involving former Commerce Department
official and Democratic Party fund-raiser John Huang (who still has failed
to answer a summons issued by District Judge Royce C. Lamberth), is but
another hauntingly familiar throwback to my days as an investigator of
Watergate crimes and a wide variety of other forms of presidential
misconduct. The 1972 Republican Committee to Re-Elect the President
(CREEP) was involved in many shady operations that mixed legitimate
government funding operations with the illegitimate re-funneling of
money through backdoor corporate contributions into CREEP coffers.
Now it appears that Mr. Huang, and his former associates from the
Indonesian Lippo financial conglomerate, were unlawfully funneling
contributions from foreign sources (that had both corporate and political
interests in U.S. policy) into Democratic Party coffers. This mixing of U.
S. policy with partisan fund-raising -- not to mention the questionable
background of some of the institutions and individuals given top
clearance by the White House and the DNC -- has produced a cancer on
the Clinton presidency painfully reminiscent of the cancer that brought
down Nixon.
I am particularly saddened that the Clintons now believe that their
unethical and unlawful acts in the pursuit of power will be condoned by
all but a few Democrats in the name of party unity. During the Nixon
impeachment inquiry it was my view that the core of Nixon's corruption
was his belief that in politics his ends justified any means at all.
Ironically, it is now the Clinton administration that has given renewed
intensity to the corrupt notion that immoral means can be legitimized in
the pursuit of political ends. If
Mr. Clinton is re-elected it will be testimony to his success in putting
politics before principle.
A second Clinton term would polarize the nation even more dangerously
than did Richard Nixon's -- this time with Republicans as the new
defenders of integrity in government and Democrats as the defenders
of a corrupt administration. If Mr. Clinton is defeated, Democrats may
find a new strength -- and long remember the folly of marching in
lockstep in support of a corrupt president in the name of party unity.
By all accounts Robert Dole is a man of personal integrity. His principles
are conservative, and I will continue to oppose them. Yet because I must
remain true to my traditional Democratic moral values, I will vote for
Mr. Dole.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Kennedy Disgraced Himself
Newsmax 1/30/06
In my view (as a Democrat and former chief counsel to the House
Judiciary Committee), Senator Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., has
disgraced himself and our party by misusing his position on the Senate
Judiciary Committee to achieve self-serving partisan ends.
Kennedy was the architect of an unprecedented tactic: using filibusters
to polarize the Senate along party lines thus denying the confirmation of
qualified conservative judges. In Bush's first term the Senate Democrats
used that tactic successfully against at least 10 nominees for judgeships
on circuit courts.
Fortunately, Kennedy failed in his partisan attempt to deny Judge Alito a
seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.] This occurred largely because
Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska formed a non-partisan
coalition of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to oppose
filibusters, except in extraordinary cases.
Filibusters first arose after the Civil War as a means of defeating
legislation intended to foster desegregation. They were an anathema to
those of us who joined Martin Luther King's famous March on
Washington in 1963.
Fifteen years later during the Clinton administration filibusters were
presumably also abhorrent to Senator Kennedy, who then wanted to
outlaw them entirely. On Jan. 28, 1998, he argued: " The president and
the Senate do not always agree [on judicial nominations]. But we should
resolve these disagreements by voting 'yes' or 'no.'" Three years later
Kennedy put politics above principle and became a champion of the
filibuster. He also threatened to boycott any work of the Senate that
was not essential for national security if a Republican majority was
trying to outlaw filibusters by amending the Senate rules.
Subsequently, in a badgering cross-examination of Judge Alito, Kennedy
tried to portray him as an undercover enemy of equal rights for women
and minorities.
For me, Kennedy's effort to impugn Judge Alito's integrity was
reminiscent of Republican Senator Joe McCarthy, who tarred his victims
with the brush of guilt by association. Kennedy's charge against Alito
was based on the fact that 34 years ago, while a reserve officer in the
Army, he joined a Princeton alumni group that opposed the banning of
ROTC programs from the university's campus. Some members of the
group (other than Alito) wanted Princeton to continue its traditional
policy of denying admission to women.
They also opposed affirmative action programs based on quotas. (Quota-
bases programs were subsequently prohibited by the U.S. Supreme
Court.)
On Jan. 17, Newsmax reported a story that most of the liberal media
ignored: Kennedy had admitted his own membership in the Owl Club,
which does not allow women, and was banned from the Harvard
campus. He had paid dues to the all-male club ever since his student
days. Faced with evidence of his hypocrisy, Kennedy said, "I am going
to get out of it as fast as I can."
Aside from the Senator's association with an all-male club there is other
more substantial evidence of flaws in Kennedy's character: Kennedy had
been expelled from Harvard for paying a friend to take a Spanish exam
for him.
He also has a history of mistreating women. In July 1969, with Mary Jo
Kopechne (his date for the night at a drinking party) beside him in his
car, Kennedy drove off the side of a bridge at Chappaquiddick on
Martha’s Vineyard..When the car began to submerge in water the
Senator escaped. Mary Jo remained in the car and drowned.
At that time Joan Kennedy, the Senator's wife, was pregnant.
Traumatized by the scandal and by her husband's philandering, she had a
miscarriage. She then started to drink her way into alcoholism.
Eventually she went into psychiatric treatment and divorced Kennedy.
To counter the bad reputation he acquired among women because of the
Chappaquiddick scandal and his mistreatment of his wife, the Senator
pandered to pro-choice feminists – causing his pro-life detractor to quip,
"Libertine men always favor abortion."
At the Senate's confirmation hearings Kennedy metaphorically picked up
the pro-abortion gauntlet and hoped to deliver Judge Alito's head on a
political platter to Washington's most radical feminist groups and other
major contributors of campaign money to the Democratic Party.
Finally, anyone interested in the flaws in Kennedy's character should
read "The Senator: My Ten Years With Ted Kennedy," by Richard Burke.
The author describes how he tried to save the Senator from his personal
excesses.
He also provides a behind-the-scenes account of Kennedy's 1980
unsuccessful primary race against then President Jimmy Carter; which
hopelessly polarized the Democratic Party - and helped Ronald Reagan
move into the White House.
During my own career on Capitol Hill I once told House Speaker "Tip"
O'Neill in confidence: "I have a low opinion of Senator Kennedy." He
replied discreetly: "The Kennedys are not real Democrats. They have
their own party."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
Democratic Caucus Should Remove
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Newsmax 4/17/07
On April 6, a Washington Post Editorial aptly described Mrs. Pelosi’s trip
to Demascus as a “pratfall,” – which the dictionary defines as “a fall in
which one lands on the buttocks, often regarded as comical or
humiliating.”
In my view that word was a discrete understatement. As a life-long
Democrat and former congressional chief counsel I regard her conduct
as an unconstitutional abuse of power that warrants her removal by our
Democratic Caucus,
As I previously noted in my article of April 7, she persistently fosters
what Thomas Jefferson denounced as "tyranny by the majority" — and
violates House Rules that give her the duty to maintain order, civility,
and decorum, and to foster "comity" (a word rarely used these days,
meaning "mutual respect"). Her trip to Damascus was more than a
blunder. In denying President Bush’s request as well as purporting
falsely to Speak for Israel it was a usurpation of Presidential power
As a result of her defiance of the president, Democrat Leon Panetta, the
former chief of staff to President Clinton, cautioned in the April 2 New
York Times that if the Democrats "go into total confrontation mode on
other than [domestic issues]… that's a recipe for losing seats in the next
election."
The Wright Precedent
The prior history of Democratic Speaker Jim Wright is now being
repeated by Nancy Pelosi. After Wright became speaker, five South
American presidents had agreed on a peace plan which the Reagan
administration vigorously opposed. Anti-Sandinistas and Contra
hardliners became incensed when they learned that Speaker Wright had
secretly sat in on a meeting between Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega
and Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo the Catholic leader being asked to
mediate the peace.
Then House Minority Leader Newt Gingrich began filing numerous
accusations in the Ethics Committee of malfeasance by Wright. In the
end the House Democratic Caucus determined that Wright had lost his
effectiveness as Speaker and compelled him to resign. They voted to
replace him with Democrat Tom Foley — who restored the traditional
civility and comity that had prevailed under previous Democratic
Speakers.
To date the Democratic Caucus has either been suffering from a loss of
institutional memory or is hopefully keeping its power dry before taking
up the matter of her counter-productive loss of effectiveness as
Speaker.
Also few if any media writers ever refresh the public’s recollection of
the controversy in the Democratic Caucus in 2002 when she first ran for
Minority Leader. Then she was opposed by Rep. Harold Ford Jr, (D
Tenn), a black Southern Democrat who later became a Senator -- and
without her support was recently defeated for re-election by a
Republican. Fiver years ago Ford appeared on the Don Imus show and
described Pelosi as: “destructive,” “obstructionist,” and “not the kind
of leadership we [Democrats] need.”
Last year after becoming Speaker Pelosi supported her closest ally,
Abscam-Scandal-tainted Rep. John Murtha, to be Majority Leader.
However, she was overruled by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D IL) and the
Democratic Caucus which by a large majority voted to appoint Steny
Hoyer, Pelosi’s long time rival.
Mrs. Pelosi, whose San Francisco constituency is far left, currently
claims credit for leading the Democratic Party’s election victories last
year. However the credit really belongs to Emanuel – a former key
member of Chicago Mayor Daley’s staff, whom Bill Clinton hired to be
his Chief of Staff. The truth is that Emanuel had the political acumen to
recruit enough conservative Democrats to defeat Republicans and
control the House.
In my view, the best way for Democrats to try to win control of both
Congress and the White House in 2008 is for Emanuel and the
Democratic Caucus now to follow the Wright precedent of 1989 and
force Pelosi to resign, Then Rahm Emanuel should use his political
acumen to replace her with a more moderate Democrat with a
reputation for civility and comity. This will shift our party’s partisan
policies toward a more centrist position -- and reduce the demagogic
political warfare that is now diminishing the moral authority of both
political parties.
The result will restore the pre-Pelosi Democratic tradition, in which
Democratic partisan policies are determined in the Democratic Caucus
and not in the Speaker’s office -- and our House Speakers are role
models of civility.
What Citizens Can Do About Pelosi
In the case of Wright the Democratic Caucus responded to a wide
spread public outcry against his fierce partisanship that was generated
by the proceedings of the House Ethics Committee that investigated his
political history. Under today’s House Rules such an investigation can be
launched by petitions filed by House Members. In my view,
Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike should contact their
Representatives in Congress and urge them to file such a petition with
the Ethics Committee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Nancy Pelosi Should Resign
Newsmax 4/6/07
Nancy Pelosi has persistently violated her duty to exercise her speaker
powers in accordance with the Constitution and the current "106th
Congress House Rules Manual" (House Document 106-320). In short, she
has fostered what is known as "tyranny by the majority" — and violated
House Rules that give her the duty to maintain order, civility, and
decorum, and to foster "comity" (a word rarely used these days,
meaning "mutual respect").
The "House Rules Manual" includes Jefferson's "Manual of Parliamentary
Procedures," originally drafted by the founder of the Democratic Party
when, as vice president, he presided over the Senate from 1797 to
1801.
In 1837 the House, provided that the provisions of Jefferson's Manual
should "govern the House in all cases to which they are applicable and in
which they are not inconsistent with [subsequently adopted rules]."
Jefferson's manual, which is still in effect, was a codification of 18th
century "common law" and re-affirms that House Rules are "the only
weapons by which the minority can defend itself . . . and by a strict
adherence to which the weaker party can only be protected from those
irregularities and abuses which these forms were intended to check, and
which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large
and successful majorities."
Currently, Pelosi, who is second in line to the president, often describes
herself as a partner in his power — a higher role than the Constitution
grants to the vice president, who is first in the line of secession — and
whose only official duties are confined to presiding over the Senate.
Pelosi Oversteps the Electorate
In closing the recent debate on the $125 billion Emergency Defense
Appropriations bill's provision to bring our troops home from Iraq next
year, Pelosi — purporting to speak for the entire electorate —
proclaimed "The American people have lost faith in the president's
conduct of this war . . . The American people see the reality of the war;
the president does not." Both before and after the debate she has also
often derided him for waging "a war without end."
As Democratic Sen. Patrick Moynihan once noted "Members of Congress
are entitled to their own opinions — but not to their own facts.” Mrs.
Pelosi's false assertion of a national consensus was then belied by a role
call vote of 218 to 213."
The facts are that she presides over a House divided by both the war in
Iraq and a political culture war at home. She obviously wants to win the
domestic political war against the Republicans by setting a deadline for
the Iraq war. Another fact is that when she first became speaker she
pledged to curtail the "earmarking" of appropriation bills with pork. Yet
she encouraged her longtime Democratic ally John Murtha to use his
powers on the Appropriations Committee to load the bill with $24 billion
of earmarked pork. The New York Times of March 24 described it as
"largely aimed at domestic program unrelated to military expenses [and]
was added by Democrats to make the bill more acceptable to
lawmakers."
Similarly, the Senate later approved a similar pork laden measure in a
party line vote of 51 to 47, with Sen. Lieberman the sole Democrat
siding with the Republicans. Despite the fact that, with defense funds
due to expire in May, Pelosi then used her powers to recess until April
29 — which even her liberal supporters in the media have characterized
as an exercise of partisan brinkmanship.
Pelosi's Syrian Mistake
She also denied a request by President Bush (who has primary
constitutional authority over the conduct of foreign policy) that as the
third-highest official of the United State she not make an official visit to
Syria, which our government has officially declared to be a "terrorist
state."
On a high profile televised visit to Syria, she conferred with President
Bashar al-Hassad. She not only purported to speak for the American
people in opposing Bush's policies and the Iraq war, she purported to
have spoken for Israel. As reported in the Jerusalem Post, "[Israel's]
Prime Minister Office issued a rare ‘clarification' Wednesday that, in
gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy
Pelosi's statement in Damascus that she had brought a message from
Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks."
As a result of her defiance of the president and persistent confrontation
of his foreign policies, Democrat Leon Panetta, the former chief of staff
to President Clinton, was quoted in the April 2 New York Times as
cautioning that if the Democrats "go into total confrontation mode on
other than [domestic issues] where they just pass bills and the president
vetoes them, that's a recipe for losing seats in the next election."
Ironically, history is now repeating itself. Our first woman Speaker
Pelosi may well deserve to become the second Democratic speaker to be
compelled to resign from Congress.
The prior history of Democratic Speaker Jim Wright is now being
repeated by Nancy Pelosi — perhaps by a loss of memory of the House
Democratic caucus, which forced Wright to resign. After Wright became
speaker five South American presidents had agreed on a peace plan
which the Reagan administration vigorously opposed.
Anti-Sandinistas and Contra hardliners became incensed when they
learned that Speaker Wright had secretly sat in on a meeting between
Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo
the Catholic leader being asked to mediate the peace. The Washington
Post wrote "[Wright's] approach marks a dramatic shift in the running of
the House and in the role of the House speaker as Washington's No. 1
Democrat."
The Wrong Way for Wright
As described 10 years later by Wright's own chief of staff: "[Then]
Republican Minority Whip Trent Lott described Wright's participation in
foreign affairs as "The most arrogant abuse of power I've ever seen . . .
Dick Cheney of Illinois, [then] chairman of the Republican Policy
Committee, got so mad at Jim Wright that he began to wax nostalgic
about the warmth and affection for the previous speaker, Tip O'Neill.
‘There are no such feelings for Jim Wright,' he observed." Then-House
Minority Leader Newt Gingrich began filing numerous accusations of
malfeasance by the speaker in the House Ethics Committee.
In the end Jim Wright resigned.
With the unanimous endorsement of the Democratic caucus the House
then voted to replace him with Democrat Tom Foley — who restored
the traditional civility and comity that had prevailed under Democratic
Speakers Sam Rayburn, John McCormack, Carl Albert and "Tip" O'Neill.
Currently, with public respect for professional politicians at an all time
low, and the financing of presidential campaigns at an all time high, the
moral authority of both the Democratic Party and the GOP is diminishing.
In my view, the longer Nancy Pelosi remains our party's leading
spokesperson the more her penchant for political warfare and non-
compliance with Jefferson's "Manual" will enhance the chances of
Republican control of Congress and/or the White House in 2008.
She will serve our party and the nation best by resigning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
Hillary Clinton Puts Politics Above Principles
For Thirty Years
Newsmax: 10/26/07
If Hillary becomes our first woman President she will have the dubious
distinction of having successfully thwarted the efforts of Senator
Obama to become our first Black -- and Governor Richardson our first
Hispanic -- President. Her victory would also be the culmination of a
political career which she began in 1969 at Wellesley -- when she won
prominence in Life Magazine for her controversial condemnation of our
first Black Senator, Ed Brooke, a liberal Massachusetts Republican.
In high school Hillary had been a Republican “Goldwater Girl” and at
Wellesley she soon became President of the college Republican club that
supported Nixon. However, when Nixon fell into disrepute Hillary
eventually joined the then popular “New Left” wing of the Democratic
Party.
At that time Senator Brooke had become an anathema to far left Black
Panthers and Black Muslims. Because of his prior military service and
membership in the Republican Party – despite his opposition to Nixon’s
escalation of Vietnam War – they maligned him as a “Right Wing Uncle
Tom”
In 1969 Senator Brooke was invited to receive an honorary degree and
give a commencement address at Wellesley. “New left” student
protesters persuaded the school’s president to allow Hillary to be the
first student in the schools history to give a commencement address in
rebuttal to that of another speaker.
In her speech Hillary assailed Brooke.
She suggested that the “words integrity, trust, and respect” were
misused if applied to him. To explain to her fellow students why she
had abandoned the Republican Party she added, “There's a very strange
conservative strain that goes through a lot of New Left, collegiate
protests that I find very intriguing because it harkens back to a lot of
the old virtues, to the fulfillment of original ideas. And it's also a very
unique American experience.”
In my recent book Hillary’s Pursuit of Power I have documented her
ethical flaws since 1974 – when she served under my supervision on the
staff of House Judiciary Committee. At that time, she became allied
with the far left wing of our party, which opposed the confirmation of
Gerald Ford to be vice president. For self serving partisan purposes they
vilified Nixon publicly – but wanted us to keep him in office “twisting in
the wind” for as long as possible.
In my view, throughout her entire career Hillary has put politics above
principle -- and is ethically unfit to hold office.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Ford's Forgotten Legacy
Newsmax 12/29/06
When the confirmation of Jerry Ford to be vice president was pending in
the House Judiciary Committee I, as a Democrat, was in charge of an
investigation that found him highly qualified.
I now continue to have the highest regard for his willingness to put
principle above partisan politics.
Sadly, his legacies are now being maligned by The New York Times.
In its Dec. 28 editorial, the Times assailed him for the pardon of Richard
Nixon. It also denigrated his prior role as a Republican minority leader by
describing him this way: "In essence a creature of Congress — more
precisely, of the House of Representatives, a place of perpetual
compromise that encourages neither the vision that sometimes attaches
to the Senate nor the managerial skills [of] a governor."
The New York Times and the current left wing of our Democratic Party
now give Ford no credit for a meeting he held in the Oval Office with
Times reporter James Reston and other prominent journalists.
At that time he disclosed that the CIA and Defense Department had
jointly sponsored political assassinations on a broad scale under
presidents Kennedy and Nixon.
Prominent Democrats such as Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary
Clinton, and Harry Reid — like the editors of The New York Times, the
media in general, and even many Republicans — would have us forget
that John and Robert Kennedy were responsible for the assassinations of
President Lumumba in the Congo, President Ngo Dinh Diem in Vietnam,
and Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republican.
In revising history, they would also have the present generation of
Americans not know that with the aid of Mafia leader Sam Giancana, the
Kennedys sponsored numerous attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. In
my view, the current ignorance of most Americans of an assassination
program named "Operation Phoenix" — that went into operation during
the Nixon administration — also reflects poorly on the media.
Under that program, political assassinations of South Vietnamese civilians
were carried out on a broad scale. In my view, the fact that the Phoenix
program has not been widely reported is largely due to the collaboration
of most of the main media with the CIA — that has long been a major
source of leaks of scandals in other agencies.
In the 197Os, CIA Director William Colby himself admitted before the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the program, which was
administered jointly with the Defense Department, killed more than
20,000 suspected civilian communists. Later investigative journalists
reported that Colby's figures had understated the assassinations. For
more on this, read "The Agency: The Rise and Decline of the CIA," by
John Ranelagh (1986).
From 1965 through 1968 the program summarily executed about 600
civilians per month. Of these most were tortured prior to execution.
From 1968 through 1971, more than 40,000 were reportedly killed by
the program.
When it was first publicly exposed, the intelligence journal Counterspy
described the Phoenix Program as "the most indiscriminate and massive
program of political murder since the Nazi death camps of World War II."
To his credit, President Ford not only issued an executive order
outlawing political assassinations, he took positive steps to reform both
the CIA and the Defense Department. He fired William Colby and
replaced him with George Bush senior. He likewise fired Nixon's
secretary of Defense, James Schlesinger, and replaced him with Donald
Rumsfeld. He also appointed Dick Cheney as his chief of staff.
Now maligned by The New York Times as lacking managerial skills and
vision, the Ford administration was scandal free. In my view he was the
most nonpartisan and ethical president in my life time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
HILLARY'S WATERGATE SCANDAL
New York Post
In December 1974, as general counsel and chief of staff of the House
Judiciary Committee, I made a personal evaluation of Hillary Rodham
(now Senator Clinton), a member of the staff we had gathered for our
impeachment inquiry on President Richard Nixon. I decided that I could
not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust.
Why? Hillary's main duty on our staff has been described by as
"establishing the legal procedures to be followed in the course of the
inquiry and impeachment." A number of the procedures she
recommended were ethically flawed. And I also concluded that she had
violated House and committee rules by disclosing confidential
information to unauthorized persons.
Hillary had conferred personally with me regarding procedural rules. I
advised her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House
Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader Tip O'Neill and I had previously
agreed not to advocate anything contrary to the rules already adopted
and published for that Congress. I quoted Mr. O'Neill's statement that:
"To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be
like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World
Series."
Hillary assured me that she had not drafted and would not advocate any
such rules changes. I soon learned that she had lied: She had already
drafted changes, and continued to advocate them.
In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President
Nixon representation by counsel. She had done this despite the fact that
--in our then-most-recent prior impeachment proceeding -- the
committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice
William O. Douglas.
I also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were
available for public inspection in our offices. I later learned that the
Douglas files were then removed from our general files without my
permission, transferred to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff,
and were no longer accessible to the public.
The young Ms. Rodham had other bad advice about procedures, arguing
that the Judiciary Committee should neither (1) hold any hearings with or
take the depositions of any live witnesses, nor 2) conduct any original
investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible
impeachable offense of President Nixon - but to rely instead on prior
investigations conducted by other committees and agencies.
The committee rejected Ms. Rodham's recommendations: It agreed to
allow President Nixon to be represented by counsel and to hold hearings
with live witnesses. Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the
House be amended to deny members of the committee the right to
question witnesses. This unfair recommendation was rejected by the full
House. (The committee also vetoed her suggestion that it leave the
drafting of the articles of impeachment to her and her fellow special
staffers.)
The recommendations advocated by Hillary were apparently initiated or
approved by Yale Law School professor Burke Marshall - in violation of
committee and House rules on confidentiality. They were also
advocated by her immediate supervisors, Special Counsel John Doar and
Senior Associate Special Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, both of whom had
worked under Marshall in the Kennedy Justice Department.
It was not until two months after Nixon's resignation that I first learned
of still another questionable role of Ms. Rodham. On Sept. 26, 1974,
Rep. Charles Wiggins, a Republican member of the committee, wrote to
ask Chairman Rodino to look into a troubling set of events.
That spring, Wiggins and other committee members had asked "that
research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which
to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon." And, while "no
such staff study was made available to the members at any time for
their use," Wiggins had just learned that such a study had been
conducted - at committee expense - by a team of professors who
completed and filed their reports with the impeachment-inquiry staff
well in advance of our public hearings.
The report was not made available to members of Congress. But after
the impeachment-inquiry staff was disbanded, it was published
commercially and sold in book stores. Wiggins wrote that he was
"especially troubled by the possibility that information deemed essential
by some of the members in their discharge of their responsibilities may
have been intentionally suppressed by the staff during the course our
investigation."
On Oct. 3, Rodino wrote back: "Hillary Rodham of the impeachment-
inquiry staff coordinated the work. ... After the staff received the
report it was reviewed by Ms. Rodham, briefly by Mr. Labovitz and Mr.
Sack, and by Mr. Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was
useful in its present form." On the charge of willful suppression, he
wrote: "That was not the case ... The staff did not think the material
was usable by the committee in its existing form and had not had time
to modify it so it would have practical utility for the members of the
committee. I was informed and agreed with the judgment."
During my 17 year tenure with the House Judiciary Committee, I had
supervisory authority over several hundred staff members. The only
attorneys whom I cannot recommend for future positions of public and
private trust are Hillary Rodham, John Doar, and Bernard Nussbaum
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
History Repeats Itself
GOP Sustains Lieberman's Lead
Newsmax 11/16/06
According to the latest polls, Senator Joe Lieberman - a longtime
Democrat turned independent candidate - is now leading the anti-
Iraq war candidate, and winner of the Democratic primary, Ned
Lamont by 48 to 40 percent.
With 60 percent of those polled opposed to the war, the
Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger is getting only 4 percent.
Ironically, Lieberman - the Democratic Party's candidate for Vice
President in 2000 – now owes his lead to overwhelming
Republican support.
As a Connecticut veteran of World War II and a life-long
Democrat, I wholeheartedly support Lieberman. I recall that in
1940 during the Battle of Britain, the "America First" movement
assailed President Roosevelt for lending American destroyers to
Britain. Sadly, the most wealthy and powerful Roosevelt basher
was a Democrat, former Ambassador to Britain, Joseph Kennedy.
Prior to that Kennedy had been sacked by FDR for publicly
predicting that Hitler would conquer Britain.
With the Democratic Party polarized, the Republican Party's
candidate for President was Wendell Wilkie. Insisting that
"politics ends at the water's edge," Wilkie supported Roosevelt's
military aid to Britain – and lost the election. It was not until
after the attack on Pearl Harbor that Roosevelt - with the aid of
Wilkie Republicans – was able to lead a unified nation into World
War II.
Today, we are engaged in a war against totalitarian fanatics who
believe that they will go to heaven if they commit suicide
murdering civilians – a fanaticism that exceeds that of Nazi and
Fascist soldiers. Yet unlike Wendell Wilkie and the Republicans
of World War II, our current Democratic Party leaders engage in
fierce partisan politics that extends far beyond the water's edge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 | |  |
