2010 Year of the Bible by Paul Broun AP/Photo
Happy New Year of The Bible 2010 by Paul Broun
On our countdown to a new year in 2010, Paul Broun (R-Ga.) wants everyone to ring in the “Year of the Bible”. He wants to pass legislation to honor the good book. Opposition is strong in the Democratic party, but whats the big deal? We’re already burning them suckers in Afghanistan. I wrote a post about it, and got negative feedback from every dem, saying I’m a GOP’r in disguise. In fact, I’m just a student pointing out similarities between different governments past and present. That isn’t choosing sides at all. When people see a political blog, they are automatically trying to figure out what party I am affiliated with. None. Well, whoever decides to pay me the most. Just kidding(That’s illegal for all you kids out there, no selling votes.) Sorry for ranting but I’ve been enraged at some of my readers that just don’t get the whole picture. Someone said I’m a Christian that hates America. No, I’m a Christian that loves America; the thought of America more like it. It used to stand for something, and all I see and read is how far it has gone from what our forefathers set forth to achieve. I am not ashamed of being an American. Our differences are what makes this country unique. I say instead of the “Year of the Bible”, we just go with the Chinese astrology and name it after an animal. Or we can ring in the New Year as a world united. All across Washington people are joking about what year its going to be after that. Year of the encyclopedia? Quran? Las Vegas escort Pamphlets? Whatever the year, I’ll be ringing it in with a smile, knowing I’m in a country that spends too much time on a stupid idea. Hey Paul Broun, think of a way to get your ass back to work on important things.
Ten concerned citizens met on February 8 in Henderson, NV, to discuss the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, better known to many as the stimulus plan. They are incensed that Republicans in the Senate have, yet again, hijacked democracy and derailed not only our best chance at getting this country back on the fast track to recovery but quite possibly our only chance of survival in today’s rapidly (rabidly) declining economic conditions, apparently oblivious to what led to their demise in the recent election.
Poll results obviously have not changed our landscape, but the same rumble that rocked this country to its new leader is fueling the small groups gathering in dining rooms and living rooms in every state, to talk about how to light flickering fires and fan bigger ones. Ten people around a table watching a governor answer questions may not seem like much, but those ten people brainstormed ideas to push this stimulus through. The idea that ultimately saves our nation could come from a similar meeting.
The more important outcome is what happens with the ten people at this meeting: Each has committed to bringing more friends to the next meeting and growing a larger coalition of like-minded people devoted to healing our nation’s ills. They will strive to rebuild a sense of community that works together to link elbows to take on the forces of resistance that persist in blocking any and all proactive measures to correct the destructive legacy of the previous administration.
Another goal is to present to the Obama Administration, through the Organizing for America arm, a set of suggestions put together by the group that they believe will be instrumental in various aspects of what is happening at a particular juncture. Right now, of course, the primary focus is on getting the stimulus passed, helping more Americans understand its importance, and ensuring its transparency when it does pass.
The Las Vegas area has been hit particularly hard by foreclosures, unemployment, and – contrary to what Senator Ensign would have the country believe – dramatic state budget shortfalls ($2 billion) that will decimate our education system, state services like firefighting and peacekeeping, social services, unemployment, etc., at a time when the need for these services is at a pinnacle. Everyone in the state has a personal stake in this stimulus. If someone is not already personally affected by the economy, they likely will be in the very near term. Every homeowner has been affected by loss of equity, whether they plan to sell or not. Every renter is at risk of eviction without notice, because laws do not protect tenants if landlords are foreclosed. There is no notification process or requirement. Every worker is at risk of job loss, with the remote exception of the military (and even they are not exempt as the 1992 reduction in forces proved to the author of this piece). State employees are facing a forced salary reduction if our governor’s plan is passed.
There were thousands of meetings around this great country of ours similar to this one. The Henderson group is dynamic and diverse. They are serious and focused. Most of them have been politically astute for many years; however, they would like for others to become more involved in their communities and more politically active to effect the type of change that is needed in today’s climate. Just as it took a storm to elect this president, it will take a tsunami to bring about the type of change he promised and this country so desperately needs. The storm has subsided. The tsunami is building strength: it started with ten (times thousands); those ten will bring twenty more. Then those twenty will gather their forty. You don't have to know us to join our group. Please watch for future house parties to be posted on my.barackobama.com and be sure to RSVP on the website.
Now the only problem I forsee with this law is that banks may end up dictating home prices. That's a big maybe.. I think the reason they require 20% or 10% down is just in case you pay to much for a home. So if you put 20% down and the home is worth 20% less well, the bank wouldn't take that loss. That would be on you. But if it goes beyond the 20%, then the law would state the bank would be required to write down the principle of the loan to the home value minus the 20%. This is only fair that the bank would do this. After all you've already lost everything you put down. You took that much risk. The bank should take the rest.
If anyone has any thoughts or ideas for or against proposed law, please add it to this blog.
I started this blog because I bought a home a few years ago in Las Vegas, when the market was hot and now I've lost so much money on my home I can't even sell it if I want to. If I did I'd probably end up with a net loss of over $100,000. It was my first home. I put nothing down, with a 5 year arm. I have good credit, and so far have not missed any payments. However because the economy in Vegas is getting worse, I'm not sure how much longer I can afford to stay in this home. And since it's not appreciating and doesn't look like the value will be coming back anytime soon, it's looking more and more like a lost cause. I know there are many others in Las Vegas that are in the same situation that I am in, so this blog will be a good place to express your anger toward the banking system and government. I believe they both share in the majority of the blame for the foreclosures. I hear talk that the Govt. is working on it and Obama is planning on doing something, but not much action or specifics as of yet. I'm not sure the government really does have a plan. At least doesn't seem like they have any real good ideas yet. So I started this blog so Americans can post their thoughts themselves and discuss some possible solutions. The foreclosure crisis is the root of all our economic problems and what triggered the recession, so we will not only be solving the foreclosure crisis, but also saving the entire country from meltdown.
In Las Vegas doing voter protection. The polls are open for early voting and people are streaming in. The poll workers are amazing, treating every voter like a golden egg, making sure they're able to vote; resolving problems with registration by calling the registrar of voters for any problem that they cannot resolve on the ground. Makes you proud of our little "d" democracy. If you're a lawyer like me willing to devote a weekend or even just one day to voter protection, come on out.
Senator John McCain was on a roll. In a room reserved for high-stakes gamblers at the Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut, he tossed $100 chips around a hot craps table. When the marathon session ended around 2:30 a.m., the Arizona senator and his entourage emerged with thousands of dollars in winnings.
A lifelong gambler, Mr. McCain takes risks, both on and off the craps table. He was throwing dice that night not long after his failed 2000 presidential bid, in which he was skewered by the Republican Party’s evangelical base, opponents of gambling. Mr. McCain was betting at a casino he oversaw as a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and he was doing so with the lobbyist who represents that casino, according to three associates of Mr. McCain.
The visit had been arranged by the lobbyist, Scott Reed, who works for the Mashantucket Pequot, a tribe that has contributed heavily to Mr. McCain’s campaigns and built Foxwoods into the world’s second-largest casino. Joining them was Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s current campaign manager. Their night of good fortune epitomized not just Mr. McCain’s affection for gambling, but also the close relationship he has built with the gambling industry and its lobbyists during his 25-year career in Congress.
As a two-time chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. McCain has done more than any other member of Congress to shape the laws governing America’s casinos, helping to transform the once-sleepy Indian gambling business into a $26-billion-a-year behemoth with 423 casinos across the country. He has won praise as a champion of economic development and self-governance on reservations.
“One of the founding fathers of Indian gaming” is what Steven Light, a University of North Dakota professor and a leading Indian gambling expert, called Mr. McCain.
As factions of the ferociously competitive gambling industry have vied for an edge, they have found it advantageous to cultivate a relationship with Mr. McCain or hire someone who has one, according to an examination based on more than 70 interviews and thousands of pages of documents.
Mr. McCain portrays himself as a Washington maverick unswayed by special interests, referring recently to lobbyists as “birds of prey.” Yet in his current campaign, more than 40 fund-raisers and top advisers have lobbied or worked for an array of gambling interests — including tribal and Las Vegas casinos, lottery companies and online poker purveyors.
When rules being considered by Congress threatened a California tribe’s planned casino in 2005, Mr. McCain helped spare the tribe. Its lobbyist, who had no prior experience in the gambling industry, had a nearly 20-year friendship with Mr. McCain.
In Connecticut that year, when a tribe was looking to open the state’s third casino, staff members on the Indian Affairs Committee provided guidance to lobbyists representing those fighting the casino, e-mail messages and interviews show. The proposed casino, which would have cut into the Pequots’ market share, was opposed by Mr. McCain’s colleagues in Connecticut.
Mr. McCain declined to be interviewed. In written answers to questions, his campaign staff said he was “justifiably proud” of his record on regulating Indian gambling. “Senator McCain has taken positions on policy issues because he believed they are in the public interest,” the campaign said.
Mr. McCain’s spokesman, Tucker Bounds, would not discuss the senator’s night of gambling at Foxwoods, saying: “Your paper has repeatedly attempted to insinuate impropriety on the part of Senator McCain where none exists — and it reveals that your publication is desperately willing to gamble away what little credibility it still has.”
Over his career, Mr. McCain has taken on special interests, like big tobacco, and angered the capital’s powerbrokers by promoting campaign finance reform and pushing to limit gifts that lobbyists can shower on lawmakers. On occasion, he has crossed the gambling industry on issues like regulating slot machines.
Perhaps no episode burnished Mr. McCain’s image as a reformer more than his stewardship three years ago of the Congressional investigation into Jack Abramoff, the disgraced Republican Indian gambling lobbyist who became a national symbol of the pay-to-play culture in Washington. The senator’s leadership during the scandal set the stage for the most sweeping overhaul of lobbying laws since Watergate.
“I’ve fought lobbyists who stole from Indian tribes,” the senator said in his speech accepting the Republican presidential nomination this month.
But interviews and records show that lobbyists and political operatives in Mr. McCain’s inner circle played a behind-the-scenes role in bringing Mr. Abramoff’s misdeeds to Mr. McCain’s attention — and then cashed in on the resulting investigation. The senator’s longtime chief political strategist, for example, was paid $100,000 over four months as a consultant to one tribe caught up in the inquiry, records show.
Mr. McCain’s campaign said the senator acted solely to protect American Indians, even though the inquiry posed “grave risk to his political interests.”
As public opposition to tribal casinos has grown in recent years, Mr. McCain has distanced himself from Indian gambling, Congressional and American Indian officials said.
But he has rarely wavered in his loyalty to Las Vegas, where he counts casino executives among his close friends and most prolific fund-raisers. “Beyond just his support for gaming, Nevada supports John McCain because he’s one of us, a Westerner at heart,” said Sig Rogich, a Nevada Republican kingmaker who raised nearly $2 million for Mr. McCain at an event at his home in June.
Only six members of Congress have received more money from the gambling industry than Mr. McCain, and five hail from the casino hubs of Nevada and New Jersey, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics dating back to 1989. In the presidential race, Senator Barack Obama has also received money from the industry; Mr. McCain has raised almost twice as much.
In May 2007, as Mr. McCain’s presidential bid was floundering, he spent a weekend at the MGM Grand on the Las Vegas strip. A fund-raiser hosted by J. Terrence Lanni, the casino’s top executive and a longtime friend of the senator, raised $400,000 for his campaign. Afterward, Mr. McCain attended a boxing match and hit the craps tables.
For much of his adult life, Mr. McCain has gambled as often as once a month, friends and associates said, traveling to Las Vegas for weekend betting marathons. Former senior campaign officials said they worried about Mr. McCain’s patronage of casinos, given the power he wields over the industry. The officials, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity.
“We were always concerned about appearances,” one former official said. “If you go around saying that appearances matter, then they matter.”
The former official said he would tell Mr. McCain: “Do we really have to go to a casino? I don’t think it’s a good idea. The base doesn’t like it. It doesn’t look good. And good things don’t happen in casinos at midnight.”
“You worry too much,” Mr. McCain would respond, the official said.
A Record of Support
In one of their last conversations, Representative Morris K. Udall, Arizona’s powerful Democrat, whose devotion to American Indian causes was legendary, implored his friend Mr. McCain to carry on his legacy.
“Don’t forget the Indians,” Mr. Udall, who died in 1998, told Mr. McCain in a directive that the senator has recounted to others.
More than a decade earlier, Mr. Udall had persuaded Mr. McCain to join the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. Mr. McCain, whose home state has the third-highest Indian population, eloquently decried the “grinding poverty” that gripped many reservations.
The two men helped write the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 after the Supreme Court found that states had virtually no right to control wagering on reservations. The legislation provided a framework for the oversight and growth of Indian casinos: In 1988, Indian gambling represented less than 1 percent of the nation’s gambling revenues; today it captures more than one third.
On the Senate floor after the bill’s passage, Mr. McCain said he personally opposed Indian gambling, but when impoverished communities “are faced with only one option for economic development, and that is to set up gambling on their reservations, then I cannot disapprove.”
In 1994, Mr. McCain pushed an amendment that enabled dozens of additional tribes to win federal recognition and open casinos. And in 1998, Mr. McCain fought a Senate effort to rein in the boom.
He also voted twice in the last decade to give casinos tax breaks estimated to cost the government more than $326 million over a dozen years.
The first tax break benefited the industry in Las Vegas, one of a number of ways Mr. McCain has helped nontribal casinos. Mr. Lanni, the MGM Mirage chief executive, said that an unsuccessful bid by the senator to ban wagering on college sports in Nevada was the only time he could recall Mr. McCain opposing Las Vegas. “I can’t think of any other issue,” Mr. Lanni said.
The second tax break helped tribal casinos like Foxwoods and was pushed by Scott Reed, the Pequots’ lobbyist.
Mr. McCain had gotten to know Mr. Reed during Senator Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign, which Mr. Reed managed. Four years later, when Mr. McCain ran for president, Mr. Reed recommended he hire his close friend and protégé, Rick Davis, to manage that campaign.
During his 2000 primary race against George W. Bush, Mr. McCain promoted his record of helping Indian Country, telling reporters on a campaign swing that he had provided critical support to “the Pequot, now the proud owners of the largest casino in the world.”
But Mr. McCain’s record on Indian gambling was fast becoming a difficult issue for him in the primary. Bush supporters like Gov. John Engler of Michigan lambasted Mr. McCain for his “close ties to Indian gambling.”
A decade after Mr. McCain co-authored the Indian gambling act, the political tides had turned. Tribal casinos, which were growing at a blazing pace, had become increasingly unpopular around the country for reasons as varied as morality and traffic.
Then came the biggest lobbying scandal to shake Washington.
Behind an Inquiry
At a September 2004 hearing of the Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. McCain described Jack Abramoff as one of the most brazen in a long line of crooks to cheat American Indians. “It began with the sale of Manhattan, and has continued ever since,” he said. “What sets this tale apart, what makes it truly extraordinary, is the extent and degree of the apparent exploitation and deceit.”
Over the next two years, Mr. McCain helped uncover a breathtaking lobbying scandal — Mr. Abramoff and a partner bilked six tribes of $66 million — that showcased the senator’s willingness to risk the wrath of his own party to expose wrongdoing. But interviews and documents show that Mr. McCain and a circle of allies — lobbyists, lawyers and senior strategists — also seized on the case for its opportunities.
For McCain-connected lobbyists who were rivals of Mr. Abramoff, the scandal presented a chance to crush a competitor. For senior McCain advisers, the inquiry allowed them to collect fees from the very Indians that Mr. Abramoff had ripped off. And the investigation enabled Mr. McCain to confront political enemies who helped defeat him in his 2000 presidential run while polishing his maverick image.
The Abramoff saga started in early 2003 when members of two tribes began questioning Mr. Abramoff’s astronomical fees. Over the next year, they leaked information to local newspapers, but it took the hiring of lobbyists who were competitors of Mr. Abramoff to get the attention of Mr. McCain’s committee.
Bernie Sprague, who led the effort by one of the tribes, the Saginaw Chippewas in Michigan, hired a Democratic lobbyist who recommended that the tribe retain Scott Reed, the Republican lobbyist, to push for an investigation.
Mr. Reed had boasted to other lobbyists of his access to Mr. McCain, three close associates said. Mr. Reed “pretty much had open access to John from 2000 to at least the end of 2006,” one aide said.
Lobbyist disclosure forms show that Mr. Reed went to work for the Saginaw Chippewa on Feb. 15, 2004, charging the tribe $56,000 over a year. Mr. Abramoff had tried to steal the Pequots and another tribal client from Mr. Reed, and taking down Mr. Abramoff would eliminate a competitor.
Mr. Reed became the chief conduit to Mr. McCain’s committee for billing documents and other information Mr. Sprague was digging up on Mr. Abramoff, Mr. Sprague said, who said Mr. Reed “did a great to service to me.”
“He had contacts I did not,” Mr. Sprague said. “Initially, I think that the senator’s office was doing Reed a favor by listening to me.”
A few weeks after hiring Mr. Reed, Mr. Sprague received a letter from the senator. “We have met with Scott Reed, who was very helpful on the issue,” Mr. McCain wrote.
Information about Mr. Abramoff was also flowing to Mr. McCain’s committee from another tribe, the Coushatta of Louisiana. The source was a consultant named Roy Fletcher, who had been Mr. McCain’s deputy campaign manager in 2000, running his war room in South Carolina.
It was in that primary race that two of Mr. Abramoff’s closest associates, Grover Norquist, who runs the nonprofit Americans for Tax Reform, and Ralph Reed, the former director of the Christian Coalition, ran a blistering campaign questioning Mr. McCain’s conservative credentials. The senator and his advisers blamed that attack for Mr. McCain’s loss to Mr. Bush in South Carolina, creating tensions that would resurface in the Abramoff matter.
“I was interested in busting” Mr. Abramoff, said Mr. Fletcher, who was eventually hired to represent the tribe. “That was my job. But I was also filled with righteous indignation, I got to tell you.”
Mr. Fletcher said he began passing information to John Weaver, Mr. McCain’s chief political strategist, and other staff members in late 2003 or January 2004. Mr. Weaver confirmed the timing.
Mr. McCain announced his investigation on Feb. 26, 2004, citing an article on Mr. Abramoff in The Washington Post. He did not mention the action by lobbyists and tribes in the preceding weeks. His campaign said no one in his “innermost circle” brought information to Mr. McCain that prompted the investigation.
The senator declared he would not investigate members of Congress, whom Mr. Abramoff had lavished with tribal donations and golf outings to Scotland. But in the course of the investigation, the committee exposed Mr. Abramoff’s dealings with the two men who had helped defeat Mr. McCain in the 2000 primary.
The investigation showed that Mr. Norquist’s foundation was used by Mr. Abramoff to launder lobbying fees from tribes. Ralph Reed was found to have accepted $4 million to run bogus antigambling campaigns. And the investigation also highlighted Mr. Abramoff’s efforts to curry favor with the House majority leader at the time, Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, a longtime political foe who had opposed many of Mr. McCain’s legislative priorities.
Mr. McCain’s campaign said the senator did not “single out” Ralph Reed or Mr. Norquist, neither of whom were ever charged, and that both men fell within the “scope of the investigation.” The inquiry, which led to guilty pleas by over a dozen individuals, was motivated by a desire to help aggrieved tribes, the campaign said.
Inside the investigation, the sense of schadenfreude was palpable, according to several people close to the senator. “It was like hitting pay dirt,” said one associate of Mr. McCain’s who had consulted with the senator’s office on the investigation. “And face it — McCain and Weaver were maniacal about Ralph Reed and Norquist. They were sticking little pins in dolls because those guys had cost him South Carolina.”
Down on the Coushattas reservation, bills related to the investigation kept coming. After firing Mr. Abramoff, the tribe hired Kent Hance, a lawyer and former Texas congressman who said he had been friends with Mr. McCain since the 1980s.
David Sickey, the tribe’s vice chairman, said he was “dumbfounded” over the bills submitted by Mr. Hance’s firm, Hance Scarborough, which had been hired by Mr. Sickey’s predecessors.
“The very thing we were fighting seemed to be happening all over again — these absurd amounts of money being paid,” Mr. Sickey said.
Mr. Hance’s firm billed the tribe nearly $1.3 million over 11 months in legal and political consulting fees, records show. But Mr. Sickey said that the billing statements offered only vague explanations for services and that he could not point to any tangible results. Two consultants, for instance, were paid to fight the expansion of gambling in Texas — even though it was unlikely given that the governor there opposed any such prospect, Mr. Sickey said.
Mr. Hance and Jay B. Stewart, the firm’s managing partner, defended their team’s work, saying they successfully steered the tribe through a difficult period. “We did an outstanding job for them,” Mr. Hance said. “When we told them our bill was going to be $100,000 a month, they thought we were cheap. Mr. Abramoff had charged them $1 million a month.”
The firm’s fees covered the services of Mr. Fletcher, who served as the tribe’s spokesman. Records also show that Mr. Hance had Mr. Weaver — who was serving as Mr. McCain’s chief strategist — put on the tribe’s payroll from February to May 2005.
It is not precisely clear what role Mr. Weaver played for his $100,000 fee.
Mr. Stewart said Mr. Weaver was hired because “he had a lot of experience with the Senate, especially the new chairman, John McCain.” The Hance firm told the tribe in a letter that Mr. Weaver was hired to provide “representation for the tribe before the U.S. Senate.”
But Mr. Weaver never registered to lobby on the issue, and he has another explanation for his work.
“The Hance law firm retained me to assist them and their client in developing an aggressive crisis management and communications strategy,” Mr. Weaver said. “At no point was I asked by Kent Hance or anyone associated with him to set up meetings with anyone in or outside of government to discuss this, and if asked I would have summarily declined to do so.”
In June 2005, the tribe informed Mr. Hance that his services were no longer needed.
Change in Tone
After the Abramoff scandal, Mr. McCain stopped taking campaign donations from tribes. Some American Indians were offended, especially since Mr. McCain continued to accept money from the tribes’ lobbyists.
Resentment in Indian Country mounted as Mr. McCain, who was preparing for another White House run, singled out the growth in tribal gambling as one of three national issues that were “out of control.” (The others were federal spending and illegal immigration.)
Franklin Ducheneaux, an aide to Morris Udall who helped draft the 1988 Indian gambling law, said that position ran contrary to Mr. McCain’s record. “What did he think? That Congress intended for the tribes to be only somewhat successful?” Mr. Ducheneaux said.
Mr. McCain began taking a broad look at whether the laws were sufficient to oversee the growing industry. His campaign said that the growth had put “considerable stress” on regulators and Mr. McCain held hearings on whether the federal government needed more oversight power.
An opportunity to restrain the industry came in the spring of 2005, when a small tribe in Connecticut set off a political battle. The group, the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, had won federal recognition in 2004 after producing voluminous documentation tracing its roots.
The tribe wanted to build Connecticut’s third casino, which would compete with Foxwoods and another, the Mohegan Sun. Facing public opposition on the proposed casino, members of the Connecticut political establishment — many of whom had received large Pequot and Mohegan campaign donations — swung into action.
Connecticut officials claimed that a genealogical review by the Bureau of Indian Affairs was flawed, and that the Schaghticoke was not a tribe.
The tribe’s opponents, led by the Washington lobbying firm Barbour Griffith & Rogers, turned to Mr. McCain’s committee. It was a full-circle moment for the senator, who had helped the Pequots gain tribal recognition in the 1980s despite concerns about their legitimacy.
Now, Mr. McCain was doing a favor for allies in the Connecticut delegation, including Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, a close friend, according to two former Congressional aides. “It was one of those collegial deals,” said one of the aides, who worked for Mr. McCain.
Barbour Griffith & Rogers wanted Mr. McCain to hold a hearing that would show that the Bureau of Indian Affairs was “broken,” said Bradley A. Blakeman, who was a lobbyist for the firm at the time.
“It was our hope that the hearing would shed light on the fact that the bureau had not followed their rules and had improperly granted recognition to the Schaghticoke,” Mr. Blakeman said. “And that the bureau would revisit the issue and follow their rules.”
Mr. McCain’s staff helped that effort by offering strategic advice.
His staff told a lobbyist for the firm that the Indian Affairs Committee “would love to receive a letter” from the Connecticut governor requesting a hearing, according to an e-mail exchange, and offered “guidance on what the most effective tone and approach” would be in the letter.
On May 11, 2005, Mr. McCain held a hearing billed as a general “oversight hearing on federal recognition of Indian tribes.” But nearly all the witnesses were Schaghticoke opponents who portrayed the tribe as imposters.
Mr. McCain set the tone: “The role that gaming and its nontribal backers have played in the recognition process has increased perceptions that it is unfair, if not corrupt.”
Chief Richard F. Velky of the Schaghticokes found himself facing off against the governor and most of the state’s congressional delegation. “The deck was stacked against us,” Mr. Velky said. “They were given lots of time. I was given five minutes.”
He had always believed Mr. McCain “to be an honest and fair man,” Mr. Velky said, “but this didn’t make me feel that good.”
Mr. Velky said he felt worse when the e-mail messages between the tribe’s opponents and Mr. McCain’s staff surfaced in a federal lawsuit. “Is there a letter telling me how to address the senator to give me the best shot?” Mr. Velky asked. “No, there is not.”
After the hearing, Pablo E. Carrillo, who was Mr. McCain’s chief Abramoff investigator at the time, wrote to a Barbour Griffith & Rogers lobbyist, Brant Imperatore. “Your client’s side definitely got a good hearing record,” Mr. Carillo wrote, adding “you probably have a good sense” on where Mr. McCain “is headed on this.”
“Well done!” he added.
Cynthia Shaw, a Republican counsel to the committee from 2005 to 2007, said Mr. McCain made decisions based on merit, not special interests. “Everybody got a meeting who asked for one,” Ms. Shaw said, “whether you were represented by counsel or by a lobbyist — or regardless of which lobbyist.”
Mr. McCain’s campaign defended the senator’s handling of the Schaghticoke case, saying no staff member acted improperly. The campaign said the session was part of normal committee business and the notion that Mr. McCain was intending to help Congressional colleagues defeat the tribe was “absolutely false.”
It added that the senator’s commitment to Indian sovereignty “remains as strong as ever.”
Within months of the May 2005 hearing, the Bureau of Indian Affairs took the rare step of rescinding the Schaghticokes’ recognition. A federal court recently rejected the tribe’s claim that the reversal was politically motivated.
Making an Exception
That spring of 2005, as the Schaghticokes went down to defeat in the East, another tribe in the West squared off against Mr. McCain with its bid to construct a gambling emporium in California. The stakes were similar, but the outcome would be far different.
The tribe’s plan to build a casino on a former Navy base just outside San Francisco represented a trend rippling across the country: American Indians seeking to build casinos near population centers, far from their reservations.
The practice, known as “off-reservation shopping,” stemmed from the 1988 Indian gambling law, which included exceptions allowing some casinos to be built outside tribal lands. When Mr. McCain began his second stint as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee three years ago, Las Vegas pressed him to revisit the exceptions he had helped create, according to Sig Rogich, the Republican fund-raiser from Nevada.
“We told him this off-reservation shopping had to stop,” Mr. Rogich said. “It was no secret that the gaming industry, as well as many potentially affected communities in other states, voiced opposition to the practice.”
In the spring of 2005, Mr. McCain announced he was planning a sweeping overhaul of Indian gambling laws, including limiting off-reservation casinos. His campaign said Las Vegas had nothing to do with it. In a 2005 interview with The Oregonian, Mr. McCain said that if Congress did not act, “soon every Indian tribe is going to have a casino in downtown, metropolitan areas.”
Prospects for the proposed California project did not look promising. Then the tribe, the Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians, hired a lobbyist based in Phoenix named Wes Gullett.
Mr. Gullett, who had never represented tribes before Congress, had known Mr. McCain since the early 1980s. Mr. Gullett met his wife while they were working in Mr. McCain’s Washington office. He subsequently managed Mr. McCain’s 1992 Senate campaign and served as a top aide to his 2000 presidential campaign. Their friendship went beyond politics. When Mr. McCain’s wife, Cindy, brought two infants in need of medical treatment back to Arizona from Bangladesh, the Gulletts adopted one baby and the McCains the other. The two men also liked to take weekend trips to Las Vegas.
Another of Mr. McCain’s close friends, former Defense Secretary William S. Cohen, was a major investor in the Guidivilles’ proposed casino. Mr. Cohen, who did not return calls, was best man at Mr. McCain’s 1980 wedding.
Scott Crowell, lawyer for the Guidivilles, said Mr. Gullett was hired to ensure that Mr. McCain’s overhaul of the Indian gambling laws did not harm the tribe.
Mr. Gullett said he never talked to Mr. McCain about the legislation. “If you are hired directly to lobby John McCain, you are not going to be effective,” he said. Mr. Gullett said he only helped prepare the testimony of the tribe’s administrator, Walter Gray, who was invited to plead his case before Mr. McCain’s committee in July 2005. Mr. Gullett said he advised Mr. Gray in a series of conference calls.
On disclosure forms filed with the Senate, however, Mr. Gullett stated that he was not hired until November, long after Mr. Gray’s testimony. Mr. Gullett said the late filing might have been “a mistake, but it was inadvertent.” Steve Hart, a former lawyer for the Guidivilles, backed up Mr. Gullett’s contention that he had guided Mr. Gray on his July testimony.
When asked whether Mr. Gullett had helped him, Mr. Gray responded, “I’ve never met the man and couldn’t tell you anything about him.”
On Nov. 18, 2005, when Mr. McCain introduced his promised legislation overhauling the Indian gambling law, he left largely intact a provision that the Guidivilles needed for their casino. Mr. McCain’s campaign declined to answer whether the senator spoke with Mr. Gullett or Mr. Cohen about the project. In the end, Mr. McCain’s bill died, largely because Indian gambling interests fought back. But the Department of Interior picked up where Mr. McCain left off, effectively doing through regulations what he had hoped to accomplish legislatively. Carl Artman, who served as the Interior Department’s assistant secretary of Indian Affairs until May, said Mr. McCain pushed him to rewrite the off-reservation rules. “It became one of my top priorities because Senator McCain made it clear it was one of his top priorities,” he said.
The new guidelines were issued on Jan. 4. As a result, the casino applications of 11 tribes were rejected. The Guidivilles were not among them.
Kitty Bennett and Griff Palmer contributed to reporting.
Snapped this pic while Barack spoke at the Clark County Administration Building in Las Vegas, NV in Spring 2007. At the time, we thought we would just go to see what he had to say, wishing fervently that the political atmosphere in America was such that his candidacy could be more than just an honorable effort in the shadow of the Great Hillary Machine.
Looking at it now, its amazing to think how far the campaign has come, how many obstacles they have sailed over, and how the wave of support for positivity and hope in politics has shown everyone in the world that millions of Americans are shrugging off the deep gloom of the Bush years.
So every time you hear McCain/Palin talk about change, think about this picture and realize what REAL change looks like.
(NOTE: THIS INFO IS ALSO IN "EVENTS")
8 people is enough! 8 of us are traveling from San Diego to Vegas in our Toyota Sequioa during Get Out The Vote (GOTV) time -- Nov. 1-4, 2008. There will be no transportation cost for those joining us in our vehicle.
We will do what the Obama campaign asked us to do, most likely door-to-door work -- talking to voters, dropping campaign literature. We are coordinating with the San Diego effort to bring volunteers to Nevada and expect the Obama campaign to offer free housing in local volunteer homes. (though my husband, baby and I may stay in a hotel).
As of Sept. 8, we have room for 1-2 more people. Contact Jennifer if interested. Note that we are bringing our 1-year-old baby and a woman and her elementary age son, so you must be a kid-friendly person. We will leave Saturday morning, Nov. 1 and return the evening of election day, Tuesday, Nov. 4. On the way there and back, we will make a brief stop in Irvine to drop off and pick up our son at my parent's place. NOTE: If our vehicle fills up and I expect that, we can take more cars and caravan.
Las Vegas - Channel 8
"
The registration totals through the end of August show that the 1.3 million total of registered voters, both active and inactive, includes 565,855 Democrats and 489,802 Republicans.
The new total is an increase of nearly 9 percent over August 2007, and a nearly 29 percent increase over the voter total at the same point in 2004."
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/story.asp?s=8941413
Assembly District 13 North did an outstanding job this weekend with unbelievable volunteer turn-out. Thank you to all of you that endured the heat, sweat and slightly sore feet to help with our voter registration drives on Saturday, Sunday and Monday.
Thanks to everyone's efforts, we set statewide records with the registration numbers, as well as, everyone that is continually coming out to "make a change" in this country.
Barack was absolutely correct when he said this election is about all of us and not just him. We are strong in numbers and the grass roots effort is gaining more and more momentum and enthusiasm every day. YES we will turn the State of Nevada BLUE in 2008!
If you are new or a veteran to this website and want to get involved with the "Campaign for Change", I encourage you to look up the events in your area or you can contact me directly at 702-266-2848.
I was so honored today to be featured on the barackobama.com website as one of their grassroots fundraising success stories! Here's a link to the story:http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/mollyclaflinblog/gG5FBc It's because of many of you and your generous donations that I've reached my previous fundraising goals, so I wanted to share the news with you. Of course, you know this means that I've been inspired to raise my goal again...I'm now looking to increase my total online fundraising amount to $3,000. I'm now at $2,018, so I've got a long way to go. If you can spare $10, $25, $100....any amount helps...please click on the link below to make your donation today: http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/AmyHelton Thank you SO MUCH to all of you who've been on board with my fundraising page since the beginning and a BIG WELCOME to all of you new givers. This election year we're taking back our government, but it will only happen if we all stand up together and make our voices heard. There are lots of ways to get involved in this campaign, this historic movement for change, and giving is a great way to start.
Thanks again, and YES WE CAN!!
Some Obama supporters question fairness of county convention.
I say "chill."
Close-quarters combat with the Hillary camp can be stressful stuff. I attended the Washoe County Democratic Convention Saturday and I can attest to a thick sense of hostility floating around the Reno Convention Center Ballroom. A line was painted (literally) down the middle of the floor, separating the Obama and Clinton factions definitively.1,666 delegates decided which candidate was the best representative voice for Northern Nevada. That voice belonged to Barack Obama. In the first alignment of 1,666 delegates, there were 77 votes for John Edwards, 668 votes for Hillary Clinton and 915 votes for Barack Obama with six undecided voters. After the first alignment, John Edwards was declared a nonviable candidate and Edwards voters were required to realign with either Clinton or Obama. After the second alignment, there were 1,655 delegate votes with 11 refusing to support one of the two viable candidates. Of the 1,655 votes, 683 went to Clinton with 15 Edwards votes and 972 went to Obama with an additional 57 votes coming from the Edwards camp.I’m hearing stories of Clinton supporters behaving unfairly to some Obama supporters at Saturday’s event. All I can say is, “what did you expect?” Following 11 major losses and the announcement of an horrendous campaign debt reaching the millions, Clinton supporters are justifiably bitter. One thing I believe--despite any failings of bureaucracy or treachery from bad-egg supporters--is the event went alright. It wasn’t perfect, but it was okay. It could have always ran smoother, but that’s hindsight. A handful of people ran a convention full of 1,000-plus divided Democrats and did so rather fairly. There will always be complaints, but one or two angry people is better than an event cancelation -- like what happened in Clark county.I’ll admit that I saw some things I didn’t agree with, but I think that, as an Obama supporter, I was already on the defensive. In January my caucus was led by a self-proclaimed, “recovering drug addict” Clinton supporter who nearly had a “panic attack” when some Obama supporters disagreed with her declaration to close doors at 11:30 a.m. (instead of noon). Apparently, this kind of thing happened all over Nevada -- prompting legal action from both camps and the writing of letters to Congressional Candidate Jill Derby regarding voter disenfranchisement (in thousands of precincts). I think these experiences made a lot of Obama supporters (including myself) ultra-sensitive to the issue of fairness.When I entered the convention, I analyzed the floor like a hawk. I was prepared for anything. Questions like, “why is the Clinton half of the room closer to the main entrance?,” “why are the Hillary posters bigger than the Obama posters?” and “why are Hillary people signing in delegates?” ran through my mind. I questioned the fairness of the arrangement of alternate and guest seating. I took my seat in the bleachers and waited for the worst.Nothing much happened.There was a heated debate over what would be done with any remaining John Edwards delegate votes if there weren’t enough Edwards supporters in attendance. Delegates debated for what seemed like an hour until we came to the decision that remaining Edwards delegate votes would be split proportionately in accordance with Nevada caucus results. Well, there were enough Edwards supporters, so the debate was completely moot.Sometime later, alternates got to enter the delegate floor. I was one of over one-hundred people that changed their name tags from “Alternate” to “Delegate” in support of Obama. When I went to cast my vote, I didn’t know where to turn in my candidate preference card. A Hillary supporter guided me in the wrong direction and mumbled something like, “I dunno I think it’s somewhere over there.”I learn fast.I found the nearest Obama supporter who pointed me in the right direction and even helped me with my little, bead-necklace thing (which wasn’t necessary but still very nice of her to do).I guess what I’m getting at is that we need to stick together and not focus on the negativity of the Clinton camp and their steadily declining bid for the presidency. We should be focusing on the positivity of our own campaign and the fact that we worked together to make Washoe County, Obama Country. We should focus on the fact that, despite the long day, we got the job done with minimal pain.
Many of you have heard that there was a problem with the Clark County Convention in Las Vegas on Saturday. I received this email to explain what happened and a link to a youtube video.
Here is a video of our meeting with campaign surrogates and Chairs... I believe we did the right thing yesterday. My major concern about yesterday was when i saw those unsecured voting boxes floating around the room collecting our votes...(big red flag) I must say that we made the right decision to postpone the voting and I will also add what a great turn out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUBccoroqFo
I wanted to share my 73-year-old mother's experience about how she tried to caucus for Barack in North Las Vegas today. This is anecdotal based on phone conversations with her.
She'd been contacted several times by the Obama campaign re giving her a ride to her caucus (she's vision impaired). She told me last night that she'd had more than one phone call with a young man who said he would be picking up my mother and three others at her senior complex. She suggested they meet him at the clubhouse for pick-up since it's a central location and she gave him detailed instructions on how to find it (although you can't miss it once you enter the gate). He seemed to think meeting at the clubhouse was a good idea, so he said he'd meet them there at 10:15. (She didn't know the other 3 voters, so she assumed he'd be calling them re those arrangements.) She walked to the clubhouse before 10 am today and waited...and waited...and waited... Finally someone in the complex office who works for the management company saw she was still waiting and drove her to her precinct. But en route, my mother called an Obama contact number she'd been given (she identified the person as a woman from Seattle) who told my mother she'd come by to pick her up, but couldn't find her apartment. (Clearly the whole clubhouse arrangement hadn't been related to the new driver.) The Seattle woman told my mother that the caucus location they were headed to wasn't the correct one--that in fact her location was just across the street from where she lives. They arrived at her correct caucus location at 11:50, but she was told that the doors had been locked at 11:30 and she was turned away. But...it turns out that the original caucus location she was headed to was the correct one.
My mother's best friend also lives in North Las Vegas, but was caucusing at a different precinct within blocks of her home. She told my mother that she was surprised she'd been turned away at 11:30 since at her precinct the doors had stayed open until 12:15. She said things had seemed very disorganized in her caucus and that there were MANY more people caucusing for Obama than for Clinton. This friend called my mother when she got home (having come straight from her caucus) about 1:30 this afternoon, saying they'd JUST finished...and she (friend) was stunned that Clinton had already been announced as the winner.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have you seen the "Your PIX" section on the front page of the Las Vegas Review-Journal? There's anecdotal commentary there that sounds like some stuff might have been going on...
http://www.lvrj.com/
