Douglas Caddy

Is Rick Perry the next Sarah Palin? www.huffingtonpost.com November 1, 2010 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/01/rick-perry-sarah-palin_n_776746.html WASHINGTON -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry ® and Sarah Palin may look nothing alike, but they increasingly have more and more in common with one another, with Perry following in the footsteps of the former Alaska governor in what could culminate in a campaign showdown in 2012. Palin became famous for quitting her job as governor of Alaska in order to hit the speaking circuit and become a national conservative voice. She has a best-selling book, a pundit gig with Fox News and even a reality television show on TLC. Perry has a good chance at beating Democrat Bill White for another four year term. According to an analysis by The Huffington Post's Pollster, the race leans Republican, with Perry leading in every poll. If he wins, he will become Texas's longest-serving governor. But if he does succeed on Tuesday, his attention will immediately be turned away from Texas and onto national conservative causes. He has a book called Fed Up! coming out soon, which casts federal policies as a "legitimate threat to America's continued leadership in the free world." According to the Associated Press, soon after the election, he will be launching a national book tour -- even though he insists it's about states' rights, not boosting his own profile. While he stresses that he's not interested in running for president in 2012, he is also refusing to commit to serving a full term if he is re-elected as governor -- a scenario that immediately brings to mind Palin resigning before completing her term. "I'm guaranteeing people that I'll get in there and do the best job I can for 'em as governor," Perry told reporters on Friday. "I just think it's always very premature to be making a statement about what you're going to be doing two, four, six or eight years from now -- I don't ever take anything off the table." If Perry decides to run, he will be able to turn to Dave Carney, one of his chief campaign advisers who has been consulting him for more than a decade. Carney lives in the electorally important state of New Hampshire and commutes to Texas when needed. James Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project and a lecturer in the government department at the University of Texas at Austin, believes that Perry's dismissal of higher office may simply be temporary. "I don't think anybody should expect Rick Perry to announce any plans he has when he's concluding a campaign that was hinged on defining Washington, D.C., as toxic," said Henson, predicting that his supporters will draft him to come to Washington -- reluctantly -- to clean up the place. Perry has also been paying more attention to the national media than reporters in his own state. Editorial boards have been extremely miffed this election season by the governor's refusal to have any debates with White or meet with them and answer questions. The "staunchly conservative" Tyler Morning Telegraph, which Perry once described as his "favorite" newspaper, even ran an unprecedented editorial above its nameplate on the front page, blasting Perry for his refusal to engage with the media. He therefore caused much consternation amongst the Texas press when he addressed a gathering of national editorial writers. The president of the National Conference of Editorial Writers, however, later wrote a letter saying his group was "stunned and disappointed" that the governor did not stick around to answer questions. Perry has also become known nationally for his far-right statements, including his comments last year in which he floated Texas seceding from the United States. He has also said Obama is hellbent on taking America toward a socialist country, awarded right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh an "honorary Texan" award and expressed his sympathies with the so-called "tenther" movement. Perry, of course, may not decide to run for president. Both he and Palin may decide to revel in making large sums of money as national conservative figures. But whatever happens, it's clear they will be watching each other closely.

Of the founding board of directors of Young Americans for Freedom, organized at the Buckley Family estate in Sharon,Connecticut in 1960, only one director to my knowledge was a member of the John Birch Society. This was Scott Stanley, who became editor of the Society's magazine. Scott was always temperate and moderate in expressing his opinions at board meetings. I would be interested to learn who the other 10 were as mentioned above. Our board president was Robert Schuchman, a brilliant Jewish student enrolled at Yale Law School. Another director was Howard Phillips, another brilliant Jewish student enrolled at Harvard Univesity, where he was President of the Harvard Student Council. David Franke, another director, worked at Buckley's magazine, National Review, which was critical of the Society in its editorials.

Published on National Catholic Reporter (http://ncronline.org) Home > Blogs > Claire Schaeffer-Duffy's blog > The assassination of JFK: A parable for our times ________________________________________ The assassination of JFK: A parable for our times By Claire Schaeffer-Duffy Created Oct 21, 2010 by Claire Schaeffer-Duffy on Oct. 21, 2010 Writer Jim Douglass says it is “no secret” John F. Kennedy’s assassination was a government job, CIA coordinated but involving people in other federal agencies. The JFK Records Act passed in 1992 made it a crime to withhold information on the former president’s death. Anyone can consult files on the topic that are now stored in a huge building in Columbus Park, Maryland. Douglass, a theologian, long-time peace activist and Catholic Worker, pored over these records while working on JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters [3] (Orbis 2008), a heavily-researched tome with a hundred pages of endnotes. This month Douglass has been lecturing throughout the northeast. On Wednesday he spoke at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. His talk “JFK, Obama, and the Unspeakable” will be published in the next issue of Tikkun magazine. Those of you worried about being subjected to another “who-shot-JFK” wacko, keep reading. The evil doings of the CIA are not Douglass’ preoccupation. Instead he regards the Kennedy presidency, despite its violent end, as a tale of hope -- relevant for our day -- in which God is the primary character. According to Douglass, Kennedy’s turn toward peacemaking during his presidency -- his implementation of the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, his initiation of a secret dialogue with Fidel Castro to normalize US-Cuban relations, his signing of a memorandum calling for troop withdrawal from Vietnam, and most significantly, his communication with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev -- put him violently at odds with the Joint Chief of Staffs and the CIA. Amidst a Cold War that was rapidly heating up, the American and Soviet leaders secretly corresponded. Khrushchev, the atheist, compared their predicament in a nuclear-saturated world to being on Noah’s Ark. It mattered not whether “clean” or “unclean” boarded. All were committed to keeping the boat afloat. Kennedy, the Catholic, agreed. “Whatever our differences, our collaboration to keep the peace is as urgent -- if not more urgent -- than our collaboration to win the last world war,” he wrote to Khrushchev. The two men’s common belief that the world was worth saving helped avert the Cuban Missile crisis, argues Douglass. At the peak of the conflict Kennedy rejected pressure to retaliate for the Soviet downing of a U.S. reconnaissance plane over Cuba and turned to Moscow for help. His brother Robert secretly met with the Soviet Ambassador to, as Robert puts it, “personally convey the president’s great concern.” “We have to let Kennedy know we want to help him,” was Khrushchev’s reply. “Neither John Kennedy nor Nikita Khrushchev was a saint,” says Douglass. “Each was deeply complicit in policies that brought humankind to the brink of nuclear war. Yet, when they encountered the void, they turned to each for help. In doing so, they turned humanity toward the hope of a peaceful planet.” Both men paid high prices for their choice. Kennedy was killed and Khrushchev removed from office in 1964, never to serve again. Kennedy’s assassination is a history many writers have already dissected. So what is new here? Perspective. Douglass views the JFK story as “a parable of turning” and like any good parable this one instructs. Kennedy’s assassination reveals the dark quandary looming over the highest office in American government. “Can a peacemaking president survive a warmaking state?” wonders Douglass, who finds parallels between the Kennedy and Obama administrations. “The president’s vulnerability, while he tries to turn a massive Washington warship toward peace and disarmament, is the unspeakable fact of our politics.” Yet even here Douglass finds hope. During his recent interview with The Catholic Agitator, a publication of the Los Angeles Catholic Worker, he said: The major character in the [JFK]story…is God (or to put it in different terms: Enlightenment, or the Power of the Universe that Bends toward Justice as Dr. King put it). An absolute miracle occurred. Here we find the two most powerful men in the world -- engaged in a titanic struggle on behalf of irreconcilable ideologies, as they saw it at the time -- both holding the power to destroy the entire world. One of these men reaches out to the other and says: ‘I need your help,’ and the other says: ‘We need to help him.’ They come together fulfilling the teaching of Jesus in the gospel: Love your enemies. And that is not a sentimental kind of love. It is the kind of love Gandhi understood Jesus to be talking about -- recognizing the truth in your enemies. By NCR Staff Reader’s comment: Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Oct. 22, 2010. Here is the real reason JFK was assassinated. A deranged man was able to buy a cheap, mail-order rifle and perch himself in a place where he could blow off the top of the head of the President of the United States. As much as we would like to believe the Oliver Stone narrative that Kennedy was just about to dismantle the entire military-industrial complex, thus the far-flung "conspiracy" to kill him, JFK was a cold warrior of the top rank. Please read his remarks of the morning of Nov. 22, 1963, to the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce.

After Wall Street II Oliver Stone Should Do JFK II by Roland Michel Tremblay The People's Voice October 29, 2010 http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/tremblay-r1.1.1.html The last key witness that Oliver Stone mentioned in the film JFK (1991), the one who could have solved and proved the conspiracy surrounding JFK's assassination, has finally been found. Her name is Judyth Vary Baker and her 606-page testimony titled Me & Lee, How I came to know, love and lose Lee Harvey Oswald has just been published at Trine Day Press. Jim Marrs, the long-time investigator and author of the New York Times bestseller Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy, upon which the JFK film was based, asked in the afterword of Baker's book how she can still be alive today. Good question. It has not been easy. Baker decided to talk after 36 years of frightened silence, but after being confronted with death threats she had to leave the United States. She returned to the US twice, only to flee overseas due to ongoing stalking, harassment and several hospitalizations caused by what Marrs termed "freak accidents." In 2007 she was accepted as a political asylum seeker in Europe, the first ever non-combatant American woman to succeed in gaining asylum seeker status in the world. She is still struggling with character assassination over the Internet by people intent on destroying her as a credible witness, but her book is out now, and it changes everything. So much so that Oliver Stone could finally do a final and less static version of his film. Instead of telling us about what might have happened, he could now show us what really happened in 1963 in New Orleans and Dallas. What happened is far more impressive and sinister than anyone could have imagined. Beyond the facts that the death of JFK opened the way to more wars, such as in Vietnam, ostensibly to fight communism while enriching the war industry, with the Mafia free of Bobby Kennedy's pesky presence countering corruption, we now know there is now a whole new angle to the story. And it is perhaps more important and worrying than even the assassination of a beloved President. Behind it all was the development of a biological weapon capable of killing anyone by injecting virulent cancer cells. Any such murder would, of course, look like a natural death. This is what Lee Harvey Oswald, a US government agent, was working on with Judyth Vary Baker in the summer of 1963 in New Orleans, along with David Ferrie, Dr. Mary Sherman, and Dr. Alton Ochsner from the Ochsner Clinic, with the government and the Mafia waiting in the wings. That fact alone warranted that many witnesses had to be eliminated. If you check carefully, two of these witnesses died of a powerful cancer that spread quickly, without detection, that death ensued soon after its diagnosis the assassin of Oswald, Jack Ruby, who claimed to have been injected with cancer cells, and Clay Shaw, the central figure in the Garrison trial in Stone's movie, JFK, who died in Ochsner's Clinic and was buried within 24 hours. Part of the whole story had been previously published in another significant book Dr. Mary's Monkey written by Edward T. Haslam. Dr. Mary's Monkey has become an underground bestseller. Haslam, the son of a prominent New Orleans doctor, wrote the foreword to Baker's book. The extraordinary story of Judyth Vary Baker certainly came as a surprise to all main investigators, who had never heard of her before, although there are actually many oblique references to her in the extant body of evidence, as well as living witnesses who have verified that she was Oswald's close companion and lover in the months before the JFK assassination. Some still insist she made it all up, while others have concocted see-through lies to discredit her, preferring to protect their own theories and book sales. Strikingly, after nearly 50 years, new evidence and witnesses such as Baker are still being largely ignored in favor of well-financed TV specials and YouTube presentations. Foremost in these efforts is Vincent Bugliosi, who received a million dollars for his book, Reclaiming History, which supports the Warren Commission's findings, and Gerald Posner (recently indicted for blatant plagiarism). To this day, witnesses such as Baker are still not safe or free to talk, just like most significant classified information about the matter has still been kept from the public. "How many authors do not dare have book signings?" Baker asked. "For my own safety, I'm unable to do so." Baker has turned down countless requests for interviews: in the past seven years since the History Channel presented Baker's story in a documentary (The Love Affair), only Dr. James Fetzer has managed to get an interview with her. Now that Baker's book has been published, it will become evident to all that no one could possibly make this up, especially when it answers and brings together all the pieces of a puzzle that so many have tried, unsuccessfully, to solve over the years. Those who read the book will also understand why so many witnesses died mysteriously, one by one, following the double assassination of JFK and Oswald, and why the various official investigations conducted were charged to convince the public that a demented lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald was Kennedy's assassin. If Jim Marrs, Edward T. Haslam, Fetzer and the producers of The Love Affair were convinced that Judyth Vary Baker was telling the truth, it was because she has told her story with striking candor, with a large amount of evidence supporting her testimony. Judyth Vary Baker had only one wish when she was a young and promising lab researcher hired by Dr. Ochsner to discover a cure for cancer and everyone believed then that she could do it. She and her fellow research associates were led to believe that the New Orleans Project developing a biological weapon designed to assassinate Fidel Castro could have prevented the death of JFK and World War Three. Then, after Kennedy was killed, she was told to keep her mouth shut and to never again work in cancer research. But the little girl from Bradenton Florida still has up-to-date knowledge of the research being done today. "I still believe I could cure certain kinds of soft tissue cancers inexpensively," she says, "within five years, using modified bacteriophages." Bacteriophages are simple viruses that literally 'eat' bacteria, Baker explained, but they could be "genetically altered" to seek out certain cancers and literally eat them alive. "Bacteriophage therapy could also be applied to fight bacterial diseases such as tuberculosis," she said. "Resistance to antibiotics is becoming a problem that bacteriophage research could very possibly solve." But Baker fears that as long as so much cancer research is financed by private pharmaceutical companies, that expensive chemotherapy will continue to be the center of research efforts, since bacteriophage therapy would be much cheaper and therefore less profitable. "We could have cured cancer decades ago," Baker insists. Because of the "profit factor," Baker believes that "if we ever develop an inexpensive cure for cancer, it will be due to independent research at universities, or in government-funded labs. An inexpensive treatment, such as one involving the direct use of bacteriophage, will not come from Big Pharma." Me & Lee: How I Came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald by Judyth Vary Baker and Dr. Mary's Monkey by Edward T. Haslam and Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy by Jim Marrs, offer the big picture and finally link together all the major players in the conspiracy surrounding JFK's assassination. It is time for us to appreciate what transpired then and draw parallels as to what is happening today. Oliver Stone should produce JFK II so we can be aware and move on to real and tangible change and a durable peace. Such was, after all, the main dream of John F. Kennedy. October 29, 20

Obama may or may not be having a nervous breakdown. Or he may have one after the November election. In any event Michael Gerson in my opinion analyzed Obama accurately in his recent column: ----- Obama the snob By Michael Gerson Op-Ed Columnist Washington Post Tuesday, October 19, 2010; A15 After a series of ineffective public messages -- leaving the political landscape dotted with dry rhetorical wells -- President Obama has hit upon a closing argument. "Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now," he recently told a group of Democratic donors in Massachusetts, "and facts and science and argument [do] not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared." Let's unpack these remarks. Obama clearly believes that his brand of politics represents "facts and science and argument." His opponents, in disturbing contrast, are using the more fearful, primitive portion of their brains. Obama views himself as the neocortical leader -- the defender, not just of the stimulus package and health-care reform but also of cognitive reasoning. His critics rely on their lizard brains -- the location of reptilian ritual and aggression. Some, presumably Democrats, rise above their evolutionary hard-wiring in times of social stress; others, sadly, do not. Though there is plenty of competition, these are some of the most arrogant words ever uttered by an American president. The neocortical presidency destroys the possibility of political dialogue. What could Obama possibly learn from voters who are embittered, confused and dominated by subconscious evolutionary fears? They have nothing to teach, nothing to offer to the superior mind. Instead of engaging in debate, Obama resorts to reductionism, explaining his opponents away. It is ironic that the great defender of "science" should be in the thrall of pseudoscience. Human beings under stress are not hard-wired for stupidity, which would be a distinct evolutionary disadvantage. The calculation of risk and a preference for proven practices are the conservative contributions to the survival of the species. Whatever neuroscience may explain about political behavior, it does not mean that the fears of massive debt and intrusive government are irrational. There have been several recent attempts to explain Obama's worldview as the result of his post-colonial father or his early socialist mentors -- Gnostic attempts to produce the hidden key that unlocks the man. The reality is simpler. In April 2008, Obama described small-town voters to wealthy donors in San Francisco: "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them." Now, to wealthy donors in Massachusetts, opponents are "hard-wired not to always think clearly." Interpreting Obama does not require psychoanalysis or the reading of mystic Chicago runes. He is an intellectual snob. Not that there is anything wrong with this. Some of my best friends are intellectual snobs. But they don't make very good politicians. Somehow, an aristocrat such as Franklin Roosevelt was able to convince millions of average Americans that he was firmly on their side. But the old social aristocracy could have been taught a thing or two about snobbery by the intellectual upper class -- conditioned to believe their superiority is founded not on wealth or lineage but on "facts and science and argument." What must Democrats trying to compete in Pennsylvania or Ohio think when they hear Obama make arguments such as these? Do they realize the tremendous mistake they have made, tying their political fortunes to a leader who makes Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry look like prairie populists in comparison? This is not just a political problem; it is a governing challenge. There is fear out there in America -- not because of the lizard brain but because of objective economic conditions. And a reactionary populism can be disturbing when it targets minorities, immigrants and intellectuals. But intellectual disdain among elites feeds this destructive populism rather than directing or defusing it. Obama is helping to cause what he criticizes. It is among the nobler callings of a leader to understand public fears and then place them in the context of national commitments. Yes, the American dream is fragile, but it won't be recovered by abandoning American ideals. Yes, the borders must be controlled and terrorism is a mortal threat -- but we can't give in to stereotyping and hatred. One response to social stress doesn't help at all: telling people their fears result from primitive irrationality. Obama may think that many of his fellow citizens can't reason. But they can still vote. michaelgerson@washpost.com

Tissue, Skin, Bone and Organ Harvesting at Israel's National Forensic Institute Body Parts and Bio-Piracy By NANCY SCHEPER-HUGHES www.counterpunch.org October 25, 2010 http://www.counterpunch.org/ Editorial Note: Nancy Scheper-Hughes is professor of anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, where she directs the doctoral program in medicine and society. Since 1996, she has been involved in active field research on the global traffic in human organs, following the movement of bodies, body parts, transplant doctors, their patients, brokers, and kidney sellers, and the practices of organ and tissue harvesting in several countries – from Brazil, Argentina, and Cuba, to Moldova, Israel and Turkey, to India, South Africa, and the United States. She is a co-founder of Organs Watch, an independent, medical human rights, research and documentation center at UC Berkeley. What follows is her detailed report on the tissue, skin, bone and organ harvesting conducted for many years at Israel’s L. Greenberg National Institute of Forensic Medicine, a.k.a. The Abu Kabir Institute, under the aegis of its former director and current chief pathologist, Dr. Yehuda Hiss. Long before Donald Boström leveled allegations of organ-harvesting from Palestinians in the Swedish tabloid, Aftonbladet, in August 2009, causing furious accusations of “blood libel,” Dr. Scheper-Hughes had already interviewed Dr. Hiss and had on tape the interview that forms part of her report here. Dr. Scheper-Hughes says her purpose here is to refute the controversial official statements of the Ministry of Health and the IDF that while there may have been irregularities at the National Forensic Institute, they have long since ended. To this day, she says, they have failed to acknowledge, punish, or rectify various medical human rights abuses, past and present at the National Forensic Institute. While many of the allegations are widely known, the testimony by Israeli state pathologist and IDF (reserve) Lt. Col. Chen Kugel has never been published in English and his allegations are known only within Israel. Dr. Scheper-Hughes invited Dr. Kugel to speak publicly on this topic in the U.S. on May 6, 2010. There are three lawsuits ongoing in Israel at the present moment concerning the Forensic Institute and Dr. Hiss. Two concerns alleged abuses against the dead bodies of Israeli citizens. The third concerns Rachel Corrie, a U.S. citizen who was killed in Gaza in 2003 while protesting the demolition of houses. Transcripts of court proceedings show that Corrie’s autopsy was conducted in contravention of an Israeli court order that an official from the U.S. Embassy be present. These transcripts also show Dr. Hiss conceding that he had kept samples from Corrie’s body without her family’s knowledge. Dr. Hiss also testified that he was uncertain where these samples now are. For his part, Dr. Kugel asserts that abuses at the Institute continue to this day. The Scheper-Hughes article takes care to note Dr. Kugel’s description of his former mentor, Dr. Hiss, as a man who saw himself as willing to take great personal and professional risks “to serve a noble end… to help the war-wounded victims of terrorist attacks,” with his actions “as something sublime, or even heroic, as a modern-day Robin Hood.” AC/JSC [to view the article,click on the link below] http://www.counterpunch.org/

Watergate Exposed can now be ordered as a ebook from amazon.com. See the link below. The ebook will also be available for downloading from about 10 other electronic book sources, such as I-Pad and Nook, in the next few weeks. A hardback or trade edition of the book will be in book stores no later than April. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=Watergate+Exposed&x=17&y=21

October 22, 2010 The New York Times Top Companies Aid Chamber of Commerce in Policy FightsThis article is by Eric Lipton, Mike McIntire and Don Van Natta Jr. Prudential Financial sent in a $2 million donation last year as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce kicked off a national advertising campaign to weaken the historic rewrite of the nation’s financial regulations. Dow Chemical delivered $1.7 million to the chamber last year as the group took a leading role in aggressively fighting proposed rules that would impose tighter security requirements on chemical facilities. And Goldman Sachs, Chevron Texaco, and Aegon, a multinational insurance company based in the Netherlands, donated more than $8 million in recent years to a chamber foundation that has been critical of growing federal regulation and spending. These large donations — none of which were publicly disclosed by the chamber, a tax-exempt group that keeps its donors secret, as it is allowed by law — offer a glimpse of the chamber’s money-raising efforts, which it has ramped up recently in an orchestrated campaign to become one of the most well-financed critics of the Obama administration and an influential player in this fall’s Congressional elections. They suggest that the recent allegations from President Obama and others that foreign money has ended up in the chamber’s coffers miss a larger point: The chamber has had little trouble finding American companies eager to enlist it, anonymously, to fight their political battles and pay handsomely for its help. And these contributions, some of which can be pieced together through tax filings of corporate foundations and other public records, also show how the chamber has increasingly relied on a relatively small collection of big corporate donors to finance much of its Washington agenda. The chamber makes no apologies for its policy of not identifying its donors. It has vigorously opposed legislation in Congress that would require groups like it to identify their biggest contributors when they spend money on campaign ads. Proponents of that measure pointed to reports that health insurance providers funneled at least $10 million to the chamber last year, all of it anonymously, to oppose President Obama’s health care legislation. “The major supporters of us in health care last year were confronted with protests at their corporate headquarters, protests and harassment at the C.E.O.’s homes,” said R. Bruce Josten, the chief lobbyist at the chamber, whose office looks out on the White House. “You are wondering why companies want some protection. It is pretty clear.” The chamber’s increasingly aggressive role — including record spending in the midterm elections that supports Republicans more than 90 percent of the time — has made it a target of critics, including a few local chamber affiliates who fear it has become too partisan and hard-nosed in its fund-raising. The chamber is spending big in political races from California to New Hampshire, including nearly $1.5 million on television advertisements in New Hampshire attacking Representative Paul W. Hodes, a Democrat running for the United States Senate, accusing him of riding Nancy Pelosi’s “liberal express” down the road to financial ruin. “When you become a mouthpiece for a specific agenda item for one business or group of businesses, you better be damn careful you are not being manipulated,” said James C. Tyree, a former chairman of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, who has backed Republicans and Democrats, including Mr. Obama. “And they are getting close to that, if not over that edge.” But others praise its leading role against Democrat-backed initiatives, like health care reform, financial regulation and climate change, which they argue will hurt American businesses. The Obama administration’s “antibusiness rhetoric” has infuriated executives, making them open to the chamber’s efforts, said John Motley, a former lobbyist for the National Federation of Independent Business, a chamber rival. “They’ve raised it to a science, and an art form,” he said of the chamber’s pitches to corporate leaders that large contributions will help “change the game” in Washington. As a nonprofit organization, the chamber need not disclose its donors in its public tax filings, and because it says no donations are earmarked for specific ads aimed at a candidate, it does not invoke federal elections rules requiring disclosure. The annual tax returns that the chamber releases include a list of all donations over $5,000, including 21 in 2008 that each exceed $1 million, one of them for $15 million. However, the chamber omits the donors’ names. But intriguing hints can be found in obscure places, like the corporate governance reports that some big companies have taken to posting on their Web sites, which show their donations to trade associations. Also, the tax filings of corporate foundations must publicly list their donations to other foundations, including one run by the chamber. These records show that while the chamber boasts of representing more than three million businesses, and having approximately 300,000 members, nearly half of its $149 million in contributions in 2008 came from just 45 donors. Many of those large donations coincided with lobbying or political campaigns that potentially affected the donors. Dow Chemical, for example, sent $1.7 million to the chamber in the past year to cover not only its annual membership dues, but also to support lobbying and legal campaigns. Those included one against legislation requiring stronger measures to protect chemical plants from attack. A Dow spokesman would not discuss the company’s reasons for the large donation, other than to say it supports the chamber’s work. Prudential Financial’s $2 million donation last year coincided with a chamber lobbying effort against elements of the financial regulation bill in Congress. A spokesman for Prudential, which opposed certain proposed restrictions on the use of financial instruments known as derivatives, said the donation was not earmarked for a specific issue. But he acknowledged that most of the money was used by the chamber to lobby Congress. “I am not suggesting it is a coincidence,” said the spokesman, Bob DeFillippo. More recently, the News Corporation gave $1 million to support the chamber’s political efforts this fall; Chairman Rupert Murdoch said it was in best interests of his company and the country “that there be a fair amount of change in Washington.” Business interests also give to the chamber’s foundation, which has worked to shield businesses from lawsuits, along with promoting free trade. Its tax filings show that seven donors gave the foundation at least $17 million between 2004 and 2008, about two-thirds of the total raised. These donors include Goldman Sachs, Edward Jones, Alpha Technologies, Chevron Texaco and Aegon, which has American subsidiaries and whose former chief executive, Donald J. Shepard, served for a time as chairman of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s board. Another large foundation donor is a charity run by Maurice R. Greenberg, the former chairman of the insurance giant A.I.G. The charity has made loans and grants totaling $18 million since 2003. U.S. Chamber Watch, a union-backed group, filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service last month asserting that the chamber foundation violated tax laws by funneling the money into a chamber “tort reform” campaign favored by A.I.G. and Mr. Greenberg. The chamber denied any wrongdoing. The I.R.S. complaint raises the question of how the chamber picks its campaigns, and whether it accepts donations that are intended to be spent on specific issues or political races. The chamber says it consults with members on lobbying targets, but that it does not make those decisions based on the size of a donation or accept money earmarked to support a specific political candidate. Endorsement decisions, chamber officials said, are based on candidates’ votes on a series of business-related bills, and through consultations with the chamber’s regional directors, state affiliates and members. To avoid conflicts of interest, individual businesses do not play a role in deciding on which races to spend the chamber’s political advertising dollars. The choices instead are made by the chamber’s political staff, based on where it sees the greatest chance of getting pro-business candidates elected, chamber executives said. “They are not anywhere near a room when we are making a decision like that,” Mr. Josten said, of the companies that finance these ads.The chamber’s extraordinary money push began long before this election season. An organization that in 2003 had an overall budget of about $130 million, it is spending $200 million this year, and the chamber and its affiliates allocated $144 million last year just for lobbying, making it the biggest lobbyist in the United States. In January, the chamber’s president, Thomas J. Donohue, a former trucking lobbyist, announced that his group intended “to carry out the largest, most aggressive voter education and issue advocacy effort in our nearly 100-year history.” The words were carefully chosen, as the chamber asserts in filings with the Federal Election Commission that it is simply running issue ads during this election season. But a review of the nearly 70 chamber-produced ads found that 93 percent of those that have run nationwide that focus on the midterm elections either support Republican candidates or criticize their opponents. And the pace of spending has been relentless. In just a single week this month, the chamber spent $10 million on Senate races in nine states and two dozen House races, a fraction of the $50 million to $75 million it said it intends to spend over all this season. In the 2008 election cycle, it spent $33.5 million.To support the effort, the chamber has adopted an all-hands-on-deck approach to fund-raising. Mr. Josten said he makes many of the fund-raising calls to corporations nationwide, as does Mr. Donohue. (Both men are well compensated for their work: Mr. Donohue was paid $3.7 million in 2008, and has access to a corporate jet and a chauffeur, while Mr. Josten was paid $1.1 million, tax records show.) But those aggressive pitches have turned off some business executives. “There was an arrogance to it like they were the 800-pound gorilla and I was either with them with this big number or I just did not matter,” said Mr. Tyree, of Chicago. Another corporate executive, who asked not to be named, said the chamber risks alienating its members. “Unless you spend $250,000 to $500,000 a year, that is what they want for you to be one of their pooh-bahs, otherwise, they don’t pay any attention to you at all,” the executive said, asking that the company not be identified. Chamber officials acknowledge the tough fund-raising, but they say it has been necessary in support of their goal of remaking Congress on Election Day to make it friendlier to business. “It’s been a long and ugly campaign season, filled with partisan attacks and political squabbling,” William C. Miller Jr., the chamber’s national political director, said in a message sent to chamber members this week. “We are all tired — no doubt about it. But we are so close to bringing about historic change on Capitol Hill.” Eric Lipton reported from Washington, and Mike McIntire and Don Van Natta Jr. from New York. Kitty Bennett and Griffin Palmer contributed research.

Justices Thomas and Scalia attend Koch political planning event First Posted: 10-20-10 01:23 PM | Updated: 10-20-10 02:43 PM www.Huffingtonpost.com http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/scalia-thomas-koch-industries_n_769843.html Reports that two Supreme Court Justices have attended seminars sponsored by the energy giant and conservative bankroller Koch Industries has sparked a mild debate over judicial ethics. On Tuesday evening, the New York Times reported that an upcoming meeting in Palm Springs of "a secretive network of Republican donors" that was being organized by Koch Industries, "the longtime underwriter of libertarian causes." Buried in the third to last graph was a note that previous guests at such meetings included Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, two of the more conservative members of the bench. It's not rare for a Justice to attend a seminar sponsored by a group with judicial or political interests. Members of the court, for instances, often speak at academic institutions or think tanks. Virtually all companies, meanwhile, are affected by the judicial branch. So long as Scalia and Thomas did not participate in overt partisan activities, there would be no apparent conflict of interest. "There is nothing to prevent Supreme Court justices from hanging out with people who have political philosophies," said Steven Lubet, a professor of law at Northwestern University who teaches courses on Legal Ethics. But the Koch event appears more political than, say, the Aspen Ideas festival. In its own invitation, it was described as a "twice a year" gathering "to review strategies for combating the multitude of public policies that threaten to destroy America as we know it." In addition, it's not entirely clear what the two Justices did at the Koch event. A copy of the invitation that served as the basis for the Times's report was posted by the liberal blog Think Progress. It provided no additional clues. A call to the Supreme Court and an email to a Koch Industries spokesperson meanwhile were not immediately returned. Faced with a lack of concrete information, and cognizant of Koch's fairly intense history of political involvement, legal ethicists are urging for more disclosure. "This is certainly worth more reporting," said Stephen Gillers, a professor of law at New York University. "It is intriguing because the Koch brothers are so politically active and identify with a point of view. I know I would be curious to know exactly what forums the Justices went to. Obviously they could not go to a strategy session about how to elect more Republicans. On the other hand if it was a forum on the meaning of the First Amendment and it didn't involve strategy or fundraising a Justice could appear... It's fascinating and it merits more reporting." What complicates the report, as Gillers notes, is that the Supreme Court, very recently, handed down a major decision on campaign finance law that Koch Industries quickly utilized. Citizens United overturned existing law by ruling that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money on federal elections. Koch has always been an active political and philanthropic giver. And its checks have been sent to Democrats as well as Republicans (though weighted more heavily to the latter). This cycle, however, the company has become one of the premier bankrollers of conservative causes, and earned the enmity of Democrats for doing so. Suggestions that Justices Scalia and Thomas's support of Citizens United may have been affected by their time with Koch officials ignores the fact that nothing concrete is known about what meetings they attended and when. Even then, Lubet argues, it would be difficult to argue that there is "a troublesome nexus between the event and the decision." Scalia and Thomas have been opponents of restrictions on campaign finance likely well before they were guests at a Koch Industry seminar. But their presence at the conference still raises questions of transparency and, for some, broader concerns about judicial independence. "I think it is very important for judges to be part of the real world and to appear in public for educative purposes to help explain the arcane miseries of the court to the general public," said William G. Ross, a judicial ethics professor at Samford University's Cumberland School of Law. "That is very healthy and I don't think that judges should isolate themselves in a marble palace... However I am very troubled by the tendency of judges to make broader comments on public issues and to appear in public or private gatherings in which there are political overtones."

Virginia Thomas seeks apology from Anita Hill By Michael A. Fletcher Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, October 20, 2010; 9:14 AM It is one of Washington's enduring mysteries. Nearly two decades after Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his fractious Supreme Court confirmation hearing, it remains unclear who was lying. Hill has maintained that she told the truth. Thomas, meanwhile, has steadfastly denied her accusations. Now, Virginia Thomas, the justice's wife, has rekindled the controversy by leaving a voice mail message at Hill's Brandeis University office seeking an apology. "Good morning Anita Hill, it's Ginni Thomas," said the message left this month, according to a transcript provided by ABC News. "I just want to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometimes and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband." "I certainly thought the call was inappropriate," Hill, who worked for Clarence Thomas at the Department of Education and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions, said in a statement released by Brandeis, where she is a professor. "I have no intention of apologizing because I testified truthfully about my experience and I stand by that testimony," she added. Hill told reporters that she held onto the voice mail message for nearly a week as she weighed whether it was legitimate. Eventually, she turned it over to campus police with a request that it be sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI's Boston field office declined comment. In her Senate testimony, Hill said that Thomas would make sexual comments to her at work, including references to scenes in hard-core pornographic films. Thomas angrily denied the allegations, memorably saying they amounted to a "high-tech lynching." Lillian McEwen, a former Senate Judiciary Committee lawyer who said she dated Clarence Thomas from 1979 through the mid-1980s, said she was not surprised that Virginia Thomas would leave Hill a message, even after all these years. "In his autobiography, Clarence described himself as a person incapable of doing what Anita Hill said he did," McEwen said in an interview. "He is married to a woman who is loyal to him and religious in a way he would like to be. This combination of religiosity and loyalty and belief that he is really the kind of person who he describes in his book would just about compel her to do something like that." At the same time, McEwen, who is working on a memoir that will detail her relationship with Clarence Thomas, said that her experience with him was more consistent with Hill's allegations than with Virginia Thomas's perceptions of her husband. "The Clarence I know was certainly capable not only of doing the things that Anita Hill said he did, but it would be totally consistent with the way he lived his personal life then," McEwen said. The message Virginia Thomas left for Hill again revealed the emotional toll that the Hill hearings took on Virginia Thomas. In the past, she has made unsolicited phone calls to voice support for people whose reputations have been shaken by what she sees as false accusations. In 1999, she called Washington Post reporter Tom Jackman after he wrote a front-page article about a Virginia man falsely accused of being a sex pervert. Weeping, she told Jackman that the story reminded her of the ordeal she and her husband had endured. "My husband's name is Clarence Thomas," she said. And when author David Brock - once hailed by the right for penning a book critical of Anita Hill - was pilloried for renouncing the book he had written, it was Virginia Thomas who came to his defense. She left Brock a long voice message saying that she was praying for him and that nobody should have his name smeared like Brock's was. At the same time, Thomas, a longtime conservative activist who now heads Liberty Central, a nonprofit group aimed at stopping what she calls the "power grabbing" of the Obama administration, has been consistent in her criticism of Hill. In an interview she and her husband did with People Magazine just before Thomas ascended to the high court, she said of Hill: "In my heart I always believed she was probably someone in love with my husband who never got what she wanted." In a statement released this week to the Associated Press, Mrs. Thomas said she did not intend to offend Hill with the voice mail. "I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get passed (sic) what happened so long ago," Thomas said in the statement. "That offer still stands, I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same." ---------------------------------------------- October 20, 2010 The New York Times Clarence Thomas’s Wife Asks Anita Hill for Apology By CHARLIE SAVAGE WASHINGTON — Nearly 20 years after Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his contentious Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Justice Thomas’s wife has called Ms. Hill, seeking an apology. In a voice mail message left at 7:31 a.m. on Oct. 9, a Saturday, Virginia Thomas asked her husband’s former aide-turned-adversary to make amends. Ms. Hill played the recording, from her voice mail at Brandeis University, for The New York Times. “Good morning Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas,” it said. “I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband.” Ms. Thomas went on: “So give it some thought. And certainly pray about this and hope that one day you will help us understand why you did what you did. O.K., have a good day.” Ms. Hill, in an interview, said she had kept the message for nearly a week trying to decide whether the caller really was Ms. Thomas or a prankster. Unsure, she said, she decided to turn it over to the Brandeis campus police with a request to convey it the Federal Bureau of Investigation. “I thought it was certainly inappropriate,” Ms. Hill said. “It came in at 7:30 a.m. on my office phone from somebody I didn’t know, and she is asking for an apology. It was not invited. There was no background for it.” In a statement conveyed through a publicist, Ms. Thomas confirmed leaving the message, which she portrayed as a peacemaking gesture. She did not explain its timing. “I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get past what happened so long ago,” she said. “That offer still stands. I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same. Certainly no offense was ever intended.” In response to Ms. Thomas’s statement, Ms. Hill said that she had testified truthfully about her experiences with the future Justice Thomas and that she had nothing to apologize for. “I appreciate that no offense was intended, but she can’t ask for an apology without suggesting that I did something wrong, and that is offensive,” Ms. Hill said. Andrew Gully, senior vice president of the Brandeis communications office, said Ms. Hill turned the message over to the campus police on Monday. Ms. Thomas, 53, has long been active in conservative circles in Washington. In the past year she has become more prominent as the founder of a new nonprofit activist group, Liberty Central, which is dedicated to opposing what she has characterized as the leftist “tyranny” of the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats. The group has drawn scrutiny in part because of the unusual circumstance of a spouse of a sitting Supreme Court justice drawing a salary from a group financed by anonymous donors. Ms. Hill, 54, is a professor of social policy, law and women’s studies at Brandeis. In 1991, she was at the center of a confrontation that deeply divided the country and prompted a national debate about sexual behavior in the workplace. Ms. Hill had been an aide to Mr. Thomas at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. President George Bush nominated Mr. Thomas to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by Justice Thurgood Marshall. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ms. Hill claimed that Mr. Thomas had repeatedly made inappropriate sexual comments to her in the workplace, including descriptions of pornographic films. Mr. Thomas denied the allegations and called them “a high-tech lynching.” In her 1998 book “Speaking Truth to Power,” Ms. Hill noted that she had been accused of harboring a romantic interest in Justice Thomas by his wife. “Virginia Thomas and I have never met,” Ms. Hill wrote. “And one can imagine that she is guided by her own romantic interest in her husband when she assumes that other women find him attractive as well.” Justice Thomas weighed in with his own autobiography in 2007, “My Grandfather’s Son, ” referring to Ms. Hill as “my most traitorous adversary” and asserting that liberal advocacy groups stooped to “the age-old blunt instrument of accusing a black man of sexual misconduct” to block his ascent because of his conservative views. Ms. Hill said she had a previous but indirect interaction with Ms. Thomas. After Justice Thomas’s book was published, she said, Ms. Thomas told an interviewer that Ms. Hill should apologize. In response, Ms. Hill gave an interview reiterating that she had nothing to apologize for. “I thought that was enough then to end it, but apparently it was not,” Ms. Hill said. Peter Baker contributed reporting from Washington and Tamar Lewin from New York.

HAS THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RIGGED THE NOVEMBER ELECTION? In January the Supreme Court reversed nearly a century of settled law and ruled that limits on political spending in federal elections by corporations violated the right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. The case was Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. The vote on the Supreme Court was five to four – with all Republican appointees siding in favor of corporate political spending. In his January State of the Union address President Obama specifically criticized the Supreme Court’s decision and predicted that the ruling would allow foreign corporations to flood federal elections with money. When he uttered this opinion Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, a Republican appointee, was seen by millions of television viewers vigorously shaking his head in dissent as he sat in the front row directly in front of the President. Time has proven President Obama correct and Justice Alito incorrect. Hundreds of millions of corporate dollars are flooding into nonprofit groups organized to support Republican candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives. The sources of these corporate contributions are not being disclosed. Thus, the decision of the Supreme Court by its Republican members in Citizens United has had the effect of rigging the November election in favor of electing Republicans. It is now widely expected that the current Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate will be lost. Predictions are that Republicans in the next Congress may control the House by 55 more members than the Democrats and that they may control the Senate by one to two members. The November election will have an impact far beyond how the next Congress will be constituted. This is because the same national election will determine how congressional election districts are drawn in the coming two years based on the recently completed census. It is likely that in many states an overwhelming number of Republicans will be elected Governor and that the legislatures of these states will have Republican majorities. Thus, Americans can expect to see redistricting lines drawn so as to eliminate the chances of Democrats being elected in many instances, thus consolidating the Republican stranglehold on the national, state and local levels. Evidence suggests that the rigging of the election process was the intent of the five Republicans on the Supreme Court who voted in Citizens United to overturn nearly 100 years of settled law. Take for example the case of Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife. The New York Times in its editorial of October 12 titled, “Justice Thomas and His Wife,” wrote: “Virginia Thomas, the wife of the Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is founder and head of Liberty Central, a nonprofit organization set up to ‘restore the greatness of America,’ in part by opposing the leftist ‘tyranny’ of President Obama and Democrats in Congress. Its first contributions of $500,000 and $50,000 came from undisclosed donors. The size of those gifts, their anonymity and their importance raise a serious issue of ethics for Justice Thomas.” Previously Justice Thomas, while sitting on the Supreme Court, engaged in another serious issue of ethics when in 2000 he voted with the Republican majority on the Court to elect as President George Bush even though Al Gore received more popular votes nationwide. At the time his wife, Virginia Thomas, was already employed by the Heritage Foundation in vetting potential candidates for positions in the new Bush Administration. The Heritage Foundation was founded in 1974 by corporate money from the Coors Beer and today has a large number of major corporate contributors. Justice Alito announced on October 16 that he will not be attending the State of the Union Address by President Obama this coming January. This may be because he is frightened that Obama will remind viewers of Alito’s partisan political gesture this past January when Obama criticized the court’s Citizens United decision. The case of Republican Justice Antonin Scalia presents yet another serious issue of ethics. Scalia voted to elect Bush in the Bush vs. Gore decision in 2000 and to the surprise of almost no one was rewarded by having his son appointed by Bush to a high legal position in the Labor Department upon being vetted by Justice Thomas’s wife. Scalia in the years following his vote was a frequent guest and companion of Vice President Dick Cheney, who owed his election to Scalia. One can only wonder what they talked about. It should be observed that Scalia’s son is currently providing legal representation to the Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. in its court battle to makes certain that no disclosure will be made of the identity of the corporations that make partisan political contributions. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who had retired by the time that the United Citizens decision was rendered by the court, was heard voicing dismay at an election night party in November 2000 when television announcers declared Gore had won the election. True to her colors as a Republican Party leader when she lived in Arizona, O’Connor following the election night party voted with the Republican majority on the court to elect Bush. The Supreme Court’s 2000 decision in Bush vs. Gore was strategic step number one in rigging the election of the President in favor of the Republicans. Its 2010 decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission is strategic step number two in rigging the election of the members of Congress in favor of the Republicans. There is a growing consensus that the Supreme Court with its Citizens United decision to allow corporate political contributions has irreparably crossed the line from being a true court of justice to being a tool of partisan political activity. In a comment posted on The New York Times web site on October 9, a reader from Florida wrote, “I have been a state judge for 25 years and my wife would never do anything that would raise ethical questions regarding my decisions as a judge. It is the appearance of impropriety that is important. It has always struck me as strange that the justices of the United States Supreme Court would do things like free trips from industries that have issues before the court and think nothing of it. I have little respect for some of the justices.” Perhaps the lame duck session of Congress after November 2 will enact legislation to remedy the partisanship innate in the Citizens United decision. If it does not, it is a certainty that the new congress convening in January, dominated by those who owe their election to corporate contributions, will do nothing to correct the situation. Professor Robert Reich of the University of California at Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor recently wrote that America faces “The perfect storm: An unprecedented concentration of income and wealth at the top; a record amount of secret money flooding our democracy; and a public becoming increasingly angry and cynical about a government that’s raising its taxes, reducing its services, and unable to get it back to work. “We’re losing our democracy to a different system. It’s called plutocracy.” ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Editorial The New York Times October 12, 2010 Justice Thomas and His Wife Virginia Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, is the founder and chief executive of Liberty Central, a nonprofit organization set up to “restore the greatness of America,” in part by opposing the leftist “tyranny” of President Obama and Democrats in Congress. Its first contributions of $500,000 and $50,000 came from undisclosed donors. The size of those gifts, their anonymity and their importance to the organization raise a serious issue of ethics for Justice Thomas. Sarah Field, an executive of Liberty Central, told The Times that the organization pays Mrs. Thomas. Justice Thomas is a beneficiary of that pay and has a responsibility under federal law to “inform himself” about who the donors are because they have an impact on Mrs. Thomas’s personal financial interests. Mrs. Thomas is not legally required to disclose the donors. That is unfortunate, but she does have a duty to do so, just as former President Bill Clinton had a duty to disclose the donors to his library and charitable ventures when his wife became secretary of state. Justice Thomas needs disclosure to know if either of those donors is a party in a case before the Supreme Court or has an interest in a party. That is the only way he can comply with a fundamental ethical and legal requirement to “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Even if his wife weren’t paid by the organization, Justice Thomas would have a duty to obtain the donors’ names. The principle of a Supreme Court holding requires that. As former Justice John Paul Stevens once wrote for the court, “The very purpose” of the impartiality standard “is to promote confidence in the judiciary by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety whenever possible.” Justice Thomas could claim that he does not know who the donors are and, therefore, could not be biased on their behalf, but people would doubt him. Mrs. Thomas’s activities must be above suspicion so Justice Thomas can be as well. Take his partial dissent in the Citizens United case, in which he joined the conservatives to give corporations an unlimited right to spend money in politics. Alone among his colleagues, he also took the radical position that the disclosure requirements still in federal campaign law are unconstitutional. That is an obvious trigger of the sort of “suspicions and doubts” the Stevens opinion was intended to quell. The Thomases can easily dispel the doubts. -------------------------------------------------- Week in Review The New York Times October 17, 2010 Return of the Secret Donors By JILL ABRAMSON To old political hands, wise to the ways of candidates and money, 1972 was a watershed year. Richard M. Nixon’s re-election campaign was awash in cash, secretly donated by corporations and individuals. Fred Wertheimer, a longtime supporter of campaign finance regulation, was then a lawyer for Common Cause. He vividly recalls the weeks leading up to April 7, 1972, before a new campaign finance law went into effect requiring the disclosure of the names of individual donors. “Contributors,” he said, “were literally flying into Washington with satchels of cash.” The Committee for the Re-Election of the President was also illegally hauling in many millions of dollars from corporations, many of which felt pressured into making contributions. The record of donors was so tightly held that it was kept in a locked drawer by Rose Mary Woods, Nixon’s secretary. The list — which came to be known as “Rose Mary’s Baby” — wasn’t released until Mr. Wertheimer forced the issue through a lawsuit. Among those on the list were William Keeler, the chief executive of Phillips Petroleum, who pleaded guilty, during the post-Watergate prosecutions, to making an illegal corporate donation. Rose Mary’s Baby itself, now an artifact of the nation’s biggest political scandal, sits in the Watergate collection of the National Archives. In this year’s midterm elections, there is no talk of satchels of cash from donors. Nor is there any hint of illegal actions reaching Watergate-like proportions. But the fund-raising practices that earned people convictions in Watergate — giving direct corporate money to a campaign and doing so secretly — are back in a different form in 2010. This time around, the corporations are still giving secretly, but legally. In 1907, direct corporate donations to candidates were legally barred in a campaign finance reform push by President Theodore Roosevelt. But that law and others — the foundation for many Watergate convictions — are all but obsolete. This is why many supporters of strict campaign finance laws are wringing their hands. Certainly, it is still illegal for corporations to contribute directly to candidates. But they now have equally potent ways to exert their influence. This election year is the first since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allows corporations for the first time to finance ads that directly support or oppose political candidates. And tax laws and loopholes have permitted a shadow campaign network of Republican-leaning nonprofit groups to collect a flood of anonymous donations and spend it widely. If the Republicans make big gains in the House and Senate on Election Day, there is rare bipartisan consensus that they will owe part of their victory to the millions of dollars raised and spent by these nonprofit groups, much of which has come from businesses. The groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, the American Action Network and Crossroads GPS, which is linked to the Republican strategist Karl Rove, have committed to spending well over $150 million this year. President Obama has railed against these groups as they have poured money into races in which once-secure Democrats are hanging by a thread. But the attacks may have only helped build the groups’ fund-raising muscle. Crossroads GPS and a sister organization, American Crossroads, have received more than $100,000 in small donations through the Web, when they had expected most gifts to come in big checks. And the groups’ leaders have only grown more influential — far more influential than the Republican National Committee, led by Michael Steele. Evidently, the corporate donors love having a secret route to influence politics and elect Republicans without showing their hands to a Washington still controlled by the Democrats. In past elections, the Democrats have also used outside groups, including those organized by the party strategist Harold Ickes. In 2004, groups linked to the Democratic Party spent $150 million to influence the elections and agreed to pay $1.3 million in fines to settle charges that they had made illegal expenditures. In the last three elections, Democratic groups substantially outspent Republican groups. But many of these groups were so-called 527s, which were required to disclose donors’ identities. In this election, Mr. Obama and the Democrats have either refused, or have been unable, to fight fire with similar, Democrat-leaning groups. With an angry Wall Street and donors like George Soros on the sidelines — “I don’t believe in standing in the way of an avalanche,” he recently said — the Democrats don’t have an obvious counter, except for labor unions, which probably can’t match corporate contributors. Since Watergate, the names of political donors have largely been disclosed, even by so-called independent groups. In 2004 and 2006, nearly all independent groups involved in politics revealed their donors, according to a report by Public Citizen, a group that has long supported campaign finance reform. In 2008, fewer than half of these groups disclosed donors, and so far this year, fewer than one-third. Because United States tax law permits certain social welfare and labor groups to collect donations anonymously if political activity is not their key focus, the only way to stop the undisclosed donations is to change the law. But Democrats recently failed to move a bill requiring disclosure through the Senate; not a single Republican voted for it. Such legislation is unlikely to grow any more popular before 2012, and most political experts agree that the secret money spent by outside groups this year will look like a pittance by then, when President Obama will face re-election. “This year is practice for 2012,” said Jan Baran, a partner at Wiley Rein L.L.P. in Washington, who is a former general counsel of the Republican National Committee. Mr. Baran filed an amicus brief in the Citizens United case on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, which opposed donor disclosure. “It would lead to intimidation and harassment of contributors,” Mr. Baran explained. (While the decision blessed certain corporate donations, the court supported disclosure requirements for money given to political parties and candidates. The nonprofits were unaffected.) The 1972 campaign had its own dry run for the fund-raising abuses of Watergate. In 1970, President Nixon tried to orchestrate a Republican sweep in the off-year Congressional elections. Known as the Townhouse Operation, a group of Nixon loyalists, some of whom are leading this year’s nonprofit push, operated out of a townhouse near DuPont Circle in Washington, raising illegal corporate cash and distributing it in key Senate races. The legacy of Watergate is quite clear. But the repercussions from today’s campaign finance system are still being measured and debated. “It creates all the appearances of dirty dealings and undue influence because our candidates are awash in funds the public is ignorant about,” said Roger Witten, a partner in the New York office of WilmerHale, who served as assistant special prosecutor in the Watergate special prosecution force. “This is the problem that was supposedly addressed after Watergate.” Mr. Baran, the Republican lawyer, said Watergate comparisons are way overblown; plenty of restrictions still exist. “To make the Watergate analogy is an exaggeration,” he said, “and I have five inches of statutes that repudiate that comparison.” Still, some players shaking the corporate money trees for nonprofit groups this year cut their teeth in the Nixon re-election campaign. There is Fred Malek, a founder of the American Action Network, whose members include many well-known Republicans, like former Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Mr. Malek was the White House personnel chief in 1972 and helped dispense patronage for major Nixon donors as well as serving as deputy director of Creep. Back then, Mr. Malek was interviewed by Hamilton Fox III, another Watergate prosecutor, and acknowledged that some of the campaign’s activities might have “bordered on the unethical.” In an interview last week, Mr. Malek said he founded his new group to “counter what the labor unions are doing on the Democratic side.” Started in February, the group is split into two parts: the Action Forum, a 501©(3), which allows donations to be tax-deductible but limits political activities, and the Action Network, a 501 ©(4), in which contributions are not deductible or disclosed but the group can advocate for political causes. The American Action Network has spent heavily in New Hampshire, where it backed Kelly Ayotte, the Republican nominee for United States Senate. She was endorsed in a tough primary battle by Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor. (Mr. Malek is a fan of Ms. Palin, according to his blog.) Mr. Malek’s group has also spent heavily in Wisconsin, where it hopes to help unseat Russ Feingold, the Democratic senator. It is also spending on close House races. The American Action Network shares office space with American Crossroads, led by Mr. Rove, who also was an active participant in Nixon’s re-election as executive director of the College Republican National Committee. Mr. Malek also attends meetings of the Weaver Terrace Group, which was named for the street where Mr. Rove used to live. The participants, who include leading Republican strategists from outside groups, routinely trade political intelligence and sometimes make joint fund-raising trips. The list of donors for either Mr. Malek’s group or Mr. Rove’s group is unknown. Yet Mr. Wertheimer predicts that the groups will, one day, have to disclose their contributors. “I don’t believe secretly funding our elections can be sustained,” said Mr. Wertheimer, who now runs Democracy 21, which pushes for campaign finance reform. “It won’t hold up. The public won’t stand for it. This is guaranteed corruption.” With so many different Republican groups spending so much, he said, no desk drawer is big enough to hold the 2010 list of secret donors, like the one that held his hard-fought-for Rose Mary’s Baby. ----------------------------------------------------- October 20, 2010 The New York Times Secretive Republican Donors Planning Ahead By KATE ZERNIKE A secretive network of Republican donors is heading to Palm Springs for a long weekend in January, but it will not be to relax after a hard-fought election — it will be to plan for the next one. Koch Industries, the longtime underwriter of libertarian causes from the Cato Institute in Washington to the ballot initiative that would suspend California’s landmark law capping greenhouse gases, is planning an invitation-only confidential meeting at the Rancho Las Palmas Resort and Spa to, as an invitation says, “develop strategies to counter the most severe threats facing our free society and outline a vision of how we can foster a renewal of American free enterprise and prosperity.” The invitation, sent to potential new participants, offers a rare peek at the Koch network of the ultrawealthy and the politically well-connected, its far-reaching agenda to enlist ordinary Americans to its cause, and its desire for the utmost secrecy. Koch Industries, a Wichita-based energy and manufacturing conglomerate run by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, operates a foundation that finances political advocacy groups, but tax law protects those groups from having to disclose much about what they do and who contributes. With a personalized letter signed by Charles Koch, the invitation to the four-day Palm Springs meeting opens with a grand call to action: “If not us, who? If not now, when?” The Koch network meets twice a year to plan and expand its efforts — as the letter says, “to review strategies for combating the multitude of public policies that threaten to destroy America as we know it.” Those efforts, the letter makes clear, include countering “climate change alarmism and the move to socialized health care,” as well as “the regulatory assault on energy,” and making donations to higher education and philanthropic organizations to advance the Koch agenda. The Kochs also seek to cultivate Americans’ growing concern about the growth of government: at the most recent meeting, in Aspen, Colo., in June, some of the wealthiest people in America listened to a presentation on “a vision of how we can retain the moral high ground and make the new case for liberty and smaller government that appeals to all Americans, rich and poor.” The goals for the twice-yearly meetings, the brochure says, include attracting more investors to the cause, but also building institutions “to identify, educate and mobilize citizens” and “fashioning the message and building the education channels to re-establish widespread belief in the benefits of a free and prosperous society.” Charles Koch, whose wealth Forbes magazine calculates at about $21.5 billion, argues in his letter that “prosperity is under attack by the current administration and many of our elected officials.” He repeatedly warns about the “internal assault” and “unrelenting attacks” on freedom and prosperity. A brochure with the invitation underscores that to the Koch network, “freedom” means freedom from taxes and government regulation. Mr. Koch warns of policies that “threaten to erode our economic freedom and transfer vast sums of money to the state.” The Kochs insist on strict confidentiality surrounding the Palm Spring meetings, which are entitled “Understanding and Addressing Threats to American Free Enterprise and Prosperity.” The letter advises participants that it is closed to the public, including the news media, and admonishes them not to post updates or information about the meeting on the Web, blogs, social media or traditional media, and to “be mindful of the security and confidentiality of your meeting notes and materials.” Invited participants are told they must wear nametags for all meeting functions. And, ensuring that no one tries to gain access by posing as a participant, the invitation says that reservations will be handled through Koch Industries’ office in Washington: “Please do not contact the Rancho Las Palmas directly to place a reservation.” To give prospective participants a sense of what to expect, Mr. Koch’s letter enclosed a brochure from the group’s meeting at the St. Regis Resort in Aspen, including a list of the roughly 200 participants — a confab of hedge fund executives, Republican donors, free-market evangelists and prominent members of the New York social circuit. They listened to a presentations on “microtargeting” to identify like-minded voters, as well as a discussion about voter mobilization featuring Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity, the political action group founded by the Kochs in 2004, which campaigned against the health care legislation passed in March and is helping Tea Party groups set up get-out-the-vote operations. Other sessions discussed the opportunities in the presidential election of 2012 to address threats to free enterprise and “how supporters of economic freedom might start planning today.” Impressed by the Koch efforts for the midterms, the invitation cover letter says, Aspen participants “committed to an unprecedented level of support.” “However,” it adds, “even if these efforts succeed, other serious threats demand action.” The participants in Aspen dined under the stars at the top of the gondola run on Aspen Mountain, and listened to Glenn Beck of Fox News in a session titled, “Is America on the Road to Serfdom?” (The title refers to a classic of Austrian economic thought that informs libertarian ideology, popularized by Mr. Beck on his show.) The participants included some of the nation’s wealthiest families and biggest names in finance: private equity and hedge fund executives like John Childs, Cliff Asness, Steve Schwarzman and Ken Griffin; Phil Anschutz, the entertainment and media mogul ranked by Forbes as the 34th-richest person in the country; Rich DeVos, the co-founder of Amway; Steve Bechtel of the giant construction firm; and Kenneth Langone of Home Depot. The group also included longtime Republican donors and officials, including Foster Friess, Fred Malek and former Attorney General Edwin Meese III. Participants listened to presentations from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as people who played leading roles in John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008, like Nancy Pfotenhauer and Annie Dickerson, who also runs a foundation for Paul Singer, a hedge fund executive who like the Kochs is active in promoting libertarian causes. To encourage new participants, Mr. Koch offers to waive the $1,500 registration fee. And he notes that previous guests have included Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, Gov. Haley Barbour and Gov. Bobby Jindal, Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, and Representatives Mike Pence, Tom Price and Paul D. Ryan. Mr. Koch also notes the beautiful setting. But he advises against thinking of this as a vacation. “Our ultimate goal is not ‘fun in the sun,’ ” he concludes. “This is a gathering of doers who are willing to engage in the hard work necessary to advance our shared principles. Success in this endeavor will require all the help we can muster.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/opinion/12tue3.html?_r=1&scp=9&sq=Editorials%20on%20October%2012,%202010&st=cse http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/weekinreview/17abramson.html?hpw http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20koch.html?_r=1

Obama's African Relatives Think His Father Was Murdered www.aol.com October 18, 2010 http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/obamas-relatives-think-his-father-was-murdered-by-the-kenyan-government/19678768?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C178540 by Dana Chivvis Contributor AOL News Surge Desk (Oct. 18) -- Perhaps the president can add this one to his list of myths to bust in December when he appears on the Discovery Channel show "MythBusters": His father was not killed in a car accident in 1982, as was reported, but was murdered. So goes a family theory investigated by Peter Firstbrook in his history of President Barack Obama's African side of the family, "The Obamas," and dissected by Obama biographer David Remnick in a post today on the New Yorker's website. Barack Obama Sr. was "a thwarted politician and bureaucrat," outspoken in his criticism of the Kenyan government's acceptance of corruption among its ranks, according to Remnick. He was also a heavy drinker, nicknamed "Mr. Double-Double" after his usual Scotch orders. On the night of his death he was found inside his car, which had hit a tree. Firstbrook talked to Charles Oluoch, a cousin of the president, who related the family's suspicions. Obama Sr. had been in a number of accidents before and had survived them all. His body appeared to be fairly unharmed -- no broken bones and only a small amount of blood. "Although it looked like an accident, our family suspected that there must have been foul play. I am not a medical doctor, but the way we saw Barack lying there, he didn't look like somebody who was involved in an accident," Oluoch said. Sarah Obama, the president's step-grandmother, told the author a similar story. "We think there was foul play there, and that is how he died, and they covered it up [by saying] that he had an accident," she said. "But we just had to leave it like that because the government then was very ruthless." Remnick talked to Caroline Elkins, a historian at Harvard, who said she doesn't buy it. Obama Sr. was a "serious, fall-down alcoholic" and his family is probably trying to restore his reputation now that they have one of their own in White House, she said. But as Firstbrook points out 25 years later, we will probably never know the truth ... Read more at The New Yorker.

Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination www.lewrockwell.com October 15, 2010 http://www.lewrockwell.com/pr/head-shot-jfk.html Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination By G. Paul Chambers, PhD Prometheus Books “Head Shot presents a unique and fascinating correlation of history and science with the government's investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy. Warren Commission critics may disagree with the specifics of Paul Chambers's reconstruction of this tragic event, but everyone who rejects the ‘sole assassin – single bullet theory’ will better understand why JFK's murder was a conspiracy involving multiple shooters after reading this intellectually stimulating and highly erudite book.” ~ Cyril H. Wecht, MD, JD, past president, American Academy of Forensic Sciences and past president, American College of Legal Medicine “In Head Shot, G. Paul Chambers offers an original and scientifically credible account of the JFK assassination. He presents new material proving the existence of more than one assassin. It is an important contribution to the continuing controversy over this important event in American history.” ~ Michael L. Kurtz, professor of history (ret.), Southeastern Louisiana University “Neither Russell nor Johnson believed a single bullet could account for all seven of the nonfatal wounds of President Kennedy and Governor Connally – the crucial conclusion at the heart of the Commission’s report: ‘Well, I don’t believe it,’ said Russell. ‘I don’t either,’ Johnson replied.” ~ David R. Wrone, The Zapruder Film, citing tape transcripts from the Lyndon B. Johnson Library in Austin, Texas, of a conversation between President Johnson and Senator Richard Russell Jr., a member of the Warren Commission After more than four decades and scores of books, documentaries, and films on the subject, what more can be said about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy? A great deal, according to physicist and ballistics expert Dr. G. Paul Chambers. In this provocative, rigorously researched book, Chambers presents evidence and compelling arguments that will make you rethink the entire sequence of terrible events on that traumatic day in Dallas. Drawing on his fifteen years experience as an experimental physicist for the US Navy, Chambers demonstrates that the commonly accepted view of the assassination is fundamentally flawed from a scientific perspective. The physics behind lone-gunmen theories is not only wrong, says Chambers, but frankly impossible. Chambers devotes separate chapters to the Warren Commission, challenges to the single-bullet theory, the witnesses, how science arrives at the truth, the medical and acoustic evidence, the Zapruder film, and convincing evidence for at least a second rifleman in Dealey Plaza. Headshot is the first book to: • identify the second murder weapon; • prove the locations of the assassins; • demonstrate multiple shooters with scientific certainty. Chambers concludes with a persuasive chapter on why this horrible event, now almost half a century old, should still matter to us today. For anyone seeking a fresh understanding of the JFK assassination, Headshot is an indispensable book. -------- G. Paul Chambers, PhD (La Plata, MD), is a contractor with the NASA Goddard Optics Branch and with Bellatrix, Inc. Formerly, he worked as the supervisory research physicist for the Energetic Materials and Detonation Science Department of the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Maryland and as a research physicist with the Condensed Matter and Radiation Sciences Division of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC.

British media scrambles to prevent Murdoch takeover of Sky Broadcasting By Stephen C. Webster Monday, October 11th, 2010 -- 7:14 pm www.rawstory.com http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/british-media-scrambles-prevent-murdoch-takeover-sky-broadcasting/ UK's largest newspaper publisher, television network may soon be under one roof An unprecedented coalition of British media outlets have banded together in recent weeks, insisting the government intervene in a planned buyout of British Sky Broadcasting by Australian-American media tycoon Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch, owner of Fox News Channel parent company News Corporation, already has a 39 percent stake in Sky, but he's looking to up that to 100. The broadcaster's total value is estimated at around 12.3 billion euros, according to The Financial Times. Raising objections to the takeover were the heads of the BBC; Associated Newspapers, which owns The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail; The Guardian Media Group; The Telegraph Media Group and Trinity Mirror, which owns The Daily Mirror: they and other all signed a petition directed toward UK Business Secretary Vince Cable, asking that he consider halting the proposed 8 billion euro buyout. "The business secretary is expected to make his ruling within 10 days of the European commission being notified, and his decision will have to be rubber-stamped by [Prime Minister David] Cameron," The Guardian explained, in one of several stories on the subject Monday. "The media plurality test – which would be carried out first by the communications regulator Ofcom and then by ministers – is a loosely-defined concept by which Cable would have to be convinced that rival newspapers and broadcasters were at risk of closure or cuts that would damage democratic debate." That may be a hard charge to prove, considering Murdoch's son, James, once sat on British Sky Broadcasting's board of directors as chairman. He's currently the executive chairman of News International, the UK's largest newspaper publishing house and owner of The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun and News of the World. "We're not saying there's been a crime committed here," BBC chief Mark Thompson recently told PBS interviewer Charlie Rose. "What we're saying is there is – given the scale of the potential ownership in UK media – there's a strong case for looking at it systemically and deciding whether or not anything needs to be done to address the issue. If the two [News Corp and Sky] were combined, there might be a significant loss of plurality in our media market." It would seem his argument was substantial enough to earn the support of Lord Fowler, former chairman of the British House of Lords select committee on communications. "Any proposal to allow a company of [sky's] size to come under the same ownership as the country's largest national newspaper group must be a matter of legitimate public concern," Fowler wrote in The Guardian on Tuesday. "So Cable should certainly call in any bid by News Corp for full control of Sky – but that should not be the end of it. The government should go one step further and examine what impact the increasing concentration of ownership is having on the news we all receive." The British business secretary has the power to put News Corporation's takeover of Sky on hold. No announcement has been made as to his expected decision. News Corporation is one of the world's largest media conglomerations, with mainstream assets in the worlds of book publishing, newspapers, magazines, entertainment television, movies, televised national and local news, online social media and professional sports. Critics of the media giant say owner Rupert Murdoch has tried to influence US politics by supporting conservatives in government and heavily promoting efforts to launch a war of aggression against Iraq. Likewise, Murdoch's Fox News Channel employs almost every mainstream Republican viewed as a potential candidate for the presidency in 2012, and the company has given over $2 million to Republican campaigns and their conservative allies with the US Chamber of Commerce.

Robert Merritt, whose book Watergate Exposed will be released this week by TrineDay Publisher, recently told me of his experience before the Senate Watergate Committee in 1973. He testified three times before the Committee in executive session. As he entered the Senate building to testify the first time, he was warned by Wayne Bishop, a Democrat staff member, that he would face incarceration if he told what he knew. In the days immediately preceding his testimony Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Detective Carl Shoffler and MPD Sergeant Dixie Gildon threatened that he would face severe consequences if he told everything he knew. Shoffler alone was afraid that Merritt would disclose that he had informed Shoffler two weeks in advance of the Watergate burglars’ plan to break into the Democratic National Committee on June 18, 1972. Both Shoffler and Gildon were concerned that Merritt would fully disclose the roles of the MPD and FBI in the hundreds of COINTEL crimes Merritt had engaged in at the direction of these law enforcement agencies in the years preceding Shoffler’s arrest of the burglars at Watergate on June 17, 1972 and for a subsequent period of time. The first few minutes of his testimony on the first day were taken up by questions from the Senators as to whether it was true that he was a homosexual. Merritt readily admitted that this was true. Several senators expressed condemnation of him, saying he was an immoral person. At that point Senator Howard Baker made a motion, which was adopted by the Committee, that the transcriber of testimony be ordered to leave the room. Once he had left Merritt told much of what he knew but none of his testimony was taken down in transcription form. Furthermore, Merritt’s attorney, David Isbell of Covington & Burling, was forbidden to be in the room while Merritt testified. Merritt says that eventually he was given a copy of the printed hearings that included his “testimony.” He says that his “testimony” as reported in the printed hearings consisted of about eight sentences, the final one being that “He is an admitted homosexual.” His portion of the printed hearings took up about one-fifth of a single page even though he testified for three days, each time for approximately two hours. By ordering the transcriber to leave the room, the Senate Watergate Committee made certain that Merritt’s verbatim testimony of what he knew would never see the light of day.

BOB WOODWARD AND OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD Operation Mockingbird was a secret Central Intelligence Agency campaign to influence domestic and foreign media than began in the 1950s. Its public exposure came with the publication in 1964 of Invisible Government by David Wise and Thomas Ross. As disclosed in excerpts from Wikipedia: “The activities, extent and even the existence of the CIA project remain in dispute: the operation was first called Mockingbird in Deborah Davis' book, KatherinetheGreat: Katherine Graham and her Washington Post Empire. “Further details of Operation Mockingbird were revealed as a result of the Frank Church investigations (Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Agencies) in 1975. According to the Committee report published in 1976: "The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets." “In February 1976, George H.W. Bush, the recently appointed Director of the CIA, announced a new policy: ‘Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contract relationship with any full-time or part-time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station.’ However, he added that the CIA would continue to ‘welcome’ the voluntary, unpaid cooperation of journalists.’” The Bush announcement came four years after the Washington Post published its series of articles by Bob Woodward and his colleague, Carl Bernstein, on the Watergate scandal, which began with the arrests of the burglars at Watergate on June 17, 1972. Jump forward to the present time. In an article titled, “Obama’s Wars: The Real Story Bob Woodward Won’t Tell,” by Russ Baker published on www.whowhatwhy.com on October 6, 2010, Baker reports that: “Woodward's signature achievement – bringing down Richard Nixon – turns out not to be what we all thought. If that comes as a surprise, you have missed a few books, including bestsellers, that put pieces of this puzzle together. (Family of Secrets has several chapters on the real Watergate story, but there are others that present detailed information, including those by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin, James Rosen, Jim Hougan and others.) “Here's the deal: Bob, top secret Naval officer, gets sent to work in the Nixon White House while still on military duty. Then, with no journalistic credentials to speak of, and with a boost from White House staffers, he lands a job at the Washington Post. Not long thereafter he starts to take down Richard Nixon. Meanwhile, Woodward's military bosses are running a spy ring inside the White House that is monitoring Nixon and Kissinger's secret negotiations with America's enemies (China, Soviet Union, etc), stealing documents and funneling them back to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They then give what they stole to columnist Jack Anderson and others in the press.” So the question must be asked as to whether Bob Woodward at the Washington Post was a tool used by an ongoing, sub-rosa CIA Operation Mockingbird to bring down President Nixon, who had been set-up by the Intelligence Community? Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Detective Carl Shoffler, who arrested the burglars, was a Military Intelligence agent assigned to the police department. As reported by Jim Hougan in his 1984 best-seller Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat and the CIA, Shoffler “had assisted the CIA in the past, and was personally acquainted with General Paul Gaynor.” Within hours of the arrests Shoffler telephoned the Washington Post and informed the newspaper of what had transpired. In the months that followed he continued to provide tips to the paper, information gleaned from his illegal wiretaps. Shoffler was a graduate of the National Security Agency’s Vint Hill Farm Station where wiretapping and electronic surveillance was taught. In the new book, Watergate Exposed: How the President of the United States and the Watergate Burglars Were Set-up, Robert Merritt, the nation’s #1 Confidential Informant to law enforcement, discloses that he told Shoffler about the planned break-in at Watergate two weeks in advance. Merritt had obtained the information from a highly unusual source. Shoffler swore Merritt to secrecy and then devised a wiretapping triangulation scheme to set up President Nixon, which led to Shoffler’s arrest of the burglars on June 17, 1972. This brings us to Woodward recent book, Obama’s Wars. As Russ Baker concludes in his article on WhoWhatWhy.Com, “…It’s no surprise that when it comes to Woodward’s latest work, the myth-making machine is on autopilot. The public, of course, will end up confused and manipulated as they ever were. Endless war, no substantive reforms. Unless we wake up to our own victimhood.” Shades of Operation Mockingbird.

Arizona legend talks politics The warrior comes home John Kolbe Phoenix Gazette political columnist Dec. 3, 1986 12:00 PM http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special25/articles/1203goldwater.html?&wired After three months of unsuccessful efforts by The Phoenix Gazette to arrange an interview with retiring U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater - efforts thwarted by his frenetic schedule - Judy Eisenhower, Goldwater's trusted longtime assistant, was on the telephone. ''Can you see him?'' she asked, with a tone of urgency. ''I just talked to him, and he said to come on up - right now.'' It was vintage Goldwater - impulsive and unpretentious. In a barely remembered political campaign, it was the kind of impulsiveness that charmed his friends, and scared millions of voters who weren't sure he could be trusted with his finger next to the nuclear button. But whether one ranks among the charmees or the scarees, one thing is sure -- Barry Goldwater hasn't changed much. Clouds and a pall of smog unknown in his boyhood hung over the Valley when we arrived 30 minutes later at Be-Nunn-I-Kin, his hilltop home in Paradise Valley, with hastily assembled tape recorder and a few random questions. Goldwater, just four days after the gavel fell on his five-term career, greeted us in a blue sport shirt and stained, light-blue work trousers. Crippled by repeated knee and hip operations, he hardly moved from the chair in his spacious den, looking southward through a vast picture window toward the smog and the McCune mansion just below (which he once dubbed the ''Chinese tire factory''). He hobbled across the room to turn off the radio at a portable console faintly resembling the dashboard of a jet he might have flown. ''It does everything but cook dinner,'' he chuckled. The gadget-happy senator was obviously pleased with his latest toy. The tape recorder was whirring, and the beginning seemed to be a reasonable place to start: Kolbe: Let's start back at the beginning. How did you get into the political game in the first place? Was it by accident? Goldwater: Well, you'll never believe it. I talked Howard Pyle into running for governor (in 1950, when Pyle unexpectedly won), and he never said anything about it. But one day - I guess it was about 1951 - we were driving over to Glendale to a Rotary meeting and it was raining like hell. And he said, ''You know, you gotta run for the Senate.'' And I said, ''Why?'' And he said, ''You talked me into running for the governor, I'm going to talk you into running for the Senate.'' I said, ''Howard, nobody in this state can beat (Sen. Ernest) McFarland. Hell, I've been a backer of his, I think he's done a hell of a good job. Howard finally talked me into it. I said, ''Well, we'll never go anyplace, but we'll try.'' The only reason I ever won that election was, Mac was overconfident. He didn't come home until about the last three weeks, and then he never did really campaign. And then, add to that the fact that I had Eisenhower on the same ticket, and I just stood on his coattails, and that's the way I got in. Kolbe: Was it mostly Eisenhower? Goldwater: Yeah, I think it was mostly Eisenhower. This state was still predominantly Democrat, and Mac, as I say, had done a hell of a good job. I worked with him on the Central Arizona Project. Whenever I went to Washington, I talked with him. In fact, strange thing, when he became (Senate) majority leader, I said, ''You made a mistake, Mac. You gotta carry the weight of Harry Truman on your shoulders, and somebody might beat you.'' I never thought it might be me. Kolbe: Was there a certain irony in your riding into office with Eisenhower who, after all, was the guy who had beat Mr. Conservative (Ohio Sen. Robert Taft) at the Republican Convention that year? Goldwater: Well, I never thought of it, but I guess you're right. Kolbe: Did you ever regret that you supported Eisennhower rather than Taft? Goldwater: No, I supported Eisenhower because of the Young Republicans in this state. They wanted Eisenhower. I was basically a Taft man, and when I changed at the state convention that year . . . I bet I lost half the party. In fact, many people tore up my petitions and refused to back me. But I just felt that the Young Republicans needed that kind of break, so I gave them my support. Kolbe: You never really expected to win, though, did you? Goldwater: No, I didn't think I had a chance up until . . . well, you probably remember the old Rosetree Bar, down on Adams Street . . . Kolbe: I didn't know Phoenix very well in those days. Goldwater: It was an old saloon and pool hall, and they had a big blackboard up right in front of the bar, and any kind of bet that you wanted to make - you could bet that the sun won't come up tomorrow - you just write it up there, and if you had odds, you put the odds down, and some guy would come along and take it. Well, with about two weeks to go, the money got even, and I thought, by God, I might have a chance. I never really thought I could beat Mac, but like I said, Mac just didn't come home. If he'd come home, he would have beat my ass off. Kolbe: What did you think when you did win? What was your reaction? Goldwater: I was scared to death, I really was. I went back there, and I never will forget what the vice president . . . oh, he was the guy from Kentucky . . . Kolbe: Alben Barkley. Goldwater: Yeah, he said, ''Son, you're going to spend the first six months wondering how in the hell you ever got here. Then, you're going to spend the rest of your time wondering how these other bastards got here.'' I'll never forget that first year. In those days, when they said freshman senators didn't speak, by God, they meant it. And I guess I went over five months before I stood up on the floor. Kolbe: Was the ban on speaking enforced in some way, or was it just sort of a peer-pressure thing? Goldwater: It was just an accepted rule that freshman senators didn't sound off. I remember the first time I got up on the floor I just asked unanimous consent that something be put in the record. Of course, that's all changed now. No such rules. Kolbe: Is that a good or bad thing? Goldwater: Oh, I think it's good. We're getting today a higher-class man and woman in the Senate from the standpoint of education. I would say most of the new ones have at least a master's degree and a lot of them have Ph.D.'s That doesn't necessarily make them better senators, because I don't think the Senate today measures up to the Senate when I first started. Kolbe: How was that? What was the Senate like, and what was Washington like in those days? It was a much simpler place, wasn't it? Goldwater: Yes, to begin with, I think we had less than 2,000 aides working on the Hill. Today, there's close to 30,000. When I first went there, being invited out was something that happened maybe once or twice a month. And my God, now you can go to two dinners a night. I never do that, because I'm not a social person. But the town has become . . . well, it's overwhelmed with lobbyists, with self-interest groups. That was the one thing that Hamilton warned against, was self-interest legislation and, by God, that just about runs the roost today. Kolbe: How does that change the nature of politics? Goldwater: Well, it's lessened the feeling of responsibility to a party. We have eight or 10 Republicans that vote more with Democrats than they do with Republicans, and the Democrats have maybe six that we can depend on on every vote. Being a Republican is not a driving force . . . being a Democrat is not a driving force. Now, is that good or bad? It's good in some ways, it's bad in others, because the party is identified with certain principles, and when an individual wanders away from those principles, he ceases to be of any great value to the political makeup of the party. Kolbe: Aren't the parties fairly broad in their ideologies? Goldwater: Yeah, they're much broader than they were. Much broader. Kolbe: Is that good or bad? Goldwater: Well, again, I think it's good and I think it's bad. It's good in the sense that it gives a much wider representation of how the people at home feel. But it's bad in the harm it does to either party and their principles, to the point that more and more people are saying, ''I don't belong to either party.'' So, that's the harm in it. The damage that this self-interest brings on is that self-interest groups are now, more than ever, running this country. You take the Israel groups, and there are many of them . . . if just a rumor goes out that the president is going to sell some military equipment to an Arab nation, overnight there will be 60 to 70 senators siding up with the Israeli group. Why? Because they have money, and they threaten. But they're not the only ones. You name it, there's an organization in Washington working for it, all self-interest. Kolbe: Is the Israeli lobby too powerful? Goldwater: God, yes, way too powerful. Kolbe: Has that had some detrimental effects on what comes out of Congress? Goldwater: Yes. See, we have no treaty with Israel, but we have pledged ourselves to go to war if she has to go to war. And there are some of the actions that some of the Israeli groups take that, at times, I've felt would hasten that day when we have to live up to our promise. I can understand the feeling, but I'm getting awfully tired of the great influence they have and there's no question about it. The last example was when we wanted to fulfill our promise to sell Saudi Arabia some F-15s. We sent them a few, but then the Israeli group got up in arms and, by God, it stopped. I think the first tabulation we got, 65 senators were opposed to it before any debate or any discussion. And that's held true with every weapons system that we've wanted to sell any of the Arab countries. Kolbe: Why do they have that influence? Goldwater: They have it because, you take the big cities like New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, they have a tremendously large Jewish population and a lot of money, and these senators just cater to that type of influence. But like the influence of the labor unions, the National Rifle Association, the American Medical Association, and we could go on and on and name the influences that, while not as strong as Israel, have a great strength. And they make it hard for a man to run when he can't get money, when he has a large dedicated group against him. The tendency then is to overcome that strike by going along with them (the special interests). Kolbe: Let's go back chronologically to the '50s. When did it become apparent to you that you were becoming something more than just a member of the U.S. Senate but actually a symbol, if you will, of a conservative movement that was just in its formative stages? Goldwater: Well, I'll be honest with you, I never felt it. I still don't feel it. I don't think I've had the great influence that is attributed to me. I was just fortunate in coming about when the country was beginning to leave liberalism and look towards conservatism. And the fact that I spoke out for conservatism, and conducted my presidential campaign on mostly conservative principles. And then, The Speech, we call it, that made Ronald Reagan, was a speech I was supposed to make . . . Kolbe: Really? Goldwater: They sent me a copy of it in Milwaukee, and I read it, and said this speech was not for me. To tell you the truth, I don't believe I had the ability to read this speech and get across all the innuendoes that it has, so I suggested that they give it to Ronald Reagan, and that's the speech that got him started. (Broadcast as a half-hour television plug for Goldwater, The Speech didn't succeed in its primary mission - Goldwater lost in a landslide - but it had another, more long-term effect. It launched a gubernatorial boomlet for Reagan in California. The rest is history.) Kolbe: Whether or not you think you were influential, certainly you have to admit, don't you, that you were clearly a hero, particularly to some young people -- I can say that, because I was one of them -- and not just young people, but a whole crowd of people who started coming into their own at National Review, on college campuses, and so forth. Goldwater: That might be true, but it's hard for me to believe. I go to these dinners and meetings and hear myself bestowed to the high heavens. (A photographer arrived to take Goldwater's picture. ''My God, I'm not dressed up,'' the senator said, although the oversight didn't really seem to bother him much.) It's awfully hard, like last night in Lake Havasu City . . . By God, the whole evening was dedicated to blowing my horn, and I got up and thanked them, and I said, ''You know, I like to hear this stuff, I'd be a xxxx if I said I didn't, but I'm only going to believe about half of it.'' I feel like one of the troops - I just went along and did the best I could. Kolbe: In 1960, what actually had begun as a Goldwater for vice president effort ended up with you being placed in nomination for president at the Republican Convention. It was there that you got up and made, I think, the speech that probably propelled you more into national attention than any single speech up until, of course, the famous acceptance speech in San Francisco four years later. Hadn't you already become, by 1960, sort of a vehicle for that movement, if you will? Goldwater: Well, again, I say that was just a case of my being around. I went down to South Carolina (in 1960) to make the speech before the state Republican Convention, and I'll tell you . . . you could have put them all in this room, and, when I was upstairs packing my bags to leave, I got the word that they were going to pledge the delegation to me at the Chicago convention. I tried to talk them out of it. They got up, and others, when Nixon more or less went back on his word to me and went up to New York to see (Gov. Nelson) Rockefeller and then agreed to a platform that would call for the elimination of right-to-work legislation, I got awfully mad about it and went back to Chicago and refused to address a fund-raiser for Nixon. Then, the word began to get out, helped by (then Arizona Gov.) Paul Fannin and (political adviser) Steve Shadegg, that maybe Goldwater would be a candidate. And I finally said, ''Look, if you guys will get me 350 signatures in blood, you can put me up.'' Well, I knew they couldn't do it. And that's when they entered my name and I made the speech you are talking about. Kolbe: Who placed your name in nomination? Goldwater: I think it was Paul Fannin. Kolbe: There was a time, shortly after that convention, when there was a real concern that the conservative movement was so tied to you, that it was so caught up in one person, that if you were to drop off the face of the earth tomorrow morning, that suddenly the whole movement would die. Goldwater: I don't buy that. Kolbe: I'm not asking you to buy it, it's simply that there was that concern. Goldwater: There was a real strong (bunch) of conservatives who began to blossom when they held the first meetings in Chicago (beginning in 1961) on how they could get me the nomination. We had a hell of a lot of dedicated people . . . that group that had always been there. I didn't know anything about that first meeting in Chicago. It was a hell of a big meeting, and I tried to discourage them but I didn't have any luck. I didn't think they'd ever get it together, but they did. Kolbe: You really didn't cooperate much with the people who were trying to nominate you, did you? Goldwater: No. I really didn't want it, to tell you the truth. Kolbe: Why? Goldwater: Well, many reasons. One, I frankly didn't want it. And two, I didn't think I had the ability to be president. I made no bones of it. I have a very limited educational background. I just felt it would be better if I remained a senator. But that didn't do any good. Kolbe: What finally convinced you to change your mind? Goldwater: Well, there was a time in '63 when I had agreed to run. And then Jack Kennedy was shot. Kolbe: You had agreed in 1963 to run? Goldwater: I had agreed in a quiet sort of way. Kolbe: You told Clif White (chief Goldwater for President strategist) that? Goldwater: Yeah, Clif White, and a fellow named Herman who lives here now . . . Dick Kleindienst, Bryce Harlow, a whole bunch of them. But when Jack was shot, I just thought I don't want to run against Lyndon Johnson. I had looked forward to running against Jack Kennedy. I think it would have been a real change in campaigning in this country. Kolbe: In what way? Goldwater: Well, we would have debated. We had talked together about just going across the country - maybe using the same airplane - but stopping at a town and standing up in the old Stephen Douglas way and debate. But I just decided not to run when he was killed. And then, right here in this room, I think it was around Dec. 15 or 16 of that year, they put the pressure on me. They said there were hundreds of thousands of young people that were looking forward to my running . . . Kolbe: And they told you there were all these young people out there waiting for you? Goldwater: And on the strength of that responsibility I felt for young people, I said, ''OK, we'll go.'' Kolbe: Did you ever believe you could win? Goldwater: No. The day I was writing my acceptance speech, or helping to rewrite it, I was looking across the room at a presentation of a Princeton poll. It showed me 20 percent and Lyndon 80 percent, and I said in a facetious way -- ''We ought to be writing a speech telling them to go find somebody else.'' No, I really didn't think I could win, but I thought the important thing to do was to get control of the Republican Party away from the East, and in that we were successful. And it's had a very, very good effect on the Republican Party to have, you might say, the center of their activities out here in the West, and I think it's going to stay that way for a long, long time. Kolbe: Why is that a good thing? Goldwater: What was wrong was having a handful of Eastern states control the party. Actually, nine states could control the presidential election. I didn't like the ideas that were coming out of that Eastern domination - they were not broad ideas, they didn't encompass the problems of the West. I just wanted to see the thing move, and it moved and we got Nixon (in 1968), which was pretty much in the plans too. Kolbe: What you are saying, really, is that those ideas weren't conservative enough? Goldwater: Well, that would be part of it. I didn't like their attitude on foreign policy. I didn't like their partial recognition that the federal government could operate in the economy. It was just enough difference to cause the Republicans in the West to not like or endorse the East. Kolbe: You said you never believed you could win in 1964. Why not? Was it just too early? Were you ahead of your time? Goldwater: No, I think the basic reason was that the country wasn't ready, and I don't think they'd ever be ready, to have three presidents in two years. (Kennedy was killed in November 1963, and a new president was to be inaugurated in January 1965.) I've come to that conclusion a long time ago. I think that was the main reason. Kolbe: Was there anything that had to do with Johnson himself? Goldwater: I never thought of that. Lyndon performed just as I knew he would -- he used every dirty trick in the bag. He was a powerful man who used powerful ways to get his will. And while I recognize his great ability in the Senate as a Senate leader, I never liked the way he operated. Kolbe: Why? Was he underhanded, or what? Goldwater: Well, he came to the Senate (in 1948) absolutely bankrupt, no money. When he died, he was worth about $40 million. I can tell you from personal experience that doesn't happen. Kolbe: On a Senate salary, anyway. Goldwater: No. In fact, it cost me about $1 million to be a senator for 30 years. Kolbe: Really? How do you figure that? Goldwater: Oh, all the things that I did that I paid for myself . . . extra help here and there, extra travel. When I started, we were only allowed one trip back home. Now, we can go any damn time we want. There were a lot of little things like that. I remember in my first term, there was a newspaper publisher in Wickenburg. I went up to see him one day, and he was really teed off about the senators using franked mail. And he was getting tired of getting letters with no postage stamps. So my first year, it cost me $14,000 just to keep a promise to him. Kolbe: You didn't use franked mail in your first year in office? Goldwater: Not to constituents at home. I felt that I had promised him. I knew he was teed off about it. Kolbe: You didn't keep that up for 30 years? Goldwater: No, man, I didn't. Kolbe: Looking back at 1964, what would have been different if you had been elected? Goldwater: There wouldn't have been all the change that some people think there would. I learned very early in my campaign that there were a lot of things that the president couldn't do. That he only controls, he only has a right to control, 30 percent of the money we spend. Seventy percent of the money and the activities of the agencies are controlled by the Congress, if they want to. But they don't want to, because it involves political risks. Once you've established an agency, then to unestablish or disestablish it you run into an established group that might number up in the hundreds or thousands that will vote against you. That's why the president (Reagan) hasn't been able to get as many of the agencies closed as he wanted to, because the Congress wouldn't go along. And I realize that, and I realized that if I became president, I wouldn't have control of either house. I'd have to fight that, and that, in itself, would prevent me from doing the things that I said I would do. Kolbe: Do you think a Goldwater administration would have disappointed your friends? Goldwater: It would have disappointed some of the real die-hards, but those who had a realistic look at the office would recognize, once again, it isn't what you want to do - it's what you can do. Eisenhower told me that. We sat and talked. He'd bring up a problem he felt he had, and he couldn't do much about it. He said, ''If you're elected, you're going to find the same experiences I had, of frustration.'' So that's about where I was. Kolbe: You've been accused or complimented, depending on who's doing the talking, of being overly loyal to your friends, to the point that it's gotten you in trouble at times. As with Nixon, for example. How do you look at loyalty? Goldwater: Well, I'll put it another way. I think it's a very essential part of life that you show loyalty. If people go out of their way to do things for you, you've got to stay loyal to them. I realize that in the course of my life, I've had some friends you might call questionable. But they never tried to take advantage of me. They've never asked me to do anything that I felt I shouldn't do. I don't think loyalty has hurt me one bit, and I'll never change that. Kolbe: Certainly, you were loyal to Nixon at a time when it cost you some friends among your political allies. (In 1968, support from Goldwater -- who was still immensely popular with party rank and file despite his loss four years earlier -- was crucial to Nixon's successful rejection of challenges from Rockefeller and Reagan.) Goldwater: Well, I felt very friendly towards Dick Nixon, until - I'll never forget it - the day after Jerry Ford made his first trip to New Hampshire (in 1976) looking for re-election, and Nixon decides to go to China. So who gets all the headlines? ''Nixon Goes to China.'' I was on a TV show and I was asked a question about that. And I said, ''Well, if Nixon likes China so much, let him stay there.'' And within a millisecond, our entire experience together came apart, just like that. I said this man's a dishonest man. And I remember when I got back to the apartment, Peggy said, ''What in the hell got into you?'' Well, I said, ''I just realized that Dick Nixon is dishonest.'' Kolbe: Hadn't Watergate given you any clues? Goldwater: Uhh, yes . . . Kolbe: You were certainly making noises like he was dishonest back then, weren't you? Goldwater: The decision I made (at the time of Nixon's China announcement) was not that he was dishonest with Watergate, but that he was always dishonest. He had never been an honest man in his life. And I still think that way. Kolbe: During Watergate, were you inclined to be more restrictive in your views of his dishonesty? Goldwater: I was a hopeful person. I remember I spoke at the weekly breakfast at the Christian Science Monitor, and I remarked that where there is smoke, there is fire. And Nixon called me that afternoon and asked me to come down (to the White House), and he was quite upset. And I said, ''If there's anything to what we're hearing about Watergate, and you've had a hand in it, the best thing you can do is go on the tube and tell the American people what happened. In a matter of a week, they will have forgotten the whole thing.'' Well, he didn't do it, and week after week after week we get a new admission from the White House that more tapes have been found. And the day that I just blew my stack was when it was reported to us at our weekly Republican luncheon that there was still another tape when he had said there wasn't. I got so goddamn mad that the meeting broke up. We met the Republican leadership and they said, ''We want you to go to the White House and tell that to Nixon.'' So I called Dean Burch (a White House aide and former Arizona lawyer), and he said, ''You can't do it today, but come up to my house for lunch tomorrow and (White House chief of staff) Alex Haig will be here and we'll talk about it.'' So the plan was for me to show up around 3:30 p.m., and (House Minority leader) John Rhodes and (Senate Minority leader) Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania would be there. And we would then see the president. Kolbe: You went to see Dean Burch at the White House? Goldwater: No, I saw him at his home. We had lunch and they (Haig and Burch) said, ''Don't threaten the president. Don't even insinuate.'' They'd been very, very close to this whole thing. So we went into the president's office and he acted like a fellow who'd just finished a good round of golf. He sat there and talked to John and me about the times we campaigned together. And we finally got down to the point. He said, ''How am I in the Senate?'' And I said, ''Mr. President, you won't have 10 votes in the Senate.'' And John said the House was about the same. So we went out to the press and made our statements. Kolbe: John Rhodes has said, if I recall, that it was really kind of an eerie conversation . . . Goldwater: It was. Kolbe: . . . as if this man didn't have a care in the world, that the whole thing on Watergate hardly came up. Goldwater: Nothing. It was spooky. He acted like he just made a hole in one. And when we told him how the votes looked, it didn't change him. What we were afraid of -- Alex Haig, Dean Burch and all of us -- Nixon was sort of right on top of a needle, and he'd go either way. If we pushed him too much, he might, being stubborn, he might say, ''Well, I'm going to ride this out.'' And we knew that would involve the Senate and the House, and at least six months of harangue and argument. As soon as I got back to the Senate, I began to hear the stories that were getting out on the press that we had told Nixon to quit. I called Ben Bradlee and Katherine Graham (managing editor and owner, respectively, of The Washington Post), and said, ''This is the situation. If you people in the press push the president too far, he's not gonna quit. If you leave him alone, I think he's gonna quit.'' And by God, I'll take my hat off to them, they just clammed up on the whole subject. So that in the next few days, thethe days of decision, he was not plagued by a lot of press saying he's got to go. Kolbe: Actually, that was only a day later, wasn't it? Nixon went on television the next night . . . Goldwater: That's right, it was one day. I talked to them that afternoon. We got back (from the White House) about 5 p.m. I've always admired The Post -- I don't necessarily like them too much -- but they saved this country one hell of a lot of trouble. Kolbe: Where do you think the press was getting the word that you had told Nixon to quit? I assume that none of the three of you told them that. Goldwater: No, you have to work in the Washington press corps to understand those people; they don't necessarily have to have hidebound fact to write on. If I had been a reporter, I think I would have reached the more or less logical conclusion that we did tell him to quit. Kolbe: In other words, it wasn't too far-fetched? Goldwater: It wasn't too far-fetched. And I immediately went to my friends in the press, and told them the situation, and all of them finally backed off. Kolbe: What ways has Congress changed over the last 30 years? We talked about the influence of special-interest groups. Goldwater: The influence of special interests, the extreme growth of aides to where having 50 or even 100 members on your staff, while a little unusual, is not unheard of. These people sit around the offices and have nothing to do but write bills and write amendments. So, we're faced with thousands and thousands of bills and amendments every year. The first Senate I served in . . . I don't think we had 200 votes. We can have 200 votes in a month or less now. It just takes up your time. You can't do your committee work the way we used to do it. And then, the new senators and the old ones feel the country's going to hell if they don't get re-elected. Kolbe: Is that any different than it's ever been? Members of Congress have always worried about re-election. Goldwater: Yeah, but it wasn't a life-or-death proposition. They liked to be re-elected, but they didn't begin working on it the day after they were elected the first time. Today, I'll make you a small bet, that within a week after the election, there will be fund-raising parties for the next election. As I said earlier, the intellectual type we're getting is better then when I first went there, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the dedication to the United States has kept pace. They're more dedicated to what takes place in their back yard. I'll give you a good example, even though it involves my junior colleague - this airplane argument I had my last day at the Senate. The engines are to be built by Garrett. Denny (DeConcini, Arizona Democrat) got the floor, (and) it was obvious he didn't know what the hell he was talking about -- airplanes. And the whole debate was not the airplane, but (the fact) the Air Force didn't want the airplane. But he felt he's going to be up for re-election, he wouldn't get all these people at Garrett mad at him. I've never told him this, but I had discussed it with the son of (World War II Air Corps general) Hap Arnold -- one of my close friends in Washington, Bruce (who is a Garrett lobbyist). I told him I had to oppose the T-46. Well, he said, ''Don't worry about it. We've got enough business, and if they ever build another trainer, we'll get it.'' So Denny was merely talking for the benefit of his next election; otherwise, he never would have said a word. Kolbe: You got a little teed off at some of those folks (in the Senate) on that last night, didn't you? Goldwater: Well, after damn near 30 hours, (New York Sen. Alphonse) D'Amato was clearly making a pitch for the votes for the Fairchild people at Farmingdale, Long Island. Instead of getting it, I'm afraid, he got so many people mad at him, that he's lost . . . well, he won't lose the election, but . . . This is another characteristic of the Senate today that I don't like. The first concern is, does it do my state any good? As I say often, I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I didn't take an oath to defend the Constitution of Arizona. I didn't take an oath to make sure every factory in this state got a little cut of mustard. I'll do my best to help them, but that's not going to be my driving motive. The Senate is now 100 members, just busting their asses for their own states. I don't think it's good. Kolbe: Are we getting more legislation, or just worse legislation? Goldwater: Both. We're getting a lot more legislation. I remember one of the things I said when I first ran for office -- that my job was not to go to Washington to get more legislation, but to get rid of some. I haven't been very successful. Kolbe: Has the congressional budget process broken down. Has it reached a point of paralysis? Goldwater: I would say it's close to it. In fact, I wrote a piece for The Washington Post (recently) on this general subject, of what the budget act - and I voted for it, I thought it was a hell of an idea - was doing to the committee structure of the Senate. I used an example of my own Committee on Armed Forces. I started to work the day after we got back to Washington (in January). I had my (military authorization) bill ready to go to the floor . . . by the middle of May. But before I even got to that, the Budget Committee said, ''No, this authorization bill that you submitted is not what we want.'' So I have to go through the whole damn thing again, and authorize the amount they want. So what happens? I don't get my bill considered until after the summer recess, and what the hell, we only have about 40 days left. Kolbe: What's the solution? Goldwater: The solution. I have one thing - do away with the Budget Committee. It has not worked the way we thought it would. Do away with that, and then tighten down on the authority (of the) appropriations subcommittees (to) spend money on certain subjects. I think something's going to have to be done, because it's not working. Kolbe: Are there too many committees and subcommittees, with too much overlap? Goldwater: I would say yes. Kolbe: Somebody's estimated that there are something like 20 or 25 committees in the House dealing just with energy. Goldwater: The House is worse than we are. But the House is much better at enforcing their rules. We should have a rule of germaneness. That would save us billions and billions of dollars. Kolbe: How do you get senators and congressman who have that perspective that you were talking about, the national perspective rather than the state or district perspective? How do you assure that way of looking at things? Goldwater: It isn't easy. Getting back to what I said earlier, the main thrust now is getting re-elected. That's not something that's born in the last year of your service -- it's born the first day of your service. Almost everything that goes on after that is directed not primarily at what is good for the country but what's good for me. I don't like it. Kolbe: But is there really any way to devise a system . . . Goldwater: No, you can't devise a system that can control the human mind. Kolbe: What about limits on terms? Goldwater: I've become a believer in that. I'm a hell of a guy to talk about it, because I've served five terms, and there's only 15 people, I think, who have served five terms or more. (Actually, Goldwater is overly modest. He's served longer in the Senate than all but three of its current members.) I'm on a constitutional amendment that Denny DeConcini authored, limiting senators to two terms. Leave the House membership alone . . . But I really think the Senate would be benefited by only allowing two terms. Kolbe: But not the House? Goldwater: If they are going to have a limit, I would make it six terms, or the same (number of years) as a senator. You'll find the average (length of service) is below that. But Denny put that amendment in, and now he's running for a third term. Kolbe: You've served under seven presidents. How do you rate them? Goldwater: I'd put Eisenhower first. Kolbe: Why? Goldwater: He was a man who made decisions. He was a lot like Harry Truman, who I think will be the best president of this century. You never had any doubt as to where he stood. You might disagree with him. Eisenhower was pretty much the same way as Truman, and Eisenhower had a wonderful ability to get along with people. As time goes by, more and more people realize that he was a hell of a good president. At first, they didn't look at him that way. I think had Jack Kennedy lived, he probably would have been a hell of a good president. After Eisenhower, I would name Reagan for his uncanny ability to get along and get ahead. When he went to this little summit meeting up in Reykjavik, his airplane had no sooner taken off than all the wisenheimers in Washington were saying it was a complete flop. We lost ground, they said. And yet, the next polls that were taken showed Reagan had gone up nine points, because of his willingness, in effect, to tell Gorbachev to go to hell. I think that decision at Reykjavik is probably going to elect a lot of Republicans that we didn't think we'd elect. Kolbe: George Will called Reykjavik Reagan's ''finest hour,'' because he said Reagan proved that you can go to a summit and come back without an agreement. Has there been too much emphasis on just getting any kind of agreement? Goldwater: I don't think the president puts that much emphasis . . . Kolbe: I'm talking about emphasis, generally, over the years. Goldwater: I have a strong hunch, John, that the American public doesn't give a goddamn about summits, whether you have them or not. I don't get enough mail from Arizona on that subject to bother with it. I think, in many ways, the American people are ahead of our foreign policy framers in Washington. Kolbe: How do you mean? Are you saying arms control agreements aren't really all that important? Goldwater: They're not that important to the American citizen. The things they want don't always jive with the president or the State Department. Kolbe: I was rereading parts of "The Conscience of a Conservative" (Goldwater's first book, published in 1960) last night, and was reminded that you took a very dim view of even dealing with the Communists. Have you moderated at all since then in your view of the aims of Communism, and how we should deal with it? Goldwater: I think you could say I've changed a little bit there. Let me try to explain it, because it might not be easy. I don't believe Russia wants any war with the United States, and I'm sure the United States doesn't want any war with Russia. Russia's economy is in terrible shape. Now what can happen from that? When you have a government controlled by a handful of people, the Politburo, and the economy of the country is not good, and young people are beginning to say, ''Why is it in the United States they can work less than a day and buy a pair of shoes, and I have to work two or three weeks?'' They're beginning to question why we can have two or three TV sets, and they can barely afford one. Now, you let that unhappiness with the economy in a totalitarian state go far enough . . . If it's not corrected, there'll be a revolution. I think that's a bigger factor in Gorbachev's thinking than whether we have arms control or SDI or whatnot. Where have I changed? I think it would be worthwhile at some meeting of the president and Gorbachev, or whoever he might be, to explore the idea of maybe we can help. Once you help a people who are having a hard time, you do pretty good with it. Kolbe: Do you mean help economically? Goldwater: Yeah, but don't ask how. Kolbe: I think the Goldwater who wrote that book might have suggested that was helping them bury us. Goldwater: Well, it would be, but is that moderation? It might be. I'm just a great believer that the longer you live, the more you learn. And I've been living a long time. Kolbe: Is there any point in an arms control agreement or any kind of treaty with a regime which has a consistent history of violating them? Goldwater: When you look at our experience with the Soviet Union . . . I don't know what the figure is now, but at one time (there were) 52 treaties, they'd broken 51. Not that we've abided by every treaty, but (George) Washington was careful in warning the United States not to depend too much on your allies, or on treaties. Kolbe: I remember, when I was in graduate school at Notre Dame, Dean (Clarence) Manion (former dean of the Notre Dame College of Law) telling me a wonderful story of how this book came into being. Goldwater: Dean Manion called me one day, and said, ''Why don't you write a book.'' I said, ''I don't know anything about writing books,'' and he said, ''Well, we can get you some help.'' I said, ''I still don't know enough about it, but let me try.'' He offered me $10,000, which was more money than I'd ever heard of. So I sat down and wrote a book and I sent it to him. He said, ''This sounds more like poetry than politics. I've got a man named Brent Bozell - he's Bill Buckley's brother-in-law.'' Brent took my book, and took a bunch of my speeches, and what he did to produce that book was borrow very heavily on the old Greeks, and the Romans to some extent. When you read that book, you'd say, there's nothing new here. You've heard it all before. And well, that's the way it goes. Kolbe: As I recall, they had a hell of a time trying to find somebody to print it. Goldwater: No, they didn't. There was a little publisher down in Kentucky. They printed a lot of little books. They printed 19 million, 18 or 19 million. It's the biggest publication in politics they ever had. I got $10,000 out of it. Kolbe: Was $10,000 all you made out of all that? Weren't there any royalties? Goldwater: Maybe . . . no, there were no royalties in it. I think we may have been paid a little more, but I don't recall - it's been so long ago. I liked Dean Manion very much. This year, you know, his son (Daniel) was up for a judgeship, and for some reason or another, members of the judiciary just couldn't put up with him. We had a very close vote getting it approved. In fact, we might lose one Republican senator because he voted for him. (Goldwater was right. Washington Sen. Slade Gorton lost on Nov. 4) Kolbe: How big a part did the book play in your rise to prominence and the conservative movement? Goldwater: I think it had a tremendous impact. It was an inexpensive book, and young people bought that book as fast as they could buy it. I think the young people were influenced by it. The most delightful thing I hear when I travel around the country, is, ''You got me interested in politics, you and your book.'' Kolbe: Do you still hear that? Goldwater: Oh God, yes. That thing in Havasu City last night . . . all these young kids putting it on and they said, ''Well, you got us started'' . . . I guess that's the biggest kick I get out of all this. This kid who introduced me last night said he was born in 1966. Hell, in 1966, I was only 57 years old. I was having a good time. Kolbe: Who were the bad presidents of your time? Goldwater: I would say Johnson. Kolbe: Why? Goldwater: He used his office for his own designs and desire . . . it was obvious. He didn't handle the Vietnam War in a wise way. Kolbe: How do you look back at Nixon? Goldwater: I still think he's a dishonest man. I wouldn't trust him from here to the window. A man who would lie to his wife, lie to his children and lie to his country, I have no use for. Kolbe: Did he do some good things? Goldwater: Yes. I think in the field of foreign policy, he might be one of the better presidents we've had, but he didn't follow through inside the country. Kolbe: What about Carter? Goldwater: I think Carter tried very hard. He's a very religious man. He just was not equipped to be president. I think history will deal a little more kindly with him than he's dealt with today. He's not a bad guy, he's friendly . . . he just wasn't in his place. Kolbe: What kind of president would Goldwater have been? Goldwater: God knows. Kolbe: You said before you didn't think you had the intellectual capability to do it. How important is that? We've certainly had a lot of presidents who weren't very intellectually stellar. Goldwater: I probably say that because I've always been ashamed of the fact that I didn't finish college. I don't have a degree, but maybe I think too much about it. As you say, there have been presidents who have had far less educational background than I have. It's a hell of a big job. You sit back and look at it - you wonder how the hell those guys get through it. I remember Ike told me one day that he had to sign about 1,300 documents a day, or his office had to. And the decisions that have to be made by that office that have an effect on over 235 million people. It's not something you can say, ha ha ha, we'll do this. You have to give it a hell of a lot of thought. I have a lot of respect for that office. I don't think there's a more challenging office in the world, and I don't see any reduction in that challenge. Kolbe: We were talking about how the rhetoric has changed. It's certainly a lot safer to call yourself a conservative than it once was. But have the policies changed that much? Has there been much of a change in what's coming out of Washington, what's coming out of government? Goldwater: Yes, I think if you look at total results of the conservative government, they've made some rather remarkable advances, although if you think of reducing the size of government as the most important function, they haven't done it. I think I saw the other day that we've added 200,000 people to the payrolls. But we've been successful at reducing agencies -- not as successful as we should have been, because it depends on Congress, and when Congress looks out and counts the votes that are involved, nine times out of 10 they won't do anything about it. I think conservatism has changed the country and I think it's going to change it more. As the American people become more and more aware of what conservatism is, and realize that's nine out of 10 times the driving force in America, they'll be thinking, ''Leave me alone, let me do my own job, get out of my hair, let's keep taxes down, you guys spend too much money. Kolbe: Yet, you see the phenomenon of a lot of people who call themselves conservatives pushing for more government intervention in certain areas, in the so-called social agenda. Goldwater: That's one of the complaints I have about some of my Republican colleagues. When it gets down to the point of voting, they just don't vote right. If conservatism continues, I think that is going to change. The people will come to demand it. Of course, Arizona is not a typical state. It's about as conservative a state as we have in the union. So when I recite the reactions of people at home, they might be different in Kansas, or Washington, or in the East; you know damn well they're different. Kolbe: There are a lot of those people who say Barry Goldwater isn't a conservative anymore, that he's changed too much. Goldwater: I get that, but I say, where have I changed? They don't come up with any answers. I still get 95 to 100 on conservative box scores. Kolbe: How have you changed? You say you've learned more. Goldwater: I think I've become more tolerant. I have a better feeling today for the other person's viewpoint than I had. I'm not as readily critical as I one time was. I think those are the general changes. And I think they come more naturally with age than they do with experience. My basic political concept is wrapped up in the Constitution. The ability of the individual American to take care of his own shop - that still prevails in my thinking - and the need for a strong America. Kolbe: How has the state changed in your life? Goldwater: Arizona? Whew. I think the biggest change is in the extremely rapid growth in population. I sit up here and look at the Westward Ho, which you can't see today . . . I was born right where that hotel is. When I was born, there were about 10,000 people living in the whole Valley. And I think, God almighty, in our next census, there might be 2 million people living out there. And there might be 4 million living in Arizona. By the year 2000, this town could be the fifth or sixth largest city in the United States. We're the fastest growing industrial state. Our unemployment figures are below the national. Our personal income is above the average. Where's the change? The change is wrapped up in the challenge and the problems of keeping this state growing in the right way. I fly over this state . . . every time I fly, I see a new town laid out someplace. And I think, ''I hope to God they do things right.'' Rapid growth doesn't necessarily bring rapid success. Kolbe: Do you lament the passing of the Arizona you once knew? Goldwater: Yes, I do. But I know there's not a damn thing I can do about it. I think every native Arizonan, or any person who's lived here a long time, has a feeling about the rapid growth. But with all the problems it brings, it also brings a better economy. It's a stable economy now, although I don't know if it's going to stay that way. But it has its problems, and its challenges. Kolbe: What would you count as your major successes? Goldwater: I guess the major success would be the Military Reorganization Act we passed this year. It's the first time in 200 years the military has had a plan to reorganize on. I think that would be my hallmark. Kolbe: What about disappointments? Goldwater: I don't have any disappointments. I think the life I've led in and out of politics has been a pretty average life, for a guy that was born like I was, with an opportunity already built in. I don't think I've abused it, or it's been a special benefit, nor has it detracted. Kolbe: You really think you've led a pretty average life? Goldwater: For a guy who was born with my built-in possibilities, (such as) a family name that goes back almost to the beginning of the territory. I don't think there's a man living who's had the opportunities to do the things I have. I've been in the Army, the Air Force, I've been in the Congress, I'm an author, a book collector, art collector, a photographer . . . you name it, I've had a crack at it. Kolbe: How do you feel now that you're all through with this madness? Goldwater: Well, I'm very happy to be home, although I have to tell you that I have no more idea of what I'm going to do than the man in the moon. I'm just going to relax. I'm keeping my apartment in Washington for a while. I don't know exactly why, except I have a feeling that there will be some things that I can do for the Pentagon from time to time, and I'll go back and do them. I'm going to do lectures over at Arizona State, but we haven't worked out any schedule on that . . . it will probably be once a month or something like that. But I . . . don't have any ideas of what I want to do. I want to stay around here. Kolbe: You don't want to live in Washington? Goldwater: No, God no. It's a beautiful city, but hen you drive the same six miles to work and back - I think I've driven about 70,000 miles worth - it gets old. And the Senate . . . I didn't run for re-election for several reasons. One, I'm getting too old. Two, it costs too much money and I don't like to raise money. And three, the Senate has changed a lot, and I'm not exactly happy with the changes. So I've done the natural thing -- just said the hell with it and come home and let some younger man take my place . Kolbe: If you could write your epitaph, what would it be? Goldwater: All I'd like to be remembered for is trying my damnedest, and being an honest guy. Outside of that, it doesn't make much difference. I'm thankful for it (my career). Thank God I could represent Arizona. enlarge image John Kolbe (right) interviews Barry Goldwater in his Paradise Valley home shortly after the former Senator retired in 1986.

Arizona legend talks politics The warrior comes home John Kolbe Phoenix Gazette political columnist Dec. 3, 1986 12:00 PM http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special25/articles/1203goldwater.html?&wired After three months of unsuccessful efforts by The Phoenix Gazette to arrange an interview with retiring U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater - efforts thwarted by his frenetic schedule - Judy Eisenhower, Goldwater's trusted longtime assistant, was on the telephone. ''Can you see him?'' she asked, with a tone of urgency. ''I just talked to him, and he said to come on up - right now.'' It was vintage Goldwater - impulsive and unpretentious. In a barely remembered political campaign, it was the kind of impulsiveness that charmed his friends, and scared millions of voters who weren't sure he could be trusted with his finger next to the nuclear button. But whether one ranks among the charmees or the scarees, one thing is sure -- Barry Goldwater hasn't changed much. Clouds and a pall of smog unknown in his boyhood hung over the Valley when we arrived 30 minutes later at Be-Nunn-I-Kin, his hilltop home in Paradise Valley, with hastily assembled tape recorder and a few random questions. Goldwater, just four days after the gavel fell on his five-term career, greeted us in a blue sport shirt and stained, light-blue work trousers. Crippled by repeated knee and hip operations, he hardly moved from the chair in his spacious den, looking southward through a vast picture window toward the smog and the McCune mansion just below (which he once dubbed the ''Chinese tire factory''). He hobbled across the room to turn off the radio at a portable console faintly resembling the dashboard of a jet he might have flown. ''It does everything but cook dinner,'' he chuckled. The gadget-happy senator was obviously pleased with his latest toy. The tape recorder was whirring, and the beginning seemed to be a reasonable place to start: Kolbe: Let's start back at the beginning. How did you get into the political game in the first place? Was it by accident? Goldwater: Well, you'll never believe it. I talked Howard Pyle into running for governor (in 1950, when Pyle unexpectedly won), and he never said anything about it. But one day - I guess it was about 1951 - we were driving over to Glendale to a Rotary meeting and it was raining like hell. And he said, ''You know, you gotta run for the Senate.'' And I said, ''Why?'' And he said, ''You talked me into running for the governor, I'm going to talk you into running for the Senate.'' I said, ''Howard, nobody in this state can beat (Sen. Ernest) McFarland. Hell, I've been a backer of his, I think he's done a hell of a good job. Howard finally talked me into it. I said, ''Well, we'll never go anyplace, but we'll try.'' The only reason I ever won that election was, Mac was overconfident. He didn't come home until about the last three weeks, and then he never did really campaign. And then, add to that the fact that I had Eisenhower on the same ticket, and I just stood on his coattails, and that's the way I got in. Kolbe: Was it mostly Eisenhower? Goldwater: Yeah, I think it was mostly Eisenhower. This state was still predominantly Democrat, and Mac, as I say, had done a hell of a good job. I worked with him on the Central Arizona Project. Whenever I went to Washington, I talked with him. In fact, strange thing, when he became (Senate) majority leader, I said, ''You made a mistake, Mac. You gotta carry the weight of Harry Truman on your shoulders, and somebody might beat you.'' I never thought it might be me. Kolbe: Was there a certain irony in your riding into office with Eisenhower who, after all, was the guy who had beat Mr. Conservative (Ohio Sen. Robert Taft) at the Republican Convention that year? Goldwater: Well, I never thought of it, but I guess you're right. Kolbe: Did you ever regret that you supported Eisennhower rather than Taft? Goldwater: No, I supported Eisenhower because of the Young Republicans in this state. They wanted Eisenhower. I was basically a Taft man, and when I changed at the state convention that year . . . I bet I lost half the party. In fact, many people tore up my petitions and refused to back me. But I just felt that the Young Republicans needed that kind of break, so I gave them my support. Kolbe: You never really expected to win, though, did you? Goldwater: No, I didn't think I had a chance up until . . . well, you probably remember the old Rosetree Bar, down on Adams Street . . . Kolbe: I didn't know Phoenix very well in those days. Goldwater: It was an old saloon and pool hall, and they had a big blackboard up right in front of the bar, and any kind of bet that you wanted to make - you could bet that the sun won't come up tomorrow - you just write it up there, and if you had odds, you put the odds down, and some guy would come along and take it. Well, with about two weeks to go, the money got even, and I thought, by God, I might have a chance. I never really thought I could beat Mac, but like I said, Mac just didn't come home. If he'd come home, he would have beat my ass off. Kolbe: What did you think when you did win? What was your reaction? Goldwater: I was scared to death, I really was. I went back there, and I never will forget what the vice president . . . oh, he was the guy from Kentucky . . . Kolbe: Alben Barkley. Goldwater: Yeah, he said, ''Son, you're going to spend the first six months wondering how in the hell you ever got here. Then, you're going to spend the rest of your time wondering how these other bastards got here.'' I'll never forget that first year. In those days, when they said freshman senators didn't speak, by God, they meant it. And I guess I went over five months before I stood up on the floor. Kolbe: Was the ban on speaking enforced in some way, or was it just sort of a peer-pressure thing? Goldwater: It was just an accepted rule that freshman senators didn't sound off. I remember the first time I got up on the floor I just asked unanimous consent that something be put in the record. Of course, that's all changed now. No such rules. Kolbe: Is that a good or bad thing? Goldwater: Oh, I think it's good. We're getting today a higher-class man and woman in the Senate from the standpoint of education. I would say most of the new ones have at least a master's degree and a lot of them have Ph.D.'s That doesn't necessarily make them better senators, because I don't think the Senate today measures up to the Senate when I first started. Kolbe: How was that? What was the Senate like, and what was Washington like in those days? It was a much simpler place, wasn't it? Goldwater: Yes, to begin with, I think we had less than 2,000 aides working on the Hill. Today, there's close to 30,000. When I first went there, being invited out was something that happened maybe once or twice a month. And my God, now you can go to two dinners a night. I never do that, because I'm not a social person. But the town has become . . . well, it's overwhelmed with lobbyists, with self-interest groups. That was the one thing that Hamilton warned against, was self-interest legislation and, by God, that just about runs the roost today. Kolbe: How does that change the nature of politics? Goldwater: Well, it's lessened the feeling of responsibility to a party. We have eight or 10 Republicans that vote more with Democrats than they do with Republicans, and the Democrats have maybe six that we can depend on on every vote. Being a Republican is not a driving force . . . being a Democrat is not a driving force. Now, is that good or bad? It's good in some ways, it's bad in others, because the party is identified with certain principles, and when an individual wanders away from those principles, he ceases to be of any great value to the political makeup of the party. Kolbe: Aren't the parties fairly broad in their ideologies? Goldwater: Yeah, they're much broader than they were. Much broader. Kolbe: Is that good or bad? Goldwater: Well, again, I think it's good and I think it's bad. It's good in the sense that it gives a much wider representation of how the people at home feel. But it's bad in the harm it does to either party and their principles, to the point that more and more people are saying, ''I don't belong to either party.'' So, that's the harm in it. The damage that this self-interest brings on is that self-interest groups are now, more than ever, running this country. You take the Israel groups, and there are many of them . . . if just a rumor goes out that the president is going to sell some military equipment to an Arab nation, overnight there will be 60 to 70 senators siding up with the Israeli group. Why? Because they have money, and they threaten. But they're not the only ones. You name it, there's an organization in Washington working for it, all self-interest. Kolbe: Is the Israeli lobby too powerful? Goldwater: God, yes, way too powerful. Kolbe: Has that had some detrimental effects on what comes out of Congress? Goldwater: Yes. See, we have no treaty with Israel, but we have pledged ourselves to go to war if she has to go to war. And there are some of the actions that some of the Israeli groups take that, at times, I've felt would hasten that day when we have to live up to our promise. I can understand the feeling, but I'm getting awfully tired of the great influence they have and there's no question about it. The last example was when we wanted to fulfill our promise to sell Saudi Arabia some F-15s. We sent them a few, but then the Israeli group got up in arms and, by God, it stopped. I think the first tabulation we got, 65 senators were opposed to it before any debate or any discussion. And that's held true with every weapons system that we've wanted to sell any of the Arab countries. Kolbe: Why do they have that influence? Goldwater: They have it because, you take the big cities like New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, they have a tremendously large Jewish population and a lot of money, and these senators just cater to that type of influence. But like the influence of the labor unions, the National Rifle Association, the American Medical Association, and we could go on and on and name the influences that, while not as strong as Israel, have a great strength. And they make it hard for a man to run when he can't get money, when he has a large dedicated group against him. The tendency then is to overcome that strike by going along with them (the special interests). Kolbe: Let's go back chronologically to the '50s. When did it become apparent to you that you were becoming something more than just a member of the U.S. Senate but actually a symbol, if you will, of a conservative movement that was just in its formative stages? Goldwater: Well, I'll be honest with you, I never felt it. I still don't feel it. I don't think I've had the great influence that is attributed to me. I was just fortunate in coming about when the country was beginning to leave liberalism and look towards conservatism. And the fact that I spoke out for conservatism, and conducted my presidential campaign on mostly conservative principles. And then, The Speech, we call it, that made Ronald Reagan, was a speech I was supposed to make . . . Kolbe: Really? Goldwater: They sent me a copy of it in Milwaukee, and I read it, and said this speech was not for me. To tell you the truth, I don't believe I had the ability to read this speech and get across all the innuendoes that it has, so I suggested that they give it to Ronald Reagan, and that's the speech that got him started. (Broadcast as a half-hour television plug for Goldwater, The Speech didn't succeed in its primary mission - Goldwater lost in a landslide - but it had another, more long-term effect. It launched a gubernatorial boomlet for Reagan in California. The rest is history.) Kolbe: Whether or not you think you were influential, certainly you have to admit, don't you, that you were clearly a hero, particularly to some young people -- I can say that, because I was one of them -- and not just young people, but a whole crowd of people who started coming into their own at National Review, on college campuses, and so forth. Goldwater: That might be true, but it's hard for me to believe. I go to these dinners and meetings and hear myself bestowed to the high heavens. (A photographer arrived to take Goldwater's picture. ''My God, I'm not dressed up,'' the senator said, although the oversight didn't really seem to bother him much.) It's awfully hard, like last night in Lake Havasu City . . . By God, the whole evening was dedicated to blowing my horn, and I got up and thanked them, and I said, ''You know, I like to hear this stuff, I'd be a xxxx if I said I didn't, but I'm only going to believe about half of it.'' I feel like one of the troops - I just went along and did the best I could. Kolbe: In 1960, what actually had begun as a Goldwater for vice president effort ended up with you being placed in nomination for president at the Republican Convention. It was there that you got up and made, I think, the speech that probably propelled you more into national attention than any single speech up until, of course, the famous acceptance speech in San Francisco four years later. Hadn't you already become, by 1960, sort of a vehicle for that movement, if you will? Goldwater: Well, again, I say that was just a case of my being around. I went down to South Carolina (in 1960) to make the speech before the state Republican Convention, and I'll tell you . . . you could have put them all in this room, and, when I was upstairs packing my bags to leave, I got the word that they were going to pledge the delegation to me at the Chicago convention. I tried to talk them out of it. They got up, and others, when Nixon more or less went back on his word to me and went up to New York to see (Gov. Nelson) Rockefeller and then agreed to a platform that would call for the elimination of right-to-work legislation, I got awfully mad about it and went back to Chicago and refused to address a fund-raiser for Nixon. Then, the word began to get out, helped by (then Arizona Gov.) Paul Fannin and (political adviser) Steve Shadegg, that maybe Goldwater would be a candidate. And I finally said, ''Look, if you guys will get me 350 signatures in blood, you can put me up.'' Well, I knew they couldn't do it. And that's when they entered my name and I made the speech you are talking about. Kolbe: Who placed your name in nomination? Goldwater: I think it was Paul Fannin. Kolbe: There was a time, shortly after that convention, when there was a real concern that the conservative movement was so tied to you, that it was so caught up in one person, that if you were to drop off the face of the earth tomorrow morning, that suddenly the whole movement would die. Goldwater: I don't buy that. Kolbe: I'm not asking you to buy it, it's simply that there was that concern. Goldwater: There was a real strong (bunch) of conservatives who began to blossom when they held the first meetings in Chicago (beginning in 1961) on how they could get me the nomination. We had a hell of a lot of dedicated people . . . that group that had always been there. I didn't know anything about that first meeting in Chicago. It was a hell of a big meeting, and I tried to discourage them but I didn't have any luck. I didn't think they'd ever get it together, but they did. Kolbe: You really didn't cooperate much with the people who were trying to nominate you, did you? Goldwater: No. I really didn't want it, to tell you the truth. Kolbe: Why? Goldwater: Well, many reasons. One, I frankly didn't want it. And two, I didn't think I had the ability to be president. I made no bones of it. I have a very limited educational background. I just felt it would be better if I remained a senator. But that didn't do any good. Kolbe: What finally convinced you to change your mind? Goldwater: Well, there was a time in '63 when I had agreed to run. And then Jack Kennedy was shot. Kolbe: You had agreed in 1963 to run? Goldwater: I had agreed in a quiet sort of way. Kolbe: You told Clif White (chief Goldwater for President strategist) that? Goldwater: Yeah, Clif White, and a fellow named Herman who lives here now . . . Dick Kleindienst, Bryce Harlow, a whole bunch of them. But when Jack was shot, I just thought I don't want to run against Lyndon Johnson. I had looked forward to running against Jack Kennedy. I think it would have been a real change in campaigning in this country. Kolbe: In what way? Goldwater: Well, we would have debated. We had talked together about just going across the country - maybe using the same airplane - but stopping at a town and standing up in the old Stephen Douglas way and debate. But I just decided not to run when he was killed. And then, right here in this room, I think it was around Dec. 15 or 16 of that year, they put the pressure on me. They said there were hundreds of thousands of young people that were looking forward to my running . . . Kolbe: And they told you there were all these young people out there waiting for you? Goldwater: And on the strength of that responsibility I felt for young people, I said, ''OK, we'll go.'' Kolbe: Did you ever believe you could win? Goldwater: No. The day I was writing my acceptance speech, or helping to rewrite it, I was looking across the room at a presentation of a Princeton poll. It showed me 20 percent and Lyndon 80 percent, and I said in a facetious way -- ''We ought to be writing a speech telling them to go find somebody else.'' No, I really didn't think I could win, but I thought the important thing to do was to get control of the Republican Party away from the East, and in that we were successful. And it's had a very, very good effect on the Republican Party to have, you might say, the center of their activities out here in the West, and I think it's going to stay that way for a long, long time. Kolbe: Why is that a good thing? Goldwater: What was wrong was having a handful of Eastern states control the party. Actually, nine states could control the presidential election. I didn't like the ideas that were coming out of that Eastern domination - they were not broad ideas, they didn't encompass the problems of the West. I just wanted to see the thing move, and it moved and we got Nixon (in 1968), which was pretty much in the plans too. Kolbe: What you are saying, really, is that those ideas weren't conservative enough? Goldwater: Well, that would be part of it. I didn't like their attitude on foreign policy. I didn't like their partial recognition that the federal government could operate in the economy. It was just enough difference to cause the Republicans in the West to not like or endorse the East. Kolbe: You said you never believed you could win in 1964. Why not? Was it just too early? Were you ahead of your time? Goldwater: No, I think the basic reason was that the country wasn't ready, and I don't think they'd ever be ready, to have three presidents in two years. (Kennedy was killed in November 1963, and a new president was to be inaugurated in January 1965.) I've come to that conclusion a long time ago. I think that was the main reason. Kolbe: Was there anything that had to do with Johnson himself? Goldwater: I never thought of that. Lyndon performed just as I knew he would -- he used every dirty trick in the bag. He was a powerful man who used powerful ways to get his will. And while I recognize his great ability in the Senate as a Senate leader, I never liked the way he operated. Kolbe: Why? Was he underhanded, or what? Goldwater: Well, he came to the Senate (in 1948) absolutely bankrupt, no money. When he died, he was worth about $40 million. I can tell you from personal experience that doesn't happen. Kolbe: On a Senate salary, anyway. Goldwater: No. In fact, it cost me about $1 million to be a senator for 30 years. Kolbe: Really? How do you figure that? Goldwater: Oh, all the things that I did that I paid for myself . . . extra help here and there, extra travel. When I started, we were only allowed one trip back home. Now, we can go any damn time we want. There were a lot of little things like that. I remember in my first term, there was a newspaper publisher in Wickenburg. I went up to see him one day, and he was really teed off about the senators using franked mail. And he was getting tired of getting letters with no postage stamps. So my first year, it cost me $14,000 just to keep a promise to him. Kolbe: You didn't use franked mail in your first year in office? Goldwater: Not to constituents at home. I felt that I had promised him. I knew he was teed off about it. Kolbe: You didn't keep that up for 30 years? Goldwater: No, man, I didn't. Kolbe: Looking back at 1964, what would have been different if you had been elected? Goldwater: There wouldn't have been all the change that some people think there would. I learned very early in my campaign that there were a lot of things that the president couldn't do. That he only controls, he only has a right to control, 30 percent of the money we spend. Seventy percent of the money and the activities of the agencies are controlled by the Congress, if they want to. But they don't want to, because it involves political risks. Once you've established an agency, then to unestablish or disestablish it you run into an established group that might number up in the hundreds or thousands that will vote against you. That's why the president (Reagan) hasn't been able to get as many of the agencies closed as he wanted to, because the Congress wouldn't go along. And I realize that, and I realized that if I became president, I wouldn't have control of either house. I'd have to fight that, and that, in itself, would prevent me from doing the things that I said I would do. Kolbe: Do you think a Goldwater administration would have disappointed your friends? Goldwater: It would have disappointed some of the real die-hards, but those who had a realistic look at the office would recognize, once again, it isn't what you want to do - it's what you can do. Eisenhower told me that. We sat and talked. He'd bring up a problem he felt he had, and he couldn't do much about it. He said, ''If you're elected, you're going to find the same experiences I had, of frustration.'' So that's about where I was. Kolbe: You've been accused or complimented, depending on who's doing the talking, of being overly loyal to your friends, to the point that it's gotten you in trouble at times. As with Nixon, for example. How do you look at loyalty? Goldwater: Well, I'll put it another way. I think it's a very essential part of life that you show loyalty. If people go out of their way to do things for you, you've got to stay loyal to them. I realize that in the course of my life, I've had some friends you might call questionable. But they never tried to take advantage of me. They've never asked me to do anything that I felt I shouldn't do. I don't think loyalty has hurt me one bit, and I'll never change that. Kolbe: Certainly, you were loyal to Nixon at a time when it cost you some friends among your political allies. (In 1968, support from Goldwater -- who was still immensely popular with party rank and file despite his loss four years earlier -- was crucial to Nixon's successful rejection of challenges from Rockefeller and Reagan.) Goldwater: Well, I felt very friendly towards Dick Nixon, until - I'll never forget it - the day after Jerry Ford made his first trip to New Hampshire (in 1976) looking for re-election, and Nixon decides to go to China. So who gets all the headlines? ''Nixon Goes to China.'' I was on a TV show and I was asked a question about that. And I said, ''Well, if Nixon likes China so much, let him stay there.'' And within a millisecond, our entire experience together came apart, just like that. I said this man's a dishonest man. And I remember when I got back to the apartment, Peggy said, ''What in the hell got into you?'' Well, I said, ''I just realized that Dick Nixon is dishonest.'' Kolbe: Hadn't Watergate given you any clues? Goldwater: Uhh, yes . . . Kolbe: You were certainly making noises like he was dishonest back then, weren't you? Goldwater: The decision I made (at the time of Nixon's China announcement) was not that he was dishonest with Watergate, but that he was always dishonest. He had never been an honest man in his life. And I still think that way. Kolbe: During Watergate, were you inclined to be more restrictive in your views of his dishonesty? Goldwater: I was a hopeful person. I remember I spoke at the weekly breakfast at the Christian Science Monitor, and I remarked that where there is smoke, there is fire. And Nixon called me that afternoon and asked me to come down (to the White House), and he was quite upset. And I said, ''If there's anything to what we're hearing about Watergate, and you've had a hand in it, the best thing you can do is go on the tube and tell the American people what happened. In a matter of a week, they will have forgotten the whole thing.'' Well, he didn't do it, and week after week after week we get a new admission from the White House that more tapes have been found. And the day that I just blew my stack was when it was reported to us at our weekly Republican luncheon that there was still another tape when he had said there wasn't. I got so goddamn mad that the meeting broke up. We met the Republican leadership and they said, ''We want you to go to the White House and tell that to Nixon.'' So I called Dean Burch (a White House aide and former Arizona lawyer), and he said, ''You can't do it today, but come up to my house for lunch tomorrow and (White House chief of staff) Alex Haig will be here and we'll talk about it.'' So the plan was for me to show up around 3:30 p.m., and (House Minority leader) John Rhodes and (Senate Minority leader) Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania would be there. And we would then see the president. Kolbe: You went to see Dean Burch at the White House? Goldwater: No, I saw him at his home. We had lunch and they (Haig and Burch) said, ''Don't threaten the president. Don't even insinuate.'' They'd been very, very close to this whole thing. So we went into the president's office and he acted like a fellow who'd just finished a good round of golf. He sat there and talked to John and me about the times we campaigned together. And we finally got down to the point. He said, ''How am I in the Senate?'' And I said, ''Mr. President, you won't have 10 votes in the Senate.'' And John said the House was about the same. So we went out to the press and made our statements. Kolbe: John Rhodes has said, if I recall, that it was really kind of an eerie conversation . . . Goldwater: It was. Kolbe: . . . as if this man didn't have a care in the world, that the whole thing on Watergate hardly came up. Goldwater: Nothing. It was spooky. He acted like he just made a hole in one. And when we told him how the votes looked, it didn't change him. What we were afraid of -- Alex Haig, Dean Burch and all of us -- Nixon was sort of right on top of a needle, and he'd go either way. If we pushed him too much, he might, being stubborn, he might say, ''Well, I'm going to ride this out.'' And we knew that would involve the Senate and the House, and at least six months of harangue and argument. As soon as I got back to the Senate, I began to hear the stories that were getting out on the press that we had told Nixon to quit. I called Ben Bradlee and Katherine Graham (managing editor and owner, respectively, of The Washington Post), and said, ''This is the situation. If you people in the press push the president too far, he's not gonna quit. If you leave him alone, I think he's gonna quit.'' And by God, I'll take my hat off to them, they just clammed up on the whole subject. So that in the next few days, thethe days of decision, he was not plagued by a lot of press saying he's got to go. Kolbe: Actually, that was only a day later, wasn't it? Nixon went on television the next night . . . Goldwater: That's right, it was one day. I talked to them that afternoon. We got back (from the White House) about 5 p.m. I've always admired The Post -- I don't necessarily like them too much -- but they saved this country one hell of a lot of trouble. Kolbe: Where do you think the press was getting the word that you had told Nixon to quit? I assume that none of the three of you told them that. Goldwater: No, you have to work in the Washington press corps to understand those people; they don't necessarily have to have hidebound fact to write on. If I had been a reporter, I think I would have reached the more or less logical conclusion that we did tell him to quit. Kolbe: In other words, it wasn't too far-fetched? Goldwater: It wasn't too far-fetched. And I immediately went to my friends in the press, and told them the situation, and all of them finally backed off. Kolbe: What ways has Congress changed over the last 30 years? We talked about the influence of special-interest groups. Goldwater: The influence of special interests, the extreme growth of aides to where having 50 or even 100 members on your staff, while a little unusual, is not unheard of. These people sit around the offices and have nothing to do but write bills and write amendments. So, we're faced with thousands and thousands of bills and amendments every year. The first Senate I served in . . . I don't think we had 200 votes. We can have 200 votes in a month or less now. It just takes up your time. You can't do your committee work the way we used to do it. And then, the new senators and the old ones feel the country's going to hell if they don't get re-elected. Kolbe: Is that any different than it's ever been? Members of Congress have always worried about re-election. Goldwater: Yeah, but it wasn't a life-or-death proposition. They liked to be re-elected, but they didn't begin working on it the day after they were elected the first time. Today, I'll make you a small bet, that within a week after the election, there will be fund-raising parties for the next election. As I said earlier, the intellectual type we're getting is better then when I first went there, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the dedication to the United States has kept pace. They're more dedicated to what takes place in their back yard. I'll give you a good example, even though it involves my junior colleague - this airplane argument I had my last day at the Senate. The engines are to be built by Garrett. Denny (DeConcini, Arizona Democrat) got the floor, (and) it was obvious he didn't know what the hell he was talking about -- airplanes. And the whole debate was not the airplane, but (the fact) the Air Force didn't want the airplane. But he felt he's going to be up for re-election, he wouldn't get all these people at Garrett mad at him. I've never told him this, but I had discussed it with the son of (World War II Air Corps general) Hap Arnold -- one of my close friends in Washington, Bruce (who is a Garrett lobbyist). I told him I had to oppose the T-46. Well, he said, ''Don't worry about it. We've got enough business, and if they ever build another trainer, we'll get it.'' So Denny was merely talking for the benefit of his next election; otherwise, he never would have said a word. Kolbe: You got a little teed off at some of those folks (in the Senate) on that last night, didn't you? Goldwater: Well, after damn near 30 hours, (New York Sen. Alphonse) D'Amato was clearly making a pitch for the votes for the Fairchild people at Farmingdale, Long Island. Instead of getting it, I'm afraid, he got so many people mad at him, that he's lost . . . well, he won't lose the election, but . . . This is another characteristic of the Senate today that I don't like. The first concern is, does it do my state any good? As I say often, I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I didn't take an oath to defend the Constitution of Arizona. I didn't take an oath to make sure every factory in this state got a little cut of mustard. I'll do my best to help them, but that's not going to be my driving motive. The Senate is now 100 members, just busting their asses for their own states. I don't think it's good. Kolbe: Are we getting more legislation, or just worse legislation? Goldwater: Both. We're getting a lot more legislation. I remember one of the things I said when I first ran for office -- that my job was not to go to Washington to get more legislation, but to get rid of some. I haven't been very successful. Kolbe: Has the congressional budget process broken down. Has it reached a point of paralysis? Goldwater: I would say it's close to it. In fact, I wrote a piece for The Washington Post (recently) on this general subject, of what the budget act - and I voted for it, I thought it was a hell of an idea - was doing to the committee structure of the Senate. I used an example of my own Committee on Armed Forces. I started to work the day after we got back to Washington (in January). I had my (military authorization) bill ready to go to the floor . . . by the middle of May. But before I even got to that, the Budget Committee said, ''No, this authorization bill that you submitted is not what we want.'' So I have to go through the whole damn thing again, and authorize the amount they want. So what happens? I don't get my bill considered until after the summer recess, and what the hell, we only have about 40 days left. Kolbe: What's the solution? Goldwater: The solution. I have one thing - do away with the Budget Committee. It has not worked the way we thought it would. Do away with that, and then tighten down on the authority (of the) appropriations subcommittees (to) spend money on certain subjects. I think something's going to have to be done, because it's not working. Kolbe: Are there too many committees and subcommittees, with too much overlap? Goldwater: I would say yes. Kolbe: Somebody's estimated that there are something like 20 or 25 committees in the House dealing just with energy. Goldwater: The House is worse than we are. But the House is much better at enforcing their rules. We should have a rule of germaneness. That would save us billions and billions of dollars. Kolbe: How do you get senators and congressman who have that perspective that you were talking about, the national perspective rather than the state or district perspective? How do you assure that way of looking at things? Goldwater: It isn't easy. Getting back to what I said earlier, the main thrust now is getting re-elected. That's not something that's born in the last year of your service -- it's born the first day of your service. Almost everything that goes on after that is directed not primarily at what is good for the country but what's good for me. I don't like it. Kolbe: But is there really any way to devise a system . . . Goldwater: No, you can't devise a system that can control the human mind. Kolbe: What about limits on terms? Goldwater: I've become a believer in that. I'm a hell of a guy to talk about it, because I've served five terms, and there's only 15 people, I think, who have served five terms or more. (Actually, Goldwater is overly modest. He's served longer in the Senate than all but three of its current members.) I'm on a constitutional amendment that Denny DeConcini authored, limiting senators to two terms. Leave the House membership alone . . . But I really think the Senate would be benefited by only allowing two terms. Kolbe: But not the House? Goldwater: If they are going to have a limit, I would make it six terms, or the same (number of years) as a senator. You'll find the average (length of service) is below that. But Denny put that amendment in, and now he's running for a third term. Kolbe: You've served under seven presidents. How do you rate them? Goldwater: I'd put Eisenhower first. Kolbe: Why? Goldwater: He was a man who made decisions. He was a lot like Harry Truman, who I think will be the best president of this century. You never had any doubt as to where he stood. You might disagree with him. Eisenhower was pretty much the same way as Truman, and Eisenhower had a wonderful ability to get along with people. As time goes by, more and more people realize that he was a hell of a good president. At first, they didn't look at him that way. I think had Jack Kennedy lived, he probably would have been a hell of a good president. After Eisenhower, I would name Reagan for his uncanny ability to get along and get ahead. When he went to this little summit meeting up in Reykjavik, his airplane had no sooner taken off than all the wisenheimers in Washington were saying it was a complete flop. We lost ground, they said. And yet, the next polls that were taken showed Reagan had gone up nine points, because of his willingness, in effect, to tell Gorbachev to go to hell. I think that decision at Reykjavik is probably going to elect a lot of Republicans that we didn't think we'd elect. Kolbe: George Will called Reykjavik Reagan's ''finest hour,'' because he said Reagan proved that you can go to a summit and come back without an agreement. Has there been too much emphasis on just getting any kind of agreement? Goldwater: I don't think the president puts that much emphasis . . . Kolbe: I'm talking about emphasis, generally, over the years. Goldwater: I have a strong hunch, John, that the American public doesn't give a goddamn about summits, whether you have them or not. I don't get enough mail from Arizona on that subject to bother with it. I think, in many ways, the American people are ahead of our foreign policy framers in Washington. Kolbe: How do you mean? Are you saying arms control agreements aren't really all that important? Goldwater: They're not that important to the American citizen. The things they want don't always jive with the president or the State Department. Kolbe: I was rereading parts of "The Conscience of a Conservative" (Goldwater's first book, published in 1960) last night, and was reminded that you took a very dim view of even dealing with the Communists. Have you moderated at all since then in your view of the aims of Communism, and how we should deal with it? Goldwater: I think you could say I've changed a little bit there. Let me try to explain it, because it might not be easy. I don't believe Russia wants any war with the United States, and I'm sure the United States doesn't want any war with Russia. Russia's economy is in terrible shape. Now what can happen from that? When you have a government controlled by a handful of people, the Politburo, and the economy of the country is not good, and young people are beginning to say, ''Why is it in the United States they can work less than a day and buy a pair of shoes, and I have to work two or three weeks?'' They're beginning to question why we can have two or three TV sets, and they can barely afford one. Now, you let that unhappiness with the economy in a totalitarian state go far enough . . . If it's not corrected, there'll be a revolution. I think that's a bigger factor in Gorbachev's thinking than whether we have arms control or SDI or whatnot. Where have I changed? I think it would be worthwhile at some meeting of the president and Gorbachev, or whoever he might be, to explore the idea of maybe we can help. Once you help a people who are having a hard time, you do pretty good with it. Kolbe: Do you mean help economically? Goldwater: Yeah, but don't ask how. Kolbe: I think the Goldwater who wrote that book might have suggested that was helping them bury us. Goldwater: Well, it would be, but is that moderation? It might be. I'm just a great believer that the longer you live, the more you learn. And I've been living a long time. Kolbe: Is there any point in an arms control agreement or any kind of treaty with a regime which has a consistent history of violating them? Goldwater: When you look at our experience with the Soviet Union . . . I don't know what the figure is now, but at one time (there were) 52 treaties, they'd broken 51. Not that we've abided by every treaty, but (George) Washington was careful in warning the United States not to depend too much on your allies, or on treaties. Kolbe: I remember, when I was in graduate school at Notre Dame, Dean (Clarence) Manion (former dean of the Notre Dame College of Law) telling me a wonderful story of how this book came into being. Goldwater: Dean Manion called me one day, and said, ''Why don't you write a book.'' I said, ''I don't know anything about writing books,'' and he said, ''Well, we can get you some help.'' I said, ''I still don't know enough about it, but let me try.'' He offered me $10,000, which was more money than I'd ever heard of. So I sat down and wrote a book and I sent it to him. He said, ''This sounds more like poetry than politics. I've got a man named Brent Bozell - he's Bill Buckley's brother-in-law.'' Brent took my book, and took a bunch of my speeches, and what he did to produce that book was borrow very heavily on the old Greeks, and the Romans to some extent. When you read that book, you'd say, there's nothing new here. You've heard it all before. And well, that's the way it goes. Kolbe: As I recall, they had a hell of a time trying to find somebody to print it. Goldwater: No, they didn't. There was a little publisher down in Kentucky. They printed a lot of little books. They printed 19 million, 18 or 19 million. It's the biggest publication in politics they ever had. I got $10,000 out of it. Kolbe: Was $10,000 all you made out of all that? Weren't there any royalties? Goldwater: Maybe . . . no, there were no royalties in it. I think we may have been paid a little more, but I don't recall - it's been so long ago. I liked Dean Manion very much. This year, you know, his son (Daniel) was up for a judgeship, and for some reason or another, members of the judiciary just couldn't put up with him. We had a very close vote getting it approved. In fact, we might lose one Republican senator because he voted for him. (Goldwater was right. Washington Sen. Slade Gorton lost on Nov. 4) Kolbe: How big a part did the book play in your rise to prominence and the conservative movement? Goldwater: I think it had a tremendous impact. It was an inexpensive book, and young people bought that book as fast as they could buy it. I think the young people were influenced by it. The most delightful thing I hear when I travel around the country, is, ''You got me interested in politics, you and your book.'' Kolbe: Do you still hear that? Goldwater: Oh God, yes. That thing in Havasu City last night . . . all these young kids putting it on and they said, ''Well, you got us started'' . . . I guess that's the biggest kick I get out of all this. This kid who introduced me last night said he was born in 1966. Hell, in 1966, I was only 57 years old. I was having a good time. Kolbe: Who were the bad presidents of your time? Goldwater: I would say Johnson. Kolbe: Why? Goldwater: He used his office for his own designs and desire . . . it was obvious. He didn't handle the Vietnam War in a wise way. Kolbe: How do you look back at Nixon? Goldwater: I still think he's a dishonest man. I wouldn't trust him from here to the window. A man who would lie to his wife, lie to his children and lie to his country, I have no use for. Kolbe: Did he do some good things? Goldwater: Yes. I think in the field of foreign policy, he might be one of the better presidents we've had, but he didn't follow through inside the country. Kolbe: What about Carter? Goldwater: I think Carter tried very hard. He's a very religious man. He just was not equipped to be president. I think history will deal a little more kindly with him than he's dealt with today. He's not a bad guy, he's friendly . . . he just wasn't in his place. Kolbe: What kind of president would Goldwater have been? Goldwater: God knows. Kolbe: You said before you didn't think you had the intellectual capability to do it. How important is that? We've certainly had a lot of presidents who weren't very intellectually stellar. Goldwater: I probably say that because I've always been ashamed of the fact that I didn't finish college. I don't have a degree, but maybe I think too much about it. As you say, there have been presidents who have had far less educational background than I have. It's a hell of a big job. You sit back and look at it - you wonder how the hell those guys get through it. I remember Ike told me one day that he had to sign about 1,300 documents a day, or his office had to. And the decisions that have to be made by that office that have an effect on over 235 million people. It's not something you can say, ha ha ha, we'll do this. You have to give it a hell of a lot of thought. I have a lot of respect for that office. I don't think there's a more challenging office in the world, and I don't see any reduction in that challenge. Kolbe: We were talking about how the rhetoric has changed. It's certainly a lot safer to call yourself a conservative than it once was. But have the policies changed that much? Has there been much of a change in what's coming out of Washington, what's coming out of government? Goldwater: Yes, I think if you look at total results of the conservative government, they've made some rather remarkable advances, although if you think of reducing the size of government as the most important function, they haven't done it. I think I saw the other day that we've added 200,000 people to the payrolls. But we've been successful at reducing agencies -- not as successful as we should have been, because it depends on Congress, and when Congress looks out and counts the votes that are involved, nine times out of 10 they won't do anything about it. I think conservatism has changed the country and I think it's going to change it more. As the American people become more and more aware of what conservatism is, and realize that's nine out of 10 times the driving force in America, they'll be thinking, ''Leave me alone, let me do my own job, get out of my hair, let's keep taxes down, you guys spend too much money. Kolbe: Yet, you see the phenomenon of a lot of people who call themselves conservatives pushing for more government intervention in certain areas, in the so-called social agenda. Goldwater: That's one of the complaints I have about some of my Republican colleagues. When it gets down to the point of voting, they just don't vote right. If conservatism continues, I think that is going to change. The people will come to demand it. Of course, Arizona is not a typical state. It's about as conservative a state as we have in the union. So when I recite the reactions of people at home, they might be different in Kansas, or Washington, or in the East; you know damn well they're different. Kolbe: There are a lot of those people who say Barry Goldwater isn't a conservative anymore, that he's changed too much. Goldwater: I get that, but I say, where have I changed? They don't come up with any answers. I still get 95 to 100 on conservative box scores. Kolbe: How have you changed? You say you've learned more. Goldwater: I think I've become more tolerant. I have a better feeling today for the other person's viewpoint than I had. I'm not as readily critical as I one time was. I think those are the general changes. And I think they come more naturally with age than they do with experience. My basic political concept is wrapped up in the Constitution. The ability of the individual American to take care of his own shop - that still prevails in my thinking - and the need for a strong America. Kolbe: How has the state changed in your life? Goldwater: Arizona? Whew. I think the biggest change is in the extremely rapid growth in population. I sit up here and look at the Westward Ho, which you can't see today . . . I was born right where that hotel is. When I was born, there were about 10,000 people living in the whole Valley. And I think, God almighty, in our next census, there might be 2 million people living out there. And there might be 4 million living in Arizona. By the year 2000, this town could be the fifth or sixth largest city in the United States. We're the fastest growing industrial state. Our unemployment figures are below the national. Our personal income is above the average. Where's the change? The change is wrapped up in the challenge and the problems of keeping this state growing in the right way. I fly over this state . . . every time I fly, I see a new town laid out someplace. And I think, ''I hope to God they do things right.'' Rapid growth doesn't necessarily bring rapid success. Kolbe: Do you lament the passing of the Arizona you once knew? Goldwater: Yes, I do. But I know there's not a damn thing I can do about it. I think every native Arizonan, or any person who's lived here a long time, has a feeling about the rapid growth. But with all the problems it brings, it also brings a better economy. It's a stable economy now, although I don't know if it's going to stay that way. But it has its problems, and its challenges. Kolbe: What would you count as your major successes? Goldwater: I guess the major success would be the Military Reorganization Act we passed this year. It's the first time in 200 years the military has had a plan to reorganize on. I think that would be my hallmark. Kolbe: What about disappointments? Goldwater: I don't have any disappointments. I think the life I've led in and out of politics has been a pretty average life, for a guy that was born like I was, with an opportunity already built in. I don't think I've abused it, or it's been a special benefit, nor has it detracted. Kolbe: You really think you've led a pretty average life? Goldwater: For a guy who was born with my built-in possibilities, (such as) a family name that goes back almost to the beginning of the territory. I don't think there's a man living who's had the opportunities to do the things I have. I've been in the Army, the Air Force, I've been in the Congress, I'm an author, a book collector, art collector, a photographer . . . you name it, I've had a crack at it. Kolbe: How do you feel now that you're all through with this madness? Goldwater: Well, I'm very happy to be home, although I have to tell you that I have no more idea of what I'm going to do than the man in the moon. I'm just going to relax. I'm keeping my apartment in Washington for a while. I don't know exactly why, except I have a feeling that there will be some things that I can do for the Pentagon from time to time, and I'll go back and do them. I'm going to do lectures over at Arizona State, but we haven't worked out any schedule on that . . . it will probably be once a month or something like that. But I . . . don't have any ideas of what I want to do. I want to stay around here. Kolbe: You don't want to live in Washington? Goldwater: No, God no. It's a beautiful city, but hen you drive the same six miles to work and back - I think I've driven about 70,000 miles worth - it gets old. And the Senate . . . I didn't run for re-election for several reasons. One, I'm getting too old. Two, it costs too much money and I don't like to raise money. And three, the Senate has changed a lot, and I'm not exactly happy with the changes. So I've done the natural thing -- just said the hell with it and come home and let some younger man take my place . Kolbe: If you could write your epitaph, what would it be? Goldwater: All I'd like to be remembered for is trying my damnedest, and being an honest guy. Outside of that, it doesn't make much difference. I'm thankful for it (my career). Thank God I could represent Arizona. enlarge image John Kolbe (right) interviews Barry Goldwater in his Paradise Valley home shortly after the former Senator retired in 1986.

WHY IS ROBERT MERRITT TELLING HIS STORY NOW? It is a natural question to ask. After all, it is 38 years after the Watergate scandal broke open. So why the long delay? There is no single answer. There are many. First and foremost is that Merritt would have been killed if he attempted to reveal the origins of Watergate while Washington, D.C. Police Detective Carl Shoffler, the officer who arrested the burglars, was alive. It is that simple. Shoffler, to whom Merritt confided his prior knowledge of the planned break-in at Watergate two weeks before it happened, also recognized his own life was on the line. As recounted by Jim Hougan in his 1984 best-seller, Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat and the CIA, Shoffler told Captain Edmund Chung, his former commanding officer at the National Security Agency’s Vint Hill Farm Station, that if he “ever told the whole story public, ‘his life wouldn’t be worth a nickel.’” After the Watergate arrests and ensuing controversy, Shoffler went to great lengths on many occasions to impress upon Merritt the necessity to remain quiet. In the two years before Watergate Shoffler and the FBI had directed Merritt as a Confidential Informant to commit hundreds of crimes, all done in the name of “national security.” Shoffler threatened Merritt that on the basis these crimes alone the both of them could be prosecuted and imprisoned as would certain FBI officials and agents. Another factor was Merritt’s open homosexuality. Watergate occurred only three years after the Stonewall riot, which marked the beginning of the Gay Movement. Homophobia still reigned supreme. Shoffler told Merritt that his homosexuality would be used to discredit him and to railroad him to incarceration. Indeed, as Merritt prepared to enter the building to testify in executive session before the Senate Watergate Committee, a Democrat committee staff member, Wayne Bishop, stopped and told him his credibility was zero because he was a homosexual and threatened that if he told what he knew about the origins of Watergate, he would be jailed immediately inside the U.S. Capitol Building. Even the Republican in the White House, President Richard Nixon, whose presidency could have been saved had Merritt disclosed what he knew, railed at the time against homosexuals. As revealed in the new book by Mark Feldstein, Poisoning the Press, Nixon wanted to discredit or even prosecute newspaper columnist Jack Anderson so badly that he contemplated an investigation to see if Anderson was a homosexual even though Anderson was married and had nine children. Nixon Aide H.R. Haldeman is quoted on an Oval Office tape as asking, “Do we have anything on [Anderson aide Brit] Hume?....It’d be great if we could get him on a homosexual thing.” “Is he married?” Nixon asked. “He sure looks it,” responded Charles Colson, referring to Hume’s sexuality. So the overt and widespread hatred of gays during this period was a key factor in Merritt’s decision to keep quiet. He only had to look at what happened to me to see what fate might lay waiting for him. In the first month of the Watergate case Chief Judge John Sirica falsely accused me of being “one of the principals” in the Watergate break-in crime. Sirica then held me, as attorney for the seven defendants, in contempt of court and ordered me jailed after I asserted the attorney-client privilege and Sixth Amendment right to counsel in behalf of my clients. Sirica’s vicious homophobia was matched only by the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit who upheld his contempt citation of me in a gratuitously insulting decision. This untold segment of Watergate of how these prejudiced judges attempted to set me up because I was gay is told in my Epilogue in this book. They ultimately failed because there was not one scintilla of evidence that I was involved, which is why I was never indicted, named an unindicted conspirator, disciplined by the bar or even interviewed by the Senate Watergate Committee. Despite the attempts to keep him quiet, Merritt on a number of occasions came close to disclosing what he knew about the prior knowledge by Shoffler and certain agents of the Intelligence Community of the planned break-in. This is covered in Chapter 6, “A Series of Missed Opportunities: How Watergate Might Have Turned Out Differently.” In each instance, for one justifiable reason or another, Merritt decided that the best strategy was to remain quiet. From 1985 to 2000, Merritt was a “fugitive from justice” as he recounts in his story, even though during this period Shoffler continued to direct his activities from afar while the former worked closely as a Confidential Informant with law enforcement agencies in New York that were unaware of his wanted status. As a fugitive, Merritt’s goal was not to get caught. Telling publicly about what he knew about Watergate was out of the question. It was only after 1996 when Shoffler died and 2000 when the Government dismissed the criminal case against him that Merritt could turn his attention again to disclosing the untold story of Watergate’s origins. He began to collect documents and information that would support his story, an effort that took years. Even so the FBI has steadfastly refused to release over 400 documents from its files on Merritt under the Freedom of Information Act that could contribute mightily to understanding what occurred. In May 2008 Merritt contacted me to ask if I would help him write a book about what he knew. I agreed to do so. About the same time doctors who had been treating him for serious medical conditions told him that he had only three to four years to live. This knowledge spurred him to concentrate on getting his book finished. Even as I write this I have learned that Merritt’s doctors told him within the last week that at most he has three to four months to live due to advanced cancer of the spine. They set the outmost date as Valentine Day 2011. So this book is being rushed into print in order that Merritt can publicly answer questions that might arise while he is still capable of doing so. In a sense his story is a ‘deathbed confession” as his only desire at this point in time is that the historical truth about Watergate be told fully and accurately. Douglas Caddy Attorney Houston, Texas September 19, 2010

Nixon plot against newspaper columnist detailed New book provides details of campaign to discredit — or even kill — Jack Anderson http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39157420/#

Sept. 14, 2010 Historians Urge Court to Unseal Nixon’s 1975 Grand Jury Testimony http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=3184 Former President’s Testimony Would Complete the Public Record About Watergate Saga, Missing 18.5 Minutes of Tape, More WASHINGTON, D.C. – A key piece of Watergate history that remains shrouded in secrecy – former President Richard Nixon’s grand jury testimony of 1975 – should be made public, historical experts have told a court. In documents filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, history professor Stanley Kutler, the American Historical Association, the American Society for Legal History, the Organization of American Historians and the Society of American Archivists explained the importance of the grand jury testimony to the historical record. Public Citizen is representing Mr. Kutler and four the groups. “Although Watergate and all that word has come to represent has been extensively studied and debated, President Nixon’s knowledge of the events and role in the cover-up remains a subject of speculation for historians, journalists, and others,” said Allison Zieve, director of the Public Citizen Litigation Group and lead attorney for the petitioners. “After 35 years, the reasons for releasing Mr. Nixon’s sworn testimony far outweigh any grounds for keeping sealed this important piece of history.” The request for the testimony to be made public is supported by a wide range of people, including John W. Dean III, former White House Counsel; David Dorsen, former assistant chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee; Barry Sussman, former D.C. editor of The Washington Post; Raymond Smock, former historian of the U.S. House of Representatives; Richard J. Davis, former assistant special prosecutor with the Watergate Special Prosecution Force; and several prominent historians. During his testimony, Nixon answered questions about: 1) the infamous 18.5-minutes gap in the tape recording of his conversation with H.R. Haldeman three days after the Watergate break-in; 2) the extent of his involvement in altering transcripts of tape recordings that were turned over to the House Judiciary Committee during its impeachment inquiry; 3) his use of the IRS to harass political enemies; and 4) a $100,000 contribution from Howard Hughes. In their papers, Kutler and the other petitioners explain that Nixon’s testimony should be made public because of the ongoing historical interest in Watergate and Nixon’s legacy. Courts in the past have opened grand jury testimony based on historical interest. Further, the concerns that support secrecy of grand jury records no longer apply to this 35-year-old material. The various Watergate investigations ended decades ago; Nixon and many other key players in the Watergate scandal are deceased; most of the key players in the scandal testified publicly under oath; and some information about the Watergate grand jury testimony has already been disclosed. Watergate ignited a crisis of confidence in government and raised constitutional questions that tested the limits of executive power and the mettle of the democratic process itself. After leaving office, Nixon was called before a grand jury. He testified in California on June 23 and 24, 1975, before two members of a federal grand jury. His testimony was presented in Washington, D.C., to a full grand jury that was convened to investigate political espionage, illegal campaign contributions and other wrongdoing. “Without this transcript, the public record remains incomplete,” Zieve said. The petition and the memorandum in support of it are available at http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/getlinkforcase.cfm?cID=616. ### Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org.

September 13, 2010 That $50 Billion "Infrastructure" Plan Obama's Thatcherite Gift to the Banks By MICHAEL HUDSON http://www.counterpunch.org/ I can smell the newest giveaway looming a mile off. The Wall Street bailout, health-insurance giveaway and support of real estate prices rather than mortgage-debt write-downs were bad enough, not to mention the Oil War’s Afghan extension. But now comes a topper: the $50 billion transportation infrastructure plan that Obama proposed in Milwaukee – cynically enough, on Labor Day. It looks like the Thatcherite Public-Private Partnership, Britain’s notorious giveaway to the City of London underwriters. The financial giveaway had the effect of increasing prices for basic infrastructure services by building in heavy financial fees – guaranteed for the banks, who lent the money that banks and property owners used to pay in taxes in more progressive times. The Obama transport plan is like a Fannie Mae for bankers, based on the President’s guiding mantra: “Let’s help Wall Street put Americans back to work.” The theory is that giving public guarantees and bailouts will enable financial managers to use some of the money to fund some projects that employ people – with newly created, non-unionized companies, presumably. Here’s the problem. Transportation projects will make real estate speculators, the construction industry and their bankers very rich unless the government recovers its public spending through windfall site-value gains on property along the right-of-way. What’s the point of a party having a constituency, after all, if not to sell it out? Is not the Democratic Party’s role to deliver labor, the minorities and the large cities hog-tied to Wall Street? Hollywood surely has made enough movies along these faux-populist lines. The banker of a Western town manages to grab property along the railroad tracks coming through, to make a killing. The local mobster pays off a state legislator to build a highway by his property, making his land much more valuable. Mortgages will be refinanced in much larger sums. At least, this seems to be President Obama’s hope as he positions himself to become America’s Tony Blair. The role of Britain’s New Labor, after all, was to ram through economic programs so far to the right than no Conservative government could get away with them. In the United States it falls to Obama’s New Democrats to shepherd through proposals that Democrats would vote down if the Bush-Cheney Republicans had tried to enact them. What President Obama did not acknowledge is a basic principle that every transportation economist is taught: Transport investment normally can pay for itself, simply by a windfall-gains tax enabling cities or other jurisdictions to recapture the higher rent-of-location and site value along the right-of-way. London’s extension of the Jubilee Tube Line to the city’s financial district in Canary Wharf recently demonstrated this principle. The line’s extension cost £3.5 billion but increased property values by an estimated £13 billion along the route. A political protest movement arose over London’s failure to finance its transport system by taxing the higher rent-of-location and site values it created. Failure to do so gave landlords a windfall – one that the city could have recaptured by a windfall tax to cover the cost of what it spent. For instance, it could have issued bonds secured by a windfall property-rent tax. Paying for capital investment out of such tax levies could provide transportation at a subsidized price, minimizing the cost getting to and from work. That would have made its labor force more competitive by alleviating cost-of-living pressure on wages, freeing more income for spending on goods and services and thus helping the economy. But Obama’s infrastructure plan is for Wall Street investors to get the windfall – as property owners or as mortgage lenders making much larger loans against the enhanced site value. Balzac said that behind every family fortune is a great theft, and I would add that behind every great fortune is a public-sector giveaway. The largest asset in most families, billionaires as well as small homeowners, is land. The key to its site value (“location, location and location”) is transportation and other public infrastructure. The land grants to railroad barons after America’s Civil War, for example created the largest American fortunes for the ensuing century. Obama’s guiding principle since taking office is that of his Republican predecessors: It’s Wall Street that makes America rich. In this mythology it’s the wealthiest brackets that employ labor, not downsize and outsource it. So it’s the rich who deserve tax breaks. No wonder Americans are listening to populist rants against “big government.” The Wall Street bailout was the watershed in making our government look like those of Britain and France in medieval times, with their special interests, insider dealings and giveaways to court favorites. Governments were hated when they were controlled by landed aristocracies and foreign bankers funding each new war debt by an excise tax borne by the population at large, not by the wealthy. America got rich from the Progressive Era onward by a different kind of big government than we have today. From the Cumberland Road and Erie Canal onward, it provided roads and other basic services at public expense for free or at subsidized prices. The guiding idea was that the “return” to public investment should be measured by the degree to which it lowers the economy’s costs of living and doing business, not in the amount of income it could extract. The plan would not add to the government deficit, Obama promised. Unfortunately, in place of government taking more revenue, it will be the finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) sector that does the taking. The banking system will now do what government was supposed to do back in the Progressive Era: finance infrastructure. The difference today is that instead of funding transportation out of tax proceeds (levied progressively on the wealthy) or by the central bank monetizing public debt, the Obama plan calls for borrowing $50 billion at interest from banks. The problem is that this will build in high interest charges, high private management charges, underwriting fees – and government guarantees. User fees will need to cover these financial and other privatization costs “freed” from the government budget. This will build about $2 billion a year into the cost of providing the transport services. This threatens to be the kind of tollbooth program that the World Bank and IMF have been foisting on hapless Third World populations for the past half-century. The “infrastructure bank,” reports The New York Times, “would be run by the government but would pool tax dollars with private investment.” It would be a test balloon for financing “a broader range of projects, including water and clean-energy projects,” for which Democrats already are drawing up a blueprint: “[Connecticut Democrat Rosa] DeLauro’s plan would create an infrastructure bank that would be part of the United States Treasury, where it would attract money from institutional investors, then channel the funds to projects selected by a panel. The program, which would make loans much like the World Bank, would finance projects with the potential to transform whole regions, or even the national economy, the way the interstate highway system and the first transcontinental railway once did. “The outside investors would expect a competitive return on their money, so many of the completed projects would have to charge fees, taxes or tolls. In an interview, Ms. DeLauro said she would be “looking at a broader base,” meaning the bank would finance not just roads and rails, but also telecommunications, water, drainage, green energy and other large-scale works. “But if the projects did not raise enough money, the Treasury might get stuck paying back the investors, a prospect that gave pause to so-called deficit hawks like [Ohio Republican Congressman Pat] Tiberi. In an e-mail last week, he said he agreed the nation’s road and communications networks needed to be improved but was concerned about creating another company like Fannie Mae that might need a bailout.” Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Mary Williams Walsh, “Obama Offers a Transit Plan to Create Jobs,” The New York Times September 7, 2010. Britain’s Public-Private Partnership built enormous financing charges into the cost of providing transport. London could have built the tube extension without running up public debts to the banks, paying the construction costs by funding the higher rent-of-location. America could do the same. In fact, in times past the United States financed public infrastructure out of progressive taxation that fell mainly on the wealthy, and by monetizing the budget deficit. But under Obama’s plan, the rental value is to be capitalized into interest payments or simply kept by well-placed landowners. It looks like President Obama sat down with Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and his other Rubinomics holdovers from the Clinton/Goldman-Sachs Administration and asked what policies can be funded without taxing the wealthy, but by borrowing via a separate entity – with a government guarantee like the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac gravy train for Wall Street. The cover story is always that giveaways to the wealthy are needed to employ labor. (“Wall Street creates jobs.”) The Democratic excuse these days is that the economy won’t work without providing financial investors with “incentives.” The Democratic Leadership Council helped President Clinton accept the world as it is, rife with the fraud, crime and the proverbial free lunch as part and parcel of how the economy works. This certainly is how to attract campaign contributors and the Wall Street lobbyists that are designing today’s right-wing shift by Washington. After its $13 trillion giveaway to Wall Street, the government has little debt-creating ability left in its budget to create jobs by public spending. Or so we are told. The giveaway money has not been lent out as promised to “get America back to work.” It has been paid out as bonuses to the bailed-out campaign contributors on Wall Street – and make offenders such as Bank of America and Citibank for their purchases of Countrywide, Wacovia and Washington Mutual (Wamu) whole for junk mortgages, on the pretense that a “sound banking system” is needed to get the economy moving again – the euphemism for pushing it further into debt. But if there was so much money for bailouts, why is there any need to finance the fairly modest $50 billion transport initiative by borrowing instead of funding it out of the general budget? There is no such need, of course. The program is simply an excuse for re-introducing Reaganomics as if the aim this time around is to “create jobs.” The way that Obama proposes to do this threatens to price American labor even further out of world markets, by raising the cost of getting to work, and of renting or going into debt to buy homes and offices near the new transportation hubs. And I suspect that as in Britain, the new public-private agency will be non-unionized. Britain’s Public-Private Partnership still looms as the dress rehearsal for what we are getting into. Michael Hudson is a former Wall Street economist. A Distinguished Research Professor at University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC), he is the author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (new ed., Pluto Press, 2002) and Trade, Development and Foreign Debt: A History of Theories of Polarization v. Convergence in the World Economy. He can be reached via his website, mh@michael-hudson.com

Dean, I do think the psychopathic nature to Lyndon Johnson was a key ingredient to the JFK assassination. It has been blithely ignored too long. I think the Lyndon's "cowboy love" manuevers at manipulating Jackie post assassination is a perfect example of that. I'm sure Johnson would have sent flowers to Henry Marshall's funeral in June, 1961, if he had thought of that. Of course, LBJ's hit man Malcolm Wallace was very likely the one who murdered Henry Marshall, according to the testimony of Billie Sol Estes. I think Lyndon Johnson's cycles of killing, cover up, and pretend play-acting is key to understanding him and how we was able to pull off the JFK assassination. Another good example of this would he LBJ's play acting on Air Force One, crying in the bathroom about "conspiracy, conspiracy." LBJ was carrying on so much that Gen. Godfrey McHugh told author Chris Anderson that he needed to slap him. The Kennedy folks knew what a fraud LBJ was. But they had no idea how DANGEROUS he was. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-m-gillon/a-new-wrinkle-in-the-jfk_b_339026.html ANOTHER PERFECT EXAMPLE OF PSYCHOPATH LYNDON JOHNSON IN ACTION ("play acting fear of conspiracy" to cover his tracks. LBJ knew the Kennedy entourage suspected HIM right off the bat, so he had to do some acting as a diversionary tactic): "What McHugh claimed to have witnessed next was shocking. "I walked in the toilet, in the powder room, and there he was hiding, with the curtain closed," McHugh recalled. He claimed that LBJ was crying, "They're going to get us all. It's a plot. It's a plot. It's going to get us all.'" According to the General, Johnson "was hysterical, sitting down on the john there alone in this thing."" When I was working to get immunity for Billie Sol Estes with the knowledge of U.S. Marshal Clint Peoples, who had advised Estes to get such immunity, Peoples told me that "It is about time that the truth comes out" in reference to LBJ. Estes needed immunity to tell what he knew about the homicides and other criminal activity committed by LBJ. Robert, you are doing terrific work in posting this information about LBJ, who indeed was a psychopath. We will know a great deal more if the records of his psychiatrist are ever disclosed. I have waited for decades for Robert Caro's final volume in his award-winning LBJ biography to be published. If he maintains the high standards of his previous volumes on LBJ, his final conclusion should be earth-shaking shocking. Douglas, you should contact Robert A. Caro yourself. I am sure you have the credentials to turn him on to some facts and sources. Robert Caro spoke at the University of Houston in 1986 about city planning. [His book, The Power Broker, a biography of Robert Moses who shaped NYC and environs, is a classic and earned Caro his fame.] I attended his lecture at the U.of Houston with my father and afterwards went up to speak with him. He was surrounded by admiring students interested in municipal planning. I spoke up and said, "Mr. Caro, will your biography of LBJ decribe the role of Mac Wallace?" Caro looked shocked, and grabbed me by my suit lapels and exclaimed, "Who are you? How can I get in touch with you?" I gave him my business card but he failed to ever contact me. He certainly was familiar with the name of Mac Wallace, the stone-killer that LBJ kept employed in the U.S.Dept. of Agriculture for use whenever LBJ decided to eliminate someone. I am hoping his final volume on LBJ holds nothing back on what transpired on LBJ's climb to the presidency.

9/11 Cover-Up Remains While Questions Mount by Eric Margolis www.lewrockwell.com September 11, 2010 "America’s strategic and economic interests in the Mideast and Muslim world are being threatened by the agony in Palestine, which inevitably invites terrorist attacks against US citizens and property." Ever since 9/11, readers keep asking me my views on these attacks. I have been barraged with emails until my head spins with engineering studies about melting steel, controlled explosions, claims about nefarious plots, and wreckage analysis. One of the most colorful theories comes from Gen. Hamid Gul, former director of Pakistan’s intelligence agency, ISI. He insists that 9/11 was staged by Israel’s Mossad and a cabal of rightwing US Air Force generals. I inspected the ruins of the New York’s Twin Towers, atop which I often dined, right after the attack. Downtown Manhattan was enveloped by a hideous, stinking miasma from the attack. I have never smelled anything so awful. It took me days to scrub the foul odor off my body. As a native New Yorker, I was shaken to the core by 9/11 – but hardly surprised, as I had predicted a major attack on the US nine days earlier. While visiting the Pentagon to consult on the Mideast, I also inspected its outside wall hit by the third hijacked aircraft. I saw photos of the impact site and could not understand what had happened to all the aircraft wreckage. There was almost none. In 1993, I was hijacked over Germany on a Lufthansa flight bound for Cairo. The Ethiopian hijacker took us all the way back to New York City. The hijacker was threatening to crash our A310 jumbo jet into Wall Street. Our flight was shadowed by US F-15 fighters that had orders to shoot, if necessary. Where, then, was US air defense on 11 Sept. 2001? A day after 9/11, I was asked on CNN if Osama bin Laden was behind the attack. "We have yet to see the evidence," I replied. I maintain this position today. Bin Laden denied he or al-Qaida was behind 9/11 and the death’s of nearly 3,000 people. The plot was hatched in Hamburg, Germany and Madrid, Spain, not in Afghanistan. A Pakistani, Khaled Sheik Mohammed, claimed he was the mastermind – after being tortured by near-drowning 183 times by the CIA. While denying involvement, Osama bin Laden did say he believed the attack on New York was in part motivated by Israel’s destruction of downtown Beirut during its 1982 invasion of Lebanon that inflicted some 18,000 civilian deaths. Tapes that appeared to confirm bin Laden’s guilt were clumsy fakes. They were supposedly "found" in Afghanistan by the anti-Taliban Afghan Northern Alliance, which was created and funded by Russian intelligence. I had met Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and told CNN viewers that he was not the man in the tapes. After 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell promised Americans the State Department would issue a White Paper detailing bin Laden’s guilt. Afghanistan’s Taliban government asked for this document before it would extradite bin Laden, as the US was demanding. The White Paper was never produced, and the US ignored proper legal procedure and invaded Afghanistan. We still wait for evidence. I remain uncertain that Osama bin Laden was really behind the attacks. Much circumstantial evidence points to him and al-Qaida, but conclusive proof still lacks. One thing is certain: the attacks were planned and mounted from Germany, not Afghanistan. Of the 19 hijackers, 15 were Saudis, two from the United Arab Emirates, one an Egyptian and a Lebanese. By the way, I’ve said ever since 9/11 that the danger and size of al-Qaida has been vastly exaggerated – as an explosive report this week by the London’s esteemed International Institute for Strategic Studies has just confirmed. Al-Qaida, dedicated to fighting the Afghan Communists, never had more than 300 members at its peak. Today, according to CIA chief Leon Panetta, there are no more than 50 al-Qaida men in Afghanistan. Yet President Barack Obama has tripled the number of US troops in Afghanistan to 120,000 because of what to calls the al-Qaida threat. What is going on? Many people abroad believe al-Qaida is an American invention used to justify foreign military operations. I do not share this view. Osama bin Laden was never a US agent, though his group indirectly received funds from CIA to fight the Communists. Back to 9/11. I still cannot understand how amateur pilots could manage to maneuver in low to hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon. As a Pakistani intelligence agent told me, "if they were really amateur Arab pilots, they would have crashed into one another, not the World Trade Center!" The arrest of Israeli "movers" filming the attack and dancing with joy, and the subsequent arrest of groups of Israeli "students" supposedly tracking the would-be hijackers remains a deep mystery. So does the immobilization of US air defenses. The US 9/11 Commission was a whitewash, as are all such government commissions. They are designed to obscure, not reveal, the truth. A 2006, a Scripps Howard/Washington Post poll found that 36% of the 1,000 Americans sampled believed the US government was behind 9/11. Many Americans still do not believe the official version of 9/11. Neither do many Europeans. The entire Muslim world believes 9/11 was the work of Israel and far right American neocons, led by Dick Cheney. If the official story about 9/11 is true, the attacks caught the Bush administration asleep on guard duty. Bush’s incompetent national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, brushed off serious warnings of the impending attack and actually cut spending on anti-terrorism just before 9/11. The White House and media were quick to blame Muslims who hated America’s lifestyle and values, launching the concept of "Islamic terrorism" – i.e. that the Muslim faith, not political issues, prompted the attacks. This dangerous canard has infected America, leading to a rising tide of Islamophobia. This week’s continued uproar over a Muslim community center in downtown New York, and a Florida preacher’s threat to burn Korans, are the latest doleful example of cultivated religious hatred. The suicide team that attacked New York and Washington made clear its aim was: a. to punish the US for backing Israel’s repression of Palestinians; and b. what they called US "occupation" of Saudi Arabia. Though they were all Muslims, religion was not the motivating factor. As the CIA’s former bin Laden expert Michael Scheuer rightly observed, the Muslim world was furious at the US for what it was doing in their region, not because of America’s values, liberties or religion. These motives for the 9/11 attack have been largely obscured by the whipping up hysteria over "Islamic terrorism." The planting of anthrax in New York, Florida and Washington soon after 9/11 was clearly designed to promote further anti-Muslim furor. The perpetrators of this red herring remain unknown. But the anthrax attack hastened passage of the semi-totalitarian Patriot Act that sharply limited the personal freedoms of Americans and imposed draconian new laws. Faked bin Laden videos and audio tapes. Planted anthrax. An intact Koran implausibly found at ground zero. Evidence in a hijacker’s bag that had somehow failed to make his ill-fated flight. Immediate claims that al-Qaida was behind the attacks. Those amateur kamikaze pilots and collapsing towers. Perhaps most damning, tapes taken in London of meetings between President George Bush and PM Tony Blair revealed a sinister proposal by the US president to provoke war with Iraq by painting US aircraft in UN colors, then buzzing Iraqi air defenses until they fired on them, thus providing a "casus belli." Bush also reportedly told Blair that after Iraq, he would "go on" to attack Saudi Arabia, Syria and Pakistan. In 1939, Nazi Germany dressed up soldiers in Polish uniforms to provoke a border fire-fight to justify Berlin’s ensuing invasion of Poland. Bush’s plan was of the same ilk. A president who would contemplate such a criminal operation might go a lot further to achieve his imperial dreams. As a veteran journalist, to me, all this smells to high heaven. There are just too many unanswered questions, too many suspicions, and that old Roman legal question, "cui bono" – "to whose benefit?" On 28 February, 1933, fire, set by a Dutch Jew, ravaged the Germany’s parliament, the Reichstag. While the Reichstag’s ruins were still smoking, Adolf Hitler’s government declared a war against "terrorism." A "Decree for the Protection of People and State" was promulgated suspending all legal protections of speech, assembly, property, and personal liberties. The Reichstag fire allowed the government to round up "terrorism" suspects without due process of law and made police powers near absolute. Sound familiar? Here’s another startling coincidence. Two years before 9/11, a series of mysterious apartment building bombings in Russia killed over 200 people. "Islamic terrorists" from Chechnya were blamed. Panic swept Russia and boosted former KGB agent Vladimir Putin into full power. Russian security agents of FSB were caught red-handed planting explosives in another building, but the story was hushed up. A former FSB agent, Alexander Litvinenko, who tried to reveal this story, was murdered in London by radioactive polonium. Similarly, the Bush administration’s neocons shamelessly used 9/11 to promote the invasion of Iraq. Just before the attack, polls showed 80% of Americans erroneously believed Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Dr. Goebbels would have been proud. So what, in the end, can we conclude? 1. We still do not know the real story about 9/11. 2. The official version is not credible. 3. 9/11 was used to justify invading strategic Afghanistan and oil-rich Iraq. 4. The attacks plunged America into wars against the Muslim world and enriched the US arms industry. 5. 9/11 boosted pro-Israel neoconservatives, formerly a fringe group, into power, and with them America’s totalitarian far right. 6. Bush’s unprovoked war against Iraq destroyed one of Israel’s two main enemies. 7. 9/11 put America in what may turn out to be a permanent state of war with the Muslim world – a key goal of the neoconservatives . But I’ve seen no hard evidence to date that 9/11 was a plot by America’s far right or by Israel or a giant cover-up. Just, perhaps, the Mother of All Coincidences. In the end, it may just have been 19 angry Arabs and a bumbling Bush administration looking for someone else to blame. September 11, 2010 Eric Margolis is the author of War at the Top of the World and the new book, American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World. See his website.

October 2010 issue of Vanity Fair with its article about Murdoch. http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/10/times-versus-wall-street-journal-201010