Ted Stevens indicted

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, the longest serving Republican in Senate history, has been federally indicted on seven felony counts. (By the way, apropos of nothing, but I love the dopey photo that the press insists on using of him, with the goofy smile - MSNBC uses it in the video above.)

Quite frankly, considering the way the Bush administration has politicized the appointments of federal prosecutors, this indictment is certainly saying something. Yes, every person is innocent until proven guilty, but there must be some pretty long evidence; he's been under investigation for quite some time, and his home in Girdwood, Alaska, was raided last summer, just over a year ago.

New York Times:

Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, the longest-serving Republican senator in United States history and a figure of great influence in Washington as well as in his home state, has been indicted on federal charges of failing to report gifts and income.

Mr. Stevens, 84, was indicted on seven felony counts related to renovations on his home in Alaska. The charges arise from an investigation that has been under way for more than a year, in connection with the senator's relationship with a businessman who oversaw the home-remodeling project.

"I am innocent of these charges and intend to prove that," Mr. Stevens said several hours after the indictment was announced. He said in a statement that he had temporarily relinquished his Senate leadership positions "until I am absolved of these charges."

[...]

Prosecutors say Mr. Stevens, who referred to his home as "the chalet," accepted goods and services worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, ranging from an outdoor grill to extensive home remodeling and architectural advice. Not only did Mr. Stevens fail to report the items on his Senate financial disclosure form, as required, but he took active steps to conceal the receipt of the goods and services, the indictment says.

Mr. Stevens said he was saddened by the charges and had "proudly served this nation and Alaska for over 50 years." He said he had "never knowingly submitted a false disclosure form required by law as a U.S. senator."

Stevens is charged with failing to report over $250,000 in gifts, and for backing legislation that favored his son, Alaska State Sen. Ben Stevens (whose senate office has also been searched twice in connection with the federal probe, although he hasn't been charged).

I'm not shedding any tears for Stevens, that's for sure. I certainly hope that justice prevails, wherever it may lead, but today's indictment will certainly hurt Stevens' chances at reelection, and he's already in a tough fight with his opponent, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich.

What's more, Stevens has been one of Congress' biggest opponents of Net Neutrality, so I'll make no secret that I'd love to see him out of Congress, no matter how it happens.

The skinny on Stevens & ethical reform

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AL) has had quite an impressive week, for a senator who's corrupt at worst and ethically challenged at best.

First, his home was raided by FBI agents who are investigating his ties to a company whose officials have pleaded guilty to bribing Alaskan public officials. Considering his history of supporting some of the most ridiculous projects in the history of government, including a Bridge to Nowhere, which costs over $300 million, it's a more than interesting accusation. (How can a U.S. Senator support such an idiotic project? He's either one of the most asinine people ever to hold office in the U.S. Senate, he's getting paid, or both.)

Anyway, above is footage of a CNN reporter trying to catch up with Stevens to get a comment about the raid on his home, and he gets all angry and uppity: "Do you understand English? That's the only statement I'm going to make!" Touchy senator, awfully touchy. (By the way, I wish someone would tell Wolf Blitzer that the proper verb tense is pleaded guilty, not pled. I'd think a broadcaster with his experience and prominence would have verb tenses down by now.)

Even more interesting is how Stevens and other prominent Senate Republicans appear on the verge of opposing legislation passed overwhelmingly by the House that overhauls ethical guidelines for Congress. One unidentified Republican senator stated, "there will be plenty of holds on this bill." Of course there will be - why in the would Republicans want ethical reform? They don't want to turn off the sources of their largess since gaining power in Congress in 1994. Now that the Democrats are in control of Coingress, GOPers are probably afraid their money and privilege might dry up.

I've no doubt there are plenty of Democrats in Congress who are corrupt, too; in fact history reveals plenty of them (how's life these days, Dan Rostenkowski?). But, at least Democrats are taking steps to clean things up, which is more than I can say for Republicans when they were in control of Congress.

Anyway, Democrats want ethical reform, the public wants ethical reform, and the only way we're not going to get it is if Republican senators or President Bush prevent it from happening. In all fairness, I should note that I read yesterday that the ethical reform bill that passed the House did so with over 400 Representatives voting Yea, so that included a great deal of Republicans.

The bill that passed the House should do more, but it's a pretty good start. According to The New York Times, the bill will:

...let the public see for itself how much money is being traded for access. For the first time, the lavish torrent of campaign money from eager lobbyists to grateful politicians would have to be reported quarterly to the public via the Internet, with tighter scrutiny and penalties for violators. The reports would highlight lobbyists' so-called bundling, the massing of individual donations into eye-popping packages for politicians and their party committees.

And the bill would require that all earmarks — those budget-busting pet projects that fall like manna from heaven — as well as who’s sponsoring them be identified on the Internet before final passage. The bill would also curb such abuses as corporate-paid gifts and travel. It would end lobbyist-sponsored galas "honoring" ranking politicians at national conventions. It would even ban the ludicrous pensions now being paid to Congressional alumni doing prison time for felonies.

At least if this bill doesn't pass, we'll know who's responsible.

Hannity gets embarrassed

Just as predicted - Repubes are melting down because Democrats in the House did the courageous thing last week by voting for the funding of the troops in Iraq that President Bush wants, but also adding a deadline for when the troops must withdraw.

College drop-out Hannity picked the wrong witness to lead in this clip, and it's awesome. Just a couple of quick points, because thinking about how utterly absurd Hannity is exhausts me.

How funny is it for Hannity to bring up money? We're what, $500 billion into the Iraq War now? If you're going to be outraged, and you should be, direct your outrage to the appropriate people, and that would be the Bush Administration and all of the people who sold us this war because Saddam was an "immediate threat" and a "clear and present danger to the United States." Liars.

Half a trillion dollars, and all we got was this lousy civil war. Hmm. There's a t-shirt in there somewhere.

It's also asinine for Hannity to be talking about Democrats doing some arm twisting and deal making to get the votes on the war funding bill. Repubes did that in the House for years (12, to be exact) to get things passed. I have many memories of Tom DeLay keeping votes open for hours while he went around the floor, intimidating people to vote with the Republicans. But, should we be surprised that someone like Hannity has selective memory? We should not.

Pork barrel spending is a valid criticism, but criticize both parties. Judas John McCain, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and President Bush crying foul about pork now is hypocrisy's finest hour.

One has to dig about as deep as a mud puddle to find examples of Republican excess.

Since I live in Pennsylvania, I'm very familiar with pork. If you've never heard of former Representative Bud Shuster, click on his link and read about all of the b.s. money he brought to Pennsylvania, specifically millions brought to his home district for highways. (Too bad he couldn't deliver for all of Pennsylvania, because we still have horrifically bad roads.)

My all-time favorite is Alaska Senator Ted Stevens of "Internet Tubes" fame, who once threatened to resign from the Senate (could we ever get THAT lucky?) if funding was stripped away from a proposed $315 million Gravina Island Bridge, a.k.a. The Bridge to Nowhere. You've got to read about it to believe it. Also check out the Knik Arm Bridge, which may run as high as $1.5 billion. The one good thing about global warming? Maybe it will thaw out some of the frozen, idiotic brains in our northern most state.

Pork barrel spending must end if we are ever going to get our budgets under control, but to blame Democrats for the problem is absurd.

Oh, and those bridges? They still might be built. Repubes took the very, very courageous step of stripping out the funding for both bridges, but not lowering the amount of money going to Alaska in general. Ooooh! Former Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski vowed full funding for both bridges. It remains to be seen if new Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin will keep the bridges funded.

Your tax pork at work.

Important! More on Net Neutrality

Alaska Senator Ted Stevens is at it again. For those of you who don't know who he is (and I didn't until Net Neutrality and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge became issues), he's the ultra-powerful chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee — which is in charge of the bills that, among other things, control the Internet. The problem is, he doesn't have the least bit of knowledge of how the damn thing works, if you take him at face value on this speech about the Internet, skewered on The Daily Show (above).

Anyway, here's some important info. that I just got from a site I check out once in a while, FireDogLake, about what Stevens is trying to do regarding Net Neutrality:

Sen. Ted Stevens is trying to pull a fast one, and get a cloture vote on Net Neutrality before Congress is scheduled to recess this week. He’s been buttonholing three Senators in particular to gain their cloture vote:

– Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
– Ben Nelson of Nebraska
– Joe Lieberman of Connecticut

Please call and/or fax these Senators and let them know how important it is that they vote against cloture — because voting with Stevens means voting with the corporate shills who want to charge you extra to exercise your right to free speech on the Internet. You can call toll free through the Capitol switchboard at 888-355-3588. (You can also find contact information for offices here.)

Stevens is shooting for a cloture vote on Thursday and has plans to keep everyone in a lame duck session to force a vote on Net Neutrality after Congress is supposed to be in recess. If you can’t win fair and square, you try the smarmy tactics…please hit the phones.

**
Couldn't have said it better myself. Please take a second to give these Senators a call on your lunch or whenever you have time. Yes, it is that important!