Showing posts with label Elections 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elections 2008. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Iraq opinion gulf leaving GOP in peril

Cook
Poll shows independents coming down on Democrats' side
ANALYSIS

By Charlie Cook
National Journal

Updated: 2:39 p.m. MT April 17, 2007

WASHINGTON - The polarization between Democrats, Republicans and independents on both politics and policy cannot be overstated. The war in Iraq is perhaps the most vivid and important example of the stark differences in opinions based on party affiliation.

There is a chasm the size of the Grand Canyon between Republicans and Democrats on the Iraq war. More ominous for the GOP is that independents are coming down on the anti-war side, if slightly less vociferously than Democrats.

This portends potential peril for Republicans in 2008.

Let's look at the difference in attitudes on Iraq using a CBS News poll of 994 adults, conducted last Monday through Thursday, with a 3-point error margin.

Overall, 44 percent said the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, while 51 percent said the United States should have stayed out. Among Republicans, 76 percent said it was the right thing to do and 20 percent said the U.S. should have stayed out. For Democrats, on the other hand, it was almost the opposite: 21 percent said military action was the right choice, and 74 percent said staying out was the correct option. Just 38 percent of independents said it was the right thing to do, while 56 percent preferred staying out.

On the question of how things are going in Iraq, 2 percent of those polled thought the war was going very well and 29 percent said somewhat well, for a total of 31 percent. Thirty percent said the war was going somewhat badly and 36 percent said it was going very badly, for a total of 66 percent. Among just Republicans, 62 percent thought the war was going very or somewhat well, compared to 36 percent who said somewhat or very badly. Thirteen percent of Democrats said it was going well, and 85 percent said badly. Again, independents came down significantly closer to Democrats than Republicans, with 23 percent saying that it was going well and 74 percent saying it was going badly.

Those surveyed were asked, "regardless of whether you think taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, would you say that the U.S. is very likely to succeed in Iraq, somewhat likely to succeed, not very likely to succeed or not at all likely to succeed?"

Twelve percent said the U.S. is very likely to succeed; 33 percent said somewhat likely, 29 percent chose "not very likely" and another 24 percent said not at all likely.

Among Republicans, 72 percent said success is very or somewhat likely, compared with just 27 percent of Democrats and 36 percent of independents -- yet another example of the thinking of independents aligning much more with Democrats than Republicans.

In terms of what the United States should do now, overall, 21 percent said it should increase troop levels in Iraq, 13 percent said keep the same number, 27 percent said it should draw down troop numbers and 33 percent said remove all troops. Sixty-six percent of Republicans were in favor of increasing or maintaining troop levels, compared with 13 percent of Democrats and 28 percent of independents.

Just 31 percent of Republicans said the United States should decrease the number or remove all troops, compared with 81 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of independents.

Regarding a timetable for withdrawal, 57 percent of the total sample said they were in favor -- 34 percent of Republicans, 75 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of independents. Sixty-two percent of Republicans surveyed said no to a timetable, but just 19 percent of Democrats and 36 percent of independents opposed one.

Finally, when posed with three approaches Congress could take on Iraq, just 9 percent overall said all funding for the war should be blocked. Twenty-nine percent said funding should be provided without a time limit, and 58 percent said Congress should allow funding for a limited period of time. Interestingly, only 13 percent of Democrats were for cutting off all funding no matter what, tracking relatively closely with the 4 percent of Republicans and 10 percent of independents. Seventy-four percent of Democrats and 60 percent of independents favored continued spending with a timetable, along with 38 percent of Republicans.

Fifty-six percent of Republicans said Congress should allow all funding without a time limit, but just 10 percent of Democrats and 26 percent of independents went along with that.

Looking at the data, it is understandable why the natural reaction of Republican lawmakers and 2008 GOP presidential contenders is to hang with President Bush on the war: Their base remains pretty supportive.

It is just as easy to understand why Democrats are behaving the way they are.

Notwithstanding what they personally believe, it's hard for lawmakers and presidential candidates to defy their bases. But pending some resolution or fundamental change in the fortunes of this war, the attitudes of independent voters may well come to haunt GOP candidates in the general election.

As with impeachment in 1998, Republicans are listening to their base, but independents are feeling very different, potentially setting the stage for another bad election for the GOP.

Monday, April 16, 2007

$45,000 Clinton Fundraiser An FBI "Featured Fugitive"

Campaign donor's cash arrived with baggage

A Pakistani businessman raised funds; candidates raised few questions.
By Chuck Neubauer and Robin Fields

Times Staff Writers

April 15, 2007

On a sun-dappled October afternoon, Ray Jinnah stood beside his Bel-Air swimming pool to address 60 guests gathered for his latest fundraiser, a 2004 affair for New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn was there, along with then-City Council President Alex Padilla. Both had received backing from Jinnah, a Pakistani businessman positioning himself as a player in Democratic fundraising and an organizer of support for Pakistan on Capitol Hill.

As captured on a DVD he distributed to guests, Jinnah introduced Clinton, whose political action committee would take in $45,000 through his efforts.

"I'm just recalling how close I've been with the Clinton family and those nights, movies, dinners, lunches in the White House," he said in unsteady English.

Clinton, beaming, warmly thanked Jinnah and noted that he had been among the first well-wishers to call her husband, Bill, after his recent heart surgery.

At about the same time, the Justice Department began investigating allegations that Jinnah's fundraising on behalf of Clinton and others was illegal. He would later be charged with violating federal law by reimbursing employees and associates for contributions made in their names to Clinton's HillPac and the Friends of Barbara Boxer campaign. Today, having fled the country, Jinnah is on the FBI's "featured fugitives" list.

But Jinnah's story is more complex and colorful than his brief federal indictment conveys. It offers a window into the frenetic world of modern political fundraising, where candidates are so hungry for cash to compete that they ask few questions about those able to raise it.

Even as Jinnah built a gilded political Rolodex, he was facing corruption charges in Pakistan and accusations in the U.S. that he was a tax deadbeat and had engaged in bankruptcy fraud. Business records and interviews show that he engineered grandiose deals that often hinged on money transfers from Pakistan or London, then stiffed partners and employees while pouring funds into campaigns and an ostentatious lifestyle.

Yet in Jinnah, top Democrats thought they had a point man to tap the growing, increasingly affluent Pakistani American community. In the candidates, Jinnah found a way to cloak himself in legitimacy.

Just before his Clinton event, Jinnah co-hosted a fundraiser for Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry. Four days after Clinton's visit, Jinnah welcomed Boxer for an event attended by former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and Noor Muhammad Jadmani, the consul general of Pakistan to Los Angeles.

The campaigns say they knew nothing of Jinnah's alleged wrongdoing. Told by The Times in early March of his indictment, Clinton's PAC and Boxer's campaign returned suspect money to the U.S. Treasury or charity.

With 2008 presidential fundraising likely to rank as the most aggressive ever, Jinnah's fast climb and faster fall are a cautionary tale.



At home in the Valley

Born in Pakistan, Abdul Rehman Jinnah, 56, shared a last name, but no family ties, with Pakistan's founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. He told associates he grew up in a wealthy household, so cosseted that servants put his pajamas on him inside out to prevent the button backs from chafing his skin.

He ran Pakistan's pavilion at World Expo '88 in Brisbane, Australia, then migrated to California, buying a house in Northridge. His business ventures ranged from prospective theme parks to frozen yogurt to cellphones. In 2003, he bought into Advanced Communication Technology, a Simi Valley phone wholesaler that did business as All American Distributing.

Jinnah appeared to be living every immigrant's dream. He obtained a green card and saw his older son, Rizwan, now 31, graduate from Loyola Law School and become a staff attorney at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, the prestigious Los Angeles-based law firm. His younger son, Ahmed, 27, graduated from UCLA and went into business with his father.

Yet Jinnah's financial practices raised troubling questions, court records show. He often made big promises — boasting of his eight-figure bank account or expansive Pakistan holdings — then failed to deliver.

He promised to invest up to $5 million in Billy Martin's USA Inc., a Western apparel chain, then said some of the funds were in London, Chief Executive Doug Newton said. When most of the money failed to materialize, the chain's Sunset Boulevard store faced eviction. For Newton, the final deal-breaker came when Jinnah proposed manufacturing the shops' signature gear — which carried the trademark "Born & Bred in the USA" — in Pakistan.

"I've had a lot of tough negotiations with [guys like] George Steinbrenner and Charley Finley," said Newton, a former baseball agent who named his stores after his most famous client, five-time New York Yankees Manager Billy Martin. "But I had never dealt with a person who would change the deal when you were counting on him at the 11th hour."

Many of Jinnah's creditors discovered that he held almost no assets in his own name, thwarting debt collection, interviews and court records show.

The $3.7-million, 7,000-square-foot home where Jinnah hosted Hillary Clinton was owned by Iqbal Ashraf, a longtime business associate. The Jinnahs rented it, Ashraf said. In early 2006, Jinnah moved to a five-bedroom Chatsworth home. The previous owner said Jinnah negotiated the $2.8-million sale, then, at the last minute, substituted his son Rizwan as purchaser.

Creditors also say Jinnah used U.S. bankruptcy laws to shield his wealth. He and his wife sought bankruptcy protection seven times between 1999 and 2002. A U.S. bankruptcy judge dismissed their joint 2001 case as a "bad-faith filing," but Jinnah then tried to use the case to have a $93,000 judgment against him set aside. A Superior Court judge refused, calling his claims "a sham." Jinnah also put at least three of his companies into bankruptcy — including All American Distributing, which he put into Chapter 7 after fleeing the country.

Yet even as Jinnah's debts piled up and the IRS hounded him for payroll taxes, he and his family lived opulently, putting $130,000 down on a million-dollar villa in Dubai. He had a chauffeur-driven Mercedes, and his sons drove Bentleys and Mercedes AMGs.

Accusations of empty promises and broken contracts followed Jinnah all the way to Pakistan.

His Karachi company, Techno World, failed to perform on a contract to manufacture and supply school furniture, Pakistani government records and media reports show. Facing corruption charges, Jinnah blamed government funding delays, but later agreed to repay 29 million Rupees (about $475,000).

A friend of the Clintons

None of his troubles impeded his entry into American politics, perhaps because modern campaigns need a bottomless store of Ray Jinnahs.

Federal laws limit donations to candidates and PACs, compelling fundraisers to tap new pools of money. These efforts can be risky, as when illegal foreign contributions to the Democrats were traced to China and elsewhere in the 1990s. But sometimes need trumps risk.

In 2000, Jinnah told friends he had become a vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee, though DNC officials now say they have no record of it.

When the Democratic convention came to Los Angeles that August, Jinnah hobnobbed with the party's elite. He recruited host committee chief operating officer Cheryl Carter, a former Clinton White House aide, and Naz Nageer, the convention's technology director, to join him in a start-up technology venture. Carter, who took a $500,000-a-year job as president, said that she met Jinnah through mutual friends and that her hiring was unrelated to her political work. Nageer refused to comment.

Both sued Jinnah for breach of contract when the start-up folded after a few months. Nageer won a judgment, but never collected, court records show. Carter dropped her suit.

Soon after the convention, Jinnah visited the White House and had his photo taken with the president, a testament to his growing influence. The same month, he held his first event for the then-first lady during her inaugural Senate campaign: Thai restaurateur Tommy Tang catered, and the candidate posed in Jinnah's Northridge yard beside a mini-Statue of Liberty.

Jinnah used his Clinton ties as a self-marketing tool. In his office and home, he displayed numerous photos of himself with the couple. He saved voicemails from Hillary Clinton and played them back for acquaintances.

"He had a big ego," said Newton, a Republican who declined to go to Jinnah's events even when Jinnah implied that contributions would not have to come from his own pocket. "[It gave him] a tremendous amount of prestige and stature in his mind to rub shoulders with powerful people in government."

By 2004, Jinnah had cemented his party ties. He and his family, who had moved to Bel-Air, personally contributed $122,000 to Democratic candidates and causes that year alone.

Jinnah also joined the Pakistani American Leadership Center formed in 2004 to build the community's clout, chairing a committee to grow membership in a brand-new Congressional Pakistan Caucus. By 2006, it claimed 71 members of Congress.

Some center members worried about Jinnah's partisan Democratic politics and taste for self-aggrandizement.

"I had a feeling he joined it to use it," said Pervaiz Lodhie, a center board member and chief executive of LEDtronics Inc., a Torrance-based lamp manufacturer. "His goals were selfish goals." Still, when the group wanted access to power, Jinnah could deliver, members said.

Jinnah belonged to Los Angeles' small Ismaili community, a group of Shia Muslims whose spiritual leader is the Aga Khan. Other Ismailis said he used political connections to raise his status, inviting them to his events.

"We were all mesmerized by him," said a woman who attended several gatherings. "They would say, 'Call Ray Jinnah, he can get them there.' I would ask him, 'How did you penetrate these circles?' He said he learned how to handle politicians in Pakistan."

On the surface, Jinnah's fundraisers seemed standard. Receptions around his pool or canapes in his office lounge. Smiles, handshakes and quick stump speeches. Candidates left with tens of thousands of dollars.

But in several cases, most of the guests — an eclectic mix of Pakistani diplomats, business associates and Jinnah's personal physicians and real estate agents — did not make donations, records show.

And some of those who did were reimbursed with funds from Jinnah's All American Distributing, prosecutors say.



All American nightmare

Initially, Jinnah had been basically a silent partner in All American, said Lawrence Jackowski, hired to develop the business. But in early 2004, Jinnah and his family became more involved.

Jinnah became known equally for his explosive temper — once beaning an underling with a gavel he kept on his desk — and his questionable business acumen, former employees said.

Convinced the company should have retail outlets, Jinnah's wife and son Ahmed opened a cellphone store in the Beverly Center. It bled money and closed within six months, Jackowski said. Jinnah then acquired a chain of about 20 phone shops, but took months to get the venture going. "It was comedy," Jackowski said.

Still, the foundering business proved a valuable vehicle for Jinnah's political interests. He held events for candidates at the office and asked his executives to make contributions. In May 2004, seven All American employees made $1,000 contributions to Hahn, campaign finance records show. The following month, seven donated $2,000 apiece to Boxer and $500 each to Padilla.

Prosecutors later alleged that Jinnah reimbursed the Boxer donors with company funds. In fact, employees interviewed by authorities told The Times, Jinnah reimbursed them for donations to city officials as well, violating local election laws.

Employee Evelyn Parker said Jinnah asked her to write checks to Boxer, Hahn and Padilla, then paid her back in cash, adding an incentive.

"If the check was for $500, he would give us $525," she said.

Hahn said the allegations against Jinnah came as a surprise. "You go somewhere and someone hands you a personal check, and there's no way for a candidate to know if someone got reimbursed for it," he said.

A familiar presence at Jinnah's events was Stuart Schoenburg, a Tarzana television producer. Prosecutors later charged Schoenburg as Jinnah's co-conspirator, saying Jinnah arranged donations to HillPac by having Schoenburg find straw donors whom Jinnah agreed to reimburse. Schoenburg has entered a guilty plea and is scheduled to be sentenced this month.

To finance the scheme, Jinnah siphoned money out of All American by writing checks to cash, bank records show. He wrote at least $60,000 worth of such checks shortly before the 2004 Clinton event, some endorsed by Schoenburg.

Employees grew furious watching All American's money flow into Jinnah's extravagances and political obsessions as their salaries and company bills went unpaid.

"It was a bad experience for everyone. I was pretty much broke by the end," Jackowski said.

Disgruntled workers and creditors weren't the only ones zeroing in on Jinnah.

The FBI raided All American's offices in January 2005, Jinnah testified in a deposition.

The search warrant remains under seal, the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles said. Employees recall agents rolling up in black Chevy Suburbans and removing computers and filing cabinets.

Not long after, All American appears to have shut down.

In late 2005, Jinnah incorporated a new business, Times Square International, and negotiated to purchase the Chatsworth house. Unable to get a bank loan, Jinnah persuaded the seller to finance the purchase until he sold some land in Pakistan. Four months later, Jinnah defaulted on the monthly payments and the seller began foreclosure proceedings.

But not before Jinnah hosted one last event, an April dinner for the daughter of slain Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, in Los Angeles to raise funds for the Yitzhak Rabin Center in Tel Aviv. Jinnah had been introduced to Dalia Rabin by former Rep. Mel Levine, president of a U.S. charity that supports the Rabin Center. Levine was among the guests, as was Schoenburg. The Jinnahs were apparently still settling into their new digs — guests arriving early said they observed a truck dropping off brand-new Versace furniture.

A grand jury indicted Jinnah on May 18, 2006. Shortly thereafter, authorities say, Jinnah fled.

He told friends he was going to Pakistan to wrap up a major land deal. When the Times story about his indictment broke, "We were all stunned," said an Ismaili acquaintance. "Everyone started Googling him and calling each other." Jinnah's sons stopped attending evening prayers at the group's center in Santa Monica, she said.

Jinnah himself appears unbowed.

Since he left the U.S., a Pakistani business publication reported that he tried unsuccessfully to buy the landmark Roosevelt Hotel in New York, which is owned by Pakistan's national airline.

Jinnah also apparently stopped in to see the Nazim of Karachi, similar to the mayor. Jinnah said his new firm, Times Square, would invest billions in the city, local media reported. The story called his business "one of the 500 largest American companies."


chuck.neubauer@latimes.com

robin.fields@latimes.com

Times researcher Janet Lundblad contributed

Campaign donor's cash arrived with baggage

A Pakistani businessman raised funds; candidates raised few questions.
By Chuck Neubauer and Robin Fields
Times Staff Writers

April 15, 2007

On a sun-dappled October afternoon, Ray Jinnah stood beside his Bel-Air swimming pool to address 60 guests gathered for his latest fundraiser, a 2004 affair for New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn was there, along with then-City Council President Alex Padilla. Both had received backing from Jinnah, a Pakistani businessman positioning himself as a player in Democratic fundraising and an organizer of support for Pakistan on Capitol Hill.

As captured on a DVD he distributed to guests, Jinnah introduced Clinton, whose political action committee would take in $45,000 through his efforts.

"I'm just recalling how close I've been with the Clinton family and those nights, movies, dinners, lunches in the White House," he said in unsteady English.

Clinton, beaming, warmly thanked Jinnah and noted that he had been among the first well-wishers to call her husband, Bill, after his recent heart surgery.

At about the same time, the Justice Department began investigating allegations that Jinnah's fundraising on behalf of Clinton and others was illegal. He would later be charged with violating federal law by reimbursing employees and associates for contributions made in their names to Clinton's HillPac and the Friends of Barbara Boxer campaign. Today, having fled the country, Jinnah is on the FBI's "featured fugitives" list.

But Jinnah's story is more complex and colorful than his brief federal indictment conveys. It offers a window into the frenetic world of modern political fundraising, where candidates are so hungry for cash to compete that they ask few questions about those able to raise it.

Even as Jinnah built a gilded political Rolodex, he was facing corruption charges in Pakistan and accusations in the U.S. that he was a tax deadbeat and had engaged in bankruptcy fraud. Business records and interviews show that he engineered grandiose deals that often hinged on money transfers from Pakistan or London, then stiffed partners and employees while pouring funds into campaigns and an ostentatious lifestyle.

Yet in Jinnah, top Democrats thought they had a point man to tap the growing, increasingly affluent Pakistani American community. In the candidates, Jinnah found a way to cloak himself in legitimacy.

Just before his Clinton event, Jinnah co-hosted a fundraiser for Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry. Four days after Clinton's visit, Jinnah welcomed Boxer for an event attended by former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and Noor Muhammad Jadmani, the consul general of Pakistan to Los Angeles.

The campaigns say they knew nothing of Jinnah's alleged wrongdoing. Told by The Times in early March of his indictment, Clinton's PAC and Boxer's campaign returned suspect money to the U.S. Treasury or charity.

With 2008 presidential fundraising likely to rank as the most aggressive ever, Jinnah's fast climb and faster fall are a cautionary tale.



At home in the Valley

Born in Pakistan, Abdul Rehman Jinnah, 56, shared a last name, but no family ties, with Pakistan's founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. He told associates he grew up in a wealthy household, so cosseted that servants put his pajamas on him inside out to prevent the button backs from chafing his skin.

He ran Pakistan's pavilion at World Expo '88 in Brisbane, Australia, then migrated to California, buying a house in Northridge. His business ventures ranged from prospective theme parks to frozen yogurt to cellphones. In 2003, he bought into Advanced Communication Technology, a Simi Valley phone wholesaler that did business as All American Distributing.

Jinnah appeared to be living every immigrant's dream. He obtained a green card and saw his older son, Rizwan, now 31, graduate from Loyola Law School and become a staff attorney at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, the prestigious Los Angeles-based law firm. His younger son, Ahmed, 27, graduated from UCLA and went into business with his father.

Yet Jinnah's financial practices raised troubling questions, court records show. He often made big promises — boasting of his eight-figure bank account or expansive Pakistan holdings — then failed to deliver.

He promised to invest up to $5 million in Billy Martin's USA Inc., a Western apparel chain, then said some of the funds were in London, Chief Executive Doug Newton said. When most of the money failed to materialize, the chain's Sunset Boulevard store faced eviction. For Newton, the final deal-breaker came when Jinnah proposed manufacturing the shops' signature gear — which carried the trademark "Born & Bred in the USA" — in Pakistan.

"I've had a lot of tough negotiations with [guys like] George Steinbrenner and Charley Finley," said Newton, a former baseball agent who named his stores after his most famous client, five-time New York Yankees Manager Billy Martin. "But I had never dealt with a person who would change the deal when you were counting on him at the 11th hour."

Many of Jinnah's creditors discovered that he held almost no assets in his own name, thwarting debt collection, interviews and court records show.

The $3.7-million, 7,000-square-foot home where Jinnah hosted Hillary Clinton was owned by Iqbal Ashraf, a longtime business associate. The Jinnahs rented it, Ashraf said. In early 2006, Jinnah moved to a five-bedroom Chatsworth home. The previous owner said Jinnah negotiated the $2.8-million sale, then, at the last minute, substituted his son Rizwan as purchaser.

Creditors also say Jinnah used U.S. bankruptcy laws to shield his wealth. He and his wife sought bankruptcy protection seven times between 1999 and 2002. A U.S. bankruptcy judge dismissed their joint 2001 case as a "bad-faith filing," but Jinnah then tried to use the case to have a $93,000 judgment against him set aside. A Superior Court judge refused, calling his claims "a sham." Jinnah also put at least three of his companies into bankruptcy — including All American Distributing, which he put into Chapter 7 after fleeing the country.

Yet even as Jinnah's debts piled up and the IRS hounded him for payroll taxes, he and his family lived opulently, putting $130,000 down on a million-dollar villa in Dubai. He had a chauffeur-driven Mercedes, and his sons drove Bentleys and Mercedes AMGs.

Accusations of empty promises and broken contracts followed Jinnah all the way to Pakistan.

His Karachi company, Techno World, failed to perform on a contract to manufacture and supply school furniture, Pakistani government records and media reports show. Facing corruption charges, Jinnah blamed government funding delays, but later agreed to repay 29 million Rupees (about $475,000).

A friend of the Clintons

None of his troubles impeded his entry into American politics, perhaps because modern campaigns need a bottomless store of Ray Jinnahs.

Federal laws limit donations to candidates and PACs, compelling fundraisers to tap new pools of money. These efforts can be risky, as when illegal foreign contributions to the Democrats were traced to China and elsewhere in the 1990s. But sometimes need trumps risk.

In 2000, Jinnah told friends he had become a vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee, though DNC officials now say they have no record of it.

When the Democratic convention came to Los Angeles that August, Jinnah hobnobbed with the party's elite. He recruited host committee chief operating officer Cheryl Carter, a former Clinton White House aide, and Naz Nageer, the convention's technology director, to join him in a start-up technology venture. Carter, who took a $500,000-a-year job as president, said that she met Jinnah through mutual friends and that her hiring was unrelated to her political work. Nageer refused to comment.

Both sued Jinnah for breach of contract when the start-up folded after a few months. Nageer won a judgment, but never collected, court records show. Carter dropped her suit.

Soon after the convention, Jinnah visited the White House and had his photo taken with the president, a testament to his growing influence. The same month, he held his first event for the then-first lady during her inaugural Senate campaign: Thai restaurateur Tommy Tang catered, and the candidate posed in Jinnah's Northridge yard beside a mini-Statue of Liberty.

Jinnah used his Clinton ties as a self-marketing tool. In his office and home, he displayed numerous photos of himself with the couple. He saved voicemails from Hillary Clinton and played them back for acquaintances.

"He had a big ego," said Newton, a Republican who declined to go to Jinnah's events even when Jinnah implied that contributions would not have to come from his own pocket. "[It gave him] a tremendous amount of prestige and stature in his mind to rub shoulders with powerful people in government."

By 2004, Jinnah had cemented his party ties. He and his family, who had moved to Bel-Air, personally contributed $122,000 to Democratic candidates and causes that year alone.

Jinnah also joined the Pakistani American Leadership Center formed in 2004 to build the community's clout, chairing a committee to grow membership in a brand-new Congressional Pakistan Caucus. By 2006, it claimed 71 members of Congress.

Some center members worried about Jinnah's partisan Democratic politics and taste for self-aggrandizement.

"I had a feeling he joined it to use it," said Pervaiz Lodhie, a center board member and chief executive of LEDtronics Inc., a Torrance-based lamp manufacturer. "His goals were selfish goals." Still, when the group wanted access to power, Jinnah could deliver, members said.

Jinnah belonged to Los Angeles' small Ismaili community, a group of Shia Muslims whose spiritual leader is the Aga Khan. Other Ismailis said he used political connections to raise his status, inviting them to his events.

"We were all mesmerized by him," said a woman who attended several gatherings. "They would say, 'Call Ray Jinnah, he can get them there.' I would ask him, 'How did you penetrate these circles?' He said he learned how to handle politicians in Pakistan."

On the surface, Jinnah's fundraisers seemed standard. Receptions around his pool or canapes in his office lounge. Smiles, handshakes and quick stump speeches. Candidates left with tens of thousands of dollars.

But in several cases, most of the guests — an eclectic mix of Pakistani diplomats, business associates and Jinnah's personal physicians and real estate agents — did not make donations, records show.

And some of those who did were reimbursed with funds from Jinnah's All American Distributing, prosecutors say.



All American nightmare

Initially, Jinnah had been basically a silent partner in All American, said Lawrence Jackowski, hired to develop the business. But in early 2004, Jinnah and his family became more involved.

Jinnah became known equally for his explosive temper — once beaning an underling with a gavel he kept on his desk — and his questionable business acumen, former employees said.

Convinced the company should have retail outlets, Jinnah's wife and son Ahmed opened a cellphone store in the Beverly Center. It bled money and closed within six months, Jackowski said. Jinnah then acquired a chain of about 20 phone shops, but took months to get the venture going. "It was comedy," Jackowski said.

Still, the foundering business proved a valuable vehicle for Jinnah's political interests. He held events for candidates at the office and asked his executives to make contributions. In May 2004, seven All American employees made $1,000 contributions to Hahn, campaign finance records show. The following month, seven donated $2,000 apiece to Boxer and $500 each to Padilla.

Prosecutors later alleged that Jinnah reimbursed the Boxer donors with company funds. In fact, employees interviewed by authorities told The Times, Jinnah reimbursed them for donations to city officials as well, violating local election laws.

Employee Evelyn Parker said Jinnah asked her to write checks to Boxer, Hahn and Padilla, then paid her back in cash, adding an incentive.

"If the check was for $500, he would give us $525," she said.

Hahn said the allegations against Jinnah came as a surprise. "You go somewhere and someone hands you a personal check, and there's no way for a candidate to know if someone got reimbursed for it," he said.

A familiar presence at Jinnah's events was Stuart Schoenburg, a Tarzana television producer. Prosecutors later charged Schoenburg as Jinnah's co-conspirator, saying Jinnah arranged donations to HillPac by having Schoenburg find straw donors whom Jinnah agreed to reimburse. Schoenburg has entered a guilty plea and is scheduled to be sentenced this month.

To finance the scheme, Jinnah siphoned money out of All American by writing checks to cash, bank records show. He wrote at least $60,000 worth of such checks shortly before the 2004 Clinton event, some endorsed by Schoenburg.

Employees grew furious watching All American's money flow into Jinnah's extravagances and political obsessions as their salaries and company bills went unpaid.

"It was a bad experience for everyone. I was pretty much broke by the end," Jackowski said.

Disgruntled workers and creditors weren't the only ones zeroing in on Jinnah.

The FBI raided All American's offices in January 2005, Jinnah testified in a deposition.

The search warrant remains under seal, the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles said. Employees recall agents rolling up in black Chevy Suburbans and removing computers and filing cabinets.

Not long after, All American appears to have shut down.

In late 2005, Jinnah incorporated a new business, Times Square International, and negotiated to purchase the Chatsworth house. Unable to get a bank loan, Jinnah persuaded the seller to finance the purchase until he sold some land in Pakistan. Four months later, Jinnah defaulted on the monthly payments and the seller began foreclosure proceedings.

But not before Jinnah hosted one last event, an April dinner for the daughter of slain Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, in Los Angeles to raise funds for the Yitzhak Rabin Center in Tel Aviv. Jinnah had been introduced to Dalia Rabin by former Rep. Mel Levine, president of a U.S. charity that supports the Rabin Center. Levine was among the guests, as was Schoenburg. The Jinnahs were apparently still settling into their new digs — guests arriving early said they observed a truck dropping off brand-new Versace furniture.

A grand jury indicted Jinnah on May 18, 2006. Shortly thereafter, authorities say, Jinnah fled.

He told friends he was going to Pakistan to wrap up a major land deal. When the Times story about his indictment broke, "We were all stunned," said an Ismaili acquaintance. "Everyone started Googling him and calling each other." Jinnah's sons stopped attending evening prayers at the group's center in Santa Monica, she said.

Jinnah himself appears unbowed.

Since he left the U.S., a Pakistani business publication reported that he tried unsuccessfully to buy the landmark Roosevelt Hotel in New York, which is owned by Pakistan's national airline.

Jinnah also apparently stopped in to see the Nazim of Karachi, similar to the mayor. Jinnah said his new firm, Times Square, would invest billions in the city, local media reported. The story called his business "one of the 500 largest American companies."


chuck.neubauer@latimes.com

robin.fields@latimes.com

Times researcher Janet Lundblad contributed to this report.

Saturday, April 14, 2007

The Lobby and American Campaigns

April 13, 2007

Peggy McCormack

My name is Peggy McCormack, and I have worked inside Congress and the California Legislature off and on for 30 years. I am currently teaching at a small college.

Almost everyone who talks about "the lobby", are woefully ignorant of the inner workings of Congress. Congress may be the last place that any form of representation of "the people" takes place. As it gets more and more controlled by monied interests, Congress becomes more and more homogeneous. However, with regard to foreign policy, there are always the few brave members who routinely challenge American Imperialist policy. This was certainly true with regard to Latin America, Vietnam and other US imperialist debacles.

It is not true of Israel. Have you questioned how this came about? When it came about? I worked in many Congressional Campaigns and with many Political Campaign firms. Most of the really good campaign firms are controlled by Zionists (read Tom Hayden's article in Counterpunch). They function as money laundries, provide expensive services for practically nothing, demand loyalty to Israel, walk out in the middle of campaigns if candidates do not swear loyalty to Israel, and as private consultants have great impact on reapportionment processes in major states. I am familiar with California because the Campaign Firm that routinely tried to take my former boss out of Congress either by running primary candidates against him, or reapportioning him out, has run the reapportionment in California for the Democrats since 1970. There are other Zionist entities, such as the Congressional Committee for and Effective Congress that "helped" Democrats throughout the US with their reapportionment and made sure that some anti-Israel candidates had districts drawn in order to make picking them off in a primary easy.

Congressional candidates are frightened of the lobby. They certainly don't want putting up with the hassles of having the "lobby" come after them, but worse, they fear being targeted. Ask Jim Moran, Congressman from Virginia's 8th District who refused to vote for every anti-Palestinian resolution that came before Congress, and spoke out against the nasty occupation of Palestinians. He endured day to day torment, outrageous surveillance, electronic eavesdropping bugs, photos by Zionist paparazzi's who followed him, and on and on.

Part of the problem of uncovering the details of how the Lobby works in effectively controlling the campaign technology and expertise is the need for research. My ex-Communist party friends here in California are as ignorant of how the behind the scenes political campaign work is done, as the average citizen. A quick example I often use: I was once hired by a campaign to literally keep volunteers busy and away from the major activity of the campaign. Donations, of course, and endorsements (In the Democratic Party labor), are the milk of American politics. Since the bulk of donations to the Democrats come from Israeli support groups, and Labor, ( Zionists control Labor PAC committees) the power of the Israeli "lobby" becomes clearer and clearer. Tie that to the overpowering control by campaign firms themselves, and yes, Ariel Sharon is right "We own the Congress".

If I could interview Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucus members "off the record" I would uncover recent and current campaign practices that my former boss endured, and sadly, that I watched intimately when I worked in campaigns myself – loans (that quickly come due if the member steps out of line, as my boss did), "loyalty oaths" prepared speeches, imbedded campaign workers, imbedded Congressional staff, partially paid by various lobbies (this could not happen if AIPAC and their dozens of clones had to register as foreign lobbyists).

Oh, and all those campaign firms that do the extremely expensive work of polling, paid voter registration, and precinct analysis (remember campaign firms do not have to report any of this work) – who pays for that? Blessed candidates get the benefits, but at what cost? It is interesting to note that the power of the lobby grew as campaigning became more and more computerized, and the need for more and more "experts" entered the game.

If I had the time and money, I would investigate this phenomenon, I don't, but someone needs to look at the "way it works".

Thursday, March 29, 2007

New Jersey Israel lobby lines up for contenders

Fearmongering raises big bucks to buy politicians with.
---
Norpac lines up for contenders | Published Today |

Josh Lipowsky

With the most contended presidential election in years approaching, Norpac is making certain its voice is heard on the issue that matters most to the New Jersey-based pro-Israel lobby.

Six members of Norpac are involved in the campaigns of presidential hopefuls, and Norpac is using those already established relationships to collect funds in its name. The lobby sent out an e-mail to its members earlier this month directing them to point-people within the lobby who are involved in the campaigns of former Sen. John Edwards, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and Sens. Sam Brownback, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain.

"We’re not specifically endorsing the candidates, because we’re nonpartisan," said the lobby’s president, Ben Chouake, on Monday. "Our members are very active on candidates on both sides."

Norpac itself is not contributing funds to the campaigns. Instead, it is directing its members to contribute to various campaigns and to identify themselves as members of Norpac when they do. This raises the group’s visibility and makes certain the candidates know the pro-Israel issue is drawing support, Chouake said.

The list includes only candidates with personal relationships with Norpac members, Chouake said. If a member were to approach him wanting to raise money for another candidate not on the list, then the organization would agree, based on the candidate’s record on Israel.

"As long as the candidate is good on our issue, we’re happy that our membership is involved in that campaign," Chouake said. Regarding Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, the freshman senator who has garnered mixed reviews from pro-Israel activists, Chouake said he is less likely to garner the same support from Norpac members because he is not yet well known.

"He’s only been in the Senate for two years, he’s from a region in the Midwest, and, really, none of our members are very familiar with him at this time," Chouake said.

Norpac member Rabbi

A Jewish religious leader'); return false" href="javascript:void(0)">Rabbi Menachem Genack is working directly with the Clinton campaign because of a personal relationship. When Bill Clinton was seeking the Democratic nomination in 1991, Genack spoke on his behalf at a fund-raiser in Alpine. Genack had paraphrased a verse from Proverbs that "where there is no vision, the people perish," adapting it as a criticism of President George H.W. Bush. Clinton told Genack that he liked the line so much that he would use it in his acceptance speech if he won the nomination.

Chouake is a member of Sen. John McCain’s finance committee and directing Norpac collections for that campaign. The other four members — Jeff Parker for Giuliani, Leon Kozak for Romney, Heshe Seif for Brownback, and Michael Eidman for Edwards — have formed their own relationships with the candidates over the years.

"The community has a lot of relationships," Chouake said. "It’s likely that members will have relationships with major candidates."

According to election laws, lobbying groups can give up to only $5,000 to a political campaign. However, Norpac and other lobbies are permitted to bundle contributions from individuals and present them in the lobby’s name. There is no contribution limit for bundled donations.

As the race becomes more focused, so will Norpac’s efforts, Chouake said. McCain will be one of the members of Congress addressing Norpac in May during its annual mission to Washington. Hillary Clinton has also been invited but has not responded as of yet, Chouake said.

With 300 people already registered, Chouake hopes to draw 400 more to this year’s mission. (Last year, more than 500 people went on the mission.) The lobby has already scheduled 250 meetings for the day with members of Congress and Chouake expects that number to expand to 400 meetings. Last year, the mission met with 90 percent of the Senate and 70 percent of the House.

The lobbying group will head to Washington with two goals: to promote strong U.S.-Israel ties, and to focus attention on dangers to America and to Israel. Lobbyists will focus on legislative efforts to tighten sanctions against Iran in order to resolve the conflict without military intervention, Chouake said.

"This is not 1938," he said. Rather, "it’s very similar to 1933, with a terrible adversary looking to develop weapons of mass destruction."

While Norpac has run the mission for 14 years, it is only within the last five years that attendance has surged. While that is partly due to the fact that people feel a sense of pride for speaking up, Chouake said, it is mostly due to a fear for the future.

"For the first time in 20 years people are more distressed about what’s going on in Israel," Chouake said. "With Hezbollah on the northern border, with Hamas on the southern border, people are extremely distressed about the safety and security of Israel."

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Israel and US elections

Countdown, March 27, 2007 - Vol. 8, #11 : Arab American Institute

When voters gave Democrats control of Congress in November, it was generally agreed they were expressing deep disenchantment with the war in Iraq. It was also generally agreed that they were not eager to start a war with Iran. Salon reports that "AIPAC showed its true power-and its continuing ability to steer American Mideast policy in a disastrous direction-when a group of conservative and pro-Israel Democrats succeeded in removing language from a military appropriations bill that would have required Bush to get congressional approval before using military force against Iran."

America's former ambassador to the United Nations boasted to the BBC that he was "'damned proud of what we did' to prevent an early ceasefire" during Israel's assault on Lebanon last summer. In an interview for a BBC radio documentary, "The Summer War in Lebanon," Bolton also described Israel's goal of "defeating their enemy militarily" as "perfectly legitimate...and good politics." America's former ambassador to the United Nations boasted to the BBC that he was "'damned proud of what we did' to prevent an early ceasefire" during Israel's assault on Lebanon last summer. In an interview for a BBC radio documentary, "The Summer War in Lebanon," Bolton also described Israel's goal of "defeating their enemy militarily" as "perfectly legitimate...and good politics."

The Israeli daily Haaretz is weighing in on the 2008 presidential race with an ongoing feature called "The Israel Factor" which rates the candidates' Israel-friendliness. The overwhelming winner (and the only candidate who wins the panel's unanimous praise) is former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Former House Speaker New Gingrich (R), Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) round out the top five. When asked what makes a candidate "good for Israel," the answers are revealing: "He can deal in a realistic way with the conflicts of Middle East; he will not be overly susceptible to world opinion; he is ready to use force when necessary; he knows Israel and its problems; he will make sure not to pressure Israel into making concessions that will leave it with indefensible borders; he will take into account the interests of Israel as he formulates his Middle East policy; he is emotionally attached to Israel and the things it represents, and is pro-Zionist; he is well connected within the American Jewish community."

Israel and US elections

Countdown, March 27, 2007 - Vol. 8, #11 : Arab American Institute

When voters gave Democrats control of Congress in November, it was generally
agreed they were expressing deep disenchantment with the war in Iraq. It was
also generally agreed that they were not eager to start a war with Iran. Salon
reports that "AIPAC showed its true power-and its continuing ability to steer
American Mideast policy in a disastrous direction-when a group of conservative
and pro-Israel Democrats succeeded in removing language from a military
appropriations bill that would have required Bush to get congressional approval
before using military force against Iran."

America's former ambassador to the United Nations boasted to the BBC that he was
"'damned proud of what we did' to prevent an early ceasefire" during Israel's
assault on Lebanon last summer. In an interview for a BBC radio documentary,
"The Summer War in Lebanon," Bolton also described Israel's goal of "defeating
their enemy militarily" as "perfectly legitimate...and good politics."
America's former ambassador to the United Nations boasted to the BBC that he was
"'damned proud of what we did' to prevent an early ceasefire" during Israel's
assault on Lebanon last summer. In an interview for a BBC radio documentary,
"The Summer War in Lebanon," Bolton also described Israel's goal of "defeating
their enemy militarily" as "perfectly legitimate...and good politics."

The Israeli daily Haaretz is weighing in on the 2008 presidential race with an
ongoing feature called "The Israel Factor" which rates the candidates'
Israel-friendliness. The overwhelming winner (and the only candidate who wins
the panel's unanimous praise) is former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Former House
Speaker New Gingrich (R), Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) round out the top five. When asked
what makes a candidate "good for Israel," the answers are revealing: "He can
deal in a realistic way with the conflicts of Middle East; he will not be overly
susceptible to world opinion; he is ready to use force when necessary; he knows
Israel and its problems; he will make sure not to pressure Israel into making
concessions that will leave it with indefensible borders; he will take into
account the interests of Israel as he formulates his Middle East policy; he is
emotionally attached to Israel and the things it represents, and is pro-Zionist;
he is well connected within the American Jewish community."

Bush MisAdministration's Out of Control Corruption: The GSA

The GSA chief convened a national teleconference of GSA managers for a briefing from White House political staffers on how they could best use federal government resources to help "our candidates" in 2008.

---
Oversight Hearing on GSA

March 28th, 2007 by Jesse Lee

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is currently holding a hearing: “Allegations of Misconduct at the General Services Administration.” The hearing will inquire about allegations that GSA Administrator Lurita Doan failed to follow proper procedures for awarding federal contracts, attempted to intervene in contract negotiations, and engaged in partisan political activities on federal property. We have covered the issues at hand in depth in this post.

Watch the hearing live >>

View the presentation given by Karl Rove aide Scott Jennings at GSA (pdf) >>

--MORE--

Monday, March 26, 2007

The Enemy Within

Rollingstone.com

The Democrats' most dangerous opponent in '08 may be their own campaign consultants, who charge far more than GOP strategists -- and deliver far less

TIM DICKINSON

2008 has the makings of a banner year for Democrats. The wave of discontent that swept the GOP from Congress last November is growing, and the Iraq debacle will make it difficult for Republicans to retain the White House. But there is one group of powerful Washington insiders who have a proven ability to derail the Democrats. Working behind the scenes, these top-tier operatives humiliated Mike Dukakis in a tank, muzzled Al Gore on the environment and portrayed John Kerry -- a lifelong crusader for gun control -- as a rifle-toting Rambo. Year after year they have made sure that the Democratic message comes across as little more than a fuzzy, focus-grouped drone about child tax credits, prescription-drug plans and the "fight for working families."

And here's the depressing news: The Democrats pay them millions to do it.

The insiders are the political consultants hired by the Democrats to poll voters, shape strategy and devise campaign ads. With the exception of Bill Clinton, who brought in his own team of outside-the-Beltway mavericks, these top advisers have paved the way to Democratic defeat in every presidential election since 1980. "The political consultants," says longtime Gore policy staffer Elaine Kamarck, "have not served our presidential candidates well." Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, is even more blunt. "Forget what Shakespeare said," he advises. "First, kill all the consultants."

The party's campaign strategists operate under contracts that would make Halliburton blush. While their GOP counterparts work for a flat fee on presidential campaigns, Democratic media consultants profit on commission, pocketing as much as ten percent of every dollar spent on TV ads. It's a business model that creates "an inherent conflict of interest," concedes Anita Dunn, who served as a strategist for Bill Bradley in 2000. The more the candidate spends on TV advertising, the more the consultant cashes in. And that compensation is hidden from public scrutiny: Federal campaign reports reveal only what a campaign spends on ads, not how much the consultants skim off the top.

"Consulting," says former Gore campaign chair Tony Coelho, "is a business that can turn into a racket." Over the past two presidential elections, Rolling Stone estimates, that racket has cost the Democrats at least $10 million more in consultant fees than it did the Republicans. Even top GOP advisers, who usually counsel that greed is good, are amazed by the exorbitant fees. "If you want to elect your candidate, you ought to be able to work for a reasonable rate -- not try to haul off a sack full of profits," says Mark McKinnon, the lead media strategist for George Bush in both 2000 and 2004.

Overpaying consultants, McKinnon adds, may even have cost Democrats the White House. "Their consultants are getting ten percent -- that's outrageous." He laughs. "That's money that could have been spent on other parts of the campaigns. It might have captured 500 more votes in Florida for Gore in 2000 -- or maybe helped Kerry win Ohio in 2004."

Democratic consultants stand to walk away with an even bigger payday in 2008: The campaign could easily cost at least $2 billion, more than twice the '04 bill. And if the party continues to pay strategists a commission for every TV ad, much of that money will wind up wasted. "The consultants will be spending more money on bigger ad buys, trying to catch the few people who watch ads today," says Chris Lehane, a strategist on the Clinton and Gore campaigns. "It's a crazy, illogical position."

But as long as that's where the money is, that's what the consultants will do. "There's little impetus to try anything new," says Joe Trippi, who orchestrated Howard Dean's insurgency in 2004. "You can't get a ten percent commission on a million people viewing something for free on YouTube."

Top consultants interviewed by Rolling Stone refuse to reveal how they will be compensated in 2008. But when the dust settles, party insiders warn, those who write checks to the Democrats won't be happy with the results. "Donors will be shocked at how their money is spent," says Coelho, "and who walks away with multimillions."

Ask any consultant and they'll tell you they get too much credit when a candidate wins -- and too much blame when he loses. The candidate is the one who has the vision, sets the strategy and makes the decisions. "Consultants don't come to meetings with weapons," jokes Dunn, the former Bradley adviser.

But in a political era driven by media and technology, consultants have become kings of the campaign hill. "TV is so important that they're elevated to the top hierarchy," says Lehane. "They're in the room with the candidate when the doors are closed." The consultant then brings aboard a pollster who will back up his advice with hard data, selling the candidate on the kind of campaign they can "prove" appeals most to swing voters. "Candidates fall for what look like hard numbers," says Sabato, author of The Rise of Political Consultants. "But in fact they're not hard at all: The pollsters manipulate the questions and interpret the data, and too many candidates go along with it."

Which is precisely what happened in the last two presidential elections. In 2000, the chief Democratic consultant was Bob Shrum, a veteran known for orchestrating no fewer than six losing Democratic presidential bids. Shrum advised Gore to downplay his trademark issue -- the environment -- because it didn't rate as a top issue for enough voters. "They took his best gun and threw it in the river," says McKinnon, the Bush strategist. For his catastrophic counsel, Shrum's firm demanded fifteen percent of the ad buy, but Coelho knocked it down to ten percent. "They were not happy about it," he recalls. "So they pushed advertising expenditures even more." The consultants pocketed an estimated $5 million -- compared to $500,000 for McKinnon -- even though their ads were terrible. "The Republican spots were far more original," says Coelho. "We paid our consultants millions and got retread Mondale ads."

The 2004 campaign played out like a bad sequel. The Kerry team, once again headed by Shrum, advised the candidate to focus on prescription-drug benefits rather than national security and counseled Kerry not to respond to the Swift Boat attack ads. "The consultants turned him into Generic Democrat," says Jonathan Winer, a longtime Kerry counselor. "And Generic Democrat will always lose." Shrum's team spent an estimated $130 million for advertising -- roughly triple Gore's ad budget -- receiving a commission of 4.5 percent on top of a payment of $2.5 million. Once again, the ads were a disaster: While Bush's team used data-mining to microtarget voters with cable TV and Internet appeals, Shrum relied on network television. "The Bush campaign did everything a sophisticated Fortune 100 company would do," says Lehane. "The ads Kerry ran were so unfocused that they not only didn't help him, they actually helped Bush."

In the wake of such costly failures, Shrum has mercifully been put out to pasture -- but the track records of those vying to replace him hardly inspire confidence. Barack Obama's top strategist, David Axelrod, got his start helping the last presidential candidate from Illinois -- Sen. Paul Simon -- lose to Mike Dukakis in 1988. John Edwards has hired Harrison Hickman, who served as a top pollster for Gore in 2000. And Stanley Greenberg, another Gore pollster who worked closely with Shrum, is helping Sen. Chris Dodd burn through his campaign war chest.

"If you fail regularly in the commercial world, you don't get hired anymore," says Bill Hillsman, the consultant who engineered the long-shot victory of Sen. Paul Wellstone in Minnesota and helped the unknown Ned Lamont topple Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. "But if you fail regularly in the political arena, it has no bearing on your future income stream. You seem to get hired more and more -- simply because other people have hired you."

The only candidate with winning consultants on her team is Hillary Clinton, who is relying on pollster Mark Penn and media consultant Mandy Grunwald, both of whom are veterans from Bill's presidential victories. But stripped of their charismatic frontman, neither Grunwald nor Penn has made much of a splash in presidential politics. In 2004, the pair teamed up on the failed "Joementum" candidacy of Lieberman, who never rose above a second-place finish in Delaware. And so far they have only contributed to the impression that Clinton is the most scripted and poll-tested of all the candidates. In the online video Grunwald created to unveil Clinton's candidacy, Hillary engages viewers in a teleprompted "chat" from the deep-cushioned confines of her living room sofa. "It's such a put-on," says Sabato. "Her consultants said, 'Act natural.' And that's exactly what she did: She acted natural. Primping the pillows. It was hilarious."

The return of so many of Bill's top guns also runs the risk of making Hillary sound like a stand-in, lip-syncing the same old lines. She promises to fight -- as her husband did -- for people who "work hard and play by the rules," and has trotted out his chestnut, "There's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what is right with America." Such lack of innovation, says Sabato, is part of the problem with drawing from the same small pool of consultants year after year. "They've all worked on dozens of campaigns together," he says. "They have formula campaigns, formula ads. They even transfer slogans."

Axelrod, who is advising Obama's campaign, insists that he doesn't plan to package his candidate based on polls. "We will rise or fall based on who Barack Obama is," he says. "We're not going to reinvent him." In reality, though, Axelrod's emphasis on authenticity is itself a formula -- the same one he used twenty years ago to try and sell Paul Simon. In a voice-over for one of Axelrod's spots in 1988, the famously dowdy Simon intoned, "The public-relations specialists tell me, 'Get rid of the bow tie, get rid of the horn-rimmed glasses, change your views to accommodate public-opinion polls.' My bow tie is . . . my declaration of independence. You'll have to take me for what I am."

In addition to repeating old messages, consultants are likely to push the Democrats to buy TV ads that accomplish little -- except driving up the commissions for consultants. "There's no market incentive for the consultant class," says Lehane. "It pays whether they win or lose." When a Democratic candidate asks why their campaign isn't getting traction, says Hillsman, the answer from consultants will be the same as always: "You're not spending enough on TV advertising."

The single-minded emphasis on television could be more disastrous than ever next year, given the GOP's ability to target voters at the micro level. "Our strategic targeting remains primitive," admits Dunn, the former Bradley consultant. Lehane is even more incensed by the lack of technological sophistication. "People are not getting their information the same way they were five years ago, yet the consultants have been very slow to react," he says. "Why aren't campaigns doing what Google and Yahoo do: using algorithms to analyze e-mail lists and figure out what moves people on a daily basis? If you had this conversation with a consultant in Washington, they'd say, 'What do you mean, algorithm?' "

In fact, the ads that work today are almost never the ones a candidate pays to keep on TV -- they're the ones that earn free airtime when they're covered on CNN or spread virally on YouTube. "Earned media like the Swift Boat ads are the ones that change things, because people talk about them," says Markos Moulitsas, founder of the influential Daily Kos blog. Hillsman, considered a maverick among consultants, has had success selling candidates the way Apple sells Macs: with memorable, creative, even funny spots. Last summer, one of his commercials for Lamont became the second-most-viewed video on YouTube.

Yet consultants insist on airing the same spots over and over -- even though ads wear out their welcome after they have been seen ten or twelve times. "They really do believe that you can annoy someone into voting for your candidate," Hillsman says. "Viewers are seeing political ads as often as thirty times in the same market. It's asinine! Not only do the ads stop having any positive effect, you actually get a backlash against it."

The only solution, say Democratic veterans, is to take a page from the GOP playbook and eliminate the commissions that motivate consultants to go ad-crazy. "Our candidates need a Karl Rove," says Kamarck, the former Gore staffer. "Somebody who is on their side -- not in it for fifteen percent of the media buy." Based on recent discussions, Dunn believes that commissions will be increasingly rare. "Candidates are moving to a fixed fee," she says.

But fixed fees are only an improvement if they're negotiated down. For her work on Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign last year, Grunwald received an estimated fee of nearly $1 million -- double what consultants on Senate campaigns typically make from commissions. Penn also pocketed some $1 million for his role in helping Clinton spend $30 million -- more than any other Democrat -- for what was essentially an uncontested election.

Those figures suggest that, commission or no commission, consultants will continue to find ways to bleed the Democrats dry. In recent weeks, Clinton has raised $1 million in small-dollar donations online. If the past is prelude, that money won't cover what Clinton will shell out for a single consultant in 2008. Win -- or lose.

Posted Mar 20, 2007 2:22 PM

A Chance For Fair Elections

David Donnelly and Joan Mandle

March 26, 2007

David Donnelly is the National Campaigns Director of Public Campaign Action Fund. Joan Mandle is the Executive Director of Democracy Matters, and is the chair of the Public Campaign board of directors.

Last November, voters delivered an unmistakable mandate to Congress: Deal with the corruption and ethics scandals. The House and Senate both passed ethics and lobbying reforms as good first steps, but left untouched the broken campaign finance system that shuts out ordinary voters.

Into this vacuum stepped Senators Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Reps. John Tierney, D-Mass., Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., and Todd Platts, R-Pa.

On Tuesday, Senators Durbin and Specter introduced the bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act to level the financial playing field for all Senate candidates, and to get candidates off the never-ending fundraising treadmill. (At the same time, the House members filed similar legislation—the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act.)

The importance of this bipartisan legislation is underscored by the number of organizations that immediately got behind it. In addition to reform organizations, endorsers of the Fair Elections Now Act ranged from unions to business leaders, environmental groups to church-based organizations. With a combined membership of 60 million Americans, the coalition assembled is unlike any other federal effort on campaign finance reform. This reform effort is fundamentally different from those of the past.

Today, there is broad recognition that the current funding system is both unfair and unsustainable. Unfair because the few people in the country who can make sizable campaign donations get to influence our politicians and the political agenda in ways that ordinary citizens can’t hope to do. Unsustainable because campaign costs continue to soar. In 2002, the average winning candidate for Senate spent $5.4 million. Last fall, the average winner spent $9.7 million, an 80 percent increase. As the price tag on campaigns goes up, so does the time spent by members of Congress raising that money as well as the number of citizens who can no longer afford to run for office.

Furthermore, the scandals of Abramoff, DeLay, Cunningham and related outrages reveal that the system of private funding amounts to money scandals just waiting to happen. It adds up to a public that is shut out and turned off from politics awash with money.

This reform effort is also different because of the Fair Elections policy itself. Based on successful laws in Arizona, Maine, North Carolina and elsewhere, the proposal turns the current system on its head. Recent analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics reveals that a tiny fraction of Americans truly matter in financing elections: just one-quarter of one percent of all Americans make a donation of $200 or more to a federal candidate. Instead of depending on the narrow slice of America who can afford to make a large donation, the bill requires that participating candidates raise a large number of small donations from people back home. Importantly, after qualifying through these small donations, candidates agree to limit their spending to what they receive from a public fund.

In Arizona and Maine, similar clean elections laws have breathed new life into politics. Eighty-four percent of Maine state legislators were elected under the system. In Arizona, nine of the 11 statewide elected officials—including the governor—were elected without raising special-interest money. Candidates are no longer dependent on private money from wealthy special interests. Instead, they can focus on the needs of their constituents.

A broad and diverse set of groups and individuals support fair elections because it expands who can actively participate in politics, and deepens democracy by offering a workable alternative to the current unfair funding system. For a full list of endorsers of the Senate bill, visit Senator Durbin’s website.

We know that it will take a huge outpouring of citizen pressure to pass this legislation. Only organized, sustained citizen pressure can successfully make the case that the time has come for real change in campaign funding. National organizations and individuals are gearing up to tell their elected officials that they want to take back democracy from the special interests. Public Campaign has already launched a “Citizen Co-Sponsor” petition. Democracy Matters is organizing students on campuses to build support for fair elections. And many of the endorsing groups are planning a national day of action in the fall.

Because our democracy belongs to all of us—not just to elected officials, wealthy donors and lobbyists—it is all of America that must fight for it.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Talking About Israel: NICHOLAS KRISTOF

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
THE NEW YOR TIMES
OP-ED COLUMNIST

Talking About Israel

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: March 18, 2007

The lack of serious political debate about our policy toward Israelis and Palestinians harms America, Middle East peace prospects and Israel itself.

Democrats are railing at just about everything President Bush does, with one prominent exception: Mr. Bush’s crushing embrace of Israel.

There is no serious political debate among either Democrats or Republicans about our policy toward Israelis and Palestinians. And that silence harms America, Middle East peace prospects and Israel itself.

Within Israel, you hear vitriolic debates in politics and the news media about the use of force and the occupation of Palestinian territories. Yet no major American candidate is willing today to be half as critical of hard-line Israeli government policies as, say, Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper.

Three years ago, Israel’s minister of justice spoke publicly of photos of an elderly Palestinian woman beside the ruins of her home, after it had been destroyed by the Israeli army. He said that they reminded him of his own grandmother, who had been dispossessed by the Nazis. Can you imagine an American cabinet secretary ever saying such a thing?

--MORE--

Friday, March 16, 2007

Obama's Israel Problem

Senator Barack Obama isn’t quite sure how he feels about the lopsided situation between Israel and Palestine. Less than two weeks after Obama gloated to AIPAC about his love for Israel, he unexpectedly admitted the truth while campaigning in Iowa recently. “[N]obody is suffering more than the Palestinian people...” said Obama, “the Israel government must make difficult concessions for the peace process to restart...” The truth hurts indeed, and Obama has been feeling the wrath of the pro-Israel activists since his statement last week.

Nonetheless, Obama shouldn’t be trusted on the issue. While Rep. Dennis Kucinich hired avid pro-Palestine advocate Noura Erakat to sit on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Obama has been backpedaling -- assuring AIPAC and others that he is unwavering in his support for Israel’s continued bullying of Iran and occupation of Palestine.

“[Iran] is a genuine threat” to the United States and Israel, expressed Obama at a forum sponsored by AIPAC on March 12 in Washington D.C., only one day after his lucid remarks in Iowa. At the event Obama also reiterated that he would not rule out the use of force in disarming Iran, a position shared by the other leading Democratic presidential contenders, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

Earlier this month on March 2, Obama spoke at an AIPAC Policy Forum in Chicago where he clearly laid out his full stance on Israel, promising he would not alter the U.S./Israeli relationship. “[W]e must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs,” he said. “This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza.”

So while Obama admits that Palestinians suffer more than Israelis, he still won’t do a damn thing to balance out the asymmetrical relationship. In fact, Obama has made it clear that U.S. tax payers will continue to foot the bill for Israel’s ever-growing arsenal of weapons and missiles if he is indeed elected president in 2008.

In Obama’s March 2 speech, he even had the audacity to declare that “we have to press for enforcement of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which demands the cessation of arms shipments to Hezbollah, a resolution which Syria and Iran continue to disregard. Their support and shipment of weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, which threatens the peace and security in the region, must end.”

If Obama is truly interested in invoking U.N. Resolutions to prop up his case for a military assault on Iran, we may as well note the some 65 Resolutions the senator has blatantly ignored that condemn Israel’s actions -- past and present -- including Resolution 242 which calls for the withdraw of “Israeli armed forces from territories occupied” during the Six-Day War of 1967.

Sen. Obama, despite his acknowledgment of Palestinian suffering, has little to offer those who recognize that lasting peace in the Middle East will only begin when the U.S. radically alters its relationship with Israel. Continued funding of Israel’s illegal occupation won’t end the violence -- it’ll only continue it.

--Joshua Frank

Thursday, March 15, 2007

If Elected Clinton Sees Troops Staying in Iraq if She Is Elected

March 14, 2007
If Elected
Clinton Sees Some Troops Staying in Iraq if She Is Elected

WASHINGTON, March 14 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain in Iraq after taking office would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more-nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and PATRICK HEALY

--MORE--

Monday, March 12, 2007

GOP's Hagel To Announce On Anti-War Candidacy Today

Hagel to Announce Plans

10 a.m. news conference scheduled

U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel will raise the veil on his political plans Monday. Rumored for months as a potential GOP presidential candidate, Nebraska's senior senator has scheduled a 10 a.m. news conference to announce his intentions.

Pat McPherson, the Republican chairman for the second congressional district says, "Everybody is abuzz about what he might say, and nobody seems to have the slightest idea what he'll say."

There has been speculation in political circles for more than a year that the outspoken critic of the war in Iraq might seek the Republican nomination for president in 2008.

Hagel, 60, has said for weeks that he would make an announcement about his future "soon" but hasn't indicated whether that announcement would reveal his presidential aspirations, if any, or whether he would seek re-election to the Senate in 2008.

Some say Hagel's scheduled appearance Wednesday with nine declared presidential candidates at the International Association of Fire Fighters' annual meeting could be a hint at the senator's intentions. Each participant in the bipartisan forum will have 30 minutes to discuss why he or she should be the next president.

"We were clear about exactly what it was and he said he wants to participate," association spokesman Jeff Zack said. "So you can read into that however you want."

The Senator's Background
Born in North Platte, Chuck Hagel attended high school in Columbus and college in Omaha.

The first time he left the state was 1968 at the age of 21.

In 1996 he said, "My life has been about serving my country, starting in Vietnam."

The Senator won two Purple Hearts in Vietnam where he served in the infantry next to his brother Tom.

Chuck Hagel spent most of his adult years in the Washington, D.C. area in business and government. He served eight-years as an aide to Nebraska Congressman John Y. McCollister.

When he decided to enter politics for the first time as a candidate, it wasn't for city council or mayor or the state legislature but the U.S. Senate. It was 1996 and Nebraska hadn't elected a Republican to the position in 24 years.

Hagel won the seat by 15 percentage points even though he was going against the governor of Nebraska at the time -- Ben Nelson.

At the time he said, "It's an advantage for someone like me who has come out of nowhere. You can still sell retail politics in a state like this. You can go one-on-one. You can shake hands and people can look you in the eye and say, I like this guy or I don't. I trust him or I don't trust him."



Hagel will hold the Monday news conference at the University of Nebraska at Omaha Alumni Center. Channel 6 news will carry the announcement live and you can watch live streaming coverage here on WOWT.COM.


Saturday, March 10, 2007

Giuliani's Private Life May Hurt His Run; Firefighters fry Giuliani over 9/11

Related
Firefighters fry Giuliani over 9/11
---
Saturday March 10, 2007 11:46 AM

By MARC HUMBERT

Associated Press Writer

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Ronald Reagan was divorced, had chilly relations with some of his children, and still easily won two terms as president. Rudy Giuliani has been thrice married and twice divorced, has chilly relations with his children, and wants to be elected president.

Twenty-seven years after Reagan became the only divorced candidate to win the presidency, the former New York City mayor is hoping that when it comes to family values, voters will be as accommodating.

They may not be.

Republican strategists say Giuliani's troubled family relationships are likely to hinder his standing among conservatives who already have questions about his positions on social issues. They say the estrangement could raise a question in voters' minds: If Giuliani can't keep his family together, how will he keep the country together?

In fact, Giuliani's support for abortion and gay rights, his backing of gun control measures and his very New Yorkness already had given conservatives pause about his candidacy. He has also marched in gay pride parades, dressed up in drag and lived temporarily with a gay couple and their Shih Tzu.

Then came the stories about his family.

``There's obviously a little problem that exists between me and his wife,'' Andrew Giuliani, a 21-year-old student at Duke University, recently told The New York Times.

Standing outside the Los Angeles County sheriff's headquarters on Monday, the former New York mayor faced questions about the estrangement from his son Andrew.

``The more privacy I can have for my family, the better we are going to be able to deal with all these difficulties,'' he said.

America was getting a look at what New York tabloid readers were familiar with from the pre-Sept. 11 world, when Giuliani's planned 2000 Senate campaign against Hillary Rodham Clinton fell apart in the face of his prostate cancer and the messy and very public breakup of his marriage to TV personality Donna Hanover.

Judith Nathan was the other woman back then and subsequently became Giuliani's third wife and stepmother to the two Giuliani-Hanover children, Andrew and Christine. Giuliani's first marriage to his second cousin, Regina Peruggi, ended after 14 years in divorce and later an annulment.

That may not wash with today's Republican Party, where religious conservatives hold greater sway than in Reagan's day, said political scientist Gerald Benjamin.

``The mobilization of the Christian right is a movement of contemporary Republican politics,'' said Benjamin, dean of liberal arts and sciences at the State University of New York's New Paltz campus. ``It makes more of a difference now.''

There is another difference.

``Ronald Reagan had a wealth of conservative support based on his record and that made conservative Republicans look beyond any issues with his kids and his divorce,'' said GOP strategist Nelson Warfield. ``Giuliani doesn't bring a wealth of conservative support to the equation.''

Independent pollster Lee Miringoff said Giuliani's request for privacy is unlikely to be heeded given that private lives have become fair game in politics. ``It's become a fact of life,'' said Miringoff, head of Marist College's Institute for Public Opinion.

For Giuliani, the family flap came at a bad time. He had surged to the front of the GOP pack, pulling ahead of Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

``He's probably the most famous, least known candidate for president we've had in a long time,'' said Warfield. ``This exposes a side of Giuliani most voters would have no idea about.''

Southern Baptist Convention leader Richard Land, for example, described Giuliani's breakup with Hanover as ``divorce on steroids.'' Hanover learned her husband was seeking a divorce from television after he announced the decision at a press conference.

``To publicly humiliate your wife in that way, and your children - that's rough,'' said Land. ``I think that's going to be an awfully hard sell, even if he weren't pro-choice and pro-gun control.'' Marital history and family values have been bubbling just below the surface of the Republican campaign for months.

At a GOP dinner in Missouri last month, Ann Romney said the biggest difference between her husband, Mitt, and his rivals was that ``he's had only one wife.''

McCain is divorced and has a second wife. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is considering a presidential run, is twice divorced and on Thursday acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair when he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Miringoff said Ann Romney's comments may also be designed to blunt concerns about her husband's Mormon faith, given the church's past links to polygamy.

And while Andrew Giuliani has said he is too busy pursuing a possible professional golf career to campaign for his dad, one of Romney's five sons is working on his father's campaign full-time. All Romney's sons, their wives and the candidate's 10 grandchildren have been prominently featured by the campaign.

Giuliani's campaign spokeswoman, Maria Comella, declined to discuss how the former mayor's private life might play out in the campaign other than to say, ``This election is about leadership'' and Americans appear to have embraced Giuliani's ``optimistic vision and reputation as a problem solver.''

The last New York Republican to make a serious run for the White House, Nelson Rockefeller, lost the GOP nomination in 1964 to Barry Goldwater - in part because of the then-New York governor's divorce and subsequent remarriage.

``'We need a leader, not a lover,' was the slogan used against him,'' recalled Benjamin, a Rockefeller biographer.

^---

On the Net:

Rudy Giuliani: http://www.joinrudy2008.com/

John McCain: http://www.johnmccain.com/

Mitt Romney: http://www.mittromney.com/