Following up on Sweeney's Bad Bill

Sweeney boating bill may sink Tax break plan likely to fail with loss of seat By John Ferro Poughkeepsie Journal

November 12, 2006

U.S. Rep. John Sweeney's loss Tuesday to Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand will almost certainly doom a bill that became a political liability for him.

In May, the Republican from Clifton Park introduced a measure that would give tax breaks to boat manufacturers that provide high-end, easy-to-wear life vests and emergency radio beacons to consumers for free. The bill was crafted with help from the National Marine Manufacturers Association.

Received cash from PAC

In August, the Poughkeepsie Journal reported the association's political action committee had donated $4,500 to Sweeney's campaign. It ultimately gave $8,000 in cash and in-kind services. Those services included use of a yacht to hold fundraisers.

Sweeney's use of the yacht was later reported in the Chicago Tribune, became fodder for political blogs and was referenced in a television commercial by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

In a meeting last month with the Journal's editorial board, Sweeney said his use of the yacht was "above board."

The boat bill was referred to the House Ways and Means committee, where it remains. There is no co-sponsor and a matching bill has not been introduced in the Senate.

A spokeswoman for Sweeney's office said there had not been enough time to find a Senate sponsor. In an e-mail, Melissa Carlson said Sweeney is using his remaining time to focus on several appropriations bills. The boat bill's future "will all depend on if someone else picks it up next Congress," Carlson said.

Monita Fontaine, vice president of government relations for the marine manufacturers association, said in a statement: "We look forward to working with the new Congress on issues important to promoting a strong U.S. manufacturing base, expanding trade opportunities, promoting job growth and safety initiatives for the boating public." (link)

November 8. 2006

There's a gentle rain falling today, and we have A Democrat bound for Washington. The last alfalfa cutting was good, and a friend tells me that the last time Delaware Countyhad a Democrat in Congess was 1876. Let us pray that this portends better milk prices and a withdrawal in Iraq.

Nobody Beats Gillibrand

Thanks to Kirsten for running to win instead of running not to loose. Thanks to all of you who knew long before last night that Gillibrand would give Congressman Kick Ass an ass kicking.

Thanks to those who knew that Kirsten was the right person to get America and the 20th district back on track again. Thanks to all of you who supported our candidate. Thanks to all of you who read this blog and who worked to elect the best candidate in this race. Your work paid off - we win.

Bye-bye John Sweeney.

Contrasts between Kirsten Gillibrand and John Sweeney

Times Union photo of yesterday's campaigning.

1. The Rally: Kirsten Gillibrand and President Bill Clinton in Warren County.
2. The Dodge: John Sweeney and his get away car.

Bill Clinton and Kirsten Gillibrand Rally, NY-20

Notes on President Bill Clinton's 2nd Visit for the 20th District Race Yesterday. From today's Post Star:

Clinton returns to push Gillibrand to win

...Clinton, speaking on the eve of the election, told a crowd of more than 1,000 people to go out and look people in the eye and make the case for electing Democratic congressional candidate Kirsten Gillibrand.

"Tell them about our candidate," he said. "Tell them about the choices and the consequences. Tell them America can be so much better." ...

A new poll released Sunday showed her leading Sweeney 46 percent to 43 percent, with a 3.9 percent margin of error.

"You saw the latest poll. She was ahead," Clinton said. "But there's still enough undecideds to trip the race either way. And most of those people who are undecided are not used to voting for people with a 'D' after their name."

Clinton said Gillibrand has taken her campaign from impossibility to possibility and now to the point of belief.

"No one thought when she stuck her neck out she had a ghost of a chance," he said. "A lot of people that were helping her were helping her because they liked her and they admired her and they believed in what she stood for. But it's only been apparent for a few weeks now that she could actually win this thing." ...

Jonathan Gillibrand, the candidate's husband, said Monday his wife has always believed she could win. ...

"At the end of last winter, there was no one there, really," he said. "There was no team. We just drove around and shook hands with people."

In their speeches, neither Kirsten Gillibrand nor Clinton mentioned Sweeney directly, focusing instead on Republican policies in general.

"What we need this year is we need a new Congress. We need new leaders," Gillibrand said.

Clinton interspersed his criticism of GOP policy with humor.

"I mean, I've been poor; I've been rich. I like rich better," Clinton said. "But I think people like me ought to pay our fair share in the tax structure."

Weighing in on the privatization of Social Security, Clinton said, "Now the president says that he is going to, quote, revisit Social Security after the election. When I was in college, they called that a euphemism. And when I grew up in Arkansas, the way we described it is, 'He's gonna try to stick a fork in the thing.'"

The Iraq war and homeland security are defining issues in the campaign, Clinton said.

"They say they're the victory party and we're the cut-and-run party," he said. "We're the stop-and-think party."

U.S. troops withdrawn from Iraq could be sent to Afghanistan, where there is a shortage of forces, Clinton said.

Clinton suggested devoting more attention to research and development of alternative fuels.

"In upstate New York, you can grow willow trees like weeds and make four gallons of ethanol for every one gallon of gasoline," he said. ... (full story link)

(Watch a video clip here.)

Voting Information

It's time to get out and vote for Gillibrand. We're getting reports of misinformation about polling places going out to voters.

If you don't know where to go to vote, go here to find your correct polling location based on your address. Or visit the Post Star's list of polling places here.

Phone calls direct voters to incorrect polling places

Published on 11/7/2006 in the Post Star

Post Star By MADELINE FARBMAN

QUEENSBURY -- The Warren County Board of Elections received 12 to 15 phone calls Monday from voters who said they'd received phone calls giving them incorrect polling locations, said Mary Beth Casey, Republican election commissioner. Although both Democrats and Republicans said they'd been given misinformation, according to Casey, reports of the phone calls prompted representatives of each party to accuse the other side of wrongdoing. Casey said she was very concerned that voters won't know their correct polling place and encouraged anyone with questions to call the Board of Elections. ... [link to County Boards of Election] Casey said she figured about a third of the phone calls she received were from Democrats, the rest from Republicans, which she said mirrors the demographics in this area. Casey said some callers were concerned that they were being deliberately given misinformation. "I had someone say to me, 'It sounds like they're trying to get me to go to the wrong place,' " she said. Casey said she didn't know if the phone calls to voters were automated calls or placed by live callers. At least one person thought the phone call came from the Gillibrand campaign, but at least one Democrat said he thought the call was placed by Republicans, Casey said. Bill Montfort, Democratic election commissioner for Warren County, said he thought phone calls with incorrect polling locations could occur because of misreading information in a voter database available to campaigns. "I could see where that would happen," Casey said. Montfort said midday Monday that he had not received any phone calls from voters who'd been given incorrect polling information. Casey said she may have received the phone calls because her number is listed above Montfort's in the phone book listing for the Board of Elections. Bill Hyers, campaign manager for Kirsten Gillibrand, said the Gillibrand campaign is not making phone calls telling voters about polling stations. Blake Zeff, spokesman for the state Democratic Committee, said such calls were not placed by the Democratic State Committee, either. Mike Grasso, Warren County Republican chairman, said the county Republican headquarters had also received five to eight phone calls from voters who said they'd been given incorrect polling locations, and he said he believed the Democratic State Committee and the committee to elect Kirsten Gillibrand were disseminating erroneous voting information. "Why are Democratic committees calling Republicans telling them where to vote?" he said. Jen Psaki, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said that office does make automated phone calls telling people their polling stations. Psaki said she was aware of one error in which a Saratoga County voter was given the wrong polling place, but that it's unlikely the DCCC would have given 10 voters in Warren County incorrect information. She said she believed such phone calls are made only to Democrats.

Great Work John

John Sweeney (R-NY) shines a spotlight on the huge flaws in his character and honesty on election night.

A Republican Sweeney supporter tells WNYT that "I can't find it my heart to vote for Sweeney ... especially after today when he just sneaks out the front door and doesn't answer these questions. ... There are a lot of women specifically just like me that feel he needs to get in front of us, not E. Stewart Jones, him and say what this is all about."

Instead, Sweeney "slipped out the door opposite from where his car was parked and drove off in a car different from the one he arrived in."

The state police won't authenticate the new report that seems to come from no place released by nobody.

Big shocker here:

the document ... contained no details, period. (per the TUblog)

According to the TUB, the Sweeney campaign denies that it is behind the no-details-period "report." So maybe a fake sheet o' paper was printed up by a Sweeney supporter or maybe he's telling lies again. Who know?

We do know that Sweeney could have avoided questions about the authenticity of this new report by the news media had he authorized the police to release the report directly to news outlets.

A spokesman for the New York State Police confirmed to ABC News the report can be released "if both parties sign a notarized waiver of privacy with instructions drawn out to who gets it and when." (link)

Sweeney would not do that even when the Times Union offered to draw up the paperwork for him the day after this story broke.

When one WNYT reporter asked the other if it is common for the police to change these reports so that there would be different versions of the same report, he said "Apparently not."

There are two possibilities here. Someone did Sweeney a favor and made some edits. Or a Sweeney supporter or the Sweeney campaign made their own edits. Because we know that the Times Union researched the accuracy of the document before they went to press.

And if you think unusual things don't happen for "Congressman Kick Ass" - keep in mind what the North Country Gazette recently pointed out:

Although his son could have faced up to seven years in prison for the vicious assault, he walked, escaping all jail time.

Is that common? Nope, that's not common either.

Sweeney's desperate to think that any last minute headlines tomorrow citing his new report will convince voters he wasn't telling lies when he claimed there was another report. If he wanted the media to be confident this was the real report, he'd have had the police hand it to the media directly.

He's acted like a complete buffoon from the beginning here.

1. He stonewalled questions when this happened.
2. When it was revealed, he tried to blame others for his own mistakes.
3. He publically called for another report and then refused to release that to the media.
4. He dodged even supporter's questions about the incident.
5. He's ensured that on election day - he'll have his domestic violence and his lack of integrity on people's minds all over again.

Let's get out there and vote for Kirsten. Not only because she's the best candidate in the race but also to show that even Bob Novak is right once in a while:

Rep. John Sweeney (R) is a goner after ... police report alleging domestic abuse was leaked to the press.

Last Minute Research from the Mail Bag

On What John Sweeney Got:

Sweeney just reported receiving a $1,000 contribution from Lawrence Kadish (and failed to identify his employer/occupation) [He's a "high-powered real estate investor] Kadish is a MAJOR GOP donor and has true right-wing nut-job credentials Sweeney must be in very deep doo-doo for the GOP to be tapping donors on this level for him.

And donors like LK don't give to moderates.

How he gives:

John Sweeney is the founder and honorary chairman of Freshmen PAC Rep. Don Sherwood, who, the AP revealed, paid his ex-mistress $500,000 to not discuss her allegations that Sherwood choked her, reported yesterday that he had received a $1,000 contribution from the Freshmen PAC.

Because cavemen need to stick together!

Who Says No One Loves Him?

NY Daily News Gives Sweeney an award!

MOHAMMED SAEED al-SAHAF EXCELLENCE IN DENIAL AWARD

And finally, the gilded statuette of former Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, handed out for Excellence in Denial, goes to upstate Republican Rep. John Sweeney and his lawyer Stewart Jones, who spent the last days of the campaign frantically denying reports that Sweeney's wife called 911 in an apparent domestic violence incident.

"So what? Who says he beat up his wife?" Jones asked reporters Friday evening, before being reminded, again, that a state police report says she said he "knocked [her] around the house." Sweeney had previously promised to release documents he said would prove his innocence. Then Jones said he'd advised Sweeney "not to release any information to the public or the press."

Wonder why. (link)

Another Editorial Says Sweeney Must Go

North Country Gazette:

COMMENTARY - John Sweeney Ethics Preclude His Reelection To Congress

When Congressman John Sweeney's son was charged with second degree assault as a result of a fight in Stillwater on Aug. 19, 2004, which seriously injured the victim, he turned to Troy attorney E. Stewart Jones.

Although his son could have faced up to seven years in prison for the vicious assault, he walked, escaping all jail time.

Reassure us, tell us politics had nothing to do with that.

Now three news outlets have produced an incident report concerning a report of domestic violence at the Sweeney home, obtained from the New York State Police and Sweeney, embroiled in a contentious race for Congressman in the 20th Congressional District, claims the report is fabricated. He has in essence accused the media, three separate news organizations, of falsifying evidence and says that he's going to produce the real report.

So where is it?

Once again Sweeney has turned to attorney E. Stewart Jones who says he's been hired to find out who "leaked" the report. He says he's advised Sweeney NOT to produce the "real" report.

Is there one? We suspect there's only one report, the one the media obtained.

Not only is there a huge problem involving John Sweeney's character and fitness for public office, but he has a humungous credibility problem.

It appears that the news organizations had been trying for months to obtain the police report from a 911 call made after midnight on Dec. 2, 2005, by Sweeney's wife, Gaia "Gayle" Ford Sweeney. According to the police report, she told a trooper who responded to the call at their Clifton Park home that they got into an argument that "turned a little physical by her being grabbed by the neck and pushed around the house" by Sweeney. The report relates that the couple appeared calm when the trooper arrived but that the Congressman had scratches on his face.

No one was arrested.

It is unlikely that three competing news organizations would "conspire" against Sweeney, as he in essence alleges, to produce a false report of domestic violence and his claim that there's another report just doesn't ring true, especially since he can't or won't produce it and now claims it's all the fault of Kirsten Gillibrand.

His lack of honesty and credibility came forth at his hastily called news conference with his wife when he had to read from notes held down in front of him when commenting about the incident. He couldn't even look directly into the camera and if he was speaking openly and honesty, he wouldn't have needed crib notes that someone had apparently prepared for him.

His wife obviously has a lot to gain from Sweeney being reelected and who knows if she has been threatened in any way to now say that she was never assaulted by him. At least one TV news outlet has reported that Sweeney may have a history of domestic violence, indicating that in 1998, his former wife also reported a similar incident to the police.

Instead of admitting the incident and coming clean, he instead is trying to blame the whole situation on his opponent. Not only is he unwilling to take responsibility and accept the blame for the fallout from his own actions, but he's trying to divert the blame to someone else, a woman---in our view yet another form of domestic violence and his attack ads against the woman have been relentless and possibly defamatory and slanderous.

Instead of accepting responsibility, he calls in the GOP big-whigs to rally around him ---Gov. George Pataki, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno and former NYC mayor Rudy Guiliani. Bruno shouldn't be vouching for anyone, he should be under intense investigation by the New York State Ethics Commission himself.

Maybe the reason that Sweeney can't produce what he claims is the "real" report is that he can't convince anyone in the State Police to make up a report that he can show around to claim it's the "real thing".

There's no doubt that politics played a role in the criminal charges against his son who avoided jail time after admitting to felony second degree assault.

In a rare action, Republican Fulton County Judge Richard Giardino reversed his earlier decision to sentence John J. Sweeney Jr., 19, of Schaghticoke and John J. Manupella of Troy, also 19, to jail for a brutal assault of another teen last year which fractured his skill and left the victim with long-term vision damage and recurring nightmares. He will also have to undergo reconstructive dental work after losing one tooth and having three other teeth chipped in the assault.

The pair had pleaded guilty to second degree assault in a plea bargain negotiated with the Montgomery County district attorney's office in exchange for a sentence of four months of weekends in jail or 45 consecutive days in jail plus probation and community service.

Second degree assault is a class D felony and they could have received up to seven years in state prison.

But when the pair appeared in court before Giardino, he reversed his earlier decision, and negated the plea agreement. He suspended the jail time, granted them youthful offender status and sealed the court records.

Giardino said that he weighed a number of factors. He didn't happen to mention if politics and the Republican party were among them.

The sentence did not please the victim, Matthew Brady, 20, of Stillwater who said that he believed the pair got such favorable treatment because Sweeney's father is a Congressman. "It's all about money", Brady said. "If you have money, you have power". Brady said the sentence was totally unjust, that "they just walked away with a slap on the wrist".

They were sentenced to 240 hours of community service, five years of probation and must pay Brady's medical costs which total $18,000 to date. They are also barred from having any contact with Brady whom they assaulted in Stillwater on Aug. 19, 2004, in a fight involving 15 to 20 men. The fight between Sweeney and Brady was allegedly about a girl.

The Sweeneys are now blaming the pressures of Junior's arrest along with the Congressman's medical problems which caused his hospitalization last year as the impetus behind the call, saying that the "year-long public scrutiny reached its breaking point". If he couldn't handle the public scrutiny last year, the pressures must be really mounting now and perhaps his wife should seek added protection. His wife claimed she didn't need to be protected from her husband yet she's the one who called the police and said he was pushing her around the house.

Sweeney has some serious baggage, not only from his funding sources but from his position on the war in Iraq and his voting record.

John Sweeny: Campaign Finance/Money - Contributions 2006 Summary

John Sweeny: Campaign Finance/Money - Top Contributors

John Sweeny: Campaign Finance/Money - Top Contributing Industries

Beyond Delay has listed Sweeney as one of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress and points out that Sweeney had begun using Gayle Ford, who became his wife, as a fundraiser in April 2003. He proposed to her in September 2003. http://www.beyonddelay.org/summaries/sweeney.php

Beyond Delay says that under the name of "Gaia Mashanta Ford", Sweeney's wife, Creative Consulting was registered in April 2003 with the Albany County Clerk's office. A day later, Sweeney hired Creative Consulting to do fundraising work for his campaign although Ms. Ford (now Mrs. Sweeney) had no previous fundraising experience and appears to have had no other clients. She wasn't paid a salary, Beyond Delay says, but instead was paid a 10% commission on the funds she raised for Sweeney's campaign.

It has been reported that Sweeney's campaign paid Creative Consulting $42,570 during the 2004-2005 election cycle and as of April 2006, had paid the firm $30,879 for the current election cycle. Beyond Delay reports that checks from Sweeney's campaign go to a P.O. Box in Clifton Park, the town where the couple lives.

It has been charged that Sweeney is converting campaign funds to personal use in violation of the federal Election Campaign Act and House Rules.

The nonprofit Center for Media and Democracy and "Congresspedia" has compiled a report on Sweeney which indicates a long history of ethical problems which include a ski trip to New York, the exchange of legislative assistance for campaign contributions his appearance at a drinking party at a frat house where he was said to be drunk and slurring his words but defended his appearance there, saying he was discussing "policy" with the students.

Sweeney invited 53 people to join him earlier this year, from Jan. 6-9, in Lake Placid for a "Congressional Winter Challenge" at the Olympic facilities where they pretended to be Olympic athletes, engaging in skiing, bobsledding and hockey at the expense of New York State taxpayers. Sweeney claims there were no improprieties but the weekend would seem to violate provisions of the House gift and travel rules.

There's other matters such as the complaint field with the Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards which alleges that Sweeney violated the Congressional franking privileges by mailing 500 letters less than 90 days before New York's Sept. 12 primary.

Sweeney has also been criticized for hosting a Utah fundraising ski trip in the wake of the scandal involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff that included a dinner at the home of lobbyist Jeff Kimbell who represents the pharmaceutical companies Novartis and Allergan.

Congresspedia reports that Sweeney is among seven members of the House Appropriations Committee who have a political action committee which is either headed by a registered lobbyist or a former registered lobbyist with "business" before the Committee", according to the Center for Public Integrity and campaign records.

Sweeney's financial records are currently being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice in regard to possible ties to Jack Abramoff after he accepted money from former clients of Abramoff.

In 2001, when he traveled to the Northern Marianas Island to speak to its Chamber of Commerce, his trip was funded by the Chamber, one of Abramoff's clients. He was accompanied on the trip by Tony Rudy, former aide to former House Majority Leader Tom Delay, who was then working for Abramoff. According to federal law, members of Congress must disclose all trips funded by private sources but Sweeney failed to report this trip, claiming that he thought the trip was funded by the island's government.

The police report and Sweeney's alleged history of domestic violence is the straw that broke the camel's back.

Voters in the 20th Congressional District definitely need a change, not an albatross to represent them in Washington.

Sometimes voters have to the candidate with the least baggage. In the race for the 20th Congressional District, that person is Kirsten Gillibrand. (link)

Kirsten Gillibrand and President Clinton

If you missed it the first time ... you can see him again tomorrow. Just scroll down for the details.

Siena Says Gillibrand in the Lead 46 to 43

Siena New York Congressional Poll: Gillibrand Leads Sweeney by Three Points, Erasing 14 Point Deficit in Just Over Two Weeks

Voters Now Give Gillibrand Big Edge on Four of Seven Issues

Sweeney Favorability Falls; More Voters Now View Him Unfavorably

Loudonville, NY - In a dramatic turnaround, Democratic challenger Kirsten Gillibrand has erased a 14 point deficit and taken a three point lead over Representative John Sweeney (R-Clifton Park) in the race for Congress in the 20th Congressional District, according to a Siena (College) Research Institute poll released today. Gillibrand now leads Sweeney 46-43 percent, compared to the October 19th Siena Poll showing Sweeney with a 53-39 percent lead. When asked to choose which candidate would do a better job on seven issues, voters give Gillibrand a big edge on four (education, health care, environment and Iraq); Sweeney leads big on two issues (crime and homeland security); one issue (taxes) was a virtual tie.

"Kirsten Gillibrand has erased John Sweeney's lead completely and taken a small lead heading into Election Day," said Steven Greenberg, spokesman for the Siena College poll. "Gillibrand is holding more than three-quarters of Democrats, grabbing the support of nearly one-quarter of Republicans and garnering the votes of almost half of independent voters, among whom she leads Sweeney by 13 points. On the other hand, Sweeney is only holding two-thirds of Republicans and picking up the support of only one in seven Democrats.

"Gillibrand has a solid nine-point lead in the southern part of the district, is running neck-and-neck with Sweeney in the North Country portion of the district and trails Sweeney by only three points in the Capital Region part of the district," Greenberg said. "There is no gender gap in this district. Gillibrand leads by three points among men and two points among women.

"The turnaround in this race is even more dramatic given the huge enrollment edge for Republicans in this district," Greenberg said.

I wonder what Alan Chartock is going to have to say on the race now. As recently as October 30th, he was still defending the Sweeney agenda. Metroland reported early this month:

WAMC president and Legislative Gazette publisher Alan Chartock, a frequent critic of the Bush administration, has surprised many local observers with his apparent enthusiasm for Sweeney and his belief that Gillibrand has no chance. In the Sept. 11 Legislative Gazette, Chartock called Sweeney “one of the brightest lights in the Republican delegation.” Chartock proposed in the article that Democrats might consider voting for Sweeney so he can serve as an independent watchdog to keep the Bush administration in line. [Chartock said,] “there is something to be said for picking Republicans like Sweeney who is comfortably ahead of his opponent and supporting them to show the political world that Republicans who demonstrate independence will be rewarded for that spirit.” (link)

HAHAHAH! That was sooooooo wrong. Sweeney's voted with Bush 89% of the time. And with DeLay 92% of the time. That's not independence. People here know that. When I agree with someone 89% of the time, we're very close, we've got a lot in common and we're practically best friends forever.

Will AC finally abandon the GOP talking points regarding his "Good Friend" John Sweeney? As a private citizen and listener to WASMC, I've been asking AC to wake up since I first heard him talk about this race. I live here, I met Kirsten over 2 years ago, I knew people here were going to be open to her ideas for change and that Sweeney is not who we, the people in the 20th district, want representing us in congress.

Related: Read more about the poll and get the cross tabs from the TUblog.

Sweeney hearts Sweeney

United in Freedom, John Sweeney's "Leadership" PAC just donated $5,000 - the max allowed - to Sweeney's own campaign for congress in an effort to save his own seat on Nov. 4th.

Desperado....

Senator Clinton and Kirsten Gillibrand Rally

Senator Clinton will be campaigning with Kirsten Gillibrand at a Dutchess County Get Out the Vote Rally

Date: Sunday, November 5^th, 2006

Time: 4:00 p.m.

Location: The Big Barn, Tymor Park, 6 Tymor Park Road off County Route 21, Lagrangeville

Directions:

From North/South Dutchess County: Take the Taconic Parkway to the Poughkeepsie/Pawling Exit. After exiting head East towards Pawling on Route 55.

At second light turn left on to County Route 21. Tymor Park is two miles from light on the right. Parking is available at the Park.

Times Union Endorses Gillibrand

Gillibrand for Congress The Democratic challenger has emerged as a better candidate than the Republican incumbent

First published: Sunday, November 5, 2006

It's time for a change in the 20th Congressional District in New York and across much of the country. The elections of 2006, potentially historic in their scope, ought to be when the Democrats regain control of Congress. Rarely has such an overall change been needed more, especially to restore the checks and balances that the Constitution provides.

In each of his last two re-election campaigns, we endorsed U.S. Rep. John Sweeney. We cannot do so this time. Instead, our endorsement goes to his challenger, Kirsten Gillibrand.

To be sure, Mr. Sweeney has worked hard on behalf of his district and New York state. But for the past six years, he also has been a prominent and unapologetic advocate of deleterious Bush administration policies, from the Iraq war to tax laws that favor the rich over the poor. At a crucial moment when his voice might have been raised on behalf of openness and accountability in Congress, Mr. Sweeney remained a supporter of the ethically challenged House GOP leadership.

Ms. Gillibrand is a first-time candidate with unusual poise and command of the issues. By contrast to Mr. Sweeney, she offers a promising agenda for change.

She has been against the war in Iraq from its ill-conceived beginning and offers a sensible course that recognizes the failure of President Bush's mission and envisions a negotiated political solution that would allow a deadline to be imposed for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Mr. Sweeney, meanwhile, talks about the failure of the "stay-the-course" strategy, but isn't even dissuaded from what's now the undisputed truth about Saddam Hussein not possessing so-called weapons of mass destruction. Adhering to that line of judgment is inexcusable in someone we trust to make tough judgments for us.

Ms. Gillibrand supports tax cuts, but more for the benefit of the middle class, while Mr. Sweeney has been a reliable vote for tax cuts that do nothing to stimulate the economy. He rejects the consensus of most economists that cutting taxes to the point of reducing revenue hurts the economy, not helps it. Ms. Gillibrand also advocates a sensible energy policy designed with the needs of ordinary people, not huge oil companies, in mind. She's more committed than Mr. Sweeney to policies that would reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil. She's also more determined to find a way to make health care less costly and more easily available.

On issues close to home, certainly, Mr. Sweeney has been an able congressman. He has been outspoken in his insistence that New York not be denied the money needed to prevent terrorism. He has boosted efforts to bring high-tech jobs into his district and the Capital Region. Denying him re-election means taking a chance on someone who would go to Congress for the first time.

Yet Ms. Gillibrand has emerged as unquestionably qualified for Congress by virtue of her vision and intelligence. She would be an articulate advocate for the people who would become her constituents. She\'s especially passionate about saving the small farms in the Hudson Valley, and she sees the dredging of the Hudson River as the economic opportunity that it truly is.

This election is about more than who's best for the interests of the 20th Congressional District. It's about who's best for the interests of the country. Ms. Gillibrand is clearly the better choice.

Ms. Gillibrand supports tax cuts, but more for the benefit of the middle class, while Mr. Sweeney has been a reliable vote for tax cuts that do nothing to stimulate the economy. He rejects the consensus of most economists that cutting taxes to the point of reducing revenue hurts the economy, not helps it.

Ms. Gillibrand also advocates a sensible energy policy designed with the needs of ordinary people, not huge oil companies, in mind. She's more committed than Mr. Sweeney to policies that would reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil. She's also more determined to find a way to make health care less costly and more easily available.

On issues close to home, certainly, Mr. Sweeney has been an able congressman. He has been outspoken in his insistence that New York not be denied the money needed to prevent terrorism. He has boosted efforts to bring high-tech jobs into his district and the Capital Region. Denying him re-election means taking a chance on someone who would go to Congress for the first time.

Yet Ms. Gillibrand has emerged as unquestionably qualified for Congress by virtue of her vision and intelligence. She would be an articulate advocate for the people who would become her constituents. She's especially passionate about saving the small farms in the Hudson Valley, and she sees the dredging of the Hudson River as the economic opportunity that it truly is.

This election is about more than who's best for the interests of the 20th Congressional District. It's about who's best for the interests of the country. Ms. Gillibrand is clearly the better choice. (link)

The Register Star Endorses Kirsten

From the Register Star, 11/4/06

Residents of Columbia and Dutchess counties have had a front seat for the battle royale between Congressman John Sweeney and his challenger, Kirsten Gillibrand. Whoever emerges from this slugfest will represent the 20th Congressional district

The incumbent, Republican John Sweeney, has been recently plagued by allegations of domestic violence and ethical lapses. Yet he seems to have a strong pocket of support.

Maybe it’s his love of the region that engenders such goodwill. He certainly has brought home funding for any number of projects, including Columbia Memorial Hospital and other causes close to his heart. The four-term congressman waxes poetic over local history sites, and claims to have returned something to the tune of three-quarters of a billion dollars back to the state since his initial victory.

Or maybe it’s his tough-guy stance. Sweeney, in lockstep with the Bush Administration, believes in a connection between Sept. 11 and the war in Iraq. He’s bullish on Homeland Security and the defense industry, touting the latter as a potential economic boon for the area.

Gillibrand, too, is a staunch defender of the U.S. She also believes that terrorists have their eyes on our nation, and that we must be resolute in deterring any advance on their part. However, she thinks it’s time to get out of Iraq. She advocates returning power to the Iraqis, and bringing all sides to the table to negotiate a viable government.

Closer to home, Gillibrand is looking to reform what she sees as needless waste in spending. A self-defined fiscal conservative, Gillibrand proposes holding politicians accountable when they belly up to the trough. She believes that the enormous debt generated by the current administration can be dealt with, if someone else takes control of the checkbook.

She’s also in favor of giving a break to the middle class, even going so far as to propose at $10,000 rebate for those who have children in college. An advocate of education, she believes the region could retain bright young people if it invested in conservation technology.

There’s a lot more to Gillibrand and her platform, far too much to fit into the space of this editorial. Which is why the Register-Star is endorsing Gillibrand for Congress.

It’s not that Sweeney isn’t a passionate politician. He is. But he still moves too much in tandem with the current administration, and rather than offering insight or thoughtful response to broadly perceive problems, merely parrots Republican talking points.

In contrast, Gillibrand is bright, charismatic and willing to discuss any issue under the sun—or research it and get back to you. We believe that she will bring light into those musty halls and keep her word to work for reform.

We do have one recommendation for Gillibrand, and that is to keep to the sidelines when it comes to local issues. Residents of the twin counties elect their local representatives to deal with “home rule” issues.

On Tuesday, November 7, cast your vote for Kirsten Gillibrand.

Oh say can you see?

The Poughkeepsie Journal says of Sweeney:

he's not above admitting mistakes

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA - good one. I think must have been a typo. It should have said, he's not above making mistakes. Lots of them.

Gillibrand has criticized Sweeney for some lobbying and fundraising trips. Sweeney counters he hasn't done anything illegal ...

Actually, his trip to the Marianas Islands with Abramoff's right hand man was not correctly reported according to house ethics rules. That makes it illegal. His financial records have been pulled by the Department of Justice which suggests that he has done a lot that is illegal. And there is sworn testimony on the Congressional Winter Challenge that says Sweeney violated house ethics rules when he drew up the guest list for the event. He should know better and when something is wrong, he shouldn't be doing it in the first place. In another endorsement that relies on GOP talking points against Gillibrand as they suggest:

despite his blemished voting record (link)

that Sweeney "deserves" re-election. We beg to differ. We think that the voters disagree with the two papers (the bozos editors at the Saratogian are also blind to reality) that came out with apologetic endorsements today suggesting that we stay the course with Sweeney for a few scraps of pork in our trough. Sweeney had no elected office experience when he ran. Sweeney moved to the district from elsewhere. Sweeney is wrong about the dredging, his stance has stilted our economy. Hosting the nation's largest superfund site will be an immediate economic boost for the district from the moment it is finally begun. A clean river will continue to grow our economy for generations to come. Sweeney has lied to us repeatedly, he has sold us out for his campaign doughners. He has not proven that he deserves to represent the people of this district. Sweeney's had 8 years to figure out what he's doing in congress. And he doesn't get it. We are headed in the wrong direction. We are bogged down in Iraq, we are not creating enough new jobs, big oil and the drug companies are writing our laws, this is the most corrupt congress in history.

If you don't change the direction you are going, you wind up where you are headed. Kirsten Gillibrand is the best candidate in the race.

Eye Opening

TU weighs in on the police report that John Sweeney pretended was concocted campaign propoganda:

Three knowledgeable sources have confirmed to the Times Union that the document, which appears to be a police record of the incident and which was obtained by other news organizations, accurately reflects information contained in State Police files.

It is time for Sweeney to go. When a 51 year old man can't take responsibility for his own actions, when he stands up and lies to us putting on airs of indignant rage after threatening papers with lawsuits to try to keep them from sharing the truth with us, he is so far over the edge that nothing can bring him back from the abyss.

More of Joe Bruno's efforts to pull the wool over the voters eyes:

"The people in the 20th Congressional District will not be fooled by lies, by slander," Bruno told about 150 Sweeney supporters. ...

Guiliani later told reporters he does not believe the allegations.

When something is true, it is neither slander nor lies. Does Mr. Bruno know that at the very same time he was making these claims, Sweeney's lawyer was telling us that no other reports were going to be released by Sweeney's campaign?

Republicans are grasping at straws with a claim that state police are saying the report is inauthentic. If there were records that contradicted the leaked document, of course, Sweeney could have gotten proof of that to the papers. Here's the reality:

...State Police have not challenged the document, and a spokesman said they will not, under policy, confirm or deny its accuracy. Agency officials have said that State Police do not consider any document to be an authentic record unless it has been officially released through its records division. ...

(Quotes from the Times Union)

Bruno's right about Sweeney

At yesterday's ra-ra Republican Rally for John Sweeney. Joe Bruno said:

“This is one of the most vicious, slanderous, libelous campaigns perpetrated by an opponent in all of the United States — and that’s too bad,” Mr. Bruno told the crowd of about 100 people. (source)

He's right about that - so long as "the opponent" he meant is John Sweeney.

FactCheck.org Says "Charges against Gillibrand don't hold water" November 3, 2006

GOP Rep. John Sweeney's ad goes after his opponent, first-time House candidate Kirsten Gillibrand, with a half-dozen accusations layered over a soundtrack that's somehow both scary and sad. The ad tars Gillibrand with everything from taking illegal contributions to hiring a consultant tied to the Abramoff lobbying scandal to making children cry at a Sweeney rally, and more.

... All of the charges, in our judgment, are either exceedingly misleading or downright baseless. Some of them list no backup citations, which is unusual for ads in this campaign cycle and makes them difficult for the average viewer to research. The Sweeney campaign did not respond to numerous phone messages we left inquiring about this ad.

Read more here.

PS. Just 100 people came to the rally with Pataki and Giuliani, looks like even Republicans don't support Sweeney anymore.

More whoopsies from Team Sweeney

My favorite bit in the story about the Rudy, Georgie and Johnnie Rally that Sweeney's handlers were foolishly hoping would distract us all from the news that there are no records that can be released to prove that there was no domestic violenece at John Sweeney's house on Dec. 2nd.

Seeing as how the real records are just like the ones reported already - doi! If you're like me, you proabably knew that already. I'm thinking that Sweeney either had no idea that the po-po would tell people there was a way to provide the reports. Or he was planning to get his report, rewrite it to make it sound like Gayle called the police because of Sweeney's health problems or for something else not having to do with her being choked and then release that "real" one himself. His lawyer probably talked him outta that Rovian idea and came up with a great alternative one: pledge to find the real leakers behind this by Tuesday morning! See if OJ Simpson can be at the press conference to help our search! Back to my point though...

Giuliani dragged out the dead horse claim that Democrats are going to let the boogey men get us even though more Americans trust Democrats on terrorism today. Giuliani didn't do the greatest job since he used an example of something that Sweeney opposed anyway:

"Without The Patriot Act, we would go back to a pre-September 11th environment in dealing with these terrorists. The FBI wouldn't have the tools that it needs even to communicate with each other," Giuliani said. "John Sweeney understands this."

Errr...psst, Rudy...bad choice there.

In fact, Sweeney voted against making the Patriot Act permanent last December, although he did support the initial bill. In an interview last month, Sweeney told The Post-Star he voted against it because the Bush administration changed the strategy for distributing homeland security funding. (link)

I don't know which is more interesting, the way what Rudy said is utterly baseless and uninformed, or the fact that Sweeney didn't vote agains the P act because it is an infrindgement on our freedoms and we should fight terrorists but still keep American citizens free from big brother. He voted against it to punish Bush for something he didn't like. As a spoiled kid or a bully would. Sweeney stands up to Bush not by getting Bush to agree with what he wants but by voting against something else that Bush does want. What kind of politician is he? A bad one.

Sweeney endorsement withdrawn

The Post Star just withdrew its endorsement of John Sweeney. Bravo.

EDITORIAL: Character questions continue to dog Sweeney Our view: Post-Star withdraws endorsement in wake of latest controversy regarding domestic violence call

Friday, November 3, 2006 8:24 PM EST

There's a time when you have to say, enough.

Here is one such time.

Serious allegations of domestic violence were raised against Congressman John Sweeney earlier this week after three newspapers published police accounts of a 911 call to his home in December.

The congressman has said he wants the truth to come out. But his actions in the wake of the incident and the disclosure of the 911 call in the media indicate otherwise.

The congressman's staff first responded to the police report on Wednesday by claiming the document was "fabricated" and "concocted" by an unnamed operative in the campaign of his opponent, Kirsten Gillibrand.

On Thursday, the congressman changed his story, admitting that there had been some kind of incident at his home that night, but that it wasn't as the police report in the media said it was.

At a press conference with his wife dutifully at his side, the couple said they would give permission to police to release documents that would reveal the truth about what happened. But police informed the congressman that in order to release the documents, he and his wife would have to provide a notarized authorization.

So to help him along, the Times-Union editorial board, the New York Daily News and the Associated Press on Thursday each offered to provide notarized requests for him to prompt police to release the records. In each case, the congressman angrily refused. Why would someone who says he so interested in the truth refuse help in releasing documents that would bring out the truth?

On Friday, as the citizens waited a third day for Sweeney to finally disclose the truth, again there was nothing from the congressman to support his claims as to what really happened. Instead, the congressman had himself seen with Governor Pataki and 9/11 hero Rudy Giuliani, telling reporters who questioned him about the waiver as he walked away, "Talk to my lawyer."

Perhaps by appearing with these two political giants, Sweeney was hoping their aura would overshadow a newspaper report published Friday in which he was quoted in the Times-Union as saying he thought the whole domestic violence matter was a "non-issue."

"It is a non-issue, and only you people made it an issue because it's salacious," the congressman told Times-Union editors.

We don't think it's a non-issue. And we're sure many of our readers don't either.

In May of last year, 25 courageous victims of domestic violence came forward and told their compelling stories of abuse as part of a series in this newspaper on domestic violence. They told of violence and fear, and of the shame and humiliation they felt when they failed to remove themselves from their abusive situations.

The congressman's curt dismissal of the domestic violence incident as a "non-issue" demonstrates that he either doesn't understand the seriousness of this matter as it relates to his role as a member of Congress, or that he simply hopes to divert attention from it so he can win the election.

In our editorial endorsing the congressman for re-election last Sunday, we pointed out the many flaws in Congressman Sweeney's character, including his accompanying lobbyists to exotic locations, fabricating lies about his political opponents, and using poor judgement in attending frat parties. We said voters should take those factors into consideration, but that the congressman's record in helping secure funding for his district and voting in Republican interests overrode concerns about his unofficial conduct.

His response to this incident reflects disturbingly not only on his character, but on his credibility to serve effectively as a representative of all the people.

There are still three days left until Election Day, and we urge the congressman to release the police documentation he says will unveil the truth about what really happened at his house that night.

Given this situation and Congressman Sweeney's unacceptable response to it, we can no longer stand behind our earlier endorsement of his candidacy.

John Sweeney's Arrogance and Hypocrisy

TUblog reports MoDo (that is one of Sweeney's spinners for you non-political junkies) called on Gillibrand to release her taxes for the 7 gazillionth time in response to factcheck.org's report on the Sweeney campaign's ad lies: "From war profiteering to making kids cry, incumbent's charges against Gillibrand don't hold water."

I'm just thinking out loud here ...

This is pretty odd seeing as how John Sweeney's lawyer just announced that Sweeney and his wife are NEVER releasing police documents about John Sweeney ... the reports which Sweeney and his wife both told us just 48 hours ago that they wanted the police to release. (We know because we all saw it on TV!) ...

Call me wacky, but I'd say it is time for Team Sweeney to shut up about Gillibrand's tax returns, how bout you?

When you don't release the documents you just promised you would release, why should anyone else release documents you think they should release?

We all know that the Sweeney campaign would just use the tax returns as fodder for more negative ads anyway. And we've all had enough of Team Sweeney's bold faced lies as it is.

Sweeney Doesn't Deliver

"Sweeney will never, NEVER ask police to release that report" according to WTEN.

Gee, that is the exact opposite of what Sweeney said two days ago. More lies and broken vows come as no shock from this "representative"

Sweeney should resign. E. Stewart Jones, is holding a press conference right now.

Gee, I wonder if the reason is that the "real report" is the report we saw already and releasing it would expose Sweeney as the liar that he is. Ya think?

Contrasts the issues

For those of you looking for articles on the issues of the 20th district race between Kirsten Gillibrand and John Sweeney, the Times Union has an article today:

Gillibrand, Sweeney on issues: Rivals in 20th Congressional District spell out views on Iraq, health care, other topics read it here.

And Today's Hillsdale Independent also has an issues and bios article up here.

If you haven't seen a Kirsten Gillibrand speech yet, I recommend this new speech up at You Tube. It continues as Part 2 here.

Gillibrand Endorsement from ADE

The Adirondack Daily Enterprise says

Gillibrand for the 20th District

The 20th Congressional District of New York has been ready for a breath of fresh air for a while now. Two years ago, we were eager to bid John Sweeney adieu and endorsed little-known Hyde Park politician and schoolteacher Doris Kelly, who had virtually no chance of winning.

This time around, the Democrats are offering a candidate we feel more confident about endorsing — Kirsten Gillibrand, a 39-year-old lawyer who grew up in Albany and moved back to upstate New York three years ago, buying a house in Hudson. She and her husband vacation regularly in Lake Placid, as her family has done since she was a child. Our needs, therefore, are known to her.

Mr. Sweeney, on the other hand, isn’t as familiar with Lake Placid and Keene — the northern tip of this oddly shaped district — as he should be after eight years of representing these towns in Congress.

We also agree with Ms. Gillibrand on many of the big issues:

¯Iraq — She says the U.S. should set a date to pull its troops from Iraq and, in the meantime, make a couple of promises to the nation to show that we have no imperialist designs: 1) that we will keep no permanent military bases there and 2) that we will retain no claim on the country’s oil.

¯Spending — Ms. Gillibrand claims to be a fiscal conservative, a hot trend among Democrats this election year. While it’s easier said than done, they can’t spend much more, with much less oversight, than Mr. Sweeney’s congressional Republicans. She at least has big plans: restoring pay-as-you-go budgets, cutting pork in half, cutting government spending on consultants, giving each budget line item a name and vote, doing a better enforcement job with tax cheats, reducing the federal workforce through attrition, etc.

¯Health — Mr. Sweeney’s votes have been good to drug and insurance companies, at a terrible price for the general public. We’re not sure about Ms. Gillibrand’s plan to open Medicaid up to anyone who wants to buy into it, but we do think she’s the candidate who’s open to a new nationwide approach to health coverage.

On top of all this, we don’t trust Mr. Sweeney’s ethics. His vacations with lobbyists have shown what one of our letter writers, Peter May of Catskill, aptly described as “a pattern of servitude to corporate fat cats.”

We’re happy for a change and excited to see how Kirsten Gillibrand will do.

More Broken Promises from John Sweeney

Maybe Sweeney thought that the police noticed he was giving them a secret wink-wink nudge nudge when he called on them to release the "real" report. He is in another pickle like he was when his claims that he'd debate Gillibrand after the primary and after Labor Day, eventually he just can't deliver on his promises. He can't do what he said he was going to do - he can't win if people see him in a debate. He can't win when they figure out that his press conference was just another one of his elaborate lies to convince the voters that Sweeney is someone he is not.

Sweeney 911 call report still secret

Nov. 3, 2006, Newsday ALBANY, N.Y. -- Rep. John Sweeney has so far failed to follow through on a promise to authorize the release of police records he claimed would refute reports that he physically abused his wife last December.

Sweeney claimed Wednesday that a widely reported state police document showing that his wife called 911 on Dec. 2, 2005 to say he was "knocking her around the house" was fabricated. Neither Sweeney nor his wife, Gaia, denied there was an emergency call placed from their suburban Albany home on that date.

"I call on the state police to release the true report," Sweeney said.

Sweeney's office had yet to release any documents by Friday morning. State police have said the couple needs to sign a notarized letter to obtain the police files. The couple could then release them.

Sweeney spokeswoman Melissa Carlson had said the congressman and his wife would send a notarized letter to the state police Thursday. But there was no indication from Sweeney's office that the letter was sent and state police would not say if they received one.

Sweeney's office has declined offers of assistance in preparing release waivers from The Associated Press, the Times Union of Albany and New York Daily News.

There was no immediate comment from Sweeney's office Friday.

According to the documents, Gaia Sweeney called 911 after midnight on Dec. 2 to make the complaint. She told a trooper sent to the couple's home that they got into an argument that "turned a little physical by her being grabbed by the neck and pushed around the house." The pair appeared calm when the trooper arrived, though John Sweeney had scratches on his face, according to the electronic police report.

No one was arrested in the incident.

The 51-year-old Republican is facing a heated challenge from Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand. Sweeney accused his opponent of trying to slander his family. ...

Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.

Another Gillibrand Endorsement

Daily Star in Oneonta published 11/3/06

Vote Gillibrand over Sweeney

In the 20th Congressional District, Republican Rep. John Sweeney has refused to have even one debate with Democratic candidate Kirsten Gillibrand and declined an invitation to talk to this newspaper’s editorial board.

Lobbyists, however, have had no problem at all in getting Mr. Sweeney’s attention.

Whether it’s a 2001 trip to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands or a ski trip to a plush resort in Utah, Sweeney is part of the problem of our government appearing to be for sale to big-money interests.

Sweeney has run an arrogant, bullying campaign and has abrogated his congressional oversight responsibilities by going along with President Bush’s efforts to expand the power of the executive branch.

Mrs. Gillibrand, on the other hand, is a breath of fresh air even while proving herself to be a tough, energetic campaigner.

She talks about such issues as abortion rights, health care and Iraq in a serious, open and forthright manner.

The 20th District most definitely needs a change. That change is named Kirsten Gillibrand. We strongly advocate her election on Tuesday.

Sweeney: More Gifts That Keep On Giving

"Lobbying is the fourth branch of government -- if you know what I mean."

- comment in defense of Congressman John Sweeney by Jasper Nolan, Saratoga Republican County Chairman (Post Star 2/1/2006)

I can't take credit for this since most of the information below has been researched by someone else and was sent to me via email. (Like all great bloggers, I will protect my sources, unless they contact me and ask me to give them a link here, in which case I will.) I have included some additional information and the quote below is not an exact transcription. Here goes:

In his darkest hour, John Sweeney just got a $1,500 contribution from the MeadWestVaco PAC. They also gave him $2,000 in 2004. Along with $2,500 earlier this year.

It seems Sweeney helped MeadWestVaco with an International Trade Commission case. Read Sweeney's own October 16, 2006 press release.

Per an August 21, 2006 press release, ITC is going to impose countervailing duties on Indian companies that were competing with MeadWestVaco. And we do quote here:

• The petitions for these investigations were filed by MeadWestvaco Corp. (Dayton, OH); Norcom, Inc. (Norcross, GA); and Top Flight, Inc. (Chattanooga, TN) (collectively, the Association of American School Paper Suppliers).

Here is how (to the dismay of our founding fathers who wanted 3 branches of government) lobbying got to be the 4th branch of government: under the Byrd Amendment, those duties are then redistributed to (insert gasp, drumroll, and/or nervous laughter here) MeadWestVaco.

It’s a simple process - making campaign contributions in exchange for corporate welfare that ultimately costs us. A couple of thousand dollars in campaign contributions gets you Pretty easy cost/benefit calculation. What if Sweeney had worked this hard to help out the farmers, the teachers, the average people in the 20th district? We elected him, we pay his entire salary and he does not seem to be very concerned about the challanges we face here.

This isn't the first time eyebrows have been raised regarding favors to Sweeney's campaign donors. Remember his boat deals? What is shocking is how cheaply votes are racked up by corrupt lobbyists. Not only is this congress for sale, it is for sale at rock bottom prices to the lowest bidders.

This summer, the congressman could have worked with his party to deliver new ethical rules, but instead the GOP worked to pass pretend reform. See the Washington Post's Kill This Bill. Which Sweeney voted for.

More Clues on the Real John Sweeney

Here's an interesting observation noted when John Sweeney was interviewed by the Daily Freeman. They asked him about his contradictions when it comes to the war in Iraq and:

He became angry when questioned about the seemingly contradictory positions, and, at one point - when pressed to show where in the 216 press releases he has issued since 2003 he took a position in support of partitioning - he became visibly irate, pointing his finger at one member of the editorial board and saying: "Don't you get hostile with me."

Does this sound like an experienced politician to you? It seems more like the actions of a spoiled child or a bully.

When you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen Congressman. Read "Sweeney breaks with Bush ... contradicts own vote ..."

That is what it is always like for Sweeney, once 70%+ of the population is against something, like the Dubai ports, and the situation in Iraq, then he breaks with Bush and wants a cookie for being "independent."

Excuse me for point out that Johnny Come Lately's to wisdom deserve little credit for the "independence" stances.

Sweeney's sham stories

I haven't had my coffee yet but maybe you can help me figure something out.

Rep. John Sweeney said a report that his wife called an emergency dispatcher in December saying he was "knocking her around the house" is fake and part of a political smear campaign. Neither Sweeney nor his wife denied she called police but both said there was no violence that night. (link)

So like if they were just hanging out playing scrabble together or something, then what made his wife call the po-po? She just thought that would be more fun than scrabble?

No violence? But she called the police and went to sleep elsewhere that night. Come on Congressman "Kick Ass," be honest. It would be a refreshing change of pace if nothing else.

Sweeney's pulling his health card out like he did when he was in a happy-looking place (or drunk) at the Frat party earlier this year.

John Sweeney also blamed health problems related to vasculitis, an inflammatory reaction in blood vessels. ...

Sweeney also talked about enduring a stressful period around the time of the incident, which took place less than two weeks after his son was sentenced to jail on felony assault charges. ...adding that health problems may have produced symptoms that were present around the time of the police call.

(TU link)

In other words, I'm just sick. I'm not wife beater sick, I have a blood disease. And my kid was going to have to suffer the consequences of his Class D Felony. And everyone knows those things make your wife call the po-po for no reason at all at 1:00 in the morning.

The TU Story notes that:

The document leaked to news agencies apparently contained an accurate 7-digit incident number and also the name of the trooper who investigated the call. Those details were never publicly released.

So how does Sweeney 'splain that? Are we supposed to chalk it up to random meaninlgless coincidence?

I'm not buying that.

Our parting shot for the day

I know because I do talk to them, and here's more proof: Republicans heart Kirsten Gillibrand. We're all Americans and it is time for a change. Republican candidate Warren Redlich and the Democratic incumbent, Congressman Mike McNulty have both endorsed Gillibrand. Mr. Redlich said:

In good conscience, I cannot keep silent for the sake of party unity.

Check out the cool new Women's voting ad at You Tube.

We're wondering if the Sweeney claims that there was no domestic violence at his house are true, then why were the police called? Sweeney's telling us that the report is fake - how dumb does he think we are?

Proof of Sweeney's Lies #1

...When asked directly whether state police responded to a 911 call placed by his wife on Dec. 2, 2005, Sweeney’s aides had no immediate comment. The News brought the report to a spokesman for the state police, who did not dispute its authenticity...”

Proof of Sweeney's Lies #2

Trooper Scott Gunsel, who is named as the responding officer on the report in question, confirmed he had filed it but said he couldn’t recall many details - and wouldn’t disclose specifics. Asked whether his name was on the report associated with the incident, Gunsel told Newsday, “Yes it is. I remember being there.”

Maybe Sweeney is one of those guys who thinks that if you don't put the woman in the hospital then it doesn't count as abuse? How caveman. Sweeney's claims that this is not the real report, in spite of overwhelmong evidence to the contrary, make him even more pathetic than he was this morning when the news broke.

The Caveman Cartoon is from EmpireWire.

Tawkin About

What they say about John Sweeney getting "a little physical" that resulted in his wife "being grabbed by the neck and pushed around the house"

NY Mag:

our sympathy well has run dry

PoliticalWire:

CQ rates the race No Clear Favorite and this news certainly doesn't make it easier for Sweeney

National Conservatives think The House is a Lost Cause for the GOP.

On Tuesday of next week, the GOP is going to take a beating. The only question at this point is how bad of a beating it's going to be. ...

Republican-Held Seats That Are Toss-Ups

CA-11: Rep. Richard Pombo (R.) vs. Jerry McNerney (D.) CT-2: Rep. Rob Simmons (R.) vs. Joe Courtney (D.) CT-4: Rep. Chris Shays (R.) vs. Diane Farrell (D.) CO-04: Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R.) vs. Angie Paccione (D.) CO-7: Rick O'Donnell (R.) vs. Ed Perlmutter (D.) FL-16:: Joe Negron (R.) vs. Tim Mahoney (D.) FL-22: Rep. Clay Shaw (R.) vs. Ron Klein (D.) IA-01: Mike Whalen (R.) vs. Bruce Braley (D.) IL-6: Peter Roskam (R.) vs. Tammy Duckworth (D.) KY-03: Rep. Anne Northup (R.) vs. John Yarmuth (D.) KY-04: Rep. Geoff Davis (R.) vs. Ken Lucas (D.) NH-02: Rep. Charlie Bass (R.) vs. Paul Hodes (D.) NM-1: Rep. Heather Wilson (R.) vs. Patricia Madrid (D.) NY-20: Rep. John Sweeney (R.) vs. Kirsten Gillibrand (D.) NY-24: Ray Meier (R.) vs. Michael Arcuri (D.) NY-25: Rep. James Walsh (R.) vs. Dan Maffei (D.) NY-29: Rep. Randy Kuhl (R.) vs. Eric Massa (D.) OH-01: Rep. Steve Chabot (R.) vs. John Cranley (D.) OH-15: Rep. Deborah Pryce (R.) vs. Mary Jo Kilroy (D.) TX-22: Shelley Sekula-Gibbs (R.) vs. Nick Lampson (D.) WA-08: Rep. Dave Reichert (R.) vs. Darcy Burner (D.) WI-08: John Gard (R.) vs. Steve Kagen (D.) WY-AL: Rep. Barbara Cubin (R.) vs. Gary Trauner (D.) VA-02: Rep. Thelma Drake (R.) vs. Phil Kellam (D.)

Congressman Kick Ass takes work home with him...

Here's one more of John Sweeney's "shortcomings" that the Post Star thinks we should "overlook."

I think Sweeney should start going to bed earlier. Being up in the midnight hours just doesn't seem a good look on him. From the 10/31 Times Union report:

...Sweeney's wife, Gaia, placed the emergency call to a police dispatcher in Saratoga County at 12:55 a.m. on Dec. 2, according to the document.

"Female caller stating her husband is knocking her around the house,'' a dispatcher wrote. "Then she stated `Here it comes, are you ready?' and disconnected the call. Upon call-back, the husband stated no problem ... asked the wife if she wanted to talk. ...

I think it is time to say, we don't need a guy who keeps coming up short. We can elect Kirsten Gillibrand instead.

Sweeney's Blank Givers ... Un-blanketed Here

Since the first one we posted was quite popular. Here are more of John Sweeney's Campaign Donors who somehow can't remember what they do for a living when they give to John Sweeney. Jobs are for little people. Oh wait, most of them had jobs that were easy to find in an online search. Disclosure is for little people. Compliance is for little people, I get it.

• $1,000 Axiom Capital LLC - No name given. Isn't it against the law to accept funds that don't come from an individual?

• $2,100 Maureen Blum, President Strategic Coalitions & Initiatives, LLC per the ""Heritage Foundation's" School "Choice" page.

• $1,000 Joel Buchman, Corporate Lawyer at Kantor, Davidoff, Wolfe, Mandelker & Kass, P.C, Lobbyists for oodles of special interests.

• $1,000 Donna M. Bonfardeci, the managing general partner of Rotterdam Partners Limited Partnership (pictured here getting a check from NYS Housing)

• $1,500 Alan Boulant, president Solid Surface Craftsman Inc

• $1,000 Paul Camara, Executive Vice President of Monster Worldwide Inc, read his employment contract between Sept 28 2005 and Dec 2007 here. - See his Forbes Profile here

• $1,000 Peter Callahan, same person (at the same address) gave to Mark Foley and said he was a self employed investor earlier this year. But fills out no employer information when he gives to John Sweeney this year.

• $2,100 Emily Canner didn't provide an address or an employer.

• $2,100 John Canner also didn't provide an address or employer.

• $500 William Stephen Cannon shows up on Circuit City Insider Trade Reports as an Officer. And the Badbusinessbureau.com says that in DC, "he was going to get disbarred but reached a plea agreement at the last minute, paid back a few thousand dollars and got off with nothing else but a slap on the wrist."

• $1,000 Alexis M. Cimera is the VP at Unithree Investment Corp (when they give to everyone else at least)

• $1,000 Elizabeth M. Connway is a K Street lobbyist with Sullivan and Worcester LLP in the Energy Group.

• $500, Gerard Conway "long-time lobbyist for the Medical Society of the State of New York" hoped "2003 could be the year New York caps "pain and suffering awards" in liability cases." Senior Vice President in the Department of Governmental Affairs for the Medical Society of the State of NY.

• $500 James D. Cronley is the co-owner of Terhaar and Cronley in Pensacola FL. I guess you could say he's a developer ... if you were so inclined. Looks like "certain violations may have been committed" by him and others, he was "absolved" by the FL Board of Elections in connection with HOPE Pac (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere).

• $1,000 Harlan Crow is the owner of Crow Realty Investors. And is President of Crow Holdings. Mr. Crow has got his own page at Sourcewatch.

News Rounds

Fox News' Martin Frost has our district in his races to watch on election night:

...I am now even more certain that Democrats will take control of the House and believe the net gain will be at least 30 seats and that we will certainly know the outcome early in the evening. My optimism is fueled by the Mark Foley-page scandal and the worsening situation in Iraq.

Here’s my updated list of races to watch by time zone.

Let’s start by noting that the Democrats’ magic number is now 12, rather than 15. Democrats clearly will win DeLay’s old seat in Texas (the Republicans must run a write-in campaign that is virtually impossible with new electronic voting machines), Foley’s seat (under a bizarre Florida election statute voters must vote for Foley in order to have their votes counted for the replacement nominee) and Jim Kolbe’s seat in Arizona (Republicans have given up on this race).

New York: All of a sudden there are six Republican seats in New York in play: seats currently held by Sherwood Boehlert (who is retiring), John Sweeney, Randy Kuhl, Tom Reynolds, Sue Kelly and Jim Walsh. Two victories mean that Democrats are on their way. Any more than that is the leading edge of a wipeout. Defeating Reynolds would be particularly sweet for Democrats since he is the current chairman of the House Republican campaign committee.

In today's NY Daily News:

A state official ruled that the New York State Police improperly denied a request for information about police responses to the home of powerful Republican Rep. John Sweeney. The executive director of the state's Committee on Open Government, Robert Freeman, ruled in a July advisory opinion that the police had no right to refuse the request from a producer at WNYT-TV in Albany.

The station requested records indicating the number of times the police had been called to the home of Sweeney, a former executive director of the state Republican Party who represents the Albany area. The state police refused on the grounds that releasing such records would violate privacy.

There is no indication whether or not such records exist.

The state police .response was "inconsistent with law," Freeman wrote in his opinion, which was given to WNYT but not publicly released. "When a trooper or police officer is called to a certain location, the presence of that person with his or her .vehicle, again, is not secret."

Sweeney is normally a safe incumbent, but the gregarious congressman faces a tough battle for reelection against .Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand after a series of personal and public embarrassments.

Sweeney was photographed this year disheveled at a fraternity party with students, and the state Democratic Party has demanded Sweeney release "records documenting his arrests and drunk driving incidents to the media."

Sweeney's office didn't respond to requests for comment on the story, though he has said he has nothing to hide.

The chief counsel for the state police, Glenn Valle, said in an e-mailed statement that they disagree with Freeman's opinion. "When the state police investigates a matter, and makes no arrest, the persons involved have a recognized privacy interest, and public disclosure would violate that interest," he wrote. "The policy is applied in any case, irrespective of the identity or position of any individual involved."

And the Majority Watch Round Two Poll is still showing Gillibrand ahead. Not that we care what polls say, but still it is more recent than the last independent poll.

Call the Coward

Per today's Post Star:

Recommendation: There's still a week left until Election Day. Mr. Sweeney and Ms. Gillibrand still have time to accept any of the numerous invitations they've received to face each other on the same stage. ...

Gillibrand has already agreed to debate Sweeney. Call John Sweeney's office and tell him it is time to stop hiding behind excuses and start debating the issues: Sweeney's office number is 373-9595.

Sweeney's Got Friends in High Places

And he doesn't want you to know what they do for a living. John Sweeney's single largest campaign contributor is blank $241,000 in campaign contributions came from individuals without an identified employer. Let's take it from the top and start with the A's:

Sherri and Jared Abbruzzese are both donors who did not declare any employer for their $2,000 each donation to John Sweeney (R-NY) in this election cycle. The couple's total donations to Sweeney to date is $7,000.

Jared Abbruzzese as acting CEO of WSNet, testified before congress for a merger: WSNet believes that the EchoStar/DIRECTV merger should go forward with the addition of some modifications that would afford WSNet permanent access to enhanced satellite facilities.

Abbruzzese in business trouble per a Dec. 2005 story in BusinessWeek:

...When I dug a little deeper, I found a web of intrigue so tangled that Peter Parker couldn't find his way out of it. Even in this scandal-a-day era, the backstage drama at this company is off the charts.

The current brouhaha centers on a legal battle between Motient's board and its largest shareholder, Dallas (Tex.)-based hedge fund Highland Capital Management. To complicate matters, Highland president James D. Dondero is a member of Motient's board and is pitted against the other six directors, who allege that he voted to approve some of the measures he now condemns.

In August, Highland sued Motient's officers and directors in Chancery Court of Delaware, claiming the defendants tried to line their pockets with Motient's cash by paying exorbitant fees to firms in which they held interests. The suit focuses especially on Motient chairman Steven G. Singer, his brother and convicted felon Gary A. Singer, and former Motient director Jared E. Abbruzzese.

According to the complaint, Motient hired Abbruzzese's Albany (NY)-based consultancy Communication Technology Advisors (CTA) in May 2002 to provide financial advice while Abbruzzese was still a director at Motient. At the time, two other CTA employees, Peter D. Aquino and Gerald S. Kittner, were also Motient directors. Since then, CTA has functioned as Motient's de facto executive management and has received over $3 million in fees and tens of millions of dollars worth of warrants to buy Motient stock, Highland's complaint says.

The complaint further claims that Abbruzzese and CTA in 2004 pressured Motient's board to hire a small Austin (Tex.)-based investment bank, Tejas Inc., to raise money for Motient. However, Abbruzzese allegedly failed to disclose that he owned options to buy 100,000 shares of Tejas. As a result of fees and warrants paid by Motient, Tejas' annual profit increased over 2,600%, and the Tejas shares underlying Abbruzzese's options appreciated 900% in one year. In March 2005, Motient appointed Barry A. Williamson to its board, a Tejas director who owns over 51,000 Tejas shares. In May 2005, Tejas announced it would acquire CTA for $65 million. Abbruzzese was appointed vice chairman of Tejas and granted a generous employment agreement and stock-option package.

Abbruzzese's alleged conflicts run deeper. In fiscal year 2004, Motient lost $72 million on revenues of $36.9 million. What, then, accounts for its $1.3 billion market cap? The company has a 40% stake in Mobile Satellite Ventures (MSV), a Reston (Va.)-based provider of mobile satellite communications that owns valuable spectrum licenses. MSV is a limited partnership, and its general partner is Motient Satellite Ventures GP, Inc., whose managers are Abbruzzese and Kittner of CTA. "Motient’s purchases of MSV units in 2004 at prices that reflected ever increasing valuations of MSV enriched Kittner, Abbruzzese and CTA through their ownership of MSV units," Highland's complaint says.

Jared E. Abbruzzese, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CAI Wireless Systems, Inc.: defendent in a Class Action Lawsuit as CAI Wireless Systems:

Plaintiffs bring this action ... on behalf of a class (the "Class") of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired CAI securities during the period from May 23, 1996, through and including October 29, 1996 (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby.

Feb 18, 2005: Serves on the Board of Friends of NY Racing as:

Jared Abbruzzese, Capital and Technology Advisors, LLC and a New York Thoroughbred owner

Jan 13, 2006. Randall's Island and Republican Party Dougnations:

A private developer’s plans to develop a water park on Randall’s Island jumped a hurdle yesterday after the city’s Franchise and Concession Review Committee voted to let the project move forward. This boondoggle of a project would further alienate precious greenspace.

Jan 14, 2006 07:23PM EST at Indymedia:

Very curious as to how some craaaazy project like this could even get a hearing in Parks department ...The folks behind this are big time republicans... Main capital investor and savior of aquatic development corporation is: Jared Abbruzzese Jared Abbruzzese contributed $25,000$ in 2000 to NY State elected officials Is a member with Greg Norman at the Medalist Golf Club where Bush and Clinton play . Jared Abbruzzese of Loudonville , the former CEO of CAI Wireless Systems Inc. which was named in lawsuits alleging various violations of the federal securities laws, apparently is a major donor to “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth,” according to FEC filings. (This is a 146 page pdf that might take a while to load. It can be found at www.publicintegrity.org)

The group, committed to smearing Sen. John Kerry, has been challenged due to misleading, false or inconsistent statements.

The Swift Boat group reported total donations of more than 1.9 million in a September FEC filing.

Also funded the halt of the 2000 election recount:

Presidential Recount Donors: Address Occupation Amount Date

11/20/2000 Abbruzzese, Jared Loudonville, NY 12211 CAI Wireless Systems $5,000

11/16/2000 Abbruzzese, Sherrie G Mr Loudonville, NY 12211 CAI Wireless Systems $5,000

11/20/2000

More repub campaign trail

Jan 14, 2006 07:34PM EST

Candidate or PAC Amount Date Abbruzzese, Sherrie G Mrs. Londonville, NY 12211 Homemaker REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE (R) $25,000 primary 06/16/05 Abbruzzese, Jared E Mr. Loudonville, NY 12211 Self-Employed/Executive REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE (R) $25,000 primary 06/16/05 Abbruzzese, Jared E Mr. Loudonville, NY 12211 Capital & Technology Advisors/Inves HOPEFUND $5,000 primary 05/09/05 Abbruzzese, Sherrie G Ms. Loudonville, NY 12211 Capital & Technology Advisors/Inves HOPEFUND $5,000 primary 05/09/05 Abbruzzese, Jared E Albany, NY 12211 Self/Executive NATIONAL THOROUGHBRED RACING ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE/HORSE PAC $1,000 primary 11/30/04 Abbruzzese, Sherrie G Albany, NY 12211 Housewife NATIONAL THOROUGHBRED RACING ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE/HORSE PAC $1,000 primary 11/30/04 Abbruzzese, Anthony Mr. Massapequa, NY 11758 Horizon Consulting Group/Accountant REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE (R) $500 primary 10/26/04 Abbruzzese, Sherrie G Mrs. Londonville, NY 12211 Homemaker REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE (R)

I think that is enough scandal and taint for one day.

Gillibrand in Saratoga

Gillibrand appears in the Spa City

KEVIN GOODWIN, The Saratogian

10/29/2006

SARATOGA SPRINGS -- Supporters gathered at the Beekman St. Artist's Co-op Saturday afternoon to raise money for Kirsten Gillibrand, the Democratic candidate for New York's 20th Congressional District.

This is the final stretch for Gillibrand with nine days until the Nov. 7 election against incumbent Republican John Sweeney.

Amejo Amyot, founder of the Beekman St. Artist's Co-op, said this was a chance for the local artists to show their support of Gillibrand. They donated 25 pieces of artwork for a silent auction to support Gillibrand's campaign. The auction will run until Thursday.

'I hope you spend the next few days talking about what matters and don't stop talking about this race,' Gillibrand said. 'Tell people why you're voting for me and you'll win that vote.'

Gillibrand said the voice is incredibly powerful.

'When we do win, each one of you can say you helped change the direction of America,' Gillibrand said.

Amyot presented Gillibrand with a sculpture of a wise owl that she made, showing her support for the congressional candidate.

Saratoga Springs City Supervisor Joanne Yepsen attended, showing her support for a fellow woman in politics. She said Gillibrand realizes that arts and education are important.

'She's a candidate that understands this is for our kids,' Yepsen said.

Gillibrand agrees and thinks this election comes to down to what is best for our children. She said Yepsen has been a model of leadership for her during this campaign.

'I'm really looking forward to Election Day so we can introduce her as the next congresswoman of the 20th district,' Yepsen said.

Gillibrand believes arts enrich communities and families. She said the arts came to Hudson where she grew up and now it's a jewel.

'When arts adopt a place, it rejuvenates a community,' she said.

Gillibrand told the artists that Congress isn't doing its job when it comes to checks and balances on the president.

'Each branch has to keep the other in check,' she said.

She's also worried about security issues in regard to families and how the Sept. 11 Commission's recommendations aren't all being used.

'I expect the Federal Government to put our families first,' she said.

Another important piece of Gillibrand's campaign is health care. The issue of health care is something she thinks the government should spend money on preventive care, and not emergency care. She said more competition in health care is needed.

'Everyone feels the pinch,' Gillibrand said. 'Each issue matters.'

During her campaign, Gillibrand has spoken to more than 70 farmers and many of them are in the red.

She said if they go under, New York will lose heritage and what makes upstate New York beautiful.

The event gave supporters a chance to meet and ask Gillibrand concerns they have. One question queried how she would interact with the other members of Congress if elected.

'I'm very cooperative,' Gillibrand said. 'It's about leadership -- not what party you're in. I will look forward working with everyone in Congress to solve the issues.'

Carol Blowers of Burnt Hills thinks America needs more women in Congress.

'I'm thrilled we have another woman running,' Blowers said.

OpEd: Taking on the Post Star Endorsement

Go figure. The Post Star says that Sweeney is a bold faced liar who ignores us until election time while Gillibrand gets high marks from seniors and labor yet for some reason it has endorsed John Sweeney.

In spite of the fact that Gillibrand has been traveling the district and talking to voters here for over a year, the PS is not so sure that means that she has the experience to do the job.

That's idiotic, if Sweeney can "represent" us between his running to Florida to "shut down" a vote count, crashing into utility poles, making drunken appearances at frat parties and selling out to sweatshop owners, boat builders and other lobbyist donors, well then I say pretty much any average voter could do a better job than Sweeney has done in congress.

Kirsten Gillibrand is a qualified candidate. She will do a better job than Sweeney.

The fact that she's not been involved in congress is a benefit given the corruption there today. The Post Star's rationale here, is basically one that has to do with pork and time served.

All leaders send home pork. It isn't hard to do, and it is after all, our money, not theirs that they are "giving" or "getting" us. Often these giveaways are the result of the hard work of grant writers whose work is totally ignored when the funding is passed out by elected leaders. Why are the Grant authors ignored? Well, that was their job. And that is why I think we should ignore Sweeney's pork work when we consider his work - that is just one part of his job.

And when one looks at where the experience has taken the people in congress today - down a path of corruption, out of control spending, a mismanaged war and a much harder life for average families here at home - then it seems that not having worked in Congress before is a good thing not a bad one.

The PS was too worried that Gillibrand will win, so they included the following caveat:

The case against John Sweeney

For those not familiar with the congressman's record, you'd have a difficult time learning about it from the candidate. Rather than highlight his record in ads or by debating his opponent in front of voters, the congressman has lowered the tenor of the campaign by running attack ads and attack mailings almost exclusively.

He's not above hyperbole and even bold-faced lying -- whether it be calling his opponent's husband a "war profiteer" and her a "carpetbagger" in the face of facts to the contrary.

He hasn't been forthcoming about some of his past encounters with police, and his explanations for his frat-party escapades and his "fact-finding" jaunts to ski chalets and exotic islands with lobbyists are embarrassingly inadequate.

On legislation, he has sided with the Republican administration on many of its failed initiatives, including continuing the war in Iraq, extending tax breaks for the rich and opposing an increase in the minimum wage (which he eventually voted for). He has softened his position on the U.S. role in Iraq, but that's probably only because public support for the war, even among Republicans, is waning.

The case for Kirsten Gillibrand

Gillibrand has a strong grasp on national issues, which will help her hit the ground running in Congress. As an attorney for 15 years, she understands the legal system and the legislative process.

It's possible she could end up in the majority party in the House, which will definitely help her more than being a Democrat in a Republican-controlled House. And even if she was a minority party member, the area has other representation in Congress to ensure our local congresswoman wouldn't come home empty-handed.

Gillibrand has offered a plan for gradually drawing down the number of troops from Iraq on a flexible timetable that wouldn't leave the Iraqis unprepared to defend themselves.

She has taken moderate positions on controversial issues such as gun control, and she's pushing for new uses of alternative energy and rail transportation. Her positions in issues affecting senior citizens and labor have brought her high marks from those constituencies.

While not articulating a strong local agenda [energy independence won't help locals? bringing our troops home won't help locals?], she plans to reach out to local residents by holding monthly town-hall-like forums in her district, whereas Sweeney only seems to show up around election time.

For the most part, she has tried to talk about the issues and has sought many opportunities to debate Sweeney, all of which he refused. She will be accessible to citizens, and has the poise, character and knowledge of issues to build consensus in Washington on issues important to the 20th Congressional District.

Gillibrand has offered a plan for gradually drawing down the number of troops from Iraq on a flexible timetable that wouldn't leave the Iraqis unprepared to defend themselves. She has taken moderate positions on controversial issues such as gun control, and she's pushing for new uses of alternative energy and rail transportation. Her positions in issues affecting senior citizens and labor have brought her high marks from those constituencies.

While not articulating a strong local agenda, she plans to reach out to\local residents by holding monthly town-hall-like forums in her district, whereas Sweeney only seems to show up around election time. For the most part, she has tried to talk about the issues and has sought many opportunities to debate Sweeney, all of which he refused. She will be accessible to citizens, and has the poise, character and knowledge of issues to build consensus in Washington on issues\important to the 20th Congressional District.

The Granville Sentinel did a better job than the Post Star did with its endorsement of this race.

Answer this: Are you better off today than you were when Sweeney took office?

For the voters of this district, the answer is a resounding NO. Sweeney does not deserve to keep his seat in congress for that reason alone. He's a Republican leader with a Republican governor, and a Republican congress, a Republican President - there is just no blaming anyone else for his failed leadership.

Blog Round Up

When John Sweeney's comments on Bill Clinton's visit in support of Kirsten Gillibrand were reported by the Times Union (see link in Tommywonk's post below), it got Sweeney in deep water with economic thinkers. Sweeney doesn't just turn a blind eye to sweatshops, he turns a blind eye to any reality that is not in line with Karl Rove's talking points.

Tommywonk takes the time to fill us in on "John Sweeney's shortcomings in the area of critical thinking"

And Angrybear covers the same story here.

Senior Coalition or Drug Company Coalition? You tell us.

If you live here, you are wondering who is the Senior Coalition and why are they thinking that I'd ever want to vote for John Sweeney?

A letter to the editor in today's Post Star tells all:

The recent mailing by "The Senior Coalition" is a blatant example of non-truth on behalf of Mr. Sweeney.

The Senior Coalition is a thinly disguised organization largely funded by "Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America," and we know whose side they're on. The Senior Coalition asks that we encourage Mr. Sweeney to fight against H.R. 752, the Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act. This bill would require that Medicare negotiate with suppliers for the best possible prices. Imagine the pharmaceutical industry agreeing to that.

The Senior Coalition would have Mr. Sweeney work to have Congress undo the 1993 tax changes on Social Security benefits of the Clinton administration. He doesn't tell us that these taxes were on the Social Security benefits of those with the highest adjusted gross incomes. Removing this tax change would be a boondoggle for the wealthiest of the Social Security recipients and add to the burden of the rest of the senior community.

The Senior Coalition would keep people from buying their prescription drugs in places like Canada where they cost a fraction of their price in the U.S. They've got Mr. Sweeney to help in that.

With "friends" like these, we don't need enemies. To turn Mr. Sweeney loose again in Congress is liking sending a wolf to watch the chickens getting plucked. Again.

MORT GREENBERG

Shushan

Full Story: Salon on the 20th district race

GOP singing the blues in New York?

In the reliably Republican 20th District, a strong Democratic challenger gains on Abramoff-tinged incumbent John Sweeney.

By Walter Shapiro

Oct. 27, 2006 | It was a scene out of the worst Republican nightmare. There was a beaming Hillary Clinton, the senator who has replaced Ted Kennedy in GOP demonology, triumphantly telling a packed political rally at the Lakeview Restaurant here Monday afternoon, "It will be wonderful to go back to Washington after this election and be in the majority where we can set the agenda."

This town in rural Rensselaer County is normally too politically insignificant to merit a visit from the likes of Hillary Clinton, despite her ardent courtship of upstate voters. The Democratic county chairman in his introductory remarks claimed, perhaps hyperbolically, that the last campaigning Senate candidate to visit Rensselaer County was a fellow named Bobby Kennedy in 1964.

That Hillary was here Monday afternoon and Bill Clinton turned up at a rally at the Albany airport on Thursday morning has nothing whatsoever to do with the most lopsided Senate race in the nation. Both Clintons -- the most potent two-fer in Democratic politics -- were lending their star power to first-time congressional candidate Kirsten Gillibrand, a 39-year-old antitrust lawyer, who has managed through an early start, potent fundraising and a polished campaign to be running a competitive race on some of the most loyal Republican turf in the Northeast.

In the unenviable vaudeville slot of following the headliner (Hillary), Gillibrand first hailed Sen. Clinton as her "role model," a claim underlined by the fact that both women sported black pantsuits and frosted blond hair. Then, to a receptive audience of 250 party activists, Gillibrand made a liberal lawyer's case for change in Washington. "We have a president who has spent the last two years consolidating presidential power," she declared, "and he has done it at the expense of our democracy." Gillibrand denounced presidential signing statements, NSA warrantless wiretapping and no-bid contracts for Iraqi reconstruction. Much of her 13-minute speech was nearly identical to the pitch that Gillibrand made Monday morning in New York City as she collected $40,000 at a breakfast fundraiser at a blue-ribbon midtown law firm.

New York's 20th Congressional District -- which stretches more than 200 miles along the Hudson River from the Franklin Roosevelt homestead in the south to Lake Placid in the north, veering into the Albany suburbs but avoiding all major cities -- was engineered to be a safe GOP haven. There are almost as many registered Republicans in the district (198,000) as Democrats and independents combined (222,000). George W. Bush carried the district twice, most recently with a comfortable 54 percent of the vote. Four-term incumbent John Sweeney, 51, won his prior three elections by 2-to-1 margins over hapless Democratic candidates who barely raised enough money to pay for hand-drawn lawn signs.

But these days, both the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and its Republican counterpart are investing heavily in TV ads in the district, which is the best indicator that both sides consider the race close. As in most House races, the published poll results here are confusing and probably not a reliable barometer for Election Day. Siena College released a survey last week showing Sweeney up 53-to-39 percent with a 4 percent margin of error. Two recent Democratic Party polls, released to the press, give Gillibrand a small lead.

So why is Sweeney's hold on the district so threatened -- and what does that say about the volatile politics of 2006? Maybe that just as the South first began voting in lockstep fashion for Republican presidential candidates and then a decade later started electing an overwhelmingly Republican congressional delegation, the reverse may now be happening up north. The Northeast has been nearly solid blue in the last four presidential contests (John Kerry carried every state in the region in 2004). The race in the 20th District suggests that a full-ticket shift to the Democrats may be under way even in rural, upstate New York.

In some corners of the Northeast, only the quality of the candidates is holding the Democrats back, most notably in Western New York, where quirky 73-year-old businessman Jack Davis could not be a weaker challenger to tainted incumbent Tom Reynolds. In the Sweeney district, quality seems to be exclusively a Republican issue.

Two headlines from the Albany Times-Union convey the extent of Sweeney's woes. Here is a hard-to-spin, legislator-in-trouble classic from April: "Sweeney denies being drunk at frat party -- Congressman says Democrats trying to make an issue of event." (What is indisputable, based on photographic evidence, is that Sweeney was at the Alpha Delta Phi house at Union College after midnight on a weekend with a feeling-no-pain look on his face.)

Then last week the Times-Union stoked the embers of a famous but fading congressional scandal with this front-page story: "Sweeney trip in question -- Visit to U.S. territory with Jack Abramoff associate possibly broke rules." (The newspaper discovered that a 2001 Sweeney junket to the Northern Marianas Islands with Abramoff sidekick Tony Rudy should have been disclosed on the congressman's ethics forms.)

Democrats have made Sweeney's scruples the subject of attack ads, and Gillibrand has also demanded that Sweeney list all his "run-ins with the law," a reference to a questionable late-night traffic accident in 2001. Yet the 20th District is so reliably Republican that the frat-house follies and the unearthing of a link to a convicted lobbyist would ordinarily not be enough to jeopardize Sweeney's congressional career. The two other ingredients in the mix are Bush and Iraq -- a potent combination that plays into Gillibrand's constitutional-law lament about the death of checks and balances in Washington.

After the speech in Sand Lake, Gillibrand and I chatted over coffee and dessert (which a loyal Democrat from an adjoining table insisted on ordering for the candidate and her party) in the downstairs portion of the restaurant, suddenly quiet after the departure of hundreds of rapturous Clinton fans. I asked Gillibrand to explain why she did not mention the corruption issue and Sweeney's ties to lobbyists in her political pitches. "In today's events," she said, "I really felt it was more important to talk about what my vision for change was."

Seconds later, I tried again by asking how much of the contest is national (Bush) and how much is local (Sweeney and his discontents). "Half of this race is about the need for a new direction in our government, accountability and the restoration of checks and balances," Gillibrand said, almost unconsciously parroting the words of her stump speech. By the time she got to "putting the priorities of the middle class first," I too was running on autopilot. Finally, Gillibrand returned to the question by saying, "The second half of the race is about the congressman himself and his voting record." Then Gillibrand veered off again into a discussion of Sweeney's votes on veterans benefits before ending with a brief reference to the incumbent's failure to provide "ethics and accountability."

Part of the problem with interviewing Gillibrand (or Sweeney had he been available) at this stage of the campaign is that any question is seen as a potential minefield that could end up in an opponent's attack ad. Gillibrand can be insightful and spontaneous when the tape recorder is put away and the conversation is labeled off-the-record. She has the easy poise of a high-powered attorney -- she is a partner in the same firm as David Boies, Al Gore's lawyer in the Florida recount -- but also a certain earnestness. Occasionally, the real person shone through during our formal interview, such as when Gillibrand admitted her astonishment that voters began flocking to her at public events after she began running TV commercials. "If I could give advice to any candidate, it's put your ads up early," she said. "When I went to those county fairs [over the summer], people didn't necessarily want to meet me because I was a candidate for Congress. They wanted to meet me because I was on TV."

Sitting in Washington, it is easy to label this race an Abramoff-related contest because of the incumbent's ties to the lobbyist. But in the district itself, Sweeney's 2001 trip to the Northern Marianas has far less vote-getting potential than the congressman's involvement in a penny-ante scandal involving Lake Placid. Sweeney had arranged for dozens of lobbyists who had been active in his campaigns to attend a promotional ski weekend at Lake Placid paid for by a New York state government entity.

"I think it really affected the voters," Gillibrand said, "because it was about their taxpayer dollars being spent for the congressman to have a luxury getaway weekend for his friends and family... It's real because it's local. People know where Lake Placid is. They've been there many times."

Another oddity of the race is that the two candidates have never really met, dealing with each other instead as abstractions. As Gillibrand explains it, their only two encounters were at a county fair over the summer (neither of them got within hand-shaking distance) and at a charity event for the racetrack workers at Saratoga. Sweeney, in keeping with the above-the-fray tradition of front-runners never deigning to acknowledge their foes, has refused to debate Gillibrand.

Instead, this is a campaign built around dueling TV ads on Albany stations where the airtime is comparatively inexpensive. Perhaps the strongest indication that Sweeney knows that he is in trouble came with the airing this week of an ad in which the scandal-scarred incumbent speaks directly to the camera with his wife at his side. Sweeney, whose face has become puffy in response to the steroids that he is taking to reduce swelling in his blood vessels, declares, "My opponent's campaign is in the gutter. Gillibrand and her liberal allies have attacked me and intimidated my wife, smeared my children with negative fliers and lies."

Even by the standards of scorched-earth campaigns, it is hypocritical for Sweeney to cry foul. His team has run a series of attack ads going after Gillibrand's grandmother (a legendary matriarch in local Albany politics), her father (a state-government lobbyist) and her husband (for owning stock in a defense contractor). But the bigger irony is that John Sweeney, a four-term House insider with once glowing career prospects, is fighting for his life in a district that seemed as reliably Republican as... well... the Congress itself.

-- By Walter Shapiro

(Salon.com link)

More Quotes in Today's Post Star

Bill Clinton on:

* President Bush's tax cuts: "Right now, I am the most important person in the entire world -- because to the Republican leadership in the Congress and the White House, I am a millionaire, and they love each and every one."

* Corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff: "Karl Rove said that he was just a casual acquaintance. And then when they obtained the records, he had been 485 times to the White House. .... Maybe to get to know someone you have to be there 486 times."

* Federal budget deficit: "This year, they (Republicans) asked for a merit badge because the deficit was only $350 billion."

* Political influence: "I've never seen anything like it. Do you know the number of lobbyists has doubled since I left office?"

The Bill Clinton Rally for Gillibrand

Clinton rallies the faithful: Former president brings star power to Gillibrand campaign

Published on 10/27/2006 in the Post Star

By MAURY THOMPSON

COLONIE * The roar inside the Million Air private maintenance hangar at Albany International Airport on Thursday wasn't coming from a 747.

It was the sound of star power, as former President Bill Clinton whipped up enthusiasm to carry supporters of Democratic congressional candidate Kirsten Gillibrand through the last 12 days of her campaign.

"Here's what I want to say to you: Don't give up on anybody." Clinton told the crowd, ... "Don't even give up on Republicans who say they've never voted for a Democrat before." ...

"Frankly, I was sent here," he said, going on to explain Thursday was his wife's birthday.

"I said, 'What do you want me to do on your birthday?' " to which the ex-president said the senator answered, "'Well, I want you to go to upstate New York and help out Kirsten Gillibrand. And while you're up there, try to get me a few votes if you can.'"

From Albany, Clinton was scheduled to fly on to rallies in Syracuse and Long Island before attending his wife's 59th birthday party in Manhattan on Thursday evening. ...

Gillibrand is hoping votes from independents and some Republicans will put her over the top.

"This election is about so much more than Republicans or Democrats," she told the crowd. "It's about the direction our country is going." ...

"People are tired, but you can't get tired now," said Washington County Democratic Chairwoman Sheila Comar.

"Having Clinton come -- it says, 'She can win,' " said Sarah Hussa, a campaign volunteer from Queensbury.

Several area politicians got a morale boost by appearing on the same stage as Clinton.

Some 20 elected officials, labor leaders and activists spoke in a nearly two-hour stretch reminiscent of testimony time at an Evangelical revival meeting.

Organizers attempted to time the flow of speeches to coincide with the arrival of Clinton and U.S Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., who got in on separate flights.

"First he was behind, and they said, 'Can you talk longer?' " said Timothy Merrick, Democratic candidate for state Senate. "Then they said, 'Can you talk shorter?' "

Merrick, who is running against state Sen. Elizabeth Little, R-Queensbury, said he met Clinton briefly backstage and they shook hands.

"He said, 'It's good to meet you,' " Merrick said.

Hudson Falls Mayor and state Assembly candidate David Carter and Saratoga Democratic Chairman Larry Bulman also spoke.

Bulman spoke in his role as secretary/treasurer and state political director of the New York State Pipe Trades union.

Clinton said he wanted to hold the event at Saratoga County Airport, but it was unclear if the weather would allow landing of his plane there.

"I hope I can come back to Saratoga," he said.

Bulman said he and the former president spoke backstage and Clinton asked for his business card.

Clinton said he wanted to go to Saratoga to play golf and watch horse racing, Bulman said.

In his speech, Clinton said his mother, a big horse-racing fan, wanted to come to Saratoga when she had cancer.

"One of the things she most wanted to do while she was still on the face of the Earth was to go to Saratoga and see the races, and she got it done," he said.

In closing, Clinton said volunteering on political campaigns can be daunting.

"This is scary for some of you folks," [actually, he was talking about die-hard Republicans who are planning to vote Democratic this time, not the Democrats in the room, when he said that - LM] he said. "It's like the first time you ever jumped off a diving board."

Clinton urged volunteers to be vigilant in getting voters to the polls.

"You've got to go grab them by the hand and look them in the eye and tell them what kind of person she (Gillibrand) is. Tell them what kind of America you want to build, and jump off that diving board with them."

Staff writer Charles Fiegl contributed to this report.

Must See YouTube

Watch President Bill Clinton's speech at the Kirsten Gillibrand Rally today right here. And Part 2 here. The President talks about Sweeney's trip to the Mariana Islands and "Abramoff Amnesia" in the second clip.

Early Edition

Read about Former President Bill Clinton's visit to the area in support of Kirsten Gillibrand here.

I can't find it in the free version of the paper, but the Post Star's Maury Thompson has an article in today's paper about Gillibrand:

Gillibrand touts tourism, agriculture in address

Democratic candidate speaks to Glens Falls Kiwanis Club members

GLENS FALLS -- Democratic congressional candidate Kirsten Gillibrand said she wants to be a champion of agriculture and tourism in the Adirondacks and the Hudson River valley.

"The federal government used to have a role in doing that," Gillibrand said in a speech to the Glens Falls Kiwanis Club.

"There used to be a program that gave money for tourism -- international tourism in particular. Lake Placid was one of the first recipients of that kind of money," said Gillibrand, who is running against incumbent U.S. Rep. John Sweeney, R-Clifton Park.

As well as seeking federal support, Gillibrand pledged to personally tout the region.

In an interview after the speech, Gillibrand said if elected, she would initiate a tourism program modeled after the Farm to Fork program U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., started.

Clinton's program helps upstate farmers network with owners and chefs of New York City restaurants.

Gillibrand said she would work to make similar linkages in tourism, and also to expand local outlets for farm products.

"Over and over again, our farmers have been telling me they are struggling," she said in her speech.

Gillibrand said she has already asked Democratic House leaders to appoint her to the House Agriculture Committee if she is elected.

Among other issues, Gillibrand, a lawyer from Greenport, outside the city of Hudson, said if elected, she would join Democratic leaders in calling for the reversal of some of President Bush's tax cuts.

"I would support a reversal of tax cuts for families earning more than a million dollars," she said.

Sweeney has called for making President Bush's tax cuts permanent.

Gillibrand reiterated her opposition to privatizing Social Security.

"If you're 65 and the stock market crashes, you're on your own. And you will have no safety net," she said.

Gillibrand also said President Bush should set a deadline to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

Tech Valley Times Endorsement

The Tech Valley Times weighs in on the 20^th U.S. Congressional District:

Here’s the fun race to observe. The fact that incumbent John Sweeney is in for a real dogfight against a previously unknown challenger in an overwhelmingly Republican district is testament to the widespread loathing for George Bush and the revenge being sought of his supporters. Mr Sweeney certainly falls into that classification and is paying the price. The campaign is certainly filling the bank accounts of the local media outlets, with a barrage of commercials and display ads being pushed in front of the voters' eyeballs by both parties. It acts as a perfect example of the mean spirited divide in today's public sphere. Along those lines: enough of the "Sweeney visits the frat house" focus. Sure, the internet video is pretty funny and all, but this thing has long outlived what should have been a half-day life cycle. The continued harping on it is simply proof how uptight we've become in today's neo-Puritan environment, where a public facade of being a choir boy has become a de rigueur requirement of Joe and Jane Voter, even while they're each engaging in an extramarital affair or gambling binge of their own. We actually think that a trip to a college beer blast now and then could be a healthy thing for an elected official! But that's about all the slack we're giving the Sweeney campaign. His commercials and policy statements are dishonest, deceitful, and an insult to our collective intelligence. The latest one, where he sets the wife down next to him on the couch and defends her and the rest of his family from unsubstantiated attacks and harassment from his rival's supporters, reeks of paranoia. This wife, by the way, is the one taking a commission on incoming campaign contributions. Combine these ethical lapses with the myriad of other ethical charges dogging the Congressman -- plus the fact that he refuses to debate -- and we start to get a little nervous about this guy. We've got an even bigger concern with Mr. Sweeney, though. Even though one should not put too much weight into a legislator's position on a single issue, there is one policy stance out there that troubles us deeply. It should also concern anyone remotely interested in high tech economic development. This issue is the hot button topic of Net Neutrality; the changing of current common carrier telecomm rules so that an internet service provider is set free to devise any type of multi-tiered pricing structure it deems fit. The result will be a system where you pay $X but I pay $Y for a throughput speed of Z. Those companies that can pay for highest speeds will get them while those that can't, won't. Now who do you think this is going to favor: your blog or the Times Union’s? In this world of media consolidation, we know the answer to that question. The big boys will grudgingly pay it, passing the cost on to consumers or advertisers. As the lines between carriers and content producers blur, a Time Warner will be able to give a sweetheart deal of lightning fast net service to its high volume bandwidth users--and that category might include, say, a magazine portal or shopping site that one of their subsidiaries happens to own. What does that do a guy operating out of his basement that it trying to compete in that same space? Despite the spin, Net Neutrality is not a complicated issue. The bottom line is this: there is no public good that can come out overturning it in the name of an open marketplace. Get rid of net neutrality and you've just created an impediment to innovation and economic growth that would only be matched by something equally stupid such as giving the FCC the unlimited authority to regulate the internet. John Sweeney is an opponent of Net Neutrality. Finding AT&T, Bell South, Time Warner, Cablevision and the US Telecomm Association among his campaign contributors helps to explain why. The local business lobby will certainly support Mr Sweeney based on the support he has shown for certain high tech development initiatives in the area. But while John Sweeney may appear to be good for high tech in the Capital Region, he is not so good for high tech. His opponent, Kirsten Gillibrand, is on record as being on the proper side of this issue. That, combined with the fact that she is not John Sweeney, is enough for us. OUR VOTE: Kirsten Gillibrand

For this and other races go to Tech Valley Times.

GOP Worrying

MY DD has a leaked GOP list of races that they are worried about. From the looks of where they have the 20th district, I am certain that it is not a recent list. The latest polls had Sweeney narrowed down from the 19 point lead that the leaked to DD list cites.

It also shows the 20th as leaning R, but the race was re-classified as "No Clear Favorite" by the non-partisan CQ a while ago.

My guess is that someone leaked an older list to make the Rs look like they were in as good a shape as they thought they were in early October.

The current list would look far worse than this one.

And speaking of Republicans and upcoming elections and how they are worried....

In a watchout world warning: Let's do a heads up for polls and exit polls not matching election returns on the Nov. 7. Historically that is a sign of voters being disenfranchised and/or outright election stealing. What can you trust the culture of corruption with? Nothing.

DailyKos says there is an:

an admission by a Diebold consultant that machine software was altered in 5,000 machines in DeKalb and Fulton counties on the day of the election.

If anyone remembers the 2002 election in Georgia, that is the one where Max Cleland's five to six point lead was erased overnight to a seven point loss, leading to a miraculous win by Saxby Chambliss, which even describes his come from behind win as "stunning and historical" in his Senate website.

We know John Sweeney played a role in stopping the vote count in 2000. Let's have the winner be the person with the most votes not the person who stops the votes from being counted. Don't let this happen again. Poll watch your districts.

Local Weekly Says "Replace John Sweeney"

Granville Sentinel: "REPLACE JOHN SWEENEY"

Published October 25, 2006

It is rare for this newspaper to formally endorse a candidate for political office. The only less likely occurrence is for this paper to endorse a Democratic candidate facing a Republican incumbent.

But that is what we are doing today.

This newspaper believes that this coming election is one of the most critical in our generation and we believe voters must send a message to Washington and replace Congressman John Sweeney with his challenger, Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand.

There are any number of reasons why we made this choice, from Sweeney’s dumbfounded political junkets to western ski areas to the Caribbean vacation courtesy of convicted felon Jack Abramoff to his blindfolded support of Bush economic policies that favor this nation’s wealthiest individuals, while Washington County residents struggle to make ends meet, often without the benefit of raises and critical health insurance.

But the real issue that makes this decision so simple and sure is Sweeney’s total support for President Bush’s war against Iraq and the incompetent way Bush and the Republicans have waged this war.

We can disagree about the idea of invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein, but what we must all agree on is what a disaster it has been since the day Hussein was toppled. From that moment forward nearly 3,000 American soldiers have lost their lives and more than 20,000 have been seriously injured – more than 9,000 so badly injured they could not return to action.

It would be one thing if there had been steady progress since March 2004, but every American can see nightly on television or in their newspapers, it has gotten progressively worse – without a clear end in sight. Only now with an election just days away has the Bush administration given lip-service to a supposed “change of course” in Iraq.

John Sweeney supported this war and has supported this President’s inept handling of it. We need a new direction and that can only start with a new Representative in Congress.

Ultimately, it comes down to the comment Ronald Regan made when he ran for President against Jimmy Carter. He asked Americans to simply decide if they are better off today than they were four years ago. American voters answered that question resoundingly and elected Ronald Regan.

We ask the same today.

If you believe our nation is better off today than you should vote for John Sweeney.

If, however, you believe we need a new direction and can - and must- do better, then you need to send a message to Washington and replace John Sweeney.

Mariana Islands, Abramoff and Appropriations

In a 2001 pitch letter obtained by The Washington Post, Abramoff boasted to the then-governor of the commonwealth that his lobbying team had worked with DeLay and other congressional leaders to bottle up reform legislation, stymied the efforts of Republican critics such as former Sen. Frank Murkowski of Alaska and obtained "extra CNMI appropriations" from Congress for infrastructure projects on the islands of Tinian and Rota.

John Sweeney is on the appropriations committee and Sweeney went to CNMI with Abramoff's right hand man. And he took $$$ from Abramoff's firm and from supporters of Abramoff's work there.

Are we the only ones the only one who can smell the coffee here? That quote is from a 6/7/06 article in the WP about the Dem bill to stop the sweatshops and human rights abuses in the CNMI. It goes on:

"For years, DeLay and Abramoff used their power and influence and corrupt practices to defend the indefensible," Miller said in a statement accompanying the introduction of his bill. "The House of Representatives failed to stop extraordinary abuses of poor women guest workers in the textile and tourism industries in the Marianas despite overwhelming evidence documented by the federal government, Congress, the news media and other sources."

He charged that DeLay, the former House majority leader, and Abramoff, a conservative Republican who became one of Washington's top lobbyists, "ignored well-documented threats to American security, criminal activity, violations of labor law, forced abortions and human trafficking" in the Northern Marianas.

"They were running a protection racket," Miller said. "DeLay and Abramoff protected the Marianas garment industry from congressional scrutiny and were rewarded handsomely for it with trips, lucrative contracts, campaign money and more. The most exploited women in the world, and the American legislative process, paid the price."

The real stomach turning comment, from one of the GOP spinners, a DeLay spokesperson, shows that these folks have been so brainwashed they will keep belting out those talking points even after their titanic has sunk:

A spokeswoman for DeLay, Shannon Flaherty, responded in a statement, "It's clearly good news to Democrats that Tom DeLay is leaving the House because they hate free-market values and everyone who defends them. Bad news is, socialists like George Miller still won't win."

MoDo has a twin in Texas, and she works for Tommie boy. I'll be darned.

Quotes from Washington Post Democrats Renew Push for Mariana Labor Bill.

Jack Abramoff = canary

Bad news for John Sweeney. Well, if you have to go to jail, you may as well take your friends with you. A must read up at DIA.

Helllooo? Who the hell asked you? quote of the day

Idiot 20th District Republican quote of the day from county Republican Chairman John 'Jasper' Nolan

We had Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) in and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani They can bring in Bill Clinton. (Saratogian 10/24)

Oh gee, can we? Yippeee! Thanks so much for your permission, that is just what we've been waiting for. Thank you, thank you Mr. Nolan. You are so nice.

My other favorite quote from Jasper Nolan is:

Lobbying is the fourth branch of government -- if you know what I mean. (link)

No wonder he supports John Sweeney for congress. The man is clearly very very confoooosed.

Kirsten Gillibrand may be the daughter of a lobbyist but that don't mean she thinks lobbyists are part of the Constiutional system of checks and balances -- if you know what I mean.

OK, so I know you'll want to check out the Clinton visit details here.

Creepy Sweeney Ad

That John Sweeney "Family" ad is creepy. Not just because it features a creep of course (being Sweeney) and the woman who loves him. There's something else. Poor Gayle, she's got an expression on her face that looks slightly pained, I think that is because we are supposed to feel sorry for her over all the fictional attacks she's had to endure. Instead we just feel sorry for her because she's married to Sweeney. As if just being with him every day weren't bad enough. She's had to watch him go from Congressman KickAss to Congressman Do-over to Congressman Chicken Shit.

Life is hard. And it's about to get even worse. Not only are her fundraising kickbacks from his campaign going to dry up. She's also going to be stuck with him every day when he looses his job on Nov. 7th and has to skulk around the house in Clifton Park instead of stomping around at The House in DC. Fortunately for the rest of us, we will be unstuck from him on Nov. 7th.

NY Mag has a funny commentary on the ad:

The fracas has prompted Sweeney, the Republican incumbent, to attempt a political performance piece that's not entirely within his skill set: the personal appeal. The Sweeneys seem like fine, sweater-wearing folk who perhaps have not been in the same room together since Home Improvement got canceled.

When the cue card reads "TURN TO HER WITH LOVING GAZE," Sweeney lands on something much closer to "uh, have we met?" Come to think of it, is that even the real Mrs. Sweeney or a "Mrs. Sweeney" the ad agency brought along for the shoot? Has Mrs. Sweeney been so traumatized by the Gillibrand campaign's intimidations and smears that she's gone into seclusion?

Hey, liberal media, you are obviously an agent of the Gillibrand campaign for that malicious attack on Sweeney's wife. Have you no decency?

NOT.

If you live here you've seen the ad already far too many times. Everyone else who wants to see it, can skip over the the tublog.

Sweeney and the Abramoff Investigation

DWT is talking about Abramoff and his cooperation in an effort to "get the best deal for himself":

there are a whole lot of GOP solons from low information districts who will be re-elected only to face almost immediate indictment and the same eventual fate as former GOP congressmen/current prison inmates Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney.

Fortunately for us ours is not a low information district and Sweeney is not going to be re-elected. John Sweeney is on the list of those who are going to be in trouble:

Apparently Abramoff has said enough about 3 U.S. Senators-- Jim Talent (MO), Conrad Burns (MT) and John Ensign (NV)-- plus almost 20 other House members, for files to have been opened on all of them. And some of those files are getting pretty fat. Conrad Burns is a sure bet for a long prison sentence and it is unlikely that there will not be indictments of Denny Hastert (IL), John Sweeney (NY), Cathy McMorris WA), Virgil Goode (VA), J.D. Hayworth (AZ), Marilyn Musgrave (CO), Ann Northup (KY), Robin Hayes (NC), Charlie Taylor (NC), Heather Wilson (NM), and Gil Gutknecht (MN).

Cases are in the early stages against Mike Ferguson (NJ), Tom Tancredo (CO), Barbara Cubin (WY), Tom Davis (VA), Ron Simmons (CT), Mike Rogers (MI), and Jim Gerlach (PA).

Saratogian Article on 20th District

Will John Sweeney please stand up? by JIM KINNEY 10/24/2006 - The Saratogian

SARATOGA SPRINGS -- The percentage growth of Democrats far outpaces Republican growth in the congressional district that includes Saratoga County -- but Republicans still outnumber Democrats by almost two to one. . . .

Since the year 2000, the number of Republicans in the 20th district has increased by 8 percent, while the number of Democrats has increased by 20 percent. However, the district is 43 percent Republican, 25 percent Democrat, and 23 percent 'blanks' or unaffiliated voters, according to data on file at the state Board of Elections.

The breakdown was 46 percent GOP, 23 percent Democrats and 25 percent blank in 2000, the year Sweeney coasted to re-election over an under-funded and unorganized Democrat Ken McCallion, 153,600 to 70,000 votes.

This year, Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand is considered by political observers to be the strongest opposition Sweeney has faced.

Sweeney's district got bigger after re-apportionment following the 2000 Census. It stretches from near Cooperstown to just north of Poughkeepsie through Saratoga County to Lake Placid.

Bob Turner, an assistant professor in Skidmore College's Government Department, said enrollment is only one measure of a district's political leanings. Another is who voters pick in presidential years. In 2004, Democrat John Kerry received 53 percent of the vote in Saratoga Springs and 45 percent of the vote districtwide.

'It's a measure of people's political leanings now, not back when they registered,' Turner said.

This creates a perception that Sweeney is vulnerable and, Turner said, 'that attracts a better opposition candidate and more money. It's really a self-fulfilling prophesy.'

Allison Price, Gillibrand's campaign spokeswoman, said voters are looking beyond party, even as Gillibrand plays up Sweeney's connections to Bush.

'I think people are voting for the candidates they like,' she said.

Shawn Thompson of Saratoga Springs is vice chairman of the county Democratic Party. He pointed to the city Democrats' success in sweeping Saratoga Springs elections last fall, even though the GOP still holds an enrollment edge.

'I think you've got to reach out to all sorts of people,' he said.

County GOP chairman John 'Jasper' Nolan said downstaters are moving into the southern portions of Sweeney's district -- places like Columbia County where Gillibrand lives -- because it's an easy commute via train to New York City. Democrats have been gaining in Saratoga County, too.

Nolan said the party tires to reach out to new residents.

'But it's harder than it used to be,' he said. 'People come with their own affiliations.'

Thompson pointed to a strong slate of Democrats at the top of the ticket, including Eliot Spitzer for governor and U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton running for re-election. . . .

Last week, a Siena Research Institute poll put Sweeney ahead by 14 points. But Turner said Monday it's probably closer than that. He pointed to the money both sides are putting in.

'If it wasn't close, they would have used their resources elsewhere,' he said. 'This is going to be a close one. This might be one of those squeakers that goes long into the night.'

Control of the U.S. House of Representatives is at stake.

'That's the big enchilada,' Turner said.

No Debate

It's official, he's a chicken-shit.

WTEN reports "John Sweeney Refuses to Debate Kirsten Gillibrand"

Clifton Park Congressman John Sweeney is refusing to participate in a debate with his challenger, Kirsten Gillibrand.

The Republican incumbent says he will not take part unless the Democrat releases copies of her personal tax records.

Both candidates initially agreed to participate in a debate this Thursday, but Monday, Sweeney called to cancel.

Candidates are not required by law to release their tax returns; however, Sweeney has voluntarily chosen to do so. Gillibrand says she has nothing to hide and calls the tax return issue an excuse for Sweeney not to debate her.

A spokesperson from her campaign says debates are for the benefit of constituents and Kirsten Gillibrand is sorry that John Sweeney does not share that same view.

The two candidates are campaigning for the Congressional seat in the 20th district.

Sweeney Scandal News

Article published Oct 23, 2006 Another day, another scandal in Congress

U.S. Rep. John Sweeney, faced with a published report that he did not properly report a 2001 expense-paid trip to the Northern Marianas, says he will ask the House Ethics Committee for guidance. That’s about like looking for a moral compass from the Cali Drug Cartel. Ethics has become a sick joke in the U.S. House. Sweeney, a New York Republican seeking re-election, insists he did no wrong. He said he believed the government of the Marianas, a U.S. territory, paid for his trip. And legislators aren’t required to report government-paid travel. But according to published reports, the Saipan Chamber of Commerce financed the junket. It came just as convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff was lobbying on behalf of the Northern Marianas government in opposition to a set of proposed labor reforms. Tony Rudy, who had just left the staff of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to work for Abramoff, accompanied Sweeney. Rudy is now cooperating in a federal investigation into congressional corruption involving Abramoff. Marianas is infamous for its sweatshops and brothels. But Sweeney returned singing the praises of the territory. His home state had worse sweatshops, he said. Why would a New York lawmaker be of interest to the business community in the Marianas? At the time of his trip, Sweeney had just been named to the powerful House Appropriations Committee, which could potentially direct federal funds sought by the commonwealth. Sweeney’s apparent collusion with lobbyists on the 8,000-mile junket isn’t the worst of the ethics controversies in the House. It’s just one of the most blatant in a body that refuses to reform. (Tuscaloosa News Editorial)

More Bad News for Sweeney

Lobby inquiry into Sweeney donor, Bill Powers:

The state Lobbying Commission has opened an inquiry into whether former state GOP Chairman-turned-lobbyist Bill Powers failed to register for lobbying work he did for Siena College in 2003, a source with knowledge of the action said.

In an Aug. 28 story on local colleges hiring lobbyists, The Business Review reported that Powers helped "shepherd" a bill through the Legislature in 2003 that gave Siena the right of first refusal on state-owned land near its Loudonville campus and has been tracking the deal's progress ever since.

Siena has agreed to pay $1.3 million for the Route 9 property, but, under a lease agreement, will allow its current resident -- State Police Troop G -- to remain there for several years until a new headquarters is built.

Powers did not register to lobby for Siena until last summer, according to Lobbying Commission records. Siena College President Father Kevin Mackin said last week his records showed Powers' contract began July 2005. He could not recall whether Powers did any work for Siena in 2003.

Powers did not return a call for comment. Lobbying Commission Executive Director David Grandeau said he could not comment on "ongoing investigations."

In 2003, Powers was working with Powers, Crane & Co. The firm was not registered to lobby on the right-of-first-refusal legislation, commission records show.

Powers, Crane & Co. split in 2004 into two firms -- Powers & Co. and Crane & Vacco. (Times Union)

The same story reports that the internal poll Sweeney has wasn't as rosey as he claimed it was and has him leading by only single digits. Keep in mind these polls were all before the Sweeney/Abramoff/CNMI story came out and that Gillibrand's internal poll shows her leading even before then but read on:

...an internal Sweeney poll showed the incumbent leading by single digits, according to two people briefed on the results. ... The other person briefed said the lead could be as slim as 7 points and that the GOP is worried about losing five House seats, including Sweeney's.

PS. Today's Note Reports:

However, "a strategist close to the White House said Mr. Bush's own political team had polling that showed as many as 14 House seats were probably already lost to Democrats, just one shy of the 15 seats they need to gain to win control," write Rutenberg and Stolberg.

and...

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) meets with GE Global Research leaders to discuss renewable energy technologies at 9:45 am ET in Niskayuna, NY and campaigns for Kristen Gillibrand, the Democrat running against Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY) in New York's 20th congressional district, in Averill Park, NY at 3:45 pm ET.

Kirsten Gillibrand News

Read Firedoglake's post about Kirsten Gillibrand, the race, the district, Sweeney's accidential rise to power in spite of all the ineptitude.

It is a good read. We're not just saying that because they were nice enough to mention 20TB.

And give to Gillibrand's campaign at ActBlue here.

Kirsten answers questions in the comments section, more good reading there. To direct people who are ready to get more involved with the campaign, she says:

For suggestions on how to help: if you are here in the district, please help me go door to door. Also, we have phone banks every night. If you don't live here but want to help, we have remote phonebanking every night as well. You can help by talking about the issues that you care most about and writing letters to our editors in our several local papers -- your opinions matter! If you can work Election Day, we need poll watchers and help with get out the vote. If you want to do ANYTHING, just email me at campaign@gillibrand2006.com. Thanks for asking -- together we will take back our Country and put this great Nation on the right track. link

TU Editorial

Times Union Editorial: "If members of Congress want to travel abroad, the government should pay the tab"

First published: Sunday, October 22, 2006

While Rep. John Sweeney, R-Clifton Park, seeks guidance from the House Ethics Committee on reporting his 2001 trip to the Northern Mariana Islands, many of his constituents are no doubt wondering what their congressman was doing 8,000 miles away in the Pacific in the first place. It's a question that should not be reserved for Mr. Sweeney alone, however. Many other senators and representatives go on jaunts far and wide, and with no apparent connection to serving the interests of the voters back home.

These ventures are commonly known as fact-finding trips. Lawmakers are invited by varied special interests to visit a locale to learn more about a company or country or other entity in hopes of winning their support for legislation, either in a committee or on the floor.

In Mr. Sweeney's case, he was there to deliver a speech to the Saipan Chamber of Commerce. The trip is now the center of controversy because it is unclear whether the chamber or the Marianas government paid for it. If it was the latter, as the congressman contends, then he was not required under federal guidelines to report it. But if the chamber footed the bill, as it claims it did, that would be considered private funding, which Mr. Sweeney is obligated to report. To add to the controversy, Mr. Sweeney was accompanied on the trip by a lobbyist hired by convicted Washington influence peddler Jack Abramoff.

Until the dust settles, it would be unfair to accuse Mr. Sweeney of impropriety. But it is totally fair -- indeed, overdue -- to say that this controversy would never have happened if there were strict rules governing trips by lawmakers. As we have said before, the U.S. taxpayers should pick up the tab if a trip is connected to government business. Lobbyists, the governments of other countries, business leaders or any other special interest should be forbidden to underwrite the costs to avoid even the appearance of trying to buy influence.

It's true that the definition of government business is a very open one in Washington. Many lawmakers may accept a paid-for trip and spend only a brief time on the business at hand, while enjoying what has all the appearances of an expense-paid vacation.

Obviously, if the taxpayers were picking up the tab, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for members of Congress to justify such expenditures in the future. Which is why such a rule is needed, and needed now.

Have you had enough?

Check out the video up at YouTube.

Sweeney = Twisted

What Sweeney's ad says about the Democratic Challanger Kirsten Gillibrand:

“Gillibrand would support rolling back…tax cuts.”

The TUblog reports, Sweeney could care less if he's taken what Gillibrand said and twisted it into something she didn't say:

Thanks to the TU’s handy on-line morgue (where old stories go to their eternal rest), we can tell you what the ad left out - the rest of that sentence, which was:

“For anyone who earns over $1 million.”

Only 1.7% of the district makes over $200,000 per year so I don't think folks here will be too worried about what taxes are raised for millionaires. Bush and Sweeney are both good at ignoring whatever facts get in the way of the non-sense that they want to sell to the voters. And we all know - that is not a good quality in a candidate.

See NY20th race at Majority Watch for stats on the district.

Sunday Op-Ed

Here's another example of the smug entitled attitude that John Sweeney has regarding his position of power.

We all know, when it was clear there would be no Democratic primary, Sweeney's next excuse for not debating Gillibrand was that he had to wait until after Labor Day. That was all back when he was still thinking there was no way this gerrymandered district could ever send anyone other than John Sweeney to congress.

Now, two polls show Gillibrand and Sweeney winning by the same amount and Gillibrand's internal polls show her slightly ahead. Sweeney's internal polls probably show the same thing (he hasn't released his, but Gillibrand has released hers).

The race has been downgraded from leans Republican to "no clear favorite" by Congressional Quarterly.

Sweeney needed a new excuse to prevent Gillibrand from beating him in a debate because with Sweeney's missteps (lobbyist ski trips, frat party escapade, undisclosed trip with Abramoff's guilty right hand lobbyist, etc.) mean he can't afford to have Gillibrand look smarter and more prepared than he is (which she is). That would be the final nail in his congressional coffin.

Sweeney has a new excuse for not debating Gillibrand: he lamely pretends that a debate on Social Security couldn't be fair without seeing her tax returns. Even though Sweeney has not always released his returns and even though Gillibrand has filed all of the paperwork she has to in order to run for congress.

Read the article below where Sweeney revealed another excuse for avoiding a debate, he thinks that he is the person who decides if Gillibrand "deserves" the "stature" he will give her by debating him. Yippeeee - Sweeney: The Decider.

The voters know she deserves that stature since she has been gaining on the incumbent in the polls all along. Plus she's raised more money from within the district than Sweeney has repeatedly.

For the record Democrats, Eliot Spitzer and Hillary Clinton both held debates with Republican opponents who had far lower standings in the polls than Gillibrand. And Clinton's opponent has run horrific attack ads that makes even staunch Republicans I know cringe at his distaste.

While Ken Tingley's October 15th editorial in the Post Star suggests that both candidates haven't agreed to debate. He gets the press releases, he knows that Gillibrand has been calling for debates with Sweeney since the beginning. Gillibrand has no strings attached to a debate with Sweeney.

Yes, Mr. Tingley, Gillibrand did call on Sweeney to release his police records. You may or may not have agreed with her actions, but she did not make releasing those records condition of any debate. She will show up to debate Sweeney even though Sweeney is too scared to be there.

The recent comments from Sweeney suggests he really does think that Kirsten Gillibrand is a "pretty faced" poodle who has to jump through whatever hoop he holds up.

Is this a guy who deserves to be called "Congressman Kick Ass" in your book? More like Congressman Chicken Shit if you ask me. Here's what Sweeney told the Post Star on Oct 13th:

"The reality in a debate -- especially when you are the incumbent -- is that you are giving your opponent more stature than maybe they deserve," the Clifton Park Republican said. "Her conduct over the last 48 hours tells me she doesn't deserve the stature."

Sweeney releasing his police records is about honesty and integrity, Gillibrand said. Gillibrand has followed federal laws and filed the financial disclosure forms required, she added.

Gillibrand notes that Sweeney has been accused of pocketing campaign contributions, accepting gifts from special-interest groups with legislation before Congress and being recently named one of Congress's 20 most corrupt members.

Gillibrand has urged Sweeney to debate her on several occasions, but he has instead created four excuses, she said.

"Each time you have offered another in a series of lame excuses to avoid a candid exchange of ideas with me," Gillibrand said. "It is obvious you are afraid to debate."

Gillibrand said that because of Sweeney's actions, there will likely be no debate between the two.

"I would love to debate her," Sweeney said. "I'm actually of the opinion now that she doesn't want to debate, so she is going to hide behind the fact that she's not releasing her taxes."

Gillibrand said she will not be bullied into a debate. A debate should be free of stipulations, she said.

"It's a shame and the losers in this will be the voters," Gillibrand said. "People deserve to hear from their congressman. At the end of the day, he owes his constituents a debate."

Sweeney has the audacity to lie to us blatantly yet again when he says, "I would love to debate her."

He seems to have actually convinced the editor of the Post Star that Gillibrand won't agree to debate him. When no, it truth just the opposite is true. Sweeney's spent too much time in Washington, he needs a vacation, one that doesn't include lobbyists for a change. Listening to him makes my head spin.

Sweeney: if you'd love to debate her - just do it. Knock yourself out man. Go for it, Mr. Kickass. Whatever you do, stop peeing on our legs and telling us it is raining. Because that is just pathetic. And disgusting.

Gillibrand and Sweeney on Iraq

Post Star by Maury Thompson published 10/22/06:

Editor's note: This is the final in a six-part series examining how candidates for the 20th Congressional District seat, incumbent John Sweeney, R-Clifton Park, and Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, feel about today's issues. [Post Star also covered the candidate stances on Local Economy,Energy Policy,Social Security,and Affordable Housing.]

The Iraq war has been one of the major issues in the race for Congress in New York's 20th District.

The Post-Star invited the candidates to submit an essay detailing their Iraq policies.

Republican John Sweeney and Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand agree the U.S. military should not continue its current level of involvement indefinitely.

And both candidates agree oil revenues could be used to stabilize the situation in Iraq.

Yet the candidates also have marked differences in their views.

Gillibrand proposes setting a notice period of less than a year for the United States to begin withdrawing forces from Iraq.

Sweeney said setting an "artificial deadline" for withdrawing troops before the Iraq government is ready could leave Iraq open to infiltration by terrorists.

Sweeney proposed allowing the three main Iraqi sects to establish independent federated states, supported by a shared oil revenue structure.

Gillibrand said partitioning off the country would weaken the government.

Gillibrand said the United States should pledge not to have permanent military bases in Iraq.

Sweeney said in an interview Saturday the House has already voted not to have permanent bases in Iraq.

Sweeney said the U.S. government has made mistakes in its Iraq strategy. He did not specify those mistakes.

Kirsten Gillibrand on the war in iraq

We can no longer afford a stay-the-course strategy or partisan politics; our troops deserve real leadership and a strategy for success in Iraq. Americans deserve to have Congress clarify its mission in Iraq by passing a resolution that states America will not establish permanent bases or have claim to Iraqi oil.

We must create a sense of urgency for Iraqi leaders by setting a notice period of less than a year, to be defined by our military leaders, for establishing a stable government in which the Shia, Kurds and Sunnis have an equal share in the government, reconstruction contracts and oil profits. By effectively using our leverage in the region, we will encourage the Iraqis to choose peace over civil war. Dividing Iraq into three regions will weaken the region, and give Iran more leverage as it continues to build its nuclear program and use its resources to undermine peace.

After the notice period, we must redeploy U.S. troops to anti-terror missions, and fully implement the 9/11 Commission recommendtions, including investments in port, airline and border security.

Finally, we must honor those who have served by providing health care, education and job training benefits to our veteran and military families.

John Sweeney on the war in iraq

Like every American, I want to see our troops come home as soon as possible. However, it is irresponsible and damaging to our troops to call for an immediate withdrawal -- neither is staying the current course acceptable.

An artificial deadline only provides terrorists with wait-us-out strategy and when the last U.S. soldier leaves, the current insurgency will erupt into a full-scale civil war, disrupting the security in a volatile part of the world.

The next three to five months will be critical to our overall strategy in Iraq.

We must put additional pressure on Prime Minister Maliki and Iraqi Security Forces to defend their own nation.

However, they cannot stand alone yet.

In my four trips to Iraq, I have seen our mistakes and know we must change strategy to see victory.

I am advocating a structure that allows the various Iraqi sects to establish independent federated states under one oil revenue-sharing structure -- that can provide for their individual safety and security against Iran and Syria.

I do not support a politically motivated call for a timetable withdrawal.

Those who propose immediate withdrawal cannot answer the question of what happens to Iraq and global security after we leave.

Related: Sweeney voted to support Bush and stay the course recently in congress. Sweeney's letter to constituents this summer told us "While all of this was important to the formation of a permanent government, difficult days and hard work still lie ahead in Iraq for both our military and this fledging [sic] democracy. As difficult as it is to question the mission, we must continue to unite in our support for both instead of cowering at the sight of controversy. It is more important than ever that America stands firm in support of the Iraqi citizens." Read the entire letter here.

NYT on the 20th

From the NY Times on Oct. 20th:

New York’s 20 District: Already facing an increasingly tough race against Democratic first-time candidate Kirsten Gillibrand, Republican Rep. John E. Sweeney has had to deal with allegations that he may have failed to properly report a trip to the U.S. territory of Northern Mariana Islands that was funded by a colleague of now-convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. [Note: The "colleague" was Abramoff's right-hand man and has pleaded guilty for corrupt lobbying too.]

There are no allegations that Sweeney broke laws. But the story plays into the hands of Democrats who are trying to make a national campaign issue of what they allege is a Republican “culture of corruption” — and particularly for Gillibrand, who has made ethics a centerpiece of her campaign since she entered the race.

The development could be a particularly volatile issue, as Abramoff’s representation of the Northern Marianas in efforts to waive parts of federal labor law is one of the most controversial aspects of Abramoff’s career as a congressional influence peddler.

The Northern Mariana Islands have been the focus of investigations of alleged human rights abuses surrounding its textile and clothing industries, and the suggestion that Sweeney accepted a junket funded by Abramoff’s company could be damaging to Sweeney’s hopes of holding off a Gillibrand campaign that has been surging.

Democrats were quick to jump on the allegations — among them California Rep. George Miller, who has spent more than a decade working against alleged sweatshops, forcible prostitution and human rights abuses on the islands.

Miller told reporters that the trip in which Sweeney had participated was part of Abramoff’s plan to develop “a cheering section” for Mariana Islands government and its garment industry, and to tamp down calls for reform in Congress.

Democrats argued that Sweeney failed to follow congressional ethics rules when he did not declare the lobbyist-funded trip. But the congressman said he originally believed the trip was paid for by the Mariana Islands government and thus did not need to be disclosed.

Sweeney campaign spokeswoman Maureen Donovan said she found the timing of the news reports about the matter “curious.”

“That’s a trip that happened five years ago and the congressman has been very clear . . . he always makes a good faith effort to report what he’s supposed to,” she said.

Underscoring the risk in relying even on independent polls to determine the outcomes of competitive House races, two recent surveys on the 20th District race reported vastly different results.

Majority Watch, a bipartisan polling project that uses automated phone calls to survey voters, released a poll this week that indicated Gillibrand held a 13 percentage-point lead over Sweeney, 54 percent to 41 percent, in the 20th.

The Gillibrand campaign trumpeted the poll, which also found stronger support for Gillibrand among voters in the southern half of the sprawling district, located mainly in the upper Hudson River Valley. The challenger held a 15-point lead among those voters, and a 12-point lead among voters in the upper half of the district, which includes Saratoga.

But a poll released Thursday by the Siena Research Institute showed Sweeney with a big 14 percentage-point lead over Gillibrand, 53 percent to 39 percent, though that was down from a 19-point lead in August.

The survey indicated that Gillibrand has been successful in raising questions about Sweeney — 35 percent of respondents had a negative impression of the congressman, up from 29 percent in August. . . .

Gillibrand Eastern Dutchess Issues Forum

When: Sunday October 22th, 2006 at 3:00 pm

Where: Listening Rock Farm, Sinpatch Road, Wassaic

What: Gillibrand to address local issues of Eastern Dutchess. Congressman Sweeney has neglected Dutchess county, especially the rural Eastern portion to such a degree that many residents believe they are are still represented by 19th Congressional District Congresswoman Kelly. Event sponsored by the Democratic Committees of Pine Plains, Amenia, Millerton, Millbrook, Stanford and Unionvale. Other candidates in attendance: Brian Keeler, Mike Kaplowitz, Virginia Martin.

Gillibrand News

Kirsten Gillibrand, will be live-blogging in the BlueAmerica fund-raising series at: Firedoglake

Saturday, Oct. 21 2:00 PM eastern

Spread the word and join Kirsten at 2:00 PM!

John Sweeney's Mariana Islands Trip

From EmpireWire.

At it again

More campaign ineptitude from Congressman Whoopsie Sweeney. It is hard to figure out if Sweeney is just so dumb that he doesn't know what the rules are or if he just thinks that they don't apply to him. Rules are for the little people.

The Other Rudy

Tony Rudy was also involved with the 2000 Florida election riot where John Sweeney earned his "Congressman Kickass" monicker when he screamed "Shut it down!"

News reports are just calling Rudy an Abramoff associate. Doesn't sound so bad. But the facts are that he wasn't just Abramoff's associate, he was Abramoff's "right hand man" and he has also pleaded guilty for his corrupt lobbyist practices. Before Abraoff, Rudy first worked for Tom DeLay and we all know what a super guy he is. From the Washington Post:

... When Abramoff called the DeLay office, Rudy was his main contact, and Rudy secretly became the recipient of payments from the lobbyist and other largess. When he left Capitol Hill to become a lobbyist, Rudy joined Abramoff as his right-hand man and dispensed the same kinds of gifts to his former colleagues. That combination led to Rudy's guilty plea yesterday [3/31/06] on charges of conspiracy. ... (Read the full story)

I think it is pretty ironic seeing as how I do recall reading at least one letter to the editor in the Post Star from a Sweeney Cheerleader that suggested that we shouldn't support Kirsten Gillibrand because she took a campaign donation from someone who was once hired by Enron, we should be judging people by the company they keep.

Look at the people Sweeney has taken money from, worked and traveled with - corrupt criminals. It is time to tell it like it is. Get with the program and stop acting like this Rudy is just some innocent schmoe who just happened to be unlucky enough to have been working as an "associate" of Abramoff.

Kirsten Gillibrand Talkin 'bout Real Issues

A great story in The Record today after Gillibrand met with their editorial board. An excerpt:

...One of the most divisive issues in the country is the war in Iraq, and Gillibrand slammed the Bush administration and her opponent for not having a plan, any plan, except to stick it out while things continue to deteriorate.

"They talk about cutting and running and losing and have terrorists come over here, or staying and fighting and winning and fighting the terrorist over there," she said. "That is offensive to the American people, and that should not be the nature of the debate. They are not the only choices we as Americans could be making."

She said she would first push for a congressional resolution directing military leaders to come up with a time to withdraw, preferably within a year, and pledge not to have a permanent presence after we leave. Also, she said, she would pledge not to lay claim to any Iraqi oil.

To stabilize the region, she would bring the three distinct Iraqi factions to the table and give them each "leverage" and thereby a reason to choose peace over civil war. All three groups would have a piece of the oil profits and an equal say in how the country is run.

"Most Americans don't know why we are there. They were told it was because of weapons of mass destruction and because we were going to be attacked, and they understood that and were behind that," she said. "But, none of it was true, and now they are wondering why we are there." She would look to leverage allies and use diplomacy to handle two other hot spots around the world - North Korea and Iran.

She would not be as diplomatic with big oil companies, however....

Grand Ostrich Party

The TU says a Clifton Park "GOP leader has plenty to cheer for"

I guess he hasn't heard how his candidate, that would be John Sweeney, did the bidding of a guilty and corrupt lobbyist (that would be Jack Abramoff's "right hand man" Tony Rudy) and turned a blind eye to sweatshops and underage children being forced into sex work. And how he "whoopsie" didn't file the required 30 day notice of that visit per house ethics rules. Sweeney traveled to CNMI (a US Territory) in January of 2001. In 1999, 20/20 had done not one, but two exposes on the abuse of workers there. Here's an excerpt from one of them:

a system that was set up on Saipan primarily to provide thousands of foreign workers for the island's notorious garment factories. Truckloads of young women from China and the Philippines, who have actually paid thousands of dollars - an entire family's life savings - for what they are told will be good jobs in America. Put to work under often grueling conditions, the women are not free to change jobs because of the Saipan loophole. It's something that would not be legal on the mainland. ...Many of the women who work here are only teenagers. Many under age, like Katrina, not her real name, who was 14 when she was recruited from the Philippines. Katrina told federal investigators that she signed this official Saipan government affidavit, thinking she was going to be a waitress and ended up forced into live sex acts on stage. (link)

And I guess he didn't hear that his candidate is a flip flopper with no clue about what to do in Iraq. Because we all know - no self respecting GOP leader can vote for a flip flopper.

GOP really does stand for Grand Ostrich Party in this case. All of this other news just pales in comparison to the justice that has finally been served now that two Sweeney sign thieves have been captured. Whooo-hooo. Justice at last, all is finally right in the world.

PS - the guys taking the signs don't even live in the here.

News du jour

In response to criticism from a person who said "Ms. Gillibrand has never served in the military and yet she is making veterans benefits and the Iraqi war a top priority."

A. Isn't this a reflection of her solid moral character? Gillibrand cares about veterans and our troops.

B. Has John Sweeney ever served in the military? I'm sure he'd be sending me flyers telling me all about it if he had, but to be sure I checked his bio and no, he did not serve in the miltary either.

C. NY Mag has a good point here:

Not to get overly technical about the relationship between government and the armed forces, but if only lawmakers who'd served in the military were allowed to have oversight regarding military affairs, wouldn't that be like sorta how it is in one of those, uh, whadya call 'em…fascist military dictatorships? Either we can't handle the truth or someone needs to undo the bunch in Col. Nathan R. Jessep's olive-drab undies.

The PJ has a story up on Sweeney's trip in today's paper. Check it out.

What does Sweeney say after learning that the government of CNMI said they didn't pay for his trip and the Chamber of Commerce said that it did pay for it? (This would mean that his unreported trip was a violation of house ethics rules). Denial aint just a river in Egypt:

"I don't believe that I'm not in compliance," said Sweeney. (link)

The report goes on:

Abramoff was lobbying at the time on behalf of the Northern Marianas government, which opposed labor reforms proposed for the U.S. commonwealth.

His colleague, Tony Rudy, who had just left the staff of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to work for Abramoff, accompanied Sweeney. Rudy is now cooperating in a federal investigation into congressional corruption involving Abramoff.

Like Abramoff, Rudy also pleaded guilty. Read about Rudy's rise from DeLay's aide to Abramoff's right hand man here. DeLay fought to stop the laws that Abramoff wanted stopped, Sweeney goes with a guy connected to both Abramoff and DeLay and he expects us to think he's not connected to Abramoff and that his visit was about advising the CNMI government on Sweatshops?

This isn't the first time that Sweeney has ignored house ethics rules. So why should anyone believe him when he says:

"I don't know Jack Abramoff and I've never even met Jack Abramoff."

Sweeney sounds alot like Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary who told reporters that Bush didn't know Abramoff either, saying, "The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever meeting him."

But later Time reported that there are unpublished photos of Bush with Ambramoff.

What is really pathetic about Sweeney's efforts to distance himself from Abramoff is how easy it is too see through it. Abramoff even bragged about how much he was accomplishing for CNMI:

"Our standing with the new administration promises to be solid as several friends of the CNMI (islands) will soon be taking high-ranking positions in the Administration, including within the Interior Department," Abramoff wrote in a January 2001 letter in which he persuaded the island government to follow him as a client to his new lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig.

The reception Abramoff's team received from the Bush administration was in stark contrast to the chilly relations of the Clinton years. (link)

On the other hand, why am I so shocked? Sweeney tries to tell us that this is what he looks like after half a glass of wine and a stromboli. Yeah, right.

Sweeney's Tangled Web

Sweeney gets a dough-nation from Abramoff's firm on April 6, 2001. And Abramoff's corrupt lobbyist Tony Rudy starts meeting with John Sweeney regularly right after that. This happens just a couple of months after Sweeney's "Oopsie-do-I-get-another-do-over so I can file now?" trip to with Rudy CNMI. I'm quoting a timeline here -

April 26, 2001 - Indicted Delay aide Tony C. Rudy meets with appropriations staff of Rep. Sweeney's office.

May 4, 2001 - Indicted Delay aide Tony C. Rudy meets with Rep. Sweeney to discuss Appropriations request.

May 25, 2001 - Jack Abramoff Teamate Kevin A. Ring has phone conversation and correspondence with K. Kaloi (House Resources) regarding CNMI appropriations; sends talking points to same; phone conversation with Labor Department official regarding minimum wage; correspondence with staff of Rep. Sweeney regarding appropriations. All in all, with the help of Sweeney and Doolittle, $28 million in additional “earmark” funds were secured by Abramoff for the Marianas in 2001.

June 20, 2001 - Indicted Delay aide Tony C. Rudy meets with Rep. Sweeney regarding Marianas issues; discussions with L. Lamora (Watts) regarding upcoming minimum wage effort.

All that indicates Rudy was meeting with Sweeney on behalf of Abramoff's client and regarding appropriations issues. Sweeney is expecting us to believe that that his trip with a lobbyist (whose firm he took donations from) was about how to reform Sweatshops in the CNMI? Irony of all ironies, Sweeney's comments there were critical of the Clinton administration which did support cleaning up the sweatshops.

On March 31, 2006, Tony Rudy pleaded guilty in federal court to a conspiracy charge related to the federal investigation into corrupt lobbying practices. He also agreed to aide prosecutors as they continue their probe. ...

Rudy went to work for Abramoff when the lobbyist moved to a new law firm, Greenberg Traurig LLP, in January 2001. Months later, Rudy himself was hired as a lobbyist by Abramoff. (source)

In 2000, Abramoff wrote to the Governor of CNMI and cited his "strong ties to the new Republican majority in control of Congress" Abramoff went on:

For the past six years, our team has combated and defeated every single attack on CNMI. We have faced formidable opposition at times, including a hostile Clinton Administration, powerful Members of Congress, labor unions and human rights groups, and negative media stories. Each time, our team worked with the CNMI to develop and execute strategies that protected and furthered the CNMI interests. ...

In the end, this all-out public relations and lobbying blitz brought CNMI back from the brink of legislative disaster. All of our tactics produced enormously positive results. Our efforts with the House Resource Committee allowed us to transform two congressional hearings that promised to be embarrassing to the CNMI into platforms to express local opposition to federal takeover schemes. We worked with the House Leadership to assure the bill would not move to the House floor, even if the committee did act. It also allowed us to acquire some very powerful allies, such as Majority Whip Tom DeLay. Perhaps most importantly, our dedication to the public relations aspect of the lobbying campaign helped the CNMI to develop a reputation for freedom and local autonomy, two virtues that were very attractive to the new Republican majority. The CNMI soon became known as a "laboratory of liberty," a place where free markets flourished...

Abramoff specifically sites the role of the Appropriations committee in his letter:

We kept the CNMI's opponents from diverting federal funds in the appropriations bills that were designated for the CNMI. We reached out to the House Ways and Means Committee, as well as to anti-tax think-tanks and grassroots organizations, to generate strong opposition to the Administration's tariff proposal. Finally, we won a hard-fought victory on the House floor against Representative Miller and others who sought to attach federal takeover language to an appropriation measure. In the end, we successfully prevented any anti-CNMI legislation from becoming law.

He sums up:

The CNMI's authority to control its own immigration and wage laws has been protected. Its ability to export its goods freely to the mainland has been preserved. And its physical development has been aided by the infusion of federal assistance. (source)

A cached version of a removed Saipan Tribune article from 2000 notes that CNMI leaders were going to the Washington

to meet with U.S. lawmakers ... to help fight federal takeover proposals, the House leaders believed it can only do so much owing to the pressures being exerted by labor unions and other interest groups opposed to the current economic system on the islands ... the local business community, through the Western Pacific Economic Council, has been very active in lobbying on behalf of the government, but these actions are not sufficient if the CNMI is not going to get involved. ...Mr. Tenorio [then Governor], in an interview the other day, appeared inclined to grant request by lawmakers to hire [lobbyist] Preston Gates, although he is still mum on any final decision by his administration.

The TU article noted: "Within months of returning from the CNMI, Sweeney met separately with Marianas Gov. Fitial and Rudy in Washington."

Another ST article on Nov. 11, 2000 says "just a few days ago there was an effort to attach the [Made in the USA Label Defense] bill to an appropriation measure which was headed off by prompt action of the CNMI's lobbying firm in Washington... it's impossible to exaggerate the threat this mean-spirited and misguided legislation poses to the CNMI."

The National Retail Federation opposed the "Made in the USA Label Defense Act" as reported in Sept 2000. "An NRF spokesman told the Bureau of National Affairs September 6 that there was concern that the measure could end up being rolled into an omnibus appropriations measure as Congress gets ready to adjourn." That same month, the conservative "think tank" Heritage Foundation questioned the same bill.

The Natioanl Retail Federation gave $1500 to Sweeney in the 2000 election cycle.

Sweeney was not one of the 234 co-sponsors of the Made in the USA Label Defense Act.

PS. One of the bazillion lobbyists attending both the 2005 and 2006 Congressional Winter Challenges with John Sweeney happens to be Steve Pfister of the National Retail Federation. (source)

On January 15, 2001, the STribune glowingly covered John Sweeney's visit. Sweeney's comments are lock step in line with Abramoff's "dedication to the public relations aspect of the lobbying campaign" to help the CNMI.

Sweeney also "said Washington should be made to understand that the departure of the industry will devastate the Northern Marianas." Shortly after Sweeney was there, Abramoff was given a new contract by CNMI. Like Abramoff, Sweeney attacked Clinton efforts to bring the abuses under control. Plus Sweeney urged CNMI to keep lobbying Washington. Shortly after Sweeney left, Abramoff was rehired at his new firm by CNMI. Do these connections all seem like coinkydinks to you? Go here for the full story the ST gave of Sweeney's appearance.

Can't not tell you one more thing today...

A new poll by non-partisan RT Strategies says that the 20th is going to go just as the last Washington Post story on the 10th suggested:

By a margin of 54 percent to 41 percent, registered voters said they plan to vote for the Democrat over the Republican in congressional elections next month.

And I'll be darned, here in the 20th District, RT's Majority watch shows Gillibrand with 54% and Sweeney with 41% per an Oct 15-16th poll of 1001 voters. Don't take my word for it, check it out. The MOE is 3.09%.

Read the crosstabs and the voter id of those polled - only Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, George Bush and John Sweeney will not be able to admit that it looks very seriously like Sweeney's going to be need a new line of work on Nov. 8th.

Eye Openers

Forbes reports the Sweeney Spinner's version of reality pretty succinctly here

Carlson said Northern Mariana Islands officials had "concerns about sweatshops" and wanted Sweeney to advise them on potential reforms.

The TU reports that Carlson "said the congressman made some recommendations and suggested he could help if his suggestions were put in place, but the CNMI government never followed up."

But:

On Jan. 15, 2001, the Tribune reported Sweeney had indicated in his speech that the CNMI needed to continue efforts to combat its poor image back in the states.

"The reputation of the commonwealth is not really what ought to be," Sweeney said. "I come (sic) here and found that the truth projected to me in Washington was not the truth at all." ...

Sweeney was quoted in the Saipan Tribune on Jan. 15 as saying reports of poor working conditions in the CNMI were overblown, and that he had seen worse sweatshops back home in New York.

Do those sound like suggestions for reforms to you?

Put on your thinking cap if you have to, I'll wait. Sweeney sounds like Rumsfeld when bad news from Iraq began coming in, telling reporters that the Iraq chaos stories were not getting the real story of all the progress that was being made.

According to the TU report, the governor of CNMI "had meetings with Sweeney and his fellow Appropriations Committee member, Doolittle, in Washington on April 8, 2001, to discuss the islands' infrastructure and development needs." Bragging about his friendship with Sweeney (kind of how the NMMA folks did when Sweeney wrote laws on their behalf), the governor told the paper that:

I am very glad that the CNMI has friends in such powerful positions. Whether the issue is construction funding or Compact impact assistance, the Appropriations Committee will make the important decisions, and I am confident we will receive a fair hearing because of our friends that serve on that committee."

Needless to say, Sweeney is not a co-sponsor of Rep George Miller's bill that seeks to do away with the Abramoff/DeLay and Sweeney protection of the sweatshop business interests. The Washington Post recently reported:

House Democrats led by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) introduced legislation today to extend key federal controls over a U.S. territory in the western Pacific, renewing an effort that was blocked for years by lobbyist Jack Abramoff and once-powerful Texas Republican Tom DeLay.

The bill aims to apply U.S. immigration law and basic labor protections, including the U.S. minimum wage, to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), a U.S. territory 3,900 miles west of Hawaii. Human rights and labor investigators have found rampant abuses there over the years, notably the trafficking of women for a commercial sex trade and the exploitation of mostly female workers from poor Asian countries in a largely foreign-owned garment-manufacturing industry that uses the territory to turn out "Made in U.S.A." clothing exempt from U.S. tariffs and quotas.

Sweeney claims he has no ties to Abramoff, but this trip raises doubts about his honesty. His spinner says he didn't know about the abuses but in 1992, the Department of Labor sued five garment factories owned by Willie Tan for workplace abuses.

And according to the TU story, the paper that covered Sweeney's event and his pro-sweatshop commentary in CNMI is published by the Tan Holdings Group, whose president is Willie Tan, Abramoff associate.

According to Wikipedia, Sweeney's "friend" Governor Fitial seems to have been handpicked by Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay:

Using promises of U.S. tax dollars as bartering chips, [former DeLay chief of staff] Edwin A. Buckham [then a lobbyist with Alexander Strategy Group] and Michael Scanlon traveled to these remote Pacific islands in late 1999 to convince two local legislators [Alejo Mendiola and Norman S. Palacios] to switch their votes for speaker of the territory's 18-member House of Representatives,” the Los Angeles Times revealed in May 2005. “They succeeded.” Benigno Fitial was “an underdog contender” for speaker of the House, the Times wrote. ...Fitial was expected to reinstate Abramoff's expired lobbying contract.

Ed Buckham gave $700 to Sweeney's campaign. And the TU reports over $8,000 from Alexander Strategy Group which closed in January of 2006 "because of its ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former House majority leader Tom DeLay." (Washington Post)

Come on Sweeney went with Rudy who is with Abramoff and Sweeney didn't know who was paying for this trip. We're supposed to believe that Sweeney has no ties to Abramoff?

Sweeney was in the CNMI because he was on the appropriations committee not because he worked for Pataki back in the day.

Spin Reporters

News Chanel 13 just repeated the Sweeney Spin on his reason for the visit - that he was investigating Sweatshops.

I guess TV people can't bother to read the newspapers, they just look at the headlines and trust Sweeney to explain it all away for them. Sigh.

More on the Sweeney CNMI story

Talking points memo fills in the details about what Abramoff was trying to accomplish for the sweatshop owerns. Sweeney is no friend of workers given his compliance and his comments in CNMI.

The AP says that Sweeney's:

... financial forms were reviewed last year by the Department of Justice, and at the time staffers said he had no idea why.

On the day Sweeney's records were examined, the same justice department staffer also examined the records for Ney, Rudy, Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D. and two Capitol Hill staffers. ...

TU Scoop on Sweeney and his "friends"

Sweeney trip in question: Visit to U.S. territory with Jack Abramoff associate possibly broke rules

By ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau First published: Wednesday, October 18, 2006

ALBANY -- U.S. Rep. John Sweeney may have violated congressional ethics rules by failing to reveal who paid for a trip he took to a Pacific island with a lobbyist hired by convicted Washington influence peddler Jack Abramoff.

In January 2001, Sweeney traveled 8,000 miles to deliver a speech to the Saipan Chamber of Commerce in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory infamous for its garment sweatshops and prostitution trade. He traveled with Tony Rudy, who had just left the staff of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to work for Abramoff.

The Saipan Chamber of Commerce says it paid for Sweeney's visit, but Sweeney never reported any privately funded travel as House rules require. Those rules prohibit lobbyist-paid travel.

Sweeney, a Clifton Park Republican, initially refused to answer questions for this story, speaking only through an aide. His deputy chief of staff, Melissa Carlson, said the congressman believed the Marianas government had paid for the trip.

Under House rules, U.S. government-paid travel, including travel financed by the island commonwealth, does not need to be disclosed. However, this week the Marianas government disputed Sweeney's assertion, saying it did not pay for the trip.

Tuesday, Sweeney said he will do whatever is necessary to comply with House ethics rules.

"It was our understanding that this was paid for by the Marianas government," the congressman said. "If it was based on misinformation that may have been given to us by a guy who's now an admitted felon, I will go to the Ethics Committee and ask what I should do."

Abramoff lobbied on and off for the Mariana Islands government from 1994 to early 2002, eventually earning more than $11 million.

Rudy,who met with Sweeney after the trip to lobby him on behalf of the territory, pleaded guilty in March to conspiracy charges connected to the cash laundering and political influence enterprise run by Abramoff.

Abramoff pleaded guilty in January to mail fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion charges. Both he and Rudy are cooperating with law enforcement officials in an ongoing investigation.

"If it indeed is true" that private money purchased his trip to the Pacific, Sweeney said, "I feel betrayed and misled." Sweeney insisted Abramoff did not personally organize or pay for this trip, as he did for other members of Congress and congressional aides -- including DeLay -- in violation of House ethics rules. Sweeney said he never met Abramoff, adding that his only connection to the disgraced lobbyist was Rudy. No suggestion has emerged that Sweeney directly assisted Abramoff or broke any laws. Sweeney is among the Democrats' top targets as they fight for a net gain of 15 seats necessary to take over the House. He is fighting the toughest re-election battle of his congressional career against a Democratic political neophyte, Kirsten Gillibrand. Last year, the Department of Justice began reviewing the personal financial records of members of Congress and former staffers in search of ties to Abramoff. Among them were DeLay, U.S. Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif, whose efforts to help Abramoff with Marianas-related projects have been well-documented, and U.S. Rep. Bob Ney, an Ohio Republican who pleaded guilty last Friday to accepting numerous gifts, including trips, casino chips and meals, in exchange for legislative support for Abramoff's clients. Sweeney has so far remained untainted by the DOJ investigation. Sweeney is not the only Capital Region congressman with travel connections to Abramoff.

Abramoff lobbied on and off for the Mariana Islands government from 1994 to early 2002, eventually earning more than $11 million.

Rudy, who met with Sweeney after the trip to lobby him on behalf of the territory, pleaded guilty in March to conspiracy charges connected to the cash laundering and political influence enterprise run by Abramoff.

Abramoff pleaded guilty in January to mail fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion charges. Both he and Rudy are cooperating with law enforcement officials in an ongoing investigation.

"If it indeed is true" that private money purchased his trip to the Pacific, Sweeney said, "I feel betrayed and misled."

Sweeney insisted Abramoff did not personally organize or pay for this trip, as he did for other members of Congress and congressional aides -- including DeLay -- in violation of House ethics rules. Sweeney said he never met Abramoff, adding that his only connection to the disgraced lobbyist was Rudy.

No suggestion has emerged that Sweeney directly assisted Abramoff or broke any laws.

Sweeney is among the Democrats' top targets as they fight for a net gain of 15 seats necessary to take over the House. He is fighting the toughest re-election battle of his congressional career against a Democratic political neophyte, Kirsten Gillibrand.

Last year, the Department of Justice began reviewing the personal financial records of members of Congress and former staffers in search of ties to Abramoff.

Among them were DeLay, U.S. Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif, whose efforts to help Abramoff with Marianas-related projects have been well-documented, and U.S. Rep. Bob Ney, an Ohio Republican who pleaded guilty last Friday to accepting numerous gifts, including trips, casino chips and meals, in exchange for legislative support for Abramoff's clients.

Sweeney has so far remained untainted by the DOJ investigation.

Sweeney is not the only Capital Region congressman with travel connections to Abramoff. Sweeney is not the only Capital Region congressman with travel connections to Abramoff.

In 1997, Abramoff personally led a congressional delegation that included U.S. Rep. Michael McNulty, D-Green Island, on a trip to Pakistan. Abramoff did not tell either the group's sponsor, a now-defunct nonprofit group, or the lawmakers that he was a registered lobbyist for Pakistan.

McNulty said he had been misled. McNulty did file a report of his trip with the clerk of the House within 30 days, as is required when private sources pay expenses for trips made in connection with official duties.

Sweeney said he still has no direct confirmation that anyone other than the Marianas government paid for his trip. "We operated under the best information we had," he said. "We believed we were in full compliance."

However, in recent days the Times Union received contradictory accounts of who paid from the Marianas government and the Saipan Chamber of Commerce.

Charles Reyes, a spokesman for Marianas Gov. Benigno R. Fitial, said in an e-mail that the islands' government did not pay Sweeney's bill.

"Our finance office confirms that, based on available financial records, the CNMI government did not make any payment to or for Congressman John Sweeney for any expenses in connection with the congressman's travel to the commonwealth on or about January 2001," Reyes wrote.

Christine Parke, executive director of the Saipan Chamber of Commerce, said in an e-mail that the chamber "did pay for Mr. Sweeney's expenses out of the proceeds of the dinner." She said she had no supporting documents and could not provide a total cost.

At the time of his trip, Sweeney had just been named to the powerful House Appropriations Committee, which could potentially direct federal funds sought by the commonwealth. But he did not sit on any committees with direct jurisdiction over the islands.

Parke could not say how Sweeney came to the chamber's attention. Carlson said Sweeney was invited because of his experience as state labor commissioner under Gov. George Pataki, a post Sweeney held from January 1995 to June 1997. She insisted Abramoff did not set up Sweeney's trip or recommend him to the chamber.

On Jan. 4, 2001, Abramoff wrote to then-CNMI Gov. Pedro P. Tenorio seeking the renewal of his lucrative lobbying contract with the commonwealth. At the time, Abramoff had switched firms and Tenorio was reportedly concerned about the growing costs of Abramoff's services. The lobbyist was charging the commonwealth $100,000 a month, plus costs and fees.

Four days later, on Jan. 8, 2001, the Saipan Tribune reported Sweeney would make a trip to the islands that weekend. The newspaper is published by the Tan Holdings Group, whose president, garment industry mogul Willie Tan, was also an Abramoff associate.

According to the Tribune story, Sweeney would be given "an opportunity to brief with local business and CNMI leaders, as well as enjoy some of the island's visitor attractions." Saipan has a number of resorts and golf courses.

On Jan. 15, 2001, the Tribune reported Sweeney had indicated in his speech that the CNMI needed to continue efforts to combat its poor image back in the states.

"The reputation of the commonwealth is not really what ought to be," Sweeney said. "I come (sic) here and found that the truth projected to me in Washington was not the truth at all."

Carlson said CNMI officials had "concerns about sweatshops" and wanted Sweeney to advise them on potential reforms. She said the congressman made some recommendations and suggested he could help if his suggestions were put in place, but the CNMI government never followed up.

"The congressman always believes that firsthand experience is preferable to hearing something from a second source," she said.

The CNMI, a chain of 14 islands northeast of Guam, is exempt from federal immigration and wage laws -- a status critics say has fostered sweatshops, trafficking in women and prostitution.

Over the years, at Abramoff's urging and with the support of the islands' garment industry, GOP House leaders blocked legislation to federalize the CNMI's immigration and wage laws and stop the islands from producing clothes stamped "Made in U.S.A."

Abramoff also worked to secure federal money for the islands.

Sweeney was quoted in the Saipan Tribune on Jan. 15 as saying reports of poor working conditions in the CNMI were overblown, and that he had seen worse sweatshops back home in New York. Carlson said Sweeney was "absolutely not" aware of any severe mistreatment of workers or forced prostitution before he made these comments.

U.S. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., a longtime champion of legislation to change CNMI wage and immigration laws, traveled to the islands in 1998 on a fact-finding mission to document abuses there.

Problems were obvious "unless you choose not to look at the facts on the ground," Miller said, adding: "A blind pig could run into the human rights violations and the exploitation of workers on the islands."

Miller said he met women "forced into the sex trade, " workers living in barracks behind barbed wire and others who "wanted us to find someone to buy their kidney so they could go home, because they were trapped."

Several months after his trip, on April 6, 2001, Sweeney accepted a $1,000 campaign contribution from Abramoff's law firm, Greenberg Traurig. The firm made no more contributions to Sweeney until August 2004 -- about five months after Abramoff departed.

Partners and lobbyists at the firm where Rudy worked after leaving Greenberg Traurig in 2002, the Alexander Strategy Group, and others associated with them gave Sweeney at least $8,850 in campaign aid in 2005. The Alexander Strategy Group closed in January.

Within months of returning from the CNMI, Sweeney met separately with Marianas Gov. Fitial and Rudy in Washington. Rudy also met with members of Sweeney's staff.

The Tribune reported Fitial had meetings with Sweeney and his fellow Appropriations Committee member, Doolittle, in Washington on April 8, 2001, to discuss the islands' infrastructure and development needs.

"I am very glad that the CNMI has friends in such powerful positions," Fitial told the paper. "Whether the issue is construction funding or Compact impact assistance, the Appropriations Committee will make the important decisions, and I am confident we will receive a fair hearing because of our friends that serve on that committee."

Sweeney said he could not recall any appropriations being discussed.

Gillibrand Ad

See it here

Seems that some people still haven't seen the latest Gillibrand ad. In case you missed it, oh yes, she does use the frat party pictures. (But those people don't live in the district, so who cares?) To Rs who think this is an unfair use of the FPPs, if Sweeney didn't want to have pictures like this come up in this race, then he should learn to "just say no" to frat parties and wine.

Today's News

According to Congressional Quarterly, the race is no longer "leaning Republican" read about it here.

Slow upstate economy weakens Sweeney, listen in online. Which is interesting since I've always thought that Sweeney's opposition to the dredging was stupid for economic reasons. The dredging project will pour millions into one of the districts most rural counties. When the work is done, property values along the hudson will rise and more people will visit the area bringing more money to Main Street towns along both sides of the river.

The Sweenster

News Rounds

Check out the Times Union Story about the Democratic Resurgence in Saratoga County.

Capital News 9 covered the race again yesterday:

With just weeks until Election Day, the race for the 20th Congressional seat is heating up.

Republican incumbent John Sweeney is up against Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand.

Recently the Iraq situation has become the most contentious issue in this hard-fought race. Gillibrand says Congressman Sweeney supports military action as a necessary evil to keep our nation safe. But his opponent says the U.S. needs a change in direction in the battle against terrorism.

Gillibrand said, "No issue is more clear than the war in Iraq. The congressman has a 100 percent voting record with the president, and when we send our men and women in the armed forces into battle, we need Congress-people who are going to ask the right questions." ... (link)

The Post Star covered the difference between Sweeney and Gillibrand on Health Care.

Gillibrand Calling on Sweeney

John Sweeney decided that his latest excuse for going back on his word to debate Gillibrand after Labor Day would be that she hasn't released her tax returns, even though she's not required to and she has released all the information she has to as a candidate.

After the latest Gillibrand press release, Sweeny might understand a little better that thing about people who live in glass houses not throwing stones. Gillibrand isn't using Sweeney's non-release as an excuse to run away from standing up and debating him in front of the voters. She's obviously not worried about a run in with "Congressman Kickass." If Sweeney is so sure he's going to win, and he's so confident of his poll numbers, then why won't he agree to the debates?

Given Sweeney's little lights out crash and his recent frat house Friday, it looks like Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Foley should be going to rehab together.

Anyhow, release the news hounds:

Gillibrand Calls Upon Sweeney to Release Police Reports

Hudson NY - Kirsten Gillibrand, Democratic Congressional Candidate in NY-20 called on John Sweeney release the full police reports relating to his arrests and drinking and driving incident.

The letter follows.

October 10th, 2006

Congressman John Sweeney Sweeney for Congress P.O. Box 1465 Clifton Park, NY 12065

Dear Mr. Sweeney:

I am writing today to call upon you to release the full police reports relating to your arrests and drinking and driving incident.

As you know, you have been arrested at least twice, once in 1978 for driving while intoxicated (DWI) and once in 1977 for pulling a fire alarm. In addition, in 2001 you admitted that you had been in a serious car accident after drinking in a bar. Voters have heard your versions of these unfortunate events - now it is time for the whole truth to come out.

In addition to releasing any and all records related to these known events, I would also urge you to release any and all records related to other run-ins with the law you may be hiding from voters.

Sadly, given the fact that you tried to cover up your 2001 drinking and driving accident, there is every reason for voters to believe that you may be hiding other incidents from them.

Your decision to release any and all records related to your arrests and other incidents with law enforcement will send an important signal about your willingness to come clean with voters. Failure to do so will send the message that you have something to hide. Now more than ever, voters need to be assured that their member of Congress is not involved in any sort of legal cover up or is above the law in any way.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Kirsten Gillibrand

Must be some kind of 'out-of-touch' joke

Our representative in Washington shows just how clueless he is:

"'If you have a portfolio that has North Korean interests in it, divesting from those interests would send a very strong message and would have a huge impact,' urged Sweeney."

Here's a hint:There is virtually no western investment in North Korea. Divestiture would mean nothing, if it were to exist at all.

The problem is directly due to Bush's miring us down in Iraq. We have zero deterrent power left. Our army is ground to nothing, and we are broke. Thanks, Congressman Kickass, for getting the sorcerer's apprentice into office. You clown.

Because if it isn't a joke, the joke is on us.

Op-Ed on Energy

In reply to yesterday's Poughkeepsie Journal Op-Ed about Global Warming and NY's 20th District Race, people should check out the differences between Gillibrand and Sweeney when it comes to energy policy and fuel standards. The Post Star ran an issue feature on this subject on October 1st in which Gillibrand said:

Energy independence is our nation's greatest challenge and opportunity; and must become a national security priority.

A new energy policy will invigorate our economy, promote conservation and improve our national security by decreasing our dependence on foreign oil.

Targeting federal investments in alternative energies -- such as biofuels, solar, wind, hydropower and fuel cells -- and offering incentives for consumers and producers to choose to adopt new technologies is a necessary first step. Providing national leadership to bring in private investment will strengthen our farming and manufacturing base by driving investment in alternative technologies and new products and creating new jobs in this region. Today, we have the technology to develop a full range of 60-mpg cars. And locally, our farmers could be harvesting more switchgrass and corn to produce ethanol.

But making these advancements more widespread takes a national commitment.

As for the price of gas today; I will not go to Washington and support billions in subsidies for big oil corporations while gas prices surge.

Our goal as a nation must be to pursue real energy solutions and better promote public/private sector partnerships to leverage the strength of our nation's research and manufacturing base.

In my opinion, Gillibrand's energy policy is a win-win. Democrats like Gillibrand realize it is important that we talk about energy issues in a way that makes sense to people in our district. Farmers here need lower gas prices, higher fuel standards will help their bottom line, they need new sources of income.

Yes, these things will bring economic benefits, they will also reduce Global Warming.

Compare Gillibrand and Sweeney on this for yourself by reading the Post Star's article.

Sweeney's energy "policy" is laden with excuses about why fuel economy standards can't be raised within 10 years beyond what he supports (just 33 mpg).

Gillibrand knows that if we could put a man on the moon in 10 years, we can reach a 60-mpg standard in the same time.

Sweeney cites an increase in the cost of cars as an excuse, but if you think about how much less fuel would cost at 60 mpg, the number he cites is nothing. Besides, ten years down the road the cost of gas might be $5 a gallon for all we know. Gillibrand's policy will put more energy money in people's pockets. Sweeney literally can't see the forest for the trees. Where there is a will there is a way.

Every obstacle Sweeney throws out to prevent real change will be overcome if we get American ingenuity at work. The way to start that is to hire Kirsten Gillibrand on November 7th.

If you think Gillibrand is better for our district, weigh in with the Poughkeepsie Journal by sending a letter to the editor.

Recent 20th News

If you missed Kirsten Gillibrand on Capital News 9, see it here.

WNYT13 covered Gillibrand's Comments on the Foley Scandal. No word if Sweeney will be returning the $12,000 he got when he teamed up for Foley's PROM fundraiser.

The TUBlog has a PDF copy of Sweeney's desperado letter to his supporters begging them to send letters to the editor attacking Kirsten Gillibrand (link). Since Sweeney's Spinner always says "What's good for the goose is good for the gander," she'll agreee that Gillibrand's grass roots supporters should use the list of media contacts in the PDF, go to Gillibrand's Issues Overview and write a letter to the editor about why they are supporting Gillibrand.

Sweeney's letter says his campaign doesn't have the resources he needs. Pfffffffff, good one!

Laura Bush was just here, Sweeney's got another fundraiser coming up in the city with Michael Bloomberg, Rudy, McCain were here also but Sweeney doesn't have the resources. He's either telling tales again, or he is very bad at managing money.

Editorial in Today's Post Star

In my view, Sweeney's change of heart on the debate shows that Sweeney supports debate only if he is sure he's going to win the election. He's scared to debate because he can't defend his record and he knows that Gillibrand's ideas resonate with voters. Sweeney debated Doris Kelley in 2004, the woman who had just $25,000 and was far behind in the polls. So why won't he debate now? Wouldn't a real "Congressman Kickass" be looking forward to at least three debates once again? Here's what the Post Star says today:

One issue shouldn't kill debate

Our view: Sweeney can use forum to confront Gillibrand on tax issue.

What next, his dog ate his homework? First, Congressman John Sweeney said he wouldn't debate his Democratic opponent, Kirsten Gillibrand, because he wanted to wait until the Democratic primary to determine who the party's representative would be. But the other candidate dropped out, giving Gillibrand the ballot line. Debate on, right? Not so fast. The congressman then said he wouldn't debate until after Labor Day. Well, it's after Labor Day. Debate on, right? Not so fast. The congressman's goodie bag of excuses isn't empty yet. On Thursday, he informed the citizens of the 20th Congressional District through a spokeswoman (as usual) that now he wouldn't debate until Ms. Gillibrand released her tax returns. What will he come up with next? Title 1 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 has long required that House members and candidates submit a financial disclosure form, and the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct administers them. The reports contain all the necessary financial information the law requires for a fair and open election. Information that would be on a tax return is included in that report, but the whole return isn't required to be disclosed. And if the federal ethics watchdogs don't demand tax returns, why is the congressman making such a big deal out of it? He didn't raise it during any of his other campaigns. The congressman says it's necessary to make sure his opponent paid Social Security taxes on her child-care provider before there can be a serious debate on the issue of Social Security. Ms. Gillibrand says she paid the taxes. We're sure a lot of people want to know why Ms. Gillibrand won't release her tax returns. We're curious ourselves. In fact, we've asked her, and she won't say. At a public debate, the congressman or audience members could put her on the spot with a direct question about the tax returns and the Social Security issue, and the voters would be right there to hear her justification. Wouldn't that be a better solution for the voters -- and for Mr. Sweeney, come to think of it -- than having it appear as if he's found yet another excuse not to participate in debates? The problem with making one issue a condition for debating is, how far do you take it? If Mr. Sweeney could demand her tax returns as relevant to the election, why not her bank statements or credit card bills? Maybe she paid her New York City property tax bill with her Visa card. Or maybe her ATM receipts will show she paid her nanny in cash. When does it stop? This isn't the first time the congressman has looked for ways to weasel out of the debate process. In fact, he's been doing it right from the start. In 1998, when he first sought the office, he backed out of a League of Women Voters debate with his three Republican primary opponents, saying he feared he would be subject to "slanderous personal attacks, name-calling and mudslinging." And in the general election, he demanded that his Democratic opponent, Jean Bordewich, sign a "civility pledge" as a condition of debating. The pledge promised that candidates would be "100 percent positive," "100 percent on the issues," and refuse to participate in personal attacks" on their opponents by "character assassination or innuendo." Curious he's not demanding a civility pledge this year. Eventually, they reached an agreement and debated three times. And you know what? The debates were good. They were informative. They were combative at times, but in a good way. They showed the candidates' personalities and revealed their ability to discuss matters of importance. And the voters benefited from seeing the candidates together talking about the issues. Since then, the congressman has participated in several debates against his opponents, including debates hosted by this newspaper. What Mr. Sweeney is forgetting in employing his no-debate re-election strategy is the very people responsible for giving him his job and paying his $162,200 annual salary -- the voters. It's not too much to ask that every two years, these voters get to hear from the candidates who wish to represent them. The citizens certainly deserve to see their candidates in action, hear them defend and promote their positions, listen to the criticism of their opposition and watch how they each respond. By linking his participation in the debates to one issue, the congressman is depriving those voters of that opportunity. Our invitation is still open. Thursday, Oct. 26. at 7 p.m. in Heritage Hall in Glens Falls. Your opponent says she'll be there, Mr. Sweeney. Will you?

Blog Round Up

John Sweeney was on board with Mark Foley's "PROM" ( Physicians to Retain Our Majority) fundraising. Read about it at least twice at the TUblog.

Dave Lucas wonders if Mark Foley will drag Sweeney down.

Albany Eye says: "Thank God we have a congressman who believes in traditional values. I'd much rather have Sweeney drinking with teenagers than sending them creepy instant messages, wouldn't you?

It has something to do with the Gov. race, but Spitzerblog asks if Eliot Spitzer shoul have prosecuted John Sweeney. (It's over Sweeney's Congressional/Lobbyist Winter Weekend scandal. There's still time for that we hope).

Congressman Scaredy Cat

John Sweeney promised he'd debate Kirsten GIllibrand after the Democratic Primary, when there was no primary, he said he'd debate after labor day. Now that Labor Day has come and gone, he has a new hurdle to overcome before he's willing to stand before the voters and debate his challanger. Sweeney is a man who can't keep his word. He's acting like a coward instead of like a professional incumbent who is willing to do the right thing for the voters of his district. The Post Star offered to host a debate on October 26th in Glens Falls, Gillibrand said she'd attend, but Sweeney won't participate.

Shame on you once again Mr. Sweeney.

From Today's Post Star, by Maury Thompson

Sweeney offers debate demand Kirsten Gillibrand asked to release tax forms before he'll participate

U.S. Rep. John Sweeney is insisting his Democratic opponent release the past three years of her personal income tax returns as a condition for his participation in debates, the congressman's spokeswoman said Thursday. Sweeney, R-Clifton Park, wrote Thursday in a letter to Democratic candidate Kirsten Gillibrand, "I ask you, Kirsten Gillibrand, to release your taxes and reassure the voters that you have nothing to hide. Then we can immediately move forward and discuss the issues affecting the residents of the 20th Congressional District." Sweeney's campaign released a copy of the letter to The Post-Star. Asked by The Post-Star specifically if public disclosure of tax returns is a condition for debating, Sweeney spokeswoman Melissa Carlson said it is. "If she releases her taxes, he'll debate her," Carlson said. Gillibrand, in a telephone interview Thursday evening, said she will not release her tax returns. "This is another excuse for him in a long list" of reasons not to debate, she said. Gillibrand has been calling for debates since June. Initially, Sweeney's campaign said he would not debate until after a Democratic primary. Later, after Gillibrand's potential Democratic opponents dropped out the race, Sweeney's campaign said in a prepared statement Sweeney was willing to debate "after Labor Day" on "all issues of national importance." Gillibrand, on Thursday, reiterated she has disclosed all information candidates are required to release. "Voters know what kind of money I make and what kind of investments I have," she said. Sweeney, in his letter to Gillibrand, acknowledged candidates are not required to release tax returns, but said many do so voluntarily, as he did earlier this year. Releasing tax returns "assures the public we have no conflict of interest," he wrote. Gillibrand said if Sweeney is interested in public disclosure, he should disclose meetings he has with lobbyists and topics discussed, as she has done. Sweeney would not comment directly Thursday afternoon because he was feeling ill, Carlson said. He also would not take questions from reporters Wednesday evening at a campaign fundraising reception in Saratoga Springs with first lady Laura Bush. Sweeney had to leave immediately after the event to attend a private meeting, Carlson said. The Sweeney campaign initially called for Gillibrand to release her federal and state tax returns early last month, and the campaign has been airing television commercials criticizing her for not doing so. Carlson said Gillibrand's tax returns would show if the family paid New York City resident income taxes, and if the family reported expenses for child care. Carlson said she was not making accusations of impropriety. By releasing her tax returns, Gillibrand would clear up any questions, Carlson said. Gillibrand said she has nothing to hide, but will not release her tax returns. "I complied with the letter of the law," she said. Gillibrand previously released a statement from the family's former landlord, documenting she and her husband no longer live in New York City, said Allison Price, a spokeswoman for the Democratic candidate. Gillibrand has several day-care providers and baby sitters, all of whom are compensated appropriately, Price said. "If their question is now about the baby sitter, that's ridiculous," she said. Post-Star Managing Editor Ken Tingley said the newspaper has formally invited both candidates to participate in a one-on-one debate to be held Oct. 26 at Heritage Hall in Glens Falls Civic Center. Gillibrand has already agreed to participate in the forum, but Sweeney hasn't yet said whether he will attend. "We've been hosting political debates for the last several years to allow voters to hear directly from the people seeking their support," Tingley said. "We think it's been a valuable service for both voters and candidates, and we hope the congressman reconsiders." (link)

Money Trail

John Sweeney and Bob Ney (who recently pled guilty in federal corruption charges) are both active supporters of Heather Wilson's campaign for congress. Bush is quoted as saying, "Send Heather Wilson back to congress." Visit Wilson Watch for more on her record.

Sweeney's campaign gave $1,000 to Wilson, and Sweeney's PAC "United in Freedom" gave her $2,000. Ney's PAC gave $5,000 for Wilson's campaign.

Other donations from Sweeney's PAC in this election cycle include:

• a big donation to his fellow endangered conservative Republican colleague, Senator Rick Santorum. Santorum is with Sweeney on CREW's list of the top 20 corrupt members of congress. Santorum made headlines when he blamed Boston for the pedophile priest scandal (nevermind that it happened across the country). Now that the Foley scandal is out, Boston is saying, "Back at you Santorum."

• Mac Collins, who Bush campaigned for recently.

• Rick O'Donnell, the GOP candidate who wrote a 1995 article titled "For Freedom's Sake, Eliminate Social Security," in which he wrote "it is time to slay the largest government 'entitlement' program of all, Social Security."

• Peter Roskam was involved in a campaign fund-raising scheme where those "who dared vote against the measure [he supported] would be cut off from typical GOP fund-raising sources" while he "hit up fellow trial lawyers for campaign cash, telling them they wouldn’t vote for tort reform." In other words selling votes for cash. (source)

Should we believe all the mailers that say Sweeney is independent moderate working class boy? No, we should look at the money trail and realize that Sweeney is a part of the problem in Washington.

Gillibrand and Spitzer

Check out David Doonan's photos of Kirsten Gillibrand with Eliot Spitzer in Fort Edward recently.

Sweeney's at it again

The Troy Polloi has forwarded emails up and reports on another Sweeney Campaign screw up. People who don't understand ethics really have to be fired on Nov. 7th:

The Sweeney Campaign is using County Computers to campaign and raise money. According to our Corp. Counsel, that's against the law. However, as we've already learned, around here, laws are merely suggestions, to be followed or ignored at the discretion of our public officials. ...

We're sure that Sweeney updates are positively riveting reads. Still, he shouldn't be using public property to campaign and raise money. Please, stop abusing our property, Congressman Sweeney. You should not be campaigning via our computer system. For a guy who writes laws you sure have trouble following them.

Will the County call on Sweeney to stop sending e-mails or will the abuse continue?

It's not you Pickles

It is pretty funny how George W. Bush can't campaign to help his party since endangered Republicans like John Sweeney don't want to be connected to his failed policies in Iraq and his divisive stances. These policies that Sweeney votes for and continues to support. Of course Karl Rove has the solution to that problem - send Laura instead.

The First Lady is coming because her husband is desperate to keep a majority in congress, as long as there are no checks and balances, Bush can keep up his failed policies that deliver wars with no end in sight.

While we're on the subject of Bush and his unlimited control - am I the only who has become suspicious of how right before the 2004 presidential election and right before the current mid-term elections that gas prices took a little dip on the scales?

From the Post Star.

FIRST LADY TO VISIT

First lady Laura Bush will attend a fundraiser for U.S. Rep. John Sweeney at the Hall of Springs in Saratoga Spa State Park at 5 p.m. today. Groups protesting the fundraiser will gather at the Hall of Springs at 3:30 p.m.

SARATOGA SPRINGS -- First lady Laura Bush will have a busy day today helping out Republican congressmen who are hoping to keep their seats on Election Day.

Bush will appear at a breakfast fundraiser for U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa.; at a lunch fundraiser for U.S. Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-Clarence (near Rochester); and at a dinner fundraiser for U.S. Rep. John Sweeney, R-Clifton Park....

Mrs. Bush will deliver remarks at a reception for Sweeney at the Hall of Springs in Saratoga Spa State Park at 5 p.m. Before leaving the area, Bush will also pose for photographs with those who donate $10,000....

City Mayor Valerie Keehn, a Democrat, said the first lady is a good spokesperson to lead, for example, education efforts. Keehn said she thought Bush's visit was an indication that Republicans are worried about losing New York's 20th Congressional District seat to Democratic challenger Kirsten Gillibrand....

Some groups will be excited to voice their displeasure at the current state of America to the first lady.

Groups planning to protest the fundraiser include the Public Employees Federation, MoveOn.org, Women Against War, Upper Hudson Peace Action, Veterans for Peace and the Solidarity Committee of the Capital District.

Protest organizer Jodi Ackerman said the groups will not protest the first lady's visit, but Sweeney's support of President Bush's policies concerning Iraq, the environment, health care and Social Security.

"This is not about Laura Bush; it's about George Bush," Ackerman said....

The last sitting first lady to visit Saratoga Springs was Hillary Clinton in 2000.

"An error in translation" - ha! That's a good one.

What translation? Was Sweeney's campaign staff speaking in tounges the other day? Translating English speech into English writing isn't too hard as even people as clueless as Maureen Mc-Spin-cycle-pants should know (sort of like how Sweeney understands paying people back for their dough-nations).

This recent story reveals a lot of how totally inept Sweeney and his staff are. First they accuse Gillibrand of something Sweeney's actually doing. When they get caught red handed and reality interrupts their spin cycle, then they accuse the reporter of being wrong. Like Bush, who thinks he's never the problem, it's those meanies in the press. Everything in Iraq is coming up roses and there is no need for a new direction, the only problem is that our goofy reporters just can't get the facts right.

The sad part is that the reporters haven't yet realized that they should check to see if what Sweeney is spinning is something that in truth applies to Sweeney and not Gillibrand BEFORE they publish the Sween-ified "reality" for the rest of us to read. I'm just saying, t'wuld be nice... if they mei-bee could just do a lil' fact checkin before they go hittin thar "publish" bootun. (Like my new Irish accent?)

Sweeney official admits 'error'

By TIM O'BRIEN, Times Union First published: Thursday, September 28, 2006

Correction: The main headline and summary headline on this story stated that Maureen O'Brien Donovan, spokeswoman for U.S. Rep. John Sweeney, R-Clifton Park, admitted to an erroneous claim. Donovan was quoted a day earlier as saying that Sweeney's Democratic opponent, Kirsten Gillibrand, had made ``hundreds of thousands of dollars'' in campaign donations and "bought her way into'' politics with them.

In fact, Gillibrand has made less than $50,000 in donations to political committees since 1996.

Donovan in Thursday's story is quoted as saying, "it was an error.'' She added: "I don't know if I said it or it was an error in translation.''

Donovan now states that she never admitted to any error, as the headline and first paragraph of the story stated. Rather, she believes that the reporter transcribed her remarks incorrectly. The reporter believes he accurately quoted Donovan in the story.

Earlier versions of the subhead, which stated that Donovan retracted the remark, was incorrect. She did not.

Donovan also asserts that Sweeney gave $44,000 to other candidates. Federal records show Sweeney, using his campaign committee, has actually donated more than $286,000, most of it to the National Republican Congressional Committee, which supports individual GOP candidates. Gillibrand's contributions also include funds given to party committees.

U.S. Rep. John Sweeney's spokeswoman conceded Wednesday she erred in describing how much money Kirsten Gillibrand has donated to political candidates.

In fact, Sweeney -- through his campaign committee -- has given hundreds of thousands of dollars -- not his opponent as Sweeney's campaign had claimed.

Responding to the news that Sen. Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat, would appear at a fundraiser for Gillibrand, Maureen O'Brien told the Times Union Tuesday: "Kirsten Gillibrand has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates across the country. She's bought her way into the system, and they are clearly paying her back."

Gillibrand spokeswoman Allison Price said Donovan lied; Donovan said it was a mistake.

According to Federal Election Commission reports, Gillibrand has donated $33,425 since 1996.

The FEC shows that Sweeney has given $286,296, with most of the money going to the National Republican Congressional Committee. The money came not from Sweeney as an individual, but from his congressional committee, Sweeney for Congress.

State Board of Elections records show Gillibrand donated $14,880 to statewide political races. Sweeney for Congress donated $39,705.

"If you voted for George Bush 100 percent of the time on Iraq and were just named one of the most corrupt members of Congress by a bipartisan group, you'd have to lie to get re-elected too," Price said.

Sweeney was named one of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. While the group contends it is bipartisan, all but three of the top 20 were Republicans and its executive director, Melanie Sloan, worked for both U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, and U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Donovan admitted Wednesday the number was too high.

"Tens of thousands; it was an error," she said. "I don't know if I said it or it was an error in translation."

Donovan tried to draw a distinction between individual donations and ones from Sweeney's campaign committee.

"It is not a personal contribution. It is his committee giving money to other candidates," she said.

Price said Gillibrand has especially focused on trying to involve more women in politics.

"Kirsten has been active in helping and supporting women who run for office," she said.

Other news in the 20th

Newsday cites the race in today's For Dems, New York a state of opportunity.

Several other GOP incumbents are in competitive races, according to nonpartisan political analysts. Among those are: Sue Kelly of Westchester, John Sweeney of Clifton Park, James Walsh of Syracuse and Randy Kuhl of Hammondsport.

NYS election dynamics are going to be a big factor in the Gillibrand/Sweeney race. The state's GOP party is in a shambles, Rs are angry with Bush, and the NY GOP has no one on the ticket for Republicans to come out and vote for. The primary races here had GOP voters turn out to vote in a record low of just 5.6%.

Gillibrand has Sweeney on the rails over his latest attack piece. It looks like one of the many things Sweeney has learned from his great pal George W. is to ignore the truth whenever it doesn't support your personal pretended reality. Sweeney went to law school, let's see if he can tell us since when does a special counsel have control over the management of funds in a government agency?

Fact Check: Sweeney’s Latest Attack on Gillibrand’s Record with HUD

Sweeney has repeatedly refused to run on his eight-year record as a Congressman; instead, he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on attacking his opponent and her family, lying and breaking the law.

The Facts on Gillibrand’s Tenure with HUD:

Gillibrand worked at HUD between May 2000 and January 2001 as Special Counsel to HUD Secretary, Andrew Cuomo.

While at HUD, Kirsten worked on a piece of legislation called America's Private Investment Companies (APIC) developed to help distressed communities. President Clinton said APIC “will help revitalize communities so that they can take advantage of the strength of the economy and help those left behind in our economic boom.” (Clinton remarks, 10/20/1999).

She also worked on the enforcement of the Davis-Bacon Act.

Yet, the Sweeney ad makes at least two patently false accusations about her public service at HUD. The “facts” the ad cites have nothing to do with Gillibrand.

The advertisement states that Gillibrand played a role in the Erie Canal Corridor Initiative; however, this initiative was started in 1997 and transferred to Governor Pataki’s control in 2000.

Kirsten was not at the agency during the creation of this initiative and she never worked on or managed the project.

The advertisement also claims that Gillibrand was responsible for the mismanagement of funds at HUD in 1999. Kirsten was not part of the agency during this time period, nor did she have any control over funds within the agency.

What did Sweeney know about Foley?

According to the NY Times GOP leaders have been ignoring Foley's inappropriate harassment of teenagers for years. Republican leaders even allowed Foley to co-chair the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.

“Anyone who was involved in the chain of information should come forward and tell when they were told, what they were told and what they did with the information when they got it,” said Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York. Mr. King called it a “dark day” for Congress and said, “We need a full investigation.”

Representative Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut, said any leader who had been aware of Mr. Foley’s behavior and failed to take action should step down. “If they knew or should have known the extent of this problem, they should not serve in leadership,” Mr. Shays said. (link)

Down with Tyranny says:

...the even more endangered Chris Shays went even further, claiming that if Hastert, Shimcus, Reynolds, or Boehner were aware of Foley's behavior and failed to take action they should step down. "If they knew or should have known the extent of this problem, they should not serve in leadership." John Sweeney is running around yelling "me too, me too."

While the GOP leaders, clearly nervous about their jobs and possible criminal liabilities, call, meaninglessly, for a "criminal investigation" of Foley, the pressure for a non-partisan investigation into what exactly Hastert, Boehner, Reynolds and Shimcus knew, when they knew it and why they covered it up, is building powerfully.

I wonder if Sweeney's rush to call out a big "me too" on this is because he also knew what was going on? House Leader Reynolds seems to have known about the emails.

Reynolds chairs the NRCC which has been doing dirty work (like the push poll) for Sweeney in his campaign against Kirsten Gillibrand. He and Sweeney both "represent" districts in NY, and Sweeney's PAC helped raise funds for Reynolds.

A last but not least observation related to this story: Democracy in Albany says Sweeney's righteous stance on the Foley matter is a "change of heart" since Sweeney

was part the team that orchestrated the Northern Mariana Island mess where young women were sold into sex slavery.

Sweeney votes to give Bush more wartime powers

John Sweeney stood with the Bush administration once again when he voted to pass a bill that seeks to subvert the recent Supreme Court decision that rejected Bush's claim of wartime power.

The Washington Post reports that the Center for Constitutional Rights condemned the bill, saying it would "authorize the indefinite detention of non-citizens without access to courts -- even if they are not charged with any crime."

Democrats understand that to fight for freedom means you uphold the rule of law, you oppose torture and you ensure that the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution are both honored by our nation.

The bill "is really more about who we are as a people than it is about those who seek to harm us," said House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). "Defending America requires us to marshal the full range of our power: diplomatic and military, economic and moral. And when our moral standing is eroded, our international credibility is diminished as well." (Source, WP "House Approves Bill on Detainees")

If you really believe that freedom isn't free, it is time to fire John Sweeney and the pro-Bush Republican majority.

Freedom means that we fight those who oppose us using the rule of law. When we support those who support torture, when elect those who oppose fair trials, when we ignore the Geneva Conventions and the American Constitution - that is when Osoma bin Laden has won as far as I am concerned.

Sweeney voted to support discrimination with Foley

The Foley scandal brings to the surface another vote that reveals John Sweeney is a true neo-con who stands up for Bush's right wing agenda over 90% of the time.

Sweeney joined rep. Mark Foley and voted to pass the The Workforce Investment Act. The act writes discrimination into law. In a nation where we aspire to treat all citizens as free and equal, there is no room for people who support a bill that seeks to

...repeal workplace protections in job training programs signed into law by President Reagan and written by then-Senator Dan Quayle. Specifically, it would allow religious organizations, which receive federal funding to operate job training programs, to discriminate in employment based on religious grounds - including objections to an individual's sexual orientation.

House Democrats argued that the bill amounts to government-sanctioned discrimination. "This provision is offensive, ugly, wrong," said Rep. Jim McGovern, Massachusetts Democrat. "It is a slippery slope from here on out and I fear this is just the beginning." LGBT civil rights also decried the legislation which still needs Senate approval.

"Republicans are attempting to force taxpayers to pay for their own discrimination," said Eric Stern, Executive Director of National Stonewall Democrats. "No American should have to pass a religious test in order to receive a federally funded job. The valuable work of our religious institutions should not be corrupted by discriminatory policies advanced by Republicans."

The vote followed an "action alert" Tuesday by the conservative Family Research Council urging its members to contact their representatives to vote for the measure. "Organizations that oppose homosexuality and abortion often need extra protection when receiving federal aid or using federal facilities," said Tony Perkins, FRC President.

Among the Republicans who voted for passage of the legislation were Charlie Bass (NH), Judy Biggert (IL), Mary Bono (CA), Mark Foley (FL), Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ), Nancy Johnson (CT), Jim Kolbe (AZ), Jim Leach (AZ), Deborah Price (OH), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Joe Schwarz (MI) and John Sweeney (NY), all of whom received endorsements and financial support from national LGBT organizations last November.

Source: "Bill Allows Faith Based Groups To Discriminate Against Gay Workers" by Paul Johnson, March 3, 2005.

'Bout Time

Firedoglake says:

...CREW released it’s brand spanking new update on the 20 most corrupt members of Congress (plus 5 up-and-comers) ... CREW has included several Blue America targets, including Conrad Burns (MT), John Doolittle (CA), Dirty Dick Pombo (CA), Curt Weldon (PA), Don Sherwood (PA), Dennis Hastert (IL)– plus two examples of corruption run amuck who will be added to the Blue America target list in the next few weeks: John Sweeney (NY) and Marilyn Musgrave (CO)

Gillibrand's plan is best for soldiers

Gold Star Mom Kathy Brown says "I don't believe in the war, but I do believe in our soldiers..." well then she should vote for Gillibrand. Gillibrand will be there for our troops with every vote from day one, she's not going to wait to care until it is too late. Brown says

"We're there and we have a job to do. We have to finish it."

I agree with her. Here's what she should realize: Gillibrand is the one with a vision for how our troops can finish their job with success and honor. Under Sweeney and Bush our troops will never finish their work in Iraq which means they will never leave Iraq.

The TUBlog (I pronounce that tub-log (not tee you blog) if anyone wants to say it with me) has Gillibrand's new TV spot up, go check it out.

What is Sweeney's plan for Iraq? He has none. He still can't even bring himself to come to a debate on Iraq.

Related: See how Gillibrand honors veterans with support for GI Bill of Rights reforms.

WSJ notes

John Sweeney (R-NY) makes the Wall Street Journal, not in a good way.

New York Rep. John Sweeney has been re-elected three times with nearly 70% of the vote in his upstate, Republican district. Today, polls show the incumbent is barely over 50% against a Democratic opponent who isn't known to half the district's voters.

Among the reasons for Mr. Sweeney's erosion in support are controversies, such as trips with lobbyists and a fraternity party, that in another campaign season would have created just enough political baggage "to stow in the overhead bin" while cruising toward re-election, says Amy Walter, an analyst with the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. "You just can't get away with having that sort of baggage this year."

Politicians and pollsters say this year, widespread voter dissatisfaction with Congress has the electorate in a less forgiving mood. This campaign season also is marked by a number of close contests, making politicians vulnerable to charges of ethical lapses -- and raising the political stakes if the charges stick.

Melissa Carlson, Mr. Sweeney's deputy chief of staff, says the campaign was taken "off guard" by the sudden attention to the alleged controversies. But, she says, the congressman didn't violate any ethics rule and takes comfort in the fact that he still has a lead in the polls.

Ms. Carlson says Mr. Sweeney went to the fraternity party with a friend and "enjoyed his conversation" with the students.

I cannot believe they are still out there selling people this line. HAHAHAHAHAH! You sound utterly stupid Carlson, keep up the good work. Sweeney would have been better off admiting he made a mistake that night and just left it at that. As it is he looks like he is about as stubborn as his friend Bush, can't admit when he's wrong.

...This year's scandal outbreak flows from a confluence of factors. One is protracted one-party rule, which gives politicians more power to dole out favors and lobbyists more incentives to pay for them.

In New York, until this year, Mr. Sweeney was considered a rising star in the party who earned praise from President Bush for his role in defending the Bush-Cheney ticket during the 2000 Florida recount [see Conspiracy to Riot]. He showed an ability to attract conservative Democrats, and won the backing of the AFL-CIO in previous campaigns.

Earlier this year, pictures appeared on the Internet of the 51-year-old congressman socializing at a late-night college fraternity party. Mr. Sweeney also has had to defend his participation in two trips -- to Park City, Utah, and Lake Placid, N.Y. -- with lobbyists who later donated to his campaign.

Ahem, socializing is not what it looked like to me, unless by socializing you mean acting like a drunken Old School Fool, well then yeah, he was "socializing."

And actually most those lobbyists had already donated to his campaign in years past. The contributions to Sweeney's campaign from the guest list are here in our post back in May. In July, the Times Union had a story about the $30,000 that came in to him in the same election cycle from the list.

...in the wake of the flap over the Utah trip, Kirsten Gillibrand, a former Clinton administration official, opened her campaign against Mr. Sweeney by issuing an ethics "I.O.U." to voters. The AFL-CIO is backing Ms. Gillibrand.

The trip to Park City took place in January, when Mr. Abramoff was pleading guilty to three felonies and agreeing to help prosecutors probing political corruption. Asked about the trip in January, Mr. Sweeney said: "We all do it, in both parties. We all go fund raising out of state because we've tapped out resources in our districts."

Two New York state House investigations this year questioned whether it was appropriate for state agencies to help finance the Lake Placid trip. Ms. Carlson, of Mr. Sweeney's staff, says Democrats are using those investigations to stir suspicions that the trip was improper. "They are trying to tar everybody with that brush," she said.

It would be nice if the WSJ looked into Sweeney's role in drawing up the guest list. Well, just since according to testimony, he seems to be in violation of House Ethics rules. But no, they ended the story there. Maybe they are still researching. Or maybe it is just easier to go with the Carlson skew of reality.

The Corruption Connections Keep On Coming

Robert Novak's column on Sept 16th picks up another Sweeney corruption connection. John Sweeney's re-election consultant, Jim Dornan, has been questioned by the DOJ.

Jim Dornan, one of the former managers of Rep. Katherine Harris's beleaguered Republican Senate candidacy in Florida, has told associates he was startled by how aggressively the FBI questioned him Sept. 6.

Dornan was interrogated for an hour and a half by federal agents as part of their inquiry into Harris's political contributions from defense contractor Mitchell Wade, who has pleaded guilty to bribery in another case. Dornan described the FBI as pressing him hard about Harris.

Dornan, a lobbyist and fund-raiser, is currently consulting for Rep. John Sweeney's re-election campaign in upstate New York. He left the Harris campaign last November.

Pushing Rope says "Dornan was Harris's campaign manager when she accepted $32,000 in contributions from convicted lobbyist Mitchell Wade."

"The Justice and Defense departments are examining Harris' dealings with Mitchell Wade, who made illegal campaign contributions to Harris and later asked her to help secure $10-million in federal money for a company project." (St. Petersburg Times).

Mitchell Wade is a donor to JACK PAC which has given Sweeney $3000 to date. JACK PAC has issues of its own. According to the Washington Post, The "D.C. OFFICE of Campaign Finance is conducting an audit of a political action committee known as the D.C. Fund (formerly the "Jack PAC"), ...At issue is whether Mr. Evans, an announced candidate for council chairman next year, violated D.C. campaign finance law and regulations in the use of a political action committee's funds." (see "PAC or Piggy Bank" for more.) Sweeney took $1000 from JACK PAC after the investigation was reported.

Should Sweeney give this $3,000 back to Jack?

We're wondering if any of these connections are the reason for the Department of Justice Probe on Sweeney? Also in the news: Newsday had good coverage on the Congressional Winter Challenge Report, read it here. We ask: Now will the house investigate Sweeney on the issue of invitation list since his role seems to be in violation of House Ethics rules?

Recent links of interest

1. Just a little reminder to Mr. Sweeney, Labor Day has come and gone. When are the debates you promised? Gillibrand has invited John Sweeney to talk about the issues yet again.
2. Looks like Sweeney's latest attack ad isn't going over well in these parts. See: Sweeney confuses Challenger with Cheney.
3. Candidates in other races are starting to highlight the Northern Marianas Islands issue. This is another area where Sweeney's ethics are in question. See our earlier post for more information.

Sweeney's PAC, Helping New Cronies

The Political Wire reported that

Freshman PAC, a political action committee formed by Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY) "to provide donations for House GOP freshmen has quietly become one of the largest PACs in the country. . ."

"In addition to giving to the 24 current Republican freshmen, Ross said Freshmen PAC will aim to give to GOP challengers and open-seat candidates in the nation’s most competitive races."

Who are some of the people Sweeney's PAC supported?

• $5,000 to Katherine Harris
• $5,000 to Rep. John R. Kuhl Jr.
• $5,000 to Tom Reynold's TOMPAC
• $5,000 to Richard Pombo's RICH Political Action Committee
• $5,000 to Roy Blunt's Rely on Your Beliefs Fund

Katherine Harris "dined with defense contractor Mitchell Wade twice (one meal at Citronelle in Georgetown cost $2,800) and accepted $32,000 in contributions. That's the Mitchell Wade who was convicted of bribing California Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Like Cunningham, Harris tried to help Wade out, attempting to get an appropriation for $10 million to build a facility in her district." (source). She and Sweeney both have the honor of DOJ inquiries now. She is pictured above with Sweeney at the Freshman PAC fundraiser. Kuhl was included in a list of legislators who took illegal gifts from Philip Morris. (NY Times, source) He's one of the few members of Congress that Sweeney had join him at the Congressional Winter Challenge.

Tom Reynolds has taken "more lobbyist-funded luxury trips outside of western New York in the last three years than he has returned home to western New York." Jaunts to Pebble Beach, Calif., by Reynolds have totaled $205,185 over five years. (Washington Post)

Pombo's ethics problems are so rich, he has his own page at Clean Up Washington.org

Roy Blunt is listed as one of the 13 most corrupt members of congress. And when Sweeney tells us he's been an independent voice, let's take a look at what other groups this PAC has supported, each one gives 100% of its money to Republicans only:

• $20,000 to the NRCC
• $15,000 RNC
• $5,000 to the Keep Our Majority PAC
• $5,000 to Continuing a Majority Party Action Committee
• $5,000 American's Majority Trust
• $5,000 Promoting Republicans You Can Elect PAC
• $5,000 Prosperity Helps Inspire Liberty PAC
• $5,000 Republican Party of Texas
• $1,000 Majority in Congress PAC
• $1,000 to Bill Pac

And let's see how they've supported him in turn:

Keep Our Majority has given $12,000 to Sweeney since 1999, most of it coming in the 05-06 cycle. Rely on Your Beliefs Fund has given Sweeney $12,000 also.

Other Sweeney givers on the given to list include the NRCC, Continuing a Majority Party Action Committee, Majority in Cogress PAC, Promoting Republicans You Can Elect PAC, Prosperity Helps Inspire Liberty PAC, Bill PAC and the RNC.

We can see why Sweeney and his spinner's are trying to distance Sweeney from Freshman PAC, however, LobbyWatch makes it clear, this is Sweeney's Leadership PAC.

The New York Post quoted Sweeney on his role with the PAC "devoted to helping first-term GOPers" reporting that:

...Sweeney has overseen a $1.9 million telemarketing campaign in 2005 and doled out $78,000 for 24 rookie lawmakers.

Sweeney said his action committee provides an "opportunity to help other people, and it gives me credibility when I go them later and say, 'I need your help.' "

Sweeney's mind set is corrupt: give money to get favors. Sweeney's "leadership" PAC helps create a new generation of cronies.

See all of the Freshman PAC's gives at its FEC page here.

Just wondering

If the 20th race is not close then why is Laura Bush on her way here?

And why is Sweeney among 7 incumbents with a "real need for additional resources" according to an NRCC event invitation?

Bowling for Republicans

Republicans in Washington were urged to take time off work from 4 to 6 p.m. last Wednesday and go to the Lucky Strike Bowling Alley in an unusual fundraiser for seven GOP House members in need of late campaign money.

The National Republican Congressional Committee called the event BOMP (Bowling for Our Majority Program). The beneficiaries were Reps. Steve Chabot of Ohio, Thelma Drake of Virginia, Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, J.D. Hayworth of Arizona, Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado, John Sweeney of New York and Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania.

The solicitation for BOMP asserted that the seven incumbents "all have a real need for additional resources in the last couple of months before the election." (source)

Why the National Journal Is Wrong About Sweeney

The National Journal blog cites the poll by Sienna as proof that Sweeney is doing better than thought. Here's why they are wrong.

I heard from someone who got the poll at their house that the poll just queried whoever answered the phone, that means that it may have used a registered voter phone list, but it was not a poll of registered voters.

Additionally, likely voters are the only voters who matter in this election.

Here are at least 3 reasons I know of why registered Republicans in the 20th are planning on staying home Nov. 7th:

1. They are unhappy with Bush, the direction we are headed and Bush's war in Iraq. They no longer support the president and will not come out to keep his majority in congress. This is why Sweeney and endangered Republicans like him are fighting to convince voters that representing a District to the Federal Government is not a national office but is more like a town council seat.
2. They are unhappy with Sweeney's ongoing ethical challenges, his pro-pork record and votes that fail to reform earmarks, his legislation supporting lobbyist donors (see this Corruption Chronicles post), and don't get them started on his personal life...
3. NY's GOP failed to give them anyone to vote for at the state level. Spitzer and Clinton are shoe-ins. The attorney general's race was the only one they could have hoped to win and their candidate against Andrew Cuomo can't win. She spends her time looking for page 10 or saying "I wasn't in the car" or "Am I better than that? Absolutely not!"

The poll by Global Strategy is of likely voters. The questions are fair and straightforward. It shows Gillibrand within 8 points of Sweeney.

People who think that Gillibrand's campaign is not gaining ground on Sweeney are wrong. All polls in this race show that her name recognition and approval are both going up steadily since the first poll released. Gillibrand has the time, know how and resources to keep moving up to where she has to be to win between now and election day.

Rep. Sweeney still supports Bush's war

In today's Post Star, a moving letter to the editor:

Today, remembering the nearly 3,000 people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, I realized that within months the Americans dead in Iraq will exceed that number. That total doesn't even approach the more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians who have died in the terrible battleground their country has become. Most Americans now understand that President Bush's war has proved a colossal, tragic mistake, one with no end in sight.

But Congressman John Sweeney still doesn't understand. He has enthusiastically supported Mr. Bush's war and its ruin of our economy. He has followed the Republican Congress in cutting domestic programs and plunging our children's generation deep into debt, funneling billions to the war, while 47 million Americans have no health insurance. He has forced ordinary Americans to make sacrifices for Iraq, but he has rewarded corporations and the wealthy with tax breaks. The blunder in Iraq is not just Mr. Bush's but Mr. Sweeney's as well, and it hurts us all.

This November we can send new leaders to Washington to start reversing the damage. I'm supporting Kirsten Gillibrand, Mr. Sweeney's opponent in New York's 20th Congressional District. Gillibrand has the intelligence, the energy, the dedication, and the integrity to help start correcting the errors of Mr. Bush and Mr. Sweeney's regime. She will help restore our priorities, making America secure at home rather than despised and endangered abroad. By electing Kirsten Gillibrand to Congress, we can help take back our country.

JAY ROGOFF

Saratoga Springs

Grand Ole Promise Breakers

While Sweeney's post-Abramoff failed ethics reform efforts got him the headlines he wanted, the news today tells the real story. Sweeney and the GOP have no interest in changing business as usual in congress. There Republican Culture of Corruption is not reforming itself, they can't even pass reform that has been utterly watered down.

...even the scaled-back earmarks measure, which would require disclosure of special projects inserted, often furtively, into larger bills, is facing opposition.

Republicans on the Appropriations Committee, which puts together annual spending bills, have objected to being singled out for earmark reform and demand that any new rule also apply to tax and authorization bills.

Republicans on the committee held up passage of the lobbying bill last May over the same issue. ... (Washington Post Story)

Sweeney is on the appropriations committee.

This Sunday, a pastor told me, "I like change." I have to agree with him on that, let's change the house.

Our votes are not on sale

Why be bribed into voting for Sweeney? I say that any congress person can bring funding to the district for projects that are worthwhile. Sweeney is throwing money in the coffers of his campaign supporters, his NMMA luxury yacht bill and the Congressional Winter Challenge are just two of many cases in point.

The recent NY Times article states that

...Republican incumbents, in New York and elsewhere, have been trying to shift the focus of the races away from hostility toward the Bush administration to more local concerns, like the potential loss of federal aid to their districts if they lose veteran congressmen.

Let's not let our vote go to the wrong side over pork. Any congress person will fight for his or her district.

It is time to send someone to congress who will change where we are going. Another 2 years with Sweeney means another two years of Bush deciding to leave our troops in Iraq indefinitely. Two more years of Sweeney means 2 more years of an America were terrorism issues are used to divide us not to unite us and to make us more secure at home. (Related, have you seen KO's 9/11 commentary yet?)

If we give 2 years to Gillibrand, she will work to turn this nation around. She will give us a nation that sees value in investing in renewable energy to help local farmers, families and businesses. She doesn't spend vacation time with lobbyists. She will give us representation that keeps us safe at home and abroad. She will bring home the bacon for projects that are worthy of tax support not those that are given away to campaign donors.

Gillibrand is the right leader at the right time. Let's not squander our vote for fear of losing a little pork. Let's buck the system and let's bring our friends out to vote for the values that matter to us all as Americans. Let's fight against a system designed to protect incompetent incumbents, the story goes on...

— the incumbents in New York are benefiting from being in legislative districts drawn to keep the Republican incumbents in place. ...

[On the bright side!] Ms. Gillibrand, a lawyer, has been a strong fund-raiser, taking in nearly as much money as Mr. Sweeney. And she and her advisers have run a tenacious campaign, generating headlines by exploiting some of Mr. Sweeney’s actions, including a $2,000-a-person “Skiing With Sweeney” weekend getaway he organized that was attended by lobbyists at a resort in Park City, Utah. Mr. Sweeney [yawn, as usual] denied doing anything improper. ...

The Sweeney-Gillibrand race shows how Republicans have deliberately focused on local circumstances and personalities rather than on national issues, at a time when President Bush continues to show weakness in the polls around the country. ...

“In the abstract, this is not an obvious race,” she said. “But I have made the case from the beginning that this race is winnable because of the changing nature of our district, the voting record of John Sweeney and the strength of our campaign.” ...

Democrats say there is plenty of time for challengers to close any gaps. To that end, one prominent liberal group, MoveOn.org Political Action, is running advertisements attacking Mr. Sweeney and John R. Kuhl Jr., a first-term Republican from the Corning area, as part of a national campaign to help Democratic challengers who are in so-called second-tier races: contests that have the potential to become competitive but are not considered competitive yet.

The seats that the Democrats had identified as enticing targets include those held by Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Walsh, Sue Kelly of Westchester, and Mr. Boehlert. State Senator Raymond A. Meier, a Republican, and his Democratic opponent, Michael A. Arcuri, the Oneida County district attorney, are fighting for the seat that Mr. Boehlert is vacating. ,,,

Our local hero's efforts get laughed out of town by Whiskey Bar

Thusly :

"The Washington Post's Dana Milbank sneaks a peak at the legislative agenda in our GOP-controlled Chamber of People's Deputies:

Returning from a five-week summer vacation, GOP lawmakers have much to worry about: war in Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorism and border problems, high energy prices and health-care costs, and none of the federal government's annual spending bills enacted.

So what did House leaders decide to make the centerpiece of the week? H.R. 503: the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act . . . The debate -- lasting nearly four hours while horse lover Bo Derek watched from the gallery -- quickly degenerated into dueling expressions of equestrian love.

The scene reminds me of the old World War II joke about the worker in a defense plant who's asked what he's building. 'The front ends of horses,' he replies, 'to be shipped to Washington for final assembly.'

Kidding aside, though, it's stories like these that make me wonder: How much longer can this corrupt, idiotic excuse for a republic keep stumbling along on sheer inertia?"

More on Sweeney's boat give away

Actually, we first reported on Sweeney and the NMMA $ on June 1st, not in July. (Though we talked about it again in July when Sweeney started getting press for his introduction of the bill.)

One of the things that is funny about this story coming out in the national press this week, is that I handed the story on a platter to a local reporter back in June. During our conversation, the reporter asked if I'd be as upset if a Democrat accepted funding from a union and then introduced a bill that the union backed.

Gee, that wasn't the case, but anyway if a union backs something, it would probably cost corporations money - not tax payers. If would help working class people and not a special interest corporations, maybe I'd be supportive.

Sweeney's bill will cost tax payers not companies. And it won't work, it is just a give away to a campaign donor. But the reporter didn't cover the story then anyway.

The other pathetic part of this story, is how Sweeney tries to convince people that he came up with the idea for this legislation after a Lake George boating accident that ended in several deaths. Sweeney's spinner admits that boats require life vests but that boaters don't wear them. I've yet to understand how giving tax breaks to boat builders/campaign donors is going to change that. In a shamelessly indecent stunt, Sweeney used the anniversary of the accident to promote his tax give away. Even in Monday's story below, his spinner is still trying to tell us that the idea came from the Ethan Allen accident. I kid you not!

Sweeney's spinner also says that his office doesn't know what the bill will cost tax payers.

So now our "representative" just hands out blank USA Treasury checks to his donors without considering what effect it will have on our national budget?

Here's the Chicago Tribune story:

Waters grow choppy for lobby's perk to lawmakers

By Mike Dorning in the Chicago Tribune

September 4, 2006

WASHINGTON -- They called it the "Congressional Cruise Series," featuring lovely evenings on a luxury yacht complete with "two large staterooms ... a deluxe entertainment center and an airy comfortable salon." They billed it, unabashedly, as a way for lobbyists to develop relationships with influential politicians.

By all appearances, the National Marine Manufacturers Association's program of taking members of Congress and their staffs on cruises--and hosting fundraisers for lawmakers aboard the same boat--succeeded quite nicely.

The cruises have yielded photos of a congressman at the helm of the yacht and group shots of other lawmakers posed on the boat with their smiling aides, all posted on the association's Web site. At least one of those congressmen later proposed legislation that the association strongly favored.

Money long has lubricated Washington in myriad ways, from exotic travel to campaign contributions, from the subtle to the blunt. Even with the high-profile guilty plea of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, whose case brought to light breathtaking excesses, the wheels of Washington continue to turn. The cruises, at least, are in hiatus this summer because of what the association's lobbyist called the "poisoned" atmosphere.

Photographs, newsletters and lobbying reports on the Web site of the Chicago-based trade association for recreational boat manufacturers provide a window into one way special interests navigate the channels of influence in Washington.

There are images of Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) and members of his congressional staff posing on the yacht while the sun sets behind the Washington Monument. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) poses on the bow with several aides who are holding beverage containers.

In another photo, Rep. John Sweeney (R-N.Y.) is pictured at the helm during one of two fundraisers for his re-election campaign held on the yacht. The trade association donated the use of the boat, according to campaign finance records.

This May, Sweeney introduced legislation to give boat manufacturers a tax break for the cost of personal flotation devices and emergency beacons sold together with boats.

A spokeswoman for Sweeney said the trade group's hospitality and campaign contributions did not influence the congressman. She said that the tax break grew out of Sweeney's efforts to improve nautical safety after a boating disaster in his district last October.

Cruises beached

The cruises have been suspended this summer, a casualty of public sensitivity to privately financed luxury perks. Photos of lawmakers on yachts with lobbyists might not go down well in any campaign season but would seem particularly dicey this year.

For years, the National Marine Manufacturers Association asked one of its member manufacturers to lend the group's Washington lobbying office the use of a new yacht for the warm-weather months. The purpose was "to help our government relations staff develop relationships with key policy makers," the group's political action committee wrote in a report to members.

In 2004 and 2005, it was a 38-foot Meridian 381 Sedan that the trade association kept moored at a marina on the Potomac a few blocks from the Capitol. The cruises are emblematic of the Washington culture in which lobbyists use entertainment and gifts to curry favor with lawmakers and their staffs, said Ross Baker, a former congressional staff member and a Rutgers University political science professor who specializes in the study of Congress.

"Much of this is in the general area of buying access and goodwill for the lobbyist," Baker said. "When the lobbyist shows up at the office, a receptionist who has been part of this outing on the yacht recognizes the lobbyist and gets him in for a meeting with the chief of staff."

Profits in the boat industry are influenced by a wide array of federal activities, including Coast Guard regulations, fishing rules, endangered species protection, environmental standards and maintenance of federal waterways. A luxury tax imposed on the purchase of high-end boats during the early 1990s and later repealed dramatically reduced yacht sales.

Last summer, the trade association hosted more than 650 congressional aides aboard the yacht, according to a report written by the trade group's chief lobbyist, Monita Fontaine.

Beer, soft drinks and snacks typically were provided on the cruise, Fontaine said in an interview.

In a newsletter, the organization described the Potomac yacht trips, which it said ran from mid-June through early October, as a way for members to Congress "to reward their staffs, while at the same time allowing us to thank members for their support of the recreational boating industry."

The cruise series "is intensely popular and one of the most talked-about events on Capitol Hill," the newsletter added.

With the trade association required to make arrangements for a boat by late winter, shortly after the Abramoff scandal erupted and amid speculation that Congress would act to tighten gift rules, the group decided to suspend the cruise series this year, Fontaine said.

"The atmosphere was poisoned at that time, and we didn't have a clarification on what Congress would do with gift rules. Until we have that clarified, we will wait, to make sure everything is aboveboard," Fontaine said.

Fontaine said the trade association believes the yacht excursions meet congressional ethics rules, which forbid lawmakers and their staffs from accepting a gift worth $50 or more.

Fontaine said the trips were primarily to educate members of Congress and their staffs about boating issues. "One hour on the Potomac is worth 1,000 pieces of paper," she said. "It's a tremendous educational tool, because most people don't view things from out on the water."

Yacht was an edge

The trade group also used the yacht for fundraisers, boasting to its PAC contributors that the events gave candidates an edge in a city where fundraisers "tend to be carbon copies of the same old reception format."

Melissa Carlson, a spokeswoman for Sweeney, described the revenue raised from his yacht fundraisers as "modest." She said the 2004 fundraiser raised the congressman's campaign $4,150 and the event the following year raised $8,000.

The trade association also made a $4,000 cash contribution to Sweeney's current campaign.

"That had nothing to do with the [tax break] legislation," Carlson said.

Carlson said the congressman hoped that a tax deduction covering the cost of personal flotation devices would encourage boatmakers to furnish higher-quality, more-comfortable life jackets when delivering boats. Boats are required to carry life jackets, but passengers often do not wear them, she said.

Carlson said the office did not have an estimate on what the tax break would cost the federal treasury.

She said Sweeney became interested in the issue after the capsizing of the pleasure boat Ethan Allen drowned 20 people in Lake George last October. None of the victims was wearing a life jacket.

Other members of Congress whom the trade group's PAC hosted for fundraisers on the yacht included Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Reps. Ed Case (D-Hawaii), Sue Kelly (R-N.Y.), Jeff Miller (R-Fla.), Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.), Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.) and Don Sherwood (R-Pa.), according to trade association and federal campaign finance reports.

They just can't open their mouths without lying

Take Ol "Congressman Do-Over's recent attack ad against Gillibrand, for example starts like this:

The Washington group condemned for invoking Hitler, who called America warped by lies now attacks John Sweeney with ads so deceptive that stations refuse to run them

While the screen shows quotes from those bastions of mainstream American values like Rev Sung Jung Moon's Washington Times.

Five seconds of screen time, three or four lies:

• Moveon is indeed headquartered in Washington, but it is a national membership group with millions of members. Are we going to call the Red Cross a Washington group? This phrasing is deceptively, obviously and deliberately pandering to base anti-government emotions.
• Moveon was attacked by Moon's wackjob paper for invoking Hitler, but in fact they did not invoke Hitler. In a contest where people from around the country submitted their own advertisements on what to say about George Bush, one of the entries implied that Hitler's mass rallies were a precursor to the type of politics that we see now. Big deal. It'd be nice to imagine that our political culture is mature enough to examine ideas. But of course, that would only be imagination. Let's try to act like adults.
• "Warped by lies." Two examples: 1) Swift boat. 2) Iraq.
• Two local stations are not running the ads because they are deceptive, but because they are threatened with a lawsuit by Sweeney. The ads aren't deceptive at all. It's just plain bullying.

So, in short, we have a lying, bullying manchild in Congress, enjoying the perks of office -- trips to the Caribbean, Europe, ski trips with lobbyists -- without doing anything to help his district that is hemorrhaging jobs and population and losing hope for a decent future. Someone comes to town and talks government, and he decides to shout her down with lies and bullying. Is this representative of who we are?

Nearly eight years in office, and his campaign says nothing but tries to rile up people. Marvelous. Vote the bum out.

Hey, we were first?

From PoughkeepsieJournal.com - Sweeney takes heat over fundraising :

"Blog reported contributions

The PAC's campaign contributions were first reported in July in a liberal blog dubbed '20trueblue.' Use of the yacht was reported in the Poughkeepsie Journal on Aug. 27 and then in the Chicago Tribune on Monday, sparking discussion on several political blogs."

Nice work, Lisa.

With all due respect

To the dear Media,

It is possible to ignore the Republican re-election campaign focused on Stop Signs, Mortgage Papers and "Stalkers" and to write instead about real news. (Note: I'm not picking on the Times Union with those links because the Post Star has covered all or most of these stories also, it is just that the TUBlog is easier to link to.) What annoys me about the Post Star's complaints about the negativity of the race is that they encourage Sweeney to keep sending out his gooney press releases with their printed coverage of them.

For something completely different (compared to most of the coverage of the NY-20 race) here's an article outlining issues and the candidate's contrasting thoughts on Iraq.

From the Daily Freeman:

RHINEBECK - U.S. Rep. John Sweeney said on Wednesday that it's important to support President Bush's Iraq initiative because of long-term leverage the United States will need in the region, especially in dealing with Iran.

Kirsten Gillibrand, Sweeney's opponent in the upcoming election for New York's 20th Congressional District seat, responded that regional powers Russia and China - not the United States - should exert their leverage to ensure Iran does not become a nuclear threat.

Sweeney, speaking during a Wednesday morning news conference at Northern Dutchess Hospital in Rhinebeck, said Iran "is a threat, obviously - probably the pre-eminent threat now in the world - and we have to determine what gives us the best leverage with Iran, and that's the decision we have to make on how much further we go in Iraq and what we do.

"I think that we have to be very careful" in Iraq, the Clifton Park Republican said. "I think it is a critical time, and I think the Iraqis have to stand up."

Gillibrand, a Democrat from Greenport, called Sweeney "a rubber-stamp for the president's misguided policies" and said the responsibility for controlling Iran should fall to the powerful nations in that part of the world.

"Our next strategy should be to focus on working with China and Russia to exert their leverage in the region so that we can assure that there will not be an Iran with nuclear weapons," Gillibrand said. "I think that we haven't yet used our leverage over those two countries as effectively as we could."

Gillibrand said all sides involved in the current internal conflict in Iraq should be brought to the bargaining table for a discussion on ending the violence there.

She also said the Republican administration should be held accountable for invading Iraq on faulty intelligence - Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction that were Bush's basis for the war have yet to be found - and said whether the White House is guilty of "misleading" or "lying" to the American public is simply "a choice of words."

"We need to do (an) investigation ... to see if it was willful," she said.

"When you use the word 'lie,' it means that somebody willfully told a mistruth," Gillibrand said. "We don't know, and that's the question that Congress has been unwilling to ask, and that is the problem. What the Congress is supposed to do is provide accountability, and so what they should be doing is a full investigation."

Both houses of Congress have been in Republican hands for all but a few months of Bush's two terms, and Democrats hope Bush's low job approval rating will help them regain control of the House and Senate in this fall's midterm elections. ... (source)

Where is Sweeney going with his Iraq stance first he says he supports the president then that it is time for the Iraqis to stand up, his Iraq position is weak and unclear. It sounds like he wants to lay the foundation for backing off of the statements he made just the other day when Giulani was here when he was fully in support of the war.

I suppose one of the great things for Sweeney about not having a plan for Iraq is that you can just blow in the wind and say whatever people want to hear whenever you realize that they want to hear it.

Gillibrand's stance on Iraq has been consistent. She's seen what needs to be done since the beginning of her campaign.

Related Posts on Sweeney's Support for Bush and More of the Same in Iraq: Rudy and Sweeney Wearing Rose Colored Glasses (August 22nd) Sweeney Parrots Bush's Talking Points (June 23rd)

In case you don't get it...

The two problems with so-called minor ethical slips are 1) they turn into bigger ones sooner or later and 2) taxpayers don't appreciate it when our public monies are spent in support of views and people with whom we disagree. Those are some of the reasons why many of us are unhappy with Sweeney's "Congressional Winter Challenge" and his recent photo op at a city workplace. Here's an excellent editorial from The Saratogian on the latter:

The commissioner, Ron Kim, might have looked the other way were he a Republican, like Sweeney. But this should not be shrugged off as political sour grapes. Kim is raising a legitimate question whose answer should be heeded by all, regardless of political persuasion.

The city's code of ethics states that the city workplace and city employees should not be part of election campaigns or political events.

Sweeney's visit was inarguably both. ...

When candidates make the rounds for public employees' union endorsements, those meetings should be set up off-hours. If Gillibrand and her entourage attempted to make the same kind of appearance at the firehouse as Sweeney, would she be welcome? Would the Republicans balk? Public employees shouldn't put themselves in the position of picking and choosing politicians to showcase, especially while the employees are on duty. In fact, the fire alarm went off while they were there.

Sweeney's spokeswoman and John "Jasper" Nolan, the Saratoga County Republican chairman, would have been advised to clam up and let the Board of Ethics review the case, rather than releasing inflammatory statements bemoaning the Democrats for picking on a "hard working public servant," referring to the union chief.

This is not about the union chief. It's about policies, propriety and fairness.

It is appropriate for the Board of Ethics to review and clarify the rules for city property and city employees, no matter who they support for office.

(source)

BAE wants Sweeney in 06

Sweeney is the real war profiteer here. John Sweeney is claiming that Kirsten Gillibrand is not genuine in her call to change the direction we are going in Iraq because her husband's retirement plan included stock in BAE.

BAE is the Pentagon's seventh-largest supplier of tanks and armored vehicles so Sweeney claims that means Gillibrand is a "war profiteer." Guess what?

BAE's PAC donated $2,000 to Sweeney's 2006 campaign.

That campaign donation completely disproves Sweeney's claim. Since Sweeney can't debate Gillibrand on Iraq, he will resort to the chapter in Karl Rove's Re-election Rule Book titled: Twisted: Take a Fact and Make Stuff Up About it.

BAE supports Sweeney. BAE knows who will be keeping them in business - Congressman Do-over, John Sweeney. His pro-Bush votes for more of the same with no end in sight and no plan to exit is what they want this November. For more of Sweeney's war funders, see this post at Colin Neal's page at Daily Kos

Question of the day: Since being associated with BAE means that one is a "war-profiteer"