Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Novak's right: Racicot should go. An Enron lobbyist as RNC chair? Forget it!
novak via drudge ^ | Jan. 17, 02 | Novak

Posted on 01/17/2002 9:56:03 AM PST by laureldrive

Ethical knots tie up GOP

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Marc Racicot, the former governor of Montana, and his White House sponsors have solved more than half of their ethical problem. They belatedly abandoned the absurd idea of the Republican Party's national chairman simultaneously functioning as a registered federal lobbyist. But Racicot intends to stay on the lobbying firm's payroll while serving as a dollar-a-year ''volunteer'' for the Republican National Committee.

It is difficult to find any Republican outside the White House who endorses this arrangement. ''Would you let a volunteer run your office?'' asked a prominent Republican. State party chairmen want presidential political operative Karl Rove to re-examine a situation that they say never would be permitted in their own states.

Racicot, whose long career of public service in Montana was unblemished, is not at fault for appearing blind to ethics. During an interview in the national chairman's Capitol Hill office that he soon will occupy, he seemed a little bewildered. He deserved more guidance from President Bush's staff than a cavalier attitude toward conflicts of interest.

When asked by the president to be national chairman, Racicot told me, he accepted with the caveat that he would fulfill a two-year contract as a salaried lawyer-lobbyist for the Houston-based firm of Bracewell & Patterson. He currently is registered to lobby for six clients, including the bankrupt Enron Corp. White House sources had said he would register for new clients that both Racicot and the White House expected him to take on.

By last week, it was clear this would not stand. A White House meeting Monday determined that Racicot must forgo lobbying--and he did so Wednesday. ''I've gone through a re-examination,'' Racicot told me. ''Perhaps in my lack of exposure and with the speed in which we moved, I didn't dissect this as far as I should have.'' Once elected by the RNC this weekend in Austin, he said, he'll void his lobbyist registrations.

But what, then, will he do for Bracewell & Patterson? That question is being asked by Terence McAuliffe, the ethically challenged Democratic national chairman. RNC spokeswoman Mindy Tucker has been quoted as saying Racicot might give ''strategic advice,'' but Racicot told me ''there are some things which I think I can continue to do--for instance, contracts between people, or I have helped people in public hearings in Montana.''

Racicot said nobody has raised objections to his serving as a volunteer, though the RNC's rules a generation ago were changed to require a full-time, paid chairman. However, three former national chairmen and several state chairmen privately expressed astonishment over Racicot's dollar-a-year arrangement.

An added complication is Racicot's third hat: his current assignment as the president's ''special envoy'' to resolve the long-standing U.S.-Canadian dispute over timber imports. Canadian interests grumble that Racicot as Republican chairman would solicit money from grateful American timber companies after reaching a settlement. ''To be honest with you,'' said Racicot, ''I had not thought about that.'' The ethical escape route for Racicot would be to devote himself exclusively to his party duties. That would mean giving up his Bracewell & Patterson salary for his year or more at the RNC. Its amount is ''a matter of individual privacy,'' he told me, but Washington lobbyists guess he is getting closer to $700,000 a year than $1 million.

As governor, Racicot listed his number in the Helena telephone book and drove himself to work. He and his wife now live in a suburban Virginia apartment, and he takes the subway to work in Washington. He indicated to me that he rejected Bush's pleas to run for the Senate this year, not because of money but because he lacked ''the fire in my belly'' for a seven-year commitment.

Could Racicot make do for a year or two at the RNC chairman's $150,000 salary? ''It's more than I ever made, about 50 percent more,'' he replied. ''None of this has anything to do with compensation.''

That points the way for the GOP to gain an attractive new advocate, freed of remaining ethical entanglements. It's up to the White House, and prominent Republicans hope the president and his advisers will appreciate this before the RNC meets in Austin.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Here's why Racicot's the WRONG MAN FOR RNC CHAIRMAN:

1) as a lobbyist - or a partner with a lobbying law firm, he can't afford to anger congressmen, or his lobbying clients suffer. Yet a chairman of the RNC has to put the party first when make decisions about where to spend party money. Putting the party first might anger individual congressmen who want money spent in their pet races - even if it's not in the party's larger interest. SO RACICOT HAS A CONFLICT - does he serve the party's interests first - or those of the clients of his lobbying firm?

2) it would be a a sure pickup for the GOP is Racicot ran against Baucus for Senate; Daschle would have to change his underwear if he heard Racicot were running. But Racicot tells Novak he's not running - and it's not because of money, it's because he "doesn't have fire in the belly." In other words, he doesn't have "fire in the belly" about taking back the Senate. THAT MAKES HIM DIFFERENT FrOM MOST FREEPERS - AND MAKES HIM UNQUALIFIED TO HEAD THE GOP. The CHAIRMAN SHOULD HAVE ":FIRE IN THE BELLY" ABOUT DUMPING DASCHLE!!! Racicot doesn't.

1 posted on 01/17/2002 9:56:04 AM PST by laureldrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: laureldrive
It will never happen! NOVAK IS NEVER RIGHT !!!
2 posted on 01/17/2002 9:58:55 AM PST by KQQL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
Read my argument against Racico and respond to my arguments. "Novak is never right" is a grunt, not an argument.
3 posted on 01/17/2002 10:00:14 AM PST by laureldrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: laureldrive
''Would you let a volunteer run your office?''

Nope ... but we'd let little ole Liddy Dole "revamp the entire US Blood System" as one.

Perhaps, in her case particularly, it has something to do with criminal culpability. An added protection for the State's actors.

4 posted on 01/17/2002 10:00:21 AM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laureldrive
Where is Haley Barber when we REALLY need him?
5 posted on 01/17/2002 10:01:49 AM PST by donozark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
When the Dems hang onto the Senate by one measly seat - and you're all moaning about how Daschle's still in power with his Eddie Haskell act - - don't blame me, blame Racicot for not having enough "fire in the belly" to run a sure-win race against Baucus.
6 posted on 01/17/2002 10:02:50 AM PST by laureldrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: laureldrive
Another term for "fire in the belly" is "sense of duty."
7 posted on 01/17/2002 10:03:16 AM PST by laureldrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: laureldrive
In other words, he doesn't have "fire in the belly" about taking back the Senate

Good grief. Any Pubbie who took it upon themselves to "take back the Senate" probably risks a bullet in the belly.

The Democratic Senate is KEY to Bush's having carte blanche (and the consent, nay the DEMAND, of the GOP faithful) to take a page from Clinton and make all the recess appointments he wishes.

Including thugs like Magaw

8 posted on 01/17/2002 10:03:22 AM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laureldrive
Plus, he's a limp wristed, third way, wimp. Do we really need more Dale Carnegie Training indoctrinated softies? Yeah, that's been so successful in pushing back all the decades of Gramscian Marxist, wratchetting incrementalism. We need more bullies, we need 'em now!
9 posted on 01/17/2002 10:03:51 AM PST by GOP_1900AD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laureldrive
Yeah ... and how'd they get that measly seat ... by some homsexual's purposed cave.

Where there's a will (and some concerted wooing of the homosexual lobby), there's a way.

10 posted on 01/17/2002 10:04:28 AM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
Good grief. Any Pubbie who took it upon themselves to "take back the Senate" probably risks a bullet in the belly. The Democratic Senate is KEY to Bush's having carte blanche (and the consent, nay the DEMAND, of the GOP faithful) to take a page from Clinton and make all the recess appointments he wishes. """"

SO YOU WANT DASCHLE TO CONTINUE AS SENATE LEADER? SORRY, GOTTA PART WITH YOU THERE, PAL

11 posted on 01/17/2002 10:05:18 AM PST by laureldrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: laureldrive
So what if he was an Enron Lobbyist! lots of people did lobby Enron .
Remember Lobbying is not Illegal and Enron was the 7th Largest Company in the US.

Futerhmore, he will not lobby while he is the RNC Chairman.
If Marc Raciot should go because of his connection with Enron, then my Freind the Bush ADM should resign....

12 posted on 01/17/2002 10:07:26 AM PST by KQQL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: laureldrive
I don't want him continuing as Senate leader ... but Bush might wish just that.

You need a "crisis", comrade, to compel your just use of "whatever means necessary" ... including the complete slate of Clintonesque political maneuvers.

Plus, this way anything pro-life's off the table for sure since our Pubbies will see too it the "skin of their teeth" Dem majority sends all bills "veto-proof" for Bush's signature.

13 posted on 01/17/2002 10:08:23 AM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: laureldrive
That question is being asked by Terence McAuliffe, the ethically challenged Democratic national chairman.

I just LOVED this line!

14 posted on 01/17/2002 10:12:15 AM PST by Feiny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laureldrive
He's a RINO & perhaps if he ran he might have to answer some questions about drug traffic thru Montana. Shows ya that this party by people's perceptions (not mine) now has a chance to promote a conservative agenda while the fire is hot but they didn't take advantage of this. You all wonder why they are so foolish. Well gang, they aren't foolish - they are part of this elite "Two-party Cartel" that IF conservativism flourishes the goals of the New World Order are delayed. Look at the big picture.
15 posted on 01/17/2002 10:12:42 AM PST by Digger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laureldrive
What possible difference could it make at this point? Enron is finished.

Bush made a campaign promise to the West Virginia coal region to promote new cleaner burning coal technology. This is the antithesis of helping Enron. Enron may have contributed money to Bush and other Republicans, but there was no quid pro quo, so what's the problem?

16 posted on 01/17/2002 10:14:23 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laureldrive
But Racicot intends to stay on the lobbying firm's payroll while serving as a dollar-a-year ''volunteer'' for the Republican National Committee.

no man can serve two masters

17 posted on 01/17/2002 10:28:36 AM PST by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
Couldn't agree with you more.......Novak has a case of the hates for the Bush and only when things get totally ridiculous does he stand up for the President.
18 posted on 01/17/2002 10:35:09 AM PST by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Couldn't agree with you more.......Novak has a case of the hates for the Bush and only when things get totally ridiculous does he stand up for the President.""""

Somebody answer my question: When there's a conflict between the needs of his lobbying firm and the best interest of the GOP, which way is he going to go?

Why should Racicot be in the job when such conflicts are sure to arise?

DON'T JUST SCOFF AT NOVAK, ANSWER THIS VERY REAL QUESTION!

19 posted on 01/17/2002 10:37:44 AM PST by laureldrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: laureldrive
If you feed "racicot marc drugs montana" into the Google search engine you will get a large number references to published accusations that Racicot was involved, when governor, in the Canada to Montana drug traffic. Mainly protecting it.

It is a mystery to me why President Bush keeps bringing Racicot to the foreground of the Republican establishment.

20 posted on 01/17/2002 10:37:57 AM PST by Magician
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson