From: "Keene"
To: XXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 11:54 AM
Subject: Yours of 4/24
Dear Ms. XXXXX,
Thank you very much for your message of April 24th. I have to begin by apologizing for the delay in getting back to you, but these are hectic times in Washington.
The information you came across on FR is both distorted and wrong.
Let me explain.
Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch have done some very good things over the years, but neither Larry nor his people are very tolerant of anyone who disagrees with him in any way. Invariably, anyone who does is characterized as part of a conspiracy against him or Judicial Watch.
About a year or so ago, I wrote a column questioning Larry's wisdom in going after Tom DeLay who he characterized as "worse than Clinton." As a result of that column, Larry charged that I was in league with DeLay and out to destroy him. He threatened to sue me and the paper that carries my column.
He didn't do so, of course, but he did begin characterizing me as some sort of enemy.
The CPAC "charge" was made after Larry's people missed the deadline for signing Judicial Watch up as a co-sponsor this year. This had happened in past years and the CPAC staff had previously been able to accomodate them even after the deadline with booth space, etc. However, this year everything was sold out (it was the biggest CPAC ever) and there was no way to squeeze in another booth after the deadline.
I have to say that all I had to do with this personally was to back up the CPAC staff when Larry's people began demanding that we do something to accomodate them after everything had sold out. I told them not to do so at the expense of other groups that had come in earlier and they decided there was nothing appropriate that would satisfy Judicial Watch.
Larry later claimed that I had personally barred Judicial Watch at Tom DeLay's insistence and that his people hadn't even been able to register for the conference. Both charges were simply made up out of whole cloth.
I have to tell you that I am not overly impressed with the way Larry has acted, but that would not have led me to have him barred from CPAC. Our movement consists of a lot of different groups and people. Something like 80 conservative organizations sponsored CPAC this year and many of them disagree with each other on significant issues. That's the way conservatives are ... and always will be.
The next CPAC is not that far away and I can assure you that if Judicial Watch wants to co-sponsor it and have a booth they can do so ... as long as they play by the rules like everyone else.
FYI, my column on this appeared on 4/08/2001 and can be found via the ACUU web site.
I'm glad you enjoy my column. Few of my readers agree with everything I have to say, but only Larry has threatened to sue me for disagreeing with him.
Thanks again for your e-mail. Contact me anytime.