[Ben Ficklin]

There are two things wrong with this article.

First, it has so many "mights" and "coulds", its not credible.

Second, Ridenour and his wife/boss are so dirty with Abramoff money, its best to stay away from them.

[Paul Ross]

First, it has so many "mights" and "coulds", its not credible.

Typical of academic euphemisms. Traditional cautionary understatement.

Second, Ridenour and his wife/boss are so dirty with Abramoff money, its best to stay away from them.

Oh, really? As I recall, the real issue here was special interest money, i.e., "industry" was FAVORING the accession to the LOST treaty! This has far more explanatory power in the persistent administration determination to enact this puppy than anything else we have yet seen. The tail is wagging this dog.

So just how does "Abramoff" money factor into this analysis by Ridenor?