Remember the Keating Five?: McCain’s own standards would have hung him by Mark R. Levin

Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/levin040501.shtml

Mr. Levin is also president of the Landmark Legal Foundation.
April 5, 2001 9:15 a.m.


For too long, McCain has been given a free pass by the media, which promotes campaign-finance reform to silence other voices, and by his Republican colleagues, who are concerned about alienating McCain given the GOP's tenuous majority in the Senate.

In John McCain's America, any politician who accepts a large contribution or gift from a donor, and then takes steps consistent with the donor's interests — even though there is no legal quid pro quo — is corrupt. Well, then, by his own standard, McCain is corrupt.

McCain was one of the so-called "Keating Five" senators. He was investigated by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics in 1991 regarding the acceptance of favors from Lincoln Savings & Loan Association (Lincoln) and its owner, Charles H. Keating, Jr. Simply put, the issue was whether McCain and the other senators used their official positions to attempt to pressure Federal Home Loan Bank Board officials to go easy on the troubled institution. Eventually Lincoln went bust, costing depositors and taxpayers millions.

In its final report (November 20, 1991), here is what the Senate Select Committee on Ethics concluded about McCain's conduct:

"Mr. Keating, his associates, and his friends contributed $56,000 for Senator McCain's two House races in 1982 and 1984, and $54,000 for his 1986 Senate race. Mr. Keating also provided his corporate plane and/or arranged for payment for the use of commercial or private aircraft on several occasions for travel by Senator McCain and his family, for which Senator McCain ultimately provided reimbursement when called upon to do so. Mr. Keating also allowed Senator McCain and his family to vacation with Mr. Keating and his family, at a home provided by Mr. Keating in the Bahamas, in each of the calendar years 1983 through 1986.

"…[F]rom 1984 to 1987, Senator McCain took actions on Mr. Keating's behalf or at his request. The Committee finds that Senator McCain had a basis for each of these actions independent of the contributions and benefits he received from Mr. Keating, his associates and friends.

"Based on the evidence available to it, the Committee has given consideration to Senator McCain's actions on behalf of Lincoln. The Committee concludes that, given the personal benefits and campaign contributions he had received from Mr. Keating, Senator McCain exercised poor judgment in intervening with the regulators without first inquiring as to the Bank Board's position in the case in a more routine manner. The Committee concludes that Senator McCain's actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him. The Committee finds that Senator McCain took no further action after the April 9, 1987 meeting when he learned of a criminal referral.

"The Committee reaffirms its prior decision that it does not have jurisdiction to determine the issues of disclosure or reimbursement pertaining to flights provided by American Continental Corporation while Senator McCain was a Member of the House of Representatives. The Committee did consider the effect of such on his state of mind and judgment in taking steps to assist Lincoln.

"Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate; therefore, the Committee concludes that no further action is warranted with respect to Senator McCain on the matters investigated during the preliminary inquiry."

McCain was the only Republican implicated in the Keating Five scandal, yet today he lectures his party and his president about "the corrupting influence" of money in politics. He rails against the so-called "wealthy special interests" and their ability to buy access to elected officials, yet this is precisely what the Keating Five scandal was all about. And, of course, under McCain's current standard, a politician who takes a principled position that may benefit a donor is corrupt, even if no law has been violated.

The John McCain of old should be thankful that his political fate wasn't determined by John McCain the reformer.

The Keating Five Investigation (McCain)

Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a389c4d3151b5.htm

THE KEATING FIVE INVESTIGATION (Senate - October 22, 1990)

[Page: S16326]

Mr. McCAIN: Mr. President, I rise this morning to address the Senate with great reluctance and many other emotions, because in my belief the process the Senate uses to judge the ethical conduct of a Member's action should be respected. Mr. President, that respect, by me, a majority of the American people, and other Members of the Senate, is now seriously in jeopardy.

I rise with reluctance, Mr. President, because some of my closest friends and supporters have advised me not to rise and make this speech this morning, saying that the remarks I am about to make may upset the very powerful Ethics Committee, which could, in turn, cause me some political damage for speaking out with criticism and dismay of a process that has evolved over the last year in the adjudication of the allegations before the Ethics Committee concerning me and four other Members of the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, this could jeopardize my political career. The fact is, that is not my concern as I stand here this morning. My concern is about my honor, my integrity, and my reputation.

Given the present circumstances, it is imperative that I do rise. There comes a time when you can no longer hold your tongue in the face of things that are wrong, especially when those wrongs can be righted. The Senate now faces this kind of problem, and now is the time to fix it.

Mr. President, not only am I personally frustrated by the failure of the Senate Ethics Committee to act on its year-long Keating Five investigation, there are growing allegations in the media of a coverup. The process has a credibility problem. Headlines read, `Keating Coverup?' `Panel Again Delays `Keating 5' Decision.'

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Wall Street article of October 17, entitled 'Keating Coverup'; a Saturday, October 20, 1990, Washington Post article headlined 'Panel Again Delays 'Keating 5' Decision'; concerning remarks of one member of the Ethics Committee; a New York Times editorial, Friday, October 19, 'How Many in the Keating Crew?' be printed in the Record at this time.

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [Page: S16327]

[FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES, OCT. 19, 1990]

'How Many in the Keating Crew?'

The Senate Ethics Committee will soon disclose whether the `Keating Five' will be reduced to a smaller group of Senators accused of ethical improprieties in a major savings and loan scandal. Each Senator's involvement was different and each is entitled to an unbiased hearing, but if the committee plans to exonerate any of the five, it had better be prepared to explain its action.

The Keating Five earned their name and notoriety because they met three years ago with Federal regulators who were closing in on Charles Keating, a powerful California S.&L. operator. Mr. Keating had made contributions to the Senators' political campaigns. According to reports from Washington, Robert Bennett, the committee's special counsel, is recommending further investigation of Senators Alan Cranston, Donald Riegle and Dennis DeConcini, but would drop charges against Senators John Glenn and John McCain.

Senators Cranston, Riegle and DeConcini may indeed have been more deeply involved in questionable dealings with Mr. Keating, who now confronts various legal proceedings and languishes in a Los Angeles jail. They received more money from him than the others did, and seem to have done him more favors in his battle against what he deemed oppressive regulation. In addition, Senators Glenn and McCain were more successful in distancing themselves from Mr. Keating after the first two meetings with the regulators. Four of the Five attended the first meeting; all of them attended the second.

Should a senator be disciplined just for showing up at a meeting that advances the interest of a constituent or donor? The answer may depend on the size, timing and context of the meeting--all factors for the Ethics Committee to weigh. Senators Glenn and McCain may not have been ringleaders in the drive to get regulators off Mr. Keating's back. But they must have understood the significance of an imposing gathering of five powerful Senators.

Congress, which sets its own ethical rules, bears heavy responsibility for the S.&.L. debacle. It's not always easy to draw clear lines between improper influence-peddling and valid constituent services. But the Ethics Committee has the duty to try. That means reaching a verdict on each member of the Keating crew, publishing the evidence against each and explaining why it chose to treat some differently from others. Only then can the committee define right and wrong--and point the way to higher standards of behavior.

--

[FROM THE WASHINGTON POST, OCT. 20, 1990]

'Panel Again Delays 'Keating Five' Decision' (BY HELEN DEWAR)

The Senate ethics committee yesterday delayed a decision on five senators under investigation for their ties to failed savings and loan executive Charles H. Keating Jr., prompting a bitter protest from member Trent Lott (D-Miss.) that the five are being victimized by the panel's 'fear of acting.'

Describing himself as `furious' at what he said was the committee's inability to decide how to proceed in the case, Lott said he is pessimistic about chances for action before Congress adjourns next week and added, 'I feel like I've become an accomplice to a crime.'

If he were one of the so-called 'Keating Five,' said Lott in a rare departure from the usual reticence of members of the Select Committee on Ethics, 'I would have gone ballistic. It's just not fair.'

The six-member panel is considering a recommendation from its special counsel, Robert S. Bennett, that it take no further action against Sens. John Glenn (D-Ohio) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) but proceed to a full investigation of Sens. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) and Donald W. Riegle Jr. (D-Mich.)

After brief meetings the last two days to decide what to do, the committee, distracted by other business and apparently split over how quickly to act, put off a decision until Monday or Tuesday at the earliest, with no firm commitment to act then.

While Bennett saw no reason to proceed against Glenn and McCain, he found critical links between Keating's contributions to the other three senators and their intervention with thrift industry regulators on behalf of Keating's failed Lincoln Savings and Loan of Irvine, Calif. Keating gave $1.3 million to campaigns and causes of the five senators.

Documents being examined by the committee indicate that Cranston, DeConcini and Riegle had more extensive dealings with Keating than they have acknowledged, including a relationship that continued after regulators warned them that Keating faced a criminal probe.

Sources have indicated that there is at least some doubt on the committee about the fate of Riegle, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, who, like Glenn and McCain, apparently did not continue his intervention with regulators on Keating's behalf after the warning of possible criminal activity.

Collapse of Lincoln is estimated to cost taxpayers about $2 billion. Keating was released on $300,000 bond after a month in jail in California, where he faces charges of fraud in the sale of junk bonds issued by his American Continental Corp., which owned Lincoln.

Lott's angry outburst to two reporters came as pressure for action by the committee mounted among Republicans in the Senate, many of whom are complaining that Democrats on the panel are waiting until after the Nov. 6 congressional elections to act. If Glenn and McCain are dropped from the probe, the bipartisan `Keating Five' would become the all-Democratic `Keating Three,' they note.

Sen. Howell T. Heflin (D-Ala.), chairman of the ethics panel, expressed frustration as he left the meeting, but his annoyance was directed at leaks to newspapers of documents that have been compiled in the case.

Asked if the slow pace were attributable to Heflin, who is known for his deliberate way of doing business, Lott said, `I can't say it' one or two [members] or even that it's partisan, quite frankly.' Instead, he said, `I'm afraid it's the Senate . . ., which is completely incompetent to let go of anything.'

Colleagues have said that Glenn and McCain are intensely frustrated by the delay in committee action. `I've been frustrated for a year,' Glenn said yesterday. McCain, who has been more outspoken, said, `Frankly, I'm deeply disappointed they haven't been able to act. I think they owe the American people an explanation.'

--

[FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, OCT. 17, 1990]

'Keating Cover-Up?'

This week the Keating Five--the leading symbols of Congress's abdication of responsibility in the S&L mess--will learn if they have to face a full Senate probe into their efforts on behalf of Charles Keating's infamous Lincoln Savings. If the Ethics Committee's track record is any indication, citizens should demand that the evidence gathered so far be published.

To its credit, the committee retained Robert Bennett, a veteran ethics investigator, as outside counsel to investigate the case. In September, Mr. Bennett submitted a report that said there was enough evidence to suggest that Senators Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Alan Cranston of California and Donald Riegle of Michigan may have violated federal or Senate rules in intervening with federal regulators to keep Lincoln open. If the committee accepts his 350-page report, the three Senators will face further investigation. Mr. Bennett recommended no further action against Senators John Glenn of Ohio and John McCain of Arizona.

The committee has delayed action on Mr. Bennett's report until now. There is wide speculation the delay is due to efforts by some to put all five Senators on trail, thereby avoiding political embarrassment for Democrats just before November's election. Senator McCain is a Republican. The other four are Democrats.

It is just as likely that the Senate Ethics Committee is trying to draw a distinction between the kind of `influence peddling' at HUD that was so polloried by Congress and what Members of Congress do daily to push the interests of campaign contributors and favored constitutents. Senator Terry Sanford of North Carolina, a member of the Ethics Committee `jury,' has been indiscreet enough to announce a conclusion in advance. The Keating Five `did exactly what every Senator is called on to do every day,' he told constitutents earlier this year.

We wonder if Senator Sanford still feels that way after reports surfaced in the Washington Post about what Mr. Bennett had uncovered. The Post reported that Joy Jacobson, a fund raiser for Senator Cranston, wrote him a memo in early 1987 on Mr. Keating's complaints about a federal crackdown on Lincoln's controversial business practices. Mr. Keating `will rightfully expect some kind of resolution' to his cocnerns, she wrote. Senator Cranston met several times with Mr. Keating and then joined the four other Senators in meeting with federal regulators on his behalf. In September 1987, Ms. Jacobson wrote again to set up another meeting with Mr. Keating and added, `You should ask Keating for $250,000.' Mr. Cranston did, and in November he pocketed a $250,000 check for his voter-registration efforts from a Keating aide in his office.

The public has a right to know the background behind any decision the Ethics Committee makes on the Keating Five. The committee doesn't follow judicial standards of openness, and Congress of course has exempted itself from the Freedom of Information Act. In the Jim Wright case, outside counsel Richard Phelan's preliminary report was released despite initial attempts to claim it was privileged. A spokesman for the Senate Ethics Committee told us it has never released equivalent reports from its outside counsels. That means the committee can agree with Senator Sanford's conclusion, end the probe of any or all of the Keating Five, and release none of the evidence. This of course would directly contradict the practice of independent counsels who've made public their reports on investigations of virtually all members of the exective branch.

Mr. Bennett's findings are cruical because they are a serious, independent exploration of the Beltway's business-as-usual practices. Mr. Phelan concluded Speaker Wright had improperly intervened on behalf of broken Texas S&Ls. The House Ethics Committee ducked the awful implications of that charge by delcaring that such actions were an integral part of a Member's job and that it couldn't second-guess `the technique and personality of the legislator.'

This week's decision on the Keating Five gives Congress and the voters another chance to debate the vailidty of that decision. Taxpayers, who will be shelling out an average of $2,000 apiece for the S&L mess, deserve the full story of Congress's involvement. [Page: S16328]

Mr. McCAIN: Mr. President, a well-respected member of the Ethics Committee has publicly stated he is essentially frustrated, saying he is furious with the process and that 'he feels like he has become an accomplice to a crime.'

Mr. President, why would a member of the Ethics Committee say that he feels he has become an accomplice to a crime? The only reason why a Member of this body would say that is because he is aware of the Constitution in this country that states unequivocally that justice delayed is justice denied.

Mr. President, justice delayed is justice denied. It is clear to any observer that this system is incredibly and inexcusably delayed.

Mr. President, the Senate does not need this at this particular time in American political history, when our credibility and the confidence of the American people has been so badly eroded. What the Senate needs to do is act. The Senate Ethics Committee needs to act.

What am I seeking, Mr. President? I am seeking two things, which I think are entirely reasonable. One, the outside special counsel's 354-page report, which took 9 months to complete, should be made public immediately.

Mr. President, if the Senate Ethics Committee cannot make a judgment on a special counsel of unimpeachable integrity and reputation, then I think the American people can. I do not know what famous jurist said that `sunshine is the best detergent.' Who said that I do not know, but sunshine remains the best detergent.

The American people have a right to know, I believe, and have a right to inspect this special counsel's report and recommendations on which millions of taxpayers' dollars were expended, and which took 9 months to complete, by one of the most reputable and experienced outside counsels in America.

Mr. President, let the American people decide, if the Senate Ethics Committee cannot.

Second, this committee should decide whether to accept or reject that report before we adjourn this week.

As a person identified as one of the `Keating 5,' I would like to give you a brief, firsthand chronology of this investigation.

The Ethics Committee was first asked to look at all of this a year ago, in October of 1989. I responded to the allegations immediately. In December of last year, the committee retained an outside special counsel.

Let me point out that the organization that demanded this investigation also demanded that a special counsel be appointed, so that there would be objectivity and credibility to whatever decision was eventually made by the Ethics Committee. This special counsel, Mr. President, has been involved in several other investigations, always with great credibility. I personally have the highest regard for his reputation and for the way he has conducted this investigation. That is why the committee picked an outside counsel.

As I said, Mr. Robert Bennett is well respected. He is one of the most experienced and most credible men in Washington, DC, much less America.

I cooperated fully with that process. I produced every document when it was requested. I answered every question asked. I was interviewed in February. I was deposed in April. I was hopeful of judgment in May and then June and then July and then August and September. Time went by; so did the summer. On September 10, over 6 weeks ago, he gave the committee a 354-page report with his findings and his recommendations.

I was convinced, perhaps naively and foolishly, that a judgment would clearly be rendered as a result of this investigation. It now appears that perhaps my hopes were unjustified.

Mr. President, my lawyer and I wrote to the committee on three occasions, seeking action and seeking publication of the investigation, including seeking an open meeting with the Ethics Committee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed in the Record at this time.

There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follow:

U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, June 5, 1990.

Hon. Howell Heflin, Chairman,

Hon. Warren Rudman, Co-Chairman,
Select Committee on Ethics,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman and Co-Chairman: By your letter to me of October 16, 1989, you notified me that the Committee desired a response to the complaint filed by Common Cause regarding my participation in two meetings with representatives of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board concerning Lincoln Savings and Loan. In my letter to the Committee of November 21, 1989, I gave a detailed response to all the allegations which had been raised concerning those meetings.

On December 7, 1989, the Committee requested that I produce various documents concerning Charles Keating, Lincoln Savings and Loan, and related matters. On December 22, 1989, the Committee announced that it was conducting a preliminary inquiry into this matter, with the assistance of Special Counsel Robert Bennett. On January 10, 1990 I produced two boxes of documents which were responsive to the Committee's document request. Additional information in the form of responses to interrogatories was provided by me to the Committee on January 25, 1990.

My counsel, John M. Dowd, advised Mr. Bennett on several occasions of my desire to cooperate in any way possible to expedite the Committee's inquiry. Accordingly, my counsel suggested that Mr. Bennett interview me at his earliest convenience. Mr. Bennett agreed, and I was interviewed by him in his office for several hours on February 12, 1990.

On February 15, 1990 my counsel provided additional documents to Mr. Bennett which he requested on February 12. On February 20, 1990 my administrative assistant, Christopher Koch, and my legislative assistant, Gwendolyn Van Paasschen, were interviewed by Mr. Bennett and his staff.

On March 12, 1990, I testified before the Committee for approximately three hours, answering all questions posed by Senators Rudman and Pryor and by Mr. Bennett. The following day I produced an additional document to the Committee. On April 12, 1990, Ms. Van Paasschen testified before the Committee. On April 13, 1990, Mr. Koch testified before the Committee.

I recite the above events in order to demonstrate that I have fully cooperated with the Committee and its Special Counsel. I have produced all documents requested and made my staff available for examination by you and your staff. I have answered Mr. Bennett's questions on two separate occasions, and I have testified under oath before the Committee and answered the questions of Senators Rudman and Pryor. In short, I have done everything I can to facilitate the work of the Committee so that the Committee can efficiently and expeditiously address the allegations made against me.

I am very disappointed that the Committee has not reached a decision on these allegations so that a conclusion can be reached. Accordingly, I request an immediate meeting with the full Committee so that I may address the concerns, if any, that the Committee may have. It is clear that there is no merit to the allegations. At the present time this is the only recourse I have to resolve this matter. Justice delayed is justice denied.

I believe that whatever standards are ultimately chosen by the Committee to evaluate my conduct, they must be easily understood and fair at the time the activities under investigation occurred, as well as generally applicable to all Senators' activities on behalf of constituents or others who come to them with requests for assistance.

I take this opportunity to provide the Committee with my observations on the issues concerning my conduct which I am prepared to discuss withe the Committee. I believe these issues involve the following three questions. [Page: S16329]

1. Why did I meet with Edwin Gray on April, 2, 1987?

As I have testified, I attended the meeting with Mr. Gray because American Continental Corporation, the parent of Lincoln Savings and Loan, is a major employer in my state. Like any Senator, I am responsive to the needs of my constituents. I was informed that Lincoln Savings had been undergoing an unusually long examination by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. I had received a letter from a very reputable accounting firm, Arthur Young & Co., raising questions about the Bank Board's examination. I attended the meeting with Mr. Gray for informational purposes only, that is, to inquire why the examination was taking so long and to learn more about the examiners' appraisals of Lincoln's real estate investments.

I have stated clearly and unequivocally that I did not attend the meeting with Mr. Gray because of past campaign contributions received from Charles Keating. The evidence before the Committee supports this fact. On March 24, 1987--prior to the meeting with Mr. Gray--I met with Mr. Keating and advised him that I would not agree to negotiate for him or interfere with the actions being taken by the Bank Board. My staff has described this meeting to the Committee as being `tense'--a description to which I concur, because I let Mr. Keating know in no uncertain terms that I would not pursue the course he requested. My relationship with Charles Keating ended at that time.

I said 'no' to Mr. Keating at a time when his reputation was untarnished, unlike it is today. While Mr. Keating had been a fundraiser for me in my past campaigns, he was not involved in any fundraising activities for me after 1986. Furthermore, I have no reason to conclude that any past contributions he raised were in reality improperly funded corporate contributions. Nevertheless, on my own initiative, I have asked the Federal Election Commission to review the contributions and determine if they are legal and proper. The FEC has not yet issued a ruling.

I do not believe that my decision to meet with Mr. Gray created even the appearance that it was because of Mr. Keating's past fundraising. The undisputed facts are that I ended my relationship with Mr. Keating on March 24, 1987. Senator DeConcini subsequently set up the meeting with Mr. Gray. I attended because I saw it was an opportunity to make some inquiries to determine if a major Arizona employer's allegations regarding some specific issues were well-founded. I believe it was appropriate to make such and inquiry of an agency on behalf of a constituent.

2. What did I do at the meeting with Mr. Gray and the other regulators?

I attended the meeting to try to determine whether or not the allegations of bureaucratic maltreatment were well founded. During the meeting with Mr. Gray, he advised us that he was not familiar with the specifics of the Bank Board's examination of Lincoln Savings and Loan. Therefore, he suggested that we meet with the regulators from the Bank Board's San Francisco office. At that point, out of concern about the possible appearance of such a meeting, I specifically asked Mr. Gray if such a meeting would be proper. He assured me that it would. I made it clear that I sought no special favors for Lincoln Savings and wanted nothing improper done on its behalf. These actions demonstrate that, not only did I exert no inappropriate pressure, I acted affirmatively to make sure that my actions not be misinterpreted.

Since, Mr. Gray was unable to answer questions about the Bank Board's inquiry of Lincoln and since he suggested meeting with the San Francisco regulators the following week, I attended the second meeting on April 9, 1987 which was again set up by Senator DeConcini. At this meeting I made it clear that I was attending because American Continental Corporation was large employer in Arizona, but wanted no special favors for them. As reflected in the notes taken by William Black of the San Francisco FHLBB office, I said:

`One of or jobs as elected officials is to help constituents in a proper fashion. ACC is a big employer and important to the local economy. I would not want any special favors for them.

I also said:

'I do not want any part of our conversation to be improper. We asked Chairman Gray about that and he said it was not improper to discuss Lincoln.'

Mr. Black has since said, on the ABC Nightline program:

'I have never, and I do not believe that any other member of the San Francisco District, not Chairman Gray, have suggested that Senator McCain said anything improper at that meeting.'

In short, at neither meeting did I intervene of interfere in any way with the Bank Board's actions regarding Lincoln Savings and Loan. I did not negotiate for Lincoln Savings or Charles Keating. Rather, I used the meetings only to gain information about the matter, and as soon as I received that information, I was convinced that the Bank Board's actions were proper. When I was informed that the Board suspected criminal activity on the part of Lincoln Savings and was referring the matter to the Department of Justice, it was clear to me that my constituent's complaints were not well founded and that there was no further action I should take on its behalf.

3. What did I do after the meetings with the Bank Board officials?

Since the April 9, 1987 meeting, when I was first told of the regulators belief of improper activities at Lincoln, I have done nothing further for Lincoln, ACC, or Mr. Keating. I did not notify Mr. Keating, or anyone else affiliated with American Continental Corporation or Lincoln Savings and Loan, of what I had learned in the meetings. I told my staff that there was nothing more we should do. Since April 9, 1987, I have not discussed ACC or Lincoln Savings matters with any federal or state regulators. Since then I have no professional or official contact with Mr. Keating or Lincoln or ACC. Since 1986, I have neither solicited, nor accepted political contributions from Mr. Keating, Lincoln or ACC.

Mr. Gray has confirmed that this has been the course I have taken:

`. . . Senator John McCain--who I consider to be decent and honorable public servant--has taken a far different tack than (others attending the meetings). Having learned from the San Francisco regulators of Lincoln's misdeeds, he refused to continue any efforts to intervene on its behalf. Public reports claim that Mr. Keating judged Senator McCain a wimp because of this. Senator McCain is an authentic American hero, not a wimp. * * * he has chosen to take the high road.

I believe it is the responsibility of the Committee, not me, to discuss and evaluate the conduct of Senators DeConcini, Glenn, Riegle and Cranston. I have only addressed my conduct, because when I attended the meeting I spoke for myself, and no other Senator spoke for me. Therefore, the committee should judge me on the basis of my actions, and not the actions of my fellow Senators. If the Committee determines that it needs more time to evaluate the conduct of the other Senators, then it should take that time. But the Committee should not delay its decision on my conduct because it needs more time to evaluate others' conduct.

Your Committee has always understood and taken special notice of the fact that a Senator's reputation is adversely affected by being referred to in the kind of inquiry you are conducting. Each Senator must be responsible for his or her own conduct. But, I believe the Committee has an obligation to act in a way that its deliberations and conduct avoid causing additional damage to a Senator whenever that is possible.

With all due respect, the Committee has all of the information to determine that there is no reason to believe that I engaged in any improper conduct or violated any rule of the United States Senate. It would be very unfair for the Committee to postpone making a decision about my conduct because of a desire to continue reviewing the actions of another Senator. Therefore, I request an immediate meeting with the full Committee to discuss how and why this inquiry as to me should be concluded.

Sincerely,

John McCain,
U.S. Senator.

--

AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
Washington, DC, September 24, 1990.

Hon. Howell Heflin, Chairman,

Hon. Warren Rudman, Co-Chairman,
Select Committee on Ethics,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman and Co-Chairman: I have the privilege of representing Senator John McCain before your Committee. Kindly refer to Senator McCain's letter to you of June 5, 1990 and your reply of June 8, 1990.

I am in receipt of Mr. Bennett's letter of September 21, 1990 enclosing the materials developed during your Preliminary Inquiry and notifying us that we will meet with the Committee shortly in Executive Session.

I have reviewed all of the materials Mr. Bennett sent to me and have discussed these matters with Senator McCain. It is clear from a review of the materials and the testimony there is no reason or cause for a further hearing or proceeding involving Senator McCain. The evidence before you clearly demonstrates that Senator McCain did not engage in any improper conduct and did not violate the rules of the United States Senate. I am confident, knowing the integrity and exceptional ability of Mr. Bennett, that he must have arrived at the same conclusion.

It is time to free John McCain from this process and your inquiry. The failure to resolve this case now because of the activities of others would be a grave injustice to Senator McCain, his family and the people of Arizona.

Accordingly, Senator McCain respectfully requests:

1. A meeting with the Committee this week.

2. A final resolution of his case this week.

3. Release of Mr. Bennett's report to the public this week.

Thank you for your courtesy and consideration. I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

John M. Dowd.

--

AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
Washington, DC, September 28, 1990.

Hon. Howell Heflin, Chairman,

Hon. Warren Rudman, Cochairman,
Select Committee on Ethics,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

[Page: S16330]

Dear Mr. Chairman and Cochairman: Unfortunately, I have not received a response to my letter of September 24, 1990. However, I did receive a call from Mr. Bennett inviting Senator McCain to appear before the Committee at 2:30 p.m. on October 4, 1990.

Senator McCain accepts your invitation and requests that the meeting with the Committee be open to the public and not in Executive session. Senator McCain renews his request that you release Mr. Bennett's report to the public and that you resolve his case on October 4, 1990.

I thank the Committee and its staff for all of the materials developed during this lengthy and difficult inquiry. The materials demonstrate clearly Mr. Bennett and his staff have turned over every stone. It is time for a decision.

Senator McCain has patiently cooperated with you during this lengthy process while being subjected to public obloquy in Arizona. Thus, he has paid a handsome price for the privilege of being investigated. I respectfully submit you now owe him a decision on his case and the opportunity to account to the people of Arizona for the questions raised by your inquiry.

At the beginning of this process, you committed to deal with each Senator on an individual basis. The Committee's failure to decide this matter when the evidence clearly indicates no misconduct by Senator McCain will undermine that committment and public confidence in the process.

Thank you again for your courtesy and cooperation.

Sincerely,
John M. Dowd.

--

Mr. McCAIN: Mr. President, I have never seen Mr. Bennett's report. I do not know what it says. I am sure of what it does say, though, because I have had three meetings with the committee. I have answered every question clearly to their satisfaction and, obviously, the media reports are clear that I will be relieved of any culpability in this matter.

Let ms just say a few words about the investigation, as far as my relationship with Mr. Keating.

Mr. President, I will not go into a lot of detail. I had a 90-minute press conference in Phoenix, AZ, when this started a year ago. I have visited virtually every major editorial board in America. I have been on every talk show in America. I have had the allegations reviewed time and time again. I would be glad, if any Member of this body has any questions about my involvement with him, to go over them again.

But the key and crucial aspect of this investigation, Mr. President, was that when Mr. Keating asked me to do something that was improper, I walked away from Mr. Keating. Yes, we had been friends; he had been a supporter of mine; and, yes, he was a hot property around the State of Arizona and one of the wealthiest men. But I never lifted a finger for him. When he asked for my help in an improper fashion, I walked away. Maybe that is why he and his family have called me `the biggest disappointment in their lives.'

Those are the facts. That is what the outside special counsel has been looking into, and that is what he must have found in this investigation.

Mr. President, the special counsel's report has been gathering dust in the Ethics Committee for 6 weeks. I might remind you that after 3 weeks, the Ethics Committee had done nothing. Then the Ethics Committee released a press release saying that the 345-page document had to be examined by the committee.

Mr. President, we are going to vote, probably in a day or 2, on a few thousand page document that none of us have read. We routinely vote on appropriations bills of hundreds of pages around here, affecting the lives of virtually every American, which none of us have even read.

Mr. President, the Ethics Committee has had ample time to examine this report of the special counsel, and now they must act. Let us make the special counsel's report public. It is not some incomplete preliminary investigation, as it was advertised. It is a total, complete, thorough, multimillion dollar 9-month investigation. It is a complete investigation. The American people have the right to scrutinize it.

I believe, Mr. President, that the Ethics Committee must act before we adjourn. I will accept whatever judgment the Ethics Committee makes. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Mr. President, if the Ethics Committee cannot act, then we do not have an Ethics Committee. I have cooperated with the process at every turn. I have no quarrel with it. The problem is the conscious failure to end the process.

I note, for example, that the Ethics Committee has not even scheduled to meet today, despite nationwide questioning of whether there may be a coverup here. I am seeking, Mr. President, justice and fairness. I am concerned about the integrity of this institution, and I can accept any finding or any judgment. But I cannot accept a deliberate effort to withhold the truth, and the continued suspicion of a coverup.

Mr. President, there is far more at stake here than just my reputation; it is the reputation of the U.S. Senate. I am very concerned about that, too, as it has been a great honor and privilege for me to be a part of this body.

Mr. President, I would like to make a couple more comments, and I know that I am running out of time here. This is a very important issue.

Mr. President, I have four questions for my colleagues. If you were in my shoes, what would you do? Someday there my be an allegation against any Member of this body, with a claim that raises issues about your integrity. I patiently cooperated and held my tongue for 9 months while I was being investigated, fending off report after report, allegation after allegation, which clearly has done enormous damage to my political standing, but more importantly my reputation.

Yet after the completion 6 weeks ago of the investigation and the recommendation of the special counsel, no action has been taken. I ask my colleagues, if you were in my shoes, what would you do? I ask my colleagues a second question: If you were on the Ethics Committee and you had the report of an outside special counsel, after a 9-month investigation, that called for exoneration of some of your colleagues, a counsel who is well-respected and whose recommendations have always been followed in the past, how would you vote? Would you delay?

By the way, I want to say a word about Senator Warren Rudman, who I believe has made every effort as the vice chairman of this committee to get this thing resolved, and I am deeply appreciative of his efforts.

Mr. President, if you were in my shoes, what would you say to your constituents at home if we went out of session and this body did not act? How would you explain this to the American people, who have some questions about the credibility of this institution; how it is that after a 9-month investigation this body still fails to act?

Finally, if you were in my shoes, what would you tell your family? What would you tell your family when you go home to see them on weekends: that an investigation has been conducted in the most painful experience of your life, and yet with all the evidence in, with the investigation completed, that still the committee and the body fails to act?

Mr. President, my family has served this Nation with honor and sometimes distinction for over 200 years. My direct forebear was a member of General Washington's staff. My family has had the honor and privilege to serve this Nation from generation to generation, usually in defense of freedom.

I, myself, Mr. President, for 35 years have served this Nation, always with honor, always with integrity. I deserve an adjudication and a judgment in this issue. I do not deserve--and I only speak for myself--to be strung out week after week, month after month. The evidence is there; the American people deserve to know it; the evidence is there and the judgment must be made. Otherwise, it will reflect very badly, not only on me, but on this institution.

So my appeal is for fairness, justice, and decency, and I urge my colleagues to join me in seeking action on the part of the Ethics Committee.

I appreciate the indulgence of the distinguished President, and I yield the remainder of my time. [Page: S16331] END

The New York Times' Christmas Gift By Michael Barone

Source: http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_26_05_MB.html

The New York Times' Christmas gift -- sorry, holiday gift -- to the nation's political dialogue was its Dec. 16 story reporting that the National Security Agency has been intercepting telephone conversations between terrorism suspects abroad and U.S. citizens or legal residents in the United States.

What the Times didn't bother telling its readers is that this practice is far from new and is entirely legal. Instead, the unspoken subtext of the story was that this was likely an illegal and certainly a very scary invasion of Americans' rights.

Let's put the issue very simply. The president has the power as commander in chief under the Constitution to intercept and monitor the communications of America's enemies. Indeed, it would be a very weird interpretation of the Constitution to say that the commander in chief could order U.S. forces to kill America's enemies but not to wiretap -- or, more likely these days, electronically intercept -- their communications. Presidents have asserted and exercised this power repeatedly and consistently over the last quarter-century.

To be sure, federal courts have ruled that the Fourth Amendment's bar of "unreasonable" searches and seizures limits the president's power to intercept communications without obtaining a warrant. But that doesn't apply to foreign intercepts, as the Supreme Court made clear in a 1972 case, writing, "The instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the president's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country." The federal courts of appeals for the 5th, 3rd, 9th and 4th Circuits, in cases decided in 1970, 1974, 1977 and 1980, took the same view. In 2002, the special federal court superintending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act wrote, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

Warrantless intercepts of the communications of foreign powers were undertaken as long ago as 1979, by the Carter administration. In 1994, Bill Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, testified to Congress, "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

In the Dec. 15 Chicago Tribune, John Schmidt, associate attorney general in the Clinton administration, laid it out cold: "President Bush's post-Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents."

"News stories" in the Times and other newspapers and many national newscasts have largely ignored this legal record. Instead, they are tinged with a note of hysteria and the suggestion that fundamental freedoms have been violated by the NSA intercepts.

Earlier this month, a Newsweek cover story depicted George W. Bush as living inside a bubble, isolated from knowledge of the real world. Many of the news stories about the NSA intercepts show that it is mainstream media that are living inside a bubble, carefully insulating themselves and their readers and viewers from knowledge of applicable law and recent historical precedent, determined to pursue an agenda of undermining the Bush administration regardless of any damage to national security.

And damage there almost certainly would be were the program to be ended, as many Democrats and many in the mainstream media would like. Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of NSA and now deputy national intelligence director, has come forward to say, "This program has been successful in detecting and preventing attacks inside the United States."

The Constitution, Justice Robert Jackson famously wrote, should not be interpreted in a way that makes it "a suicide pact." The notion that terrorists' privacy must be respected when they place a cell-phone call to someone in the United States is in the nature of a suicide pact. The Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures in the United States should not be stretched into a ban on interceptions of communications from America's enemies abroad.

The mainstream media, inside their left-wing bubble, evidently thinks that there is not much in the way of danger. They should take a trip to Ground Zero, to the Sept. 11 memorial at the Pentagon, to Shanksville, Pa., where the heroes of United flight 93 prevented the terrorists from hitting their target in Washington.

The A.C.L.U. Version of the Christmas Card

Source: http://www.nj1015.com/personalities/jim-gearhart/bits/pc-xmas-card.htm

Politically Correct Christmas Card

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

In addition, please also accept our best wishes for a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2004, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make this country great (not to imply that this country is necessarily greater than any other country or area of choice), and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual orientation of the wishers.

This wish is limited to the customary and usual good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first. "Holiday" is not intended to, nor shall it be considered, limited to the usual Judeo-Christian celebrations or observances, or to such activities of any organized or ad hoc religious community, group, individual or belief (or lack thereof).

Note: By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all. This greeting is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. This greeting implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for the wisher her/himself or others, or responsibility for the consequences which may arise from the implementation or non-implementation of it.

This greeting is void where prohibited by law.


The version that the socialist A.C.L.U. doesn't want you to send them:

Merry Christmas!
(followed by a quote from the bible or Torah) ;-)

Christmas -- Let It Be By Jackie Mason & Raoul Felder

Source: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7551

Published 12/23/2004 2:36:47 PM


NEW YORK -- Christmas in America is not a clash of civilizations, but rather a celebration of diversities. But to lots of people, it doesn’t seem that way. Across America school districts are forbidding the singing of Christmas carols, nativity scenes are being banned in public places, and in malls the "Christmas" sales" are now "Holiday" sales. Although we are part of the 20 percent of Americans that are not Christian and the 5 percent that do not celebrate Christmas -- unless the giving of gifts and gratuities constitute "celebrating," and if that is true then we are part of the 95 percent that are celebrants -- we have nothing against and are part of those who enjoy the entire Christmas experience. What’s not to like? People are friendlier and music fills the air.

However, we have the whisper of an unworthy thought that if polls were taken of only the givers -- the bosses, the employers, the apartment dwellers and all the myriad people from whom gifts are sought on a virtually obligatory basis, as opposed to the people with their hands out -- the percentages probably would tip more towards the Scrooges.

Personally we like Christmas carols --especially sung by Bing Crosby -- with their simple and elegant melodies and chord structures that have survived in the same manner as other folk songs that have been handed down through the ages, such as those of Scotland and Ireland.

We cannot see how our beliefs are jeopardized by someone else celebrating their beliefs -- particularly if the celebrations are those consisting, at least in part, of love, family values, spirituality, and giving thought to the less fortunate.

We would have a very fragile religion if 2000 years of our culture and beliefs were threatened by Bing Crosby singing I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas (incidentally, written by a Jew), Santa Claus, and mistletoe. Now, if it were KKK celebrating their holiday by exchanging presents of bed sheets or singing carols beside burning crosses, or the Romans tossing another Jew on the Yule log, or the Ghost of Christmas's Past turning out to be Yasser Arafat in a Santa Claus suit, it would be another story. But until then, hand us the check books and turn up Bing Crosby.

Jews seem to be heavily involved in this repeal movement. They would do well to remember Pastor Niemuller's observation: In Germany the Nazis came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the trade unions, and I didn't speak up because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I was a Protestant and I didn’t speak up. Then they came for me and by that time there was no one left to speak for me.

The point is, of course, if Christmas is abolished from public display, can the fate of Chanukah and the myriad of other Jewish holidays be far behind?

Also, if the Christians are discouraged from buying Christmas presents, some thought must be given to the question, "Who is selling the presents to the Christians?"

And lastly, a word about the ACLU. The ACLU is an organization supported by many liberal Jews and is in the forefront of efforts for a public suppression of Christmas. They are also vocal in criticism of American treatment of terrorists. It is our respectful observation that it is the terrorists who have affected the way in which we now have to live our lives, have created serious economic consequences for us and caused the death of thousands of Americans -- and not Bing Crosby.

With these thought we want to wish our friends both Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah --as least as long as we are permitted to do so.


Jackie Mason is a comedian. Raoul Felder is a lawyer.

Don't be myth-understood at the office party By Kathryn Lopez

Source: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1205/lopez121205.php3

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | 'Tis the season to get into arguments at the office Christmas party or the Chanukah dinner table. And these conversations rarely go well. But it's likely to happen, so brace yourself. Here are some notes likely to be hit, all off-key, this holiday season:


BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED: There are so many facts worth noting on this front, including that in its joint resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in 2002, Congress acknowledged that "the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people." That remains a fact — both that Saddam Hussein had, in fact, used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and that the majority of Congress agreed that that was a fact and that in his willingness to have and use WMDs, the Iraqi tyrant was indeed a threat to us.


BUSH HATES BLACK PEOPLE: I got hooked on the PG version of "Golddigger," as much as the next radio listener, but Kanye West is digging deep and with very little to go on when he rants that a racist White House let blacks suffer as Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast. There is a lot of finger-pointing to go around, but the tragic story of Katrina has more to do with local corruption, bad infrastructure and bureaucratic bungling than racism. Levee design flaws, too, for instance, dating back to 1993 were also not George Bush's fault. And yet, we will continue to hear that Katrina was a racist "genocide" perpetrated by the Bush administration (as we did in recent congressional testimony).


THE ECONOMY IS IN THE TANK: Growth and jobs and the stock market are up. Unemployment is down and hovering near historical lows. While the Fed has raised short-term interest rates several times to stave-off inflation, long rates remain low. And the so-called housing bubble has yet to pop, and likely won't as long as home ownership remains a tax-advantaged event. Even the "New York Times" — no parrot of White House talking points — has had to admit that the economy is "booming."


SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR'S SEAT WAS A "WOMAN'S SEAT": Quotas generally infuriate me as they should all fair-minded people. It's insulting to say "you're not good enough, so we'll judge you on a separate scale." And, yet, many wanted the president to do just that. Not only are the current Supreme Court Justice John Roberts and current nominee Samuel Alito men, but they are both believed to be pro-life. Of course, neither of those facts guarantee that they would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the case that made abortion legal in the United States, because they are, as Roberts's Senate confirmation hearings demonstrated and Alito's in January are likely to, at heart, fair-minded jurists who will deal with the facts before them. They, if they stay true to form, will not legislate from the bench, which is what the president was looking for in a Supreme Court judge, and what every American who remembers his three branches of government from Social Studies class should expect.


TERRI SCHIAVO WAS ON ARTIFICIAL LIFE SUPPORT: The Florida woman whose hospice bed was the focus of the nation's attention early this year was starved to death when she was taken off nutrition at the request of her estranged husband. Say what you will about the case, but know that there were no extraordinary measures used to keep her alive. Terri Schiavo died because she was starved to death — no pro or con argument changes that one fact.


PRESIDENT BUSH TOOK AUGUST OFF: He's the president of the United States. We're at war. He meets with foreign dignitaries, communicates and has on-site Cabinet members at the ranch. And the media's there to yell at him like always. He's working. Every day in Crawford is a day at the office. I may get Christmas off, but the prez is working.


The list could go on, as it might at your celebrations. But you're on guard now. Maybe you'll be lucky. Look at Kanye across the table and remind him of all those unused buses in New Orleans — the ones that could have evacuated people, but were instead left to sit in a flooded lot. Then maybe you can both retire to the living room for Scrabble or Xeroxing at the office.

Longtime Oriole Hendricks dies at 64

Longtime Oriole Hendricks dies at 64
Beloved Baltimore coach, player suffers heart attack

By Jeff Seidel / Special to MLB.com

BALTIMORE -- Longtime Oriole Elrod Hendricks died of a heart attack on Wednesday, one day before his 65th birthday.
With the exception of stints with the Cubs in 1972 and the Yankees in 1976 and 1977, Hendricks had been with the Orioles in some form since 1968. He played for the team in a few stints from 1968 to 1979. He was named the team's bullpen coach after the 1977 season and stayed there until the Orioles announced after this season that he would be reassigned.

Hendricks spent a total of 37 years with the Orioles as a player and coach. He missed 18 games this past season after suffering a mild stroke in April when the Orioles were in Tampa. But he returned and coached for the rest of the season.

The Orioles were reportedly concerned about the effects of another full season of travel on Hendricks and decided to reassign him. As he had done for several years, Hendricks served as Santa Claus at the team's annual Christmas party for underprivileged children on Monday. At the event, he said he wasn't sure what his role was going to be next year.

"I don't know; I have not been told," Hendricks said. "I did speak to [executive vice president of baseball operations] Mike [Flanagan] about a month ago about what I would like to do. But nothing so far. It's still in review."

Hendricks was well-known for how generous he was with his time in the community -- especially when it came to children. He ran one of the Baltimore area's most popular and well-respected baseball camps every summer, always getting big names to pop in and talk to and work with children. And the kids just loved it.

He was one of the organization's most recognizable faces and loved being with kids and making them smile. He sat for a long time on Monday at the party, letting children perch themselves on his lap and tell him what they wanted for Christmas. There were about 100 children and they all got pictures of sitting with Santa and smiling.

"It's a joy to watch the faces, the smiles, watching them open the gifts," Hendricks said. "It's a warm feeling."

Washington manager Frank Robinson was saddened by the news of Hendricks' passing. The two had been longtime friends and played and worked together.

"Elrod was a friend to a lot of people," Robinson said. "He was a great ambassador for baseball in the Baltimore-Washington area and a great ambassador for the Orioles. He was a smart individual. He helped a lot of baseball players."

Jeff Seidel is a contributor to MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Robinson's tribute to Elrod Hendricks

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051222&content_id=1286279&vkey=news_was&fext=.jsp&c_id=was

12/22/2005 1:40 AM ET
Robinson pays tribute to Hendricks
Nationals manager saddened to learn of friend's passing
By Bill Ladson / MLB.com

It was obvious to everyone who went to Spring Training that Nationals manager Frank Robinson and Elrod Hendricks were great friends.
Every time the Nationals/Expos finished playing the Orioles in an exhibition game in Florida, Robinson, who would normally go straight to his office to talk to the media, always walked across the diamond to talk to Hendricks, who was the Orioles' longtime bullpen coach. The conversation would last about 10 minutes before Robinson met with the media.

On Wednesday night, Robinson was saddened to learn that Hendricks, who worked for the Orioles for almost 40 years, died of a heart attack, just one day shy of his 65th birthday.

"Elrod was a friend to a lot of people," Robinson told MLB.com late Wednesday night. "He was a great ambassador for baseball in the Baltimore/Washington area and a great ambassador for the Orioles. He was a smart individual. He helped a lot of baseball players. I want to send my condolences to his wife and his boys. You can't say enough about him."

The last time Robinson and Hendricks spoke to each other was during the 2005 season after Hendricks recovered from a minor stroke. Robinson called Hendricks to see how he was doing.

Hendricks and Robinson were Orioles teammates from 1968 to 1971. Together, they won three pennants and one World Series. Robinson first met Hendricks during Spring Training of '68. Hendricks had the reputation of being the Babe Ruth of the Mexican League, but Robinson didn't believe Hendricks' reputation after looking at the latter's frame.

"They pointed him out and I said, 'No way. He's scrawny. He's not a home run hitter. He didn't hit 40-something home runs the year before,'" Robinson said.

Hendricks didn't put up Ruthian numbers in his 12 years as a big leaguer, but he turned out to be one of the better catchers in the game and a favorite of many Orioles pitchers, including Mike Cuellar and Jim Palmer.

"Nobody could throw a fastball by [Hendricks] and he used a heavy bat," Robinson said. "He was a tremendous teammate. He was always trying to do something to help, whether it was hitting, pitching or catching. He didn't step on people's toes. He was a real competitor. ... He was a take-charge guy when he was around the plate."

Hendricks also was a bullpen coach under Robinson, who managed the Orioles from 1988 to 1991. Robinson regrets that he never gave Hendricks a better role on his coaching staff. But Hendricks took his time making a decision on what role he wanted to play under Robinson.

"After I changed the coaching staff after the '88 season, I really wanted him to step up and get out of the bullpen," Robinson recalled. "I offered him any job that he wanted except being a hitting coach. He said, 'Wherever you want me to be.' He gave me that same answer three different times. At that time, I was a little upset with him, because I wanted him to make a decision. He didn't do it, so I said, 'OK, stay down in the bullpen.' He said, 'OK.' He was a tremendous help to me when I managed in Baltimore."

Bill Ladson is a reporter for MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.

Help Flush the R.I.N.O.s OUT of the U. S. Senate in 2006

Source: http://www.rightmarch.com/pac/filibusterfive.htm

Punish the Senate Filibuster Compromisers!

ALERT: By now, I'm sure you've heard about the so-called "deal" put together by "moderate" Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate, which will stop Sen. Frist from putting a halt to the Democrats' unconstitutional judicial filibusters but will allow a few of President Bush's nominees to be voted on and confirmed.

This "deal" was nothing less than a BETRAYAL of our President, the Senate Republican Leaders... and the United States Constitution.

Where the Democrats were trying to subvert the Constitution by demanding a super-MAJORITY of 60 Senators for confirming judicial nominees, seven Republican turncoats shredded the Constitution by cutting a deal allowing a "super-MINORITY" of just 14 Senators to block or confirm any nominee.

I AM ANGRY. LOTS of real conservatives -- hard-working, patriotic, red-blooded Americans who love our Constitution and believe it should be upheld -- are VERY ANGRY about this "deal". Look at some of the e-mails we received from our members today:

L. Hatchett: "In my opinion the November 2004 vote, the will of the people was thrown out, DELIBERATELY IGNORED AS A FACTOR and of NO consequence."

G. Anderson: "I give up... Congress is full of cowards who will never stand up for principle."

Joey: "Typical that the so-called Republicans caved in and allowed a bogus settlement at the last second."

E. Lathrop: "When I grew up in the early sixties, Majority ruled, no compromise, Representative democracy in action - somebody wins and somebody loses - tough luck. The Minority did not whine, they just tried to win the next time. Compromise is the language of weak people."

We received a LOT of e-mails, just like those. Our members are angry. I'M angry. I hope you're angry too. Angry enough to do something about it.

That's why we're here.

TAKE ACTION: Our members sent over 100,000 faxes, emails, letters, hand-delivered mailgrams, etc. to the Senate, demanding that they allow up-or-down votes on ALL of President Bush's judicial nominees.

The "Gang of Seven" Republican turncoats IGNORED you, IGNORED their constituents, IGNORED their duty... and IGNORED the U.S. Constitution.

So now they should pay the political price.

Out of the seven GOP turncoats (McCain, Graham, DeWine, Warner, Chafee, Collins, Snowe), THREE of them are up for re-election in 2006. Out of the seven Democrat "deal-makers" (Nelson, Byrd, Landrieu, Salazar, Pryor, Lieberman, Inouye), TWO of them are from "red states" and are up for re-election also.

That's FIVE Senators who made a "deal with the devil" to shred the Constitution -- and we're going to go after EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. But we need YOUR help to do it. Please donate right now to support our efforts in defeating these Senators who have betrayed the U.S. Constitution -- click here to contribute now:

https://secure.responseenterprises.com/rightmarchpac/?a=8

Here's what we're going to do, starting RIGHT NOW:

* In Rhode Island, we're targeting Sen. Lincoln Chafee for defeat in the Republican primary. For the first time in years, Chafee has a likely conservative opponent: Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey. The RightMarch.com PAC finally has a good chance to take down one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate, and replace him with a good conservative.

* In Maine, we're targeting Sen. Olympia Snowe for defeat in the GOP primary. We've got a great candidate to support against her: State Representative Brian Duprey, a conservative Navy veteran and homeschooling father of five. The RightMarch.com PAC is going to go all out to take down Snowe, one of the most prominent RINOs ("Republicans In Name Only") in the Senate.

* In Ohio, we're targeting Sen. Mike DeWine for defeat. There are no declared candidates running against DeWine in the Republican primary -- so we're going into Ohio and working with conservative organizations to RECRUIT one who can WIN. The RightMarch.com PAC is dedicated to removing RINOs from the Senate -- and DeWine scored a measly 68 in the American Conservative Union's ratings for 2004. It's time for him to go.

* In Nebraska, we're targeting Democrat Sen. Ben Nelson for defeat. Nebraska is a solid "red state" -- President Bush won the state with 66% of the vote in 2004, and Nelson squeaked by with just 51% of the vote in his last election. The RightMarch.com PAC is going to jump on this opportunity to take out one of the leading members of the judicial filibuster's "Gang of Fourteen", and replace him with a REAL conservative like former Attorney General Don Stenberg.

* In West Virginia, we're targeting Democrat leader Sen. Robert Byrd for defeat. West Virginia is another good "red state" -- President Bush won the state with 56% of the vote in 2004 (a 100,000 vote margin), and Byrd's standing in the polls is at its lowest in years. The RightMarch.com PAC has a chance to take out one of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate (he scored an EIGHT in ACU's ratings in 2004), and finally replace him with an honest-to-goodness conservative: Iraq war veteran and Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer Hiram Lewis.

Five compromising Senators. Three GOP Senate seats, two Democrat "red state" seats. All up for re-election in 2006.

And the RightMarch.com PAC is targeting each one of them for defeat.

WE CAN DO IT -- but we need YOUR help. Are you ANGRY about what these people did? Then HELP US throw the bums out of office. Contribute NOW to our efforts to DEFEAT these back-stabbers:

https://secure.responseenterprises.com/rightmarchpac/?a=8

NOTE: By the way, why not drop a note to each one of the "Gang of Fourteen", letting them know that because of their betrayal of the Constitution, you're going to be working to DEFEAT them in 2006? Here's their contact info:

Mike DeWine (OH): http://capwiz.com/sicminc/mail/?id=456&type=CO&state=OH

Lincoln Chafee (RI): http://capwiz.com/sicminc/mail/?id=40039&type=CO&state=RI

Olympia Snowe (ME): http://capwiz.com/sicminc/mail/?id=282&type=CO&state=ME

Ben Nelson (NE): http://capwiz.com/sicminc/mail/?id=10748&type=CO&state=NE

Robert Byrd (WV): http://capwiz.com/sicminc/mail/?id=622&type=CO&state=WV

Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who's ANGRY about this treacherous "deal" in the U.S. Senate, and wants to REMOVE these five opponents of the Constitution! Thank you!

Sincerely,


William Greene, President
RightMarch.com PAC


DONATE NOW:
https://secure.responseenterprises.com/rightmarchpac/?a=8

This is your brain on liberalism. Any questions?