|

B eltway
Bacchanal: Congress Lives High
on the Contributor's Dime
By Ken Silverstein
Harper's Magazine
March 2008 Issue
Try to list the stakes at play in the congressional elections
this fall, and one might settle on health care, taxes, immigration,
Iraq. Seldom considered, though, is an issue of more direct
importance to the members of Congress themselves: Which party will
get to live more lushly in the nation's capital, where those who
control the levers of legislation also command the most and best
perks? Washington by and large is a restrained, workaday sort of
town, its residents not known for high living; but a significant
exception can always be found among the denizens of Capitol Hill,
and especially among the legislators who command a majority there.
For this convivial crew and its hangers-on, the most pressing matter
to be decided on Election Day is, as ever, whether they can hold on
to that majority and all its accompanying boons.
The most lavish benefit of winning a congressional campaign
is, ironically enough, the right to keep on campaigning - and
therefore to keep raising and spending donor money. Uninformed
citizens may still think of "campaigns" as discrete events, waged
mostly in home districts and just before election time. In fact,
political fund-raising is now a nonstop activity, with candidates
chasing dollars far outside the borders of their home states and
districts. And although the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is
supposed to monitor the use of this money, it has interpreted the
relevant rules in a highly flexible fashion. Politicians have two
primary vehicles with which to raise and spend money, the first
being their campaign treasuries, which according to ethics rules
must be kept "separate from [the member's] personal funds" and can
be used only for "bona fide campaign or political purposes." But in
practice the FEC has permitted virtually any expenditure, from a
night on the town to a resort stay with big contributors, to be
drawn from these funds. (Last October, in a rare act of censure, the
FEC cited New York Demo-cratic Congressman Gregory Meeks for using
$6,230 to pay for a personal trainer, whose services initially had
been justified by his office as necessary to alleviate stress
brought on by "the candidate's duties.") Spending from the second
vehicle - the Leadership PAC - is less restrictive still, since it
is not even subject to the nominal "personal use" prohibition that
applies to campaign treasuries. Furthermore, individual contribution
limits to Leadership PACs are $5,000 per year, versus $2,300 per
election for political campaigns. Not surprisingly, most senators
and more than a third of House members now run Leadership PACs,
which were quite rare as recently as a decade ago. During the 2006
election cycle, fund-raising by Leadership PACs exceeded $160
million.
Most of the political spending by members of Congress is no
doubt legitimate, at least under existing rules, because it is in
fact connected (if often tenuously) to winning reelection. But as
the "campaign" has lost all temporal and spatial boundaries, and the
FEC has largely turned a blind eye, misuse of donor money has become
positively shameless. Those who hold safe seats spend just as freely
as those in highly competitive districts, if not more so, and these
allegedly campaign-related expenditures continue year-round.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics (which helpfully
provided much of the data for this article), at least eight House
members spent more than $10,000 in campaign funds on food, travel,
and fund-raising in the eight weeks between Election Day 2006 and
New Year's Eve - not exactly a peak campaigning period. These
included Democrat John Murtha and Republican Don Young, whose
respective margins of victory were 22 and 17 percent. Three of the
other big spenders, interestingly enough, were Republicans who lost
their seats in the 2006 midterm vote; in their dwindling days of
public service, they apparently decided to treat themselves well on
the way out.
Inside Washington itself, such casual appropriation of
political contributions bankrolls much of the city's social life.
Some of the spending on food and drink is related to fund-raising
events, but a notable portion is for private restaurant meals -
sometimes classified in disclosure forms under the category of
"political meetings." These "meetings" are held at a circuit of
nightspots that include the two political parties' clubs - the
semiprivate National Democratic Club and, for Republicans, the
strictly cloistered Capitol Hill Club - and otherwise range from
such old standbys as Morton's (where, in the 1980s, the corrupt
House boss Dan Rostenkowski held court so frequently that a bronze
plaque near the bar read "Rosty's Rotunda") to chic eateries like
Bistro Bis and the Sonoma Wine Bar. Most Americans could not afford
to eat at any of these restaurants. The price of an appetizer alone
- like the $15.95 lobster mac-and-cheese at the Oceanaire or the $18
crabmeat, lobster, and shrimp cocktail at the Capitol Hill Club (why
settle for one when you can have all three?) - tends to be daunting.
The à la carte entrées begin at the low end with items like the
stuffed rabbit loin at Bistro Bis ($29.50), move up to the signature
porterhouse at the Capital Grille ($41) or the double-cut prime rib
at Morton's ($43), and for the truly memorable occasion climb to $20
per ounce (5-ounce minimum) for the Kobe strip steak at Charlie
Palmer's. With drinks, dessert, and a tip, a meal for two can easily
run into the hundreds of dollars.
In the land of the permanent campaign, though, these are the
everyday haunts of our elected leaders. Between 2005 and late 2007,
at just ten of Washington's priciest restaurants, House members
collectively spent $5.4 million of their campaign money. (Note that
this does not even include senators, who typically spend even more
than their colleagues in the lower chamber; but because senators are
not required to file disclosure forms electronically, categorizing
their expenses with any specificity is a nearly impossible task.)
Last year, in the aftermath of scandals involving Jack
Abramoff and Randy "Duke" Cunningham, among others, Congress passed
an ethics bill that barred lobbyists from directly buying members
food and drinks, a step that was hailed as imposing a barrier
between lawmakers and special interests. But political donations
continue to underwrite legislators' nightly entertainment in
Washington - helping to maintain the hermetic Beltway bubble in
which lawmakers fraternize with precisely those people from whom
ethics laws, and the demands of good governance, aim to separate
them.
To see just how well one can live while in the public employ,
stand near the Capitol South metro station around 6:30 p.m. on those
weeknights when Congress is in session. One can witness a steady
stream of members, staffers, and their acquaintances, in groups of
twos, threes, and fours, fanning out across the city. The stream
soon divides, with some branches flowing toward such nearby
destinations as the Capitol Hill Club or the cavernous Charlie
Palmer steakhouse. Among the other popular options are the Caucus
Room, whose owners include Democratic lobbyist Tommy Boggs and
former Republican National Committee chairman and current
Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour; and Sam & Harry's, a beef shrine
downtown.
During the period of G.O.P. rule, the Capital Grille, which,
at Pennsylvania Avenue and Sixth Street, sits in the reflected glow
of the Capitol dome, was perhaps the most popular hangout in town
for Republican insiders. The restaurant opened here in 1994, the
year that Newt Gingrich led the G.O.P. takeover of Congress, and on
its opening night handed out $100,000 in free food and drink to
legislators. "It might as well be part of the Capitol complex," The
Hill remarked in 2003, "like the Russell Senate Office Building or
the Rayburn House Office Building, since you're likely to run into
almost as many members of Congress and staffers at the Capital
Grille as you do on Capitol Hill." Business has reportedly dropped
off now that Democrats are back in charge, but it remains one of the
best spots in town to hobnob with members of Congress and their
entourages.
When I visited the Capital Grille one night last fall, three
SUVs were idling out front for lawmakers who were finishing up
inside. As I walked toward the revolving front door, Representative
Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.), head of the House Ways and Means
Committee, was walking out. A man just in front of me - likely a
lobbyist, given his power suit, leather briefcase, and Bluetooth
earpiece - immediately accosted Rangel, furiously shaking his hand,
and the two struck up a short but friendly conversation. After
Rangel stepped into his waiting car (license plate nyrep15), the man
turned to me, eyes afire, and exclaimed, "He's da man!"
Inside, just past a window display of aged beef hanging like
holy relics, the first thing one sees is a wall of wine lockers,
their owners' names engraved on brass plaques. Defense contractor
Brent Wilkes, who was convicted of bribing former Representative
Duke Cunningham, used to have a locker here, as did businessman
Mitchell Wade, who pleaded guilty to similar charges. Former
lobbyists whose names grace lockers include Jeffrey Shockey, a
longtime aide to Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis, as well as the
late Ann Eppard, who pleaded guilty in 1999 to taking payoffs while
working for former Pennsylvania Republican Bud Shuster, a longtime
powerhouse on the House Transportation Committee. (Her locker is
kept in memoriam.)
In the bar just beyond, an assortment of politicos can
inevitably be found mingling about. On one night in October, I saw
Terry Nelson, who until the summer had served as John McCain's
presidential-campaign manager, strolling through toward the dining
room; William Pickle, the recently retired Senate sergeant at arms,
moving from stool to stool, chatting with acquaintances; and a
dapper Arthur Wu, the Republican staff director of the House
Veterans' Affairs oversight and investigations subcommittee, who
stood at center stage with a big smile and glass in hand. Senator
Norm Coleman (R., Minn.), who had dropped by after a fund-raiser
held in his honor earlier in the evening at the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce town house, sipped from a drink while chatting with Matthew
Brooks, head of the Republican Jewish Coalition.
On another night, Senator Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) came into the
bar from the dining room and struck up a conversation with two men
while several suitors lined up to wait their turn. Also on hand was
Edwina Rogers, a lobbyist and the wife of Republican power broker Ed
Rogers, who along with a female friend was enjoying a night on the
town whose itinerary still included a stop at Georgetown's Cafe
Milano. Rogers, whose freewheeling style seemed hard to square with
her role as a conservative strategist and former Bush White House
aide at the National Economic Council, was immersed in conversation
with someone whom she identified to me, moments later, as an
important committee staffer. The topic wasn't hard to discern.
"You need to make Rick an offer of at least three times what
he's making now," the man told Rogers.
"Let's get together Thursday at Charlie Palmer's," Rogers
replied with a laugh. "And bring Rick."
I shared drinks with several lobbyists who meet regularly at
the Grille. "They decided to criminalize everything," one said,
referring to the new ban on lobbyists buying meals for lawmakers.
"My reaction is, 'Have a good life.' It's not going to hurt me, I
already know people, but it's going to make it hard for those who
are new [at lobbying] and are trying to build personal
relationships."
One of our tablemates was similarly untroubled. "So far, it's
saved me a lot of money," he said. "But I'm not sure what's going to
happen in the long run. When they lowered the speed limit to 55,
everyone paid attention for six months. Then they started driving 70
again."
As originally envisioned by the founders of the American
republic, serving in Congress was to be strictly a part-time job.
Early officeholders, typically farmers and businessmen, came to
Washington for only a few weeks to deal with national affairs and
then returned home. Too much time in the capital, it was thought,
would diminish the bond between representatives and their
constituents. "As it is essential to liberty that the government in
general should have a common interest with the people, so it is
particularly essential that [Congress] should have an immediate
dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people,"
Federalist #52 opined.
It is perhaps too easy to romanticize this era of "citizen
legislators," who of course generally came from, and represented the
interests of, the economic elite. And yet holding office was then
genuinely seen as a public service rather than a career, let alone a
path to riches. Today's lawmakers complain bitterly about the rigors
of the job, including the incessant fund-raising, but they
overwhelmingly opt to seek term after term and in recent decades
have won reelection at a rate of roughly 90 percent, in part because
both parties have gerrymandered congressional districts so that few
incumbents are dislodged.
Why do they so dearly want to stay? The pay is very good but
not outlandish: at $169,300 per year, a member of Congress earns
less than what he or she could likely command in the private
sector.1 More generous, arguably, is the retirement plan, which (for
members serving at least five years) is guaranteed for life, at a
payout that the National Taxpayers Union estimates to be at least
twice what a similarly salaried corporate executive would get upon
retirement. Another factor, no doubt, is the entourage that tends to
members' needs. As recently as World War II, lawmakers got by with a
minimal staff, but today each congressman typically has a score of
young, eager aides who do everything from managing his schedule to
driving him around town. Only the nation's most elite CEOs can
afford to have so many talented minions at their beck and call
around the clock.
But among the greatest perks of congressional service today
is the campaign dole, which provides legislators with potentially
limitless funds to lavish on associates, or on themselves. One
cannot flip through disclosure reports of the most powerful members
of Congress without finding vast sums being dispensed for purposes
that hardly seem essential to their reelection. Over a recent
four-year period, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has used more
than $125,000 in political funds to pay for stays at such Las Vegas
hotels as the MGM Grand, the Wynn resort, Caesars Palace, and
Mandalay Bay. His House counterpart, Congressman Steny Hoyer of
Maryland, has displayed similarly pricey tastes: during the 2006
election cycle alone, his Leadership PAC doled out $66,146 on
hotels, including the InterContinental Hotel in Chicago, the
Ritz-Carlton in Phoenix, the Breakers in Palm Beach, and the W in
Seattle. In the fall of 2005, Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor, now
the G.O.P. chief deputy whip, charged his political funds more than
$42,000 for stays at the Beverly Hills Hotel and Bungalows, as well
as $1,224 for a tour of the Warner Bros. studios.
Such eye-opening use of donor money is by no means confined
to party leaders. Consider the case of Representative James McCrery
(R., La.), who has held no post in the Republican leadership and
whose national profile is fairly limited. McCrery's campaign took in
$3.3 million between 2005 and 2007, a staggering amount given that
his seat is utterly secure; he crushed his most recent Democratic
opponent, who spent all of $7,000, by some 40 percentage points.
McCrery's Leadership PAC - which is named, without apparent irony,
the Committee for the Preservation of Capitalism - raised another
$2.3 million during the same period. McCrery recently announced that
he would not seek reelection this fall, a choice that analysts
described as a serious blow to the G.O.P.'s financial prospects for
the 2008 election.
By congressional standards, McCrery is poor: his assets, as
listed on disclosure forms, are estimated at between $25,000 and
$200,000, ranking him in the bottom fifth of his peers. Yet life in
Congress has been good for McCrery, as well as for his friends,
family, and associates. In 2004 his wife, Johnette, until then an
assistant professor at Louisiana State University - Shreveport, was
named a vice president at the Washington office of Ketchum, one of
the world's largest P.R. firms. A number of his staffers have gone
on to become lobbyists or consultants, and the wife of one former
aide gets paid to run the Committee for the Preservation of
Capitalism.2
McCrery has cut a broad gastronomical swath through
Washington, using political funds to dine out frequently at
twenty-five different restaurants since 2005. Although his favorite
spot seems to be the Capitol Hill Club (twenty-eight visits and
events, totaling more than $59,000), the congressman has spread his
wealth around town, spending thousands of dollars from his political
funds at Bistro Bis and the Capital Grille, as well as at Johnny's
Half Shell, a seafood spot near Union Station, and Acadiana, whose
menu reflects "the bounty of Louisiana, in the finest of seafood and
premium meats." When in his home district, McCrery regularly drops
by the Southern Trace Country Club (twelve visits in three years, at
combined costs to his political funds of some $40,000) and the
Shreveport Club (seven visits, $2,200).
For travel, McCrery appears to enjoy the Napa Valley, having
charged his political funds tens of thousands of dollars for
fund-raising trips there in the past three years. His fall 2007
expenses at Sonoma's Benziger Family Winery, which "produces Sonoma
cabernet sauvignon, merlot, and chardonnay wines with a strong sense
of place," set back his Leadership PAC $13,000. The congressman also
enjoys a good party. McCrery sits on the executive committee of the
Mystick Krewe of Louisianians Inc., a group of "displaced
Louisianians living in our nation's capital." In 2005, his campaign
paid $7,725 to the group for a Mardi Gras-themed party.
McCrery's passions include golfing - several years ago, he
appeared on Golf Digest's list of the top 200 players among members
of Congress, White House officials, Supreme Court justices, and
lobbyists - and he frequently can be found on the links, courtesy of
his political funds. McCrery spent $1,592 in December of 2005 at the
Calusa Pines Golf Club and another $994 the following month at the
Olde Florida Golf Club, both in balmy Naples, Florida. He frequently
holds his fund-raising events at golf clubs, where donors have given
him the money to pay for yet more golfing.3 He spent $7,488 at the
Talking Stick in Scottsdale, Arizona (winner of the Golden Nugget
Award for Best Recreational Facility), and $32,036 at the Kiawah
Island Golf Resort off the South Carolina coast (named No. 1 golf
resort in America by Travel + Leisure Golf magazine and No. 2 tennis
resort by Tennis magazine).
He and donors traveled farther south for an affair McCrery
hosted at the Rio Mar Beach Resort and Spa in Puerto Rico, which,
says its website, "lies between a magnificent palm-lined beach and
lush mountains" and boasts "an award-winning staff at your beck and
call." The resort offers - naturally - two championship golf
courses, as well as eleven tennis courts, two oceanfront swimming
pools, and "oceanfront meditation areas." Still another golfing
affair - a single-event expense record for McCrery, costing his
Leadership PAC nearly $52,000 - was held at the Lansdowne Resort in
Virginia's Hunt Country.
McCrery's non-travel-related payments of note include an
$88,512 bonus to his fund-raising consultant last year, $10,000 in
checks to the Tom DeLay Legal Expense Trust, more than $10,000 for
gifts (much of it spent at the Tiny Jewel Box in Washington), $3,000
labeled only as petty cash, $1,427 at the Marble Slab Creamery, and
$1,102 more at the Cake House. There is seemingly nothing that
McCrery has not seen fit to charge to his political funds, including
babysitting for his children: a bill of $300 was paid to one Katie
Raffaelli, the daughter of John Raffaelli, a lobbyist and campaign
donor to the congressman.
I called McCrery and asked whether he thought some of his
expenditures might have been a bit extravagant - for example, the
donor event in Puerto Rico. McCrery explained that early in his
career, he had attended many fund-raisers, and had developed a keen
sense of what made for a memorable affair. "I tried to emulate those
events that attracted people so that they would want to come back,"
he told me. "Yes, we do go to some very nice places, and we like to
make sure that people have a good time. . . . So I plead guilty."
What about expenditures for meals and other non-fund-raising
events? I asked. "It's fairly loose in terms of the use of campaign
money," the congressman replied. "It has to be connected to the
campaign, but that can be any number of things." For example,
McCrery might pick up the dinner tab for other members of Congress
"if I'm talking to them about fund-raising activities, or if I'm
trying to get them to come to a campaign event." At the Capitol Hill
Club, some of his expenditures were for what he called "check
presentations," ceremonial events (often including donors) at which
the PAC hands out checks to members and candidates. As for
babysitting, the congressman said that he had asked the FEC for an
opinion about that matter, and he had been assured it was
appropriate. "We don't use it often, but we have occasionally," he
told me, adding that he usually paid $100 "if the person comes in
and spends the night." The 2007 tab for $300 was for babysitting
when he and his wife were away for a few days at a Republican
retreat - at the Hyatt Regency Chesapeake Bay Golf Resort, Spa and
Marina.
All in all, McCrery has allocated some $650,000 in political
funds for food, drinks, catering, and hotels during the past three
years. This is a pace of roughly $18,000 a month - and keep in mind
that this figure excludes tens of thousands of dollars more in
airfare, rental cars, and related travel costs. For Democrats just
beginning to enjoy the enhanced perks of majority status and hoping
to tighten their grip thereon, McCrery's story can only serve as
election-year inspiration.
Even as the Democrats' triumph in 2006 has accomplished
almost nothing in terms of policy, it has produced a stunning
reversal in the parties' respective finances. As of January, the
Democratic Senate and House congressional campaign committees had
combined cash on hand of $56 million, almost five times more than
their formerly cash-swollen Republican counterparts. At one point
last fall, the G.O.P.'s House campaign committee was technically
insolvent, with $2.3 million more in debt than in the bank.
"Washington is a town that operates on the basis of what people can
do for you," says Melanie Sloan, director of Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "Now that the Democrats
control Congress, it's a lot easier to get people to show up at
their fund-raisers. As a donor, you can't afford to say no."
In Washington, the Democrats' political and social resurgence
can be witnessed in the revived fortunes of the National Democratic
Club, which serves as a semiprivate venue for party lawmakers and
elected officials, as well as the lobbyists, consultants,
fund-raisers, and others whose livelihood depends on access to them.
Monthly fees at the club - located on Ivy Street, a few minutes'
walk from the House and Senate office buildings - are only $25 per
month for members of Congress; others pay $80 monthly, on top of a
$300 initiation fee.
I stopped by the club on a cold, windy evening last December
to meet a party political consultant. It was a jovial spot, to be
sure, but surprisingly modest, with pre-Christmas décor reminiscent
of a roadside hotel lounge. Thick pillars in the dining room were
wrapped in faded red, white, and silver decorations, and a small
Christmas tree squatted against a wall. Among the customers were a
few members of Congress, including Carolyn McCarthy of New York and
Barney Frank and Michael Capuano of Massachusetts, as well as an
elderly foursome playing bridge at a corner table. At the bar, Hill
staffers, assorted politicos, and a few locals from the neighborhood
chatted over drinks and bowls of a low-grade nut mix.
The club was founded by former staffers in the Truman
Administration, and for decades it was a de rigueur stop on the
local social circuit. In March 1986, when Democrats held a huge
majority in the House, a capacity crowd gathered for "a glittering
gala" to mark the completion of a major remodeling, the website
relates. Eight years later, catastrophe struck when the party lost
both chambers for the first time in over forty years. More than
1,000 members promptly resigned from the club, and the smart action
drifted a few blocks away to the Republican Party's more lavish
Capitol Hill Club.
As the Republican grip on Washington tightened in the ensuing
years, the National Democratic Club was forced to sell its
three-story building and then rent back the ground floor for its
dwindling operations. Up until recently, the mood here had been
desultory, but a renaissance arrived on Election Night 2006, when
hundreds of revelers gathered to celebrate the sweeping Democratic
victory. "Once again, the place to be is your NDC," said the club's
first post-election newsletter. General Manager Christine Hilty
describes the club as a refuge for Democrats and their supporters.
"There's certainly networking going on, but people come here because
it's a safe place," she said. "There are no cameras." Membership has
climbed by about 30 percent since the 2006 elections, she estimated,
and business is more bustling than at any point in the six years
she's worked there. During the first nine months of 2007,
congressional Democrats and party committees used political
contributions to pay for $426,431 worth of food and drink at the
club. That was an increase of about 70 percent from the same period
in 2005, when the Democrats were still in the minority.4
Not only does the majority party have more to spend; it is
also more spent upon. Democrats have found themselves newly
fashionable on the Washington scene, whether as party guests, as
dinner partners, or simply for a coffee or office meeting,
especially, of course, with lobbyists. "You're vying for time and
you're not going to vie for the time of someone who has no power,"
one lobbyist explained to me about his post-2006 shift in social
priorities. Former Democrats, and those considering retirement, have
seen their prospects soar as K Street firms look to enhance their
outreach to the new kings of Congress. The Republican-dominated
lobby shop of Barbour Griffith & Rogers - founded by Haley Barbour,
the Mississippi governor - recently announced that it would begin
hiring Democrats. "I'm not going to deny the obvious," the firm's
chairman, Ed Rogers (Edwina's husband), told the Washington Post.
"The expectations of our clients are such that we have to have a
full range of political, policy and business expertise, and in
today's world that includes Democrats."
The new ethics rules ostensibly prohibit lobbyists from
buying members drinks and meals, but it almost certainly will still
happen, albeit with a variety of winks and nods. One of the
lobbyists I met at the Capital Grille explained a common method of
picking up tabs for members in the past. "Let's say there were four
or five members sitting at a table with a couple or three
lobbyists," he said. "The bill might come to $1,500. But when it
came time to pay, they [the members] would pay nothing, or throw in
a twenty and say, 'There's my share.'"
Every so often,
public outrage compels lawmakers to make a show of their
determination to "clean up" Washington. Congress's "ethics reform
package" passed last year, widely hailed as the toughest ever
approved, is at least the fourth enacted since the end of World War
II. Over the years, members have tightened the rules about their use
of corporate jets, the amount of money they can receive from
political donors, and the legality of having private entities pay
for their food and travel, among other matters. But largely exempted
from the chopping block have been the extraordinary benefits and
perquisites available to members, which have grown exponentially and
transformed a seat in Congress from a comfortable but relatively
modest office into a sort of modern-day lordship.
Last November, the Senate Finance Committee announced that it
would be scrutinizing, as part of a probe of tax-exempt
organizations, the compensation packages and perks enjoyed by
leaders of some of the nation's top ministries. The committee
expressed concern about religious officials granting themselves high
salaries, huge travel allowances, private jets, and luxury cars, all
paid for by donations to their ministries. "I don't want to conclude
that there's a problem, but I have an obligation to donors and the
taxpayers to find out more," Senator Charles Grassley (R., Iowa)
said at the time the probe was announced. "People who donated should
have their money spent as intended."
Whether or not the ministers are a worthy target of
investigation, the fact that a high committee of the U.S. Congress
would be in charge of such an inquiry is, to put it mildly, ironic.
For if there is any single group in America that lives high on funds
donated for other purposes, it is our 535 members of Congress.
Perhaps they should overlook the motes in the reverends' eyes until
they have considered the beams in their own.
ver materialize after Mr.
Giuliani pulled out at the end of the month.
Leslie Wayne, Griffin
Palmer and Aron Pilhofer contributed reporting.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/03/0081944
[Index
to Articles]
|