Scotty Dodges Miersgate Question
Thanks to Holden's Obsession with the Gaggle we learn that Scotty McClellan did a Texas two-step to dodge a couple of questions about Miersgate - the no-bid contract given to Ben Barnes' client by Harriet Miers to keep Barnes from revealing that Bush lied about the stringpulling that got him out of Vietnam and into the Texas Air National Guard ahead of 500 applicants. The question came from Les Kinsolving, a maverick conservative talk show host.
Q Scott, Worldnet Daily reported in 1995 Ben Barnes, Texas former lieutenant governor, secured a contract for a company called GTECH to run the Texas Lottery. And my first question: Did Harriet Miers continue the Texas Lottery's contract to GTECH without bid, so that Barnes received a $23 million payoff as part of the deal, authorized by Miers?
MR. McCLELLAN: I would encourage you to go back and look at news reports at the time, because the governor's office at the time denied any connection that you may be asserting within your question. That's an issue that's already been discussed, and I think that Ben Barnes has said the same.
Q In 1999, a former executive director of the Texas Lottery, named Lawrence Littwin, filed a lawsuit alleging he lost his job as a result of political influence wielded by Barnes. And my question, since this Littwin suit was settled out of court for $300,000, what is the White House response?
MR. McCLELLAN: The allegations have been disputed previously by both the governor's office and -- by the governor's office at the time, and by Mr. Barnes. I would encourage you to go back and look at the comments that were made at the time. I'd be glad to provide those to you if you would like.
Will the rest of the White House press corps jump on this scandal? Stay tuned...
- Bob Fertik's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Texas Lottery and Harriet Miers
I don't think you've got the facts right here. From what I've read about the subject, that contract was in effect when Harriet Miers came on board and she was the one pushing to re-negotiate. Soon after she came aboard, Barnes sold out and the contract was re-negotiated.
No matter what her deeds regarding the Texas Lottery Commission, I'm much more concerned with her stance on the "nuclear option" that will strip the right of the senate to filibuster on judicial nominees. (And if they can vote to strip the right to filibust judicial nominees, how far a reach is it from voting to deny the filibuster votes on legislation?) If she is the swing vote on that, we can all stop fretting about her stance on Roe V Wade and any other question of rights that comes before the court. The "nuclear option" will take care of those nagging constitutional issues the administration must now endure. If Miers is confirmed, Democrats are sunk on every front. She'll be the final stone in building the Bush dictatorship.
Note: I deleted the earlier
Note: I deleted the earlier replies - OF COURSE criticism of my facts (and my hair and my jokes - but be careful there) are acceptable at Democrats.com.
OK, let's walk through them. I'll admit I haven't done a detailed timeline on this - someone should but I don't have time. Here are the primary links, which are in my original Miersgate post.
There are some differences in these versions of the story which I didn't have time to sort through methodically. I'm relying below on what "stuck" in my overloaded brain.
Correct. Miers was appointed in 1995. Gtech had the contract to manage the Texas Lottery before that.
Partly correct. I think "everyone" in Texas knew the contract was padded and even 1994 Gubernatorial candidate Bush talked about renegotiating it. Bush appointed Miers after he won.
The contract was never re-negotiated. It was supposed to be put out for competitive bid. That's the whole scandal. Barnes blackmailed Bush with the threat to tell the truth about how Barnes got Bush into TANG, so Bush (and Miers) stopped re-bidding the contract and renewed it. Barnes walked away with a $23 million reward from Gtech.
(That's the bottom-line version. It's a lot more complicated, and there are lawsuits and lawyers involved, which is what Scotty is alluding to.)
I don't like her position on the Nuclear Option. But honestly I don't believe it has any relevance to her nomination. I can't imagine how a Nuclear Option lawsuit would ever come before the Supreme Court. If Senate Repugs invoke the Nuclear Option, Senate Dems would have few options, but a lawsuit is not one of them. Even without Miers, the Courts would consider that an internal Senate question - a situation where the Judicial Branch should not interfere with the workings of the Legislative Branch.
Of course, there are tons of other issues that are relevant to Miers' nomination, that provide overwhelming reasons for rejecting her. For me, the overwhelming reason is that she is Bush's scrubber-in-chief. That is the heart of our petition to Congress to reject Miers.
Bob, We all want to
Bob,
We all want to be corrected if in error. Together we muddle through. I think the rub came because we were speaking in generalities.
Jim
P.S. The best criticism I ever heard of you was that you wear sweaters. I really hope that’s not true!
sweaters?
over my pajamas?
with heating oil at these prices, don't you?
We all have to pitch in, pay
We all have to pitch in, pay more, and earn less if we ever hope to stimulate the economy and pay less and earn more ;)
Doesn't that present a national security threat,
an executive branch in a position to be vulnerable to extortion or blackmail? Doesn't that demand inpeachment?
But, I really have to wonder; who's blackmailing who?
Mourn not the dead that in the cool earth lie, but rather mourn the apathetic throng, the coward, and the meek, who see the world's great anguish and its wrong, and dare not speak.
Ralph Chaplin