There’s something about this Seattle Times article on embattled Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens, that just seems to capsulize the problem with the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex. It should be required reading in civics classes. Let’s start with the fact that the Democrats are, through a combination of fear and indebtedness, unwilling to even comment on Steven’s travails.
The potential demise of Sen. Ted Stevens’ long career amid a federal investigation into alleged public corruption has provoked mixed emotions in D.C., and nearly complete silence among Democrats…
…The Democratic National Committee, which gleefully blasted former Republican Rep. Duke Cunningham, of California, when he was first linked to bribery allegations, did not issue a statement about Stevens.
On Capitol Hill, no one will say much publicly about Stevens and the impact of the investigation. Staffers for [Sen. Patty] Murray, who in the past have touted her good relations with Stevens, declined to comment.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, epitomized the Democrats’ response when he casually told the newspaper Roll Call, “Many investigations go nowhere,” and declined to criticize Stevens or ask him to step aside from his committee chairmanships.
Ted Stevens is a different kind of Republican. He’s an appropriator, and he is more than willing to work across the aisle to get deals done. His best friend in the Senate is probably fellow World War Two veteran Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. Despite Alaska’s conservative nature, Sen. Stevens is rated 60th (or 9th least conservative Republican) by Progressive Punch.
Stevens is known for his blustery, sometimes combative demeanor in public.
But behind the scenes, he’s acted as a dealmaker in an increasingly fractious Senate, orchestrating compromises and pushing legislation through committee.
Stevens’ work on the Appropriations Committee, pushing earmarks to fund his projects and backing those of other senators, may help explain why Democrats aren’t celebrating his potential fall.
Democratic colleagues on the committee, including Sens. Reid; Murray; Dick Durbin, of Illinois; and Dianne Feinstein, of California, have allowed many of Stevens’ earmarks in recent years.
In return, he’s supported projects for their districts, said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense.
“Stevens has a lot of chits out there,” Ellis said. “When appropriators are attacked, they circle the wagons.”
In a Washington DC where everything seems to break down along strictly partisan lines, Stevens seems like a throwback. There’s a whole class of former Senators (e.g., Bill Bradley, Alan Simpson) that like to go around the country bemoaning the loss of the good old days when the Senate was more collegial. Stevens has been in the Senate for 39 years and he is definitely old school. But, if there is an upside to Steven’s style, there’s also the ugly reality of how he wins friends and influences other senators.
In 2005, [Sen. Patty] Murray came to Stevens’ defense during a floor fight over money for his “bridge to nowhere.”
She twisted arms of Democrats to get their support for the $223 million bridge to Gravina Island, home to 50 people and the Ketchikan airport, thereby becoming Stevens’ enforcer.
Stevens and Inouye worked together with Murray to set up the Boeing Air Force tanker deal in 2002 that would have been worth more than $20 billion, if it had been successful.
The deal would have allowed the Air Force to lease air refueling tankers from Boeing without going through a lengthy contract approval process.
He has managed many other contracts for Boeing from his committees, and the company has been his top contributor.
There wouldn’t be a
