Steve,

Thanks for link to Pena article that is excellent. CDI where Pena partly hangs out now takes no defense industry funding. There probably should be a think tank where all associated pledge not ever to take a politcal appointment in any current or future administration, but that might not be a very practical suggestion.

Steve Clemons, you continue to amaze and inspire your audience. As one of a group of TWN fans I know, all of us are not quite sure how you manage to do all the things that you do and still write some the most searingly logical and sensible policy commentary on the web.

Thanks for setting a damn high bar and also for speaking truthfully about the industry that you are in.

i totally agree with the need to change the norms of DC. however, your quick forgiveness of your friend is not the way to do it; if you truly want change, some of your "friends" will be "punished" for their past "lapse of judgements" (and please don't give the "social norms made him do it" excuse). what made mr. bandow resign, a sincere repentance or just the fact that he was caught? I am aware that we live in a time of media whoredom, and while i am for making prostitution legal, i do not mean for it to be respectable. similarly, your own blog's success depends upon the quality of the bloggers that you invite. and lastly, many of these fallen pundits will not have far to fall; they will always find a home at Fox, our media's red-light district.

So he's lost his position at Cato as punishment, now he can begin to earn back some respect by telling us what else he might know about Abramoff's machine.

I don't care if you have Wolf Blitzer posting here so long as he's upfront about who is buttering his croissant.

Vachon -- totally agree with you. This is about transparency and "who is buttering the croissant."

Lawrence -- I'm trying to see if I'm being blind here regarding Doug's transgression and penance. I don't think so, but I do get your point and feel that the relationships we have in our lives ought not to blur the larger question of what is good for public policy and the country. I don't think I'm going too easy on Doug -- but I also think that when a town is corrupt, we need to use opportunities such as this to comment on the broader practice, not just the micro-case. That said, I do understand your point.

best,

Steve Clemons

I admire you for your full disclosure and loyalty to your friend. It's a privilege to read your blog. I may not understand your intention to ask Bandow to guest blog again, but then I don't know much about him or about what else he has to offer other than intellectual honesty. If he's thinking about doing a full mea culpa, David Brock style, I hope he does it here.

I think Bandow resigned in part because of that tie.

I think it was a deceit for Bandow to conceal from his readers that he was a shill. I'm surprised that you would invite him to write on your blog. I hope that you will insist, however, that in any future postings he discloses whether his thoughts are his own or are bought and paid for by some master.

Steve,

I must admit, this is troubling. The whore analogy above is spot on I believe. Lapse of judgment? I think not. He knew what he was writing was being cast as honest intellectual discourse. He was committing brazen lies of omission. $2,000 per article! He clearly came pretty cheap too. I bet he wishes he'd asked for more now that his day job is gone. Says a lot about your friend’s character unfortunately. Once your opinion is sold, everything you say or write from then on is suspect. As you know, I've been coming to this site since its inception and respect the work and opinions you provide a great deal. However, to say his transgression should be minimized in relation to other flagrant corruption is poor reasoning in my opinion. I for one would feel betrayed and sick to my stomach that my friend had brought this shame upon himself and tangentially to TWN. Perhaps you are being blinded by friendship to some extent, but I am not privy to the particulars of your relationship. However, I do think it speaks to your character that you confronted the issue head on instead of hoping no one here made the connection. I will however be very disappointed if you allow him to post here again. I for one will not trust him. If you are bought that easily, I have no use for you.

Respectfully,

TheMan

What's to stop Bandow doing this in the future? It's clear that the man is willing to compromise his beliefs for money. Why shouldn't he just be expelled from the punditocracy and made to be a real advertising guy. At least there is more honesty in it.

I'm shocked that you would have him on this blog to comment. If you do so, I think the least you could do was preface each of his contributions by a disclaimer: "Douglas Bandow has admitted to accepting payment for writing columns that take particular positions. He resigned from the Cato Institute when his practices were discovered."

I don't "admire" Doug Bandow for anything. He didn't have an attack of conscience. He resigned when he was caught, not before. If he hadn't been caught, he would still be there, taking money and furthering corruption in Washington. Until he reforms and spills the beans on his colleagues, he isn't welcome. He must know other people who took money - why isn't he talking about that if he suddenly is so morally upright.

Frankly, I lost a lot of respect for you after this post. Your friend does something morally despicable that has contributed to the completely fucked-up situation that we are all in, and you just give him a pass and even want to give him succour.

From now on, I can't trust any of the postings on this site from your "friends". How many are paid to write what they write? Also, if this isn't a big deal to you, how long before you take money to write particular positions?

Perle, Woolsey, Feith, etc. get a pass because they were architects of the Iraq war. Bandow opposed it, and I dare say the Abramoff thing is a convenient pretext for his departure. Steve, do you think Cato is purging ALL of its non-interventionist voices? Pena, now Bandow -- is Ted Carpenter next?

Your comments about your "friend"..

"My friend Doug Bandow (note that the Cato Institute has already made him a "former senior fellow") has recently admitted to taking payment from Jack Abramoff to write favorably about Abramoff's clients. Doug has resigned from the Cato Institute and been forthright that this whole thing was a "lapse of judgement."

"For the record, I would ask Bandow to guest blog again. I regret that he is involved with Abramoff, but when a town like Washington, D.C. has become systemically corrupt, where does one start focusing the blame? Bandow has paid a price by resigning from Cato."

I am removing you from my reading until you get a better class of friends or get some ethics yourself. If you can excuse this type of thing as "everyone does it" ..then there is no doubt in my mind you do it yourself. You no longer have any creditibility.

Good riddence...there is nothing 'forthright" about either of you boys...and your attitude is one of the reason we have this type of corruption in politics and the press.

"when a town like Washington, D.C. has become systemically corrupt, where does one start focusing the blame?"

Well, one can start with those who engage in the corrupt act.

Hektor -- I respect your views but disagree with them.

I wrote directly about Bandow's transgression. You seem to belong to a school of thought where the behavior of all players in this political arena ought to approach some highly distilled purity. If you lost respect for me and what I do on this blog, then you probably won't be happy with many of the posts I provide here because you would scrap all of the battles on behalf of integrity I have fought for in this town because I noted in my critique of Bandow's behavior that his actions were small when compared to the structural corruption of this city's political order.

We all engage in overstatement at times...I do it too much. But I think your comment about "respect for me" declining because of my comments on Bandow seem misplaced. How you spend your blog reading time is up to you -- but I'm not predisposed to execute Bandow for this transgression that he has admitted and for which he is paying dearly.

There is a proclivity towards "execution" in the political chattering class that disturbs me -- and I won't be part of it. I'm much more disturbed by the actions of a Woolsey, a Chalabi, a Feith, a Perle, a Ledeen, than I am about those who have engaged in seedy-ish behavior further down the food chain. Bandow was wrong to do what he did...but he's not the target we should be contenting ourselves with; not at all.

So, think worse of me if you will -- but I don't want to fall into a course of intellectually thin knee jerk reactions to events. Bandow was wrong; he is in the process of confession. He will continue to be a significant public policy voice -- and I'm certain that he will make relations of the sort he had with Abramoff a thing of the past -- or will be transparent about who is "buttering his croissant" as Vachon stated.

But like David Brock and some others who have veered into and towards the dark side -- but have the possibility of rehabilitation -- I'd much rather cultivate smart, capable people and make them allies in an effort to clean up this town than to just cut off people completely.

That's my line -- and that's where I'm sticking.

Feel free to continue to debate this -- but I have to say that I have little patience for the issue of how much people respect or don't respect me for my comments about Bandow, which many of my readers might not have seen had I not highlighted the article.

Best regards,

Steve Clemons

itales -- your post also perplexes me. your comment that I must do what Bandow has done because I have exposed it but noted that I can get past it must mean that I have done it too -- makes zero sense and is wrong.

I will ask Bandow to blog here again -- when the opportunity arises. Perhaps he won't accept, and perhaps I'll ask him to speak about punditry and what drives the oped industry. That in itself would be a contribution to our understanding of the systemic corruption in Washington.

But if you can't accept that, I understand -- and wish you well with other blogs.

Best regards,

Steve Clemons

"Lapse of judgement"? Please. Grown men, professionals in politics and image, cannot honestly use that excuse. I think to invite this gentleman to blog on your incredible site only poisons the honest reputation that your blog covets and holds.

I don't know his exact position on Bolton, but if he's truly FOR Bolton in his current UN title, this man's thoughts and words hold no water. It instantly discredits his percieved ability to think both objectively and with reason and logic.

I sternly disagree that this man get any bandwidth by which to spew his opinion on this fine website.

I think the only way to stop writers/journos/opinion leaders from being bought out in this manner is to collectively turn our backs on those who do it. It ceases to be forgivable.

I have answers to all the questions in Steve's post, but I don't comment upon ongoing investigations (and I just had apoplectic event).

Steve:

I'm with those who are troubled by the way you're speaking of this. Yes, the Perle, Feith, and Woolsey cases are problematic. But one of the biggest reasons they get away with such things is because our public sphere is broken. It is increasingly impossible to engage in real debates over issues, to expose those who abuse privilege, to hold the powerful accountable. Some of this is due to the consolidated media. But an even more dangerous blow to the functioning of our public sphere is when people like your friend misrepresent the basis of their stated opinions. And frankly I think this is much more problematic than the corruption of think tanks. For the most part, we have ways of discovering who is funding a think tank, so we can refute or dismiss their opinions as self-interested accordingly. But when someone hides who is paying for his work, as your friend has, we have no way of really assessing his opinions.

Now, I actually do believe that someone who has recognized a mistake is often a great advocate for change, so I can sympathize with your insistence that he has made good.

But I really really think the way you are judging the act itself is unbalanced. You're attacking all kinds of corruption, then basically ceding the best tool we have to get rid of that corruption.

And a digital calculator watch. I mean REALLY.

I'm with other commenters in thinking that having Doug Barstow contribute to TWN (aside from giving more details about this case) would be a mistake. It's not an issue of "highly distilled purity" but one of credibility and independence, critical characteristics for an opinion writer. According to the businessweek article, Barstow has been taking payments from Abramhoff since the mid-90s. Now he says that it involved a lapse of judgment. It would be very interesting to hear an explanation of why Barstow now thinks it was a lapse of judgment, when it was apparently okay for the past ten years. I mean, he had between 12 and 24 opportunities (one per op-ed article) to tell Abramoff to take a hike. Not doing so isn't a lapse of judgment--it's between 12 and 24 lapses of judgment. What was he thinking then? What does he really think now, aside from the inevitable, "Oops, I got caught; sorry about that"?

I say this with pride; Inspite of the propaganda put out by some writers, think tanks, major media and whoever and whatever else, not all of the American people buy their distortions and twisted truths. Nor will they ever.

And, with very special thanks to the Bush administration, those who seek the truth have found it, and that is the very reason we are having so many revelations of how Washington really works - corrupt to the core.

Steve, I agree with those above when they state that you do no one any good by your quick forgiveness of folks like this. Until there are real consequences for their actions, nothing will change. And that includes, especially, shunning by his friends (i.e. not allowing him ever to guest post here again, or not allowing him to express his views at any public forum, as opposed to not having him over for dinner or going to a party together). If you want to stop this type of reprehensible conduct you must take action that is within your power. If he is a true friend, he will understand.

Dear Bubba and others: Thanks for the constructive tone of some of your notes. Clearly, this is not something I feel I want to be "strident" about. It's just that I save my Jacobin impulses for the likes of James Woolsey who failed to disclose on 9/11/2001 -- when he was alleging the connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda -- that he was Ahmed Chalabi's lawyer.

I will carefully consider these views if I ask Doug Bandow to guest post again. Obviously, the subject of such a post would have to address how these duplicitous relationships occur -- and why.

I guess I feel on one level that when I see lobbying working its way through many parts of DC's civil society -- including op-ed writers -- perhaps I forgive Doug too soon as being a small time player in this mess, when it is the bigger players I want to fell. I'll think about it -- and move cautiously. But the tone of some of the earlier comments just seems tooooo Jacobin to me...and that's not what I'm about -- nor this blog.

But just to open another line here...what do people think about Media Matters as an organization -- and David Brock, a former harcore right wing activist and fixer, whom I used to despise? I give David credit for making the turn he did. I believe in giving some of these people who used to be on the inside of these nefarious circles an opportunity to come clean, come to our side -- and help us undo the Abramoffs of the world....but perhaps I'm engaged in a silly crusade here.

But what do people think of Brock and Media Matters? Is that turn around case irrelevant in the matter of Bandow?

best regards,

Steve Clemons

I never read Media Matters and have no use for David Brock even if he claims he has repented. There are still some of us out here, in this blessed country, who believe in justice, honesty, ethics and respect. Character is important.

Steve,

People can realize the error of their ways, make amends and be forgiven. That takes time, contrition, and hard work. Your friend has a long road to travel before he reaches that place. This man sold his sold his soul for a few bucks. That is the mark of a weak, pathetic person. If he works hard to destroy the corruption he has been party to, then perhaps he can redeem himself. Actions speak louder than words. Good luck to him, but don't expect anyone to care about his opinions for a long time. The only thing anyone will care about from him are verifiable facts which can be used to roll up additional corruption.

Is this like academic research, where NIH or DARPA decides what questions they want answered, designate a pile of money for it, and invite people to propose research programs in return for a piece of it? Or when a wealthy alum leaves a pile of money to do research on X? I suspect the appearance of impropriety here is darn shallow and that it's far from obvious that the money made any difference to what these intellectuals thought about the things they were paid to think about.

Steve: points taken, but I think the erosion is the problem, the constant lowering of the bar, and the shifting to new realities -- not necessarily the magnitude of the transgression. Our ethics are hanging around our ankles and our willingness to continue lowering our standards ensures they'll stay there.

I too think SC is a bit hasty in all the lovingkindness and forgiveness. What has been alleged it the taking of money ... repeatedly ... to slant op-ed pieces. If true, this is a complete abrogation of the core integrity expected of any journalist, which is to be honest with the reader. Even Jayson Blair didn't take bribes.

Obviously in your world doing 'what everyone else is doing' negates the wrong. Not so where journalism is involved. America relies on hearing the truth. When journalists are paid stenographers it damages the base that America stands on. By forgiving your friend because you share the same "cocktail" circuit, you joing in excusing all the excesses we have witnessed.

Lapse of judgment (you say "all is forgiven") will not wash.

Keep Doug Bandow as a friend but because of his betrayal to his readers - he does not belong here.

Friendship and forgiveness are personal and admirable. The integrity of this public blog is another matter. If Doug Bandow is truly your friend he will realize that and find other venues to write in.

I for one am quite interested in hearing about Bandow's experience in journo-lobbying. The only way to fight this phenomenon is to understand it.

Steve, I sort of agree with TheMan above. As for Media Matters, I do not know in what activities Brock was complicit. Was he just an a**hole but up front about it? Was he a sneaky SOB, saying one thing and doing another? There is quite a large range here. But it is the whole deceit part that I find really particularly annoying, troublesome and unfair. The public cannot make an informed decision without the proper disclosure. And, frankly, the public is easily confused (although I do believe that if presented with all the facts, it can make well informed decisions).

BTW, Mr. Clemons, what "price" has Mr. Bandow really paid? It seems as if you consider his resignation from the Cato Institute as a senior fellow as the defining factor for repentence and forgiveness. That is a pretty low bar. I guess integrity does not count.

Most individuals, to the best of my knowledge, when caught doing something unethical or illegal resign from their office or position, except, of course, if you are employed by President George W. Bush.

Steve,
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we allowed payments, but just required transparency?
"Mr. Howard's editorial on the need for tort reform in pursuit of the "common good" was made possible by a $50,000 payment from Phillip Morris"

Seriously, let them pay the money---just require the funding to be open, and create the mechanisms to do so.
One thing you have to do is make regulations which prevent a long chain of middle men. I don't know how to do that, but I bet it's possible.

"But what do people think of Brock and Media Matters? Is that turn around case irrelevant in the matter of Bandow?"

Depends on the scale of Bandow's mea culpa. If he wants to deal himself back in as a credible partner in the public sphere he needs to cough up the goods. Essentially, people in this position become objects of scorn, embarrassment, and useful leverage.

He needs to get his whistle blower game on and start shredding and scorching, but strategically with some serious wood and inertia.

There are other examples. Glenn Loury is an interesting case of career arc that hasn't been without it's bumps and atonements.

Marky,

I see your point and raise you a shilling. It would be fair to have a running headline title in bold at the top of the column with the words this is a Paid Advert or Commercial for the Bush Administration or as you suggested brought to you by XX Corporation or Friends of XX Administration

Then as a reader, I'd be the judge of the paid opinions and be better informed.

"...except, of course, if you are employed by President George W. Bush."
Posted by Phyliss

Or if you are George W. Bush.

The corruption of the intellectual/public sphere by money is not restricted to politics alone, of course. The Krugman column today on Merck, Vioxxx and the web of interdependence between hospitals, doctors, researchers the drug industry is relevant.

Although I don't agree with Steve that his friend's transgression is as minor as he points out, I do agree with the broader thrust of Steve's work in this area. I think that one cannot create a robust, free public sphere in which important issues can be argued by the imposition of regulations alone, although I'm sure that the right rules can prevent a repeat of this particular ruse. What is needed is for people to feel a responsibility to act in an upright fashion (at least in the public arena---frankly I don't care a hoot about so-called private immorality in public officials, as long as it stays private). I believe that public chiding such as Steve's serves and important function in this regard, as does writing letters to the editor, etc.
For a comparison, look at the issue of executive compensation. I have read that a large reason executives were not paid outrageous salaries before the 1980s or so was not because of any rules, but because of a better public ethos among the corporate elite---seriously. Once it becomes accepted that you can ask for the maximum amount, every time, and do everything in your power to get it... no, it's worse, once it becomes the MOST moral thing to be as greedy as possible... then the public sphere is eroded.

Keep up the good work, Steve, but if you have Jandow post, I suggest having him do a David Brock and explain how the op-ed payola scheme works, and name some names. I'm sure you agree with me that simple expressions of apology have become quite devalued in the last two decades; people need to show remorse, and make restitution. Jandow can do the latter if you take up my suggestion; in other cases, I'm afraid that any appearance of his will fall under a cloud.

Best Wishes
Mark

Merry Christmas too---I know you won't mind that!

seedy-ish behavior

seedy-ish?

Steve, please stop excusing and minimizing. The first step is to get rid of weaselly expressions. The word you are looking for is 'seedy.' Also 'corrupt.'

This is not a minor transgression, considering that it will cast doubt on Bandow's intellectual honesty for a long time to come. I can understand that this is upsetting and disappointing to you, and I agree that Bandow's crime is minor in scale compared with the grand theft of Woolsey, Feith, Perle, and others.

But it's not minor in any absolute sense.

Your loyalty is personally understandable, humanly appealing. But it's clouding your judgment, as evidenced by your stated willingness to have Bandow guest post in future. It's your blog, you're of course within your rights. But Bandow, if his judgment has been improved by this chastening admission, would be wise to decline such an invitation if he is as much a friend of yours as you are to him.

Steve,

Let's be clear. Barlow has not been "executed". He hasn't been lined up and shot or killed by lethal injection. He's lost his job because he took bribes. It's an open and shut case. And note that there was no sudden onset of conscience. He took bribes for _10 years_ and only resigned when he was caught.

He hasn't expressed contrition and he hasn't tried to make up for the damage he did to the public and the republic. Calling it a "lapse of judegement" is laughable.

How about you forgive him in ten years, not in ten hours, and only after he actually expresses some remorse or demonstrates a grasp of basic ethics.

Ethics matter. And the fact that you will let your personal relationships blind you to that is disturbing. As long as we give people passes on their corruption and dishonesty, it will continue.

This guy deserves shunning, not acceptance with open arms.

I also still don't understand why you wouldn't post a disclaimer with every post this guy writes on this site.

Steve - I have empathy for the dilemma you find yourself in, and admire your loyalty to your friend. But I do think you are way too quick to publicly forgive his egregious, despicable and REPEATED transgressions. Yes, of course there are much bigger fish to fry, but I don't see how this in ANY way lets your friend off the hook.

As for future posts by Bandow on your site, I'd simply say this: They'd be not only be welcomed but appreciated by me, but ONLY if they address his own acts and sins, first and foremost, and then go on to expose others and the whole culture of corruption. If Bandow were to post here on any other topic, as if this never happened, it would truly be unforgivable.

David Brock has clearly and deeply repented, and he now does us all a great service with Media Matters. I hope Bandow chooses a similar path. But at this point, there is no comparison between the two. Brock has proved his repentance. We'll see what Bandow does.

By the way, imo, the most troubling aspect of the stance you are taking viz a viz your friend Mr. Bandow is that is opens you (and by extension the center-left, at least to some degree) to the criticism that only the other side deserves condemnation for their transgressions; it's different when our friends do it. Needless to say, this tactic is rampant throughout human affairs, but it's quite distasteful, at least to me, to see it so prominently deployed here, by you.

I wish you luck is sorting out your conflicting loyalties here. And whatever happens, I will remain a loyal reader. Your ethics are not in question here, only your possible lapse in judgment.

Steve --

It would appear that you have pulled a "Corn," a David-Corn, that is, tarnishing your own reputation out of thoroughly misguided loyalty to a friend. To go rapidly, please examine the rhetorical devices, not to speak of the tendentious counterfactual statements and basic logical (juridical?) lapses, of one Douglas Bandow on the Terry Schiavo case. Did Abramoff pay him to write *this*?

Life and Death in Florida
Will courts kill Terri Schiavo?

By Doug Bandow

Later this month, the Florida supreme court will decide whether Terri Schiavo lives or dies. Literally.

Terri's life has been tied up in court for years, ever since a debilitating injury 14 years ago left her cognitively disabled. The latest chapter of her saga began last year, after her husband, Michael Schiavo, won court approval to remove Terri's feeding tube — an act that would have killed her.

Florida's legislature quickly passed "Terri's Law," empowering Gov. Jeb Bush to order the tube reinserted, which he did. But in May Florida Circuit Court Judge Douglas Baird overturned that law, putting Terri's life at risk again. The state appealed, but a Florida appellate court barred Terri's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler — who have been trying to protect her for years — from intervening in the court fight. Now they are just bystanders as the Florida supreme court decides whether their daughter's husband can kill her.

In 1990 Terri collapsed mysteriously, resulting in brain damage. Although she is disabled, and confined to a hospice, she is not in a coma. Florida law defines a vegetative state as "the absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior" and "an inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment." But video clips filmed by her family demonstrate that Terri responds to visitors and events.

Neuropsychologist Alexander Gimon concluded that such activities "are completely inconsistent with a diagnosis of vegetative state." Jay Wolfson, appointed by the court as a guardian ad litem, concluded that she had a "distinct presence" and was responsive to her family.

Neurologist William Hammesfahr is equally emphatic: Terri "is alert and responsive to her environment. She responds to specific people best. She tries to please others by doing activities for which she gets verbal praise."

According to Michael, Terri said she wanted "no tubes," but others in her family believe she would have wanted the opposite. Besides, who among us would want to die based on an off-hand comment made years before?

Moreover, Michael conveniently didn't note Terri's alleged sentiments when filing a malpractice lawsuit and requesting money for rehabilitative care for her. Furthermore, a former girlfriend says that he admitted that he and Terri never talked about the issue.

The fact that the married Michael had a girlfriend doesn't help his case, either.

There are also the Schindler family's claims about his violent nature and questions about the circumstances of her collapse. There are his two children with his current live-in. There is his failure to fund rehabilitative care that some doctors say could be effective, and his reported comments on how he planned to spend the almost $1.6 million legal judgment for Terri.

And there is his extraordinary question to nurse Carla Iyer, cited in a deposition last year: "Can't you do anything to accelerate her death?" Iyer, with no apparent stake in the case, says Michael also asked, "When is that bitch going to die?"

Raising additional questions about Michael's motives is his treatment of Terri's family. He may be prepared to consign Terri to death, but her parents and siblings are not. So he has repeatedly restricted their access to information about her medical care. Michael refused to fulfill his responsibility to write and turn over guardianship reports to the Schindlers. He also forbade the hospice staff to discuss Terri's medical status with them.

Moreover, he tried to prevent Terri's parents from even visiting her. In March Michael's attorney charged that Terri's parents had attempted to inject Terri with an unknown substance. They pointed out that hospice personnel frequently entered the room when they visited and a police investigation discovered no evidence of misbehavior. The judge called it "a nonevent."

Nevertheless, Michael's attorney, Deborah A. Bushnell, unsuccessfully demanded that the Schindlers "visit Terri in the presence of a security officer," whom they would have to pay. This isn't a new tactic: Four years ago Michael first petitioned a court to prevent Terri's parents from seeing her.

Alas, this history of suspicious behavior will not prevent Michael from arranging Terri's death if Judge Baird has his way. He declared Terri's Law to be "unconstitutional on its face" for violating Terri's privacy rights.

Baird ruled that "authorizing the Governor to exercise unbridled discretion in making the ultimate decision regarding the life or death of a private Florida citizen, without standards, direction, review, or due process protection of that citizen's private desires, exceeds any reasonable concept of 'least intrusive means.'"

There would be good reason to criticize the legislature had it overruled Terri's express wishes. But it did not. It is protecting her right to life from a husband who seems to have almost everything but her best interests at heart. In fact, the legislature is currently considering a measure requiring a living will or other written directive before allowing a feeding tube to be discontinued.

There is a simple way to end all the legal wrangling: Kick the judges, including the Florida supreme court, out of the case.

Transfer Terri to the care of her parents. Let them use the rest of the money originally intended for her to provide rehabilitative care that will give her as active a life as possible.

Michael could get on with his life. He could divorce Terri and marry the mother of his two children. And he wouldn't have to worry about Terri, the Schindlers, the money, or the constant court battles. Terri's parents, rather than jurists and lawyers, would decide her future.

There's nothing simple about the case of Terri Schindler Schiavo. The interruption of a young, vibrant life is a tragedy. But, though disabled, Terri remains alive. And without clear evidence to the contrary, we must presume that she prefers that life to death.

— Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan.

Hello. I have no problem with the concept of redemption. David Brock is a fine example; so is Bill Moyers, who once helped the Johnson administration promote the Vietnam war.

No blog commenter has the right to ask you to disown Doug Bandow as a friend.

Beyond that, however, you're playing the same kind of risky game that landed David Corn -- most deservedly -- in hot water a couple of weeks ago with respect to Viveca Novak.

For Bandow to put his byline on an article or Op-Ed without disclosing that he was receiving payment to voice the opinions he was voicing is an egregious ethical violation, and calling it a "lapse of judgement" is anything but "forthright."

Back when I was a freelance science writer, a major pharmaceutical PR firm regularly offered me money to write and attempt to place articles under my own byline that toed a particular point of view favorable to a particular product. Whether I would have agreed with that point of view or not is irrelevant. I refused. There's no ethical fine point here.

It's foolish and disturbing for you to attempt to defend Bandow based merely on the fact that others do far worse.

What about Bruce Kovner -- someone who deserves extensive scrutiny.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5608382&mesg_id=5608382

Peace,
UL

"The Social Critic Who Took Money To Advocate Against Greed"

Sounds like an American Lit 101A classic in the making. Maybe Bob Woodward can get there first.

I think its one thing to forgive people and another thing to make their behaviour so acceptable that we pay them to subvert our nation in the name of personal profit.

The issue of who pays for what is complex. Certainly, if we didn't have lots of money floating around in Washington, there would be lots of unemployed people. That much is a given.

However, one should ask a serious question whether social critics who are dishonest about where their livelihood comes from should be coddled or made to feel comfortable immediately after the revelation that they have betrayed their readership, their employers of record, and the nation in the lofty name of making a few bucks on the side "because it felt right". So right, in fact, that they decided not to inform anyone who might not be able to understand the complex intellectual gynmastics that made them reach the conclusion that the public did not have a right to know how they supplimented their income in the name of fashioning public policy...and who gave them that money.

No doubt I'm the one who will be audited if I were to suggest that the IRS step up its auditing of NGOs, lobbying groups, and fellow travellers in Washington DC. However, since I have nothing personally to worry about in that arena, I think I'll continue to advocate that position.

So, Steve, I think you need to be a bit harsher on this fellow and any other fellow who decides that they'll just play their audience and play their employer and play the nation just to eat out a little more often. I and the starving families in America no doubt might eventually feel better if these smug, spoiled, moral midgets and ethical gadflys were perhaps out of work at the very least and in jail if warranted.

Are people like Bandow (and a lengthening list of others) that hard up for money that they have to whore themselves out to someone like Abramoff?

And why is David so quick to help this guy rehabilitate his image?

"David Brock has clearly and deeply repented"

Yep. But more importantly, his deep repent exposed (and continues) a significant machine (one he played a part in) that actively pushes chicanery, disinformation and misdirection. This is refered to "turning state's evidence" in other circles. Time and action will be the ultimate guide in salvaging or flushing Mr. Bandow's credibility.

In the interim, he can find a spiderhole and work on publishing his memoirs.

BTW, that shining beacon of moral values continues to disgrace himself.

Reed admits misstep in work

Steve -
I respect your continuing support of Bandow the thinker and commentator.

But I believe you are too lenient on integrity and ethics. First he took the money, an ethical trangression. Second he compounds the earlier sin by now calling it a "lapse of judgment." He needs to be more forthcoming than that. That phrase is lame and suggests that he doesn't see what he did as a big deal. A "lapse" suggests a momentary thing and one of less than major consequence. This was neither momentary nor fairly inconsequential.

You have taken strong positions on what is right. I would like to see you hold him to the standard you expect of yourself.

"If you lost respect for me and what I do on this blog, then you probably won't be happy with many of the posts I provide here because you would scrap all of the battles on behalf of integrity I have fought for in this town...."

Steve, you have it backwards. We respect you for fighting all those battles on behalf of integrity, and that is exactly why we are so disappointed that you would invite a confessed shill to post on your site.

And frankly, your excuse that Woolsey is worse doesn't make sense to me. You're not inviting Woolsey to post, are you?

So sure, let Bandow rehabilitate himself. But if he posts here, I think he should make clear whether anybody is paying him for what he says.

Not news. A lot of this stuff is documented here:

http://www.mediatransparency.com/

Or just read Murray Waas and Joe Conason about the manufacture of Clinton Scandals by paid media and the Arkansas project.

Steve:

The fact is that your defense of Bandow, and your allowing him to guest post, will cost you credibility with your readers. That seems to be a price you're willing to pay in the name of friendship, and that's OK - it's got to be your call. But don't expect that call to be without consequences.

And BTW, there is no such thing as a 10-year "lapse of judgment."

Steve - I must say, like many of the posters above, I was first cowed by your loyalty to your friend. But then I realized how atrocious it is that you are making excuses for him. It pains me severely that your own journalistic integrity - which I have come to admire - has just been flushed down the toilet. Please please redeem yourself.

Dear DogfaceGeorge, Thanks for the note. I think that the discussion that has broken out about Doug Bandow's ethics lapse has been very interesting, constructive even.

As I wrote above, I may have been too hasty stating that I would or should let Doug Bandow post on the site as a guest blogger in the future. I have only had guest-bloggers once -- during a ten day excursion I took to the Mediterranean last year, and Doug Bandow was one of about 15 guest bloggers.

So, in response to Hektor, there is no chance that anyone, including Doug Bandow, will be guest-blogging in the near future. I like to keep control of the blog.

But I did open the subject by stating in my piece that I would have him guest blog again. I admit after thinking about the views of many of you that this was probably a fuzzy-headed gesture on my part. I think what Doug did was wrong -- but I also know the guy somewhat well, and he doesn't write stuff that he doesn't believe. The issue here is that he was a gun for hire and didn't tell anyone, or expose it.

Because of your counsel on this blog, I will not ask Doug Bandow to guest blog, unless several things occur. First, a mea culpa. Second, a willingness to write something about this game of gun-for-hire opeds that is not defensive but which is constructive, and third, if there is a clear admission of any interests that are driving or "incentivizing" his work.

I am in no rush to do this, by the way. I just wanted to make the larger point -- using the article about Doug as a hook -- that we have a serious structural corruption problem in Washington. I have been writing about it for years -- and will be writing more -- but this town does not talk about these issues.

I was wrong, in retrospect, to embrace Doug and his circumstances before I know more about where he is going to take this. I admit that. We should all be held to a higher standard than exists now as the norm in Washington.

But I also believe in giving people a chance -- and I want to give Doug Bandow that chance. Many of you who have implied that he has to "earn" his way back -- and that his commentary will be perceived skeptically for some time are right.

I don't feel like I'm tilting with the wind here -- as I feel like I've learned quite a bit from reading the posts and constructive advice many of you have offered. I hope Doug reads this and finds a good way to move into some constructive discussion about this practice in Washington.

I very much hope that my friend gets through this and that he and I can continue to do friendly battle over policy issues in the future.

But your counsel about not "loosely" allowing just anyone to post on this website makes a lot of sense -- and seems appropriate to me.

I'll move cautiously on that front -- and thank all of you for taking this issue as seriously as it deserves.

More later....

Steve Clemons

"I'm trying to see if I'm being blind here regarding Doug's transgression and penance."

Which should it be? Roll-Out-the-Tumbrels or five Hail Marys and an Our Father for ten-year-long consensual debauch with Jack Abramoff?

The timing of the lapse-of-judgement epiphany does not inspire confidence.

How is [what appears to be] a forced resignation a penance?

Discretion-Assured Industries Ltd. has ramped up production of its Sadder-But-Wiser® Rehabilitation Kits to meet projected demand. I recommend buying direct from the distributor to avoid the PR Agency markup.

RJJ -- Maybe I need one of those Sadder-but-Wiser kits...thanks for the chuckle and the post. To those of you who have spent a portion of your day counseling me that my unqualified support of Bandow writing here again was wrong-headed, I have stepped back, considered, and agree. I haven't changed the post, but have amended it with a note on the front page of the post. All the best, Steve Clemons

"I also know [Bandow] somewhat well, and he doesn't write stuff that he doesn't believe."

But it's an amusing feature of human nature that what we believe will often coincide with what is in our economic interest to believe.

Bandow has a story to tell - about how he was corrupted, when, by whom, and to what end. Don't deny the world that story by denying him a platform. (OTOH if he says he's had an epiphany and is born again, don't touch him with a ten foot pole)

DFG -- you have a good point about economic interests. Thanks for your thoughtful rebukes earlier. I found them useful.

That said, I do think that there are people in the public policy business who are not guns-for-hire and not tied to maximizing their private circumstances and underminining their moral or ethical standing. I know lots of people who are just great champions of doing what is right. I try to do that myself -- but you are correct that there are all sorts of incentives -- financial, visibility, etc. -- that drive behavior and we need to think those through.

Have to run now -- but thanks for the comments. This has been a complicated issue for me to sort through and I remain committed to still focusing on the bigger challenge of having a public debate about the corruption of our public goods institutions.

More later,

Steve Clemons

steve

Steve,

Since I, and I'm sure almost all the others here, have the highest respect for you, it troubles me that you took what I said as a rebuke. I did not mean to rebuke and I would not presume to rebuke.

And I believe that it is a further sign of your integrity that you would seriously think about the views expressed here and then modify your own view as a result. Only the honest are open-minded.

DFG -- didn't mean anything deep by choosing the word, rebuke. Sometimes, being rebuked works with me, and collectively, the posts here today -- particularly the constructive ones, like yours, helped me rethink the criteria for anyone who posts on TWN.
best,

Steve

You listened, re-examined your view and responded. I respect your integrity and dignity Steve.
Perhaps Doug will take some of the input and reconsider his response.

" ... Doug has resigned from the Cato Institute and been forthright that this whole thing was a "lapse of judgement."

GREAT! Doug was FORTHRIGHT!!! He violated the public TRUST ..... and got paid pretty well not only in $'s but in access to POWER!!! AND we're suppose to BELIEVE him the next time he writes an article or gives a speech, say on the virtues of John Bolton or the value of torture or any other topic dealing with our government's activities? We're suppose to TRUST him?

Now, compare that with those Katrina victims whose loan applications (to rebuild) were denied by the government because they were POOR. --- which equates to 'bad credit risk'. While on the other hand, the loan applications of the wealthier Katrina victims have all been approved. The poor Katrina victims haven't deceived us. But because they are poor, our government doesn't TRUST them with a loan. Our government won't HELP them to get back on their feet.

So let's compare the life of Doug, who had an errrr "lapse in judgement" to the life of the POOR who lost their homes in Katrina. Those who had "lapse in judgement" are probably NOT destitute and are probably significantly more financially comfortable than Katrina victims who are POOR. Might it be that they are significantly more financially comfortable that they got paid well for their "lapse in judgement", thus enabling them to build their so-called safty net?

In recognizing his "lapse of judgment" one wonders what might Doug think and write regarding the justice of denying the poor their loan applications to rebuild their home. JUSTICE is the emphasis here. What might Doug think and write regarding the billions of $'s our government is paying contractors to rebuild New Orleans and other gulf coast cities, while at the same time those $'s have NOT trickled down to the day (immigrant) laborers who actually did all the manual labor. YES, those feet-on-the ground workers have NOT been paid yet. (see Amy Goodman's democracynow.org programs these last 2 days)

What dogfacegeorge and CtGlav said.

For starters, lets see Bandow give back the $24,000 to $48,000 he took in bribes. (And lets be honest here, that's what those $2000 payments were. We won't make any headway on the culture of corruption in Washington if we're too polite to call this what it is.) If he's truly remorseful, he ought to be willing to part with that ill gotten cash. I can think of a number of charities that could do a lot of good with $24,000 to $48,000 of Jack Abramoff's money.

Dear Steve: Just discovered this site recently, but I have to say that you may have one of the coolest set of readers/commenters on the internet. Their "rebuking" of you was done with affection, and I'm totally impressed that you got the point.

You are definitely staying bookmarked.

Here's a wayward point to consider: a report today says only 31% of recent COLLEGE GRADS can read and comprehend a newspaper editorial page or a novel. Now with that pitiful rate of uptake, what further damage is done when the editorial page cannot be taken at face value, regardless of viewpoint? Perhaps we should all take up fly fishing instead of "policy analysis" to get at the problems of the world? I believe almost any endeavor would be more effective than one with 31% able participants (minus the presumed lesser ability of the less educated and the effects of misleading information to analyze).

Steve,

Thou does protest too much and are far too defensive with regard to your friend's 10 year indiscretion of accepting bribes to write columns that are favorable to his benefactor without letting the public know that the writer, Dave was a shill. If I may say so, morality is who we are are when no one is watching...however, at the end of the day, what are are we left with, if not one's own integrity and humanity.

You were asking too much from your readers to digest and accept that Dave Bandow was a honorable man whose only default was to accept bribes; and that the lure of money and being caught of dishonesty was a mere infraction not worthy of dissection. The stuff just did not compute...and you refused initially to keep it real.

I don't wanna beat a dead horse, but this was an issue of right and wrong and if you wanna keep us reading your blog, and contributing the dollars, you've got to make a decision of what kind of product do you want to promote and enhance? Yeah, we luv and all that, but the only reason I came to this blog was because Josh Micah recommended it.

Please note that to catch the big fish in a corrupt city as Wash DC, one has to acknowledge the activities of the small fish that protect the big fish...the squeeze element still works as the small fish are prone to talk and spill their guts...

This problem has been around a while. Lest we forget, here is an expert rant on the topic:

That smooth-faced gentleman, tickling Commodity,
Commodity, the bias of the world,
The world, who of itself is peised well,
Made to run even upon even ground,
Till this advantage, this vile-drawing bias,
This sway of motion, this Commodity,
Makes it take head from all indifferency,
From all direction, purpose, course, intent:
And this same bias, this Commodity,
This bawd, this broker, this all-changing word,
Clapp'd on the outward eye of fickle France,
Hath drawn him from his own determined aid,
From a resolved and honourable war,
To a most base and vile-concluded peace.
And why rail I on this Commodity?
But for because he hath not woo'd me yet:
Not that I have the power to clutch my hand,
When his fair angels would salute my palm;
But for my hand, as unattempted yet,
Like a poor beggar, raileth on the rich.
Well, whiles I am a beggar, I will rail
And say there is no sin but to be rich;
And being rich, my virtue then shall be
To say there is no vice but beggary.
Since kings break faith upon commodity,
Gain, be my lord, for I will worship thee.

mr clemons,

i enjoy your site quite a bit. thank you.

your comments re doug bandow. they sound like the apologists for miller/woodward/novak. "i have known ______ for sometime. ________ is my friend. ________ got caught up in an unfortunate circumstance that considering their environment im sure we can forgive them thier transgressions. after all, their carrer and reputation is runied blah blah blah....."

The legalisation of bribery in the form of lobbying is firmly in place--the worm in the fruit--and how do you put an end to it when the prime beneficiaries are sitting on the limb that needs to be sawed off?
Who is represented in Congress and elsewhere? Those who can buy influence. There seems to be very little thinking going on in most of these tanks.
This is just another symptom of a situation that will prepare for a strong-man takeover one of these days. Everything is in place, corruption, concentration of the media, and public disdain of elected representives. Presently what is lacking is a charismatic personality. (Imagine a Mel Gibson calling the crowds)

Steve --

It occurs to me that your willingness to "forgive and forget" you friend's transgression is, in fact, a very significant chunk of what you characterize as the "systematic corruption" of Washington DC.

I've often tweaked you about your closeness to your sources, and how complimentary you are to your sources. Everyone understands that is how the game is played --- but that doesn't make it any less a factor in the systematic corruption you describe.

Undfortunately, your friend Bandow has become emblematic of a particular aspect of that corruption -- and in your rush to publicly support your friend, you become complicit in it. Its hypocritical to decry corruption, then when a friend of yours gets caught up in a scandal, minimize the significance of his actions.

When your friend Doug Bandow wrote his columns for the Copley News Service, I assume at the bottom it listed him as a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. So, people reading the column knew he was getting paid by both Copley and Cato. If he had also listed himself as a freelance consultant to the Abramoff Group, whenever he wrote columns supporting Abramoff's clients, this would be a non issue. I'm like you, I don't consider this lapse of judgement to be an executable offense.

The big question for me would be if taking money from Abramoff actually caused Mr. Bandow to express views he did not personally agree with. If he took unacknowledged money to express views he agrees with, lapse of judgement. To be transparent, he should have acknowledged where his funding was coming from.

However, taking money to change his views on a subject, that strikes right at the heart of personal integrity. If that were the case, it would be hard ever trust anything else he says.

jameswolcott.com made the point that Jonah Goldberg made the point that Bandow sold his soul for no more than $50k over ten years, but the $25k-$50k refers to articles paid for by Abramoff. Did Bandow make any paid-for speeches? Any ghost-written articles? Did anyone else pay him? Maybe all his articles were bespoke.

Steve, the way it looks to outsiders is that the Washington establishment values its friendships more than, well, its values. I think you probably didn't mean to, but it sounds like you're saying, "Aw hell, everybody does it, so my friend ain't that bad." Which is what everybody says about their friend, and everybody has friends, so nobody is really that bad.

Steve,
I agree with TheMan. I'm a devoted reader of your blog, but you did let your friend off to easily. A "lapse in judgment" is the most cowardly excuse for unethical behavior, and trying to excuse his actions by saying that he wasn't as bad as some other journalists or think tanks out there is simply, a childish defense. I'd never read anything he posted here.
JL

Steve I would really like you to ask Doug Bandow to guest post again. Really, I am sure he could tell some dandy stories of how things really work, if he chose to do so.
It would be interesting.

Most people that post here are well informed, however there are many people that do need to hear what a guy like that could tell them if Doug came here and told the truth.

Interesting discussion. Having known Doug Bandow for quite a few years as a customer of my book shop, I was more than a bit saddened to read about his shocking lack of ethical judgment. Saddened, and to be honest, surprised, since Doug has always been one of the more interesting and intelligent people I've run across on the Right side of the political spectrum, and someone I never would have thought would have stooped to this pathetic level of corruption. I suppose that the moral of the story for me is to remind myself that people are not always what they seem.

As for letting him continue to contribute here, it's your site, and as a first time visitor I certainly don't have any standing to advise you what to do. But I just don't see how anyone could ever read anything in the future by Doug Bandow without reflexively thinking, "Isn't that THE Doug Bandow? And wasn't he the one who....?" The bottom line is that unless he makes a 100% repentance---and by that I mean, yes, naming names, and plenty of them---it's going to be impossible to take anything he says seriously.

This is a real human tragedy. Not because it provides yet further proof of the corruption of journalism in 21st century Washington---we didn't need Bandow to know that; the woods are full of journalistic hustlers who don't need direct bribes to be shills for the powerful, and who are nothing if not frank about it. This adds about as much to the case against right wing corruption of the media as the exposure of Charles Colson's crimes added to the case against Nixon: interesting, but not exactly necessary!

No, it's a human tragedy because what you're looking at now in Doug Bandow is a man who will be forever walking through life with a scarlet "B", so to speak, around his neck. His whole life has been built upon his reputation, and his reputation has now vanished, likely for good. It's hard for me to take much satisfaction in that, no matter how much ammunition it may incidentally add to the case against the right wing's corruption of journalism. This is a very sad day.

A not very meaningful aside to all this: Having engaged in many discussions with Doug over the years, I will say this: I doubt if he wrote anything which went against his prior beliefs. The irony here is that Abramoff didn't need to pay Doug Bandow to write this stuff (other than to control the timing of the columns), since he would almost certainly have written it out of conviction anyway. This is not intended as an exoneration of Bandow in any way, only as a rather grim observation.

"I will say this: I doubt if he wrote anything which went against his prior beliefs. The irony here is that Abramoff didn't need to pay Doug Bandow to write this stuff (other than to control the timing of the columns), since he would almost certainly have written it out of conviction anyway. This is not intended as an exoneration of Bandow in any way, only as a rather grim observation."

I'm sorry. But if you truly believe this, how can you condem someone for writing about what you think they truly believed? It doesn't make sense to me.

Well, a whore is still a whore, even if she happens also to be in love with the john.

I agree... can you honestly believe that he believed that horrible pap he wrote about Schiavo?
He's a moron or a knave.

Plus, Dantonj, don't overlook the greatly under-acknowledged power of rationalization. Did Bandow truly believe what he wrote, or did Abramoff's check make him believe he believed?

Franklin Foer wrote an article this past May in The New Republic on Abramoff think-tank payola. Here's what he says now:

At the time, I was sure that Abramoff paid Peter Ferrara and Doug Bandow for op-eds--and tried to strongly hint that in my piece. But, as you'll see, I couldn't quite prove it. The reason: Bandow lied to my face and Ferrara never responded to my queries. I asked Bandow point blank about his relationship with Abramoff, and he denied any financial relationship. (When I brought the matter to the attention of CATO officals, they declined to pursue it.) But I also recommend that reporters revisit Abramoff's billing records, especially the ones from the Marianas account. Bandow was basically a branch office of the Abramoff firm. Abramoff's firm would deliver briefing books to him on a regular basis--and get paid much money from their clients for doing so.

No one comes off very well here, and somehow I doubt Bandow is the only Cato 'fellow' taking money under the table.

Steve, you should write a book about this issue of think tanks for sale.

I agree... can you honestly believe that he [Bandow] believed that horrible pap he wrote about Schiavo?

Yes, I can. It's wholly consistent with his prior writings. It's an inane but not particular uncommon POV on the Right.

Steve, you should write a book about this issue of think tanks for sale.

This would certainly be a worthwhile topic, especially if not limited to the issue of direct bribery, which accounts for but a very small percentage of the stench emanating from Washington these days.

You can also add to this a study of the often corrosive influence of the level of salaries attained by our leading media gurus, producing the sort of output which is so bland and sycophantic that it's hard to separate their writings from the Bandows---if anything, it's worse, since it's read by far more people.

Two examples of this would be John Tierney of the Times and Sebastian Mallaby of the Post, both of whom within a two day period the other week wrote glowing pieces about Wal-Mart as an "anti-poverty" force, both taken from the same source, and both written with the same level of Kool-Aid in their prose. These guys don't have to be paid by the Wal-Marts of the world, and there are a lot more of them in the press than there are people like Bandow. Izzy Stone used to say about "journalists" like this that "in Washington, anyone capable of writing [words] like that, need never lunch alone." And when you have this sort of instinctive identification with the rich and powerful driving your columns, it doesn't really matter who's picking up the check.