Good Grief - " Federal attorneys have been manipulated into a partisan political attack on Stevens."

As I've read the stories each day back and forth about Ted Stevens, I've consoled myself that, given the Justice Department has been Republican controlled for almost eight years, that no one can say this is a partisan attack on Ted Stevens.

What is a partisan attack?

Partisan originally comes through the French from the Italian and referred to a member of an army, who was fighting for a cause. As the term has evolved in the United States and been attached to the word "political" it has been connected to the idea of a person who believes strongly in his political party and makes decisions, not based on law or reason, but on what will help the party. The old spoils system of the late 1800's and early 1900's was highly partisan as people were given government jobs if their party won office.

So, in the US we have come to distinguish politics - the generic exercise of power ideally for the public good - from partisan politics - where power is used purely to support one's party. Municipal elections in Anchorage are supposed to be non-partisan. Candidates are not nominated by parties and their party affiliations are not on the ballot, even though assembly members generally are members of parties.

Imagine the loud screams and accusations if there were a Democrat in the White House and the Justice Department was going after Stevens. We would hear no end of attacks on the miscreants in the Justice Department and the White House who were using their sacred power for partisan political ends.

But this is a Republican administration that has been in charge of the Justice Department investigating Republicans, so at least this is one thing I needn't worry about.

But if I thought no one would say this was a partisan political attack on Stevens, I was wrong.

Imagine my chagrin when I read Jim Crawford's Compass piece in today's [by the time I post this it will be yesterday's] Anchorage Daily News.

Federal attorneys have been manipulated into a partisan political attack on Stevens.

There's empty space there as I shake my head in disbelief and I try to find something to say more original than "Give me a break!" This is the Justice Department that has just, finally, after a few years of allegations, discovered that career employees (not political appointees) were routinely hired or not because of political affiliation. (That is partisan politics, Jim.) This is a Republican administration and, if you didn't notice, Ted Stevens is running as a Republican.

THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN POLITICAL ATTACK!!!!!!

And, by the way, who exactly is doing this manipulation of the Federal attorneys? I've seen them in action in three trials now and I can't imagine them being manipulated easily. They do their homework and they're damn good. Was it the Attorney General who manipulated them? Maybe George Bush? Or do Senate Democrats have moles in the Justice Department who have turned these guys to the dark side? Maybe they're being blackmailed by Mark Begich spies who videotaped them hunting bear illegally in Girdwood. Did you leave out the name of the dastardly manipulator(s) so we would have to read your next column to find out?

At least Crawford cut out his nonsense about the Hatch Act which appeared in the Fairbanks Daily News-miner version of this piece:

The Hatch Act forbids federal employees, specifically those from the Department of Justice, from playing campaign politics. The U. S. attorney, FBI and Justice Department are playing campaign politics. Dirty campaign politics. Huey Long, Louisiana-style, hardball, campaign politics. They violate the Hatch Act they are charged to enforce.

Well, not exactly. The original Hatch Act forbade federal employees from taking part in partisan political campaigns. It was passed by Republicans who wanted to stop Franklin D Roosevelt from using federal employees to work on his reelection. Not only can't they work during working hours, but they weren't allowed to be involved in federal elections on their own time either. The Hatch Act was significantly amended in 1993 to allow many federal employees to take part in campaigns. But I haven't seen any Begich signs up yet on the sides of the FBI or Federal Buildings.

The FBI and Justice attorneys' job is to follow up leads on wrong doing and to go after violators regardless of party affiliation. It would be unethical of them to NOT pursue an investigation simply because the subject was an important politician of the same political party as the administration.

The Justice Department - and other federal departments - are never supposed to go after people purely for political reasons. I'm glad that Jim Crawford is such a strong advocate of keeping politics out of normal government functions. I wonder why I didn't see a compass piece from him when it was revealed earlier that political appointees in the Bush administration were firing Attorneys for not going after trumped up charges against Democratic elected officials. Once again, everyone sing the chorus, this is a Republican administration here prosecuting a Republican Senator. That is hardly the normal definition of partisan politics.


The Girdwood House Assessments

Most of the article makes the half point that Sen. Stevens' Girdwood home was assessed at $142,000 in FY 2001 and $271,300 in FY 2003, for a difference of only $123,700 (land value excluded). Therefore, he argues, that the $130,000 Sen. Stevens' paid for the remodeling is equal to the value of the improvement. Case closed.

He starts the article by saying he's been in real estate for 30 some years. Then, surely he knows that when someone does remodeling, the COST - the money it takes to do the work for things like supplies, hourly wages, etc - does not necessarily lead to an equal increase in the value of the home. If you paint your walls magenta using paint hand made from fireweed petals at a cost of $100 per gallon, you probably will not increase the value of the house equal to the cost of the paint. You may well lower the value of your house.

Over the years I've read countless articles in the ADN, such as this one (not from ADN) that talk about what sort of remodel will have the best impact on the value of your house. A good kitchen remodel, if I recall correctly, usually gives the most bang for the buck. I don't recall ever seeing an article suggesting that lifting the ground floor and sliding in a new ground floor under the original was a sure money maker. I suspect it would have been much more cost effective for the Stevens to buy a new house.

The amount of benefit is the cost of the labor and materials put into the house, NOT the increase in the value of the house. Nice try Jim. But I'll hand it to you, the matching figures were probably just too much to resist. (I didn't look these up to check Crawford's claim) But that's not how campaign watchdog agencies count these things. It does make a kind of sense if you forget that the value in this context is the amount Bill Allen is out of pocket, not the potential money you could get for selling the house.

And Crawford cleverly, unfortunately too cleverly for his own good, pays Mark Begich, Stevens' Democratic opponent for the US Senate, a compliment in order to strengthen his own argument here about property assessments:

Assessments, by Alaska statutes, must be at full market value and Mayor Mark Begich has done a good job at making certain that properties are at full value. Municipal tax revenue depends upon it.

Oh Jim, you sell real estate. That must have been really hard to write with a straight face. Oh, and there's one, teeny weeny problem here. Crawford cites the assessments for the years 2001 and 2003. Mark Begich didn't take office until April 2003. I don't know for sure if the 2003 assessment comes out in 2003 or 2004, but clearly the 2001 assessment was before Begich and he probably didn't have time yet to affect the 2003 assessment. But if he did make changes, then the increase in the property assessment would have at least partially reflected the more accurate assessment that Crawford implies that the Begich administration implemented, not just the increase in value due to the remodeling.

OK, I assume that Jim Crawford, a former Chair of the Republican Party (in the grand tradition of Rudy Ruedrich?) has promised to publicly support Ted Stevens, but why do something that is so full of holes? Why does the ADN have to publish this sort of nonsense? Let him put it on the Voice of the Times Website, that's what it's there fore.

My regular readers are going to wonder at my tone in this piece. My wife's already in bed and I didn't give her a chance to look through it and make suggestions. I did cut some snark out. . But Crawford's piece is just so far over the line, so inaccurate, so illogical, so transparently a piece of political bluster, that keeping my sarcasm in check has been really hard.

I agree with those who say Stevens has done many fine things for the State of Alaska. And maybe a judge will take that into consideration if this gets to sentencing . But this sort of political hack job makes him look pathetic.

Oh, yes, here are some definitions of partisan I checked while writing this.

From etymonline:

partisan (n.)
1555, "one who takes part with another, zealous supporter," from M.Fr. partisan (15c.), from dial. upper It. partezan (Tuscan partigiano) "member of a faction, partner," from parte "part, party," from L. partem (nom. pars), see part (n.). Sense of "guerilla fighter" is first recorded 1692. The adj. is 1708 for warfare, 1842 for politics

From yourdictionary.com

noun

1. a person who takes the part of or strongly supports one side, party, or person; often, specif., an unreasoning, emotional adherent
2. any of a group of guerrilla fighters; esp., a member of an organized civilian force fighting covertly to drive out occupying enemy troops

Etymology: MFr <>partigiano < parte <>pars, part

adjective

1. of, like, or characteristic of a partisan
2. blindly or unreasonably devoted
3. of or having to do with military partisans

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary only defines the noun partisan:

a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance




Onpedia's dictionary gives us a definition for the adjective, the way Crawford uses it.

.	partisan - devoted to a cause or party nonpartisan, - free from party affiliation or bias