newsminer.com • Stevens orthodoxy unravels http://newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/13/steve...

8/15/2008 12:05

Close this window

Print this page

Stevens orthodoxy unravels

Dan O'Neill, Community Perspective

Published Wednesday, August 13, 2008

I’m amazed at how walled off the conversation has been on Ted Stevens’ felony indictments. It’s as if there is only one narrative: This is so sad, after all he’s
done! But, as the poet said, “something there is that doesn’t love a wall, that wan ts it down.” Let’s take a look at this orthodoxy one tenet at a time:

• The what’s-the-big-deal? argument. “It’s not some extreme felony,” Stevens told a reporter in Ketchikan. Apparently, it’s only a little felony. (Or seven.)
Hiding the loot may be all that Stevens is charged with, but the record reeks of additional corruption, on-going for years. The list of reported cases where
Stevens directed money to entities that in turn enriched him, his family, friends, or business associates is as long as my arm.

A six-month investigation by the Los Angeles Times in 2003 uncovered nine separate instances where Stevens did favors for interests that, by extraordinary
coincidence, hired his son at astronomical wages. More cases have been documented s ince. The Special Olympics received $10 million from Ted, and they in
turn paid Ben Stevens $715,000 in salary. Ted got money for VECO; VECO paid Ben $243,000 as a “consultant.” Corruption is what we are talking about, and
it is a big deal.

• Nothing has been proven. True, but let’s separate legal accountability from ethic al accountability. At trial, Stevens is innocent until proven guilty. But he has
long since crossed ethical boundaries. The government says Stevens took actions tha t directly benefited VECO while VECO rebuilt Ted’s house, gave him a
$44,000 car in exchange for a 35-year-old one, built him a garage, installed a stat ionary tool cabinet filled with tools and put a professional gas range on his
new deck. Stevens hasn’t denied this.

Circumstantial evidence isn’t meaningless. If you wake up one morning and see snow on the ground, can’t you conclude that it snowed in the night, even if
you didn’t see it happen?

Whether illegal or not, whether reported or not, it is flatly unethical for Stevens to take $250,000 in free stuff from a company petitioning him for favors.
That’s why the reporting requirement exists. He owes us an accounting of that, criminal proceedings notwithstanding.

• We’re all equally guilty. Since we’ve all benefited from “Stevens money,” we’re all complicit. By that squirrelly logic, if we drive on federally maintained
highways, we’re accessories to any crimes our congressional representatives might c ommit. Besides, many of us repudiated Stevens’ porcine ways by voting
against him.

• Cheating wasn’t his goal. “To say Stevens’ primary goal was to enrich himself,” says one thinker, “is complete nonsense.” But that misstates the premise.
Who knows or cares what Ted’s “primary goal” might have been? One corrupt deal answers sufficiently for the case against.

• All’s fair in politics. A commentator on public radio said it’s not Stevens’ fault if he’s so effective that ordinary checks and balances can’t control him. The
moral core of that argument is that if one can wiggle through a loophole to game the system, stretch the truth, rip off the public and pocket expensive gifts, then
it’s perfectly ethical. I can’t see proponents of that bit of sophistry giving mora l instruction to their children along the same lines.

• Nobody can deliver like Uncle Ted. That was maybe true once, but now Stevens is not an asset — he’s an albatross. Even before this scandal, he was the
poster child of pork, architect of bridges to nowhere, lampooned for tantrums and incoherence, regular fodder for late-night comics — in short, to the rest of
the planet, he was becoming a laughingstock.

Overall — including public image, goodwill and credibility — Alaska may well fare better in the next (likely Democratic) Congress without Stevens than with
him.

And this reality isn’t obvious only to progressives. The Wall Street Journal, whose editorial pages are among the most conservative in the country, says: “Some
political hygiene would seem to be in order.” “Mr. Stevens could also do his party a favor by dropping his re-election bid.”

The National Review, founded by Mr. Conservative, William F. Buckley, draws the same conclusion: “From a legal standpoint, Stevens deserves the benefit of
the doubt — but not from an ethical standpoint. ... Stevens has disgraced himself and his office. ... He should resign, and the sooner the better.”

Innumerable conservative newsletters and blogs are saying the same: Right Wing News : “Ted Stevens needs to go.” The Next Right: “Let’s hope he resigns.”
The Red State: “Ted Stevens Must Resign.”

Like it or not, these ideas are pouring in over the wall.