Skip to comments.Arizona Congressman John Shadegg... (Hugh Hewitt interview of House Leadership candidate)
Posted on 01/16/2006 5:29:41 PM PST by frankjr
HH [Hugh Hewitt]: One of the men who would replace Tom Delay is the Congressman from the 3rd District in Arizona, John Shadegg, originally elected in the landslide year of 1994. He is now contending with Roy Blunt of Missouri, and John Boehner of Ohio, to be the new majority leader. I'm pleased to welcome John Shadegg to the Hugh Hewitt Show. Congressman, great to have you on.
JS [John Shadegg]: It's great to be on. Thank you for the opportunity. Great to be with you.
HH: Congressman, I want to start with Abramoff, because it matters so much, and just run right down the hard ones. What exactly are your ties, if any, to Jack Abramoff's various operations?
JS: Hugh, I had no tie directly to Jack Abramoff. I've never met him, wouldn't know him...I guess maybe now that I've seen his picture in the paper, maybe I would know him if he walked in the room...and I hope he doesn't. But I did not know him, and have not known him in my tenure in Washington.
HH: Were you ever entertained at any of his skyboxes?
HH: And if so, how often?
JS: Let me walk through that. There was a young man that worked for the Republican Study Committee, which is kind of the organization of conservatives in the U.S. House, who was...he had been a staff director on the Hill for a while. Then he went to work and was the staff director of the Republican Study Committee. That was the group of conservative members of Congress. It's kind of the benchmark or the biggest organization of conservatives in the House. He left that position, and he went, apparently, I didn't know this, he went to work for the firm where Jack Abramoff was, and apparently started working with Mr. Abramoff. After he left and went to work in the firm where Mr. Abramoff was. He came back to me on I believe two occcasions, maybe three occasions, and proprosed that I do a fundraiser at, I guess, the MCI Center. He did not mention Jack Abramoff, mentioned the name of firm, and said look, our firm has this skybox, and we will make it available to you. And the firm will in-kind the box to you. And it'll be a good fundraising event for you. We did that on three different occasions. Unbeknownst to me, the firm didn't in fact own the skybox. I don't even know today who owned the skybox. What I have learned is that what Mr. Abramoff did was he got Indian tribes to in-kind the value of the skybox to whoever used it on those occasions. When we discovered that, subsequently, we returned, last year, to each of the...to the Indian tribe that we knew about, we returned the value of those in-kind contributions, when we realized there was a link to Jack Abramoff. We did it last year, we did it before Mr. Abramoff was indicted.
HH: That's good news. What was the name of the young staffer, Congressman?
JS: His name was Kevin Ring.
HH: All right. Did you ever have signature privileges at his restaurant, Signatures?
JS: No, I never had signature privileges at his restaurant.
HH: That's great. Last question...
JS: And Kevin Ring also made...Kevin Ring also made two different personal contributions to me, and he got the firm's political action committee to make a contribution to me. I believed those were all driven by the fact that Kevin Ring had been the staff director of this very solidly conservative organization. Again, when we learned of the link of that organization to Mr. Abramoff, we did not give the money back to Mr. Ring, nor did we give it back to the firm's political action committee. We donated that money to an anti-gambling organization in Washington, D.C.
HH: Great pro-active answers. Have you vetted your staff, Congressman, on their ties with Abramoff and his operations?
JS: Pardon me?
HH: Have you vetted your staff to make sure that none of them have compromises...
JS: Yes. We've vetted our entire office on contacts or ties to Mr. Abramoff.
HH: That's good news. Can we switch to policy now?
HH: Because that's what I wanted to hear, that's what I expected to hear, but I think everyone should answer those very questions.
JS: Yup. You've got to get it right out there. It was a total of $6,900 dollars in those various contributions, or in-kinds, and we, as I said, we got rid of all of it last year.
HH: From Mark Tapscott, my colleague in the blogging business at the Heritage Foundation, comes some questions. Will you introduce and support a proposal to require all earmarks be identified by the name of the requesting member?
JS: I think my answer to that question is yes. I haven't given...I have not formed by specific earmark proposal, but we cannot have earmarks put in where you do now know who they benefit, or where you do not know why they're being done, and where they can't be debated. My understanding is that most...well, many earmarks, at least the ones that are abusive, are snuck in, in the dark of night, often by, quite frankly, some powerful members, and rank and file members don't even know about them. One of the problems with the earmarks is that as this question suggests, the earmarks don't even often, at least in some instances, you cannot find out from the bill itself who benefitted by the earmark, because the language goes into what's called report language, and it's not in the bill itself. And my colleague, Jeff Flake, has a bill to make sure that you simply can't do that, because right now, if we go to the floor and we try to strike an earmark, and force the proponent of that earmark to come out and defend it, it turns out the earmark is in the report language, and it's impossible to strike it, or even to force a debate on it.
HH: Would you support, again a Tapscott question, a proposal to require legislation to be posted on the internet, say 72 hours prior to a vote, so that the American public can see what's in there?
JS: Absolutely, absent, I supposed, the closing days of the session, where you might have to have a limited exemption to that. We have a rule that we waive all the time, that requires a 3-day holdover period before a measure can be voted upon. And it is when...quite frankly, when we waive that rule to try to get out of town at the end, when we have seen some of the worst abuses of that. But we don't just waive it at the end of the session, we waive it all the time. So I believe that there should be the greatest amount of sunshine possible in this process, and I want to make the point, Hugh. When I got elected in 1994 as a part of the revolutionary class of 1994, we based our campaign on two things: one, we were going to shrink the size and scope of government. We were going to reduce spending, we were going to cut taxes. We were going to decrease regulation. We were going to increase local responsibility. We were going to increase individual responsibility, and individual freedom, and of course, keep a strong national defense. But there was a second plank in that promise, and that was to clean up the backroom deals, to stop the ability of members to sneak language in, in the middle of the night, or to use their position of power to try to benefit themselves or their cronies. And the scandals of late, particularly the Cunningham scandal, demonstrates that we've failed in that. It's not just bad actors. We have procedures that those bad actors can take advantage of.
HH: You're absolutely right.
JS: All of that's got to be cleaned up.
HH: Let me switch to some political issues of great importance to me, and I think a lot of people who listen in the Republican base. Drilling in ANWAR, a fence on the border, and repeal of those portions of McCain-Feingold that limit political speech in the 60 days prior to a campaign, Congressman. Any order you want to go in.
JS: ANWAR? absolutely. A strengthening of the fence? Yes. And what was the third one?
HH: Political speech, the McCain-Feingold restrictions on political speech 60 days prior to an election.
JS: Repeal them. They don't work. They favor the media. and there are other provisions in McCain-Feingold that need to be cleared up.
HH: When you say strengthen the fence, expand on your immigration position, Congressman, since this is a divisive issue within the caucus.
JS: It is a very divisive issue within the conference, and within the country. I chaired a series of unity dinners to try to bridge kind of the huge gap in our conference between members who are very hard over on this issue, and believe that the only answer is enforcement, including completely closing the border and other enforcement mechanisms, and those who believe that you have to have, I guess at the other end of the spectrum, who say well no, the answer is recognizing that people are going to come in, and perhaps a mechanism through where we can identify those that are already here, something bordering on amnesty, although I would argue that there's nobody in the Republican side in the House that favors amnesty. In any event, I tried to hold a series...I did hold a series of dinners to try to get those two groups talking to each other, and find out where there's common ground. The bill that we passed, just before we came home, I would argue is substantially a product of that unity dinner process.
HH: Great. Last question, Congressman. We've got 45 seconds. The House went right back at John Murtha when he proposed a cut and run. Did you support that? Do you support a Republican support for the war approach that does go right at defeatism?
JS: Oh, absolutely. We cannot abandon Iraq at this point. This has vastly more consequences than Vietnam. If we walk away from Iraq right now, it will be a debacle, and we will pay the price here on American soil. That one's not even...that's a no-brainer.
HH: Congressman John Shadegg, good luck. You've answered all my questions. I'm going to urge everyone to call their Congressman, get you elected majority leader. Congressman, thank you for joining us on the Hugh Hewitt Show. That's the voice of the man who should be the next majority leader. It's a voice of leadership and principle. Call your Congressman, if he or she is a Republican, and ask for change. Ask for John Shadegg.
End of interview.
John Shadegg is the best choice available for Majority Leader. He represents a much-needed break from politics as usual.
A "Blunt Shadegg Boehner" ???
/jaded juvenile humor
So I believe that there should be the greatest amount of sunshine possible in this process, and I want to make the point, Hugh.
I'm very impressed with Shadegg and hope he wins.
But I'm confused. In this article that was posted yesterday but dated today, Blunt claims victory. When I read that I thought that was it, Blunt had won.
Is that not the case? If there's the slightest chance Shadegg could win I'll be thrilled.
From National Review Online (well actually John Fund at WSJ, but NR has had many posts on the House Leadership vote counts):
"JOHN FUNDS TAKE ON THE RACE [Rich Lowry ]
from the Political Diary (sub required):
Competitive elections for top spots in the GOP House leadership are so rare -- the last ones were in the days of Newt Gingrich a decade and a half ago -- that political observers have forgotten the peculiar dynamics of such races. House elections are held by secret ballot, and legislators are so cagey about revealing their preferences that it's frequently impossible to know who will win until the ballots are counted. Almost every candidate goes into the final balloting with more pledged votes than he or she ends up getting.
That alone should curb some of the credulous reporting on the upcoming Feb. 2 election for House Majority Leader, replacing fallen leader Tom DeLay. Acting Majority Leader Roy Blunt of Missouri launched a preemptive PR strike on Saturday when he announced he had secured more than the 116 votes needed to carry a majority of the 231-member GOP House caucus.
But the fine print of Mr. Blunt's announcement revealed that only about 85 of his claimed supporters are willing to publicly reveal themselves. That's certainly more than the number of members claimed by Reps. John Boehner and John Shaddegg, Mr. Blunt's rivals. But it also indicates some softness in Mr. Blunt's support. "There are an awful lot of members who don't want to offend a sitting member of the leadership, and will sign on to avoid trouble," one member told me. "That doesn't mean they are there when they fill out a private ballot. A lot can also happen over the next two weeks of campaigning."
Posted at 02:39 PM"
The leadership election will be a secret ballot. In the past, there have been significant variations between pledges and actual votes. Shadegg is very much in the running.
We need some common sense conservatives in the House leadership who aren't afraid to downsize government, secure our borders, and support our military. No nonsense leadership. Shadegg sounds as if he fits that bill.
Like Shadegg said, we need sunlight, lots of sunlight. Time to end all the back room deals, and middle of the night stuff.
I had forgotten newt's race for minority whip, so long ago. No one expected him to win, least of all, Bob Michel.
This might get interesting......I sure as hell hope so.
Go Club for Growth!!!
I heard this interview; and I agree; Boehner is soooo smarmy
I'm an extreme cynic about the border thing, and suspect that the reason so much support is coming from the HOR now is they all have to be re-elected come November.
I hope your correct. But I don't see how a secret ballot is going to help us. Our "representatives" don't have to impress us with their support.
"Shadegg deserves to be elected, because he is a true conservative, and above all, he is not open to the open border racket, which is, most likely, the thorniest internal issue at hand..."
On Fox yesterday he said he was less tainted than the other candiates and when Fox guy asked if the others were tainted he basically said "well, they had a chance to end certain long standing practices."
That almost sounds like Newt in the olden times.
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Support our Minutemen Patriots!
Be Ever Vigilant ~ Bump!
Unfortunately, Roy Blunt seems to represent, "Same cart, new driver." I think that Boehner is less objectionable than Blunt.
Boehner was in the leadership about 10 years ago. I recall reading in the Weekly Standard about 2 differnet memos he sent to members of the Republican conference, one that supported the ban on Partial Birth abortions, and one that was against the ban advising the members how they could present their vote to their respective constituents.
I was appalled.
Plus, he's for open borders.
We'll see what happens but I hope Shadegg gets the post.
Are we sure of this, Travis? I'm for him, regardless, but it would be nice to know that he has spoken FIRMLY on this subject.
The other two congresscritters in this race are just more of the same, aren't they?
Like RINO LITE? And/or DeLay lite?
"Strengthening" in politico-speak can mean "by 1% a decade, beginning in 2010."
It means zip, but I'm glad he felt like he had to mouth the words.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.