Skip to comments.Palin-bashing CPAC/ACU Chair donated $2,000 to Arlen Specter, endorsed Romney
Posted on 07/09/2009 12:44:31 PM PDT by Antoninus
David Keene, the Chairman of the American Conservative Union trashed Sarah Palin publicly today on NewsMax. However, a quick search of Mr. Keene's recent political contribution history reveals the following:
David Keene, Managing Associate of the Carmen Group Lobbying Firm, and Head of ACU, Alexandria, VA.
Political contributions in 2008 election cycle:
KEENE, DAVID, ALEXANDRIA,VA 22314 THE CARMEN GROUP/EXEC 5/1/07 $1,000 Specter, Arlen (R)
KEENE, DAVID, ALEXANDRIA,VA 22314 THE CARMEN GROUP/EXEC 12/19/07 $800 Specter, Arlen (R)
KEENE, DAVID, ALEXANDRIA,VA 22314 THE CARMEN GROUP/EXEC 12/19/07 $200 Specter, Arlen (R)
What I want to know is, how does a guy like this get to be the chairman of the ACU? Has the American Conservative Union turned into the American Liberal Republicans Who Are Now Democrats Union when we weren't looking? Apparently so.
That said, if I were Sarah Palin, I'd take this guy's advice and toss it in the bin with the rest of the fish guts.
Anyone on or off the Palin ping, write me.
Mistrust the ACU, which is a lot of things, but certainly not Conservative. The liberal moles are everywhere. A guy who supports SPECTER and ROMNEY is heading the ACU? LOL!
THANK YOU FOR GIVING THIS ITS OWN THREAD!
Hammer one more nail in the Mittbot coffin.
Agreed, he should be the poster boy for Liberals Posing as Conservative.
Doesn’t the ACU consistently give Specter low marks?
Wow.... There goes any respect I had for the ACU. I'm embarrassed at all the times I've quoted their ratings on this site. Oh well... Off I go to delete their bookmarks.
ACU leader??? With that track record!!! PPHHFFTT!!!
sphinters of a feather and all that...
Could be. They are probably playing both sides. It’s important to discredit and boycott them. I won’t ever look at the ACU rating again to evaluate a candidate. ACU has been exposed as a RINO tool.
May 28, 2003, 8:30 a.m.
Lobbyist Bites Dog
David Keenes Pennsylvania surprise.
ou would expect David Keene to be on board for the Toomey campaign. Keene is the chairman of the American Conservative Union. Pat Toomey, a House Republican from Pennsylvania, has a 97-percent rating from the ACU. Toomey has been a leading advocate of personal accounts for Social Security. He sponsored a bill in 2001 to make President Bush’s tax cut larger. He has tried to force spending restraint on his colleagues in both parties.
Toomey is running for the Senate in a Republican primary against the incumbent, Arlen Specter. The latter is one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate. He voted to shrink Bush’s tax cut in 2001. He is a leading advocate of cloning. He wants to grill Bush’s judicial nominees to make them pledge their fealty to diversity. He voted against impeaching President Clinton. And so on. Specter has a lifetime rating from the ACU of 47 a fact that Keene acknowledges.
Yet Keene has written a column in support of Specter.
Keene notes that Specter has sometimes been a useful ally of conservatives, as in the confirmation of Clarence Thomas. This is true, but it is not much of an argument for keeping a 47-percent conservative when you could have a 97-percenter. A conservative could nonetheless support Specter in good conscience on the theory that Toomey would be likely to lose the seat for the Republicans, and that in today’s circumstances that is not a risk that should be taken. I wouldn’t agree with this argument myself: Toomey has a pretty good track record in places you wouldn’t expect conservatives to do well. But in any case, Keene does not make this argument from pragmatism.
Instead, he claims that Specter is worth supporting for his personal qualities: “I’ve known and worked with Specter for more than a decade. . . . He is honest and decent, and, unlike many of his colleagues, his word is always good. When he’s with you, he’ll tell you, and when he’s against you, he’ll let you know that, too. . . . I may be going soft, but I like him. I like his honesty and his willingness to listen. . . . Arlen Specter is what we used to call a standup guy. He isn’t always with us, but when he is you can take his word to the bank. He’s willing to climb out of his foxhole and take on the opposition. . . . It may not count with many conservatives, but it counts with me.”
Well. It must be said that Keene’s view of Specter as a likable fellow is, um, not universally shared. But be that as it may. There are plenty of liberal Democrats in the Senate who are honest and affable as well. We would not, however, expect the chairman of the ACU to endorse them on that basis, or even to stay neutral in their races.
Thirty-three Republican congressmen have written to the ACU’s board of directors to express their “dismay” at Keene’s endorsement, which, they claim, “has brought discredit and embarrassment to your fine organization.” They acknowledge that Keene’s column was not written in his capacity as the head of the ACU although the column did identify him as such but say that it has “placed in doubt” the ACU’s “commitment to conservative principles.”
Some conservative activists are also raising the question of whether Keene has a conflict of interest. As The Hill also notes, Keene is “a managing associate with the Carmen Group, a D.C.-based governmental affairs firm.” In other words, a lobbyist. A brief review of the lobbying-disclosure reports reveals that Keene is frequently listed as doing lobbying work that concerns the Senate Appropriations Committee: for example, lobbying on the appropriations bill that funds the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services. No doubt all this lobbying activity is directed toward shrinking the federal government. But it is worth noting that the chairman of the Senate subcommittee on Labor-HHS appropriations is Arlen Specter.
Keene’s colleague Donald Devine recently wrote a memo arguing that conservatives, their movement having been taken over by imposters comfortable with big government, should start a new magazine. I disagreed with Devine’s analysis. But a new, less compromised version of the American Conservative Union may well be in order.
I always thought there was something weird with ACU; their rankings seemed meaningless to me, and always loose enough to protect RINOS!