Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleJon Ralston:
The Times’ piece spells trouble for Berkley
Wednesday, Sept. 7, 2011 | 2 a.m.
There are always three barometers of any story damaging to a political figure: The substance of the piece, the ensuing damage control effort (which either ameliorates or exacerbates) and the political fallout.
What we know for certain is that Rep. Shelley Berkley knew this week’s New York Times investigative piece detailing her advocacy on issues involving her husband would not exactly enhance her chances of winning a U.S. Senate seat. What we also know for certain is that Berkley has never hidden the influence her husband, Dr. Larry Lehrner, has on her positions on health care — she mentions his strong views all the time. But what we did not know for certain until Eric Lipton’s devastating and probing piece is just how committed the congresswoman has been to her husband’s cause — or as the Times headline put it, “A Congresswoman’s Cause Is Often Her Husband’s Gain.”
(The piece is here.)
It might be easier to start with what this story is not about: Whether Berkley or the rest of the delegation should have intervened to try to save University Medical Center’s kidney transplant program. Of course they should have. (This is an issue near and dear to my heart, having had a kidney transplant and having wonderful care the last quarter-century — knocking on wood — from one of Lehrner’s partners, Dr. Marvin Bernstein.)
When Berkley and others, including her opponent, then-Rep. Dean Heller, intervened, it was to save a troubled program and when her husband bid on the contract to beef up the transplant department, he was, as the Times reported, the only bidder.
Should Berkley have let Heller or then-Rep. Jon Porter take the lead in trying to save the program, and even stayed out of it? Maybe. But then is she not doing her job?
The other part of Lipton’s story focuses on Lehrner’s political advocacy and his often-flip references to his marriage to Berkley — indeed, the couple’s public references, joking may they be, to their symbiosis has only made this worse.
This paragraph, too, showed perhaps too much symbiosis:
“When Dr. Lehrer assumed a series of leadership roles at the renal physicians group, Ms. Berkley’s agenda in Washington started to overlap with her husband’s. He became the single biggest contributor to the association’s political action committee, while also serving as its chairman. And she has received the largest share of its contributions, totaling $7,000 since 2007. Over all, kidney care doctors, companies and lobbyists have donated at least $140,000 to Ms. Berkley’s congressional campaigns.”
And then there was the propinquity with campaign contributions from the renal physicians PAC and a letter Berkley sent to Pete Stark, her Democratic colleague then chairing a key Ways and Means subcommittee. In the missive, she questioned “an untested bundled payment system” for dialysis patients — arguably one that could affect patient access but also her husband’s (and thus her) bottom line. And earlier this year, she wrote to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services boss Donald Berwick, a missive that could be interpreted as trying to preserve care for patients but also one that could benefit her husband’s practice.
Protecting patients and helping her husband’s business. How does she do one without doing the other? Good question.
But that’s where the damage control comes in — or didn’t.
“I won’t stop fighting to give Nevadans access to affordable health care just because my husband is a doctor, just like I won’t stop standing up for veterans because my father served in World War II,” Berkley said in a statement.
What? Is this a parody? Equating her husband’s business that benefited from her legislation with her father being a war veteran? You must be joking.
Team Berkley also responded with a catalog of articles that it said made the case that the Times “ignored crucial facts in order to drive a misleading narrative about Congresswoman Shelley Berkley’s efforts to improve care for sick patients in Nevada.”
That is, that Berkley was only one member of an activist delegation trying to help UMC and that she was cleared by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. (The latter was quickly debunked when CREW’s chief, Melanie Sloan, told me Berkley should have “stayed out of it.”
I was also astounded that the ever-voluble Berkley refused to comment to the Times while her husband did, perhaps not helping the cause with his flippant quotes. It doesn’t matter if she is being unfairly maligned, as she argues. If so, her argument for silence is that the Times was out to get her. Really?
Berkley can garner testimonials from everyone in sight — Harry Reid says he still supports her! But the ads here write themselves, and we will find out next year if the congresswoman’s husband’s gain is actually her loss come November 2012.
Discussion: 3 comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Clint Holmes is a big deal at Cabaret Jazz and 'The Carlyle!'; Playboy's furry-ous closing; Elvis is a 'Legend'
Joe Pesci remembers his own honeymoon in Vegas -- meeting the Rat Pack (1 Comment)
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
Bring up Heller's race car being at Eddie Floyd's House, the right wing talk radio nut and pot farmer. Berkley spends too much time on Israel related issues for voter's that are concern about their houses and their jobs.
So Shell is a shill; nothing new about that.
I'm grateful you wrote this Ralston, for it's obvious that this would spell campaign trouble but I was in fear that nobody would write about it potential damage in fear of causing further damage. Glad we have a reporter that focuses on the questions WE as citizens are interested in. "How this hurts her campaign," etc.
Thank you for your argument about her response to the situation being weak, for I could not believe that when she said, "I won't stop fighting to give Nevadans access to affordable health care just because my husband is a doctor, just like I won't stop standing up for veterans because my father served in World War II." Did she make money off of voting for veterans? No. So, this is a logical fallacy. Berkley benefiting financially and PERSONALLY from a health care law vs. voting to benefit veterans does not directly correlate.
I doubt anyone would ever accuse me of being a fan of Berkley.
That said, I have a mixed reaction to this. At the heart of it is this: back at the start of our country it was considered perfectly normal, even expected, that members of government would profit at times. The best example would be how Franklin used his position to benefit his printing business by obtaining contracts.
There can be no doubt that there is the appearance of personal gain here. But, as Jon and others point out, for Berkley to ignore this issue would be a failure on her part to represent Nevada and her district.
Had the rest of the Nevada delegation been against this I would take a stronger stance that Berkley is in the wrong. But the entire delegation besides her supported this, so I am willing to write this off as a necessary but unfortunate set of circumstances.
It can be argued that Berkley could have voice her opinion in support, but allowed the others to do the heavy-lifting. She could have refrained from accepting any money from any PAC her husband is connected to as well.
This seems mainly a lot of sound and fury about nothing. Any time Berkley steps up to the plate to support health care, the Times would have an issue.
Corporations support favored causes and their candidates all the time. Is it shocking that Berkley accepts campaign contributions from doctors?