“The majority of primary challengers funded by AIPAC are being challenged by candidates of color (Cori Bush of Missouri, who also called the ceasefire, is expected to appear on AIPAC’s list later this summer),” Attiah wrote.
But the truth is, we support many candidates of color, including Bush’s opponent, Wesley Bell. In fact, we support not only nearly half of the Congressional Black Caucus, but also nearly half of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
These omissions undermine both Attiah’s description of us as a “conservative” organization and her suggestion that we oppose “candidates of color” because of race.
The only criterion for supporting or opposing a candidate is their position on U.S.-Israel relations, and a cursory examination of Bowman’s record shows that he is part of what might be called extremist, anti-Israel extremists in Congress.
That The Washington Post has grossly misrepresented our mission and work is a disservice not only to AIPAC but also to its readers.
Marshall Wittman, Washington
The author is a spokesperson for AIPAC.
Karen Attiah, who claims AIPAC is telling Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) to “shut up or else,” fails to mention the important reason the group endorsed Bowman’s primary opponent, George Latimer.
Bowman in November called a widely reported incident of Hamas raping an Israeli during the Oct. 7 attack a “lie” and claimed Israel was using stories of Hamas sexual atrocities for “propaganda.” It took him more than four months to retract that claim.
Perhaps what’s happening is not as nefarious as Attia would have us believe: an organization dedicated to lobbying for a strong relationship between Israel and the United States has decided to endorse a Democratic candidate who does not seem to instinctively consider someone’s religion, ethnicity or nationality when determining whether they are a victim of sexual assault.
An invitation to Justice Thomas
Regarding the June 8 Post front page article, “Thomas says friends paid for both trips”:
Unlike very few people in America, I have no way of reaching out to Justice Clarence Thomas about my offer. I’m hoping The Washington Post can help.
While watching the news recently, I noticed that Justice Thomas has a fondness for all-inclusive vacations, and I think that if there is an important matter on which I want to hear his opinion, offering to travel is a way to get his attention and perhaps have some alone time.
So, my suggestion is:
I want to make your trip an all-inclusive getaway that my wife and I can enjoy together. We’ll meet you at the Sacramento airport and drive through the Napa region to Mendocino, where we’ll stay overnight at the historic Mendocino Hotel & Garden Suites. You’ll probably be hungry by then, but to avoid getting ravenous, we’ll stop for a bite to eat at a local bar that serves some of the tastiest fried food you’ll ever eat. They also have a great selection of local draft beers.
From there we will drive up the Pacific Coast Highway. I know it is a long drive but this is an all-expenses-paid vacation so I will pay for gas and hotel. I have one night booked at a Motel 6 in Santa Cruz and another near Disneyland in Los Angeles. I can’t wait to take a picture of you and me going down Thunder Mountain together. Our wives should be sitting with us when we take that picture. I think this picture will bond us and make a great Christmas mantlelet. You will find that you are the same as me so you might be interested in my opinions on a woman’s right to choose and my concerns that there are people out there trying to take away our democracy. Don’t worry, I will leave that for last. It’s no good discussing business on vacation, right?
Just think of all the fun you can have! I hope you’ll think about doing it again next year. The first thing that came to mind was a cross-country trip with your wife in my 26′ trailer. That sounds like a great idea, so as you reply with your plans for this year, I’d like you to also start thinking about your 2025 calendar.
I would be grateful if The Washington Post could somehow extend this invitation to me, because ordinary Americans like me, just as well as other people with money, need the opportunity to speak with Justice Thomas.
Jeremy Moulton, Lodi, California
It’s hard to be a Supreme Court justice. makeJust $298,500. Not to mention the luxury travel, perks and need to earn more from a book deal. Really?
It is becoming increasingly difficult to trust the integrity of Supreme Court justices. Of course, it is their right and duty to disclose the gifts they receive. I am skeptical of the original intentions of both the giver and the recipient. I strongly believe that a justice of impeccable judgment would refrain from accepting exotic trips, concert tickets, art, book deals, etc.
If perceptions are real, and they are, then unbecoming appearances matter. Exhibitionism breeds distrust in institutions that were once held sacred. We, the citizens, can and do wonder whether the independent judgment judges are trying to bestow on us is real.
Howard Friedlander, Annapolis, Maryland
I served as an attorney in the federal government for nearly 20 years, specifically with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and for the majority of my tenure, Clarence Thomas served as chairman of the commission.
My time was split about evenly between Washington, DC and Miami, and in that position I received very little in the way of gifts from the people and organizations I had to deal with as an EEOC officer, including travel expenses to speak at seminars they held.
“The conduct of Supreme Court Justices accepting these “gifts” is shocking. They should not accept such things and I would include in my rulings “educational” trips abroad and visits to luxury resorts. This conduct is shameful and Justices should be forced to disclose all perks they receive and be forced to remove themselves from cases in which their benefactors have a stake.”
Stanley Kiskiel, Davie, Florida
A June 6 Washington Post article, “Congressmen to incur more than $5 million in expenses with new system,” revealed some important new facts, but the article did not address the underlying issue: the annual pay cuts that Congress continues to inflict on itself.
According to the Congressional Research Service, because of inflation, Congressional members’ salaries have effectively been reduced by 31 percent since 2009, when members voted to opt out of cost-of-living adjustments to accommodate the lack of adjustments for Social Security recipients. The reason institutions adjust employee salaries for inflation is precisely to ensure employees do not lose purchasing power. Congress has largely maintained employee pay levels through cost-of-living adjustments over this time, but has resisted adjusting its own salaries for fear of being accused by demagogues and charlatans of “pay jacking.”
If only the wealthy could serve in Congress, it would become increasingly difficult for the organization to maintain its image as a representative body. Congress members’ annual salaries of $174,000 are far higher than most American families earn, but far less than successful civil servants make in the private sector. Moreover, members face additional financial burdens, as they must maintain residence both at home and in the Washington, DC metropolitan area.
Congress’ decision to delay the reinstatement of COLAs for lawmakers for a year would mean a further pay cut for America’s legislative branch. While it amounts to less than a few cents in terms of the federal budget, further reducing this tiny investment would have significant implications for our nation’s leaders, who make trillions of dollars of decisions for our democracy.
Bradford Fitch, Washington
The author is president and CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation.
We send the best people, not just the richest.
I applaud both Joe Davidson’s June 8 Federal Insider column, “Senator Tim Kaine’s New Bill Aims to Ensure More Career Ambassadors,” and Senator Kaine (D-VA) for introducing the bill.
But one important point is missing: funds to support the ambassadorship. True, the State Department provides what are called representative allowances for some expenses. But only the wealthy can afford to be ambassadors to Britain, France, Germany, etc. These ambassadors can incur very high representative expenses, such as for American Independence Day celebrations. A friend of mine, who was ambassador to a country of moderate diplomatic importance to the United States, said he spent over $4,000 on such a celebration. Of course, this amount is tax-deductible as an expense, but it’s still a sacrifice up front.
Such expenditure can be monitored to ensure that it is not misused, but the need is clear and should be recognized.
David I. Steinberg, Bethesda
