Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC) has a remarkable talent for steering federal dollars to benefit properties that he owns, The Wall Street Journal reports this morning.

As you read about the millions that Taylor has earmarked for himself ($11.4 million to widen a highway that runs through a resort town where his development companies own thousands of acres, $3.8 million for a park that is "directly in front of the Blue Ridge Savings Bank, flagship of his financial empire"), recall Taylor's dogged opposition to federal money going to a 9/11 memorial. As chairman of the House Interior Appropriations subcommittee, Taylor was for years the sole impediment to releasing the $10 million in federal funds needed to buy the land for a memorial in Shanksville, Pa., where United Airlines Flight 93 crashed.

Taylor's opposition to the effort, The Washington Post explained at the time, "comes down to principle: The federal government is already the largest landowner in the country, and he believes that no additional tax dollars should go to more land buying for this or any other memorial."

When challenged on his earmarks by the Journal, Taylor sounds a different principle:

"The same tax dollars would be spent," [Taylor] said through a spokesman. "The decisions about where and how much would just be left to unelected bureaucrats."

God forbid they'd spend the money on something meaningful to taxpayers, instead of beautifying the view out his bank's front window.

Boy, does this guy know how to choose his battles.

Even by Congressional standards, Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC) is a world champion waffler and equivocator. Rather than take a stand on the controversial CAFTA vote, he came up with the lame excuse that his voting card had failed. And rather than admit that he'd gotten special attention from Jack Abramoff, he quibbled over whether a group of lobbyists all getting together to give him money was indeed a "fundraiser."

But when the families of the passengers and crew of United Airlines Flight 93 want a federal grant to build a memorial, Taylor's there to be seemingly the only man in government standing in the way. Why?

For Taylor, a large landowner in the mountains of western Carolina, the issue comes down to principle: The federal government is already the largest landowner in the country, and he believes that no additional tax dollars should go to more land buying for this or any other memorial.

The requested sum is $10 million, which would be used to build the memorial in the field near Shanksville, PA where the plane crashed.

Remember that this is the guy who inserted a $3 million earmark for Abramoff's client the wealthy Saginaw Chippewa to build a new school. The tribe needed the money so badly that they've since refunded it.

But $10 million to the victims of 9/11? Naw. Do they even have a lobbyist?

TPMm Reader MK has an inspired thought:

Doesn't it make it worse that Taylor claims the meeting was not a fundraiser, yet still collected money from Team Abramoff? I think it makes it more look like a straight up bribe.

So I guess it's up to Taylor which way to spin it. He met with a bunch of lobbyists and walked away with $6,000 dollars in contributions - a fundraiser or just another successful meeting?

As we mentioned before, Rep. Charles Taylor (R-N.C.) was treated to thousands in campaign contributions from Jack Abramoff's team of lobbyists at an event held at Signatures, Abramoff's restaurant, in April of 2003. But he's tied himself in knots denying that it was a "fundraiser."

On a hunch, we checked his FEC disclosure records - and sure enough, he never declared the fundraiser as a campaign event, nor reimbursed reimbursed Signatures, Greenberg Traurig, or anyone else for the expense of hosting the fundraiser, as campaigns are supposed to do.

So if Taylor continues to have such trouble distinguishing a friendly lunch from a fundraiser, we're sure the FEC's lawyers could help puzzle it out for him.

Rep. Charles Taylor (R-N.C.) has shown a talent for creative cop-outs - well, here's another.

On April 9, 2003, Taylor sat down for a lunch with several lobbyists from Greenberg Traurig. Reliable sources say they met at Signatures, although we couldn't confirm it. Two days later, Taylor's campaign deposited checks from six members of Team Abramoff for $500 each, along with a $2,000 check from Jack Abramoff himself and $1,000 from his client, the Saginaw Chippewa tribe of Michigan. One month later, Taylor wrote a letter to the Interior Department to help the Saginaw land a hefty school construction grant.

The AP, in their piece on Taylor's work for Abramoff, reported that this was a fundraiser. But Taylor, trying desperately to deny that he's ever done anything for Abramoff, is not admitting the fundraiser took place - and since this is Charles Taylor we're talking about here, you can be sure that it's not a straight denial.

Taylor admits sitting down with at least six members of Team Abramoff on the date in question. But he's questioning whether the event could be called a "fundraiser." Why? Because he doesn't recall getting any money on the spot - he says he "received no checks there."

Of course, Taylor can't plead ignorance that his campaign actually received checks - but since they weren't waved under his nose then and there, it's an open question for him whether this was a fundraiser. Maybe it was a coincidence. But the AP saw no room for ambiguity: "Abramoff's firm threw Taylor a fundraiser."

But the cop-out doesn't stop there.

According to Joel Burgess, the Asheville Citizen-Times reporter who interviewed Taylor, he also won't admit that the event was held at Abramoff's restaurant Signatures... but he won't deny it, either.

And Taylor says he can't remember why he met with the lobbyists. But (it's funny the way memory works) he can remember why he didn't meet with them: it was "not to raise money or discuss the tribe." And yet he ended up raising money, some of it from the tribe.

Taylor's in for a really tight race this November and will be hit hard on his shilling for Abramoff - seems to me that his story could use some improvement between now and election day.

Since we're on the subject of Rep. Charles Taylor (R-N.C.), it's probably worthwhile for a flashback to another Taylor highlight - the CAFTA vote last summer.

It was a very tight vote, and Taylor was stuck between a rock and a hard place. The Republican leadership was counting every vote, bearing down hard on him, but Taylor comes from a district hostile to free trade. What to do? Yea or nay?

According to Taylor, he meant to cast a vote of "No." But wouldn't you know it? His voting card, which members insert into a machine to record their vote, broke. Or at least, it seems to have broken, even though it worked for a number of other votes the same day.

Soon after he voted (or failed to vote), he disappeared and couldn't be found when it was discovered that he hadn't voted. He only found out about the snafu the next day, he says, when he left the gym.

CAFTA ultimately passed by a razor thin margin of 217-215.

Taylor made an announcement the next day that he'd meant to vote no. He then reinserted his vote - which brought the offical tally to 217-216. One can't help but wonder whether Taylor would have bravely done the same if his vote had been the deciding one.

You can read TPM's highly entertaining coverage of Taylor's remarkable voting debacle last year here.

Yesterday, I wondered why Rep. Charles Taylor (R-N.C.) wasn't feeling the heat for his shilling for Jack Abramoff.

Well, it looks like his primary and Democratic opponents have started to bring it.

Taylor is in for a very close race this fall... another Abramoff political casualty in the making?

Why is Rep. Charles Taylor (R-N.C.) getting a free ride on his shilling for Jack Abramoff?

Yesterday's AP story about Abramoff's work for the Saginaw Chippewa had some damning stuff.

In 2002, Abramoff's team was trying hard to land their client, the Saginaw Chippewa of Michigan, a $3 million grant to build a new school. Here's where Taylor came in. First, Taylor wrote a forceful letter prodding reluctant Interior officials to endorse the grant. Then he helped Abramoff bypass a troublesome member of his own staff, who was holding up the deal. In return, Abramoff put on a fundraiser and threw some contributions his way.

Read more »