Brian Schweitzer, a well-liked Blue governor of Red State Montana may have what it takes to win red states over. (Actually this red and blue stuff is ridiculous. The country is essentially purple.) By the way, it is well worth subscribing to Salon.com for relevant news.
Excerpt:
"You know who the most successful Democrats have been through history?" he asks. "Democrats who've led with their hearts, not their heads. Harry Truman, he led with his heart. Jack Kennedy led with his heart. Bill Clinton, well, he led with his heart, but it dropped about 2 feet lower in his anatomy later on.
"We are the folks who represent the families. Talk like you care. Act like you care. When you're talking about issues that touch families, it's OK to make it look like you care. It's OK to have policies that demonstrate that you'll make their lives better -- and talk about it in a way that they understand. Too many Democrats -- the policy's just fine, but they can't talk about it in a way that anybody else understands."
From Salon.com
http://www.salon.com/news/lotp/2005/04/19/montana_governor/print.html
Brian Schweitzer, at his home near Whitefish, Mont., in 2003.
Life of the Party
Brian Schweitzer, the blue governor of the red state of Montana, may just have the answer to the Democrats' woes.
Editor's note: Salon introduces the first installment of "Life of the Party," a series of discussions with policymakers, candidates, pollsters, analysts, big thinkers, bloggers -- you name it -- about the present and future of the Democratic Party. We hope you'll find the series provocative. Send suggestions for future "Life of the Party" subjects to lotp@salon.com.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Tim Grieve
April 19, 2005 | HELENA, Mont. -- The future is wearing a turquoise bolo tie wrapped around the open collar of a blue-and-white-striped button-down dress shirt. And if that doesn't sound quite right, then you haven't considered the mismatched gray suit coat or the blue jeans and boots down below. Meet Brian Schweitzer, the soil sciences major who grew up to be the governor of Montana -- and may be the next best hope of the Democratic Party.
On Nov. 2, George W. Bush beat John Kerry in Montana by 20 percentage points. On the same day, Montana voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage -- and elected as their governor a populist, pro-choice Democrat. Are Montana voters as schizophrenic as the governor's fashion sense, or is Brian Schweitzer just that good?
A lot of folks say it's the latter. Everyone from the Washington Monthly to the American Spectator has taken note of the rancher from Whitefish, Mont., and what the Wall Street Journal called his "well-spoken, gun-owning, dog-loving, native-ritual-doing, shot-of-whiskey-drinking true-west style." Democrats hungry for hope in the dark days after 2004 find themselves wondering whether another little-known governor from a small red state can somehow help them find their way back to the White House.
Ask Schweitzer about 2008, and he ticks off the names of Democratic governors who've proved they can appeal to red-state voters. What about him? "You know, all these people are saying, 'To be governor of Montana, he must have it figured out,'" Schweitzer says. "I'm telling you, I've broken more colts than there are days that I've been in office. I'm just a regular guy, getting things done in Montana. I don't know if that works nationally, but I don't care."
But it's clear that he does care. In an hour-long interview, Schweitzer gave impassioned advice on how Democrats can win back the rural West by "leading with their hearts" and recognizing that a one-size-fits-all platform on gun control won't play in hunting and fishing states like Montana.
A native Montanan who spent time in the Middle East before returning to start his own business, Schweitzer espouses a political philosophy that combines the class-based populism of a John Edwards with the budgetary pragmatism of a Howard Dean, all wrapped up in shit-kicking Western dialect that the Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas Zúniga calls "a genuine version of Bush's fake ranch."
Salon spoke with Schweitzer late last week in his office in Helena. To get to the governor, you park your car on the curb out in front of the State Capitol -- there are no parking meters here -- and walk straight into the governor's office, unmolested by bureaucratic gatekeepers or security personnel. Helena is a long way from Washington, but maybe not for long: Before I can even compose a question, Schweitzer is offering his prescription for what ails the Democratic Party.
"You know who the most successful Democrats have been through history?" he asks. "Democrats who've led with their hearts, not their heads. Harry Truman, he led with his heart. Jack Kennedy led with his heart. Bill Clinton, well, he led with his heart, but it dropped about 2 feet lower in his anatomy later on.
"We are the folks who represent the families. Talk like you care. Act like you care. When you're talking about issues that touch families, it's OK to make it look like you care. It's OK to have policies that demonstrate that you'll make their lives better -- and talk about it in a way that they understand. Too many Democrats -- the policy's just fine, but they can't talk about it in a way that anybody else understands."
That sounds like a not-so-veiled criticism of John Kerry.
Oh, Washington, D.C. The problem is, they get to Washington, they drink that water, they get Washington-speak. This is not a criticism of John Kerry. It's the reason that people keep saying, "Oh, [the next Democratic president is] likely to be a governor." It's because governors are faced with this all the time: Their language has to be the language that is clear enough for Joe or Mary Six-Pack to understand. When you speak on the Senate floor or on the House floor or in a Cabinet meeting, you don't even have to use the words that we use. It's a new language -- you know, "budget reconciliation, blah blah blah blah."
No. When you're out visiting with folks in a way that touches their heart, you tell them, "We're going to find the money to do the right thing." Well, when a senator stands on the Senate floor, it'd take him two hours to explain that.
But is winning back the White House really just a matter of learning to say things in a clearer way?
A whole lot of it's visual. I heard somebody say, very early in the last presidential campaign, that they turned the volume off on their television and just watched the two candidates, and they said, "Bush is going to win." You know, when Bush walked in the room, he'd say, "Oh, hey, how ya doin' there?" giving somebody a high-five right there, giving somebody a thumbs up. When Kerry walked in, he found his way to the podium, and he described in painful detail -- with big words, in a strong way -- all the things that he was going to make right for the American people.
Please.
You need to have good solid policy -- that's important. But you've got to touch people. They've got to know you; they've got to know that you believe in what you're saying. And that's probably more important when people vote than your policies. Because how the hell are they going to raise their families, maybe work two jobs, go hunting on the weekend, bowl and drink beer with the boys on Tuesday night, and still have enough time to figure out who's telling the truth about the budget, about healthcare, about education?
So it's about the candidate himself -- about coming across as authentic and as someone voters will say is "one of us"?
They look up there and say, "That guy's a straight shooter. If I wasn't so busy bowling and working and fishing, and if I had time to spend on these issues, I bet I'd come to the same conclusions that that guy would. But it's a good thing that he's doing all that studying and stuff, because I'm busy fishing and bowling."
How do you build that kind of affinity? Do you have to show the voters that you're a regular guy -- the "who would you most want to have a beer with?" test -- or is it a matter of building some kind of link with voters on political or social issues?
You're asking me? Hell, I'm out here in Montana. I don't have any idea what the big shots in Washington, D.C., are doing. I don't think I've got any great solutions for the rest of the world, but I think I understand Montanans.
OK, let's talk about Montanans then. Did 53 percent of them vote for you because they thought you were a stand-up guy, or was it because they thought you shared their values and their positions on issues?
Both. They think I'm a stand-up guy and I'm a straight shooter. I'm plain-spoken, but the things that I say make sense.
But you've got to get people to listen in the first place. In a lot of the country -- in the South, in the rural West -- folks aren't particularly receptive to hearing what a Democrat has to say. They've made up their minds already, and they're not going to trust many Democrats on something like gun control, for example.
Maybe. But you know, when they see you pick up a gun, they know you've used one before. When you pick up a gun and you put in a round and you fire one off, they know that you know what it's all about.
In my Senate campaign [Schweitzer ran unsuccessfully in 2000], I had a great campaign ad. I stood in front of one of my barns, and I said: "Montana is not New York City. We don't need a bunch of new gun laws. We need to enforce the ones we already have." And then we moved to a shot where I was with one of my sons and my daughter, and I was holding a .270, which is a fairly good-size rifle. As I'm talking, I lifted the bolt, shoved in a bullet, put the safety on and handed it to my son as my daughter watched, and he touched one off. And as I was doing that, I was saying, "In Montana, we understand that passing responsibility from one generation to another with gun safety is part of who we are."
So it wasn't about guns, necessarily; it wasn't about family, necessarily; it wasn't about responsibility, necessarily. But it was the nexus of those.
But we didn't run it enough. What happened was -- consultants. "Oh, this issue, that issue, some other issue." They're all talking about the issues. And I just kept pushing them in the Senate race: "Why don't we just run the gun ad and nothing else?" And they said, "No, no we've got all these issues."
So this time around, when we started shooting ads, they had some polling data, and they knew what pushed the buttons of the people in Montana. And I said, "No. This is the way this campaign is going to work: The more times that we run ads with me on a horse or carrying a gun -- it's better if I'm doing both -- the more likely it is that we'll call me a governor at the end of the day. Because what those ads said is, "I'm a real Montanan."
Does that kind of personal authenticity trump everything else in the minds of voters?
There's more that the big shots from big cities will never understand. I probably shook hands with at least half of the people who voted for me, maybe two-thirds. You can do that in a place where there's only 920,000 people.
But you can't do that when you're running for president. How would you translate that sort of personal appeal into a national campaign?
You're asking me about a national campaign? What the heck would I know about a national campaign?
Look, I started this out by saying that Democrats can win if they lead with their hearts. Let people feel you! Don't try to verbalize. Let them feel you first. If you're not a passionate person -- I happen to be. If I'm for something, you're gonna know it pretty quick. And if I'm agin it, you're gonna know it too. I'm straight about those things. Some people can't do that. Maybe they've had a lot of time in politics, or they're lawyers, or it's just their makeup. And they have all these highfalutin pollsters and media people, and they say, "Well, there's this demographic that kind of bleeds into this demographic, and you don't want to lose these over here because you were on this." I don't believe any of it. I think most people will support you if they know that you'll stand your ground.
Even if they don't stand on the same ground?
That's right.
Is that why Bush won Montana by 20 percentage points -- because people thought he was the kind of guy who'd stand his ground?
Well, that, and he's a Republican. Wasn't he on the ballot with an "R" next to his name?
If that "R" is so important -- and if the West is where Democrats have to win to begin turning things around nationally -- then the party is going to have to figure out a way to overcome it. How can Democrats close the gap in places like Montana?
I understand that the Democrats in the big cities, on the East and the West coasts, have a grave concern about gun control. Frankly, as it turns out, so do Republicans. [California Gov.] Schwarzenegger supports gun control, I think. [New York Gov.] Pataki certainly does, [former New York Mayor] Giuliani does, most of these East Coast Republicans do. So I can appreciate that they've got a problem in their inner cities. But that's not what we have out here in the flyover zone. We have guns because we like them. We have guns because in some ways it just kind of defines who we are. We like having guns around. It's not necessarily that you're out shooting -- it's knowing that you could if you wanted to.
When you crowd a bunch of people together, when you've got people living on top of each other, they're likely to have run-ins. So you need a whole bunch more laws. When you've got more cattle than people and you've got blue sky that goes on almost forever, people have got room to roam without bothering each other. Live and let live.
Are there Democrats who can make that sort of appeal on a national level?
Sure, there's bunches of them. I'm not going to start naming names. I don't know who all the national Democrats are. I can tell you that my pal Billy Richardson is a good guy, a good governor, a big shot. Kathleen Sebelius in Kansas. You know, they still have the Democratic Caucus in a phone booth in Kansas, and she gets elected. So there's two.
Of course, my good friend in Michigan [Jennifer Granholm] -- she can't run unless they do the Schwarzenegger thing, which is unlikely. Ed Rendell, I wish I could do his voice; he's got the greatest voice in the world. Janet Napolitano in Arizona has been very, very successful. And let's not forget Tom Vilsack. He's a wonderful individual.
Howard Dean, who earned an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association as governor, has said almost exactly what you've just said about guns. But people in Montana probably don't think of him as a friend to rural gun owners.
Most people that matter in Montana have never heard of Howard Dean or anybody else we've talked about today. People who are into politics -- they've already decided how they're going to vote not only in 2008 but in 2012. They're not persuadable. The more people follow this, the less persuadable they are. Anybody that knows the names I just talked about is either a hard "R" or a hard "D." They already know how they're going to vote for the rest of their lives.
So Joe and Mary Six-Pack, they don't have time to watch "Hardball With Chris Matthews." They haven't any idea who Pat Buchanan is, or Robert Novak. They don't watch that stuff. They don't read about it. They open the newspaper; they read a couple of headlines on the front page to see if they know anybody that got in a pickle, and then they go right to the sports page or the comics. And if they see something about politics in there -- hoo, they're not reading that.
Don't you think any of it seeps through? The Republicans' involvement in the Terri Schiavo case, for example?
Sure it does. Maybe a little [on] Terri Schiavo because it was blasted on the national news. But I don't think anybody figured out what was going on there, except that it looked to them like it was a big political move by some rascals in Washington.
Do they make any distinction about which "rascals" those were?
You know, Joe and Mary Six-Pack, they don't disassociate. They're pretty much all in the same box.
They may not differentiate among Democrats, either. Again, Howard Dean has a record that's not at all unlike what you're trying to pull off in Montana, but it's hard to imagine Dean as the kind of national candidate who would do well here.
The first time people heard of Howard Dean, they heard of him as some guy from Vermont -- and people vaguely know where that is, but it sounds like it's where lots of hippies live -- and that he was against the war. So even before they saw him on TV, they figured he had a ponytail and a nose ring. Turns out, if they had gone three or four pages deep, they would have found out that the guy was a well-respected, moderate Democrat. But in the course of national politics, you've got about a blink or two to make up your mind whether you like somebody.
And then it was "electability." Democrats were thinking, "Oh gosh, we've just got to win. Let's get somebody that's electable." And they thought, "This guy Kerry, he's a smart guy, a senator; he served in the war, so they can't ding him for that; he voted for the war." So they started making it into a thinking thing rather than using the heart. Now, Kerry may have been the best candidate, but he wasn't selected because he was the best candidate from the heart. He was selected because in Iowa and New Hampshire people intellectualized it. They said -- and remember, this wasn't Joe and Mary Six-Pack making this decision -- "I love Howard Dean, but I think I'll marry John Kerry because Mom and Dad are going to like him better."
You're Catholic, but religion didn't play much of a role in your election.
I went to high school in a monastery. I understand Catholicism. But I don't have a need to carry my religion on my sleeve. It's something I have in my heart. Twenty-five percent of Montana is Catholic. Twenty-four percent are Lutheran. Eighteen to 20 percent are Episcopalian. This is not Baptist country -- I think it's a few percent Baptists. We have pretty mainline religions in Montana.
That's different from the South, where born-again evangelicals can dominate the political debate.
God, guns and gays.
But it's different here, politically?
I think that guns are probably preeminent in a place like Montana. When it comes to religion, people respect your own opinion.
If the question is, Is it important in the flyover areas, the Midwest and the West, to understand something about God, I think it is. I think people are likely to be more God-fearing. Are they in church on Sunday necessarily? No. They might be fishing. People have different ways of getting close to their maker. In Montana, lots of time that means getting out.
But what about the political issues that go along with religion?
Gays and choice, you mean? When you simply say, like I do, "I'm pro-choice -- I just think that's an intensely private decision that every woman and her physician can and should be able to make, period" -- what else is there? That's certainly not someplace for government to be sticking its nose.
When it comes to gay marriage, folks in Montana, they're pretty traditional about who ought to be marrying who. They're not thinking that men ought to be marrying men and women ought to be marrying women. I think that's pretty consistent across the country, except for a few enclaves on the East and West Coast.
John Kerry opposes gay marriage, too. But if you took a poll of Montanans today, I'll bet 85 percent of them would say that he supports it.
Oh, they'd probably think that he married some guy.
But understand that the Bush-Kerry race [didn't] matter in Montana because there was never an ad run in Montana -- not a single ad. It wasn't in play. Kerry didn't come here, Bush didn't come here, no ads were run. People didn't know who the heck they were. The things they heard about Kerry they didn't like from the very beginning, because the things they heard about him were what Karl Rove told them about him.
Many Democrats believe that the determining factor in the election was the war -- and the thought that George W. Bush was the one that would keep Americans safest. Was national security the driving issue in Montana?
No. Most people in Montana have never been to New York City. The twin towers are something they've only seen on television.
And Montanans have served in much higher numbers as a percent of our population in every conflict we've ever had. Part of that is the large number of Indians -- Indians are warriors, some of the greatest warriors in modern times and in ancient times -- and part of it is the rural nature of who we are. And it's one way to demonstrate that you're a stand-up guy, and I respect that.
But were Montanans outraged at the same level as folks in New York City or in other vulnerable cities? Frankly, is al-Qaida coming to Montana? It would be a bad idea for them to come here. To start with, if they show up here and start making some trouble, somebody's just going to shoot their asses and ask questions later.
But the point is, when you live in big cities, you see how many people can be killed by a single event, like flying into a building or a dirty bomb. I just don't believe that Montanans were so touched as they were on the East and West coasts about this. I mean, we were outraged that we were attacked, of course. But I will never know the feeling that somebody who is from New York had to have watching that happen.
How does the Iraq war play in Montana?
Oh, about 50-50, right now.
How does it play with you?
As you know, I lived in the Middle East, and I learned to speak Arabic. I had misgivings from the very beginning. We were told that this incursion was going to make the world a safer place. But that didn't square with me because I knew, in the Middle East, the days of the Crusades are like they happened just a few years ago. Any incursion of the West into Islamic cultures is going to be met with resistance. So now we say that, really, the reason we [went] there was to create democracies, and democracies will spring up [throughout the region].
But here's the problem. Our closet allies in the Middle East would be? Saudi Arabia, with a functional king; Kuwait, with a functional king; Jordan, with a functional king; Egypt, with a -- I don't know -- president for life. Israel, it does have a democratic republic. But what do you think our allies are saying when we're standing there saying, "We are going to let democracy rise up"? Well, that's pretty threatening to them. So I don't know what the endgame is here.
You know, I've had people say to me, "But when you're attacked, you've got respond." I agree. I think we should have gone to Afghanistan and turned over every single rock until we got Osama bin Laden. And I would personally put his head on a stick; I would do that.
That's the place we needed to be. The problem is that somehow we got diverted along the way and we went into Iraq. Now, we had Iraq tamed better than any other country in the world. They couldn't even take off or land a plane or even move a truck in the desert. We had airplanes over Iraq, 24/7, for years. We don't over Iran. So why Iraq? I haven't got the answer yet. I'm still asking the question.
We're there. I support our troops; I support the families. You know what? In Montana, we don't make the decision to go. We just answer when called. This is for the big shots in Washington, D.C. I'm just a rancher from Montana.
And you have the luxury of not having to deal with foreign policy from Helena. You're working instead on domestic issues with Montana's Legislature.
We've gotten just about everything I've wanted: a scholarship program, a healthcare program, a prescription drug program. We passed five [medical malpractice] bills -- five med-mals! -- no tax increases, some economic development bills that are very cool, and a "best and brightest" scholarship program, so every middle-class family in Montana finally can attain the dream to send the next generation to college.
Can the Democrats use an issue like that in a play for "moral values" voters?
Hell, yes. When every mother and father knows that there will be support if they have a kid that deserves the opportunity to make it to the top ... Education is the equalizer. It doesn't matter if you were on third base or were in the dugout when the game started -- you have an opportunity to make it to home plate with education.
And healthcare. You know, in Montana, 20 percent of the people don't have health insurance. They're not indigent, living under bridges someplace or in a culvert with a sleeping bag. Maybe Mom and Dad both work. They say prayers with their kids when they tuck 'em into bed, and then they close the door and they walk down the hall, and they get on their knees and they pray one more time that nobody gets sick because they don't have health insurance. They just can't imagine having a sick child and not being in a position to be able to get the help that they need.
That's something that we've got to fix, and we're fixing it in Montana. We've got a targeted tax credit for small businesses to buy insurance for themselves and their employees. We passed five med-mal bills. If that helps, we'll do it. If making [insurance] more affordable by pooling people together so they can buy insurance will help, we'll do it. We've put significantly more resources into something called the Child Health Insurance Program to get more matching funds from the federal government so that lower-middle-class kids up to 18 will get a healthy start. We're doing it.
And how do you persuade the most conservative voters -- the ones for whom abortion and gay marriage are be-all, end-all issues -- that they should think about education and healthcare as important "moral values" too?
The most conservative voters? The beauty is that I only need about 50 percent to win. The most conservative voters will not even give me a shot. I don't need 100 percent of the vote. Just do the right thing, for God's sake. And if that means I'm only going to be governor for the next three and a half years, so be it. Just tell 'em who are you are, tell 'em what you believe in, and tell 'em in a way that they're gonna believe you.
The Democrats spend a lot of time worrying about how to finesse these social issues.
Please. Please.
Just tell 'em what you are. You know, this polling stuff, having to go out and figure out which way the wind's blowing -- do you believe in something? Did you have something when you started? If you do, tell 'em what it is. You'll be all right. If you're a kook, you're not going to get elected. But if you're real, you're normal, you're halfway bright, and you're willing to stand up -- that's the most important thing.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About the writer
Tim Grieve is a senior writer for Salon based in San Francisco.
Sound Off
Send us a Letter to the Editor
Salon.com >> News
Thursday, April 21, 2005
DeLay and Frist Out of Control in Attacking Judges
Even conservatives like Supreme Justices Kennedy and O'Conner are concerned, as they well should be. Nut jobs Frist and DeLay are attacking judges b/c they can no longer wear sheets or burn crosses. The extent of their extremism is real as
"The Los Angeles Times reports that 94 of 162 active judges now on the federal courts of appeals were picked by Republican presidents. Conservatives have a clear majority on 10 of 13 circuit courts. Since 1976, seven of nine seats on the Supreme Court have been held by conservatives, according to the paper's analysis." (see below.)
From the Village Voice; http://www.villagevoice.com/
Washington
The GOP's Fright Wing
DeLay and Frist light the torches for a crusade against 'activist' judges
by James Ridgeway
April 19th, 2005 10:18 AM
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Far from backing down, Tom DeLay and his red-state allies are pushing their fight deep into the soft underbelly of the timid blue-state homeland, drawing shrieks of rage and pain as they go.
"Republicans are drunk with power," New York (blue state) congressman Charles B. Rangel said yesterday on CBS. "It's abuse of power in the House rules," said Maryland (blue state) Democrat Steny Hoyer. "It's abuse of power in the ethics process. It's abuse of power in threatening judges. It's an abuse of power of threatening."
On Saturday, DeLay told the National Rifle Association, "When a man's in trouble or in a good fight, you want all your friends around them, preferably armed. So I am in good company tonight."
DeLay's shock-and-awe campaign widened last week to welcome such luminaries as Trent Lott, the Mississippi (red state) senator who had to resign his post as Senate majority leader after celebrating the good old days when Strom Thurmond was kicking up his heels as a segregationist. Scaredy-cat George W. Bush wouldn't stand up for Lott. Now Lott is going after Bush for being a namby-pamby and not standing up for the Hammer.
"I do think the White House needs to remember," Lott said on ABC, "that people who fight hard for you as a candidate and for your issues as a president . . . deserve your support, aggressive support."
DeLay is point man for the Christian right, and last week Senate Majority Leader and Republican presidential hopeful Bill Frist was getting set to push the Christian agenda one step further this coming Sunday with an address to the Family Research Council (FRC), whose members are saying opponents of Bush's judicial nominees are "against people of faith."
"For years," said FRC president Tony Perkins, "activist courts have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms."
In The Weekly Standard, writer Jeffrey Bell comes to DeLay's defense, saying, "The truth is that Tom DeLay is a special target because he is the first legislative power broker to be an authentic red-state conservative.
"He is an unhyphenated Reaganite: militantly pro-life and pro-values on social issues, a pro-growth tax cutter on economic issues, and an unapologetic, spread-American-values interventionist abroad. In the years since the GOP's congressional realignment victory of 1994, no other GOP leader in either the House or Senate fully fits this description."
Down by law
The Christian right's campaign against activist judges is definitely having its effect on the judiciary. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who last week was attacked—some might say threatened—by speeches at a conference against liberal judges, asked Congress for more guards around the court building. Newsweek reports that Sandra Day O'Connor had already been concerned enough a few months ago about tension between the court and Congress that she invited some House Republicans to lunch to smooth things over. "It was just the two branches of government reaching out, trying to keep the lines of communication open," explained Ohio Republican congressman Steve Chabot, who had been especially critical of the judiciary.
But why? The Los Angeles Times reports that 94 of 162 active judges now on the federal courts of appeals were picked by Republican presidents. Conservatives have a clear majority on 10 of 13 circuit courts. Since 1976, seven of nine seats on the Supreme Court have been held by conservatives, according to the paper's analysis.
"The Los Angeles Times reports that 94 of 162 active judges now on the federal courts of appeals were picked by Republican presidents. Conservatives have a clear majority on 10 of 13 circuit courts. Since 1976, seven of nine seats on the Supreme Court have been held by conservatives, according to the paper's analysis." (see below.)
From the Village Voice; http://www.villagevoice.com/
Washington
The GOP's Fright Wing
DeLay and Frist light the torches for a crusade against 'activist' judges
by James Ridgeway
April 19th, 2005 10:18 AM
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Far from backing down, Tom DeLay and his red-state allies are pushing their fight deep into the soft underbelly of the timid blue-state homeland, drawing shrieks of rage and pain as they go.
"Republicans are drunk with power," New York (blue state) congressman Charles B. Rangel said yesterday on CBS. "It's abuse of power in the House rules," said Maryland (blue state) Democrat Steny Hoyer. "It's abuse of power in the ethics process. It's abuse of power in threatening judges. It's an abuse of power of threatening."
On Saturday, DeLay told the National Rifle Association, "When a man's in trouble or in a good fight, you want all your friends around them, preferably armed. So I am in good company tonight."
DeLay's shock-and-awe campaign widened last week to welcome such luminaries as Trent Lott, the Mississippi (red state) senator who had to resign his post as Senate majority leader after celebrating the good old days when Strom Thurmond was kicking up his heels as a segregationist. Scaredy-cat George W. Bush wouldn't stand up for Lott. Now Lott is going after Bush for being a namby-pamby and not standing up for the Hammer.
"I do think the White House needs to remember," Lott said on ABC, "that people who fight hard for you as a candidate and for your issues as a president . . . deserve your support, aggressive support."
DeLay is point man for the Christian right, and last week Senate Majority Leader and Republican presidential hopeful Bill Frist was getting set to push the Christian agenda one step further this coming Sunday with an address to the Family Research Council (FRC), whose members are saying opponents of Bush's judicial nominees are "against people of faith."
"For years," said FRC president Tony Perkins, "activist courts have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms."
In The Weekly Standard, writer Jeffrey Bell comes to DeLay's defense, saying, "The truth is that Tom DeLay is a special target because he is the first legislative power broker to be an authentic red-state conservative.
"He is an unhyphenated Reaganite: militantly pro-life and pro-values on social issues, a pro-growth tax cutter on economic issues, and an unapologetic, spread-American-values interventionist abroad. In the years since the GOP's congressional realignment victory of 1994, no other GOP leader in either the House or Senate fully fits this description."
Down by law
The Christian right's campaign against activist judges is definitely having its effect on the judiciary. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who last week was attacked—some might say threatened—by speeches at a conference against liberal judges, asked Congress for more guards around the court building. Newsweek reports that Sandra Day O'Connor had already been concerned enough a few months ago about tension between the court and Congress that she invited some House Republicans to lunch to smooth things over. "It was just the two branches of government reaching out, trying to keep the lines of communication open," explained Ohio Republican congressman Steve Chabot, who had been especially critical of the judiciary.
But why? The Los Angeles Times reports that 94 of 162 active judges now on the federal courts of appeals were picked by Republican presidents. Conservatives have a clear majority on 10 of 13 circuit courts. Since 1976, seven of nine seats on the Supreme Court have been held by conservatives, according to the paper's analysis.
Bolton Nomination Crashing and Burning?
It seems to me that the conservative wing of the Republican Party has an over abundance of bullies and liars. Not to mention more than a fair share of beyond-the-pale hypocrisy.
Article in the LA times found on Liberal Oasis.com
http://www.liberaloasis.com/
Senator's Worries Put U.N. Nominee on Hold
A maverick Republican surprises colleagues by rethinking Bolton, who is accused of bullying.
By Sonni Efron
Times Staff Writer
April 20, 2005
WASHINGTON — In an unforeseen setback for the Bush administration, a Senate committee delayed a key vote on John R. Bolton's nomination to be U.N. ambassador after a Republican senator announced Tuesday that he was not prepared to vote for Bolton.
Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) surprised Republicans and Democrats by saying he would not vote to confirm Bolton, based on evidence laid out by angry Democrats that Bolton had bullied and intimidated intelligence analysts and subordinates.
Bolton now must withstand at least three more weeks of investigation by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which could subpoena new witnesses or require him to appear again to answer fresh questions.
Senators and aides from both parties said they could not predict the outcome of the battle over Bolton, whose blunt and tough personal style as much as his ideology had made him the most controversial of President Bush's nominees.
The delay, a victory for Senate Democrats, was the latest sign that Republican moderates in Congress might be starting to bridle at their party leadership's strong tilt to the right and insistence on party discipline.
Before Tuesday's committee meeting, two moderate Republicans, Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, had said they were concerned about the allegations against Bolton, but remained inclined to support him.
That led the committee chairman, Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), to conclude that the 10 Republicans on the committee would rebuff pleas from the eight committee Democrats for more time. Lugar expressed irritation at parliamentary moves earlier Tuesday by Democrats seeking to delay the vote, and insisted a committee vote be held Tuesday.
"We were not born yesterday," Lugar told the Democrats. "The Republicans want to vote for John Bolton, and there are 10 Republicans here."
Democrats complained that Lugar was trying to ram the nomination through the committee and that they had not had time to substantiate or refute allegations against Bolton that began when a fellow State Department official testified that Bolton was a bully and a "serial abuser" of underlings.
Lugar attempted to cut off the debate. "We have indulged, I believe, in a lot of give," he said. "So, the give is over."
Then, however, Voinovich spoke up, saying that the treatment of subordinates was an important issue to him, and that if forced to vote Tuesday, he would oppose Bolton. "I've heard enough today that I don't feel comfortable about voting for Mr. Bolton," Voinovich said.
Facing a 9-9 tie that would block the nomination from going to the full Senate and potentially embarrass Bush, Lugar agreed to delay the vote until mid-May.
A tie would prevent the committee from forwarding the nomination to the full Senate, where Republicans hold a 55-45 majority. The committee also could forward the nomination to the full Senate with no recommendation, but that action also would require a majority committee vote.
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) gave his word that Democrats would not to try to delay a vote on Bolton beyond mid-May.
None of the three key GOP moderates said they planned to oppose Bolton, but they agreed more time was needed to address outstanding questions.
Voinovich, who missed last week's confirmation hearing, is known as a maverick Republican who has disagreed before with Bush administration stances.
Chafee had said just before the committee meeting that he had decided to vote for Bolton. But Tuesday night, Chafee spokesman Stephen Hourahan said continuing revelations and questions about Bolton's veracity under oath had put Chafee back into the undecided camp.
Hagel said he might vote in committee to send Bolton's nomination to the full Senate, but could vote against confirmation on the Senate floor.
"I think these charges are serious enough to demand … further examination," Hagel said.
Bolton, who has served since 2001 as undersecretary of State, has been a harsh critic of the United Nations. His supporters say that qualifies him to lead U.N. reform efforts.
But Biden and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) tried to persuade Republicans not to send an official accused of politicizing intelligence to the U.N. at a time when U.S. credibility on such issues was at a low point.
The Democrats sought to close the meeting to present unproven new allegations against Bolton, but Republicans refused. So in an unusual public session, Biden and Dodd questioned Bolton's truthfulness and described new evidence they believed should be examined.
In one case, according to Biden and committee staff, Bolton had been involved in a bitter dispute while working at the Justice Department with an attorney who attempted to extend her maternity leave for health reasons. Bolton reportedly threatened her with dismissal if she did not return to work, they said.
The committee was also provided with information that when Bolton left the administration of President George H.W. Bush in 1992, he was not invited to return to Covington & Burling, the prestigious Washington law firm where he had been a partner, because of abusive treatment of subordinates there, according to staffers.
"I would ask you to … call his old law firm and ask why they didn't bring him back," Biden told fellow senators. "Ask … how he treated the people who worked with him."
However, Biden also said the evidence needed to be examined further. "I may be wrong about that," he said. "Maybe the phone call I got is not accurate."
Biden also said the committee should investigate further Bolton's testimony that he had never attempted to have any intelligence analyst fired or removed. In one case, Bolton clashed with a CIA analyst over a speech Bolton had delivered in 2002. He met with a senior CIA official, Stuart Cohen, and asked that the analyst be reassigned, Cohen told the committee.
Bolton testified that he had driven from the State Department to CIA headquarters on his way home to stop by for an introductory chat with Cohen. In the course of the visit, Bolton said, he mentioned that he had lost confidence in the analyst.
But Biden said appointment logs obtained from the State Department showed Bolton first went to the State Department, then drove to the CIA for a morning meeting with Cohen, and then returned to the State Department for an afternoon of meetings. If the logs are correct, Biden said, it suggests that Bolton's agenda for the CIA visit was much more than a drop-by.
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) noted that four witnesses had told the committee that on at least three occasions Bolton sought to have intelligence analyst Christian Westermann removed. Kerry read aloud Bolton's testimony that he "never sought to have Mr. Westermann fired at all."
Democrats also called for an investigation into an allegation that Bolton attempted to intimidate and harass a Dallas woman working for a U.S. Agency for International Development contractor in Kyrgyzstan in 1994. Melody Townsel told the committee that Bolton, then a private attorney representing an AID subcontractor, threatened her, pounded on her hotel room door and threw documents.
In an interview Tuesday with the Times, Uno Ramat, who was working for the subcontractor, supported Townsel's account. Ramat said he was in daily telephone contact with Townsel during the period when she said she was being harassed by Bolton in Moscow, and remembers her telling him about the incidents.
Ramat also said Bolton told him that Townsel was "under investigation — that she was being accused of stealing money, basically of fraud." He added: "I knew it wasn't true."
Senate staffers said the committee had a second witness who corroborated Townsel's story but could not supply details late Tuesday.
Times staff writer Janet Hook contributed to this report.
Article in the LA times found on Liberal Oasis.com
http://www.liberaloasis.com/
Senator's Worries Put U.N. Nominee on Hold
A maverick Republican surprises colleagues by rethinking Bolton, who is accused of bullying.
By Sonni Efron
Times Staff Writer
April 20, 2005
WASHINGTON — In an unforeseen setback for the Bush administration, a Senate committee delayed a key vote on John R. Bolton's nomination to be U.N. ambassador after a Republican senator announced Tuesday that he was not prepared to vote for Bolton.
Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) surprised Republicans and Democrats by saying he would not vote to confirm Bolton, based on evidence laid out by angry Democrats that Bolton had bullied and intimidated intelligence analysts and subordinates.
Bolton now must withstand at least three more weeks of investigation by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which could subpoena new witnesses or require him to appear again to answer fresh questions.
Senators and aides from both parties said they could not predict the outcome of the battle over Bolton, whose blunt and tough personal style as much as his ideology had made him the most controversial of President Bush's nominees.
The delay, a victory for Senate Democrats, was the latest sign that Republican moderates in Congress might be starting to bridle at their party leadership's strong tilt to the right and insistence on party discipline.
Before Tuesday's committee meeting, two moderate Republicans, Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, had said they were concerned about the allegations against Bolton, but remained inclined to support him.
That led the committee chairman, Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), to conclude that the 10 Republicans on the committee would rebuff pleas from the eight committee Democrats for more time. Lugar expressed irritation at parliamentary moves earlier Tuesday by Democrats seeking to delay the vote, and insisted a committee vote be held Tuesday.
"We were not born yesterday," Lugar told the Democrats. "The Republicans want to vote for John Bolton, and there are 10 Republicans here."
Democrats complained that Lugar was trying to ram the nomination through the committee and that they had not had time to substantiate or refute allegations against Bolton that began when a fellow State Department official testified that Bolton was a bully and a "serial abuser" of underlings.
Lugar attempted to cut off the debate. "We have indulged, I believe, in a lot of give," he said. "So, the give is over."
Then, however, Voinovich spoke up, saying that the treatment of subordinates was an important issue to him, and that if forced to vote Tuesday, he would oppose Bolton. "I've heard enough today that I don't feel comfortable about voting for Mr. Bolton," Voinovich said.
Facing a 9-9 tie that would block the nomination from going to the full Senate and potentially embarrass Bush, Lugar agreed to delay the vote until mid-May.
A tie would prevent the committee from forwarding the nomination to the full Senate, where Republicans hold a 55-45 majority. The committee also could forward the nomination to the full Senate with no recommendation, but that action also would require a majority committee vote.
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) gave his word that Democrats would not to try to delay a vote on Bolton beyond mid-May.
None of the three key GOP moderates said they planned to oppose Bolton, but they agreed more time was needed to address outstanding questions.
Voinovich, who missed last week's confirmation hearing, is known as a maverick Republican who has disagreed before with Bush administration stances.
Chafee had said just before the committee meeting that he had decided to vote for Bolton. But Tuesday night, Chafee spokesman Stephen Hourahan said continuing revelations and questions about Bolton's veracity under oath had put Chafee back into the undecided camp.
Hagel said he might vote in committee to send Bolton's nomination to the full Senate, but could vote against confirmation on the Senate floor.
"I think these charges are serious enough to demand … further examination," Hagel said.
Bolton, who has served since 2001 as undersecretary of State, has been a harsh critic of the United Nations. His supporters say that qualifies him to lead U.N. reform efforts.
But Biden and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) tried to persuade Republicans not to send an official accused of politicizing intelligence to the U.N. at a time when U.S. credibility on such issues was at a low point.
The Democrats sought to close the meeting to present unproven new allegations against Bolton, but Republicans refused. So in an unusual public session, Biden and Dodd questioned Bolton's truthfulness and described new evidence they believed should be examined.
In one case, according to Biden and committee staff, Bolton had been involved in a bitter dispute while working at the Justice Department with an attorney who attempted to extend her maternity leave for health reasons. Bolton reportedly threatened her with dismissal if she did not return to work, they said.
The committee was also provided with information that when Bolton left the administration of President George H.W. Bush in 1992, he was not invited to return to Covington & Burling, the prestigious Washington law firm where he had been a partner, because of abusive treatment of subordinates there, according to staffers.
"I would ask you to … call his old law firm and ask why they didn't bring him back," Biden told fellow senators. "Ask … how he treated the people who worked with him."
However, Biden also said the evidence needed to be examined further. "I may be wrong about that," he said. "Maybe the phone call I got is not accurate."
Biden also said the committee should investigate further Bolton's testimony that he had never attempted to have any intelligence analyst fired or removed. In one case, Bolton clashed with a CIA analyst over a speech Bolton had delivered in 2002. He met with a senior CIA official, Stuart Cohen, and asked that the analyst be reassigned, Cohen told the committee.
Bolton testified that he had driven from the State Department to CIA headquarters on his way home to stop by for an introductory chat with Cohen. In the course of the visit, Bolton said, he mentioned that he had lost confidence in the analyst.
But Biden said appointment logs obtained from the State Department showed Bolton first went to the State Department, then drove to the CIA for a morning meeting with Cohen, and then returned to the State Department for an afternoon of meetings. If the logs are correct, Biden said, it suggests that Bolton's agenda for the CIA visit was much more than a drop-by.
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) noted that four witnesses had told the committee that on at least three occasions Bolton sought to have intelligence analyst Christian Westermann removed. Kerry read aloud Bolton's testimony that he "never sought to have Mr. Westermann fired at all."
Democrats also called for an investigation into an allegation that Bolton attempted to intimidate and harass a Dallas woman working for a U.S. Agency for International Development contractor in Kyrgyzstan in 1994. Melody Townsel told the committee that Bolton, then a private attorney representing an AID subcontractor, threatened her, pounded on her hotel room door and threw documents.
In an interview Tuesday with the Times, Uno Ramat, who was working for the subcontractor, supported Townsel's account. Ramat said he was in daily telephone contact with Townsel during the period when she said she was being harassed by Bolton in Moscow, and remembers her telling him about the incidents.
Ramat also said Bolton told him that Townsel was "under investigation — that she was being accused of stealing money, basically of fraud." He added: "I knew it wasn't true."
Senate staffers said the committee had a second witness who corroborated Townsel's story but could not supply details late Tuesday.
Times staff writer Janet Hook contributed to this report.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Hard Right Washington Times Runs FAIR Article on Baker/Carter Commission
Great piece found on Brad's Blog. Brad Friedman is one of the co-founders of the Velvet Revolution - a group focussed on election reform among other progressive issues.
http://www.bradblog.com/
Bipartisan?
We wrote earlier about a newly impaneled bipartisan presidential election reform commission made up of the likes of former President Jimmy Carter, former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, both Democrats, and former White House Chief of Staff James A. Baker III, a Republican.
Now, an election-reform advocacy group wants Mr. Baker, who served under former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, removed as the commission's co-chairman before the panel gets busy on whatever reform it can accomplish.
Representing about 100 affiliated election-reform organizations, the Velvet Revolution considers Mr. Baker "a partisan political operative and Bush family loyalist" who "will irreconcilably sully the credibility of such a commission and render its findings completely suspect, wholly useless and, regrettably, without merit."
"Mr. Baker is, in fact, the architect behind the invidious scheme implemented to ensure that the votes of all Americans would not be counted in the unfortunate and undemocratic 2000 presidential election fiasco," says the group, referring to when the soon-to-be-inaugurated George W. Bush dispatched Mr. Baker to voter-challenged Florida.
http://www.bradblog.com/
Bipartisan?
We wrote earlier about a newly impaneled bipartisan presidential election reform commission made up of the likes of former President Jimmy Carter, former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, both Democrats, and former White House Chief of Staff James A. Baker III, a Republican.
Now, an election-reform advocacy group wants Mr. Baker, who served under former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, removed as the commission's co-chairman before the panel gets busy on whatever reform it can accomplish.
Representing about 100 affiliated election-reform organizations, the Velvet Revolution considers Mr. Baker "a partisan political operative and Bush family loyalist" who "will irreconcilably sully the credibility of such a commission and render its findings completely suspect, wholly useless and, regrettably, without merit."
"Mr. Baker is, in fact, the architect behind the invidious scheme implemented to ensure that the votes of all Americans would not be counted in the unfortunate and undemocratic 2000 presidential election fiasco," says the group, referring to when the soon-to-be-inaugurated George W. Bush dispatched Mr. Baker to voter-challenged Florida.
GOP Worried About Ethics Scandal
It is about time, guys. DeLay is rotten to the core. Some of us in Houston could have told you that years ago, especially recently when DeLay drove the premature redistricting of the state. The guy is consumed by greed and power.
From Raw Story
Some in GOP worry that ethics scandals may consume campaign oxygen, hurt party
04/20/2005 @ 9:22 am
Filed by RAW STORY
With the two parties now trading allegations of impropriety on a near-daily basis, the House could be moving toward what many Republican strategists fear is a political trap: a full-fledged ethics war, the paid-restricted Roll Call reports Wednesday. Excerpts follow.
#
As the media has intensified its scrutiny of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), his GOP colleagues have scrambled to put his behavior in context by providing examples of Democrats taking questionable trips and doing alleged favors for big donors.
While that strategy may help the party blunt attacks on DeLay in the short term, some GOP strategists on and off Capitol Hill worry that they are playing into Democrats’ hands. According to this theory, if Congress grinds to a halt amid partisan bickering, the party in power will bear the brunt of the blame.
A strategist said that at best, Republicans have nothing to gain from such a battle, and at worst, they could take a hit next November...
One senior Republican leadership aide argued that the calculus on ethics retaliation had changed due to “the sheer fact that it’s been such a one-sided battle.”
This aide and most others in senior GOP circles decided in recent weeks that they simply could not continue to withstand Democratic attacks without turning around and levelling charges of hypocrisy.
“Our credibility is being undermined,” said the aide. “This is the PR environment we’re in.”
From Raw Story
Some in GOP worry that ethics scandals may consume campaign oxygen, hurt party
04/20/2005 @ 9:22 am
Filed by RAW STORY
With the two parties now trading allegations of impropriety on a near-daily basis, the House could be moving toward what many Republican strategists fear is a political trap: a full-fledged ethics war, the paid-restricted Roll Call reports Wednesday. Excerpts follow.
#
As the media has intensified its scrutiny of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), his GOP colleagues have scrambled to put his behavior in context by providing examples of Democrats taking questionable trips and doing alleged favors for big donors.
While that strategy may help the party blunt attacks on DeLay in the short term, some GOP strategists on and off Capitol Hill worry that they are playing into Democrats’ hands. According to this theory, if Congress grinds to a halt amid partisan bickering, the party in power will bear the brunt of the blame.
A strategist said that at best, Republicans have nothing to gain from such a battle, and at worst, they could take a hit next November...
One senior Republican leadership aide argued that the calculus on ethics retaliation had changed due to “the sheer fact that it’s been such a one-sided battle.”
This aide and most others in senior GOP circles decided in recent weeks that they simply could not continue to withstand Democratic attacks without turning around and levelling charges of hypocrisy.
“Our credibility is being undermined,” said the aide. “This is the PR environment we’re in.”
Fox News Bully
Found on Houston Chronicle.com, a commentary about Fox Fascist News.
As for me, I gave up on the MSM TV news a long time ago. FOX has always been a willing and proactive voice for the extreme and conservative political rightfor some time. It has never been "fair and balanced" and shouldn't pretend to be. The anchors are agitators not journalists, not by any stretch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Viewpoints, Outlook
April 17, 2005, 12:01AM
Fox News bully threatening whole news playground
By WILLIAM RASPBERRY
The in-your-face right-wing partisanship that marks Fox News Channel's news broadcasts is having two dangerous effects.
ADVERTISEMENT
The first is that the popularity of the approach — Fox is clobbering its direct competition (CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, etc.) — leads other cable broadcasters to mimic it, which in turn debases the quality of the news available to that segment of the TV audience.
The second, far more dangerous, effect is that it threatens to destroy public confidence in all news.
That last, I admit, is more fear than prediction, but let me tell you what produces that fear. Fox News Channel — though the people who run the operation are at great pains to insist otherwise — is deliberately partisan. It is as though right-wing talk radio has metastasized into cable and assumed a new virulence.
The main difference is that radio's Rush Limbaugh, for instance, doesn't pretend even-handedness. As he has said, he doesn't seek to be balanced but to balance the rest of the media, which he sees as generally dominated by left-of-center attitudes.
Part of the FNC approach, on the other hand, is to promote itself as "fair and balanced." I suppose it does so with a wink and a nod to its far-right audience, who must know it isn't balanced. Certainly those near the center of the political spectrum know it.
So why would I consider Fox such a generalized threat? It is because I think the plan is not so much to persuade the public that its particular view is correct but rather to sell the notion that what FNC presents is just another set of biases, no worse (and for some, a good deal better) than the biases that routinely drive the presentation of the news on ABC, CBS or NBC — and, by extension, the major newspapers.
For the Foxidation process to work, it isn't necessary to convince Americans that the verbal ruffians who give FNC its crackle have a corner on the truth — only that all of us in the news business are grinding our partisan axes all the time and that none of us deserves to be taken as serious seekers of truth.
This is huge. As a friend remarked recently, time was when if you found it in The New York Times, that settled the bar bet and the other guy paid off. But if The Times and The Washington Post or any other mainstream news outlet — including the major networks — come to be seen as the left-of-center counterparts of Fox News Channel, why would anyone accept them as authoritative sources of truth?
What is at risk is not a reputation for infallibility; everyone knows that even the best newspapers and most careful broadcasters make mistakes. But it has been generally accepted that the mainstream media at least try to get it right — even when they too grudgingly acknowledge their errors after the fact.
What worries me is that journalism could become a battlefield of warring biases: I'll sock it to your guy, your party or your position on a public issue, and you'll sock it to mine. And we'll both believe we've done a good day's work. Come to think of it, a review of the stories on Social Security suggest that it is already happening to some extent. And one result is that you are less sure than you ought to be as to what the truth about Social Security really is.
Maybe I'm making too much of a small thing — depicting FNC as a huge and menacing ogre when it's only an annoying little pest. A look at a recent week's ratings reveals that Fox News Channel was far from being the most watched among cable shows. It ranked behind the likes of TNT, Disney, USA, Spike and TBS for prime-time audience, and even lower for the total day. Its prime-time average of 1.1 million viewers was well behind CBS (12.4 million), NBC (8.3 million), ABC (9 million) and even the Fox broadcast network (9.4 million). Fox News Channel, I am saying, is not the toughest kid on the school yard, only the baddest kid in the particular sandbox of cable news.
Still I'm worried that what is happening in that sandbox may wind up polluting the entire school yard. And no one, including the big kids of traditional journalism, seems sure what to do about it.
Raspberry is a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist based in Washington, D.C. (willrasp@washpost.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Viewpoints, Outlook
This article is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/3138731
As for me, I gave up on the MSM TV news a long time ago. FOX has always been a willing and proactive voice for the extreme and conservative political rightfor some time. It has never been "fair and balanced" and shouldn't pretend to be. The anchors are agitators not journalists, not by any stretch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Viewpoints, Outlook
April 17, 2005, 12:01AM
Fox News bully threatening whole news playground
By WILLIAM RASPBERRY
The in-your-face right-wing partisanship that marks Fox News Channel's news broadcasts is having two dangerous effects.
ADVERTISEMENT
The first is that the popularity of the approach — Fox is clobbering its direct competition (CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, etc.) — leads other cable broadcasters to mimic it, which in turn debases the quality of the news available to that segment of the TV audience.
The second, far more dangerous, effect is that it threatens to destroy public confidence in all news.
That last, I admit, is more fear than prediction, but let me tell you what produces that fear. Fox News Channel — though the people who run the operation are at great pains to insist otherwise — is deliberately partisan. It is as though right-wing talk radio has metastasized into cable and assumed a new virulence.
The main difference is that radio's Rush Limbaugh, for instance, doesn't pretend even-handedness. As he has said, he doesn't seek to be balanced but to balance the rest of the media, which he sees as generally dominated by left-of-center attitudes.
Part of the FNC approach, on the other hand, is to promote itself as "fair and balanced." I suppose it does so with a wink and a nod to its far-right audience, who must know it isn't balanced. Certainly those near the center of the political spectrum know it.
So why would I consider Fox such a generalized threat? It is because I think the plan is not so much to persuade the public that its particular view is correct but rather to sell the notion that what FNC presents is just another set of biases, no worse (and for some, a good deal better) than the biases that routinely drive the presentation of the news on ABC, CBS or NBC — and, by extension, the major newspapers.
For the Foxidation process to work, it isn't necessary to convince Americans that the verbal ruffians who give FNC its crackle have a corner on the truth — only that all of us in the news business are grinding our partisan axes all the time and that none of us deserves to be taken as serious seekers of truth.
This is huge. As a friend remarked recently, time was when if you found it in The New York Times, that settled the bar bet and the other guy paid off. But if The Times and The Washington Post or any other mainstream news outlet — including the major networks — come to be seen as the left-of-center counterparts of Fox News Channel, why would anyone accept them as authoritative sources of truth?
What is at risk is not a reputation for infallibility; everyone knows that even the best newspapers and most careful broadcasters make mistakes. But it has been generally accepted that the mainstream media at least try to get it right — even when they too grudgingly acknowledge their errors after the fact.
What worries me is that journalism could become a battlefield of warring biases: I'll sock it to your guy, your party or your position on a public issue, and you'll sock it to mine. And we'll both believe we've done a good day's work. Come to think of it, a review of the stories on Social Security suggest that it is already happening to some extent. And one result is that you are less sure than you ought to be as to what the truth about Social Security really is.
Maybe I'm making too much of a small thing — depicting FNC as a huge and menacing ogre when it's only an annoying little pest. A look at a recent week's ratings reveals that Fox News Channel was far from being the most watched among cable shows. It ranked behind the likes of TNT, Disney, USA, Spike and TBS for prime-time audience, and even lower for the total day. Its prime-time average of 1.1 million viewers was well behind CBS (12.4 million), NBC (8.3 million), ABC (9 million) and even the Fox broadcast network (9.4 million). Fox News Channel, I am saying, is not the toughest kid on the school yard, only the baddest kid in the particular sandbox of cable news.
Still I'm worried that what is happening in that sandbox may wind up polluting the entire school yard. And no one, including the big kids of traditional journalism, seems sure what to do about it.
Raspberry is a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist based in Washington, D.C. (willrasp@washpost.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Viewpoints, Outlook
This article is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/3138731
The American "Christian" Taliban
From William Rivers Pitt of Truthout.org
Excerpt:
We have seen how ugly, bloody and dangerous things can get in other countries when religious extremists gain complete political supremacy. It can happen here. Unless it is stopped, right now, it will happen here.
The Theocrats
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Tuesday 19 April 2005
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.
- Bob Dylan, 'With God on Our Side'
Ten years ago today, an anti-government extremist named Timothy McVeigh parked a Ryder truck filled with fertilizer and fuel oil in front of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. At 9:02 in the morning, the truck exploded and carved out the guts of that building like a gourd. 168 people, including 19 children, died in the blast. It remains today the most devastating act of domestic terrorism in American history.
McVeigh was birthed from a movement that became all too prominent during the 1990s. The militia people, they of the Black Government Helicopters and the theory that the United Nations was getting ready to take over the world, made up the far-right flank of Newt Gingrich's GOP back in the day. After Oklahoma City, however, the militias petered out and faded into the backwoods background from whence they came.
That breed of extremist was on the outside looking in at the time. They have been replaced today by an extremist movement of surpassing menace. Like the militias before them, this new breed likewise represents the far-right flank of the GOP. Unlike their predecessors, however, this new breed enjoys unprecedented insider status. They are represented vigorously in Congress and the White House, and are calling many of the shots.
McVeigh and his militia ilk wanted to destroy the government so they could keep their guns and pay no taxes, basically. McVeigh destroyed the Murrah building to strike a blow for this cause. As catastrophic as that attack was, it pales in comparison to the damage this nation will endure if these new extremists are allowed to have their way. Their vision of America does away with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the separation of church and state.
They are the Theocrats, the Christian Taliban right here in America, and they are deadly dangerous both to this nation and the world entire. These people do not in any way represent mainstream Christianity, yet sadly they are redefining the meaning of that faith across the board. They would annihilate all that America has stood for these last two hundred years to 'save' the nation, literally as far as they are concerned, and right now, they believe they have the power to get everything they want.
It remains to be seen if they are correct in this assumption. While they make up only a small minority of the populace, the Theocrats enjoy the sponsorship of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, House Majority Leader Tom Delay as well as George W. Bush. Yet their most recent foray into power politics, the Terri Schiavo debacle, blew up decisively in their faces. Some 80% of the populace decided they did not like these people placing themselves into the role of mother, father, husband, wife, doctor and priest all in one sitting.
The most recent polls indicate this ghoulish sideshow has cost the Republican majority and the White House significant standing with the citizenry; each now is suffering the lowest approval ratings to this point in their tenure, and if DNC Chairman Howard Dean's words are to be heeded, this issue will be used as a barbed stick to be wielded by the Democrats during the upcoming 2006 midterm elections.
The Theocrats lost that particular fight but are gearing up for the next one, and it is upon the coming battleground that a good portion of the future health and well-being of this republic will be decided. Majority Leader Frist is teaming up with the worst elements of the Theocrat armada in an attempt to paint Democrats in Congress as 'anti-Christian,' the ultimate purpose of which is to undo the generations-old recourse of the Congressional minority, the filibuster.
Though we live today in an age where official hypocrisy is as common as sunlight and shadow, the reasons for Frist's looming attack on the filibuster forge new precedent in the annals of foolishness. Twelve of 204 Bush nominations to the Judiciary have been stopped by the Democrats, those twelve being far feathers on the right wing who have no place on the bench. This equals a Judicial nominee approval rate of 95%, which is a far cry from the obstructionism of the Republican Congress during Clinton's term, when one out of three seats in the Federal court system were left empty thanks to the efforts of the Gingrich brigades.
Why were these twelve nominees singled out and blocked? Let us look at a few examples. One Bush nominee, Jay Bybee, was one of the wonderboys who told Bush he could ignore laws forbidding torture. Bush nominee Carolyn Kuhl ruled that a woman's right to privacy was not violated by a doctor who invited a drug salesman to personally observe her breast exam. Bush nominee Charles Pickering once described a cross-burning as a "drunken prank." Bush nominee Jeffrey Sutton believes the Americans with Disabilities Act "is not needed."
Et cetera.
Frist's desire to do away with the filibuster is being referred to as the 'Nuclear Option.' It is aptly named, for the results of a Frist victory in this will be monstrous. The destruction of the filibuster is about far more than these twelve forlorn nominees. If Frist and the Theocrats are able to do away with this last lingering firebreak, the Theocrats will have a wide-open highway on which to drive through the most terrifying aspects of their agenda. The despicable invasion of privacy that was the Schiavo mess will be a forgotten footnote compared to what will come if Frist and the Theocrats have their way with the filibuster.
Imagine this scenario: A bill is introduced in the House to require children to say the Lord's Prayer each morning in every American public school. Arguments in favor of American pluralism and freedom of (and from) religion fall on deaf ears. Thanks to the massive GOP majority in the House, the bill is passed and reaches the Senate, where outraged Democrats are powerless to stop it without the filibuster. It passes there, and is placed on the desk of Mr. Bush, who happily signs away yet another barrier separating the church and the state.
Crazy, right? Wrong. This is a benign hypothetical compared to the draconian legislation the Theocrats would like to see passed. Should they get their way, you will not be safe in person, thought or deed if any of these cut against the fundamentalist grain. America won't become a land of bourkas and beheadings, probably, but if you don't have a Bible in your hand at all times, you'll probably lose your job and credit rating. For starters.
Frist and the Theocrats do not have the destruction of the filibuster sewn up quite yet, however. The GOP has a 55-44 majority in the Senate, with Jeffords the Independent caucusing with the Democrats. 51 Senators are needed to kill the filibuster. The Democrats can count on all 44 of their Senators to oppose, and can likewise count on Jeffords to do the same. At this point, GOP Senators McCain and Chafee have also stated they will oppose the action.
Seven GOP Senators are on the fence: Collins and Snowe of Maine, Hagel of Nebraska, Lugar of Indiana, Murkowski of Alaska, Specter of Pennsylvania, and Warner of Virginia. Whoever convinces a majority of these undecided Senators will win the filibuster fight.
We have seen how ugly, bloody and dangerous things can get in other countries when religious extremists gain complete political supremacy. It can happen here. Unless it is stopped, right now, it will happen here.
Excerpt:
We have seen how ugly, bloody and dangerous things can get in other countries when religious extremists gain complete political supremacy. It can happen here. Unless it is stopped, right now, it will happen here.
The Theocrats
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Tuesday 19 April 2005
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.
- Bob Dylan, 'With God on Our Side'
Ten years ago today, an anti-government extremist named Timothy McVeigh parked a Ryder truck filled with fertilizer and fuel oil in front of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. At 9:02 in the morning, the truck exploded and carved out the guts of that building like a gourd. 168 people, including 19 children, died in the blast. It remains today the most devastating act of domestic terrorism in American history.
McVeigh was birthed from a movement that became all too prominent during the 1990s. The militia people, they of the Black Government Helicopters and the theory that the United Nations was getting ready to take over the world, made up the far-right flank of Newt Gingrich's GOP back in the day. After Oklahoma City, however, the militias petered out and faded into the backwoods background from whence they came.
That breed of extremist was on the outside looking in at the time. They have been replaced today by an extremist movement of surpassing menace. Like the militias before them, this new breed likewise represents the far-right flank of the GOP. Unlike their predecessors, however, this new breed enjoys unprecedented insider status. They are represented vigorously in Congress and the White House, and are calling many of the shots.
McVeigh and his militia ilk wanted to destroy the government so they could keep their guns and pay no taxes, basically. McVeigh destroyed the Murrah building to strike a blow for this cause. As catastrophic as that attack was, it pales in comparison to the damage this nation will endure if these new extremists are allowed to have their way. Their vision of America does away with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the separation of church and state.
They are the Theocrats, the Christian Taliban right here in America, and they are deadly dangerous both to this nation and the world entire. These people do not in any way represent mainstream Christianity, yet sadly they are redefining the meaning of that faith across the board. They would annihilate all that America has stood for these last two hundred years to 'save' the nation, literally as far as they are concerned, and right now, they believe they have the power to get everything they want.
It remains to be seen if they are correct in this assumption. While they make up only a small minority of the populace, the Theocrats enjoy the sponsorship of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, House Majority Leader Tom Delay as well as George W. Bush. Yet their most recent foray into power politics, the Terri Schiavo debacle, blew up decisively in their faces. Some 80% of the populace decided they did not like these people placing themselves into the role of mother, father, husband, wife, doctor and priest all in one sitting.
The most recent polls indicate this ghoulish sideshow has cost the Republican majority and the White House significant standing with the citizenry; each now is suffering the lowest approval ratings to this point in their tenure, and if DNC Chairman Howard Dean's words are to be heeded, this issue will be used as a barbed stick to be wielded by the Democrats during the upcoming 2006 midterm elections.
The Theocrats lost that particular fight but are gearing up for the next one, and it is upon the coming battleground that a good portion of the future health and well-being of this republic will be decided. Majority Leader Frist is teaming up with the worst elements of the Theocrat armada in an attempt to paint Democrats in Congress as 'anti-Christian,' the ultimate purpose of which is to undo the generations-old recourse of the Congressional minority, the filibuster.
Though we live today in an age where official hypocrisy is as common as sunlight and shadow, the reasons for Frist's looming attack on the filibuster forge new precedent in the annals of foolishness. Twelve of 204 Bush nominations to the Judiciary have been stopped by the Democrats, those twelve being far feathers on the right wing who have no place on the bench. This equals a Judicial nominee approval rate of 95%, which is a far cry from the obstructionism of the Republican Congress during Clinton's term, when one out of three seats in the Federal court system were left empty thanks to the efforts of the Gingrich brigades.
Why were these twelve nominees singled out and blocked? Let us look at a few examples. One Bush nominee, Jay Bybee, was one of the wonderboys who told Bush he could ignore laws forbidding torture. Bush nominee Carolyn Kuhl ruled that a woman's right to privacy was not violated by a doctor who invited a drug salesman to personally observe her breast exam. Bush nominee Charles Pickering once described a cross-burning as a "drunken prank." Bush nominee Jeffrey Sutton believes the Americans with Disabilities Act "is not needed."
Et cetera.
Frist's desire to do away with the filibuster is being referred to as the 'Nuclear Option.' It is aptly named, for the results of a Frist victory in this will be monstrous. The destruction of the filibuster is about far more than these twelve forlorn nominees. If Frist and the Theocrats are able to do away with this last lingering firebreak, the Theocrats will have a wide-open highway on which to drive through the most terrifying aspects of their agenda. The despicable invasion of privacy that was the Schiavo mess will be a forgotten footnote compared to what will come if Frist and the Theocrats have their way with the filibuster.
Imagine this scenario: A bill is introduced in the House to require children to say the Lord's Prayer each morning in every American public school. Arguments in favor of American pluralism and freedom of (and from) religion fall on deaf ears. Thanks to the massive GOP majority in the House, the bill is passed and reaches the Senate, where outraged Democrats are powerless to stop it without the filibuster. It passes there, and is placed on the desk of Mr. Bush, who happily signs away yet another barrier separating the church and the state.
Crazy, right? Wrong. This is a benign hypothetical compared to the draconian legislation the Theocrats would like to see passed. Should they get their way, you will not be safe in person, thought or deed if any of these cut against the fundamentalist grain. America won't become a land of bourkas and beheadings, probably, but if you don't have a Bible in your hand at all times, you'll probably lose your job and credit rating. For starters.
Frist and the Theocrats do not have the destruction of the filibuster sewn up quite yet, however. The GOP has a 55-44 majority in the Senate, with Jeffords the Independent caucusing with the Democrats. 51 Senators are needed to kill the filibuster. The Democrats can count on all 44 of their Senators to oppose, and can likewise count on Jeffords to do the same. At this point, GOP Senators McCain and Chafee have also stated they will oppose the action.
Seven GOP Senators are on the fence: Collins and Snowe of Maine, Hagel of Nebraska, Lugar of Indiana, Murkowski of Alaska, Specter of Pennsylvania, and Warner of Virginia. Whoever convinces a majority of these undecided Senators will win the filibuster fight.
We have seen how ugly, bloody and dangerous things can get in other countries when religious extremists gain complete political supremacy. It can happen here. Unless it is stopped, right now, it will happen here.
Desparate DeLay Hammers Supreme Court Justice
Beyond the pale, folks, beyond the pale. Spinning out of control. The cockroach doth protest too much.....
DeLay Slams Supreme Court Justice
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press WriterTue Apr 19, 8:19 PM ET
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay intensified his criticism of the federal courts on Tuesday, singling out Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's work from the bench as "incredibly outrageous" because he has relied on international law and done research on the Internet.
DeLay also said he thought there were a "lot of Republican-appointed judges that are judicial activists."
The No. 2 Republican in the House has openly criticized the federal courts since they refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. And he pointed to Kennedy as an example of Republican members of the Supreme Court who were activist and isolated.
"Absolutely. We've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States? That's just outrageous," DeLay told Fox News Radio. "And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."
A spokeswoman for the court, Kathy Arberg, said Kennedy could not be reached for comment.
Although Kennedy was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Reagan, a conservative icon, he has aroused conservatives' ire by sometimes agreeing with the court's more liberal members. Nevertheless, it is unusual for a congressional leader to single out a Supreme Court justice for criticism.
Dan Allen, a DeLay spokesman, declined comment on the interview.
DeLay himself has been criticized for his comments following Schiavo's death, which came despite Congress' passage of a law ordering the courts to review her case. All of the federal courts, from the trial judge in Florida to the Supreme Court, refused to do so.
"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," DeLay said in a statement.
He apologized last week, saying he had spoken in an "inartful" way.
Conservatives have been pushing to get the Senate to confirm President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees, which Senate Democrats are blocking. The House has no power over which judges are given lifetime appointments to the federal bench.
However, DeLay has called repeatedly for the House to find a way to hold the federal judiciary accountable for its decisions. "The judiciary has become so activist and so isolated from the American people that it's our job to do that," DeLay said.
One way would be for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the clause in the Constitution that says "judges can serve as long as they serve with good behavior," he said. "We want to define what good behavior means. And that's where you have to start."
___
DeLay Slams Supreme Court Justice
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press WriterTue Apr 19, 8:19 PM ET
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay intensified his criticism of the federal courts on Tuesday, singling out Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's work from the bench as "incredibly outrageous" because he has relied on international law and done research on the Internet.
DeLay also said he thought there were a "lot of Republican-appointed judges that are judicial activists."
The No. 2 Republican in the House has openly criticized the federal courts since they refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. And he pointed to Kennedy as an example of Republican members of the Supreme Court who were activist and isolated.
"Absolutely. We've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States? That's just outrageous," DeLay told Fox News Radio. "And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."
A spokeswoman for the court, Kathy Arberg, said Kennedy could not be reached for comment.
Although Kennedy was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Reagan, a conservative icon, he has aroused conservatives' ire by sometimes agreeing with the court's more liberal members. Nevertheless, it is unusual for a congressional leader to single out a Supreme Court justice for criticism.
Dan Allen, a DeLay spokesman, declined comment on the interview.
DeLay himself has been criticized for his comments following Schiavo's death, which came despite Congress' passage of a law ordering the courts to review her case. All of the federal courts, from the trial judge in Florida to the Supreme Court, refused to do so.
"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," DeLay said in a statement.
He apologized last week, saying he had spoken in an "inartful" way.
Conservatives have been pushing to get the Senate to confirm President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees, which Senate Democrats are blocking. The House has no power over which judges are given lifetime appointments to the federal bench.
However, DeLay has called repeatedly for the House to find a way to hold the federal judiciary accountable for its decisions. "The judiciary has become so activist and so isolated from the American people that it's our job to do that," DeLay said.
One way would be for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the clause in the Constitution that says "judges can serve as long as they serve with good behavior," he said. "We want to define what good behavior means. And that's where you have to start."
___
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Bush and Congress Ratings At An All Time Low
A natural outcome given the fact that the Republicans have stolen two elections in a row.
Found on CBSNEWS.com http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/18/politics/main688974.shtml
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poor Marks For Bush, Congress
NEW YORK, April 18, 2005
President Bush doesn’t fare very well in the latest CBS News poll with an approval rating of just 44 percent and still limp support for his proposed Social Security overhaul.
But at least he's doing better than Congress, which earns a thumbs-up from only 35 percent of Americans – nearly as low a rating as it received last month immediately after lawmakers' unpopular intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.
Approval ratings for Congress have historically been low but they're now at one of their lowest points since the late 1990s. Disapproval of the Republican-controlled Congress even extends to 39 percent of Republicans, along with 59 percent of Democrats.
Just 37 percent think what the current Congress has accomplished so far has been good for the country; 41 percent think what Congress has done has been bad.
But most Americans don’t seem to know what Congress has been up to – or else they think Congress hasn’t been up to much.
Asked to name the thing Congress has done over the past year that sticks out most in their minds, the highest number, 9 percent, said the Schiavo decision; 3 percent mentioned actions surrounding the Iraq war; 4 percent said Congress had accomplished nothing; while 68 percent could not name anything it had done.
Americans cited the war in Iraq as the country's top priority, followed by the economy and jobs, Social Security, terrorism, health care and, for the first time, gas prices. The Terri Schiavo case, or related legislative action, was not mentioned as a top concern.
But few Americans think Congress really cares about what they think anyway. Only 8 percent say elected officials pay a good deal of attention to the people who elect them; 43 percent think they pay some attention to voters, and 43 percent say not much attention.
While most Americans don't know a great deal about the Republican leaders of Congress, Tom DeLay – the House majority leader embroiled in a scandal over possible ethics violations – is the best known and the least liked.
While seven in ten are undecided or don’t know enough about DeLay to rate his job performance, among those familiar with him, three times as many (22 percent) have a negative view as have a positive one (7 percent).
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert are even less known by the public; opinions on them are divided.
Overall, Americans have a slightly more negative view of Republicans in Congress than of their Democratic counterparts.
As for President Bush, his overall approval rating remained little changed at 44 percent, but his disapproval rating climbed above 50 percent for only the third time since he took office.
And despite the president's efforts to rally support for his Social Security plan, seven in ten Americans say they're uneasy about his approach to the issue.
More people (49 percent) say the president's plan to partially privatize the system is a bad idea than say it's a good idea (45 percent).
Significantly, there's been no increase in support for Mr. Bush's Social Security plan since he and other Republicans began actively campaigning for it in January.
By Joel Roberts
©MMV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
• Feedback • Terms of Service • Privacy Statement
Found on CBSNEWS.com http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/18/politics/main688974.shtml
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poor Marks For Bush, Congress
NEW YORK, April 18, 2005
President Bush doesn’t fare very well in the latest CBS News poll with an approval rating of just 44 percent and still limp support for his proposed Social Security overhaul.
But at least he's doing better than Congress, which earns a thumbs-up from only 35 percent of Americans – nearly as low a rating as it received last month immediately after lawmakers' unpopular intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.
Approval ratings for Congress have historically been low but they're now at one of their lowest points since the late 1990s. Disapproval of the Republican-controlled Congress even extends to 39 percent of Republicans, along with 59 percent of Democrats.
Just 37 percent think what the current Congress has accomplished so far has been good for the country; 41 percent think what Congress has done has been bad.
But most Americans don’t seem to know what Congress has been up to – or else they think Congress hasn’t been up to much.
Asked to name the thing Congress has done over the past year that sticks out most in their minds, the highest number, 9 percent, said the Schiavo decision; 3 percent mentioned actions surrounding the Iraq war; 4 percent said Congress had accomplished nothing; while 68 percent could not name anything it had done.
Americans cited the war in Iraq as the country's top priority, followed by the economy and jobs, Social Security, terrorism, health care and, for the first time, gas prices. The Terri Schiavo case, or related legislative action, was not mentioned as a top concern.
But few Americans think Congress really cares about what they think anyway. Only 8 percent say elected officials pay a good deal of attention to the people who elect them; 43 percent think they pay some attention to voters, and 43 percent say not much attention.
While most Americans don't know a great deal about the Republican leaders of Congress, Tom DeLay – the House majority leader embroiled in a scandal over possible ethics violations – is the best known and the least liked.
While seven in ten are undecided or don’t know enough about DeLay to rate his job performance, among those familiar with him, three times as many (22 percent) have a negative view as have a positive one (7 percent).
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert are even less known by the public; opinions on them are divided.
Overall, Americans have a slightly more negative view of Republicans in Congress than of their Democratic counterparts.
As for President Bush, his overall approval rating remained little changed at 44 percent, but his disapproval rating climbed above 50 percent for only the third time since he took office.
And despite the president's efforts to rally support for his Social Security plan, seven in ten Americans say they're uneasy about his approach to the issue.
More people (49 percent) say the president's plan to partially privatize the system is a bad idea than say it's a good idea (45 percent).
Significantly, there's been no increase in support for Mr. Bush's Social Security plan since he and other Republicans began actively campaigning for it in January.
By Joel Roberts
©MMV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
• Feedback • Terms of Service • Privacy Statement
Monday, April 18, 2005
Conyers Outraged Over Baker-Carter Election Reform Hearings
When the reprehensible James Baker, the Bush family loyalist who shut down the vote recount in 2000 was appointed to head the commission with Carter, I knew the so-called commission was rigged big time. John Conyers is outraged, as he well should be - along with this entire country. Were it up to Baker and Co. all elections in this country would be rigged to ensure that only Republicans loyal to the Caryle group would be elected.
Baker-Carter Election Reform Hearing: Outrageous
by Congressman John Conyers
Mon Apr 18th, 2005 at 14:23:25 PDT
http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000063.htm
The first meeting of the Baker-Carter election commission was disappointing and, at times, outrageous and tainted with racially-charged innuendo. Let me make absolutely clear that I greatly admire former President Jimmy Carter and believe he was insightful and on-target throughout the hearing. However, given the incredible lack of balance and profound lack of good faith demonstrated by some of Carter's fellow commissioners and many of the witnesses at this hearing, at times he seemed to be a very lonely voice of sanity.
The remarks of Mr. James Baker, III, which were echoed by a number of right wing political operatives called as witnesses, seemed to have a singular purpose of spreading hoaxes and conspiracy theories about ineligible Democratic voters being allowed to cast votes. The remedy was cleverly repeated like a broken record, "photo ID, photo ID, photo ID." Right wing pundit John Fund was called as an "expert" witness by the hearing and offered racially charged proposals with racially charged rhetoric.
Diaries :: Congressman John Conyers's diary :: :: Trackback ::
The substance of the testimony alleging "voter fraud" was a fraud itself. One panel on "access and integrity" inexplicably included two partisan Republican political operatives, Colleen McAndrews (most recently a leader in the successful campaign to recall former California Governor Gray Davis and described as a "behind the scenes force in Republican politics for years") and John Fund (of the notoriously far-right Wall Street Journal editorial page). Fund's Wall Street Journal Editorial Page once promoted bizarre claims that then-First Lady Hillary Clinton had participated in a cover-up involving the death of former White House Counsel Vince Foster. Today, his hoax appears to have shifted to claims of "voter fraud"(though I am sure he would say Senator Clinton is responsible for that, as well). The remedy, per Fund and McAndrews, - restrictions on provisional ballots and new voter identification requirements.
At the outset, Mr. Fund laid bare the nasty, racial underbelly of these proposals. The right-wing has been long engaged in tactics to suppress minority votes, but rarely lets slip about such tactics, as Fund did today. In a discussion about provisional ballots, Mr. Fund said that Congress should allow precinct workers to determine whether a provisional ballot should count because they would know who "looks as if they belong in the neighborhood." Wonder what he meant by that?
But we don't have to wonder what effect the discarding of provisional ballots would have on voters, particularly those that are racial minorities. As detailed in the House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff's report Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio?, the Republican Governor of Ohio rightly predicted that such a rule would result in discarding 100,000 valid votes. In one county alone, 1,100 eligible voters, who voted the correct ballot in the wrong precinct, had their ballots discarded. Fund wants to bring Blackwell's tactics to the rest of the country so what went wrong in Ohio, can go right for Republicans across the country.
It is common experience that the poor, elderly voters, minority voters and recent transplants to a state, like students, do not drive and, therefore, do not have a drivers' license or a license with an in-state address to show at the polls. It is a fact that experts have estimated that nearly ten percent of voters do not have a picture identification card. What facts does the conspiracy theorist Mr. Fund have to offer? A Republican Congressman's contention that someone voted in his sister's name. I know and like the Congressman he cites as an authority, but think his lonely experience is hardly a justification for a new rule that would result in the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of voters.
And I don't suppose that Mr. Fund could be striving to suppress reliable Democratic votes with this proposal, do you? Particularly minority voters? I don't suppose he could be looking for turn away voters who don't look like "they belong in the neighborhood," do you?
For a moment, I was encouraged when someone appeared to have bumped the phonograph and the broken record of "voter id" suddenly stopped. Instead, a new broken record began repeating "no voter verified paper ballot, no voter verified paper ballot, no voter verified paper ballot."
On a panel supposedly designed to address "voting technology," only one of the four witnesses, Professor David Dill, spoke of the need for a voter verified paper ballot. Two of the witnesses on this panel spoke in total opposition to such a proposal.
The pattern of the hearing was clear: Republican political operatives, with little or no track record of involvement in voting rights issues, facing non-partisan advocates for civil rights. Predictably, this hardly was a fair fight. The deck was stacked from the beginning.
What can be said of a commission that holds such a hearing? What hope is there for the recommendations of such a Commission? I am scheduled to meet with Commission officials this week and I am trying very hard to have an open mind. But, frankly, at this point - seeing this first hearing - I think we should all be very wary of this Commission's objectives.
Baker-Carter Election Reform Hearing: Outrageous
by Congressman John Conyers
Mon Apr 18th, 2005 at 14:23:25 PDT
http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000063.htm
The first meeting of the Baker-Carter election commission was disappointing and, at times, outrageous and tainted with racially-charged innuendo. Let me make absolutely clear that I greatly admire former President Jimmy Carter and believe he was insightful and on-target throughout the hearing. However, given the incredible lack of balance and profound lack of good faith demonstrated by some of Carter's fellow commissioners and many of the witnesses at this hearing, at times he seemed to be a very lonely voice of sanity.
The remarks of Mr. James Baker, III, which were echoed by a number of right wing political operatives called as witnesses, seemed to have a singular purpose of spreading hoaxes and conspiracy theories about ineligible Democratic voters being allowed to cast votes. The remedy was cleverly repeated like a broken record, "photo ID, photo ID, photo ID." Right wing pundit John Fund was called as an "expert" witness by the hearing and offered racially charged proposals with racially charged rhetoric.
Diaries :: Congressman John Conyers's diary :: :: Trackback ::
The substance of the testimony alleging "voter fraud" was a fraud itself. One panel on "access and integrity" inexplicably included two partisan Republican political operatives, Colleen McAndrews (most recently a leader in the successful campaign to recall former California Governor Gray Davis and described as a "behind the scenes force in Republican politics for years") and John Fund (of the notoriously far-right Wall Street Journal editorial page). Fund's Wall Street Journal Editorial Page once promoted bizarre claims that then-First Lady Hillary Clinton had participated in a cover-up involving the death of former White House Counsel Vince Foster. Today, his hoax appears to have shifted to claims of "voter fraud"(though I am sure he would say Senator Clinton is responsible for that, as well). The remedy, per Fund and McAndrews, - restrictions on provisional ballots and new voter identification requirements.
At the outset, Mr. Fund laid bare the nasty, racial underbelly of these proposals. The right-wing has been long engaged in tactics to suppress minority votes, but rarely lets slip about such tactics, as Fund did today. In a discussion about provisional ballots, Mr. Fund said that Congress should allow precinct workers to determine whether a provisional ballot should count because they would know who "looks as if they belong in the neighborhood." Wonder what he meant by that?
But we don't have to wonder what effect the discarding of provisional ballots would have on voters, particularly those that are racial minorities. As detailed in the House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff's report Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio?, the Republican Governor of Ohio rightly predicted that such a rule would result in discarding 100,000 valid votes. In one county alone, 1,100 eligible voters, who voted the correct ballot in the wrong precinct, had their ballots discarded. Fund wants to bring Blackwell's tactics to the rest of the country so what went wrong in Ohio, can go right for Republicans across the country.
It is common experience that the poor, elderly voters, minority voters and recent transplants to a state, like students, do not drive and, therefore, do not have a drivers' license or a license with an in-state address to show at the polls. It is a fact that experts have estimated that nearly ten percent of voters do not have a picture identification card. What facts does the conspiracy theorist Mr. Fund have to offer? A Republican Congressman's contention that someone voted in his sister's name. I know and like the Congressman he cites as an authority, but think his lonely experience is hardly a justification for a new rule that would result in the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of voters.
And I don't suppose that Mr. Fund could be striving to suppress reliable Democratic votes with this proposal, do you? Particularly minority voters? I don't suppose he could be looking for turn away voters who don't look like "they belong in the neighborhood," do you?
For a moment, I was encouraged when someone appeared to have bumped the phonograph and the broken record of "voter id" suddenly stopped. Instead, a new broken record began repeating "no voter verified paper ballot, no voter verified paper ballot, no voter verified paper ballot."
On a panel supposedly designed to address "voting technology," only one of the four witnesses, Professor David Dill, spoke of the need for a voter verified paper ballot. Two of the witnesses on this panel spoke in total opposition to such a proposal.
The pattern of the hearing was clear: Republican political operatives, with little or no track record of involvement in voting rights issues, facing non-partisan advocates for civil rights. Predictably, this hardly was a fair fight. The deck was stacked from the beginning.
What can be said of a commission that holds such a hearing? What hope is there for the recommendations of such a Commission? I am scheduled to meet with Commission officials this week and I am trying very hard to have an open mind. But, frankly, at this point - seeing this first hearing - I think we should all be very wary of this Commission's objectives.
DeLay's Constituents Finally Fed Up
From the NYT today. Local constituents are growing weary of DeLay's will to power at any cost and his blatant corruption. People who live in Sugar Land are admittedly conservative but they do possess integrity, unlike the man they voted to represent them. They are finally getting it. Lawmakers in Austin, the State's capitol, are fed up, too. It's about time, dudes. Some of us have been on to DeLay for years..........
April 17, 2005
In DeLay's Home District, Rumblings of Discontent Surface
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
SUGAR LAND, Tex., April 16 - Patricia Baig, a substitute teacher with a comfortable inheritance, paid $2,776 this week to call for Representative Tom DeLay's resignation.
Ms. Baig, 57 - who identifies herself as a fellow Republican of Mr. DeLay, the House majority leader, and is one of his constituents - took out a full-page advertisement on Wednesday in the 62,000 copies of the weekly free Fort Bend Southwest Sun. It urged demonstrators "who want ethical reform" to rally against Mr. DeLay's speech Saturday night to the National Rifle Association convention in Houston, "to protest the actions of Representative DeLay and ask for his resignation," while adding her gun-owner's caveat: "This is NOT a protest of the N.R.A.!"
The Texas fallout from Mr. DeLay's citations for ethical lapses and the investigations of political fund-raisers and lobbyists close to him has been hard to gauge, but there are signs of restiveness here in his hometown, named for the historic plantation and defunct Imperial Sugar refinery that now beckons developers to this thriving Houston suburb of 64,000 people.
Another Republican, who runs the other weekly county paper, has also been openly hostile to Mr. DeLay, and a poll two weeks ago for The Houston Chronicle found nearly 40 percent of 501 voters saying that their opinion of Mr. DeLay had declined since last year, with 11 percent saying their opinion of him had improved. His Democratic opponent from 2004 has already declared a rematch next year, and Mr. DeLay could even have a primary opponent.
In Austin, a state judge may rule as soon as this week in a lawsuit by five losing Democratic candidates against the treasurer of a political action committee, formed by Mr. DeLay, that the Democrats say improperly funneled corporate money to state races. A criminal investigation is pending.
In addition, some lawmakers in the Texas capital say Mr. DeLay's troubles have subtly affected issues in the state legislature.
Ms. Baig, who signed her advertisement with her maiden name, P. A. Perine, "A Texas Republican for Ethical Reform," at a post office box in neighboring Missouri City, said she often used her maiden name and was not trying to hide.
"Tom DeLay is not representing his district," said Ms. Baig as she buttonholed neighbors on Friday in support of the rally. "Tom DeLay is taking care of Tom DeLay. He has become an embarrassment to his district. It's time for him to go."
Mr. DeLay's spokesman, Dan Allen, said he was not aware of the advertisement and questioned the fairness of The Chronicle's poll. "What's clear," he said, "is that the congressman has been elected and re-elected year after year for two decades because of the work he does serving the voters of the 22nd District."
Eric Thode, the Fort Bend County Republican chairman since 1992 and the former public relations director of Enron, said Mr. DeLay still enjoyed strong support at home. "Democrats can't win the seat," he said. "They can spend anything they want. It's a Republican district."
In a letter to The Southwest Sun that the paper said it planned to publish, Mr. Thode, 39, also questioned whether Ms. Baig was a Republican since, he said, records showed she had not voted in Republican primaries and was not affiliated with a Republican club. He also said that she had not donated to Republican candidates but gave $750 to Mr. DeLay's Democratic opponent, Richard Morrison, last year and that she tried to hide her identity until Channel 11 News tracked her down.
Ms. Baig responded that lots of Republicans do not vote in primaries or join clubs or make contributions.
Darlene Hall, publisher of the weekly, one of a chain of 34 owned by Houston Community Newspapers, said the paper editorially backed Mr. DeLay and ran the advertisement purely to make money.
By 7 p.m. Saturday, about 150 demonstrators had gathered across the street from the Hilton hotel where some 3,000 N.R.A. delegates were meeting to hear Mr. DeLay. "Put the hammer in the slammer," some of the protesters chanted, a reference to the congressman's nickname.
"He's an embarrassment," said David Edwards, 65, of Sugar Land, a mortgage broker who said he was an evangelical Christian and a member of the N.R.A.
Inside the ballroom, Mr. DeLay received a roaring welcome. Many members wore stickers reading, "I'm for N.R.A. and Tom DeLay."
Mr. DeLay said, "I hope the national media saw that."
He devoted the bulk of his speech pledging to work against restrictions on gun ownership. But he urged members not to demonize gun control advocates. "When we disagree, we have a tendency to question the sincerity of our opponents' position and even character," he said.
In addition to Sugar Land, Mr. DeLay's Congressional district - which he had a big hand in redrawing as part of a Republican-driven redistricting that sent Democratic legislators fleeing the state in protest in 2003 - sprawls over the southwest Houston suburbs and the NASA area of Clear Lake, which have grown solidly Republican over the years.
But with some Republican voters siphoned off to create new districts that added to the Republican majorities in both the Texas Legislature and Congress last year, and perhaps because of Mr. DeLay's slippage as well, he garnered 55 percent of the vote last year - 53 percent in Fort Bend County - a dropoff from his share in his original district in previous years and below President Bush's 2004 majority of 57 percent in Fort Bend County.
Mr. Morrison, a lawyer, who came away with 41 percent in a three-way race in which the other candidate was also named Morrison, said he would run again in 2006. Other possible candidates, some Democrats say, include Nick Lampson of Beaumont, a congressman defeated in the redistricting. Some moderate Republicans have also been looking for a primary challenger to Mr. DeLay.
Chris Bell, a one-term Democrat from Houston who also failed to win re-election in a new district last year, said recent accounts of Mr. DeLay's lobbyist-paid foreign trips and payments of more than $500,000 to his wife and daughter for political work since 2001 would alienate voters. "Now there's blood in the water," he said. "The sharks are circling."
Mr. Thode and other Republicans say the trips and payments were legal and common among Democrats as well.
Beverly Carter, a Republican precinct chairwoman and the founder of the 27-year-old Fort Bend Southwest Star, the other county weekly and the only paid circulation paper, came out for Mr. DeLay's Democratic opponent, Mr. Morrison, last year, which earned her a vote of censure by the county Republican organization. She said "Tom and I got crosswise" over a sheriff's race eight years ago when she complained that Mr. DeLay ran a misleading poll suggesting that a former Texas Ranger running for the post had no "local" experience.
Ms. Carter said Mr. DeLay had shortchanged the district. "There were years here we didn't see him," she said, although now that he was under fire, she said, "we've seen a whole heck of a lot more of him."
Mayor David Wallace of Sugar Land said Mr. DeLay had been "extremely helpful to the district" in providing federal grants for transportation improvements, although he acknowledged that the city had to contribute $3 million to the state to attract a needed highway project.
Repercussions are affecting Austin, some lawmakers say. A widely co-sponsored bill to outlaw some of the indirect corporate fund-raising being investigated is bottled up, with the Republican chairwoman of the election committee, Representative Mary Denny, saying she has not decided whether to support it.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top
April 17, 2005
In DeLay's Home District, Rumblings of Discontent Surface
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
SUGAR LAND, Tex., April 16 - Patricia Baig, a substitute teacher with a comfortable inheritance, paid $2,776 this week to call for Representative Tom DeLay's resignation.
Ms. Baig, 57 - who identifies herself as a fellow Republican of Mr. DeLay, the House majority leader, and is one of his constituents - took out a full-page advertisement on Wednesday in the 62,000 copies of the weekly free Fort Bend Southwest Sun. It urged demonstrators "who want ethical reform" to rally against Mr. DeLay's speech Saturday night to the National Rifle Association convention in Houston, "to protest the actions of Representative DeLay and ask for his resignation," while adding her gun-owner's caveat: "This is NOT a protest of the N.R.A.!"
The Texas fallout from Mr. DeLay's citations for ethical lapses and the investigations of political fund-raisers and lobbyists close to him has been hard to gauge, but there are signs of restiveness here in his hometown, named for the historic plantation and defunct Imperial Sugar refinery that now beckons developers to this thriving Houston suburb of 64,000 people.
Another Republican, who runs the other weekly county paper, has also been openly hostile to Mr. DeLay, and a poll two weeks ago for The Houston Chronicle found nearly 40 percent of 501 voters saying that their opinion of Mr. DeLay had declined since last year, with 11 percent saying their opinion of him had improved. His Democratic opponent from 2004 has already declared a rematch next year, and Mr. DeLay could even have a primary opponent.
In Austin, a state judge may rule as soon as this week in a lawsuit by five losing Democratic candidates against the treasurer of a political action committee, formed by Mr. DeLay, that the Democrats say improperly funneled corporate money to state races. A criminal investigation is pending.
In addition, some lawmakers in the Texas capital say Mr. DeLay's troubles have subtly affected issues in the state legislature.
Ms. Baig, who signed her advertisement with her maiden name, P. A. Perine, "A Texas Republican for Ethical Reform," at a post office box in neighboring Missouri City, said she often used her maiden name and was not trying to hide.
"Tom DeLay is not representing his district," said Ms. Baig as she buttonholed neighbors on Friday in support of the rally. "Tom DeLay is taking care of Tom DeLay. He has become an embarrassment to his district. It's time for him to go."
Mr. DeLay's spokesman, Dan Allen, said he was not aware of the advertisement and questioned the fairness of The Chronicle's poll. "What's clear," he said, "is that the congressman has been elected and re-elected year after year for two decades because of the work he does serving the voters of the 22nd District."
Eric Thode, the Fort Bend County Republican chairman since 1992 and the former public relations director of Enron, said Mr. DeLay still enjoyed strong support at home. "Democrats can't win the seat," he said. "They can spend anything they want. It's a Republican district."
In a letter to The Southwest Sun that the paper said it planned to publish, Mr. Thode, 39, also questioned whether Ms. Baig was a Republican since, he said, records showed she had not voted in Republican primaries and was not affiliated with a Republican club. He also said that she had not donated to Republican candidates but gave $750 to Mr. DeLay's Democratic opponent, Richard Morrison, last year and that she tried to hide her identity until Channel 11 News tracked her down.
Ms. Baig responded that lots of Republicans do not vote in primaries or join clubs or make contributions.
Darlene Hall, publisher of the weekly, one of a chain of 34 owned by Houston Community Newspapers, said the paper editorially backed Mr. DeLay and ran the advertisement purely to make money.
By 7 p.m. Saturday, about 150 demonstrators had gathered across the street from the Hilton hotel where some 3,000 N.R.A. delegates were meeting to hear Mr. DeLay. "Put the hammer in the slammer," some of the protesters chanted, a reference to the congressman's nickname.
"He's an embarrassment," said David Edwards, 65, of Sugar Land, a mortgage broker who said he was an evangelical Christian and a member of the N.R.A.
Inside the ballroom, Mr. DeLay received a roaring welcome. Many members wore stickers reading, "I'm for N.R.A. and Tom DeLay."
Mr. DeLay said, "I hope the national media saw that."
He devoted the bulk of his speech pledging to work against restrictions on gun ownership. But he urged members not to demonize gun control advocates. "When we disagree, we have a tendency to question the sincerity of our opponents' position and even character," he said.
In addition to Sugar Land, Mr. DeLay's Congressional district - which he had a big hand in redrawing as part of a Republican-driven redistricting that sent Democratic legislators fleeing the state in protest in 2003 - sprawls over the southwest Houston suburbs and the NASA area of Clear Lake, which have grown solidly Republican over the years.
But with some Republican voters siphoned off to create new districts that added to the Republican majorities in both the Texas Legislature and Congress last year, and perhaps because of Mr. DeLay's slippage as well, he garnered 55 percent of the vote last year - 53 percent in Fort Bend County - a dropoff from his share in his original district in previous years and below President Bush's 2004 majority of 57 percent in Fort Bend County.
Mr. Morrison, a lawyer, who came away with 41 percent in a three-way race in which the other candidate was also named Morrison, said he would run again in 2006. Other possible candidates, some Democrats say, include Nick Lampson of Beaumont, a congressman defeated in the redistricting. Some moderate Republicans have also been looking for a primary challenger to Mr. DeLay.
Chris Bell, a one-term Democrat from Houston who also failed to win re-election in a new district last year, said recent accounts of Mr. DeLay's lobbyist-paid foreign trips and payments of more than $500,000 to his wife and daughter for political work since 2001 would alienate voters. "Now there's blood in the water," he said. "The sharks are circling."
Mr. Thode and other Republicans say the trips and payments were legal and common among Democrats as well.
Beverly Carter, a Republican precinct chairwoman and the founder of the 27-year-old Fort Bend Southwest Star, the other county weekly and the only paid circulation paper, came out for Mr. DeLay's Democratic opponent, Mr. Morrison, last year, which earned her a vote of censure by the county Republican organization. She said "Tom and I got crosswise" over a sheriff's race eight years ago when she complained that Mr. DeLay ran a misleading poll suggesting that a former Texas Ranger running for the post had no "local" experience.
Ms. Carter said Mr. DeLay had shortchanged the district. "There were years here we didn't see him," she said, although now that he was under fire, she said, "we've seen a whole heck of a lot more of him."
Mayor David Wallace of Sugar Land said Mr. DeLay had been "extremely helpful to the district" in providing federal grants for transportation improvements, although he acknowledged that the city had to contribute $3 million to the state to attract a needed highway project.
Repercussions are affecting Austin, some lawmakers say. A widely co-sponsored bill to outlaw some of the indirect corporate fund-raising being investigated is bottled up, with the Republican chairwoman of the election committee, Representative Mary Denny, saying she has not decided whether to support it.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Frisk's Colleagues in Medicine Object to His Role in Shaivro Case
From Raw Story.com An oncologist who actually voted for Bush (what on earth was HE thinking?) said Frist is not a practicing physician and should not be blending medicine with politics. Sounds like voodoo medicine and politics to me.
Senate GOP leader takes flak from colleagues
4/17/2005 @ 9:19 am EST
Senate GOP leader Frist under fire from colleagues
From a Newsweek release: LINDSEY GRAHAM EXPRESSES CONCERN OVER BILL FRIST’S INVOLVEMENT IN PRAYER SERVICE ABOUT EASING SENATE FILIBUSTER DEBATE RULE; JOHN MCCAIN TRYING TO WORK OUT A DEAL WITH RED-STATE DEMOCRATS ABOUT THE FILIBUSTER RULE; IN PRIVATE LETTER, 31 OF FRIST’S HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL CLASSMATES ACCUSE HIM OF USING HIS MEDICAL DEGREE IMPROPERLY. (Full story here.
#
New York-In a private letter to Sen. Bill Frist, 31 of the 165 members of his Harvard Medical School class of 1978 accused him of using his medical degree improperly, reports Chief Political Correspondent Howard Fineman. The letter was a response to Frist’s role in the case of the late Terri Schiavo. As she lay dying in Florida, Frist-who said he had reviewed court documents and videos-appeared on the Senate floor. Saying he “spoke more as a doctor than a senator,” he declared that “there seems to be insufficient information to conclude” that Schiavo-an icon to religious conservatives-was in a “persistent vegetative state” that would justify allowing her to die.
Frist’s office declined comment; according to public records, at least 13 of the 31 classmates had donated money to Democrats in the past five years. Still, Dr. Lewis Rose, an oncologist who said he voted for President George W. Bush last year, insists Frist had overstepped. “He had no right to use the cloak of the Hippocratic oath, no matter who was right,” Rose tells Newsweek. “He’s got medical training and a medical perspective, but he is not a practicing physician and has no business using that in politics. Period. If he does, he won’t get any of his classmates’ votes who signed this.”
In his profile of Frist, which appears in the April 25 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, April 18), Fineman reports that even some Bible-belt Republicans were troubled by Frist’s planned involvement in a nationally televised prayer service to be held at a megachurch in Louisville next Sunday. (The service focuses on the need to ease the Senate filibuster debate rule so that the Republican majority can confirm Bush’s most controversial judicial nominations. Frist’s role: a four-minute videotape stressing a secular argument-that presidents deserve “up or down” votes on all picks.) The sponsoring Family Research Council’s flame-throwing message-filibusters are anti-Christian-predictably infuriated Democrats. And Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told Newsweek, “Questioning a senator’s motives in that way is a very dangerous precedent. That goes to a level where the Senate has never gone before. It is a very unhealthy turn of events.”
The competition for the pre-presidential allegiance of the Republicans’ grass-roots Christian soldiers is ferocious. Among the less-encumbered competitors eager to outdo Frist is his third-in-command, Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. He told Newsweek that he would consider impeachment proceedings against the federal judges in the Terri Schiavo case; that he favors term limits for federal judges, and that he would consider redrawing the boundaries of judicial districts to break up the liberal Ninth Circuit. Frist, aides say, does not support any such ideas.
Frist’s solution to an “out of control” judiciary is limited to easing the filibuster rule. But winning the vote to do so is a difficult task even though he has a 55-vote majority. Three Republicans have abandoned him-including John McCain-and several more have made noises about doing so. Few think the compromise Frist will offer to the Democrats next week will fly. McCain, on his own, is also trying to work out a deal with some Red State Democrats, Newsweek has learned. And Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, whom Frist replaced as leader in a painful episode, is pushing an uncompromisingly hard line-happy, insiders say, to make life at the top uncomfortable for Frist.
Senate GOP leader takes flak from colleagues
4/17/2005 @ 9:19 am EST
Senate GOP leader Frist under fire from colleagues
From a Newsweek release: LINDSEY GRAHAM EXPRESSES CONCERN OVER BILL FRIST’S INVOLVEMENT IN PRAYER SERVICE ABOUT EASING SENATE FILIBUSTER DEBATE RULE; JOHN MCCAIN TRYING TO WORK OUT A DEAL WITH RED-STATE DEMOCRATS ABOUT THE FILIBUSTER RULE; IN PRIVATE LETTER, 31 OF FRIST’S HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL CLASSMATES ACCUSE HIM OF USING HIS MEDICAL DEGREE IMPROPERLY. (Full story here.
#
New York-In a private letter to Sen. Bill Frist, 31 of the 165 members of his Harvard Medical School class of 1978 accused him of using his medical degree improperly, reports Chief Political Correspondent Howard Fineman. The letter was a response to Frist’s role in the case of the late Terri Schiavo. As she lay dying in Florida, Frist-who said he had reviewed court documents and videos-appeared on the Senate floor. Saying he “spoke more as a doctor than a senator,” he declared that “there seems to be insufficient information to conclude” that Schiavo-an icon to religious conservatives-was in a “persistent vegetative state” that would justify allowing her to die.
Frist’s office declined comment; according to public records, at least 13 of the 31 classmates had donated money to Democrats in the past five years. Still, Dr. Lewis Rose, an oncologist who said he voted for President George W. Bush last year, insists Frist had overstepped. “He had no right to use the cloak of the Hippocratic oath, no matter who was right,” Rose tells Newsweek. “He’s got medical training and a medical perspective, but he is not a practicing physician and has no business using that in politics. Period. If he does, he won’t get any of his classmates’ votes who signed this.”
In his profile of Frist, which appears in the April 25 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, April 18), Fineman reports that even some Bible-belt Republicans were troubled by Frist’s planned involvement in a nationally televised prayer service to be held at a megachurch in Louisville next Sunday. (The service focuses on the need to ease the Senate filibuster debate rule so that the Republican majority can confirm Bush’s most controversial judicial nominations. Frist’s role: a four-minute videotape stressing a secular argument-that presidents deserve “up or down” votes on all picks.) The sponsoring Family Research Council’s flame-throwing message-filibusters are anti-Christian-predictably infuriated Democrats. And Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told Newsweek, “Questioning a senator’s motives in that way is a very dangerous precedent. That goes to a level where the Senate has never gone before. It is a very unhealthy turn of events.”
The competition for the pre-presidential allegiance of the Republicans’ grass-roots Christian soldiers is ferocious. Among the less-encumbered competitors eager to outdo Frist is his third-in-command, Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. He told Newsweek that he would consider impeachment proceedings against the federal judges in the Terri Schiavo case; that he favors term limits for federal judges, and that he would consider redrawing the boundaries of judicial districts to break up the liberal Ninth Circuit. Frist, aides say, does not support any such ideas.
Frist’s solution to an “out of control” judiciary is limited to easing the filibuster rule. But winning the vote to do so is a difficult task even though he has a 55-vote majority. Three Republicans have abandoned him-including John McCain-and several more have made noises about doing so. Few think the compromise Frist will offer to the Democrats next week will fly. McCain, on his own, is also trying to work out a deal with some Red State Democrats, Newsweek has learned. And Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, whom Frist replaced as leader in a painful episode, is pushing an uncompromisingly hard line-happy, insiders say, to make life at the top uncomfortable for Frist.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Bush Stonewalls on Fake News Probe
Found on Salon.com http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/print.html?blog=
Bush White House won't report on fake news
The Senate's unanimous decision Thursday to ban federal funding for "video news releases" broadcast the image of a federal government deeply concerned about the dangers of manipulating the public with propaganda. The FCC also announced a crackdown this week, instating new rules for disclosure.
But the Bush White House hasn't been so forthcoming on the issue. On Wednesday, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., announced that the White House has not been cooperating with a probe he requested into the Armstrong Williams payola case. In January, reporters revealed that the conservative commentator had been awarded $240,000 worth of Department of Education funding to promote the administration's No Child Left Behind initiative. At Miller's behest, the Department of Education's inspector general, Jack Higgins, launched an internal investigation. According to a press release from Miller's office, Higgins told Miller that the White House "had refused to allow them to interview White House officials who may have knowledge of the Williams contract" -- and that Education Secretary Margaret Spellings is considering requiring Higgins to delete certain information he had originally included in his draft report.
Nor has the administration cooperated with requests made by twenty-one Democratic lawmakers back in January for copies of all documents pertaining to "secret publicity campaigns to promote administration priorities."
President Bush must have a unique definition of due diligence. In January, he himself declared: "All of us, the Cabinet, needs to take a good look and make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again." But it's pretty hard for investigators to take a good look when the doors keep slamming shut in front of them.
Bush White House won't report on fake news
The Senate's unanimous decision Thursday to ban federal funding for "video news releases" broadcast the image of a federal government deeply concerned about the dangers of manipulating the public with propaganda. The FCC also announced a crackdown this week, instating new rules for disclosure.
But the Bush White House hasn't been so forthcoming on the issue. On Wednesday, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., announced that the White House has not been cooperating with a probe he requested into the Armstrong Williams payola case. In January, reporters revealed that the conservative commentator had been awarded $240,000 worth of Department of Education funding to promote the administration's No Child Left Behind initiative. At Miller's behest, the Department of Education's inspector general, Jack Higgins, launched an internal investigation. According to a press release from Miller's office, Higgins told Miller that the White House "had refused to allow them to interview White House officials who may have knowledge of the Williams contract" -- and that Education Secretary Margaret Spellings is considering requiring Higgins to delete certain information he had originally included in his draft report.
Nor has the administration cooperated with requests made by twenty-one Democratic lawmakers back in January for copies of all documents pertaining to "secret publicity campaigns to promote administration priorities."
President Bush must have a unique definition of due diligence. In January, he himself declared: "All of us, the Cabinet, needs to take a good look and make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again." But it's pretty hard for investigators to take a good look when the doors keep slamming shut in front of them.
President's Tax Return Proof Economic Conservatism is a LIE
From the Nashua Advocate
http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/
Friday, April 15, 2005
President's Tax Return Conclusive Proof That Economic Conservatism Is a Lie, G.O.P. Dogma on Taxation Is a Farce
By ADVOCATE STAFF
Ever listened to conservative radio?
Then you know that "the government" takes 50% of your annual income in taxes every April 15th.
Indeed, you'd be hard pressed to find a Republican in the national media who claims to--or, rather, admits to--be paying anything less than half his or her yearly draw to the feds.
Except, that is, the President--the leader of the National Republican Party--who's never paid anything like half his income in taxes, giving the lie to conservative whining about the tax burden of (so say they) "the average American."
Want the details? Check here for all the proof you'll ever need that economic conservatism is a lie, and the G.O.P.'s perennially barked-out dogma on taxation is an absurdist farce.
This year, the President, one of the top 0.5% richest wage-earners in the United States, and a member of one of the richest families in the nation, paid 30.8% of his income in federal taxes.
Which must have appalled him.
For in 2004, he paid only 27.6% of his income to the government.
In his first year in the White House, Bush gave up only about 26% of his draw.
[Put aside, for the moment, that given the way he's plunged this nation into a Second Vietnam, a recession, and budget deficits for the next two hundred years, he should probably be returning 100% of his income to the people].
And as for Dick Cheney, our obscenely wealthy, imp-like Screwtape of a Vice-President?
The poor bastard paid 30.2% of his taxes to the government, and has dipped below that 30% mark several years during his tenure as President of the United States.
Sorry, Vice-President of the United States.
Officially.
So, where to that long-lost 20% of income conservatives have been whining about for years?
And does anyone find it at all likely that "average Americans" are paying 50% of their income to the federal government, when the richest among us are doling out just over a quarter of their (largely inherited or else merely unearned) income each annum?
So, please--look at your tax returns this April 15th.
Do the math.
And figure out who, if anyone, is lying to you to get your vote every four years.
Nobody believes in excessive taxation, but given that the U.S. has among the lowest tax rates in the world, no one likes to be perennially lied to by their elected representatives, either.
http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/
Friday, April 15, 2005
President's Tax Return Conclusive Proof That Economic Conservatism Is a Lie, G.O.P. Dogma on Taxation Is a Farce
By ADVOCATE STAFF
Ever listened to conservative radio?
Then you know that "the government" takes 50% of your annual income in taxes every April 15th.
Indeed, you'd be hard pressed to find a Republican in the national media who claims to--or, rather, admits to--be paying anything less than half his or her yearly draw to the feds.
Except, that is, the President--the leader of the National Republican Party--who's never paid anything like half his income in taxes, giving the lie to conservative whining about the tax burden of (so say they) "the average American."
Want the details? Check here for all the proof you'll ever need that economic conservatism is a lie, and the G.O.P.'s perennially barked-out dogma on taxation is an absurdist farce.
This year, the President, one of the top 0.5% richest wage-earners in the United States, and a member of one of the richest families in the nation, paid 30.8% of his income in federal taxes.
Which must have appalled him.
For in 2004, he paid only 27.6% of his income to the government.
In his first year in the White House, Bush gave up only about 26% of his draw.
[Put aside, for the moment, that given the way he's plunged this nation into a Second Vietnam, a recession, and budget deficits for the next two hundred years, he should probably be returning 100% of his income to the people].
And as for Dick Cheney, our obscenely wealthy, imp-like Screwtape of a Vice-President?
The poor bastard paid 30.2% of his taxes to the government, and has dipped below that 30% mark several years during his tenure as President of the United States.
Sorry, Vice-President of the United States.
Officially.
So, where to that long-lost 20% of income conservatives have been whining about for years?
And does anyone find it at all likely that "average Americans" are paying 50% of their income to the federal government, when the richest among us are doling out just over a quarter of their (largely inherited or else merely unearned) income each annum?
So, please--look at your tax returns this April 15th.
Do the math.
And figure out who, if anyone, is lying to you to get your vote every four years.
Nobody believes in excessive taxation, but given that the U.S. has among the lowest tax rates in the world, no one likes to be perennially lied to by their elected representatives, either.
SEND DRE PROTEST LETTER TO ELECTION OFFICIALS NOW
URGENT message from Kathy Dopp of US Counts Votes.org
Send a DRE Protest Letter to your Election Officials Now:
http://uscountvotes.net/scripts/lettergen/ltr_pick_addressee.php
As we speak, states and counties all over America are quickly spending their Help America Vote Act Funds to buy new voting equipment prior to 2006.
HAVA will fund only DRE or Op-Scan voting systems. States and Counties will therefore be buying DRE or Op-Scan voting systems.
An Op-Scan system has a paper ballot that is hand- recountable by our own election officials. A DRE voting machine does not.
If we sit by now and allow DREs to be purchased, then:
1. Our elections WILL be corrupted by undetectable and uncorrectable electronic failures, errors, and manipulations.
2. Extra millions of dollars will be thrown away on systems that cost more to maintain, secure, and upgrade. (Instead HAVA funds can be used to develop procedures to secure electronic voter registration rolls, to develop information systems to report detailed election information for auditing election results, and to develop a database of election rules, procedures, and laws to help voters, poll workers, and election officials.)
3. Voters will have longer lines at the polls.
4. Elections will depend on unachievable electronic reliability, consistent power supply, and climate controlled polling locations.
5. Voters will not be able to electronically verify that their ballots will be counted correctly as even the disabled could with some opscan paper ballot voting systems.
Patriots, we must stop states and counties from purchasing DRE voting machines NOW.
Create a letter to your Election official that you can simply print, fill in your name and address, and mail:
http://uscountvotes.net/scripts/lettergen/ltr_pick_addressee.php
Please pass this DRE protest letter on and link to it from your web site, so that every county and state election office in America is flooded with letters requesting Hand-recountable Paper Ballots.
Best Regards,
Kathy Dopp
http://electionarchive.org
Send a DRE Protest Letter to your Election Officials Now:
http://uscountvotes.net/scripts/lettergen/ltr_pick_addressee.php
As we speak, states and counties all over America are quickly spending their Help America Vote Act Funds to buy new voting equipment prior to 2006.
HAVA will fund only DRE or Op-Scan voting systems. States and Counties will therefore be buying DRE or Op-Scan voting systems.
An Op-Scan system has a paper ballot that is hand- recountable by our own election officials. A DRE voting machine does not.
If we sit by now and allow DREs to be purchased, then:
1. Our elections WILL be corrupted by undetectable and uncorrectable electronic failures, errors, and manipulations.
2. Extra millions of dollars will be thrown away on systems that cost more to maintain, secure, and upgrade. (Instead HAVA funds can be used to develop procedures to secure electronic voter registration rolls, to develop information systems to report detailed election information for auditing election results, and to develop a database of election rules, procedures, and laws to help voters, poll workers, and election officials.)
3. Voters will have longer lines at the polls.
4. Elections will depend on unachievable electronic reliability, consistent power supply, and climate controlled polling locations.
5. Voters will not be able to electronically verify that their ballots will be counted correctly as even the disabled could with some opscan paper ballot voting systems.
Patriots, we must stop states and counties from purchasing DRE voting machines NOW.
Create a letter to your Election official that you can simply print, fill in your name and address, and mail:
http://uscountvotes.net/scripts/lettergen/ltr_pick_addressee.php
Please pass this DRE protest letter on and link to it from your web site, so that every county and state election office in America is flooded with letters requesting Hand-recountable Paper Ballots.
Best Regards,
Kathy Dopp
http://electionarchive.org
Friday, April 15, 2005
Report on Unexplained Discrepancies Between Exit Poll Data and Official Vote Tally
US Count Votes is a non-profit group comprised of mathematicians and statisticians who did an analysis of the 2004 presidential election exit poll data and the official vote tally. They found unexplained discrepancies, of course. Bruce O'Dell, Vice President for the National Election Data Archive Project, urges us to write to our lawmakers about this issue. If the election wasn't "rigged" per se, we have one sloppy, unacceptable and appalling voting mechanism, one that is probably more tied to corporate and political interests than it is to an official, credible outcome. Below you will see Bruce's letter to his Congressman.
From Bruce O'Dell via US Count Votes.org
The most important thing we can all do right now to assure democratic elections, is to alert politicians before November 2006 to the current state of our voting and elections systems, by mailing each of our U.S. Congressional Representatives and Senators a copy of US Count Votes "Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Exit Poll Discrepancies"
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf.
Please feel free to copy and modify this sample letter by Bruce O'Dell and send it to your two U.S. Senators and your House Congressman.
http://www.senate.gov/
http://www.house.gov/
The Honorable Martin O. Sabo
250 Marquette Avenue, Suite 225
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
April 1, 2005
Dear Representative Sabo:
I am writing to you as a constituent and on behalf of an organization I work with, the National Election Data Archive Project, along with ten prominent university professors of statistics and mathematics, to urge you to read our enclosed reports on 2004 presidential exit poll discrepancies.
Our final report concludes, “We believe that the absence of any statistically-plausible explanation for the discrepancy between Edison/Mitofsky’s exit poll data and the official presidential vote tally is an unanswered question of vital national importance that needs thorough investigation.”
As you know, 30% of the vote in America is “faith-based”; there is simply no way to independently verify that those votes are counted as cast. Even the 70% of the vote that can be recounted is at risk, since no one audits against the paper ballots if the electronic totals are not particularly close.
Banks know that they face a far greater challenge from embezzlers than they do from any punk with a gun in the lobby. But no state counts its votes as carefully as any bank counts its pennies. Ohio charged the Green and Libertarian Parties a steep fee to conduct its limited recount; would you keep your money in a bank that never audited its books unless you asked them to, and then made you pay dearly for the privilege?
After more than twenty years in financial services and as a computer security professional, to me this is a matter of simple common sense. Would you drive over a bridge that 95% of engineers say will collapse under the weight of your car? Yet a remarkable 95% of computer scientists and software engineers surveyed last year opposed any use of unauditable voting equipment, because the risks of "embezzlement" of the vote are so obvious to us. I find the apparent willingness of state and local governments to ignore an urgent warning so clearly expressed by such a lopsided majority of computer professionals to be totally unconscionable.
I urge you to join with James Oberstar and the other twenty two congressional endorsers of the March 21^st letter to the major voting equipment vendors, demanding they follow common-sense security and audit practices.
I also ask that you endorse our group’s call to fully investigate the still totally-unexplained Presidential exit poll discrepancy, which we’ve noted is comparable to the exit poll discrepancy in the now-overturned election in Ukraine. The reaction here was muted by an unquestioned faith in the accuracy of an official vote count outsourced to a handful of private companies. If that faith is unwarranted, the American Republic itself is at risk. There is no more pressing issue to address.
Sincerely,
Bruce O’Dell
National Election Data Archive Project
Vice President, US Count Votes
From Bruce O'Dell via US Count Votes.org
The most important thing we can all do right now to assure democratic elections, is to alert politicians before November 2006 to the current state of our voting and elections systems, by mailing each of our U.S. Congressional Representatives and Senators a copy of US Count Votes "Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Exit Poll Discrepancies"
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf.
Please feel free to copy and modify this sample letter by Bruce O'Dell and send it to your two U.S. Senators and your House Congressman.
http://www.senate.gov/
http://www.house.gov/
The Honorable Martin O. Sabo
250 Marquette Avenue, Suite 225
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
April 1, 2005
Dear Representative Sabo:
I am writing to you as a constituent and on behalf of an organization I work with, the National Election Data Archive Project, along with ten prominent university professors of statistics and mathematics, to urge you to read our enclosed reports on 2004 presidential exit poll discrepancies.
Our final report concludes, “We believe that the absence of any statistically-plausible explanation for the discrepancy between Edison/Mitofsky’s exit poll data and the official presidential vote tally is an unanswered question of vital national importance that needs thorough investigation.”
As you know, 30% of the vote in America is “faith-based”; there is simply no way to independently verify that those votes are counted as cast. Even the 70% of the vote that can be recounted is at risk, since no one audits against the paper ballots if the electronic totals are not particularly close.
Banks know that they face a far greater challenge from embezzlers than they do from any punk with a gun in the lobby. But no state counts its votes as carefully as any bank counts its pennies. Ohio charged the Green and Libertarian Parties a steep fee to conduct its limited recount; would you keep your money in a bank that never audited its books unless you asked them to, and then made you pay dearly for the privilege?
After more than twenty years in financial services and as a computer security professional, to me this is a matter of simple common sense. Would you drive over a bridge that 95% of engineers say will collapse under the weight of your car? Yet a remarkable 95% of computer scientists and software engineers surveyed last year opposed any use of unauditable voting equipment, because the risks of "embezzlement" of the vote are so obvious to us. I find the apparent willingness of state and local governments to ignore an urgent warning so clearly expressed by such a lopsided majority of computer professionals to be totally unconscionable.
I urge you to join with James Oberstar and the other twenty two congressional endorsers of the March 21^st letter to the major voting equipment vendors, demanding they follow common-sense security and audit practices.
I also ask that you endorse our group’s call to fully investigate the still totally-unexplained Presidential exit poll discrepancy, which we’ve noted is comparable to the exit poll discrepancy in the now-overturned election in Ukraine. The reaction here was muted by an unquestioned faith in the accuracy of an official vote count outsourced to a handful of private companies. If that faith is unwarranted, the American Republic itself is at risk. There is no more pressing issue to address.
Sincerely,
Bruce O’Dell
National Election Data Archive Project
Vice President, US Count Votes
Activist PEN (People's Email Network) Can Impact Voting
The organization needs larger numbers to achieve its objectives. Subscribe to the site and when "The Pen" asks you to write or call a lawmaker, please take the time to do it. Together we can make a difference, despite the odds. Hope is in the air.
The People's Email Network Progressive Media OUTREACH
Your voices CHANGED 17 VOTES in the House on the Bankruptcy bill yesterday. The work we have done on this is a major step towards electing replacements for those who would not listen. All we have to do now is build our numbers and the next vote in Congress will go our way.
To this end we are making a SPECIAL APPEAL to some of the key players in progressive media to get more engaged in calls for action to send personal messages to Congress.
http://www.usalone.com/samepage.htm
For this special campaign we have targeted the following
Al Franken (Air America)
Randi Rhodes (Air America)
Majority Report (Air America, have mentioned our site)
Daily Kos (weblog)
Atrios (weblog)
Buzzflash (progressive news)
As an active member of The People's Email Network we need your help to persuade these influential voices to get more involved in our direct constituent mobilizations. In particular we need you tell them how much you like the free service we are providing and how easy and effective it can be, and give them a live demonstration so to speak
It is especially important this coming week with the Bolton nomination, now twice delayed, teetering on the edge of rejection. All we have to do is move one wavering Republican, Chafee, and we claim our first outright victory. Here is that link again in case you are not one of the 5,000 participants of The People's Email Network who have already spoken out on this.
http://www.usalone.com/bolton.htm
Please post the above links everywhere you can to everyone you know
The People's Email Network Progressive Media OUTREACH
Your voices CHANGED 17 VOTES in the House on the Bankruptcy bill yesterday. The work we have done on this is a major step towards electing replacements for those who would not listen. All we have to do now is build our numbers and the next vote in Congress will go our way.
To this end we are making a SPECIAL APPEAL to some of the key players in progressive media to get more engaged in calls for action to send personal messages to Congress.
http://www.usalone.com/samepage.htm
For this special campaign we have targeted the following
Al Franken (Air America)
Randi Rhodes (Air America)
Majority Report (Air America, have mentioned our site)
Daily Kos (weblog)
Atrios (weblog)
Buzzflash (progressive news)
As an active member of The People's Email Network we need your help to persuade these influential voices to get more involved in our direct constituent mobilizations. In particular we need you tell them how much you like the free service we are providing and how easy and effective it can be, and give them a live demonstration so to speak
It is especially important this coming week with the Bolton nomination, now twice delayed, teetering on the edge of rejection. All we have to do is move one wavering Republican, Chafee, and we claim our first outright victory. Here is that link again in case you are not one of the 5,000 participants of The People's Email Network who have already spoken out on this.
http://www.usalone.com/bolton.htm
Please post the above links everywhere you can to everyone you know
Former Republican U.S. Lawmakers Accuse House of Protecting DeLay
Why does this initiative come from FORMER Republican lawmakers? Where are the ones currently in power? Are they afraid of Bush/Cheney/Rove retribution or are they simply lacking an ethical backbone.
Found on Reuter's this afternoon.
Ex-Lawmakers Accuse House of Protecting DeLay
Fri Apr 15, 2005 03:02 PM ET
By Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ten former Republican U.S. lawmakers on Friday urged a reversal of new House of Representatives ethics rules that they charged were changed to protect Majority Leader Tom DeLay from further investigation.
In an open letter to Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois, the former lawmakers said the rule changes early this year, which make it more difficult to probe an ethics complaint, must be reversed "to restore public confidence in the people's House."
"We felt grave concern when the Republican leadership changed the ethics rules ... We saw it as an obvious action to protect Majority Leader Tom DeLay," the letter said.
The letter came as Democrats stepped up their campaign against the Texas Republican, whom they have made a top target in next year's congressional elections, with a new Web site highlighting allegations about him.
The former Republican lawmakers offered no judgment about recent ethical questions facing DeLay, but wrote that there was a consensus in their districts that "previous admonishments to Mr. DeLay for casting discredit on the House were well merited."
DeLay was admonished by the House ethics committee last year on three separate matters involving what critics denounced as strong-armed political tactics.
In recent weeks, DeLay, who has denied wrongdoing, has been confronted with questions about ties to lobbyists, foreign trips funded by outside groups and use of campaign funds.
Hastert had no immediate response to the letter. A leadership aide seemed to dismiss it, noting one of the signers, former Rep. Pete McCloskey of California, opposed President Bush in last year's election.
"It is always good to get feedback from former Republican members, particularly those who endorsed (Democratic) Sen. (John) Kerry for president," the aide said.
Many fellow House Republicans have publicly rallied to DeLay's side, agreeing with him that he has become the victim of unfair partisan attacks.
Some, however, have voiced private concerns, particularly about a continuing grand-jury probe in Texas that indicted some DeLay associates last year on charges of illegal fund-raising.
President Bush on Thursday defended DeLay as "a very effective leader."
In addition to McCloskey, other signers of the letter included Mark Andrews of North Dakota, a moderate who served in the House and Senate between the 1960s and 1980s.
Others, all of whom served in the House in the same era were: John Buchanan of Alabama; M. Caldwell Butler of Virginia; Paul Findley of Illinois; Bud Hillis of Indiana; James Johnson of Colorado; Richard Mallary of Vermont; Wiley Mayne of Iowa, and G. William Whitehurst of Virginia.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee unveiled a web site on Friday to serve as a "clearinghouse for information" about allegations about the Texas Republican.
The site, headlined "Tom Delay's House of Scandal," can be found at www.dccc.org.
"I think the American people will find this useful," James Carville, who was a political strategist for former President Bill Clinton, said in helping the committee announce the site.
(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
© Reuters 2005
Close This Window
Found on Reuter's this afternoon.
Ex-Lawmakers Accuse House of Protecting DeLay
Fri Apr 15, 2005 03:02 PM ET
By Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ten former Republican U.S. lawmakers on Friday urged a reversal of new House of Representatives ethics rules that they charged were changed to protect Majority Leader Tom DeLay from further investigation.
In an open letter to Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois, the former lawmakers said the rule changes early this year, which make it more difficult to probe an ethics complaint, must be reversed "to restore public confidence in the people's House."
"We felt grave concern when the Republican leadership changed the ethics rules ... We saw it as an obvious action to protect Majority Leader Tom DeLay," the letter said.
The letter came as Democrats stepped up their campaign against the Texas Republican, whom they have made a top target in next year's congressional elections, with a new Web site highlighting allegations about him.
The former Republican lawmakers offered no judgment about recent ethical questions facing DeLay, but wrote that there was a consensus in their districts that "previous admonishments to Mr. DeLay for casting discredit on the House were well merited."
DeLay was admonished by the House ethics committee last year on three separate matters involving what critics denounced as strong-armed political tactics.
In recent weeks, DeLay, who has denied wrongdoing, has been confronted with questions about ties to lobbyists, foreign trips funded by outside groups and use of campaign funds.
Hastert had no immediate response to the letter. A leadership aide seemed to dismiss it, noting one of the signers, former Rep. Pete McCloskey of California, opposed President Bush in last year's election.
"It is always good to get feedback from former Republican members, particularly those who endorsed (Democratic) Sen. (John) Kerry for president," the aide said.
Many fellow House Republicans have publicly rallied to DeLay's side, agreeing with him that he has become the victim of unfair partisan attacks.
Some, however, have voiced private concerns, particularly about a continuing grand-jury probe in Texas that indicted some DeLay associates last year on charges of illegal fund-raising.
President Bush on Thursday defended DeLay as "a very effective leader."
In addition to McCloskey, other signers of the letter included Mark Andrews of North Dakota, a moderate who served in the House and Senate between the 1960s and 1980s.
Others, all of whom served in the House in the same era were: John Buchanan of Alabama; M. Caldwell Butler of Virginia; Paul Findley of Illinois; Bud Hillis of Indiana; James Johnson of Colorado; Richard Mallary of Vermont; Wiley Mayne of Iowa, and G. William Whitehurst of Virginia.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee unveiled a web site on Friday to serve as a "clearinghouse for information" about allegations about the Texas Republican.
The site, headlined "Tom Delay's House of Scandal," can be found at www.dccc.org.
"I think the American people will find this useful," James Carville, who was a political strategist for former President Bill Clinton, said in helping the committee announce the site.
(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
© Reuters 2005
Close This Window
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)