The Official 2006 Mid-term Elections Thread
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
Re: Congressional Black Caucus Ranking on House Committees and Subcommittees
we're almost one month out so i'll say net gain for republicans, because their base(muckraker) is getting what they want. you're not their base queex, i hope 6 years after 9/11 you would have realized that.
for one month after the elections the democrats will do productive introspective analysis. and right when they are on the cusp of becoming a better party they will see that it won't be easy, so they just go with the republicans stole the election reason for losing. this ensures another democrat loss in 2008.
now this wont create change either since losing the presidential election is their natural state. but when they lose in 2010, they wont be able to run from the reality that's it's really them. they'll change then.
so in 2012 i predict a net gain for democrats.
we're almost one month out so i'll say net gain for republicans, because their base(muckraker) is getting what they want. you're not their base queex, i hope 6 years after 9/11 you would have realized that.
for one month after the elections the democrats will do productive introspective analysis. and right when they are on the cusp of becoming a better party they will see that it won't be easy, so they just go with the republicans stole the election reason for losing. this ensures another democrat loss in 2008.
now this wont create change either since losing the presidential election is their natural state. but when they lose in 2010, they wont be able to run from the reality that's it's really them. they'll change then.
so in 2012 i predict a net gain for democrats.
<p>
<img src="http://proquest.umi.com/i/pub/7818.gif">
<font face="arial black" size="6" color="#d90000">A Platform Of Bigotry</font>
<font face="trebuchet ms, helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>September 28, 2006. pg. A.23
<img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/02/opinion/ts-herbert-75.jpg">
by Bob Herbert</b>
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.h...!iQ51wBBi!OooN!oA!Ol!BazuzBu!Ol4XwQ3DXwi(4i@T
<font color="#0000FF"><b><u>George Allen</u></b></font>, the clownish, Confederate-flag-loving senator from Virginia, <div align="left"><!-- MSTableType="layout" --><img src="http://www.republicansource.com/images/contenders/contender_allen.jpg" width="150" height="150" align="left"></div>has apparently been scurrying around for many years, spreading his racially offensive garbage like a dog that should be curbed. With harsh new allegations emerging daily, it's fair to ask:
Where are the voices of reason in the Republican Party -- the nonbigoted voices? Why haven't we heard from them on this matter?
Mr. Allen has long been touted as one of the leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. But this is a man who has displayed the quintessential symbol of American bigotry, the Confederate battle flag, on the wall of his living room; who put up a hangman's noose as a decoration in his law office; who used an ethnic slur -- macaca -- in an attempt to publicly embarrass a 20-year-old American student of Indian descent; and who, according to the recollections of a number of his acquaintances, frequently referred to blacks as niɠɠers.
The senator has denied the last allegation. But his accusers are low-keyed, straight-arrow professionals who have no obvious ax to grind. They, frankly, seem believable.
Dr. R. Kendall Shelton, a North Carolina radiologist who played football with Mr. Allen at the University of Virginia in the 1970's, recalled a number of incidents, including one in which Mr. Allen said that blacks in Virginia knew their place. Dr. Shelton said in a television interview that he believed then, and still believes, that Mr. Allen was a racist.
Beyond the obvious problems with the senator's comments and his behavior is the fact that he so neatly fits into the pattern of racial bigotry, insensitivity and exploitation that has characterized the G.O.P. since it adopted its Southern strategy some decades ago. Once it was the Democrats who provided a comfortable home for public officials with attitudes and policies that were hostile to blacks and other minorities. Now the deed to that safe house has been signed over to the G.O.P.
Ronald Reagan may be revered by Republicans, but I can never forget that he opposed both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of the mid-1960's, and that as a presidential candidate he kicked off his 1980 general election campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., which just happened to be where three civil rights workers -- Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and James Chaney -- were savagely murdered in 1964.
During his appearance in Philadelphia, Reagan told a cheering crowd, ''I believe in states' rights.''
The lynching of Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney (try to imagine the terror they felt throughout their ordeal) is the kind of activity symbolized by the noose that Senator Allen felt compelled to put up in his office.
One of the senator's Republican colleagues, Conrad Burns, is up for re-election in Montana. He's got an ugly racial history, too. Several years ago, while campaigning for a second term, Mr. Burns was approached by a rancher who wanted to know what life was like in Washington. The rancher said, ''Conrad, how can you live back there with all those niɠɠers?''
Senator Burns said he told the rancher it was ''a hell of a challenge.''
The senator later apologized. But he has bounced from one racially insensitive moment to another over the years, including one occasion when he referred to Arabs as ''ragheads.''
You don't hear President Bush or the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, or any other prominent Republicans blowing the whistle on the likes of George Allen and Conrad Burns because Republicans across the board, so-called moderates as well as conservatives, have benefited tremendously from the party's bigotry. Allen and Burns may have been more blatant and buffoonish than is acceptable, but they have all been singing from the same racially offensive hymnal.
From the Willie Horton campaign to the intimidation of black voters in Florida and elsewhere to the use of every racially charged symbol and code word imaginable -- it's all of a piece.
The late Lee Atwater, in a 1981 interview, explained the evolution of the Southern strategy:
''You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Niɠɠer, niɠɠer, niɠɠer! By 1968 you can't say 'niɠɠer' -- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.''
It's been working beautifully for the G.O.P. for decades. Why would the president or anyone else curtail a winning strategy now?
</font>
<p>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"></hr>
<img height="49" src="http://www.quibbles-n-bits.com/archives/bomber/kkk.gif" width="50" border="0"><img src="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/images/topics/republicans.jpg"><img height="49" src="http://www.quibbles-n-bits.com/archives/bomber/kkk.gif" width="50" border="0">
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"></hr>
<p>
<img src="http://proquest.umi.com/i/pub/7818.gif">
<font face="arial black" size="6" color="#d90000">A Platform Of Bigotry</font>
<font face="trebuchet ms, helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>September 28, 2006. pg. A.23
<img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/02/opinion/ts-herbert-75.jpg">
by Bob Herbert</b>
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.h...!iQ51wBBi!OooN!oA!Ol!BazuzBu!Ol4XwQ3DXwi(4i@T
<font color="#0000FF"><b><u>George Allen</u></b></font>, the clownish, Confederate-flag-loving senator from Virginia, <div align="left"><!-- MSTableType="layout" --><img src="http://www.republicansource.com/images/contenders/contender_allen.jpg" width="150" height="150" align="left"></div>has apparently been scurrying around for many years, spreading his racially offensive garbage like a dog that should be curbed. With harsh new allegations emerging daily, it's fair to ask:
Where are the voices of reason in the Republican Party -- the nonbigoted voices? Why haven't we heard from them on this matter?
Mr. Allen has long been touted as one of the leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. But this is a man who has displayed the quintessential symbol of American bigotry, the Confederate battle flag, on the wall of his living room; who put up a hangman's noose as a decoration in his law office; who used an ethnic slur -- macaca -- in an attempt to publicly embarrass a 20-year-old American student of Indian descent; and who, according to the recollections of a number of his acquaintances, frequently referred to blacks as niɠɠers.
The senator has denied the last allegation. But his accusers are low-keyed, straight-arrow professionals who have no obvious ax to grind. They, frankly, seem believable.
Dr. R. Kendall Shelton, a North Carolina radiologist who played football with Mr. Allen at the University of Virginia in the 1970's, recalled a number of incidents, including one in which Mr. Allen said that blacks in Virginia knew their place. Dr. Shelton said in a television interview that he believed then, and still believes, that Mr. Allen was a racist.
Beyond the obvious problems with the senator's comments and his behavior is the fact that he so neatly fits into the pattern of racial bigotry, insensitivity and exploitation that has characterized the G.O.P. since it adopted its Southern strategy some decades ago. Once it was the Democrats who provided a comfortable home for public officials with attitudes and policies that were hostile to blacks and other minorities. Now the deed to that safe house has been signed over to the G.O.P.
Ronald Reagan may be revered by Republicans, but I can never forget that he opposed both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of the mid-1960's, and that as a presidential candidate he kicked off his 1980 general election campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., which just happened to be where three civil rights workers -- Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and James Chaney -- were savagely murdered in 1964.
During his appearance in Philadelphia, Reagan told a cheering crowd, ''I believe in states' rights.''
The lynching of Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney (try to imagine the terror they felt throughout their ordeal) is the kind of activity symbolized by the noose that Senator Allen felt compelled to put up in his office.
One of the senator's Republican colleagues, Conrad Burns, is up for re-election in Montana. He's got an ugly racial history, too. Several years ago, while campaigning for a second term, Mr. Burns was approached by a rancher who wanted to know what life was like in Washington. The rancher said, ''Conrad, how can you live back there with all those niɠɠers?''
Senator Burns said he told the rancher it was ''a hell of a challenge.''
The senator later apologized. But he has bounced from one racially insensitive moment to another over the years, including one occasion when he referred to Arabs as ''ragheads.''
You don't hear President Bush or the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, or any other prominent Republicans blowing the whistle on the likes of George Allen and Conrad Burns because Republicans across the board, so-called moderates as well as conservatives, have benefited tremendously from the party's bigotry. Allen and Burns may have been more blatant and buffoonish than is acceptable, but they have all been singing from the same racially offensive hymnal.
From the Willie Horton campaign to the intimidation of black voters in Florida and elsewhere to the use of every racially charged symbol and code word imaginable -- it's all of a piece.
The late Lee Atwater, in a 1981 interview, explained the evolution of the Southern strategy:
''You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Niɠɠer, niɠɠer, niɠɠer! By 1968 you can't say 'niɠɠer' -- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.''
It's been working beautifully for the G.O.P. for decades. Why would the president or anyone else curtail a winning strategy now?
</font>
<p>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"></hr>
<img height="49" src="http://www.quibbles-n-bits.com/archives/bomber/kkk.gif" width="50" border="0"><img src="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/images/topics/republicans.jpg"><img height="49" src="http://www.quibbles-n-bits.com/archives/bomber/kkk.gif" width="50" border="0">
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"></hr>
<p>
what does any of that matter. the american people reject it wholeheartedly and the only way republicans win is because they steal the elections. think diebold. diebold i said.
people know democrats have the better message and good white folk and republicans are the whites that hate blacks and macacas(what's a macaca). damn racist.
we just gotta figure out a way to stop them from stealing elections no matter what state and district a republican wins in. you know beecause thats the only way they win. by cheating. because you know, being racist in virginia is looked down upon there. they cheat. diebold. racist. karl rove.
people know democrats have the better message and good white folk and republicans are the whites that hate blacks and macacas(what's a macaca). damn racist.
we just gotta figure out a way to stop them from stealing elections no matter what state and district a republican wins in. you know beecause thats the only way they win. by cheating. because you know, being racist in virginia is looked down upon there. they cheat. diebold. racist. karl rove.
<p>
<img src="http://proquest.umi.com/i/pub/7818.gif">
<font face="arial black" size="6" color="#d90000">Things Fall Apart</font>
<font face="trebuchet ms, helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>October 2, 2006. pg. A.19
<img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/02/opinion/ts-krugman-75.jpg">
by Paul Krugman</b>
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.h...Q7DdyiQ27idQ27Q7DfQ24!epgQ2AQ5BQ27Q205OQ2AQ3B
Right after the 2004 election, it seemed as if Thomas Frank had been completely vindicated. In his book ''What's the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America,'' Mr. Frank argued that America's right wing had developed a permanent winning strategy based on the use of ''values'' issues to mobilize white working-class voters against a largely mythical cultural elite, while actually pursuing policies designed to benefit a small economic elite.
It was and is a brilliant analysis. But the political strategy Mr. Frank described may have less staying power than he feared. In fact, the right-wing coalition that has spent 40 years climbing to its current position of political dominance may be cracking up.
At its core, the political axis that currently controls Congress and the White House is an alliance between the preachers and the plutocrats -- between the religious right, which hates gays, abortion and the theory of evolution, and the economic right, which hates Social Security, Medicare and taxes on rich people. Surrounding this core is a large periphery of politicians and lobbyists who joined the movement not out of conviction, but to share in the spoils.
Together, these groups formed a seemingly invincible political coalition, in which the religious right supplied the passion and the economic right supplied the money.
The coalition has, however, always been more vulnerable than it seemed, because it was an alliance based not on shared goals, but on each group's belief that it could use the other to get what it wants. Bring that belief into question, and the whole thing falls apart.
Future historians may date the beginning of the right-wing crackup to the days immediately following the 2004 election, when President Bush tried to convert a victory won by portraying John Kerry as weak on defense into a mandate for Social Security privatization. The attempted bait-and-switch failed in the face of overwhelming public opposition. If anything, the Bush plan was even less popular in deep-red states like Montana than in states that voted for Mr. Kerry.
And the religious and cultural right, which boasted of having supplied the Bush campaign with its ''shock troops'' and expected a right-wing cultural agenda in return -- starting with a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage -- was dismayed when the administration put its energy into attacking the welfare state instead. James Dobson, the founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, accused Republicans of ''just ignoring those that put them in office.''
It will be interesting, by the way, to see how Dr. Dobson, who declared of Bill Clinton that ''no man has ever done more to debase the presidency,'' responds to the Foley scandal. Does the failure of Republican leaders to do anything about a sexual predator in their midst outrage him as much as a Democratic president's consensual affair?
In any case, just as the religious right was feeling betrayed by Mr. Bush's focus on the goals of the economic right, the economic right suddenly seemed to become aware of the nature of its political allies. ''Where in the hell did this Terri Schiavo thing come from?'' asked Dick Armey, the former House majority leader, in an interview with Ryan Sager, the author of ''The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians and the Battle to Control the Republican Party.'' The answer, he said, was ''blatant pandering to James Dobson.'' He went on, ''Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies.''
Some Republicans are switching parties. James Webb, who may pull off a macaca-fueled upset against Senator George Allen of Virginia, was secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. Charles Barkley, a former N.B.A. star who used to be mentioned as a possible future Republican candidate, recently declared, ''I was a Republican until they lost their minds.''
So the right-wing coalition is showing signs of coming apart. It seems that we're not in Kansas anymore. In fact, Kansas itself doesn't seem to be in Kansas anymore. Kathleen Sebelius, the state's Democratic governor, has achieved a sky-high favorability rating by focusing on good governance rather than culture wars, and her party believes it will win big this year.
And nine former Kansas Republicans, including Mark Parkinson, the former state G.O.P. chairman, are now running for state office as Democrats. Why did Mr. Parkinson change parties? Because he ''got tired of the theological debate over whether Charles Darwin was right.''
</font>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="8"></hr>
<p>
<img src="http://proquest.umi.com/i/pub/7818.gif">
<font face="arial black" size="6" color="#d90000">Things Fall Apart</font>
<font face="trebuchet ms, helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>October 2, 2006. pg. A.19
<img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/02/opinion/ts-krugman-75.jpg">
by Paul Krugman</b>
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.h...Q7DdyiQ27idQ27Q7DfQ24!epgQ2AQ5BQ27Q205OQ2AQ3B
Right after the 2004 election, it seemed as if Thomas Frank had been completely vindicated. In his book ''What's the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America,'' Mr. Frank argued that America's right wing had developed a permanent winning strategy based on the use of ''values'' issues to mobilize white working-class voters against a largely mythical cultural elite, while actually pursuing policies designed to benefit a small economic elite.
It was and is a brilliant analysis. But the political strategy Mr. Frank described may have less staying power than he feared. In fact, the right-wing coalition that has spent 40 years climbing to its current position of political dominance may be cracking up.
At its core, the political axis that currently controls Congress and the White House is an alliance between the preachers and the plutocrats -- between the religious right, which hates gays, abortion and the theory of evolution, and the economic right, which hates Social Security, Medicare and taxes on rich people. Surrounding this core is a large periphery of politicians and lobbyists who joined the movement not out of conviction, but to share in the spoils.
Together, these groups formed a seemingly invincible political coalition, in which the religious right supplied the passion and the economic right supplied the money.
The coalition has, however, always been more vulnerable than it seemed, because it was an alliance based not on shared goals, but on each group's belief that it could use the other to get what it wants. Bring that belief into question, and the whole thing falls apart.
Future historians may date the beginning of the right-wing crackup to the days immediately following the 2004 election, when President Bush tried to convert a victory won by portraying John Kerry as weak on defense into a mandate for Social Security privatization. The attempted bait-and-switch failed in the face of overwhelming public opposition. If anything, the Bush plan was even less popular in deep-red states like Montana than in states that voted for Mr. Kerry.
And the religious and cultural right, which boasted of having supplied the Bush campaign with its ''shock troops'' and expected a right-wing cultural agenda in return -- starting with a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage -- was dismayed when the administration put its energy into attacking the welfare state instead. James Dobson, the founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, accused Republicans of ''just ignoring those that put them in office.''
It will be interesting, by the way, to see how Dr. Dobson, who declared of Bill Clinton that ''no man has ever done more to debase the presidency,'' responds to the Foley scandal. Does the failure of Republican leaders to do anything about a sexual predator in their midst outrage him as much as a Democratic president's consensual affair?
In any case, just as the religious right was feeling betrayed by Mr. Bush's focus on the goals of the economic right, the economic right suddenly seemed to become aware of the nature of its political allies. ''Where in the hell did this Terri Schiavo thing come from?'' asked Dick Armey, the former House majority leader, in an interview with Ryan Sager, the author of ''The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians and the Battle to Control the Republican Party.'' The answer, he said, was ''blatant pandering to James Dobson.'' He went on, ''Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies.''
Some Republicans are switching parties. James Webb, who may pull off a macaca-fueled upset against Senator George Allen of Virginia, was secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. Charles Barkley, a former N.B.A. star who used to be mentioned as a possible future Republican candidate, recently declared, ''I was a Republican until they lost their minds.''
So the right-wing coalition is showing signs of coming apart. It seems that we're not in Kansas anymore. In fact, Kansas itself doesn't seem to be in Kansas anymore. Kathleen Sebelius, the state's Democratic governor, has achieved a sky-high favorability rating by focusing on good governance rather than culture wars, and her party believes it will win big this year.
And nine former Kansas Republicans, including Mark Parkinson, the former state G.O.P. chairman, are now running for state office as Democrats. Why did Mr. Parkinson change parties? Because he ''got tired of the theological debate over whether Charles Darwin was right.''
</font>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="8"></hr>
<p>
<font size="5"><center>Woodward book shakes White House
in lead-up to elections</font size></center>
The Times - Online (London)
By Sam Knight and agencies
October 02, 2006
Condoleezza Rice today denied a claim that she brushed off attempts to warn her of an imminent terrorist strike against America in the summer of 2001.
The US Secretary of State, who was serving as the National Security Adviser at the time, felt moved to respond to an account of a meeting on July 10, 2001, in the new book, State of Denial, by the Watergate reporter and assistant managing editor of The Washington Post, Bob Woodward.
In an extract published in the newspaper yesterday, Woodward described the frustrations of George Tenet, the former CIA director, and his top counter-terrorism adviser, Cofer Black, as they tried to communicate the seriousness of the threat posed by al-Qaeda.
According to Woodward, Mr Tenet requested an urgent meeting with Ms Rice after receiving a disturbing briefing in the early days of July. He called the National Security Adviser from his car and demanded an immediate opportunity to show her intercepts and other data "showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States".
But she did not give them sufficient attention, Woodward claimed: "Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice... She was polite, but they felt the brush-off."
Speaking to journalists this morning at the start of a visit to the Middle East, Ms Rice said that she did not recall a specific meeting with Mr Tenet and Mr Black in July:
"I don’t know that this meeting took place ... what I am quite certain of is that (it) was not a meeting in which I was told that there was an impending attack and I refused to respond," she said.
"I would remember if I was told, as this account apparently says, that there was about to be an attack in the United States. And the idea that I would somehow have ignored that, I find, incomprehensible."
But in a sign of the consternation that Woodward's book — his third about the Bush Administration — has caused, The Washington Post reported today that one of Ms Rice's top advisers, Philip Zelikow, who served as the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, had stayed behind in Washington to check Ms Rice's diaries and put forward a rival account of the alleged meeting.
The ongoing debate of who did what in the run-up to the September 11 attacks and which party, Democrat or Republican, has the more robust anti-terrorism policy has been refreshed by the looming mid-term congressional elections in America, which are now six weeks away.
Ms Rice also denied two other claims made by Woodward, both relating to Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, the 74-year-old who has been the butt of a torrent of criticism recently from retired generals who have challenged his management of the war in Iraq.
The Secretary of State, who is often perceived as a counterweight to the hawkish Mr Rumsfeld in the making of foreign policy in the White House, said today that she had not recommended the removal of Mr Rumsfeld from the Pentagon in the reshuffle that accompanied President Bush's second election victory.
She also denied that Mr Bush had been forced to step in and order Mr Rumsfeld to take her phone calls, calling the anecdote "ludicrous".
In an extract of his book published in today's edition of the newspaper, Woodward reported that Ms Rice supported a plan by Andrew Card, Mr Bush's former chief of staff, to demote Mr Rumsfeld in late 2004.
Ms Rice said today that the idea could of come from her suggestion that the entire foreign policy team should be overhauled for Mr Bush's second term.
"I did tell the President at one point that I thought maybe all of us should go, because we had fought two wars and had the largest terrorist attack in American history," she said.
"When he asked me to be Secretary of State I said I think maybe you need new people. I don't know if that was somehow interpreted [as meaning Rumsfeld should be replaced], but what I was actually talking about was me."
Mr Rumsfeld has endured a torrid last seven days: a National Intelligence Estimate made public last week concluded that the war in Iraq has fanned terrorism across the world, a series of congressional hearings criticised the rebuilding of the country and a clutch of retired generals attacked his leadership of the Armed Forces. The New York Times even claimed he cheats at squash.
Yesterday he responded the latest challenge to his grip on the Pentagon with the directness and testiness that has characterised his five and a half years in office.
"I haven’t seen the book. I haven’t read the first two books of his yet either. So I wouldn’t hold your breath on this one," he said of Woodward's book. Asked he had considered resigning, he replied: "No, no, no... How many times do I have to answer?"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2384968_1,00.html
in lead-up to elections</font size></center>
The Times - Online (London)
By Sam Knight and agencies
October 02, 2006
Condoleezza Rice today denied a claim that she brushed off attempts to warn her of an imminent terrorist strike against America in the summer of 2001.
The US Secretary of State, who was serving as the National Security Adviser at the time, felt moved to respond to an account of a meeting on July 10, 2001, in the new book, State of Denial, by the Watergate reporter and assistant managing editor of The Washington Post, Bob Woodward.
In an extract published in the newspaper yesterday, Woodward described the frustrations of George Tenet, the former CIA director, and his top counter-terrorism adviser, Cofer Black, as they tried to communicate the seriousness of the threat posed by al-Qaeda.
According to Woodward, Mr Tenet requested an urgent meeting with Ms Rice after receiving a disturbing briefing in the early days of July. He called the National Security Adviser from his car and demanded an immediate opportunity to show her intercepts and other data "showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States".
But she did not give them sufficient attention, Woodward claimed: "Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice... She was polite, but they felt the brush-off."
Speaking to journalists this morning at the start of a visit to the Middle East, Ms Rice said that she did not recall a specific meeting with Mr Tenet and Mr Black in July:
"I don’t know that this meeting took place ... what I am quite certain of is that (it) was not a meeting in which I was told that there was an impending attack and I refused to respond," she said.
"I would remember if I was told, as this account apparently says, that there was about to be an attack in the United States. And the idea that I would somehow have ignored that, I find, incomprehensible."
But in a sign of the consternation that Woodward's book — his third about the Bush Administration — has caused, The Washington Post reported today that one of Ms Rice's top advisers, Philip Zelikow, who served as the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, had stayed behind in Washington to check Ms Rice's diaries and put forward a rival account of the alleged meeting.
The ongoing debate of who did what in the run-up to the September 11 attacks and which party, Democrat or Republican, has the more robust anti-terrorism policy has been refreshed by the looming mid-term congressional elections in America, which are now six weeks away.
Ms Rice also denied two other claims made by Woodward, both relating to Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, the 74-year-old who has been the butt of a torrent of criticism recently from retired generals who have challenged his management of the war in Iraq.
The Secretary of State, who is often perceived as a counterweight to the hawkish Mr Rumsfeld in the making of foreign policy in the White House, said today that she had not recommended the removal of Mr Rumsfeld from the Pentagon in the reshuffle that accompanied President Bush's second election victory.
She also denied that Mr Bush had been forced to step in and order Mr Rumsfeld to take her phone calls, calling the anecdote "ludicrous".
In an extract of his book published in today's edition of the newspaper, Woodward reported that Ms Rice supported a plan by Andrew Card, Mr Bush's former chief of staff, to demote Mr Rumsfeld in late 2004.
Ms Rice said today that the idea could of come from her suggestion that the entire foreign policy team should be overhauled for Mr Bush's second term.
"I did tell the President at one point that I thought maybe all of us should go, because we had fought two wars and had the largest terrorist attack in American history," she said.
"When he asked me to be Secretary of State I said I think maybe you need new people. I don't know if that was somehow interpreted [as meaning Rumsfeld should be replaced], but what I was actually talking about was me."
Mr Rumsfeld has endured a torrid last seven days: a National Intelligence Estimate made public last week concluded that the war in Iraq has fanned terrorism across the world, a series of congressional hearings criticised the rebuilding of the country and a clutch of retired generals attacked his leadership of the Armed Forces. The New York Times even claimed he cheats at squash.
Yesterday he responded the latest challenge to his grip on the Pentagon with the directness and testiness that has characterised his five and a half years in office.
"I haven’t seen the book. I haven’t read the first two books of his yet either. So I wouldn’t hold your breath on this one," he said of Woodward's book. Asked he had considered resigning, he replied: "No, no, no... How many times do I have to answer?"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2384968_1,00.html
<font size="5"><center>Outside Groups Shoveling Cash Into Tight Races</font size></center>
Washington Post
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 3, 2006; Page A01
As the race for control of Congress turns toward its final sprint to Election Day, independent organizations with ideological or commercial stakes in the outcome are pouring record amounts of money into the closest contests -- in some cases eclipsing the spending of the candidates themselves.
In Ohio, Rep. Deborah Pryce, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House, was attacked by nearly $1 million in negative commercials this summer. But her Democratic opponent, Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy, did not pay for any of them.
They were bankrolled instead by trial lawyers, labor unions and the liberal group MoveOn.org. In fact, outside groups appear to have spent more in that period than Pryce and Kilroy combined, a pattern that is being duplicated in some of the most competitive campaigns across the country.
Politically active groups on both the left and the right are shelling out dollars faster than in any previous midterm election and focusing them intensely on the races that are up for grabs. Even with five weeks to go in the campaign, the $34 million in "independent expenditures" so far is nearly double the amount spent in the entire 2002 midterm election, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.com.
This year's figure includes spending by the parties' House and Senate campaign committees, which unlike in 2002 are no longer allowed to coordinate directly with candidates for major ad buys, and by the "527" groups that emerged after an overhaul of funding laws that year.
Independent spending by political organizations -- such as the George Soros-funded liberal group America Coming Together and the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which took aim at Democratic nominee John F. Kerry's Vietnam War record -- was a defining force in the 2004 presidential campaign. What's notable this time, with control of Congress and many governorships at stake, is how such spending has migrated to elections for lesser offices.
During the 2004 election, Democrats seemed to benefit most from independent spending. Now the balance appears to be tilting rightward: America Coming Together and its companion group, the Media Fund, are largely shuttered. Meanwhile, a leading backer of the Swift Boat group, Texas developer Bob J. Perry, has donated $5 million focusing on top GOP target races.
But in Maryland, as in some other places, Democrats are still benefiting. The Maryland Fund, a 527 led by several national Democratic operatives with ties to the state, started airing television and radio ads last week critical of Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R), who is being challenged by Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley (D). The ads seek to link Ehrlich to President Bush, whose approval ratings lag behind the governor's in the state.
Stephen R. Weissman, associate director for policy at the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute, predicted that "in some key races, this outsider spending will be decisive."
Expenditures by outside interest groups have ballooned largely in reaction to the 2002 law banning "soft money," the uncapped contributions that previously filled the coffers of both political parties. Once those unlimited donations were outlawed for the parties, lobby groups started handing out the big money.
In Hawaii, for example, the National Association of Realtors spent more than $600,000 in support of Rep. Ed Case, who lost the recent Democratic primary for the Senate to the incumbent, Daniel K. Akaka. The Realtors' eye-popping gift -- the group's largest ever in a primary -- nearly matched the entire amount raised by Case. "Mr. Case has a really strong record supporting issues important to Realtors," a spokeswoman for the group explained. "We decided to go all out."
MoveOn.org has also spared little expense. The liberal group's political action committee has laid out $3.5 million on commercials attacking GOP candidates in six congressional districts. It spent $465,000 against veteran Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.) in late spring and summer, while her Democratic opponent, Chris Murphy, doled out $181,000. MoveOn.org also expended $245,000 against Rep. Chris Chocola (R-Ind.) during the same period, while Joe Donnelly, his opponent, spent roughly half that amount.
Organizations, sometimes with mysterious origins, are cropping up everywhere and spending massively in the toughest races. A group called Softer Voices is boosting Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) with an expenditure of nearly $700,000. A group called Campaign Money Watch is attacking Pryce and Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) with $200,000.
Labor unions are betting especially big. The AFL-CIO alone is helping Democratic candidates with a $40 million get-out-the-vote effort, its largest ever during an off-year election. Labor's nemesis, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is devoting an equal sum to elections this autumn and is concentrating on efforts to bring voters to the polls.
One of the Democrats' leading architects of the independent-spending movement, former White House aide Harold Ickes, recently started what he calls the September Fund. Erik Smith, the fund's president, said, "There was a belief by those of us who organized this that one side of the argument -- the Bush administration and its allies -- would have a lot more resources than the other." But he added: "We're not going to make up the shortfall."
To help Democratic candidates, the September Fund intends to raise at least $10 million and buy ads that criticize Bush. But several Republican-leaning groups have already purchased millions of dollars of airtime supporting Bush's policies and, by inference, GOP candidates. They also have money available to buy even more commercials, and they plan to do so.
These groups include Progress for America, a major player in 2004 that has been on the air this year in Ohio and Missouri, states in which incumbent Republican senators Mike DeWine and James M. Talent, respectively, are in tough fights to keep their jobs. Another, the California-based Economic Freedom Fund, has spent more than $700,000 opposing Democratic Reps. Leonard L. Boswell (Iowa), Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.) and Jim Marshall (Ga.), three members of a small circle of Democrats at any risk of losing their seats this fall. The fund was boosted by a $5 million gift from Perry.
The intervention of outside groups, especially at high levels, can be a mixed blessing. Maureen O'Brien Donovan, spokeswoman for Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-N.Y.), asserted that MoveOn.org's commercials against her boss have backfired. "Its intervention and its volunteers aren't from here, and that's well known to the general public," she said. "People who have lived here all their lives find those types of things suspect."
At the same time, candidates cannot control the groups' messages or their delivery, which sometimes causes voter confusion. "Nobody knows who these guys are, and voters have no way of judging their interests or their donors," said George Rasley, Pryce's spokesman.
In addition, the independent efforts are sometimes heavy-handed and irritate the voters they are supposed to attract. The Chocola campaign, for instance, received complaints from voters who were annoyed by automated phone calls they had received from an outside group that was supporting his reelection.
The number of independent organizations, some of them anonymous, has multiplied. On the left, a patchwork of innocuous-sounding organizations has sprouted, including Majority Action, which wants to unseat 10 to 15 Republican congressmen, and America Votes, which is trying to prevent Democratic-leaning groups from duplicating one another's work. Large sums are flowing from these and more established groups. Emily's List, which helps female, pro-abortion-rights Democrats, expects to spend about $10 million this year, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a labor union, anticipates spending $22 million.
On the right, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce plans to allocate $20 million to help federal candidates and another $20 million for state and local races. The American Medical Association is also a serious player. It recently reported $307,125 spent in support of GOP Rep. Johnson in Connecticut.
The generally pro-Republican Business Industry Political Action Committee has a more elaborate scheme. By using companies' electronic communications systems, it has delivered 40 million messages to employees urging them to cast their ballots for pro-business candidates. It has also helped a million citizens register to vote and another million apply for early voting forms.
All of these efforts are sure to make a difference. "When you have the ability to spend one to three million dollars down the stretch in a particular House or Senate race, that kind of spending can really drive the election," said Michael E. Toner, chairman of the Federal Election Commission. "That can decide who wins or loses on Election Day."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/02/AR2006100201391.html
Washington Post
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 3, 2006; Page A01
As the race for control of Congress turns toward its final sprint to Election Day, independent organizations with ideological or commercial stakes in the outcome are pouring record amounts of money into the closest contests -- in some cases eclipsing the spending of the candidates themselves.
In Ohio, Rep. Deborah Pryce, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House, was attacked by nearly $1 million in negative commercials this summer. But her Democratic opponent, Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy, did not pay for any of them.
They were bankrolled instead by trial lawyers, labor unions and the liberal group MoveOn.org. In fact, outside groups appear to have spent more in that period than Pryce and Kilroy combined, a pattern that is being duplicated in some of the most competitive campaigns across the country.
Politically active groups on both the left and the right are shelling out dollars faster than in any previous midterm election and focusing them intensely on the races that are up for grabs. Even with five weeks to go in the campaign, the $34 million in "independent expenditures" so far is nearly double the amount spent in the entire 2002 midterm election, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.com.
This year's figure includes spending by the parties' House and Senate campaign committees, which unlike in 2002 are no longer allowed to coordinate directly with candidates for major ad buys, and by the "527" groups that emerged after an overhaul of funding laws that year.
Independent spending by political organizations -- such as the George Soros-funded liberal group America Coming Together and the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which took aim at Democratic nominee John F. Kerry's Vietnam War record -- was a defining force in the 2004 presidential campaign. What's notable this time, with control of Congress and many governorships at stake, is how such spending has migrated to elections for lesser offices.
During the 2004 election, Democrats seemed to benefit most from independent spending. Now the balance appears to be tilting rightward: America Coming Together and its companion group, the Media Fund, are largely shuttered. Meanwhile, a leading backer of the Swift Boat group, Texas developer Bob J. Perry, has donated $5 million focusing on top GOP target races.
But in Maryland, as in some other places, Democrats are still benefiting. The Maryland Fund, a 527 led by several national Democratic operatives with ties to the state, started airing television and radio ads last week critical of Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R), who is being challenged by Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley (D). The ads seek to link Ehrlich to President Bush, whose approval ratings lag behind the governor's in the state.
Stephen R. Weissman, associate director for policy at the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute, predicted that "in some key races, this outsider spending will be decisive."
Expenditures by outside interest groups have ballooned largely in reaction to the 2002 law banning "soft money," the uncapped contributions that previously filled the coffers of both political parties. Once those unlimited donations were outlawed for the parties, lobby groups started handing out the big money.
In Hawaii, for example, the National Association of Realtors spent more than $600,000 in support of Rep. Ed Case, who lost the recent Democratic primary for the Senate to the incumbent, Daniel K. Akaka. The Realtors' eye-popping gift -- the group's largest ever in a primary -- nearly matched the entire amount raised by Case. "Mr. Case has a really strong record supporting issues important to Realtors," a spokeswoman for the group explained. "We decided to go all out."
MoveOn.org has also spared little expense. The liberal group's political action committee has laid out $3.5 million on commercials attacking GOP candidates in six congressional districts. It spent $465,000 against veteran Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.) in late spring and summer, while her Democratic opponent, Chris Murphy, doled out $181,000. MoveOn.org also expended $245,000 against Rep. Chris Chocola (R-Ind.) during the same period, while Joe Donnelly, his opponent, spent roughly half that amount.
Organizations, sometimes with mysterious origins, are cropping up everywhere and spending massively in the toughest races. A group called Softer Voices is boosting Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) with an expenditure of nearly $700,000. A group called Campaign Money Watch is attacking Pryce and Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) with $200,000.
Labor unions are betting especially big. The AFL-CIO alone is helping Democratic candidates with a $40 million get-out-the-vote effort, its largest ever during an off-year election. Labor's nemesis, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is devoting an equal sum to elections this autumn and is concentrating on efforts to bring voters to the polls.
One of the Democrats' leading architects of the independent-spending movement, former White House aide Harold Ickes, recently started what he calls the September Fund. Erik Smith, the fund's president, said, "There was a belief by those of us who organized this that one side of the argument -- the Bush administration and its allies -- would have a lot more resources than the other." But he added: "We're not going to make up the shortfall."
To help Democratic candidates, the September Fund intends to raise at least $10 million and buy ads that criticize Bush. But several Republican-leaning groups have already purchased millions of dollars of airtime supporting Bush's policies and, by inference, GOP candidates. They also have money available to buy even more commercials, and they plan to do so.
These groups include Progress for America, a major player in 2004 that has been on the air this year in Ohio and Missouri, states in which incumbent Republican senators Mike DeWine and James M. Talent, respectively, are in tough fights to keep their jobs. Another, the California-based Economic Freedom Fund, has spent more than $700,000 opposing Democratic Reps. Leonard L. Boswell (Iowa), Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.) and Jim Marshall (Ga.), three members of a small circle of Democrats at any risk of losing their seats this fall. The fund was boosted by a $5 million gift from Perry.
The intervention of outside groups, especially at high levels, can be a mixed blessing. Maureen O'Brien Donovan, spokeswoman for Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-N.Y.), asserted that MoveOn.org's commercials against her boss have backfired. "Its intervention and its volunteers aren't from here, and that's well known to the general public," she said. "People who have lived here all their lives find those types of things suspect."
At the same time, candidates cannot control the groups' messages or their delivery, which sometimes causes voter confusion. "Nobody knows who these guys are, and voters have no way of judging their interests or their donors," said George Rasley, Pryce's spokesman.
In addition, the independent efforts are sometimes heavy-handed and irritate the voters they are supposed to attract. The Chocola campaign, for instance, received complaints from voters who were annoyed by automated phone calls they had received from an outside group that was supporting his reelection.
The number of independent organizations, some of them anonymous, has multiplied. On the left, a patchwork of innocuous-sounding organizations has sprouted, including Majority Action, which wants to unseat 10 to 15 Republican congressmen, and America Votes, which is trying to prevent Democratic-leaning groups from duplicating one another's work. Large sums are flowing from these and more established groups. Emily's List, which helps female, pro-abortion-rights Democrats, expects to spend about $10 million this year, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a labor union, anticipates spending $22 million.
On the right, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce plans to allocate $20 million to help federal candidates and another $20 million for state and local races. The American Medical Association is also a serious player. It recently reported $307,125 spent in support of GOP Rep. Johnson in Connecticut.
The generally pro-Republican Business Industry Political Action Committee has a more elaborate scheme. By using companies' electronic communications systems, it has delivered 40 million messages to employees urging them to cast their ballots for pro-business candidates. It has also helped a million citizens register to vote and another million apply for early voting forms.
All of these efforts are sure to make a difference. "When you have the ability to spend one to three million dollars down the stretch in a particular House or Senate race, that kind of spending can really drive the election," said Michael E. Toner, chairman of the Federal Election Commission. "That can decide who wins or loses on Election Day."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/02/AR2006100201391.html
<font size="6"><center>Foley Case Shakes GOP</font size>
<font size="4">With elections nearing, conservatives are split over whether Hastert and other leaders who didn't take action last year should step down</font size></center>
Los Angeles Times
By Janet Hook and Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writers
October 4, 2006
WASHINGTON — The unfolding Capitol Hill sex scandal has upended the political world only five weeks before the midterm elections, escalating GOP worries that the party will lose control of one or both chambers of Congress.
Most immediately, Republicans have been plunged into a wrenching debate about whether heads need to roll in order to persuade voters that they are taking the case of former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) — who sent explicit messages to male congressional pages — seriously.
Republicans fear that the case could demoralize conservative supporters and undercut the party's claim to be a defender of morality.
As events continued to unfold Tuesday, Foley's lawyer said in a news conference that the lawmaker, who resigned Friday, had been molested by a clergyman when he was a boy. The lawyer also said that Foley was gay but denied that Foley ever had "inappropriate sexual contact with any minor."
President Bush — campaigning for Republicans in California — said he was "disgusted" and "dismayed" by the Foley case, which already seemed to be having an effect on voters.
A Wall Street Journal survey released Tuesday found that two issues — the House sex scandal and the war in Iraq — had made Americans less favorable toward continued GOP control of Congress. It also showed a decline in Bush's job approval rating to 39% from 42% earlier this month.
Some conservatives are calling for J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) to resign as speaker of the House, charging that he failed late last year to adequately investigate a complaint about Foley that at the time might have brought his behavior to light.
But other Republicans rallied behind Hastert on Tuesday, and warned that a leadership upheaval would make matters worse.
Hastert, who was elevated to his post during the turmoil caused by the sex scandal involving President Clinton, on Tuesday shrugged off calls to quit. "I'm not going to do that," he said during an appearance on conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh's radio show.
Bush did not answer reporters' questions about whether Hastert should resign. But he said, "I'm confident he will provide whatever leadership he can to law enforcement" looking into whether Foley committed any crimes.
The question of how the GOP should respond to the revelations is particularly vexing for religious conservative leaders who are straddling their roles as crucial electoral allies of the party and representatives of a constituency undoubtedly outraged by the revelations.
"You have to keep in mind that the leaders of the Christian conservative groups … have folks back home who are going to be asking some tough questions," said Jim Guth, a political scientist at Furman University in South Carolina who specializes in religion and politics. "And if they don't take action, they are going to suffer some consequences in their own constituency."
For Democrats, the scandal has provided an opening to revive a campaign theme that seemed to have fallen flat earlier this year: their claim that the GOP has brought a culture of corruption to Washington.
Still, political strategists warn that Democrats have to be careful not to overplay their hand — especially since their party has had its own scandals, such as a bribery investigation of Rep. William J. Jefferson of Louisiana.
"I'm not convinced that Democrats are going to be able to paint [the corruption-in-Washington theme] as a Republican problem," GOP pollster Whit Ayres said.
The Foley case and questions about how House GOP leaders handled it compounded problems that were already bedeviling Republicans as they struggled to keep control of the House and Senate. Democrats need to pick up a net 15 seats to gain control of the House, and six seats to win a Senate majority.
"This is very hurtful for Republicans; there is no other way to put it," said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.).
Noting that the GOP's fortunes had seemed on the upswing as Bush spent much of September focusing on the threat of global terrorism, LaHood added, "This decimates all the things we've been doing."
Across the country in recent days, especially in competitive House races, Democratic candidates have lambasted GOP incumbents for their ties to Foley — and Republicans have tried to distance themselves from the scandal.
In Pennsylvania, Republican Rep. Jim Gerlach canceled a Monday fundraiser with Majority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio, one of the GOP leaders who has been criticized for his response to early warnings of Foley's misconduct. Gerlach also returned donations from Foley.
Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) did the same. But her Democratic challenger, state Atty. Gen. Patricia Madrid, sought to keep the spotlight on the story, calling on Wilson to join those pushing for Hastert's resignation.
A heated debate over Hastert's status continued among conservative activists, who were divided over whether it would help or hurt the GOP for him to step down.
Richard A. Viguerie, a pioneer in direct-mail fundraising for conservative causes, was among those calling for Hastert to resign. He charged that the speaker and others were not aggressive enough last year in pursuing a complaint about the e-mails Foley sent to a former page, which the leaders recently characterized as "overly friendly."
The e-mails were not sexually suggestive, but Viguerie said the leadership's decision to simply warn Foley to cease communication with the page was "only the most recent example of Republican House leaders doing whatever it takes to hold onto power."
The Washington Times, a leading conservative newspaper, gained wide attention in Washington on Tuesday with an editorial urging Hastert to quit as speaker.
Paul M. Weyrich, a conservative strategist who helped to found the Moral Majority, also was sharply critical of Hastert and said he believed the speaker and other GOP leaders should give up their posts because of their handling of the Foley case.
Weyrich said that although he believed Hastert's explanation that he was unaware of the sexually explicit messages Foley sent to pages that have surfaced in the last week, he still wondered why the speaker had not dug deeper when he dealt with the initial complaint late last year.
"That's the real question, and that's what has the movement people very angry," he said.
But there was no consensus among conservative leaders that Hastert or other House GOP leaders should step down.
Limbaugh, during his show Tuesday, charged that much of the furor over Hastert was fueled by Democrats who wanted "to suppress conservative turnout" in November.
Other prominent conservative voices, including Focus on the Family and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, rejected the idea that any GOP leader should resign.
The Arlington Group, a coalition of leading social conservative groups, backed away Tuesday from issuing a tough statement urging changes in the leadership.
Weyrich said that after a conference call among him and other members of the group's executive committee Monday, he produced a draft statement that called for the resignation "of anyone involved" in handling the Foley case, including Hastert and Boehner.
But after the draft was reviewed by the seven-member executive committee, the final statement did not directly criticize the response of any House leader or call for any to quit.
The statement asserted that House Republicans may have failed to sufficiently investigate Foley because they feared "a backlash from the radical gay rights movement."
<u>Chronology</u>
Sometime in 2003 — Former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) has a sexual conversation with a former House page via a computer instant-messaging program.
May 8, 2003 — The New Times of Broward-Palm Beach writes that Foley, favored to win the GOP nomination to succeed retiring Sen. Bob Graham in Florida, is gay.
May 22, 2003 — Foley tells several reporters in a conference call that speculation that he is gay is "revolting" and "unforgivable," and he begs for privacy.
Sept. 5, 2003 — Foley drops out of the race, citing his father's cancer.
Aug. 30, 2005 — A different page contacts the office of Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) with texts of e-mail exchanges with Foley. In one, Foley asks the former page for a photo of himself.
Shortly thereafter, Alexander's chief of staff contacts the office of House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and asks for guidance to prevent contact between Foley and the ex-page. Hastert's staff contacts the then-House clerk, Jeff Trandahl, whose office runs the page program. Alexander's chief of staff declines to show Trandahl the e-mail, saying the boy's parents wish to keep the matter private. Trandahl is told the message is "overly friendly" but not sexual.
Trandahl and Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), chair of the board that oversees the page program, tell Foley to have no further contact with the former page. Foley denies any impropriety.
November 2005 — Reporters from the St. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald obtain copies of the e-mail exchange that led Shimkus and Trandahl to caution Foley, but do not write stories because the former page and his family refuse to go public.
Spring 2006 — After hearing about the 2005 e-mails, prominent Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.) expresses concern to Hastert. Hastert says later that he does not recall the conversation, but does not deny it took place.
Sept. 24, 2006 — The blog http://www.stopsexpredators.blogspot.com posts four of Foley's 2005 e-mails.
Sept. 28, 2006 — ABC News posts a story about the 2005 e-mail messages on its website.
Sept. 29, 2006 — ABC News obtains the sexually explicit instant-message exchange from 2003 and asks Foley to comment. Within hours, he resigns.
Oct. 2, 2006 — In a statement, Foley says he has been admitted into a program for alcoholism and other problems. ABC News releases a new message exchange in which Foley appears to be setting up a rendezvous with a former page.
Oct. 3, 2006 — Some conservatives and the editorial page of the Washington Times call for Hastert to step down; other conservatives, President Bush and Republican members of Congress rally behind him.
In a statement issued by his lawyer, Foley says that he is gay and that he was molested by a clergyman as a teen, and denies having engaged in inappropriate activities with a minor.
— Maura Reynolds
Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...0,1374157.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines
<font size="4">With elections nearing, conservatives are split over whether Hastert and other leaders who didn't take action last year should step down</font size></center>
Los Angeles Times
By Janet Hook and Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writers
October 4, 2006
WASHINGTON — The unfolding Capitol Hill sex scandal has upended the political world only five weeks before the midterm elections, escalating GOP worries that the party will lose control of one or both chambers of Congress.
Most immediately, Republicans have been plunged into a wrenching debate about whether heads need to roll in order to persuade voters that they are taking the case of former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) — who sent explicit messages to male congressional pages — seriously.
Republicans fear that the case could demoralize conservative supporters and undercut the party's claim to be a defender of morality.
As events continued to unfold Tuesday, Foley's lawyer said in a news conference that the lawmaker, who resigned Friday, had been molested by a clergyman when he was a boy. The lawyer also said that Foley was gay but denied that Foley ever had "inappropriate sexual contact with any minor."
President Bush — campaigning for Republicans in California — said he was "disgusted" and "dismayed" by the Foley case, which already seemed to be having an effect on voters.
A Wall Street Journal survey released Tuesday found that two issues — the House sex scandal and the war in Iraq — had made Americans less favorable toward continued GOP control of Congress. It also showed a decline in Bush's job approval rating to 39% from 42% earlier this month.
Some conservatives are calling for J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) to resign as speaker of the House, charging that he failed late last year to adequately investigate a complaint about Foley that at the time might have brought his behavior to light.
But other Republicans rallied behind Hastert on Tuesday, and warned that a leadership upheaval would make matters worse.
Hastert, who was elevated to his post during the turmoil caused by the sex scandal involving President Clinton, on Tuesday shrugged off calls to quit. "I'm not going to do that," he said during an appearance on conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh's radio show.
Bush did not answer reporters' questions about whether Hastert should resign. But he said, "I'm confident he will provide whatever leadership he can to law enforcement" looking into whether Foley committed any crimes.
The question of how the GOP should respond to the revelations is particularly vexing for religious conservative leaders who are straddling their roles as crucial electoral allies of the party and representatives of a constituency undoubtedly outraged by the revelations.
"You have to keep in mind that the leaders of the Christian conservative groups … have folks back home who are going to be asking some tough questions," said Jim Guth, a political scientist at Furman University in South Carolina who specializes in religion and politics. "And if they don't take action, they are going to suffer some consequences in their own constituency."
For Democrats, the scandal has provided an opening to revive a campaign theme that seemed to have fallen flat earlier this year: their claim that the GOP has brought a culture of corruption to Washington.
Still, political strategists warn that Democrats have to be careful not to overplay their hand — especially since their party has had its own scandals, such as a bribery investigation of Rep. William J. Jefferson of Louisiana.
"I'm not convinced that Democrats are going to be able to paint [the corruption-in-Washington theme] as a Republican problem," GOP pollster Whit Ayres said.
The Foley case and questions about how House GOP leaders handled it compounded problems that were already bedeviling Republicans as they struggled to keep control of the House and Senate. Democrats need to pick up a net 15 seats to gain control of the House, and six seats to win a Senate majority.
"This is very hurtful for Republicans; there is no other way to put it," said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.).
Noting that the GOP's fortunes had seemed on the upswing as Bush spent much of September focusing on the threat of global terrorism, LaHood added, "This decimates all the things we've been doing."
Across the country in recent days, especially in competitive House races, Democratic candidates have lambasted GOP incumbents for their ties to Foley — and Republicans have tried to distance themselves from the scandal.
In Pennsylvania, Republican Rep. Jim Gerlach canceled a Monday fundraiser with Majority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio, one of the GOP leaders who has been criticized for his response to early warnings of Foley's misconduct. Gerlach also returned donations from Foley.
Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) did the same. But her Democratic challenger, state Atty. Gen. Patricia Madrid, sought to keep the spotlight on the story, calling on Wilson to join those pushing for Hastert's resignation.
A heated debate over Hastert's status continued among conservative activists, who were divided over whether it would help or hurt the GOP for him to step down.
Richard A. Viguerie, a pioneer in direct-mail fundraising for conservative causes, was among those calling for Hastert to resign. He charged that the speaker and others were not aggressive enough last year in pursuing a complaint about the e-mails Foley sent to a former page, which the leaders recently characterized as "overly friendly."
The e-mails were not sexually suggestive, but Viguerie said the leadership's decision to simply warn Foley to cease communication with the page was "only the most recent example of Republican House leaders doing whatever it takes to hold onto power."
The Washington Times, a leading conservative newspaper, gained wide attention in Washington on Tuesday with an editorial urging Hastert to quit as speaker.
Paul M. Weyrich, a conservative strategist who helped to found the Moral Majority, also was sharply critical of Hastert and said he believed the speaker and other GOP leaders should give up their posts because of their handling of the Foley case.
Weyrich said that although he believed Hastert's explanation that he was unaware of the sexually explicit messages Foley sent to pages that have surfaced in the last week, he still wondered why the speaker had not dug deeper when he dealt with the initial complaint late last year.
"That's the real question, and that's what has the movement people very angry," he said.
But there was no consensus among conservative leaders that Hastert or other House GOP leaders should step down.
Limbaugh, during his show Tuesday, charged that much of the furor over Hastert was fueled by Democrats who wanted "to suppress conservative turnout" in November.
Other prominent conservative voices, including Focus on the Family and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, rejected the idea that any GOP leader should resign.
The Arlington Group, a coalition of leading social conservative groups, backed away Tuesday from issuing a tough statement urging changes in the leadership.
Weyrich said that after a conference call among him and other members of the group's executive committee Monday, he produced a draft statement that called for the resignation "of anyone involved" in handling the Foley case, including Hastert and Boehner.
But after the draft was reviewed by the seven-member executive committee, the final statement did not directly criticize the response of any House leader or call for any to quit.
The statement asserted that House Republicans may have failed to sufficiently investigate Foley because they feared "a backlash from the radical gay rights movement."
<u>Chronology</u>
Sometime in 2003 — Former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) has a sexual conversation with a former House page via a computer instant-messaging program.
May 8, 2003 — The New Times of Broward-Palm Beach writes that Foley, favored to win the GOP nomination to succeed retiring Sen. Bob Graham in Florida, is gay.
May 22, 2003 — Foley tells several reporters in a conference call that speculation that he is gay is "revolting" and "unforgivable," and he begs for privacy.
Sept. 5, 2003 — Foley drops out of the race, citing his father's cancer.
Aug. 30, 2005 — A different page contacts the office of Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) with texts of e-mail exchanges with Foley. In one, Foley asks the former page for a photo of himself.
Shortly thereafter, Alexander's chief of staff contacts the office of House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and asks for guidance to prevent contact between Foley and the ex-page. Hastert's staff contacts the then-House clerk, Jeff Trandahl, whose office runs the page program. Alexander's chief of staff declines to show Trandahl the e-mail, saying the boy's parents wish to keep the matter private. Trandahl is told the message is "overly friendly" but not sexual.
Trandahl and Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), chair of the board that oversees the page program, tell Foley to have no further contact with the former page. Foley denies any impropriety.
November 2005 — Reporters from the St. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald obtain copies of the e-mail exchange that led Shimkus and Trandahl to caution Foley, but do not write stories because the former page and his family refuse to go public.
Spring 2006 — After hearing about the 2005 e-mails, prominent Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.) expresses concern to Hastert. Hastert says later that he does not recall the conversation, but does not deny it took place.
Sept. 24, 2006 — The blog http://www.stopsexpredators.blogspot.com posts four of Foley's 2005 e-mails.
Sept. 28, 2006 — ABC News posts a story about the 2005 e-mail messages on its website.
Sept. 29, 2006 — ABC News obtains the sexually explicit instant-message exchange from 2003 and asks Foley to comment. Within hours, he resigns.
Oct. 2, 2006 — In a statement, Foley says he has been admitted into a program for alcoholism and other problems. ABC News releases a new message exchange in which Foley appears to be setting up a rendezvous with a former page.
Oct. 3, 2006 — Some conservatives and the editorial page of the Washington Times call for Hastert to step down; other conservatives, President Bush and Republican members of Congress rally behind him.
In a statement issued by his lawyer, Foley says that he is gay and that he was molested by a clergyman as a teen, and denies having engaged in inappropriate activities with a minor.
— Maura Reynolds
Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...0,1374157.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines
<img src="http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/article/pieces/wpLogo_250x42.gif">
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
What Goeth Before the Fall</font><font face="tahoma" size="4" color="#0000ff"><b>
If, after the Foley episode --- the Democrats cannot gain 13 seats, they should go into another line of work</b></font>
<font face="georgia" size="3" color="#000000"><b>
<img src="http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2005/03/26/PH2005032604410.gif">
By George F. Will
Thursday, October 5, 2006; page A33</b>
<blockquote><font face="verdana">
<i>
The Reverend Elmer Gantry was reading an illustrated pink periodical devoted to prize-fighters and chorus girls in his room at Elizabeth J. Schmutz Hall late of an afternoon when two large men walked in without knocking.
"Why, good evening, Brother Bains -- Brother Naylor! This is a pleasant surprise. I was, uh -- Did you ever see this horrible rag? . . . I was thinking of denouncing it next Sunday. I hope you never read it."</i>
-- Sinclair Lewis, "Elmer Gantry"</font></blockquote>
In life as in literature, Elmer Gantry is a recurring American figure. He is making yet another appearance in the matter of former representative Mark Foley.
Sinclair Lewis's "Elmer Gantry," like most of his novels, is dreadful as literature but splendid as a symptom. Published in 1927, the year Charles Lindbergh flew the Atlantic and Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs and the American craft of ballyhoo was being perfected, the novel was a cartoonish blast of contempt for tub-thumping evangelists who were doing well for themselves while pretending to do good works to redeem this naughty world. Gantry succumbed to temptations of the flesh and the real estate market. The modern twist to the fall of Foley -- public protector and private predator of children -- is the warp speed with which it moved from exposé to therapy: Foley, who has entered alcohol rehab, says he takes "responsibility" for what he has become as a result of abusive priests and demon rum.
Having so quickly exhausted the Oprah approach, the Foley story moved on to who knew what, and when. That drove Speaker Dennis Hastert to the un-Oprah broadcasting couch on which Republicans recline when getting in touch with their feelings. To Rush Limbaugh's 20 million receptive listeners, Hastert, referring to Republicans as "we," said:
"We have a story to tell, and the Democrats have -- in my view have -- put this thing forward to try to block us from telling the story. They're trying to put us on defense."
It is difficult to read that as other than an accusation: He seems to be not just confessing a coverup but also complaining that the coverup was undone by bad manners. Were it not for Democrats' unsportsmanlike conduct in putting "this thing" forward, it would not be known and would not be disrupting Republicans' storytelling.
Their story, of late, has been that theirs is the lonely burden of defending all that is wholesome. But the problem with claiming to have cornered the market on virtue is that people will get snippy when they spot vice in your ranks. This is one awkward aspect of what is supposed to have been the happy fusion between, but which involves unresolved tensions between, two flavors of conservatism -- Western and Southern.
The former is largely libertarian, holding that pruning big government will allow civil society -- and virtues nourished by it and by the responsibilities of freedom -- to flourish. The Southern, essentially religious, strand of conservatism is explained by Ryan Sager in his new book, "The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party":
"Whereas conservative Christian parents once thought it was inappropriate for public schools to teach their kids about sex, now they want the schools to preach abstinence to children. Whereas conservative Christians used to be unhappy with evolution being taught in public schools, now they want Intelligent Design taught instead (or at least in addition). Whereas conservative Christians used to want the federal government to leave them alone, now they demand that more and more federal funds be directed to local churches and religious groups through Bush's faith-based initiatives program."
To a Republican Party increasingly defined by the ascendancy of the religious right, the Foley episode is doubly deadly. His behavior was disgusting, and some Republican reactions seem more calculating than indignant.
Foley's name remains on the ballot in Florida's 16th Congressional District, which means that Democrats, who needed 15 seats to capture the House, now need just 14. Thirteen, actually: In Arizona's 8th, where Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe is retiring, Republicans used the primary to vent, nominating a probably unelectable fire-breather on the immigration issue.
After the 1936 election, in which President Franklin Roosevelt shellacked the Republican nominee in all but two states, a humorist wrote: "If the outcome of this election hasn't taught you Republicans not to meddle in politics, I don't know what will." If, after the Foley episode -- a maraschino cherry atop the Democrats' delectable sundae of Republican miseries -- the Democrats cannot gain 13 seats, they should go into another line of work.
georgewill@washpost.com
</font>
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
What Goeth Before the Fall</font><font face="tahoma" size="4" color="#0000ff"><b>
If, after the Foley episode --- the Democrats cannot gain 13 seats, they should go into another line of work</b></font>
<font face="georgia" size="3" color="#000000"><b>
<img src="http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2005/03/26/PH2005032604410.gif">
By George F. Will
Thursday, October 5, 2006; page A33</b>
<blockquote><font face="verdana">
<i>
The Reverend Elmer Gantry was reading an illustrated pink periodical devoted to prize-fighters and chorus girls in his room at Elizabeth J. Schmutz Hall late of an afternoon when two large men walked in without knocking.
"Why, good evening, Brother Bains -- Brother Naylor! This is a pleasant surprise. I was, uh -- Did you ever see this horrible rag? . . . I was thinking of denouncing it next Sunday. I hope you never read it."</i>
-- Sinclair Lewis, "Elmer Gantry"</font></blockquote>
In life as in literature, Elmer Gantry is a recurring American figure. He is making yet another appearance in the matter of former representative Mark Foley.
Sinclair Lewis's "Elmer Gantry," like most of his novels, is dreadful as literature but splendid as a symptom. Published in 1927, the year Charles Lindbergh flew the Atlantic and Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs and the American craft of ballyhoo was being perfected, the novel was a cartoonish blast of contempt for tub-thumping evangelists who were doing well for themselves while pretending to do good works to redeem this naughty world. Gantry succumbed to temptations of the flesh and the real estate market. The modern twist to the fall of Foley -- public protector and private predator of children -- is the warp speed with which it moved from exposé to therapy: Foley, who has entered alcohol rehab, says he takes "responsibility" for what he has become as a result of abusive priests and demon rum.
Having so quickly exhausted the Oprah approach, the Foley story moved on to who knew what, and when. That drove Speaker Dennis Hastert to the un-Oprah broadcasting couch on which Republicans recline when getting in touch with their feelings. To Rush Limbaugh's 20 million receptive listeners, Hastert, referring to Republicans as "we," said:
"We have a story to tell, and the Democrats have -- in my view have -- put this thing forward to try to block us from telling the story. They're trying to put us on defense."
It is difficult to read that as other than an accusation: He seems to be not just confessing a coverup but also complaining that the coverup was undone by bad manners. Were it not for Democrats' unsportsmanlike conduct in putting "this thing" forward, it would not be known and would not be disrupting Republicans' storytelling.
Their story, of late, has been that theirs is the lonely burden of defending all that is wholesome. But the problem with claiming to have cornered the market on virtue is that people will get snippy when they spot vice in your ranks. This is one awkward aspect of what is supposed to have been the happy fusion between, but which involves unresolved tensions between, two flavors of conservatism -- Western and Southern.
The former is largely libertarian, holding that pruning big government will allow civil society -- and virtues nourished by it and by the responsibilities of freedom -- to flourish. The Southern, essentially religious, strand of conservatism is explained by Ryan Sager in his new book, "The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party":
"Whereas conservative Christian parents once thought it was inappropriate for public schools to teach their kids about sex, now they want the schools to preach abstinence to children. Whereas conservative Christians used to be unhappy with evolution being taught in public schools, now they want Intelligent Design taught instead (or at least in addition). Whereas conservative Christians used to want the federal government to leave them alone, now they demand that more and more federal funds be directed to local churches and religious groups through Bush's faith-based initiatives program."
To a Republican Party increasingly defined by the ascendancy of the religious right, the Foley episode is doubly deadly. His behavior was disgusting, and some Republican reactions seem more calculating than indignant.
Foley's name remains on the ballot in Florida's 16th Congressional District, which means that Democrats, who needed 15 seats to capture the House, now need just 14. Thirteen, actually: In Arizona's 8th, where Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe is retiring, Republicans used the primary to vent, nominating a probably unelectable fire-breather on the immigration issue.
After the 1936 election, in which President Franklin Roosevelt shellacked the Republican nominee in all but two states, a humorist wrote: "If the outcome of this election hasn't taught you Republicans not to meddle in politics, I don't know what will." If, after the Foley episode -- a maraschino cherry atop the Democrats' delectable sundae of Republican miseries -- the Democrats cannot gain 13 seats, they should go into another line of work.
georgewill@washpost.com
</font>
more bad news for republicans
Voter excitement level highest in years
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press WriterWed Oct 11, 6:00 AM ET
Politics is a water-cooler topic, a dinner-table subject, an issue to discuss after Sunday services, and this year the interest of American voters is at its highest level in more than a decade.
That renewed attention could translate into higher voter turnout on Nov. 7, according to an Associated Press-Pew poll.
Seventy percent say they are talking politics with family and friends, and 43 percent are debating the issues at work. Among churchgoers, 28 percent share their political views, a number that rises to 34 percent among the congregations in the South.
The relationship with politics is not unrequited.
Americans have heard from the candidates and campaigns through phone calls, e-mail or one-on-one. In turn, they've participated more in the political process, attending campaign events, circulating petitions and making political donations.
"Politics comes up fairly frequently in my workplace," said Christine Adkinson, an operating room nurse in Lakeland, Fla. "Most of the physicians are Republicans and some of my fellow nurses, we are mainly against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan — we have quite lively discussions."
The embrace of the democratic process comes despite the view of some that it is flawed, with significant percentages saying their votes don't count. Only 45 percent of Democrats are very confident their votes will be counted, and only 30 percent of blacks are confident. Almost six in 10 of all voters polled had a lot of confidence their votes will be counted, according to the AP-Pew survey.
"I'm reasonably confident about my vote," said Jeff Francis, an architect from Palisade, Colo. "But I'm still not convinced Florida was accurate in 2000 and I'm not too sure about Ohio in 2004."
The level of interest outpaces 1994 when Republicans swept Democrats from power in Congress. It's a far cry from the weeks after the disputed 2000 presidential election when discussion of politics was verboten at many family gatherings, especially those with carving knives nearby.
The high levels of political interest are driven largely by Democratic anger and optimism that they can win in November. Republican interest is close to its usual levels, according to the poll of 1,804 adults, including 1,503 registered voters.
The survey was conducted Sept. 21-Oct. 4 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan, fears of terrorism and anxiety that the middle-class dream is slipping away have drawn intense interest in next month's elections.
"Women are very, very concerned at the direction that this country is going," said Shannon Hargrove of Fort Worth, Texas, who talks politics frequently with her friends. "A lot of us have sons that are the age to participate in the wars, and we have daughters and sons that are of the age that are trying to find jobs, and that's very difficult."
In the past, high levels of voter interest haven't always translated into votes, especially in midterm elections.
Turnout figures for midterms are generally about four in 10 of those eligible to vote, said Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University. That's far lower than the number who said they almost always vote, probably because people give the answer they think is expected.
The poll also found:
_Almost two-thirds oppose replacing voting at the polling place with voting by mail, but a majority favors allowing the option to vote by mail.
_14 percent of voters who plan to vote say they plan to vote early. Those 50 and over, who live in cities, and have more education and higher incomes were most likely to vote early.
_Three-fourths have seen or heard campaign ads, and the more ads they have seen, the more the likelihood they will vote.
Becky Mayer of Waverly, Tenn., votes in spite of political advertising.
"The political ads are awful," she said. "My mother taught me if you don't have nothing nice to say, don't say nothing."
But Mayer hasn't lost faith that a politician someday will earn her vote.
"Somebody, somewhere will come along and be for the people," she said. "I keep hoping."
___
Next up: What makes some people vote, and drives others from the polls. Moving on Oct. 18.
___
AP Manager of News Surveys Trevor Tompson, AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius and AP writer Kasie Hunt contributed to this story.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061011...q.bkRRh24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
Voter excitement level highest in years
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press WriterWed Oct 11, 6:00 AM ET
Politics is a water-cooler topic, a dinner-table subject, an issue to discuss after Sunday services, and this year the interest of American voters is at its highest level in more than a decade.
That renewed attention could translate into higher voter turnout on Nov. 7, according to an Associated Press-Pew poll.
Seventy percent say they are talking politics with family and friends, and 43 percent are debating the issues at work. Among churchgoers, 28 percent share their political views, a number that rises to 34 percent among the congregations in the South.
The relationship with politics is not unrequited.
Americans have heard from the candidates and campaigns through phone calls, e-mail or one-on-one. In turn, they've participated more in the political process, attending campaign events, circulating petitions and making political donations.
"Politics comes up fairly frequently in my workplace," said Christine Adkinson, an operating room nurse in Lakeland, Fla. "Most of the physicians are Republicans and some of my fellow nurses, we are mainly against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan — we have quite lively discussions."
The embrace of the democratic process comes despite the view of some that it is flawed, with significant percentages saying their votes don't count. Only 45 percent of Democrats are very confident their votes will be counted, and only 30 percent of blacks are confident. Almost six in 10 of all voters polled had a lot of confidence their votes will be counted, according to the AP-Pew survey.
"I'm reasonably confident about my vote," said Jeff Francis, an architect from Palisade, Colo. "But I'm still not convinced Florida was accurate in 2000 and I'm not too sure about Ohio in 2004."
The level of interest outpaces 1994 when Republicans swept Democrats from power in Congress. It's a far cry from the weeks after the disputed 2000 presidential election when discussion of politics was verboten at many family gatherings, especially those with carving knives nearby.
The high levels of political interest are driven largely by Democratic anger and optimism that they can win in November. Republican interest is close to its usual levels, according to the poll of 1,804 adults, including 1,503 registered voters.
The survey was conducted Sept. 21-Oct. 4 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan, fears of terrorism and anxiety that the middle-class dream is slipping away have drawn intense interest in next month's elections.
"Women are very, very concerned at the direction that this country is going," said Shannon Hargrove of Fort Worth, Texas, who talks politics frequently with her friends. "A lot of us have sons that are the age to participate in the wars, and we have daughters and sons that are of the age that are trying to find jobs, and that's very difficult."
In the past, high levels of voter interest haven't always translated into votes, especially in midterm elections.
Turnout figures for midterms are generally about four in 10 of those eligible to vote, said Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University. That's far lower than the number who said they almost always vote, probably because people give the answer they think is expected.
The poll also found:
_Almost two-thirds oppose replacing voting at the polling place with voting by mail, but a majority favors allowing the option to vote by mail.
_14 percent of voters who plan to vote say they plan to vote early. Those 50 and over, who live in cities, and have more education and higher incomes were most likely to vote early.
_Three-fourths have seen or heard campaign ads, and the more ads they have seen, the more the likelihood they will vote.
Becky Mayer of Waverly, Tenn., votes in spite of political advertising.
"The political ads are awful," she said. "My mother taught me if you don't have nothing nice to say, don't say nothing."
But Mayer hasn't lost faith that a politician someday will earn her vote.
"Somebody, somewhere will come along and be for the people," she said. "I keep hoping."
___
Next up: What makes some people vote, and drives others from the polls. Moving on Oct. 18.
___
AP Manager of News Surveys Trevor Tompson, AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius and AP writer Kasie Hunt contributed to this story.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061011...q.bkRRh24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
Yeah, I realize it. Even though I realize that the elections are rigged and both parties serve the same masters, I still vote just like the rest of the sheep.
God save America.
God save America.
Libertarians: The neglected swing voters
Libertarians: The neglected swing voters
Oct 19th 2006 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition
What's a true freedom-lover to do on polling day?
AMERICA may be the land of the free, but Americans who favour both economic and social freedom have no political home. The Republican Party espouses economic freedom—ie, low taxes and minimal regulation—but is less keen on sexual liberation. The Democratic Party champions the right of homosexuals to do their thing without government interference, but not businesspeople. Libertarian voters have an unhappy choice. Assuming they opt for one of the two main parties, they can vote to kick the state out of the bedroom, or the boardroom, but not both.
In a new study from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, David Boaz and David Kirby argue that libertarians form perhaps the largest block of swing voters. Counting them is hard, since few Americans are familiar with the term “libertarian”. Mr Boaz and Mr Kirby count those who agree that “government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses”, that government, rather than promoting traditional values, “should not favour any particular set of values”, and that “the federal government has too much power”. Using data from Gallup polls, they found that, in 2005, 13% of the voting-age population shared all three views, up from 9% in 2002.
That is easily enough libertarians to tip an election. And their votes are up for grabs. In 2000 George Bush won 72% of the libertarian vote, to Al Gore's 20%, by repeating the mantra “My opponent trusts government. I trust you.” But in 2004, after Mr Bush increased the size of government and curtailed some civil liberties as part of the war on terror, his margin dropped to 59%-38%. The swing was as sharp in congressional races, too. Going back further, libertarians backed George Bush senior by 74%-26% in 1988. But when he sought re-election in 1992, they split evenly between him, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. A group that can give the eccentric Mr Perot a third of its support must be really disgruntled.
When Republicans win elections, it is because they manage to pull together an alliance between social conservatives and libertarians. But, as Ryan Sager put it in “The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians and the Battle to Control the Republican Party”: “[L]ibertarians have always tended to see social conservatives as rubes ready to thump nonbelievers on the head with the Bible first chance they get, and social conservatives have always tended to see libertarians as dope-smoking devil-worshippers.”
Mr Boaz and Mr Kirby argue that wooing the libertarian vote could propel either party to electoral success. Yet with an election only weeks away, neither shows much sign of trying. Republicans are rallying their religious base with jeremiads about stem-cell research and gay marriage. Democrats, on the other hand, would put up taxes, block school choice and lead a witch-hunt against Wal-Mart.
Libertarians are ignored partly because they are hard to find, not least because they just want to be left alone. (There is a Libertarian Party, but it gets hardly any votes.) Politicians can reach social conservatives through churches or union members through their unions, but where do libertarians gather? Parties will always court the votes that are cheapest to court because, for once, they are spending their own money.
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8058247
Libertarians: The neglected swing voters
Oct 19th 2006 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition
What's a true freedom-lover to do on polling day?
AMERICA may be the land of the free, but Americans who favour both economic and social freedom have no political home. The Republican Party espouses economic freedom—ie, low taxes and minimal regulation—but is less keen on sexual liberation. The Democratic Party champions the right of homosexuals to do their thing without government interference, but not businesspeople. Libertarian voters have an unhappy choice. Assuming they opt for one of the two main parties, they can vote to kick the state out of the bedroom, or the boardroom, but not both.
In a new study from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, David Boaz and David Kirby argue that libertarians form perhaps the largest block of swing voters. Counting them is hard, since few Americans are familiar with the term “libertarian”. Mr Boaz and Mr Kirby count those who agree that “government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses”, that government, rather than promoting traditional values, “should not favour any particular set of values”, and that “the federal government has too much power”. Using data from Gallup polls, they found that, in 2005, 13% of the voting-age population shared all three views, up from 9% in 2002.
That is easily enough libertarians to tip an election. And their votes are up for grabs. In 2000 George Bush won 72% of the libertarian vote, to Al Gore's 20%, by repeating the mantra “My opponent trusts government. I trust you.” But in 2004, after Mr Bush increased the size of government and curtailed some civil liberties as part of the war on terror, his margin dropped to 59%-38%. The swing was as sharp in congressional races, too. Going back further, libertarians backed George Bush senior by 74%-26% in 1988. But when he sought re-election in 1992, they split evenly between him, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. A group that can give the eccentric Mr Perot a third of its support must be really disgruntled.
When Republicans win elections, it is because they manage to pull together an alliance between social conservatives and libertarians. But, as Ryan Sager put it in “The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians and the Battle to Control the Republican Party”: “[L]ibertarians have always tended to see social conservatives as rubes ready to thump nonbelievers on the head with the Bible first chance they get, and social conservatives have always tended to see libertarians as dope-smoking devil-worshippers.”
Mr Boaz and Mr Kirby argue that wooing the libertarian vote could propel either party to electoral success. Yet with an election only weeks away, neither shows much sign of trying. Republicans are rallying their religious base with jeremiads about stem-cell research and gay marriage. Democrats, on the other hand, would put up taxes, block school choice and lead a witch-hunt against Wal-Mart.
Libertarians are ignored partly because they are hard to find, not least because they just want to be left alone. (There is a Libertarian Party, but it gets hardly any votes.) Politicians can reach social conservatives through churches or union members through their unions, but where do libertarians gather? Parties will always court the votes that are cheapest to court because, for once, they are spending their own money.
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8058247
<hr color="#ff0000" noshade="noshade" size="12"><br>
<img src="http://www.quibbles-n-bits.com/archives/bomber/kkk.gif" border="0" height="49" width="50"><img src="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/images/topics/republicans.jpg"><img src="http://www.quibbles-n-bits.com/archives/bomber/kkk.gif" border="0" height="49" width="50"><br>
<hr color="#ff0000" noshade="noshade" size="12"><br>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kkiz1_d1GsA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kkiz1_d1GsA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<hr color="#ff0000" noshade="noshade" size="12"><br>
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
The GOP's Southern Strategy Updated</font><font face="tahoma" size="4" color="#0000ff"><b>
Winking Blonde Bimbos and the Beating of Jungle Drums </b></font>
<font face="helvetica, arial unicode ms, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>October 26 2006
by Arianna Huffington</b>
Call me a silver-lining kind of girl, but I see the sleaze Ken Mehlman and the Republican National Committee are raining down on Tennessee as a very positive sign. These guys are clearly running scared. <a href="http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/10/lets-go-race-baiting.html">Interracial sex</a>? <a href="http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/oct/25/tn_sen_corker_radio_ad_has_tom_tom_drums_during_mentions_of_ford">Jungle drums</a>? <a href="http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/10/25/214819/00">Abortion pills</a> handed out to school kids? </p>
<br>Sure it's stomach-turning, but it's standard operating procedure for the GOP whenever the going gets tough.</p>
And if the going gets tough in a Southern state, the sleaze will, whenever possible, have a racial tinge to it. This happens even when none of the candidates is black (see the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/push-polling-what-to-w_b_32545.html">race-based push polls</a> used against John McCain during the 2000 South Carolina primary). So the chances of race-baiting rearing its white-hooded head in a close race featuring a man looking to become the first African American Senator from the South since Reconstruction are roughly 100 percent.
<br>Mehlman may <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010582.php">pay lip service to distancing himself</a> from the GOP's "southern strategy" -- telling the NAACP national convention last year that Republicans "trying to benefit politically from racial polarization" <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342_pf.html">was "wrong"</a> -- but put Bill Frist's Senate seat into the in-doubt column and the winking blonde bimbos and the tom-tom drums are rushed out of the gutter and onto the airwaves.</p>
<br>And spare us the "<a href="http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/10/ads_likely_to_result_in_rocky.html">we didn't have anything to do with creating it</a>" routine. Read <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010539.php">the fine print</a> at the end of the ads, Ken: "The Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertisement." So much for that "era of personal responsibility" Bush was going to <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010605-1.html">usher in</a>. Now it's pass the buck and point the finger. </p>
<br>Don't tell me Mehlman and Karl Rove didn't crunch the numbers, trying to figure out if the points scored with racist voters would outweigh any possible furor the ads might cause. They obviously decided that the redneck bump was worth the media blowback. Especially since the Corker campaign <a href="http://tnprogressivereport.blogspot.com/2006/10/rnc-pressured-to-pull-another-attack.html">got to play good cop</a> by distancing itself from the RNC ads, while claiming to be powerless to do anything about them.</p>
<br>And the RNC almost certainly underestimated the stink the ad would cause. I doubt they expected it would end up on <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/us/politics/26tennessee.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all">the front page</a> of the <em>New York Times</em>. The fact that it did is another encouraging aspect of this sordid episode: it reveals that it's getting harder to get away with this kind of demolition derby politics.</p>
<br>But it remains to be seen whether the net impact of the late-in-the-race sleazefest will work to the advantage of Corker or Ford. The latest polls are inconclusive -- and the story is just now reaching critical mass.</p>
<br>It's also important to remember that polls involving African American candidates are notoriously unreliable. Ask Andrew Young, Harvey Gantt, and Doug Wilder. It's what political pollsters call the "15 percent lie," defined <a href="http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/10/26/the_15_lie.html">by the <em>Wall Street Journal</em></a> as what happens "when whites, bowing to societal pressure, tell pollsters they intend to vote for a black candidate but fail to do so in the voting booths."</p>
<br>Will that be the case this time around in Tennessee? Or will Volunteer State voters, tired of the sleaze and offended by this blast-from-the-Jim-Crow-past, tell Ken Mehlman and the GOP that trying to Willie Horton their way to victory isn't going to cut it in 2006?</p>
<br><strong>PS</strong> My favorite side bar to this story is the fact that the <a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061025/canada_midterms_061026/20061026?hub=TopStories">Canadian government called the White House to complain</a> about the anti-Ford ad -- not because of its racist undertones, but because it takes a jab at our northern neighbor. In an effort to portray Ford as soft on terrorism and nuclear threats against America, the ad has an actor playing a man-on-the-street-Ford-supporter say, "Canada can take care of North Korea. They're not busy." This did not sit well with Canadian leaders who had the country's ambassador to America call the White House to remind the GOP that Canada has, in fact, been quite busy helping the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, thank you very much. So <a href="http://jabbs.blogspot.com/2006/10/rnc-to-pull-controversial-tennessee-ad.html">maybe the RNC finally pulled the ad</a> not because it was a vile attempt to turn Ford into <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandingo_%28film%29">Mandingo</a></em> but because it rubbed Stephen Harper the wrong way<br>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-gops-southern-strate_b_32584.html</font>
<p>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"></hr>
<p>
<img src="http://www.quibbles-n-bits.com/archives/bomber/kkk.gif" border="0" height="49" width="50"><img src="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/images/topics/republicans.jpg"><img src="http://www.quibbles-n-bits.com/archives/bomber/kkk.gif" border="0" height="49" width="50"><br>
<hr color="#ff0000" noshade="noshade" size="12"><br>
<FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#333333"><B>Harold Ford Jr. Responds to RNC Ad</B></FONT>
<table border="7" width="700" id="table1" bordercolorlight="#0000FF" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" bordercolordark="#0000FF" height="500"><tr><td><iframe src="http://www.haroldfordjr.com/templates/harold_ford/player.php?live_site=http://www.haroldfordjr.com&file=FAITHFINAL.flv" width=690 height=490 hspace=0 vspace=0 frameborder=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0 scrolling=yes> <br></iframe></td></tr>
</table>
<img src="http://www.quibbles-n-bits.com/archives/bomber/kkk.gif" border="0" height="49" width="50"><img src="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/images/topics/republicans.jpg"><img src="http://www.quibbles-n-bits.com/archives/bomber/kkk.gif" border="0" height="49" width="50"><br>
<hr color="#ff0000" noshade="noshade" size="12"><br>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kkiz1_d1GsA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kkiz1_d1GsA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<hr color="#ff0000" noshade="noshade" size="12"><br>
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
The GOP's Southern Strategy Updated</font><font face="tahoma" size="4" color="#0000ff"><b>
Winking Blonde Bimbos and the Beating of Jungle Drums </b></font>
<font face="helvetica, arial unicode ms, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>October 26 2006
by Arianna Huffington</b>
Call me a silver-lining kind of girl, but I see the sleaze Ken Mehlman and the Republican National Committee are raining down on Tennessee as a very positive sign. These guys are clearly running scared. <a href="http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/10/lets-go-race-baiting.html">Interracial sex</a>? <a href="http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/oct/25/tn_sen_corker_radio_ad_has_tom_tom_drums_during_mentions_of_ford">Jungle drums</a>? <a href="http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/10/25/214819/00">Abortion pills</a> handed out to school kids? </p>
<br>Sure it's stomach-turning, but it's standard operating procedure for the GOP whenever the going gets tough.</p>
And if the going gets tough in a Southern state, the sleaze will, whenever possible, have a racial tinge to it. This happens even when none of the candidates is black (see the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/push-polling-what-to-w_b_32545.html">race-based push polls</a> used against John McCain during the 2000 South Carolina primary). So the chances of race-baiting rearing its white-hooded head in a close race featuring a man looking to become the first African American Senator from the South since Reconstruction are roughly 100 percent.
<br>Mehlman may <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010582.php">pay lip service to distancing himself</a> from the GOP's "southern strategy" -- telling the NAACP national convention last year that Republicans "trying to benefit politically from racial polarization" <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342_pf.html">was "wrong"</a> -- but put Bill Frist's Senate seat into the in-doubt column and the winking blonde bimbos and the tom-tom drums are rushed out of the gutter and onto the airwaves.</p>
<br>And spare us the "<a href="http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/10/ads_likely_to_result_in_rocky.html">we didn't have anything to do with creating it</a>" routine. Read <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010539.php">the fine print</a> at the end of the ads, Ken: "The Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertisement." So much for that "era of personal responsibility" Bush was going to <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010605-1.html">usher in</a>. Now it's pass the buck and point the finger. </p>
<br>Don't tell me Mehlman and Karl Rove didn't crunch the numbers, trying to figure out if the points scored with racist voters would outweigh any possible furor the ads might cause. They obviously decided that the redneck bump was worth the media blowback. Especially since the Corker campaign <a href="http://tnprogressivereport.blogspot.com/2006/10/rnc-pressured-to-pull-another-attack.html">got to play good cop</a> by distancing itself from the RNC ads, while claiming to be powerless to do anything about them.</p>
<br>And the RNC almost certainly underestimated the stink the ad would cause. I doubt they expected it would end up on <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/us/politics/26tennessee.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all">the front page</a> of the <em>New York Times</em>. The fact that it did is another encouraging aspect of this sordid episode: it reveals that it's getting harder to get away with this kind of demolition derby politics.</p>
<br>But it remains to be seen whether the net impact of the late-in-the-race sleazefest will work to the advantage of Corker or Ford. The latest polls are inconclusive -- and the story is just now reaching critical mass.</p>
<br>It's also important to remember that polls involving African American candidates are notoriously unreliable. Ask Andrew Young, Harvey Gantt, and Doug Wilder. It's what political pollsters call the "15 percent lie," defined <a href="http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/10/26/the_15_lie.html">by the <em>Wall Street Journal</em></a> as what happens "when whites, bowing to societal pressure, tell pollsters they intend to vote for a black candidate but fail to do so in the voting booths."</p>
<br>Will that be the case this time around in Tennessee? Or will Volunteer State voters, tired of the sleaze and offended by this blast-from-the-Jim-Crow-past, tell Ken Mehlman and the GOP that trying to Willie Horton their way to victory isn't going to cut it in 2006?</p>
<br><strong>PS</strong> My favorite side bar to this story is the fact that the <a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061025/canada_midterms_061026/20061026?hub=TopStories">Canadian government called the White House to complain</a> about the anti-Ford ad -- not because of its racist undertones, but because it takes a jab at our northern neighbor. In an effort to portray Ford as soft on terrorism and nuclear threats against America, the ad has an actor playing a man-on-the-street-Ford-supporter say, "Canada can take care of North Korea. They're not busy." This did not sit well with Canadian leaders who had the country's ambassador to America call the White House to remind the GOP that Canada has, in fact, been quite busy helping the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, thank you very much. So <a href="http://jabbs.blogspot.com/2006/10/rnc-to-pull-controversial-tennessee-ad.html">maybe the RNC finally pulled the ad</a> not because it was a vile attempt to turn Ford into <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandingo_%28film%29">Mandingo</a></em> but because it rubbed Stephen Harper the wrong way<br>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-gops-southern-strate_b_32584.html</font>
<p>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"></hr>
<p>
<img src="http://www.quibbles-n-bits.com/archives/bomber/kkk.gif" border="0" height="49" width="50"><img src="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/images/topics/republicans.jpg"><img src="http://www.quibbles-n-bits.com/archives/bomber/kkk.gif" border="0" height="49" width="50"><br>
<hr color="#ff0000" noshade="noshade" size="12"><br>
<FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#333333"><B>Harold Ford Jr. Responds to RNC Ad</B></FONT>
<table border="7" width="700" id="table1" bordercolorlight="#0000FF" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" bordercolordark="#0000FF" height="500"><tr><td><iframe src="http://www.haroldfordjr.com/templates/harold_ford/player.php?live_site=http://www.haroldfordjr.com&file=FAITHFINAL.flv" width=690 height=490 hspace=0 vspace=0 frameborder=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0 scrolling=yes> <br></iframe></td></tr>
</table>
Last edited:
Arianna Huffington said:
Arianna Huffington needs to brush up on her understanding of the southern redneck psychic. That the "stink" ended up on the front page of the Nu Yawk times only confirms, in the redneck psychic, that the ads are not only right, ... but justified. You see, among that genera, "that liberal leaning rag of a nuwspaper is always stickin its nose whare it don't b'long ... and stickin up for the color'ards at the expense of good honest white people." The New York Times may help in exposing to the nation that sordid ad being used against Mr. Ford, but in the hearts and minds of the redneck, it just reinforcement.
QueEx
<table border="8" width="650" id="table2" bordercolorlight="#800080" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" bordercolordark="#800080" bgcolor="#000000" height="400">
<tr><td><br>
<br><font face="arial black" size="6" color="#FF0000"><center>Harold Ford Jr.<br>Adroitly Handles <br> <s>FOX</s> FAKE News' Wallace</font></center><b><font face="verdana" size="3" color="#FFFFFF"> Listen to Liddy Dole lie about Harold Ford's voting record and watch Wallace smack her lies down.<br><br><center>[wm]http://movies.crooksandliars.com/fox_fns_ford_tennessee_senate_061029a_320x240.wmv[/wm]</center><p><p><p></td></tr></table>
<p>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"></hr>
<p>
<tr><td><br>
<br><font face="arial black" size="6" color="#FF0000"><center>Harold Ford Jr.<br>Adroitly Handles <br> <s>FOX</s> FAKE News' Wallace</font></center><b><font face="verdana" size="3" color="#FFFFFF"> Listen to Liddy Dole lie about Harold Ford's voting record and watch Wallace smack her lies down.<br><br><center>[wm]http://movies.crooksandliars.com/fox_fns_ford_tennessee_senate_061029a_320x240.wmv[/wm]</center><p><p><p></td></tr></table>
<p>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"></hr>
<p>
<font size="5"><center>The Election and Investigatory Powers of Congress</font size></center>
Strategic Forecasting
Geopolitical Intelligence Report
By George Friedman
October 31, 2006
There is now only a week to go before midterm congressional elections in the United States. The legislative outcome is already fairly clear. President George W. Bush lost the ability to drive legislation through Congress when he had to back away from his Social Security proposals. That situation will continue: The president will not be able to generate legislation without building coalitions. On the other hand, Congress will not be able to override his vetoes. That means that, regardless of whether the Democrats take the House of Representatives (as appears likely) or the Senate (which appears less likely but still possible), the basic architecture of the American legislative process will remain intact. Democrats will not gain much power to legislate; Republicans will not lose much.
If the Democrats take control of the House from the Republicans, the most important change will not be that Nancy Pelosi becomes House Speaker, but that the leadership of House committees will shift -- and even more significant, that there will be upheaval of committee staffs. Republicans will shift to minority staff positions -- and have to let go of a lot of staffers -- while the Democrats will get to hire a lot of new ones. These staffers serve two functions. The first is preparing legislation, the second is managing investigations. Given the likelihood of political gridlock, there will be precious little opportunity for legislation to be signed into law during the next two years -- but there likely will be ample opportunity and motivation for congressional investigations.
Should the Democrats use this power to their advantage, there will be long-term implications for both the next presidential election and foreign policy options in the interim.
One of the most important things that the Republicans achieved, with their control of both the House and Senate, was to establish control over the type and scope of investigations that were permitted. Now, even if control of only the House should change hands, the Democrats will be making those decisions. And, where the GOP's goal was to shut down congressional investigations, the Democrat Party's goal will be to open them up and use them to shape the political landscape ahead of the 2008 presidential election.
It is important to define what we mean by "investigation." On the surface, congressional investigations are opportunities for staffers from the majority party to wield subpoena power in efforts to embarrass their bosses' opponents. The investigations also provide opportunities for members of Congress and senators to make extensive speeches that witnesses have to sit and listen to when they are called to testify -- a very weird process, if you have ever seen it. Congressional investigations are not about coming to the truth of a matter in order for the laws of the republic to be improved for the common good. They are designed to extract political benefit and put opponents in the wrong. (Republicans and Democrats alike use the congressional investigative function to that end, so neither has the right to be indignant.)
For years, however, Democrats have been in no position to unilaterally call hearings and turn their staffs and subpoena powers loose on a topic -- which means they have been precluded from controlling the news cycle. The media focus intensely on major congressional hearings. For television networks, they provide vivid moments of confrontation; and the reams of testimony, leaked or official, give the print media an enormous opportunity to look for embarrassing moments that appear to reveal something newsworthy. In the course of these hearings, there might even be opportunities for witnesses to fall into acts of perjury -- or truth-telling -- that can lead to indictments and trials.
To reverse their position, the Democrats need not capture both the House and Senate next week. In fact, from the party's standpoint, that might not even be desirable. The Senate and House historically have gotten in each other's way in the hearing process. Moreover, there are a lot of Democratic senators considering a run for the presidency, but not many members of Congress with those ambitions. Senators who get caught up in congressional hearings can wind up being embarrassed themselves -- and with the competing goals of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and some of the other candidates, things could wind up a mess. But if the House alone goes to Democrats, Pelosi would be positioned to orchestrate a series of hearings from multiple committees and effectively control the news cycles. Within three months of the new House being sworn in, the political landscape could be dominated by hearings -- each week bringing new images of witnesses being skewered or news of embarrassing files being released. Against this backdrop, a new generation of Democratic congressmen would be making their debuts on the news networks, both while sitting on panels, and on the news channels afterward.
Politically, this would have two implications. First, the ability of the White House to control and direct public attention would decline dramatically. Not only would the White House not be able to shut down unwanted debate, but it would lack the ability even to take part in setting the agenda. Each week's subject would be chosen by the House Democratic leadership. Second, there will be a presidential election in two years that the Democrats want to win. Therefore, they would use congressional hearings to shape public opinion along the lines their party wants. The goal would be not only to embarrass the administration, but also to showcase Democratic strengths.
The Senate can decide to hold its own hearings, of course, and likely would if left in Republican hands. The problem is that, at the end of the day, the most interesting investigations would involve the Bush administration and corporations that can be linked to it. A GOP-controlled Senate could call useful hearings, but they would be overwhelmed by the Democratic fireworks. They just would not matter as much.
So let's consider, from a foreign policy standpoint, what would be likely matters for investigation:
These, of course, would be the mothers of all investigations. Everything would be dragged out and pored over. The fact that there have been bipartisan examinations by the 9/11 commission would not matter: The new hearings would be framed as an inquiry into whether the 9/11 commission's recommendations were implemented -- and that would open the door to re-examine all the other issues.
Following close on these would be investigations into:
And so on. Every scab would be opened -- as is the right of Congress, the tendency of the nation in unpopular wars, and likely an inevitable consequence of these midterm elections.
We can expect the charges raised at these hearings to be serious, and to come from two groups. The first will be Democratic critics of the administration. These will be unimportant: Such critics, along with people like former White House security adviser Richard Clarke, already have said everything they have to say. But the second group will include another class -- former members of the administration, the military and the CIA who have, since the invasion of Iraq, broken with the administration. They have occasionally raised their voices -- as, for instance, in Bob Woodward's recent book -- but the new congressional hearings would provide a platform for systematic criticism of the administration. And many of these critics seem bruised and bitter enough to avail themselves of it.
This intersects with internal Republican politics. At this point, the Republicans are divided into two camps. There are those who align with the Bush position: that the war in Iraq made sense and that, despite mistakes, it has been prosecuted fairly well on the whole. And there are those, coalesced around Sens. Chuck Hagel and John Warner, who argue that, though the rationale for the war very well might have made sense, its prosecution by Donald Rumsfeld has led to disaster. The lines might be evenly drawn, but for the strong suspicion that Sen. John McCain is in the latter camp.
McCain clearly intends to run for president and, though he publicly shows support for Bush, there is every evidence that McCain has never forgiven him for the treatment he received in the primaries of 2000. McCain is not going to attack the president, nor does he really oppose the war in Iraq, but he has shown signs that he feels that the war has not been well prosecuted. This view, shared publicly by recently retired military commanders who served in Iraq, holds out Rumsfeld as the villain. It is not something that McCain is going to lead the charge on, but in taking down Rumsfeld, McCain would be positioned to say that he supported the war and the president -- but not his secretary of defense, who was responsible for overseeing the prosecution of the war.
From McCain's point of view, little would be more perfect than an investigation into the war by a Democrat-controlled House during which former military and Defense Department officials pounded the daylights out of Rumsfeld. This would put whole-hearted Republican supporters of the president in a tough position and give McCain -- who, as a senator, would not have to participate in the hearings -- space to defend Bush's decision but not his tactics. The hearings also would allow him to challenge Democratic front-runners (Clinton and Obama) on their credentials for waging a war. They could be maneuvered into either going too far and taking a pure anti-war stance, or into trying to craft a defense policy at which McCain could strike. To put it another way, aggressively investigating an issue like the war could wind up blowing up in the Democrats' faces, but that is so distant and subtle a possibility that we won't worry about it happening -- nor will they.
What does seem certain, however, is this: The American interest in foreign policy is about to take an investigatory turn, as in the waning days of the Vietnam War. Various congressional hearings, like those of the Church Committee, so riveted the United States in the 1970s and so tied down the policymaking bureaucracy that crafting foreign policy became almost impossible.
George W. Bush is a lame duck in the worst sense of the term. Not only are there no more elections he can influence, but he is heading into his last two years in office with terrible poll ratings. And he is likely to lose control of the House of Representatives -- a loss that will generate endless hearings and investigations on foreign policy, placing Bush and his staff on the defensive for two years. Making foreign policy in this environment will be impossible.
Following the elections, five or six months will elapse before the House Democrats get organized and have staff in place. After that, the avalanche will fall in on Bush, and 2008 presidential politics will converge with congressional investigations to overwhelm his ability to manage foreign policy. That means the president has less than half a year to get his house in order if he hopes to control the situation, or at least to manage his response.
Meanwhile, the international window of opportunity for U.S. enemies will open wider and wider.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.
Strategic Forecasting
Geopolitical Intelligence Report
By George Friedman
October 31, 2006
There is now only a week to go before midterm congressional elections in the United States. The legislative outcome is already fairly clear. President George W. Bush lost the ability to drive legislation through Congress when he had to back away from his Social Security proposals. That situation will continue: The president will not be able to generate legislation without building coalitions. On the other hand, Congress will not be able to override his vetoes. That means that, regardless of whether the Democrats take the House of Representatives (as appears likely) or the Senate (which appears less likely but still possible), the basic architecture of the American legislative process will remain intact. Democrats will not gain much power to legislate; Republicans will not lose much.
If the Democrats take control of the House from the Republicans, the most important change will not be that Nancy Pelosi becomes House Speaker, but that the leadership of House committees will shift -- and even more significant, that there will be upheaval of committee staffs. Republicans will shift to minority staff positions -- and have to let go of a lot of staffers -- while the Democrats will get to hire a lot of new ones. These staffers serve two functions. The first is preparing legislation, the second is managing investigations. Given the likelihood of political gridlock, there will be precious little opportunity for legislation to be signed into law during the next two years -- but there likely will be ample opportunity and motivation for congressional investigations.
Should the Democrats use this power to their advantage, there will be long-term implications for both the next presidential election and foreign policy options in the interim.
One of the most important things that the Republicans achieved, with their control of both the House and Senate, was to establish control over the type and scope of investigations that were permitted. Now, even if control of only the House should change hands, the Democrats will be making those decisions. And, where the GOP's goal was to shut down congressional investigations, the Democrat Party's goal will be to open them up and use them to shape the political landscape ahead of the 2008 presidential election.
It is important to define what we mean by "investigation." On the surface, congressional investigations are opportunities for staffers from the majority party to wield subpoena power in efforts to embarrass their bosses' opponents. The investigations also provide opportunities for members of Congress and senators to make extensive speeches that witnesses have to sit and listen to when they are called to testify -- a very weird process, if you have ever seen it. Congressional investigations are not about coming to the truth of a matter in order for the laws of the republic to be improved for the common good. They are designed to extract political benefit and put opponents in the wrong. (Republicans and Democrats alike use the congressional investigative function to that end, so neither has the right to be indignant.)
For years, however, Democrats have been in no position to unilaterally call hearings and turn their staffs and subpoena powers loose on a topic -- which means they have been precluded from controlling the news cycle. The media focus intensely on major congressional hearings. For television networks, they provide vivid moments of confrontation; and the reams of testimony, leaked or official, give the print media an enormous opportunity to look for embarrassing moments that appear to reveal something newsworthy. In the course of these hearings, there might even be opportunities for witnesses to fall into acts of perjury -- or truth-telling -- that can lead to indictments and trials.
To reverse their position, the Democrats need not capture both the House and Senate next week. In fact, from the party's standpoint, that might not even be desirable. The Senate and House historically have gotten in each other's way in the hearing process. Moreover, there are a lot of Democratic senators considering a run for the presidency, but not many members of Congress with those ambitions. Senators who get caught up in congressional hearings can wind up being embarrassed themselves -- and with the competing goals of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and some of the other candidates, things could wind up a mess. But if the House alone goes to Democrats, Pelosi would be positioned to orchestrate a series of hearings from multiple committees and effectively control the news cycles. Within three months of the new House being sworn in, the political landscape could be dominated by hearings -- each week bringing new images of witnesses being skewered or news of embarrassing files being released. Against this backdrop, a new generation of Democratic congressmen would be making their debuts on the news networks, both while sitting on panels, and on the news channels afterward.
Politically, this would have two implications. First, the ability of the White House to control and direct public attention would decline dramatically. Not only would the White House not be able to shut down unwanted debate, but it would lack the ability even to take part in setting the agenda. Each week's subject would be chosen by the House Democratic leadership. Second, there will be a presidential election in two years that the Democrats want to win. Therefore, they would use congressional hearings to shape public opinion along the lines their party wants. The goal would be not only to embarrass the administration, but also to showcase Democratic strengths.
The Senate can decide to hold its own hearings, of course, and likely would if left in Republican hands. The problem is that, at the end of the day, the most interesting investigations would involve the Bush administration and corporations that can be linked to it. A GOP-controlled Senate could call useful hearings, but they would be overwhelmed by the Democratic fireworks. They just would not matter as much.
So let's consider, from a foreign policy standpoint, what would be likely matters for investigation:
What did the Bush administration really know about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Did Bush dismiss advice from the CIA on Iraq?
Did the administration ignore warnings about al Qaeda attacks prior to 9/11?
Did the administration ignore warnings about al Qaeda attacks prior to 9/11?
These, of course, would be the mothers of all investigations. Everything would be dragged out and pored over. The fact that there have been bipartisan examinations by the 9/11 commission would not matter: The new hearings would be framed as an inquiry into whether the 9/11 commission's recommendations were implemented -- and that would open the door to re-examine all the other issues.
Following close on these would be investigations into:
Whether the Department of Homeland Security is effective.
Whether the new structure of the intelligence community works.
Whether Halliburton received contracts unfairly -- a line of inquiry that could touch Vice President Dick Cheney.
Whether private contractors like Blackwater are doing appropriate jobs in Iraq.
Whether the Geneva Conventions should apply in cases of terrorist detentions.
Whether China is violating international trade agreement.
Whether the new structure of the intelligence community works.
Whether Halliburton received contracts unfairly -- a line of inquiry that could touch Vice President Dick Cheney.
Whether private contractors like Blackwater are doing appropriate jobs in Iraq.
Whether the Geneva Conventions should apply in cases of terrorist detentions.
Whether China is violating international trade agreement.
And so on. Every scab would be opened -- as is the right of Congress, the tendency of the nation in unpopular wars, and likely an inevitable consequence of these midterm elections.
We can expect the charges raised at these hearings to be serious, and to come from two groups. The first will be Democratic critics of the administration. These will be unimportant: Such critics, along with people like former White House security adviser Richard Clarke, already have said everything they have to say. But the second group will include another class -- former members of the administration, the military and the CIA who have, since the invasion of Iraq, broken with the administration. They have occasionally raised their voices -- as, for instance, in Bob Woodward's recent book -- but the new congressional hearings would provide a platform for systematic criticism of the administration. And many of these critics seem bruised and bitter enough to avail themselves of it.
This intersects with internal Republican politics. At this point, the Republicans are divided into two camps. There are those who align with the Bush position: that the war in Iraq made sense and that, despite mistakes, it has been prosecuted fairly well on the whole. And there are those, coalesced around Sens. Chuck Hagel and John Warner, who argue that, though the rationale for the war very well might have made sense, its prosecution by Donald Rumsfeld has led to disaster. The lines might be evenly drawn, but for the strong suspicion that Sen. John McCain is in the latter camp.
McCain clearly intends to run for president and, though he publicly shows support for Bush, there is every evidence that McCain has never forgiven him for the treatment he received in the primaries of 2000. McCain is not going to attack the president, nor does he really oppose the war in Iraq, but he has shown signs that he feels that the war has not been well prosecuted. This view, shared publicly by recently retired military commanders who served in Iraq, holds out Rumsfeld as the villain. It is not something that McCain is going to lead the charge on, but in taking down Rumsfeld, McCain would be positioned to say that he supported the war and the president -- but not his secretary of defense, who was responsible for overseeing the prosecution of the war.
From McCain's point of view, little would be more perfect than an investigation into the war by a Democrat-controlled House during which former military and Defense Department officials pounded the daylights out of Rumsfeld. This would put whole-hearted Republican supporters of the president in a tough position and give McCain -- who, as a senator, would not have to participate in the hearings -- space to defend Bush's decision but not his tactics. The hearings also would allow him to challenge Democratic front-runners (Clinton and Obama) on their credentials for waging a war. They could be maneuvered into either going too far and taking a pure anti-war stance, or into trying to craft a defense policy at which McCain could strike. To put it another way, aggressively investigating an issue like the war could wind up blowing up in the Democrats' faces, but that is so distant and subtle a possibility that we won't worry about it happening -- nor will they.
What does seem certain, however, is this: The American interest in foreign policy is about to take an investigatory turn, as in the waning days of the Vietnam War. Various congressional hearings, like those of the Church Committee, so riveted the United States in the 1970s and so tied down the policymaking bureaucracy that crafting foreign policy became almost impossible.
George W. Bush is a lame duck in the worst sense of the term. Not only are there no more elections he can influence, but he is heading into his last two years in office with terrible poll ratings. And he is likely to lose control of the House of Representatives -- a loss that will generate endless hearings and investigations on foreign policy, placing Bush and his staff on the defensive for two years. Making foreign policy in this environment will be impossible.
Following the elections, five or six months will elapse before the House Democrats get organized and have staff in place. After that, the avalanche will fall in on Bush, and 2008 presidential politics will converge with congressional investigations to overwhelm his ability to manage foreign policy. That means the president has less than half a year to get his house in order if he hopes to control the situation, or at least to manage his response.
Meanwhile, the international window of opportunity for U.S. enemies will open wider and wider.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.