Oconee Democrats and the Kickin' Donkey

Bid process sidestepped

2006-01-06T09:42:00.000-05:00

ANDERSON INDEPENDENT-MAILBy David Williams Oconee-Pickens Bureau
January 4, 2006

WALHALLA - County officials have admitted that work to clean up the planned site of Oconee County's new industrial park sidestepped the bidding process. The work has been described as a simple exchange of goods for services,

County attorney Brad Norton said this week that it was his fault bush hogging work on the land was not put out for bids. Oconee County farmer Kenny Cain reportedly was allowed to cut hay off the land in exchange for bush hogging portions of the nearly 400-acre site.

Several other questions have also been raised concerning the cutting of hay on the property that was under contract to the county last summer but was not officially deeded to Oconee until Aug 2.

"We should have bid it out," Mr. Norton said of the bush hogging along S.C. 59. "It's 100 percent my fault. We wanted to keep it clean and not cost the taxpayers any money."

The 397 acres was purchased for $2.3 million or about $5,850 an acre. The property is earmarked for industrial development that includes a wastewater treatment plant to support the South Carolina Welcome Center at Exit 1 on Interstate 85. The treatment plant could also support other development along Oconee's share of the interstate corridor.

Mr. Norton said he incorrectly advised County Council Chairman Frank Ables and Jim Alexander, executive director of the county's Economic Development Commission, that it was not necessary to bid out work to clean up the site.

Mr. Ables said the hay was cut and baled before the land was officially deeded to the county and that Mr. Cain had been working the land for about two years.

"Everything is above board," Mr. Ables said Tuesday prior to the regular County Council meeting, which included a session behind closed doors.

Attempts to reach Mr. Cain Wednesday were unsuccessful.

County administrator Ron Rabun said no money was involved in acquiring Mr. Cain's services to bush hog the property.

"However, we should have gone through the procurement process," Mr. Rabun said. "Any asset the county has, you have to go through the procurement process."

According to one Oconee County official, hay on the land was last cut June 20.

Large round bales of hay have been grouped on the back side of the property and one Oconee County farmer, who did not want to be identified, estimated that 25 to 30 acres of hay has been cut. Estimated figures place the price of a large round bale of hay at $35. At five bales per acre for 25 acres, 125 bales would cost $4,375. A large tractor used for bush hog work operating at $75 an hour for a 40-hour week would cost $3,000.

Council member Steve Moore raised the question as to whether or not the county was liable for any accidents that may occur without going through the proper bidding procedure.

"It's hard for me to believe that the county attorney of many years is not aware of the bid process." Mr. Moore said. "It's mine as well as other council members' responsibilities to guard county-owned assets regardless of what something may be worth."

Mr. Rabun said the county has improved the access road to the property and installed a gate. Mr. Ables said the gate and the "Keep Out" signs have been stolen.

David Williams can be reached

At (864) 882-0522 or by e-mail at

Williamsde@IndependentMail.com

Letter from Greenville News...

2005-11-30T15:07:00.000-05:00

Dear Editor,

I just read that House Republicans voted to cut student loan
subsidies, child support enforcement and aid to firms hurt by
unfair trade practices. They also plan to cut Medicaid, food
stamps and farm subsidies.

The article said that President Bush met with House and
Senate GOP leaders and said he was pleased with the progress.

With all the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq and the huge
tax cut to the wealthiest Americans, what are they doing -
making cuts to the people who can least afford it - the poor,
middle class, students and farmers.

If they cared a whit about us, they would be taking the big tax
break back from the wealthiest and trying to find a way to get
us out of Iraq. That would be a start. We need a Congress
and President that will stand up for us, not for a few far right
wingers.

Even with the illegal activity and scandal surrounding this
White House, many preachers are still upholding Bush and the
GOP no matter what they do. They still believe that Bush is a
good Christian man and the Republican Party is on their side.
It's about time they opened their eyes to the fact that they are
only being used as a political pawn so these politicians can get
re-elected and push through their agenda. Bush talks-the-talk
but doesn't walk-the-walk. The Bible says to help the poor,
sick and helpless. That was what Jesus was most concerned
about - not abortion and gays.

If cutting programs for the least of us is the Christian way,
then they've changed the definition of being a Christian.

Diane Palmer
Six Mile, SC

The Case for Political Moderation in America Today

2005-11-30T15:05:00.000-05:00

As 2005 winds down, and 2006 looms on the
horizon, my fervent hope is for the spirit of
political moderation to grow in this country. What we
desperately need is for liberals and conservatives of
good will-both in government and throughout the
nation-to engage in constructive dialogue and
formulate reasonable solutions to a number of pressing
problems, in the areas of economic reform,
church-state issues, and our foreign policy (among
others).

It is vital that we resist the temptation to
distrust-or, at the extreme, demonize-those with whom
we have an honest disagreement. To remain healthy as a
people and a nation, we need to allow a wide diversity
of opinion to be expressed; but more than that, we
need to hone our ability to truly attend to each
other's arguments, and then creatively combine the
soundest of the alternative perspectives.

As a moderate-liberal and Democrat, I recognize
the value of the conservative outlook. I have come to
appreciate free enterprise, in terms of its power to
motivate individuals to strive for excellence and
personal productivity.

I believe that what most of us share as a
people-love of freedom, concern for human rights, a
sense of optimism and generosity of spirit, and firm
commitment to democracy, including the practice of
free and fair elections-far outweigh our political
differences. What most of us reject, as Americans, are
intolerance, bigotry, lawlessness, a cynical disregard
for principles of right and wrong, crass materialism,
and the self-serving exercise of power and control
over the general populace by a select few.

Most Americans, too, are repelled by evidence of
hypocrisy in our political leaders-of whatever Party
or point of view.

It is important for us to forthrightly state our
views, while seeking to avoid a narrow perspective.
For example.

*I am opposed to the Iraq War, feeling that it is
doing more harm than good, in terms of generating
animosity and strife in the Islamic world, while
failing to quell the threat of terrorism. Yet, I am
mindful of the sacrifice of those men and women in the
military who are separated from their families and who
put their lives on the line every day, in the service
of our country and the greater good. And I believe
that people of conscience can fervently disagree
regarding our conduct in the Middle East, and the
ultimate value of this war, or any war. (I say "any
war" because I am a pacifist and Conscientious
Objector)

*I am deeply concerned about the level of both
national and personal debt in the Unites States,
feeling that deficit spending exerts a corrosive
effect on both our economy, and our well-being as
individual citizens, as well as the cohesiveness of
our families. I think that we can all acknowledge,
liberals and conservatives alike, the vital importance
of learning to budget and live within our means. In my
opinion, our addiction to credit buying should be
severed (Credit cards should be torn up) and, at the
national level, deficit spending should be strictly
prohibited.

*I believe that we should preserve the boundary
between church and state-because we live in a
religiously diverse nation, and it is wrong for anyone
to-directly or indirectly, impose their religious
views on others. However, I believe that free and
mutually respectful discussion of religious questions
should not be inhibited within the educational
context, including our public schools.

I have come to recognize that a simple black or
white approach to the consideration of public policy
issues in inadequate, and can have dangerous
consequences, in terms of breeding close-mindedness
and intolerance. It is of little concern to me if the
positions I have arrived at are labeled liberal or
conservative by the media, or my neighbors. For the
sake of our well-being as a people and nation, we need
to transcend these labels once-and-for-all, and give
serious consideration to adopting a moderate political
perspective. or, at least, abandoning rigidity, in the
formulation of our opinions.

Patrick Frank
Seneca, SC

Gulf Coast Reconstruction

2005-10-03T10:11:00.000-04:00

The cost of rebuilding the Gulf Coast, while huge, is far less than what President Bush has given away in tax cuts to the wealthiest one percent.2 National crises like Hurricanes Rita and Katrina are times for all Americans to stick together and put in our fair share.
So today we're launching an urgent petition to Congress to fully rebuild the Gulf Coast and pay for it by ending Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy, not by slashing vital services that Americans need. If we can gather a quarter million signatures this week, we can show them that this destructive plan just won't fly.
Please sign today

The Republican proposal, titled "Operation Offset," was authored by the Republican Study Committee, a group of over 100 influential members of Congress, including powerful committee chairs and members of the Republican leadership.3 The proposal starts with support from at least these 100 representatives, and they are looking to quickly build momentum.
A full reconstruction of the Gulf Coast region is generally estimated to cost around $200 billion.4 We could more than meet this cost by rolling back Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for just the wealthiest one percent of the country, which would save us an estimated $327 billion.5
"Operation Offset," however, calls for an astounding $949 billion dollars in cuts over 10 years to vital national services.6—almost five times the full cost of reconstruction. To further put that in perspective, it's also more than 4 times what we've spent in Iraq.7
This plan is not about "offsetting," or rebuilding—it's about exploiting this crisis to push their longstanding goals for America. As conservative movement leader Grover Norquist has often put it, the goal is to get government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."8 This proposal is their latest attempt to drown the public sector.
The excess of the Republicans' proposed cuts is almost unbelievable. You can read the full proposal here.

Here are just some of the most egregious cuts:
$225 billion cut from Medicaid, the last-resort health insurance program for the very poor.
$200 billion cut from Medicare, the health care safety net for the elderly and the disabled.
$25 billion cut from the Centers for Disease Control
$6.7 billion cut from school lunches for poor children
$7.5 billion cut from programs to fight global AIDS
$5.5 billion to eliminate all funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
$3.6 billion cut to eliminate the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities
$8.5 billion cut to eliminate all subsidized loans to graduate students.
$2.5 billion cut from Amtrak
$2.5 billion to eliminate the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative
$417 million cut to eliminate the Minority Business Development Agency
$4.8 billion cut to eliminate all funding for the Safe and Drug-Free schools program
And the list goes on and on.
Which and how many of these cuts move forward in Congress depends largely on the public response this week.
As the reconstruction begins our country faces a basic question: Will we respond to Katrina by banding together to solve national problems, or by helping the wealthy and powerful cut and run while those left behind fend for ourselves?
The radical Republicans have spoken up loud and clear with their answer, and we must respond with ours.

Please sign today:

What Noble Cause?

2005-09-18T22:12:00.000-04:00

By Cindy Sheehan
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

It has been one month, one week, and 4 days since I sat in a ditch in Crawford, Texas. My request was very simple: I wanted to speak to the man who has sent over a million of our young people over to fight, kill, and die in a country that was absolutely no threat to the United States of America. I wanted to ask him: "What is the Noble Cause that you keep talking about?"

Well, we all know now that George Bush never came down the road to talk to me. Thank God! Many people have been saying that I am the "spark," "catalyst," "face of the anti-war movement," etc. I beg to differ. George Bush and his arrogant advisers are the spark that lit the prairie fire of peace activism that has swept over America and the entire world. If he had met with me that fateful day in August it would not have been good for him (because I knew he was going to lie and I would have advertised that fact) but it would have had less of an impact on the peace movement if he had.

Upon reflection on the events of this past August, I have come up with two reasons why George could not meet with me: He is a coward and there is no Noble Cause. If George had as much courage and integrity in his entire body as Casey had in his pinky, he would have met with me. But, ironically, if George had that much courage and integrity he never would have preemptively invaded a practically defenseless country. His syncophantic cabinet and hangers-on are also incontrovertible evidence that he is a coward. No one had better dare disagree with him. How dare a mom from Vacaville, California, have the nerve to contradict the emperor of Prairie Chapel Road!!??

All of the "Noble Cause" reasons that George has variously given for the invasion and continued illegal occupation of a sovereign nation are also patently false and ridiculous. He has been claiming recently (since he admitted a long time ago that Iraq had no WMDs or links to 9/11) that this occupation of Iraq is spreading "freedom and democracy" in the Middle East. Really? Does he have any idea that the constitution that the Iraqi governing body is working on is based on Sharia and that it undermines the freedoms of women? Does he realize that for over 50 years women had equal rights with men in Iraq? Does George realize (of course he does) that the puppet government the US put in place in Iraq is comprised of the very same people who encouraged the invasion to line their own pockets? What kind of freedom and democracy is this? If George is so hell bent on freedom and democracy for Iraq, then why doesn't he practice it here in America? Up to 62 percent of Americans believe that what George has done in Iraq is a mistake and we should begin to bring our troops home. Well, George, 62 percent is a clear majority and you should begin to listen to the people who pay your salary.

He has also claimed that what we are doing in Iraq is "making America safer." Another statement that is easier to disprove than the "freedom and democracy" baloney. To disprove this little bit of deception, all we have to do is look at the Gulf States. Ask the people of New Orleans, especially, if they feel safer. By misappropriating all of our personnel, equipment and pouring billions of dollars into the sands of Iraq, George has made our country more vulnerable to attack by outside forces. Also, from the cold and callous statements of people like Michael Chertoff and George's own mama, the people of New Orleans seem to be "acceptable" collateral damage to the ruling elite of this country. It is my humble opinion that the only thing that will make America safer is to get George and his unfeeling and dangerously incompetent supporters out of our White House.

We all now know the reason that we are in Iraq. George told us so from a break he was taking from Crawford in San Diego on the same day that Katrina was hitting the Gulf States: it is for oil. It is so George, Dick, and their evil buddies can rape more profits from our children's flesh and blood. This is not a Noble Cause - as a matter of fact, it is the most ignoble cause for any war that has ever been waged. We as Americans knew either in the front of our brains, or in the back of our consciousness, that this war was to feed the corporations. 15 brave young Americans have been killed so far this month while our attention has been focused, and rightfully so, on the Gulf States. Over 200 innocent and unfortunate Iraqis have been killed in this week alone. How much more blood are we as Americans going to allow George, Congress, and the corporations to spill before we demand an end to this war and an accounting for the lives that have been needlessly ruined?

It is also time to stop hemorrhaging money in Iraq. I witnessed the abject poverty and sense of abandoment the less fortunate people of New Orleans were living in even before the levees broke. It is time to start pumping hope back into our own communities. It is time to start taking care of Americans. How many millions of our tax dollars are we going to allow George, Congress and the corporations to misuse and waste in Iraq?

Not one more drop of blood. Not one more life. Not one more penny for killing.

If you love our country and want to see a change for the better, come to DC on the 24th of this month and stand up and be counted for peace. The entire world is counting on you.

letter to Bush

2005-09-16T06:42:00.000-04:00

In case you missed HBO¹s "Late Night with Bill Maher," here was his open letter to the President: Mr. President, this job can't be fun for you any more. There's no more money to spend--you used up all of that. You can't start another war because you used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your term has become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people. Listen to your Mom. The cupboard's bare, the credit cards maxed out. No one's speaking to you. Mission accomplished. Now it's time to do what you've always done best: lose interest and walk away. Like you did with your military service and the oil company and the baseball team. It's time. Time to move on and try the next fantasy job. How about cowboy or space man? Now I know what you're saying: there's so many other things that you as President could involve yourself in. Please don't. I know, I know. There's a lot left to do. There's a war with Venezuela. Eliminating the sales tax on yachts. Turning the space program over to the church. And Social Security to Fannie Mae. Giving embryos the vote. But, Sir, none of that is going to happen now. Why? Because you govern like Billy Joel drives. You've performed so poorly I'm surprised that you haven't given yourself a medal. You're a catastrophe that walks like a man. Herbert Hoover was a shitty president, but even he never conceded an entire city to rising water and snakes. On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four airliners, two trade centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of New Orleans. Maybe you're just not lucky. I'm not saying you don't love this country. I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if you were on the other side. So, yes, God does speak to you. What he is saying is: "Take a hint."

Vote For Lee Ballenger!!

2005-09-15T16:48:00.000-04:00

LEE BALLEGER needs TWO MINUTES of your time! Lee has been nominated to the Democracy For America "GRASSROOTS ALL-STAR" list, and needs your vote to get onto the first 12 who will receive nationwide endorsement. I was lucky to be selected to this list during my 2004 campaign and I can tell you from experience.... if we can get Lee on the endorsement list... is will help him BIG TIME! My campaign received thousands in donations from across the nation - and for Lee to compete against the deep pockets of the Barrett campaign, he will need some funding help.

Vote now by going to this link: http://tools.democracyforamerica.com/housevote/

Dean on Roberts

2005-09-15T13:17:00.000-04:00

The Verdict on John Roberts
Governor Dean wrote the following op-ed for national distribution:
John Roberts is a decent family man and a bright, articulate, thoughtful judge. He has a quality absent in previous right wing candidates like Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork, namely a judicial temperament that makes litigants feel that they have been respectfully heard whether they are on the winning or losing side of a verdict.
But John Roberts is the wrong man for the job. Despite the fact that the White House has withheld key documents either out of incompetence or a fear that those documents might prove embarrassing, we have learned enough from the files on Roberts at the Reagan Library to make it clear that he should be rejected. This conclusion has only been solidified by Roberts' testimony during this week's hearings. He has been a polished performer, but in failing to present clear answers to straightforward questions, Roberts missed a crucial opportunity to answer legitimate concerns about his record and show compassion for those who have been excluded from the American Dream. The consistent mark of Roberts' career is a lack of commitment to making the Constitution's promise of equal protection a reality for all Americans, particularly the most vulnerable in our society.
He has opposed laws protecting the rights of girls and young women to have the same opportunities in sports as boys and young men. He has argued that politicians, not individual women themselves, ought to control women's reproductive health care. He has opposed various remedies for the racial injustices which have occurred in America since slavery and which persist today. He has consistently joined the radical right in seeking to weaken voting rights protections, in essence attacking the rights of black and Hispanic voters to cast their ballot without paying poll taxes or being subjected to intimidation or gerrymandering. He fought against protecting all Americans from workplace discrimination. Most worrisome, he refused to answer questions on his limited view of the right to personal privacy that most Americans take for granted.
Over the last half century, we have made great progress in promoting equal opportunity for all Americans, but there is still much work to be done. Hurricane Katrina was more than the most catastrophic natural disaster in American history. Those who have in so many ways been denied the opportunity for full participation in our society once again suffered disproportionately in this tragedy—seniors, African-Americans and those burdened by poverty. Now is not the time for a Chief Justice who is bent on turning back the progress we have made in moving America forward.
Judge Roberts is said to love the law, but loving the law without loving the American people enough to protect their individual rights and freedoms will make our American community weaker. And the exercise of the law without compassion—something that Judge Roberts and so many on the far right have consistently been guilty of—undermines the grace and wisdom of the founders whose sense of balance and fairness made this country great.
In the past few weeks we have seen what happens when politics and indifference supercede compassion and organization. The enduring lesson of Hurricane Katrina is that there still are too many Americans who are disproportionately vulnerable. Despite the fact that they worked hard and played by the rules, their luck ran out. Americans are a compassionate, fair-minded people. Our nation is great and strong because of that compassion, not just because we have a strong military. We also have strong moral values which include an innate sense of justice often absent in many other parts of the world.
Our Government today shrinks from compassion. In doing so they have first diminished America in the eyes of the rest of the world, and now they have diminished America in the eyes of our own people. This is a time for justice tempered with mercy and understanding. There is no evidence of either in Judge Roberts’s career. The President should be denied this nomination.

Judge Roberts

2005-09-15T10:06:00.000-04:00

September 15, 2005
Ready? Cue the Sun...
By DAVID BROOKS
Arlen Specter Welcome to Day 3 of the confirmation hearings of John Roberts. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind the nation of what a wonderful job I'm doing chairing this committee, and I'd like to let the ranking member tell me so.
Patrick Leahy Absolutely, Mr. Chairman! And let me kick off this morning's platitudes about the grandeur of our Constitution by quoting its first three words, "We the People." That means that here in America the people rule - except on issues like abortion, where their opinions don't mean spit.
Specter Very well put, Senator Leahy! And welcome Judge Roberts back before our committee.
John Roberts Jr. Aw, shucks. This has been a humbling experience, Mr. Chairman. To think that a boy from an exclusive prep school and Harvard Law could grow up and be nominated for the Supreme Court - it shows how in America it's possible to rise from privilege to power! That's the hallmark of our great nation.
So while, of course, I can't talk about specific cases, or any emotions, weather patterns or sandwich meats that may come before the Supreme Court at any time between now and my death in 2048, I do want to reiterate that I feel humbled by this experience. I feel humbled that my wife is dozing off behind me. I feel humbled by this committee's inability to lay a glove on me. And I feel modest. You see this suit? I skinny-dip in this suit. That's how modest I feel.
Tom Coburn Well put, Judge Roberts. Yet when I think of the polarization that still divides this great nation ... waaaahhhh ... waaaahhhh. (Senator Coburn breaks down weeping.)
Jeff Sessions This may be a good moment to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that in this country unelected judges don't write the laws. We have unelected lobbyists to do that. Under our system, judges merely interpret the law and decide presidential elections.
Specter Senator Sessions, let me interrupt you right there. We're not here to argue among ourselves and ignore the nominee. We're here to deliver 30-minute speeches disguised as questions and ignore the nominee. So let me turn to Senator Bid - -
Coburn And when I think of the flaws in the reconciliation process! And the gerrymandering! Oh, the suffering! Oh, the humanity! Waaaahhhh ... waaaahhhh. (Senator Coburn collapses and is taken back to his office on a stretcher.)
Specter As I was saying, Senator Biden, you have the floor.
Joseph Biden Jr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought this might be a good moment to give the committee a complete history of my heroic sponsorship of the Violence Against Women Act, but before I do that I'd like to interrupt myself by mentioning that I ride the train every day, often speaking with regular Americans, but before I do that I'd like to interrupt my interruption of myself by asking the chairman to restrain the nominee. During my first round of questioning, the nominee continually interrupted my questions by trying to give answers. I could barely keep up my train of thought on stare decisis.
Edward Kennedy Starry De Cysis? Didn't she do a fan dance down at that old burlesque house in Providence?
Roberts Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't mean to draw attention to myself, for, as I have said, judges are like umpires - not home plate umpires, but those umpires stuck way out by the right-field foul pole. Nobody ever went to a game to watch the umpires.
But as you know, Judge Ginsburg, during her confirmation hearing, had herself wrapped in duct tape for fear that any involuntary reflex gestures she might make would mar her impartiality in deciding cases later on. Following her example, I have decided to spend the rest of these hearings in a soundproof booth, sunk in a tank of ravenous sharks and accompanied only by the illusionist David Copperfield. But before I go into isolation, I would like to mention the intense modesty I feel at this moment, notwithstanding the fact that not a single one of you slobs could have charged $700 an hour the way I did in private practice.
Richard Durbin Judge Roberts, before you go, one of the ways we in the Senate prove our superior souls is by emoting mawkish sentimentality on cue. Would you please emote sadness and pain on behalf of politically powerful but downtrodden groups?
Roberts I am emoting, senator.

Video To Watch

2005-09-15T09:37:00.000-04:00

Click HERE (then scroll down a bit) to watch a hilarious... and very accurate... commentary on the disasterous presidency of George W. Bush.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/09/10.html#a4892

Bush Is Anti-Labor

2005-09-15T08:59:00.000-04:00

A great comment:

It is understandable that during G W Bush's vacation and the horrible devastation of Karina, he did not get around to proclaming, on Labor Day, the appreciation of the people that make this country what it is and provides this countries many wonderful things. After all, it takes him a little time to get back in the groove. But it didn't seem to stop him of thinking about dropping the requirement to pay people in the effected area minumum wage. Says it will put more people to work. What a great guy! After all, they got no car so, so what if their hourly wage matches the price of gas. And the great Republican philosophy, if they are hungry enough, those good for nothing freeloaders will work for anything. Great idea Brownie, 3 days without food and water will drive down labor wage pressures.

George M.

dry drunk?

2005-09-14T19:46:00.000-04:00

From: "Gary Kohls" Date: September 21, 2004 12:09:47 AM GMT+07:00Peace Friends: Here is vitally important information from Jerry Mazza, Joseph Price, MD, and James Fallows.Essentially, Bush's history of alcohol abuse, cocaine abuse, nicotine abuse and probably eating too much toxic Texas beef (all containing deadly neurotoxins that kill brain cells, albeit usually slowly and undetectably until it's too late to do anything about it) - plus his neglectful over-privileged child-rearing history likely accounts for his foul mouth, his indifference to human suffering, his patriotic cruelty to non-Americans and the non-elite, his impulsivity, his obvious lack of intelligence and lack of knowledge, his dyslexia, his arrogant and insulting behaviors, his intolerance and his concretized thinking (celebrated as steadfastness in his leading America towards a cliff and utter disaster).Even though the unelected Bush is mostly puppet and inarticulate spokesperson to the ruthless Rove/Cheney/Ashcroft/Rumsfeld cabal, America will be forced by justice-seekers everywhere to reject and impeach the whole bunch in disgrace (and, equally likely, be crushed economically by the rest of the appalled world).

FEMA 'brownie'

2005-09-08T19:40:00.000-04:00

Where did Bush find 'Brownie'?
He was Bush's college roommate!

FEMA's Failures

2005-09-07T11:09:00.000-04:00

The more you know about the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina, the worse it gets. Last night, the Associated Press reported that FEMA Director Michael Brown "waited hours after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast before he proposed to his boss sending at least 1,000 Homeland Security workers into the region to support rescuers." According to internal documents obtained by the AP, Brown specified that part of the workers mission would be to "'convey a positive image' about the government's response for victims" to the public. While it was sent five hours after the storm hit, Brown's letter lacked any sense of urgency -- he requested the workers arrive within two days. The letter politely ended, "Thank you for your consideration in helping us to meet our responsibilities." Last week, President Bush praised Brown's efforts, telling him "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job."

TOP FEMA DEPUTIES MAKE BROWN LOOK QUALIFIED: Before joining FEMA, Brown "spent 11 years as the commissioner of judges and stewards for the International Arabian Horse Association, a breeders' and horse-show organization based in Colorado." (Brown was forced out "after a spate of lawsuits over alleged supervision failures.") Brown's top deputies, however, make him look qualified. The number two at FEMA, Chief of Staff Patrick Rhode, was an event planner ("advance man") for Bush's presidential campaign. He had absolutely no emergency management experience before joining FEMA. The number three at FEMA, Deputy Chief of Staff Scott Morris, was a press flak at the Bush campaign. He previously worked for Maverick Media, the firm that produced TV spots for Bush's campaigns. Morris also has no emergency management experience. In contrast, the top deputies of Clinton-era FEMA Director James Lee Witt ran regional FEMA offices for at least three years before assuming senior positions in Washington."

FEMA DIVERTS VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS TO SERVE AS BACKDROP FOR BUSH: Responding to an urgent plea from New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, more than a thousand firefighters volunteered to travel to Louisiana to help out. The firefighters thought they were "going to be deployed as emergency workers," but FEMA decided to use them as "community-relations officers." Many of them spent their time passing out fliers with the FEMA phone number. (Shelly Miller, a Mississippi resident whose trailer was severely damaged in the storm, said, "We tried calling FEMA. You can’t get through on the phone lines.") For 50 of the firefighters, their first assignment was "to stand beside President Bush as he tours devastated areas." Many firefighters expressed their disappointment with their role. FEMA spokeswoman Mary Hudak said any firefighter that criticized the agency should "revisit his commitment to FEMA, to firefighting and to the citizens of this country."

FEMA COVERS ITS TRACKS: FEMA's slow and incompetent response to Hurricane Katrina put thousands of people in danger. The agency doesn't want the public to see the human devastation. An agency spokeswoman said, "We have requested that no photographs of the deceased be made by the media." FEMA also rejected "journalists' requests to accompany rescue boats searching for storm victims."

Blaming Bureaucracy

2005-09-07T09:40:00.000-04:00

[From Steve @ http://whitescreek.blogspot.com/]

I see George Bush blaming the "Bureaucracy" for all the problems.

I heard the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff repeat the lie that they didn't deal with the disaster because the papers all said New Orleans dodged the bullet Tuesday morning.

Has anybody told George that he, personally, built the bureacracy that directly caused the deaths of thousands?

George Bush, personally, has now killed more Americans than Bin Laden. More citizens of New Orleans would be alive right now if FEMA had simply not existed on Tuesday morning.

Aaron Brousard, President of Jefferson Parish in New Orleans said this on Meet the Press:

"… Whoever is at the top of this totem pole, that totem pole needs to be chainsawed off and we’ve got to start with some new leadership. It’s not just Katrina that caused all these deaths in New Orleans here. Bureaucracy has committed murder here...

Three quick examples. We had Wal-Mart deliver three trucks of water. FEMA turned them back. They said we didn’t need them. This was a week ago. FEMA, we had 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel on a Coast Guard vessel docked in my parish. When we got there with our trucks, FEMA says don’t give you the fuel. Yesterday — yesterday — FEMA comes in and cuts all of our emergency communication lines. They cut them without notice. Our sheriff, Harry Lee, goes back in, he reconnects the line. He posts armed guards and said no one is getting near these lines…"

"...I want to give you one last story and I’ll shut up and let you tell me whatever you want to tell me. The guy who runs this building I’m in, Emergency Management, he’s responsible for everything. His mother was trapped in St. Bernard nursing home and every day she called him and said, “Are you coming, son? Is somebody coming?” and he said, “Yeah, Mama, somebody’s coming to get you.” Somebody’s coming to get you on Tuesday. Somebody’s coming to get you on Wednesday. Somebody’s coming to get you on Thursday. Somebody’s coming to get you on Friday… and she drowned Friday night. She drowned Friday night! [Sobbing] ..."

"Good job, Brownie!" George W. Bush told the man he appointed to head FEMA. A man fired from his previous job running horse shows.

This morning I heard the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs say, "We got there on Friday and by then, everything was well taken care of."

“Are you coming, son? Is somebody coming?” and he said, “Yeah, Mama, somebody’s coming to get you.” Somebody’s coming to get you on Tuesday. Somebody’s coming to get you on Wednesday. Somebody’s coming to get you on Thursday. Somebody’s coming to get you on Friday… and she drowned Friday night. She drowned Friday night! [Sobbing] ..."

Bush To Investigate Himself??

2005-09-07T09:27:00.000-04:00

09/06/05 "PoliticalPost.com" -- -- Bush announced today in Washington, according to the Wall Street Journal, that "he will personally lead an investigation into what went wrong with the response to Hurricane Katrina."
Wrong!!!! Not going to happen. Nope!

What the heck! Does he think we are all stupid?

Bush can not investigate himself.

In fact ... if ever there was a need for an independent investigation it is now. The staged photo op's that George Bush perpetrated on the people of America on Friday along the gulf coast demonstrates his inability to do anything that isn't purely political and self-serving.

Here are just a few questions that Bush needs to be asked by an independent investigator:

* Why did you wait until Thursday to authorize troops to be sent in to New Orleans
* Why did you think some one whose last job as president of a horse association was the right person to head up FEMA
* Were you aware that Michael Brown was asked to leave his position at the horse association?
* Did you think it was appropriate to hold your press conference in New Orleans in front of 50 helicopters preventing them from flying rescue missions for as much as a half a day?
* Did you think it was appropriate for a hurricane aid station to be built for your photo op in Mississippi only to be torn down within a few hours?
* Do you think it was appropriate to fly into Louisiana on Sunday for a private photo op and not inform the Governor of Louisiana that you were coming?
* Do you think it was a good idea to cut the funding for flood control projects along the gulf coast every year of your presidency.

The ridiculousness of the idea that George Bush would actually lead an investigation into the government's lack of response to Katrina is laughable if it weren't so completely sickening.

The Bush Agenda: Chronology To Disaster

2005-09-06T11:15:00.000-04:00

CHRONOLOGY.... Here's a timeline that outlines the fate of both FEMA and flood control projects in New Orleans under the Bush administration:

January 2001: Bush appoints Joe Allbaugh, a crony from Texas, as head of FEMA. Allbaugh has no previous experience in disaster management.

April 2001: Budget Director Mitch Daniels announces the Bush administration's goal of privatizing much of FEMA's work. In May,Allbaugh confirms that FEMA will be downsized:

"Many are concerned that federal disaster assistance may have evolved into both an oversized entitlement program...." he said. "Expectations of when the federal government should be involved and the degree of involvement may have ballooned beyond what is an appropriate level."

2001: FEMA designates a major hurricane hitting New Orleans as one of the three "likeliest, most catastrophic disasters facing this country."

December 2002: After less than two years at FEMA,Allbaugh announces he is leaving to start up a consulting firm that advises companies seeking to do business in Iraq. He is succeeded by his deputy,Michael Brown, who,like Allbaugh, has no previous experience in disaster management.

March 2003: FEMA is downgraded from a cabinet level position and folded into the Department of Homeland Security. Its mission is refocused on fighting acts of terrorism.

2003: Under its new organization chart within DHS,FEMA's preparation and planning functions are reassigned to a new Office of Preparedness and Response. FEMA will henceforth focus only on response and recovery.

Summer 2004: FEMA denies Louisiana's pre-disaster mitigation funding requests. Says Jefferson Parish flood zone manager Tom Rodrigue: "You would think we would get maximum consideration....This iswhat the grant program called for. We were more than qualified for it."

June 2004: The Army Corps of Engineers budget for levee construction in New Orleans is slashed. Jefferson Parish emergency management chiefs Walter Maestri comments: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay."

June 2005: Funding for the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is cut by a record $71.2 million. One of the hardest-hit areas is
the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project,which was created after the May 1995 flood to improve drainage in Jefferson,Orleans and St.Tammany parishes.

August 2005: While New Orleans is undergoing a slow motion catastrophe,Bush mugs for the cameras, cuts a cake for John McCain,plays the guitar for Mark Wills, delivers an address about V-J day, and continues with his vacation.
When he finally gets around to acknowledging the scope of the unfolding disaster, he delivers only a photo op on Air Force One and a flat,defensive, laundry list speech in the Rose Garden.

A crony with no relevant experience was installed as head of FEMA. Mitigation budgets for New Orleans were slashed even though it was known to be one of the top three risks in the country. FEMA was deliberately downsized as part of the Bush administration's conservative agenda to reduce the role of government. After DHS was created, FEMA's preparation and planning functions were taken away.

Actions have consequences. No one could predict that a hurricane the size of Katrina would hit this year, but the slow federal response when it did happen was no accident. It was the result of four years of deliberate Republican policy and budget choices that favor ideology and partisan loyalty at the expense of operational competence. It's the Bushadministration in a nutshell.

-------------------------

Henry Breitrose
Professor of Communication
Department of Communication
Stanford University

Think About It THIS WAY....

2005-09-05T23:43:00.000-04:00

For some Americans, there is just no getting past their addiction to Bush's form of patriotic crack... "We're spreading freedom and democracy." Our boys our getting attacked every day by the people we are there to defend... and still these Bush defenders won't wake up from the fantasy.

Try to think about it this way:

Imagine if the Republican National Committee went in NEW ORLEANS right NOW and tried to do a VOTER REGISTRATION DRIVE...after they botched things so badly after the storm. How would the people react?? Seriously, someone might get killed!

The people of Iraq have no power (compared to pre-war levels) and no security, and we can't understand why they won't embrace "freedom and democracy". Think about it. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bremer... they are serial mismanagers who hire cronies instead of qualified people. Bring our boys home - their leaders have failed them, made their task impossible, and there's no digging our way out.

Dr. King's spirit reaches out to us....

2005-09-05T21:19:00.000-04:00

Don't sit and wait for this flash movie to start... you have to SCROLL DOWN and hit PLAY on the left hand side of the page.

http://www.djpauledge.com/wewillnotbesilenced/

FEMA Director

2005-09-05T19:24:00.000-04:00

yes, Brownie was fired begore coming to FEMA. He was the head of the Arabian Horse Show Judges Association for 9 years. great preparation for head of emergency preparedness!

Category 4 Hurricane Determined to Strike U.S.

2005-09-05T09:41:00.000-04:00

from dailykos.com

by Hunter
Thu Sep 1st, 2005 at 10:28:22 PDT

George W. Bush was once known as the C.E.O. President, a term his handlers eagerly coined in order to convey that the country would from now on be run like a business. That quickly evolved into the less flattering Enron President... then the War President... now it's looking like we can all finally settle on one. George W. Bush: the Disaster President.

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

He honestly said that. If that brings up more than a passing twinge of familiarity, being a more than remarkable restatement of Condi Rice's now-famous assertion to the Senate panel -- then I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.

But it does bring up something that we joke about often, but apparently have never taken quite seriously enough: our President is an idiot. I don't mean an average, run-of-the-mill idiot. I mean an idiot who apparently, for the entire duration of his presidency, literally was paying absolutely no attention to even the most life-threateningly critical tasks of government.

The administration specifically cut the funds to fix these specific levees, in order to specifically divert that Corps money to Iraq, despite urgent warnings and predictions of catastrophic disaster if the levees were breeched. The administration specifically cancelled the Clinton-backed flood control program to preserve and restore the wetlands between New Orleans and the gulf, instead specifically opening parts of that buffer zone for development.

Nobody anticipated this disaster? It was identified by FEMA as one of the top three likeliest major disasters to strike America. (That link, one of countless stories, was from 2001, by the way.) It has been a major disaster scenario for years. Everybody anticipated it, which makes this single statement by George W. Bush possibly the most dishonest, lying, craptacularly false thing he has ever said in his presidency -- even surpassing his now-infamous State of the Union Address. Truly, this is President Bush's blue-dress moment.

And yet, funneling the money into Iraq was more important. You better bet your crapulent, lying, one-track, drink-addled ass that's a political issue.

The Liars are Spinning. We're not fooled.

2005-09-05T09:36:00.000-04:00

[From my friend Steve at http://whitescreek.blogspot.com/]

Is a Bush Administration official Lying?

George Bush: "The levee broke...No one expected the Levee would break."

"We were briefing them way before landfall," Mayfield said. "It’s not like this was a surprise. We had in the advisories that the levee could be topped."

Dr. Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center

And more lies:

(From Newsweek)
Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco seemed uncertain and sluggish, hesitant to declare martial law or a state of emergency, which would have opened the door to more Pentagon help.

(Washington Post) today in which they reported, on the say-so of an unidentified "senior Bush official", that as late as yesterday Louisiana Gov. Blanco still hadn't gotten around to declaring a state of emergency. This, allegedly, had prevented a more rapid federal response...

The Senior Bush administration official is Karl Rove.

He's lying!

Governor Blanco issued the State of Emergency declaration almost immediately(Sept. 26)

Why do Newsweek and WAPO still print what he says and give him the cover of anonymity?

Look...For now, let us all just assume that nearly everyone in the entire Bush Administration is incompetent. We already know they are corrupt, but Americans have always tolerated corrupt officials as long as they got the job done. When they can't do simple things like get water and food to the area hit by the greatest preventable disaster in American history, we have to forget about them and do it ourselves.

I mean we have relief supplies delivered by a piano player, a couple of pro football players, and freakin' WalMart gets a bluelight special of 13 trucks worth of food and water into downtown New Orleans before FEMA gets there?

Just so you'll know, the man Bush appointed to head FEMA was fired from his previous job.

Courage,

Steve

Thanks to KOS and Josh Marshall
(links on the sidebar)

SICK OF BULLSH** EXCUSES!!!

2005-09-04T13:53:00.000-04:00

Once again, this half-whit, spoiled, rich boy President has PROVEN to the world that he has been elevated to job for which he lacks even the MINIMUM amount of competence. If we impeached a president for lying about cheating on his wife... I ask our Congress... IS THERE ANYTHING, ANYTHING THIS MAN COULD DO TO GET IMPEACHED??

And just so you have some facts to shove down the throat of anyone who actually has the nerve to try and defend this man... Let's get some facts straight, in order of relevance:

1. The National Weather Service was telling the world (any TV's in Crawford?) FOUR DAYS before the storm hit that a Category 5 Hurricane of biblical size was heading for New Orleans.

2. The President stayed on vacation and left planning to subordinates. Thursday: Vacation. Friday: Vacation. Saturday: Vacation. Sunday: Vacation. Monday: Vacation. **Storm Hits** Tuesday: Flies to San Diego to give a "SUPPORT THE WAR" speech and go to fundraiser. Sick, just sick. Wednesday: FINALLY heads to Washington.

3. The president's declaration that "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees" is a LIE, LIE, LIE that should result in his removal from office. FEMA's National Response Plan outlines several "catastrophic disasters" that would present the highest challenge... An attach on New York by terrorists, a catastrophic earthquake on the west coast, and a Category 5 Hurricane hitting New Orleans, resulting in LEVEE BREACH and flooding of the city!!

Culture of life??? What a joke. These people have the most disgusting political agenda in the history of our country. They use religion to get elected and then they turn their back on God's people. There is a special place in hell for all of them.

BUSH STRAFES NEW ORLEANS; WHERE IS OUR HUEY LONG?

2005-09-02T14:15:00.000-04:00

by Greg Palast

Friday, September 2, 2005

The National Public Radio news anchor was so excited I thought she'd piss on herself: the President of the United had flown his plane down to 1700 feet to get a better look at the flood damage! And there was a photo of our Commander-in-Chief taken looking out the window. He looked very serious and concerned.

That was yesterday. Today he played golf. No kidding.

I'm sure the people of New Orleans would have liked to show their appreciation for the official Presidential photo-strafing, but their surface-to-air missiles were wet.

There is nothing new under the sun. In 1927, a Republican President had his photo taken as the Mississippi rolled over New Orleans. Calvin Coolidge, "a little fat man with a notebook in his hand," promised to rebuild the state. He didn't. Instead, he left to play golf with Ken Lay or the Ken Lay railroad baron equivalent of his day.

In 1927, the Democratic Party had died and was awaiting burial. As depression approached, the coma-Dems, like Franklin Roosevelt, called for balancing the budget.

Then, as the waters rose, one politician finally said, roughly, "Screw this! They're lying! The President's lying! The rich fat cats that are drowning you will do it again and again and again. They lead you into imperialist wars for profit, they take away your schools and your hope and when you complain, they blame Blacks and Jews and immigrants. Then they push your kids under. I say, Kick'm in the ass and take your rightful share!"

Huey Long laid out a plan: a progressive income tax, real money for education, public works to rebuild Louisiana and America, an end to wars for empire, and an end to financial oligarchy. The waters receded, the anger did not, and Huey "Kingfish" Long was elected Governor of Louisiana in 1928.

At the time, Louisiana schools were free, but not the textbooks. Governor Long taxed Big Oil to pay for the books. Rockefeller's oil companies refused pay the textbook tax, so Long ordered the National Guard to seize Standard Oil's fields in the Delta.

Huey Long was called a "demagogue" and a "dictator." Of course. Because it was Huey Long who established the concept that a government of the people must protect the people, school, house, and feed them and give every man or woman a job who needs one.

Government, he said, "We The People," not plutocrats nor Halliburtons, must build bridges and levies to keep the waters from rising over our heads. All we had to do was share the nation's wealth we created as a nation. But that meant facing down what he called the "concentrations of monopoly power" to finance the needs of the public.

In other words, Huey Long founded the modern Democratic Party. Franklin Roosevelt and the party establishment, scared senseless of Long's ineluctable march to the White House, adopted his program, called it the New Deal, and later The New Frontier and the Great Society.

America and the party prospered.

America could use a Democratic Party again and there's a rumor it's alive -- somewhere.

And now is the moment, as it was in '27. As the bodies float in the streets of New Orleans, now is not the time for the Democrats to shirk and slink away, bleating they can't "politicize" this avoidable disaster.

Seventy-six years ago this week, Huey Long was shot down, assassinated at the age of 43. But the legacy of his combat remains, from Social Security to veterans' mortgage loans.

There is no such thing as a "natural" disaster. Hurricanes happen, but death comes from official neglect, from tax cuts for the rich that cut the heart out of public protection. The corpses in the street are victims of a class war in which only one side has a general.

Where is our Huey Long? America needs just one Kingfish to stand up and say that our nation must rid itself of the scarecrow with the idiot chuckle, who has left America broken and in danger while he plays tinker-toy Napoleon on other continents.

I realize that the middle of rising flood is a hell of a bad time to give Democrats swimming lessons; but it's act up now or we all go under.

**********
A pedagogical note: As I travel around the USA, I'm just horrified at America's stubborn historical amnesia. Americans, as Sam Cooke said, don't know squat about history. We don't learn the names of a nation's capitol until the 82d Airborne lands there. And it doesn't count if you've watched a Ken Burns documentary on PBS.

I suggest starting with this: read "Huey Long" by the late historian Harry T. Williams. If you want to ease into it, get the Randy Newman album based on it (Good Old Boys) with the song, "Louisiana 1927." Listen to part of the song at www.GregPalast.com Do NOT watch the crappy right-wing agit-prop film, "Huey Long," by Ken Burns.

Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Subscribe to his commentaries or view his investigative reports for BBC Television at www.GregPalast.com

A horrible, horrible mess... and where's the Guard?

2005-09-02T07:00:00.000-04:00

Four hot days without food and water and people at the Superdome in New Orleans - people who did what their government told them - began dying of dehydration. The news reported last night that 2,000 National Guard troops were already on the ground. 2,000?? For a disaster of this magnitude?? What is going on??

"Missing the personnel is the big thing in this particular event. We need our people."

- Lt. Andy Thaggard, a spokesman for the Mississippi National Guard, commenting on how having so many troops in Iraq is hampering relief efforts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

This morning, MSNBC is reporting that tens of thousands of guard assets are "ON THEIR WAY" to the area... too late for the people who died in the Superdome or the countless tens of thousands still stranded, starving and without water, in flooded neighborhoods. I wonder why 10,000 National Guard troops weren't deployed on DAY 2 of this disaster?

Limbaugh Lie Machine

2005-08-30T09:36:00.000-04:00

Rush Limbaugh was on a roll this week. He got caught in so many lies that Karl Rove must be jealous.

Lie 'o The Week: Limbaugh made a big deal about Bill Clinton, claiming he only met with CIA head George Tenet "Twice" in his term as President.

The Truth: Clinton had two meetings a week with Tenet and had the PDB created as a means of communicating intelligence. Remember PDB's? Presidential Daily Briefings? Remember one that George Bush refused to read? You know...the one titled, "Bin Laden determined to attack Within the United States"?

Here's the long list of Limbaugh lies for this week:

http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?topic=Rush%20Limbaugh

What Noble Cause Did Casey Sheehan Die For?

2005-08-30T08:29:00.000-04:00

So our soldiers are dying to install an Islamic State supported by IRAN??? Has the world suddenly turned upside down, or is it just me??

"Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation. No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam."
- Iraqi Constitution supported by Iran-backed Shiites and the Bush Administration (but opposed by Sunni leaders)

"Fortunately, after years of effort and expectations in Iraq, an Islamic state has come to power and the constitution has been established on the basis of Islamic precepts. We must congratulate the Iraqi people and authorities for this victory."
- Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, head of Iran's powerful ultra-conservative Guardian Council

"This is the future of the new Iraqi government - it will be in the hands of the clerics. I wanted Iraqi women to be free, to be able to talk freely and to able to move around. I am not going to stay here."
- Dr. Raja Kuzai, an obstetrician and secular Shiite member of the Assembly who met President Bush in the White House in November 2003.

The next evolution... Smear Combos!

2005-08-29T20:33:00.000-04:00

American 'Sacrifice': What does it mean?

2005-08-29T16:31:00.000-04:00

In response to America’s growing anger about Iraq, President Bush has been repeating the word ‘sacrifice’ in most of his speeches. In his latest radio address, for example, the President told us that “Our efforts in Iraq and the broader Middle East will require more time, more sacrifice and continued resolve.”

But is it right--is it American--to call for ‘sacrifice’ in this way? How, in other words, are Americans to respond when President Bush speaks to us of 'sacrifice'?

Sometimes, the best way to make sense of President Bush’s words is to compare his speeches to those of other Presidents.

Perhaps the most powerful use of the word ‘sacrifice’ by a U.S. President can be found in Franklin Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union address. In this speech, Roosevelt explained what it meant for America to use its vast resources to aid those nations fighting the war against conquering dictatorships in Europe and Asia:

“We must all prepare to make the sacrifices that the emergency-almost as serious as war itself-demands. Whatever stands in the way of speed and efficiency in defense preparations must give way to the national need.”

He then linked this idea of ‘sacrifice’ to his idea of ‘Four Freedoms,’ a concept so powerful that it continues to inspire us 65 years later:

Full Column

Republican SMEAR Machine In Action...

2005-08-28T18:11:00.000-04:00

One of my friends, a staunch Republican, emailed this to me. I endure the jokes and right-wing crap he sends me and take most of it with a grain of salt. I've learned that you don't waste your energy trying to convert the unconvertable!

This one, however, was just sickening... and regardless of your personal opinion on the war in Iraq, to suggest this woman is on the side of our mortal enemy is beyond bad taste. She has sacrificed more than these chicken-hawk, country club Republicans will ever know... she lost her son to this War. If anyone has a right to speak, it is Cindy Sheehan.

Once again, I remind our Republican friends who question our patriotism and refuse to even debate whether this war is actually growing worldwide terrorism:

A great Republican President once said: "That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” -Theodore Roosevelt

Amen, Teddy.

Strategizing a Christian Coup d'Etat

2005-08-28T12:12:00.000-04:00

I guess what bothers me most about this article is not just the EXTREMISM, but the subtle, pervasive idea that fuels the religious right and keeps the Republican Party in power: The idea is that Jesus Christ would WANT a government to FORCE people to live according biblical principles.

Though none of us should be so arrogant as to pretend to know the will of Christ, we can certainly observe how Jesus lived and draw some simple conclusions. First, Jesus wasn't a fan of people who wore their religion on their sleeve and proclaimed themselves righteous. The righteous religious leaders were the ones who eventually demanded Jesus' execution. Second, the core teaching of Jesus was that salvation could only come by believing in Him. Jesus certainly had the power to rule the world from on high... so I think if He thought government was the best way to bring people around to God's will, he would have taken a throne on Earth.

Christians who believe government should be a tool of Christianity not only trash our beloved constitution, but they turn my beloved Lord and Savior into a politician. That is wrong, and I will always stand firm against that type of ignorance. Am I wrong?

GREENVILLE, S.C. — It began, as many road trips do, with a stop at Wal-Mart to buy a portable DVD player.

But Mario DiMartino was planning more than a weekend getaway. He, his wife and three children were embarking on a pilgrimage to South Carolina.

"I want to migrate and claim the gold of the Lord," said the 38-year-old oil company executive from Pennsylvania. "I want to replicate the statutes and the mores and the scriptures that the God of the Old Testament espoused to the world."

DiMartino, who drove here recently to look for a new home, is a member of Christian Exodus, a movement of politically active believers who hope to establish a government based upon Christian principles.

At a time when evangelicals are exerting influence on the national political stage — having helped secure President Bush's reelection — Christian Exodus believes that people of faith have failed to assert their moral agenda: Abortion is legal. School prayer is banned. There are limits on public displays of the Ten Commandments. Gays and lesbians can marry in Massachusetts.

Christian Exodus activists plan to take control of sheriff's offices, city councils and school boards. Eventually, they say, they will control South Carolina. They will pass godly legislation, defying Supreme Court rulings on the separation of church and state.

Full Story

A Voice of Reason...

2005-08-26T10:00:00.000-04:00

"The growing chorus of voices demanding a pullout should seriously alarm the Bush administration, because President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam: failing to craft a realistic and effective policy and instead simply demanding that the American people show resolve.

Resolve isn't enough to mend a flawed approach -- or to save the lives of our troops.

If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home."

General Wesley Clark

Oh, and if you think everyone in the military supports Bush and his lies, think again. The Bush people were apparently pretty upset with a bunch of Vets during Bush's War speech at the VFW National Meeting last week. No commentary necessary... just check out the image below. Military guys are great... they know how to deliver shots that really sting...

Hypocrisy among morality police

2005-08-22T18:00:00.000-04:00

A few months ago, State Senator Chip Campsen sought to pass legislation enacting criminal penalties against clergy who conduct marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners on the stated basis that there is no point in making something a crime unless penalties are enacted to prevent the crime from occurring.

This is part of a Statewide (and maybe Regional or National) trend to legislate morality. But, somehow those who are trying to come up with new and sundry ways to criminalize acts which offend their moral sensibilities are ignoring the fact that we already have laws on the books of this nature that are rarely (if ever enforced). For example:

SC Code Ann. § 16-15-60 (1976, as amended) titled “Adultery or fornication” provides:

Any man or woman who shall be guilty of the crime of adultery or fornication shall be liable to indictment and, on conviction, shall be severally punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than one year or by both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.

SC Code Ann. § 16-15-80 provides,

"Fornication" is the living together and carnal intercourse with each other or habitual carnal intercourse with each other without living together of a man and woman, both being unmarried.

Former Lt. Governor Bob Peeler has admitted that he committed adultery. And while Governor Sanford's [former] Spokesperson Will Folks has denied that he committed Domestic Abuse, evidence suggests that he is guilty of the crime of fornication. So why isn't Campsen calling for the prosecution of the former Lt. Governor and Mr. Folks? Could it be because they are white, male, Republican, heterosexual Conservatives?

Mr. Peeler has been quoted as saying that his situation is a “private matter.” And well he should given that he would apparently be facing multiple counts of adultery if the applicable law were applied strictly. Maybe he would be interested in helping repeal this silly law and in convincing Senator Campsen not to try to enact any more silly laws.

-- Name withheld upon request, Summerville, S.C.

Progressive Energy Policies Serve Our National Interest

2005-08-22T15:11:00.000-04:00

As Americans struggle with $3 a gallon gasoline in some parts of the country, and many others facing sharp increases in heating fuel for the winter months, it is time for our leaders to come to grips with the hard truth: our nation must end its excessive reliance on oil. In order to protect our economy and ensure our way of life, we must take far-reaching efforts to diversify our energy production with renewable sources; reduce our reliance on unstable and uncertain foreign oil; and transform our consumption patterns into more sustainable and efficient ways of using energy. Unfortunately, right-wing leaders have taken the exact opposite approach favoring tax handouts to huge oil companies and virtually ignoring consumption needs and alternative energy sources.

·We should help Americans move into more affordable, fuel efficient vehicles. Increasing fuel economy standards should be the top priority but we should go beyond production standards. Low-income drivers tend to own less efficient vehicles that are also often the least reliable, the least safe and the most polluting cars on the road. Programs designed to get the most polluting cars off the roads have already been used successfully in a few states. Just as the government helps low-income households meet their home energy needs through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, progressives should adopt a policy that helps low-income drivers scrap their inefficient vehicles and replace them with efficient cars.

We should encourage industries to embrace innovation and increase their bottom lines by producing the next generation of cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks. Innovation in the automobile sector will help maintain a domestic manufacturing base and provide good jobs for the future in the automobile sector and beyond. Tax credits to convert auto plants to produce more efficient vehicles are one alternative. Another is to create an x-prize style program to promote cars of the future whereby the government would offer a cash prize for the first company that develops and sells one million vehicles that achieve efficiency of at least 80 miles per gallon. A smaller prize would go to the second place finisher. An additional reward for the winners could be a guaranteed federal procurement for the federal fleet and low-income leasing program, if that program was adopted. We should also encourage the development of alternative fuels like bio-diesel and shift agricultural subsidies to support these changes.

We should make energy independence a national budgetary priority. The federal budget still contains tax incentives that actually increase oil consumption. These should be eliminated and funds redirected, starting with the $25,000 tax credit for the heaviest SUVs. This would save the Treasury almost $250 million annually and help cover the costs of other programs to help reduce oil consumption. In addition to saving the federal Treasury money by increasing the fuel efficiency of the government fleet, they could increase access to affordable, reliable transportation, which in turn would expand job opportunities for many workers and spur economic development.

Who made these statements? A bunch of HYPOCRITES, that's who!

2005-08-20T10:40:00.000-04:00

"You can support the troops but not the president."

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

"I had doubts ... from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

All quotes are from Republicans during the Clinton Administration.

The Speakers?

Senator Rick Santorum
Karen Hughes, spokesman for George W. Bush
Senator Trent Lott
Tom Delay
Sean Hannity
Joe Scarborough (R-Fl at the time)
The next to last quote is from Tom Delay.
The last one is straight from George W. Bush"s mouth.

This particular quote is identical to what Cindy Sheehan is trying to ask George W, Bush:

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

Hannity has savaged Cindy on his show, reporting lie after lie about her.

Lighter Fare...

2005-08-18T17:48:00.000-04:00

How many members of the Bush Administration does it take to change a light
bulb?

Answer: Ten, not counting the President.

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed.
2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed.
3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb.
4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the light bulb or for darkness.
5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Haliburton for the new light bulb.
6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner: "Light Bulb Change Accomplished"
7. One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark.
8. One to viciously smear #7.
9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along.
10. And finally one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.

Real People Getting The Shaft

2005-08-17T20:05:00.000-04:00

Below is a letter a WestPoint Stevens employee wrote to the Anderson Independent in response to David Williams eye-opening article on the "restructuring" of the bankruptcy settlement. Friends, for nearly 20 years we have watched the pro-corporate, anti-worker Republican crowd slowly change the government and legal system to put the rights of workers DEAD LAST. The result is the anguish in this young ladies letter. As a society, we can do better. KC

Mr. Williams,

I worked for WestPoint Stevens for over 10 years and was offered a job with the new company "WestPoint Home". When I was presented with the papers for the new company, in a meeting held to obtain signatures of the people they were to hire, I REFUSED TO SIGN THEM! I feel what they did was wrong and dirty to all of the people who gave WestPoint their many years of service. I am saddened to know how many people are going to be hurt financially by the events that unfolded. Some people were relying on the money for a supplement to their retirement, some are taking the 401K penalty for early withdrawal. It is truly a hard pill to swallow for a lot of people. My husband and I both were employees of WestPoint Stevens.

The entire second shift in the Distribution Center was laid off 1 to 2 weeks prior to the changing of hands, they got none of the severance at all other than maybe 1 or 2 weeks worth. The rest who were still employed, were left to suffer the wrath of a corrupt yet legal business transaction that transpired in the following days requiring people to just suck it up and sign away.

Of the ones that were left, lots of people were upset, but some were just content to have work a little longer. The upset people still had no choice but to sign the papers. Work is slow and checks have gotten smaller with no overtime. People are strapped for cash and need every check to meet their expenses. They had to sign. They are held over a barrel in a lose, lose situation. I was told that refusal to sign the new forms meant that I was "voluntarily quitting my job and would not be eligible for unemployment compensation or any other benefits of the Trade Act Petition... ", I said, "NO, I am just refusing to sign these papers! I think it is morally wrong, and I am not signing them! I do not agree with what is in them!"

OH YEAH.....

DO ME A FAVOR....Thank our wonderful politicians who fabricate these grand ideas and pass them into laws with the collaboration and assistance of all the big corporate lobbyist they keep safely tucked away in their pockets! How can the politicians from OUR very own state be big supporters of CAFTA....MONEY and GREED are the only answers I can see!

Honestly, do our politicians not see themselves selling their soul to the devil as they are sticking it to their OWN STATE and their OWN PEOPLE! How can you allow Big Business like WestPoint Stevens and Carl Icahn get their way in the Bankruptcy Courts, and yet spit on the very people who voted for you and will soon be on hard times because of outsourcing by saying, "No, no.... Bankruptcy is ok for them, just not you!", as they chant "CAFTA, CAFTA!" I ask, where are your values Senators and Congressmen? Certainly not on the people who voted for you. Not the average working family in this state. Not the people who can't afford insurance anymore and have to decide to pay either the doctor bill, house payment or car payment because they simply can't pay all and they can't file for bankruptcy protection against them or the credit card company which is now charging them 25% interest rates just because they can now!

I guess they think we are riding the wave of ignorance and will be as long as they get enough campaign contributions in their pocket to bombard our TV with their 10 second smiles and practiced looks of concern for us poor people who are uninformed and simply vote for whoever we are told to support on Sunday, or for whoever's ad says the scariest things about the other guy.

When it affects people on a personal level they have no choice but to examine the facts and how they got in the position they are in. I hope people consider seriously studying before voting. If you vote for someone because someone told you who to vote for, or their ad said something about the other person you didn't like....do some research for yourself. If GW says the economy is flourishing, ask yourself...1st- Wow, where did GW get such a big word, and one that he didn't have to make up himself either..... and then 2nd- Do I feel it flourishing? Do the people in my area feel it? Do the unemployment numbers show it? Does my bank account feel good about it? Hmmmm............... Well, he says it is, it must be so. He would not lie to us, we voted for him! I am sure he is just as loyal to us as we are to him. OK.... if this is his best, PLEASE just give me somebody, anybody competent and in touch with reality PLEASE!!! Brandy B.

Watch Bush Snub Fallen Soldier's Mom

2005-08-15T08:32:00.000-04:00

Hey people,

You need to go to the Truthout.org website and check out the videos from Crawford Texas, and watch the SON-OF-A-BUSH'S caravan of SOB's in SUV's, on their way to a multi-million dollar Republican fund-raiser, drive right past Cindy Sheehan, mother of fallen hero Casey Sheehan, who gave all for his country in Iraq, in George W. Bush's illegal, immoral and totally unnecessary war of choice for oil, influence, and profit, brought forth by BUSH ADMINISTRATION LIES!!!!

Here is the link - http://www.truthout.org/multimedia.htm
Please send it to your friends.

Thanks,
Mike B.

Add Cindy Sheehan to the list. She too dared to stand up for the truth, after losing a son in Bush's war, and found herself in a ditch.

2005-08-14T21:33:00.000-04:00

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL (www.buzzflash.com)

It's as routine and expectable as a chicken laying an egg.

A patriotic American stands up for the truth, and Bush sends Karl Rove out to assassinate their character and pulverize their reputation.

It could be a CIA operative who is rendered inoperable, even though she tracked weapons of mass destruction -- and her CIA front company was exposed by Rove. It could be war heroes like Kerry and McCain, even though the closest Bush got to war was flying plants to Florida in a Texas National Guard Plane. It could be the former National Security Council specialist on terrorism, like Richard Clarke.

The list of slanderous attacks against Americans loyal to their nation and brave in battle goes on and on. It is what Karl Rove does best, like a chicken laying an egg -- an apt analogy to be sure -- since Rove is like Young Republicans in college today who support wars but avoid serving in them.

But what of the Americans hoodwinked by this grave betrayal of their nation? How many are taken in by the demagogues of the media who take their marching orders and messages of the day from Bush's hatchet man, Karl Rove? Millions upon millions listen to the deceptive propaganda of pill-popping Rush Limbaugh and take it as the truth.

"Their" president, the tall white man who boasts that he is God's servant, can do no wrong.

Perhaps it is because so few Democrats are willing to peel off the veneer of manufactured respectability created by Rove. Perhaps it is because most of the corporate press, especially television, dare not offend the White House out of fear that Bush will seek revenge and take actions that will harm their media consolidation plans and profits. Perhaps it is because in an age of television, a Disneyesque visual image of piety overpowers the nefarious reality of having a traitor in the White House.

After all, in TreasonGate, it is Bush and Rove vs. the CIA, not Joe Wilson -- although they would like you to think the latter. And Bush still unleashes Rove to do his stiletto jobs on anyone who would reveal the reality of the Bush lies, deceit and betrayal. Bush is no longer someone who just condones treason; he has enabled it and continues to let the same people who harmed our national security do their anti-American slime jobs out of America's House, the White House.

Now Cindy Sheehan, mother of a young son killed in service in Sadr City, Iraq, sits in a ditch outside of Crawford, Texas, as Bush unleashes Rove, yet again, to besmirch and degrade her. George and his henchmen go after women with a special relish. They are so indifferent and vengeful that even the mother of one of our soldiers killed in action is just more target practice for enforcement of their Omerta.

The Democratic leaders in Congress continue to miss the boat. They think that they need to imitate the Machiavellian appeal of Bush to moral values, when the evidence is in plain sight that the man is immoral. His only claim to credibility is that he says he believes in God, but wonder if God doesn't believe in him? Wonder if God finds him a loathsome creature who betrays the teachings of Christ? Wonder if God long ago abandoned Bush, because Bush long ago abandoned God in deed and practice?

BuzzFlash can announce to the world that Jesus saved us and God is our divine guide in governing America. But judge us then by our deeds, not our words. And so should George W. Bush be judged.

He is a man who countenances acts of evil, who harbors and encourages those who commit them in his name, out of personal loyalty -- rather than loyalty to the nation.

God will judge him harshly, as the American people should, for long ago his primary motivation became the amassing of personal power -- not the practice of religious principles.

Americans loyal to their nation -- and not the power hungry actions of an incompetent scion of a corrupt family with pedigree -- should shun him, for he endangers our safety, our Constitution, the truth, and our good names.

Add Cindy Sheehan to the list. She too dared to stand up for the truth, after losing a son in Bush's war, and found herself in a ditch.

Dean Says Democrats Must Take Offensive

2005-08-09T23:40:00.000-04:00

Burlington, Vt. - Howard Dean gives Republicans credit for one thing: They have put the Democrats on the defensive and forced them to fight on their turf. That, he said, is about to change.

"What the propagandists on the right have done is make people afraid to say they are Democrats," Dean told a gathering of Vermont Democrats. "We have to be out there. We have to be vocal. We have to be pushing our version of the facts because their version of the facts is very unfactual."

After visiting 30 states in the first six months as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Dean said Monday he has found "There are Democrats everywhere."

The key to success is making those Democrats proud of their party, Dean said, by taking the offensive and fighting on Democratic turf.

"We need a message. It has to be clear," he said. "The framing of the debate determines who wins the debate.

"Running away from issues is how you lose elections," said Dean, a former Vermont governor.

"We need to position ourselves as the party of change," he said. "I think we have learned that when big changes happen in the House and Senate, they happen because one party nationalizes the race and becomes the change agent."

Dean detailed his 50-state strategy to hire and finance from national coffers organizers in every state, saying that the party is on track to have organizers in every state by the end of the year.

"Vote by vote, precinct by precinct, door by door, year by year and election by election, we will take this country back for the people who built it," he said.

In his speech Dean talked about the growing diversity in America and how well that diversity meshes with the message and membership of the Democratic Party.

"The face of the Democratic Party is such that it looks like all of America will look in 2050," said Dean.

Dean's speech Monday night came at a fund-raiser for the Democratic National Committee.

Among those attending were US Sens. Patrick Leahy and Jim Jeffords, as well as US Rep. Bernie Sanders, who is seeking Jeffords' seat in the Senate. Both Jeffords and Sanders are independents but both caucus in Washington with the Democrats.

State Sen. Peter Welch, a candidate for Sanders' House seat, spoke at the reception, as did Scudder Parker, who is challenging the re-election next year of Gov. Jim Douglas.

Growing Our Enemies?

2005-08-08T15:38:00.000-04:00

To me, the most appropriate question asked in the time period since 911 was posed by one of my least favorite people, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld in a 2003 memo: "How to we measure our progress in defending America? Are we creating more terrorists than we're killing?"

Forget complicated foreign policy analysis... Mr. Rumsfeld has already asked the only question that should matter to Americans. The answer can be summed up in the following cartoon. This government has sewn the seeds for global war and has united the Muslim world against us by attacking Iraq...

Punish The CAFTA 15

2005-07-29T11:38:00.000-04:00

Enough. Enough. Enough. If we ever want to make politicians take us seriously when it comes to important laws touching the lives of workers, we must punish the 15 so-called Democrats who voted for the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)--and punish them hard.

Not a single one of those cowardly 15 should receive a dime more of labor money. Not a single phone call should be made on their behalf. No labor endorsment should grace their re-election literature. They must pay.

Not just on behalf of American workers. But, on behalf of the millions of workers who live in Central America for whom this is a bad deal, too. If we're going to talk about global solidarity, this is where we can practice it. If we're going to send letters to the Democratic Party and talk tough, we have to follow through.

So, here is the roll-call of the 15 so-called Democrats, with their office telephone numbers. Print this list out and send it to everybody on your lists:

Melissa Bean, Illinois (8th District): 202-225-3711

Jim Cooper, Tennessee (5th District): 202-225-4311

Norm Dicks, Washington (6th District): 202-225-5916

Henry Cuellar, Texas (28th District): 202-225-1640

Ruben Hinojosa, Texas (15th District): (202) 225-2531

William Jefferson, Louisiana (2nd District): (202) 225-6636

Jim Matheson, Utah (2nd District): (202) 225-3011

Gregory Meeks, New York (6th District): 202-225-3461

Dennis Moore, Kansas (3rd District): (202) 225-2865

Jim Moran, Virginia (8th District): (202) 225-4376

Solomon Ortiz, Texas (27th District): 202-225-7742

Ike Skelton, Missouri (4th District): 202-225-2876

Vic Snyder, Arkansas (2nd District): 202-225-2506

John Tanner, Tennessee (8th District): (202) 225-4714

Edolphus Towns, New York (10th District: (202) 225-5936

So, here's how to make it real:

1. Today, on the last day of the AFL-CIO convention, delegates should demand that a new resolution pass which states simply (with all the obvious "whereas" stuff): Resolved, no labor resources, financial or human, shall be expended on behalf of the 15 Democrats who voted for CAFTA.

2. Every CLC and State Federation should, at their very next meeting, pass a similar resolution, send the text to the pathetic so-called Democrat and take out an ad in the local newspaper which includes the text of the resolution and the reasoning behind it.

3. Look for people who stand up for workers. Let's find primary opponents to run against every one of the 15 so-called Democrats--knock off just one or two and watch the party tremble...you want to play in politics, it's time to get rough and bloody some noses.

Karl Rove – Sometimes The Cover-Up Is Worse Than The Crime

2005-07-12T16:22:00.000-04:00

During yesterday’s daily briefing with White House reporters, Press Secretary Scott McClellan learned how difficult it can be to defend the indefensible. McClellan was given countless opportunities to clear up previous White House statements regarding the involvement of Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove in the outing of an undercover CIA agent. McClellan instead dodged all questions regarding the scandal, frustrating the White House press corps and causing NBC White House news correspondent David Gregory to exclaim, “this is ridiculous.” It is indeed ridiculous that the White House is not being forthcoming about a possible breach of national security and criminal activity that involves one of its highest ranking staffers.

McClellan’s excuse for his silence doesn’t hold up when compared to his past actions. During yesterday’s briefing McClellan noted 23 times that he could not comment because there was an “ongoing investigation.” That did not stop McClellan from previously talking about Karl Rove and his role in the scandal. On October 1, 2003, McClellan said, “There is an investigation going on ... you brought up Karl's name. Let's be very clear. I thought – I said it was a ridiculous suggestion, I said it's simply not true that he was involved in leaking classified information, and – nor, did he condone that kind of activity." So it was OK for McClellan to talk about Rove and the scandal in 2003 but not yesterday?

With each “no comment,” the White House is losing credibility with the American people. Even if Rove is not found to have committed any crime, the fact that he leaked Plame’s identity to Time magazine when the White House previously denied any involvement is damaging to the White House and the president. The fact that the White House seems unwilling to even stand by bland assertions that the leak is a "serious matter" (which McClellan did not say yesterday) or that the White House wants to find out the "truth" (which also wasn't stated) indicates how this matter has become one of credibility for the Bush White House. The inability to stand behind those statements yields little confidence that Bush will hold to his pledge to fire anybody who leaked the agent's name.

The president, known to speak up for his friends, has been noticeably silent on Karl Rove. When right-wing conservatives started attacking Attorney General Alberto Gonzales following Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement, President Bush was quick to come to his defense. Since it was revealed that Rove was Matt Cooper’s source, President Bush has not said a word about Rove’s involvement in Plamegate, nor has he issued a statement of support. President Bush knows he can put an end to all these questions by demanding that Karl Rove himself come forward and tell all that he knows.

Conservatives Losing the War on Terror

2005-07-10T20:34:00.000-04:00

The tragic bombings in London that left at least 50 people dead and another 700 wounded reaffirmed the world's resolve to defeat global terrorist networks. But the attacks also underscore that the world remains unsafe and that our current approach to fighting terrorism is at a minimum insufficient. While America remains committed to defeating terrorists, many are asking a legitimate question: are our policies making us safer?

The numbers don’t lie: global terrorist acts have increased steadily since 2001. By objective measures, the problem of international terrorism is worse now than it was in 2001. According to State Department data, the number of international terrorist attacks tripled to 650 in 2004. (The number of international terrorist attacks in 2003, 175, was a 20 year high.) This week, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC)—part of the intelligence reforms pushed by the 9/11 Commission—revealed that those numbers dramatically understate the scope of the problem. Broadening the definition to include attacks that “deliberately hit civilians or non-combatants” the NCTC found that 3,192 incidents of international terrorism occurred last year, resulting in the "deaths, injury or kidnapping of almost 28,500 people."

Al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks continue to operate and threaten our way of life. The attacks in London illustrated the changing nature of the threat from al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. As The Washington Post reports, it has long been Osama Bin Laden's goal to evolve al-Qaeda from "headquarters-planned conspiracies toward diffuse ideological incitement and tactical support." Over the last 18 months, Bin Laden in his top deputies "have persuaded dozens of like-minded young men, operating independently of the core al Qaeda leadership, to assemble and deliver suicide or conventional bombs in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Spain, Egypt and now apparently London." Thus, despite the President's rhetoric, the threat cannot be defeated "abroad before they attack us at home." Al-Qaeda brand terrorists can emerge anywhere at anytime.

The Bush administration’s incompetence in Iraq has only fueled the terrorist fire. In the face of an al-Qaeda threat that is global, diverse and diffuse, President Bush continues to defend sinking over $200 billion and 138,000 troops into Iraq to fight an insurgency that seems to produce more terrorists than it eliminates. As yesterday’s attacks prove, our enemies are nimble and adaptive yet the conservative leadership in our country remains stubborn and inflexible. American security will continue to suffer until our leaders discard the “stay the course” strategy and start implementing a smarter plan that addresses the real—and changing—nature of global terrorism. President Bush’s mantra that we are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here is now becoming part of the problem not the solution.

For some ideas on how to fight smarter against global terrorist networks, read the American Progress report, Integrated Power.

Toward a More Perfect Union

2005-07-05T08:41:00.000-04:00

On this July 4th, when it comes to challenges facing America, the Bush Administration demonstrates that the conservative agenda is, to borrow a phrase, part of the problem, not the solution. But progressives need to seize the opening created by the reckless, reactionary and divisive rightwing policies to put forth positive initiatives that address the challenges facing the country.

These initiatives not only need to be large enough to address the festering problems facing us, but also broad enough to engage new allies and attract new supporters, and clear enough to be both compelling and comprehensible.

Anyone interested in a savvy primer on good progressive ideas would have found it at a featured panel--"Five Initiatives for a More Perfect Union,"--at the Campaign for America's "Taking Back America" conference last month in Washington, DC.

Five leading thinkers and organizers argued--as Yale Professor Jacob Hacker put it--that while conservative policies are "in shambles," the Right has managed to "transform the straw of slim margins and unpopular policies into the gold of big policy victories." Progressives, then, need to communicate to the American people that they have good ideas, and that government has a critical role to play in "a new and uncertain era."

Here, then, are five initiatives for the next time you hear some ethically challenged rightwinger (think Tom DeLay) claim that progressives are obstructionists with no good ideas:

1) "America Needs a Raise." Stewart Acuff, the organizing director of the AFL-CIO, called attention to the value of a bill called the Employee Free Choice Act. Among other things, it would require employers to recognize unions when workers signed cards and petitions seeking union representation. Acuff stressed that it was vital that we mobilize and empower workers and secure workers' rights in a new economy and in the face of Bush's ruthless and systematic attack on American labor. (Click here to read Acuff's Nation editorial on the legislation.)

2) "Pre-school for All: The Best Economic Development Investment." Julie Burton, director of Project Kid Smart with People for the American Way, cited the benefits of providing pre-school for every American child. Pre-school would improve kids' lives. Studies in Chicago and Michigan, for instance, found that kids who attend a quality pre-school learn to read faster, are more likely to attend college, earn higher salaries, have more stable marriages and, perhaps not coincidentally, are also less likely to commit a crime.

Equally important is that pre-school, as Burton explained, is also a terrific investment in America's economic future. People who attend pre-school develop the skills necessary in a modern workforce, and every dollar spent on pre-school reaps the nation $7 down the road. Pre-school generates higher tax revenues and requires less spending on "remedial services."

3) "Affordable Healthcare for All." Hacker's solution to the health care crisis with 45 million uninsured in this country is to expand Medicare--A program Americans know well and those in it like it a lot. Hacker proposes that employers be required either to provide workers with health care coverage or to enroll their employees in Medicare for a modest fee. This plan would cover virtually all of the uninsured and cost less than other leading health care proposals. This doesn't mean that progressives should stop fighting for universal health care (or what is sometimes --and clunkily-- known as single-payer); yet this idea represents a good step on the road to a more civilized society.

4) "A True Family Values Agenda." Sen. Barack Obama's policy director Karen Kornbluh argues that contrary to the rightwing drumbeat, progressives are the ones who stand up and fight for family values. Progressives need to address the kitchen-table problems that married women and single mothers grapple with every day--and offer solutions that will make a real difference in their lives. Mothers are now working longer hours, commuting more, and have less time to spend with their kids. Kornbluh urges progressives to rally behind ideas like refundable credits that will help families pay for child care and education; early education and after-school programs and lengthening the school year; making college tuition affordable; providing seven days of sick leave for all workers, and ensuring that workers get to keep their pensions and health insurance if they become part-time workers or take off time to care for their kids.

5) "Apollo: New Energy for America." The United Mine Workers' President Cecil Roberts urged the adoption of an Apollo Project to end our nation's crippling dependence on foreign oil. He laid out an agenda crafted by the Apollo Alliance--a coalition of labor unions, environmental groups and urban leaders--which would organize a 10 year drive for energy independence that would create 3 million new jobs and set America free from foreign oil.

This new strategy to achieve energy independence, as Roberts argues, would break the zero-sum framework of jobs vs. the environment and instead make the case that America can simultaneously create good-paying union work while promoting clean air and clean water in communities nationwide.

ApolloAlliance.org reports that Washington State passed the nation's first eco-friendly legislation that will slash utility costs, increase employee production and save taxpayers' money by using state-of-the-art building construction techniques. And Democratic governors from Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Mexico have all urged the White House to "embark on an unprecedented national mission to achieve energy independence within the decade by boldly investing in efficiency, new technology, and alternative energy."

In the end, then, these five initiatives form some of the building blocks that will help define a forward looking domestic progressive agenda and win over people disillusioned with Bush's anti-worker, anti-family policies. Enjoy your July Fourth. Then work to build a country that is healthier, fairer, cleaner and more secure.

Bush and Rummy's Tired Acts

2005-06-29T20:19:00.000-04:00

[By Arianna Huffington]

If you could distill this administration down to one a single thing it would be this: a complete inability--indeed a pathological aversion--to changing course, even when the current course is taking us over the cliff.

Combine that with rank incompetence and you’ve got quite a potent--and deadly--combo. It was in full display last night during the president’s speech on Iraq and last week during Donald Rumsfeld’s multiple public appearances.

First the president’s speech.

The president’s “new direction in Iraq” speech was actually a rehashing of the same tired material he’s been using on Iraq for years. Indeed, it was a veritable Greatest Hits collection. He even invoked the terrorist formerly known as Osama Been Forgotten two times. Even more shockingly--though not unexpectedly--he played the conflate-9/11-and-Iraq card again and again and again and again and again. Five mentions in all for the terrorist attack that had absolutely nothing to do with the war in Iraq--supposedly the topic of the speech. Here’s a sample: “The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lesson of Sept. 11.”

And now onto the secretary of defense.

It’s time to cancel the Rummy show. Remember when it was fun to watch Don Rumsfeld come out and do his preening Master of the Universe act? Actually, I never thought it was that much fun--and I was always surprised by how much the self-loathing press loved Rummy’s cocky, cutesy little putdowns and the jabberwocky nonsense answers he’d use to duck a question without uttering a single word of substance.

But he intimidated them, humiliated them, and so they subserviently accepted their role in the kabuki theater performances his appearances became.But with two to three soldiers and dozens of Iraqis dying each and every day, his smug verbal pirouettes are no longer so endearing. As time goes on, it's become clear that he sees his role less as making sure our soldiers vanquish the enemy than making sure he vanquishes the press and the straw men he puts so much rhetorical energy into creating.

There he was at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, spinning and spinning. But no one's laughing anymore. “Timing in war is never predictable,” he said. “There are no guarantees,” he said. That wasn't what Rumsfeld was saying back at the beginning, when he said he “doubted” it would last as long as six months.

Rumsfeld then propped up this latest made-of-straw beauty: “ Success in this effort cannot be defined by domestic tranquility.” Who on earth is saying “domestic tranquility” is the goal? How about: “An end to dozens of deaths a day, with the carnage continuing as far as the eye can see.”

It’s now beyond dispute that the enemy Rumsfeld is most suited to fight is the latest straw enemy he has created in his mind. It’s then that he’s at his most effective--like a 9-year-old at the arcade, delighting in mowing down his imaginary foes with his BB gun. Then he wants a little prize for his efforts. Tragically, we’ve got a real enemy to fight, and Rumsfeld is clueless about how to do it. One person who has clearly had his fill of Rummy is Ted Kennedy, who pointedly asked: “Isn’t it time for you to resign?” After a pregnant pause, Rumsfeld answered: “I’ve offered my resignation to the president twice.”

He should keep trying. Bush has already gotten a four-year pickup, but it's time to pull the plug on the Rummy dog and pony show. Or, better yet, move his all-too-real reality show from the Pentagon to Fox--where the body count will be significantly lower. And they can use a laugh track to sweeten the deadly silence his tired routine now provokes.

Group proposes to build hotel on Justice Souter's house property

2005-06-29T12:33:00.000-04:00

Call me cynical, but I think this idea is TERRIFIC. It is worth pointing out that it was the CONSERVATIVES on the court who supported and wrote this ruling. Within this decision lay the seeds for the next Ruby Ridge, Waco, or Oklahoma City. Maybe Southerners will now realize that the conservative agenda goes hand in hand with a more authoritative, intrusive government. This decision shows how far they are willing to go. I think this group of citizens are preparing the appropriate response. Check this out:

Following the Supreme Court ruling allowing private companies to seize people's houses and develop the land for business purposes, a private developer has asked the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire "to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road." That's the address of Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter's home.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

In 1999, Bush Demanded A Timetable

2005-06-28T12:28:00.000-04:00

In 1999, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo, and yet he refuses to apply the same standard to his war.

George W. Bush, 4/9/99:

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

And on the specific need for a timetable, here’s what Bush said then and what he says now:
George W. Bush, 6/5/99

“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.” [ed. note: article originally ran in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on 6/5/99]

VERSUS

George W. Bush, 6/24/05:

“It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.”

Make America Safe, Not Divided

2005-06-24T12:48:00.000-04:00

[Excerpts of remarks by Senator John Kerry on the Senate floor on Thursday, June 23.]

"None of us here will ever forget the hours after September 11... and the remarkable response of the American people as we came together as one to answer the attack on our homeland.... [I]t brought out the best of all of us in America.

That spirit of our country should never be reduced to a cheap, divisive political applause line from anyone who speaks for the President of the United States.

I am proud, as my colleagues on this side are, that after September 11, all of the people of this country rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger. There were no Democrats, there were no Republicans, there were only Americans. That is why it is really hard to believe that last night in New York... the most senior adviser to the President of the United States [was] purposely twisting those days of unity in order to divide us for political gain.

Rather than focusing attention on Osama bin Laden and finding him or rather than focusing attention on just smashing al-Qaida and uniting our effort, as we have been, he is, instead, challenging the patriotism of every American who is every bit as committed to fighting terror as is he.

Just days after 9/11, the Senate voted 98 to nothing, and the House voted 420 to 1, to authorize President Bush to use all necessary and appropriate force against terror. And after the bipartisan vote, President Bush said: "I'm gratified that the Congress has united so powerfully by taking this action. It sends a clear message. Our people are together and we will prevail."

That is not the message that was sent by Karl Rove in New York City last night. Last night, he said: "No more needs to be said about" their "motives."

I think a lot more needs to be said about Karl Rove's motives because they are not the people's motives... They are not the motives of a nation that found unity in that critical moment--Democrat and Republican alike, all of us as Americans.

If the President really believes his own words, if those words have meaning, he should at the very least expect a public apology from Karl Rove. And frankly, he ought to fire him. If the President of the United States knows the meaning of those words, then he ought to listen to the plea of Kristen Breitweiser, who lost her husband when the Twin Towers came crashing down. She said: "If you are going to use 9/11, use it to make this nation safer than it was on 9/11."

Karl Rove doesn't owe me an apology and he doesn't owe Democrats an apology. He owes the country an apology. He owes Kristen Breitweiser and a lot of people like her, those families, an apology. He owes an apology to every one of those families who paid the ultimate price on 9/11 and expect their government to be doing all possible to keep the unity of their country and to fight an effective war on terror.

The fact is, millions of Americans...are asking Washington for honesty, for results, and for leadership--not for political division. Before Karl Rove delivers another political assault, he ought to stop and think about those families and the unity of 9/11.

The Right-Wing Response to 9/11: All Talk, No Results

2005-06-24T12:37:00.000-04:00

Whenever the president’s domestic agenda hits rock bottom—like clockwork—right-wingers trot out the 9/11 card to distract people from wildly unpopular policy decisions. On Wednesday, the president’s chief political architect, Karl Rove, claimed: “Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.”
We’ll never know his exact motives, but perhaps the president’s self-described “Turd Blossom” was projecting the administration’s own need for counseling to make up for its complete lack of success in fighting terrorism.

1,382 days after 9/11, Osama bin Laden is still at large and al Qaeda is regrouping. More than three-and-a-half years ago Bush vowed to capture terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden “dead or alive.” He’s failed. The administration wants you to think it is hot on his tracks, however. CIA director Porter Goss said he had “an excellent idea” where Bin Laden is hiding. Vice President Cheney said he had “a pretty good idea of a general area that he's in.” With all the bluster, you’d think they could close the deal.

1,382 days after 9/11, terrorist attacks are at an all time high. By quantitative measures, the Bush administration’s approach to combating terrorism is an abject failure. Last year “[t]he number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled,” according to the Washington Post. State Department data shows that “attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003.” How did the administration respond? By halting the publication of the State Department report.

1,382 days after 9/11, the Iraq war—a complete diversion from the fight against al Qaeda—has produced more terrorism not less. According to the CIA, “[t]he war in Iraq is creating a training and recruitment ground for a new generation of "professionalized" Islamic terrorists.” An in-house CIA think tank concluded that in the poorly planned aftermath of the invasion, “hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unguarded borders.” There is a serious risk that Iraq is now “creating newly radicalized and experienced jihadis who return home to cause trouble in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere.”

Sign "Dean Speaks For Me" Petition

2005-06-20T14:52:00.000-04:00

As DNC Chairman Howard Dean plans his visit to South Carolina, the media, desperate to create a controversy where none exists -- is gobbling down Republican talking points and spewing news stories that paint our Party as divided.

For years before I became politically active, I endured the endless name calling of Republicans against Democrats. I listened as voters wondered why Democrats were so QUIET... so WEAK... as Republicans and their talk radio noise machine painted progressive values -- working class values -- as evil, irrelevant, and wrong for America.

FINALLY, we get a chairman who speaks for the common man. We get chairman who PUNCHES BACK. We get a Chairman who says things like this:

"My view is FOX News is a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party and I don't comment on FOX News," Dean said. That was in response to vice president Dick Cheney calling Howard Dean "over the top" on Fox News on Sunday.

AMEN!! I'm glad we have a chairman who is willing to load up and throw some punches. Democrats have been the punching bag for conservative talk radio and Republican politicians for years... so let's not get fooled into turning inward on our own party.

The fight for working class American values will not accomplished by attacking Howard Dean. Let's prove we're smarter than Republican strategists. Sign the petition below and send them a clear message:

WE ARE A UNITED PARTY. WE SUPPORT OUR LEADER. WE EXPECT ELECTED DEMOCRATS TO DO THE SAME.

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Dean/

Democrats anxious as Dean visit nears

2005-06-20T13:55:00.000-04:00

Democrats... articles like this are TOXIC to us and totally skew how most of us feel about Howard Dean. I'm not embarrassed to be a Democrat, and I'm certainly not embarrassed to stand behind "The People's Chairman".

I'm glad Dean is coming to S.C. -- we desperately need progressive voices down here. I'll certainly be watching the Democrats who have a PRIMARY to win (ahem... Mr. Moore, Mr. Willis)... and the candidate foolish enough to buy into Republican talking points and avoid Chairman Dean will find an Oconee Democrat who will work VERY HARD to ensure they get left on the sidelines once primary votes are counted.

South Carolina Democrats will be holding their breath next week when their embattled national chairman arrives in town to have a few beers with the grass-roots and raise money for the state party.

Please, Howard Dean, don’t say anything that will embarrass us or subject us to ridicule, the party faithful pray.

Dean still is smarting from his remark that Republicans are “pretty much a white Christian party.” Several congressional Democrats have called him on the carpet and ordered him to halt his divisive comments.

A handful of S.C. Democratic leaders tried to downplay a series of controversial remarks made by Dean since he wrapped up the race for party chairman earlier this year.

State Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg, a member of the Democratic National Committee, wishes Dean would temper his comments a bit. But she doesn’t want to put a muzzle on him.

“We’ve got too many tired old wimps in the party,” she says. “Dean is doing a great job. I have not seen one comment he has made that is not true.”

Including the one about the “white, Christian” GOP?

“I associate myself 100 percent with his comments,” Cobb-Hunter says.

Dean has provoked controversy with a myriad of comments:

• “Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They are pretty much a monolithic party.”

• “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for.”

• “Do you think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here.”

• “Republicans are mean. They’re not nice people.”

Political analysts aren’t sure what good the state party — already playing from behind in a conservative-leaning state — will reap from a visit from Dean, who comes off as a Northeastern liberal after you get past all the incendiary remarks.

When the former Vermont governor and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate took the helm of the DNC, Dean declared he would make the party competitive in all 50 states — including the South.

South Carolina is one of the last states on his agenda. He will huddle with party activists at Jillian’s the evening of June 29 — without the media. That’s very un-Dean-like, but maybe after a few beers he’ll hold an impromptu press conference.

Political experts are somewhat puzzled by the timing of Dean’s visit.

“It’s the kiss of death,” says Atlanta-based political consultant Claibourne Darden. “There seems to be a suicidal streak in the South Carolina Democratic Party.”

With the most recent controversy still fresh in the minds of folks, Dean couldn’t be coming to South Carolina at a worse time, says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia.

“If I were in South Carolina, I’d have him visit under the cover of night,” he says.

Merle Black, an Emory University professor, says, only a bit facetiously, “This is just what they need. This is a red-letter day for the South Carolina Democratic Party.”

Don’t expect Democratic bigwigs like State Superintendent of Education Inez Tenenbaum, or gubernatorial challengers Tommy Moore and Frank Willis, to show up and have their pictures taken with Dean.

“They will send in their regrets, saying they have increasingly pressing business overseas,” jokes Winthrop University analyst Scott Huffmon.

Still, Dean likely will attract a large crowd.

He’s entertainment.

Tax modernization should be on front burner

2005-06-20T13:49:00.000-04:00

JUNE 19, 2005 - - Almost as constant as the rising sun every
morning, people complain about paying taxes.

It's easy to do. But without taxes, we wouldn't be able to live in a
civilized society. As much as people hate taxes, they provide the
foundation that civilizes America. By paying taxes, we provide funds
for government to provide needed services, such as military
protection, garbage pickup, road construction, schools and more. By
having taxes fund services, we share the burden to get a better
quality of life.

Imagine, for example, if you had to pay a toll for every road that
was built. It would drive you more nuts than the few cents extra you
pay at the pump for roads.

Beyond the constant political rhetoric about taxes, it's time for
the state to take a long look at modernizing our tax system. Over
the summer, lawmakers are planning big pow-wows on the property tax.
But instead of a small fix here or a minor tweak there, lawmakers
need to look at equity and fairness to make sure the whole structure
is as balanced as possible.

As Columbia economist Harry Miley relates, if you try to tweak one
tax, it likely will have unforeseen consequences on the other taxes.
It's kind of like poking a finger in balloon, he says. The more you
poke it, the more it will expand in another direction. If you poke
it too much, it will burst.

"There's no tax that's perfect," Miley says. "The only reason we
have taxes is we have no other way to provide the public services we
all demand. That's why most economists say if you start tinkering
with one tax, you've got to look at all of them."

Currently, our tax structure is antiquated. It's built on three
major foundations - - taxes on the sale of goods, taxes on income
and taxes on property. A growing fourth foundation is the use of
fees for services provided.

Taxing property has been the most enduring way for government to
generate revenues. As states provided more services, they looked to
broaden taxation. Income tax didn't really get started in earnest
across the country until after 1913 when a national income tax was
approved with the 16th Amendment. Across the South, sales taxes
didn't become a big deal until the 1950s when they were passed
mostly to improve education.

In other words, we're operating in the 21st century with a system of
taxation that stretches back for generations. The last big update
was almost 50 years ago.

As they tinker with property taxes, lawmakers should recall:

Sales tax. Over the last 50 years, the country has changed from an
economy based on sales of goods into a computer-driven economy that
has an increasing mix of services. According to a 1997 report, South
Carolina only taxes 32 of 164 services. And since the 1970s, the
sales tax rate has increased 49 percent across the nation, but the
sales tax base has increased only 20 percent, which indicates a
shrinking base.

Meanwhile, the state has more than 60 sales tax exemptions that
cause it to lose $1 billion a year in revenue. Also, it's losing up
to $395 million a year in sales taxes on Internet and catalog sales.

Income tax. The state offers six income brackets for income tax. The
top bracket is $12,000, which means that almost everyone pays income
taxes at the top bracket. The brackets haven't been altered in
years. If lawmakers stretched brackets some, income tax would become
more progressive (to balance the regressive nature of sales taxes).
Additionally, by adding a new top bracket with a slightly higher
rate, they could generate some new revenue and broaden the state tax
base - - or give credits to low-income earners to make the system
fairer.

Other taxes. To generate more revenue - - or to decrease reliance on
income and sales taxes - - lawmakers also could consider updating
the cigarette tax to the national average, which would bring in more
than $150 million a year to fund things like school improvements and
health care increases. They could consider hiking the gas tax, which
could pay for much-needed maintenance on state highways. They also
could consider means-testing some tax breaks for seniors to level
the taxpayer playing field.

Bottom line: There are lots of options to make the system fairer and
more balanced. As lawmakers talk about property taxes this summer,
they should also consider limiting sales tax exemptions, dealing
with lost taxes from online and catalog sales and broadening the
sales tax base to include more services. Additionally, they should
consider revising income tax brackets to make them less flat and
more connected to reality.

Two Armies, Two Reporters, Too Much Trouble in Iraq

2005-06-13T20:23:00.000-04:00

A remarkable Washington Post article finds Iraqi fighters singing hymns to Saddam Hussein, and these are the ones on our side. It gets worse from there.

By Greg Mitchell

(June 11, 2005) -- Just back, absurdly well-fed, from E&P's interactive media conference in New Orleans, I was about to write an entertaining little column on bloggers, journalists and their different notions of "accuracy," when I came across a Friday piece in the Washington Post by two brave and widely honored foreign correspondents, Anthony Shadid and Steve Fainaru. The bloggers-vs.-journos column will have to wait.

The immensely significant Shadid/Fainaru piece is based on their recent (and separate) three-day journeys with American and Iraqi forces. The Iraqi unit was selected by the U.S. military, presumably viewed as one of the best. "The journey revealed fundamental, perhaps irreconcilable differences over everything from the reluctance of Muslim soldiers to search mosques and homes to basic questions of lifestyle," and much, more more, the two men write.

Consider its opening, set in Baiji, Iraq. Keep in mind, these are the Iraqis who on our side: "An hour before dawn, the sky still clouded by a dust storm, the soldiers of the Iraqi army's Charlie Company began their mission with a ballad to ousted president Saddam Hussein. 'We have lived in humiliation since you left,' one sang in Arabic, out of earshot of his U.S. counterparts. 'We had hoped to spend our life with you.'

"But the Iraqi soldiers had no clue where they were going. They shrugged their shoulders when asked what they would do. The U.S. military had billed the mission as pivotal in the Iraqis' progress as a fighting force but had kept the destination and objectives secret out of fear the Iraqis would leak the information to insurgents."

This comes just after a Washington Post/ABC News Poll, for the first time, shows that most Americans do not believe the toppling of Saddam Hussein made the United States more secure. The survey also found that nearly three-quarters say the U.S. casualty rate in Iraq is unacceptable; two-thirds believe the U.S. military is bogged down; 60 percent say the war was not worth fighting.

A Gallup poll released Monday found that 59% now favor withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Normally, I refrain from quoting articles at length, but in this case, I will just let the excerpts from the Shadid-Fainaru report roll, with an occasional connecting paragraphs. One can only wonder what the parents of soldiers now serving in Iraq might think of this report if they encountered it:

"The reconstruction of Iraq's security forces is the prerequisite for an American withdrawal from Iraq. But as the Bush administration extols the continuing progress of the new Iraqi army, the project in Baiji, a desolate oil town at a strategic crossroads in northern Iraq, demonstrates the immense challenges of building an army from scratch in the middle of a bloody insurgency.

"Charlie Company disintegrated once after its commander was killed by a car bomb in December. And members of the unit were threatening to quit en masse this week over complaints that ranged from dismal living conditions to insurgent threats. Across a vast cultural divide, language is just one impediment. Young Iraqi soldiers, ill-equipped and drawn from a disenchanted Sunni Arab minority, say they are not even sure what they are fighting for. They complain bitterly that their American mentors don't respect them.

"In fact, the Americans don't: Frustrated U.S. soldiers question the Iraqis' courage, discipline and dedication and wonder whether they will ever be able to fight on their own, much less reach the U.S. military's goal of operating independently by the fall. 'I know the party line. You know, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Army, five-star generals, four-star generals, President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld: The Iraqis will be ready in whatever time period,' said 1st Lt. Kenrick Cato, 34, of Long Island, N.Y., the executive officer of McGovern's company. 'But from the ground, I can say with certainty they won't be ready before I leave. And I know I'll be back in Iraq, probably in three or four years. And I don't think they'll be ready then.'"

The Post reporter who joined the inexperienced and under-armored Iraqis received good luck wishes from American soldiers who told him he would need a lot of luck to return unscathed.

"The Iraqi soldiers were a grim lot," according to the Post article, "patrolling streets where they lived and mosques where they worshiped. As they entered their neighborhoods, some of them donned black balaclavas and green scarves to mask their identities. They passed graffiti on walls that, like the town, were colored in shades of brown. 'Yes to the leader Saddam,' one slogan read. 'Long live the mujaheddin,' said another. Nearly all the men had received leaflets warning them to quit; the houses of several had been attacked by insurgents.

"The men spoke of the insurgents with a hint of awe, saying the fighters were willing to die and outgunned them with rocket-propelled grenades and, more fearsome, car bombs. Zwayid, a father of three, looked in disgust at his own AK-47 assault rifle, with a green shoelace for a strap ...

Rick McGovern, a tough-talking 37-year-old platoon sergeant from Hershey, Pa., who heads the military training for Charlie Company, told one of the Post reporters: "Honestly, I don't think people in America understand how touchy the situation really is right now. We have the military power, the military might, but we're handling everything with kid gloves because we're hoping the Iraqis are going to step up and start taking things on themselves. But they don't have a clue how to do it."

Asked when he thought the Iraqi soldiers might be ready to operate independently, McGovern said: "Honestly, there's part of me that says never. There's some cultural issues that I don't think they'll ever get through."

The article continued: "Almost to a man, the [Iraqi] soldiers said they joined for the money -- a relatively munificent $300 to $400 a month. The military and police forces offered some of the few job opportunities in town. Even then, the soldiers were irate: They wanted more time off, air-conditioned quarters like their American counterparts and, most important, respect. Most frustrating, they said, was the two- or three-hour wait to be searched at the base's gate when they returned from leave.

"The soldiers said 17 colleagues had quit in the past few days. 'In 15 days, we're all going to leave,' Nawaf declared. The two-dozen soldiers gathered nodded their heads....

"Shortly after [an] ambush, a sniper shot a U.S. soldier standing on the roof of a police station, inflicting a severe head wound. The Americans suspected that the fire had come from the nearby Rahma mosque. American and Iraqi troops surrounded the building. Fearful of inflaming resentment, U.S. soldiers ordered their Iraqi counterparts to search the mosque. They initially refused, entering only after McGovern berated them.

"U.S. forces then ordered the Iraqis to arrest everyone inside the mosque, including the respected elderly prayer leader. The Iraqi platoon leader refused, U.S. soldiers recalled. The platoon leader and his men then sat down next to the mosque in protest.

"At 4:30 a.m. Monday, the men of Charlie Company and the entire U.S. battalion -- some 800 soldiers -- set out in a convoy for west Baiji. The Americans used night-vision goggles to see in the dark. The Iraqis had glow sticks. Before the troops had left the base, an Iraqi driver plowed into a concrete barrier, momentarily delaying the convoy.

"U.S. commanders said the involvement of the Iraqis on the mission -- a series of raids to crack a bomb-making cell -- was critical to its success. But the Americans clearly have lowered their expectations for the Iraqis' progress.

"Along dirt roads bisected by sewage canals, the men of Charlie Company crouched, their weapons ready. Before them was their home town, dilapidated and neglected. Cpl. Amir Omar, 19, gazed ahead. 'Look at the homes of the Iraqis,' he said, a handkerchief concealing his face. 'The people have been destroyed.'

"By whom? he was asked.

"'Them,' Omar said, pointing at the U.S. Humvees leading the patrol."

[Update: In the Monday, June 13, New York Times, a field report on Iraqi performance by John F. Burns and Sabrina Tavernise concludes: "Despite the Bush administration's insistent optimism, Americans working with the Iraqis in the field believe that it could be several years, at least, before the new Iraqi forces will be ready to stand alone against the insurgents. ... Earlier this year, the Pentagon suggested that an initial drawdown of the 140,000 American troops in Iraq might begin by the end of this year. Now, American generals are saying it could be two years, perhaps longer."]

Wisconsin Democrats Vote For Impeachment

2005-06-12T20:35:00.000-04:00

Saturday afternoon during their annual State Convention at the Park Plaza in downtown Oshkosh, Wisconsin, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin adopted the following resolution:

CALLING ON THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO INITIATE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PRESIDENT BUSH, VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY AND DEFENSE SECRETARY RUMSFELD FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS

Full text of resolution...

WHEREAS, the Downing Street Memo shows that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld began planning and executing the war on Iraq before seeking Congressional and UN approval;
WHEREAS, UN weapons inspectors showed prior to the invasion that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; and

WHEREAS, there is further mounting evidence that the Administration lied or misled about "mushroom clouds," "connections to 9/11," and "war as a last resort" as they sought UN, Congressional, and public approvals;

THEREFORE, RESOLVED, the DPW asks Congress to immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.

And, most importantly, they referenced the Downing Street memo (not "minutes", doh!) in the first bullet. So any media coverage would almost have to mention it. This was a smart move.

It is believed that Wisconsin is the first state Democratic Party to have passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. They hope that others will do the same.

Dean Tells Dems: 'People Want Us to Fight'

2005-06-12T11:51:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON (AP) - Howard Dean said Saturday that positive responses from supporters have reinforced his determination to keep talking tough despite suggestions from some congressional Democrats that the party chairman should tone down his rhetoric.

``People want us to fight,'' Dean told the national party's executive committee. ``We are here to fight.''

Over the past week, Dean described Republicans as ``pretty much a white, Christian party'' and said many in the GOP ``never made an honest living.''

Several Democratic lawmakers distanced themselves from their chairman. Republican officials called on him to apologize. After weathering the criticism, Dean forged ahead with the GOP scolding at the meeting of Democratic National Committee leaders.

Yet some Democrats say the former Vermont governor should not remain the center of attention.

``Privately, people have said they don't want Howard Dean to become the story because we have more important issues to talk about,'' said Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2004.

``But publicly we will continue to give Howard Dean our strong support,'' she said.

One of Dean's predecessors at the DNC, Don Fowler said, ``The controversy over this statement or that statement is a blip and only a blip.'' But Fowler complained about leading Democrats who aired their gripes last week. ``Even if they don't like it, they should have enough sense not to make those comments,'' Fowler said.

At the session in a downtown hotel, Dean accused Republicans of trying to suppress the vote, selling access to the White House for lobbyists and basically being dishonest with the public.

``The reason the Republicans are in trouble is because there are so many cases where they say one thing and do something else,'' Dean said.

He said President Bush's education initiative, the ``No Child Left Behind'' program, cuts school spending and a clean environment plan, the ``Clear Skies Initiative,'' permits more pollution.

A spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee said Dean would rather sling mud than discuss serious matters.

``Dean's inflammatory rhetoric makes it clear that Democrats have no vision and would rather pander to the maniacal fringe than talk about the important issues facing our country,'' Tracey Schmitt said.

Dean said that Republicans, in the public's mind, have the upper hand on moral values because Democrats have done a poor job of explaining where they stand.

He said the party will do more to win over military veterans. It also will call on thousands of lawyers who helped in the 2004 presidential election to aid Democrats' push for changes in election laws.

On political fundraising, the DNC trails the Republican Party by more than 2-to-1 despite Dean's reputation as a potent fundraiser. The Democrats have raised almost $19 million so far this year.

Dean said he is bringing in $1 million weekly. Records show the DNC took in $13.8 million over the first three months of 2005, compared with $8.4 million during the same period in 2003, the last year without a federal election. Terry McAuliffe was party chairman then.

Dean has given more than $1 million from the DNC to state parties. He said the DNC plans to share some of the money Dean raises for the national party when he is in a state. Both of these moves are winning him support from state party leaders.

In his remarks, Dean made few references to the recent brouhaha.

But when a DNC member joked that the best way to get the chairman's attention was to ``jump up and down,'' a grinning Dean fired back: ``That's my job.''

The crowd of Democratic activists burst into applause.

Dean Was Right

2005-06-12T11:47:00.000-04:00

By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Saturday 11 June 2005

"I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."
-- Revelation 3:15-16

If the leadership qualities of those in charge of the national Democratic Party could be squeezed into a shampoo bottle, the directions on the back of the bottle might read something like this: “Make tentative statement. Offer equivocation to avoid appearing adamant. Scramble for cover when colleague offers stinging critique of opposition. Stab colleague in back in public. Palpitate and fret, hem and haw. Lather, rinse, repeat.”

Quite a recipe for success, yes? Not lately.

For the last several years, the Democratic Party has been, for the most part, leaving skid marks on the street as they have retreated from confrontation after confrontation with the radicals who now control the Republican party. This retreat has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime to the utterly outrageous.

Here and there resistance has been put forth - on the Social Security issue, on the stem cell legislation, on the nomination of Bolton as UN ambassador - but all too often the most effective resistance to these and other disastrous policy initiatives has come from other Republicans, and not from the Democrats. It was the eloquence of Republican Senator Voinovich that threw sand in the gears of the Bolton nomination, and it was Republican Senator Specter’s promised override of any Bush veto of the stem cell legislation that has made that issue a problem for the White House.

And then along comes Howard Dean, chairman of the DNC, outspoken and uncompromising, swinging Willie Stark’s meat ax with a will and a purpose. He dared to say that he hates Republicans, that the leadership of that party hasn’t worked a day in their lives, that the GOP has become a radical hothouse of right-wing Christians, almost all of whom are white, and that House majority leader Tom DeLay should go back to Texas and get his looming prison sentence over with. Insert palpitations. Suddenly, Democrats like Joe Biden and Bill Richardson start knocking over furniture and old ladies in their rush to get to a microphone so they can distance themselves from the wild man.

Yes, yes, lather and rinse and repeat. The problem with all the equivocation is that it obscures a simple fact that requires exposure and discussion in this country: Dean was right. Ninety nine percent of Republicans in the state legislatures in all 50 states, and in Congress in Washington DC, are white. Even in states and districts with large minority populations, the Republican representatives for those places are almost uniformly white Christians.

Of 3,643 Republicans serving in state legislatures across the country, only 44 of them are minorities, amounting to 1.2%. Texas, with a minority population of 47%, has 106 Republicans in the state legislature. There are exactly zero African Americans and exactly zero Hispanics serving in that body as Republicans. In Washington, 274 of the 535 elected Senators and Representatives are Republican. Exactly five are minorities.

Of course, there are ethnic and religious minorities within the rank and file of the GOP, but every demographic analysis of the party’s makeup clearly shows the vast majority of Republicans fit exactly into the description offered by Mr. Dean. His point, by the way, was not that white Christians are bad people. His point was that, in this pluralist society made up of so much diversity, the Republican Party does not represent the true face of this country. He was also pointing out that the GOP has been taken over by that small, radical minority of white Christians who believe separation of church and state is evil, and who believe Biblical law is a better tool of governance than that pesky Constitution.

As for hating Republicans, the employment record of the GOP leadership, and DeLay’s date with a Houston cellblock, there is method to the supposed madness here. Those who question the wisdom of Dean firing broadsides like this look to the old lawyer’s maxim: When you have the law on your side, pound on the law, and when you have the facts on your side, pound on the facts, and when you have neither the law nor the facts on your side, pound on the table. On so many issues facing us today, Dean and the Democrats have both the facts and the law on their side. The question becomes, then, about why Dean is pounding on the table.

The answer is straightforward, and appropriately bold after several years of ineffective limp-noodle Democratic leadership. Every time Dean fires off one of his salvos, reporters flip open their notebooks. Headlines get made, discussion begins, and a whole lot of people start debating the facts and merits of his statements. Is the Republican leadership run by right-wing yahoos? Is DeLay going to jail?

Controversy begets press. Dean can see, as well as anyone else, how effective the moderate, soft-touch, treading-lightly approach has been working lately for the Democrats.

But how are we going to win those white Christian middle-America voters to our side by having Dean basically call them out? asks the ruffled Democratic leadership. The answer to this lies at the heart of what the Democratic party has been failing at for a while now. The voters who are supposedly going to be alienated by this kind of talk are the very same voters who look for guts, strength and straight talk from the leadership of this country. All too often, Democratic leaders come off sounding like they are saying seven things at once, leaving the impression that their spines are somewhat slippery. Boldness, on the other hand, begets confidence, even in disagreement.

These Dean statements also, coincidentally, whip the Democratic base into a roaring frenzy as they hear an actual Democratic leader speak their beliefs out loud and in public. One of the things Dean is working on every day is to redirect DNC fundraising away from the big-dollar donors who give equally to both parties in order to hedge their bets. Dependence on this breed of donor causes the party to crab towards the middle and avoid anything resembling true opposition.

Dean wants DNC fundraising efforts to be focused on the common citizen, the Democratic activist who has been screaming at the party to say what must be said, and Dean’s inflammatory statements spark the kind of donation avalanche that turned his Presidential campaign into a financial juggernaut. He may have lost in the end, but the manner in which he raised campaign money changed the face of electoral politics. He is porting those lessons into national DNC fundraising efforts, and statements like these go a long way towards making those efforts wildly successful.

Memo to Dean: Keep doing what you are doing. Lather, rinse, repeat.

We Love Howard Dean

2005-06-12T11:41:00.000-04:00

John Cory is a Vietnam veteran. He received the Purple Heart and Bronze Star with V device, 1969 - 1970.

The Bush GOP is a Wal-Mart of five-and-dime ethics, self-enriching corporate sponsored war, imitation morality made in China, and a fresh baker's dozen of half-truths for every occasion. America on sale: to the right folks in the right place at the right time for the right price. Going once, going twice ...

Bible-thumping-bunko artists shove the hand of God into your pants pocket for thirty pieces of silver to buy membership lists from the likes of David Dukes and the KKK, because we all know, Heaven is white with just a touch of beige. And if you question that, James Dobson will take his Bible belt and show you the lashing love of Jesus.

We've long since passed murder at 1600 and now head to 1700 dead soldiers in Bush's war on Iraq. And while Condi visits the troops, with a smile that could slit your throat from ear to ear, nobody asks what the plan is for this sandbox game of death.

The Downing Street Memo is all the talk to avoid. There are some people who want the American media to cover the contents of the memo that show Bush and Blair conspired to wage war despite their promises otherwise. But the media won't cover the memo any more than they covered Bush's words in the second presidential debate of 2000 when he said: ".... The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or it's unraveling, let's put it that way. The sanctions are being violated. We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there's going to be a consequence should I be the president."

So what is the topic that grabs the news and the Democratic leadership's attention? Howard Dean said something mean. Extra! Extra! Read all about it!

Bush lied and people died. Nope - not news. Ohio Republicans involved in financial and voting scandal. Nope - not news. Republicans jam Democratic phone lines during 2004 election to stop the vote. Republicans hack into Democratic computers. No news there. Tom Delay has repeated ethical lapses and takes money from lobbyists like Jack Abramoff. Nope - not news. The White House edits critical environmental reports to refute scientific fact. Nope - no news there. Wait a minute - this just in:

Howard Dean said something mean.

Oh my God! Stop the presses! Did you hear? Dean has gone mean, pass it on. Get Candy Crowley at CNN and Chris Matthews at MSNBC. Don't forget Scarborough. This is a week's worth of programming! Get Holy Joe Lieberman to speak for the good Democrats. Get Jive-Joe Biden, he'll be good for a sensible quote to contrast with the madness of Howard "Beal" Dean.

Quick, do you know why Republicans are against federal money for stem cell research? They're afraid the Democrats will use it to grow a spine. (ba-da-boom)

The Dainty Dems of Petticoat Junction got their knickers in a twist because Howard Dean spoke harshly about Republicans. Not that any of the Democratic leadership heard what Dean said or even asked him what he said. No, they got it from talk radio or from someone with good hair and white teeth on TV, or from some other reliable source.

If you Democratic leaders want to get upset about something, here's part of my list:

Lack of health care in this country.
Trampling of civil rights and privacy in the name of phony patriotism.
Religious hate discrimination against gays sanctioned as legislation.
Corporations ruining the environment and defiling worker's rights.
In a culture of life - why does more money go to improving bombs than improving schools?
How can a president lie to Congress about war and get away with it?
Church and State do not belong together. Ever.

Why do I need to remind you of any of this?

I don't give a crap whether or not you like Howard Dean. It's about damned time the Democratic Party quit sucking up to corporations and Republicans and began sticking up for the people! You remember, we the people? Of the people, by the people, and for the people? It is there somewhere in a government document, as I recall. Make a Freedom of Information request and maybe one of your new conservative judges will let you look at it under the glass where they keep it.

You want to hold Howard Dean accountable for what he says, fine. How about holding Bush accountable for what he does?

Sending our troops into harm's way without sufficient and proper armor.
Cutting veterans' services and budgets when it is needed most.
Not allowing our returning dead to be photographed and honored openly.
Failing the sick and afflicted while enriching the drug industry.
Selling the sweat of America to the highest corporate bidder.

The list is long and ignored. I understand you are much too busy trying to teach Howard Dean how polite society functions.

Like I said in the beginning, this administration has stocked its shelves with half-truths. The price of one half-truth is a whole life. And a whole lot of life is dying for the dollar lies of Bush Inc.

I want someone who will stand up not stand down. I want someone outspoken and outrageous and out there, for me. I want someone on my side, not on my back for more money. I want someone who fights, not folds at the first sign of fake indignation.

To paraphrase my good friend Titus: You whiny Democratic Leadership wussies - get down off the cross and use the wood to build a bridge to get over it! We love Howard Dean!

Democrats: Smarten Up and Support Your Chairman

2005-06-10T22:29:00.000-04:00

I'm extremely disappointed in several of my Democratic "heroes". After DNC Chairman Howard Dean appeared on Meet the Press, many in the mainstream media took the opportunity to slice out some "controversial" comments and use them to corner people like Joe Biden and Barney Frank with pointed questions about Dean's leadership. I was disappointed at their responses, which distanced themselves from Dean and suggested he doesn't speak for the Party... or that his rhetoric doesn't reflect the values of the party.

I hate to be this blunt, but here it is: HEY DUMB ASSES... WAKE UP!! Smart politicians like Biden and Frank should be wise enough to REFUSE TO ANSWER LOADED QUESTIONS.

For 20 years, Democrats have sat by while Republicans spewed hatred and bile against us. 40,000 hours per month of conservative talk radio, EVERY MONTH, since the late 1980's have given a bullhorn to every right-wing whacko and extremist to call Democrats baby killers, anti-American, communists, and virtually everything else in between! So in this environment, where the Republicans have played as dirty a game possible, isn't is appropriate to just reject the premise of the question? How about trying this answer on for size Mr. Biden and Frank:

"Well, while I might not have used those exact words, I think our Chairman is on the right track. Progressive Democrats are focused on the issues that will move our country forward... and if Howard Dean has to rattle the cage of the American people to shake them from the grip of Republican distortions and talking points... so be it."

Just in case anyone is wondering where I stand:

Embracing Theocracy?

2005-06-10T13:16:00.000-04:00

America is a deeply religious nation, but it is not a theocracy. Yet, increasingly, the small but powerful assemblage of Christian Right religious organizations are forming overlapping agendas with local, state, and federal conservative politicians. This is both harming religion – threatening to turn "a sanctuary into a political platform," as Rev. Dr. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, president of the Chicago Theological Seminary, points out – and pressing our nation closer to what some suggest is a creeping theocracy.

POLITICIZING FAITH: Perhaps the most alarming example is found in the Ohio Restoration Project. Presbyterian Rev. Dr. John Lentz writes that the group "plans to target 2,000 pastors throughout the state to become 'patriot pastors.'" Those patriot pastors will be "briefed on a specific political agenda" and "asked to submit names of their parishioners" to a large database, which will come in handy when the pastors are "asked to place voter guides in their church pews." This plan is being strongly backed by Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell (R), a gubernatorial hopeful, who "will be featured on 30-second radio ads promoting this group's agenda and supporting the 'Ohio for Jesus' rally set for the spring of 2006."

CONSERVATIVES SEE WARNING SIGNS: Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) says his conservative colleagues are embracing a "theocracy." John Danforth, President Bush's former U.N. ambassador, says that conservatives have "gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement." And Christine Todd Whitman, former EPA administrator under President Bush, recently warned of right-wing "fundamentalists": "It's the people who will tell you that they would rather focus on SpongeBob SquarePants holding hands with a starfish than they would about Social Security.... It's about a movement here. And that's why I try and define the term as social fundamentalist."

RELIGIOUS RIGHT HARMING YOUR WAY OF LIFE: Whether it's pressing our government to interfere in the most private and personal medical decisions, like end-of-life decisions or abortion; endangering patients' health and denying their rights by refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and emergency contraception; leading the fight against life-saving scientific research into stem cells; or inciting religious divisiveness by claiming that certain political views mean one is "against people of faith," the result is the same: Americans overwhelming oppose it; right-wing politicians embrace it.

GOOD FOR RELIGIOUS RIGHT, BAD FOR AMERICANS: Even conservatives are turned off by the Bush administration's ideological activism. By a 50 to 37 percent margin, the Wall Street Journal found recently that conservatives think the federal government should be "less active" on social and moral issues. And in this week's ABC/Washington Post poll, nearly 60 percent of Americans said Bush was focusing on issues that weren't important to their lives.

After Downing Street: A Resolution of Inquiry

2005-06-10T09:37:00.000-04:00

It's not exactly a news flash that the Bush Administration lied to the public before the invasion of Iraq. What should be on front pages, though, is new proof of the Bush Administration's lies brought to light by the previously unknown Downing Street Minutes, recently obtained and printed in the Times of London. (The Downing Street Memo is a transcript of minutes of a secret meeting chaired by Tomy Blair in Britain in July of 2002 to discuss preparations and propaganda before going to war. It was marked "Secret and strictly personal--UK eyes only.")

The Downing Street Minutes are deserving, in the words of constitutional lawyer John Bonifaz, of an official "Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach George W. Bush, President of the United States."

Bonifaz, who two years ago took the Bush Administration to court on behalf of a coalition of US soldiers, parents of soldiers and twelve Members of Congress (including John Conyers Jr., Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson Jr., Jim McDermott, José Serrano, Sheila Jackson Lee) to challenge the constitutionality of the Iraq war, adds:

"The question must now be asked, with the release of the Downing Street Memo, whether the President has committed impeachable offenses. Is it a High Crime to engage in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for taking the nation into a war? Is it a High Crime to manipulate intelligence so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed to the United States as a means of trying to justify a war against another nation based on 'preemptive' purposes? Is it a High Crime to commit a felony via the submission of an official report to the United States Congress falsifying the reasons for launching military action?"

As in previous investigations of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," such a "Resolution of Inquiry is the appropriate first step in launching this investigation."

Bonifaz's memorandum making the case for launching a Resolution of Inquiry is posted at www.afterdowningstreet.org/, a new website founded by David Swanson, Bob Fertik, Bonifaz and others (including this writer), together with a broad array of public interest groups that is posted on the web site.

Our memo is written to Representative Conyers, both because he is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and because he has been a brave truth-seeker on this issue and so many others. We support his letter demanding answers from the Bush Administration, signed originally by eighty-eight of his House colleagues; his call for 100,000 signatures to back up that letter; and his plan to go to London to seek more answers.

We have also made contact with several other members of Congress, and we believe that it will not be long before a group in Congress officially calls for an ROI.

Unfortunately, as most Nation readers know, the Downing Street Minutes have only been a story in the rest of the world, especially in Britain. In the United States it is taking much longer for the mainstream to pick up on it, and the issue is still being treated far less seriously than the seriousness of the charges warrant.

Fortunately, the blogosphere has found this new proof of George W. Bush's "misleadership" much more compelling than the mainstream press has; writers like Apian have posted incisive diaries on www.dailykos.com/, which regularly covers the story, as has Georgia10 and her friends, who founded the wonderful site www.downingstreetmemo.com/.

Despite a slow start, the Downing Street Minutes may have a long life expectancy, and the Misleader of the Pack may yet have to confront the truth.

Evidence shows clear path of premeditated war

2005-06-09T22:01:00.000-04:00

By David Frenkel/ GUEST COLUMNIST
Thursday, June 9, 2005

There is a slow but perceptible drumbeat calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush on grounds he fixed the facts to justify invading Iraq, and deliberately timed the invasion to influence midterm elections.

These revelations come from leaked secret minutes of a July 23, 2002 meeting where the head of British MI6, after visiting the Bush administration in Washington, reported back to Prime Minister Tony Blair that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action,
justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. ... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

These minutes also make it clear the Bush team knew that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat, and that they in fact regarded several other countries as far more serious WMD threats than Iraq.

We know from previous research conducted by the New York Times that the president and vice president portrayed the infamous captured aluminum tubes as hard evidence of an Iraqi WMD program even though their own advisers were vigorously saying the tubes were for rockets,
not for nuclear production. The British memo confirms that Bush and Cheney were not misled by bad intelligence, but were looking for any fig-leaf they could find to give them cover for a decision they had already made to invade.

We still really do not know why they were so determined to invade. Heaven knows many of their own experts warned them it would turn into a quagmire, especially if they did not deploy sufficient troops. They chose to invade, under false pretences, and then hashed up the execution beyond our worst nightmares.

So why did they choose to invade? According to Paul O'Neill, Bush's former treasury secretary, the decision to invade Iraq was made before Sept. 11, right at the beginning of Bush's first term. The intelligence expert George Friedman offers an explanation in his book, "America's Secret War." He feels Cheney and Bush decided it was important to make a bold threatening statement to all the Arab neighbors of Iraq, especially Saudi Arabia, to compel them to hunt down Al-Qaeda (which had attacked America's interests well before Sept. 11). According to Friedman, the administration felt that Al-Qaeda needed to be denied any haven in the Arab world, and America needed to be a physically present and imminent threat to anyone that failed to stomp on the Al-Qaeda operatives in their midst. Apparently the urgency they felt in 2002 was the fear Al-Qaeda was about to set off a nuclear device in some major U.S. city and bring America to its knees. They set off to hunt down the suspected nuclear device within the USA. They felt justified in using any and all means regardless of the niceties of legality because in their mind
it was for the greater good.

Friedman points out that the U.S. could not be frank about its real motivation to invade - namely, to be a threatening presence in the Middle East - because it does not provide any legal basis for invasion under international law. However, their choice of the "WMD threat" propaganda campaign showed more political ineptitude than finesse. He feels that that the real reason is more justifiable than the bogus one. But, instead, they lied and dissembled to justify the invasion, losing international support in the process, and so have taken the nation into a war that will be very hard to win and that has already taken or damaged a very large number of lives.

To these high crimes and misdemeanors one must also add the administration's callous and illegal treatment of prisoners of war. This has harmed America in its role as world leader and we have yet to feel all the repercussions of the deeply-flawed policy of "extraordinary rendition" and expedient torture, as blessed by now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in his infamous White House memos.

Bush and Cheney must answer the allegations now posed to them formally by 89 Democratic members of Congress as to why the administration lied to the Congress and to the public, evidenced by the 2002 British meeting minutes. If the 2006 midterm elections hand the Democrats control of one branch of the Congress then they can proceed to introduce articles of impeachment.

Cheney and Rumsfeld cut their teeth in the Nixon White House, which was awash in secrecy and illegal behavior. The only thing they seem to have learned from that experience was to be better at being secretive and deceptive.

THE RUSSERT WATCH: KEN MEHLMAN GETS THE E-ZPASS TREATMENT

2005-06-07T14:58:00.000-04:00

By Arianna Huffington

Sunday's "Meet the Press," featuring RNC chair Ken Mehlman, was another classic example of why host Tim Russert is fast becoming journalism's answer to the "E-ZPass," those electronic tags that allow drivers to go through toll booths without having to stop. On the show today, Mehlman was allowed to distort, twist, manipulate, obfuscate and "disassemble" his way through every stop on the disinformation highway.

The key to the E-ZPass method is no follow-ups — or lame follow-ups quickly abandoned. And Mehlman is a master at dealing with those. His technique? Just repeat or slightly rephrase his talking point, and trust that Russert will give up, wave him on and proceed to the next prepared question.

To see a master in action, let's go to the transcript:

Early in the interview, Russert asks Mehlman whether "the president has hit a wall with his domestic agenda? What's the problem?"

The RNC chair dances around the question so deftly his moves should be taught at Arthur Murray: "Tim, I don't think there's a problem," he responds, and then promptly changes the subject to Ronald Reagan before closing with an RNC commercial.

"Before we provided prescription drugs for Medicare, we were told it wasn't going to happen. Before the president was able to move forward with No Child Left Behind, we were told it was stalled. We just passed class-action reform for the first time in six years and that, too, was predicted not to happen."

If Russert were doing his job, he would have countered with some well-aired problems with these three accomplishments: the Medicare prescription drug plan was promised to cost under $400 billion over 10 years but now stands at $724 billion (and, in a stunning giveaway to the drug industry, the government gets no bulk-purchasing discount); the No Child Left Behind Act has been such a massively underfunded disaster that 12 states are considering legislation to get out of it; and the class-action "reform" will just make it harder for injured people to get a fair day in court.

But E-ZPass Russert mentions none of the above. Instead, he waves Mehlman through and moves on to stem cell research about which Mehlman says: "This is the first administration ever that has funded with federal dollars embryonic stem cell research."

Does Russert bother to point out that this is not much of claim, since this is the first administration ever to have had the chance to fund embryonic stem cell research? Of course not. Mehlman is in the GOP Express Lane. No need to slow down for little things like facts. Move right along.

Russert actually allows Mehlman to get away with saying, "So you have an administration that is unprecedented in our commitment to more scientific research," without offering a spit take, a rim shot, or a "Please, Ken, not even I can let you slide on that one!"

Russert then switches to his pet interrogatory method: asking his guest for a reaction to a pointed quote from someone else — in this case, former Republican Sen. John Danforth:

"By a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around."

Mehlman bypasses the criticism altogether, leaving Danforth in his rear-view mirror with a condescending, "I think he's a good man. I would respectfully disagree with that." And Russert lets him get away without even attempting to answer a serious charge from a senior member of his own party.

And on and on Mehlman rolls, on issue after issue after issue:

On the deficit, he follows the administration's standard "In An Emergency Break Glass" procedure and seeks refuge in 9/11: "Well, Tim, I would say that what we've suffered, unfortunately, was an attack on this country."

When asked why, even after the president's 100-day tour, 56 percent of Americans continue to oppose his Social Security plan, Mehlman says he "would respectfully disagree with those numbers," then counters them with a bit of complete nonsense: "That same NBC News poll showed that a plurality of Americans believe that Congress is moving too slowly on the question of dealing with Social Security."

Now even if a plurality of Americans saying something actually meant anything, I read that poll three times from beginning to end — yes, I did have a fun Sunday — and it says nothing of the sort.

When asked about the latest Pentagon report that, in fact, several Korans were mishandled, Mehlman responds by calling this "unacceptable," but tries to minimize the unacceptability by putting it in "context": "We also need to remember it in the context, in the context of an America that is liberating Muslims."

Well, it's all fine and dandy if we want to look at it that way, but the question is not how we look at it, it's how Muslims look at it. And, unlike Russert, they're not buying Mehlman's "context."

When asked about the Downing Street Memo, which shows that Bush was determined to go to war almost a year before the invasion, and that the intelligence was accordingly "fixed," Mehlman falls back on an out-and-out fabrication: "Tim, that report has been discredited by everyone else who's looked at it since then."

Russert actually manages a follow up on this whopper: "I don't believe that the authenticity of this report has been discredited."

But Mehlman just flashes his E-ZPass again: "I believe that the findings of the report, the fact that the intelligence was somehow fixed, have been totally discredited by everyone who's looked at it."

And so he gets through. And, returning to form, Bulldog Russert just gives up.

They eventually make it to Pat Tillman, and the fact that Tillman's family was deeply offended by the Pentagon's lies regarding the circumstances of their son's death and its attempt to make Tillman a poster child to sell the war.

Mehlman's response is that he "respectfully disagrees" with Tillman's mother.

In fact, Mehlman said he "respectfully disagrees" a total of seven times over the course of the interview. Sometimes he respectfully disagrees with people, sometimes with a report, sometimes with numbers. Mostly, he "respectfully disagrees" with the truth.

But there's something about the way Mehlman says it that makes him come off like a prissy doorman. You know that when he says, "I respectfully disagree," he really means "Fuck off."

"Ken Mehlman," Russert intones in closing, "we hope you'll come back."

And given the obliging treatment he got, you know he will.

© 2005 ARIANNA HUFFINGTON.
DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

Administration's offenses impeachable

2005-06-07T09:59:00.000-04:00

BANGOR DAILY NEWS: JUNE 6, 2005

A British citizen leaked a memo to London's Sunday Times. The memo was of the written account of a meeting that a man named Richard Dearlove had with the Bush administration in July 2002. Dearlove was the head of the England's MI-6, the equivalent of the CIA. On July 23, 2002, Dearlove briefed Tony Blair about the meeting. He said that Bush was determined to attack Iraq. He said that Bush knew that U.S. intelligence had no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and no links to foreign terrorists, that there was no imminent danger to the U.S. from Iraq. But, since Bush was determined to go to war, "Intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy." "Fixed" means faked, manufactured,conjured, hyped - the product of whole cloth fabrication.

So we got aluminum tubes, mushroom clouds imported from Niger, biological weapons labs in weather trucks,fear and trembling, the phony ultimatums to Saddam Hussein to turn over the weapons he didn't have and thus couldn't. We got the call to arms, the stifling of dissent, the parade of retired generals strategizing on the "news" shows, with us or against us, flags in the lapel, a craven media afraid to look for a truth that might disturb their corporate owners who would profit from the war. Shock and Awe. Fallujah. Abu Ghraib.

It was all a lie. Many of us have said for a long time it was a lie. But here it is in black and white: Lies from a president who has taken a sacred trust to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

So, what does it mean? It means that our president and all of his administration are war criminals. It's as simple as that. They lied to the American people, have killed and injured and traumatized thousands of American men and women doing their patriotic duty,killed at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians, destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and poisoned its environment,squandered billions and billions of our tax dollars,made a mockery of American integrity in the world,changed the course of history, tortured Iraqi prisoners, and bound us intractably to an insane situation that they have no idea how to fix because they had no plan, but greed and empire, in the first place.

What does it mean? It means that everyone in this administration should be impeached. It means that our Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and our
Congressmen Tom Allen and Mike Michaud should call for immediate impeachment. They were lied to by their president, voted for war, and are thus complicit in the multiply betrayals of the American people unless they stand up now for the truth.

Richard Nixon was impeached for a cover-up of a two-bit break-in. William Cohen, a young Maine Republican, played an important role for the prosecution in those proceedings. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about sex with an intern. Now we
have the irrefutable evidence that George W. Bush lied about the reasons for taking the United States to war. The intelligence wasn't flawed. The weapons weren't
hidden. Our elected leaders were lying.

Democracy, like any sound relationship between people,is built on trust. We trust our leaders to tell the truth so that the consent that we give them is honestly informed. If the consent is won through manipulation, propaganda, fear, or lies, the basis of our democracy has been subverted. It is no longer democracy at all, but we continue to call it that because we have not the courage or stamina to demand its overhaul.

We live a lie when we fail to hold leaders accountable for their lies. By not calling now for impeachment, we are saying that we condone hypocrisy,
pseudo-democracy, and murdering thousands of Americans and Iraqis for strategic control of energy resources that we have no right to. Patriotism demands that we
insist on the ideals of democracy, not that we support the "leaders" who cynically destroy them.

What's curious is why anyone like me should have to even point this out. Don't our senators and congressmen feel betrayed? Are they content to continue the murdering rather than do what truth demands? Do they think they can lie to history, too.
Do they think that this little Iraq problem will somehow just go away, that the courageous resistance to the United States occupation will give up and hand Bush the keys to the oil wells? Do they think that any of the grave crises facing the world now - energy consumption, global warming, species extinction - can be solved by lying about them?

We are living in an age of no accountability. It's also an age upon which may hang the survival of human life on this earth. One should not bet one's future on people who abjure responsibility. The first courageous step is to come to terms with what we know is true:

America's president lied to America's people to create an unnecessary war. I ask Sens. Snowe and Collins,Reps. Allen and Michaud to take that step. Begin impeachment proceedings. It's really no more or less than their duty. It's also the first step toward restoring America's integrity.

Economy in the Alternate Republican Universe

2005-06-07T09:25:00.000-04:00

This headline gets it about right:

Bush's Rosy View of Economy Doesn't Mesh With Public Perception
Bloomberg - May 31, 2005

"Ellen Westbrook, an employment counselor in Asheville, North Carolina, says she just rolls her eyes when she hears about how the U.S. economy is strong and getting stronger.

"'I've seen 300 manufacturing jobs disappear down here in the last three weeks,' she says. 'How can I think the economy is good when I am watching high-paying jobs disappear overseas?'"
The article goes on to explain some of the implications...

"Democrats say that public anxieties about America's economic course, if they persist, will provide political opportunities in the 2006 elections, in which every House seat and 34 of 100 in the Senate are up for a vote. Republicans hold majorities in both chambers.

"'There is a real disconnect between what people see when they turn on their TV and see what Congress is doing, and the problems they are facing at home,' says Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, referring to recent congressional sparring over Bush judicial nominations, gay marriage and the case of brain-damaged Florida woman Terri Schiavo... 'At some point, people are going to begin to wonder what their congressman is doing about gas prices, health care and jobs,' he says."

But perhaps the working Americans who actually feel the economy are wrong, and the Republicans are right. It is probably worth consulting an independent source, such as the non-partisan Economic Policy Institute:

Three and a half years into the recovery, one in five of the unemployed have been out of work for six months or more. Never before has the overall unemployment rate (ranging from 5.2% to 6.3% from October 2002 to March 2005) been this low while so many of the jobless have been out of work for such long periods of time. Languid employment expansion has simply not provided those who lost their jobs during the downturn with opportunities to become reemployed during the recovery.

The patterns of job creation following the last two recessions have raised the stakes of job loss for a broadening segment of American families.

Women represented 43% of long-term jobless workers, on average, from 2001-04, up from 35% compared to the 1990-93 period. Such long-term unemployment has a direct impact on children and families, especially families with single mothers.

After experiencing historic labor market gains during the late 1990s, African Americans represented a greater share of the long-term jobless in this economic cycle.

Long-term unemployment is expanding beyond blue collar workers: higher levels of education and white collar jobs are no longer providing insulation against severe joblessness.

Today we learn that the Republican economy produced a mere 78,000 jobs in May - about half of what the economy needs just to accomodate new workers entering the labor market. Presumably, the Republicans will call for more tax cuts for the wealthy in order to "solve" the problem.

Dishonoring Veterans

2005-06-01T12:02:00.000-04:00

George Bush’s Disappearing Political Capital

When President Bush began his second term, he declared that his victory gave him plenty of political capital, and he intended to spend it. Bush laid out a controversial agenda of privatizing Social Security, blocking stem cell research and pushing extremist judges. In the process, Bush spent most of the capital he might have garnered from the November elections. Poll after poll shows that the American people are not happy with the leadership coming out of Washington, yet Bush forges ahead with his unpopular agenda, losing his capital along the way.

The president’s Social Security tour failed to garner support for his plan. Since the beginning of his second term, President Bush spent much of his time pushing his Social Security privatization plan. During March and April administration officials participated in 166 events to promote the president’s plan. Despite their efforts, the American people overwhelmingly disapprove of the way Bush is handling Social Security, and according to a recent CBS News poll, 56 percent of Americans think private accounts are a bad idea.

President Bush found himself on the wrong side of stem cells and the Terri Schiavo case. President Bush flew in from Crawford, Texas, to intervene in one family’s private medical drama. An astounding 76 percent of Americans disapproved of congressional intervention in the case and 54 percent specifically disapproved of Bush's role. And last week, President Bush once again threatened to veto the stem cell research bill that has wide bipartisan support. A majority of Americans support expanding stem cell research, yet Bush is willing to stand in the way of progress.

President Bush continues to stand behind John Bolton. President Bush’s nominee to be ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, could not receive a positive recommendation from a Senate his own party controls. His nomination remains uncertain in part due to the objections of Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) and because his administration refuses to release the papers requested by members of the Senate.

Some FACTS About Democratic Administrations

2005-05-23T16:42:00.000-04:00

The truth about Democrats and Republicans is this: Republicans run effective "marketing campaigns," then once in office, tend to do the opposite of what they say. Democrats, while much more honest and detailed in outlining their political positions, have done a terrible job at winning "hearts and minds" in recent elections. Democrats are working hard to change this reality. I stand firmly with like-minded progressives who wish to end the rule of the "Hungry-Hungry Hippos". (Money-hungry, hypocritical Republicans)

Chairman Dean stated this weekend on Meet the Press, "I'm not going to be lectured about my values by someone like Tom DeLay." Amen, Chairman Dean... and for my part, I'm not going to be lectured about fiscal responsibility by a Republican Party with this kind of 45-year track record... once again, the RECORD doesn't match the RHETORIC...

Dating back to 1960:

Democratic administrations - Federal spending up on average $35 billion/year Republican administrations - Federal spending up an average $60 billion/year

Democratic administrations - Federal deficit averaged $30 billion/year Republican administrations - Federal deficit averaged $131 billion/year

Democratic administrations - Federal deficit decreased by an average of $25 billion/year Republican administrations - Federal deficit increased by an average of $36 billion/year

Democratic administrations - National debt increased less than $100 billion/year Republican administrations - National debt increased by more than $200 billion/year

Democratic administrations - Gross domestic product in 2000 dollars - Increased $212 billion/year Republican administrations - Gross domestic product in 2000 dollars - Increased $165 billion/year

Democratic administrations - per capita income increased 30% more than in Republican administrations

Democratic administrations - Average 3.13 percent inflation Republican administrations - Average 3.89 percent inflation

Democratic administrations - Unemployment 5.33 Republican administrations - Employment 6.38

Source: Michael Kinsey, LA Times

Supersize This

2005-05-23T16:38:00.000-04:00

How CEO Pay Took Off While America’s Middle Class Struggled
by John Burton and Christian WellerMay 23, 2005

The American dream is one of upward mobility. We believe that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to provide for your family and ensure that your children have greater opportunity than you were afforded. But today, the dream of true upward mobility has been limited to a select class of corporate executives while the dreams of middle-class families have been deferred. Corporate CEOs have enjoyed record levels of compensation and corporations have seen record profits, as more and more middle-class Americans are experiencing stagnant wages and vanishing benefits. This expanding inequality is not the American dream.

CEO compensation is out of orbit: At the 350 largest public companies, the average CEO compensation is $9.2 million. Compensation for oil and gas execs increased by 109 percent between 2003 and 2004.
In 2004, the average CEO received 240 times more than the compensation earned by the average worker. In 2002, the ratio was 145 to 1.
These levels of CEO compensation are not the norm for the industrialized world. Typically, CEO pay in other industrialized countries is only about onethird of what American CEOs make.
Highly-compensated CEOs are not being rewarded for performance with theinterests of shareholders in mind, the “textbook” explanation of CEO compensation, according to an extensive body of research and reporting.
After-tax profits are booming and corporate America can easily afford to offer fair wages and benefits to rank and file employees. Unfortunately, while CEOs have enriched themselves, middle-class families have taken hard hits to their paychecks, their health coverage, and their pension plans.

Full report in PDF

Why the Downing Street Memo Provides Grounds for Impeacment

2005-05-16T10:40:00.000-04:00

President Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 because he fired his own cabinet member, Secretary of War Edward M. Stanton. President Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998-1999 because he lied under oath about an extramarital affair.

And yet today the conventional wisdom says that the fact that President George W. Bush, in a concerted effort with his top aides and government officials, including the Vice President, engaged in a conspiracy to deceive the American people in order to engender public support for going to war to remove Saddam Hussein from power does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

If a conspiracy to lie about the reasons for taking the country to war - at a cost of thousands of dead and wounded American military personnel and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi babies, children, grandmothers and grandfathers, fathers and mothers, not to mention hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars - is not a high crime or misdemeanor, then what is?

The other SCLM take on Bush’s campaign of lies in the run-up to war is that whatever he did in 2002 was nullified by the elections in November 2004. But Bill Clinton won re-election in 1996 in a landslide(49%-40%) compared with Bush’s 51%-48% margin over John Kerry. And Clinton’s re-election came after millions of dollars had spent investigating him and his associates. However, this virtual referendum of support Clinton received from 47 million voters did not stop the Republicans from proceeding to try to destroy his presidency over personal issues.

The Downing Street Memo offers a glimpse into the reality behind the Bush campaign to take the country to war under false pretenses.

It says that the Bush Administration’s justification for war was “thin,” therefore ” the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

This may not be the smoking gun that proves Bush & Co lied about the war but it unquestionably emits the odor of a freshly fired bullet. And now no one can say that the evidence Bush lied simply doesn’t exist.

The fact is, the Republicans who control the Congress are just as corrupt as the ones who run the Administration. They have stood in the way of George Bush being held accountable for the blood on his hands - and will likely to continue to do so. But remember it was the Republicans in Congress who forced Republican president Richard Nixon to resign rather than face impeachment in 1974.

Every patriotic American ought to be outraged about the conspiracy by George W. Bush and his supporters to take this country to war under false pretenses. The rest of the world knows what the American rightwing and its supine media lackeys will not admit - Bush’s lies about Iraq have destroyed America’s credibility in the world.

History shows that military might alone is not sufficient to sustain an empire - or a superpower. Our strength comes from our integrity, and it is based on a moral view that dictates fairness and justice. Even if Iraq becomes a shining beacon of democracy in the Middle East - and that is a huge “if” - its path to freedom will be stained by these lies and this treason and by the lives of the brave and the innocent that were lost because a group in the White House decided that the political advantages of going to war outweighed the costs in blood and treasure to their own country.

This matter will not get a full airing unless the leaders of the House hear from you. Any member of the House can draft impeachment charges, so write your Representative and suggest that he or she do so. Otherwise there are two committees that principally deal with matters related to impeachment, the House Judiciary Committee and the House Government Reform Committtee. I’m writing letters to the chairmen and ranking members of both these committees to encourage them to look at this matter, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans.

DeLay is a HYPOCRITE!

2005-05-13T10:17:00.000-04:00

As I have stated on many occasions, I believe in the American public. That might sound strange coming from a Democrat whose party lost a Presidential election to an unpopular "war president" who clearly used fear, lies and deception to win re-election. With all their shortcomings, I believe the American people can recognize a hypocrite. We ought to make sure as many people as possible read this quote:

"The time has come that the American people know exactly what their Representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and dined by special interest groups? Or are they working hard to represent their constituents? The people, the American people, have a right to know."

- Tom DeLay, 11/16/95

As we now know, Tom DeLay, whether guilty of a crime or not, is ABSOLUTELY GUILTY of everything he railed against in the above quote. The Gingrich-DeLay lead Republican revolution in the 1990's, billed Republican Congressmen and Senators as a posse of knights on white horses, galloping into Washington to bring responsible government back to the people.

As we know now, the "revolution" was nothing more than a well-funded, well-orchestrated power grab that has not helped the lifestyles of common Americans. It has been a movement that shored up corporate power, shifted tax burden to the middle class, and provided billions in corporate welfare to industries that don't need the help.

Conservatives Gouge Poor on Medicaid

2005-05-12T10:32:00.000-04:00

As President Bush toured the country trying to hoodwink Americans into dismantling their own Social Security system, right-wing leaders in Congress took the lead in passing the president's other priority-a $10 billion cut to Medicaid, the nation's premiere health program for low-income Americans. State legislatures and governors have now outlined the grisly details of these cuts proposing significant out-of-pocket health expenses for the poor coupled with new limitations and restrictions on health services. Why are conservatives picking on the most vulnerable Americans?

*Somebody has to pay for conservatives' gross fiscal mismanagement and massive handouts to wealthy. Right-wing leaders have cleared the way for $106 billion in new tax cuts for those at the top, massive tax breaks for oil and gas interests, and a gaping giveaway for corporations to bring off-shore profits back into the states virtually tax free. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR) summed up these priorities quite appropriately: "[T]o balance the federal budget off the backs of the poorest people in the country is simply unacceptable. You don't pull feeding tubes from people. You don't pull the wheelchair out from under the child with muscular dystrophy."

**Conservatives count on the poor not voting, hoping no one will notice if they take away basic health care from a couple hundred thousand low-income Americans. Needing someway to cover their tracks on these misplaced priorities, our nation's conservative leaders decided to target the poor-the group with the least amount of political power and lobbying clout. Now, facing mounting budget pressures, states are reacting in harsh ways: Tennessee is planning to drop more than 300,000 people from its Medicaid rolls, while Missouri is cutting off 90,000. New Hampshire yesterday became the first state in the nation to make the poorest of the poor pay for their coverage. Expect more states to follow suit in the near future.

***Progressives want to improve Medicaid the right way by lowering drug prices, expanding small business health insurance pools, and containing costs without hurting beneficiaries. Plenty of options exist to improve Medicaid's performance without cost shifting to states or reducing coverage for people in need. A report by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured reveals that all fifty states and the District of Columbia enacted some form of cost-containment measures in response to the rising cost of Medicaid in the past two years. Other progressive solutions include basic drug reimportation programs, multi-state prescription purchasing pools, and small business health insurance pools.

Read more about progressive solutions to Medicaid in American Progress' issue brief, "Improving Medicaid's Performance".

Smoking Gun Memo? Iraq Bombshell Goes Mostly Unreported in US Media

2005-05-11T09:41:00.000-04:00

Journalists typically condemn attempts to force their colleagues to disclose anonymous sources, saying that subpoenaing reporters will discourage efforts to expose government wrongdoing. But such warnings seem like mere self-congratulation when clear evidence of wrongdoing emerges, with no anonymous sources required-- and major news outlets virtually ignore it.

A leaked document that appeared in a British newspaper offered clear new evidence that U.S. intelligence was shaped to support the drive for war. Though the information rocked British Prime Minister Tony Blair's re-election campaign when it was revealed, it has received little attention in the U.S. press.

The document, first revealed by the London Times (5/1/05), was the minutes of a July 23, 2002 meeting in Blair's office with the prime minister's close advisors. The meeting was held to discuss Bush administration policy on Iraq, and the likelihood that Britain would support a U.S. invasion of Iraq. "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the minutes state.

The minutes also recount a visit to Washington by Richard Dearlove, the head of the British intelligence service MI6: "There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

That last sentence is striking, to say the least, suggesting that the policy of invading Iraq was determining what the Bush administration was presenting as "facts" derived from intelligence. But it has provoked little media follow-up in the United States. The most widely circulated story in the mainstream press came from the Knight Ridder wire service (5/6/05), which quoted an anonymous U.S. official saying the memo was ''an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during Dearlove's meetings in Washington.

Few other outlets have pursued the leaked memo's key charge that the "facts were being fixed around the policy." The New York Times (5/2/05) offered a passing mention, and the Charleston (W.V.) Gazette (5/5/05) wrote an editorial about the memo and the Iraq War. A columnist for the Cox News Service (5/8/05) also mentioned the memo, as did Molly Ivins (WorkingForChange.com, 5/10/05). Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler (5/8/05) noted that Post readers had complained about the lack of reporting on the memo, but offered no explanation for why the paper virtually ignored the story.

In a brief segment on hot topics in the blogosphere (5/6/05), CNN correspondent Jackie Schechner reported that the memo was receiving attention on various websites, where bloggers were "wondering why it's not getting more coverage in the U.S. media." But acknowledging the lack of coverage hasn't prompted much CNN coverage; the network mentioned the memo in two earlier stories regarding its impact on Blair's political campaign (5/1/05, 5/2/05), and on May 7, a short CNN item reported that 90 Congressional Democrats sent a letter to the White House about the memo-- but neglected to mention the possible manipulation of intelligence that was mentioned in the memo and the Democrats' letter.

Salon columnist Joe Conason posed this question about the story:

"Are Americans so jaded about the deceptions perpetrated by our own government to lead us into war in Iraq that we are no longer interested in fresh and damning evidence of those lies? Or are the editors and producers who oversee the American news industry simply too timid to report that proof on the evening broadcasts and front pages?"

As far as the media are concerned, the answer to Conason's second question would seem to be yes. A May 8 New York Times news article asserted that "critics who accused the Bush administration of improperly using political influence to shape intelligence assessments have, for the most part, failed to make the charge stick." It's hard for charges to stick when major media are determined to ignore the evidence behind them.

Don't Support Bush? Get Out Of My Church!

2005-05-08T21:07:00.000-04:00

WAYNESVILLE, N.C. (AP) -- Calling it a ''great misunderstanding,'' the pastor of a small church who led the charge to remove nine members for their political beliefs tried to welcome them back Sunday, but some insisted he must leave for the wounds to heal.

The Rev. Chan Chandler didn't directly address the controversy during the service at East Waynesville Baptist Church, but issued a statement afterward through his attorney saying the church does not care about its members' political affiliations.

''No one has ever been voted from the membership of this church due to an individual's support or lack of support for a political party or candidate,'' he said.

Nine members said they were ousted during a church gathering last week by about 40 others because they refused to support President Bush. They attended Sunday's service with their lawyer and many supporters.

Chandler noted their presence in his welcome to the congregation, saying, ''I'm glad to see you all here. ... We are here today to worship the Lord. I hope this is what you are here for.''

But Chandler's statement and his welcome didn't convince those members who were voted out that things would soon change, and some called for him to resign.

''This all started over politics and our right to vote for whoever we wanted to,'' said Thelma Lowe, who has been attending the church for 42 years. She and her husband Frank, a deacon at the church for 35 years, were among those voted out.

''Things will never be the same here until he leaves,'' she said.

Chandler, 33, has been at the church for less than three years.

The ousted members have said Chandler told them during last year's presidential campaign that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry needed to leave the church in the mountain town about 125 miles northwest of Charlotte.

''He needs to leave,'' said Marlene Casey, 42, a lifelong member. ''A lot of blood, sweat and tears have been shed by the people he told to leave.''

Added Lewis Inman, a deacon at the church who said he was voted out Monday: ''He could have apologized and made everything right. He's not man enough.''

Chandler invited all church members to attend a business meeting on Tuesday. ''This should all be cleared up by the end of the week,'' he said in an interview after the service.

Chandler said he and his wife have received calls from around the nation -- some of them threatening -- since his politics in the pulpit made national news.

His actions also drew criticism from other Baptist clergymen in the town.

''This is very disturbing,'' the Rev. Robert Prince III, who leads the congregation at the nearby First Baptist Church, said Saturday. ''I've been a pastor for more than 25 years, and I have never seen church members voted out for something like this.''

Some members of his congregation, however, voiced their support for Chandler on Sunday.

''He's a wonderful, good old country boy,'' Pam Serafin said as she walked into the church. ''There are always two sides to every story.''

What is media coverage of Iraq war good for? Absolutely nothing

2005-05-07T22:51:00.000-04:00

On May 1, the British Sunday Times revealed a secret memo, dated July 23, 2002, that was circulated among British defense and foreign policy officials and staff. The memo read in part:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC [National Security Council] had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. [Emphasis added.]
Salon.com's Joe Conason wrote of the memo:

There is a "smoking memo" that confirms the worst assumptions about the Bush administration's Iraq policy, but although that memo generated huge pre-election headlines in Britain, its existence has hardly been mentioned here.
[...]
[The memo read in part,] "The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Those few lines sum up everything that went wrong in the months and years to come -- and place the clear stamp of falsehood on the Bush administration's public pronouncements as the president pushed the nation toward war.

Think Progress has more on the memo's implications.
As Conason noted, the memo has received scant attention in the U.S. media. A May 6 Knight Ridder article began:

A highly classified British memo, leaked during Britain's just-concluded election campaign, claims President Bush decided by summer 2002 to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.

But beyond that, American media outlets have been largely silent about the memo -- despite paying great attention to the British elections upon which the revelation of the memo had considerable impact.

CNN, for example, aired only the briefest of passing references to the memo:

CAROL LIN (anchor): "Also, it's an election week in Great Britain. And Prime
Minister Tony Blair is on the defensive, mainly over accusations in British
press, reportedly from leaked secret documents that he and the U.S. president
had planned the invasion of Iraq and committed troops nine months before it
happened." [CNN Sunday Night, 5/1/05]
ROBIN OAKLEY (CNN European political editor): "But Tony Blair and his party
are not behaving as if they've got this election in the bag. And the reason is
the wrong subject keeps cropping up in the headlines. It's Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, day
after day, more revelations, leaked memorandums, leaked Downing Street about the
government, for example, committing itself to war in Iraq many months before it
has previously indicated that it did so. And Tony Blair is worried that in the
marginal seats, a lot of traditional labor supporters who didn't like the war
will fail to turn out in what may be a low turnout election." [News from CNN,
5/2/05]
That's it -- and that's more than we can find on MSNBC or Fox News.
Of
course, as we noted last
week, news organizations have a difficult task in deciding what is and isn't
newsworthy.

In this case, for cable news outlets to have covered the disclosure of a memo that suggests that President Bush manipulated pre-war intelligence to support his agenda, they might have had to cut back on their wall-to-wall coverage of one of the most important issues of our time: the so-called "Runaway Bride," Jennifer Wilbanks. A search of the Nexis database yields 125 news reports about Wilbanks on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox since May 1 (including online news reports). Or perhaps they would have had to pare down their coverage of American Idol, or the Michael Jackson trial.

The cable "news" networks aren't alone in ignoring the story, though. The New York Times, which famously apologized for its pre-war coverage, apparently still hasn't learned its lesson -- the "paper of record" hasn't yet mentioned the British memo.
Maybe that will change now that 88 members of Congress have sent President Bush a letter demanding answers about the matter. If not, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), who circulated the letter, might want to see if Paula Abdul will sign it.

(P.S.: After this was written, but before it was posted, CNN again mentioned the memo: Inside Politics host Judy Woodruff introduced the May 6 "Inside the Blogs" segment by saying, "A secret British government memo has been made public, and it has the blogosphere all abuzz. We check in now on that and more with CNN political producer Abbi Tatton and Jacki Schechner, our blog reporter." Woodruff offered no explanation for why CNN and other media outlets haven't been similarly "abuzz" over the memo. Regardless, it's a dark day when CNN's "witheringly bad" and "excruciatingly empty" blog segment actually does a better job of covering the news than the rest of the network.)

IMPEACHMENT TIME: "FACTS WERE FIXED."

2005-05-05T17:17:00.000-04:00

Thursday, May 5, 2005
By Greg Palast

Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has "IMPEACH HIM" written all over it.

The top-level government memo marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL," dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed meeting with the President, reads, "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Read that again: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed...."

For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, viewers inevitably ask me, "Isn't this grounds for impeachment?" -- vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a "high crime or misdemeanor."

And if this ain't it, nothing is.

The memo, uncovered this week by the Times, goes on to describe an elaborate plan by George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to hoodwink the planet into supporting an attack on Iraq knowing full well the evidence for war was a phony.

A conspiracy to commit serial fraud is, under federal law, racketeering. However, the Mob's schemes never cost so many lives.

Here's more. "Bush had made up his mind to take military action. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Really? But Mr. Bush told us, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

A month ago, the Silberman-Robb Commission issued its report on WMD intelligence before the war, dismissing claims that Bush fixed the facts with this snooty, condescending conclusion written directly to the President, "After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons."

We now know the report was a bogus 618 pages of thick whitewash aimed to let Bush off the hook for his murderous mendacity.

Read on: The invasion build-up was then set, says the memo, "beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections." Mission accomplished.

You should parse the entire memo -- posted on my website -- and see if you can make it through its three pages without losing your lunch.

Now sharp readers may note they didn't see this memo, in fact, printed in the New York Times. It wasn't. Rather, it was splashed across the front pages of the Times of LONDON on Monday.

It has effectively finished the last, sorry remnants of Tony Blair's political career. (While his Labor Party will most assuredly win the elections Thursday, Prime Minister Blair is expected, possibly within months, to be shoved overboard in favor of his Chancellor of the Exchequer, a political execution which requires only a vote of the Labour party's members in Parliament.)

But in the US, barely a word. The New York Times covers this hard evidence of Bush's fabrication of a casus belli as some "British" elections story. Apparently, our President's fraud isn't "news fit to print."

My colleagues in the UK press have skewered Blair, digging out more incriminating memos, challenging the official government factoids and fibs. But in the US press
nada, bubkes, zilch. Bush fixed the facts and somehow that's a story for "over there."

The Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over his cigar and Monica's affections. And the US media could print nothing else.

Now, we have the stone, cold evidence of bending intelligence to sell us on death by the thousands, and neither a Republican Congress nor what is laughably called US journalism thought it worth a second look.

My friend Daniel Ellsberg once said that what's good about the American people is that you have to lie to them. What's bad about Americans is that it's so easy to do.

Greg Palast is author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Read the memo in its entirety at www.GregPalast.com

Voucher Bill DEAD In South Carolina

2005-05-04T19:26:00.000-04:00

Friends of Public Education,

Today is a great day for the children of South Carolina and the future of public schools. The Governor's misguided and misnamed voucher bill called, "Put Parent's In Charge" was defeated today in the S.C. House by a vote of 60 - 53. It was a close vote, which in this father's opinion made all the hard work EVER MORE SWEET.

In our new century, politics has become too focused on "marketing". We get 30-second sound bites from politicians and we think they represent our values. Soon we learn they are supporting ideas that put the interests of the few over the needs of all South Carolinians. We feel disconnected from the work they do on our behalf and feel like we can't make a difference.

Well, friends, TODAY WE PROVED REGULAR CITIZENS CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

Seven votes... a mere SEVEN VOTES swung the future of our public schools back from a segregationist, privatization abyss.

YOUR letters made a difference. YOUR emails made a difference. YOUR calls made a difference. We sent the right-wing activists from Washington, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Colorado packing!! Hopefully for good!

Today is a great day to be a supporter of public education and I sincerely thank you
for your support of CHOOSE CHILDREN FIRST. Nice article in The State Newspaper:

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/11562771.htm

Ken Campbell, Choose Children First
Oconee County

Hey MEDIA: Wake Up!!!

2005-05-04T19:14:00.000-04:00

Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) is circulating a letter calling for a further inquiry into a secret U.S.-UK agreement to attack Iraq, RAW STORY has
learned.

In a statement, Conyers says he is disappointed the mainstream media has not touched the revelations.

"Unfortunately, the mainstream media in the United States was too busy with wall-to-wall coverage of a "runaway bride" to cover a bombshell report out of the
British newspapers," Conyers writes. "The London Times reports that the British government and the United States government had secretly agreed to attack Iraq
in 2002, before authorization was sought for such an attack in Congress, and had discussed creating pretextual justifications for doing so."

"The Times reports, based on a newly discovered document, that in 2002 British Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a meeting in which he expressed his support for "regime change" through the use of force in Iraq and was warned by the nation's top lawyer that such an action would be illegal," he adds. "Blair also discussed the need for America to "create" conditions to justify the war."

Conyers says he is seeking an inquiry. "This should not be allowed to fall down the memory hole during wall-to-wall coverage of the Michael Jackson trial and a runaway bride," he remarks. "To prevent that from occuring, I am circulating the
following letter among my House colleagues and asking them to sign on to it."

The letter follows:

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write because of troubling revelations in the Sunday London Times apparently confirming that the United States and Great Britain had secretly agreed to
attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action. While various
individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your Administration. However, when this story was divulged last weekend, Prime Minister Blair's representative claimed the document contained "nothing new." If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own Administration.

The Sunday Times obtained a leaked document with the minutes of a secret meeting from highly placed sources inside the British Government. Among other things, the
document revealed:

* Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a July 2002 meeting, at which he discussed military options, having already committed himself to supporting President Bush's plans for invading Iraq.

* British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the case for war was "thin" as "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran."

* A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war.

* A British official "reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush
wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the
policy."

As a result of this recent disclosure, we would like to know the following:

1) Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?

2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?

3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?

4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?

5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as
the leaked document states?

We have of course known for some time that subsequent to the invasion there have been a variety of varying reasons proffered to justify the invasion,
particularly since the time it became evident that weapons of mass destruction would not be found. This leaked document - essentially acknowledged by the Blair government - is the first confirmation that the rationales were shifting well before the invasion as well.

Given the importance of this matter, we would ask that you respond to this inquiry as promptly as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Congressman John Conyers

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots

2005-05-04T19:01:00.000-04:00

Hoo boy, this duck isn't just lame - it's had its legs amputated. George W. Bush took to the airwaves last week in an attempt to prop up his approval ratings, and for his fabulous efforts he receives - for the first time ever - all ten slots on the Top 10 Conservative Idiots list. Way to go, prez! All the press conference quotes listed below come from the transcript on the official White House website. Due to Our Great Leader's Great Press Conference, I must apologize if I've missed your favorite story from the list - we do have a "Best of the Rest" section at the end for some of the other idiocy of the week. Enjoy, and don't forget the key!

1. Prime-Time Party-Pooper
He started weak and got worse, but let's begin with the most obvious hypocrisy of the night, which came when Bush responded to this question:

Q: Mr. President, a majority of Americans disapprove of your handling of Social Security, rising gas prices and the economy. Are you frustrated by that and by the fact that you're having trouble gaining traction on your agenda in a Republican-controlled Congress?

The predictable answer:

BUSH: Polls? You know, if a President tries to govern based upon polls, you're kind of like a dog chasing your tail. I don't think you can make good, sound decisions based upon polls. And I don't think the American people want a President who relies upon polls and focus groups to make decisions for the American people.

Yeah, right! Which is why, faced with his approval ratings dropping through the floor, Team Bush decided that it would be prudent to interrupt everyone's Thursday night entertainment with a prime-time press conference. Where he could talk about how, uh, approval ratings aren't important to him.

But considering how tightly the administration manages its messages you'd think someone would have pointed out that 8:00pm on the biggest television night of the week is not the best time to try to prop up your poll numbers. Especially when the night in question also happens to be the first night of May sweeps. So millions of Americans across the country who were settled in to see a brand new episode of their favorite show were instead treated to an hour-long Chimpfomerical where they learned that George W. Bush is going to take away their Social Security benefits. Now that's what I call smart politics!

2. It's A Gas
Let's go back to the top. Bush's first big issue of the night was the nation's concern over rising gas prices. He began:

BUSH: Millions of American families and small businesses are hurting because of higher gasoline prices. My administration is doing everything we can to make gasoline more affordable. In the near-term, we will continue to encourage oil producing nations to maximize their production. Here at home, we'll protect consumers.

Hear that folks? Bush is doing everything he can to make gasoline more affordable and protect consumers. Nice of him to assume some responsibility. But wait, what's this? Ten minutes later...

BUSH: You can't wave a magic wand. I wish I could. It's like that soldier at Fort Hood that said, how come you're not lowering the price of gasoline? I was having lunch with the fellow, and he said, go lower the price of gasoline, President. I said, I wish I could. It just doesn't work that way.

Oh... well I guess Our Great Leader was tiptoeing through the tulips with Prince Abdullah for nothing then.

READ THE FULL LIST...

Oconee Prayer Breakfast Tomorrow

2005-05-04T10:20:00.000-04:00

Friends of ALL religious denominations,

In celebration of the National Day of Prayer, a prayer breakfast will be held TOMORROW at Jimmy’s Restaurant, Thursday, May 5, at 8 a.m. to pray for our country. The prayer breakfast will be less than an hour, and charges are about five dollars for the meal. The event is sponsored by the Oconee County Democratic Party.

National Day of Prayer is not a political movement or a movement of any religious group. It is a day based on a formal proclamation from the President of the United States and all state governors.

It has historic background.

Writing on “indications of the Divine Beneficence towards us,” President George Washington proclaimed the first National Day of Prayer on January 1, 1795. Subsequently, National Days of Prayer have often been called by Presidents, but a specific nation-wide day was established by President Truman and the United States Congress in 1952. President Reagan amended the law in 1988 to permanently establish the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer.

From Washington, the theme of this National Day of Prayer is “God Shed His Grace on Thee.” Five specific strains of prayer have been named: Government, Media, Education, Church and Family.

The prayer breakfast will be less than an hour, and charges are about five dollars for the meal. The non-political event is sponsored by the Oconee County Democratic Party. Jimmy’s Restaurant is located on Hwy 123 By-Pass in Seneca. All are welcome and encouraged to attend.

Ethics: Who Cares?

2005-05-04T10:13:00.000-04:00

As many of you know, I'm not a fan of the Democratic Leadership Council... the conservative wing of the Democratic Party. Personally, I think their Republican-lite idealogy has stunted the growth of the Democratic Party and lured us away from our populist roots. With that said, the article below, from their website, puts GOP hipocricy center-stage and paints a bulls-eye on their corrupt leadership. Nice work.

As ethics problems lap up on the shore of the Republican-controlled Congress like poisoned fish, there have been two disturbing types of reactions in GOP circles.
The first, of course, is the line being peddled by House Republican Leader and ethics recidivist Tom DeLay of Texas, which is that all this ethics bushwa is just part of a left-wing conspiracy financed by George Soros to destroy the conservative movement. This approach, which trumps every fact with ideological and partisan solidarity, has been adopted almost robotically in many avenues of conservative opinion.

But there's a second take that's possibly even worse: Who cares about congressional ethics? And there are two examples of this cynical dismissal of any kind of enforceable standards of official behavior in the latest editions of the two Capitol insider newspapers, Roll Call and The Hill.

In Roll Call, an unnamed "Republican campaign strategist" bluntly says ethics violations just don't matter so long as congressional Republicans don't act like they matter. "There are no political implications from this... In order for any of this to gain steam you have to have some sort of grass-roots traction. We're continuing to get stuff done. It's not like Congress has stopped. It's not like Congress is crippled."

Well, you could have fooled us, since Congress is basically ignoring most national challenges except those -- like the budget deficit, the tax code, and the solvency of Social Security and Medicare -- it is trying to make worse, but that's an argument for another time.

Meanwhile, over at The Hill, another GOP political consultant, David Hill, pens a column dismissing the whole subject of ethical behavior by politicians as inherently unimportant to voters. "My first reaction to any political party running on a political reform platform is to smile smugly," says Hill. Why? Voters don't care, and to the extent they do care, their expectations of the ethical standards of politicians are so low that they don't think anything will ever change.

Maybe we are imagining things, but we seem to recall that a little over a decade ago, public disgust with irresponsible and self-serving politicians who wouldn't deal with problems like the budget deficit created a nationwide term limits movement, lifted an eccentric Texas billionaire into a national political force, and contributed heavily to the first Republican takeover of both branches of Congress since 1954. The abuses of power, the cozy relationship with moneyed special interests, and the contempt for any kind of accountability so evident today among GOP congressional barons are far, far greater than those which vaulted today's Republicans into power in the first place.

Certainly "reform" is not the only message Democrats need today; laying out a strong agenda for national security, economic opportunity, and the values and interests of working families is as essential as ever. But at a time when power-addicted Republicans continue to talk as though Democrats are the party of big and unaccountable government, Democrats have a responsibility, and also a political opportunity, to let Americans know that lawmakers, not just middle-class citizens, need to play by the rules as well.

So let Republicans try to claim that being conservative means turning a blind eye to corruption and irresponsibility, or smile smugly at the naove idea that voters give a damn in the first place. If Democrats -- and a few brave Republican heretics like Sen. John McCain -- care enough about ethics to talk about this issue frequently and consistently, then we suspect enough voters will care about it to make it matter again in Washington.

Legislator Emails Factless "Talking Points" On Voucher Bill

2005-05-02T18:10:00.000-04:00

Below is an Email exchange that is worth reading... not only for the facts outlined by the citizen's response to this Republican legislator, but also for entertainment purposes. Mr. Webb completely dismantles this legislators support of PPIC. I had to laugh out loud a couple of times! KC
John Webb:

Thank you very much for taking your time to write to me on the Put Parents in Charge Bill currently before the South Carolina House.

Let me take a minute to give you some of my thoughts on the subject. I am in step with the basic concepts of this bill as I will explain further later. My concern surrounds the ability to measure results and compare apples to apples in a true market setting. We must be in a position if successful with passage of this bill to prove success, and allow the market forces to make informed decisions.

With all of this in mind, let me give you my key principles and core values as it relates to education for South Carolina. First, I feel that we need to put more dollars into the classroom and less into the bureaucracy. I feel that there has been a lack of focus on the core mission and issues of our public education system.

Secondly, I feel that children have a right to a violence-free and drug-free environment. Children simply cannot learn if they are afraid.

We need to increase the role of parents in the day-to-day education oftheir children and decrease the role of the education bureaucracy. Parents should have the right to send their children to the schools of their choice and, after all, it is their money, their children and their future. This choice should include public schools, charter schools,private schools and home schooling.

Fourthly, Education is not about government, about bureaucrats, or about teacher unions, or tax credits or federal mandates. Education is first,last and always about our children, and our education system should be child-centered.

Lastly, every child, regardless of income, should have the right to a quality education. No child should be left behind just because of where he or she lives or because of his or her parents? financial situation.

Again, thank you for taking your time, and I hope this shed some light on what I feel is important in this debate.

Garry R. Smith
South Carolina House of Representatives
District 27
Greenville County
www.garrysmith.org

And now Mr. Webb's response, truly a GEM:

Mr. Smith,

Thanks for responding. Let me take a moment to address each of your points.
Your point #1- "First, I feel that we need to put more dollars into the classroom and less into the bureaucracy. I feel that there has been a lack of focus on the core mission and issues of our public education system."

My response: I agree with you however, if you were even the slightest bit familiar with the workload and dedication that public school instructors devote toward meeting their student's needs and educational requirements, I don't believe there would be any question in your mind about focus and issues.

Your point #2-"I feel that children have a right to a violence-free and
drug-free environment. Children simply cannot learn if they are afraid."

My response: I agree again, however there is no guarantee in any school (public or private) that it will be drug or violence free. This is not part of the voucher or tax credit issue.

Your point #3 - "We need to increase the role of parents in the day-to-day education of their children and decrease the role of the education bureaucracy. Parents should have the right to send their children to the schools of their choice and, after all, it is their money, their children and their future. This choice should include public schools, charter schools, private schools and home schooling."

My response: Parents are already involved and have that right. PPIC would not increase that participation. The ones who are involved will stay involved. The others will not. Parents already have freedom of choice to select public, charter, private or home schooling. This bill would have absolutely no effect. There is NO guarantee that every student wishing to attend alternative institutions would be accepted. In fact, in the history of South Carolina, private schools are often equated with racial segregation, whether religion based or not. Simply put, SC white parents historically would prefer not to have their children mix with others of a different religion, race or creed. This bill smacks of the same pandering efforts by politicians.

Your point #4 - "Education is not about government, about bureaucrats, or about teacher unions, or tax credits or federal mandates. Education is first,last and always about our children, and our education system should be child-centered."

My response: - I agree, and our current public school system is already child-centered.

Your point #5 -"Lastly, every child, regardless of income, should have the right to a quality education. No child should be left behind just because of where he or she lives or because of his or her parents financial situation."

My response: I agree. There are already options in the private sector. As I mention before, 2 members of my family are currently public school instructors in Greenville County. They also previously taught for 10 years in private schools. They are now seeing first hand what the lack of proper funding and distribution of wealth in the public schools are doing to the quality of the infrastructure and resources available.

So start out with abandoning this privatization effort by Gov. Sanford and avoid the net outflow of funds from the tax base away from the very place it is needed most. If the governor had only chosen to put his own children into either the Lexington or Richland county schools instead of the the Heathwood Academy, he might be more motivated toward improving their education.

Please vote against the PEPSI bill along with the tax credit idea and school vouchers. It will only serve to destroy our school system.

Sincerely,
J.T. Webb
CDR USN Retired
Greenville, SC

The "Thought Police" Are Here

2005-04-28T09:36:00.000-04:00

Since the gay marriage issue was thrust upon the national scene as a so-called "wedge issue" by Republicans, progressives on the left have screamed foul for a host of reasons. At the top of the list is blatant government intrusion into our personal lives. However you feel about homosexuality, most freedom-loving Americans aren't interested in creating a world where the government can start poking around in your bedroom. No pun intended.

Unfortunately, this crowd of morality manipulators, who claim that "preserving marriage" can only be accomplished by targeting people for discrimination. In my America, the land of the FREE and the home of the brave, it is none of the government's business with whom I spend my time.

If gays want to petition the government or challenge the courts for legal protections, that has nothing to do with me. My wife and I are unaffected by whatever happens. Our marriage, like all marriages, lives or dies based on our relationship and our choices. We are neither "protected" nor "threatened" by the legal status of any couple, gay or straight.

Another major concern of progressives is the slippery slope created by an attack on gays. For years, conservatives argued this was unfounded. "We just want to preserve marriage", they claimed. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The "Thought Police" are coming, in fact, in Alabama and Texas, they've already arrived.

In Texas, a new law banning gays from adopting children also contains a provision to ensure the sexual orientation of adoptive parents. Under the new law, the state has the right to INVESTIGATE the sexual orientation of a potential parent. Let that sink in just a little: The right to INVESTIGATE your sexual orientation.

So how would this be accomplished? Is someone from social services going to show up with a slide show of erotic images to determine what excites me? Will I have to take a lie-detector test and profess my undying devotion to hot women? Will I have to swear that I've never had any impure thoughts about a man? Seriously folks, at what point do we realize that the government does not deserve this type of power over our lives?

In Alabama, legislators are trying to go one step further: Book burning. That's right, imagine big stacks of books ablaze in downtown Montgomery because that is where Alabama legislators are going.

Under a new bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters. So not only are gays not allowed to marry or adopt, but now every reference to them must be purged from our libraries! Aren't you pleased with the world these people are trying to create? A world where the government can save your soul by cleansing your public library of any book written by, speaking of, or referring to a gay person. Truly the land of the free.

Contrary to the propaganda of the religious right, this issue should not be divided along party lines, though they desperately wish to make it so. Conservatives, once the staunchest defenders of individual freedoms and liberties, must reject the idea of the government in your bedroom. As we've seen in Texas and Alabama, once these moral crusaders get their foot in the door, its only a matter of time before they're rummaging through your underwear drawer, reading your books, and questioning your children.

I have only one thing to say to these people: Stay the hell out of my house.

What Makes YOU A Democrat?

2005-04-27T09:23:00.000-04:00

Below is an Email I received from a friend here in Oconee County, SC. I found Stephanie's words very inspiring and asked her permission to post them to the blog. So now the question is: What makes YOU A Democrat?

I was listening to morning radio this past week and a radio host said something that has really bothered me. She said that the choice wasn't rather you are a republican or a Democrat. The choice is are you a Christian or a Democrat. I am a Christian and a Democrat!

I believe in helping the less fortunate
I believe in helping the sick
I am against abortion
I am against tax cuts for the rich
I am against a big government
I am for balancing the budget
I am for spending our money wisely
I am for protecting what jobs we have left
I am for protecting our borders
I am for Education First!
I believe in God
I believe in Jesus

So, what does this all make me if I am either a Christian or a Democrat? We need to do some PR and let people know that this is not the choice!! Stephanie Brewer

Reid outmaneouvers Frist again

2005-04-27T09:17:00.000-04:00

by Daily KOS:

So Frist says:

Reacting to a Democratic offer in the fight over filibusters, Republican leader Bill Frist said Tuesday he isn't interested in any deal that fails to ensure Senate confirmation for all of President Bush's judicial nominees.

Reid just engaged Frist in a game of chicken, and Frist blinked first. Reid has been extrememly effective in whipping up opposition to the Nuclear Option, garnering strong grass- and netroots support, editorial board support, and popular support (as the latest polls show scant appetitite for ending the filibuster).

But in order to avoid looking like obstructionists, Demcorats had to make efforts to "find a compromise", lest the chattering class get the vapors from such Democratic intransigence.

Had Frist accepted the offers for compromise, Bush would've gotten the majority of his judges through, and Democrats would've gotten -- who knows what. All published compromise offers didn't seem to give our side anything.

So Democrats would've faced a sea of criticism from our own side for snatching defeat out of the hands of victory. Frist and Co. would've finally gotten a procedural victory against Reid (who has run circles around them thus far). And all that good will Reid had built in the netroots over the past four months would've evaporated in one fell swoop.

It was one heck of a gamble, but the Senator from Nevada played his cards right.

Frist painted himself into a corner, having whipped up the forces of wingnuttery into a froth, he could not back down without damaging his White House aspirations for 2008. He's banking on the crazies to get him the nomination.

So Reid got the Democrats to look conciliatory, forcing Frist and his Republicans to look even more inflexible than before.

Damn the guy is good. I'm glad he's on our side.

Bill Frist is a liar and a crazy man

2005-04-25T08:52:00.000-04:00

Below is a blog posting from South Knox Bubba, a Tennessee Blogger. I thought Bubba hit the nail on the head... what do you think?

The local TeeVee news had Bill Frist on for a brief interview after Bush's remarks at the hanger on Friday. First of all, the guy is just creepy. I wish I had taped it so you could see for yourself. When he talks he sounds like a crazy street person, and gets a weird, wild-eyed look that is, well, creepy.

Anyway, he was asked about the filibuster rule. He went off, looking even crazier, saying that "never in the history of the Senate had judicial nominees been blocked." Sorry, I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the exact quote, but I distinctly remember this "never in the history" remark because it was such a shocking, bald-faced lie.

I'm sure that's not exactly what he meant and that he can explain* his remark, but he saw an opportunity to spread right-wing propaganda to the local bumpkinry who would not understand the "nuance" and he jumped on it. What a creep.

OK, then.

(*Maybe he can start by explaining how the Senate only "blocked" ten Bush nominees during his first term, and blocked more than sixty of Clintons, or how he himself voted to filibuster a Clinton nominee in May of 2000.)

Holy war Sunday

2005-04-25T08:46:00.000-04:00

At the rate things are going in American politics, next week will bring ads by the Noah's Ark Veterans for Truth claiming that the two Democrats on board were actually stowaways, whom God had intended for drowning but who snuck on cross-dressed as gayals.

That wouldn't be much more bizarre than what's planned for today: Bill Frist, the majority leader of the United States Senate, is going to Sunday meeting to preach that some deeply flawed and highly ideological judicial nominees are actually bloodied victims of religious persecution.

"Justice Sunday: Stop the filibuster against people of faith," the revival's being called.

It should be called, "Injustice Sunday: Demean the holy and foment schism for partisan gain."

Whatever you think of these nominees and the Democrats' filibuster of them, it is not the religious faith they possess, but the judicial qualities they lack -- restraint, balance, experience, respect for law -- that have brought the nation to this sorry point.

Otherwise, they would have fared just as well as the more than 200 other conservative nominees that President Bush has successfully appointed to the bench.

As you hear the Christian soldiers' trumpets of holy war and hymns of righteous rage today, keep in mind exactly who some of these nominees are.

There's Priscilla Owen, the token white woman and Texas judge whose eagerness to substitute her own values for the rule of law was too much for even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who rebuked her for it when both served on the same court.

There's Janice Rogers Brown, the token black woman and California judge who believes that our vibrant nation of free-market capitalism -- this economy of Wal-Marts, Pfizers and Enrons and of Googles, Yahoos and Apples; this home of a pitiful $5.15 minimum wage and of a staggering 44 million people without health insurance; this land of soaring CEO pay and declining real wages for workers -- has actually been crushed by the boot of collectivism ever since what she calls the 1937 "triumph of our own socialist revolution."

There's Brett Kavanaugh, who has never tried a case, but rose from Ken Starr's impeachment crusade to become a White House operative.

There's William G. Meyers III, who also lacks trial experience but who has put in plenty of time rabidly fighting against environmental laws and in favor of mining interests.

And there's William Haynes II, whose meager courtroom work is offset by his considerable contribution, as the Defense Department's counsel, to the shameful abandonment of America's deepest legal principles regarding the treatment and rights of prisoners of war and detainees.

It's no wonder their advocates are so intent on diverting attention from their legal limitations, ideological excesses and partisan activism with claims of anti-Christian discrimination.

But religious martyrs, they're not -- nor jurists worthy of the damage their nominations are doing to both politics and religion.

Republican Jackass

2005-04-24T23:46:00.000-04:00

In the 2004 election, a young Democrat running for office for the first time almost beat John Graham Altman, Republican House Representative in Charleston. Oh how I wish a few more people had voted for the Democrat. We would be spared last weeks comments by this moron.

Altman is the "typical" right-wing Republican candidate. He uses religious rhetoric, gay bashing, and blatant lies about Democrats to stay in office. He's a bully, a jackass, and the poster-boy for the WRONG TURN that the Republican Party has taken by aligning itself with extremists who hate the constitution, despise diversity, and seek the end of the New Deal and the privatized of everything in the public realm.

Below are some experpts from Andy Brack's Statehouse Report on Altman's moronic comments. Get ready to be shocked. Get ready to be motivated. Democrats must make it their mission to regain control of our state government at all levels to rid our state of people like this:

GOP Rep. John Graham Altman of Charleston verbally attacked and insulted a Columbia television reporter asking questions about two bills dealt with by the House Judiciary Committee.

The committee approved a bill to make cockfighting a felony, but tabled action on another bill that would toughen penalties and boost judicial education on criminal domestic violence. (Current law does classify criminal domestic violence a felony if it is of a "high and aggravated nature" that involves a weapon or results in serious bodily injury. The law, however, provides for the lesser misdemeanor version that is commonly used by law enforcement officials.)

The fact that the committee voted to make cockfighting a felony while putting off action on a tougher measure for batterers prompted WIS TV reporter Kara Gormley to ask Altman, a member of the committee, about the difference.

Gormley: "Does that show that we are valuing a gamecock's life over
a woman's life?"

Altman: "You're really not very bright and I realize you are not accustomed to this, but I'm accustomed to reporters having a better sense of depth of things and you're asking this question to me would indicate you can't understand the answer. To ask the question is to demonstrate an enormous amount of ignorance. I'm not trying to be
rude or hostile, I'm telling you."

Gormley: "It's rude when you tell someone they are not very bright."

Altman: "You're not very bright and you'll just have to live with that."

It got worse. Here's one of the Neanderthal comments that outraged women across the state:

Altman: "I mean you women want it one way and not another. Women want to punish the men, and I do not understand why women continue to go back around men who abuse them."

Democratic Convention

2005-04-24T23:29:00.000-04:00

This is an open thread for attendees of the Democratic Convention to post their comments and experiences.

I attended workshops put on by Democracy For America on Friday afternoon, attended the Jefferson Jackson Dinner on Friday night, attended Jim Clyburn's fishfry on Friday night, the convention on Saturday morning/afternoon, and wrapped up the weekend with more workshops and campaign training session on Saturday afternoon.

The MOST INSPIRING part of the weekend for me came not at the podiums, but in the ailes of the convention. I met HUNDREDS of excited Democrats who are ready and willing to come back to their communities and FIGHT LIKE CRAZY for Democratic candidates and Democratic values. I am dedicated to standing with those good people in fighting the fiscal mismanagement and social divisiveness being promoted by the Republican leadership in Columbia and Washington.

Let's keep working: 526 Days until the next election!!!

Lawmakers must vote down PPIC, whatever its form

2005-04-22T09:48:00.000-04:00

LAWMAKERS IN the state House of Representatives have an easy choice to make now concerning the bill known as “Put Parents in Charge.” They should abandon any pretense that this idea is worth foisting off on even a couple of school districts in our state, and vote the bill down.

The measure that would have given widespread tax credits to parents who send their children to private schools has been amended into a small-scale, long-term experiment that would operate in two South Carolina school districts.

It is very clear what is going on here, politically. A measure has emerged to give cover to the few lawmakers who remain cowed by the prospect of attacks by the pro-tax credit lobby. Those lawmakers can vote for the greatly watered-down bill, hoping that will protect them from challengers next primary day. (Those affected by this issue are Republicans; pick another day and another issue, and this same message might be directed at Democrats.)

Any lawmakers with a notion left in their minds that they need to vote for this bill, or fear the consequences if they don’t, should abandon those thoughts. There is no credible evidence the people of South Carolina — whatever their party affiliation — are clamoring for this idea. “Put Parents in Charge,” whether in its larger form the Ways and Means Committee considered or its “pilot” form the panel adopted, is a bankrupt proposal. The people of South Carolina don’t want it and don’t need it. What they need is full, consistent support of our state’s public schools..

Consider how some groups potentially affected by “Put Parents in Charge” have acted. Private schools have not rushed to endorse this measure in great numbers. If tax credits offered private schools more students, in a number of instances it would not be the type of students many private schools seek. The business community has not rallied behind the proposal — far from it. Chambers of commerce in greater Columbia, Anderson and Charleston specifically went on record as not supporting “Put Parents in Charge.”

Proponents of the bill tried to sell it as something that helps poor people and cited the support of African-American clergy. The truth is that truly poor people would likely see zero benefit from income tax credits. The one group of black pastors who supported PPIC was funded by the national movement’s South Carolina face, “South Carolinians for Responsible Government.” A group of black pastors speaking independently — some of whom have private schools at their own churches — quickly moved to oppose the bill.

House Speaker David Wilkins told The State’s Jennifer Talhelm there will be a full House debate on the measure. That shouldn’t take too long — a full, honest debate, one that gets past advocates’ misrepresentations and lawmakers’ fears, would quickly make it clear that this is a lousy idea.

As it has been from the beginning — and remains in its present form — “Put Parents it Charge” is an unnecessary distraction from the real work that needs to be done on public education in South Carolina.

No lawmakers — Republicans or Democrats — should fear to pursue the infinitely superior alternative: unwavering support of our public schools and of the successful reforms already under way inside them.

Erwin Blasts Sanford for Deception

2005-04-19T13:17:00.000-04:00

Governor Sanford attends news conference

Today at the State House in Columbia, South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Joe Erwin and Democratic legislative leaders were sharply critical of Governor Mark Sanford's deceptive planning to privatize the South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper) which supplies power to over 625,000 South Carolinians. For months Sanford has denied claims that he has been planning to privatize Santee Cooper, but recent published reports reveal that Sanford and his administration have been working behind the scenes with Wall Street investment bankers to begin the privatization process.

"It is extremely troubling that Governor Sanford would repeatedly insist that privatization is off the table when the truth is that he's secretly hired a Wall Street investment bank to figure how much cash he can get for it," Erwin said. "The people of South Carolina
deserve to know the truth and they deserve a Governor who will never mislead them."

According to published reports, consumers could be forced to pay as much as 30-40 percent more in utilities if Santee Cooper is privatized. Reports also suggest that many of the state's largest industrial plants would flee for better rates. "People already have to pay more than $2 a gallon for gas - now it turns out that Sanford wants them to pay up to 40% more for basic utilities and that's just not fair," Erwin said. "It seems that two dollars a gallon for gas and 40% higher utility rates isn't enough for the Governor. Apparently he wants good jobs to leave the state too."

Erwin announced that he has filed a Freedom of Information request with the Governor's office asking that any and all written documents, including emails, about the future of Santee Cooper be made public. Erwin personally handed the FOI request to Governor Sanford who attended the news conference along with several members of his staff.

"Governor Sanford should not have misled us and now he needs to come clean."

Public School Privatization & Commercialization

2005-04-18T10:16:00.000-04:00

From MediaTransparency.org:

"The conservative movement, being thoroughly anti-union, has at its heart a desire to rid the United States of the two remaining unionized sectors of the national economy: Public Education (teachers unions), and Public Employees. In service of these goals, the movement has moved aggressively against both public schools and public school teachers.

Of course, the movement is also interested in converting to private profit the estimated $300+ billion annually spent on public primary and secondary education."

OK, with that opening shot fired over the bow of our right-wing opponents, it's time to get down to the nitty-gritty. Read the full text of the Media Transparency section on public education to get some more insights on the nationwide attack on public education by the Bush Administration and the far-right:

http://www.mediatransparency.org/school_privatization.htm

I Love The Irony: REPUBLICANS Under Attack By Pro-Voucher Group

2005-04-17T23:01:00.000-04:00

Below is an Email between a fellow Democrat and Vida Miller, Democratic House Member. Vida's comments are a sharp "inside line" on how power politics work in South Carolina. The fight for public schools is JUST BEGINNING, friends. We've always known the pro-voucher bunch were aggressive and well-funded enough to put money in the campaign of DOZENS of Republican politicians.

I don't think the Republicans realized how WIN ORIENTED these fanatics are. s you'll read in Rep. Miller's Email, the wolves who once guarded the gates for the Republicans are now circling the camp. I say, chow down.

PPIC = Put Parents In Charge Act
SCRG = South Carolinians For Responsible Government. Political Action Committee funded by backers of Gov. Sanford and the pro-voucher crowd.

From Rep. Vida Miller:

Thanks for the update. FYI - PPIC passed out the the Ways and Means sub committee this week. Will be on the full Committee agenda Monday - Word is that it will pass and reach the House for debate the following week. South Carolinians for Reponsible Government-
the 527 organization financing this effort ran a full page ad in a Republican House member's local newpaper this week blasting him for not supporting PPIC. This is getting ugly. The talk is that some R's have been assured major opposition by the SC's for RG with financial support, if they do not vote for PPIC. Thanks, Vida

CLEMSON TO PROVIDE SCREENING OF 'CORRIDOR OF SHAME'

2005-04-17T22:56:00.000-04:00

I think this documentary, if well shot and narrated, could be our greatest resource in fighting against the private school voucher whackos. I'm planning on attending the screening. KC

The Neglect of South Carolina's Rural Schools

CLEMSON - Pat Conroy knows the problems teachers face in rural schools suffering from a lack of funding. The Southern literary celebrity addresses these issues in the lead segment of the documentary "Corridor of Shame: The Neglect of South Carolina's Rural Schools." The film will be shown Tuesday, April 26, at 7:30 p.m. in the Self Auditorium of the Strom Thurmond Institute. The event is free and open to the public.

The 58-minute documentary (www.corridorofshame.com) tells the story of challenges faced in rural school districts and how these systems struggle with the effects of reduced funding from South Carolina state leaders. Additional declines in support from local governments are also addressed.

Produced by Bud Ferillo, the documentary gained the support of many of South Carolina's leading foundations and community leaders while tracking the evidence presented on behalf of eight school districts in the Abbeville County School District v. The State of South Carolina.

Conroy, who struggled to overcome school system inadequacies in order to be an effective teacher in the 1980s, understands all too well the premise of the documentary that details funding disparity in rural school districts of South Carolina. One of his earliest novels, "The Water is Wide," draws on these past experiences.

Bush Administration Eliminating 19-year-old International Terrorism Report

2005-04-17T22:46:00.000-04:00

Washington - The State Department decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered.

Several US officials defended the abrupt decision, saying the methodology the National Counterterrorism Center used to generate statistics for the report may have been faulty, such as the inclusion of incidents that may not have been terrorism.

Last year, the number of incidents in 2003 was undercounted, forcing a revision of the report, "Patterns of Global Terrorism."

But other current and former officials charged that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's office ordered "Patterns of Global Terrorism" eliminated several weeks ago because the 2004 statistics raised disturbing questions about the Bush's administration's frequent claims of progress in the war against terrorism.

"Instead of dealing with the facts and dealing with them in an intelligent fashion, they try to hide their facts from the American public," charged Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA analyst and State Department terrorism expert who first disclosed the decision to eliminate the report in The Counterterrorism Blog, an online journal.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who was among the leading critics of last year's mix-up, reacted angrily to the decision.

"This is the definitive report on the incidence of terrorism around the world. It should be unthinkable that there would be an effort to withhold it - or any of the key data - from the public. The Bush administration should stop playing politics with this critical report."

Full Story

Ill-equipped for war

2005-04-17T22:44:00.000-04:00

George W. Bush will go down in the history books, for having led the country into war on false premises, jeopardized individual liberties, made America an international bully in the eyes of long-time allies, wrecked the federal budget, deserted conservative principles of governance, savaged the regulatory system, set back environmental progress and polarized the country even further.

It's hard to choose, but perhaps Mr. Bush's most dangerous sin is his embrace of bully boy tactics in international relations. The Defense Department last month confirmed that it's now official U.S. policy to threaten pre-emptive, unilateral strikes against nations thought to pose a threat.

The wisdom of that approach will be argued. But it should be obvious to Mr. Bush and his troll under the political bridge, Karl Rove, that it's dangerous to strike a warlike pose if you don't back it up with properly equipped warriors. That just invites potential enemies to test us, risking an international setback that will cost lives and resonate at the polls.

For example, the question for Kentucky, whose sons and daughters in the National Guard are at risk in the Bush war, is whether they were properly equipped for their dangerous assignments. Only in the face of extraordinary, courageous, open complaint from Staff Sgt. Brad Rogers of Paducah's 2113th Transportation Company, after the fatal shrapnel injury to Sgt. James Sherrill of Meade County, did the Army say it would provide the unit better trucks and armor.

The good news is that the 2113th has been reassured, by Adj. Gen. Donald Storm. The lingering question is why the issue ever had to come up.

The most powerful Kentuckian in Washington, Sen. Mitch McConnell, says he'll have the Department of Defense look into it. Let's hope he and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld don't play Alphonse and Gaston. Every Kentuckian with a "We Support the Troops" bumper sticker will be waiting to see.

Source Article

The Credit Card Industry Protection Act of 2005

2005-04-17T22:39:00.000-04:00

Today a bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives will pass a bill making it more difficult for Americans suffering from financial misfortune to file for bankruptcy. The credit card industry-which stands to benefit enormously-has pushed the bill relentlessly, blaming rampant consumerism for most bankruptcies. In fact, studies show that 90 percent of all filings are caused by loss of a job, high medical bills or divorce.

Average Americans will be hit hard. The new bill will make it harder for people to recover from financial misfortune. Those seeking to file for bankruptcy will be forced to pay for credit counseling before they do so and the bill will raise filing fees, require more documentation and trips to court and will likely result in higher attorney fees for filers.

The sick and recent war veterans will also suffer. An amendment allowing those who became bankrupt due to illness to be exempt from the new rules failed. Similar amendments that would have protected veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan were also voted down.

Credit card companies will win big. Although the bill creates new hurdles for Americans in debt, it does nothing to rein in the credit card industry. According to the National Consumer Law Center, the bill does not address companies' high fees or deceptive promotions. It also shields these credit card companies from liability and weakens legal protections from predatory interest rates.
Daily Talking Points is a product of the American Progress Action Fund.

To visit the Talking Points archives, please click here .

Congress's Deepening Shadow World

2005-04-17T22:36:00.000-04:00

When it comes to lobbying Congress, Washington is now a $3-billion-a-year company town. The influence industry is multiplying so fast that no one really knows how many lobbyists are at work these days. Ten years after a law was passed to register and track lobbyists, the Capitol staffs charged with the task are woefully short-handed and lack proper auditing and investigative powers, according to a study by the Center for Public Integrity.

It found the industry doubling in size in just the past six years. At the same time, government's revolving door has ratcheted up to warp speed: an estimated 240 former members of Congress and federal agency heads, as well as 2,000 other senior officials, are now lobbyists, earning salaries only fantasized about in their public service days to gain an entree for major corporations and interest groups.

The some $13 billion spent on lobbying since 1998 is more than twice the amount spent by candidates for federal office, yet campaign financing is vetted far more closely for possible abuses than lobbying. Thousands of required lobbying disclosure documents have not been filed, the center found, with no one making a fuss.

Lobbying has now become an established part of representative government. But that doesn't remove the need for far better disclosure rules and regulation, as should be obvious from the tale of Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist-insider being investigated because of allegations that he gulled Indian tribes to collect scores of millions of dollars.

A few lawmakers, like Representative Martin Meehan, a Massachusetts Democrat, have proposed stronger restraints on the Congressional alumni who so quickly turn around to lobby their old committees. He would also require disclosure by the murky, mushrooming world of "grass roots" lobbying via outside pressure groups and television ads. Such good ideas, of course, don't draw the attention of Washington's power lobbyists.

Source Story

Study: School tax credit bill would cost state millions

2005-04-13T10:59:00.000-04:00

Folks, if the media in South Carolina would have the courage to stand up to a bad idea and broadcast/publish a few more articles like this, the entire debate over the "Put Private Schools In Charge Act"....oops, I mean, "Put Parents In Charge Act," would be OVER.

I understand the media has to present both sides, but when one side of the debate are complete hypocrites, when does THAT FACT become the larger story? Seriously, I've listened to Republican legislators pounding their bully pulpits for years preaching the gospel of "fiscal conservatism". I've listened to them make excuses since 2000 as to why the couldn't fully fund public schools, shorting them each year by hundreds of millions of dollars.

So now the "gig is up". This back door voucher program, contrary to the fake-study by Cotton Lindsey and the pro-voucher crowd, will indeed COST, not SAVE the state hundreds of millions in tax dollars. I hope the public finally sees the light.

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Giving tax breaks for paying private school tuition would cost South Carolina as much as $231 million in revenue in five years if legislation now in the Statehouse becomes law, according to a study released Tuesday by economists.

The fiscal impact study on the Put Parents in Charge Act from the state Board of Economic Advisors dampened arguments from school choice supporters that the bill would save the state millions of dollars and caused concern among some legislators who support the bill.

"Unless we can see on the other side where there's going to be a savings, that's going to be a problem," Rep. Shirley Hinson, R-Goose Creek, said. Hinson, one of the bill's co-sponsors, said she was waiting on a rebuttal to some of the study's findings from Gov. Mark Sanford's office.

The study showed the tax credits would cost the state's general revenue $29 million for the 2006-07 fiscal year. The bill would cost $231 million at the end of five years when it is fully implemented.

The study also showed modest savings of nearly $10.6 million at the state level, but found local communities would have to find a way to make up the difference.

"That translates into a tax increase," said Hinson, whose subcommittee passed the bill last week. "And that translates into a no, pretty simply."

The study was requested by the House Ways and Means Committee members, who wanted estimates on how the Put Parents in Charge Act would affect state revenues. The full committee plans to take up the bill next week. The legislation would allow parents to claim tax credits for paying tuition and other costs for private schools, home schooling or public schools.

The Board of Economic Advisors' study contradicted a report by Clemson University economist Cotton Lindsey, who found that the state would save hundreds of millions of dollars the first year the bill was implemented.

"It truly supports and underscores what we've been saying about potential impact," said Scott Price, a lobbyist with the South Carolina School Boards Association. Price's group and the South Carolina Association of School Administrators paid for a study that showed the bill would cost public schools hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Board of Economic Advisors are the state's chief financial consultants and continually review tax and other revenue collections as well as estimating the fiscal impact of all legislation.

FULL STORY

"Nattering Nabob of Negativism" Speaks Up

2005-04-11T15:47:00.000-04:00

Letter to the Editor,

In Saturday’s Greenville News article “Tax Credit ad raises ire at Clemson”, it was reported, “The ad is sponsored by the South Carolina Policy Council, the conservative group that commissioned the study by Clemson economist Cotton Lindsey.” Mr. Ed McMullen, President of the South Carolina Policy Council quoted Spiro Agnew, “You have a bunch of nattering nabobs of negativism who are trying to make an issue over whether it’s a Clemson study…” I guess that I am one of those “nattering nabobs of negativism” Mr. McMullen is referring to because I am adamantly opposed to PPIC and wrote an email to Dr. Barker letting him know my feelings about Clemson being drawn into this fracas.

The fact that Mr. McMullen quotes a person who disgraced his country by accepting bribes when in office is a disgrace in itself and may tell us something about those who are pushing PPIC.

What is interesting is that in Dr. Barker’s response to my email he wrote, “The study was paid for by the Lead Foundation which is an advocate of Put Parents in Charge.” Apparently those trying to foist vouchers on South Carolina are saying it came from the South Carolina Policy Council because they are getting sensitive to the fact that a tremendous amount of money (reportedly upwards of $250,000) is being provided by out-of-state right wing conservative organizations like – LEAD (Legislative Education Action Drive Foundation – a 527 organization in Chicago), American Legislative Exchange Council - a 501c(3) organization based in Washington - http://www.alec.org (whose model legislation “GREAT SCHOOLS TAX CREDIT PROGRAM ACT” appears to be where PPIC was taken from.) and All Children Matter, a Michigan based organization http://www.allchildrenmatter.org. The following comment is taken from the All Children Matter website “During the 2004 elections, the Michigan-based All Children Matter paid for radio ads and mailers here (SC ed.) that promoted candidates supporting tuition tax credits… Ed McMullen finds outside interest all to the good: "It's an opportunity for private philanthropy. There's a national network of money that could come into South Carolina." So here we have organizations from outside the state not only financially supporting PPIC but also stating that they have promoted legislative candidates in South Carolina who support PPIC!

Many others including the Miley & Associates study that was commissioned by the SC School Board Association (unquestionably in favor of public education) have refuted the LEAD-financed Cotton Lindsey study. One big issue that we, the residents of South Carolina should have an answer to “Is it ethical and legal for right wing conservative organization outside of SC to recruit, train and support SC legislative candidates who are in tune with their position on issues like PPIC? I naively thought that our legislators were answerable to the people of South Carolina, not small conservative moneyed groups from Michigan, Illinois and Washington DC.

Ben Turetzky
Salem Sc 29676
rbturet@charter.net

Stream of Chinese Textile Imports Is Becoming a Flood

2005-04-11T15:25:00.000-04:00

HANGHAI, April 3 - Imports of Chinese textile and apparel products into the United States soared in the first quarter, offering fresh evidence that the world's clothing trade is being drastically reshaped by the abolition of global quotas in January.

The United States Commerce Department said Friday that in the first three months of the year, preliminary data showed that United States imports of textile and apparel products from China rose more than 63 percent from a year ago.

In some crucial categories previously governed by the old system of country-by-country quotas, like underwear, cotton trousers and cotton knit shirts, the increases were even more stark - jumps of as much as 2,000 percent.

The figures are certain to heighten trade tensions between the countries and also to renew calls for the United States government to place restrictions on some Chinese imports to protect American manufacturing jobs.

The Bush administration said last week that it was closely monitoring textile and apparel imports from China to better assess the effect on the nation's textile and apparel industry.

Trade relations between the two countries are already tense, partly because the United States trade deficit with China reached a record $162 billion last year, making it the largest trade imbalance ever recorded by the United States with a single country.

Trade specialists have long predicted that once quotas ended, China's efficient, low-cost manufacturing operations would dominate the world's $495 billion textile and apparel trade, wiping out manufacturing operations in the United States, Europe and elsewhere.

Last year, Chinese textile and apparel imports into the United States were valued at about $17 billion, accounting for about 20 percent of all American clothing imports.

The Commerce Department's statistics are the latest in a series of government data showing a shift already under way.

There are still about 665,000 textile and apparel manufacturing jobs in America, according to textile officials. But most specialists say they think those jobs are likely to vanish within a few years.

Last week, the National Council of Textile Organizations said that 17,000 American jobs had already been lost this year after 11 textile and apparel plants were closed because they could not compete.

Trade groups representing American workers want the federal government to step in because they think Chinese manufactures unfairly dominate the textile trade by using cheap labor and relying on government subsidies.

"These numbers are as bad as we feared," said Cass Johnson, a spokesman for the National Council of Textile Organizations in Washington. "The government needs to initiate safeguard action now or we could lose tens of thousands of jobs."

FULL STORY