Saturday, September 30, 2006

GOP running from the truth, but can't hide



Bob Perry, Houston area home builder and Cong. Dist. 22 resident, continues to spend BIG money (multi-millions) to control elections. In 2004 he set up the money for the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" that in ten days in the summer of 2004 cost John Kerry the presidential election. Now, he's spending $5 million to try to stop the GOP hemmorging to save their control of Congress.

This might be a little harder this year as the GOP culture of corruption continues to eat away at any positive feelings the electorate may still have for the GOP control of Congress. The latest spike is Congress Mark Foley who resigned yesterday after his penchant for Congressional Page (boys) became public.

The GOP's having a very hard time running from the TRUTH, and it certainly can't HIDE!

A political Mr. Buffett?

By RICK CASEY
STAFF

HOUSTON homebuilder Bob Perry came to national attention two years ago when he gave more than $4 million to a group called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."



Now he's back in the news around the country in connection with $5 million in donations he gave to an outfit called the Economic Freedom Fund.

Swift Boat Veterans used Perry's money effectively to attack Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's accounts of heroism in Vietnam, for which he was awarded three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star.

The Economic Freedom Fund, which so far has received few donations other than Perry's, has targeted for attack a handful of Democratic congressional candidates in competitive races in Georgia, Indiana, Iowa and West Virginia.

There's plenty of that going around, but what has earned the group (and Perry) publicity is that the attorney general in Indiana has sued the Fund for violating a state law banning mass recorded phone calls.

Telemarketer fighting law

Politics at play?

Not likely. Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter is a Republican.

What's more, he subsequently went to court against a group using recorded phone calls to attack a Republican congressman.

Carter had sent out a letter to both state parties announcing that he intended to enforce the 1988 law in regards to political phone calls, even though it generally had not been enforced in such cases before.

The Fund agreed to a court order prohibiting the calls until the suit is tried, which won't happen until after the election. The penalty can range as high as $5,000 for each violation. The company the Fund hired to make the calls is challenging the law's constitutionality, saying it violates free speech protections and inhibits interstate commerce.

Ambitious campaign

Other than Perry, it is unclear who is behind the Economic Freedom Fund. The only name included in publicly filed papers is Charles Bell Jr., an election law specialist who serves as general counsel for the Republican Party of California.

Bell has not returned reporters' phone calls, including mine, and a spokesman for Perry said he would not comment.

The phone calls are just one part of the ambitious campaign. Most the money is being spent on TV ads attacking Democratic candidates with titles such as, "The Tax Man," "Double Life," "Who Is This?" and "Cheek."

The Fund is using the same Virginia media firm - Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm - that did the Swift Boat ads attacking Kerry.

The controversy has received coverage in the states involved, as well as in Time magazine.

Individual contributors are limited by law to $4,200 in contributions to congressional candidates. But "527 committees" such as the Economic Freedom Fund can spend unlimited amounts to attack candidates as long as they don't coordinate their activities with the candidates they support.

Two years ago, Perry ranked fifth in donations to 527 committees at just over $8 million, according to Federal Election Commission figures listed on a Web site called opensecrets.org.

All four high rollers above Perry, led by billionaire investor George Soros at $23.5 million, gave to liberal groups such as MoveOn.org.

But times have changed.

Other than Perry, the top 527 contributor this year is Univision owner Jerry Perenchio at $4 million. It all went to a group called Progress for America, which runs slick ads supporting the war in Iraq.

On a recent visit to Houston, Soros said he has cut back his 527 giving. FEC records show him at $1.9 million.

His 2002 527 investments didn't do so well.

Perry, on the other hand, had a significant impact on the presidential election with $4.5 million to the Swift Boat guys.

If his $5 million this year is seen as helping hold on to Republican control of the House of Representatives, the reclusive homebuilder will be to political "investing" what Warren Buffett is to the stock market.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Bush White House Filled with Sleazy Ethically-Challenged GOP Boys

The Bush White House has a disgusting stink of GOP pigs at the trough sucking up illegal funds and dishing out special government deals from the White House....

Abramoff-linked duo visited White House dozens of times


POSTED: 8:24 p.m. EDT, September 20, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican activists Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed totaled more than 100 visits to the Bush White House, according to documents released Wednesday that provide the first official accounting of the access and influence the two presidential allies have enjoyed.

The White House released the Secret Service visit records to settle a lawsuit by the Democratic Party and an ethics watchdog group seeking visitor logs for the two GOP strategists and others who emerged as figures in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.

Earlier this month, the White House suggested to the judge in the lawsuit that such records need not be disclosed because the information was privileged and might reveal how Bush and his staff get private advice, according to court documents obtained by The Associated Press.

White House officials said Norquist, who runs the nonprofit Americans for Tax Reform, was cleared for 97 visits to the White House complex between 2001 and 2006, including a half-dozen with the president.

Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition and an unsuccessful candidate for lieutenant governor in Georgia earlier this year, got 18 meetings, including two events with Bush.

Officials said they believe all meetings with Bush involved larger group settings, such as Christmas parties or policy briefings for GOP supporters.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said, however, it was possible some of Norquist's meetings might have been directly with Karl Rove, the president's longtime confidant and political strategist.

"He is one of a number of individuals who worked to advance fiscal responsibility, which is one of the key aspects of the president's agenda," Perino said.

Reed and Norquist became involved with Abramoff, the once high-power GOP lobbyist who has pleaded guilty to fraud and is now cooperating with prosecutors in an influence peddling investigation that has rocked Capitol Hill.

Norquist's group advocates lower taxes and less government and he built it into a major force in the Republican Party. Along the way he became friends with Abramoff and Rove.

E-mails obtained this summer by AP show Norquist facilitated several administration contacts for Abramoff's clients while the lobbyist simultaneously solicited those clients for large donations to Norquist's group. Americans for Tax Reform acknowledged Norquist helped Abramoff but said he did nothing improper.

Reed rose to prominence as an organizer of evangelical Christian groups, including the Christian Coalition, inside the Republican Party before moving into business ventures where he did work for Indian tribes at Abramoff's request.

Documents unearthed by congressional investigators showed Abramoff and business partner Michael Scanlon routed about $4 million from Indian tribes to Reed-controlled entities for grassroots work aimed at blocking rival casinos. The revelations came as Reed ran an unsuccessful campaign for lieutenant governor in Georgia.

The release of the visitor records settles lawsuits by the Democratic Party and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

In a court filing earlier this month while settlement discussions were ongoing, Justice Department lawyers representing the administration said information about the Norquist and Reed visits should be protected from public disclosure under the doctrine of "deliberative process privilege."

That privilege lets the president and executive branch officials seek advice and deliberate policy decisions in private without having to disclose such information under the Freedom of Information Act.

It is similar to executive privilege, a power made famous by President Nixon, that lets a president keep information secret even from Congress or the courts on the grounds that it would hurt his ability to get candid advice.

Executive privilege was the focal point of major legal battles in the Watergate and Clinton impeachment cases.

Bush administration lawyers wrote that Norquist and Reed were "prominent advocates of particular tax policies and other conservative policies" and that releasing information about their White House visits would "inherently reveal the structure and nature of deliberative processes."

"In making decisions on personnel and policy, and in formulating legislative proposals, the president must be free to seek confidential information from many sources, both inside the government and outside," the lawyers wrote in citing a favorable court ruling from 2005 involving Vice President Dick Cheney.

The administration lawyers also argued against releasing information about the White House visits of former federal procurement official David Safavian on the grounds that it would violate Safavian's privacy. Safavian was recently convicted of trying to cover up his dealings with Abramoff.

Administration officials said the Justice Department never invoked the privilege mentioned in the court filings because a settlement was reached. The lawyers made the arguments in the court filing only when the judge asked them to outline what legal arguments it might make if the case went to trial, the official said.

Former White House lawyer Lanny Breuer, who handled many of President Clinton's privilege claims, said that administration routinely released White House entry records to the public and never "came close to making a claim like the one being suggested in this instance."

Deliberative and executive privilege claims are "designed to protect the advice the president gets. They are not intended to protect the identities of people from whom he gets that advice or when or where that advice was given from a particular person," Breuer said.

Other Abramoff associates visited

The White House also released records showing White House appointments landed by some of Abramoff's former lobbying associates. Among them:

  • Neil Volz, a former aide to Ohio Republican Rep. Bob Ney, had 18 appointments, including one to attend a large event featuring Bush on September 11, 2001, that was canceled because of the terrorist attacks. Volz has pleaded guilty to conspiring to corrupt Ney and others with trips and other largess.
  • Lobbyist Shawn Vasell also had 18. Two were Bush events, likely a February bill signing and a Ford's Theatre gala, that occurred this year, when Vasell was no longer working with Abramoff.
  • Abramoff business partner Scanlon, a former aide to then-Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, may have had one appointment; the White House couldn't say for certain whether the name in the Secret Service log was the same person. Scanlon has pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe public officials while lobbying on behalf of Indian tribes.
  • Former DeLay aide and Abramoff lobbying team member Tony Rudy had 13, none with Bush. Rudy has pleaded guilty to conspiring with Abramoff.
  • Former Abramoff lobbying associate Kevin Ring, a former aide to California Republican Rep. John Doolittle, had 21, none with Bush.
  • Two former Abramoff lobbying colleagues who joined Bush's administration, David Safavian and Patrick Pizzella, show up in the appointment logs. Pizzella, an assistant secretary of labor, had 48 visits, none with Bush. Among numerous meetings for Safavian, a former Bush administration procurement official who pleaded guilty to trying to hide his dealings with Abramoff, just one was with Bush, likely an employee holiday reception in 2004
  • Wednesday, September 13, 2006

    If Only Bush Hadn't Stolen the 2000 Election...


    Johnathan Alter says here what everyone has thought at least once and perhaps a million times...

    An Alternate 9/11 History

    By staying 'humble,' as he promised in 2000, Bush preserved much of the post-9/11 good will abroad.

    By Jonathan Alter

    Newsweek

    Sept. 18, 2006 issue - Five years after 9/11, the world is surprisingly peaceful. President Bush's pragmatic and bipartisan leadership has kept the United States not just strong but unexpectedly popular across the globe. The president himself is poised to enjoy big GOP wins in the midterm elections, a validation of his subtle understanding of the challenges facing the country. A new survey of historians puts him in the first tier of American presidents.

    As Bush warned, catching terrorists wasn't easy, but he kept at it. At the battle of Tora Bora, CIA operatives on the ground cabled Washington that Osama bin Laden was cornered, but they desperately needed troop support. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld immediately dispatched fresh forces, and the evildoer was killed. While bin Laden was seen as a martyr in a few isolated areas, the bulk of the Arab world had been in sympathy with the United States after 9/11 and shed no tears. After their capture, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other 9/11 terrorists were transported to the United States, where they were tried and quickly executed.

    Today, Al Qaeda remains a threat but its opportunities for recruitment have been scarce, and the involvement of the entire international community has helped dramatically reduce terrorist attacks worldwide. Because Bush believes diplomacy requires talking to adversaries as well as friends, even Syria and Iraq were forced to help. By staying "humble," as he promised in 2000, he preserved much of the post-9/11 good feeling abroad, which paid dividends when it came time to pull together a coalition to handle North Korea and Iran.

    At home, some aides suggested that Bush simply tell the nation to "go shopping." But the president knew he had a precious opportunity to ask Americans for real sacrifice. He took John McCain's suggestion and pushed through Congress an ambitious national-service program that bolstered communities and helped train citizens as first responders.

    Soon Bush put the country on a Manhattan Project crash course to get off oil. He bluntly told Detroit that it was embarrassing that Chinese automakers had better fuel efficiency, he classified SUVs as cars, and he imposed a stiff gas tax with a rebate for the working poor. To pay for it, he abandoned his tax cuts for the wealthy, reminding the country that no president in history had ever cut taxes in the middle of a war. This president would be damned if he was going to put more oil money into the pockets of Middle Eastern hatemongers who had killed nearly 3,000 of our people. To dramatize the point, he drove to his 2002 State of the Union address in a hybrid car. Sales soared.

    When Karl Rove suggested that the war on terror would make a perfect wedge issue against Democrats in the 2002 midterms, Bush brought him up short. Didn't Rove understand that bipartisanship is good politics? Lincoln and FDR had both gone bipartisan during wartime, he reminded his aide. So when evidence of torture at the prison camp in Guantánamo Bay surfaced and Rumsfeld was forced to resign, former Democratic senator Sam Nunn got the job. With post-9/11 unity still at least partially intact in 2004, Bush was re-elected in a landslide.

    Taking a cue from Lincoln's impatience with his generals, Bush was merciless about poor performance on homeland security. When the head of the FBI couldn't fix the bureau's computers in a year's time to "connect the dots," he was out. And Bush had no patience for excuse-making about leaky port security, unsecured chemical plants and first responders whose radios didn't communicate. If someone had told him that five years after 9/11 these problems would still be unsolved, Bush would have laughed him out of the office.

    In 2003, Vice President Cheney advised the president to take out Iraq's Saddam Hussein militarily. But Bush was beginning to understand that his veep, while sounding full of gravitas, was in fact reckless. When it became clear that Saddam posed no imminent threat, Bush resolved to neuter him, Kaddafi style. When the president found, after a little asking around, that the 10-year cost of invading Iraq would be a crushing $1.2 trillion, he opted out of this war of choice.

    Five years after that awful September day, even Bush's fiercest critics have learned an important lesson: leadership counts. Imagine if we'd done the opposite of these things. This country—and the world—would be in a heap of trouble.

    Tuesday, September 12, 2006

    More People Believe Bush to Blame for 9/11


    Poll: More Americans blame Bush for 9/11

    POSTED: 9:31 p.m. EDT, September 11, 2006

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington has risen from almost a third to almost half over the past four years, a CNN poll released Monday found.

    Asked whether they blame the Bush administration for the attacks, 45 percent said either a "great deal" or a "moderate amount," up from 32 percent in a June 2002 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

    But the Clinton administration did not get off lightly either. The latest poll, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, found that 41 percent of respondents blamed his administration a "great deal" or a "moderate amount" for the attacks. (Read the complete poll results -- PDF)

    That's only slightly less than the 45 percent who blamed his administration in a poll carried out less than a week after the attacks.

    Still, most Americans appear to be fatalistic, with more than half -- 57 percent -- saying they think that terrorists will "always find a way to launch attacks no matter what the U.S. government does."

    The poll was carried out August 30 through September 2 by Opinion Research Corp. with 1,004 American adults questioned by telephone. The sampling error for the questions was 3 percentage points.

    Sunday, September 10, 2006

    Will we be fooled again?


    Today I read in the Sept. 10 Parade Magazine about a retired police officer in New York who lost his son in the 9/11 attack. The man said he wanted revenge after his son was killed and described how he got the US military to put his son's name on bombs dropped on Iraq.

    Since the president had blamed 9/11 on Iraq, the former police officer was like many Americans in saying he was, "insane with wanting to get even, (and) was willing to believe anything." The man was shocked many months later when President Bush then said "We've no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11."

    Like a huge majority of Americans who now realize that Bush and Republican Party Congress leaders lied about why we invaded Iraq, the former police officer was plainly angry at being used. He said, "the government had exploited my feelings of patriotism."

    And now, just like before the Congressional elections of 2002 and the presidential election of 2004, Bush - probably directed by his Svengali Rove - is using the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attack to spin up fear of terror which in turn helps some voters accept his exceedingly bad record in all other areas of presidential and global leadership.

    Yes, because the 2006 congressional election is two months away, George W. Bush wants to appear focused on terror and not the civil war he created in Iraq. Hopefully, the American people will not be fooled for the third time.

    Wednesday, September 06, 2006

    Bush says: Be afraid, be very afraid!!



    The Bush full-court press to get this election's fear mongering underway gives everyone an opportunity to "believe" the good things W has to say now that their election polls are putting some pressure on him. W, under direct orders from Karl Rove to a least try to "fix" the public's huge distaste for Bush's many misdeeds, is doing "hardball" HA! interviews with Katie Couric to tell her how it is. It is all BS, but the media sucks it in and spits it out...see some comments in the AP article below.

    Bush admits the CIA runs secret prisons

    By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer 16 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON -

    President Bush on Wednesday acknowledged for the first time that the CIA runs secret prisons overseas and said tough interrogation forced terrorist leaders to reveal plots to attack the United States and its allies.

    Bush said 14 suspects — including the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and architects of the 2000 bombing of the

    USS Cole and the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania — had been turned over to the Defense Department and moved to the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for trial.

    "This program has been, and remains, one of the most vital tools in our war against the terrorists," Bush said.

    "Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al-Qaida and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland."

    Releasing information declassified just hours earlier (I WONDER WHY, NOW?), Bush said the capture of one terrorist just months after the Sept. 11 attacks had led to the capture of another and then another, and had revealed planning for attacks using airplanes, car bombs and anthrax.

    Nearing the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11, Bush pressed Congress to quickly pass administration-drafted legislation authorizing the use of military commissions for trials of terror suspects. Legislation is needed because the Supreme Court in June said the administration's plan for trying detainees in military tribunals violated U.S. and international law. (OF COURSE HE PUSHES FOR IT NOW BEFORE THE ELECTION SO THAT HE CAN CALL DEMOCRATS UNPATRIOTIC IF THEY VOTE AGAINST USING THE MILITARY JUDICIAL SYSTEM)

    The president's speech, his third in a recent series about the war on terror, gave him an opportunity to shore up his administration's credentials on national security two months before congressional elections at a time when Americans are growing weary of the war in

    Iraq.

    Democrats, hoping to make the elections a referendum on Bush's policies in Iraq and the war on terror, urged anew that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld be made to step down. They argued that the White House has mishandled the war, mismanaged the detainee system and failed to prosecute terrorists.

    "For five years, Democrats have stood ready to work with the president and the Republican Congress to establish sound procedures to bring terrorists to justice," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Unfortunately, President Bush ignored the advice of our uniformed military and set up a flawed system that failed to prosecute a single terrorist and was ruled unconstitutional by the

    U.S. Supreme Court."

    With the transfer of the 14 men to Guantanamo, there currently are no detainees being held by the CIA, Bush said (ANYONE OUT THERE BELIEVE THIS? WHY WOULD WE BELIEVE BUSH NOW AFTER HE AND HIS ADMINSTRATION HAVE LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CONSISTENTLY SINCE 9/11). A senior administration official said the CIA had detained fewer than 100 suspected terrorists in the history of the program. (SO 100 PEOPLE HELD IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES AND MOVED AROUND TO AVOID LAWS, IS GOOD? AND LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW MANY DIED WHILE IN CUSTODY, AND HOW MANY HAVE NEVER BEEN TOLD WHAT THEY ARE CHARGED WITH. WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE AMERICAN IDEALS OF JUSTICE? AREN'T THEY JUST AS IMPORTANT AS OUR TENENTS OF LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY?)

    Still, Bush said that "having a CIA program for questioning terrorists will continue to be crucial to getting lifesaving information."

    Earlier this year, an anti-torture panel at the

    United Nations

    recommended the closure of Guantanamo and criticized alleged U.S. use of secret prisons and suspected delivery of prisoners to foreign countries for questioning. Some Democrats and human rights groups argued that the CIA's secret prison system did not allow monitoring for abuses and they hoped that it would be shut down. (SO INSTEAD OF CLOSING GITMO, BUSH AND ROVE DECIDE TO SEND MORE PEOPLE THERE FOR A PRE-ELECTION PHOTO-OP!)

    "He finally acknowledged the elephant in the room that everybody had always been talking about," said Jumana Musa, advocacy director for Amnesty International USA.

    "I think what surprised me is he seemed to be asking Congress to legalize it through statutes, essentially allowing him to continue to detain people in secret by sort of putting forth all this information that they got from these folks and somehow using that to justify what has been recognized by U.N. committees as an unlawful act and contrary to our treaty obligations." (THIS QUOTE SHOWS THIS BOY DOESN'T QUITE GET IT!)

    The president declined to disclose the location or details of the detainees' confinement or the interrogation techniques.

    "I cannot describe the specific methods used — I think you understand why," (NO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY NEED TO BE HIDDEN!) Bush said in the East Room, where families of some of those who died in the Sept. 11 attacks heartily applauded him when he promised to finally bring the perpetrators to justice.

    "If I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe and lawful and necessary."

    Bush insisted that the detainees were not tortured.

    "I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture," Bush said. "It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it, and I will not authorize it." (NO THE US MAY NOT TORTURE, BUT IT IS WELL-DOCUMENTED THAT THE US HAS SET UP DEALS FOR OTHER COUNTRIES TO BE THE LOCATION OF TORTURE THAT HAS AT TIMES LED TO DEATHS OF PRISONERS. IS THIS THE AMERICAN WAY?)

    Bush said the information from terrorists in CIA custody has played a role in the capture or questioning of nearly every senior al-Qaida member or associate detained by the U.S. and its allies since the program began.

    He said they include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused Sept. 11 mastermind, as well as Ramzi Binalshibh, an alleged would-be 9/11 hijacker, and Abu Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between

    Osama bin Laden and many al-Qaida cells.

    He said interrogators have succeeded in getting information that has helped make photo identifications, pinpoint terrorist hiding places, provide ways to make sense of documents, identify voice recordings and understand the meaning of terrorist communications, al-Qaida's travel routes and hiding places,

    The administration had refused until now to acknowledge the existence of CIA prisons. Bush said he was going public because the United States has largely completed questioning the suspects, and also because the CIA program had been jeopardized by the Supreme Court ruling.

    The Supreme Court ruled that prisoner protections spelled out by the Geneva Conventions should extend to members of al-Qaida. In addition to torture and cruel treatment, the treaties ban "outrages against personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment."

    Administration officials said they were concerned the ruling left U.S. personnel vulnerable to be prosecuted under the War Crimes Act because the language under the Geneva Conventions was so vague.

    The Supreme Court ruling put a damper on the CIA's program, virtually putting the interrogation of detainees on hold until such prohibitions like "outrages against personal dignity" could be defined by law.

    "We're not interrogating now because CIA officials feel like the rules are so vague that they cannot interrogate without being tried as war criminals, and that's irresponsible," Bush said in an interview with "CBS Evening News."

    The administration-drafted legislation would authorize the defense secretary to convene a military commission with five members, plus a judge to preside. It would guarantee a detainee's access to military counsel but eliminate other rights common in military and civilian courts. The bill would allow reliable hearsay and potentially coerced testimony to be used as evidence in court, as well as the submission of classified evidence "outside the presence of the accused."

    Senate Republican leaders hailed Bush's proposal.

    "It's important to remember these defendants are not common criminals," said Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "Rather, many are terrorists, sworn enemies of the United States."

    But Democrats and GOP moderates warned that the plan would set a dangerous precedent, ensuring the legislation would not likely sail through Congress unchanged.

    Republican Sens. John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham have drafted a rival proposal. Unlike the administration's plan, the senators' proposal would allow a defendant to access to all evidence used against them. The plan by Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, also would prohibit coerced testimony.

    Graham, R-S.C., said withholding evidence from a war criminal sets a dangerous precedent other nations could follow. "Would I be comfortable with (an American service member) going to jail with evidence they never saw? No," Graham said.

    Also on Wednesday, the

    Pentagon put out a new Army field manual that spells out appropriate conduct on issues including prisoner interrogation. The manual applies to all the armed services but not the CIA. It bans torture and degrading treatment of prisoners, for the first time specifically mentioning forced nakedness, hooding and other procedures that have become infamous during the war on terror.NICE TIMING BY THE PENTAGON. PUT OUT A NEW FIELD MANUAL WHILE THE SECDEF CONTINUES TO TELL THE WORLD THAT WE DON'T NEED TO FOLLOW THE GENEVA CONVENTION. TRUTH IS THIS IS ONLY A PSEUDO WAR SO WE REALLY SHOULDN'T NEED TO FOLLOW LAWS GOVERNING REAL WARS.

    Tuesday, September 05, 2006

    the ECONOMY: W just can't figure it out


    Good to be back after a few days out of town.

    As Bushie and Rove and the boys start spinning up terrorist fear again, Bush's failure to capture bin Laden should be driven into the minds of all voters.

    That said, what about the biggest issue out there? The "running as fast as I can" economy where everyone works harder and harder and more and more hours and never gets ahead.

    And W the lesser Bush just can't seem to figure it all out!

    'Mortgage Moms' May Star in Midterm Vote

    With Wages Stagnant and Debt Growing, Democrats See an Opportunity

    By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Chris Cillizza

    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Tuesday, September 5, 2006; Page A01

    BURLINGTON, Ky. -- Life is cramped at the Condit household. Dale and Sharon Condit and their two young sons need more room but can't seem to sell their current home -- on the market now for three months.

    In a year when politics is being roiled by angry debates over the Iraq war and immigration, it might seem odd to imagine the midterm elections being waged over square footage and closet space. But these are parts of a lifestyle that Sharon Condit, a deputy clerk of court, describes as dogged by a sense of limits: "We have dreams of this future, but we can't get it right now."



    This gap in expectations, a source of anxiety for the Condits, is a source of opportunity for former representative Ken Lucas, a Democrat who is trying to win back Kentucky's 4th Congressional District from incumbent Republican Geoff Davis. Attitudes about the economy -- "People are being pushed up against a ceiling," said Lucas. "They feel trapped" -- are part of the reason the Democrat is in a neck-and-neck race in a district President Bush won by 27 percentage points in 2004.

    At first glance, the economy's role in this year's midterm elections is a puzzle. Economic growth and unemployment are at levels that in past years would have been a clear political asset for the party in power.

    But one layer down in the statistics, the answer is more clear. Flat wages and rising debt nationally have converged to leave millions of middle-class households feeling acutely vulnerable to bumps in their financial planning. The most visible of these are rising energy prices and a softening housing market.

    A less obvious but powerful variable is the interest paid by people carrying credit card debt or mortgages whose monthly payments vary with interest rates. People buffeted by these trends have given rise to a new and volatile voting block.

    "People like this are making a large ripple across the body politic," said Republican pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies. When added to the growing opposition to the war in Iraq, he said, worry about this economic crunch "is creating a political environment that is not that friendly to the party in power."

    Every election cycle has its own important set of undecided, or swing, voters. In 2000, it was the "soccer moms," targeted by both parties with appeals based on education and quality-of-life concerns. In 2004, it was the security moms, normally Democratic-trending women whose concerns about terrorism helped give Bush his margin of victory.

    This year could mark the emergence of what might be called mortgage moms -- voters whose sense of well-being is freighted with anxiety about their families' financial squeeze. Democrats are betting that this factor is strong enough to trump security or cultural values issues.

    Kentucky's 4th District, stretching across nearly 200 miles of the state's northern tier, offers a useful window into whether the strategy can work. It includes coal-mining precincts with an Appalachian character, affluent Cincinnati suburbs along the Ohio River, and rural farmland that looks and feels more like the Midwest than the South. Unemployment in 2005 was 6.9 percent. The current national average is 4.7 percent.

    Democrats here typically do not stress liberalism. Lucas, for instance, opposes abortion rights and gun-control measures. But in Kentucky and elsewhere, Democrats have some reason for optimism about the traction they might gain from the economy.

    Polls show that swing voters -- the category that candidates most want to attract -- are unhappier than the rest of the population about their economic circumstances. According to a recent survey by Bloomberg News and the Los Angeles Times, six in 10 self-described independents said the economy was doing badly, and seven in 10 said the country was on the wrong track. A Fox News poll, taken at the end of last month, showed that 23 percent of Americans consider the economy the most important factor they will weigh when they cast their ballot in November -- more than those who cited Iraq (14 percent) or terrorism (12 percent).

    And a recent poll conducted for the AFL-CIO by the Democratic Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group found that 55 percent of voters said their income was not keeping up with inflation, and that the economy was a more effective campaign theme against Republicans than either the war or corruption. This rings true to many Republican strategists and their allies: Despite the unpopularity of the president's Iraq policies, Bush's approval rating is higher among voters who see the war and national security as the top issues in November than it is among voters who rate the economy as their top issue, according to one veteran GOP pollster worried about his party's prospects this fall.

    Republicans have approached the problem partly as a matter of perception. Eager to frame the issue for the fall, Bush recently met with economic advisers at Camp David and later announced that the economy is "solid and strong" and "creating real benefits for American workers and families and entrepreneurs." The gross domestic product, the sum of all goods and services produced, has slowed a bit since the beginning of the year but is still growing at a respectable annual rate of 2.9 percent. And the unemployment rate is near its five-year low.



    But the sour mood is not simply a matter of psychology. Since 2003, the inflation-adjusted median hourly wage of most workers has fallen by 2 percent, according to the Labor Department. And this summer marked the first time since 1991 that the annual inflation rate exceeded 4 percent for three consecutive months, driven partly by $3-per-gallon gasoline.

    Then there is debt. According to a study by the Federal Reserve Board, the ratio of financial obligations -- primarily mortgage and consumer debt -- to disposable personal income rose to a modern record of 18.7 percent earlier this year. The amount of mortgage debt alone has more than doubled since 2000, to nearly $9 trillion. And in July, for the 16th consecutive month, consumers in the aggregate spent all of their disposable income and dipped into savings or borrowed to finance the things they bought.

    Among the most exposed are those who bought into one of the great fads in mortgage lending in recent years -- adjustable rates. Next year, $1 trillion worth of adjustable-rate mortgages -- about 11 percent of all outstanding mortgage debt -- is scheduled to readjust to a higher interest rate for the first time, according to LoanPerformance, a research company. This will come after more than $400 billion of readjustments this year. That means millions of homeowners will either have to refinance or shoulder an increase of perhaps 25 percent in their monthly payments.

    The political implications of these trends are obvious. "A large number of voters have a definite foreboding about the economy, and that isn't good news for incumbents," said Gregory S. Casey, chief executive of the Business Industry Political Action Committee, a nonpartisan electoral analysis organization. "They feel disappointed in government institutions that they think have let them down."

    "Republicans are worried," added R. Bruce Josten, an executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a significant backer of pro-business -- and therefore predominantly Republican -- congressional candidates. "You have a portion of the middle class that doesn't believe it's benefiting from good economic news, and, in fact, it's not. . . . All the blame doesn't go to Congress, but voters are going to take it out on Congress anyway."

    Republicans in Congress have tried to show sympathy for hard-pressed workers by pushing to pass an increase in the minimum wage. That effort foundered in the Senate because it was tied to a cut in the estate tax, which would have benefited wealthy individuals. But GOP leaders say they want to take another stab at raising the minimum wage this month, before Congress adjourns.

    Democrats want to prevent Republicans from claiming that success and are advancing ballot initiatives in half a dozen states -- including key Senate battlegrounds such as Missouri, Montana and Ohio -- that would mandate boosts in the minimum amount that employers pay their workers. They also intend to talk about the need to cut taxes for the middle class, roll back tax cuts for upper-income people and extend a soon-to-expire provision that permits some middle-income families to write off college tuition payments.

    Among the key places the debate is playing out is New York, where Republican Reps. John E. Sweeney, James T. Walsh and John R. "Randy" Kuhl Jr. are facing tougher-than-expected challenges because of the state's economy.

    In the Upstate district of retiring Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert (R), the House Democratic Campaign Committee is running a TV ad that lashes the Republican nominee, state Sen. Ray Meier, for opposing a minimum-wage increase in the New York legislature while his own pay went up by $22,000. The ad promises that Democratic nominee Michael Arcuri will not vote to increase his own salary in Congress until a minimum wage boost is passed.

    Even Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (N.Y.), who chairs the House Republicans' campaign arm, is being challenged -- by Jack Davis, who runs the Save American Jobs Association, an organization contending that free trade is causing U.S. job losses.

    The economy will also figure throughout the industrial Midwest, especially in Michigan, where layoffs by the auto industry have political repercussions. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) has called the economy the No. 1 issue in his region.

    But the fact that the economy is on people's minds does not necessarily mean it will drive votes, as was clear in numerous voter interviews here in Kentucky. Dale Condit, a truck driver, said, like his wife, that he is concerned about the economy and unhappy with the direction of things in Washington. But, like her, he is not sure whether he will vote for Ken Lucas or Geoff Davis.



    The owner of the diner where they were eating, the Little Place Restaurant, has had less trouble making up her mind. Estelle Nunn and her husband, Henry Nunn, recently bought a smaller car to save on gasoline. Estelle Nunn, who has operated the restaurant for 36 years, said they are making ends meet but her dollars are not going as far as they once did. She is saving for a new stove at the eatery but doesn't have nearly enough money yet. She is even hesitating to visit her grandsons in Florida because of the cost of travel, something she deeply regrets. "There is uneasiness," said Nunn, noting that she will be supporting Lucas in the fall.

    At another table sat Mike Collins, a local judge who said he sometimes indulges his love for singing Michael Bublé songs at karaoke lounges. He said he sees evidence of the economic crush every day in traffic court. Things have gotten so tough, he said, more people are unable to pay the standard $138 in court costs plus the traffic fine.

    For all this, traditional class-based appeals to economic grievance would probably not play well in Kentucky's 4th. At lunch at a Panera Bread restaurant in Crestview Hills, a Cincinnati suburb, Angela McNickle was enjoying a "girls' day" with her daughter, Hope, 4. McNickle, a former flight attendant who is married to a salesman, has concerns -- a 7-year-old son has Down syndrome and high medical bills -- but she said her financial situation does not affect her vote. "We're comfortable," she said. "If I was in a different economic class or a single mom, it might be different."

    Indeed, Davis, the Republican incumbent, has some formidable advantages. He is well financed, with $1.5 million in the bank. And he is navigating economic concerns by playing down his party affiliation and focusing on his ability to deliver federal aid to the district.

    In late August, Davis made two stops in Carroll County. At the first, he announced that he had secured $500,000 in funding for a rural medical center. He then joined Assistant Secretary of Commerce David M. Spooner at North American Stainless, a steel mill, to present an "Export Achievement Certificate" to honor its focus on trade with foreign countries. Asked about the national climate facing Republicans, Davis said, "This is a local race that will be decided on local issues."

    It is Lucas who is more ready to talk about national trends. Braving blistering heat at a seniors' picnic along the banks of the Ohio River, he shook hands and tried to call Republicans to account for a "a system where the rich are getting richer." In an interview, he said enough people agree with him to make the difference on Nov. 7.