QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Dec 20 2005, 12:59 AM)
This may be a record.
[right][snapback]165328[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]165328[/snapback][/right]
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm..
That barby Spam sure looks mighty fine.
Full Version: Ethics/Values in politics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm..
That barby Spam sure looks mighty fine.
QUOTE(inyerface @ Dec 20 2005, 03:33 PM)
http://desktopdownload.org/gw/its_a_blunderful_life.mp3
ez dl 530k
[right][snapback]165587[/snapback][/right]
ez dl 530k
[right][snapback]165587[/snapback][/right]
That was funny, shared it with my friends.
ello, ello! what's all this then?
Lobbyist Is Said to Discuss Plea and Testimony
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
Published: December 21, 2005
WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 - Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist under criminal investigation, has been discussing with prosecutors a deal that would grant him a reduced sentence in exchange for testimony against former political and business associates, people with detailed knowledge of the case say.
Mr. Abramoff is believed to have extensive knowledge of what prosecutors suspect is a wider pattern of corruption among lawmakers and Congressional staff members. One participant in the case who insisted on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations described him as a "unique resource."
Other people involved in the case or who have been officially briefed on it said the talks had reached a tense phase, with each side mindful of the date Jan. 9, when Mr. Abramoff is scheduled to stand trial in Miami in a separate prosecution.
What began as a limited inquiry into $82 million of Indian casino lobbying by Mr. Abramoff and his closest partner, Michael Scanlon, has broadened into a far-reaching corruption investigation of mainly Republican lawmakers and aides suspected of accepting favors in exchange for legislative work.
Prominent party officials, including the former House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, are under scrutiny involving trips and other gifts from Mr. Abramoff and his clients. The case has shaken the Republican establishment, with the threat of testimony from Mr. Abramoff, once a ubiquitous and well-connected Republican star, sowing anxiety throughout the party ranks.
At issue is the complicated structure of the case against Mr. Abramoff. In August, he was indicted by federal prosecutors in Miami on charges of fraud stemming from his purchase of a fleet of casino boats in 2000. He pleaded not guilty in that case, and his lawyers say they are preparing him to stand trial. Mr. Abramoff has also been under investigation here in connection with his lobbying. No charges have been brought against him in that inquiry. The existence of what amounts to two separate but overlapping investigations partly explains why the plea negotiations for Mr. Abramoff have been so protracted and tough, said people with inside knowledge of the case.
With the trial in Miami fast approaching, and coming on the heels of plea agreements from Mr. Scanlon and another close associate of Mr. Abramoff, pressure has mounted to reach his own agreement. Mr. Abramoff has also told associates that he is broke, making the prospect of an extended jury trial even less appealing.
Mr. Abramoff's the lead defense lawyer, Abbe D. Lowell, said he would not comment.
Several people involved in various aspects of the case agreed to be interviewed as long as their names and affiliations were not made public. Justice Department officials are prohibited from discussing continuing cases as a matter of course. A spokesman for the department, Bryan Sierra, declined to comment.
Although the Miami case is ostensibly separate from the Washington inquiry, the overlapping elements include occasions when Mr. Abramoff flexed his political muscle to enhance his business deal in Florida.
While he and a partner, Adam Kidan, were angling to buy the SunCruz boat fleet in 2000, Mr. Abramoff had Mr. Scanlon persuade Representative Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio, to insert negative comments about a business rival of Mr. Abramoff into The Congressional Record, under to a scheme outlined in documents filed in Mr. Scanlon's criminal case.
The rival, Konstantinos Boulis, was murdered a short time later in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., a twist that heightened the profile of the Miami case.
Florida prosecutors are also investigating corruption in that case, focusing on Mr. Ney and his chief of staff at the time, Neil Volz, according to people involved in the case. Mr. Volz reportedly agreed to put negative remarks about Mr. Boulis in The Congressional Record, even though Mr. Ney had no obvious reason to comment on Mr. Boulis.
Mr. Volz went on to work for Mr. Abramoff as a lobbyist.
Mr. Ney has said he was tricked by Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Abramoff into participating, and no charges have been brought against him.
In his financial paperwork in the Miami deal, Mr. Abramoff listed Tony C. Rudy, a deputy chief of staff to Mr. DeLay at the time, as a reference.
He also listed Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, who has since defended the decision to support the lobbyist.
Lawyers for Mr. Volz, Mr. Ney and Mr. Rudy did not return calls for comment. A lawyer for Mr. DeLay declined to comment, but spokesmen for Mr. DeLay have repeatedly said he had done nothing improper.
Such ties are only at the periphery of the investigations, according to people briefed on the case. Mr. Scanlon, who worked on public affairs for the SunCruz casinos and is familiar with the inner workings of many of Mr. Abramoff's deals, is cooperating in the Miami case as well as in Washington, his lawyer has said.
Prosecutors are also looking at how some former Congressional staff members landed their lucrative lobbying positions and at the role the wives of several lobbyists and lawmakers may have had in any influence scheme, a piece of the puzzle that investigators have begun referring to privately as the "wives' club."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics...artner=homepage
Lobbyist Is Said to Discuss Plea and Testimony
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
Published: December 21, 2005
WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 - Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist under criminal investigation, has been discussing with prosecutors a deal that would grant him a reduced sentence in exchange for testimony against former political and business associates, people with detailed knowledge of the case say.
Mr. Abramoff is believed to have extensive knowledge of what prosecutors suspect is a wider pattern of corruption among lawmakers and Congressional staff members. One participant in the case who insisted on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations described him as a "unique resource."
Other people involved in the case or who have been officially briefed on it said the talks had reached a tense phase, with each side mindful of the date Jan. 9, when Mr. Abramoff is scheduled to stand trial in Miami in a separate prosecution.
What began as a limited inquiry into $82 million of Indian casino lobbying by Mr. Abramoff and his closest partner, Michael Scanlon, has broadened into a far-reaching corruption investigation of mainly Republican lawmakers and aides suspected of accepting favors in exchange for legislative work.
Prominent party officials, including the former House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, are under scrutiny involving trips and other gifts from Mr. Abramoff and his clients. The case has shaken the Republican establishment, with the threat of testimony from Mr. Abramoff, once a ubiquitous and well-connected Republican star, sowing anxiety throughout the party ranks.
At issue is the complicated structure of the case against Mr. Abramoff. In August, he was indicted by federal prosecutors in Miami on charges of fraud stemming from his purchase of a fleet of casino boats in 2000. He pleaded not guilty in that case, and his lawyers say they are preparing him to stand trial. Mr. Abramoff has also been under investigation here in connection with his lobbying. No charges have been brought against him in that inquiry. The existence of what amounts to two separate but overlapping investigations partly explains why the plea negotiations for Mr. Abramoff have been so protracted and tough, said people with inside knowledge of the case.
With the trial in Miami fast approaching, and coming on the heels of plea agreements from Mr. Scanlon and another close associate of Mr. Abramoff, pressure has mounted to reach his own agreement. Mr. Abramoff has also told associates that he is broke, making the prospect of an extended jury trial even less appealing.
Mr. Abramoff's the lead defense lawyer, Abbe D. Lowell, said he would not comment.
Several people involved in various aspects of the case agreed to be interviewed as long as their names and affiliations were not made public. Justice Department officials are prohibited from discussing continuing cases as a matter of course. A spokesman for the department, Bryan Sierra, declined to comment.
Although the Miami case is ostensibly separate from the Washington inquiry, the overlapping elements include occasions when Mr. Abramoff flexed his political muscle to enhance his business deal in Florida.
While he and a partner, Adam Kidan, were angling to buy the SunCruz boat fleet in 2000, Mr. Abramoff had Mr. Scanlon persuade Representative Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio, to insert negative comments about a business rival of Mr. Abramoff into The Congressional Record, under to a scheme outlined in documents filed in Mr. Scanlon's criminal case.
The rival, Konstantinos Boulis, was murdered a short time later in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., a twist that heightened the profile of the Miami case.
Florida prosecutors are also investigating corruption in that case, focusing on Mr. Ney and his chief of staff at the time, Neil Volz, according to people involved in the case. Mr. Volz reportedly agreed to put negative remarks about Mr. Boulis in The Congressional Record, even though Mr. Ney had no obvious reason to comment on Mr. Boulis.
Mr. Volz went on to work for Mr. Abramoff as a lobbyist.
Mr. Ney has said he was tricked by Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Abramoff into participating, and no charges have been brought against him.
In his financial paperwork in the Miami deal, Mr. Abramoff listed Tony C. Rudy, a deputy chief of staff to Mr. DeLay at the time, as a reference.
He also listed Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, who has since defended the decision to support the lobbyist.
Lawyers for Mr. Volz, Mr. Ney and Mr. Rudy did not return calls for comment. A lawyer for Mr. DeLay declined to comment, but spokesmen for Mr. DeLay have repeatedly said he had done nothing improper.
Such ties are only at the periphery of the investigations, according to people briefed on the case. Mr. Scanlon, who worked on public affairs for the SunCruz casinos and is familiar with the inner workings of many of Mr. Abramoff's deals, is cooperating in the Miami case as well as in Washington, his lawyer has said.
Prosecutors are also looking at how some former Congressional staff members landed their lucrative lobbying positions and at the role the wives of several lobbyists and lawmakers may have had in any influence scheme, a piece of the puzzle that investigators have begun referring to privately as the "wives' club."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics...artner=homepage
QUOTE(davisął @ Dec 20 2005, 10:50 PM)
The rival, Konstantinos Boulis, was murdered a short time later in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., a twist that heightened the profile of the Miami case.
[right][snapback]165747[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]165747[/snapback][/right]
Did the body turn up in a park?
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Dec 19 2005, 10:37 PM)
Would moose turds turn into oil, given enough time?
[right][snapback]165348[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]165348[/snapback][/right]
With enough pressure maybe you could make diamonds?
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Dec 20 2005, 12:20 AM)
Ahem. I thought y'all didn't like command economies.
The 'foreign' vs 'domestic' oil is a political not an economic distinction. "Dependence on foreign oil" is the sort of expression that no mainstream economist will utter in the company of his/her colleagues.
[right][snapback]165367[/snapback][/right]
The 'foreign' vs 'domestic' oil is a political not an economic distinction. "Dependence on foreign oil" is the sort of expression that no mainstream economist will utter in the company of his/her colleagues.
[right][snapback]165367[/snapback][/right]
But foreign versus domestic cars is different?
I set this up the way I did for a reason. The resident lefties have often said loss of overseas production was a matter of national security. Somehow oil doesn't count.
And even you ought to know economics can't be separated from politics in the real world.
QUOTE
Buying a President
By JIM TANKERSLEY AND JOSHUA BOAK
Toledo Blade
Dec 20, 2005, 05:31
President Bush's corporate champions see the spoils of his administration in coal. And timber. And credit-card payments, Afghan electric lines, Japanese bank transfers and fake crab.
America's business leaders supplied more than $75 million to return Bush to the White House last year _ and he has paid dividends.
Bush administration policies, grand and obscure, have financially benefited companies or lobbying clients tied to at least 200 of the president's largest campaign fund-raisers, a Toledo Blade investigation has found. Dozens more stand to gain from Bush-backed initiatives that recently passed or await congressional approval.
The investigation included targeted tax breaks, regulatory changes, pro-business legislation, high-profile salaried appointments, and federal contracts.
Bush's policies often followed specific requests from his 548 "Pioneers" and "Rangers," who each raised at least $100,000 or $200,000 for his 2004 re-election. The help to business fund-raisers sometimes came at the expense of consumers or public health concerns.
The beneficiaries span industries and the nation. Examples include:
Timber barons who pay lower tax rates on logging sales and face fewer barriers to harvesting trees in national forests because of administrative changes and laws Bush signed.
Energy producers who dodged potential legal fees and cleanup costs after federal officials revised clean-air standards.
Heads of stock brokerages and other multinational firms, which, under a special tax incentive in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, are bringing hundreds of millions of dollars they earned or stored abroad back into the United States this year at reduced rates.
Executives of defense contractors United Technologies and The Washington Group, which won contracts potentially totaling more than $6 billion to supply American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and rebuild both countries' infrastructure. The same contractors won far less government work under President Bill Clinton.
Mining executives who tapped new veins of coal, thanks to administrative rule changes that opened swaths of hills and forests to their backhoes and left once-protected streams vulnerable to pollution.
With rare exception _ such as a California Pioneer recently implicated in a congressional bribery scandal _ the Bush supporters' benefits appear to come through legal channels of lobbying, rule-making, and legislation.
But a federal investigation of Ohio Pioneer Tom Noe, indicted in October on charges he laundered money into the president's campaign, has focused attention on Bush's network of elite fund-raisers, who accounted for at least 28 percent of Bush's $271.8 million in individual contributions for the 2004 campaign.
A Blade investigation beginning in April led to accusations by state officials that Noe stole millions of dollars the state invested in his rare-coin funds. The probe also brought the money-laundering allegations against Noe to light.
A Blade report in October showed Ohio's 30 Pioneers and Rangers have secured more than $1.2 billion from taxpayers since 2001 for their companies and lobbying clients.
All of the Pioneers and Rangers who agreed to talk to the Blade for this series said they supported Bush's ideology and style of governance and said they expected no reward but his victory.
"I was pleased he was a candidate. I liked what his father had done," said Herbert Boeckmann, a California Bush Pioneer who owns the world's largest Ford dealership. "He was a little bit of maverick, but he recognized the key was to get the job done."
A spokesman for the Republican National Committee said Bush has helped the country add 4.4 million jobs since May, 2003.
"The president's pro-growth economic policies have helped small business, families, and first-time home buyers," said the spokesman, Aaron McLear.
Some experts agree. Martin Regalia, chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said Bush embraces traditional pro-business policies, such as lowering taxes and lessening government regulations.
"When you look at the overall economy, it's doing very well with solid GDP growth and low core rates of inflation," Regalia said. "Part of the reason, certainly, is his policies."
Bush is hardly the first president to help supporters financially.
William McKinley doled government jobs to his backers after winning the 1896 presidential election. Clinton raised tariffs on soap and batteries imported from Europe as retaliation for tariffs that continent levied against the South American bananas of a Clinton supporter, Cincinnati's Carl Lindner, who later became a Bush Ranger.
In his 2004 presidential bid, Sen. John Kerry called for a 36 percent hike in the federal minimum wage, a policy supported by the AFL-CIO, a labor union whose members contributed heavily to the Democrat's failed presidential campaign.
Campaign-finance analysts question whether Bush's system of recognizing top fund-raisers _ as opposed to donors who cannot give more than $2,000 per election cycle to a presidential candidate _ provides corporate leaders with special treatment.
Steve Weisman, associate director for policy at the Campaign Finance Institute in Washington, said election law does not require candidates to reveal any details about their fund-raising networks.
"Right now, what we know is what the campaigns tell us," he said. "Shouldn't we disclose the people who get credit for arranging for these donations? Isn't there a problem that they might have some undue influence on the recipient?"
Many Pioneers and Rangers joined Bush before the 2000 election, when he was governor of Texas. They saw him as a powerful advocate for business, and they made no secret what they hoped to get from his administration.
Credit-card giant MBNA wanted to collect more of its customers' debts.
The Delaware-based company has supplied 54 million Americans with novelty credit cards displaying Elvis Presley, a charging Florida State University Seminole on horseback, or an Icelandair flight cruising above the Atlantic Ocean.
The seduction by plastic includes bonus points, "Love Me Tender" teddy bears, and occasionally personal bankruptcy.
When MBNA's customers filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy, courts wiped their credit balances away. MBNA wrote off $4.1 billion in unpaid credit-card bills last year.
To stem the losses, the company worked to change the rules. It spent nearly $20 million from 1998 to 2004 to lobby Congress on issues including bankruptcy reform. Even before Mr. Clinton killed a reform bill late in his second term, MBNA had turned to George W. Bush.
MBNA employees gave the Bush campaign more than $200,000 in 2000, the most of any company, and allowed the campaign to use an MBNA corporate jet. The new president pushed bankruptcy reform in his first term, but an unrelated congressional dispute scuttled it.
The company worked hard for Bush again last year. Former MBNA CEO Charles Cawley and Vice Chairman Lance Loring Weaver both qualified as Rangers, each raising at least $200,000 for the president's re-election.
MBNA surpassed Enron last year to become the largest corporate patron of Bush's career, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington.
The eight-year struggle for bankruptcy reform ended within 90 days of Bush's second inaugural address. The 500-page law, initially crafted by a financial services lobbyist, mandates credit counseling for prospective filers and makes it harder to escape credit-card debt.
"The legislation in effect deputizes the bankruptcy courts as collection agents for the credit-card companies," said Mark Sargent, dean of Villanova University's law school, a bankruptcy expert, and critic of the bill. "The great irony of this is that it's having your cake and eating it too. They push credit to anyone with a pulse."
Americans received 5.23 billion credit-card mailings _ 18 offers for each man, woman, and child _ in 2004, according to Vertis, a marketing consultant. About 1.6 million households filed for bankruptcy last year, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute, up from 287,570 in 1980.
The reform law's implementation in October caused a temporary spike in bankruptcy filings that will hurt MBNA's short-term profits but should reduce future bankruptcy filings, the company said in its quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Todd Zywicki, a George Mason University law professor who favors the law, testified to a Senate committee that credit-card companies would receive an additional $3 billion each year with its passage.
Based on the market share figures compiled by the industry analyst Web site cardweb.com, the law will give MBNA about $380 million more annually. That figure would feed the company's yearly profit of $2.6 billion.
In June, after the law passed, Bank of America agreed to purchase MBNA for $35 billion, 31 percent above the company's market value at the time. An analyst called the sale price "rich."
MBNA representatives declined to comment. However, Philip Corwin, an attorney for the American Bankers Association, said the legislation was approved to curb abuses of the bankruptcy system rather than boost the revenues of credit-card companies.
"This is not a windfall," he said.
Pacific Seafood employee Gilberto Rojas cleans channel rock fish in Eureka, Calif. Fish baron Frank Dulcich and his family-owned string of seafood processors, the Pacific Seafood Group, benefited from a federal grant and a change in fishing rules after hiring a lobbying firm with two Bush Pioneers.
For years, the fish baron and his family-owned string of seafood processors, the Pacific Seafood Group, fought a steady current of government fishing restrictions.
Some schools of rockfish, once a staple of West Coast fishing, had dwindled. Pacific's Oregon-based executives and lobbyists complained that federal scientists couldn't fully explain why and that regulators responded to the shortage by limiting catches too severely. Dulcich penned a 2000 op-ed article titled, "Seafood community set adrift by Congress."
A lobbyist for Dulcich and other processors told a federal commission in 2002 that the government's caution in protecting ocean life was "like the difference between birth-control pills and abstinence: You have a 95 percent chance of preventing pregnancy with the former and a 100 percent chance with the latter, but abstinence is nowhere near as rewarding."
The same year, federal officials restricted fishing of whiting, which processors use to make imitation crab and frozen fish sticks. Commercial fishermen catch more whiting off the Pacific Coast than any other fish. Pacific Seafood says it handles more of it than any land-based processor.
Dulcich, who previously had donated to Democratic and Republican congressmen in the Pacific Northwest, upped his political activity in 2002. He hired the Gallatin Group, a lobbying firm that boasted two Bush Pioneers.
Soon Dulcich scored a meeting with the U.S. commerce secretary, escorted a top federal fisheries regulator along the Oregon coast, and joined the ranks of Bush Pioneers.
Bush signed a bill early in 2004 directing $950,000 from the federal treasury that helped Pacific Seafood treat wastewater on the Oregon coast.
Citing a new study, the Bush administration pulled whiting from the "overfished" list, increasing catch limits nearly 70 percent and sending more fish to processors. A spokesman for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which sets fishing levels, said whiting populations rebounded strongly following the decision. Another official says it appears to have been a mistake to restrict the fish in the first place.
"When we make decisions about taking things off the overfished list," said NOAA spokesman Susan Buchanan, "it has nothing to do with politicians and everything to do with science."
Dulcich and Gallatin lobbyists did not return phone calls seeking comment.
Much of the West Coast fishing industry is gasping for air, as trawlers sit unused in docks and some fishermen look for new jobs. But Pacific Seafood reeled in an estimated $700 million in revenue last year, according to the trade magazine Seafood Business, which ranks the company third among American seafood suppliers.
Fishermen who have battled Dulcich over crab and fish prices dub his company "the Wal-Mart of the Seas."
Several pending laws, many supported by Bush, could help Pacific Seafood grow even faster. One would guarantee Pacific and other processors a chunk of the whiting catch each year. Bush publicly opposes such quotas, but he signed a similar measure for Alaskan crab last year. Federal officials added a seat for Dulcich on a committee studying quotas last year.
Another plan would allow decommissioned off-shore oil rigs to transform into floating fish farms, guaranteeing seafood processors a steady fish supply, sparing oil companies millions in cleanup costs, and raising concerns about farmed fish spreading disease to wild stocks.
Bush recently proposed an overhaul of the nation's signature fisheries management law, including changes that conservation groups say would weaken restrictions on overfishing. Some paragraphs of the plan match a proposal drafted by seafood processors nearly word for word.
"Frank is a smart, very personable guy," said Peter Huhtala, senior policy director for the Pacific Marine Conservation Council, which works on fisheries issues. "But in order to keep growing ... and adding to his wealth, I think you're seeing some politics at play, too."
Other Pioneers and Rangers hope Bush's policies will add to their wealth soon.
They include Wall Street traders banking on a 2003 dividend tax cut to boost stock prices, doctors seeking caps on their lawsuit liability, pharmaceutical executives waiting for a new federal prescription drug plan to kick millions of dollars their way, and the wife of the chairman of the Hallmark greeting card company, which is lobbying to slow the increase in postage rates.
In some cases, though, the wish lists of Bush supporters clash. For example, the automotive industry _ with all of its moving parts.
Among Bush's top fund-raisers is Nicholas Taubman, former CEO of Advance Auto Parts Inc. and the recently appointed U.S. ambassador to Romania.
Taubman, who did not return a call to The Blade, supports controversial legislation _ the "Right to Repair Act" _ that would bolster his $4.65 billion company. It would force automakers to share information on car parts and technology.
The knowledge would help independent mechanics work more effectively on newer cars and promote healthy competition for repair business, said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, who is sponsoring the bill. Those mechanics need parts from affordable sources, such as Taubman's company and competitor AutoZone.
Automakers and dealers are fighting the bill, claiming Advanced Auto Parts and others are less interested in promoting the free market and more interested in making money off of cheaper replacement parts.
Connected dealership magnates who oppose the bill, such as Bob Tuttle and John Click, are also Pioneers and Rangers. So are Kenneth Zangara, a large-scale Dodge dealer in Albuquerque, N.M., and Mr. Boeckmann, the Los Angeles owner of Galpin Motors.
Barton has delayed the legislation for years, hoping the sides could settle amicably. But talks have always broken down, said Barton spokesman Karen Modlin.
The president has not yet weighed in.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publ...icle_7849.shtml
By JIM TANKERSLEY AND JOSHUA BOAK
Toledo Blade
Dec 20, 2005, 05:31
President Bush's corporate champions see the spoils of his administration in coal. And timber. And credit-card payments, Afghan electric lines, Japanese bank transfers and fake crab.
America's business leaders supplied more than $75 million to return Bush to the White House last year _ and he has paid dividends.
Bush administration policies, grand and obscure, have financially benefited companies or lobbying clients tied to at least 200 of the president's largest campaign fund-raisers, a Toledo Blade investigation has found. Dozens more stand to gain from Bush-backed initiatives that recently passed or await congressional approval.
The investigation included targeted tax breaks, regulatory changes, pro-business legislation, high-profile salaried appointments, and federal contracts.
Bush's policies often followed specific requests from his 548 "Pioneers" and "Rangers," who each raised at least $100,000 or $200,000 for his 2004 re-election. The help to business fund-raisers sometimes came at the expense of consumers or public health concerns.
The beneficiaries span industries and the nation. Examples include:
Timber barons who pay lower tax rates on logging sales and face fewer barriers to harvesting trees in national forests because of administrative changes and laws Bush signed.
Energy producers who dodged potential legal fees and cleanup costs after federal officials revised clean-air standards.
Heads of stock brokerages and other multinational firms, which, under a special tax incentive in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, are bringing hundreds of millions of dollars they earned or stored abroad back into the United States this year at reduced rates.
Executives of defense contractors United Technologies and The Washington Group, which won contracts potentially totaling more than $6 billion to supply American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and rebuild both countries' infrastructure. The same contractors won far less government work under President Bill Clinton.
Mining executives who tapped new veins of coal, thanks to administrative rule changes that opened swaths of hills and forests to their backhoes and left once-protected streams vulnerable to pollution.
With rare exception _ such as a California Pioneer recently implicated in a congressional bribery scandal _ the Bush supporters' benefits appear to come through legal channels of lobbying, rule-making, and legislation.
But a federal investigation of Ohio Pioneer Tom Noe, indicted in October on charges he laundered money into the president's campaign, has focused attention on Bush's network of elite fund-raisers, who accounted for at least 28 percent of Bush's $271.8 million in individual contributions for the 2004 campaign.
A Blade investigation beginning in April led to accusations by state officials that Noe stole millions of dollars the state invested in his rare-coin funds. The probe also brought the money-laundering allegations against Noe to light.
A Blade report in October showed Ohio's 30 Pioneers and Rangers have secured more than $1.2 billion from taxpayers since 2001 for their companies and lobbying clients.
All of the Pioneers and Rangers who agreed to talk to the Blade for this series said they supported Bush's ideology and style of governance and said they expected no reward but his victory.
"I was pleased he was a candidate. I liked what his father had done," said Herbert Boeckmann, a California Bush Pioneer who owns the world's largest Ford dealership. "He was a little bit of maverick, but he recognized the key was to get the job done."
A spokesman for the Republican National Committee said Bush has helped the country add 4.4 million jobs since May, 2003.
"The president's pro-growth economic policies have helped small business, families, and first-time home buyers," said the spokesman, Aaron McLear.
Some experts agree. Martin Regalia, chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said Bush embraces traditional pro-business policies, such as lowering taxes and lessening government regulations.
"When you look at the overall economy, it's doing very well with solid GDP growth and low core rates of inflation," Regalia said. "Part of the reason, certainly, is his policies."
Bush is hardly the first president to help supporters financially.
William McKinley doled government jobs to his backers after winning the 1896 presidential election. Clinton raised tariffs on soap and batteries imported from Europe as retaliation for tariffs that continent levied against the South American bananas of a Clinton supporter, Cincinnati's Carl Lindner, who later became a Bush Ranger.
In his 2004 presidential bid, Sen. John Kerry called for a 36 percent hike in the federal minimum wage, a policy supported by the AFL-CIO, a labor union whose members contributed heavily to the Democrat's failed presidential campaign.
Campaign-finance analysts question whether Bush's system of recognizing top fund-raisers _ as opposed to donors who cannot give more than $2,000 per election cycle to a presidential candidate _ provides corporate leaders with special treatment.
Steve Weisman, associate director for policy at the Campaign Finance Institute in Washington, said election law does not require candidates to reveal any details about their fund-raising networks.
"Right now, what we know is what the campaigns tell us," he said. "Shouldn't we disclose the people who get credit for arranging for these donations? Isn't there a problem that they might have some undue influence on the recipient?"
Many Pioneers and Rangers joined Bush before the 2000 election, when he was governor of Texas. They saw him as a powerful advocate for business, and they made no secret what they hoped to get from his administration.
Credit-card giant MBNA wanted to collect more of its customers' debts.
The Delaware-based company has supplied 54 million Americans with novelty credit cards displaying Elvis Presley, a charging Florida State University Seminole on horseback, or an Icelandair flight cruising above the Atlantic Ocean.
The seduction by plastic includes bonus points, "Love Me Tender" teddy bears, and occasionally personal bankruptcy.
When MBNA's customers filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy, courts wiped their credit balances away. MBNA wrote off $4.1 billion in unpaid credit-card bills last year.
To stem the losses, the company worked to change the rules. It spent nearly $20 million from 1998 to 2004 to lobby Congress on issues including bankruptcy reform. Even before Mr. Clinton killed a reform bill late in his second term, MBNA had turned to George W. Bush.
MBNA employees gave the Bush campaign more than $200,000 in 2000, the most of any company, and allowed the campaign to use an MBNA corporate jet. The new president pushed bankruptcy reform in his first term, but an unrelated congressional dispute scuttled it.
The company worked hard for Bush again last year. Former MBNA CEO Charles Cawley and Vice Chairman Lance Loring Weaver both qualified as Rangers, each raising at least $200,000 for the president's re-election.
MBNA surpassed Enron last year to become the largest corporate patron of Bush's career, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington.
The eight-year struggle for bankruptcy reform ended within 90 days of Bush's second inaugural address. The 500-page law, initially crafted by a financial services lobbyist, mandates credit counseling for prospective filers and makes it harder to escape credit-card debt.
"The legislation in effect deputizes the bankruptcy courts as collection agents for the credit-card companies," said Mark Sargent, dean of Villanova University's law school, a bankruptcy expert, and critic of the bill. "The great irony of this is that it's having your cake and eating it too. They push credit to anyone with a pulse."
Americans received 5.23 billion credit-card mailings _ 18 offers for each man, woman, and child _ in 2004, according to Vertis, a marketing consultant. About 1.6 million households filed for bankruptcy last year, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute, up from 287,570 in 1980.
The reform law's implementation in October caused a temporary spike in bankruptcy filings that will hurt MBNA's short-term profits but should reduce future bankruptcy filings, the company said in its quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Todd Zywicki, a George Mason University law professor who favors the law, testified to a Senate committee that credit-card companies would receive an additional $3 billion each year with its passage.
Based on the market share figures compiled by the industry analyst Web site cardweb.com, the law will give MBNA about $380 million more annually. That figure would feed the company's yearly profit of $2.6 billion.
In June, after the law passed, Bank of America agreed to purchase MBNA for $35 billion, 31 percent above the company's market value at the time. An analyst called the sale price "rich."
MBNA representatives declined to comment. However, Philip Corwin, an attorney for the American Bankers Association, said the legislation was approved to curb abuses of the bankruptcy system rather than boost the revenues of credit-card companies.
"This is not a windfall," he said.
Pacific Seafood employee Gilberto Rojas cleans channel rock fish in Eureka, Calif. Fish baron Frank Dulcich and his family-owned string of seafood processors, the Pacific Seafood Group, benefited from a federal grant and a change in fishing rules after hiring a lobbying firm with two Bush Pioneers.
For years, the fish baron and his family-owned string of seafood processors, the Pacific Seafood Group, fought a steady current of government fishing restrictions.
Some schools of rockfish, once a staple of West Coast fishing, had dwindled. Pacific's Oregon-based executives and lobbyists complained that federal scientists couldn't fully explain why and that regulators responded to the shortage by limiting catches too severely. Dulcich penned a 2000 op-ed article titled, "Seafood community set adrift by Congress."
A lobbyist for Dulcich and other processors told a federal commission in 2002 that the government's caution in protecting ocean life was "like the difference between birth-control pills and abstinence: You have a 95 percent chance of preventing pregnancy with the former and a 100 percent chance with the latter, but abstinence is nowhere near as rewarding."
The same year, federal officials restricted fishing of whiting, which processors use to make imitation crab and frozen fish sticks. Commercial fishermen catch more whiting off the Pacific Coast than any other fish. Pacific Seafood says it handles more of it than any land-based processor.
Dulcich, who previously had donated to Democratic and Republican congressmen in the Pacific Northwest, upped his political activity in 2002. He hired the Gallatin Group, a lobbying firm that boasted two Bush Pioneers.
Soon Dulcich scored a meeting with the U.S. commerce secretary, escorted a top federal fisheries regulator along the Oregon coast, and joined the ranks of Bush Pioneers.
Bush signed a bill early in 2004 directing $950,000 from the federal treasury that helped Pacific Seafood treat wastewater on the Oregon coast.
Citing a new study, the Bush administration pulled whiting from the "overfished" list, increasing catch limits nearly 70 percent and sending more fish to processors. A spokesman for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which sets fishing levels, said whiting populations rebounded strongly following the decision. Another official says it appears to have been a mistake to restrict the fish in the first place.
"When we make decisions about taking things off the overfished list," said NOAA spokesman Susan Buchanan, "it has nothing to do with politicians and everything to do with science."
Dulcich and Gallatin lobbyists did not return phone calls seeking comment.
Much of the West Coast fishing industry is gasping for air, as trawlers sit unused in docks and some fishermen look for new jobs. But Pacific Seafood reeled in an estimated $700 million in revenue last year, according to the trade magazine Seafood Business, which ranks the company third among American seafood suppliers.
Fishermen who have battled Dulcich over crab and fish prices dub his company "the Wal-Mart of the Seas."
Several pending laws, many supported by Bush, could help Pacific Seafood grow even faster. One would guarantee Pacific and other processors a chunk of the whiting catch each year. Bush publicly opposes such quotas, but he signed a similar measure for Alaskan crab last year. Federal officials added a seat for Dulcich on a committee studying quotas last year.
Another plan would allow decommissioned off-shore oil rigs to transform into floating fish farms, guaranteeing seafood processors a steady fish supply, sparing oil companies millions in cleanup costs, and raising concerns about farmed fish spreading disease to wild stocks.
Bush recently proposed an overhaul of the nation's signature fisheries management law, including changes that conservation groups say would weaken restrictions on overfishing. Some paragraphs of the plan match a proposal drafted by seafood processors nearly word for word.
"Frank is a smart, very personable guy," said Peter Huhtala, senior policy director for the Pacific Marine Conservation Council, which works on fisheries issues. "But in order to keep growing ... and adding to his wealth, I think you're seeing some politics at play, too."
Other Pioneers and Rangers hope Bush's policies will add to their wealth soon.
They include Wall Street traders banking on a 2003 dividend tax cut to boost stock prices, doctors seeking caps on their lawsuit liability, pharmaceutical executives waiting for a new federal prescription drug plan to kick millions of dollars their way, and the wife of the chairman of the Hallmark greeting card company, which is lobbying to slow the increase in postage rates.
In some cases, though, the wish lists of Bush supporters clash. For example, the automotive industry _ with all of its moving parts.
Among Bush's top fund-raisers is Nicholas Taubman, former CEO of Advance Auto Parts Inc. and the recently appointed U.S. ambassador to Romania.
Taubman, who did not return a call to The Blade, supports controversial legislation _ the "Right to Repair Act" _ that would bolster his $4.65 billion company. It would force automakers to share information on car parts and technology.
The knowledge would help independent mechanics work more effectively on newer cars and promote healthy competition for repair business, said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, who is sponsoring the bill. Those mechanics need parts from affordable sources, such as Taubman's company and competitor AutoZone.
Automakers and dealers are fighting the bill, claiming Advanced Auto Parts and others are less interested in promoting the free market and more interested in making money off of cheaper replacement parts.
Connected dealership magnates who oppose the bill, such as Bob Tuttle and John Click, are also Pioneers and Rangers. So are Kenneth Zangara, a large-scale Dodge dealer in Albuquerque, N.M., and Mr. Boeckmann, the Los Angeles owner of Galpin Motors.
Barton has delayed the legislation for years, hoping the sides could settle amicably. But talks have always broken down, said Barton spokesman Karen Modlin.
The president has not yet weighed in.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publ...icle_7849.shtml
Hurry hurry get’em while they last, Presidents and Congress critters to the highest bidder. Invest a half a mill in one and make ten million…beats making money the old fashion way….
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Dec 20 2005, 08:33 PM)
But foreign versus domestic cars is different?
I set this up the way I did for a reason. The resident lefties have often said loss of overseas production was a matter of national security. Somehow oil doesn't count.
And even you ought to know economics can't be separated from politics in the real world.
[right][snapback]165804[/snapback][/right]
I set this up the way I did for a reason. The resident lefties have often said loss of overseas production was a matter of national security. Somehow oil doesn't count.
And even you ought to know economics can't be separated from politics in the real world.
[right][snapback]165804[/snapback][/right]
Ok, I can see that you're conversing with somebody else.
"Even I" ought to know. That's rich.
Jeb Bush Signs Bill Banning Lobbyist Gifts
Tue Dec 20,11:56 PM ET
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Gov.
Jeb Bush signed a law Tuesday banning lobbyists from plying lawmakers and officials with food, wine and gifts.
Bush said the new law moves Florida from the middle nationally to "the front of the pack in terms of sending a signal on integrity."
The law — which covers all state and local government officials and employees — was passed during a special legislative session earlier this month and takes effect New Year's Day.
The law does not apply to campaign contributions.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051221/ap_on_re_us/gifts_ban
Window dressing. It's a start but nothing to write to lil bart about.
Tue Dec 20,11:56 PM ET
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Gov.
Jeb Bush signed a law Tuesday banning lobbyists from plying lawmakers and officials with food, wine and gifts.
Bush said the new law moves Florida from the middle nationally to "the front of the pack in terms of sending a signal on integrity."
The law — which covers all state and local government officials and employees — was passed during a special legislative session earlier this month and takes effect New Year's Day.
The law does not apply to campaign contributions.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051221/ap_on_re_us/gifts_ban
Window dressing. It's a start but nothing to write to lil bart about.
Exciting news of Progressive Ethics and Values evolving in Canada.....
Canada Legalizes "Sex Clubs" - "14-year-olds will be exploited"
By Gudrun Schultz
OTTAWA, Ontario, December 21, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that group sex in publicly accessible venues is legal.
In a ruling handed down this morning, Canada's Supreme Court has declared it is legal for clubs to provide opportunities for group sex. As long as consent is given, the area is somewhat private, and no payment is directly involved, partner exchanging or "swinging" and group participation in sexual acts is not considered illegal.
"The decision is certainly in line with the tendency of this court to throw out any restrictions to behavior," said Gwen Landolt, vice president of Real Women of Canada. "The courts are gradually reducing public concern about morality and behavior that is offensive. Judges don't have legitimacy."
"There is a real trend to break down moral principles in Canadian society. Those principles have been built based on human experience about what is in the best interest of society."
With sex clubs now protected by Canada's supreme court, the potential social repercussions are staggering. The age of sexual consent in Canada is 14. Canadian teenagers can now legally participate in group sex offered by clubs (so long as alcohol is not sold on the premises).
"The implications are horrendous," said Landolt. "It's an exploitation of human sexuality. 14-year-olds will be exploited."
The Supreme Court ruling addressed two Quebec Court of Appeal decisions that had arrived at opposite conclusions. The owners of two Montreal 'swingers' clubs were charged with operating bawdy houses, in both cases involving group sex. One was convicted, the other acquitted. The owner who was convicted appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. The Crown appealed the acquittal of the other owner.
The Supreme Court's decision was based upon the definition of what constitutes a public place and an 'indecent act'. (Prostitution was not a factor in either case, even though payment was required at both locations before entry.)
One club was for members only, and the sexual activity took place in designated rooms, sometimes with on-lookers. The other club, which had a cursory doorman in place, used a moveable, transparent curtain to block off the dance floor at regular intervals, and the activity took place behind the curtain. In both clubs, according to the owners, entry was granted to adult patrons after a fee was paid and the person was notified about the nature of the club.
In general, case law has defined an indecent act as that behavior which either offends the community or has the potential to cause harm to the community in some way.
According to Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, group sex neither offends nor harms the Canadian public.
Supreme Court Justices Major, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron agreed with McLachlin's ruling. Justice Michel Bastarache and Justice Louis LeBel disagreed.
TIME TO OPEN A SECOND RANCH IN CANADA.
MAINSTREAM ANIMAL SEXUALS OF AMERICA
Canada Legalizes "Sex Clubs" - "14-year-olds will be exploited"
By Gudrun Schultz
OTTAWA, Ontario, December 21, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that group sex in publicly accessible venues is legal.
In a ruling handed down this morning, Canada's Supreme Court has declared it is legal for clubs to provide opportunities for group sex. As long as consent is given, the area is somewhat private, and no payment is directly involved, partner exchanging or "swinging" and group participation in sexual acts is not considered illegal.
"The decision is certainly in line with the tendency of this court to throw out any restrictions to behavior," said Gwen Landolt, vice president of Real Women of Canada. "The courts are gradually reducing public concern about morality and behavior that is offensive. Judges don't have legitimacy."
"There is a real trend to break down moral principles in Canadian society. Those principles have been built based on human experience about what is in the best interest of society."
With sex clubs now protected by Canada's supreme court, the potential social repercussions are staggering. The age of sexual consent in Canada is 14. Canadian teenagers can now legally participate in group sex offered by clubs (so long as alcohol is not sold on the premises).
"The implications are horrendous," said Landolt. "It's an exploitation of human sexuality. 14-year-olds will be exploited."
The Supreme Court ruling addressed two Quebec Court of Appeal decisions that had arrived at opposite conclusions. The owners of two Montreal 'swingers' clubs were charged with operating bawdy houses, in both cases involving group sex. One was convicted, the other acquitted. The owner who was convicted appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. The Crown appealed the acquittal of the other owner.
The Supreme Court's decision was based upon the definition of what constitutes a public place and an 'indecent act'. (Prostitution was not a factor in either case, even though payment was required at both locations before entry.)
One club was for members only, and the sexual activity took place in designated rooms, sometimes with on-lookers. The other club, which had a cursory doorman in place, used a moveable, transparent curtain to block off the dance floor at regular intervals, and the activity took place behind the curtain. In both clubs, according to the owners, entry was granted to adult patrons after a fee was paid and the person was notified about the nature of the club.
In general, case law has defined an indecent act as that behavior which either offends the community or has the potential to cause harm to the community in some way.
According to Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, group sex neither offends nor harms the Canadian public.
Supreme Court Justices Major, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron agreed with McLachlin's ruling. Justice Michel Bastarache and Justice Louis LeBel disagreed.
TIME TO OPEN A SECOND RANCH IN CANADA.
MAINSTREAM ANIMAL SEXUALS OF AMERICA
Oh my. Hey Sherry, merry Christmas ... errr....happy holidays...happy birthday ... happy ....Lobbyist Nears Terms on Plea Deal
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
Published: December 22, 2005
WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 - Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist under indictment for fraud in South Florida, is expected to complete a plea agreement in the Miami criminal case, setting the stage for him to become a crucial witness in a broad federal corruption investigation, people with direct knowledge of the case said.
One participant in the case said the deal could be made final as early as next week.
The terms of the plea deal have not been completed, and the negotiations are especially complicated because they involve prosecutors both in Miami and in Washington, where Mr. Abramoff is being investigated in a separate influence-peddling inquiry, participants said. Details of what he feels comfortable pleading guilty to are "probably largely worked out," the participant said, while the details of the prison sentence are less resolved.
Some of the details are still "in flux," said a participant who, like others interviewed, was granted anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks.
"Anything can happen," the participant said, adding that the agreement could fall apart. Another person with detailed knowledge of the case said that while negotiations were continuing, the deal could take longer than another week to be settled.
But after a lengthy bargaining phase, Mr. Abramoff's lawyers and prosecutors in the Florida case appear closer to resolving several of the central issues in the plea deal, in which the defendant would receive a reduced prison sentence - most likely in the range of five to seven years, though that is fluid - in exchange for pleading guilty and agreeing to testify against his former associates.
Mr. Abramoff was indicted in Florida on Aug. 11 on charges stemming from his purchase of a fleet of casino boats in 2000. Prosecutors said Mr. Abramoff and a business partner, Adam Kidan, falsified documents and lied about their financing in order to complete the purchase. Mr. Kidan pleaded guilty last week, leaving Mr. Abramoff to face six criminal counts and up to 30 years in prison as case's sole defendant.
At the same time, prosecutors in Washington have been sifting through evidence of what they believe is a corruption scheme involving at least a dozen lawmakers and their former staff members, many of whom worked closely on legislation with Mr. Abramoff and accepted gifts and favors from him. Although Mr. Abramoff is also in negotiations in that case, it is unclear whether a settlement can be reached in time for both agreements to be announced at once.
Michael Scanlon, a close business associate of Mr. Abramoff in Washington who also worked on the SunCruz casino boat deal, pleaded guilty in October in exchange for testifying in both inquiries. The case, being worked on by dozens of investigators as part of a multiagency task force, has expanded in recent months to put senior Republican officials and prominent party lobbyists under immense scrutiny.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/politics...artner=homepage
Still going...
By Jacob Hacker | bio
From: Politics
The scorecard that most political analysts will probably post after today's big Senate showdown is one for two. Republicans -- with the help of Dick Cheney, who rushed back from the Middle East to cast the tie-breaking vote -- managed to squeeze through their big budget package, complete with around $40 billion in spending cuts focused mostly on the least advantaged. However, when they tried, in their second audacious move, to cram ANWR oil drilling into a must-pass defense appropriations bill, they were narrowly rebuffed by a successful filibuster.
The normal give and take of politics, right? Win one, lose one?
Wrong.
Dec 21, 2005 -- 04:58:51 PM EST
The budget is far and away the more important of these two battles, and here the Republican leadership showed that it's not in the slightest bit willing to relinquish control to GOP moderates or change its overall course. The big lesson of today's Senate showdown is that on the overriding tax and budget issues that have defined the GOP's course over the last eleven years (and especially over the last five), Republican leaders and most of their rank-and-file are still willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their larger conservative goals.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has said plenty about what's in the final conference agreement, so we refer you to their fine research for the details. The subject that's not getting sufficient play, however, is how top Republicans have operated in recent weeks. Everyone said they were on the ropes, everyone said they would have to compromise with their moderate wing, maybe even with Democrats. (In a critical review of our book in the New York Times Book Review, for example, Matt Bai insisted that our thesis that Republicans had figured out how to ram unpopular conservative legislation through Congress had been "effectively disproved" because moderates had stopped the GOP leadership's most recent budget shenanigans.)
Instead, Republican leaders used every play in their remarkable playbook for pursuing radical policies, as well as adding a few new moves. For the first time in the history of the modern budget process, they split the tax cuts from the spending part of the bill, so they could talk about a "deficit-reduction" package even as they planned to cut taxes by more than twice as much as they cut spending. They passed a conservative House spending bill, and a more moderate Senate alternative. Then, they pulled the bill way to the right in the conference committee, excluding Democrats from the deliberations and adopting 80-90 percent of the House-passed program cuts -- cuts that weren't even broached in the Senate version. And finally, they slammed the bill through the House and Senate.
Think "slammed" is too strong a description? Well, in the House, they introduced the nearly-800-page bill at 1 in the morning; the vote was held four hours later. To get around the normal requirement that members of Congress have at least a little time to read what they're voting on, they invoked what's known as "martial law" -- on a party-line vote, of course.
In the Senate, the process was just as dramatic. As Mark Schmitt noted in the wee hours of this morning, "the fate of everything in the Reconciliation bill -- student loan cuts that...will add $551 a year to the burden on middle-class families; $16 billion in Medicaid cuts; changes to welfare that are almost as significant as those passed after four years of high-profile debate in 1996, and much else -- will be decided by 9:10 a.m. tomorrow, that is, today. This is barely 48 hours after the conference report was revealed and shoveled through the House, under a procedure known without irony as "martial law." And, of course, conference reports can't be amended even in the Senate, meaning that all of the dramatic movement toward the conservative House bill could not be undone without taking down the bill itself.
So there you have it: In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, confident voices said the national agenda would change. Republicans would tack to the center, even hard-core conservatives would recognize the nation's unmet needs, moderates within the party would stand up and fight back at last. But the GOP steamroller just rolled right over the momentary decency and caution prompted by the nation's disaster.
If there's a silver lining in all this, it's that Democrats are crying foul as they've never cried foul before. And they managed to make a small change to the budget bill that forces it to go back to the House. Since House members have already headed home, it's possible that Republicans in the House will have to pass the slightly modified budget -- and it's a foregone conclusion they will -- just as they are gearing up to pass their big tax cuts for the well off. That might induce a sense of shame in moderate Republican quarters.
Then again, it might not.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/21/165851/78
By Jacob Hacker | bio
From: Politics
The scorecard that most political analysts will probably post after today's big Senate showdown is one for two. Republicans -- with the help of Dick Cheney, who rushed back from the Middle East to cast the tie-breaking vote -- managed to squeeze through their big budget package, complete with around $40 billion in spending cuts focused mostly on the least advantaged. However, when they tried, in their second audacious move, to cram ANWR oil drilling into a must-pass defense appropriations bill, they were narrowly rebuffed by a successful filibuster.
The normal give and take of politics, right? Win one, lose one?
Wrong.
Dec 21, 2005 -- 04:58:51 PM EST
The budget is far and away the more important of these two battles, and here the Republican leadership showed that it's not in the slightest bit willing to relinquish control to GOP moderates or change its overall course. The big lesson of today's Senate showdown is that on the overriding tax and budget issues that have defined the GOP's course over the last eleven years (and especially over the last five), Republican leaders and most of their rank-and-file are still willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their larger conservative goals.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has said plenty about what's in the final conference agreement, so we refer you to their fine research for the details. The subject that's not getting sufficient play, however, is how top Republicans have operated in recent weeks. Everyone said they were on the ropes, everyone said they would have to compromise with their moderate wing, maybe even with Democrats. (In a critical review of our book in the New York Times Book Review, for example, Matt Bai insisted that our thesis that Republicans had figured out how to ram unpopular conservative legislation through Congress had been "effectively disproved" because moderates had stopped the GOP leadership's most recent budget shenanigans.)
Instead, Republican leaders used every play in their remarkable playbook for pursuing radical policies, as well as adding a few new moves. For the first time in the history of the modern budget process, they split the tax cuts from the spending part of the bill, so they could talk about a "deficit-reduction" package even as they planned to cut taxes by more than twice as much as they cut spending. They passed a conservative House spending bill, and a more moderate Senate alternative. Then, they pulled the bill way to the right in the conference committee, excluding Democrats from the deliberations and adopting 80-90 percent of the House-passed program cuts -- cuts that weren't even broached in the Senate version. And finally, they slammed the bill through the House and Senate.
Think "slammed" is too strong a description? Well, in the House, they introduced the nearly-800-page bill at 1 in the morning; the vote was held four hours later. To get around the normal requirement that members of Congress have at least a little time to read what they're voting on, they invoked what's known as "martial law" -- on a party-line vote, of course.
In the Senate, the process was just as dramatic. As Mark Schmitt noted in the wee hours of this morning, "the fate of everything in the Reconciliation bill -- student loan cuts that...will add $551 a year to the burden on middle-class families; $16 billion in Medicaid cuts; changes to welfare that are almost as significant as those passed after four years of high-profile debate in 1996, and much else -- will be decided by 9:10 a.m. tomorrow, that is, today. This is barely 48 hours after the conference report was revealed and shoveled through the House, under a procedure known without irony as "martial law." And, of course, conference reports can't be amended even in the Senate, meaning that all of the dramatic movement toward the conservative House bill could not be undone without taking down the bill itself.
So there you have it: In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, confident voices said the national agenda would change. Republicans would tack to the center, even hard-core conservatives would recognize the nation's unmet needs, moderates within the party would stand up and fight back at last. But the GOP steamroller just rolled right over the momentary decency and caution prompted by the nation's disaster.
If there's a silver lining in all this, it's that Democrats are crying foul as they've never cried foul before. And they managed to make a small change to the budget bill that forces it to go back to the House. Since House members have already headed home, it's possible that Republicans in the House will have to pass the slightly modified budget -- and it's a foregone conclusion they will -- just as they are gearing up to pass their big tax cuts for the well off. That might induce a sense of shame in moderate Republican quarters.
Then again, it might not.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/21/165851/78
Och, the poor, poor Sufferers of Potomac Fever! Gie 'em som pity, will ye not?
They are only 3 months late in passng the budget bills, as usual, even though the original proposal was provided them on time according to the law that established the fiscal year process from October through September (it had been July through June a few decades ago) which change was done to give them more time to properly address themselves to the priority activity. Since the passage of that extra time they have managed only on very rare occassion to actually meet the deadlines set in law. Proving yet again the old saw "Work (pardon the oxymoron as it applies to The Sufferers) expands to fill the time allotted."
These pitiable, overworked (and underpaid I am sure in their own minds) slaves of government have exactly no one to blame except themselves (fat chance of that ever coming to pass!) for their plight. They set up the game and then refuse to play by the rules they designed. And then complain that "It's not fair!"
They are absolutely 100% correct - it's not.
To us their constituents. Congress gets an "F" in customer service, with no improvement in sight, in hope, or dreams. Doesn't matter which political stripe's in charge - they fail to do the job they are charged with. But oh, how they can rush to the microphones and cameras to do their pissant imitations of Pagliaccio.
It's bad theater and worse yet - bad government. And still we pay for the tickets.
And they count on it.
They are only 3 months late in passng the budget bills, as usual, even though the original proposal was provided them on time according to the law that established the fiscal year process from October through September (it had been July through June a few decades ago) which change was done to give them more time to properly address themselves to the priority activity. Since the passage of that extra time they have managed only on very rare occassion to actually meet the deadlines set in law. Proving yet again the old saw "Work (pardon the oxymoron as it applies to The Sufferers) expands to fill the time allotted."
These pitiable, overworked (and underpaid I am sure in their own minds) slaves of government have exactly no one to blame except themselves (fat chance of that ever coming to pass!) for their plight. They set up the game and then refuse to play by the rules they designed. And then complain that "It's not fair!"
They are absolutely 100% correct - it's not.
To us their constituents. Congress gets an "F" in customer service, with no improvement in sight, in hope, or dreams. Doesn't matter which political stripe's in charge - they fail to do the job they are charged with. But oh, how they can rush to the microphones and cameras to do their pissant imitations of Pagliaccio.
It's bad theater and worse yet - bad government. And still we pay for the tickets.
And they count on it.
QUOTE(Russ Logan @ Dec 22 2005, 08:14 AM)
To us their constituents. Congress gets an "F" in customer service, with no improvement in sight, in hope, or dreams. Doesn't matter which political stripe's in charge - they fail to do the job they are charged with. But oh, how they can rush to the microphones and cameras to do their pissant imitations of Pagliaccio.
[right][snapback]166585[/snapback][/right]
They're all arrogant bastards, but what else do you expect from pampered politicians? It's an imperfect workplace like most.
a "B" is imperfect
an "F" is total failure
an "F" is total failure
Law says 30 Sept. Today is 22 Dec. I'd say that qualifies for the failing grade.
But they want to go on vacation.
Funny - us poor peons fail to comply with the law, wonder if the authorities would let us blow off the penalty and take a vacation?
Hear that derisive laughter? Guess not.
BUT WE LET THEM DO SO!
I'm sick of their irresponsibility and disregard for the law being passed off as responsible governance.
But they want to go on vacation.
Funny - us poor peons fail to comply with the law, wonder if the authorities would let us blow off the penalty and take a vacation?
Hear that derisive laughter? Guess not.
BUT WE LET THEM DO SO!
I'm sick of their irresponsibility and disregard for the law being passed off as responsible governance.
it gave us 911
davis,
I saw an article that said Abramoff could rat out a dozen lawmakers and staff. Sphincter muscles are clamping shut in all of DC.
I saw an article that said Abramoff could rat out a dozen lawmakers and staff. Sphincter muscles are clamping shut in all of DC.
inyer,
Get my mail?
Get my mail?
"computers" photos didn't come through
QUOTE(Goatman @ Dec 22 2005, 01:43 AM)
Exciting news of Progressive Ethics and Values evolving in Canada.....
Canada Legalizes "Sex Clubs" - "14-year-olds will be exploited"
By Gudrun Schultz
OTTAWA, Ontario, December 21, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that group sex in publicly accessible venues is legal.
In a ruling handed down this morning, Canada's Supreme Court has declared it is legal for clubs to provide opportunities for group sex. As long as consent is given, the area is somewhat private, and no payment is directly involved, partner exchanging or "swinging" and group participation in sexual acts is not considered illegal.
"The decision is certainly in line with the tendency of this court to throw out any restrictions to behavior," said Gwen Landolt, vice president of Real Women of Canada. "The courts are gradually reducing public concern about morality and behavior that is offensive. Judges don't have legitimacy."
"There is a real trend to break down moral principles in Canadian society. Those principles have been built based on human experience about what is in the best interest of society."
With sex clubs now protected by Canada's supreme court, the potential social repercussions are staggering. The age of sexual consent in Canada is 14. Canadian teenagers can now legally participate in group sex offered by clubs (so long as alcohol is not sold on the premises).
"The implications are horrendous," said Landolt. "It's an exploitation of human sexuality. 14-year-olds will be exploited."
[right][snapback]166554[/snapback][/right]
Canada Legalizes "Sex Clubs" - "14-year-olds will be exploited"
By Gudrun Schultz
OTTAWA, Ontario, December 21, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that group sex in publicly accessible venues is legal.
In a ruling handed down this morning, Canada's Supreme Court has declared it is legal for clubs to provide opportunities for group sex. As long as consent is given, the area is somewhat private, and no payment is directly involved, partner exchanging or "swinging" and group participation in sexual acts is not considered illegal.
"The decision is certainly in line with the tendency of this court to throw out any restrictions to behavior," said Gwen Landolt, vice president of Real Women of Canada. "The courts are gradually reducing public concern about morality and behavior that is offensive. Judges don't have legitimacy."
"There is a real trend to break down moral principles in Canadian society. Those principles have been built based on human experience about what is in the best interest of society."
With sex clubs now protected by Canada's supreme court, the potential social repercussions are staggering. The age of sexual consent in Canada is 14. Canadian teenagers can now legally participate in group sex offered by clubs (so long as alcohol is not sold on the premises).
"The implications are horrendous," said Landolt. "It's an exploitation of human sexuality. 14-year-olds will be exploited."
[right][snapback]166554[/snapback][/right]
QUOTE
Canadians would Vote to Eliminate Gay "Marriage" Too if given the Chance
LifeSite ^ | November 4, 2004
Posted on 11/05/2004 8:08:59 AM PST by NYer
OTTAWA, November 4, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Canadians would reject same-sex "marriage" if given the chance to vote for it, as voters in the US did Tuesday, Gwen Landolt, national vice president of REAL Women of Canada, said Wednesday.
"In many regards, we (Canadians) are no different," she said in comments to the Canadian Press. "We're just ordinary people and we're restricted in having a voice here. These referendums show that when you allow people to speak, it's just common sense: You want to have a man and a woman because children need a mother and father."
Voters in 11 US states voted overwhelmingly to discard same-sex "marriage" in initiatives included in Tuesday's US presidential election. In addition, nine states voted to make same-sex civil unions and any counterfeit of true marriage illegal.
"Why on earth can Canadians not have the same democratic right to express their opinion?" as Americans do, Landolt asked. "What we have in Canada is an elitist decision by a handful of judges who are appointed and not accountable."
"People are recognizing the value of family," Alberta Conservative MP Myron Thompson said, speaking about the US re-election of conservative, pro-family President George W. Bush. "Strong families make strong countries and that gives me some enthusiasm."
LifeSite ^ | November 4, 2004
Posted on 11/05/2004 8:08:59 AM PST by NYer
OTTAWA, November 4, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Canadians would reject same-sex "marriage" if given the chance to vote for it, as voters in the US did Tuesday, Gwen Landolt, national vice president of REAL Women of Canada, said Wednesday.
"In many regards, we (Canadians) are no different," she said in comments to the Canadian Press. "We're just ordinary people and we're restricted in having a voice here. These referendums show that when you allow people to speak, it's just common sense: You want to have a man and a woman because children need a mother and father."
Voters in 11 US states voted overwhelmingly to discard same-sex "marriage" in initiatives included in Tuesday's US presidential election. In addition, nine states voted to make same-sex civil unions and any counterfeit of true marriage illegal.
"Why on earth can Canadians not have the same democratic right to express their opinion?" as Americans do, Landolt asked. "What we have in Canada is an elitist decision by a handful of judges who are appointed and not accountable."
"People are recognizing the value of family," Alberta Conservative MP Myron Thompson said, speaking about the US re-election of conservative, pro-family President George W. Bush. "Strong families make strong countries and that gives me some enthusiasm."
QUOTE
Monks in the middle of fracas at women's meeting
Paul Waldie
National Post
A Canadian women's group is being accused of stacking its delegation to a United Nations conference on equal rights for women with monks.
The religious delegates, sponsored by REAL Women of Canada, have taken over key seats during meetings on abortion and sexual orientation at this week's UN Commission on the Status of Women.
"The goals of these monks is clear," said Joan Grant-Cummings, head of the National Action Committee for the Status of Women, a rival group to REAL Women. "The point is to get themselves and the legitimate organizations kicked out of these proceedings. REAL Women is stooping to all-time lows."
She said the men, dressed in grey and brown robes, have been disrupting meetings and causing chaos.
Gwen Landolt, national vice-president of REAL Women, scoffed at Ms. Grant-Cummings' comments and called the NAC delegation "donkeys."
She said REAL Women's 60 delegates to the conference are simply trying to stop what they believe is the commission's anti-family agenda.
REAL Women's delegates "are just raising up and speaking out," Ms. Landolt said yesterday. She added that the delegates being accused by the NAC of causing trouble are priests, not monks.
The United Nations meetings have turned into a fight between groups led largely by REAL Women and NAC over the implementation of a United Nations action plan adopted in 1995 at the Fourth World Conference on Women.
The commission's meetings in New York are in preparation for a special United Nations session in June that is dedicated to reaffirming the plan and reviewing its success.
Canada's delegation has taken a lead role in the meeting and represents a group of nations that includes several European countries and the United States.
The plan covers 12 areas, including women in poverty, women and health and women in power. It also touches on abortion and rights for homosexuals.
"There is some pro-choice language in it, in terms of sexual and reproductive health rights," said Suki Beavers, a delegate to the meeting and director of the Ottawa-based Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Cooperation.
"There are all sorts of really organized things going on by the right wing that are very disruptive to the caucuses and to the negotiations that are currently under way," she added.
But Ms. Landolt said Ms. Beavers and NAC members are upset because their agenda is not being adopted. She said REAL Women delegates decided this week to start speaking out at the meetings to change the focus of the action plan.
"Our position is, if [REAL Women delegates] don't like it, speak out, don't let them ram it down our throat," she said.
Ms. Landolt added that Canada's delegation is a disgrace and "is made up of nothing but radical feminists."
Paul Waldie
National Post
A Canadian women's group is being accused of stacking its delegation to a United Nations conference on equal rights for women with monks.
The religious delegates, sponsored by REAL Women of Canada, have taken over key seats during meetings on abortion and sexual orientation at this week's UN Commission on the Status of Women.
"The goals of these monks is clear," said Joan Grant-Cummings, head of the National Action Committee for the Status of Women, a rival group to REAL Women. "The point is to get themselves and the legitimate organizations kicked out of these proceedings. REAL Women is stooping to all-time lows."
She said the men, dressed in grey and brown robes, have been disrupting meetings and causing chaos.
Gwen Landolt, national vice-president of REAL Women, scoffed at Ms. Grant-Cummings' comments and called the NAC delegation "donkeys."
She said REAL Women's 60 delegates to the conference are simply trying to stop what they believe is the commission's anti-family agenda.
REAL Women's delegates "are just raising up and speaking out," Ms. Landolt said yesterday. She added that the delegates being accused by the NAC of causing trouble are priests, not monks.
The United Nations meetings have turned into a fight between groups led largely by REAL Women and NAC over the implementation of a United Nations action plan adopted in 1995 at the Fourth World Conference on Women.
The commission's meetings in New York are in preparation for a special United Nations session in June that is dedicated to reaffirming the plan and reviewing its success.
Canada's delegation has taken a lead role in the meeting and represents a group of nations that includes several European countries and the United States.
The plan covers 12 areas, including women in poverty, women and health and women in power. It also touches on abortion and rights for homosexuals.
"There is some pro-choice language in it, in terms of sexual and reproductive health rights," said Suki Beavers, a delegate to the meeting and director of the Ottawa-based Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Cooperation.
"There are all sorts of really organized things going on by the right wing that are very disruptive to the caucuses and to the negotiations that are currently under way," she added.
But Ms. Landolt said Ms. Beavers and NAC members are upset because their agenda is not being adopted. She said REAL Women delegates decided this week to start speaking out at the meetings to change the focus of the action plan.
"Our position is, if [REAL Women delegates] don't like it, speak out, don't let them ram it down our throat," she said.
Ms. Landolt added that Canada's delegation is a disgrace and "is made up of nothing but radical feminists."
http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0003/np00031o.htm
QUOTE
Ralph Reed encourages grassroots activism
By Patricia Paddey
ChristianWeek
TORONTO, ON -- The Institute for Canadian Values (ICV) wants to mobilize people of faith to become politically engaged in this country and brought in an American heavyweight to help them do it.
At a November 30 ICV fundraising dinner, Ralph Reed -- former executive director of the Christian Coalition and the man credited with uniting millions of American evangelicals to the cause of the Republican party -- told a crowd of about 500 to "get on your work boots and tennis shoes" and work on the election campaign "like it all depends on you and pray like it all depends on God."
Before the dinner, Reed said his purpose in coming to Canada was "not to become involved in the election but simply to lay out a vision" for how people of faith could see conservative values reflected in government.
"Person to person, neighbour to neighbour, friend to friend is how you win," he said.
The evening raised more than $267,000 for the ICV, a national think-tank dedicated to advancing knowledge of public policy issues from Judeo-Christian perspectives.
The dinner was part of the two-day Canadian Values Conference 2005 held at Canada Christian College. Speakers included Joseph Ben-Ami, executive director of the ICV, Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College, Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of the Canada Family Action Coalition, Tristan Emmanuel, executive director of the Equipping Christians for the Public-Square Centre, Phil Horgan, president of the Catholic Civil Rights League and Gwen Landolt, vice-president of REAL Women of Canada.
McVety said there has been an erosion of religious freedom in Canada, but it can be turned around "if people of faith rise up and embrace democracy." He recommended people educate themselves regarding issues, volunteer for local candidates and call for "all candidates" meetings in places of worship across the country.
"If you want what they have," said McVety, referring to the United States, "then you must do what they did."
Emmanuel said it's important for people of faith to talk about what they're for rather than what they're against "to create an environment that facilitates the free expression of religious convictions openly and without shame, thereby contributing to political dialogue."
Horgan said every good thing comes from God, including politics. "Politics is the basis by which we can change governments without war," he said.
Ben-Ami, a devout Jew, said to be effective in their political engagement, people of faith must present a positive message, be informed, patient, polite and learn to articulate their positions clearly.
"We're about building up our families and building up our country," he said.
By Patricia Paddey
ChristianWeek
TORONTO, ON -- The Institute for Canadian Values (ICV) wants to mobilize people of faith to become politically engaged in this country and brought in an American heavyweight to help them do it.
At a November 30 ICV fundraising dinner, Ralph Reed -- former executive director of the Christian Coalition and the man credited with uniting millions of American evangelicals to the cause of the Republican party -- told a crowd of about 500 to "get on your work boots and tennis shoes" and work on the election campaign "like it all depends on you and pray like it all depends on God."
Before the dinner, Reed said his purpose in coming to Canada was "not to become involved in the election but simply to lay out a vision" for how people of faith could see conservative values reflected in government.
"Person to person, neighbour to neighbour, friend to friend is how you win," he said.
The evening raised more than $267,000 for the ICV, a national think-tank dedicated to advancing knowledge of public policy issues from Judeo-Christian perspectives.
The dinner was part of the two-day Canadian Values Conference 2005 held at Canada Christian College. Speakers included Joseph Ben-Ami, executive director of the ICV, Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College, Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of the Canada Family Action Coalition, Tristan Emmanuel, executive director of the Equipping Christians for the Public-Square Centre, Phil Horgan, president of the Catholic Civil Rights League and Gwen Landolt, vice-president of REAL Women of Canada.
McVety said there has been an erosion of religious freedom in Canada, but it can be turned around "if people of faith rise up and embrace democracy." He recommended people educate themselves regarding issues, volunteer for local candidates and call for "all candidates" meetings in places of worship across the country.
"If you want what they have," said McVety, referring to the United States, "then you must do what they did."
Emmanuel said it's important for people of faith to talk about what they're for rather than what they're against "to create an environment that facilitates the free expression of religious convictions openly and without shame, thereby contributing to political dialogue."
Horgan said every good thing comes from God, including politics. "Politics is the basis by which we can change governments without war," he said.
Ben-Ami, a devout Jew, said to be effective in their political engagement, people of faith must present a positive message, be informed, patient, polite and learn to articulate their positions clearly.
"We're about building up our families and building up our country," he said.
http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bi...tes/051215ralph
Cantwell blocks bid to drill in refuge
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers have feuded over drilling in Alaska's wilderness for 25 years.
In 1995, leaders of the new Republican majority in Congress thought they had realized a long-sought goal by passing a bill permitting drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). But President Clinton vetoed the measure.
Emboldened by electoral gains and President Bush's re-election in 2004, Republicans believed they had enough clout to muscle the measure through as part of this year's annual budget process.
But proponents were thwarted again Wednesday as Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., rounded up enough allies to derail a bid by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, to attach the plan to a bill funding Iraq and Afghanistan military operations. Two Republicans and 41 Democrats opted to filibuster the defense bill (Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., joined them at the last minute, a parliamentary move allowing him to seek another vote later).
Republicans earlier used a rare, tie-breaking vote by Vice President Dick Cheney to pass nearly $40 billion in spending reductions on another measure marked by testy floor debate. But environmentalists were the clear winners Wednesday.
The defense-bill procedural vote — in which drilling supporters fell four votes short of the 60 needed to end the filibuster and force action — gave environmentalists a rare legislative win, and it ensured that a 1.5 million-acre stretch of the refuge will remain untouched for now.
Party leaders and key senators worked into the night before salvaging the defense bill, minus the drilling provision, on a 93-0 vote. The House, which has adjourned, must agree to the new version, a step it could take today by agreement of party leaders.
"This is the greatest environmental victory of the year," said Lydia Weiss, a lobbyist for the advocacy group Defenders of Wildlife.
The failure of drilling advocates to push forward a measure that has been on the brink of passage so long highlights some complicated politics within the Republican Party. GOP leaders had to back down this year when moderate Republicans in the House protested a move to insert ANWR drilling into the comprehensive budget bill that was eventually pushed through on Cheney's vote.
But Stevens, the Senate's most influential drilling proponent, refused to quit, tacking the plan to the defense-spending measure and threatening to go after lawmakers' favored projects if they didn't play ball.
The warning worked with moderate Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who issued a statement Wednesday saying she worried an impasse over the defense bill would endanger low-income heating funds.
Two key Republicans, Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., and Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, were unmoved. "We've got to find other ways to be energy independent," DeWine said.
Stevens' maneuvering infuriated Democrats: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., refused at one point during Sunday night's debate to allow Stevens to respond on the floor to his attacks. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Wednesday that Stevens was to blame for holding up money for the military: "I am not the one threatening support for our troops in the middle of a war."
Stevens took the Senate floor Wednesday night and continued to attack drilling opponents, suggesting money generated by drilling would have paid for homeland-security programs and disaster relief.
"I'm going to go to every one of your states, and I'm going to tell them what you've done," he told colleagues who voted against the measure. "You've taken away from homeland security the one source of revenue that was new ... I'm sure that the senator from Washington [Cantwell] will enjoy my visits to Washington." The American Petroleum Institute also condemned the Senate, saying "its refusal to seize this opportunity does a disservice to American consumers and fails to acknowledge that the consequences of inaction are adverse and significant."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...360_anwr22.html
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers have feuded over drilling in Alaska's wilderness for 25 years.
In 1995, leaders of the new Republican majority in Congress thought they had realized a long-sought goal by passing a bill permitting drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). But President Clinton vetoed the measure.
Emboldened by electoral gains and President Bush's re-election in 2004, Republicans believed they had enough clout to muscle the measure through as part of this year's annual budget process.
But proponents were thwarted again Wednesday as Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., rounded up enough allies to derail a bid by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, to attach the plan to a bill funding Iraq and Afghanistan military operations. Two Republicans and 41 Democrats opted to filibuster the defense bill (Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., joined them at the last minute, a parliamentary move allowing him to seek another vote later).
Republicans earlier used a rare, tie-breaking vote by Vice President Dick Cheney to pass nearly $40 billion in spending reductions on another measure marked by testy floor debate. But environmentalists were the clear winners Wednesday.
The defense-bill procedural vote — in which drilling supporters fell four votes short of the 60 needed to end the filibuster and force action — gave environmentalists a rare legislative win, and it ensured that a 1.5 million-acre stretch of the refuge will remain untouched for now.
Party leaders and key senators worked into the night before salvaging the defense bill, minus the drilling provision, on a 93-0 vote. The House, which has adjourned, must agree to the new version, a step it could take today by agreement of party leaders.
"This is the greatest environmental victory of the year," said Lydia Weiss, a lobbyist for the advocacy group Defenders of Wildlife.
The failure of drilling advocates to push forward a measure that has been on the brink of passage so long highlights some complicated politics within the Republican Party. GOP leaders had to back down this year when moderate Republicans in the House protested a move to insert ANWR drilling into the comprehensive budget bill that was eventually pushed through on Cheney's vote.
But Stevens, the Senate's most influential drilling proponent, refused to quit, tacking the plan to the defense-spending measure and threatening to go after lawmakers' favored projects if they didn't play ball.
The warning worked with moderate Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who issued a statement Wednesday saying she worried an impasse over the defense bill would endanger low-income heating funds.
Two key Republicans, Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., and Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, were unmoved. "We've got to find other ways to be energy independent," DeWine said.
Stevens' maneuvering infuriated Democrats: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., refused at one point during Sunday night's debate to allow Stevens to respond on the floor to his attacks. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Wednesday that Stevens was to blame for holding up money for the military: "I am not the one threatening support for our troops in the middle of a war."
Stevens took the Senate floor Wednesday night and continued to attack drilling opponents, suggesting money generated by drilling would have paid for homeland-security programs and disaster relief.
"I'm going to go to every one of your states, and I'm going to tell them what you've done," he told colleagues who voted against the measure. "You've taken away from homeland security the one source of revenue that was new ... I'm sure that the senator from Washington [Cantwell] will enjoy my visits to Washington." The American Petroleum Institute also condemned the Senate, saying "its refusal to seize this opportunity does a disservice to American consumers and fails to acknowledge that the consequences of inaction are adverse and significant."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...360_anwr22.html
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who faces re-election next year, led the opposition to Arctic drilling. She and other Democrats had complained that Stevens, in attaching ANWR to the defense bill, was violating Senate rules. At issue was Rule 28, forbidding the addition of new items to a bill at the last stage, just before it goes back to both chambers for final passage. It is common practice, but usually the newly inserted items have enough support that no one challenges them.
Stevens had expected the Senate parliamentarian would conclude that the ANWR section did, in fact, violate Rule 28, and he had hoped to overturn that ruling with a majority vote.
Some of the harshest condemnation of Stevens' strategy Wednesday came from Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., a recognized master of the Senate rules. Byrd said if senators voted with Stevens, nothing would stop a Senate majority from doing it again and again, weakening the Senate itself.
"Hear me, my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle: I abhor, I abhor, I abhor this idea. Shame!" Byrd said.
He and Stevens, he noted, have been friends for ages, from their years together on the Appropriations Committee. Byrd, 88, is the Senate's most senior Democrat, and Stevens, 82, the most senior Republican.
"I love this man from Alaska. I do. I love him. I feel that my blood in my veins is with his blood. I love him," Byrd said in his speech. "But I love the Senate more."
Stevens insisted he wasn't breaking any rules, just using them. He also reminded the Democrats of the many times they came to him, when he was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, seeking help for their states.
"Let me tell you: I'm not a fair-weather friend," he said. "I've not turned down one person on that side of the aisle in my life without trying to help."
He said he was moved by the damage he saw when he visited the hurricane-ravaged states, and he devised a plan to help them -- only to be accused of using the hurricane to win votes for ANWR.
"In the last month or two months, I've been pilloried by almost every newspaper in this country because of what's been said on this floor," he said. "I've been called a liar. I've been told I violated the rules. I've been told I did things in the middle of the night when no one knew it."
Even his grandchildren asked his son about the accusations, he said
"I ask the Senate, is that right? Should I lose the reputation I've gotten for 37 years in the Senate?" he asked. "No one's ever questioned my integrity before this year."
There was "a little thing, an ethics matter, up in my state but that, too, was misunderstood," he said, referring to news reports in 2003 about his personal investments.
He said he'd never asked for their votes in return for that help, but he said he was "drawing a line now with a lot of people I've worked with before."
"I really am. I really am," he said, his voice wavering. "I can't put (out of) my mind the amount of time, the days I spent with you, working on your problems, and to know you've said about me the things you've said in the last two months."
He said he was going home to think about what to do next year. "I say goodbye to the Senate tonight," he concluded. "Thank you very much." Some observers wondered if he was saying he was resigning, but an aide said she thought he was just saying he was tired and going home.
Two Republicans -- Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Mike DeWine of Ohio -- voted with most of the Democrats to block Arctic drilling. All of them, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said later, were "fighting one of the most powerful senators there is, ... saying to him, with all respect, the way he was trying to do this was just plain wrong."
http://www.adn.com/front/story/7306045p-7217771c.html
Stevens had expected the Senate parliamentarian would conclude that the ANWR section did, in fact, violate Rule 28, and he had hoped to overturn that ruling with a majority vote.
Some of the harshest condemnation of Stevens' strategy Wednesday came from Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., a recognized master of the Senate rules. Byrd said if senators voted with Stevens, nothing would stop a Senate majority from doing it again and again, weakening the Senate itself.
"Hear me, my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle: I abhor, I abhor, I abhor this idea. Shame!" Byrd said.
He and Stevens, he noted, have been friends for ages, from their years together on the Appropriations Committee. Byrd, 88, is the Senate's most senior Democrat, and Stevens, 82, the most senior Republican.
"I love this man from Alaska. I do. I love him. I feel that my blood in my veins is with his blood. I love him," Byrd said in his speech. "But I love the Senate more."
Stevens insisted he wasn't breaking any rules, just using them. He also reminded the Democrats of the many times they came to him, when he was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, seeking help for their states.
"Let me tell you: I'm not a fair-weather friend," he said. "I've not turned down one person on that side of the aisle in my life without trying to help."
He said he was moved by the damage he saw when he visited the hurricane-ravaged states, and he devised a plan to help them -- only to be accused of using the hurricane to win votes for ANWR.
"In the last month or two months, I've been pilloried by almost every newspaper in this country because of what's been said on this floor," he said. "I've been called a liar. I've been told I violated the rules. I've been told I did things in the middle of the night when no one knew it."
Even his grandchildren asked his son about the accusations, he said
"I ask the Senate, is that right? Should I lose the reputation I've gotten for 37 years in the Senate?" he asked. "No one's ever questioned my integrity before this year."
There was "a little thing, an ethics matter, up in my state but that, too, was misunderstood," he said, referring to news reports in 2003 about his personal investments.
He said he'd never asked for their votes in return for that help, but he said he was "drawing a line now with a lot of people I've worked with before."
"I really am. I really am," he said, his voice wavering. "I can't put (out of) my mind the amount of time, the days I spent with you, working on your problems, and to know you've said about me the things you've said in the last two months."
He said he was going home to think about what to do next year. "I say goodbye to the Senate tonight," he concluded. "Thank you very much." Some observers wondered if he was saying he was resigning, but an aide said she thought he was just saying he was tired and going home.
Two Republicans -- Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Mike DeWine of Ohio -- voted with most of the Democrats to block Arctic drilling. All of them, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said later, were "fighting one of the most powerful senators there is, ... saying to him, with all respect, the way he was trying to do this was just plain wrong."
http://www.adn.com/front/story/7306045p-7217771c.html
The oil companies are already going ahead looking at the land where all the ice has melted back. What with global warming the snow pack has melted to the point the polar bears are drowning. They'll find oil somewhere up there without having to go into the park.
Merry Fristmas. And Happy Newt Year.
Merry Fristmas to you, davis. Looks like '06 will be an exciting year.
Today's Toledo Blade Editorial.
Article published Thursday, December 22, 2005
The Bush money trail
"FOLLOW the money" is still the best road map linking politics with pecuniary gain, a connection illustrated with remarkable clarity in The Blade's three-day series on the business people who have fueled President Bush's campaign machinery and what they've gotten in return.
It's a trail marked, time and again, with an alarmingly simple and cynical equation: money in = money out.
The millions of dollars eagerly supplied by Mr. Bush's corporate fund-raisers - $75 million for the 2004 presidential campaign alone - have been repaid many times over in tax breaks, government contracts, special deals, and beneficial legislation.
The alarming part is the realization that the public interest often is ill-served when the President's contributors get special consideration in the halls of government.
Example: When clean-air and other environmental regulations are relaxed, as they have been under Mr. Bush, everyone who breathes the air, drinks the water, or eats a mercury-laden fish pays a certain price.
The cynical part is that, practically to a man - Bush fund-raisers are predominantly rich, white men, many from Texas and Florida - the "Pioneers," "Rangers," and "Super-Rangers" who supply the big bucks claim that they are not after personal gain, just "good government."
That myth was exploded in painstaking detail in the series, which showed how lumber barons, credit card magnates, stock brokers, defense contractors, mining executives, and many others have benefited directly and handsomely from the administration's actions on their behalf.
Some will argue that the trail of gold emanating from political connections in Washington was ever thus, that what is going on is simply an extension of the age-old process of spoils being extracted from the government mine by those who happen to currently control it. And don't forget, goes the argument, Democrats would be doing it, too, if only they had the chance.
While there is a grain of truth to that view, the reality most Americans see today is that the Republican majorities in Washington and Columbus have elevated political fund-raising and the dispensing of favors to their friends to an art form unequaled at any time or place on the planet.
And, because campaign-finance laws and regulations have been largely stacked in business' favor, the Bush benefactors have been able to ply their trade legally - in most cases.
A notable counter-example came this year with the indictment of Lucas County coin dealer, GOP insider, and Bush Pioneer Tom Noe on charges of illegally funneling campaign contributions to the President. Separately, Mr. Noe remains under investigation as the central figure in the Coingate scandal.
Mr. Noe's conviction in either or both of these cases would be a hopeful sign for restoring honesty in government, but such improprieties are merely symptomatic of a larger concern.
The dominance of money in politics has been elevated to the point that the only way it may be moderated is by the will of voters to sweep out those responsible. How big is your broom?
Article published Thursday, December 22, 2005
The Bush money trail
"FOLLOW the money" is still the best road map linking politics with pecuniary gain, a connection illustrated with remarkable clarity in The Blade's three-day series on the business people who have fueled President Bush's campaign machinery and what they've gotten in return.
It's a trail marked, time and again, with an alarmingly simple and cynical equation: money in = money out.
The millions of dollars eagerly supplied by Mr. Bush's corporate fund-raisers - $75 million for the 2004 presidential campaign alone - have been repaid many times over in tax breaks, government contracts, special deals, and beneficial legislation.
The alarming part is the realization that the public interest often is ill-served when the President's contributors get special consideration in the halls of government.
Example: When clean-air and other environmental regulations are relaxed, as they have been under Mr. Bush, everyone who breathes the air, drinks the water, or eats a mercury-laden fish pays a certain price.
The cynical part is that, practically to a man - Bush fund-raisers are predominantly rich, white men, many from Texas and Florida - the "Pioneers," "Rangers," and "Super-Rangers" who supply the big bucks claim that they are not after personal gain, just "good government."
That myth was exploded in painstaking detail in the series, which showed how lumber barons, credit card magnates, stock brokers, defense contractors, mining executives, and many others have benefited directly and handsomely from the administration's actions on their behalf.
Some will argue that the trail of gold emanating from political connections in Washington was ever thus, that what is going on is simply an extension of the age-old process of spoils being extracted from the government mine by those who happen to currently control it. And don't forget, goes the argument, Democrats would be doing it, too, if only they had the chance.
While there is a grain of truth to that view, the reality most Americans see today is that the Republican majorities in Washington and Columbus have elevated political fund-raising and the dispensing of favors to their friends to an art form unequaled at any time or place on the planet.
And, because campaign-finance laws and regulations have been largely stacked in business' favor, the Bush benefactors have been able to ply their trade legally - in most cases.
A notable counter-example came this year with the indictment of Lucas County coin dealer, GOP insider, and Bush Pioneer Tom Noe on charges of illegally funneling campaign contributions to the President. Separately, Mr. Noe remains under investigation as the central figure in the Coingate scandal.
Mr. Noe's conviction in either or both of these cases would be a hopeful sign for restoring honesty in government, but such improprieties are merely symptomatic of a larger concern.
The dominance of money in politics has been elevated to the point that the only way it may be moderated is by the will of voters to sweep out those responsible. How big is your broom?
QUOTE
Example: When clean-air and other environmental regulations are relaxed, as they have been under Mr. Bush, everyone who breathes the air, drinks the water, or eats a mercury-laden fish pays a certain price.
This is one of the things that torques my arse. I like to fish. I like to eat it. I can suppliment my income with fish all year and a deer in the freezer. It's called self-reliance. But now this torrent of bad, corporate friendly legislation will end that. But you can't escape it entirely. My hunter and fishing friends are not happy with GW. They are traditionally at least modrates because of gun control. They don't like wholesale trashing of the environment for the profit of industry.
Dec. 23, 2005, 12:15AM
DeLay heads for top appeals court
Lawmaker steps up bid for a speedy trial after his latest attempt is denied
By JANET ELLIOTT
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
AUSTIN - After being rebuffed by one appeals court in his effort to get a speedy trial, U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay plans to quickly take his case to the higher Court of Criminal Appeals.
A January trial is an essential step in the Sugar Land Republican's efforts to regain his position as majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.
"We're not through. We're going to the top," said DeLay's lead lawyer, Dick DeGuerin.
In an order made public Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 3rd Court of Appeals rejected DeLay's bid to be tried on a money-laundering charge while prosecutors appeal the dismissal of a related charge accusing DeLay of violating the election code in 2002.
The panel of two Democrats and one Republican also rejected a motion to expedite the appeal by shortening the time for filing briefs from the customary 20 days per side to five days.
DeGuerin said DeLay will seek emergency relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals. The highest appeals court for criminal cases comprises nine Republican judges.
DeGuerin said he will ask the high court to intervene in the appeal filed last week by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle.
He will argue that a long legal battle would disrupt Congress. DeLay had to step down as majority leader when he was indicted by a Travis County grand jury in September.
"Ronnie Earle, a local county prosecutor, is affecting the business of the United States by his foot dragging and his frivolous appeals," DeGuerin said.
Kevin Madden, DeLay's spokesman, said: "The court's decision allows Mr. DeLay the opportunity to move past intermediate courts and go right to the highest appeals court to make a case for dismissal of Ronnie Earle's baseless charges.
"Mr. DeLay remains confident that we can continue to move the legal schedule rapidly towards either dismissal or a trial sometime in January."
DeLay's chances of regaining his leadership post depend on an exoneration before new leadership elections in the House early next year. A number of House Republicans have been pressing for the elections to take place when lawmakers return from their holiday break Jan. 31.
The intermediate appeals court said Senior Judge Pat Priest was correct to postpone any action on DeLay's money-laundering charge while the state is appealing the dismissed charge.
Priest on Dec. 5 accepted DeLay's argument that the state conspiracy law did not apply to the election code until a year after the 2002 elections. He upheld charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
Unless the Court of Criminal Appeals steps in, Earle has until Jan. 18 to file his appellate brief at the 3rd Court. DeLay's lawyers would have 20 days from that date to file their response, though DeGuerin said they likely will take much less time.
After that, the 3rd Court would decide whether to schedule oral arguments or take the case under consideration based on the written briefs.
The case against DeLay, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis stems from an alleged scheme to get around the state election code's ban on corporate financing of candidates.
The DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority raised about $600,000 in corporate donations during the 2002 state elections, but Texas law restricted that money to committee administrative expenses. In September 2002, TRMPAC donated $190,000 to the Republican National Committee, which within days sent $190,000 raised from individuals to seven GOP Texas House candidates.
Prosecutors say that was an illegal swap of money, but the three defendants claim no such trade occurred. Colyandro was TRMPAC's executive director; Ellis was his adviser and still is the executive director of DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority, or ARMPAC.
Republicans, aided by TRMPAC's fundraising activities, gained control of the Texas House in the 2002 elections. That takeover set the stage for DeLay to push a congressional redistricting plan through the Legislature in 2003 that helped Republicans win a 21-11 majority of the state's congressional seats in 2004.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3543958.html
DeLay heads for top appeals court
Lawmaker steps up bid for a speedy trial after his latest attempt is denied
By JANET ELLIOTT
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
AUSTIN - After being rebuffed by one appeals court in his effort to get a speedy trial, U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay plans to quickly take his case to the higher Court of Criminal Appeals.
A January trial is an essential step in the Sugar Land Republican's efforts to regain his position as majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.
"We're not through. We're going to the top," said DeLay's lead lawyer, Dick DeGuerin.
In an order made public Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 3rd Court of Appeals rejected DeLay's bid to be tried on a money-laundering charge while prosecutors appeal the dismissal of a related charge accusing DeLay of violating the election code in 2002.
The panel of two Democrats and one Republican also rejected a motion to expedite the appeal by shortening the time for filing briefs from the customary 20 days per side to five days.
DeGuerin said DeLay will seek emergency relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals. The highest appeals court for criminal cases comprises nine Republican judges.
DeGuerin said he will ask the high court to intervene in the appeal filed last week by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle.
He will argue that a long legal battle would disrupt Congress. DeLay had to step down as majority leader when he was indicted by a Travis County grand jury in September.
"Ronnie Earle, a local county prosecutor, is affecting the business of the United States by his foot dragging and his frivolous appeals," DeGuerin said.
Kevin Madden, DeLay's spokesman, said: "The court's decision allows Mr. DeLay the opportunity to move past intermediate courts and go right to the highest appeals court to make a case for dismissal of Ronnie Earle's baseless charges.
"Mr. DeLay remains confident that we can continue to move the legal schedule rapidly towards either dismissal or a trial sometime in January."
DeLay's chances of regaining his leadership post depend on an exoneration before new leadership elections in the House early next year. A number of House Republicans have been pressing for the elections to take place when lawmakers return from their holiday break Jan. 31.
The intermediate appeals court said Senior Judge Pat Priest was correct to postpone any action on DeLay's money-laundering charge while the state is appealing the dismissed charge.
Priest on Dec. 5 accepted DeLay's argument that the state conspiracy law did not apply to the election code until a year after the 2002 elections. He upheld charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
Unless the Court of Criminal Appeals steps in, Earle has until Jan. 18 to file his appellate brief at the 3rd Court. DeLay's lawyers would have 20 days from that date to file their response, though DeGuerin said they likely will take much less time.
After that, the 3rd Court would decide whether to schedule oral arguments or take the case under consideration based on the written briefs.
The case against DeLay, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis stems from an alleged scheme to get around the state election code's ban on corporate financing of candidates.
The DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority raised about $600,000 in corporate donations during the 2002 state elections, but Texas law restricted that money to committee administrative expenses. In September 2002, TRMPAC donated $190,000 to the Republican National Committee, which within days sent $190,000 raised from individuals to seven GOP Texas House candidates.
Prosecutors say that was an illegal swap of money, but the three defendants claim no such trade occurred. Colyandro was TRMPAC's executive director; Ellis was his adviser and still is the executive director of DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority, or ARMPAC.
Republicans, aided by TRMPAC's fundraising activities, gained control of the Texas House in the 2002 elections. That takeover set the stage for DeLay to push a congressional redistricting plan through the Legislature in 2003 that helped Republicans win a 21-11 majority of the state's congressional seats in 2004.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3543958.html
Fake but accurate. Again
Senator Ted Kennedy looks ridiculous today, in the wake of his foolish reliance on a bogus story of “repression” under the Bush administration’s anti-terror efforts. As we noted last Thursday, the Senator took to the pages of the Boston Globe and wrote this whopper:
Just this past week there were public reports that a college student in Massachusetts had two government agents show up at his house because he had gone to the library and asked for the official Chinese version of Mao Tse-tung’s Communist Manifesto.
Leave aside for the moment that Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto (Kennedy is so careless with details that he went to print with this howler; the student actually alleged it was the Thoughts of Chairman Mao that got him into alleged trouble), the story of the government agents showing up has been found to be an utter hoax, credulously accepted and amplified by Kednnedy.
But Kennedy isn’t apologizing. Far from it, his spokesman is adopting a variant of the Dan Rather fake-but-accurate line:
Laura Capps, a Kennedy spokeswoman, said last night that the senator cited ‘’public reports” in his opinion piece. Even if the assertion was a hoax, she said, it did not detract from Kennedy’s broader point that the Bush administration has gone too far in engaging in surveillance.
So the Senator’s negative opinion, based on fiction, somehow is still real. Because feelings matter more than facts, I suppose.
If Kennedy were a man, he would publicly apologize to President Bush for repeating a vicious lie about him and giving it credence. But of course, if Kennedy were a man, Mary Joe Kopechne would be alive.
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4014
Hmmm. Let's see. He cheated his way through college and law school. He rode his brother's coat tails into the Senate. He cheated on his wife. She turned into a drunk. He killed a beautiful young girl. He lies indiscriminately to the American public. He is an odious loathsome creature. He is in short, your typical odious Demonrat.
He definitely represents a greater danger to the republic than many, if not all, soldiers who died facing our country in battle. No doubt about it, Mary Joe did more in service to her country than nearly anyone who has died on the battlefield. Thanks to Mary Joe Kopechne, Ted Kennedy will never be President.
Senator Ted Kennedy looks ridiculous today, in the wake of his foolish reliance on a bogus story of “repression” under the Bush administration’s anti-terror efforts. As we noted last Thursday, the Senator took to the pages of the Boston Globe and wrote this whopper:
Just this past week there were public reports that a college student in Massachusetts had two government agents show up at his house because he had gone to the library and asked for the official Chinese version of Mao Tse-tung’s Communist Manifesto.
Leave aside for the moment that Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto (Kennedy is so careless with details that he went to print with this howler; the student actually alleged it was the Thoughts of Chairman Mao that got him into alleged trouble), the story of the government agents showing up has been found to be an utter hoax, credulously accepted and amplified by Kednnedy.
But Kennedy isn’t apologizing. Far from it, his spokesman is adopting a variant of the Dan Rather fake-but-accurate line:
Laura Capps, a Kennedy spokeswoman, said last night that the senator cited ‘’public reports” in his opinion piece. Even if the assertion was a hoax, she said, it did not detract from Kennedy’s broader point that the Bush administration has gone too far in engaging in surveillance.
So the Senator’s negative opinion, based on fiction, somehow is still real. Because feelings matter more than facts, I suppose.
If Kennedy were a man, he would publicly apologize to President Bush for repeating a vicious lie about him and giving it credence. But of course, if Kennedy were a man, Mary Joe Kopechne would be alive.
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4014
Hmmm. Let's see. He cheated his way through college and law school. He rode his brother's coat tails into the Senate. He cheated on his wife. She turned into a drunk. He killed a beautiful young girl. He lies indiscriminately to the American public. He is an odious loathsome creature. He is in short, your typical odious Demonrat.
He definitely represents a greater danger to the republic than many, if not all, soldiers who died facing our country in battle. No doubt about it, Mary Joe did more in service to her country than nearly anyone who has died on the battlefield. Thanks to Mary Joe Kopechne, Ted Kennedy will never be President.
QUOTE
Hmmm. Let's see. He cheated his way through college and law school. He rode his brother's coat tails into the Senate. He cheated on his wife. She turned into a drunk. He killed a beautiful young girl. He lies indiscriminately to the American public. He is an odious loathsome creature. He is in short, your typical odious Demonrat.
He definitely represents a greater danger to the republic than many, if not all, soldiers who died facing our country in battle. No doubt about it, Mary Joe did more in service to her country than nearly anyone who has died on the battlefield. Thanks to Mary Joe Kopechne, Ted Kennedy will never be President.
He definitely represents a greater danger to the republic than many, if not all, soldiers who died facing our country in battle. No doubt about it, Mary Joe did more in service to her country than nearly anyone who has died on the battlefield. Thanks to Mary Joe Kopechne, Ted Kennedy will never be President.
You are full of shiit, stranger. You want to talk about a lowlife, scumbag riding his way through life on a name? How about GW (I'm a cokehead alcoholic) Bush? He would be working in a god damned federal pen cleaning toilets for 10 to 20 if it wasn't for his dear old daddy.
GW is more of a danger to our country than anyone. He is an odious loathsome creature and a war criminal to boot.
As far as ethics? Morals and values? None. None. -0-. If it isn't green or endorsed on the dotted line by a corporate criminal it's irrelevant and has no value.
QUOTE(Guest @ Dec 24 2005, 10:36 PM)
Fake but accurate. Again
[right][snapback]167464[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]167464[/snapback][/right]
Hardly accurate, but as you are the type to believe the tripe from GOPUSA, it must seem real to you.
Sugar farmers win budget tug of war
By Joel Havemann
Freshman Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
WASHINGTON — The 770-plus-page budget-cutting bill that went to the Senate floor last week was considered a political must-pass by Republican leaders, who were loath to go home for the holidays without demonstrating at least some concern about the red ink that has swamped the federal government. Because every budget cut hurts some people while sparing others, lining up votes usually comes down to horse-trading.
But this year, the process turned into a window into how the game is played.
As they prepared to send the spending cuts to the floor, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and his Republican lieutenants realized they were headed for defeat unless they nailed down one more vote. And to get that, Frist had to meet the asking price of one of two Republican senators, Norm Coleman of Minnesota or Gordon Smith of Oregon.
Smith vowed not to support the bill unless it was changed so that proposed savings on Medicaid, the federal health-care program for the poor, were achieved at the expense of drug companies and other providers instead of coming in the form of lower benefits for Medicaid recipients.
Coleman's price for supporting the package was removing from the bill a provision that would have eliminated $30 million in subsidies for sugar-beet growers, many of them in his home state.
In the end, sugar farmers got to keep their subsidy, and Frist got Coleman's vote. With the Minnesota lawmaker on board, the bill passed: 50 senators in favor, 50 against, and Vice President Dick Cheney cast the tiebreaking yes vote, as is his prerogative as president pro tempore of the Senate.
How things are done
It was the sort of deal, involving a call to Coleman by top White House political aide Karl Rove, that politicians usually prefer not to talk about. In this case, however, Frist laid it out in public by issuing a news release. "Sugar farmers will not face any cuts in this important budget agreement," he said, "and Sen. Coleman will support the package."
Every budget bill involves trade-offs: money for bombers or bridges, perhaps, environment or education. As they try to put together majorities, legislative leaders consider what it will take to get each vote they need.
In this case, the House and Senate had passed very different versions of the budget-cutting bill. In particular, the House voted to cut Medicaid benefits and increase co-payments that beneficiaries would have to pay when they received care. The Senate achieved its Medicaid savings by letting the government negotiate more favorable rates from drug manufacturers and managed-care facilities.
As House and Senate negotiators labored to write a compromise bill both chambers could support, it was clear the 100-member Senate was divided almost evenly. The Senate's Republican leaders figured they could not count on the support of any of the 44 Democrats or the one independent; that meant they could afford no more than five defections from their ranks.
Coleman was one of seven Senate Republicans who wrote a letter expressing concern over "the impact to America's lowest income and most vulnerable from policies implemented to secure budget savings." In this group were the five lawmakers who had voted against the original bill, plus Smith and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who had voted for it.
For the compromise bill, the administration and House Republican leaders were insisting the Medicaid savings come in the form of lower benefits, not negotiations for lower prices from drug companies and managed-care systems — a step that would probably cost them Smith's vote. Smith had voted for the original Senate budget bill because its Medicaid cuts landed on the drug and managed-care companies, not the beneficiaries.
With Rove's help, the House-Senate negotiators in effect swapped Coleman for Smith in the ranks of Republicans supporting the bill. They did it by stripping the original bill's $30 million worth of cuts to the sugar-beet industry.
"Karl Rove called me and asked me what I wanted," Coleman told Congress Daily. "A few hours later, it was out of the bill."
After the vote, Coleman said in a statement: "I could not stand for a budget ... package that singled out sugar farmers."
Specter also ended up voting for the bill, saying the Medicaid provisions gave the states the flexibility "to ameliorate hardships resulting from the proposed reductions."
Medicaid supporters felt outmaneuvered.
"It certainly sounds to me that they made a calculation to get Coleman's support," said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "With Coleman, they no longer needed Smith. And if they no longer needed Smith, they could cut Medicaid recipients instead of the pharmaceutical companies and managed-care providers."
The bill is not ready for Bush's signature. After the House passed the compromise bill and adjourned for the holidays, the Senate made some minor changes that will require another House vote. That will have to wait until House members return to Washington in January.
Greenstein said the episode provided a case study of the importance of money in politics. There were 568,000 poor Medicaid recipients in Minnesota last year compared with 40,000 persons whose livelihood depended on sugar beets.
But in the contest between Medicaid recipients and pharmaceutical manufacturers to avoid budget cuts, drug-company political-action committees have made $107,000 in campaign contributions to Coleman since his successful election campaign of 2002. Medicaid recipients have no committees.
And the pharmaceutical industry has long been a major contributor to Republicans. "You can see the political clout of the moneyed interests," Greenstein said.
Efforts to reach the sugar-beet growers organization for comment were unsuccessful.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...15_sugar25.html
By Joel Havemann
Freshman Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
WASHINGTON — The 770-plus-page budget-cutting bill that went to the Senate floor last week was considered a political must-pass by Republican leaders, who were loath to go home for the holidays without demonstrating at least some concern about the red ink that has swamped the federal government. Because every budget cut hurts some people while sparing others, lining up votes usually comes down to horse-trading.
But this year, the process turned into a window into how the game is played.
As they prepared to send the spending cuts to the floor, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and his Republican lieutenants realized they were headed for defeat unless they nailed down one more vote. And to get that, Frist had to meet the asking price of one of two Republican senators, Norm Coleman of Minnesota or Gordon Smith of Oregon.
Smith vowed not to support the bill unless it was changed so that proposed savings on Medicaid, the federal health-care program for the poor, were achieved at the expense of drug companies and other providers instead of coming in the form of lower benefits for Medicaid recipients.
Coleman's price for supporting the package was removing from the bill a provision that would have eliminated $30 million in subsidies for sugar-beet growers, many of them in his home state.
In the end, sugar farmers got to keep their subsidy, and Frist got Coleman's vote. With the Minnesota lawmaker on board, the bill passed: 50 senators in favor, 50 against, and Vice President Dick Cheney cast the tiebreaking yes vote, as is his prerogative as president pro tempore of the Senate.
How things are done
It was the sort of deal, involving a call to Coleman by top White House political aide Karl Rove, that politicians usually prefer not to talk about. In this case, however, Frist laid it out in public by issuing a news release. "Sugar farmers will not face any cuts in this important budget agreement," he said, "and Sen. Coleman will support the package."
Every budget bill involves trade-offs: money for bombers or bridges, perhaps, environment or education. As they try to put together majorities, legislative leaders consider what it will take to get each vote they need.
In this case, the House and Senate had passed very different versions of the budget-cutting bill. In particular, the House voted to cut Medicaid benefits and increase co-payments that beneficiaries would have to pay when they received care. The Senate achieved its Medicaid savings by letting the government negotiate more favorable rates from drug manufacturers and managed-care facilities.
As House and Senate negotiators labored to write a compromise bill both chambers could support, it was clear the 100-member Senate was divided almost evenly. The Senate's Republican leaders figured they could not count on the support of any of the 44 Democrats or the one independent; that meant they could afford no more than five defections from their ranks.
Coleman was one of seven Senate Republicans who wrote a letter expressing concern over "the impact to America's lowest income and most vulnerable from policies implemented to secure budget savings." In this group were the five lawmakers who had voted against the original bill, plus Smith and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who had voted for it.
For the compromise bill, the administration and House Republican leaders were insisting the Medicaid savings come in the form of lower benefits, not negotiations for lower prices from drug companies and managed-care systems — a step that would probably cost them Smith's vote. Smith had voted for the original Senate budget bill because its Medicaid cuts landed on the drug and managed-care companies, not the beneficiaries.
With Rove's help, the House-Senate negotiators in effect swapped Coleman for Smith in the ranks of Republicans supporting the bill. They did it by stripping the original bill's $30 million worth of cuts to the sugar-beet industry.
"Karl Rove called me and asked me what I wanted," Coleman told Congress Daily. "A few hours later, it was out of the bill."
After the vote, Coleman said in a statement: "I could not stand for a budget ... package that singled out sugar farmers."
Specter also ended up voting for the bill, saying the Medicaid provisions gave the states the flexibility "to ameliorate hardships resulting from the proposed reductions."
Medicaid supporters felt outmaneuvered.
"It certainly sounds to me that they made a calculation to get Coleman's support," said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "With Coleman, they no longer needed Smith. And if they no longer needed Smith, they could cut Medicaid recipients instead of the pharmaceutical companies and managed-care providers."
The bill is not ready for Bush's signature. After the House passed the compromise bill and adjourned for the holidays, the Senate made some minor changes that will require another House vote. That will have to wait until House members return to Washington in January.
Greenstein said the episode provided a case study of the importance of money in politics. There were 568,000 poor Medicaid recipients in Minnesota last year compared with 40,000 persons whose livelihood depended on sugar beets.
But in the contest between Medicaid recipients and pharmaceutical manufacturers to avoid budget cuts, drug-company political-action committees have made $107,000 in campaign contributions to Coleman since his successful election campaign of 2002. Medicaid recipients have no committees.
And the pharmaceutical industry has long been a major contributor to Republicans. "You can see the political clout of the moneyed interests," Greenstein said.
Efforts to reach the sugar-beet growers organization for comment were unsuccessful.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...15_sugar25.html
Ney says he's confident he'll be cleared
By DAVID HAMMER
Associated Press Writer
Enlarge this photoAP PHOTO/JAMIE-ANDREA YANAK/FILE
U. S. Re. Bob Ney, R-Ohio speaks about election reform at Cleveland State University in Cleveland, in this Nov. 30, 2005 file photo. Ney of Ohio, a focus of the criminal investigation into Jack Abramoff's lobbying, says he's had no conversations with the Justice Department and believes its probe will clear him of any wrongdoing.
WASHINGTON — Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio, a focus of the criminal investigation into Jack Abramoff's lobbying, says he's had no conversations with the Justice Department and believes its probe will clear him of any wrongdoing.
"Look, I don't take this lightly," Ney told The Associated Press in an interview Friday after returning from a visit to Iraq. "I have not changed my stripes. I'm doing my job. I commute back home. I go out around the district. Nothing has changed for me."
Abramoff is negotiating a plea agreement with prosecutors, and a deal is expected by his Jan. 9 court date. Abramoff partner Michael Scanlon pleaded guilty last month to conspiracy to commit bribery and identified gifts and donations Ney received in exchange for his support for their clients.
The Republican chairman of the House Administration Committee said he isn't bothered by what Abramoff might do. He acknowledged that the Justice Department has subpoenaed documents from his office, but he said he's not "sat down with them."
"At the end of the day, I am confident I will be cleared," he said. "It doesn't concern me what Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon said. We should lend credibility to them? I don't think so."
Ney disputed some details of allegations in Scanlon's plea agreement that claim Ney accepted bribes from Abramoff, including an expenses-paid golf trip to Scotland in 2002.
Ney filed disclosure forms that listed a Republican policy group as financing the trip, but the group denies paying for it.
In the interview, Ney complained about national media coverage, saying local reporters and hundreds of constituents haven't even brought up the scandals with him.
As in the past, Ney declined to explain his side of what happened on the trip to Scotland and donations he received after allegedly agreeing to sponsor legislation to help one of Abramoff's Indian tribe clients.
"I have done nothing wrong and the reason I can't comment on this is I have a side to tell of my story. And that side of my story should be told to one or two or both sources: the ethics committee or the Justice Department," he said. "I'm not going to do this in the media, and I'm sure you understand that."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/p.../D8EMUN409.html
By DAVID HAMMER
Associated Press Writer
Enlarge this photoAP PHOTO/JAMIE-ANDREA YANAK/FILE
U. S. Re. Bob Ney, R-Ohio speaks about election reform at Cleveland State University in Cleveland, in this Nov. 30, 2005 file photo. Ney of Ohio, a focus of the criminal investigation into Jack Abramoff's lobbying, says he's had no conversations with the Justice Department and believes its probe will clear him of any wrongdoing.
WASHINGTON — Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio, a focus of the criminal investigation into Jack Abramoff's lobbying, says he's had no conversations with the Justice Department and believes its probe will clear him of any wrongdoing.
"Look, I don't take this lightly," Ney told The Associated Press in an interview Friday after returning from a visit to Iraq. "I have not changed my stripes. I'm doing my job. I commute back home. I go out around the district. Nothing has changed for me."
Abramoff is negotiating a plea agreement with prosecutors, and a deal is expected by his Jan. 9 court date. Abramoff partner Michael Scanlon pleaded guilty last month to conspiracy to commit bribery and identified gifts and donations Ney received in exchange for his support for their clients.
The Republican chairman of the House Administration Committee said he isn't bothered by what Abramoff might do. He acknowledged that the Justice Department has subpoenaed documents from his office, but he said he's not "sat down with them."
"At the end of the day, I am confident I will be cleared," he said. "It doesn't concern me what Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon said. We should lend credibility to them? I don't think so."
Ney disputed some details of allegations in Scanlon's plea agreement that claim Ney accepted bribes from Abramoff, including an expenses-paid golf trip to Scotland in 2002.
Ney filed disclosure forms that listed a Republican policy group as financing the trip, but the group denies paying for it.
In the interview, Ney complained about national media coverage, saying local reporters and hundreds of constituents haven't even brought up the scandals with him.
As in the past, Ney declined to explain his side of what happened on the trip to Scotland and donations he received after allegedly agreeing to sponsor legislation to help one of Abramoff's Indian tribe clients.
"I have done nothing wrong and the reason I can't comment on this is I have a side to tell of my story. And that side of my story should be told to one or two or both sources: the ethics committee or the Justice Department," he said. "I'm not going to do this in the media, and I'm sure you understand that."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/p.../D8EMUN409.html
QUOTE(davisął @ Dec 25 2005, 05:29 PM)
[right][snapback]167506[/snapback][/right]
Ted Steven's warning: “I’m going to go every one of your states and I’m going to tell them what you’ve done, I’m sure the senator from Washington will enjoy my visits to Washington, and I’m going to visit there often.” Time will tell.
We don't need oil or coal. We can burn the furniture.
(if it ever drops below 80 here)
(if it ever drops below 80 here)
The Democrats would rather defend the frozen tundra of ANWR and a caribou population than provide the funds to fight the enemy and ween us off the Arabian oil they always accuse Republicans of going to war for.
Oh, and Mike DeWine, your days are numbered on Capitol Hill.
Oh, and Mike DeWine, your days are numbered on Capitol Hill.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Dec 25 2005, 06:26 PM)
We don't need oil or coal. We can burn the furniture.
(if it ever drops below 80 here)
[right][snapback]167555[/snapback][/right]
(if it ever drops below 80 here)
[right][snapback]167555[/snapback][/right]
The strip mine company let us use an abandoned house for our MC clubhouse and hillclimb site. Two winters later some squatters had moved in. When I went out there in the spring they had trashed the house and even burned some of the siding in the stove. I suppose if it had been a longer winter, they would have burned the entire house.
If there were a problem with caribou living near drilling I might see there point. There isn't any.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Dec 25 2005, 06:33 PM)
If there were a problem with caribou living near drilling I might see there point. There isn't any.
[right][snapback]167558[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]167558[/snapback][/right]
Nothing lives there. The animals just come there to screw.
QUOTE(Chris @ Dec 25 2005, 06:30 PM)
The Democrats would rather defend the frozen tundra of ANWR and a caribou population than provide the funds to fight the enemy and ween us off the Arabian oil they always accuse Republicans of going to war for.
Oh, and Mike DeWine, your days are numbered on Capitol Hill.
[right][snapback]167556[/snapback][/right]
Oh, and Mike DeWine, your days are numbered on Capitol Hill.
[right][snapback]167556[/snapback][/right]
Welcome noob.
DeWine needs to be gone.
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Dec 25 2005, 05:32 PM)
The strip mine company let us use an abandoned house for our MC clubhouse and hillclimb site. Two winters later some squatters had moved in. When I went out there in the spring they had trashed the house and even burned some of the siding in the stove. I suppose if it had been a longer winter, they would have burned the entire house.
[right][snapback]167557[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]167557[/snapback][/right]
Nice folks. My buddy bought a trailer some squatters had ruined. $300 single wide at a sherriff's auction. Of course he had to replace almost everything.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Dec 25 2005, 06:37 PM)
Nice folks. My buddy bought a trailer some squatters had ruined. $300 single wide at a sherriff's auction. Of course he had to replace almost everything.
[right][snapback]167561[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]167561[/snapback][/right]
It was sad. Also the hillclimb had washed out. So we just quit.
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Dec 25 2005, 05:34 PM)
Nothing lives there. The animals just come there to screw.
[right][snapback]167559[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]167559[/snapback][/right]
I'm pretty sure caribou aren't a threatened species anyway.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Dec 25 2005, 06:40 PM)
I'm pretty sure caribou aren't a threatened species anyway.
[right][snapback]167563[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]167563[/snapback][/right]
Only in Norway.
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Dec 25 2005, 05:35 PM)
Welcome noob.
DeWine needs to be gone.
[right][snapback]167560[/snapback][/right]
DeWine needs to be gone.
[right][snapback]167560[/snapback][/right]
Thank you. Yes... not only is he a member of the "Gang of 14", the latest stunt will result with him getting the identical treatment of his son who ran for office and was roundly defeated.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.