Monday, November 15, 2004

Powell and Three Others Leaving Cabinet

Powell and Three Others Leaving Cabinet

(AP) - Secretary of State Colin Powell and three other Cabinet members have resigned, it was disclosed Monday, escalating the shake-up of President Bush's second-term team. Senior administration officials said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was most likely to succeed Powell. "I believe that now that the election is over, the time has come for me to step down," Powell wrote. The White House released the letter Powell sent to the president on Friday as well as those written by Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, Education Secretary Rod Paige and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, confirming their departures.

Read More...

Sunday, November 14, 2004

Beyond red and blue (again)



The Boston Globe
Beyond red and blue (again)

By Robert David Sullivan | November 14, 2004

GEORGE W. BUSH can now claim a clear victory in the popular vote for president, thanks in part to people in and around the city of New York. But the president got no reelection mandate from the citizens of Savannah, Ga.

Wait a minute! Doesn't the familiar red-and-blue map prove that the Northeast is indefatigably Democratic and the South irrevocably Republican? Well, when you go beyond red and blue, things in the electorate get more complicated.

Last year, under the auspices of CommonWealth magazine, I devised a map that divided the United States into 10 distinct political regions, based on returns from national and state elections, demographic data from the US Census, and certain geographical features. These regions -- which each cast about 10.5 million votes in 2000 -- cut across state lines and even leapfrog them entirely (as with Upper Coasts, which includes most of New England as well as the coastal West from San Francisco up to the Canadian border). In many cases, they divide battleground states into two or three different regions, which explains why those states "swing."Last year, I predicted that if Bush or the Democratic nominee carried a sixth region, while holding on to the five that he or his party's nominee won in 2000, he would have a clear (i.e., litigation-free) win. Bush accomplished this feat, but not by much, winning the Big River region with a margin of 50.1 percent to 49.0 percent. Big River, which follows the Mississippi from northern Minnesota to Memphis, includes most of three states (Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) that were showered with television ads and candidate appearances this fall. Bush and John Kerry were separated by less than one percentage point in only about 65 of the 3,140 counties nationwide, and the greatest number were in Big River.

When Bush spoke after the election of having "the will of the people at my back," he was more likely referring to the 3.5 million-vote advantage he won in the popular tally than to his narrow victory in the Electoral College. Across the country, voter turnout was so high that Bush and Kerry each increased his party's raw vote in every region. The higher turnout benefited Bush in eight of them, including Northeast Corridor -- the most Democratic region in the country four years ago. The Democratic margin in this region, which includes such major cities as New York and Philadelphia, shrank from 2.9 million in the last presidential election to 2.2 million votes this time.

Kerry won the battle for new votes in only two regions, Upper Coasts (his home base, where he won 60.3 percent) and Great Lakes (which includes Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit, and which he won with 56.7 percent). But it's worth repeating that Kerry still beat Bush in two other regions -- and that he didn't actually lose votes in any region. Compared with 2000, Bush's win was decisive, but this map shows that the Republican Party can hardly rest easy in 2008.

The red-and-blue map didn't change much from 2000 to 2004, but our 10 regions reveal some significant shifts. With 61.4 percent of its vote cast for Bush, Appalachia -- which has the poorest and most rural population in the United States, and was a bedrock region for Democratic nominees from Andrew Jackson to Harry Truman -- became the most Republican region in the country for the first time since at least 1976 (as far back as our county-level data go), and probably for the first time in American history. In almost all of the states in this region, Bush carried rural counties that haven't voted Republican since the Nixon landslide of 1972, and even stuck with Walter Mondale over Ronald Reagan in 1984. Meanwhile, the most Republican region of 2000, the Gulf Coast-oriented Southern Comfort, was a close second this time (61.3 percent for Bush), and it was a key factor in keeping Florida in Bush's column.

But the growing Republican strength in Appalachia and Southern Comfort obscures the fact that Southern Lowlands, which lies in between, remains closely divided between the two parties. While Bush once again won Southern Lowlands (with 51.5 percent of the vote), Kerry increased Democratic margins in many parts of the region: northern Virginia; most of the major cities of North Carolina; and not only Atlanta but two adjoining suburban counties. He also pulled the county that includes Savannah, Ga., into the Democratic column.

This year Upper Coasts was the most Democratic region in the country -- again, probably for the first time in US history. If its representation in Congress is any indication, Upper Coasts is the most liberal region in the country on social and environmental issues; many Democratic Party strategists now deem it essential not to nominate someone from this region in 2008. Kerry's strength in his home region did help him capture New Hampshire, and four years ago that state's electoral votes would have been enough to put Gore in the White House. But the redistribution of electoral votes to fast-growing Southern and Western states meant that New Hampshire wouldn't have been enough of a boost this time even if Kerry had held onto the Gore states of Iowa and New Mexico.

The next most Democratic region was Northeast Corridor, but it was hardly something for Kerry to brag about. It was here that Bush enjoyed his biggest surge in the popular vote percentages, turning a 62-35 loss into a less lopsided 59-40. Nationally, four of the five counties with the biggest GOP gains, in raw votes, were those that make up Long Island. Kings (Brooklyn), Queens, Nassau, and Suffolk counties all went for Kerry, but his margin there was more than 250,000 votes short of Gore's in 2000. At the same time, Staten Island flipped from 57 percent for Gore to a 50 percent win for Bush, while New Jersey's Ocean County (which has a high retiree population) went from a 49 percent plurality for Bush to a 60 percent landslide.

Despite these shifts, the "must-win" regions for each party will probably be the same in 2008 as they were in 2004 -- and 2000. For example, it's hard to imagine the Democrats winning without taking back the Big River region -- that is, holding on to enough rural and small-town votes to keep Minnesota and Wisconsin, win back Iowa, and at least make the Republicans fight for Arkansas and Missouri.As for the Republicans, the question may be whether they can go any farther by revving up their conservative, mostly rural base in Appalachia and the Farm Belt (which Bush won with 59 percent). It's possible that they'll need to look toward more populous counties with culturally conservative Catholic and blue-collar workers -- those old "Reagan Democrats."

This year in Pennsylvania, Bush did flip two counties in the corridor between Pittsburgh and Erie; if the GOP is maxed out in Appalachia, those are the kinds of places that could switch the state's electoral votes. And in Michigan, Bush did well in the most rural parts of the Farm Belt, but he would have had to bulk up his showings in the region's urban counties to carry the state.The Republicans must also keep an eye on the Southwest. In winning the Sagebrush region by a bigger margin (60.6 percent) than the Democrats won the more heavily Hispanic and urban El Norte (54.9 percent), the GOP helped to snatch New Mexico and hold onto Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada. But the population is growing so rapidly in those states that the Republicans can't be sure of that equation holding for four more years.

The 10 Regions approach also puts the perplexing question of what the Democratic Party needs to do about the South in a different light. Right now, common wisdom is that the party must reduce the Republican margin in Appalachia by somehow neutralizing the "guns, God, and gays" issues that have doomed Democrats in rural areas. But it could be just as important to build on the party's foundation in Southern Lowlands, which is more urban, better-educated, and more heavily minority than the other Southern regions (indeed, Southern Lowlands has the highest percentage of blacks in the population, nearly 28 percent, of any of our 10 regions).

This choice isn't obvious on the red-and-blue map, which simply screams "Look South" or "Go West" to the Democratic party. But it would be foolish to assume there's only one way to court the South -- just as it would be short-sighted for the Republicans to believe that voters on the West Coast and in the Maine-to-Minnesota corner of America move in lockstep. If the parties want to understand the American electorate in 2008, they're going to have to go beyond red and blue.

Robert David Sullivan is an associate editor of CommonWealth, a quarterly journal published by MassINC, a Boston-based nonpartisan think tank. More on the 10 Regions of US Politics can be found at www.massinc.org.

Read More...

GOP to press for gay-marriage ban

The Boston Globe
GOP to press for gay-marriage ban
Democrats facing reelection pressure

By Anne E. Kornblut, Globe Staff | November 14, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Emboldened by the 11-state sweep of bans on same-sex marriage Nov. 2, conservative leaders intend to fuel the debate further when they return with an expanded majority to the next Congress, and press vulnerable Democrats into an awkward corner over the divisive issue.

There is little chance a federal constitutional amendment will pass the House or Senate with the necessary two-thirds' majority, but advocates expect it to be reintroduced in both chambers, prompting a vote that would placate conservatives and could then be used against Democrats up for reelection in 2006.

With as many as 15 states poised to introduce their own same-sex marriage bans in the next two years, following a campaign that proved the political potency of the issue, Republicans see it as one of their most powerful issues heading into the 109th Congress.

Asked whether politicians should vote against same-sex marriage bans at their peril, senior White House adviser Karl Rove told reporters last week, "I think people would be well-advised to pay attention to what the American people are saying. This is an issue on which there is a broad consensus."

Gay-rights advocates strongly disagree and cite polling data that show many voters support civil unions and oppose a step as drastic as a constitutional amendment, preferring to leave decisions about marriage to the states.

But those who have been promoting same-sex marriage said they cannot help being chastened by the Nov. 2 votes, wary they may have pushed too far too fast. Many are concerned about the political reverberations for Democrats and moderate Republicans who have typically been on their side.

"We have to win in the legislatures and the voting booths; otherwise, this will be seen as a movement that is forcing itself on the American people," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans. On that score, and on winning popular support for its cause, he said, "I don't think we have done a great job."

At the state level, ban opponents are considering introducing their own ballot initiatives, stopping short of same-sex marriage but ensuring domestic-partner provisions, such as healthcare benefits and visitation rights.

At the federal level, where a constitutional ban failed in both houses of Congress last year, both sides are floating a number of proposals in the hope of working toward a national consensus on same-sex marriage. One proposal, backed by groups opposing same-sex marriage, would bar the federal courts from hearing cases that would extend gay marriage beyond states that allow it.

But the constitutional amendment, as unlikely as it is to pass, remains the ground on which conservatives hope to build political pressure on Democrats -- and to openly reward the conservative activists who believe they helped deliver the election to Bush by turning out their supporters.

In the Senate, at least five Democrats are expected to face close races in the next election, putting them in the crosshairs of Republican strategy every time there is a vote on same-sex marriage. One of them, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, represents a state that voted to ban same-sex marriage Nov. 2.

Stabenow voted with the majority last summer, when the Senate rejected the federal constitutional ban; 50 senators voted against it, 48 senators voted for it, and two did not vote.

Three of the other vulnerable Democrats facing reelection -- Senators Maria Cantwell of Washington, Mark Dayton of Minnesota, and Bill Nelson of Florida -- won within a two-percentage-point margin in their last races and are in presidential battlegrounds. They, too, voted against the ban on same-sex marriage ban last July, making them appealing GOP targets. Another endangered Democratic incumbent, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, voted yes on the ban.

"Legislators in those states are . . . going to be hard-pressed not to be supportive," said Paul Weyrich, CEO of the conservative Free Congress Foundation. "If under those conditions legislators continue to vote against the amendment, I think there will be some political translation."

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, the leading opponent of same-sex marriage, warned that opponents can either switch their votes or continue to see same-sex marriage wielded against them in elections to come.

Sprigg said he expects to use same-sex marriage as a political wedge until it is blocked at the federal level. "An easy way for Democrats in Congress to take this issue off the table is simply to vote in favor of it," he said, referring to the constitutional ban.

Chances of a mass reversal in the Democratic ranks are slim to none, Democratic strategist David Axelrod said. "I don't think if we opposed a constitutional amendment before, we should support it now," Axelrod said. "That would be craven and stupid." But, he conceded, the 11-state sweep did signal a greater truth about the dilemma facing his party. "There is a more meaningful question about values that needs to be addressed."

But certain moderate Republicans who voted against the ban could be in trouble as well, especially Senators Lincoln D. Chafee of Rhode Island and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, both facing reelection in the next cycle. Both, according to advocates on both sides, are in danger of primary challenges from conservative Republicans.

The risk for conservatives is that Chafee and Snowe represent states that often lean to the Democrats. If either were defeated in the Republican primary, the winner would risk losing the seat to a candidate more liberal than Chafee or Snowe.

Opponents of the ban, as well as gay-rights advocates, said Republicans appear increasingly in danger of overreaching on the issue, putting their own majority in jeopardy if they appear too zealous to pass a measure that lacks even a 51-vote margin in the Senate, let alone the 67 votes required for a constitutional amendment.

Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, a leading voice on conservative cultural issues who is planning his next steps about same-sex marriage on Capitol Hill, is "wildly out of step with where his state is," said Christopher R. Barron, political director of the Log Cabin Republicans.

Pennsylvania backed Democrat John F. Kerry over President Bush.

If the Nov. 2 vote unsettled Democrats anywhere, it was in Michigan and Oregon, which supported Kerry and voted to ban same-sex marriage at the same time. Rove and other Bush strategists have cited those votes as evidence the ballot measures reflect a wider national sentiment against same-sex marriage, backed even by people who oppose Bush.

"In states like Arkansas and Ohio, where it was on the ballot, Bush won, and in states like Oregon and Michigan, where it was on the ballot, it won by significant margins, and we lost," Rove said. "I do think it was part and parcel of a broader fabric where this year moral values ranked higher than they have traditionally."

Many supporters believe that, as a civil rights issue, same-sex marriage is not like taxes or healthcare.

"It's like any other civil rights progress we've had in this country," said Representative James P. McGovern, a Worcester Democrat. "Maybe it's unrealistic to expect things to change overnight, but . . . I think the president and Karl Rove and all those others who are demagoguing this issue are on the wrong side of history."

Read More...

The Arafat Voids

The New York Times
November 14, 2004

The Arafat Voids
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

The day after Yasir Arafat died, USA Today carried a big, bold headline that caught my eye. It said: "Arafat Dies, Leaves Void."

All I could think of when reading that headline was its double meaning. Yasir Arafat left a void of leadership, with no formal successor. But he also left a void of achievement. And it is that second void that really matters, considering that he led the Palestinian movement for some 40 years.

You will pardon me if I don't join in the insipid chorus about how Arafat's great achievement was the way he represented the "aspirations" for statehood of the Palestinian people and, through terrorism and resistance, put the Palestinian cause on the world map.

Excuse me, but Yasir Arafat put the Palestinian cause on the world map in 1974, when he was invited to address the U.N. General Assembly. What did he do with all that attention after that? Very little. There is a message in his life and his legacy for every world leader: If all you do is express the aspirations, but never produce the reality, then history will judge you very harshly. And any honest history of Yasir Arafat will judge him on his voids, not his visions.

Will we now see the emergence of a Palestinian leadership - a broad coalition from Hamas to Fatah - ready to take the collective decision to really reconcile with the Jews that Arafat was not ready to make on his own?

Will Arab leaders, like Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who put forth a peace plan, be ready to really help the Palestinians make the tough decisions by giving them Arab cover? Or will we simply have another generation of expressive politics by Arab leaders, who love the Palestinian cause but not the Palestinian people?

Ariel Sharon seems to have already started to learn some of the lessons of Arafat's life. Mr. Sharon was asked recently what made him change his mind, and risk his own life and political career, to undertake a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza after so many years opposing such a move. His answer: There were things he could see "from here" that he couldn't see "from there."

In other words, sitting in the chair of the prime minister, he could suddenly see the long-term interests of the Israeli people in a different way.

"Sharon has started to give up his popularity among his own constituency, because he realizes that the welfare of the Israeli people, as a whole, requires decisions that are unpopular but unavoidable," said the Israeli political theorist Yaron Ezrahi. But Sharon cannot stop just with Gaza. He's got a lot more popularity to give up with his old constituency if we're going to see a deal on the West Bank.

Finally, what about President Bush? When it comes to the Arab-Israel question, he's had a little bit of Arafat disease himself. He's given some of the best speeches of any president on the Arab-Israel issue and delivered the most pathetic diplomacy I have ever seen.

This divide reflects the paralyzing split in his administration between those who understand that America will never win the war of ideas in the Middle East without working seriously on the most emotional issue in Arab political life - the Palestine question - and those, like the vice president and secretary of defense, who think the whole issue is overrated. The first group are right, the second are wrong. The president needs to choose.

If only President Bush called in Colin Powell and said: "Colin, neither of us have much to show by way of diplomacy for the last four years. I want you to get on an airplane and go out to the Middle East. I want you to sit down with Israelis and Palestinians and forge a framework for a secure Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and progress toward a secure peace in the West Bank, and I don't want you to come back home until you've got that. Only this time I will stand with you.

"As long as you're out there, I will not let Rummy or Cheney fire any more arrows into your back. So get going. It's time for you to stop sulking over at Foggy Bottom and time for me to make a psychological breakthrough with the Arab world that can also help us succeed in Iraq - by making it easier for Arabs and Muslims to stand with us. I don't want to see you back here until you've put our words into deeds."

Yasir Arafat preferred to die, beloved by all his people, in a Paris military hospital - rather than sacrifice his popularity and maybe his life so that the majority of his people could live and die at home. Will Ariel Sharon, George Bush and the Arab and Palestinian leaders now follow his model and play to the crowds, or play to history?

Read More...

Slapping the Other Cheek

The New York Times
November 14, 2004

Slapping the Other Cheek
By MAUREEN DOWD

You'd think the one good thing about merging church and state would be that politics would be suffused with glistening Christian sentiments like "love thy neighbor," "turn the other cheek," "good will toward men," "blessed be the peacemakers" and "judge not lest you be judged."

Yet somehow I'm not getting a peace, charity, tolerance and forgiveness vibe from the conservatives and evangelicals who claim to have put their prodigal son back in office.

I'm getting more the feel of a vengeful mob - revved up by rectitude - running around with torches and hatchets after heathens and pagans and infidels.

One fiery Southern senator actually accused a nice Catholic columnist of having horns coming up out of her head!

Bob Jones III, president of the fundamentalist college of the same name, has written a letter to the president telling him that "Christ has allowed you to be his servant" so he could "leave an imprint for righteousness," by appointing conservative judges and approving legislation "defined by biblical norm."

"In your re-election, God has graciously granted America - though she doesn't deserve it - a reprieve from the agenda of paganism," Mr. Jones wrote. "Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ." Way harsh.

The Christian avengers and inquisitors, hearts hard as marble, are chasing poor 74-year-old Arlen Specter through the Capitol's marble halls, determined to flagellate him and deny him his cherished goal of taking over the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Not only are they irate at his fairly innocuous comment after the election that anti-Roe v. Wade judges would have a hard time getting through the Senate. They are also full of bloodthirsty feelings of revenge against the senator for championing stem cell research and for voting against Robert Bork - who denounces Mr. Specter as "a bit shifty" - 17 years ago.

"He is a problem, and he must be derailed," Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, told George Stephanopoulos.

Sounding more like the head of a mob family than a ministry, Dr. Dobson told Mr. Stephanopoulos about a warning he issued a White House staffer after the election that the president and Republicans had better deliver on issues like abortion, gay marriage and conservative judges or "I believe they'll pay a price in the next election."

Certainly Mr. Specter has done his part for the conservative cause. He accused Anita Hill of "flat-out perjury" for a minor inconsistency in her testimony against Clarence Thomas, that good Christian jurist who once had a taste for porn films.

Some in the White House thought of giving Mr. Specter the post and then keeping him on a short leash. But the power puritans have no mercy. They say he's a mealy-mouthed impediment to the crusade of evangelicals and conservative Catholic bishops - who delivered their vote with ruthless efficacy - to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Mr. Stephanopoulos asked Dr. Dobson about his comment to The Daily Oklahoman that "Patrick Leahy is a 'God's people-hater.' I don't know if he hates God, but he hates God's people," noting that it was not a particularly Christian thing to say about the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. (Especially after that vulgar un-Christian thing Dick Cheney spat at Mr. Leahy last summer.)

"George," Dr. Dobson haughtily snapped back, "do you think you ought to lecture me on what a Christian is all about?" Why not? The TV host is the son of a Greek Orthodox priest.

Acting as though Mr. Bush's decisions should be taken on faith, John Ashcroft lashed into judges for not giving Mr. Bush unbridled power in his war against terror.

Speaking Friday before an adulatory Federalist Society, a group of conservative lawyers, Mr. Ashcroft echoed remarks he made to the Senate soon after 9/11 arguing that objecting to the president's antiterror proposals could give "ammunition to America's enemies."

He asserted that judges who interfere in or second guess the president's constitutional authority to make decisions during war can jeopardize the "very security of our nation in a time of war."

And since the president has no end in sight to his war on terror, that makes him infallible ad infini- tum?

Read More...

Saving 'Saving Private Ryan'

The New York Times
November 14, 2004

Saving 'Saving Private Ryan'

No one ever accused broadcast executives of being profiles in courage. But the pre-emptive timidity of a score of them was a sorry spectacle last Thursday when they decided not to show "Saving Private Ryan" on Veterans Day because they were afraid of the Federal Communications Commission. Station executives were openly fearful that the movie's realism in depicting the carnage and vulgarity of war might offend that newly righteous bureaucracy, whose blue nose was bent out of shape by the flash of Janet Jackson's breast during the last Super Bowl and, later, by Bono's casual airing of an obscenity assuredly in use among soldiers in Iraq.

The incident might seem minor - the vast majority of ABC network stations chose to run the film - except that the executives' timorousness is a sign of the effects of the government's growing willingness to intrude excessively into American culture. Before the Janet Jackson and Bono episodes, the F.C.C. took the position that context mattered - unscripted profanity at a public event like a music awards program or accidental glimpses of flesh would be excused, while deliberate and regular abuse of the public airwaves would not.

"Saving Private Ryan" was shown without the F.C.C.'s objection on network television the past two years. But the agency's shifting and arbitrary standards left executives at stations in Dallas, Atlanta and dozens of other cities wondering what the rules are and fearing for their licenses.

Pressure groups and organized campaigns complaining in the name of public morality have been a constant in the nation's political culture since the witch trials of Salem. Government officials should resist the temptation of joining the fray on either side. Some stations asked the F.C.C. to formally approve the airing of "Saving Private Ryan," and the agency properly resisted becoming an overt censor. Now the F.C.C. should move the standard back to where it was - a position of common sense.

Read More...

About Those Election Results

The NY Times is finally mentioning the issue, but is still clearly in denial about the widespread problems.

The New York Times
November 14, 2004

About Those Election Results

There have been a flood of reports, rumors and theories over the last 12 days about problems with the presidential election. The blogosphere, in particular, has been full of questions: Why did electronic voting machines in Ohio add nearly 4,000 phantom votes for President Bush, and why did machines in Florida mysteriously start to count backward? Why did the official vote totals for Ohio's largest county seem to suggest that there were more votes cast than registered voters? Why did election officials in yet another part of Ohio lock down the building where votes were being counted, turning away the press and public?

Defenders of the system have been quick to dismiss questions like these as the work of "conspiracy theorists," but that misses the point. Until our election system is improved - with better mechanics and greater transparency - we cannot expect voters to have full confidence in the announced results.

Electronic voting proved to be, as critics warned, a problem. There is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale. But this country should have elections in which the public has no reason to worry whether every vote was counted properly, and we're still not there. In Franklin County, Ohio, one precinct reported nearly 4,000 votes for President Bush, although the precinct had fewer than 800 voters. In Broward County, Florida election officials noticed that when the absentee ballots were being tabulated, the vote totals began to go down instead of up. Voters in several states reported that when they selected John Kerry, it turned into a vote for President Bush.

These problems were all detected and fixed, but there is no way of knowing how many other machine malfunctions did not come to light, since most machines do not have a reliable way of double-checking for errors. When a precinct mistakenly adds nearly 4,000 votes to a candidate's total, it is likely to be noticed, but smaller inaccuracies may not be. There is also no way to be sure that the nightmare scenario of electronic voting critics did not occur: votes surreptitiously shifted from one candidate to another inside the machines, by secret software.

It's important to make it clear that there is no evidence such a thing happened, but there will be concern and conspiracy theories until all software used in elections is made public. Voters who use electronic machines are entitled to a voter-verified paper trail, which Nevadans got this year, so they can be sure their votes were accurately recorded.

The outrageous decision by Warren County, Ohio, to lock down the building where votes were being counted is an extreme example of another serious problem with the elections: a lack of transparency. In some states, reporters are barred from polling places. The wild rumors about Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where the official results appeared to include an extra 90,000 votes, were a result of its bizarrely complicated method of posting election results, which is different in even- and odd-numbered years. The nation needs to develop an election culture in which officials in every part of the country automatically keep things as open - and as simple - as humanly possible.

Besides election equipment that is easy to check for error, the strongest defense against conspiracy theorists is election officials who act with openness and integrity. Here, too, the current system is at fault. Ohio and Florida, two of the key states in the election, have highly partisan secretaries of state who favored the Republicans all year in their rulings. If we want the voters to trust the umpires, we need umpires who don't take sides.

Read More...

The Political Conversion of New York's Evangelicals

The New York Times
November 14, 2004

The Political Conversion of New York's Evangelicals
By ANDREA ELLIOTT

The signs are all around. Storefront churches dot the commercial landscapes of the Bronx and Queens. Twice as many churchgoers - about 15,000 - pray weekly at the Christian Cultural Center in Brooklyn, compared with five years ago. Some 200,000 New Yorkers tune in daily to Radio Vision Cristiana, an AM radio station. And last March, thousands of evangelicals gathered on the steps of the State Supreme Court in the Bronx to protest the idea of same-sex marriage.

Evangelism is flourishing not just in the red states of the nation's heartland, but in the urban, liberal stronghold of New York City, where thousands of evangelical churches are anchored in working-class neighborhoods. Whether it will evolve into a local political force, as it has nationally, remains an open question. But a range of interviews with pastors, congregants and religious experts suggests that a new debate - and perhaps a political conversion - is taking place in parts of the city's minority neighborhoods, swaths that Democrats have long claimed as their own.

It is a conversion that prompted Jeanmarie Salazar, a Puerto Rican mother of four in the Bronx, to vote for President Bush even though his economic policies troubled her. And a conversion that caused Harold Thompson, an African-American from Flatbush who lived through the civil rights movement, to part with a lifetime of voting Democratic, citing the "immorality that is destroying our country."

Both Ms. Salazar and Mr. Thompson belong to evangelical churches whose leaders have spread a single but potent message: Faith trumps everything else, even traditional party alignments.

"They're beginning to think about the social transformation of New York City," said Tony Carnes, a sociologist of religion at Columbia University.

Precisely determining the number of people who consider themselves members of evangelical churches or movements is difficult. Mr. Carnes said that he conducted a census of the city's evangelical churches and estimated that 1.5 million New Yorkers attend them. A separate study, conducted in 2000 by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, put the number of evangelical New Yorkers closer to 1 million, said Vivian Klaff, a professor of sociology at the University of Delaware who analyzed the study's data.

If a fully accurate count of evangelicals in the city is difficult to achieve, it is even harder, at the moment, to define the voting patterns of evangelicals. But the number of Protestant New Yorkers who cast ballots for a Republican president more than doubled in the last four years, to nearly a quarter of those surveyed at polling sites by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International. And a recent study by Mr. Carnes suggested that a majority of evangelical church leaders in the city were breaking with tradition and voting Republican: of 1,006 ordained ministers surveyed last year, Mr. Carnes found, 55 percent said they planned to vote for Mr. Bush.

About 30 percent of the ministers were black and 30 percent Hispanic, reflecting the demographic breakdown of the religious group, Mr. Carnes said.

"It's a significant development," said Randall Barnes, a professor of American religious history at Barnard College. But, he added, the Republican Party in New York City is "still a decade or two away from making significant inroads into that community."

Any measuring of the political clout of evangelicals in the city, now or in the future, is complicated by the fact that a sizable portion of them are from other countries, and some are not eligible to vote, said Mr. Carnes, who conducted his study with a team of pollsters at the International Research Institute on Values Changes, an independent research group in New York City. The study was financed by the Christian Cultural Center, a charismatic evangelical church.

But the results indicated a shift to the right among voting evangelicals. In a separate study he did in 1997, Mr. Carnes said, only 22 percent of the city's evangelical church leaders surveyed identified themselves as "politically conservative."

In the aftermath of the election, an increasingly complex image has emerged of the Christian electorate - one that is not entirely captured under the religious right rubric. In New York City, there are the evangelicals who consider themselves liberal and voted for Kerry but find that they are missing from the mainstream image of their faith.

But then there are those, like Mr. Thompson, who broke with tradition for the first time to vote Republican.

And while many New Yorkers have loudly voiced their sense of alienation from the faith-based vote of the red states, the city's evangelicals, in numerous interviews, said they felt a similar invisibility in the Democratic stronghold they call home.

"You feel like you're alone," said Abraham Lopez, 19, as he stood on a recent Saturday outside the Assemblies of United Christian Churches on Third Avenue in the South Bronx.

Perhaps no single event better captures the group's presence than a same-sex marriage protest on March 14 in the South Bronx.

Led by State Senator Rubén Diaz, 150 Bronx churches closed for the day. They sent their congregants to the steps of the State Supreme Court on the Grand Concourse where thousands of people - estimated at 8,000 by Mr. Carnes, who used two methods to count the crowd - filled the streets. A large banner hung between two pillars, reading, "No to Homosexual Marriage."

"We said, 'Sunday nobody goes to church; we'll go to the street,' " said Mr. Diaz, one of the most noted of the city's Hispanic evangelicals. Mr. Diaz, whose South Bronx district includes about 250,000 people, is both an evangelical pastor and a registered Democrat.

"I am a conservative Democrat," Mr. Diaz, 61, said in a telephone interview from Puerto Rico. "When it comes to education, when it comes to health, when it comes to jobs, I'm a Democrat. When it comes to moral issues - marriage, abortion - I'm not a Democrat."

Mr. Diaz has a history of stirring controversy with his conservative stands on same-sex marriage and abortion. In 1994, after he organized a voter drive for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani , Mr. Diaz, then a city councilman, vocally criticized the Gay and Lesbian Olympic Games. Mr. Giuliani then issued a statement distancing himself from Mr. Diaz's views. In 2003, Mr. Diaz filed a lawsuit, which is still pending, against the city over the opening of a small public school for gay students. He defends his positions unflinchingly, saying things like he "cannot wait" for the reversal of Roe v. Wade and eagerly admitting that gay rights activists have picketed his church.

Several political strategists who have worked with Republicans and Democrats said that no one with Mr. Diaz's conservative views would be able to win a citywide or statewide office. But in local city politics, like races for the State Assembly and the City Council, the faith-driven agenda might have greater impact.

"In a Democratic primary where you take the party affiliation question out of play, then I think it could become a more powerful influence," said Kieran Mahoney, a Republican political strategist whose clients have included Gov. George E. Pataki.

Pedro Espada Jr., who lost to Mr. Diaz in the primary this year, said he had no doubt that the evangelical movement could sway local politics. Mr. Espada, who was ousted from his Senate seat by Mr. Diaz in 2002, tried to reach out to evangelical voters by visiting Bronx churches.

"They would say, 'Espada, we would vote for you but you are not a Christian,' " Mr. Espada said. But other politicians were more skeptical that the group's members would be driven by religion when they entered the voting booth.

Fernando Ferrer, the former Bronx borough president who is running for mayor, said, "Issues of faith and family matter, but so do issues of how we support our families, equal access and opportunity, housing, education, health care, jobs."

While Hispanics and African Americans in New York City have traditionally voted Democratic, those who attend evangelical churches may feel a different pull.

José Casanova, a professor of sociology who specializes in religion and politics at New School University and has studied evangelicals around the world, said that even if they are poor, they tend to vote for conservative candidates.

"They do not so much identify with their economic position right now, but with the one they ought to have with the help of God," he said. "They are very conservative and pro-market and do not expect the government to help them."

It is not clear how pervasive this view has been in New York City's evangelical community. But the Rev. A. R. Bernard has made a point of preaching economic independence and social conservatism at the Christian Cultural Center, where more than 90 percent of congregants are African Americans or black immigrants.

"We are teaching them self-reliance," Mr. Bernard said. "We have a whole new generation of people of color who have grown up without legal and racial barriers. They have experienced unprecedented wealth, unprecedented education, a position in the marketplace. So once you have something to conserve, you become more conservative."

Mr. Bernard, who said he voted for President Bush, does not publicly endorse candidates. However, he did tell his congregants that they should question the tendency to vote along traditional party lines.

Two of his church's members, Raina and Robert Bundy, said they decided to vote for Mr. Bush by following the news, watching the debates and, ultimately, praying over their choice. Like many African Americans, they said they were brought up to vote Democratic, but now compared the tradition to their mothers' old recipes for collard greens.

"We don't use fatback, it's all about olive oil now," Mrs. Bundy said. "You don't keep cooking something even though you know it's not good for you."

Marjorie Connelly and Jennifer Medina contributed reporting for this article.

Read More...

On 'Moral Values,' It's Blue in a Landslide

The New York Times
November 14, 2004

FRANK RICH
On 'Moral Values,' It's Blue in a Landslide

FAREWELL to Swift boats and "Shove it!," to Osama's tape and Saddam's missing weapons, to "security moms" and outsourced dads. They've all been sent to history's dustbin faster than Ralph Nader memorabilia was dumped on eBay. In their stead stands a single ambiguous phrase coined by an anonymous exit pollster: "Moral values." By near universal agreement the morning after, these two words tell the entire story of the election: it's the culture, stupid.

"It really is Michael Moore versus Mel Gibson," said Newt Gingrich. To Jon Stewart, Nov. 2 was the red states' revenge on "Will & Grace." William Safire, speaking on "Meet the Press," called the Janet Jackson fracas "the social-political event of the past year." Karl Rove was of the same mind: "I think it's people who are concerned about the coarseness of our culture, about what they see on the television sets, what they see in the movies ..."

And let's not even get started on the two most dreaded words in American comedy, regardless of your party affiliation: Whoopi Goldberg.

There's only one problem with the storyline proclaiming that the country swung to the right on cultural issues in 2004. Like so many other narratives that immediately calcify into our 24/7 media's conventional wisdom, it is fiction. Everything about the election results - and about American culture itself - confirms an inescapable reality: John Kerry's defeat notwithstanding, it's blue America, not red, that is inexorably winning the culture war, and by a landslide. Kerry voters who have been flagellating themselves since Election Day with a vengeance worthy of "The Passion of the Christ" should wake up and smell the Chardonnay.

The blue ascendancy is nearly as strong among Republicans as it is among Democrats. Those whose "moral values" are invested in cultural heroes like the accused loofah fetishist Bill O'Reilly and the self-gratifying drug consumer Rush Limbaugh are surely joking when they turn apoplectic over MTV. William Bennett's name is now as synonymous with Las Vegas as silicone. The Democrats' Ashton Kutcher is trumped by the Republicans' Britney Spears. Excess and vulgarity, as always, enjoy a vast, bipartisan constituency, and in a democracy no political party will ever stamp them out.

If anyone is laughing all the way to the bank this election year, it must be the undisputed king of the red cultural elite, Rupert Murdoch. Fox News is a rising profit center within his News Corporation, and each red-state dollar that it makes can be plowed back into the rest of Fox's very blue entertainment portfolio. The Murdoch cultural stable includes recent books like Jenna Jameson's "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star" and the Vivid Girls' "How to Have a XXX Sex Life," which have both been synergistically, even joyously, promoted on Fox News by willing hosts like Rita Cosby and, needless to say, Mr. O'Reilly. There are "real fun parts and exciting parts," said Ms. Cosby to Ms. Jameson on Fox News's "Big Story Weekend," an encounter broadcast on Saturday at 9 p.m., assuring its maximum exposure to unsupervised kids.

Almost unnoticed in the final weeks of the campaign was the record government indecency fine levied against another prime-time Fox television product, "Married by America." The $1.2 million bill, a mere bagatelle to Murdoch stockholders, was more than twice the punishment inflicted on Viacom for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction." According to the F.C.C. complaint, one episode in this heterosexual marriage-promoting reality show included scenes in which "partygoers lick whipped cream from strippers' bodies," and two female strippers "playfully spank" a man on all fours in his underwear. "Married by America" is gone now, but Fox remains the go-to network for Paris Hilton ("The Simple Life") and wife-swapping ("Trading Spouses: Meet Your New Mommy").

None of this has prompted an uprising from the red-state Fox News loyalists supposedly so preoccupied with "moral values." They all gladly contribute fungible dollars to Fox culture by boosting their fair-and-balanced channel's rise in the ratings. Some of these red staters may want to make love like porn stars besides. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) An ABC News poll two weeks before the election found that more Republicans than Democrats enjoy sex "a great deal." The Democrats' new hero, Illinois Senator-elect Barack Obama, was assured victory once his original, ostentatiously pious Republican opponent, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race rather than defend his taste for "avant-garde" sex clubs.

The 22 percent of voters who told pollsters that "moral values" were their top election issue - 79 percent of whom voted for Bush-Cheney - corresponds almost exactly to the number of voters (23 percent) who describe themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians. They are entitled to their culture, too, and their own entertainment industry. And their own show-biz scandals. The Los Angeles Times reported this summer that Paul Crouch, the evangelist who founded the largest Christian network, Trinity Broadcasting Network, vehemently denied a former employee's accusation that the two had had a homosexual encounter - though not before paying the employee a $425,000 settlement. Not so incidentally, Trinity joined Gary Bauer and Fox News as prime movers in "Redeem the Vote," the Christian-rock alternative to MTV's "Rock the Vote."

But the distance between this hard-core red culture and the majority blue culture is perhaps best captured by Tom Coburn, the newly elected Republican senator from Oklahoma, lately famous for discovering "rampant" lesbianism in that state's schools. As a congressman in 1997, Mr. Coburn attacked NBC for encouraging "irresponsible sexual behavior" and taking "network TV to an all-time low with full frontal nudity, violence and profanity being shown in our homes." The broadcast that prompted his outrage on behalf of "parents and decent-minded individuals everywhere" was the network's prime-time showing of Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List."

It's in the G.O.P.'s interest to pander to this far-right constituency - votes are votes - but you can be certain that a party joined at the hip to much of corporate America, Mr. Murdoch included, will take no action to curtail the blue culture these voters deplore. As Marshall Wittman, an independent-minded former associate of both Ralph Reed and John McCain, wrote before the election, "The only things the religious conservatives get are largely symbolic votes on proposals guaranteed to fail, such as the gay marriage constitutional amendment." That amendment has never had a prayer of rounding up the two-thirds majority needed for passage and still doesn't.

Mr. Wittman echoes Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter With Kansas?," by common consent the year's most prescient political book. "Values," Mr. Frank writes, "always take a backseat to the needs of money once the elections are won." Under this perennial "trick," as he calls it, Republican politicians promise to stop abortion and force the culture industry "to clean up its act" - until the votes are counted. Then they return to their higher priorities, like cutting capital gains and estate taxes. Mr. Murdoch and his fellow cultural barons - from Sumner Redstone, the Bush-endorsing C.E.O. of Viacom, to Richard Parsons, the Republican C.E.O. of Time Warner, to Jeffrey Immelt, the Bush-contributing C.E.O. of G.E. (NBC Universal) - are about to be rewarded not just with more tax breaks but also with deregulatory goodies increasing their power to market salacious entertainment. It's they, not Susan Sarandon and Bruce Springsteen, who actually set the cultural agenda Gary Bauer and company say they despise.

But it's not only the G.O.P.'s fealty to its financial backers that is predictive of how little cultural bang the "values" voters will get for their Bush-Cheney votes. At 78 percent, the nonvalues voters have far more votes than they do, and both parties will cater to that overwhelming majority's blue tastes first and last. Their mandate is clear: The same poll that clocked "moral values" partisans at 22 percent of the electorate found that nearly three times as many Americans approve of some form of legal status for gay couples, whether civil unions (35 percent) or marriage (27 percent). Do the math and you'll find that the poll also shows that for all the G.O.P.'s efforts to court Jews, the total number of Jewish Republican voters in 2004, while up from 2000, was still some 200,000 less than the number of gay Republican voters.

When Robert Novak writes after the election that "the anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, socially conservative agenda is ascendant, and the G.O.P. will not abandon it anytime soon," you have to wonder what drug he is on. The abandonment began at the convention. Sam Brownback, the Kansas senator who champions the religious right, was locked away in an off-camera rally across town from Madison Square Garden. Prime time was bestowed upon the three biggest stars in post-Bush Republican politics: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger. All are supporters of gay rights and opponents of the same-sex marriage constitutional amendment. Only Mr. McCain calls himself pro-life, and he's never made abortion a cause. None of the three support the Bush administration position on stem-cell research. When the No. 1 "moral values" movie star, Mel Gibson, condemned the Schwarzenegger-endorsed California ballot initiative expanding and financing stem-cell research, the governor and voters crushed him like a girlie-man. The measure carried by 59 percent, which is consistent with national polling on the issue.

If the Republican party's next round of leaders are all cool with blue culture, why should Democrats run after the red? Received Washington wisdom has it that the only Democrat who will ever be able to win a national election must be a cross between Gomer Pyle and Billy Sunday - a Scripture-quoting Sun Belt exurbanite whose loyalty to Nascar does not extend to Dale Earnhardt Jr., who was fined last month for saying a four-letter word on television.

According to this argument, the values voters the Democrats must pander to are people like Cary and Tara Leslie, archetypal Ohio evangelical "Bush votes come to life" apotheosized by The Washington Post right after Election Day. The Leslies swear by "moral absolutes," support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and mostly watch Fox News. Mr. Leslie has also watched his income drop from $55,000 to $35,000 since 2001, forcing himself, his wife and his three young children into the ranks of what he calls the "working poor." Maybe by 2008 some Democrat will figure out how to persuade him that it might be a higher moral value to worry about the future of his own family than some gay family he hasn't even met.

Read More...

In New Mexico, Bush vs. Kerry Is Still an Issue as Votes Trickle In

The New York Times
November 14, 2004

In New Mexico, Bush vs. Kerry Is Still an Issue as Votes Trickle In
By REUTERS

SANTA FE, N.M., Nov. 13 (Reuters) - Senator John Kerry has conceded, President Bush has laid out his plans for a second term and New Mexicans still do not know who won the election in their state.

New Mexico is the only state that does not have a clear-cut winner in the presidential vote, and state officials have been red-faced over the slow count. The state pledged to speed up counting ballots after it took about a month to tally the vote in the 2000 presidential race, where Al Gore beat Mr. Bush by 366 votes.

With most of the ballots counted, Mr. Bush has about 373,000 votes to 365,000 for Mr. Kerry, and several news outlets have projected Mr. Bush as the winner of New Mexico's five electoral votes.

On Friday, all of New Mexico's counties were required to have completed a count in their regions, but one rural county still had problems and did not meet the deadline. The secretary of state's office said Mr. Bush's lead over Mr. Kerry had narrowed to about 6,800 votes, according to initial tallies of the provisional ballots submitted to the office on Friday.

The main problems this time are the narrow margin between Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry, troubles sorting through provisional ballots and not learning from the 2000 count, critics said.

It is expected to take more than a week to reach a definitive answer.

"I will not be declaring a winner until Nov. 23," said the secretary of state, Rebecca Vigil-Giron.

About 750,000 people voted in New Mexico, and Republicans said money that should have gone toward counting votes was spent on a marketing campaign intended to increase turnout.

"The counties were unprepared for the volume of voters because the money wasn't there," said Greg Graves, the executive director of the state's Republican Party.

Read More...

Saturday, November 13, 2004

Lock and Load

The New York Times
November 13, 2004

Lock and Load
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Nothing kills Democratic candidates' prospects more than guns. If it weren't for guns, President-elect Kerry might now be conferring with incoming Senate Majority Leader Daschle.

Since the Brady Bill took effect in 1994, gun-control efforts have been a catastrophe for Democrats. They have accomplished almost nothing nationally, other than giving a big boost to the Republicans. Mr. Kerry tried to get around the problem by blasting away at small animals, but nervous Red Staters still suspected Democrats of plotting to seize guns.

Moreover, it's clear that in this political climate, further efforts at gun control are a nonstarter. You can talk until you're blue in the face about the 30,000 gun deaths each year, about children who are nine times as likely to die in a gun accident in America as elsewhere in the developed world, about the $17,000 average cost (half directly borne by taxpayers) of treating each gun injury. But nationally, gun control is dead.

So it's time for a fundamentally new approach, emblematic of how Democrats must think in new ways about old issues. The new approach is to accept that handguns are part of the American landscape, but to use a public health approach to try to make them much safer.

The model is automobiles, for a high rate of traffic deaths was once thought to be inevitable. But then we figured out ways to mitigate the harm with seat belts, air bags and collapsible steering columns, and since the 1950's the death rate per mile driven has dropped 80 percent.

Similar steps are feasible in the world of guns.

"You can tell whether a camera is loaded by looking at it, and you should be able to tell whether a gun is loaded by looking at it," said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Professor Hemenway has written "Private Guns, Public Health," a brilliant and clear-eyed primer for the country.

We take safety steps that reduce the risks of everything from chain saws (so they don't kick back and cut off an arm) to refrigerators (so kids can't lock themselves inside). But firearms have been exempt. Companies make cellphones that survive if dropped, but some handguns can fire if they hit the ground.

Professor Hemenway notes that in the 1990's, two children a year, on average, died after locking themselves in car trunks. This was considered unacceptable, so a government agency studied the problem, and General Motors and Ford engineered safety mechanisms to prevent such deaths.

In contrast, 15 children under the age of 5 die annually in fatal gun accidents in the U.S., along with 18 children 5 to 9 years old. We routinely make aspirin bottles childproof, but not guns, even though childproof pistols were sold back in the 19th century - they wouldn't fire unless the shooter put pressure on the handle as well as the trigger.

Aside from making childproof guns, here are other steps we could take:

Require magazine safeties so a gun cannot be fired when the clip is removed (people can forget that a bullet may still be in the chamber and pull the trigger). Many guns already have magazine safeties, but not all.

Finance research to develop "smart guns," which can be fired only by authorized users. If a cellphone can be locked with a PIN, why not a gun? This innovation would protect children - and thwart criminals.

Start public safety campaigns urging families to keep guns locked up in a gun safe or with a trigger lock (now, 12 to 14 percent of gun owners with young children keep loaded and unlocked weapons in their homes).

Encourage doctors to counsel depressed patients not to keep guns, and to advise new parents on storing firearms safely.

Make gun serial numbers harder for criminals to remove.

Create a national database for gun deaths. In a traffic fatality, 120 bits of data are collected, like the positions of the passengers and the local speed limit, so we now understand what works well (air bags, no "right on red") and what doesn't (driver safety courses). Statistics on gun violence are much flimsier, so we don't know what policies would work best, and much of the data hurled by rival camps at each other is inaccurate.

Would these steps fly politically? Maybe. One poll showed that 88 percent of the public favors requiring that guns be childproof. And such measures demonstrate the kind of fresh thinking that can keep alive not only thousands of Americans, but the Democratic Party as well.

Read More...

Friday, November 12, 2004

The Bush Plan


Read More...

Contact the Press!!

Here is a list of some press contacts which I found at
FAIR, the national media watch group.

Ask the media why they are not covering the fraud and corruption investigations that are going on? Why are some of the few who even mention them calling this a "conspiracy theory?" All everyone is asking is for an honest and complete investigation into the record number of problems reported.


ABC News
77 W. 66 St., New York, NY 10023
Phone: 212-456-7777
General e-mail: netaudr@abc.com
Nightline: nightline@abcnews.com
20/20: 2020@abc.com
http://abcnews.go.com/service/help/abccontact.html

CBS News
524 W. 57 St., New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-975-4321
Fax: 212-975-1893
CBS Evening News with Dan Rather: evening@cbsnews.com
The Early Show: earlyshow@cbs.com
60 Minutes II: 60II@cbsnews.com
48 Hours: 48hours@cbsnews.com
Face The Nation: ftn@cbsnews.com
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/feedback/fb_news_form.shtml

CNN
One CNN Center, Box 105366, Atlanta, GA 30303-5366
Phone: 404-827-1500
Fax: 404-827-1906
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/

Fox News Channel
1211 Ave. of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 301-3000
Fax: (212) 301-4229
comments@foxnews.com
Special Report with Brit Hume: Special@foxnews.com
FOX Report with Shepard Smith: Foxreport@foxnews.com
The O'Reilly Factor: Oreilly@foxnews.com
Hannity & Colmes: Hannity@foxnews.com, Colmes@foxnews.com
On the Record with Greta: Ontherecord@foxnews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/foxfan/contact.html

NBC
30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112
Phone: 212-664-4444
Fax: 212-664-4426
NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw: nightly@nbc.com
NBC News' Today: today@nbc.com
Dateline NBC: dateline@nbc.com
http://www.msnbc.com/news/435157.asp?0bb=-m1#nbc


MSNBC
One MSNBC Plaza
Secaucus, NJ 07094
Phone: (201) 583-5000
Fax: (201) 583-5453
world@msnbc.com
Hardball with Chris Matthews: hardball@msnbc.com
MSNBC Reports with Joe Scarborough: msnbcreports@msnbc.com
http://www.msnbc.com/news/435157.asp?0bb=-m1#nbc

CNBC
2200 Fletcher Ave.
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Phone: (201) 585-2622
Fax: (201) 583-5453
info@cnbc.com
http://moneycentral.msn.com/Content/CNBCTV/TV_Info/email.asp

PBS
1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-739-5000
Fax: 703-739-8458
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: newshour@pbs.org

NPR
National Public Radio
635 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001-3753
Phone: 202-513-2000
Fax: 202-513-3329
E-mail: Jeffrey Dvorkin, Ombudsman ombudsman@npr.org
All Things Considered: atc@npr.org
Morning Edition: morning@npr.org
Talk Of The Nation: totn@npr.org
http://www.npr.org/contact/index.html#email

Rush Limbaugh
The Rush Limbaugh Show
1270 Avenue of the Americas, NY 10020
Phone: 800-282-2882
Fax: 212-563-9166
E-mail: rush@eibnet.com

Sean Hannity
Sean Hannity Show
E-mail: Phil Boyce, Program Director phil.boyce@abc.com

Los Angeles Times
202 West First Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: 800-528-4637 or 213-237-5000
Fax: 213-237-4712
Letters to the Editor: letters@latimes.com
Readers' Representative: readers.rep@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/services/site/la-contactus.htmlstory

New York Times
229 W. 43rd St., New York, NY 10036
Phone: 212-556-1234
Fax: 212-556-3690
D.C. Bureau phone: 202-862-0300
Letters to the Editor (for publication): letters@nytimes.com
Write to the news editors: nytnews@nytimes.com
NYTimes Contact Information by Department
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#c
How to Contact NYTimes Reporters and Editors
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/contactpaper.html

USA Today
7950 Jones Branch Dr., McLean, VA 22108
Phone: 800-872-0001 or 703-854-3400
Fax: 703-854-2165
Letters to the Editor: editor@usatoday.com
Give Feedback to USA Today
http://contact.usatoday.com/feedback/print/feedback-form.asp?type=USAT+-+LT

Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty St., New York, NY 10281
Phone: 212-416-2000
Fax: 212-416-2658
Letters to the Editor: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
Comment on News Articles: wsjcontact@dowjones.com

Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW, Washington, DC 20071
Phone: 202-334-6000
Fax: 202-334-5269
Letters to the Editor: letters@washpost.com
Ombudsman: ombudsman@washpost.com
Contact Washington Post Writers and Editors
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/interact/longterm/stfbio/wpemail.htm

Newsweek
251 W 57th Street, New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-445-4000
Fax: 212-445-5068
Letters to the Editor: letters@newsweek.com

Time Magazine
Time & Life Bldg., Rockefeller Center, New York, NY 10020
Phone: 212-522-1212
Fax: 212-522-0323
Letters to the Editor letters@time.com

U.S. News & World Report
1050 Thomas Jefferson St., Washington, DC 20007
Phone: 202-955-2000
Fax: 202-955-2049
Letters to the Editor letters@usnews.com

Associated Press
50 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10020
Phone: 212-621-1500
Fax: 212-621-7523
General Questions and Comments: info@ap.org
Partial Contact Information for the Associated Press by Department and Bureau
To send a press release: pr@ap.org
http://www.ap.org/pages/aptoday/ap_contacts1.html

Reuters
Three Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: 646-223-4000
Reuters Editorial Feedback
http://aboutreuters.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/aboutreuters.cfg/php/enduser/site_fdbck.php

United Press International
1510 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: 202.898.8000
FAX: 202.898.8057
Press Release: pressreleases@upi.com
Comment and Tips: tips@upi.com

FAIR, the national media watch group
FAIR wants to hear about your media activism. Please send copies of your letters to journalists to
FAIR
112 W. 27th St.
New York, NY 10001
fair@fair.org

Read More...

Help America (Re)Count

opednews.com

Good News From Bev Harris

This is amazing and very hopeful! Bev Harris http://www.blackboxvoting.org and Ralph Nader had a press conference in DC today. They have teamed up with http://www.ballotintegrity.org/ and have set up a 527 special fund http://helpamericarecount.org/ to buy recounts. They worked with Bev Harris's lawyer who is an election specialist attorney. They have found a little used law that allows a recount if it's requested by five citizens who voted in that state and did not vote for the candidate who won. The state wants a down payment of ten dollars a precinct, so they need money fast!

Send to the fund http://helpamericarecount.org/ All the funds are for recounts and will be prioritized by the most suspicious counties first. It will be about $200,000 to recount Ohio, which is the first target because it has very provable anomolies that show massive fraud- Bev says, "Very strange and impossible math"; then Florida.

If you go to http://helpamericarecount.org/ or www.blackboxvoting.org and can't get there, it's because their website keeps getting shut down and they keep having to put it back up. They are going to have to switch to a specialist host; a company who specializes in protecting websites that are under attack constantly. So if you can't get there, keep trying.

Also, there is a woman who has, on her own, filed for a recount in Nevada, using the same law.

And, Ralph Nader is going to pay for a recount in New Hampshire to audit the Diebold machines there.

About the Help America Recount Fund from their website:

http://helpamericarecount.org/

"The Help America Recount Fund is a new 527 fund affiliated with BlackBoxVoting.org and the National Ballot Integrity Project. The sole purpose of the Help America Recount Fund is to finance presidential ballot recounts in Ohio, Florida and elsewhere, for the 2004 election. For more information, contact us at info@helpamericarecount.org. Or you can reach us at Help America Recount Fund, Law Offices of Lowell Finley, 1604 Solano Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94707-2109"

All this info came from Bev Harris on "Unfiltered" on Air America Wednesday. Go to http://airamericaradio.com. Scroll down to Air America Audio Highlights. (These usually only stay up a day or two). Look for Unfiltered (November 10th, 2004) "Bev Harris, founder of blackboxvoting.org talks to Unfiltered about her latest efforts to look into potential voter fraud, and offers some hope that we may indeed get a recount before the electoral college officially re-elects Bush." (link is on Air America website).

Read More...

Recounts and retractions

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

November 11, 2004 | 12:08 a.m. ET

Recounts and retractions (Keith Olbermann)

NEW YORK— John Kerry or no John Kerry, there could still be recounts in Ohio and New Hampshire— courtesy of the two candidates who got far more grief than votes during the presidential campaign.

David Cobb of the Green Party told a California radio station late yesterday afternoon that he is “quite likely to be demanding a recount in Ohio,” with a final decision to be reached and announced during the day

The New Hampshire Assistant Attorney General, meanwhile, told us at Countdown that negotiations are ongoing with Ralph Nader, who at a news conference yesterday not only demanded a recount in a minimum of four districts, but also added another bizarre touch to the proceedings by launching into a brief but surprisingly high-quality Richard Nixon impression.

The central issue in both potential recounts appears to be money. Cobb, whose presence on the ballot in all 50 states is probably coming to your attention only as you read this, said in an interview with the Pacifica station in Los Angeles, KPFK, that a recount would cost the Greens around $110,000, on a basis of approximately $10 per precinct. As you’d probably guess, Mr. Cobb’s doesn’t have the money lying around— but as a presidential candidate, he does have the right. Whether or not he can raise the cash is the operative question.

In New Hampshire, Assistant Attorney General Bud Fitch indicated that reports that Nader forfeited his right to request a recount there because he didn’t get a $2,000 filing fee to them before last Friday’s deadline were erroneous. However, Fitch did raise the bar on Nader, saying that he would have to provide a written guarantee that he would cover all costs relating to a recount, and that the state would probably demand a deposit, or the establishment of an escrow account. Complicating matters still further is Fitch’s admission that New Hampshire really can’t give a good estimate on the final costs.

It’s been twenty years since they’ve had a recount there and Fitch said costs in today’s dollars could be $30,000, $50,000, or even $80,000— although he guesses that the middle figure is the “top end” of what they’re looking at. New Hampshire is a recount-friendly state. Candidates are permitted to base a recount on the results of a particular community, and if they find their doubts resolved, they’re afforded the opportunity to cancel the rest of any statewide investigation.

That Cobb and Nader between them could lead to a resolution of both Democrats’ doubts about the legitimacy of the election, and Republicans’ resentment that there are doubts, contains a delicious irony. To call them “fringe” candidates is to demean their efforts, but they’re hardly favorites at any spot on the political spectrum. Nader, in particular, was trashed on a daily basis by the Democrats who feared he could negatively impact Kerry’s vote totals in swing states, as he clearly did to Al Gore in Florida in 2000. For the rancor, Nader has nobody to blame but himself. Not until late in the campaign did he successfully articulate his reasons for ‘running anyway’— namely, his conviction that breaking the two-party duopoly at lower echelons of government (particularly in the House) will take decades, and had to start at the top and work down.

In any event, if Nader and Cobb are at the edges, questions about Ohio moved back into the mainstream yesterday with another cogent article in The Cincinnati Enquirer. The rationale for the bizarre “lockdown” of the vote-counting venue in Warren County on election night suddenly broke down when it was contradicted by spokespersons from the FBI and Ohio’s primary homeland security official.

County Emergency Services Director Frank Young said last week that in a face-to-face meeting with an FBI agent, he was warned that Warren County, outside Cincinnati, faced a “terrorist threat.” County Commissioners President Pat South amplified, insisting to us at Countdown that her jurisdiction had received a series of memos from Homeland Security about the threat. “These memos were sent out statewide, not just to Warren County, and they included a lot of planning tools and resources to use for election day security.

“In a face to face meeting between the FBI and our director of Emergency Services,” Ms. South continued, “we were informed that on a scale from 1 to 10, the tri-state area of Southwest Ohio was ranked at a high 8 to a low 9 in terms of security risk. Warren County in particular, was rated at 10.”

But the Bureau says it issued no such warning.

“The FBI did not notify anyone in Warren County of any specific terrorist threat to Warren County before Election Day,” FBI spokesman Michael Brooks told Enquirer reporters Erica Solvig and Dan Horn.

Through a spokeswoman, Ohio Public Safety Director Ken Morckel told the newspaper that his office knew of no heightened terror warning for election night for Warren County or any other community in Greater Cincinnati.

Despite the contradiction from both security services, Ms. South again amplified, telling the Enquirer “It wasn’t international terrorism that we were in fear of; it was more domestic terrorism.”

So the media was kept two floors away from the vote counting at the Warren County Administration on election night on the basis of a “10” FBI terror threat that the FBI says was never issued.

Appearing with us on Countdown last night, Newsweek Senior Editor and columnist Jonathan Alter said the Warren ‘terror’ story was likely to grab the interest of the mainstream media: “I think you’ll see in the next few days, other reporters start to get their act together… you’ll hear more about this story in the days and weeks to come.”

It has all even come to the attention of the blithe agitator of the far right, Ann Coulter, who yesterday not only wrote of the election irregularities but, I’m proud to say, slimed and misquoted me. “In a major report on ‘Countdown with Keith Olbermann’ last Monday,” my fellow Cornell alum writes, “Olbermann revealed that Bush’s win in Florida— and thus the election—was ‘attributable largely to largely Democratic districts suddenly switching sides and all voting for Mr. Bush at the same time’!”

It made for fascinating reading, because it made me think for a moment that I had been on television while in a coma. I couldn’t recall making such a broadly ridiculous remark— and it turns out I didn’t. Ms. Coulter, living up to her usual standards which many of us in the Alumni Association nightly pray she didn’t learn at the university, took a quote from a transcript of the November 8th show completely out of context, and entirely twisted its meaning.

The actual quote follows, with the key portion discarded by Ms. Coulter indicated in bold face:

“There (Florida), county totals in Tuesday’s election might be attributable largely to largely Democratic districts suddenly switching sides and all voting for Mr. Bush.”

Thus, a comment indicating how President Bush might have legitimately achieved majorities in some Florida counties, is transformed into a contention that the entire election turned on those county margins.

It’s a neat trick— the journalistic equivalent of the dog who learns to balance the biscuit on her nose and then flip it into her mouth on voice command.

Never tried it myself.

What do you think? Email me at KOlbermann@msnbc.com

Read More...

Kerry Campaign Lawyers Checking Ohio Vote

NewsNet5.com

Kerry Campaign Lawyers Checking Ohio Vote

Senator Promises To Make Sure Every Vote Is Counted

UPDATED: 8:04 AM EST November 11, 2004

CLEVELAND -- Lawyers with John Kerry's presidential campaign are in Ohio on what they describe as a "fact-finding mission" following the Democrat's election loss to President Bush last week.

Dan Hoffheimer, the statewide counsel for the Kerry campaign, said they are not trying to challenge the election but are only carrying out Kerry's promise to make sure that all the votes in Ohio are counted.

"We're not expecting to change the outcome of the election," Hoffheimer said.

In unofficial returns, Bush outpolled Kerry by 136,000 votes in Ohio.

Hoffheimer said the goal is to identify any voting problems and quell doubts about the legitimacy of the Ohio election being raised on the Internet.

He said the Kerry campaign has compiled a list of more than 30 questions for local election officials. They are asking about the number of absentee and provisional ballots, any reports of equipment malfunctions on election night and any ballots that still listed third-party challenger Ralph Nader as a candidate.

Nader was removed from the ballot by Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell because of evidence of fraud in the circulation of petitions.

Read More...

Thursday, November 11, 2004

Democrats already showing lack of Spine

With the announcement of the nomination of the lawywer who said, in essence, to heck with the Geneva Convention, just torture everyone at Abu Ghraib, leading Democrats, including Chuck Schumer of NY and Patrick Leahy of VT have already indicated that Gonzales is an acceptable choice for Attorney General.

This country is in deep, deep, trouble.

Read More...

A Moveable Feast of Terrorism

The New York Times
November 11, 2004

A Moveable Feast of Terrorism
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

During the campaign, President Bush and Dick Cheney gave the ominous impression that there was a dire threat that terrorists could incinerate Americans at any time if that powder puff John Kerry got anywhere near the Oval Office.

We felt the hot breath of the wolf pack bearing down on us. But only a week later, the alarums have dimmed.

The administration lowered the terror threat in New York and Washington yesterday, and the Capitol Hill police were dismantling the elaborate security checkpoints they had put on streets around the Capitol to thwart would-be bombers.

In his handwritten resignation letter, John Ashcroft reassured Mr. Bush that "the objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.''

Mission accomplished. Tell those wolves to scat, and let that eagle soar, baby.

It was a tad surprising that Mr. Ashcroft would want to leave just when he had a mandate to throw blue curtains over every naked statue in town and hold Bible study for government employees in a federal office. (He called his daily devotionals at the Justice Department "RAMP'': Read, Argue, Memorize and Pray.)

The president is putting his own counsel, Alberto Gonzales, who wrote the famous memo defending torture, in charge of our civil liberties. Torture Guy, who blithely threw off 75 years of international law and set the stage for the grotesque abuses at Abu Ghraib and dubious detentions at Guantánamo, seems to have a good grasp of what's just. No doubt we'll soon learn what other protections, besides the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution, Mr. Gonzales finds "quaint'' and "obsolete.''

With the F.B.I. investigating Halliburton and the second-term scandal curse looming, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney want a dependable ally - and former Enron attorney - at Justice. But since the country is controlled by one party and the press has tended toward the pusillanimous, cowed by the special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald as he tries to throw reporters in jail, the White House may be able to suppress any second-term problems.

Mr. Bush should quit fiddling around on the domestic side and revamp his war council and national security team. The Bushies can stop mentioning Osama's name and tell themselves that his last, less militant video was a sign of weakness, but it's just part of their dangerous denial. Osama bin Laden killed 3,000 innocents on 9/11; let's nail him.

Even as Karl Rove boasts that "moral values'' swept his boss back into the White House, it never seems to occur to the president that it's immoral to endanger our troops in a war shaped by the political clock, a war with no visible enemy, no coherent plan and no exit timetable.

Falluja, supposed to be a defining battle, showed only how undefined this guerrilla war is. The Marines swept into a city deserted by most of the insurgents, who were terrorizing and kidnapping Iraqis elsewhere.

"Falluja isn't Masada or the Alamo,'' Fred Kaplan wrote in Slate, "some last-ditch outpost where the rebels whoop their final battle cry, rally one more round of resistance, then pass into history when their last rifleman falls.''

Last night, the military said it dominated 70 percent of Falluja. But what good does that do if 98 percent of the bad guys have already moved on, or if 100 percent of the Sunnis boycott the elections out of anger over the assault? It's just like when Mr. Bush says 75 percent of Al Qaeda's leadership has been killed or captured. What good is that if Al Qaeda has become an inspirational force for 100 percent of the jihadists?

The math is self-defeating. Pictures of forces taking a Falluja mosque will no doubt spur a surge of Islamic terrorist recruits, who won't be fooled by the marines' new camouflage: their Iraqi vanguard.

Just as there is talk here that John Kerry may want to run again, there is also talk that Donald Rumsfeld wants to stay on to continue his transformation of the military. Rummy's stubborn need to show we could do more with less is what kept us from having the strength to secure Iraq at the start, turning our troops into targets for a ghostly foe armed with the explosives and missiles looted by insurgents from unguarded caches.

Read More...

Don’t blame gay folks for John Kerry’s loss

metro.us

Don’t blame gay folks for John Kerry’s loss

BY JAMES NEAL

No sooner had John Kerry given his concession speech than did liberal pundits, media and political alike, jump the gun and lay blame for John Kerry’s loss at the feet of gay Americans.

The argument was that the push for same-sex marriage recognition resulted in a massive turnout by conservative voters motivated to support constitutional amendments
barring gay marriages. The pundits’ position was buttressed by polling that showed just as many Americans cited “moral values” as did terrorism or the economy in
deciding for whom to vote.

According to published reports, in the final weeks of the election Bill Clinton had urged the senator to endorse anti-gay marriage ballot measures in 11 states, a suggestion Kerry refused to embrace. After the election, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Rep. Barney Frank and editrix Tina Brown attributed Bush’s victory to gay rights supporters having moved too fast. Brown went so far as to declare in her weekly Washington Post column that the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts resulted in the loss of health care benefits for 45 million Americans.

Did the gay community’s push for same-sex marriage legislation cost John Kerry the election? The facts, as opposed to the punditry, say no.

Gary Langer, ABC News’ director of polling, argues that in asking voters in exit polling questionnaires what the most important issue was in their decision (moral values, taxes, education, Iraq, terrorism, economy/jobs and health care), inclusion
of the amorphous concept of “moral values” is comparable to including a concept such as “patriotism.”

The exit polls reveal much about the national attitude toward key moral values: 55 percent of voters said abortion should be legal in all or most cases; 25 percent supported gay marriage and another 35 percent supported civil unions. Ergo, a total of 60 percent of Americans support some form of civil recognition of same-sex relationships.

In terms of the popular vote in Ohio, Kerry came two percent closer to victory than did Al Gore in 2000. And President Bush did not gain significantly in the other 10 states with gay marriage referendums. The data cited above are from an exit poll survey co-sponsored by the television networks and the Associated Press.

A final word on gay civil rights. Federal law confers 1,049 benefits to heterosexual couples wed in a civil marriage. Gay people enjoy none of these. The goal of any civil rights movement is to gain equal rights, and that goal is not negotiable according to the timetable of any political party, elected official or political candidate. No one can predict how tolerance will shift. After all, the nation’s most popular Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has endorsed gay marriage. And its highest elected official, President Bush, endorsed civil unions one week before the election. That’s progress in the face of adversity.

JAMES NEAL is a lecturer on politics and media at The New School, where he also sits on the Board of Governors.

Read More...

Bush wants Social Security privatized

metro.us

Bush wants Social Security privatized

WASHINGTON

Fresh off reelection, President Bush is dusting off an ambitious plan to overhaul Social Security, a controversial proposal that had been shelved because of politics and the administration’s focus on tax cuts and terrorism. Bush envisions a framework that would partially privatize Social Security with personal investment accounts similar to 401(k) plans.

Read More...