Roberts' Senate hearing to raise many questions

Reuters

Roberts' Senate hearing to raise many questions

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts will be grilled on matters from abortion to civil rights when his Senate confirmation hearing opens, but a key issue is how much the 50-year-old conservative will answer.

Getting responses from Roberts on where he stands on issues may be Democrats' only hope of blocking what opponents view as a move by President Bush to shift the nation's top court to the right.

If confirmed, Roberts, a federal appeals judge, will replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a mainstream conservative who often cast the decisive vote on the closely divided court.

"Federal court candidates, who serve for life, should explain their judicial philosophy and their method of legal reasoning," said Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat and Senate Judiciary Committee member who has already given Roberts a seven-page list of questions.

Key to the process will be committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican who will run the televised hearings that begin Sept. 6.

Specter wrote in his 2000 book "Passion for Truth" that "the Senate should resist, if not refuse, to confirm Supreme Court nominees who refuse to answer questions on fundamental issues."

He notes, however, that "nominees tend to answer just as many questions as they have to in order to be confirmed."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican and former chairman of the committee, said panel members can ask what they want. "But we must realize, as we have in the past, that simply asking a question does not mean a judicial nominee should answer it," he said.

Republicans also contend Roberts should not have to prejudge any case that could come before him.

That means he could refuse to answer many questions. The nation's top court deals with virtually every major issue affecting Americans, from terrorism and church-state disputes to the balance of power between the federal and state governments.


PROBING QUESTIONS

"Historically, nominees have not been asked particularly probing questions, and when asked they have not answered," said Eugene Volokh, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA.

Hatch noted that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, nominated to the Supreme Court in 1993 by Democratic President Bill Clinton, had a rule when asked to prejudge issues or cases: "No hints, no forecasts, no previews." She was confirmed, 96-3.

Republican party Chairman Ken Mehlman said last week, "I believe Judge Roberts has the right to expect the same treatment, and the same swift confirmation."

While no Democrats have announced plans to oppose him, they want to know where Roberts, who served in the administrations of two previous Republican presidents, stands on some landmark Supreme Court rulings such as the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, said he doubts a nominee could be confirmed unless he or she views Roe v. Wade as "settled law of the land."

Roberts said just that before being confirmed two years ago to the federal appeals court. However, he is unlikely to repeat it, because he is now bidding for a place on the high court, which can reverse earlier precedents.

Democrats have also demanded access to internal documents on Roberts relating to divisive issues including school desegregation, the death penalty and civil rights. The Justice Department on Friday refused to release some of the requested documents from Roberts' work for the agency, saying it was not in the public interest.

Volokh said an exception to the pattern of nominees not answering questions was Robert Bork, "who answered questions in great detail and got rejected."

Bork was nominated in 1987 by Republican President Ronald Reagan and viewed by critics as a conservative extremist.

Specter, not chairman at the time, opposed Bork, saying, "I believe there is substantial doubt as to how he would apply fundamental principles of constitutional law."

Read More...

Summary only...

Calif. drug proposals spark huge campaigns

Calif. drug proposals spark huge campaigns

By BETH FOUHY
AP Political Writer

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- The soaring price of prescription drugs has led federal and state lawmakers to seek ways to ease the burden on uninsured residents. But in California, the land of direct democracy, drug companies and consumer groups are going straight to the voters with dueling initiatives in one of the costliest campaigns in U.S. history.

Both measures on California's Nov. 8 special election ballot would cover uninsured residents of all ages who are not eligible for Medicaid, the federal health program for the poor. But they differ on how many people would be eligible and whether drug companies would be forced to participate.

Proposition 79, backed by a coalition of consumer groups and unions, would offer prescription drug discounts to uninsured individuals and families making up to four times the federal poverty level - up to $37,000 for an individual and $75,000 for a family of four. It would discourage any companies that refuse to provide discounts from participating in the state's $4 billion Medicaid program, and would allow residents to sue drug companies for "illegal profiteering."

"Proposition 79 is the wrong proposition for the people of California," said Jan Faiks, vice president for government affairs at the Washington-based Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America. "We will spend as much as it takes to educate the voters. It is that important to us."


PhRMA has made good on that promise. Since June, the California Initiative Fund, an industry-controlled account, has collected more than $59 million, according to campaign finance reports released this past week, a figure that should rise significantly. Drug companies including Pfizer, Merck & Co. and Glaxosmithkline each made identical contributions of nearly $8.4 million to the fund.

By contrast, the pharmaceutical industry spent a total of $9.4 million to affect federal elections in 2004, according to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.

At this pace, drug companies' spending will easily surpass the previous record for a state initiative campaign, of $66 million, spent by Indian tribes in 1998 to legalize casino gambling on tribal land in California.

"The amount they've collected is breathtaking, and it shows how scared they are and how much trouble they think they're in," said Anthony Wright of Health Access California, a consumer group backing Proposition 79. "Is this a David and Goliath fight? Yes. But there are lots of Davids out there who are suffering through high drug costs - and remember, David won."

The drug industry's alternative is Proposition 78, based on legislation supported last year by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who as governor has received over $377,000 in contributions from drug companies.

It would allow drug companies to voluntarily participate in a plan offering discounts to uninsured residents earning three times the federal poverty level - up to $28,000 for an individual and $56,000 for a family of four.

Many states, including California, have programs that provide drug discounts to senior citizens and the disabled, but only Hawaii, Maine and Michigan have programs that cover people of all ages. Arkansas, Maryland, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Rhode Island have recently passed laws creating low-cost drug programs for uninsured of all ages, but none have yet launched.

But as the nation's most populous state, California presents more of a threat to the drug companies' bottom line, and the idea of allowing people to sue over "illegal profiteering" has mobilized industry lobbyists like never before.

A statewide Field poll released last month showed voters favoring both initiatives, with 64 percent saying they support the industry initiative and 54 percent supporting the consumer measure.

That deeply concerns both sides. Under state law, voters can say yes or no to either or both of the initiatives - and if both pass the measure with the most votes becomes law.

Both sides have tried to negotiate a way out of this political war. The obstacle, both sides say, is that the propositions can't be removed from the ballot.

That means that even if a compromise were reached, it would have to be placed on the ballot as a third alternative to compete with the other two - a recipe for even more voter confusion.

State Sen. Deborah Ortiz co-sponsored the industry-backed bill last year. She said a legislative solution could have been reached that would have eliminated the need for an expensive ballot showdown, but "heavy handed" campaigning by opponents got in the way.

"What's really unfortunate is, all this aggressive opposition really had to do with politics, not policy," Ortiz said. "Shame on all of them."

Sofya Rubinshteyn, 58, who lives in San Francisco with her husband on a combined income of about $30,000 per year, cares less about politics than about getting help - and soon. She takes three separate medications to control her high blood pressure. Her husband, a diabetic, takes numerous drugs every day.

"We need whatever it takes to reduce the cost of medication - it's a necessity to survive, it's not just a luxury," Rubinshteyn said.

Read More...

Summary only...

ABC News anchor Peter Jennings dies of cancer

Reuters
ABC News anchor Peter Jennings dies of cancer

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Peter Jennings, prime-time anchorman for ABC News for more than two decades, died of lung cancer on Sunday at his home in New York, the network said. He was 67.

The Canadian-born Jennings, host of ABC's "World News Tonight" since 1983, announced in April that he had been diagnosed with lung cancer.

"Peter died with his family around him, without pain and in peace. He knew he'd lived a good life," his family said in a statement released by the network.



Jennings was the last of a generation of long-serving lead anchors for major U.S. broadcasters.

He is survived by his wife Kayce Freed, his two children Elizabeth, 25 and Christopher, 23 and his sister, Sarah Jennings.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fight over Alaska oil drilling continues

Fight over Alaska oil drilling continues

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Conspicuous by its absence in the sweeping energy bill that President Bush has championed and will sign Monday is his top energy priority: opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling.

But the fight over the future of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will flare anew in Congress next month with drilling advocates saying they have their best chance in more than two decades of making it happen.

Tapping what is believed to be at least 10 billion barrels of oil within the refuge's 1.5 million-acre coastal plain has been the centerpiece of Bush's energy agenda dating back to his first presidential campaign in 2000. Bush has repeatedly said the oil is important to the nation's national and economic security.

But the idea that drilling proponents might win has produced outrage among environmentalists, who see the region as a pristine refuge where caribou, polar bears, migratory birds and other wildlife thrive and should be protected.

A coalition of most Democrats and a handful of moderate Republicans repeatedly has thwarted attempts to open the refuge to energy development through the power of the Senate filibuster.

"If we had put (Arctic drilling) in the bill, we wouldn't be here," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., celebrating passage of the energy bill that Bush plans to sign in a ceremony in Albuquerque, N.M. The bill never could have mustered the 60 votes needed to overcome a certain Senate filibuster over ANWR, he says.

But drilling advocates have a backup plan that is expected to unfold in mid-September.

Domenici said he will include a provision authorizing ANWR drilling as part of a budget procedure that is immune to filibuster. A similar maneuver is being planned in the House, although the final strategy is still being worked out.

Unlike normal legislation, the budget process is not subject to filibuster, so only 51 votes will be needed in the Senate for it to clear Congress and be signed into law by the president. Just such a tactic was used a decade ago when Congress approved ANWR drilling as part of the budget process, only to see the measure vetoed by then-President Clinton, a drilling opponent.
Fight over Alaska oil drilling continues

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Conspicuous by its absence in the sweeping energy bill that President Bush has championed and will sign Monday is his top energy priority: opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling.

But the fight over the future of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will flare anew in Congress next month with drilling advocates saying they have their best chance in more than two decades of making it happen.

Tapping what is believed to be at least 10 billion barrels of oil within the refuge's 1.5 million-acre coastal plain has been the centerpiece of Bush's energy agenda dating back to his first presidential campaign in 2000. Bush has repeatedly said the oil is important to the nation's national and economic security.

But the idea that drilling proponents might win has produced outrage among environmentalists, who see the region as a pristine refuge where caribou, polar bears, migratory birds and other wildlife thrive and should be protected.

A coalition of most Democrats and a handful of moderate Republicans repeatedly has thwarted attempts to open the refuge to energy development through the power of the Senate filibuster.

"If we had put (Arctic drilling) in the bill, we wouldn't be here," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., celebrating passage of the energy bill that Bush plans to sign in a ceremony in Albuquerque, N.M. The bill never could have mustered the 60 votes needed to overcome a certain Senate filibuster over ANWR, he says.

But drilling advocates have a backup plan that is expected to unfold in mid-September.

Domenici said he will include a provision authorizing ANWR drilling as part of a budget procedure that is immune to filibuster. A similar maneuver is being planned in the House, although the final strategy is still being worked out.

Unlike normal legislation, the budget process is not subject to filibuster, so only 51 votes will be needed in the Senate for it to clear Congress and be signed into law by the president. Just such a tactic was used a decade ago when Congress approved ANWR drilling as part of the budget process, only to see the measure vetoed by then-President Clinton, a drilling opponent.


Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said her state's delegation is determined to push for opening the refuge, calling it "the final component" of a nation energy plan that she hopes will be put in place later this year.

Alaska would get half of the proceeds from oil leases, which the Congressional Budget Office has estimated at $5 billion over five years, shared equally by the federal government and the state.

This expected revenue is at the heart of the strategy drilling supporters plan to pursue to end more than 20 years of debate over access to ANWR's oil. The budget will assume $2.5 billion in federal revenue from ANWR lease sales, beginning in 2007. That, in turn will allow lawmakers to draft an accompanying document authorizing such drilling - a so-called "reconciliation" document which is not subject to filibuster and when signed by the president will have the force of law.

It's "backdoor budget chicanery," complained Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., an ANWR drilling opponent. "By shoehorning the Arctic refuge into the budget, they are making an end-run around the legislative process, knowing it cannot pass the Senate any other way."

But drilling advocates accuse opponents of also having relied on parliamentary maneuvers, the filibuster, to keep the issue from being decided on a straight up-or-down vote.

Environmentalists are gearing up for a fight, hitting state fairs, town meetings and other community events during the summer August doldrums when Congress is in recess, hoping to rally public sentiment against drilling.

"We're not holding anything back. We're organizing like we have never before," said Athan Manuel of U.S. PIRG, a grass-roots environmental advocacy group with branches in every state.

The outcome could depend on a handful of votes, says Melinda Pierce, of the Sierra Club. But handicapping them will be anything but simple.

---

On the Net

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: http://arctic.fws.gov

Read More...

Summary only...

Troop cuts in Iraq feasible - House Republican

Reuters

Troop cuts in Iraq feasible - House Republican

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States might be able to remove up to 30,000 troops from Iraq by next spring as the Iraqi military gets stronger, the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee said on Sunday.

Separately, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Time magazine that Iraqi insurgents were losing steam as a political force even though their ability to kill and maim appeared undiminished.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican, said on CBS' "Face the Nation" it was feasible to begin planning for U.S. troop reductions of that size even though recent deadly attacks have again raised questions about whether Washington has underestimated the Iraqi insurgency.

Reports indicate "there is a growing strong core of strength in the Iraqi military, that it's standing and fighting, that it's doing its share of the load," Hunter said.

Rice said the Iraqi insurgency was losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

"I do think the insurgency has a problem, which is that as the political process matures and the Iraqis every day accept the political process as their future, (the insurgents) become more and more isolated from the population and they become nothing but a destructive force," Rice told Time.

More progress was being made in Iraq than the rising U.S. death toll suggests, Rice said.

"It's a lot easier to see the violence and suicide bombing than to see the rather quiet political progress that's going on in parallel," she said.

On Wednesday a roadside bomb just outside Haditha, 120 miles northwest of Baghdad, killed 14 Marines, the deadliest attack of its kind since the war began.


Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat and member of the Armed Services Committee, cautioned that success in Iraq depends on meaningful political and economic development.

"And that's going to take a long time," Reed told CBS.

Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. Middle East commander, has outlined a plan that would reduce American forces in Iraq by some 20,000 to 30,000 by next spring if the security and political situation allows it, The New York Times reported on Sunday.

There are currently some 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and Abizaid's plan calls for the number to rise temporarily to 160,000 in December to provide security for elections of a new Iraqi National Assembly, the paper said.

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, told the "Fox News Sunday" program that the United States should clarify its objectives rather than discuss a military drawdown.

"One is, we should state forthrightly, 'We have no desire to have a permanent base there.' Two, 'We have no desire to deal with their oil,"' Biden said.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Credibility Gap

The Credibility Gap

Read More...

Summary only...

Its Your Turn To Sacrifice

Its Your Turn To Sacrifice

Read More...

Summary only...

Vulnerable

Vulnerable

Read More...

Summary only...

Let's Hope He Mellowed

Let's Hope He Mellowed

Read More...

Summary only...

Trojan Judge

Trojan Judge

Read More...

Summary only...

Angry Mom Protests President

CBS News
Angry Mom Protests President

CRAWFORD, Texas

The angry mother of a fallen U.S. soldier staged a protest near President Bush's ranch, demanding an accounting from Bush of how he has conducted the war in Iraq.

Supported by more than 50 demonstrators who chanted, “W. killed her son!” Cindy Sheehan told reporters: “I want to ask the president, 'Why did you kill my son? What did my son die for?”'

CBS News Correspondent Mark Knoller reports that the passion of Sheehan’s message reflects the polarizing effects of war and may be why some in the administration tried late last month to call the conflict something else.

Sheehan, 48, didn't get to see Bush, but did talk about 45 minutes with national security adviser Steve Hadley and deputy White House chief of staff Joe Hagin, who went out to hear her concerns.

Appreciative of their attention, yet undaunted, Sheehan said she planned to continue her roadside vigil, except for a few breaks, until she gets to talk to Bush. Her son, Casey, 24, was killed in Sadr City, Iraq, on April 4, 2004. He was an Army specialist, a Humvee mechanic.

“They (the advisers) said we are in Iraq because they believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that the world's a better place with Saddam gone and that we're making the world a safer place with what we're doing over there,” Sheehan said in a telephone interview after the meeting.

“They were very respectful. They were nice men. I told them Iraq was not a threat to the United States and that now people are dead for nothing. I told them I wouldn't leave until I talked to George Bush.”

She said Hagin told her, “I want to assure you that he (Bush) really does care.”

“And I said if he does care, why doesn't he come out and talk to me.”

Sheehan arrived in Crawford aboard a bus painted red, white and blue and emblazoned with the words, “Impeachment Tour.” Sheehan, from Vacaville, Calif., had been attending a Veterans for Peace convention in Dallas.


The bus, trailed by about 20 cars of protesters and reporters, drove at about 15 mph toward Bush's ranch. After several miles, they parked the vehicles and began to march, in stifling heat, farther down the narrow country road.

Flanked by miles of pasture, Sheehan spoke with reporters while clutching two photographs, one of her son in uniform, and the other, a baby picture, when he was seven months old.

She said she decided to come to Crawford a few days ago after Bush said that fallen U.S. troops had died for a noble cause and that the mission must be completed.

“I want to ask the president, `Why did you kill my son? What did my son die for?” she said, her voice cracking with emotion. “Last week, you said my son died for a noble cause and I want to ask him what that noble cause is?”

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said response that Bush also wants the troops to return home safely.

“Many of the hundreds of families the president has met with know their loved one died for a noble cause and that the best way to honor their sacrifice is to complete the mission,” Duffy said.

“It is a message the president has heard time and again from those he has met with and comforted. Like all Americans, he wants the troops home as soon as possible.”

The group marched about a half-mile before local law enforcement officials stopped them at a bend in the road, still four to five miles from the ranch's entrance. Capt. Kenneth Vanek of the McLennan County Sheriff's Office said the group was stopped because some marchers ignored instructions to walk in the ditch beside the road, not on the road.

“If they won't cooperate, we won't,” Vanek said.

Read More...

Summary only...

Cheney's Deadly 'Last Throes'

The Nation
Cheney's Deadly 'Last Throes'
John Nichols

Vice President Dick Cheney, who predicted on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, that Americans would be "greeted as liberators," has in recent weeks been peddling a new line of spin.

If Cheney was not in charge of U.S. foreign policy, he could be dismissed as a ranting lunatic. But, because of his title, and because the former Secretary of Defense is the dominant player in the Bush administration when it comes to military policy, Cheney has to be taken seriously -- as seriously, that is, as his bizarro worldview permits.

Unfortunately, the primary reason to take Cheney seriously is the fact that Americans and Iraqis are dying because of the policies he has promoted. And, of course, because those same policies are emptying the U.S. Treasury into the quagmire that is Iraq.

So it is appropriate to try and hold Cheney accountable.

And it is not difficult to do so.

Here is what Cheney said during a June 20, 2005, interview on CNN's Larry King Live:

Hailing what he described as "major progress" in Iraq, Cheney said, "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

Here is what the Associated Press reported from Iraq on August 3, 2005, less than two months after Cheney asserted that the insurgency was fading away:


BAGHDAD, Iraq - Fourteen U.S. Marines and a civilian interpreter were killed Wednesday in western Iraq, the U.S. command said.

The Marines, assigned to Regimental Combat Team 2, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward), were killed in action early Wednesday when their vehicle was hit by an improvised explosive device, the military said. One Marine was also wounded in the attack.

The Associated Press report goes on to note that:

The latest losses come on the heels of the deaths of seven U.S. Marines in combat two days ago in the volatile Euphrates Valley of western Iraq. The American deaths come as the Bush administration is talking about handing more security responsibility to the Iraqis and drawing down forces next year.

At least 39 American service members have been killed in Iraq since July 24 - all but two in combat. In addition, the Iraqi Defense Ministry said that since the beginning of April, more than 2,700 Iraqis - about half of them civilians - had been killed in insurgency-related incidents.

It looks as if the last throes that Cheney was discussing with Larry King have turned out to be death throes for the young American men and women who are serving in Iraq, as well as for the Iraqi people.

Any attempt to address Cheney's rhetorical excesses brings to mind the words of a young veteran from another misguided and unnecessary war.

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam?" young John Kerry asked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Cheney has come up with a contemporary answer for that question. How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Iraq? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

For Cheney, that's simple: Just keep telling the young men and women who are marching to their deaths that they will be greeted as liberators and that the enemy is so weak that it is in its "last throes."

In other words, just keep spinning a slurry of fantasy and lies into U.S. policy.

Read More...

Summary only...

Timing Is Key to Success

cq.com
Craig Crawford's 1600: Timing Is Key to Success
By Craig Crawford, CQ Columnist

What do Terri Schiavo’s parents think about the Central American Free Trade Agreement? After all, they helped pass it. Many thought that President Bush and Republican congressional leaders blundered last March when they rushed to intervene in the court battle over a dying woman’s feeding tube. Sure, the polls showed that most Americans thought it was out of line for Congress to pass a law ordering federal courts to review the case. But the maneuver served a hidden purpose that White House insiders only now will admit. It helped save House Majority Leader Tom DeLay from the media wolves then chomping on his ethical problems.

The risky Schiavo vote four months ago paid off big time for Bush just before Congress left town for a month, when DeLay took command of CAFTA arm-twisting and won a 217-215 photo finish in the House.

The politics of distraction strikes again. It is a tactic the Bush administration has honed into pure science. Timing is the key, and the president’s team has a sense of it that Broadway’s best actors would envy.

Just look at how they recently diverted the media from Karl Rove’s legal troubles. As the media hunt for the president’s political guru reached a fever pitch, the Bush camp rushed up the rumored timetable for a Supreme Court nomination. Presidential aides delivered a week of speculation about various people under consideration, then followed through with the announcement of John G. Roberts Jr., a relatively unknown quantity requiring exhaustive media explorations of his past that are continuing today.

As is typically the case during such distractions, the issue from which attention has been diverted has not gone away. Rove’s possible complicity in the outing of a secret agent’s identity will surely resurface as the grand jury investigation moves toward closure. But negative stories do not have to disappear for a distraction ploy to work, so long as they take a back seat, even temporarily, to something else.

Likewise, DeLay’s problems have not disappeared, and in coming months the House ethics committee is likely to take up questions about his close relations with lobbyists and his overseas travel. But there is no mistaking that, for now, DeLay remains in charge. After the CAFTA vote, The Washington Post’s Mike Allen wrote that the president’s late night cliffhanger victory was “symbolic of DeLay’s continued hold over the House.”

DeLay’s return to the limelight can be traced to the March vote in the House to intervene in the Schiavo case. The comatose Florida woman who he tried to save eventually died, but DeLay’s political career survived. A quick look at the public relations timing of Capitol Hill’s unprecedented intrusion shows how.


Coverage of DeLay’s lobbyist ties had reached critical mass in the days leading up to the surprising last-minute decision by the White House and GOP congressional leaders to get involved in the Schiavo matter. Newspaper headlines in those days tell the story: “DeLay At Heart Of Firestorm Over Handling Of Ethics Cases” (Dallas Morning News, March 16); “President Supports DeLay As Investigations Widen” ( The New York Times, March 17); and “DeLay Attacks Critics” ( The Washington Post, March 20).
‘DeLay on Life Support’

There were many similar headlines, but those three show the fast-breaking evolution of White House media management: Just as the story is deemed a “firestorm,” the president steps forward to defend his embattled friend, followed by the target — DeLay, in this case — launching a vigorous defense that makes headlines. And as the Texan took control of the ethics story for a time by offering his own take, the House took up the all-consuming Schiavo story. As the predictable media frenzy enveloped Schiavo’s dramatic case, coverage of DeLay’s ethical lapses fell into a black hole. The bubble was burst.

Within a week, as the federal courts made it clear they would not be pressured by the legislation that Bush had rushed back from vacation to sign, the White House dropped its once emotional support for Schiavo’s parents, who were battling her husband’s desire to remove her feeding tube. I’m sure the president believed in keeping Schiavo on life support, but by this time any purpose in keeping DeLay on life support had been at least temporarily achieved.

Perhaps stung by criticism that the Schiavo intervention was a mistake, White House insiders now boast — but not for attribution — about the cleverness of using the Schiavo story to help DeLay.

Even if such pride is overblown, it’s true that DeLay’s critics have not regained critical media mass since that turnabout week.

Free trade with Central America is surely not much consolation for parents trying to keep a daughter alive, but thanks to Congress they got what they wanted: one more round in court. And the president surely got what he wanted: a return to business as usual on Capitol Hill with “The Hammer” nailing votes for his agenda.

Contributing Editor Craig Crawford is a news analyst for MSNBC, CNBC and “The Early Show” on CBS. He can be reached at ccrawford@cq.com.

Read More...

Summary only...

Energy's on the Anti-Iraq Side

The Nation
"Energy's on the Anti-Iraq Side"
John Nichols

It is not often that this column pays tribute to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. But the man who in 1994 played a pivotal role in putting the Republican Party in control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years -- and in developing the strategies that have kept the GOP in control -- has a sharp political mind. And he used it this week to analyze the unexpectedly strong showing of Democrat Paul Hackett in a special election to fill the southern Ohio U.S. House seat vacated by U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman.

Hackett won 48.3 percent of the vote in a district where no Democrat had ever gotten more than 28 percent against Portman. In the most Republican House district in the state of Ohio, the Democrat, a Marine veteran of the Iraq war, lost by barely 3,000 votes. And he did that after a campaign in which he said the U.S. should not have invaded the Iraq in the first place and condemned the administration's approach to the occupation. Unlike more cautious Democrats, Hackett was unapologetic about calling President Bush an "SOB" whose actions endangered Americans, and about referring to members of the administration as "chickenhawks."

Of course,most Republicans and their media allies were quick to dismiss the significance of Hackett's showing -- despite the fact that it was the best finish for a Democrat in the district since the Watergate election of 1974. The rules of spin these days are such that reality is rarely allowed to intrude on discussions of politics.

But Gingrich decided to ditch the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee's talking points and recognize the significance of Hackett's near win. Speaking to the Washington Post on the day after the Ohio vote, the former Speaker of the House said, "It should serve as a wake-up call to Republicans. Clearly, there's a pretty strong signal for Republicans thinking about 2006 that they need to do some very serious planning and not just assume that everything is going to be automatically okay."


With a new Associated Press-Ipsos poll showing that President Bush's overall approval rating has fallen to 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving -- and 50 percent of Americans surveyed saying the nation's top Republican is not honest -- the evidence that the GOP has a potential problem extends well beyond the results from one special election in Ohio.

But the Ohio vote telescoped the significance of concern about the Iraq imbroglio as a factor in the governing party's declining fortunes -- a point confirmed by the new poll's finding that only 38 percent of Americans now approve of Bush's handling of the occupation.

Gingrich acknowledges this reality, saying that, ''There is more energy today on the anti-Iraq, anti-gas price, anti-changing Social Security, and I think anti-Washington (side of the debate). I think the combination of those four are all redounding to weaken Republicans and help Democrats... I don't think this is time to panic, but I think it's time to think. If we don't think now, then next September, people will panic when it's too late."

Gingrich's warning is a wise one for Republicans, and you can bet that it will be taken seriously by at least some leaders of a party that has mastered the art of maintaining power. As such, the real question is this: Will Democrats be smart enough to recognize that Gingrich is right when he speaks about the energy being on the anti-Iraq side?

So far, indications are not encouraging. An analysis of the strong showing by Hackett distributed to Democratic House after the election by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee failed to make any mention of the significance of Iraq as an issue.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Swift Boats of Science

The Nation
The Swift Boats of Science
Ari Berman

Paul Cameron, founder of the Family Research Institute, calls gays and lesbians "death marketers."

"I am not sure how long they will take to destroy the US from within, but sufficiently weakened, the US will probably fall to another state before that occurs," he recently told the Boston Globe.

In 1983, Cameron cofounded the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality, where he published reports claiming that homosexuals were more likely than heterosexuals to molest children and commit other crimes. Shortly thereafter, the American Psychological Association barred Cameron from its membership. The American Sociological Association said that "Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism."

But Cameron resurfaced with the Family Research Institute, publishing studies titled "Gay Parents More Apt to Molest." In recent years, his pseudoscience has been cited by dissenters in the Massachusetts ruling legalizing gay marriage, in a Florida Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on adoption by same-sex couples and on behalf of a Virginia proposal requiring that adoptive parents reveal their sexual identities to social workers. The media frequently credits the Institute as an alternative to the 150,000-member American Psychological Association.

Cameron's Institute, along with the American College of Pediatrics--a right-wing splinter of the 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics--seek to blur the distinction of what is and isn't accepted science, the Boston Globe reports. And these fraud think tanks are multiplying. "Created as counterpoints to large, well-established medical organizations whose work is subject to rigorous review and who assert no political agenda," the Globe writes, "the tiny think tanks with names often mimicking those of established medical authorities have sought to dispute the notion of a medical consensus on social issues such as gay rights, the right to die, abortion, and birth control."


Cameron's "studies" are distributed through the Christian Communications Network, run by anti-choice advocate Gary McCullough, the press agent for Operation Rescue and the parents of Terri Schiavo. Press releases in the past few weeks included: "Gays Twice as Apt to Drive Under the Influence, says Family Research Institute," "Gays 6X More Expensive Than Smokers, says Family Research Institute," and, "Weird Behavior Among Gays Due to Mental Illness? Asks Family Research Institute." Until the Globe article, the 43,000-church Traditional Values Coalition listed Cameron's work on its website. He's briefed White House aides on his adoption theories.

Articles published in Psychological Reports, an obscure Montana journal described as "a scientific manifestation of free speech," lends Cameron's junk agitprop academic cover. "I'm amazed that he is able to continue to be published," says Dr. Ellen Perrin, professor of pediatrics at the Tufts-New England Medical Center. Perrin and other established scientific experts have found no important difference between children raised by same-sex and heterosexual couples, nor a higher tendency toward "antisocial" behavior among gays and lesbians. "Cameron's work is methodologically weak and in many cases the conclusions he draws from his data are not valid," adds Dr. Gregory Harek, professor of psychology at the University of California-Davis.

It's as if the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth discovered science.

Read More...

Summary only...

DeLay's Dirty Trick

The Nation
DeLay's Dirty Trick
Ari Berman

Much of the dirty business of Congress is done outside of public debate, during conference negotiations between the House and Senate Republican leadership, after legislation has passed. Eleventh-hour language added to appease the Christian right, repay big business or bring controversial pork-barrel projects back home has become a regular practice for Republicans.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay took this shady scheming to a new low last week, when he "mysteriously inserted" a $1.5 billion sweetheart deal for Houston oil companies into a massive energy bill that supposedly had been finalized. The provision, according to the sharp eye of Rep. Henry Waxman, stipulates that 75 percent of the $1.5 billion allocated for deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico must go toward "a corporation that is constructed as a consortium."

The leading contender for the contract just happens to be the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America consortium, based in DeLay's Sugar Land, Texas, district. Its members include war profiteer Halliburton and Marathon Oil, under SEC investigation for bribing the president of Equatorial Guinea for oil rights. Governor Rick Perry created the consortium in March 2004, promising 1,500 jobs. "None had been created as of last December," AP reports.

The provision was apparently added at 4 am last Tuesday, after House Energy and Commerce Chairman Joe Barton, a favored son of big oil, halted all amendments and wrapped up the House and Senate conference. Amazingly, the ranking Democrats on the House and Senate energy committees knew of DeLay's plans, and did nothing to oppose them. The dispute only emerged after Waxman and Rep. Edward Markey learned of the provision, and its intended beneficiaries in DeLay's district.


The lavish giveaway comes at time when the oil and gas industry is amassing record profits, with the net income of top oil companies expected to total $230 billion this year. Yet the overall energy bill passed by Congress on Friday gives billions more in tax breaks for oil, gas and nuclear companies while doing nothing to ease soaring gas prices, raise fuel-efficiency standards or reduce America's crippling dependence on foreign oil. The US currently imports 58 percent of the oil it consumes; analysts predict that figure will jump to 68 percent by 2025.

Such ominous trends prompt few worries from energy companies who rake in staggering profits while the US fights a war in oil-rich Iraq. "How the sausage is made is not important to me," says Melanie Kenderdine of the Gas Technology Institute, part of DeLay's select consortium. That's because it's the rest of us who get stuck with the greasy fat.

Read More...

Summary only...

Poll: Fewer Americans Think Bush Is Honest

Poll: Fewer Americans Think Bush Is Honest

By WILL LESTER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Less than half of Americans now say they think President Bush is honest, according to an AP-Ipsos poll taken at a time of increasing concerns about Iraq, a potential problem for a president who won re-election declaring that "people know where I stand."

The percentage of people who say they consider Bush honest has dropped slightly from the start of the year. In January, 53 percent described him that way in the AP-Ipsos poll, while 45 percent said they did not believe he was honest. Now, people are just about evenly split - 48 percent saying he's honest and 50 percent saying he's not.

"Whether you agree or disagree with him, the president has taken a pounding on perceptions of his honesty," said Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. She cited as one example the administration's claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but none have been found.


A solid majority still see Bush as likable and a strong leader, but a growing number view the president's confidence as arrogance, up from 49 percent in January to 56 percent now.

"He pushes and pushes and pushes until he gets his own way," said Diane Maley, a politically independent registered nurse from East Greenbush, N.Y. "I don't think he has the best interest of the country in mind."

For some people, especially Republicans, Bush is personally appealing.

"He's a man of character," said Cheryl Cheyney, a school bus driver from Cumming, Ga., and a Republican. "He's very honest in the things he says. I agree with his belief system, the way he believes in God and is not afraid to show it. That's very important to me."

Bush's overall job approval was at 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving. That's about where his approval rating has been all summer but slightly lower than it was when the year began. His approval on handling Iraq was at 38 percent.

Some who don't approve of Bush's job performance admire him personally.

"I think he tries to be likable and I think he's somewhat honest," said Cindy Bashura, a Democratic-leaning resident of Seymour, Conn. "He tries to do what he thinks is right, but sometimes I think he takes the wrong advice from people in his circle."

Continuing worries about Iraq may do more than drag down Bush's standing with the public. They could become a major issue in the 2006 midterm congressional races, and if the war is still going in 2008, they could be a factor in the presidential race.

The war in Iraq also could have an impact on more than elections.

"Bush's standing with the public is a factor in his ongoing effort to influence legislation and to sustain support for his Iraq policy," said Bruce Buchanan, a professor of political science at the University of Texas. "The honesty dip is partly caused by a loss of faith in his credibility on Iraq."

The poll of 1,000 adults was conducted Aug. 1-3 by Ipsos, an international polling firm. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

---

On the Net:

Ipsos: http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov

Read More...

Summary only...

Roberts Questioned Lifetime Appointments

wwltv.com
Roberts Questioned Lifetime Appointments

By MICHAEL R. BLOOD
Associated Press Writer

SIMI VALLEY, Calif. (AP) -- Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, holding one lifetime appointment and seeking another, argued against them as a young lawyer in Ronald Reagan's White House.

At age 50, Roberts could influence federal law for many years to come. Two decades ago, however, he reasoned that long-entrenched judges could fall out of step with the society they serve. Limiting terms of federal judges would ensure a fresh supply of talent while guarding against "ivory tower" elitism, he wrote.

The Constitution "adopted life tenure at a time when people simply did not live as long as they do now," Roberts wrote in an Oct. 3, 1983, memo to White House Counsel Fred Fielding that is now on file at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

"A judge insulated from the normal currents of life for 25 or 30 years was a rarity then but is becoming commonplace today," Roberts wrote. "Setting a term of, say, 15 years would ensure that federal judges would not lose all touch with reality through decades of ivory tower existence."

Roberts, then 28, offered his views while analyzing a Senate resolution that called for limiting members of the federal bench to 10-year terms, after which they could be reappointed.


The Reagan administration opposed the proposal, arguing in part that lifetime tenure protected judicial independence. Though Roberts did not formally object to that position, he saw merit in set terms. He accepted an open-ended federal appeals court seat in 2003.

Ending lifetime tenure would "provide a more regular and greater degree of turnover among the judges," Roberts wrote 20 years earlier. "There is much to be said for changing life tenure to a term of years, without the possibility of reappointment."

In the same memo, Roberts railed against what he described as an overreaching federal judiciary. He suggested that lifetime tenure was defensible only if judges stuck to interpreting - rather than making - law. It was a frequent complaint through his writings of the time.

"It is certainly appropriate to protect judges from popular pressure if their task is limited to discerning and applying the intent of the framers or legislators," he wrote. "The federal judiciary today benefits from an insulation from political pressure even as it usurps the roles of the political branches."

His criticisms weren't limited to lifetime tenure. Writing to Fielding earlier that year, Roberts scoffed at a proposal by then-Chief Justice Warren Burger to lighten the Supreme Court's caseload.

Burger suggested creating a "special temporary panel" of federal appeals court judges to hear cases referred by the Supreme Court.

In a Feb. 10, 1983, memo, Roberts wrote that "a new tier of judicial review is a terrible idea." The justices were to blame for taking too many cases and issuing "opinions so confusing that they often do not even resolve the questions presented," Roberts wrote.

To cut its caseload, he suggested that the high court consider "abdicating the role of fourth or fifth guesser in death penalty cases."

"So long as the court views itself as ultimately responsible for governing all aspects of our society, it will, understandably, be overworked," Roberts wrote. "A new court will not solve this problem."

Read More...

Summary only...

Justice Dept denies request for Roberts documents

Reuters

Justice Dept denies request for Roberts documents

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush Administration refused on Friday to release some documents sought by Democratic lawmakers from Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' work as deputy solicitor general, opening the door for conflict as the Senate votes later this year on his confirmation.

"It is simply contrary to the public interest for these documents to be released," the Justice Department wrote in a letter to Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the committee that will first consider Roberts' nomination.

Roberts, who worked on the government's cases in the solicitor general's office during former President Bush's administration, was nominated by President Bush to fill the vacant seat on the high court as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retires.

His nomination has drawn huge interest in Congress, particularly among Democrats concerned about his views on abortion and other controversial issues.

"The administration's decision to shield these documents is an unfortunate turn as the Senate prepares for these confirmation hearings," Leahy said.


In its letter, the department said it will release documents reflecting the Solicitor General's office's final decisions in any case, but internal deliberations among attorneys in the office could not be made public.

"These internal discussions among lawyers have always been considered privileged, covered by both the deliberative process privilege and the attorney-client privilege," the Justice Department wrote.

The Department further stated that it would be difficult to provide those documents without disclosing the confidential communications of many other lawyers who worked with Roberts.

"It would be unfair to all lawyers who serve in the office, and particularly so with respect to those who served with Mr. Roberts," the Department wrote.

Read More...

Summary only...

US scientists find flexible stem cells in placenta

Reuters

US scientists find flexible stem cells in placenta

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Scientists looking for easier and less-controversial alternatives to stem cells from human embryos said on Friday they found a potential source in placentas saved during childbirth.

They described primitive cells found in a part of the placenta called the amnion, which they coaxed into forming a variety of cell types and which look very similar to sought-after embryonic stem cells.

With 4 million children born in the United States each year, placentas could provide a ready source of the cells, the team at the University of Pittsburgh said.

It is not yet certain that the cells they found are true stem cells, said Stephen Strom, who worked on the study. But they carry two important genes, called Oct 4 and nanog, which so far have only been seen on embryonic stem cells.


"We were just blown away when we found those two genes expressed in those cells," Strom said in a telephone interview.

"The presence of these two genes suggests these cells are pluripotent, which means they should be able to form any cell type in the body."

Stem cells are the body's master cells. So-called adult stem cells are found in the tissue and blood are a source for renewing cells.

Embryonic stem cells are found in days-old embryos. While powerful, their use is controversial because some people, President Bush among them, believe destroying an embryo is immoral and unethical.

Supporters of embryonic stem-cell research say it may provide an important path to a new field called regenerative medicine, in which diseases ranging from juvenile diabetes to paralysis could be cured using transplants of carefully cultivated stem cells.

There are moves in Congress to expand funding of embryonic stem cell research, in case it proves to be the best way forward, but also counter-measures to further restrict it.

GETTING AROUND POLITICS

Mindful of the controversy, Strom's team looked for other sources of stem cells.

"We looked and we found them. The politics is important," Strom said.

Writing in the journal Stem Cells, Strom and colleagues said they looked in a part of the placenta called the amnion -- the outer membrane of the amniotic sac.

The placenta is the interface between mother and fetus during gestation, and is produced by the embryo. The embryo and later fetus floats inside the sac of amniotic fluid.

Other teams of researchers, notably Dr. Anthony Atala of Wake Forest University in North Carolina, have found stem cells resembling embryonic cells in amniotic fluid, but research is still early and it is not known how useful those would be.

Strom says his cells are different are different from the ones the Wake Forest team found, and they may not be true stem cells because they did not form tumors in his experiments, as a true stem cell would.

Strom said the cells he worked with also do not appear to be immortal, meaning they die out after a while in the lab, unlike true stem cells.

Strom's team tested the cells in lab dishes, incubating them in various compounds, and got them to form into what looked like heart cells, nerve cells, liver cells and pancreatic cells.

Strom's lab works specifically on liver transplants and he hopes to develop the cells to use them instead of donated liver. Pancreatic cells would be important because they could be used to treat diabetes.

The university has licensed the technology to a company called Stemnion, LLC, and the researchers are shareholders and will receive license fees as part of the agreement.

Read More...

Summary only...