U.S. troops on active duty call for Iraq withdrawal

Reuters
U.S. troops on active duty call for Iraq withdrawal

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than 200 active duty U.S. armed service members, fed up with the war in Iraq, have joined an unusual protest calling for withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country, organizers said on Wednesday.

The campaign, called the Appeal for Redress from the War in Iraq, is the first of its kind in the Iraq war and takes advantage of Defense Department rules allowing active duty troops to express personal opinions to members of Congress without fear of retaliation, organizers said.

"As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq," states the appeal posted on the campaign's Web site at www.appealforredress.org.

"Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home," it adds.

The Web site allows service members to sign the appeal that will be presented to members of Congress. Organizers said the number of signatories has climbed from 65 to 219 since the appeal was posted a few days ago and Wednesday when it was publicly launched. There are 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Active duty service members are restricted in expressing personal views publicly. But rules governed by the Military Whistleblower Protection Act give them the right to speak to a member of Congress respectfully while off-duty and out of uniform, making clear they do not speak for the military.

In a conference call with reporters, a sailor, a Marine and a soldier who had served in the Iraq operation said American troops there have increasingly had difficulty seeing the purpose of lengthy and repeated tours of duty since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Their misgivings have intensified this year as the country has edged toward civil war, they said.

"The real grievances are: Why are we in Iraq if the weapons of mass destruction are not found, if the links to al Qaeda are not substantiated," said Marine Sgt. Liam Madden of Rockingham, Vermont, who was in Iraq from September 2004 to February 2005 and is based at Quantico, Virginia.

"The occupation is perpetuating more violence," he said. "It's costing way too many Iraqi civilian and American service member lives while it brings us no benefit."

The campaign's sponsoring committee includes the activist groups Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace and Military Families Speak Out.

Navy Seaman Jonathan Hutto of Atlanta, stationed at Norfolk, Virginia and the first service member to join the campaign, said a similar appeal during the Vietnam War drew support from over 250,000 active duty service members in the early 1970s.

Read More...

Summary only...

Iraq withdrawal to be put to voters in three states

USA TODAY
Iraq withdrawal to be put to voters in three states

BOSTON (AP) — Voters in three states will consider calls for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq when they go to the polls in less than two weeks.

Opinion polls show the increasingly unpopular war contributing to declining prospects for the Republican Party in nationwide congressional elections.

The referendums are the work of committed individuals such as 81-year-old Hamer Lacey, who hauled his broken back and clipboard to a Gloucester grocery store parking lot last summer, looking for signatures of residents who shared his fervent opposition to the war in Iraq.

His work put Gloucester among 139 Massachusetts communities where residents will vote next month on a non-binding question calling for an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

Voters in several cities in Wisconsin and Illinois will consider a similar question. The referendums are held at the same time as elections for practical reasons.

Organizers said they do not expect the results to turn U.S. policy around. But they said the outcome could at least make the growing anti-war sentiment clear to policymakers.

"There's a gap between what the public wants and what public officials want," said Steve Burns of the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice. "They're not acting in our name. We hope, in time, we can bring them around."

Wade Zerkle, executive director of Vets for Freedom, said the referendums are a publicity stunt, and the outcome will not represent the majority: "I don't think a ballot referendum in some of the most liberal cities in America is going to hold much water."

He said most Americans, even those with growing doubts about the war, know that leaving Iraq prematurely will create a terrorist haven that the U.S. will have to deal with.

Since the March 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein, more than 2,800 members of the U.S. military have been killed in Iraq, according to an Associated Press count. The United Nations has said 100 Iraqis are being killed each day.

"We're just hoping people will look into their hearts and say, 'What is going on here?"' said Paul Shannon of the American Friends Service Committee, the Quaker peace group that helped organize the Massachusetts signature drive. "Are we really willing to throw away more lives tomorrow? For what?"

In Wisconsin, 10 communities will vote in November on withdrawal. In April, 24 of 32 Wisconsin communities voted in favor of removing U.S. forces.

In Illinois, the question will be considered in Chicago, as well as smaller cities, including Springfield and Urbana, and about a half-dozen towns.

The list of Massachusetts communities where the question will appear includes liberal cities such as Boston, Newton and Cambridge, and communities such as Chicopee, a town in western Massachusetts where Westover Air Reserve Base is situated.

Berkeley, California, and two Wisconsin communities also will vote on whether President Bush should be impeached.

Organizers said the results of the referendums cannot be dismissed as the opinions of a lot of liberals. Burns said six Wisconsin communities that voted last spring for withdrawal cast their ballots for Bush in 2004.

Lacey said he has been anti-war since his Navy service in World War II, when he witnessed the destruction in civilian areas of Japan. The retired pediatrician's signature-gathering was limited to a few hours at a time by pain from a cracked vertebra, suffered in an auto accident in 2003.

"The whole gist of the Bush presidency is in conflict with what my ideals are," he said.

Zaida Walters of Houston, whose Marine son was killed in Fallujah, disagreed with the call to bring the troops home. She said her son, Leroy Sandoval Jr., was committed to the mission and would believe in it today.

"I think we need to finish what we started," Walters said. "I really do."


Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-25-iraq-referendum_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Summary only...

Social Security Enters Elections; Bush Remarks Please Democrats, Perplex Republicans

washingtonpost.com
Social Security Enters Elections
Bush Remarks Please Democrats, Perplex Republicans
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer

More than a year after Social Security reform faded from the political radar screen, the debate erupted anew yesterday, as Democrats seized on news that President Bush hopes to revive an unpopular proposal to make changes in the national retirement program.

In recent days, Bush has said Social Security remains one of the "big items" he wants to tackle next year and he continues to "believe that a worker, at his or her option, ought to be allowed to put some of their own money . . . in a private savings account, an account that they call their own."

The statement appeared to represent no substantive change for the White House, and it varied little from the president's previous remarks.

But with just two weeks to go until the Nov. 7 congressional elections, Democrats highlighted Bush's comments, seeing an opportunity to remind voters about a Republican proposal that polls have shown is highly unpopular with many voters.

"Just when you thought your Social Security was safe from privatization, George Bush is bringing back his plan to privatize Social Security and cut guaranteed benefits," declared a news release from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

, the party's fundraising arm for Senate races.

Democratic strategists were gleeful about the chance to draw a sharp distinction between the parties on Social Security, an explosive issue among elderly voters. "I couldn't believe it. What an opening," Democratic pollster Celinda Lake said. "I think he had an out-of-body experience."

Some Republicans were equally perplexed by Bush's timing.

"I guess you could argue if it gets Iraq off the front page, it was probably a good thing at this point," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), a top Republican strategist who opposed the president's Social Security plan. But a new White House push on the issue "is not going anywhere. This president never likes to back down. I think he's putting it on the table, but I don't think anybody's going to pick it up."

The administration is trying to mount a new, bipartisan effort to rein in the costs of Social Security, along with Medicare and Medicaid.

Though Bush's plan stalled in Congress last year, the new Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., has said he took the job in part to tackle the rising cost of government health-care and Social Security spending, which he has called "the biggest economic issue facing our country." And Bush regularly mentions his desire to take another stab at the issue.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto yesterday said that the president "is interested in addressing the long-term challenges our country faces, and he's not going to be shy about doing that."

Fratto was traveling with Bush in Florida, where last year's aborted attempt at Social Security reform has been an issue in competitive House races. In South Florida, where Bush attended a Republican National Committee fundraiser, Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (R-Fla.) has touted his opposition to Bush's push for private accounts in a television ad.

"I represent the state of Florida, not a political party," Shaw says in the ad. The 13-term incumbent is locked in a tight race with Democratic state senator Ron Klein.

Republicans elsewhere have also scrambled to distance themselves from the president on the issue. In Ohio, Rep. Deborah Pryce and Sen. Mike DeWine have struggled, under attack, to explain their positions on the president's plan.

DeWine said he opposes using tax dollars for private accounts, according to a candidate survey by AARP, the group formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons.

And Pryce said in a debate last month that while she still agrees with the concept, she has heeded voter demands to drop the issue, according to news reports. Her campaign has called her strong backing of the Bush plan "ancient history."

AARP yesterday released candidate surveys from 35 competitive House races and 10 competitive Senate races in which Republican candidates overwhelmingly refused to take a definitive stand on private accounts -- or opposed them outright.

One of the few exceptions was Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), chairman of a Senate subcommittee on Social Security and an outspoken advocate of the president's plan. He is trailing Democrat Robert P. Casey Jr. in recent polls.

Santorum told AARP that he continues to support private accounts, so long as they are voluntary. On the campaign trail, he has lashed out at Casey -- and Democrats in general -- for failing to offer their own ideas for tackling the Social Security problem.

"He won't give you an -- he won't give you an answer on Social Security. He won't give you an answer on anything to make any changes," Santorum said in a television debate last month. "My question to Mr. Casey is: If you're not for personal retirement accounts, which he says he's not, how much are you going to raise their taxes? Or how much are you going to cut benefits to fix the Social Security problem?"

Read More...

Summary only...

Watchdog Group Accuses Churches of Political Action

The New York Times
Watchdog Group Accuses Churches of Political Action
By STEPHANIE STROM

A nonprofit group has filed a complaint asking the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the role that two churches may have played in the re-election campaign of Kansas’ attorney general.

The complaint by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan legal watchdog organization, cited a memorandum from the attorney general, Phill Kline, a Republican, directing members of his campaign staff to recruit churches to distribute campaign literature and serve as the sites for events.

“This is the top law enforcement official in the state who is encouraging everyone to break the law,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group. “He’s either abysmally unfamiliar with the law, or he’s deliberately violating it.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Kline, Sherriene Jones, did not return calls to her office.

In his memorandum, Mr. Kline identified two Topeka churches, the Light of the World Christian Center and the Wanamaker Woods Church of the Nazarene, which he said had participated in “lit drops” by handing out campaign literature. A woman who answered the telephone at Wanamaker Woods Church said the church had no comment.

The Rev. Greg Varney, pastor of Light of the World Christian Center, issued a statement saying that Mr. Kline had preached at the church on July 9, but insisting that no illegal activity had occurred. “At no time here at our church did Phill bring up politics, re-election or campaign contributions,” the statement said.

Mark W. Everson, the commissioner of the I.R.S., has repeatedly warned that the agency will crack down on religious organizations that violate laws barring charities of any type from involvement in partisan political activities.

This election cycle, additional accusations of such violations have been made against religious organizations in California, Minnesota, Missouri and Ohio.

Whether the I.R.S. has responded to those complaints is unknown; the agency is barred by law from disclosing its investigations.

All Saints Church, an Episcopal congregation in Pasadena, Calif., has said it was under investigation, but no other church named in complaints that have become public has acknowledged an I.R.S. inquiry.

Despite a report last year by the Treasury Department’s inspector general that concluded political considerations had played no role in the I.R.S.’s selection of nonprofit groups for review, the agency’s silence regarding its investigations has led to accusations of political bias.

“From what we know, the I.R.S. has gone after liberal organizations primarily, the N.A.A.C.P. and the liberal church in California,” Ms. Sloan said, referring to the inquiry into All Saints Church. An I.R.S. investigation of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was closed with no finding of wrongdoing.

“Clearly, there are violations on the conservative side, and no action appears to be taken.” Ms. Sloan said. “If they’re being even-handed,” she added, “I certainly can’t tell.”

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington also filed a complaint with the I.R.S. last week against the Living Word Christian Center in Brooklyn Park, Minn., accusing its senior pastor of violating the law by openly stating his support for a Congressional candidate.

“We can’t publicly endorse as a church, and would not for any candidate,” the senior pastor, the Rev. Mac Hammond, told his congregation during a service on Oct. 14 as he introduced Michele Bachmann, a Republican state senator who is running for a seat in the United States House of Representatives. “But I can tell you personally that I’m going to vote for Michele Bachmann,” he said.

During her remarks that followed, Ms. Bachmann said that she had been called by God to run for the House seat after three days of fasting and praying with her husband.

The Star Tribune in Minneapolis later reported that Mr. Hammond could not vote for Ms. Bachmann because he does not live in her district.

Mr. Hammond did not respond to messages seeking comment.

The Star Tribune quoted Mr. Hammond as saying he had “learned my lesson.”

Read More...

Summary only...

Dean: "The president made it clear that he intends to stay the course"

Radio Actuality: Dean On President Bush's News Conference

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean responds to President Bush's press conference this morning, his administration's failed policies on Iraq and Democrats' new direction for America:

"I think the president made it clear that he intends to stay the course and I think that's the wrong thing to do. It's a permanent commitment to a failed strategy, what the president doesn't seem to understand is that this is not about politics; this is a foreign policy problem that requires more than politics. We're in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. We need a new direction not just in Iraq. We need a new direction for the country. We've got to get rid of corruption in Congress. We need to do something for ordinary American families such as raising the minimum wage and finally dealing with health insurance, like 36 other countries in the world have. We need a new direction."

To download Chairman Dean's remarks, please copy and paste the link below in your browser:

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/audio/actualities/20061025_deanrespo nse.mp3

Read More...

Summary only...

Cardinals' Pitcher Jeff Suppan urges Missouri voters to oppose stem-cell research

The New York Times
Cardinals' Suppan Pitching and Politicking
By JOE LAPOINTE

ST. LOUIS, Oct. 25 - Jeff Suppan is scheduled to pitch for the St. Louis Cardinals in Game 4 of the World Series at Busch Stadium, but his time on the mound will not be his only appearance on the baseball telecast.

Suppan is one of several athletes in a political campaign commercial to be broadcast regionally during the Fox network’s telecast of the game. The ad urges Missouri voters to oppose stem-cell research and vote against Amendment 2 to the state constitution, on the ballot in the Nov. 7 election.

In a video copy of the ad, produced and distributed by an anti-amendment group called Missourians Against Human Cloning and posted on the Internet, Mr. Suppan’s face appears in the first 10 seconds. He is not wearing a baseball cap in the ad.

"Amendment 2 claims it bans human cloning, but in the 2,000 words you don’t read, it makes cloning a constitutional right," Mr. Suppan says in the ad. "Don’t be deceived."

Other athletes who appear in the ad are Kurt Warner of the Arizona Cardinals football team, who formerly played with the St. Louis Rams, and Mike Sweeney of the Kansas City Royals baseball team. James Caviezel, the actor who played Jesus in the film The Passion of the Christ, also appears.

The timing is no coincidence: Cathy Ruse, a spokeswoman for Missourians Against Human Cloning, said the group specifically bought advertising time during Game 4, when Mr. Suppan would be pitching.

Scott Leventhal, Suppan’s agent, said early Wednesday evening that Suppan has approved use of the ad during the telecast of the game in which he is pitching. Leventhal had said earlier in the day that he would try to get the ad withdrawn because it would be a distraction to Suppan’s team trying to win a championship.

But, after speaking by telephone with Suppan in the Cardinals’ clubhouse, Leventhal said Suppan had given his permission for the ad to be used during the game.

Austin Ruse, husband of Cathy Ruse and also a member of the group, said Suppan had his comments taped by himself at his home and they were picked up by the group on Tuesday and inserted into the ad.

"He was the last piece to fall into place," Austin Ruse said of Suppan. "He shot it. He said it was ready. We slipped it in."

Tony La Russa, manager of the Cardinals, was asked Wednesday his opinion of Suppan’s involvement and his policy regarding players involving themselves in such causes.

"Our organization encourages guys to get involved in something beyond just baseball," La Russa said. "I just like the fact that guys make a commitment."

The stem-cell research issue has moved to the center of the Missouri Senate campaign between Jim Talent, the Republican incumbent, and Claire McCaskill, the Democratic challenger. Mr. Talent opposes the amendment; Ms. McCaskill supports it.

The actor Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease one of many conditions that researchers hope to cure through stem-cell research has taped a commercial supporting Ms. McCaskill and her stand on the issue.

Because that ad ran during an earlier World Series telecast, the opponents of the amendment decided to respond in kind with the ad featuring the athletes.

Ms. Ruse said her group paid $135,000 to air two ads during the game on stations carrying the game in Missouri one a 60-second version, the other a different 30-second ad. Suppan appears only in the longer version.

She said that members of her group who happened to be neighbors of Suppan told the group he was sympathetic to their views. Leventhal confirmed that Suppan feels passionately about the stem-cell issue and was aware of the ramifications of getting involved in a political issue when he made the advertisement.

"Jeff has been in this game a long time," Leventhal said. "He knows what he is doing."

Connie Farrow, a spokeswoman for a group that favors the amendment, the Missouri Coalition for Life-Saving Cures, said that even though Suppan was one of her favorite Cardinal pitchers, she disagreed with his statements in the ad and would prefer to rely on the opinions of medical experts on questions of science.

"He’s wrong - respectfully, I say that," Farrow said of Suppan in a telephone interview. "I would ask Jeff Suppan why Missourians don’t deserve to be treated the same as other Americans when it comes to health care."

If the ad is broadcast, it will be seen only on stations serving Missouri; viewers in other parts of the country will see local advertising for their region instead. Should Game 4 be postponed by rain on Wednesday, the ad would run on Thursday or whenever the game is played.

Read More...

Summary only...

In Tight Race, Ad on Black Candidate Stirs Furor

The New York Times
In Tight Race, Ad on Black Candidate Stirs Furor
By ROBIN TONER

KNOXVILLE, Tenn., Oct. 25 — The Tennessee Senate race, one of the most competitive and potentially decisive battles of the midterm election, became even more unpredictable this week after a furor over a Republican television commercial that stood out even in a year of negative advertising.

The commercial, financed by the Republican National Committee, was aimed at Representative Harold E. Ford Jr., the black Democrat from Memphis whose campaign for the Senate this year has kept the Republicans on the defensive in a state where they never expected to have trouble holding the seat.

The spot, which was first broadcast last week and was disappearing from the air on Wednesday, featured a series of people in mock man-on-the street interviews talking sarcastically about Mr. Ford and his stands on issues including the estate tax and national security.

The controversy erupted over one of the people featured: an attractive white woman, bare-shouldered, who declares that she met Mr. Ford at a “Playboy party,” and closes the commercial by looking into the camera and saying, with a wink, “Harold, call me.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Ford, who is single, said he was one of 3,000 people who attended a Playboy party at the Super Bowl last year in Jacksonville, Fla.

Critics asserted that the advertisement was a clear effort to play to racial stereotypes and fears, essentially, playing the race card in an election where Mr. Ford is trying to break a century of history and become the first black senator from the South since Reconstruction.

Hilary Shelton, director of the N.A.A.C.P.’s Washington bureau, said the spot took aim at the sensitivities many Americans still have about interracial dating.

John Geer, a professor at Vanderbilt University and a specialist in political advertising, said that it “is playing to a lot of fears” and “frankly makes the Willie Horton ad look like child’s play.”

Professor Geer was alluding to the case of a convicted black murderer used in Republican commercials contending that the 1988 Democratic nominee for president, Michael S. Dukakis, was soft on crime.

Mr. Ford has been campaigning as an independent, new generation Democrat dedicated to changing the atmosphere in Washington; to putting more attention on the needs of the middle class and on bread and butter issues like health care and to bringing a fresh approach to the war in Iraq. He has strongly resisted Republican efforts to pigeonhole him as a liberal.

Bob Corker, the Republican candidate, offers himself as committed to Tennessee values, with a track record in business and public life of solving problems, in contrast to what he asserts is Mr. Ford’s “total life experience” in Washington, politics, and serving the Ford political dynasty in Memphis.

The debate over the spot was more impassioned on the campaign trail Wednesday, when Mr. Ford and his allies took their bus across a wide swath of eastern and middle Tennessee, campaigning in small towns and courthouse squares.

Representative Lincoln Davis, the conservative Democrat from the heavily rural district in the state’s midsection, introduced Mr. Ford at a rally in Crossville with a fierce attack on the advertisement.

“I’m ashamed at what I see Republicans putting out today,” Mr. Davis declared, as an overwhelmingly white audience of more than a hundred cheered on the small town square. “You tell Karl Rove that we don’t want this stuff on TV in Tennessee. We don’t want our kids seeing that.”

Mr. Ford told his audience here, and elsewhere in recent days, that the attacks coming his way were simply a sign of desperation, a sign the Republicans have nothing else to say. He added, “You know your opponent is scared when his main opposition against you is, ‘My opponent likes girls.’ ” The audience erupted in laughter.

“You know it’s a big problem if at the end of a race, if the best they can come up with is this sleaze they’re putting up,” he said. “What are they going to brag about? Taking care of the middle class? What are they going to brag about, managing this war the right way?”

In an interview, Mr. Ford demurred when asked if he thought the advertisement was injecting race into the campaign. “You need to ask those people over there what they tried to do with that ad,” he said. “It’s tasteless — but I’ve come to expect that from my opponent.”

Mr. Corker, a former mayor of Chattanooga, quickly tried to distance his campaign from the advertisement. The Corker campaign had been claiming momentum in recent days, citing a flurry of recent polls indicating the Republican had regained a slight lead after steadying its message and its campaign organization.

A spokesman for the Corker campaign, Todd Womack, said the campaign was pleased that the spot had been taken off the air. “It was tacky, over the top,” Mr. Womack said. “Tennesseans deserve better.”

The spot was paid for by the Republican National Committee but was produced by an independent expenditure group that is supposed to have an arm’s length relationship with the actual campaigns. As a result, Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said he did not see the spot before it was broadcast and did not have the power to order it removed.

Even so, Mr. Mehlman said he did not see a racial subtext to the ad. “I will tell you that when I looked at the ad, that was not my reaction,” he said. “I hear and respect people who had a different reaction, and I hope they respect me too.”

Moreover, Republican spokesmen said they did not believe the advertisement had been taken off the air in response to the controversy, but had simply, in the words of one, “run its course.”

The furor puts Mr. Mehlman in a difficult position. He has spent considerable time as the national chairman preaching the inclusiveness of the Republican Party and its openness to black candidates and black voters. He said in an interview Wednesday night that he did not believe that this would damage his Republican outreach efforts.

Officials with the Republican independent expenditure committee, who include longtime allies of the Bush political circle, did not respond to requests for comment.

The Senate race here is one of three, along with Missouri and Virginia, that are pivotal to control of the Senate, and all three are considered neck-and-neck. Mr. Ford and Mr. Corker are seeking the seat left vacant by the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, who is retiring.

A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll published this week showed Mr. Corker leading Mr. Ford, 49 percent to 44 percent. The poll was conducted last Friday through Monday, and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.

If he wins, the campaign Mr. Ford has been running here will be considered a roadmap for Democrats in conservative and rural areas. Mr. Davis invariably introduced him this week as a man who would never “take away your Bible or your gun,” but would raise the minimum wage so people could afford them.

At one point, Mr. Davis’s eyes welled up as Mr. Ford worked his way through a crowd — largely friendly, although not entirely so — at a heavily Republican barbecue. “You’re watching history,” Mr. Davis said.

Mr. Ford said later that he was not thinking history. “I’m trying to win a race,” he said, before he jumped into his bus, whose destination sign read, “success express.”

Read More...

Summary only...

Heartlessness: Michael J. Fox is an example of how we should all be living our lives. Rush Limbaugh’s nasty stem-cell-ad response is not.

Newsweek
Heartlessness
Michael J. Fox is an example of how we should all be living our lives. Rush Limbaugh’s nasty stem-cell-ad response is not.
By Patti Davis

Oct. 25, 2006 - When I was a kid, I was once being teased relentlessly by a bully at school, and I faked being sick to stay home and avoid him. My parents knew I was faking (the thermometer under hot water trick didn’t work) but they also knew something was wrong. My father came into my room to talk to me, and I willingly confessed. He patiently explained to me that the best way to deal with a bully was to totally ignore him—treat him as if he is invisible. Because all bullies really want is attention.

I got it right back then. I returned to school, ignored the persistent bully, and he backed off. I seem less able to do that now when a bully by the name of Rush Limbaugh has accused Michael J. Fox of faking the symptoms of Parkinson’s (OK, he actually said “acting”) for political purposes. Fox, who could easily be held blameless if he reacted with rage and vitriol, has exhibited grace and dignity, ignoring the blathering accusations of the radio host and expressing appreciation that, just two weeks before the midterm elections, we are discussing stem-cell research. We could all learn from the way the actor has responded to cruelty; certainly I can.

Fox, stricken with Parkinson’s disease while still in his 30s, has not shied away from public view or expressed any self-pity or anger at the hand fate has dealt him. In fact, he has called himself “lucky”—for the unwavering love of his family, a career he can be proud of and the opportunity to use his fame to bring attention to the miracles that stem-cell treatment holds for people afflicted with many diseases, including Parkinson’s. He has demonstrated courage, generosity and compassion.

Limbaugh, on the other hand, flagrantly broke the law by procuring large amounts of drugs and then escaped the punishment that someone who is not white, wealthy and famous would have gotten. He spends his time insulting people and gets paid handsomely to do so; now we have seen that even those with serious diseases don’t get a reprieve from his cruel bluster. And his apology doesn’t cancel out the nastiness of his original comment.

While I am obviously not ignoring Limbaugh, I am determined to focus more of my attention on Fox, because he is an example of how all of us should live our lives. There will always be cruelty in the world, there will always be bullies. How we respond is what matters. There are loftier goals than mudslinging. The people we will remember years from now are those who kept walking calmly and kindly through the worst mudslinging, who kept their attention on the changes they wished to make in the world and who treated others with compassion even when they were being abused.

Fox could slink away and hide his disease from us—few would blame him. Instead, he is using the misfortune that came his way to try and open doors to a miraculous future—a future in which diseases like Parkinson’s, diabetes, ALS and Alzheimer’s could perhaps be cured. He will be known for that work, as well as for his dignity in the face of insults.

Hopefully, stem-cell treatment will be available in time to cure Michael J. Fox. There are no stem cells, though, that can cure heartlessness. Cruelty is a demon that feeds on itself. Limbaugh’s fate is ultimately the harsher one.

Read More...

Summary only...

"Stay The Course"; "Stay The Course"; "Stay The Course"; "Stay The Course"; "Stay The Course"; ...

Crooks and Liars
Countdown: Making adjustments to the language of making adjustments
By: Jamie Holly



Keith Olbermann did a great run down tonight on Bush's use of "stay the course".

Video - WMV Video - QT

Olbermann: Evidently, somebody at the White House needs a little help with "The Google."

Actually using a simple Google query of "stay the course" within the White House's press release directory (which includes transcripts) returns 160 results of the term "stay the course" being used. I wonder how many more times we could find it used by others such as Rummy or Condi.

You have probably forgotten this, it stuck about as well as did "the New Coke"…

But just last year, the Pentagon tried to change the language. We were no longer fighting a "War on Terror" — we were fighting a "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism".

But despite Donald Rumsfeld's endless repetition of his new phrase, the effort failed because the Commander-in-Chief refused to call the "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism" anything but "The War on Terror".

Now in our fourth story on the Countdown — that message miscommunication is happening in reverse.

On Monday, the White House "fired" the under-producing catch-phrase "stay the course".

And apparently nobody told the Secretary of Defense.

The problem becomes when you can't make adjustments, even about the language of making adjustments.

The White House Press Secretary is now revising his revisionist history on the phrase and still coming up short. First saying that the President never said "stay the course" then yesterday, saying this to Fox News:

Well sure, to be fair, the President did say "Stay the Course" eight times.

So there they are, the eight — and only eight — times President George W. Bush ever said the phrase "Stay The Course"

[video of Bush saying "Stay the Course" 29 times]

And now you know tomorrow's headline from Mr. Snow.

"I never said he only said it eight times; I said we could only find eight times."

Evidently, somebody at the White House needs a little help with "The Google."

Read More...

Summary only...

Election Warning From Winston Churchill: Do Not Let Them Steal Your Freedom Any More

Huffington Post
Brent Budowsky
Election Warning From Winston Churchill: Do Not Let Them Steal Your Freedom Any More

Democracy can die a slow death from a thousand cuts, inflicted by a few small men, wielding deadly little knives, drawing blood one drop at a time, on a slumbering people, who take their freedom for granted, and let it slip slowly away.

Even today, after 2000, after 2002, after 2004, there are stories in the news about abuses
against the right to vote, committed by the same people, for the same reason, done the same ways, and yet the people who should care, dont, and the people who should be fighting against this, aren't.

In my day when the Battle of Britain was raging, when bombs were bursting above our heads, when all of Europe had fallen and the imperial army had stormed across the Pacific, we knew what you forget, that freedom is precious, that freedom is hard, that freedom comes at a high price, that not one inch of freedom must ever be lost, because once we surrender one inch, we risk it all.

In my day had a foreign power invaded America and installed a proconsul, who ruled that your Bill of Rights and National Laws were no longer in effect, unless he permitted it, a righteous people would have rallied in the streets with a thundering voice calling out: never, never, never.

The world needs America. The world needs America to be America. The world needs America to be the light and the flame and the torch. Yet today because you have lost sight about what America means at home, you have inflicted great harm and shed great blood on yourselves, and the world.

I do not need to make dire predictions about the future, the ugly truth is told by the shame of the present.

When your Leader said he could take away your Bill of Rights on his own personal whim, you did nothing.

When your Leader said he could violate law based on some claimed power he has, you stayed silent.

When your Leader claimed he could inflict horrid acts of torture that break international laws honored by every democracy on earth, you surrendered.

When your Leader claimed the power to jail people without hearings and imprison people without justice, you gave in.

When your Leader claimed the power to detain people without charges, and inflict punishment and pain on unknown people without lawyers or law, you submitted.

When your Leader seized the power to invade your home without a warrant and take your body without a writ, you did nothing.

When your Leader claimed the power to take your privacy without a court and take your rights without a hearing, you gave in.

When your Leader said the Congress has no right to be involved in the policy of making war, you gave up.

When your Leader said your Courts have no responsiblity for upholding your Constitution without his permission, you stood down.

Every one of these abridgments of basic freedom was done before your eyes and in plain view, with the support of many, with the submissiveness of some, and with the ignorant acquiesence of others who had better things to do than value the freedom that braver men and women than you, died to leave to you, in trust.

Here is how it looks to the friends of freedom in heaven who are shouting to you with the great documents, books and ideas for democracy that have been written through the ages.

It all begins with the unbridled arrogance of those who won the 2000 election and came to believe, so far correctly, that they could get away with anything.

Every American, every Democrat, every friend of freedom should go to sleep every night, and wake up every morning, with giant pictures of Katherine Harris, Karl Rove, John Bolton and Jim Baker as they were counting the votes in Florida.

Every American, every Democrat, every friend of freedom everywhere should go to sleep every night, and wake up every morning, and read the decision of the United States Supreme Court acting like partisan hacks making a party line vote, deciding the American Presidency.

Every American, every Democrat, every friend of democracy should go to sleep every night, and wake up every morning, and read the stories from 2002 and 2004 about voters being threatened and intimidated, about voting lists being purged, about voting rolls being stripped, about letters of threat to voters being sent in the mail, about leaflets aimed to intimidate voters being handed out even in churches, about polls being close early, about voters being fraudulently turned away, about honorable people being forced to wait seven hours for their most important right to be honored.

Every American, every Democrat, every friend of freedom in this land should go to sleep every night, and wake up every morning, and read the stories about an election only days away, about problems with voting in state after state already this year, about predictions of chaos and warnings of crisis, from those desperately trying awaken a slumbering nation.

Every American, every Democrat, every friend of democracy should spend every one of these last few days asking how six years after 2000, our election system is more dangerously flawed than ever before, with machines that even the election officials do not always understand, with technology that remains secret from our nation, with standards do not exist, election workers who are too often untrained. and a media that is obsessed with spin doctors, dirt mongers and dance contests more than the sanctity of democracy.

To average Americans, security moms, soccer moms, military communities, workers, families, men and women of faith please understand that the problems that plague us today, come naturally and inevitably, from the attitudes of those who believe they can get away with anything. Those who deliberately destroy the checks and balances of democracy. Those who aggressively demean the opinion of others. Those who deliberately destroy the very fabric of democratic debate and who deliberately destoy the very unity of nations, seeking ever more ugly politics, aimed at winning ever nastier elections, resulting in ever more catastrophic disasters.

This is what happens when our democratic institutions and democratic spirit of goodwill are destroyed in the name of aggressive and hostile partisanship, in the single minded pursuit of total power. This disrespectul and contemptuous one-partyism is the cause of our crisis from mismanagement of the war in Iraq to the abuses of pages in Washington, from the corruption that has turned our capital into the house of the bought and sold, to our inabiity to agree even on urgent missions such as protecting our ports, defending our borders and supplying our troops.

To good Republicans, many of you agree with much of what I write here, and you need to have a heart to heart with yourselves, about whether the time has belatedly come for you to dissent from your party, on behalf of your country, before this madness goes further.

To Democrats you should be embarrassed and ashamed that after 2000, 2002, and 2004 the party of the people will be disastrously outspent, yet again, on election day, in getting out the vote. Have you learned nothing?

It is pathetic, wrong and inexcusable that after 2000, 2002 and 2004 your party remains ten years behind the Republicans on matters of bringing out voters on election day and fighting to ensure that the voting is honest.

It is incredible, unbelievable and pathetic that after 2000, 2002 and 2004 you have leading party financiers who have given ten times more to promote democracy in Russia than to defend democracy in America, that you have a former candidate hoarding tons of money from 2004, because he wants to be a candidate in 2008, rather than using that money and being the hero who leads the fight for the right to vote in 2006.

Every American, every Democrat, every friend of freedom everywhere should be pounding the table with outrage at the Election Assistance Commission, that was created after 2000 to ensure integrity of democracy and is nothing more than a fraud, a farce and a sham that at best has done zero, and at worst, is the great enabler for the potential corruption and chaos of elections in America.

Every American, every Democat, every friend of freedom should be demanding that every Secretary of State entrusted to protect the franchise, and every election official that allows this to happen, who have not done their jobs six years after 2000, be impeached, fired, recalled or removed if there are crises in their jurisdictions that they are doing nothing to prevent today.

This is a warning in the most Churchillian terms to Democrats in the Sunday New York Times sounding like schoolchildren giddy with glee, that you finally might win an election, or acting like Halloween trick or treaters, spooked at what the Republican ghouls will do to you, again.

This is not the time for giddy glee and this is not the time for paranoid fears. This is the time to fight for freedom and democracy in your own backyard, knowing that this election could be decided by a handful of votes in a handful of places. Knowing that the arrogance and contempt from those who think they can get away with anything, will be without limits if you let them get away with this. Knowing that they have you outgunned, outmanned, outorganized, outspent and outmanuevered yet again, this time, now even more than ever before, in the machinery of getting out and counting the votes.

This is a warning in the most Churchillian tones to a party that has known little but losing for the last six years. You have to do what we did, when our back was against the wall in the Battle of Britain and we fought them on the beaches, and we fought them on the seas, and we fought them on the land, and we fought them in the air because the stakes were beyond description and our will to win was single-minded, and strong beyond anything we have known before.

Democrats should be holding hearings right now in Washington, even with Democrats only, bringing this matter to the front pages with the truth about dangers already proven this year.

Democrats should be threatening hearings after the election with investigators and subpoenas aimed at anyone who tries to steal even one vote, in one precinct, in one race in these coming days.

Democrats should be mobilizing hundreds and thousands of lawyers from the firms large and small, from the law schools and halls of academia, far more powerful than anything being done now, far more similar to the Freedom Summers in the 1960's than the losing tactics of recent years, airlifting them on Election Day into key states and precints where trouble is most likely.

Democrats should be prepared to call for grand juries and prosecutions in trouble spots in a moment's notice getting ready now, today, this minute, in jurisdictions with a history of trouble.

Democrats should be voting in droves using absentee ballots to protect their franchise.

Democratic leaders should conduct a national emergency conference call with everyone throughout the blogosphere and conduct the most massive and unprecedented fundraising drive in the history of democracy to raise emergency money for the NAACP and other programs to get out the vote and ensure the integrity of this election.

Democratic financiers should have a sense of urgency and passion and conviction and write large last minute checks to respected groups that police the honesty of elections.

National Democratic Leaders with giant PACs to promote future candidacies must go the extra mile and make major contributions in these closing days and those sitting on money given to them in trust for 2004 must use it now, now, now, now when the stakes are so high and the consequences of failure so enormous.

And to answer Senator Kerry's staff in the New York Times, I dont know who is behind the anonymous website, it is certainly not me. I am not anonymous, I am not a coward, and I say openly and clearly that it is a total disgrace for John Kerry to be hoarding money that he did not use in an election he did not fight hard enough to win. It is disgrace for candidates not running or candidates in safe seats to be hoarding huge piles of money, when we are in the fight of our lives, for the values we hold dearest, in a country facing crisis.

The hosts of Air America and progressive radio everywhere should act like war rooms with broadcasts that appeal for money and support, work with candidates and blogs, use the media to create a 24/7 megaphone for democracy that sets aside the grievances and becomes a national machine for empowerment, action and organization for these last few days before these huge, historic elections.

In a few short days when the people vote there will be a cannon of democracy that will be heard around the world. This will either be the finest hour or the darkest day. This is not the moment to be giddy or gleeful for an election that could well be lost. It is not the moment for paranoia or fear about an election that could still be stolen or given away through malfeasance or mistake, in a handful of precincts, that determine a small number of races, that will decide control of the Congress.

This is a time for organization, battle, focus, commitment, energy and mission and it is a time to fight them on the beaches, on the land, in the sky, on the seas and everywhere.

The stakes are high.

The mission is clear.

The cause is just.

The battle is now.

It is up to you.

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. October death toll in Iraq hits 91

Associated Press
U.S. October death toll in Iraq hits 91
By Christopher Bodeen

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. officials said Tuesday Iraqi leaders have agreed to develop a timeline by the end of the year for progress in stabilizing Iraq, and Iraqi forces should be able to take full control of security in the country in the next 12 to 18 months with "some level" of American support.

Even as October marked the deadliest month for U.S. forces in Iraq this year, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said he felt the United States should continue to focus on drawing down American forces in the country.

On Tuesday, the military announced the deaths of four more U.S. troops, raising the month's toll to 91. At least 2,801 members of the U.S. military have died since the war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

Regardless, Gen. George Casey said he would not hesitate to ask for more troops if he felt they were necessary.

He appeared at a rare joint news conference with U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad in the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad. A power failure in the Green Zone briefly cut off the broadcast of the remarks.

"We are about 75 percent of the way through a three-step process in building those (Iraqi) forces. It is going to take another 12 to 18 months or so till I believe the Iraqi security forces are completely capable of taking over responsibility for their own security that's still coupled with some level of support from us," Casey said.

With violence in Iraq at staggering levels, the United States is battling on both the military and political fronts to tame growing chaos in regions where Sunni insurgent violence now is compounded by sectarian killing.

Khalilzad said the Iraqi government had agreed by the end of the year to develop a timeline for progress. At the same time, he declared, the United States needed to redouble its efforts to succeed in Iraq.

"Iraq leaders have agreed to a timeline for making the hard decisions needed to resolve these issues," Khalilzad said. "Iraqi leaders must step up to achieve key political and security milestones on which they've agreed."

Details of the milestones were not spelled out, but Khalizad mentioned several areas in which progress would be measured, including devising a system to share the country's oil wealth among all religious and ethnic groups.

His comments came a day after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said U.S. government and military officials were working with Iraq to set broad time frames for when Iraqis can take over 16 provinces that are still under the control of U.S. troops. He said officials were not talking about penalizing the Iraqis if they don't hit certain benchmarks.

The Iraqis have taken control of two southern provinces but have been slow to take the lead in others, particularly those around Baghdad and in the volatile regions north and west of the capital city. Rumsfeld said specific target dates probably will not be set. Instead, he said there might be a broader time frame — such as a one- to three-month window — for the Iraqis to take control of certain provinces.

Rumsfeld said the United States was looking at when the Iraqis would move close to setting up a reconciliation process to help quell worsening sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites.

Violence has spiked during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. Casey said the Iraqi army lost 300 men during the fasting month ending this week.

The American military announced the deaths in combat of two U.S. Marines and a sailor Monday in the insurgent stronghold of Anbar province, west of Baghdad. It also said a soldier died Tuesday after his patrol was struck by a roadside bomb in central Baghdad.

October is on course to surpass the October 2005 death toll of 96. Before that the deadliest months were January 2005, at 107; November 2004 at 137 and April 2004, at 135.

The U.S. military also carried out house-to-house searches in an upscale Baghdad neighborhood for an Army translator missing after reportedly being kidnapped while visiting relatives, but said Tuesday they had found no sign of him.

The military said the U.S. soldier, who was not identified by name, was last seen Monday in the heavily guarded Green Zone in central Baghdad.

Khalilzad said the government should transform the committee that was formed to insure that Saddam Hussein's loyalists held no important national positions into an organization that would seek entice them back to the political process.

That was seen as a bow to the Sunni insurgency. Sunnis comprise a minority of the population in mostly Shiite Iraq but were dominant under Saddam's regime.

"We are helping Iraqi leaders complete a national compact. ...Political forces must make difficult decisions in the coming weeks to reach agreements on numbers of outstanding issues on which Iraqis differ," Khalilzad said.

Casey and Khalilzad castigated Iran and Syria, Iraq's neighbors east and west, for trying to undermine the American effort to stabilize the country, with Casey saying both countries had been "decidedly unhelpful."

Khalilzad said radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr had agreed through Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to U.S. demands that the government develop a timeline that would include the eradication of militias.

Al-Sadr controls the Mahdi Army, the country's most feared band of armed men, largely drawn from the downtrodden, poor and unemployed in Baghdad's Sadr City, a Shiite slum enclave.

The U.S. ambassador said the United States was engaging with insurgent leaders, trying to persuade them to lay down their weapons and join the political process. He also announced the Americans had sought and received agreement from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan — all largely Sunni Muslim countries — to intercede with the insurgency.

The military said the missing soldier was a linguist with the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Baghdad. American troops who raided Baghdad's al-Furat TV on Monday said they were looking for an abducted American officer of Iraqi descent who went to join relatives in Karradah.

"We will leverage all available coalition resources to find this soldier," Maj. Gen. James D. Thurman said in a statement. "Our thoughts and prayers go out to his loved ones, and we are working for his safe return."

Sectarian violence persisted in the southern city of Amarah, with at least two more policemen shot to death Tuesday. Militiamen loyal to al-Sadr have been hunting officers aligned with a rival group in a new outbreak of Shiite-on-Shiite revenge attacks in the city.

The attacks came despite a public call by al-Sadr to halt the killings, suggesting that splinter groups were developing within his militia.

"I totally reject any Shiite-Shiite fighting or Sunni-Shiite sectarian fighting in Iraq under any pretext," al-Sadr said in an address to supporters Tuesday marking the beginning of the three-day festival of Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan. "Protecting Iraq is our main goal and the expulsion of the occupation troops from the country is our objective too."

Sunni Muslims marked the start of the festival on Monday.

Police elsewhere reported that 11 Iraqis were killed in bombings and shootings, and 14 bullet-riddled bodies were found — many showing signs of torture.

Read More...

Summary only...

Many Follow U.S. Example on Detainees

Associated Press
Many Follow U.S. Example on Detainees
By Nick Wadhams

UNITED NATIONS -- Several governments around the world have tried to rebut criticism of how they handle detainees by claiming they are only following the U.S. example in the war on terror, the U.N. anti-torture chief said Monday.

Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special investigator on torture, said that when he criticizes governments for their questionable treatment of detainees, they respond by telling him that if the United States does something, it must be all right. He would not name any countries except for Jordan.

"The United States has been the pioneer, if you wish, of human rights and is a country that has a high reputation in the world," Nowak told a news conference. "Today, many other governments are kind of saying, 'But why are you criticizing us, we are not doing something different than what the United States is doing?'"

Nowak said that because of its prominence, the United States has a greater responsibility to uphold international standards for its prisoners so other nations do not use it as an excuse to justify their own behavior.

The remarks were the latest in a tense back-and-forth between Nowak and the United States. He has been an outspoken critic of U.S. detainee policy, chastising the United States for maintaining secret prisons. He has also been skeptical about new legislation that would protect detainees from blatant abuse - such as rape and torture - but does not require automatic legal counsel and specifically bars detainees from protesting their detentions in federal courts.

State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said Monday night that he had not seen Nowak's comments and had no response.

Nowak reiterated his opposition to that prohibition, saying "we should have enough trust in them that they should be the ones to deal with" the detainees.

He has said the United States must close its Guantanamo Bay detention facility and refused an invitation to visit because he would not be allowed to interview detainees. Nowak has reported that reliable accounts indicate suspected terror detainees being held there have been tortured.

Nonetheless, Nowak said the United States had improved its handling of detainees, particularly in Iraq after the Abu Ghraib scandal. The big problem in Iraq now were allegations of detainee torture by militias and the Interior Ministry.

He said detainees were now afraid of being transferred from the control of multinational forces to Iraqi prisons.

"They would prefer if they are in detention now to be in the international detention facilities rather than the Iraqi detention facilities," Nowak said.

Nowak also recently canceled a trip to Russia after he was told Russian law prohibited him from visiting detainees. He had planned to go there from Oct. 9-20. He said countries need to make sure his terms of reference - which give him the right to meet with detainees - are obeyed.

"I would appeal to governments before inviting to really make sure that their domestic laws and policies fully comply with my terms of reference," he said. "Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense to invite me."

Read More...

Summary only...

Potential problems loom in election voting

Reuters
Potential problems loom in election voting
By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Long lines and long counts threaten to mar next month's U.S. congressional elections as millions of Americans put new voting machines and rules to the test, election officials and experts say.

The result could be delays in knowing whether Democrats capture one or both houses of the U.S. Congress, or whether President George W. Bush's Republicans keep control.

"In close elections, it may be days and weeks before a winner is known in a particular race," said Paul DeGregorio, chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, created to oversee a 2002 election law overhaul.

He forecast, however, an improvement over previous elections and said, "I think voters can trust the system."

The election overhaul was passed after the 2000 vote, in which problems deciphering paper ballots in Florida helped fuel a five-week recount fight in which the U.S. Supreme Court handed the presidency to Bush.

The law mandated electronic voting machines with a "paper trail" backup, statewide voter registries and opportunities to cast a "provisional" ballot when a voter's eligibility is in question.

Many of the changes take effect this year, when one-third of voters will cast their ballots on new electronic machines, whose reliability in a national election is unproven.

Ohio, where Democratic voters in 2004 complained that long lines in their neighborhoods kept them from voting, and Pennsylvania are two states with major races where the voting process will be closely watched on November 7.

Other states include Maryland, which had problems with its September primary election, and Georgia and Missouri, where courts threw out new voter identification requirements and experts see a potential for disputes.

"We don't know about the security flaws, we don't know about the error rates," said the Rev. DeForest Soaries, former chairman of the Election Assistance Commission.

172 MILLION AMERICANS

About 172 million Americans are so far registered to vote; 175 million registered for the 2004 presidential election, according to the Election Data Services consulting firm. A smaller share will cast ballots, in 183,000 voting precincts.

In some states there may be confusion after court battles over new state identification requirements. Voters whose eligibility is in dispute can cast provisional ballots, which could add to counting delays in close races.

Election officials also expect more absentee ballots, which take longer to count, cast by voters distrustful of the new machines. In Maryland, for example, the state's Republican governor has encouraged absentee ballots.

There is also a shortage of trained poll workers.

"There's a rather combustible confluence of events taking place in our elections right now," said Century Foundation researcher Tova Wang.

"Where we may find ourselves at the end of Election Day is actually with stacks of paper and long, drawn-out, possibly contentious vote counting," she said. Any delays could spur concerns over the legitimacy of the outcome, she added.

The largest U.S. civil rights group, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said it would monitor voting in 10 states.

In a predominantly black neighborhood of Columbus, Ohio, Democrats have pushed hard to ensure people like Melvin Steward, 72, can vote. Steward said he stood in the rain for four hours in 2004 trying to vote but eventually gave up.

"In my district they shorted us on voting booths. It bothered me because I never missed voting before," Steward said. This time he applied for an absentee ballot.

"I've already turned my papers in," he said.

(Additional reporting by Andrea Hopkins in Ohio)

Read More...

Summary only...

US & Iraq Agree on Timeline (or Bush administration agrees on "cut and run" strategy, just doesn't call it that!)

Reuters
U.S. says Iraq agrees on timeline to peace
By Alastair Macdonald

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi leaders have assured the United States they will stick to a timetable of measures over the next year to curb violence and allow U.S. troops to go home, Washington's top officials in Iraq said on Tuesday.

Two weeks ahead of U.S. congressional elections that have put President George W. Bush's Republicans on the defensive over their Iraq strategy, the U.S. ambassador and military commander in Baghdad told voters directly via a rare televised joint news conference success was still possible, and on a "realistic timetable."

Insisting sectarian bloodshed had not caused Washington to water down its goal of a stable, democratic Iraq, envoy Zalmay Khalilzad said he expected Iraqi leaders to make "significant progress in the coming 12 months" in meeting "benchmarks."

He did not refer to any deadline nor spell out any U.S. response if the Shi'ite-led coalition failed to rein in violence, some of it by pro-government militias, or to address concerns among minority Sunnis over sharing Iraq's oil wealth.

"Iraqi leaders must step up to achieve key political and security milestones on which they have agreed," Khalilzad said.

"They have committed themselves to a timeline for making some of those decisions," he added. "We will work with them as closely as possible so that they do meet those benchmarks."

Bush insists the United States must stay to stabilize Iraq -- whose fate Khalilzad insisted was vital to American security -- but the war is increasingly unpopular among Americans and many critics now want a deadline for U.S. withdrawal.

Gen. George Casey, who commands 140,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq despite hopes early this year that a pullout might be under way by election time, again forecast Iraqis would be able to handle most tasks in 12 to 18 months, with some U.S. support.

But he also did not rule out calling in U.S. reinforcements in the near term as he adjusted tactics in response to death squad killings and insurgent attacks that have killed 90 Americans so far this month, the bloodiest in almost a year.

In Washington on Tuesday, a group of U.S. House Republicans wrote to Bush urging him to "urgently deploy Iraqi military forces into the heart of battle" by sending at least 20 of the 114 U.S.-trained Iraqi military battalions to Baghdad.

SHIFTING THE BURDEN TO IRAQI FORCES

"It is crucial that both the U.S. and Iraqi governments recognize that as the battle in Iraq has intensified, so has the need to send Iraqi battalions into the heart of battle," said the letter from House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Duncan Hunter of California and 32 other Republicans.

Also on Tuesday, a U.S. defense official said the British military hoped to withdraw troops from Iraq within about 12 months, saying the U.K. government wanted to focus its force on the war in Afghanistan.

British officials have told their U.S. counterparts the U.K. military was "near the breaking point" given long deployments in Iraq and weak retention of personnel, the American official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The deaths of three more Americans were announced on Tuesday and a military translator of Iraqi descent was feared abducted, prompting a massive search operation in Baghdad.

"Despite the difficult challenges we face, success in Iraq is possible ... on a realistic timetable," Khalilzad said.

Iraqi officials, marking holidays for the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, had no comment. Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's unity government on Monday said its forces would crack down on illegal armed groups.

Six months after Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki took office, with vital support from Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, such pledges have yet to curb activity by militias, like Sadr's Mehdi Army, which Khalilzad singled out as needing to be "brought under control."

In Washington, Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said the Iraqi government needed to move faster to bring stability to the country.

Casey and Khalilzad said U.S. and Iraqi forces faced a tough task against enemies that included not just Sunni al Qaeda militants but also Shi'ite Iran and the Syrian leadership. They decried "decidedly unhelpful" and "cynical" policies pursued by Iraq's two neighbors.

Casey said he planned unspecified tactical changes to curb sectarian bloodshed claiming hundreds of lives a week, notably in Baghdad, where Shi'ites and Sunnis live side by side.

U.S. and Iraqi troops mounted door-to-door searches, set up roadblocks and flew helicopter sorties over the capital in the hunt for the missing translator, who was not named.

The military said he left a U.S. base in the city center's Green Zone on Monday to visit a relative and was snatched by armed men who handcuffed him and bundled him into a car.

(Additional reporting by Mariam Karouny, Ibon Villelabeitia, Paul Holmes and Claudia Parsons in Baghdad, Kristin Roberts in Washington and the London and Moscow bureaus)

Read More...

Summary only...

Top US Commander: We May Need More Troops In Iraq...

Yahoo! News
U.S. says more GIs may be needed in Iraq
By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer

Two weeks before U.S. midterm elections, American officials unveiled a timeline Tuesday for Iraq's Shiite-led government to take specific steps to calm the world's most dangerous capital and said more U.S. troops might be needed to quell the bloodshed.

U.S. officials previously said they were satisfied with troop levels and had expected to make significant reductions by year's end. But a surge in sectarian killings, which welled up this past summer, forced them to reconsider.

At a rare joint news conference with the American ambassador, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, said additional U.S. troops could come from inside or outside Iraq to "improve basic services for the population of Baghdad."

"Now, do we need more troops to do that? Maybe. And, as I've said all along, if we do, I will ask for the troops I need, both coalition and Iraqis," Casey said. There are currently 144,000 U.S. forces in Iraq.

The military has expressed disappointment over its two-month drive to cleanse the capital of Sunni insurgents and Shiite militia fighters and death squads. But the Americans also say that for the situation to improve, the Iraqi government must make political concessions to minority Sunnis.

The timeline grew out of recent Washington meetings at which the Bush administration sought to reshape its Iraq policy amid mounting U.S. deaths and declining domestic support for the 44-month-old war. The plan was made public a day after White House press secretary Tony Snow said the U.S. was adjusting its Iraq strategy but would not issue any ultimatums.

U.S. officials revealed neither specific incentives for the Iraqis to implement the plan nor penalties for their failure to do so. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Iraqi leaders had agreed to the timeline, benchmarks heavily laden with enticements to Sunni insurgents.

The lack of any real political consensus even among Shiites, however, has made it extremely difficult for Iraqi leaders to keep deadlines; for example, they missed targeted dates on naming a government and in moving forward on constitutional amendments. Moreover, Tuesday's declarations lacked specifics on how to accomplish the goals.

At the news conference with Casey, Khalilzad said the timeline would require Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government to set dates by the end of the year for completing six key tasks.

Five of the markers are clearly designed to mollify Sunni Arabs, the Muslim sect that makes up the bulk of the insurgency and is responsible for most American deaths in Iraq.

The plan seeks deadlines for passing a law that would guarantee the sharing of Iraq's oil wealth, amending the constitution, turning an anti-Baathist organization into a reconciliation body, disbanding Shiite militias and setting a date for provincial elections — all key issues for Sunnis.

The de-Baathification Commission was established after the toppling of Saddam Hussein to ensure that members of the dictator's political organization did not hold government positions.

The sixth measure called for "increasing the credibility and capability of Iraqi forces."

Casey said Iraqi forces would be "completely capable" of controlling the country within the next 1 1/2 years.

"We are about 75 percent of the way through a three-step process in building those (Iraqi) forces," the general said. "It is going to take another 12 to 18 months or so until I believe the Iraqi security forces are completely capable of taking over responsibility for their own security. That's still coupled with some level of support from us."

Casey's estimate of when the Iraqi army will be ready was noteworthy because it has not changed even as the security situation in the country has deteriorated. Iraqis are now being killed at a pace of more than 40 each day in sectarian fighting and revenge killing.

Complicating the matter has been the recent outbreak of sustained Shiite-on-Shiite violence in the once relatively calm south of the country.

To curb the spreading and increasingly brutal killings, Khalilzad said the United States was "inducing Iraqi political and religious leaders who can control or influence armed groups in Baghdad to agree to stop sectarian violence," an apparent reference to recent secret talks the United States has conducted with Sunni insurgents.

Al-Maliki has repeatedly said he would rein in Shiite militias but so far has taken little public action beyond a decision to move aside two police commando leaders. He issued a statement on Monday saying the military had been ordered to take action against any illegal armed group, but the declaration, like the timeline introduced on Tuesday, lacked detail.

His national security adviser, Mouwafak al-Rubaie, sought to add weight to the prime minister's directive in an interview with CNN. He was, however, equally fuzzy about what action would be taken.

"The Iraqi security forces are going to take on anyone who challenges" them," al-Rubaie said.

Khalilzad said he had assurances from al-Maliki that radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr would disband his Mahdi Army. But al-Sadr draws much of his power from his control over the heavily armed fighters. And al-Maliki draws much of his support from al-Sadr.

For that reason, disbanding the feared militia group appears to be a promise that is unlikely to be kept in the near term. Such a move would leave the other main Shiite militia, the Badr Brigade of the Supreme Council for the Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, in a dominant position.

Al-Sadr and SCIRI leader Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim maintain a sharp rivalry for power over Iraq's Shiite majority. Logic dictates that both militias be disbanded simultaneously, which appears highly unlikely.

While Shiite militias and death squad violence represent a major security problem, curbing them would still leave the other half of the equation unsolved — the continued vibrancy of the Sunni insurgency that has been attacking Americans with a vengeance since summer 2003.

The timeline appeared, therefore, largely directed at luring the Sunni establishment away from violence and into the political process.

October has been the deadliest month this year for American forces. The military Tuesday announced the deaths of two more U.S. Marines, a sailor and a soldier. Since the start of the war, 2,801 U.S. service members have died in Iraq, according to an Associated Press count.

Also Tuesday, the military said it had found no sign of a U.S. Army translator missing after he was believed to have been kidnapped the night before in Baghdad. Troops continued to search the city's downtown on foot and by air.

The military said the soldier, a linguist who was not identified by name, was last seen inside Green Zone on Monday. He was then believed to have left to visit Iraqi relatives in the city.

He was apparently at the relatives' house when three cars carrying masked gunmen arrived. The soldier was handcuffed and driven away. One of the kidnappers then called one of the relatives using the kidnap victim's cell phone, the military said. It didn't say if ransom was demanded.

Across the country, police reported that 11 Iraqis, including two policemen and a soldier, were killed in bombings and shootings; authorities said 14 bodies were found dumped or pulled from the Tigris River.

___

Associated Press correspondents Christopher Bodeen and Hamza Hendawi contributed to this report.

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. official: Britain seeks Iraq pullout in a year

Reuters
U.S. official: Britain seeks Iraq pullout in a year
By Kristin Roberts

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The British military hoped to withdraw troops from Iraq within about a year and London wanted to focus on the war in Afghanistan, a U.S. defense official said on Tuesday.

British officials had told U.S. counterparts the British military was "near the breaking point" due to long deployments in Iraq and weak retention of personnel, said the official, asking not to be identified.

The official's comments offered the first hint Britain's military may have a timetable for withdrawal in mind.

"It's about a year, give or take a few months," the official said.

But another U.S. defense official played down the withdrawal issue, and no immediate comment was available from British Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour government.

The official said British discussions about troop levels were part of regular, internal military reviews and that the British government had not approached senior U.S. officials with adjustment plans or timetables.

On Sunday, British Defense Secretary Des Browne said Britain was "quite far down" the road toward transferring responsibility for security in Iraq to Iraqi forces but British troops would leave only when the job was done.

About 7,200 British troops are based in southern Iraq and Blair has been U.S. President George W. Bush's closest ally over Iraq.

Britain has launched a large new operation in Afghanistan this year, and commanders have acknowledged they had hoped to accelerate force reductions in Iraq.

Blair and Bush face intense pressure at home over Iraq because of the unrelenting violence.

An opinion poll published on Tuesday showed more than 60 percent of Britons want their troops to be withdrawn this year, and surveys show Bush's policy on Iraq may cost his Republican Party control of Congress in November 7 elections.

A British withdrawal could put more stress on U.S. forces, already facing equipment and funding shortfalls and the possibility of repeat tours of duty in Iraq.

Britain has handed over authority to Iraqi forces for two of the four provinces in its area of responsibility in the south.

(Additional reporting by Peter Graff in London)

Read More...

Summary only...

Get the Judges

Newsweek
Get the Judges
As dissatisfaction with the judicial system grows, ballot initiatives seeking to curb court power are popping up across the West.
By Andrew Murr

Oct. 24, 2006 - A favorite punching bag of politicians, judges are unpopular in many quarters. Witness the half-dozen state ballot measures in the West that seek to limit the powers of state and local jurists. The proposed changes range from the innocuous-sounding (term limits for appellate judges in Colorado) to the radical, including a proposal that would allow Montanans to recall judges for “any reason” and a South Dakota measure known as “JAIL 4 Judges” that would subject state judges to civil or criminal penalties for unpopular decisions. Uniting the ballot measures is the conviction that court systems are dysfunctional, says Rebecca Love Kourlis, a Republican who stepped down earlier this year from the Colorado Supreme Court. Now executive director for the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver, she is formulating nonpartisan reforms for state courts around the country. She recently spoke with NEWSWEEK’s Andrew Murr. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Until this year, you were a Colorado Supreme Court Justice, so perhaps you’re well placed to explain why there is so much anger at judges.
Rebecca Love Kourlis: My sense is it falls into two general categories. One of them is dissatisfaction with the court system itself, based on personal experience or the stories of neighbors and friends. People believe the system is inefficient, extraordinarily costly, unpredictable and slow. I think the other general cause is a pretty widespread lack of understanding about what courts are supposed to do. There was an American Bar Association poll taken last year in which most people agreed that courts routinely overruled the will of the majority. Courts are not supposed to be enforcing the will of the majority, except that they are charged with enforcing laws as written. They are also charged with safeguarding constitutional rights and those can be at odds with the views of the majority. But that’s the beauty of our system of government. The courts serve as a check and balance in our system, and many people don’t understand that.

There is actually a third reason. I think there is a foam along the top of the wave that I’d attribute to people who believe the courts are too activist. I do think that happens on occasion, but far less than the media would suggest to the average reader. When you look at the millions of cases around the country each year, the number that bubble up to the appellate system where the result could be political is really de minimis.

Let’s talk about the initiatives up for vote on Nov. 7. Amendment 40 would make Colorado the first state to impose term limits on appellate judges. What’s the proposal?
The proposal applies only to appellate judges, not trial judges, and it would apply shorter terms to appellate judges, and a cumulative term limit of 10 years on a particular court. It’s supported by a former state senator, John Andrews, who believes that Colorado’s appellate judges are activist and have made political decisions. It would get rid of five out of seven sitting supreme court justices and seven of 19 state court of appeals justices. My analysis is that if justices are making political decisions, this solution would aggravate that problem. And it would create a brain drain. An enormous amount of experience would be lost. It has the other consequence of requiring the next governor to appoint the majority of the members of the supreme court, and the same problem would recur every 10 years later. It kind of smacks of court-packing.

Andrews and the backers of other initiatives think their proposals make judges more responsive, don’t they?
We don’t want judges to be looking over their shoulders to gauge public opinion. I do not believe judges should be holding a finger to the wind to determine what the majority might want.

We want them to be impartial and committed to the rule of law, making the very best decisions they can. Our institute recently issued a report about judicial accountability and how to measure judicial performance in ways that make judges more responsive to the users of the courts without offending notions of judicial independence.

In South Dakota there’s a measure popularly called “JAIL 4 Judges,” also known as Amendment E. What’s that?
What it would do is eliminate judicial immunity. It would subject them to firing and to criminal and civil liability for decisions that people didn’t agree with. A judge could be taken before a 13-person grand jury, which would determine whether a decision were appropriate or not appropriate. And that grand jury could impose penalties on the judge. It would be pretty devastating. I suspect it would be very difficult to find people to serve on the South Dakota bench if this passed.

In Montana, Constitutional Initiative 98 would allow a broad recall of judges. Under what circumstances?
The way that the language reads, it would allow for recall by petition for “any reason.” Montana already has a provision that would allow for recall for “physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct or conviction of a felony.” I think opponents are concerned that if it were adopted, judges could be recalled over one unpopular decision. In fact, I think that is what it was intended to do.

Ironically, Montana judges have found that the signatures weren’t gathered according to the rules, so voters may not get a chance to approve this one.
My understanding is that it’s not on the ballot at the moment. The trial judge ruled on the procedural propriety of the signature collecting. It’s before the state Supreme Court now, so it's possible it may be restored.

In Oregon, there’s a proposal to set up judicial districts for the judges in the appellate courts. What’s the purpose and what would the effects be?
The measure would provide geographical representation on the top courts. I think it’s about making judges more accountable to the people. Here the idea is regional accountability. It clearly takes the system away from a straight merit system and focuses it on people who live in a particular geographic part of the state and continue to reside there after they are appointed. I suspect they would maintain more rural roots and avoid an urban concentration.

We like geographic balance in the legislature. What’s wrong with adding that to the upper levels of the judiciary?
In theory I’m not terribly upset by the Oregon proposal. I think that what is troubling about it is that it appears to be politically motivated.

Are there other ballot measures that affect the judiciary?
In three other states there are ballot measures that would limit judicial authority. They aren’t targeted specifically at judges, but they fall under the general category of court-stripping. Proposition 90 in California would restrict government’s right to condemn private property and takes elements of those cases out of the hands of judges. Nevada has a similar measure. North Dakota would limit judicial discretion in custody disputes.

Why is this happening in Western states? Is the anger greater there, or it is just simpler to get measures on the ballots there?
I don’t think this is all about a sagebrush rebellion. I think it’s just a function of where the initiative process is easiest. I think the dissatisfaction with the courts is occurring across the country.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15402973/site/newsweek/

Read More...

Summary only...

Drug raid yields Los Alamos documents

Yahoo! News
Drug raid yields Los Alamos documents
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer

A drug bust at a trailer park in New Mexico turned up what appeared to be classified documents taken from the Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory, authorities said Tuesday.

Local police found the documents while arresting a man suspected of domestic violence and dealing methamphetamine from his mobile home, said Sgt. Chuck Ney of the Los Alamos, N.M., Municipal Police Department. The documents were discovered during a search of the man's records for evidence of his drug business, Ney said.

Police alerted the FBI to the secret documents, which agents traced back to a woman linked to the drug dealer, officials said. The woman is a contract employee at Los Alamos National Laboratory, according to an FBI official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case.

The official would not describe the documents except to say that they appeared to contain classified material and were stored on a computer file.

FBI special agent Bill Elwell in Albuquerque, N.M., confirmed that a search warrant was executed on Friday night, but he refused to discuss details.

"We do have an investigation with regard to the matter, but our standard is we do not discuss pending investigations," Elwell said.

A spokesman for the Los Alamos National Laboratory, in Los Alamos, N.M., declined to comment.

Los Alamos has a history of high-profile security problems in the past decade, with the most notable the case of nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee. After years of accusations, Lee pleaded guilty in a plea bargain to one count of mishandling nuclear secrets at the lab.

In 2004, the lab was essentially shut down after an inventory showed that two computer disks containing nuclear secrets were missing. A year later the lab concluded that it was just a mistake and the disks never existed.

But the incident highlighted sloppy inventory control and security failures at the nuclear weapons lab. And the Energy Department began moving toward a five-year program to create a so-called diskless environment at Los Alamos to prevent any classified material being carried outside the lab.

Even though Los Alamos is now under new management, Danielle Brian, executive director of the watchdog group Project on Government Oversight, said the lab has not done much to clean up its act.

"Los Alamos has always seemed to be rewarded for its screw-ups," Brian said. "We're waiting with bated breath to see if anything has changed."

The idea that police found classified documents at a home where a drug sting was being conducted is disturbing, she said.

"The problem is when you actually have those materials that are supposed to be protected inside the lab and you find them outside the lab in the hands of criminals — that should worry everybody," Brian said.

The FBI and the U.S. attorney's office in Albuquerque were "evaluating the information obtained as a result of the search warrant," Elwell said.

The federal charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of a year in prison and up to a $100,000 fine.

___

Associated Press writers Seth Borenstein in Washington and Sue Holmes in Albuquerque contributed to this report.

Read More...

Summary only...

Limbaugh says actor Fox exaggerating his disease as stem cell issue churns

USA TODAY
Limbaugh says actor Fox exaggerating his disease as stem cell issue churns
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Rush Limbaugh has accused actor Michael J. Fox of exaggerating the physical effects of his Parkinson's disease in political ads urging viewers to vote for Democrats in next month's election.

The conservative radio host told listeners on Tuesday that Fox's lurching, palsied movements in a TV ad for Missouri Senate challenger Claire McCaskill were "an act." Limbaugh noted that Fox, a longtime advocate for research on embryonic stem cells, has said he sometimes does not take his medication in order to illustrate Parkinson's severe physical effects. Uncontrolled shaking and stiffness are among the symptoms of the nerve disease.

"If this was not an act," Limbaugh said later on the show, "then I apologize."

John Rogers, Fox's spokesman, called Limbaugh's remarks "shameful."

It's an appalling, sad statement," Rogers said. "Anybody who understands Parkinson's disease knows it's because of the medicine that one experiences" body movements like those seen in the ad.

Fox, who has had Parkinson's for 15 years, is supporting candidates who would vote to expand research using stem cells from human embryos.

Embryonic stem cells are the precursor cells to almost every tissue in the body. Advocates of their use in research say they hold more potential to cure spinal cord injuries, diabetes and other diseases than adult stem cells. Opponents say the research with embryonic cells, which destroys the embryos, amounts to abortion. This summer, President Bush used his first veto to kill a bill that would have funded research using leftover fertility clinic embryos that would otherwise have been discarded.

Fox has also made ads for Senate candidate Ben Cardin in Maryland and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle.

In the McCaskill spot (claireonline.com), which aired during Game 1 of baseball's World Series on Saturday, Fox says McCaskill, the state auditor, "shares my hope for cures" while her opponent, Republican Sen. Jim Talent, wants to "criminalize" expanded research.

Talent spokesman Rich Chrismer called the ad "false" and says Talent supports "stem cell research that doesn't involve cloning or destroying a human embryo."

The Fox ads are part of a larger effort by Democrats who are using the issue as another weapon against Republicans already hurting from an unpopular war in Iraq and Bush's low approval ratings.

Democrats and interest groups are using ads, campaign events and celebrities in at least 20 House, Senate and governor races to push for more federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Fox's dramatic ads are "very effective" with suburban voters, seniors and parents, says Evan Tracey of the non-partisan Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political advertising. "It puts the Republicans on the wrong side of hope."

Other TV spots:

•Singer Sheryl Crow, a Missouri native and breast cancer survivor, appears in an ad (www.missouricures.com) sponsored by the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, which backs a state ballot initiative to permit research on embryonic stem cells.

•In Arizona, an ad (www .dccc.org/multimedia) sponsored by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee features the granddaughter of Morris Udall, a popular congressman who died of Parkinson's disease in 1998. Loren Udall, who has the autoimmune disease lupus, says that "by voting in Congress to restrict stem cell research, (Republican Rep.) J.D. Hayworth has played politics with people's lives."

Brian Nick of the National Republican Senatorial Committee says such "fear-mongering" ads distort the positions of candidates who favor research using adult stem cells. "It's unfortunate they're using a good man like Michael J. Fox as a political pawn to misrepresent people's view."

Sarah Chamberlain Resnick of the Republican Main Street Partnership, whose members back embryonic stem cell research, says of Missouri's senator, "Talent's entire race is going to come down to stem cells. (McCaskill has) been killing him on it."

Read More...

Summary only...

Analysis: Harris stumbles to the finish line

USA TODAY
Analysis: Harris stumbles to the finish line
By Larry Wheeler, Gannett News Service

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Unconventional is one way to describe the troubled Senate campaign of Republican Katherine Harris.

Florida editorial page writers went with "bizarre" and "freak show."

Harris' bid to unseat Bill Nelson, a moderate Democrat, is one of the more entertaining political sideshows of the midterm election, even if it isn't a factor in the high-stakes struggle for control of Congress.

Harris was Florida's top election official six years ago when she gained national attention by certifying George W. Bush the winner in the state's contested presidential election.

She was hailed by GOP voters, assailed by Democrats and savaged by late night TV comics and Internet bloggers.

Now a two-term congresswoman representing Sarasota, Fla., Harris is stumbling toward the finish line of a Senate campaign marred by controversy and indifference from her own party.

"Not only doesn't she have any crossover appeal to Democrats and independents, she's having a hard time keeping Republicans on the reservation," said Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling and Research Inc.

Republican Party leaders — including Gov. Jeb Bush — initially opposed Harris' candidacy because she's such a polarizing figure.

Her campaign has suffered multiple staff defections, including that of a top GOP strategist, Ed Rollins, who suggested in interviews that Harris has mental health issues.

The Justice Department launched an investigation into Harris' dealings with a lobbyist who pleaded guilty in a congressional corruption probe.

In August, Harris tried to explain paltry turnout at a major campaign rally by claiming a tree had fallen on an airplane hangar, forcing a last-minute change of venue. Orlando Executive Airport officials said no such incident occurred. Harris ultimately blamed a staffer for providing inaccurate information.

Finally, Harris angered Jews and other people of faith when she told an evangelical magazine that voters were "legislating sin" if they didn't elect Christians to public office.

Through it all, Harris, 49, has maintained a seemingly inexplicable optimism.

"The grass roots have been with us, and we think, come Nov. 7, God willing, we'll be the next senator," Harris said, using the royal "we," after speaking to the Florida Farm Bureau.

That optimism is almost certainly misplaced. Nelson enjoyed a 26 percentage-point advantage in the most recent public opinion survey by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research Inc.

A wealthy born-again Christian, Harris has been so busy bashing Nelson as a tax-and-spend liberal that she's had little time to explore her positions on issues, beyond reciting the Republican orthodoxy: lower taxes, stronger national security and traditional values.

Nelson, a former House member who rode aboard the space shuttle Columbia in 1986, has positioned himself as a moderate who can work with Republicans to get things done for Florida. He rarely mentions Harris directly on the campaign trail.

Perhaps most troubling for Harris, just 58% of Republican voters supported her, according to the mid-October poll.

"Even in hard times, most Republican candidates generate 80% to 85% support, at a minimum, with their party base," said Coker at Mason-Dixon.

Harris blames her troubles on disloyal staff members and reporters who she says take her comments out of context while fixating on her makeup instead of her record.

"It goes with the territory," she said.

Despite her troubles, Harris enjoys support from many rank-and-file Republicans who share her views.

"I take offense to people remarking to non-essential things like they didn't like her makeup," said Carol LaPlaca, a resident of the Century Village retirement home in West Palm Beach. "Let's talk about her views. Yes, she stands on very high moral views. I'll vote for her."

Read More...

Summary only...