Senate hits impasse on renewable energy

Yahoo! News
Senate hits impasse on renewable energy
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

Senate Democrats, eager for a vote on energy legislation, ran into staunch Republican resistance Thursday to a proposal to require utilities to use more wind, solar and other renewable sources to produce electricity.

The impasse over renewable fuels came as the Senate turned back an equally contentious matter: to allow limited natural gas development in waters off the mid-Atlantic coast despite a long-standing drilling moratorium.

A proposal to let Virginia seek a waiver to the drilling ban for a large portion of federal waters off its coast was defeated 43-44.

Democrats were forced to set aside — at last until next week — their renewable fuels proposal after it became clear they lacked the 60 votes to proceed.

The bill would require power companies to increase use of wind turbines, solar panels, biomass, geothermal energy or other renewable sources to produce at least 15 percent of their electricity by 2020. Only about 2.4 percent of the country's electricity is produced that way now.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (news, bio, voting record), D-N.M., the measure's chief sponsor, said the mandate is needed to stimulate expansion of fuel sources other than coal and natural gas. He said if his plan is enacted, greenhouse gas emissions from power plants will fall by nearly 7 percent from levels projected for 2020.

Opponents argued that some regions of the country couldn't meet the requirement and that it would cause electricity prices to increase in those areas, especially across the South.

By a 56-39 vote, senators rejected a GOP alternative that would have allowed utilities to meet the requirement by also building more nuclear power plants and taking conservation measures.

Republicans balked and refused to allow a vote on Bingaman's measure.

If the early going is any indicator, it looks like a bumpy path toward final approval for the energy bill before the Fourth of July recess as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada has promised.

It also was evident that there will be a tough fight over increasing automobile mileage standards. Senators close to the auto industry released their proposal, which they say automakers can achieve, unlike a plan already in the overall energy bill.

The substitute calls for increasing auto fuel economy by 30 percent to 36 miles per gallon by 2022 and for sport utility vehicles and small trucks to reach 30 mpg by 2025.

"It will force industry to bend and not break," said Sen. Kit Bond, D-Mo.

The energy bill now has an increase to 35 mpg for both cars, SUVs and trucks by 2020 and 4 percent higher each year after that.

Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., prompted a sharp floor debate Thursday when he proposed allowing natural gas development in waters along the Atlantic coast where a drilling freeze has been in place for a quarter-century.

Warner, R-Va., wanted the Senate to let his state seek a waiver from the Interior Department to the freeze. The plan brought a quick responses from senators from other coastal states.

Sen. Robert Menendez (news, bio, voting record), D-N.J., said such drilling off Virginia "could cause a ripple effect ... and the consequences can be very significant." He added, "This would leave other states helpless.

The debate on the renewable fuels proposal was equally divisive.

Senators from the South said utilities in their states could not meet the 15 percent requirement because they lack the wind power and other renewable resources prominent elsewhere, especially the West.

"I'm not impressed with wind being the national energy source for America," said Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., who led the opposition to the renewable fuels standard.

Twenty-three states have renewable fuels requirements; nine of them are equal or more aggressive than the proposal federal requirements.

But Bingaman said, "You don't drive development of these technologies if it's up to each state to decide whether to participate."

He rejected claims that some regions could not meet the mandate. The senator noted, for example, that much of the South has an abundance of trees and other plants to make biofuels as well as other renewables aside from wind.

The measure also would permit utilities that cannot find enough renewable sources to buy credits from other utilities that have exceeded the 15 percent or from the Energy Department, Bingaman said.

That did not sway Sen. Jeff Sessions (news, bio, voting record), R-Ala.

He said that in his region, utilities would have no choice but to buy credits at 2 cents per kilowatt-hour and "the cost is going to be very significant ... with nothing to show for it."

The renewable fuels proposal has been the subject of intense lobbying by utilities. The Georgia-based Southern Co. has made killing the measure its legislative priority.

Sessions said the Tennessee Valley Authority, which like Southern is a leading electricity provider in the South, estimated it would cost $410 million a year by 2020 for it to meet the 15 percent renewables.

Bingaman questioned those costs. He cited a report from the federal Energy Information Administration that said the renewable fuels requirement would add less than 1 percent to the cost of electricity in 2020 and cause natural gas costs to decline. The report also said the requirement would triple the use of biomass and increase the use of wind by 50 percent and solar cells by 500 percent.

Critics of the bill disputed the agency's cost findings, saying it did not examine regional price increases.

Read More...

Summary only...

Open-Source Government

Huffington Post
Mark Jeffrey
Open-Source Government

In recent years, we've seen the growth of a canker on the Constitution. A swelling blind spot where were are increasingly not allowed to look. I'm talking about abuse of governmental secrecy. 'We the people' cannot effectively self-govern when certain things are routinely hidden from our view.

Now, of course certain things need to be classified (it needs to be said, before the comment section below overfloweth). Yes, yes, we need to have some secrets from the bad guys. But we ought to recognize that democracy pays a steep price for each and every thing we classify. We ought to do it very, very sparingly. Even unwillingly.

In the world of software, there are open-source systems and there are closed-source systems. Open-source systems (such as Linux or Mediawiki) allow anyone to submit bits of source code to the project. The whole world collaborates upon it. Everyone can see what everyone else has submitted. There are no secret, proprietary parts. Open source projects are fully transparent.

As a result, open source systems are far more robust and better-designed than their closed, proprietary counterparts. They have greater security (paradoxically, making security apparatus and methods known actually makes them stronger; obfuscation of methods does not create greater security). Open source systems are far more resistant to viruses (anyone running closed-source Microsoft Windows certainly knows what I mean). In short, open source systems have the electronic equivalent of evolutionary advantages. They're faster, smarter, stronger. After all, you can't compete against the collaborative efforts of the whole world -- especially when full transparency ensures everyone is dealing with the absolute truth. There is no bullshit, no hidden agendas. Such things are simply impossible to sustain in such an environment.

The Constitution is the operating system of America.

The very reason America is great is because it has largely been free and open. It has, in effect, been an open-source government. And when it is transparent, as all good open source environments are, checks and balances work. The bad stuff is burned away, stopped dead in its tracks, or impeached.

Yet this transparency in our government -- the strength of our system -- is increasingly becoming murky and dark. In April of 2006, the Bush Administration used the state secrets privilege to block a legal challenge to AT&T and the NSA over illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens. In May 2006, Khalid El-Masri was tortured by the CIA (which it acknowledges) and falsely held for several months. When the CIA released him finally without charge, El-Masri challenged his detention in a U.S. District court. The case was dismissed under the state secrets privilege: even discussing the detention would, according to the government, threaten to reveal classified information. The examples are legion, I won't list them all here -- other contributors to the HuffingtonPost do so on an almost daily basis.

Interestingly enough, the very legal origin of the state secrets doctrine is itself founded on an abuse of power and a lie.

In 1953, in the United States v. Reynolds (345 U.S.1), the Supreme Court recognized the state secrets privilege for the first time. There was a crash of a military bomber. The widows of the slain pilots sued for details of the crash. The Air Force refused, saying that national security would be threatened with such a release, since the bomber's mission was top secret. The Supreme Court saw things the military's way and for the first time allowed the state secrets privilege, yet sternly warned that "it is not to be lightly invoked".

In 2000, the relevant accident reports were finally declassified. Guess what? There was no secret information whatsoever in the crash reports from 1953. Furthermore, the reports showed that the aircraft involved was in poor condition, something the Air Force certainly did not want released publicly. Thus it was that the Air Force, in attempting to cover up its own negligence, succeeded instead in opening the door for abuses of power that butterfly-effect down to our own time. The seeds of Gitmo, of secret rendition and torture, of the overturning of habeas corpus, of illegal surveillance of American citizens were planted on that day.

But it did not need to be. It still doesn't. We should make every effort to reverse this trend of over-classification. A transparent, open-source government where state secrets are only classified in the rarest, most dire of instances and where there was some form of check and balance on the classifying agency would in the end make America stronger, not weaker.

Read More...

Summary only...

Giuliani's 12 Points... for Failure

Huffington Post
Matt Ortega
Giuliani's 12 Points... for Failure

Earlier today, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani sent out a plea to supporters with "12 commitments" that aren't worth the paper its printed -- er, pixels in cyberspace.

Rudy Giuliani: Strengthening America's Image Around the World One Waterboard at a Time.Giuliani does his usual "when I was mayor of New York" shtick and dives right into the deep end of rhetorical nonsense. For instance, take the second paragraph of the e-mail:

Many of the things I did as Mayor of New York City are transferable to what America needs now. That's why today I announced my 12 commitments to you, the American people. These commitments are intended to lift our vision from the rear view mirror to the road ahead of us -- the future.

BREAKING NEWS: RUDY GIULIANI TO ABANDON ENTIRE CAMPAIGN PLATFORM

For the life of me, I don't know how we can "lift our vision from the rear view mirror" when Giuliani's entire candidacy is built upon his role -- albeit a revisionist version of it -- in the September 11 attacks and openly exploits the tragedy. Hell, even the brief back story on his wife, Judy, explicitly cites 9/11.

1. I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists' War on Us.

Rudy has been using the "Terrorists' War on Us" phrase a lot in recent weeks but doesn't that phrase imply that it is the terrorists that are on offense and we're playing defense?

2. I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.

Now that's an ambitious plan completely lacking in substance. Hey look, I can throw around vague statements, too! "I will end global warming."

Seriously, how do you plan on ending illegal immigration? Just curious. How do you propose securing our borders? With technology? National Guard? Minutemen? Rudy on horseback?

Also, how do you propose identifying every non-citizen in the U.S.? Surely you will get a few Mexican-Americans mixed in there by accident. Will those bar codes be branded on our necks or our foreheads? Again, just curious.

3. I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful spending in Washington.

Yeah! He will show them just like he showed those spiteful bastard factinistas -- the education system -- in New York City!

4. I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.

"... but I won't sign a tax pledge. Just trust me."

5. I will impose accountability in Washington.

Rudy, with an iron fist, will make sure only his criminal buddies make out like bandits.

6. I will lead America toward energy independence.

By tapping his former client base in Saudi Arabia and lobbying for Venezuelan oil firm, Citgo?

7. I will give Americans more control over, and access to, healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions.

Last week at the Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire, Giuliani 'lifted his rear view mirror vision' on healthcare for the road ahead. Shorter Rudy: "If you loved the Bush healthcare plan in 2005, you will love Rudy in 2009."

8. I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.

When he says he will decrease the number of abortions, does this mean he would turn the country away from the failure that is abstinence-only sex education championed by the current administration?

9. I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.

Well, the next president will have to reform the legal system. Under the current administration, the entire judicial process has been corrupted to the core. (Yet right-wingers are only concerned with the "injustice" that is "Scooter" Libby's pending incarceration. Free "Scooter"!)

And we all know Giuliani's knack for federal appointees...

10. I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

Second time's the charm, ey Rudy?

11. I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.

There ain't many choices to choose from if you implode one of them.

12. I will expand America's involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.

Rudy Giuliani: Strengthening America's Image One Waterboarding at a Time.

Read More...

Summary only...

California Nurses and Michael Moore Make History

Huffington Post
Joseph A. Palermo
California Nurses and Michael Moore Make History

It was a truly historic day in Sacramento this afternoon when over ten thousand nurses from all over the country rallied with filmmaker Michael Moore in front of the Capitol building. The California Nurses Association, along with the State Senator Sheila Kuehl, packed into a hearing room to listen to Michael Moore and three people featured in his new movie, Sicko, testify about the appalling state of America's broken for profit health care system.

Thousands of nurses and health care professionals, along with people from other unions, (such as myself from the California Faculty Association), gathered outside and watched Moore's testimony on five giant TVs inside huge tents. We rallied in the hot sun, waving little fans and placards the nurses handed out. Then we all marched down to the historic art deco Crest Theater downtown for a special pre-release viewing of Sicko.

The sea of red-shirted nurses was an inspiring sight. They danced and chanted and they were really fired up. We are lucky to have so many dedicated, smart, and politically conscious women working so hard to fix this country's tattered, even barbaric, health care system. Surrounded by thousands of RNs, I never felt safer in my life. I thought if I ever had to have anything go wrong physically while at a public rally, this was the right one.

Senator Kuehl's legislation, SB 840, (the "California Health Insurance Reliability Act"), calls for universal health coverage for every Californian, and it was the rallying point for the massive demonstration. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger would be wise to sign it or he is going to face the ferocious wrath and opposition of the women (and men) who comprise the heart and soul of our state's health care system.

The goal of Sicko, as Moore told both the Senate committee and the rally outside, is to provide an organizing tool to get people so angry they will rise up to demand common-sense solutions to the health care crisis. The current greed-driven system where huge corporations pursue lavish profits at the public's expense has created a human catastrophe.

Moore told the rally that Governor Schwarzenegger came to America with a fabulously healthy body because the Austrian government provided him with free health care from the time he put on his first pair of lederhosen.

Moore introduced his new film to the packed theater full of nurses and their allies, saying he hopes it can become an organizing tool to finally move this country to address the health care crisis.

Sicko is a brilliant, emotionally draining, poignant film, which also has Moore's characteristic sense of humor inter-spliced therein. It is heartbreaking to see how America's health care system routinely victimizes people. It often bankrupts middle-class families, and sweeps low-income people into contrived "cracks" in the system because it drives up profits.

There have only been a handful of times in American history where art has led to citizen action. What comes to mind for me are Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin's effect on slavery; Upton Sinclair's The Jungle and the rise of progressive reforms relating to pure food and drugs; the television special in the mid-1960s, Harvest of Shame, which educated the nation on the unjust working conditions of farm workers. Moore's Sicko blows the lid off of everything the corporations that make fortunes off exploiting the sick and dying do not want Americans to see.

Michael Moore's talent lies in cutting through the fear and smokescreens the Right always exploits, be it with the "war on terror," or the irrational fear of "socialized medicine." I won't give it away, but some of his found footage from those who opposed Medicare is priceless since the Right makes essentially the same arguments today. Moore focuses on the human tragedy of the health care crisis, it is not a laundry list of the sins of corporations; it is more about the people who are the victims. Be prepared to cry when you see this film.

At the end of Moore's question and answer session following the movie he said that he hopes that nurses and physicians of conscious and other activists will transform the theaters where it is shown into organizing stations and networking outlets. He even suggested setting up MASH-type tents outside the theaters to give free check ups to children after each showing.

Moore wants his fellow Americans to seize this moment when health care will be publicized to demand that the state governments and Congress enact a universal, single-payer system similar to what exists in Canada, France, and England (countries he visits in the movie). Moore says we should demand that our government regulate the pharmaceutical companies "just like a public utility."

Go to GuaranteedHealthcare.org or to the California Nurses Association website for suggestions about taking action. The first step will be to press for passage of Sheila Kuehl's health care bill here in California. Moore pointed out that California has been in the lead on many issues, including raising the minimum wage, and we have an opportunity to lead the nation out of the dark ages on health care.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bloody day in Gaza raises civil war fears

Reuters
Bloody day in Gaza raises civil war fears
By Nidal al-Mughrabi

GAZA (Reuters) - In what looked ever more like civil war, the forces of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas battled supporters of the Islamist prime minister across Gaza on Tuesday, the bloodiest day of factional fighting in months.

At least 27 people were killed and 70 wounded, hospital officials said, taking to 47 the number of dead in the coastal enclave since Saturday. Early on Tuesday, the Gaza homes of both Abbas and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas were fired on.

The largest force loyal to Abbas, who is favored by Western powers, was ordered onto the streets to defeat what his secular Fatah group called a "bloody coup" by Hamas Islamists after Hamas gunmen stormed Fatah bases in the Gaza Strip.

Hamas later appeared to have control of one major Fatah base in the north and casualty data suggested it had the upper hand more widely. Fatah leaders threatened to quit a three-month-old unity government with Hamas if there was no immediate truce.

The European Union said there was an imminent risk of civil war if fighting went on, and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged support for Abbas's efforts "to restore law and order".

Haniyeh and Abbas both called for restraint and talks but, as each side accused the other of siding with their Israeli adversaries, there was little sign of fighters paying heed.

The head of an Egyptian delegation in Gaza that saw its latest truce shot down on Monday, urged civilians to rally on Wednesday morning to show support for a new ceasefire.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, an arch-foe of Hamas, said for the first time that "serious consideration" must be given to posting international peacekeepers in Gaza, from which Israel withdrew troops and Jewish settlers two years ago.

"If the Gaza Strip ultimately falls to Hamas, this will be of great regional significance," he said, but added Israel could not enter Gaza to fight Hamas to help Abbas's "pragmatists".

BATTLES

Hamas gunmen swept down on Fatah posts, residents said. At one stage, Hamas fighters gave Fatah forces half an hour to evacuate bases -- an unprecedented ultimatum.

Intense gunfire and explosions were later heard from a base of Abbas's National Security Forces in Gaza City. Reinforcements for the NSF moved in vehicles through the deserted streets.

"Advance!" NSF commanders ordered, as Hamas radio stations were briefly jammed by music praising Fatah military leaders.

"Confront the seekers of the coup!"

At least 16 people were killed in ensuing evening battles, according to hospital officials -- including 11 in one clash that Hamas said gave it control of a major NSF base in the north of the Strip. Hamas officials said they lost at least nine men while Fatah sources said their losses were at least 16 dead.

Abbas, successor to Yasser Arafat, convened Fatah's Central Committee in his West Bank base. It issued a statement saying: "The Central Committee decided that its ministers will not participate in the government if there is no ceasefire now."

If they resign, along with some independent ministers, Abbas could fire the government and try to rule by decree. A new cabinet would need approval from the Hamas-led parliament.

Most of the Gaza Strip's 1.5 million inhabitants took refuge in their homes. Crammed into a 45 km (27 mile) sliver of coast and surrounded by an Israeli security cordon, they have little chance to flee through the restricted main crossing into Egypt.

"I think we are in Iraq, not in Gaza," Ammar, a 40-year-old father of six, said. "Snipers on rooftops killing people. Bodies mutilated and dumped in the streets in very humiliating ways.

"What else does civil war mean but this?"

Since Hamas won an election in January 2006, boosted by its support among the poor of Gaza, more than 600 Palestinians have been killed in factional fighting, according to one estimate.

After some months of relative calm, fighting flared up again last month before easing following a truce brokered by Egypt.

The United States has been helping train and arm Abbas's forces, citing the Fatah leader as a moderate committed to peace and a counterweight to Hamas, which has ties to Iran and Syria.

(Additional reporting by Mohammed Assadi and Ali Sawafta in Ramallah and Adam Entous, Jeffrey Heller, Ori Lewis and Alastair Macdonald in Jerusalem)

Read More...

Summary only...

Barack Obama endorses low carbon fuel standard

Reuters
Barack Obama endorses low carbon fuel standard

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed a federal low-carbon fuel standard patterned on California's ambitious goals.

Obama also called on U.S. automakers to double gas mileage of cars and trucks over the next two decades.

Obama assumed the stance of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger who earlier this year proposed cutting carbon emissions in auto and truck fuels by 5 percent by 2015 and 10 percent by 2020.

"We know that transportation fuels account for a third of America's global warming pollution," the Illinois Senator said at a press event at a Brentwood gasoline station in Los Angeles. "And we know there are fuels available that emit less carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere, fuels like biodiesel and ethanol."

Schwarzenegger signed a groundbreaking executive order in January mandating the carbon dioxide cuts in fuels.

In February, Republican presidential candidate Arizona Sen. John McCain and Schwarzenegger appeared together in Long Beach, California, to say they wanted to expand the California proposals nationwide.

Obama's low-carbon fuel standard would rely on "the market" to decide which fuels would be used by distributors and blenders.

Such a standard would spur business to develop more flexible-fuel vehicles that can run on ethanol and gasoline as well as help foster growth of plug-in hybrid vehicles, Obama said.

Obama's campaign office cited published research that estimates a national low carbon fuel standard would cut global warming greenhouse gas emissions -- which are predominately carbon dioxide -- by 180 million metric tons by 2020, equal to taking more than 30 million cars off the road.

Read More...

Summary only...

John Edwards wants U.S. to back G8 on climate change

Reuters
John Edwards wants U.S. to back G8 on climate change

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Tuesday said the United States should join the Group of Eight in a call to cut global warming gas emissions in half by 2050.

Edwards, speaking in the Texas state capital of Austin, said U.S. climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions should be cut by 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050, according to a statement released by his campaign.

"Global warming is an emergency that requires immediate action from the world community," Edwards said. "Before the United States can rally the world to take action, we need to show leadership here at home. We should be leading the charge in this area, not turning our back on the world."

The former North Carolina senator and 2004 vice presidential nominee said he favors a cap-and-trade system of emissions credits and requiring developing nations to also aggressively cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Edwards has said previously he wants U.S. automakers to produce vehicles that average 40 miles per gallon by 2016.

Read More...

Summary only...

Republican candidates miscast some facts and get others flat wrong

factcheck.org
Third Time 'Round for GOP Hopefuls

Debating once again, Republican candidates miscast some facts and get others flat wrong.

Summary

Pollsters will inform us whether the third time was the charm for any of these candidates in the eyes of potential voters. All we can do is remind you not to believe everything you hear.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney committed the biggest factual fouls of the night, misleadingly asserting:

* That we went to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein refused to allow weapons inspectors to come in
* That there's an ocean of difference between his Massachusetts health plan and those "government takeover" plans of "every Democrat" running for president and
* That Russia's income from oil exports is vastly larger than it actually is.

Other candidates committed factual trespass, too. Sen. John McCain of Arizona ignored the waste disposal issue when he praised nuclear power for being green, for instance, and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback exaggerated the number of illegal immigrants living in the United States.

Analysis

The June 5 debate at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., brought the 10 Republican presidential aspirants together once again, two days after a Democratic debate at the same site. Both were sponsored by CNN, WMUR-TV and Manchester's Union Leader.

Health Plan Hoodoo

Former Massachusetts Gov. Romney tried to distance his state’s universal health insurance plan from the proposals of the Democratic presidential candidates.

Romney: Every Democrat up there’s talking about a form of socialized medicine, government takeover, massive tax increase…. I’m the guy who actually tackled this issue. We get all of our citizens insured. We get people that were uninsured with private health insurance. We have to stand up and say the market works. Personal responsibility works.

STAN HONDA/AFP/Getty Images
There are two problems with Romney’s characterization: One, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich is the only Democratic candidate to propose a single-payer, wholly government-funded health care plan. And two, Romney’s Massachusetts universal insurance system bears a striking resemblance to the health care proposals of the Democratic front-runners.

We first took a look at the Romney-backed health insurance plan after the May 3 Republican presidential debate, when the candidate said it was not a government takeover and juxtaposed his plan with "HillaryCare." We pointed out that while the plan is not government-administered health insurance, it includes government mandates and subsidies, minimum coverage requirements and fines for noncompliance. The Massachusetts plan is clearly not a complete government takeover; it builds on the private insurance industry – as do the proposals of Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards, and the health care initiative spearheaded by Hillary Clinton in the early ’90s.

Kenneth E. Thorpe, a professor of health policy at Emory University, has analyzed the costs of the Edwards and Obama plans. In reading those and the Massachusetts plans, the similarities are clear, and Thorpe says the Obama and Romney plans are “virtually identical.” Both call for an insurance exchange (an entity that would offer various private insurance plans to the public), and they offer financial assistance to low-income people. Edwards’ proposal differs in that he uses health care plans in the federal employee program, rather than a national exchange. “That’s an implementation difference,” says Thorpe. “The real important part of it, they’re both building on the private insurance industry.”

Sen. Clinton has not released a formal proposal, but when she does, it's highly unlikely to be a wholly government funded proposal.

Politicians will debate how much government involvement in health insurance regulation is acceptable and how much is stepping on the toes of private insurance companies. But in our view, the term “government takeover” could only be applied to Rep. Kucinich’s proposal. Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel calls for a federal voucher program, but Kucinich, in fact, brags on his Web site that he’s the only candidate advocating a universal not-for-profit health care system.

Is Nuclear Waste Good for the Environment?

Sen. John McCain would have us believe that nuclear power is good for the environment because nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases.

McCain: Nuclear power is safe, nuclear power is green — does not green — emit greenhouse gases.

McCain is correct to say that nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases; in that respect, it is far more environmentally friendly than fossil fuel power plants. McCain neglects to mention, however, that nuclear power poses a different set of environmental worries. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, high-level nuclear waste – the sort produced as a byproduct of nuclear power generation – is potentially quite harmful.

NRC: Standing near unshielded spent fuel could be fatal due to the high radiation levels. Ten years after removal of spent fuel from a reactor, the radiation dose 1 meter away from a typical spent fuel assembly exceeds 20,000 rems per hour. A dose of 5,000 rems would be expected to cause immediate incapacitation and death within one week.

While some of the isotopes in spent nuclear fuel decay within days, others have half-lives (or the time that it takes for half of the radiation to cease) of as long as 24,000 years. At present, high-level nuclear waste is mostly stored in pools at nuclear power plants, a temporary solution. Fights have raged for years about the location of a permanent nuclear waste repository, but the NRC plans to open one in 2017 under Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

Russia's Oil Riches

Romney claimed that Russia earned $500 billion dollars in oil revenue, but the U.S. Energy Information Administration findings differ.

Romney: But let’s not forget, where the money is being made this year is not just throughout these years is not just in Exxon and Shell and the major oil companies, it’s in the countries that own this oil. Russia last year took in $500 billion by selling oil.

Leon Aron of the American Enterprise Institute wrote in the May 15 Wall Street Journal, "Every day more than 19,000 barrels of oil flow through the pipeline for sale abroad, bringing $500 billion a year” to Russia. But a correction to his piece was issued four days later:

WSJ: The estimated annual fair market value of all oil and gas extracted in Russia is $500 billion. This figure was mistakenly identified as the annual value of oil exports.

That's oil and gas (not just oil) and extracted (not just exported). According to the EIA, Russia took in $141 billion in net energy exports for 2006. Russia is second only to Saudi Arabia as the largest net importer of oil in the world.

As a point of reference, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which includes 12 of the world's largest oil exporting nations (Russia is not a member), made a net $522 billion in 2006, according to the EIA.

Romney Rewrites History

Romney tried to pin the blame for the Iraq war on Saddam Hussein’s refusal to allow weapons inspections.

Romney: [I]f you’re saying let’s turn back the clock, and Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors, and they’d come in and they’d found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, had Saddam Hussein, therefore, not violated United Nations resolutions, we wouldn’t be in the conflict we’re in. But he didn’t do those things, and we knew what we knew at the point we made the decision to get in.

Romney is not alone in playing loose with the facts about weapons inspections. On at least three occasions, President Bush has made the same claim. The first, on July 14, 2003:

Bush: The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.

A few months later, Bush reiterated the claim. And on the third anniversary of the war, he said:

Bush: [W]e worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.

That the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency was not permitted to make inspections might come as a bit of a surprise to Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, who reported on March 17, 2003, that "late last night...I was advised by the United States government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad." Inspectors had been in Iraq since November 2002. They remained until U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan ordered their evacuation on March 17, 2003, just three days before U.S. and British troops invaded Iraq.

Language Barrier
Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo claimed John McCain wasn’t being straightforward regarding his support for making English the official language of the :
STAN HONDA/AFP/Getty Images

Tancredo: And even in the bill that Senator McCain is pushing, he says that he supports English-only – or official English. Doesn’t go on to tell you, that of course he says that we’re going to codify President Clinton’s original plan, original executive order signed that said all papers produced by the government have to be in various languages.

Tancredo isn’t telling the whole story. It is true that in 2000, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13166, which required that government agencies issue certain documents in multiple languages. But that order didn’t require “all papers” produced by the government to be in languages other than English, as Tancredo says; it only applied to documents that outline federal assistance services:

Executive Order 13166: To this end, each Federal agency shall examine the services it provides and develop and implement a system by which [limited English proficiency] persons can meaningfully access those services consistent with, and without unduly burdening, the fundamental mission of the agency.

The service would aid citizens who, under Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act, cannot be denied federal assistance services based on their level of English proficiency. The McCain-Kennedy Immigration bill (S. 1033) would not have rescinded Clinton ’s order, and it would have require some other documents to be issued in different languages. Specifically, it would require labor contractors to provide information such as compensation, period of employment and labor organizing opportunities to employees in a language they can clearly understand.

S. 1033 Sec. 304(i)(3): The information required to be disclosed…shall be provided in writing in English or, as necessary and reasonable, in the language of the worker being recruited. The Department of Labor shall make forms available in English, Spanish, and other languages, as necessary, which may be used in providing workers with information required under this section.
An Illegal Overestimate

Sen. Sam Brownback exaggerated the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in the past and present.

Brownback: We did the first immigration bill I was involved in then, in 1996. You know what, that was [an] enforcement-only bill in 1996, and we had 7 million undocumented in the country then. We’re at 12 [million] to 20 million now.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that in 1996 there were 5.6 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States. The 7 million figure Brownback referenced was the estimate for 2000.

His range for the current number of unauthorized immigrants is off as well. The Pew Hispanic Center put the figure at 11.5 million to 12 million in 2006, and the Department of Homeland Security estimated the total to be 10.5 million in 2005. DHS recognizes that there is no definitive figure, because “there are no national surveys, administrative data, or other sources of information that directly provide accurate estimates of this population. As a consequence, the unauthorized immigrant population must be estimated by making certain assumptions and by combining data that measure events with those that measure populations.” However, that doesn’t mean 20 million is a legitimate estimate. That figure can be traced to a 2005 report by Bear Stearns, an investment firm, which said the number “may be as high as 20 million people” but bases that on anecdotal evidence and extrapolating “micro trends at the community level.”

While we're on the subject, Romney made an overly broad statement about the Senate's recently stalled immigration plan, saying, “it allows people who’ve come here illegally to stay here for the rest of their lives.” That's misleading. Romney ignores some significant hurdles illegal aliens must clear to qualify.

The Senate plan, which was endorsed by the Bush Administration, would have created a new legal status, the so-called “Z” visa, for which illegal aliens could apply. However, only a certain number of these visas would be available every year. Also, applicants would have to prove they're employed and verify that they have been in the country since January 1, 2007. They then would have to pay fines and fees up to $5,000 and an additional $4,000 when they applied for full U.S. citizenship — assuming they met the requisite language and civics requirements. And any formerly illegal aliens trying to become full citizens would still have to wait for the current backlog of applicants to clear.

Finally, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee doesn't get off scot-free — he wrongly stated that the night of the debate was President Ronald Reagan's birthday, when actually it was the anniversary of his death in 2004.

The next debate, between the Democratic candidates, is scheduled for June 28 at Washington, D.C.'s Howard University.

- by Viveca Novak, with Justin Bank, Jessica Henig, Emi Kolawole, Joe Miller, Lori Robertson, Stephen Simas, Carolyn Auwaerter and Allie Berkson
Sources

Commonwealth of Massachusetts . Commonwealth Connector Web site. 7 June 2007.

Kucinich, Dennis. Statement on Universal Health Care. Kucinich for President 2008 Web site. 7 June 2007.

Obama, Barack. “Barack’s Plan for a Healthy America.” Obama ’08 Web site. 7 June 2007.

Edwards, John. “Edwards Plan for Universal Health Care.” John Edwards 08 Web site. 7 June 2007.

Gravel, Mike. Statement on Universal Healthcare Vouchers. Mike Gravel for President Web site. 7 June 2007.
Radioactive Waste: Production, Storage, Disposal (NUREG/BR-0216, Rev. 2). -1 May 2002. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 7 June 2007.

"Timeline: Weapons Inspections." BBC News. 18 Nov. 2002. "U.N. Secretary General Orders Inspectors, Staff to Leave ." PBS Online NewsHour. 17 Mar. 2003.

Bush, George. "President Bush Welcomes President Kwasniewski to White House." The Oval Office, Washington , DC . 27 Jan. 2004.
Bush, George. "President Bush President Reaffirms Strong Position on . " The Oval Office, Washington , DC . 14 July 2003.

Bush, George. "President Bush Press Conference of the President." James S. Brady Briefing Room , Washington , DC. 21 Mar. 2006.

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of Policy and Planning. Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990 to 2000. Jan. 2003.

Passel, Jeffrey S. The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S. Pew Hispanic Center. 7 Mar. 2006.

Hoefer, Michael, Rythina, Nancy, and Campbell, Christopher. Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2005. August 2006. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics.

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. death toll in Iraq passes 3,500

Yahoo! News
U.S. death toll in Iraq passes 3,500
By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer

The four-year U.S. military death toll in Iraq passed 3,500 after a soldier was reported killed in a roadside bombing in Baghdad. A British soldier was also shot to death Thursday in southern Iraq, as Western forces find themselves increasingly vulnerable under a new strategy to take the fight to the enemy.

The British ambassador to Iraq, meanwhile, signaled his government was ready to talk to those behind the abduction of five Britons in Baghdad last month. Iraqi officials have said they believe the Britons were taken by the Mahdi Army militia, which is largely loyal to the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

In a rare televised interview, al-Sadr blamed the United States for Iraq's woes, often referring to it as "the occupier" and accusing it of being behind the sectarian violence, the growing schism between Iraq's majority Shiites and once-dominant Sunni Arabs and economic hardships.

"We are now facing a brutal Western assault against Islam," he said, draped in his traditional black robe and turban. "This agenda must be countered with a cultural resistance," he said.

The mounting U.S. casualties, most by makeshift bombs placed in potholes on roads or in fields where troops conduct foot patrols, come as American troops work with Iraqi forces on the streets and in remote outposts as part of a joint crackdown on sectarian violence.

A U.S. soldier was killed and two others were wounded Wednesday when a roadside bomb exploded during combat operations in a southwestern section of Baghdad, the military said Thursday. At least 3,501 U.S. service-members have been killed since the beginning of the war, according to an Associated Press count.

They include at least 23 American deaths during the first six days of June — an average of almost four per day, a similar pace to that in May. American troops deaths reached 127 in May, making it the third-deadliest month since the war started in March 2003. The average is nearly double the roughly two a day killed in June 2006.

A British soldier also was shot to death and three others were wounded Thursday while on patrol in southern Iraq, according to Britain's Ministry of Defense, pushing to at least 150 the number of deaths reported by the British military.

Separately, the British ambassador to Iraq, Dominic Asquith, appealed to the kidnappers of five Britons to release them or open negotiations.

The five — four security guards and a consultant — were abducted from the Iraqi Finance Ministry on May 29 by some 40 heavily armed men who then rode off with them in the direction of the sprawling Shiite district of Sadr City.

Iraqi officials say the Mahdi Army may have grabbed the men in retaliation for the killing by British forces of the militia's commander in the southern city of Basra.

"I ask those holding them to release them so they may return to their families," Asquith said. Then, in a clear offer to consider demands, he added, "We have people here in Iraq who are ready to listen to any person about this incident, or any person who may be holding these men and who may wish to communicate."

The Mahdi Army, which fought U.S. forces in 2004, has been blamed for many of the sectarian attacks in Iraq. The U.S. accuses Iran of fueling the violence by providing weapons and training fighters.

On Thursday, al-Sadr said he maintains "friendship and good relations" with Iran but rejects any interference by Tehran in Iraq's affairs.

"I must maintain friendship and good relations with Iran but nothing else," he said.

The anti-American cleric dodged a question about his disappearance from public view during which he was believed to have been in Iran.

The interview on Iraqi state television was believed to be al-Sadr's first since he re-emerged in public nearly two weeks ago. The program, which aired Thursday, was taped Sunday at his office in the holy city of Najaf, according to his aides. Al-Sadr had dropped out of sight at the start of a U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown in February.

Despite the crackdown, bombings, shootings, mortar attacks and execution-style killings left at least 63 Iraqis dead nationwide Thursday. They included 32 unidentified men who were handcuffed, blindfolded and shot to death in Baghdad — the apparent victims of so-called sectarian death squads usually run by Shiite militias like the Mahdi Army.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, stressed it was too early to see results because the buildup of some 30,000 extra U.S. forces for the operation would not be complete for nearly two more weeks.

"We achieved some early success through the first several months of the effort. The sectarian murder and execution rate was cut by over two-thirds, and then we saw it come back a bit during the month of May," he told CNN.

"We do have some aggressive plans to ... go after al-Qaida and some of the sanctuaries they've been able to build and dispatch car bombs from for some time. That won't be without a fight, but it is something that we must do in the areas around Baghdad to provide better security for the people in Baghdad," he said.

The day's deadliest attack was a simultaneous suicide bombing of a bus and a truck in the town of Rabia, near the Syrian border.

The truck exploded at a police station, killing at least five policemen and five civilians and wounding 22 other people, including 14 policemen, according to army Capt. Mohammed Ahmed.

A guard shot the driver as he approached the building, but the truck still penetrated its blast walls and exploded, destroying the one-story structure, said Ahmed, an officer with the army's Third Division, which oversees the area.

Another bomber driving a minibus struck a building about 500 yards away at the same time, according to police officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they feared retribution. They said five Britons working in the building were wounded. British officials could not immediately be reached to confirm that report.

In Ramadi, 70 miles west of Baghdad, three policemen were killed and four others wounded when a suicide driver blew up his automobile at their checkpoint, police said.

The post was just 50 yards from the traffic police headquarters, said a police officer, speaking on condition of anonymity since he wasn't authorized to talk to the media.

In Baghdad, a bomb beneath a parked car exploded at lunchtime outside a falafel restaurant, killing at least seven people and wounding 14, police reported. The teeming slum, which is a Mahdi Army stronghold, has repeatedly been targeted by Sunni extremists seeking to terrorize the Shiite majority and inflame hostilities between the Muslim sects.

Friday morning, two parked cars exploded simultaneously at a bus terminal in the southern Iraqi town of Qurna, killing at least 15 and wounding 20 others, police reported. The casualty toll was expected to rise, said a Qurna police officer, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to deal with the media.

Iraqi journalist Sahar al-Haidari, 45, was shot to death while she was waiting for a taxi Thursday in a predominantly Sunni area in the northern city of Mosul. Al-Haidari covered political and cultural news for the independent Voices of Iraq news agency and was the second employee of the organization to be killed in little more than a week.

___

Associated Press writer Sameer N. Yacoub in Baghdad contributed to this report.

Read More...

Summary only...

Edwards assails Clinton's terror remarks

Yahoo! News
Edwards assails Clinton's terror remarks
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer

Presidential contender John Edwards on Thursday disputed Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's claim that the U.S. is safer since Sept. 11 and contended GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani will never win if he embraces President Bush's policies.

Speaking on the New Yorkers' home turf — and not far from Ground Zero — Edwards dismissed Clinton's comments in Sunday's debate in which she said the nation is safer now that it was before the terrorist attacks. Clinton's other top rival, Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), also has challenged her claim.

"Today, as a result of what George Bush has done, we have more terrorists and fewer allies," Edwards said at a news conference. "There was no group called al-Qaida in Iraq before this president's war in Iraq."

He never mentioned Clinton by name but the subject was obvious.

Clinton advisers said she had been referring to improvements in domestic and airline security in the wake of the attacks.

Like Clinton, Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, voted to authorize military action against Iraq in 2002 and supported the concept of a global war on terror throughout his 2004 presidential bid. He was quoted during that campaign as saying he believed the country was safer than it had been before Sept. 11.

On Thursday, he said his views had changed as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated.

Edwards also assailed the Republican candidates for their tough talk on Iraq and global terror, arguing that they were trying to be "George Bush on steroids." He singled out Giuliani, the former New York City mayor widely praised for his leadership after the attacks.

"If Mayor Giuliani believes that what the president has done is good ... and runs a campaign for the presidency saying 'I will give you four more years of what this president has done,' he's allowed to do that. He will never be elected president, but he is allowed to do that," Edwards said.

In response, Giuliani campaign spokeswoman Katie Levinson said, "John Edwards' track record of predicting election outcomes speaks for itself."

Clinton's campaign declined to comment, pointing to a statement released by New York Sen. Chuck Schumer after Sunday's debate.

Despite the Bush administration's failures, America's first responders have worked tirelessly over the last six years to make the nation's cities and towns safer," Schumer said. "As a senator from New York, Hillary Clinton is grateful every day for their efforts."

Read More...

Summary only...

Bipartisan Senate Group Embraces Iraq Study Group's Findings; Compromise Bill Would Call for Iraq Withdrawal by Early 2008

ABC News
Bipartisan Senate Group Embraces Iraq Study Group's Findings
Compromise Bill Would Call for Iraq Withdrawal by Early 2008
By JAKE TAPPER

Almost six months after former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana presented a comprehensive strategy for Iraq known as the Iraq Study Group recommendations -- which President Bush did not quite enthusiastically embrace -- a bipartisan group of U.S. senators introduced legislation Tuesday to use the group's recommendations as the foundation for future U.S. policy in Iraq.

Perhaps most notably the bill -- which is supported by several conservative Republicans -- aims to begin the withdrawal of U.S. combat brigades by early 2008 if certain benchmarks are met.

"We really need a political situation in Washington, D.C., as we do in Baghdad," one of the authors of the bill, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., told ABC News. "I'm trying to give [the president] an option. I hope he regards this as a friendly gesture, something he can embrace after a few weeks."

Asked how much longer Republican senators would show patience with the president's surge strategy, Alexander said, "Not too much longer."

Press for Iraq Withdrawal in 2008

Alexander and Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., are leading the bipartisan group, which includes Democratic Sens. Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Republican Sens. Bob Bennett of Utah, Judd Gregg and John Sununu of New Hampshire.

The bill, which the senators said has been approved by Baker and Hamilton, would also create an Iraq International Support Group for diplomacy; make training, equipping and advising the Iraqi military and security forces the first U.S. priority; create a new senior adviser position for economic reconstruction in Iraq; and mandate that the president include the cost of the war in his annual budget request instead of making it a supplemental item.

Referring to reports of some U.S. diplomatic contact with Iran and Syria, Alexander said that the president is "almost backing into the Iraq Study Group recommendations."

"Well, if that's the case," the Tennessee Republican continued, "why not embrace it and use it as a basis for a longer-term but limited presence in Iraq?"

Pressing for Action

Democrats have promised to add some sort of Iraq proposal to the forthcoming defense authorization for 2008.

Speaking just off the Senate floor Tuesday, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he appreciates the gesture from the Republicans, and while he supports more forceful action, he did not discount the proposal from Alexander and Salazar.

"I appreciate the bipartisan nature of those who believe this should go forward," Reid told reporters. "And it's one of the things we're taking a look at. Certainly, I believe that should be something much stronger than that. But that certainly is good."

Reid, who brought forth a number of varying withdrawal proposals before the Senate prior to legislation that did not include such a condition, added, "I'm glad to see even Republicans acknowledging the president should have accepted that from the patriots who came up with that months ago. He shouldn't have ignored it."

Casey added in a statement that "unless we achieve more bipartisan consensus in the Congress that a change is necessary, an impasse will continue."

In the House, Reps. Mark Udall, D-Colo, and Frank Wolf, R-Va., are working on companion legislation.

Read More...

Summary only...

Canada denies Winnie Mandela visa

BBC NEWS
Canada denies Winnie Mandela visa
Canada has denied a visa to the South African anti-apartheid activist Winnie Madikizela-Mandela.

The ex-wife of Nelson Mandela was to attend the premiere of an opera about her life - called The Passion of Winnie- in the city of Toronto.

In 1991 she was convicted of kidnapping and being an accessory to murder.

Canadian authorities can refuse entry into the country on the grounds of a criminal record, although it is not clear that has happened in this case.

Her application was turned down a day before she was to arrive in Toronto, for a gala fundraising dinner.

The organisers, the arts group MusicaNoir, said they were devastated and do not know why her visa was withheld.

They said Mrs Madikizela-Mandela's daughter and two security guards did receive visas.

The decision was made by the Canadian embassy in South Africa.

Canadian immigration officials in Ottawa have not given any reason why the visa application was denied.

MusicaNoir pointed out that Mrs Madikizela-Mandela was permitted to visit the United States two weeks ago to receive an award for her work with Aids organisations.

Known as one of South Africa's most famous anti-apartheid activists, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela is also a controversial figure.

A six-year prison sentence for kidnapping a young activist who was later murdered was suspended on appeal.

In 2003 she was found guilty on charges of fraud and theft.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6725075.stm

Read More...

Summary only...

Déjà Vu: McCain Shines in New Hampshire, Rudy Seems Unhinged

Huffington Post
Arianna Huffington| BIO
Déjà Vu: McCain Shines in New Hampshire, Rudy Seems Unhinged

Manchester, N.H. -- As is usually the case in a Republican debate, the big winner of the night was God.

But John McCain finished a close second.

This was vintage McCain. Perhaps energized by being in New Hampshire, home of his greatest political triumph in 2000, he provided the two most emotional moments of the night. The first came in his response to a question asked by Erin Flanagan, whose younger brother had been killed in Iraq eight days before he was scheduled to return home in December 2005.

McCain rose from his chair and, his voice choked with emotion, thanked her for her brother's service and offered "a little straight talk" on the war, which he said had been "badly mismanaged for a long time," leading to "unnecessary" deaths.

Of course, he then went on to defend the current surge strategy, and warned of Iraq turning into "a center of terrorism" if we withdraw -- but, however wrong his position, it was McCain at his passionate best.

Indeed, he so clearly connected with the woman and the audience that every other candidate immediately followed suit and began getting off their stools for just about every answer given after that (David Bohrman, CNN's Washington bureau chief, the mastermind behind the debates' split format, told me that he was surprised that none of the Democrats had stood up from their seats in the second half of their debate. "I told them there were no seat belts on their chairs and they should feel free to get up if they wanted to. But no one did.").

McCain also took what could be his greatest liability in the GOP primaries -- his sponsorship of the immigration bill -- and turned it to his advantage by connecting immigration to military service, his resume trump card.

"My friends," he said, "I want you, the next time you're down in Washington, DC, to go to the Vietnam War Memorial and look at the names engraved in black granite. You'll find a whole lot of Hispanic names." And with that, the hot button issue of immigration was instantly and powerfully covered in a patriotic patina. It won't end the howls from the GOP base, but it might win him some converts to his position among independents -- which is especially important in New Hampshire where independent voters are a plurality, and can choose as late as Election Day which party primary they vote in.

And thanking Tom "Press 1-thru-10 for English" Tancredo in Spanish was a nice touch.

By contrast, Rudy Giuliani seemed a tad unhinged. He tried to have it both ways when it came to terror and national security, claiming on one hand that the sacrifice of American lives in Iraq "is one of the reasons we're safe now in the United States," while on the other hand repeatedly raising the specter of Islamic terrorists who will do us all in if we don't put him in the White House.

He wasted no time in referencing the plot to attack JFK airport, working it into his second answer of the night, in response to a question about Iran. He also lumped the questionable JFK plot with the equally questionable Fort Dix plot -- making it sound like both of those gangs that couldn't jihad straight had taken their orders directly from Osama bin Laden.

He also twice sang the praises of "nation-building," and suggested that things might be going better in Iraq if we... kept better statistics? "We should probably have an IraqStat program, in which we measure how many people are going to school, how many factories are open, how many people are going back to work." At another point he offered this ode to good data: "You get what you measure; if you don't measure success, you have failure."

But in all his talk about stats, he never mentioned the most important numbers: the number of Americans killed, and the hundreds of billions of dollars squandered in Iraq.

He also showed that he is marching in lock step with Laura Bush on the real problem with Iraq (other than a lack of good stats): the darn media just not reporting enough of the good news going on there. "Suppose General Petraeus comes back in September," he said, "and reports that things are going pretty well. Are we going to report that with the same amount of attention that we would report the negative news?" Damn you, David Gregory!

For his part, Mitt Romney, the third member of the GOP top tier, swung for the fences -- reaching for a Reaganesque Big Picture Optimism -- but struck out, managing to draw little more than head scratches with his repeated admonitions that we need to "stop worrying about the problems" and "focus on the future" -- a bright future made glorious by selling "products" to Chinese consumers. Exactly what products are we going to be selling them, Mitt -- labels that read, "Made in China"?

A few other debate quick hits:

Romney's makeup seemed off. During the first part of the debate, it looked like he had a shiner under his right eye. He needs to put in a call to Kriss Soterion who did Hillary's killer makeup job on Sunday. (I saw her after the Democratic debate and invited her to blog.)

Mike Huckabee was very smooth, very articulate (particularly when talking about his religious faith), and the funniest of the bunch. Too bad he really believes the world was Created in six days.

It was amazing to see how far the Republicans have come on the need to change our energy policy, stressing the need for an Apollo Project and making the case that our dependence on foreign oil is a national security crisis. The discussion on energy could have been lifted directly from a Democratic debate... or a Detroit Project ad.

Tommy Thompson had the jaw dropper of the night, claiming that George W. Bush would be the perfect person to lecture the youth of America on "honesty" and "integrity." Sure, he can go on a lecture tour with Scooter Libby and Duke Cunningham. And enough of the "I'm not the actor" jokes, Governor. Thompson should go ahead and just quit now.

Read More...

Summary only...

A New Poll Suggests That Play-It-Safe 'Centrists' Are Weakening the Democratic Party

Huffington Post
RJ Eskow
A New Poll Suggests That Play-It-Safe 'Centrists' Are Weakening the Democratic Party

If Sunday night's debate improved Hillary Clinton's chances of capturing the nomination, poll results released Tuesday suggest that she and other "centrists" are losing the very independents they need to win the general election. Congressional reluctance to take decisive action on Iraq is driving these critical voters away from the Democrats - and they're taking the party's base with them.

Most observers, including me, believe that Sen. Clinton won Sunday night's debate (although Edwards was giving her a good run until Wolf Blitzer stopped giving him air time in the second half). And Sen. Clinton moved effectively to neutralize Iraq as a divisive issue for Democrats when she said "the differences among us are minor. The differences between us and the Republicans are major."

Unfortunately, the poll numbers don't offer much to support the play-it-safe strategy advocated by Sen. Clinton and other Congressional Democrats. In increasing numbers, the American public is beginning to agree with the assessments made by a number of liberal commentators: that the Democrats were given a majority in 2006 to take charge and end the Iraq war, and that their failure to do so leaves voters doubtful about their ability to lead.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll concluded the following, according to a report in the Post:

Disapproval of Bush's performance in office remains high, but the poll highlighted growing disapproval of the new Democratic majority in Congress. Just 39 percent said they approve of the job Congress is doing, down from 44 percent in April, when the new Congress was about 100 days into its term. More significantly, approval of congressional Democrats dropped 10 percentage points over that same period, from 54 percent to 44 percent. Much of that drop was fueled by lower approval ratings of the Democrats in Congress among strong opponents of the war, independents, and liberal Democrats. (emphasis mine)


The report goes on to say that "while independents were evenly split on the Democrats in Congress in April (49 percent approved, 48 percent disapproved), now 37 percent said they approved and 54 percent disapproved." That's a precipitous drop among the voters that are most in play. It augurs badly for the Democrats' prospects in 2008 under a triangulating 'safety first' war strategy.


Democrats hoping to persuade independent voters that they are ready to lead will also be disappointed by this figure: "In April, 59 percent of independents said Democrats were taking a stronger role, but that figure has dropped 15 points, to 44 percent." That's a sign that Democrats are already perceived as weak by this critical voting bloc.

Sure, the poll also confirms President Bush's ongoing unpopularity, but many Democrats don't seem to realize that he won't be a candidate next year.

These numbers suggest what many have suspected for a long time: Many Congressional Democrats in the Clinton/Emanuel mold confuse "independent" voters with "centrists," and mistakenly assume that independents fail to align with either party because their views lie somewhere between the two.

There's little evidence for this assertion. In fact, ideas like "Unity '08" that are based on the "unaligned centrist" model have failed to gain public interest. It's more plausible to think that many "independents" avoid party affiliations because they believe all politicians are cynical, fearful, self-interested, and pandering. The Democrats' timid behavior on the war is more likely to reinforce that perception than change it. The results among independent voters are likely to be devastating for the triangulators and their party.

The poll also shows how poorly this timorous approach is playing among core Democratic voters. "Among liberal Democrats," the Post reports, "approval of congressional Democrats dropped 18 points." That's a precipitous decline in a short time.

If Democrats don't take firmer action they may well find themselves going into the 2008 election with a double handicap. Swing voters will consider them cynical and fearful of taking bold action, while the party base is dispirited and open to third party alternatives (or staying at home). Without the clear and present danger of a Bush/Cheney ticket Dems can't count on the Fear Factor to save them again. If Congressional leaders and leading Presidential candidates don't change their strategy, 2008 could turn into a surprise blowout ... for the Republican Party.

Read More...

Summary only...

House panel votes to boost domestic security

Reuters
House panel votes to boost domestic security
By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States would spend more to combat illegal immigration and prepare for terrorist and weather-related disasters under legislation approved on Tuesday by a House of Representatives panel that ignores a White House veto threat.

The Appropriations Committee sent to the full House a $36.3 billion domestic security bill for fiscal 2008, which starts October 1. This year, the U.S. is spending $33.7 billion.

In approving the bill, the Democratic-controlled panel ignored White House veto threats against any spending bill moving through Congress that exceeds President George W. Bush's request. This bill would breech that level by about $2.1 billion.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, said the added money represented "a modest change in priorities that will help meet some of the crucial needs" of the country.

The legislation offers a glimpse at how Democrats want to rearrange government spending since taking control of Congress in January.

Since the September 11 attacks, Democrats often have accused Bush and Republicans in Congress of not increasing spending enough to secure the U.S. against a chemical weapons attack at a port, a bombing of a mass transit system or for natural disaster protection and cleanup.

As a result, the legislation would spend about $50 million more for customs and border protection than Bush sought and $2 billion more than his February request for security preparedness and disaster relief.

Funding would continue for construction of a controversial border fence in the southwest at the $1 billion level Bush requested. But the Department of Homeland Security would have to justify how each segment of the fence would be the most effective way to secure parts of the U.S.-Mexico border.

Republican Rep. Harold Ford of Kentucky complained the restrictions "can potentially impede installation of critical border security systems."

The bill would prohibit the federal government from preempting stricter state and local government rules on chemical security. Lawmakers from states with large concentrations of chemical plants, such as New Jersey, have been clamoring for better protections against attack.

The bill also tries to ensure that illegal immigrants convicted of crimes are deported upon release from prison. The legislation attempts to improve communications between federal authorities and state prisons.

In a May 11 letter, White House budget chief Rob Portman warned he would "recommend the president veto any appropriations request that exceeds his request."

Portman reminded lawmakers Bush has asked for a maximum of $933 billion in spending next year on all "discretionary" programs, which do not include payment of retirement benefits or medical care for the poor and elderly. Congressional Democrats want to add about $20 billion to that tab.

Read More...

Summary only...

Guantanamo war crimes trials screech to halt

Reuters
Guantanamo war crimes trials screech to halt
By Jane Sutton

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) - U.S. military judges dropped all war crimes charges on Monday against the only two Guantanamo captives facing trial, rulings that could preclude trying any of the 380 prisoners held at the U.S. base in Cuba any time soon.

The judges said they lacked jurisdiction under the strict definition of those eligible for trial by military tribunal under a law the U.S. Congress enacted last year.

"It's another demonstration that the system simply doesn't work," said the tribunals' chief defense counsel, Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan.

The rulings did not affect U.S. authority to indefinitely hold the 380 foreign terrorism suspects detained at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in southeast Cuba.

But it was the latest setback for the Bush administration's efforts to put the Guantanamo captives through some form of judicial process. It was forced to rewrite the rules last year after the U.S. Supreme Court deemed the old tribunals illegal.

Charges were dropped for Omar Khadr, a Canadian captured in a firefight in Afghanistan at age 15. Khadr, now 20, was accused of killing a U.S. soldier with a grenade and wounding another in a battle at a suspected al Qaeda compound in Afghanistan in 2002.

Charges were also dropped for Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen, who is accused of driving and guarding Osama bin Laden. Hamdan last year won a U.S. Supreme Court challenge that scrapped the first Guantanamo tribunal system.

Both had been charged with conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism. Khadr also faced charges of murder, attempted murder and spying, the latter for allegedly conducting surveillance of U.S. military convoys in Afghanistan.

HAMDAN STILL HOPES FOR FAIR TRIAL-ATTORNEY

Both defendants had been declared "enemy combatants" during administrative hearings begun at Guantanamo in 2004 to determine if there were grounds to continue holding them.

But the judge for Hamdan's case, Navy Capt. Keith Allred, said that definition was broad enough to include captives who supported the Taliban or al Qaeda without actually engaging in combat.

He said the Military Commissions Act adopted by the U.S. Congress in 2006 set more stringent rules and allowed only those designated as "unlawful enemy combatants" to face trial in the Guantanamo tribunals.

Allred said that law limited the tribunals' jurisdiction to "those who actually engaged in hostilities."

No Guantanamo captives have been formally designated as "unlawful enemy combatants," and defense lawyers said none could be tried unless they first faced proceedings reclassifying them as such.

Hamdan was relieved and "still hopes he's going to get a fair trial," said his military lawyer, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift.

A Pentagon spokeswoman, Army Maj. Beth Kubala, said it would be speculative to draw conclusions about the future of the tribunal system. She called the tribunals fair, transparent and legitimate and said the rulings demonstrated that "the military judges operate independently."

Allred and the judge in the Khadr case, Army Col. Peter Brownback, left open the possibility of refiling charges against the two defendants if they were reclassified.

But defense lawyers and rights groups said any trials should be moved to the regular U.S. federal court system or the long-established court-martial system.

"At this point, detainees have been more successful committing suicide in Guantanamo than the government has been successful in getting detainees to trial," Amnesty International observer Jumana Musa said.

Four prisoners have committed suicide at Guantanamo since the detention and interrogation camp opened in 2002.

Read More...

Summary only...

Wyoming Sen. Craig Thomas dies at 74

USA TODAY
Wyoming Sen. Craig Thomas dies at 74

WASHINGTON (AP) — Wyoming Sen. Craig Thomas, a three-term conservative Republican who stayed clear of the Washington limelight and political catfights, died Monday. He was 74.

The senator's family issued a statement saying he died Monday evening at National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. He had been receiving chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia.

Just before the 2006 election, Thomas was hospitalized with pneumonia and had to cancel his last campaign stops. He nonetheless won with 70% of the vote, monitoring the election from his hospital bed.

Two days after the election, Thomas announced that he had just been diagnosed with leukemia.

Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat, will appoint a successor from one of three finalists chosen by the state Republican party.

"Wyoming had no greater advocate, taxpayers had no greater watchdog, and rural America had no greater defender than Craig Thomas," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday night. "The Senate is a lesser place without Craig here, but the state of Wyoming and our nation are much better places because he was here."

Thomas was a low-key lawmaker who reliably represented the interests of his conservative state, often becoming involved in public lands issues. He worked in behind-the-scenes posts to oversee national parks, including Yellowstone in Wyoming.

He was also an advocate for domestic energy and minerals production. He worked to protect Wyoming's mining industry from foreign competition and backed efforts to get a federally funded coal gasification plant built in the state.

Wyoming's other senator, Republican Mike Enzi, said Monday evening that he was "so stunned."

"The Senate will not be the same," he said. "Craig was the core of our delegation. He was a fierce advocate for Wyoming. ... He was my senior senator, a confidant, mentor and friend. ... I will miss him."

Gov. Freudenthal said he and his wife have known Thomas for many decades and his death "is a very big loss to the people of this state."

"He carried the values that we treasure in Wyoming to Washington and had many successes," Freudenthal said.

After his first round of chemotherapy, Thomas returned to the Senate in December, a month earlier than expected. A few months later, he said he felt better than he had in a long time. But he returned to the hospital for a second round of chemotherapy in May.

"I'm resolved to do all I can to keep the leukemia in check," he said then. "I've been feeling very good over the last several months — even returning to my regular morning run. But I've always known that further treatments are common and could periodically be part of this thing."

Thomas entered Congress in a special election in 1989 to replace Dick Cheney when the future vice president was named defense secretary by the first President Bush. Thomas won that race with 52% of the vote.

In 1994, Thomas won his first Senate race by beating former Gov. Mike Sullivan 59% to 39%. Thomas was re-elected by a wide margin in 2000, winning 74% of the vote against Democrat Mel Logan and Libertarian Margaret Dawson.

Thomas had previously served five years in the Wyoming Legislature.

He was born in Cody, Wyo., and was raised on a ranch. He graduated from the University of Wyoming with a degree in agriculture, then served four years in the U.S. Marines.

He also was vice president of the Wyoming Farm Bureau and general manager of the Wyoming Rural Electric Association.

He is survived by his wife, Susan, and four children.

According to Peggy Nighswonger, Wyoming's elections director, the governor has five days to appoint one of the party's three nominees once he receives the names. That person will serve until the next general election in 2008.


Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-04-sen-thomas-obit_N.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Summary only...

Supreme Court makes it harder to sue over credit reporting

USA Today
Supreme Court makes it harder to sue over credit reporting

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled in favor of two insurers Monday, limiting the instances in which insurers must tell customers that their credit ratings are affecting how much they pay.

The justices said Geico did not violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act and that Safeco might have but did not do so recklessly.

Consumer groups have said the notification requirement was crucial to cleansing credit reports of inaccurate information.

The ruling is likely to affect class-action lawsuits that seek damages for consumers who say they should have been notified but weren't.

For a company to be found liable, Justice David Souter wrote, its conduct must entail an unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either known to a company or is so obvious it should have been known.

The court ruled that the law's notification requirements apply to initial applicants. That means that new customers will be informed when their credit scores affect the rates they're being quoted.

But the justices overturned an appeals court ruling that would have required notification of the vast majority of customers. Notification would have been the rule unless consumers were paying the lowest rate given to those with the best credit ratings.

The companies lost on their contention that in order to be found liable for a willful violation, it must be shown that they knew they were breaking the law. The court said "reckless disregard" was sufficient. But the justices laid down a restrictive definition.

The court's ruling on the liability question was unanimous, while the decision on notification was 7-2.

On the liability question, the justices took "a middle-of-the-road position," said Gene Schaerr of the law firm of Winston & Strawn. "The court adopted what initially would have been a pro-plaintiff position, but in actually applying the definition, they have a very narrow interpretation of 'reckless.' "

The court's decision on liability will be beneficial, predicts Delaware Insurance Commissioner Matthew Denn, leading insurers to take more care in conducting business.

Credit-reporting agencies generate more than 1.5 billion consumer reports a year. Congress passed the credit-reporting law in 1970 to protect consumers from flaws in the system and to allow businesses to gauge risk more accurately.

Read More...

Summary only...

Why Wasn't the Headline "Bombers Not Smart Enough to Bomb JFK"?

Huffington Post
Why Wasn't the Headline "Bombers Not Smart Enough to Bomb JFK"?
Anthony Kaufman

Why didn't the headlines read "Bombers Not Smart Enough to Bomb JFK" or "Plot to Blow-up JFK Unfeasible"? No, as is often the case in our post-9/11 paranoid universe, media hype and authoritarian fear-mongering conspire to freak us out.

On Saturday night, local New York news stations -- in flashy "team-coverage" packages -- declared a major plot to destroy John F. Kennedy airport had been uncovered. Complete with frightening court-drawings of the "dark-skinned" alleged ring-leader and maps that showed a path of destruction stretching all the way from Queens to New Jersey, the news painted a picture of impending doom a la 24, thwarted at the last minute by brave undercover sources working for the F.B.I. Even HuffPost's link to the Associated Press story "Authorities Charge 4 in NYC Terror Plot" offered little explanation of the near-impossibility of the supposed plot. Needless to say, I went to sleep scared out of my wits, worried for the safety of my friends and family.

The next morning, of course, I found buried deep into the news coverage reporting about how would-be mass murderer Russell Defreitas was "not smart enough" to carry out such a plot, and the plot, itself, probably wouldn't have worked anyway. Oh, no matter, right-wing bloggers and conservative pundits went hog-wild all-day Sunday (perfectly timed) with the BREAKING news, using the charges to justify their attacks on all things Islamic and their "war on terror."

While most folks have a healthy distrust of the press, it's all too easy to get swept up in the media maelstrom around such trumped-up counter-terrorism proclamations.

I am reminded, of course, of the front-page news stories of Jose Padilla, the so-called "dirty bomber," whose mis-label stuck on him like super-glue, despite the fact that the charges against him three-and-a-half years later made no mention of a dirty bomb. What do people remember? The shocking lead-item statements of imminent apocalypse made by Attorney General John Ashcroft or the little news story on page three some years later that showed just how ineffectual and unthreatening Padilla was? Or what about the so-called "Detroit Sleeper Cell," whose case proved to be a mockery of the U.S. justice system, revealing it to be overzealous, and let's face it, completely racist?

Is it a coincidence that the alleged plots to attack Fort Dix and JFK come at a time when this U.S. Administration's support is flagging, and Americans are increasingly doubtful of its ability to effectively fight terrorism. While we'll never know for sure, there's one thing that is certain:The media needs to do a better job of cutting through the propaganda.

Read More...

Summary only...

Marines move to discharge protesting Iraq vet

Reuters
Marines move to discharge protesting Iraq vet
By Carey Gillam

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters)- A U.S. military disciplinary panel on Monday recommended that a decorated combat Marine be involuntarily discharged after he joined an anti-war demonstration and spoke out against the Iraq war.

The three-member panel at a Marine command center in Kansas City recommended that 25-year-old Marine Cpl. Adam Kokesh be given a general discharge -- one step below an "honorable discharge" and a reflection of "significant negative" conduct.

Kokesh was accused of misconduct for wearing desert fatigues at a protest in Washington in March to mark the fourth anniversary of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Kokesh said he would appeal the recommendation, which stops short of the honorable discharge he wants but is better than the dishonorable discharge that could have been recommended.

"I'm standing on principle and we're going to contest this on principle. It's not going to go away," he said.

Kokesh is one of three U.S. Iraq combat veterans and members of a group called Iraq Veterans Against the War whom the government has threatened to punish over their roles in the anti-war demonstration.

Kokesh was also charged with misconduct for responding to a Marine investigator with a profanity.

He maintained that he has been acting as a civilian since his discharge from active duty in November 2006 and decried the action by the Marines as a restraint on freedom of speech and a "corrupt" and political act by the U.S. military.

"It's clear these tactics of intimidation are being used against members of Iraq Veterans Against the War," said Kokesh, who wore a black anti-war T-shirt to the hearing. "Freedom of speech means the right to say what other people don't want to hear."

The government argued that Kokesh was still a member of the "Individual Ready Reserves," which meant he could be called back to duty and was subject to some military conduct regulations.

"This is an administrative discharge for the good of the service," said Marine Col. Patrick McCarthy. "It is not a freedom of speech issue. This is about uniform violation and disrespect to an officer."

However Kokesh was asked during the hearing if he was a "card-carrying member" of the Iraq Veterans Against the War, what membership entailed and if he voted in the last presidential election.

Marine Cpt. Jeremy Sibert, a member of the reserves who presented the government's case, argued that Kokesh's action in the demonstration was potentially damaging to the military because it came during deliberations by Congress over funding for the Iraq war.

Sibert also said Kokesh's conduct could have harmed recruiting efforts and affected public opinion about the Marines and the war.

Supporters from around the country staged a protest outside the Marine command center, holding signs and banners supporting Kokesh and criticizing President George W. Bush over the war. Many wore red badges bearing a tally -- 3,495 -- of U.S. military deaths in Iraq.

"It's an insane war," said 68-year-old Andy Wasowski, a Korean War veteran who traveled from New Mexico to support Kokesh.

The recommendation now goes for final disposition to Brig. Gen. Darrell Moore, commander of the Marine Corps Mobilization Command in Kansas City.

Among the protesters was 22-year-old Liam Madden of Boston, who is also being investigated.

The third Iraq veteran investigated -- 23-year-old Cloy Richards of Salem, Missouri, who was wounded in combat -- was also at the protest. But Richards agreed not to wear his uniform in protests in the future in order to keep his disability benefits.

Read More...

Summary only...