Do I consider myself a "citizen journalist"? No, not at all. I link to articles I find interesting; and sometimes I'll put a small commentary at the beginning or the end if I feel passionate about the subject. Do I think anybody can be a journalist? Absolutely not. To me, this is like the news version of "American Idol". It takes years to get into the business, and I'm sure some people will get "big heads" to see their articles on a website. Almost like getting your book published by one of those "publishers" for a nice fee.
Anybody can be an author, my friend.
__________________________________
NowPublic announced Monday that the fast-growing citizen journalism website has scored 10.6 million dollars (US) in financing to fuel its drive to become the world's largest news agency.
The Vancouver-based start-up says it is growing at a rate of 35 percent monthly and has nearly 120,000 contributing "reporters" in more than 140 countries.
In part of a trend referred to as "citizen journalism," NowPublic lets anyone with digital cameras or a camera-enable mobile telephones upload images or news snippets for dissemination via the Internet.
Time Magazine lists NowPublic among its top 50 websites of 2007.
"I promise you, in 18 months NowPublic will be, by reach, the largest news agency in the world," start-up co-founder Len Brody told AFP.
"The most exciting thing for us is this started as an experiment in a garage behind a house and we are breaking stories and changing the news business."
The financing is led by Rho Ventures in the United States and Canada.
Uses for the money will include ways to reward people that upload stories or images, and developing a system to "geo-locate" contributors so they can be found if they are in range of developments deemed newsworthy.
"We are moving to geo-locating people so we can do some cool stuff," Brody said.
"For example, if there is a bomb in a subway station in London or a virus breaks out in Google's cafeteria and media can't get their fast enough we can identify people on the scene already and get their content," Brody said.
Contributors own stories they post on NowPublic, which does not pay for submissions.
Read the rest of the article at Breitbart.
Showing newest 49 of 52 posts from July 2007. Show older posts
Showing newest 49 of 52 posts from July 2007. Show older posts
Monday, July 30, 2007
Latest China scare: Don't eat the ginger
WASHINGTON – In the latest of a long line of scares over food imports from China, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration and the California Department of Public Health are warning the public not to eat fresh ginger from that country.
Certain batches of ginger, commonly used in Chinese and Japanese dishes, were found to be contaminated with traces of a hazardous pesticide called Aldicarb sulfoxide. The pesticide can cause humans to be poisoned within the first hour of exposure.
Ingestion of foods contaminated with low levels of aldicarb may cause flu-like symptoms (nausea, headache, blurred vision), which disappear quickly, usually within five or six hours, according to the California agency. At higher levels of ingestion, aldicarb-contaminated food can also cause dizziness, salivation, excessive sweating, vomiting, diarrhea, muscle stiffness and twitching, and difficulty in breathing.
The ginger has been found in Albertson's stores and Save Mart stories in Northern California.
Read about it at WorldNetDaily.
Certain batches of ginger, commonly used in Chinese and Japanese dishes, were found to be contaminated with traces of a hazardous pesticide called Aldicarb sulfoxide. The pesticide can cause humans to be poisoned within the first hour of exposure.
Ingestion of foods contaminated with low levels of aldicarb may cause flu-like symptoms (nausea, headache, blurred vision), which disappear quickly, usually within five or six hours, according to the California agency. At higher levels of ingestion, aldicarb-contaminated food can also cause dizziness, salivation, excessive sweating, vomiting, diarrhea, muscle stiffness and twitching, and difficulty in breathing.
The ginger has been found in Albertson's stores and Save Mart stories in Northern California.
Read about it at WorldNetDaily.
As if we don't have enough debt: Paulson: US should boost debt limit
WASHINGTON - Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Monday said the United States may be unable to pay its bills this fall unless Congress raises the government's borrowing authority, now capped at $8.965 trillion.
Paulson, in a letter to lawmakers, estimated the government is likely to bump into the statutory debt limit in early October.
"Accordingly, I am writing to request that Congress raise the statutory debt limit as soon as possible," Paulson wrote. He did not say how much more borrowing authority the Bush administration needs.
Congress has already boosted the statutory debt limit several times during President Bush's tenure. The last time Congress upped the government's borrowing authority was in March 2006 when it agreed to raise the debt ceiling by $781 billion.
Boosting the debt limit is more a matter of politics than economics.
Economists doubt Congress will refuse to raise the limit. A federal default is considered unimaginable because it would rattle bond markets, force interest rates higher and shake the economy.
Democrats have blasted the administration for ratcheting up the government's borrowing needs, while they deal with bloated budget deficits; they contend the greater borrowing needs show Bush's fiscal mismanagement.
The administration, however, has defended the increases as essential to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and to cover other costs to keep the United States secure.
Read the rest at YahooNews.
Paulson, in a letter to lawmakers, estimated the government is likely to bump into the statutory debt limit in early October.
"Accordingly, I am writing to request that Congress raise the statutory debt limit as soon as possible," Paulson wrote. He did not say how much more borrowing authority the Bush administration needs.
Congress has already boosted the statutory debt limit several times during President Bush's tenure. The last time Congress upped the government's borrowing authority was in March 2006 when it agreed to raise the debt ceiling by $781 billion.
Boosting the debt limit is more a matter of politics than economics.
Economists doubt Congress will refuse to raise the limit. A federal default is considered unimaginable because it would rattle bond markets, force interest rates higher and shake the economy.
Democrats have blasted the administration for ratcheting up the government's borrowing needs, while they deal with bloated budget deficits; they contend the greater borrowing needs show Bush's fiscal mismanagement.
The administration, however, has defended the increases as essential to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and to cover other costs to keep the United States secure.
Read the rest at YahooNews.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Unbelievable: Democrat charges U.S. justices "duped" Senate
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito "duped" the U.S. Senate into confirming them, a top Democratic lawmaker charged on Friday, days after a key Republican questioned if they had lived up to their promises.
Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, a member of the Judiciary Committee that held hearings on the two, said they staked out moderate positions in congressional testimony but became part of a conservative bloc that issued restrictive rulings on issues from free speech to civil rights.
Schumer, in a speech to the American Constitution Society, talked about the confirmation of Roberts and Alito in 2005 and 2006, respectively.
"Were we duped?" he asked.
"Were we too easily impressed by the charm of nominee Roberts and the erudition of nominee Alito?" Schumer asked. "Did we mistakenly vote our hopes when our fears were more than justified by the ultraconservative records of these two men?"
"Yes," he said.
His comments came days after Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a moderate Republican, said he intended to review the congressional testimony of Roberts and Alito.
The Politico, a Washington-based newspaper, quoted Specter as saying he wanted to see if Roberts and Alito had "lived up" to their promises to respect legal precedents.
In a series of 5-4 rulings in the past year on topics such as abortion and racial integration, the court's conservative majority, bolstered by Roberts and Alito, unsettled established law and riled liberals.
A Republican leadership aide dismissed Schumer's criticism, saying, "The only people that were duped were those that listened to Democrats tell us the sky would be falling once these jurists were on the bench.
"I'm happy to report that after the first full term with both justices on the bench, Americans are still free to speak their mind ... even Senator Schumer," the aide said.
Read it at YahooNews.
Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, a member of the Judiciary Committee that held hearings on the two, said they staked out moderate positions in congressional testimony but became part of a conservative bloc that issued restrictive rulings on issues from free speech to civil rights.
Schumer, in a speech to the American Constitution Society, talked about the confirmation of Roberts and Alito in 2005 and 2006, respectively.
"Were we duped?" he asked.
"Were we too easily impressed by the charm of nominee Roberts and the erudition of nominee Alito?" Schumer asked. "Did we mistakenly vote our hopes when our fears were more than justified by the ultraconservative records of these two men?"
"Yes," he said.
His comments came days after Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a moderate Republican, said he intended to review the congressional testimony of Roberts and Alito.
The Politico, a Washington-based newspaper, quoted Specter as saying he wanted to see if Roberts and Alito had "lived up" to their promises to respect legal precedents.
In a series of 5-4 rulings in the past year on topics such as abortion and racial integration, the court's conservative majority, bolstered by Roberts and Alito, unsettled established law and riled liberals.
A Republican leadership aide dismissed Schumer's criticism, saying, "The only people that were duped were those that listened to Democrats tell us the sky would be falling once these jurists were on the bench.
"I'm happy to report that after the first full term with both justices on the bench, Americans are still free to speak their mind ... even Senator Schumer," the aide said.
Read it at YahooNews.
Leahy: Gonzales must clarify statements
WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales must quickly clarify apparent contradictions in his testimony about warrantless spying or risk a possible perjury investigation, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday.
"This is going to have a devastating effect on law enforcement throughout the country if it's not cleared up," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
"If he doesn't correct it, then I think that there are so many errors in there that the pressure will lead very, very heavily to whether it's a special prosecutor, a special counsel, efforts within the Congress."
Leahy also said he was ready to work with the Bush administration to modernize a law that governs how intelligence agencies monitor the communications of suspected terrorists.
President Bush used his weekly radio address Saturday to urge Congress to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 so the law can better keep pace with the latest technology used by terrorists.
Democrats have indicated they do not want to rush ahead with any changes, seeking to ensure civil liberties are protected and the executive branch is not granted unfettered surveillance powers. But the Bush administration says its latest request is narrowly drawn and urgently needed to stymie terrorist threats.
"The proposal would make clear that court orders are not necessary to effectively collect foreign intelligence about foreign targets overseas," the national intelligence director, Mike McConnell, wrote congressional leaders Friday. He urged action before Congress departs on a monthlong summer vacation in early August.
Last week, four Democrats on Leahy's committee asked Solicitor General Paul Clement for the special probe of Gonzales. The request came after FBI Director Robert S. Mueller appeared to contradict Gonzales' statements to Congress about internal administration dissent over the president's secretive wiretapping program.
Gonzales told that committee the program was not at issue when then-White House counsel Gonzales made a dramatic visit to Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital room in 2004. Mueller, before the House Judiciary Committee, said it was.
The apparent contradiction only compounded problems for Gonzales, who is losing support among members of both parties even as he retains Bush's. The nation's top law enforcement official has faced growing questions about his credibility and apparent misstatements since Congress began investigating the firings of federal prosecutors seven months ago.
Read the story from the AP over at YahooNews.
"This is going to have a devastating effect on law enforcement throughout the country if it's not cleared up," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
"If he doesn't correct it, then I think that there are so many errors in there that the pressure will lead very, very heavily to whether it's a special prosecutor, a special counsel, efforts within the Congress."
Leahy also said he was ready to work with the Bush administration to modernize a law that governs how intelligence agencies monitor the communications of suspected terrorists.
President Bush used his weekly radio address Saturday to urge Congress to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 so the law can better keep pace with the latest technology used by terrorists.
Democrats have indicated they do not want to rush ahead with any changes, seeking to ensure civil liberties are protected and the executive branch is not granted unfettered surveillance powers. But the Bush administration says its latest request is narrowly drawn and urgently needed to stymie terrorist threats.
"The proposal would make clear that court orders are not necessary to effectively collect foreign intelligence about foreign targets overseas," the national intelligence director, Mike McConnell, wrote congressional leaders Friday. He urged action before Congress departs on a monthlong summer vacation in early August.
Last week, four Democrats on Leahy's committee asked Solicitor General Paul Clement for the special probe of Gonzales. The request came after FBI Director Robert S. Mueller appeared to contradict Gonzales' statements to Congress about internal administration dissent over the president's secretive wiretapping program.
Gonzales told that committee the program was not at issue when then-White House counsel Gonzales made a dramatic visit to Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital room in 2004. Mueller, before the House Judiciary Committee, said it was.
The apparent contradiction only compounded problems for Gonzales, who is losing support among members of both parties even as he retains Bush's. The nation's top law enforcement official has faced growing questions about his credibility and apparent misstatements since Congress began investigating the firings of federal prosecutors seven months ago.
Read the story from the AP over at YahooNews.
More in GOP want Iraq military limits
WASHINGTON - Republicans increasingly are backing a new approach in the Iraq war that could become the party's mantra come September. It would mean narrowly limited missions for U.S. troops in Iraq but let President Bush decide when troops should leave. So far, the idea has not attracted the attention of Democratic leaders. They are under substantial pressure by anti-war groups to consider only legislation that orders troops from Iraq.
But the GOP approach quickly is becoming the attractive alternative for Republican lawmakers who want to challenge Bush on the unpopular war without backtracking from their past assertions that it would be disastrous to set deadlines for troop withdrawals.
"This is a necessary adjustment in the national debate to reintroduce bipartisanship, to stop the `gotcha' politics that are going on that seem to be driven by fringes on both sides and change the terms of the discussion," said Rep. Phil English, R-Pa.
English is among the more than 40 Republicans in the House and Senate who are sponsoring legislation intended to shift the mission of U.S. troops. Several other GOP lawmakers, facing tight elections next year and a strong anti-war sentiment in their districts, say they are considering this approach.
"Settling Sunni-Shiite rivalries over who occupies what street in Baghdad is not in the vital interest of the United States," said Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., who said she is considering her options. "And we should only have Americans in harms' way where there are U.S. interests at stake."
Read about it at YahooNews.
But the GOP approach quickly is becoming the attractive alternative for Republican lawmakers who want to challenge Bush on the unpopular war without backtracking from their past assertions that it would be disastrous to set deadlines for troop withdrawals.
"This is a necessary adjustment in the national debate to reintroduce bipartisanship, to stop the `gotcha' politics that are going on that seem to be driven by fringes on both sides and change the terms of the discussion," said Rep. Phil English, R-Pa.
English is among the more than 40 Republicans in the House and Senate who are sponsoring legislation intended to shift the mission of U.S. troops. Several other GOP lawmakers, facing tight elections next year and a strong anti-war sentiment in their districts, say they are considering this approach.
"Settling Sunni-Shiite rivalries over who occupies what street in Baghdad is not in the vital interest of the United States," said Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., who said she is considering her options. "And we should only have Americans in harms' way where there are U.S. interests at stake."
Read about it at YahooNews.
Mich: K-12 schools feel squeezed by state budget uncertainty
More bad news for the horrible economy in Michigan. Here is a plan: reduce spending in unnecessary areas such as pet projects, raise the gasoline tax 2 to 3 cents a gallon for the next 5 years and raise the cigarette tax at least 50 cents; nothing less than that. I would also add an additional tax on alcohol. You can choose to agree with me or not. Nobody likes raising taxes, but we cannot allow the education of our children to suffer. Our children are the future of our great state and if we allow them to suffer so we can keep a few extra bucks in our pocketbooks; then there is seriously something wrong with all of us. It is going to take time for Michigan to rebound from the horrible economic situation that we are currently in. Even if Dick DeVos was elected Governor, he would be dealing with the same difficulties as Gov. Granholm. Democrats and Republicans: Let me repeat...we would be in the same boat with either person in charge of our state. Don't fool yourself.
On with the story.
_____________________________
LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- Continuing financial difficulty at many of Michigan's public schools are magnified this summer because of uncertainty about the state government budget for next fiscal year.
Some Michigan school districts are laying off teachers or not hiring replacements for those who retire.
More Michigan districts are turning to private fundraisers and fees to help pay for sports programs, marching bands and field trips.
And more districts are searching for ways to share services and possibly save money on busing, custodial services and other support programs.
The state's K-12 schools were forced to set their budgets for the upcoming school year without knowing how much money they'll get from the state in the fiscal year that begins in October.
The estimates vary greatly: from losing 50 per pupil to getting an additional $150 per pupil, but that's largely just guesswork based on a wide variety of budget scenarios.
"This is the toughest start to a year I can think of in the last 20 years," said Richard Syrek, the former Swan Valley School District superintendent who recently became the CEO of the Saginaw Intermediate School District. "We just don't know anything about how much money we're going to receive."
Some K-12 districts are making cuts, at least partially because of the budget uncertainty. But some of the reduced spending and conservative planning comes because of falling enrollment or a continuation of the financial pressure that has built in districts over the past few years of tight state funding.
There are so many out-of-work Michigan teachers that a few states, including Arizona and South Carolina, have recruited here to fill their own vacancies. The city of Saginaw's school district could cut more than 100 jobs entering next school year. Northville has doubled participation fees for sports and could lay off 10 teachers.
Read the story in the DetroitNews.
On with the story.
_____________________________
LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- Continuing financial difficulty at many of Michigan's public schools are magnified this summer because of uncertainty about the state government budget for next fiscal year.
Some Michigan school districts are laying off teachers or not hiring replacements for those who retire.
More Michigan districts are turning to private fundraisers and fees to help pay for sports programs, marching bands and field trips.
And more districts are searching for ways to share services and possibly save money on busing, custodial services and other support programs.
The state's K-12 schools were forced to set their budgets for the upcoming school year without knowing how much money they'll get from the state in the fiscal year that begins in October.
The estimates vary greatly: from losing 50 per pupil to getting an additional $150 per pupil, but that's largely just guesswork based on a wide variety of budget scenarios.
"This is the toughest start to a year I can think of in the last 20 years," said Richard Syrek, the former Swan Valley School District superintendent who recently became the CEO of the Saginaw Intermediate School District. "We just don't know anything about how much money we're going to receive."
Some K-12 districts are making cuts, at least partially because of the budget uncertainty. But some of the reduced spending and conservative planning comes because of falling enrollment or a continuation of the financial pressure that has built in districts over the past few years of tight state funding.
There are so many out-of-work Michigan teachers that a few states, including Arizona and South Carolina, have recruited here to fill their own vacancies. The city of Saginaw's school district could cut more than 100 jobs entering next school year. Northville has doubled participation fees for sports and could lay off 10 teachers.
Read the story in the DetroitNews.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Clinton: Create Public Service Academy
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton told college Democrats on Saturday she would create a national academy to train public servants.
"I'm going to be asking a new generation to serve," she said. "I think just like our military academies, we need to give a totally all-paid education to young men and women who will serve their country in a public service position."
An older woman carrying a sign that said "She doesn't care, all she wants is the power" yelled at Clinton while the New York senator was speaking in a ballroom on the University of South Carolina campus. Students attending the College Democrats of America convention shouted down the woman down and pushed her from the room.
"One of the things I love about politics, you never know what the day will bring," Clinton said.
Clinton was an intern with the Children's Defense Fund, which advocates for minority, poor and disabled children.
"I loved her personal stories. ... It wasn't her generic speech," said Katelyn Porter, president of the College Democrats chapter at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island.
Porter, who is from Boston and works for a nonprofit organization that helps low-income families, said she has not decided which Democratic candidate she will support. "But Hillary is definitely at the top of the list," she said.
Read the article in the APNews.
Poison plant could help to cure the planet
The jatropha bush seems an unlikely prize in the hunt for alternative energy, being an ugly, fast-growing and poisonous weed. Hitherto, its use to humanity has principally been as a remedy for constipation. Very soon, however, it may be powering your car.
Almost overnight, the unloved Jatropha curcushas become an agricultural and economic celebrity, with the discovery that it may be the ideal biofuel crop, an alternative to fossil fuels for a world dangerously dependent on oil supplies and deeply alarmed by the effects of global warming.
The hardy jatropha, resilient to pests and resistant to drought, produces seeds with up to 40 per cent oil content. When the seeds are crushed, the resulting jatropha oil can be burnt in a standard diesel car, while the residue can also be processed into biomass to power electricity plants.
As the search for alternative energy sources gathers pace and urgency, the jatropha has provoked something like a gold rush. Last week BP announced that it was investing almost £32 million in a jatropha joint venture with the British biofuels company D1 Oils.
Even Bob Geldof has stamped his cachet on jatropha, by becoming a special adviser to Helius Energy, a British company developing the use of jatropha as an alternative to fossil fuels. Lex Worrall, its chief executive, says: “Every hectare can produce 2.7 tonnes of oil and about 4 tonnes of biomass. Every 8,000 hectares of the plant can run a 1.5 megawatt station, enough to power 2,500 homes.”
Jatropha grows in tropical and subtropical climates. Whereas other feed-stocks for biofuel, such as palm oil, rape seed oil or corn for ethanol, require reasonable soils on which other crops might be grown, jatropha is a tough survivor prepared to put down roots almost anywhere.
Almost overnight, the unloved Jatropha curcushas become an agricultural and economic celebrity, with the discovery that it may be the ideal biofuel crop, an alternative to fossil fuels for a world dangerously dependent on oil supplies and deeply alarmed by the effects of global warming.
The hardy jatropha, resilient to pests and resistant to drought, produces seeds with up to 40 per cent oil content. When the seeds are crushed, the resulting jatropha oil can be burnt in a standard diesel car, while the residue can also be processed into biomass to power electricity plants.
As the search for alternative energy sources gathers pace and urgency, the jatropha has provoked something like a gold rush. Last week BP announced that it was investing almost £32 million in a jatropha joint venture with the British biofuels company D1 Oils.
Even Bob Geldof has stamped his cachet on jatropha, by becoming a special adviser to Helius Energy, a British company developing the use of jatropha as an alternative to fossil fuels. Lex Worrall, its chief executive, says: “Every hectare can produce 2.7 tonnes of oil and about 4 tonnes of biomass. Every 8,000 hectares of the plant can run a 1.5 megawatt station, enough to power 2,500 homes.”
Jatropha grows in tropical and subtropical climates. Whereas other feed-stocks for biofuel, such as palm oil, rape seed oil or corn for ethanol, require reasonable soils on which other crops might be grown, jatropha is a tough survivor prepared to put down roots almost anywhere.
Read about it at the TimesOnline.
In the ’60s, a Future Candidate Poured Her Heart Out in Letters
“Can you be a misanthrope and still love or enjoy some individuals?” Ms. Rodham wrote in an April 1967 letter. “How about a compassionate misanthrope?”
Innocent letters between two friends. Shows a nice insight into Mrs. Clinton (in a good way).
_________________________________
WASHINGTON, July 28 — They were high school friends from Park Ridge, Ill., both high achievers headed East to college. John Peavoy was a bookish film buff bound for Princeton, Hillary Rodham a driven, civic-minded Republican going off to Wellesley. They were not especially close, but they found each other smart and “interesting” and said they would try to keep in touch.
Which they did, prodigiously, exchanging dozens of letters between the late summer of 1965 and the spring of 1969. Ms. Rodham’s 30 dispatches are by turns angst-ridden and prosaic, glib and brooding, anguished and ebullient — a rare unfiltered look into the head and heart of a future first lady and would-be president. Their private expressiveness stands in sharp contrast to the ever-disciplined political persona she presents to the public now.
“Since Xmas vacation, I’ve gone through three and a half metamorphoses and am beginning to feel as though there is a smorgasbord of personalities spread before me,” Ms. Rodham wrote to Mr. Peavoy in April 1967. “So far, I’ve used alienated academic, involved pseudo-hippie, educational and social reformer and one-half of withdrawn simplicity.”
Befitting college students of any era, the letters are also self-absorbed and revelatory, missives from an unformed and vulnerable striver who had, in her own words, “not yet reconciled myself to the fate of not being the star.”
“Sunday was lethargic from the beginning as I wallowed in a morass of general and specific dislike and pity for most people but me especially,” Ms. Rodham reported in a letter postmarked Oct. 3, 1967.
In other letters, she would convey a mounting exasperation with her rigid conservative father and disdain for both “debutante” dormmates and an acid-dropping friend. She would issue a blanket condemnation of the “boys” she had met (“who know a lot about ‘self’ and nothing about ‘man’ ”) and also tell of an encounter she had with “a Dartmouth boy” the previous weekend.
“It always seems as though I write you when I’ve been thinking too much again,” Ms. Rodham wrote in one of her first notes to Mr. Peavoy, postmarked Nov. 15, 1965. She later joked that she planned to keep his letters and “make a million” when he became famous. “Don’t begrudge me my mercenary interest,” she wrote.
Of course, it was Hillary Rodham Clinton who became famous while Mr. Peavoy has lived out his life in contented obscurity as an English professor at Scripps College, a small woman’s school in Southern California where he has taught since 1977. Every bit the wild-haired academic, with big silver glasses tucked behind bushy gray sideburns, he lives with his wife, Frances McConnel, and their cat, Lulu, in a one-story house cluttered with movies, books and boxes — one of which contains a trove of letters from an old friend who has since become one of the most cautious and analyzed politicians in America.
When contacted about the letters, Mr. Peavoy allowed The New York Times to read and copy them.
The Clinton campaign declined to comment.
The letters were written during a period when the future Mrs. Clinton was undergoing a period of profound political transformation, from the “Goldwater girl” who shared her father’s conservative outlook to a liberal antiwar activist.
Check out the article at the NYTimes.
Innocent letters between two friends. Shows a nice insight into Mrs. Clinton (in a good way).
_________________________________
WASHINGTON, July 28 — They were high school friends from Park Ridge, Ill., both high achievers headed East to college. John Peavoy was a bookish film buff bound for Princeton, Hillary Rodham a driven, civic-minded Republican going off to Wellesley. They were not especially close, but they found each other smart and “interesting” and said they would try to keep in touch.
Which they did, prodigiously, exchanging dozens of letters between the late summer of 1965 and the spring of 1969. Ms. Rodham’s 30 dispatches are by turns angst-ridden and prosaic, glib and brooding, anguished and ebullient — a rare unfiltered look into the head and heart of a future first lady and would-be president. Their private expressiveness stands in sharp contrast to the ever-disciplined political persona she presents to the public now.
“Since Xmas vacation, I’ve gone through three and a half metamorphoses and am beginning to feel as though there is a smorgasbord of personalities spread before me,” Ms. Rodham wrote to Mr. Peavoy in April 1967. “So far, I’ve used alienated academic, involved pseudo-hippie, educational and social reformer and one-half of withdrawn simplicity.”
Befitting college students of any era, the letters are also self-absorbed and revelatory, missives from an unformed and vulnerable striver who had, in her own words, “not yet reconciled myself to the fate of not being the star.”
“Sunday was lethargic from the beginning as I wallowed in a morass of general and specific dislike and pity for most people but me especially,” Ms. Rodham reported in a letter postmarked Oct. 3, 1967.
In other letters, she would convey a mounting exasperation with her rigid conservative father and disdain for both “debutante” dormmates and an acid-dropping friend. She would issue a blanket condemnation of the “boys” she had met (“who know a lot about ‘self’ and nothing about ‘man’ ”) and also tell of an encounter she had with “a Dartmouth boy” the previous weekend.
“It always seems as though I write you when I’ve been thinking too much again,” Ms. Rodham wrote in one of her first notes to Mr. Peavoy, postmarked Nov. 15, 1965. She later joked that she planned to keep his letters and “make a million” when he became famous. “Don’t begrudge me my mercenary interest,” she wrote.
Of course, it was Hillary Rodham Clinton who became famous while Mr. Peavoy has lived out his life in contented obscurity as an English professor at Scripps College, a small woman’s school in Southern California where he has taught since 1977. Every bit the wild-haired academic, with big silver glasses tucked behind bushy gray sideburns, he lives with his wife, Frances McConnel, and their cat, Lulu, in a one-story house cluttered with movies, books and boxes — one of which contains a trove of letters from an old friend who has since become one of the most cautious and analyzed politicians in America.
When contacted about the letters, Mr. Peavoy allowed The New York Times to read and copy them.
The Clinton campaign declined to comment.
The letters were written during a period when the future Mrs. Clinton was undergoing a period of profound political transformation, from the “Goldwater girl” who shared her father’s conservative outlook to a liberal antiwar activist.
Check out the article at the NYTimes.
10 things you didn't know about Ron Paul
Compiled by the U.S. News & World Report library staff
1. Ronald Ernest Paul was born on Aug. 20, 1935, in Pittsburgh. His father was a dairy farmer.
2. Paul graduated with a bachelor's degree from Gettysburg College in 1957 and with a medical degree from the Duke University School of Medicine in 1961.
3. He served as a flight surgeon in the Air Force from 1963 to 1965 and in the Air National Guard until 1968. That year he moved to Texas to take over another doctor's medical practice.
4. Paul greatly admires Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), an Austrian economist who advocated laissez-faire, free market policies. A photo of the economist decorates his office wall. Paul became interested in politics in 1971 when President Nixon removed the country from the gold standard and set wage price controls– disappointing actions to Paul (and presumably von Mises).
5. Paul was elected to the House of Representatives in a special election in April 1976 to replace resigning Rep. Robert R. Casey. He was not re-elected later that year but did win his bid in 1978. He held office until early 1985, when he returned to his medical practice.
6. Paul ran for president in 1988 as a candidate for the Libertarian party. He received over 400,000 votes (or 0.47 percent), finishing third behind George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis.
7. Returning to the GOP, Paul won office again in 1996 to represent his Texas district in the House. He has been re-elected five times. He reportedly would like to be listed as both a Republican and a Libertarian, if Texas law allowed. And maybe also as a member of the Constitutional Party.
8. Paul received the nickname "Dr. No" in Congress for repeatedly casting "nay" votes, even on legislation with almost unanimous support from his Republican colleagues. Explaining why he opposes legislation that expands government power, funds federal spending, or reduces privacy: "I interpret through the eyes of the Constitution. If we don't have direct authorization, I don't vote for it, even if there are good intentions." In 2006, the Washington Post wrote: "He says, if his fellow Republicans are 'very desperate,' he may allow himself to be talked into changing a 'no' vote to 'present.' "
9. During his medical career specializing in obstetrics/gynecology, he delivered more than 4,000 babies. He refused to accept payment by Medicare or Medicaid, preferring to not charge patients or to work out a cash payment.
10. Paul is married to Carol Wells. They have five children and 17 grandchildren. He supported his children during their undergraduate and medical school years–not letting them accept federal student loans. It is also said he plans to refuse his congressional pension.
Check out the article at USNews.
1. Ronald Ernest Paul was born on Aug. 20, 1935, in Pittsburgh. His father was a dairy farmer.
2. Paul graduated with a bachelor's degree from Gettysburg College in 1957 and with a medical degree from the Duke University School of Medicine in 1961.
3. He served as a flight surgeon in the Air Force from 1963 to 1965 and in the Air National Guard until 1968. That year he moved to Texas to take over another doctor's medical practice.
4. Paul greatly admires Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), an Austrian economist who advocated laissez-faire, free market policies. A photo of the economist decorates his office wall. Paul became interested in politics in 1971 when President Nixon removed the country from the gold standard and set wage price controls– disappointing actions to Paul (and presumably von Mises).
5. Paul was elected to the House of Representatives in a special election in April 1976 to replace resigning Rep. Robert R. Casey. He was not re-elected later that year but did win his bid in 1978. He held office until early 1985, when he returned to his medical practice.
6. Paul ran for president in 1988 as a candidate for the Libertarian party. He received over 400,000 votes (or 0.47 percent), finishing third behind George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis.
7. Returning to the GOP, Paul won office again in 1996 to represent his Texas district in the House. He has been re-elected five times. He reportedly would like to be listed as both a Republican and a Libertarian, if Texas law allowed. And maybe also as a member of the Constitutional Party.
8. Paul received the nickname "Dr. No" in Congress for repeatedly casting "nay" votes, even on legislation with almost unanimous support from his Republican colleagues. Explaining why he opposes legislation that expands government power, funds federal spending, or reduces privacy: "I interpret through the eyes of the Constitution. If we don't have direct authorization, I don't vote for it, even if there are good intentions." In 2006, the Washington Post wrote: "He says, if his fellow Republicans are 'very desperate,' he may allow himself to be talked into changing a 'no' vote to 'present.' "
9. During his medical career specializing in obstetrics/gynecology, he delivered more than 4,000 babies. He refused to accept payment by Medicare or Medicaid, preferring to not charge patients or to work out a cash payment.
10. Paul is married to Carol Wells. They have five children and 17 grandchildren. He supported his children during their undergraduate and medical school years–not letting them accept federal student loans. It is also said he plans to refuse his congressional pension.
Check out the article at USNews.
Sentences vary for adults who leave kids to die in hot cars
My thoughts? Lock these people in a hot car for hours so they know exaclty what their kids went through...
MANASSAS, Va. (AP) -- Kevin Kelly is a law-abiding citizen who, much distracted, left his beloved 21-month-old daughter in a sweltering van for seven hours.
Frances Kelly had probably been dead for more than four hours by the time a neighbor noticed her strapped in her car seat; when rescue personnel removed the girl from the vehicle, her skin was red and blistered, her fine, carrot-colored hair matted with sweat. Two hours later, her body temperature was still nearly 106 degrees.
What is the appropriate punishment for a doting parent responsible for his child's death? A judge eventually spared Kelly a lengthy term in prison. Still, it is a question that is asked dozens of times each year.
Since the mid-1990s, the number of children who died of heat exhaustion while trapped inside vehicles has risen dramatically, totaling around 340 in the past 10 years. Ironically, one reason was a change parent-drivers made to protect their kids after juvenile air-bag deaths peaked in 1995 - they put them in the back seat, where they are more easily forgotten.
An Associated Press analysis of more than 310 fatal incidents in the past 10 years found that prosecutions and penalties vary widely, depending in many cases on where the death occurred and who left the child to die - parent or caregiver, mother or father:
-Mothers are treated much more harshly than fathers. While mothers and fathers are charged and convicted at about the same rates, moms are 26 percent more likely to do time. And their median sentence is two years longer than the terms received by dads.
-Day care workers and other paid baby sitters are more likely than parents to be charged and convicted. But they are jailed less frequently than parents, and for less than half the time.
-Charges are filed in half of all cases - even when a child was left unintentionally.
In all, the AP analyzed 339 fatalities involving more than 350 responsible parties. July is by far the deadliest month, accounting for nearly a quarter of the total.
A relatively small number of cases - about 7 percent - involved drugs or alcohol. In a few instances, the responsible parties had a history of abusing or neglecting children. Still others were single parents unable to find or afford day care.
Many cases involved what might be called community pillars: dentists and nurses; ministers and college professors; a concert violinist; a member of a county social services board; a NASA engineer. And it is undisputed that none - or almost none - intended to harm these children.
"When you look at overall who this is happening to, it's some very, very, very good parents - might I say, doting parents," says Janette Fennell, founder and president of Kids and Cars, a nonprofit group that tracks child deaths and injuries in and around automobiles.
"But no one thinks it's going to happen to them. I think people are lying if they say that there wasn't one situation in raising their child that, `There but for the grace of God go I.'"
The AP's analysis was based largely on a database of fatal hyperthermia cases compiled by Fennell's organization. The AP contacted medical examiner's offices in several states where this most often occurs, and the group's numbers coincided almost exactly with recorded hyperthermia deaths.
Some of these children crawled into cars or trunks on their own, but most were left to die by a caregiver. Most often, it was a parent who simply forgot the child was inside.
Texas leads the nation with at least 41 deaths, followed by Florida with 37, California with 31, North Carolina and Arizona with 14 apiece, and Tennessee with 13. There were deaths recorded in 44 states - most in the Sun Belt, but many in places not known for hot weather.
The correlation between the rise in these deaths and the 1990s move to put children in the back seat is striking.
"Up to that time, the average number of children dying of hyperthermia in the United States was about 11 a year," says Jan Null, an adjunct professor of meteorology at San Francisco State University who has studied this trend. "Then we put them in the back, turned the car seats around. And from '98 to 2006, that number is 36 a year."
Read the rest of the article in TheDetroitNews.
MANASSAS, Va. (AP) -- Kevin Kelly is a law-abiding citizen who, much distracted, left his beloved 21-month-old daughter in a sweltering van for seven hours.
Frances Kelly had probably been dead for more than four hours by the time a neighbor noticed her strapped in her car seat; when rescue personnel removed the girl from the vehicle, her skin was red and blistered, her fine, carrot-colored hair matted with sweat. Two hours later, her body temperature was still nearly 106 degrees.
What is the appropriate punishment for a doting parent responsible for his child's death? A judge eventually spared Kelly a lengthy term in prison. Still, it is a question that is asked dozens of times each year.
Since the mid-1990s, the number of children who died of heat exhaustion while trapped inside vehicles has risen dramatically, totaling around 340 in the past 10 years. Ironically, one reason was a change parent-drivers made to protect their kids after juvenile air-bag deaths peaked in 1995 - they put them in the back seat, where they are more easily forgotten.
An Associated Press analysis of more than 310 fatal incidents in the past 10 years found that prosecutions and penalties vary widely, depending in many cases on where the death occurred and who left the child to die - parent or caregiver, mother or father:
-Mothers are treated much more harshly than fathers. While mothers and fathers are charged and convicted at about the same rates, moms are 26 percent more likely to do time. And their median sentence is two years longer than the terms received by dads.
-Day care workers and other paid baby sitters are more likely than parents to be charged and convicted. But they are jailed less frequently than parents, and for less than half the time.
-Charges are filed in half of all cases - even when a child was left unintentionally.
In all, the AP analyzed 339 fatalities involving more than 350 responsible parties. July is by far the deadliest month, accounting for nearly a quarter of the total.
A relatively small number of cases - about 7 percent - involved drugs or alcohol. In a few instances, the responsible parties had a history of abusing or neglecting children. Still others were single parents unable to find or afford day care.
Many cases involved what might be called community pillars: dentists and nurses; ministers and college professors; a concert violinist; a member of a county social services board; a NASA engineer. And it is undisputed that none - or almost none - intended to harm these children.
"When you look at overall who this is happening to, it's some very, very, very good parents - might I say, doting parents," says Janette Fennell, founder and president of Kids and Cars, a nonprofit group that tracks child deaths and injuries in and around automobiles.
"But no one thinks it's going to happen to them. I think people are lying if they say that there wasn't one situation in raising their child that, `There but for the grace of God go I.'"
The AP's analysis was based largely on a database of fatal hyperthermia cases compiled by Fennell's organization. The AP contacted medical examiner's offices in several states where this most often occurs, and the group's numbers coincided almost exactly with recorded hyperthermia deaths.
Some of these children crawled into cars or trunks on their own, but most were left to die by a caregiver. Most often, it was a parent who simply forgot the child was inside.
Texas leads the nation with at least 41 deaths, followed by Florida with 37, California with 31, North Carolina and Arizona with 14 apiece, and Tennessee with 13. There were deaths recorded in 44 states - most in the Sun Belt, but many in places not known for hot weather.
The correlation between the rise in these deaths and the 1990s move to put children in the back seat is striking.
"Up to that time, the average number of children dying of hyperthermia in the United States was about 11 a year," says Jan Null, an adjunct professor of meteorology at San Francisco State University who has studied this trend. "Then we put them in the back, turned the car seats around. And from '98 to 2006, that number is 36 a year."
Read the rest of the article in TheDetroitNews.
Fox News Reporter - I'm done defending Iraq policy
Believe it or not, this was on www.foxnews.com from Ed Koch.
I'm bailing out. I will no longer defend the policy of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq to assist the Iraqi central government in the ongoing civil war. While our men and women in the military suffer casualties daily, the Iraqi government refuses to take the major political actions required to end the civil war.
The U.S. government told the Iraqi leaders that it needed to achieve 18 goals. Our administration's recent report to the U.S. Congress on how close the Iraqis have come to achieving those goals states that eight have been achieved, no progress has been made on eight others, and two have had mixed results.
With regard to the most important goals, which include bringing the Sunni population into the government with the Shia by removing the bans against those (primarily Sunnis) who had served in the prior Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein, the grade was zero.
The Iraqi government similarly received a zero for failing to enact legislation that would equitably divide the oil income it receives among the three ethnic regions of Kurds, Sunni and Shia. Currently the Kurds and Shia share the oil revenues and have no problem doing so because the oil fields are located in the areas they control. The Sunni areas have very few oil fields.
For well over a year, I have urged the administration to issue an ultimatum to our Muslim allies of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan and Kuwait, all Sunni nations and our NATO allies in Europe. Unless they joined us with boots on the ground and contributed to the ongoing cost of the war against Al Qaeda and the insurgency in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we would leave.
The cost to date for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is computed at about $400 billion and currently at $12 billion a month in Iraq. The Bush administration declined to do that, opting instead for what they call the surge, increasing our military forces to 160,000 by bringing in an additional 30,000 American troops. The Iraqis were asked to improve the battle readiness of their troops as well.
In September, our new commanding general on the ground, David Petraeus -- hopefully President Bush's General Grant who won the American Civil War -- will report on whether the surge is working. But already the administration suggests that September may not give us enough time to determine success or failure.
In any event, General Petraeus has stated that political changes by the Iraqi government are necessary and that military progress by itself is not enough. The media recently reported that American soldiers on the ground fear they are being betrayed by and fired upon by both the Iraqi army engaged on the ground as their allies and by members of the Iraqi police force who often act as illegal militia, killing Iraqi civilians in the ongoing civil war between Shia and Sunni Muslims.
The American people no longer support our presence in Iraq. They made that clear in the 2006 congressional election when the majority in both Houses of Congress shifted to the Democrats. My own position has been that we were better off fighting Islamic terrorism in Iraq than abandoning and having that battle shift to American soil which I am certain will happen when we depart Iraq. But my support for remaining in Iraq was conditioned on our allies joining us in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sadly, very few have done so. Instead, many of those same allies criticize us for staying in Iraq.
Read the rest of the article at FoxNews.
I'm bailing out. I will no longer defend the policy of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq to assist the Iraqi central government in the ongoing civil war. While our men and women in the military suffer casualties daily, the Iraqi government refuses to take the major political actions required to end the civil war.
The U.S. government told the Iraqi leaders that it needed to achieve 18 goals. Our administration's recent report to the U.S. Congress on how close the Iraqis have come to achieving those goals states that eight have been achieved, no progress has been made on eight others, and two have had mixed results.
With regard to the most important goals, which include bringing the Sunni population into the government with the Shia by removing the bans against those (primarily Sunnis) who had served in the prior Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein, the grade was zero.
The Iraqi government similarly received a zero for failing to enact legislation that would equitably divide the oil income it receives among the three ethnic regions of Kurds, Sunni and Shia. Currently the Kurds and Shia share the oil revenues and have no problem doing so because the oil fields are located in the areas they control. The Sunni areas have very few oil fields.
For well over a year, I have urged the administration to issue an ultimatum to our Muslim allies of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan and Kuwait, all Sunni nations and our NATO allies in Europe. Unless they joined us with boots on the ground and contributed to the ongoing cost of the war against Al Qaeda and the insurgency in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we would leave.
The cost to date for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is computed at about $400 billion and currently at $12 billion a month in Iraq. The Bush administration declined to do that, opting instead for what they call the surge, increasing our military forces to 160,000 by bringing in an additional 30,000 American troops. The Iraqis were asked to improve the battle readiness of their troops as well.
In September, our new commanding general on the ground, David Petraeus -- hopefully President Bush's General Grant who won the American Civil War -- will report on whether the surge is working. But already the administration suggests that September may not give us enough time to determine success or failure.
In any event, General Petraeus has stated that political changes by the Iraqi government are necessary and that military progress by itself is not enough. The media recently reported that American soldiers on the ground fear they are being betrayed by and fired upon by both the Iraqi army engaged on the ground as their allies and by members of the Iraqi police force who often act as illegal militia, killing Iraqi civilians in the ongoing civil war between Shia and Sunni Muslims.
The American people no longer support our presence in Iraq. They made that clear in the 2006 congressional election when the majority in both Houses of Congress shifted to the Democrats. My own position has been that we were better off fighting Islamic terrorism in Iraq than abandoning and having that battle shift to American soil which I am certain will happen when we depart Iraq. But my support for remaining in Iraq was conditioned on our allies joining us in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sadly, very few have done so. Instead, many of those same allies criticize us for staying in Iraq.
Read the rest of the article at FoxNews.
Democrats Push Parcel of Bills That Could Split Republicans
Before the article begins, Republicans are complaining that the bills are reviving big goverment program.
*cough*
If I remember correctly, the U.S. government expanded GREATLY during the time the Republicans controled Congress. Way to go, Republicans. The new party of spending beyond belief. You can agree with me or not.
________________________________
With a final deal yesterday on major homeland security legislation, Democratic leaders in Congress believe they can begin to lift Congress's rock-bottom approval ratings while driving an ideological wedge through the Republican Party on domestic issues.
House and Senate negotiators reached accord yesterday on legislation to implement most of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that studied the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The deal could be enacted as early as this week. Agreement on a package of lobbying and ethics rules changes should be done by early next week. And congressional leaders hope to pass a significant expansion of the 10-year-old program to provide health insurance for children of the working poor.
Democratic leaders hope the flurry of late accomplishments over the next 10 days will put to rest Republican charges that the new Democratic majority has presided over a "post office" Congress, which has raised the minimum wage and done little else but rename federal buildings.
"We're sitting on the doorstep of a definitional moment," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. He said legislation on health care, the minimum wage, homeland security and congressional ethics would respond to virtually all the pressure points of an anxious public.
Republican leaders plan to stand in the way, arguing that Democrats are reviving big government programs that will intrude into the free market and taxpayers' wallets. They argue that a homeland security mandate that all maritime cargo be screened within five years will chill international trade. And the children's health insurance expansion amounts to "a giant tax increase in an effort to expand government-run health care," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).
But against such philosophical stands, there is a stark political problem: How many Republicans are really going to oppose legislation expanding insurance coverage for children, tightening ethics rules and bolstering homeland security?
Read the article in the WashingtonPost.
*cough*
If I remember correctly, the U.S. government expanded GREATLY during the time the Republicans controled Congress. Way to go, Republicans. The new party of spending beyond belief. You can agree with me or not.
________________________________
With a final deal yesterday on major homeland security legislation, Democratic leaders in Congress believe they can begin to lift Congress's rock-bottom approval ratings while driving an ideological wedge through the Republican Party on domestic issues.
House and Senate negotiators reached accord yesterday on legislation to implement most of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that studied the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The deal could be enacted as early as this week. Agreement on a package of lobbying and ethics rules changes should be done by early next week. And congressional leaders hope to pass a significant expansion of the 10-year-old program to provide health insurance for children of the working poor.
Democratic leaders hope the flurry of late accomplishments over the next 10 days will put to rest Republican charges that the new Democratic majority has presided over a "post office" Congress, which has raised the minimum wage and done little else but rename federal buildings.
"We're sitting on the doorstep of a definitional moment," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. He said legislation on health care, the minimum wage, homeland security and congressional ethics would respond to virtually all the pressure points of an anxious public.
Republican leaders plan to stand in the way, arguing that Democrats are reviving big government programs that will intrude into the free market and taxpayers' wallets. They argue that a homeland security mandate that all maritime cargo be screened within five years will chill international trade. And the children's health insurance expansion amounts to "a giant tax increase in an effort to expand government-run health care," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).
But against such philosophical stands, there is a stark political problem: How many Republicans are really going to oppose legislation expanding insurance coverage for children, tightening ethics rules and bolstering homeland security?
Read the article in the WashingtonPost.
House Democrats offer child health plan
Democrats offer proposal for child health plan-
This populist conservative supports this proposal. We have too many children in our nation that are uninsured. The numbers that President Bush has regarding the uninsured children are way underestimated. How much does it cost? $3.50 per day per kid. How are they going to support the proposed increase in spending? Increase in the cigarette taxes. Is this bad. NO. Contact your Congressman to support this proposal.
WASHINGTON—House Democrats would rely less on tobacco taxes than the Senate would and more on cuts to Medicare insurers to pay for a proposed $50 billion expansion of a children's health insurance program.
The proposal, introduced late Tuesday, also would eliminate a 10 percent cut in the reimbursement rate for doctors who treat Medicare patients that is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1. Instead, the legislation would give doctors a 0.5 percent increase in their reimbursement rates each of the next two years when they treat Medicare patients.
Democrats would pay for the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, through a 45-cent increase in the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes and by lowering payments to many insurance plans participating in the Medicare Advantage program over the next four years.
The Senate bill would increase cigarette taxes by 61 cents a pack to pay for a smaller, $35 billion expansion, pushing overall spending over the next five years to $60 billion.
President Bush has indicated he would veto the Senate bill. The White House has recommended a $5 billion increase in the program.
"If he wants to veto health care for kids, historians will deal with that," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif.
The 10-year-old program subsidizes the cost of insuring children living in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance.
Read the article at MercuryNews.
This populist conservative supports this proposal. We have too many children in our nation that are uninsured. The numbers that President Bush has regarding the uninsured children are way underestimated. How much does it cost? $3.50 per day per kid. How are they going to support the proposed increase in spending? Increase in the cigarette taxes. Is this bad. NO. Contact your Congressman to support this proposal.
WASHINGTON—House Democrats would rely less on tobacco taxes than the Senate would and more on cuts to Medicare insurers to pay for a proposed $50 billion expansion of a children's health insurance program.
The proposal, introduced late Tuesday, also would eliminate a 10 percent cut in the reimbursement rate for doctors who treat Medicare patients that is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1. Instead, the legislation would give doctors a 0.5 percent increase in their reimbursement rates each of the next two years when they treat Medicare patients.
Democrats would pay for the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, through a 45-cent increase in the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes and by lowering payments to many insurance plans participating in the Medicare Advantage program over the next four years.
The Senate bill would increase cigarette taxes by 61 cents a pack to pay for a smaller, $35 billion expansion, pushing overall spending over the next five years to $60 billion.
President Bush has indicated he would veto the Senate bill. The White House has recommended a $5 billion increase in the program.
"If he wants to veto health care for kids, historians will deal with that," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif.
The 10-year-old program subsidizes the cost of insuring children living in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance.
Read the article at MercuryNews.
Removed Bravenet
Today I removed the Bravenet hit counter and poll. They were putting needless popup ads on my site; which is something I am trying to avoid. While Bravenet offers some great functionality and features, it is not worth popups.
Editor
Editor
Democrats to fight Bush judicial picks
New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.” “We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents. Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said. “There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,” said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer's comments show "a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution" by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees. "This is the kind of blind obstruction that people have come to expect from Sen. Schumer," Perino said. "He has an alarming habit of attacking people whose character and position make them unwilling or unable to respond. That is the sign of a bully. If the past is any indication, I would bet that we would see a Democratic senatorial fundraising appeal in the next few days."
Read the rest of the story at ThePolitico.
A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer's comments show "a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution" by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees. "This is the kind of blind obstruction that people have come to expect from Sen. Schumer," Perino said. "He has an alarming habit of attacking people whose character and position make them unwilling or unable to respond. That is the sign of a bully. If the past is any indication, I would bet that we would see a Democratic senatorial fundraising appeal in the next few days."
Read the rest of the story at ThePolitico.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
A Politico.com Cartoon
The Poltico.com had a great cartoon on their site today. Thought I would share!
If you haven't visited ThePolitico before, make sure you check out their site. The Politico has great political articles, blogs to read, political cartoons and some awesome videos as well.
If you haven't visited ThePolitico before, make sure you check out their site. The Politico has great political articles, blogs to read, political cartoons and some awesome videos as well.
McCain's Media Team Resigns
Is the end of the McCain presidential hopes nearly over?
WASHINGTON -- Sen. John McCain's well-known media team has resigned, an indication that his campaign shake-up is continuing to backfire and imperiling the Arizona Republican's presidential candidacy.
Political ad-makers Russ Schriefer and Stuart Stevens, veterans of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, on Monday emailed the new campaign manager -- lobbyist and longtime McCain adviser Rick Davis -- to say that they were quitting. The two men told friends they had considered leaving for days, as they hadn't been paid and the campaign's financial straits raised questions of when and how much they would be.
Their resignations came on a day in which The Wall Street Journal reported on Mr. Davis's business and lobbying activities. Current and former campaign McCain advisers say those activities -- which involved a business he started and another launched by an acquaintance of his -- amounted to profiteering at the campaign's expense and risked embarrassing the senator. (See related article.)
Since Mr. McCain accepted the resignations of former campaign manager Terry Nelson and chief strategist John Weaver two weeks ago, and put Mr. Davis in charge, more than a dozen senior staffers have left from the headquarters in northern Virginia as well as state offices in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- all states with early nominating contests. Several fundraisers have cut their ties to the campaign, which reported a debt at the end of the second quarter.
Now the loss of the Schriefer-Stuart media team is considered a new blow, Republicans strategists say. The McCain campaign had long planned to begin running ads this fall in early-contest states; those plans are at risk given Mr. McCain's debt, compounded now by the difficulty of getting donors to invest in a troubled campaign.
Read the article at TheWallStreetJournal.
WASHINGTON -- Sen. John McCain's well-known media team has resigned, an indication that his campaign shake-up is continuing to backfire and imperiling the Arizona Republican's presidential candidacy.
Political ad-makers Russ Schriefer and Stuart Stevens, veterans of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, on Monday emailed the new campaign manager -- lobbyist and longtime McCain adviser Rick Davis -- to say that they were quitting. The two men told friends they had considered leaving for days, as they hadn't been paid and the campaign's financial straits raised questions of when and how much they would be.
Their resignations came on a day in which The Wall Street Journal reported on Mr. Davis's business and lobbying activities. Current and former campaign McCain advisers say those activities -- which involved a business he started and another launched by an acquaintance of his -- amounted to profiteering at the campaign's expense and risked embarrassing the senator. (See related article.)
Since Mr. McCain accepted the resignations of former campaign manager Terry Nelson and chief strategist John Weaver two weeks ago, and put Mr. Davis in charge, more than a dozen senior staffers have left from the headquarters in northern Virginia as well as state offices in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- all states with early nominating contests. Several fundraisers have cut their ties to the campaign, which reported a debt at the end of the second quarter.
Now the loss of the Schriefer-Stuart media team is considered a new blow, Republicans strategists say. The McCain campaign had long planned to begin running ads this fall in early-contest states; those plans are at risk given Mr. McCain's debt, compounded now by the difficulty of getting donors to invest in a troubled campaign.
Read the article at TheWallStreetJournal.
Elizabeth Edwards gives up tangerines to help fight global warming
No tangerines for you?
The politics of global warming got very concrete, and oddly difficult, In a meeting with local environmentalists in the coastal town of McClellanville today, where Elizabeth Edwards raised in passing the importance of relying on locally-grown fruit.
"We've been moving back to 'buy local,'" Mrs. Edwards said, outlining a trade policy that "acknowledges the carbon footprint" of transporting fruit.
"I live in North Carolina. I'll probably never eat a tangerine again," she said, speaking of a time when the fruit is reaches the price that it "needs" to be.
Edwards had talked about "sacrifice," at the meeting, but Elizabeth's suggestion illustrated just how difficult it is to sell the specifics of sacrifice.
Asked about her comment immediately after the event, John Edwards avoided the question twice, then said he isn't sure.
"Would I add to the price of food?" he asked. "I'd have to think about that."
UPDATE: Just to be clear, he's not talking about a food tax. The basic point is that any plan that imposes new costs on carbon emissions is going to make anything that's transported long distances with fossil fuels cost more. It is, in a way, a moment of clarity in this debate.
You can debate about it over at The Politico.
The politics of global warming got very concrete, and oddly difficult, In a meeting with local environmentalists in the coastal town of McClellanville today, where Elizabeth Edwards raised in passing the importance of relying on locally-grown fruit.
"We've been moving back to 'buy local,'" Mrs. Edwards said, outlining a trade policy that "acknowledges the carbon footprint" of transporting fruit.
"I live in North Carolina. I'll probably never eat a tangerine again," she said, speaking of a time when the fruit is reaches the price that it "needs" to be.
Edwards had talked about "sacrifice," at the meeting, but Elizabeth's suggestion illustrated just how difficult it is to sell the specifics of sacrifice.
Asked about her comment immediately after the event, John Edwards avoided the question twice, then said he isn't sure.
"Would I add to the price of food?" he asked. "I'd have to think about that."
UPDATE: Just to be clear, he's not talking about a food tax. The basic point is that any plan that imposes new costs on carbon emissions is going to make anything that's transported long distances with fossil fuels cost more. It is, in a way, a moment of clarity in this debate.
You can debate about it over at The Politico.
Heated exchange in rare US-Iran talks
US charges that Iran was fueling sectarian strife in Iraq and terrorism in the Middle East led to tense and heated debate in rare talks Tuesday between the two arch enemies, US officials said.
"There were several heated exchanges in the course of the day," US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, who led the US side to the talks in Baghdad, told Washington-based reporters by telephone.
Tehran's envoy Hassan Kazemi Qomi headed the Iranian delegation in the talks that was also attended by a delegation of Iraqi officials led by Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari.
Crocker said arguments erupted when he accused Iran of providing direct support to extremist militias -- both training and actual weapons -- and that Washington had "the proof."
Qomi "took exception to that," Crocker said, adding that a "brief summary" of the evidence was provided by the United States at the talks.
"I said we are not here to prove something in a court of law. We are here to let them know we know what they are doing and it needs to stop," he said.
Tensions also spiked when the Iranians sought to "broaden the discussion," which was to be confined to Iraq.
"I noted that a broad discussion would certainly need to take up issues such as their support for terrorism throughout the region, including Hezbollah and Hamas to which again they took exception," Crocker said.
Crocker said he was not surprised by the tension at the talks.
"Frankly, I certainly walked into the room today expecting that discussions would be difficult. We've got a lot of problems with the Iranians and, you know, face to face we're not going to pull any punches," he explained.
Read the rest of the article at Breitbart.
"There were several heated exchanges in the course of the day," US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, who led the US side to the talks in Baghdad, told Washington-based reporters by telephone.
Tehran's envoy Hassan Kazemi Qomi headed the Iranian delegation in the talks that was also attended by a delegation of Iraqi officials led by Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari.
Crocker said arguments erupted when he accused Iran of providing direct support to extremist militias -- both training and actual weapons -- and that Washington had "the proof."
Qomi "took exception to that," Crocker said, adding that a "brief summary" of the evidence was provided by the United States at the talks.
"I said we are not here to prove something in a court of law. We are here to let them know we know what they are doing and it needs to stop," he said.
Tensions also spiked when the Iranians sought to "broaden the discussion," which was to be confined to Iraq.
"I noted that a broad discussion would certainly need to take up issues such as their support for terrorism throughout the region, including Hezbollah and Hamas to which again they took exception," Crocker said.
Crocker said he was not surprised by the tension at the talks.
"Frankly, I certainly walked into the room today expecting that discussions would be difficult. We've got a lot of problems with the Iranians and, you know, face to face we're not going to pull any punches," he explained.
Read the rest of the article at Breitbart.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Newt goes unplugged
Newt Gingrich recently went on a tirade, detailed in Examiner of St. Louis:
Former house speaker and potential GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich ripped conservatives and liberals alike Monday at a breakfast sponsored by the American Spectator.
Here's how Newt unloaded on half a dozen newsmakers:
REPUBLICANS:
Fred Thompson, potential presidential candidate "I'm excited to see whether Fred turns out to be as decisive a front-runner as John McCain...The guy who wasn't even in the race is now the exciting new name, having decided that he would leave television for the purpose of entering television."
Sen. John McCain, presidential candidate "The guy who had spent the most on consultants is on the verge, I think, of dropping out of the race, right after he collects his FEC [Federal Elections Commission] money."
Robert Novak, conservative columnist and author "Sometimes he's right and sometimes he's just venomous....He was once a good reporter, he's now just a personality."
Read the rest of the article here.
Former house speaker and potential GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich ripped conservatives and liberals alike Monday at a breakfast sponsored by the American Spectator.
Here's how Newt unloaded on half a dozen newsmakers:
REPUBLICANS:
Fred Thompson, potential presidential candidate "I'm excited to see whether Fred turns out to be as decisive a front-runner as John McCain...The guy who wasn't even in the race is now the exciting new name, having decided that he would leave television for the purpose of entering television."
Sen. John McCain, presidential candidate "The guy who had spent the most on consultants is on the verge, I think, of dropping out of the race, right after he collects his FEC [Federal Elections Commission] money."
Robert Novak, conservative columnist and author "Sometimes he's right and sometimes he's just venomous....He was once a good reporter, he's now just a personality."
Read the rest of the article here.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
India Names Its First Female President
NEW DELHI (AP) - India chose its first female president Saturday in an election hailed as a victory for women in a country where gender discrimination is deep-rooted and widespread.
Still, it's not clear how much 72-year-old Pratibha Patil - a lawyer, congresswoman and former governor of the northern state of Rajasthan - can or will do in the mostly ceremonial post to improve the lives of her countrywomen.
Patil won 65.82 percent of the votes cast by national lawmakers and state legislators, said P.D.T. Achary, the secretary general of Parliament. She had the support of the governing Congress party and its political allies, and had been expected to win.
"It is a special moment for us women, and men of course, in our country because for the first time we have a woman being elected president of India," said Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, who hand-picked Patil and was one of the first to congratulate her. While India has had several women in positions of power - most notably Gandhi and her mother-in-law Indira Gandhi, who was elected to the more powerful position of prime minister in 1966 - women still face rampant discrimination.
Read the story at APNews.
Still, it's not clear how much 72-year-old Pratibha Patil - a lawyer, congresswoman and former governor of the northern state of Rajasthan - can or will do in the mostly ceremonial post to improve the lives of her countrywomen.
Patil won 65.82 percent of the votes cast by national lawmakers and state legislators, said P.D.T. Achary, the secretary general of Parliament. She had the support of the governing Congress party and its political allies, and had been expected to win.
"It is a special moment for us women, and men of course, in our country because for the first time we have a woman being elected president of India," said Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, who hand-picked Patil and was one of the first to congratulate her. While India has had several women in positions of power - most notably Gandhi and her mother-in-law Indira Gandhi, who was elected to the more powerful position of prime minister in 1966 - women still face rampant discrimination.
Read the story at APNews.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
President Clinton ~ New blog!
President Clinton has started a blog detailing his trips through Africa. Is it really written by him? Who really knows, but it was worth checking out. It was also noted that he was the first president ever to travel to South Africa.
Here is the link to his blog.
Here is the link to his blog.
Chinese Economy grows 11.9% in 2Q
BEIJING -
China's sizzling economy grew faster in the second quarter despite authorities' efforts to apply the brakes, expanding by 11.9 percent over a year earlier, the government said Thursday. Officials said they would take new steps to cool the boom.
The figures put China on track for a fifth straight year of expansion above 10 percent and moved it closer to overtaking Germany as the world's third-biggest economy.
Consumer prices rose 4.4 percent in June, the fastest rate in more than two years, and the economy also is under pressure from a swollen trade imbalance and high energy consumption, the National Statistics Bureau said.
"The systemic and the structural problems that existed in economic performance are still outstanding," said Li Xiaochao, a statistics bureau spokesman, at a news conference.
The April-June growth exceeded analysts' forecasts and was a sharp increase over the 11.1 percent rate in the first quarter.
"Strong growth is unambiguously good news. The only dark cloud for this is pockets of overheating," said Tim Condon, chief Asia economist for Dutch bank ING (nyse: IND - news - people ). "The overheating does on the face of it appear to be spreading."
It was unclear how long it has been since China's economy grew so fast during a single quarter. Beijing began revising historic growth figures in 2005 and has yet to issue quarterly details. The last time annual growth exceeded 11.9 percent was 1994, when the economy expanded by 13.1 percent.
Communist leaders want to maintain fast growth to reduce poverty but are trying to cool some industries, where they worry that a boom driven by exports and investment could push up inflation or ignite a debt crisis if borrowers fail to repay loans. They have raised interest rates four times since April 2006 and imposed investment curbs on some industries.
"We will further enhance and improve macro control and put into practice various policies set by the central government," Li said. "And efforts will also be made to adjust the structure, change the pattern of economic growth and deepen reform which will lead to the realization of a sound and rapid growth of the national economy."
Li gave no indication whether Beijing was planning a new rate hike or what other measures were under consideration.
Read about it in Forbes.
China's sizzling economy grew faster in the second quarter despite authorities' efforts to apply the brakes, expanding by 11.9 percent over a year earlier, the government said Thursday. Officials said they would take new steps to cool the boom.
The figures put China on track for a fifth straight year of expansion above 10 percent and moved it closer to overtaking Germany as the world's third-biggest economy.
Consumer prices rose 4.4 percent in June, the fastest rate in more than two years, and the economy also is under pressure from a swollen trade imbalance and high energy consumption, the National Statistics Bureau said.
"The systemic and the structural problems that existed in economic performance are still outstanding," said Li Xiaochao, a statistics bureau spokesman, at a news conference.
The April-June growth exceeded analysts' forecasts and was a sharp increase over the 11.1 percent rate in the first quarter.
"Strong growth is unambiguously good news. The only dark cloud for this is pockets of overheating," said Tim Condon, chief Asia economist for Dutch bank ING (nyse: IND - news - people ). "The overheating does on the face of it appear to be spreading."
It was unclear how long it has been since China's economy grew so fast during a single quarter. Beijing began revising historic growth figures in 2005 and has yet to issue quarterly details. The last time annual growth exceeded 11.9 percent was 1994, when the economy expanded by 13.1 percent.
Communist leaders want to maintain fast growth to reduce poverty but are trying to cool some industries, where they worry that a boom driven by exports and investment could push up inflation or ignite a debt crisis if borrowers fail to repay loans. They have raised interest rates four times since April 2006 and imposed investment curbs on some industries.
"We will further enhance and improve macro control and put into practice various policies set by the central government," Li said. "And efforts will also be made to adjust the structure, change the pattern of economic growth and deepen reform which will lead to the realization of a sound and rapid growth of the national economy."
Li gave no indication whether Beijing was planning a new rate hike or what other measures were under consideration.
Read about it in Forbes.
Ron Paul emerges as GOP's unlikely rock-star candidate
LAS VEGAS -- The punk-band members, with spiked hair, tattooed arms and piercings, stood with a crowd of more than 300 and cheered at the rock star on stage, especially when he called for abolishing the Federal Reserve -- you know, the banking system that for nearly a century has helped stabilize the U.S. economy, give or take a Great Depression.
Presidential candidate Ron Paul didn't stop with the Fed. The devout and suddenly popular libertarian-running-as-a-Republican also wants to repeal the Patriot Act. (More cheering.) And the IRS and NAFTA-like trade deals. (Loud applause.) And bring home American troops, all of them, from Iraq and from every last spot on the globe. (Standing ovation.) And that national ID card, forget about it.
What the crowd heard was the testimony of a carved-in-granite libertarian who disdains the a la carte politics and deal-making of mainstream candidates, a physician whose political beliefs exist at that whiplash point on the political spectrum where the far right meets the far left.
Abolish the IRS, the Fed, the Patriot Act? Is that libertarian or a lefty anarchist?
The crowds he's drawing across the country are often an unusual mix of 20- and 30-something lefties and righties. Some are drawn to his beliefs. But many said that they admire him most for sticking to a clear set of principles, even if they disagree on some issues.
"He's consistent," said Jennifer Reilly, a 23-year-old student at the College of Southern Nevada who attended a recent rally here. "I actually believe everything he says."
Thus Paul has become the early surprise of the 2008 campaign.
Beyond the consistency, he is filling a void in a Republican field dominated by mainstream candidates who are reluctant to break ranks with President Bush. He's the only Republican who opposes the war in Iraq. ("We just marched in. We can just march out.")
Paul describes himself as a strict constitutionalist, but his views can be traced to the late Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP presidential nominee and father of the modern conservative movement.
As Paul puts it: "Freedom is popular."
"I agree with his message of freedom and limited government," said Jennifer Terhune, a 22-year-old dental-hygiene student in Reno. "People are dependent on the government for everything, and they need to start standing up for themselves. The country is getting so far away from that."
Paul raised $640,000 in the first quarter of the year, a paltry sum compared with his party's front-runners. But when the second quarter closed last month, Paul had $2.4 million cash on hand, besting Arizona Sen. John McCain.
Check out the article in the Detroit News.
Presidential candidate Ron Paul didn't stop with the Fed. The devout and suddenly popular libertarian-running-as-a-Republican also wants to repeal the Patriot Act. (More cheering.) And the IRS and NAFTA-like trade deals. (Loud applause.) And bring home American troops, all of them, from Iraq and from every last spot on the globe. (Standing ovation.) And that national ID card, forget about it.
What the crowd heard was the testimony of a carved-in-granite libertarian who disdains the a la carte politics and deal-making of mainstream candidates, a physician whose political beliefs exist at that whiplash point on the political spectrum where the far right meets the far left.
Abolish the IRS, the Fed, the Patriot Act? Is that libertarian or a lefty anarchist?
The crowds he's drawing across the country are often an unusual mix of 20- and 30-something lefties and righties. Some are drawn to his beliefs. But many said that they admire him most for sticking to a clear set of principles, even if they disagree on some issues.
"He's consistent," said Jennifer Reilly, a 23-year-old student at the College of Southern Nevada who attended a recent rally here. "I actually believe everything he says."
Thus Paul has become the early surprise of the 2008 campaign.
Beyond the consistency, he is filling a void in a Republican field dominated by mainstream candidates who are reluctant to break ranks with President Bush. He's the only Republican who opposes the war in Iraq. ("We just marched in. We can just march out.")
Paul describes himself as a strict constitutionalist, but his views can be traced to the late Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP presidential nominee and father of the modern conservative movement.
As Paul puts it: "Freedom is popular."
"I agree with his message of freedom and limited government," said Jennifer Terhune, a 22-year-old dental-hygiene student in Reno. "People are dependent on the government for everything, and they need to start standing up for themselves. The country is getting so far away from that."
Paul raised $640,000 in the first quarter of the year, a paltry sum compared with his party's front-runners. But when the second quarter closed last month, Paul had $2.4 million cash on hand, besting Arizona Sen. John McCain.
Check out the article in the Detroit News.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Look inside the war rooms on the war
Up all night. Ordered to slam Bush on TV.
Leaders are instructing Democratic lawmakers to blitz their states with anti-Bush messages as the Senate gears up for an all-night debate on Iraq withdrawal, according to an internal memo provided to The Politico by a Democratic official. “We need every Senator’s help throughout the next two days to amplify our message and highlight Republican obstructionism,” says the memo from the Senate Democratic Communications Center, part of the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.). “This is a caucus-wide effort and your help is needed.” A companion memo for Senate Republicans accuses Democrats of pulling a “stunt” – a word you can count on hearing as a mantra from the GOP. Watch to see if White House Press Secretary Tony Snow uses it. After the Senate session starts this morning, it is not scheduled to adjourn until Wednesday night. CNN is already showing the cots for the round-the clock debate. The Politico’s John Bresnahan and Daniel W. Reilly have the background here.
Read the story in The Politico.
Leaders are instructing Democratic lawmakers to blitz their states with anti-Bush messages as the Senate gears up for an all-night debate on Iraq withdrawal, according to an internal memo provided to The Politico by a Democratic official. “We need every Senator’s help throughout the next two days to amplify our message and highlight Republican obstructionism,” says the memo from the Senate Democratic Communications Center, part of the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.). “This is a caucus-wide effort and your help is needed.” A companion memo for Senate Republicans accuses Democrats of pulling a “stunt” – a word you can count on hearing as a mantra from the GOP. Watch to see if White House Press Secretary Tony Snow uses it. After the Senate session starts this morning, it is not scheduled to adjourn until Wednesday night. CNN is already showing the cots for the round-the clock debate. The Politico’s John Bresnahan and Daniel W. Reilly have the background here.
Read the story in The Politico.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Senate GOP resurgent on Iraq
The Republican establishment is rallying to the defense of President Bush and his controversial war strategy, with some GOP members of Congress cherry-picking intelligence about a resurgent Al Qaeda to buy at least two more months for Bush's Iraq strategy. Republican leaders on Tuesday pounced on a newly released National Intelligence Estimate to argue that the increasingly powerful and ominous Al Qaeda presence justifies current troop levels in Iraq at least until September. Democrats said the NIE proved nothing more than that the Iraq war has helped make Al Qaeda more dangerous. With Democrats pressing for a straight up-or-down vote on a plan to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by next spring, Republicans are increasingly playing the "Al Qaeda card" to delay, at least for two more months, any major Senate vote on changing war policy. This strategy was on full display Tuesday. Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the newly declassified National Intelligence Estimate showed that Al Qaeda is "present in Iraq," and the United States must "fight them in Iraq."
Read about it in The Politico.
Read about it in The Politico.
Kerry to Mitt: Who’s flip-flopping now?
Still stung by accusations of his own flip-flopping, U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday put the shoe on the other foot, accusing former Gov. Mitt Romney of being the real chameleon of presidential politics and jabbing him with the same painful taunts that helped sink Team Kerry in 2004.
“Let’s be very clear. I had not changed my positions and they played a game with that,” Kerry said of his Republican opponents in the 2004 race.
By contrast, he said, Romney is far more deserving of the flip-flopper label. “He’s changed on abortion, he’s changed on gay rights and he’s changed on marriage,” Kerry said. “He’s changed on guns and he’s changed on the war. That’s pretty significant. I think people are asking the question out there, ‘Who is he, really?’ ”
A Romney spokesman quickly returned fire yesterday, charging that Kerry is harboring the delusions of a fallen contender.
“This is a textbook case of Freudian projection,” Eric Fehrnstrom said. “John Kerry is projecting his own undesirable traits onto other people. It’s a mild form of personality disorder. Usually, it’s not a cause for concern unless it shows up in a U.S. senator.”
In 2004, President Bush and his strategists relentlessly attacked Kerry’s credibility, accusing him of switching his position on the Iraq war to score points with voters.
Now, with the 2008 race heating up, Romney is the one fending off that unflattering moniker. Democratic and Republican opponents continually accuse him of campaign-trail policy conversions, often sending reporters long lists of Romney’s inconsistencies.
For his part, Romney has admitted to changing his stance on abortion, but he said that was due to embryonic research and other technologies he believes are further undermining the value of human life.
Asked whether he thinks Romney will have more success in shaking the label than he did, Kerry said, “It’s up for (others) to answer. It’s not my race. It’s Republican primary process. I don’t know exactly how they all do their thing.”
Read about it in the Boston Herald.
“Let’s be very clear. I had not changed my positions and they played a game with that,” Kerry said of his Republican opponents in the 2004 race.
By contrast, he said, Romney is far more deserving of the flip-flopper label. “He’s changed on abortion, he’s changed on gay rights and he’s changed on marriage,” Kerry said. “He’s changed on guns and he’s changed on the war. That’s pretty significant. I think people are asking the question out there, ‘Who is he, really?’ ”
A Romney spokesman quickly returned fire yesterday, charging that Kerry is harboring the delusions of a fallen contender.
“This is a textbook case of Freudian projection,” Eric Fehrnstrom said. “John Kerry is projecting his own undesirable traits onto other people. It’s a mild form of personality disorder. Usually, it’s not a cause for concern unless it shows up in a U.S. senator.”
In 2004, President Bush and his strategists relentlessly attacked Kerry’s credibility, accusing him of switching his position on the Iraq war to score points with voters.
Now, with the 2008 race heating up, Romney is the one fending off that unflattering moniker. Democratic and Republican opponents continually accuse him of campaign-trail policy conversions, often sending reporters long lists of Romney’s inconsistencies.
For his part, Romney has admitted to changing his stance on abortion, but he said that was due to embryonic research and other technologies he believes are further undermining the value of human life.
Asked whether he thinks Romney will have more success in shaking the label than he did, Kerry said, “It’s up for (others) to answer. It’s not my race. It’s Republican primary process. I don’t know exactly how they all do their thing.”
Read about it in the Boston Herald.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Can Europe's recovery last?
Only if its governments take advantage of sunnier times to make deeper reforms
AS EVERY actor knows, it is easy to be typecast. The role assigned to Europe for the past decade has been that of sclerotic under-achiever: a slow-growing, work-shy and ageing continent that is destined to be left behind by the United States, China and India. Unnoticed by the audience, Europe, under new political leadership first in Germany and Italy and now in France and Britain, has changed the plot. Since the end of 2006 euro-area GDP has outpaced America's: in 2007, it should grow by 2.7%, ahead of both America and Japan. The euro is at new highs against the dollar and the yen. Unemployment has fallen to 7%, the lowest since the euro started life in 1999.
The transformation has been most remarkable in Germany, the biggest European economy, once tarred as “the sick man of Europe”. From 1995 to 2005 German GDP grew at an average of only 1.4% a year. But in the first quarter of 2007 it expanded more than twice as fast, despite a large rise in value-added tax. The 2004 reforms in labour markets and welfare made by the previous government under Gerhard Schröder are bearing fruit. On international definitions, unemployment is down to 6.4%, not much above the level in Britain. German business is doing spectacularly well: the country is again the world's biggest exporter, profits are at a record, competitiveness has improved sharply (see article).
Read the story at the Economist.
AS EVERY actor knows, it is easy to be typecast. The role assigned to Europe for the past decade has been that of sclerotic under-achiever: a slow-growing, work-shy and ageing continent that is destined to be left behind by the United States, China and India. Unnoticed by the audience, Europe, under new political leadership first in Germany and Italy and now in France and Britain, has changed the plot. Since the end of 2006 euro-area GDP has outpaced America's: in 2007, it should grow by 2.7%, ahead of both America and Japan. The euro is at new highs against the dollar and the yen. Unemployment has fallen to 7%, the lowest since the euro started life in 1999.
The transformation has been most remarkable in Germany, the biggest European economy, once tarred as “the sick man of Europe”. From 1995 to 2005 German GDP grew at an average of only 1.4% a year. But in the first quarter of 2007 it expanded more than twice as fast, despite a large rise in value-added tax. The 2004 reforms in labour markets and welfare made by the previous government under Gerhard Schröder are bearing fruit. On international definitions, unemployment is down to 6.4%, not much above the level in Britain. German business is doing spectacularly well: the country is again the world's biggest exporter, profits are at a record, competitiveness has improved sharply (see article).
Read the story at the Economist.
The Return of Authoritarian Great Powers
Summary: Liberal democracy, led by the United States, may have emerged triumphant from the great struggles of the twentieth century. But the post-Cold War rise of economically successful -- and nondemocratic -- China and Russia may represent a viable alternative path to modernity that leaves liberal democracy's ultimate victory and future dominance in doubt.
Azar Gat is Ezer Weizman Professor of National Security at Tel Aviv University and the author of War in Human Civilization.
THE END OF THE END OF HISTORY
Today's global liberal democratic order faces two challenges. The first is radical Islam -- and it is the lesser of the two challenges. Although the proponents of radical Islam find liberal democracy repugnant, and the movement is often described as the new fascist threat, the societies from which it arises are generally poor and stagnant. They represent no viable alternative to modernity and pose no significant military threat to the developed world. It is mainly the potential use of weapons of mass destruction -- particularly by nonstate actors -- that makes militant Islam a menace.
The second, and more significant, challenge emanates from the rise of nondemocratic great powers: the West's old Cold War rivals China and Russia, now operating under authoritarian capitalist, rather than communist, regimes. Authoritarian capitalist great powers played a leading role in the international system up until 1945. They have been absent since then. But today, they seem poised for a comeback.
Capitalism's ascendancy appears to be deeply entrenched, but the current predominance of democracy could be far less secure. Capitalism has expanded relentlessly since early modernity, its lower-priced goods and superior economic power eroding and transforming all other socioeconomic regimes, a process most memorably described by Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto. Contrary to Marx's expectations, capitalism had the same effect on communism, eventually "burying" it without the proverbial shot being fired. The triumph of the market, precipitating and reinforced by the industrial-technological revolution, led to the rise of the middle class, intensive urbanization, the spread of education, the emergence of mass society, and ever greater affluence. In the post-Cold War era (just as in the nineteenth century and the 1950s and 1960s), it is widely believed that liberal democracy naturally emerged from these developments, a view famously espoused by Francis Fukuyama. Today, more than half of the world's states have elected governments, and close to half have sufficiently entrenched liberal rights to be considered fully free.
But the reasons for the triumph of democracy, especially over its nondemocratic capitalist rivals of the two world wars, Germany and Japan, were more contingent than is usually assumed. Authoritarian capitalist states, today exemplified by China and Russia, may represent a viable alternative path to modernity, which in turn suggests that there is nothing inevitable about liberal democracy's ultimate victory -- or future dominance.
Read the rest of the article at ForeignAffairs.
Azar Gat is Ezer Weizman Professor of National Security at Tel Aviv University and the author of War in Human Civilization.
THE END OF THE END OF HISTORY
Today's global liberal democratic order faces two challenges. The first is radical Islam -- and it is the lesser of the two challenges. Although the proponents of radical Islam find liberal democracy repugnant, and the movement is often described as the new fascist threat, the societies from which it arises are generally poor and stagnant. They represent no viable alternative to modernity and pose no significant military threat to the developed world. It is mainly the potential use of weapons of mass destruction -- particularly by nonstate actors -- that makes militant Islam a menace.
The second, and more significant, challenge emanates from the rise of nondemocratic great powers: the West's old Cold War rivals China and Russia, now operating under authoritarian capitalist, rather than communist, regimes. Authoritarian capitalist great powers played a leading role in the international system up until 1945. They have been absent since then. But today, they seem poised for a comeback.
Capitalism's ascendancy appears to be deeply entrenched, but the current predominance of democracy could be far less secure. Capitalism has expanded relentlessly since early modernity, its lower-priced goods and superior economic power eroding and transforming all other socioeconomic regimes, a process most memorably described by Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto. Contrary to Marx's expectations, capitalism had the same effect on communism, eventually "burying" it without the proverbial shot being fired. The triumph of the market, precipitating and reinforced by the industrial-technological revolution, led to the rise of the middle class, intensive urbanization, the spread of education, the emergence of mass society, and ever greater affluence. In the post-Cold War era (just as in the nineteenth century and the 1950s and 1960s), it is widely believed that liberal democracy naturally emerged from these developments, a view famously espoused by Francis Fukuyama. Today, more than half of the world's states have elected governments, and close to half have sufficiently entrenched liberal rights to be considered fully free.
But the reasons for the triumph of democracy, especially over its nondemocratic capitalist rivals of the two world wars, Germany and Japan, were more contingent than is usually assumed. Authoritarian capitalist states, today exemplified by China and Russia, may represent a viable alternative path to modernity, which in turn suggests that there is nothing inevitable about liberal democracy's ultimate victory -- or future dominance.
Read the rest of the article at ForeignAffairs.
Inside the McCain Campaign Meltdown
July 23, 2007 issue - Eight years ago, he was the Karl Rove of the McCain campaign: a gifted strategist from Texas who could turn a relatively unknown politician into a serious presidential candidate. John Weaver was McCain's alter ego in 2000, and after their defeat he plotted their 2008 comeback.
That was until last Tuesday morning, when his cell phone rang. Recovering from the flu, Weaver ignored the phone, thinking it was his alarm. Later he picked up the call to hear his old friend Mark Salter, McCain's chief of staff and the coauthor of the senator's best-selling autobiographies. Salter told Weaver they had lost control of the campaign: McCain had sided with their internal rival, Rick Davis. "John wants you to stay," Salter said. "I can't and won't," Weaver replied, according to an insider who didn't want to be named talking about private conversations.
In theory, the dispute was over the campaign manager: Terry Nelson, a big player in George W. Bush's 2004 campaign, who quit last week. In reality, the fight was over who had the candidate's ear. By sticking with Davis, McCain lost Weaver and Salter—and two top hands in Iowa who quit in solidarity. Salter is now in Maine, writing the occasional speech (unpaid) for his old boss. Weaver, who moved from New York to D.C. three weeks ago, never heard from McCain. He went to campaign HQ, told the senior staff, packed up and walked out.
A lobbyist turned strategist, Davis joined the 2000 race relatively late as campaign manager. But over the years he won the trust of McCain and his wife, Cindy. Now the campaign's CEO, he mapped out a game plan for a national organization, including a $100 million budget that never met its fund-raising goals. McCain raised $25 million in the first half of the year, and has spent almost all of that. His campaign has just $2 million in hand, and owes more than $1 million. "The responsibility is mine," McCain told New Hampshire Public Radio last week. "We didn't use the money in the most effective way."
Read the rest of the article at NewsWeek.
That was until last Tuesday morning, when his cell phone rang. Recovering from the flu, Weaver ignored the phone, thinking it was his alarm. Later he picked up the call to hear his old friend Mark Salter, McCain's chief of staff and the coauthor of the senator's best-selling autobiographies. Salter told Weaver they had lost control of the campaign: McCain had sided with their internal rival, Rick Davis. "John wants you to stay," Salter said. "I can't and won't," Weaver replied, according to an insider who didn't want to be named talking about private conversations.
In theory, the dispute was over the campaign manager: Terry Nelson, a big player in George W. Bush's 2004 campaign, who quit last week. In reality, the fight was over who had the candidate's ear. By sticking with Davis, McCain lost Weaver and Salter—and two top hands in Iowa who quit in solidarity. Salter is now in Maine, writing the occasional speech (unpaid) for his old boss. Weaver, who moved from New York to D.C. three weeks ago, never heard from McCain. He went to campaign HQ, told the senior staff, packed up and walked out.
A lobbyist turned strategist, Davis joined the 2000 race relatively late as campaign manager. But over the years he won the trust of McCain and his wife, Cindy. Now the campaign's CEO, he mapped out a game plan for a national organization, including a $100 million budget that never met its fund-raising goals. McCain raised $25 million in the first half of the year, and has spent almost all of that. His campaign has just $2 million in hand, and owes more than $1 million. "The responsibility is mine," McCain told New Hampshire Public Radio last week. "We didn't use the money in the most effective way."
Read the rest of the article at NewsWeek.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Shocker: A conservative doesn't like Sicko (this one DOES)
I saw Sicko, and thought it was a great movie. Was the movie biased? Sure it was, but it gave us a closer and better look at the flaws in our health care system. This populist conservative really enjoyed watching the movie, and it enflamed me that some insurance organizations decline coverage to people who are obviously sick.
I found a recent article by "Eicka Anderson" of Human Events.com. Yes, I completly agree that everybody has the right to their own opinion. If you think that Michael Moore is just creating the film to show how the US needs a socialized form of medicine, and wants to force some "left-wing" agenda on us, check out his website. He points out that Hillary Clinton became the second largest recipient in the Senate of health care industry contributions.
"As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership." Raymond Hernandez and Robert Pear, "Once an Enemy, Health Industry Warms to Clinton," New York Times, July 12, 2006.
Anyhow, you can also check out the aricle on HumanEvents.com, for a "conservative" view of the film, and Michaels recent CNN interview. Can a conservative agree with universal medicine? Sure they can. Millions of Canadians will agree.
I found a recent article by "Eicka Anderson" of Human Events.com. Yes, I completly agree that everybody has the right to their own opinion. If you think that Michael Moore is just creating the film to show how the US needs a socialized form of medicine, and wants to force some "left-wing" agenda on us, check out his website. He points out that Hillary Clinton became the second largest recipient in the Senate of health care industry contributions.
"As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership." Raymond Hernandez and Robert Pear, "Once an Enemy, Health Industry Warms to Clinton," New York Times, July 12, 2006.
Anyhow, you can also check out the aricle on HumanEvents.com, for a "conservative" view of the film, and Michaels recent CNN interview. Can a conservative agree with universal medicine? Sure they can. Millions of Canadians will agree.
Clinton/Edwards talk of limiting debates, exlude lower candidates
DETROIT (AP) - Democrats John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton consider themselves among the top presidential candidates.
They were caught by Fox News microphones discussing their desire to limit future joint appearances to exclude some lower rivals after a forum in Detroit Thursday.
Edwards says, "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group."
Clinton agrees, saying, "We've got to cut the number" and "they're not serious." She also says that she thought their campaigns had already tried to limit the debates and say, "We've gotta get back to it."
Others taking part in the forum sponsored by the NAACP were Senators Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel.
One Republican, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, also participated.
The article can be found at WLUC.
They were caught by Fox News microphones discussing their desire to limit future joint appearances to exclude some lower rivals after a forum in Detroit Thursday.
Edwards says, "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group."
Clinton agrees, saying, "We've got to cut the number" and "they're not serious." She also says that she thought their campaigns had already tried to limit the debates and say, "We've gotta get back to it."
Others taking part in the forum sponsored by the NAACP were Senators Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel.
One Republican, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, also participated.
The article can be found at WLUC.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
GOP Senators Call for Iraq Change Now
WASHINGTON (AP) - Several Republican senators told President Bush's top national security aide privately Wednesday that they did not want Bush to wait until September to change course in Iraq.
The meeting that lawmakers had with national security adviser Stephen Hadley came as GOP Sens. Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel announced they would back Democratic legislation ordering combat to end next spring.
Republican support for the war has steadily eroded in recent weeks as the White House prepared an interim progress report that found that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has made little progress in meeting major targets of reform.
Of the GOP lawmakers who say the U.S. should reduce its military role in Iraq, nearly all are up for re-election in 2008.
"I'm hopeful they (the White House) change their minds," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M.
Domenici and at least five other Republicans support a bill by Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., that would adopt as U.S. policy the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group Report.
The bipartisan panel, led by Republican James A. Baker III and Democrat Lee Hamilton, said the U.S. should hand off the combat mission to the Iraqis, bolster diplomatic efforts in the region and pave the way for a drawdown of troops by spring 2008.
Domenici, who is expected to face voters next year, said he and other co-sponsors told Hadley the president shouldn't wait until September to adopt the bipartisan policy.
"The only difference of opinion at the moment is, the president wants to deal with the Baker-Hamilton recommendations in September," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., one of the first GOP co-sponsors.
"I think he should do that today because it develops a long-term strategy for what happens in the surge," added Alexander, who also is up for re-election. "It would put him and Congress on the same path, which is what we definitely need."
Read the rest of the story on Breitbart.
The meeting that lawmakers had with national security adviser Stephen Hadley came as GOP Sens. Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel announced they would back Democratic legislation ordering combat to end next spring.
Republican support for the war has steadily eroded in recent weeks as the White House prepared an interim progress report that found that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has made little progress in meeting major targets of reform.
Of the GOP lawmakers who say the U.S. should reduce its military role in Iraq, nearly all are up for re-election in 2008.
"I'm hopeful they (the White House) change their minds," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M.
Domenici and at least five other Republicans support a bill by Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., that would adopt as U.S. policy the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group Report.
The bipartisan panel, led by Republican James A. Baker III and Democrat Lee Hamilton, said the U.S. should hand off the combat mission to the Iraqis, bolster diplomatic efforts in the region and pave the way for a drawdown of troops by spring 2008.
Domenici, who is expected to face voters next year, said he and other co-sponsors told Hadley the president shouldn't wait until September to adopt the bipartisan policy.
"The only difference of opinion at the moment is, the president wants to deal with the Baker-Hamilton recommendations in September," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., one of the first GOP co-sponsors.
"I think he should do that today because it develops a long-term strategy for what happens in the surge," added Alexander, who also is up for re-election. "It would put him and Congress on the same path, which is what we definitely need."
Read the rest of the story on Breitbart.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Ron Paul Exclusive Q&A with WorldNetDaily
WND: In your 1988 presidential bid you called for the dismantling of the Border Patrol. Is that a position you would still adhere to today, have there been changes or was it a mistake back then?
Ron Paul: No. I do not call for that, and I do not recall calling for that. I'd have to have somebody show me exactly where that was said. I have no recollection of that and it's certainly not my position, because I emphasize beefing up the Border Patrol.
WND: You've drawn distinctions between the Iraq involvement and in Afghanistan, yet your former aide, now running against you for the Texas congressional seat, claims it was like pulling teeth to get you to support the war in Afghanistan. Please set the record straight.
Ron Paul: That's totally untrue. It's not true. He's a disgruntled former employee who needs to be fired.
WND: You suggest the nation would be better if it were left to the Democrats to investigate 9/11. Do you believe the Bush administration has anything or something to hide with regard to the terrorist attacks?
Ron Paul: No. I don't think so much to hide about ulterior motives as much as, I think it's very natural for any government to resist investigations because they want to hide ineptness, you know, there's always mistakes. Bureaucracies are always inept. And I think that nobody wants to be investigated because it makes one look bad. Obviously if you have something as tragic as 9/11, somebody slipped up somewhere, and I think that's the main problem with these investigations. Even though I've given some token support to the idea that we ought to really look into it and find the real truth, frankly another government investigation is not likely to reveal a whole lot of difference because government is sort of protective of itself, sometimes even party to party they do that.
WND: In general terms, what role do you believe Israel plays in the Middle East? Is it generally a positive role, or generally a negative role?
Ron Paul: I don't know whether you should pick either one. I think they provide a balance of power there. I think unfortunately we get in their way, because they depend on us for money. They also depend on us for permission. We hinder Israel by not allowing them to do what is necessary for their own defense. If they thought they needed to take out somebody they have to get our permission. On the other side of that, I think they would play an even better role if we would allow them to negotiate with Syria and other countries, and there's been some strong hints that they would like to do that. In many ways I think that they have a balance of power there. Nobody's going to touch them. They don't really need us. They have 200-300 nuclear weapons and nobody's going to attack Israel. Israel would be even more secure if they didn't depend on us so much. because they wouldn't have to get our permission. There's no way – Iraq and Iran they don't even have – neither one has nuclear weapons. Iraq didn't and Iran doesn't, but even if they did, Israel's going to take care of it. So I think they play an important role in the balance of power there but I think it would even be more powerful if they weren't so dependant on us.
Read the rest of the article at WorldNetDaily.
WND: In your 1988 presidential bid you called for the dismantling of the Border Patrol. Is that a position you would still adhere to today, have there been changes or was it a mistake back then?
Ron Paul: No. I do not call for that, and I do not recall calling for that. I'd have to have somebody show me exactly where that was said. I have no recollection of that and it's certainly not my position, because I emphasize beefing up the Border Patrol.
WND: You've drawn distinctions between the Iraq involvement and in Afghanistan, yet your former aide, now running against you for the Texas congressional seat, claims it was like pulling teeth to get you to support the war in Afghanistan. Please set the record straight.
Ron Paul: That's totally untrue. It's not true. He's a disgruntled former employee who needs to be fired.
WND: You suggest the nation would be better if it were left to the Democrats to investigate 9/11. Do you believe the Bush administration has anything or something to hide with regard to the terrorist attacks?
Ron Paul: No. I don't think so much to hide about ulterior motives as much as, I think it's very natural for any government to resist investigations because they want to hide ineptness, you know, there's always mistakes. Bureaucracies are always inept. And I think that nobody wants to be investigated because it makes one look bad. Obviously if you have something as tragic as 9/11, somebody slipped up somewhere, and I think that's the main problem with these investigations. Even though I've given some token support to the idea that we ought to really look into it and find the real truth, frankly another government investigation is not likely to reveal a whole lot of difference because government is sort of protective of itself, sometimes even party to party they do that.
WND: In general terms, what role do you believe Israel plays in the Middle East? Is it generally a positive role, or generally a negative role?
Ron Paul: I don't know whether you should pick either one. I think they provide a balance of power there. I think unfortunately we get in their way, because they depend on us for money. They also depend on us for permission. We hinder Israel by not allowing them to do what is necessary for their own defense. If they thought they needed to take out somebody they have to get our permission. On the other side of that, I think they would play an even better role if we would allow them to negotiate with Syria and other countries, and there's been some strong hints that they would like to do that. In many ways I think that they have a balance of power there. Nobody's going to touch them. They don't really need us. They have 200-300 nuclear weapons and nobody's going to attack Israel. Israel would be even more secure if they didn't depend on us so much. because they wouldn't have to get our permission. There's no way – Iraq and Iran they don't even have – neither one has nuclear weapons. Iraq didn't and Iran doesn't, but even if they did, Israel's going to take care of it. So I think they play an important role in the balance of power there but I think it would even be more powerful if they weren't so dependant on us.
Read the rest of the article at WorldNetDaily.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Hillary the inevitable
Obama strategist David Plouffe released a memo last week arguing that Hillary Clinton's advantages were essentially those of incumbency, that her support was thin, and that Obama should actually be considered the front-runner.
Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, responded today with a memo that seemed designed to bludgeon all opposition into senselessness through the sheer power of numbers (links to 40 polls showing Hillary in the lead!)
Penn strongly implies another i-word is the best description of Hillary -- not incumbent, but inevitable.
In recent election cycles, any time a candidate has had as much as 35 or 40 percent of the vote consistently across polls in a multi-candidate field, that candidate has gone on to win the nomination. In the last race, Joseph Lieberman was in the teens at this point while Walter Mondale’s numbers in the 1984 Democratic primary were comparable to Hillary’s now.
I'm not entirely sure of the wisdom of this line of argument. Does he want Hillary backers to think of her as the Mondale of 2008? Sure, Mondale got the nomination but....
Full memo after the jump.
UPDATE: "Inevitable" is my word, not Mark Penn's, which is why I wrote he had "strongly implied" inevitability. I've taken the quote marks off the words incumbent and inevitable above to make that clearer.
Read the memo at The Politico.
For some unknown reason, I cannot post a "Title" to any of my entries. When I can, I'll add it to this post...
Report: Wars Costing $12 Billion a Month
WASHINGTON (AP) - The boost in troop levels in Iraq has increased the cost of war there and in Afghanistan to $12 billion a month, and the total for Iraq alone is nearing a half-trillion dollars, congressional analysts say.
All told, Congress has appropriated $610 billion in war-related money since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror assaults, roughly the same as the war in Vietnam. Iraq alone has cost $450 billion.
The figures come from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which provides research and analysis to lawmakers.
For the 2007 budget year, CRS says, the $166 billion appropriated to the Pentagon represents a 40 percent increase over 2006.
The Vietnam War, after accounting for inflation, cost taxpayers $650 billion, according to separate CRS estimates.
The $12 billion a month "burn rate" includes $10 billion for Iraq and almost $2 billion for Afghanistan, plus other minor costs. That's higher than Pentagon estimates earlier this year of $10 billion a month for both operations. Two years ago, the average monthly cost was about $8 billion.
Among the reasons for the higher costs is the cost of repairing and replacing equipment worn out in harsh conditions or destroyed in combat.
But the estimates call into question the Pentagon's estimate that the increase in troop strength and intensifying pace of operations in Baghdad and Anbar province would cost only $5.6 billion through the end of September.
Read more of the post in Breitbart.
Report: Wars Costing $12 Billion a Month
WASHINGTON (AP) - The boost in troop levels in Iraq has increased the cost of war there and in Afghanistan to $12 billion a month, and the total for Iraq alone is nearing a half-trillion dollars, congressional analysts say.
All told, Congress has appropriated $610 billion in war-related money since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror assaults, roughly the same as the war in Vietnam. Iraq alone has cost $450 billion.
The figures come from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which provides research and analysis to lawmakers.
For the 2007 budget year, CRS says, the $166 billion appropriated to the Pentagon represents a 40 percent increase over 2006.
The Vietnam War, after accounting for inflation, cost taxpayers $650 billion, according to separate CRS estimates.
The $12 billion a month "burn rate" includes $10 billion for Iraq and almost $2 billion for Afghanistan, plus other minor costs. That's higher than Pentagon estimates earlier this year of $10 billion a month for both operations. Two years ago, the average monthly cost was about $8 billion.
Among the reasons for the higher costs is the cost of repairing and replacing equipment worn out in harsh conditions or destroyed in combat.
But the estimates call into question the Pentagon's estimate that the increase in troop strength and intensifying pace of operations in Baghdad and Anbar province would cost only $5.6 billion through the end of September.
Read more of the post in Breitbart.
Friday, July 6, 2007
White House: Democrats have launched over 300 investigations in 100 days
WASHINGTON - The White House on Thursday pushed back against congressional investigations of the Bush administration and said lawmakers should spend more time passing bills to solve domestic problems.
In a constitutional showdown with Congress, the administration claimed executive privilege and rejected demands for White House documents about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.
The House and Senate Judiciary committees have set a deadline of 10 a.m. next Monday for the White House to explain its basis for the claim.
The administration has not said when or if it will respond. Spokesman Scott Stanzel said Thursday the White House has received a many requests for information since Democrats took control of Congress in January and has turned over 200,000 pages of documents.
"They've launched over 300 investigations, had over 350 requests for documents and interviews and they have had over 600 oversight hearings in just about 100 days," Stanzel said.
Democrats were dubious of the figures but did not offer their own.
"His numbers are as faulty as the intelligence they used to make their case for war," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
"In the last six years, all they've had is a rubber-stamp Congress. Since January, Democrats have demanded accountability, a change of course and transparency," Manley said.
Stanzel said he arrived at the numbers by canvassing departments and agencies about the number of inquires and investigations initiated by Congress since the Democrats took control.
Read the rest of the article at Yahoo News.
In a constitutional showdown with Congress, the administration claimed executive privilege and rejected demands for White House documents about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.
The House and Senate Judiciary committees have set a deadline of 10 a.m. next Monday for the White House to explain its basis for the claim.
The administration has not said when or if it will respond. Spokesman Scott Stanzel said Thursday the White House has received a many requests for information since Democrats took control of Congress in January and has turned over 200,000 pages of documents.
"They've launched over 300 investigations, had over 350 requests for documents and interviews and they have had over 600 oversight hearings in just about 100 days," Stanzel said.
Democrats were dubious of the figures but did not offer their own.
"His numbers are as faulty as the intelligence they used to make their case for war," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
"In the last six years, all they've had is a rubber-stamp Congress. Since January, Democrats have demanded accountability, a change of course and transparency," Manley said.
Stanzel said he arrived at the numbers by canvassing departments and agencies about the number of inquires and investigations initiated by Congress since the Democrats took control.
Read the rest of the article at Yahoo News.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
China's new nuclear sub spotted on Google Earth
A satellite image of China's new ballistic missile submarine. FAS.org
A satellite image of China's new nuclear ballistic missle submarine is available on the Google Earth Internet site.
Hans M. Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), spotted the images, photographed by the commercial Quickbird satellite in late 2006.
One photo is of what is apparently the new Type 094 Jin-class SSBN at the Xiaopingdao base near Dalian, FAS reported.
Read more about the sub at World Tribune.
Another Republican deserts Bush on Iraq
.... To break with the president over the war.
In Albuquerque today, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), a six-term incumbent who faces reelection next year, said he was "unwilling to continue our current strategy" in Iraq.
The announcement follows the split of two other high-profile Republicans with the president over his handling of the war. Last week, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) called on Bush to start withdrawing troops.
Domenici did the same today by endorsing a Senate bill that would adopt recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which calls for a draw down of most troops in Iraq.
"I have carefully studied the Iraq situation, and believe we cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress to move its country forward,” Domenici said in a statement. “I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops. But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home.”
The Senate will once again revisit the war during the debate next week over the 2008 Defense department appropriations bill.
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Domenici and others should back up their critiques with votes.
“Senator Domenici is correct to assess that the Administration’s war strategy is misguided," Reid said in a statement. "But we will not see a much-needed change of course in Iraq until Republicans like Senators Domenici, Lugar and Voinovich are willing to stand up to President Bush and his stubborn clinging to a failed policy – and more importantly, back up their words with action. Beginning with the Defense Authorization bill next week, Republicans will have the opportunity to not just say the right things on Iraq, but vote the right way too so that we can bring the responsible end to this war that the American people demand and deserve.
Read the article, and the Domenici's full statement at The Politico.
In Albuquerque today, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), a six-term incumbent who faces reelection next year, said he was "unwilling to continue our current strategy" in Iraq.
The announcement follows the split of two other high-profile Republicans with the president over his handling of the war. Last week, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) called on Bush to start withdrawing troops.
Domenici did the same today by endorsing a Senate bill that would adopt recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which calls for a draw down of most troops in Iraq.
"I have carefully studied the Iraq situation, and believe we cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress to move its country forward,” Domenici said in a statement. “I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops. But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home.”
The Senate will once again revisit the war during the debate next week over the 2008 Defense department appropriations bill.
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Domenici and others should back up their critiques with votes.
“Senator Domenici is correct to assess that the Administration’s war strategy is misguided," Reid said in a statement. "But we will not see a much-needed change of course in Iraq until Republicans like Senators Domenici, Lugar and Voinovich are willing to stand up to President Bush and his stubborn clinging to a failed policy – and more importantly, back up their words with action. Beginning with the Defense Authorization bill next week, Republicans will have the opportunity to not just say the right things on Iraq, but vote the right way too so that we can bring the responsible end to this war that the American people demand and deserve.
Read the article, and the Domenici's full statement at The Politico.
Clinton and Obama back China crackdown
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the frontrunners for the Democratic presidential nomination, have agreed to co-sponsor legislation that would levy punitive duties on Chinese goods to cajole Beijing into revaluing its currency, according to aides.
The endorsement is a sign that trade with China is emerging as a hot political issue in the upcoming election and increases the prospect of the legislation passing with a veto-proof majority, analysts said.
The bipartisan legislation has been spurred by claims that China’s cheap currency makes its exports more attractive and is contributing to the record annual $232.6bn (£115.6bn) US trade deficit with the country.
The early pledge to vote for the bill will strengthen the candidates’ claims to be defending US manufacturers against what they argue is unfair competition.
A critical stance on US trade policy has become increasingly de rigueur for candidates as the Democratic presidential field tilts towards a populist stance on economic issues.
The bill, introduced by Senators Max Baucus, Chuck Grassley, Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham, would permit US companies to seek anti-dumping duties on Chinese imports based on the undervaluation of the currency and calls for a trade case to be brought by the US at the World Trade Organisation.
Analysts said the sponsorship of the bill by the two leading candidates made it more likely the US would take a more aggressive stance towards Beijing on trade issues if the Democrats took the White House.
The Senators who introduced the legislation set out the case for the move on Thursday in the Financial Times, arguing that “a little pressure can go a long way to encouraging the right policies.” Although the Senators single out China, they say “tomorrow it could be another economy’s currency, with even more devastating effects”.
They said existing international currency policies are out of date and “pose a serious threat to the global trading system by violating the principles of the International Monetary Fund and the WTO”.
Read the rest of the article in The Financial Times.
The endorsement is a sign that trade with China is emerging as a hot political issue in the upcoming election and increases the prospect of the legislation passing with a veto-proof majority, analysts said.
The bipartisan legislation has been spurred by claims that China’s cheap currency makes its exports more attractive and is contributing to the record annual $232.6bn (£115.6bn) US trade deficit with the country.
The early pledge to vote for the bill will strengthen the candidates’ claims to be defending US manufacturers against what they argue is unfair competition.
A critical stance on US trade policy has become increasingly de rigueur for candidates as the Democratic presidential field tilts towards a populist stance on economic issues.
The bill, introduced by Senators Max Baucus, Chuck Grassley, Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham, would permit US companies to seek anti-dumping duties on Chinese imports based on the undervaluation of the currency and calls for a trade case to be brought by the US at the World Trade Organisation.
Analysts said the sponsorship of the bill by the two leading candidates made it more likely the US would take a more aggressive stance towards Beijing on trade issues if the Democrats took the White House.
The Senators who introduced the legislation set out the case for the move on Thursday in the Financial Times, arguing that “a little pressure can go a long way to encouraging the right policies.” Although the Senators single out China, they say “tomorrow it could be another economy’s currency, with even more devastating effects”.
They said existing international currency policies are out of date and “pose a serious threat to the global trading system by violating the principles of the International Monetary Fund and the WTO”.
Read the rest of the article in The Financial Times.
Sen. Joe Biden: Bush 'is brain dead'
DES MOINES — Joseph Biden, the Delaware Democrat running for president, is a man of strong opinions. During a campaign event in a Des Moines backyard today, Mr. Biden had some choice words for President Bush and two of the Republicans running for the White House.
“This guy is brain dead,” Mr. Biden said to surprised applause and laughter from the crowd. “I know I’ll be quoted, I’ll be killed for that.”
“This is a guy who is on the balls of his heels, here’s a guy who is lower off in the polls than any president in modern history and he goes ahead and he does something that just flies in the face of the sensibilities of the American people.”
A few minutes later, Mr. Biden turned his sights on Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, and a Republican running for president. “I can hardly wait to debate Rudy Giuliani if he is their nominee,” he said. “Because I will eat his lunch. The next time I hear a Republican talk about us being tough on terror – give me a break!”
Finally, Mr. Biden’s target was Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts Republican running for president. “I found Romney’s statements yesterday profound – crazy — when he talked about going to war with Iran,” he said. “Why are we talking about going to war with Iran?”
Check out the article in The New York Times blog.
“This guy is brain dead,” Mr. Biden said to surprised applause and laughter from the crowd. “I know I’ll be quoted, I’ll be killed for that.”
“This is a guy who is on the balls of his heels, here’s a guy who is lower off in the polls than any president in modern history and he goes ahead and he does something that just flies in the face of the sensibilities of the American people.”
A few minutes later, Mr. Biden turned his sights on Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, and a Republican running for president. “I can hardly wait to debate Rudy Giuliani if he is their nominee,” he said. “Because I will eat his lunch. The next time I hear a Republican talk about us being tough on terror – give me a break!”
Finally, Mr. Biden’s target was Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts Republican running for president. “I found Romney’s statements yesterday profound – crazy — when he talked about going to war with Iran,” he said. “Why are we talking about going to war with Iran?”
Check out the article in The New York Times blog.
Monday, July 2, 2007
A New Deal for Globalization
WAGES FALLING, PROTECTIONISM RISING
Over the last several years, a striking new feature of the U.S. economy has emerged: real income growth has been extremely skewed, with relatively few high earners doing well while incomes for most workers have stagnated or, in many cases, fallen. Just what mix of forces is behind this trend is not yet clear, but regardless, the numbers are stark. Less than four percent of workers were in educational groups that enjoyed increases in mean real money earnings from 2000 to 2005; mean real money earnings rose for workers with doctorates and professional graduate degrees and fell for all others. In contrast to in earlier decades, today it is not just those at the bottom of the skill ladder who are hurting. Even college graduates and workers with nonprofessional master's degrees saw their mean real money earnings decline. By some measures, inequality in the United States is greater today than at any time since the 1920s.
Advocates of engagement with the world economy are now warning of a protectionist drift in public policy. This drift is commonly blamed on narrow industry concerns or a failure to explain globalization's benefits or the war on terrorism. These explanations miss a more basic point: U.S. policy is becoming more protectionist because the American public is becoming more protectionist, and this shift in attitudes is a result of stagnant or falling incomes. Public support for engagement with the world economy is strongly linked to labor-market performance, and for most workers labor-market performance has been poor.
Given that globalization delivers tremendous benefits to the U.S. economy as a whole, the rise in protectionism brings many economic dangers. To avert them, U.S. policymakers must recognize and then address the fundamental cause of opposition to freer trade and investment. They must also recognize that the two most commonly proposed responses -- more investment in education and more trade adjustment assistance for dislocated workers -- are nowhere near adequate. Significant payoffs from educational investment will take decades to be realized, and trade adjustment assistance is too small and too narrowly targeted on specific industries to have much effect.
The best way to avert the rise in protectionism is by instituting a New Deal for globalization -- one that links engagement with the world economy to a substantial redistribution of income. In the United States, that would mean adopting a fundamentally more progressive federal tax system. The notion of more aggressively redistributing income may sound radical, but ensuring that most American workers are benefiting is the best way of saving globalization from a protectionist backlash.
RISING PROTECTIONISM
U.S. economic policy is becoming more protectionist. First, consider trade. The prospects for congressional renewal of President George W. Bush's trade promotion authority, which is set to expire this summer, are grim. The 109th Congress introduced 27 pieces of anti-China trade legislation; the 110th introduced over a dozen in just its first three months. In late March, the Bush administration levied new tariffs on Chinese exports of high-gloss paper -- reversing a 20-year precedent of not accusing nonmarket economies of illegal export subsidies.
Barriers to inward foreign direct investment (FDI) are also rising. In 2005, the Chinese energy company CNOOC tried to purchase U.S.-headquartered Unocal. The subsequent political storm was so intense that CNOOC withdrew its bid. A similar controversy erupted in 2006 over the purchase of operations at six U.S. ports by Dubai-based Dubai Ports World, eventually causing the company to sell the assets. The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which is legally required to review and approve certain foreign acquisitions of U.S. businesses, has raised the duration and complexity of many reviews. Both chambers of the 109th Congress passed bills to tighten CFIUS scrutiny even further; similar legislation has already passed in the current House.
Read the article in Foreign Affairs.
Over the last several years, a striking new feature of the U.S. economy has emerged: real income growth has been extremely skewed, with relatively few high earners doing well while incomes for most workers have stagnated or, in many cases, fallen. Just what mix of forces is behind this trend is not yet clear, but regardless, the numbers are stark. Less than four percent of workers were in educational groups that enjoyed increases in mean real money earnings from 2000 to 2005; mean real money earnings rose for workers with doctorates and professional graduate degrees and fell for all others. In contrast to in earlier decades, today it is not just those at the bottom of the skill ladder who are hurting. Even college graduates and workers with nonprofessional master's degrees saw their mean real money earnings decline. By some measures, inequality in the United States is greater today than at any time since the 1920s.
Advocates of engagement with the world economy are now warning of a protectionist drift in public policy. This drift is commonly blamed on narrow industry concerns or a failure to explain globalization's benefits or the war on terrorism. These explanations miss a more basic point: U.S. policy is becoming more protectionist because the American public is becoming more protectionist, and this shift in attitudes is a result of stagnant or falling incomes. Public support for engagement with the world economy is strongly linked to labor-market performance, and for most workers labor-market performance has been poor.
Given that globalization delivers tremendous benefits to the U.S. economy as a whole, the rise in protectionism brings many economic dangers. To avert them, U.S. policymakers must recognize and then address the fundamental cause of opposition to freer trade and investment. They must also recognize that the two most commonly proposed responses -- more investment in education and more trade adjustment assistance for dislocated workers -- are nowhere near adequate. Significant payoffs from educational investment will take decades to be realized, and trade adjustment assistance is too small and too narrowly targeted on specific industries to have much effect.
The best way to avert the rise in protectionism is by instituting a New Deal for globalization -- one that links engagement with the world economy to a substantial redistribution of income. In the United States, that would mean adopting a fundamentally more progressive federal tax system. The notion of more aggressively redistributing income may sound radical, but ensuring that most American workers are benefiting is the best way of saving globalization from a protectionist backlash.
RISING PROTECTIONISM
U.S. economic policy is becoming more protectionist. First, consider trade. The prospects for congressional renewal of President George W. Bush's trade promotion authority, which is set to expire this summer, are grim. The 109th Congress introduced 27 pieces of anti-China trade legislation; the 110th introduced over a dozen in just its first three months. In late March, the Bush administration levied new tariffs on Chinese exports of high-gloss paper -- reversing a 20-year precedent of not accusing nonmarket economies of illegal export subsidies.
Barriers to inward foreign direct investment (FDI) are also rising. In 2005, the Chinese energy company CNOOC tried to purchase U.S.-headquartered Unocal. The subsequent political storm was so intense that CNOOC withdrew its bid. A similar controversy erupted in 2006 over the purchase of operations at six U.S. ports by Dubai-based Dubai Ports World, eventually causing the company to sell the assets. The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which is legally required to review and approve certain foreign acquisitions of U.S. businesses, has raised the duration and complexity of many reviews. Both chambers of the 109th Congress passed bills to tighten CFIUS scrutiny even further; similar legislation has already passed in the current House.
Read the article in Foreign Affairs.
Is the McCain campaign imploding?
Sen. John McCain, once assumed to be the front-runner for the Republican nomination for president, announced disappointing second quarter fund-raising figures on Monday and will be cutting staff in an effort to stay afloat.
The camp had figured it would be able to raise $100 million this year, campaign manager Terry Nelson told reporters, but now realizes that assumption was "incorrect."
Nelson said McCain had raised $11.2 million this quarter -- a far cry from the $32.5 million posted by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's $27 million, and barely more than the third-place Democrat, John Edwards, who claimed about $9 million.
The campaign has about $2 million cash on hand, he said.
The figures mark a sharp collapse for the Arizona maverick who gave George W. Bush a bracing run in the early stages of the race for the 2000 Republican nomination.
McCain's advisers said he had received contributions from just over 72,000 donors.
They declined to reveal their new fund-raising target for the year.
Nelson will be working without a salary "for the next several months," he said, and senior staff is taking pay cuts.
Every department of the campaign was restructured, he said, but he would not say how many jobs were being cut.
The Associated Press said 50 posts were being eliminated, citing unnamed "officials with knowledge of the shake-up." Nelson refused to confirm the number.
The camp says it is considering accepting public matching funds and estimates it is eligible for $6 million.
Read the story at The Politico.
The camp had figured it would be able to raise $100 million this year, campaign manager Terry Nelson told reporters, but now realizes that assumption was "incorrect."
Nelson said McCain had raised $11.2 million this quarter -- a far cry from the $32.5 million posted by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's $27 million, and barely more than the third-place Democrat, John Edwards, who claimed about $9 million.
The campaign has about $2 million cash on hand, he said.
The figures mark a sharp collapse for the Arizona maverick who gave George W. Bush a bracing run in the early stages of the race for the 2000 Republican nomination.
McCain's advisers said he had received contributions from just over 72,000 donors.
They declined to reveal their new fund-raising target for the year.
Nelson will be working without a salary "for the next several months," he said, and senior staff is taking pay cuts.
Every department of the campaign was restructured, he said, but he would not say how many jobs were being cut.
The Associated Press said 50 posts were being eliminated, citing unnamed "officials with knowledge of the shake-up." Nelson refused to confirm the number.
The camp says it is considering accepting public matching funds and estimates it is eligible for $6 million.
Read the story at The Politico.
Plouffe's memo: Hillary as incumbent?
In a long memo, which I've included after the jump, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe lays out the case for, essentially, Obama as frontrunner.
Citing both the new money and the "enthusiasm gap," Plouffe argues that Hillary's support is thin, the early polling is "meaningless," and that Obama is best positioned -- in terms of message and of organization -- to win the nomination and the election. He promises a robust organization in big, early states (specifically, and I'm not sure why, California, New Jersey, New York, Georgia and Missouri) and says Obama is the candidate with room to grow.
The case is worth checking out, but there's one near-contradiction in there that's central of the puzzle of this race.
The central question: Is Hillary like an incumbent, or not?"One of our opponents is also the quasi-incumbent in the race, who in our belief will and should lead just about every national poll from now until the Iowa caucuses," Plouffe writes. "Expect nothing different and attach no significance to it."
Then Plouffe cites early polling in the 1980, 1988, 1992, and 2004 cycles that had Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, and Kerry well behind their Democratic primary rivals.
The 1980 Carter-Kennedy race seems a bit special here -- an unpopular president, and a Kennedy. But the other years were races without either an incumbent or a sitting or former vice president -- a "quasi-incumbent." Plouffe doesn't cite Mondale in 1984, Clinton in 1996, or Gore in 2000 -- incumbents or near-incumbents who dominated their primaries from start to finish. That's the model Hillary wants to follow, and there's an argument that this year is more like those, that the candidates are so well-known that the early polling does matter.
Read it in The Politico.
Citing both the new money and the "enthusiasm gap," Plouffe argues that Hillary's support is thin, the early polling is "meaningless," and that Obama is best positioned -- in terms of message and of organization -- to win the nomination and the election. He promises a robust organization in big, early states (specifically, and I'm not sure why, California, New Jersey, New York, Georgia and Missouri) and says Obama is the candidate with room to grow.
The case is worth checking out, but there's one near-contradiction in there that's central of the puzzle of this race.
The central question: Is Hillary like an incumbent, or not?"One of our opponents is also the quasi-incumbent in the race, who in our belief will and should lead just about every national poll from now until the Iowa caucuses," Plouffe writes. "Expect nothing different and attach no significance to it."
Then Plouffe cites early polling in the 1980, 1988, 1992, and 2004 cycles that had Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, and Kerry well behind their Democratic primary rivals.
The 1980 Carter-Kennedy race seems a bit special here -- an unpopular president, and a Kennedy. But the other years were races without either an incumbent or a sitting or former vice president -- a "quasi-incumbent." Plouffe doesn't cite Mondale in 1984, Clinton in 1996, or Gore in 2000 -- incumbents or near-incumbents who dominated their primaries from start to finish. That's the model Hillary wants to follow, and there's an argument that this year is more like those, that the candidates are so well-known that the early polling does matter.
Read it in The Politico.
Bush commutes sentence for Libby
THE ASSOCIATED PRESSJuly 2, 2007, 5:52 PM EDTPresident Bush commuted the sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case.Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, according to a senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.Bush's move came hours after a federal appeals panel ruled Libby could not delay his prison term in the CIA leak case. That decision put the pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.Libby was convicted in March of lying to authorities and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative's identity. He was the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.
Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.
News from Newsday.
Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.
News from Newsday.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Secret Document: U.S. Fears Terror 'Spectacular' Planned
A secret U.S. law enforcement report, prepared for the Department of Homeland Security, warns that al Qaeda is planning a terror "spectacular" this summer, according to a senior official with access to the document.
"This is reminiscent of the warnings and intelligence we were getting in the summer of 2001," the official told ABCNews.com.
U.S. officials have kept the information secret, and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said today on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that the United States did not have "have any specific credible evidence that there's an attack focused on the United States at this point."
As ABCNews.com reported, U.S. law enforcement officials received intelligence reports two weeks ago warning of terror attacks in Glasgow and Prague, the Czech Republic, against "airport infrastructure and aircraft."
The warnings apparently never reached officials in Scotland, who said this weekend they had received "no advance intelligence" that Glasgow might be a target.
Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff declined to comment specifically on on the report today, but said "everything that we get is shared virtually instantaneously with our counterparts in Britain and vice versa."
Unlike the United States, officials in Germany have publicly warned that the country could face a major attack this summer, also comparing the situation to the pre-9/11 summer of 2001.
Story via ABC News.
"This is reminiscent of the warnings and intelligence we were getting in the summer of 2001," the official told ABCNews.com.
U.S. officials have kept the information secret, and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said today on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that the United States did not have "have any specific credible evidence that there's an attack focused on the United States at this point."
As ABCNews.com reported, U.S. law enforcement officials received intelligence reports two weeks ago warning of terror attacks in Glasgow and Prague, the Czech Republic, against "airport infrastructure and aircraft."
The warnings apparently never reached officials in Scotland, who said this weekend they had received "no advance intelligence" that Glasgow might be a target.
Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff declined to comment specifically on on the report today, but said "everything that we get is shared virtually instantaneously with our counterparts in Britain and vice versa."
Unlike the United States, officials in Germany have publicly warned that the country could face a major attack this summer, also comparing the situation to the pre-9/11 summer of 2001.
Story via ABC News.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
