Main
Replacing Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon with Robert Gates is a sign the Bush Family is circling the wagons around the embattled presidency of George W. Bush.
Gates is a trusted hand of George H.W. Bush, but there remain troubling questions about whether Gates is a trustworthy government official. Since his last confirmation as CIA director in 1991, new evidence has surfaced suggesting that he may not have told the full truth.
For the full story, go to the the independent ConsortiumNews.Com.
Rumsfeld Ousted As Secretary of Defense
by Glynn Wilson
The sweep is final and complete. The Democrats will now control a majority in both the Senate and the House for the first time since 1994 as the two close races still in play on Wednesday in Montana and Virginia ended up going to the Democrats, according to the Associated Press and other news organizations.
Jim Webb's close victory over incumbent Sen. George Allen gave Democrats their 51st seat in the Senate, an astonishing turnabout at the hands of voters unhappy with Republican scandal and unabated violence in Iraq, according to the AP, which called the race first this evening.
The Senate teetered at 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans and one independent for most of Wednesday, with Virginia hanging in the balance. Webb's victory ended Republican hopes of eking out a 50-50 split, with Vice President Dick Cheney wielding tie-breaking authority.
The AP contacted election officials in all 134 localities where voting occurred, obtaining updated numbers Wednesday. About half the localities said they had completed their postelection canvassing and nearly all had counted outstanding absentees. Most were expected to be finished by Friday.
The new AP count showed Webb with 1,172,538 votes and Allen with 1,165,302, a difference of 7,236.
An adviser to Allen, speaking on condition of anonymity because his boss had not formally decided to end the campaign, told the AP the senator wanted to wait until most of canvassing was completed before announcing his decision, possibly as early as Thursday evening. The adviser said that Allen was disinclined to request a recount if the final vote spread was similar to that of election night.
The victory puts Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., in line to become Senate majority leader.
Combined with the major victory in taking over the House of Representatives on Tuesday by re-capturing at least 27 seats and leading in four other races, Election Day 2006 was a repudiation of the failed policies of President George W. Bush.
In an acknowledgement of that defeat and the failed war strategy in Iraq, the president handed the Democrats the head of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in a last gasp attempt to appear willing to acknowledge mistakes and avoid total lame duck status by appearing to be willing to work in a non-partison fashion for his last two years in office.
Rumsfeld resigned with a short statement in which he quoted the great British war strategist of World War II Winston Churchill.
To paraphrase Richard Nixon, let's make one thing perfectly clear. Mr. Rumsfeld, you are no Winston Churchill.
Bush replaced Rumsfeld with Robert Gates, who may come under close scrutiny during his Senate confirmation hearings, which will now be led by Democrats, for his controversial role in the Iran-Contra scandal when he worked for then-Vice President George H.W. Bush in the late 1980s.
In a repudiation of the policy failures of the administration of president George W. Bush, the American people returned power in "the people's House" back to the Democratic Party Tuesday in a historic awakening vote.
As of press time, Democrats were surging in the U.S. Senate, picking up at least four seats and needing 6 to take control and leading in critical races in Virginia and Montana.
Democrats also ruled in governor's races all over the country, but not in Alabama, where the safe Republican manager Gov. Bob Riley won handily over Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley, who in the end did not have an organized, enthusiastic base of support to mount a serious challenge.
It also looks like Alabama will escape another right-wing Christian Republican as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Sue Bell Cob, the Democrat, led Drayton Nabers 53-47 percent with 80 percent of the precincts reporting.
And it looks like former Gov. Jim Folsom will win the race to replace Baxley as lieutenant governor, restoring power back to that office and Democratic Party hands.
The Yuengling is flowing over here. We hear the new slogan in Seattle and Portland is: "Happy Days Are Here Again!"
But not for Georgie and GOP company!!
For the updated headline links, turn to the Locust Fork News.
by Glynn Wilson
Turning to the polls online to look for hope or impending disaster on election day 2006, it is surprising to find the online pollsters more optimistic for the Democratic Party than even the national corporate broadcast media at this point.
It's a balanced picture on TV, of course, with the Republicans coming back in the end.
But the best pollsters seem to think it's over and the Democrats will take back both houses of Congress.
We are not so sure, due to the "too close to call" nature of many races - and our fear that the Republicans will likely do their best to disengranchise voters where they can and "steal" any close election.
Let's hope the pollsters are right.
According to the Cook Political Report, the Democratic Party should pick up 20 to 35 seats in the House, four to six seats in the Senate and six to eight more governor's races than the GOP.
"All Monday there was considerable talk that the national picture had suddenly changed and that there was a significant tightening in the election," Cook says, but it's not true.
"This was based in part on two national polls that showed the generic congressional ballot test having tightened to four (Pew) and six (ABC/Wash Post) points," he says.
But seven national polls have been conducted since Wednesday, November 1 and give Democrats an average lead of 11.6 percentage points, "larger than any party has had going into an Election Day in memory."
Even if you knock five points off of it for the margin of error, it's 6.6 percentage points, he says, "bigger than the advantage that Republicans had going into 1994."
"Furthermore, there is no evidence of a trend in the generic ballot test," he argues.
In chronological order of interviewing (using the midpoint of field dates), the margins were: 15 points (Time 11/1-3), 6 points (ABC/Wash Post), 4 points (Pew), 7 points (Gallup), 16 points (Newsweek), 20 points (CNN) and 13 points (Fox).
In individual races, some Republican pollsters see some movement, voters "coming home," in their direction, and/or some increase in intensity among GOP voters, he says. But "all seem to think that it was too little, too late to significantly change the outcome."
It might be enough to save a few candidates, but no one thinks it is a major change in the dynamics of races.
For all the details on each individual race, go to the Cook Political Report.
Sabato's Crystal Ball is predicting about the same result, 4, 5 or 6 seats going to the Democrats, "resting party control of the Senate squarely on the edge of the butter knife," according to Larry J. Sabato and David Wasserman of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.
"We think the Democrats may replicate their feat from 1986 (the sixth year election of Ronald Reagan's Presidency) and capture just enough seats to take over," they said. When they add together all their predictions, Democrats pick up six seats, "sufficient to wrest control from the GOP."
For all the details on each individual race, go to Sabato's Crystal Ball.
So, it looks good tonight, but don't count on it. Go to the polls yourself and make it happen. Your future freedom depends on it.
If the power does change hands, it means above all that Rep. John Conyers will become chair of the House Judiciary Committee. No one is campaigning on the issue, but he will no doubt launch a major investigation into President George W. Bush's war crimes and bring articles of impeachment against the dicktater in chief.
He's already drawn up the articles and held hearings in the Capitol basement, since the Republicans would not use their Constitutional oversight responsibilities to do the right thing for their country. They won't even give him a room or put his hearings on the agenda.
It's at least worth an investigation, some hearings, a national discussion and a damn vote. Otherwise, we are a democratic republic no more and the world will never believe us or look up to us again...
Ha! We are working on a couple of new slide shows, which has been taking up a lot of time. And will be getting on the water on the Black Warrior River Friday, in spite of the cold front.
But we just couldn't resist a quick note this story. One of the chief religious right advisers to President George W. Bush and Karl Rove is now going down in another sex scandal.
The leader of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals, a vocal opponent of the drive for same-sex marriage, resigned Thursday after being accused of paying for sex with a man in monthly trysts over the past three years, according to the Associated Press and other news organizations.
Evangelical Leader Hit With Sex Claims
The Rev. Ted Haggard also stepped aside as head of his 14,000-member New Life Church while a church panel investigates, saying he could "not continue to minister under the cloud created by the accusations."
The investigation came after a 49-year-old man told a Denver radio station that Haggard paid him to have sex on multiple occassions, sometimes high on crystal meth. The new drug of choice for the deranged Christian Right?
Oh, and then there's this:
Rep. Paying Ex-Mistress About $500K
A Republican congressman accused of abusing his ex-mistress agreed to pay her about $500,000 in a settlement last year that contained a powerful incentive for her to keep quiet until after Election Day, a person familiar with the terms of the deal told The Associated Press.
Rep. Don Sherwood is locked in a tight re-election race against a Democratic opponent who has seized on the four-term congressman's relationship with the woman. While Sherwood acknowledged the woman was his mistress, he denied abusing her and said that he had settled her $5.5 million lawsuit on confidential terms.
The settlement, reached in November 2005, called for Cynthia Ore to be paid in installments, according to a person who spoke on condition of anonymity because the deal is confidential. She has received less than half the money so far, and will not get the rest until after the Nov. 7 election, the person said Thursday.
So much for Sen. John Kerry's slip of the tongue on Bush and/or the troops...
by Glynn Wilson
BIRMINGHAM, Ala., Oct. 30 - For the better part of the past month, it's been a blast on the road "cowboying" in the Chevy van enjoying the fall weather and taking a break from television and politics out in nature - twelve days on the Gulf Coast and then four days taking in the peak color in North Carolina.
The elections coming up next Tuesday, Nov. 7, however, are too important to ignore for any serious newsman.
Alas, I almost fell asleep trying to concentrate on the televised political debates tonight on Alabama Public Television.
Governor's Debate Episode 2006
Gubernatorial candidates Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley and Gov. Bob Riley exchanged viewpoints in this live one-hour event presented by Leadership Alabama, the Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama, Alabama Public Television and the Alabama Press Association.
Unfortunately, according to APT's Website, the show is also sponsored by a few of the most corrupt corporate polluters in the state, including Alabama Power, Vulcan Materials and Entergen. It is also sponsored by one of the worst corporate spies in the country, BellSouth, which is about to merge with AT&T, now owned and operated out of George W. Bush's Texas by Southwest Bell.
Oh, you didn't even know about the debates? Why would you, since none of the corporate television news stations or newspapers in this state did much to promote public involvement in the show.
And let's face it, the race may already be a done deal anyway. The latest polls show Riley leading the governor's race by a margin of 57 percent to 32 percent.
According to an article out today in StateLine.Org:
Republican Bob Riley is vying to become the first Alabama governor to be re-elected and to serve two full terms since George Wallace in the 1970s. Incumbents have lost the last three gubernatorial elections in Alabama, and Gov. Guy Hunt (R) won re-election in 1990 only to be removed in 1993 for an ethics violation.
In a state where voters have demonstrated their willingness to split tickets, Riley appears headed for a second term with a strong lead in the polls over Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley, the Democratic nominee. In an Oct. 8 poll by the Press-Register/University of South Alabama, Riley led with 57 percent of voters, compared with 32 percent for Baxley.
Baxley, elected lieutenant governor four years ago after two terms as state treasurer, is trying to become the state’s first female governor in four decades. Wallace’s wife, Lurleen, was elected in 1966 when state law barred her husband from succeeding himself.
Riley, a former three-term congressman, has benefited from little scandal, a strong economy and the state’s efficient reaction to several hurricanes that hit Alabama and neighboring states in 2004 and 2005. Top issues in the race include property appraisals, minimum wage levels and tax cuts.
With the state now enjoying a budget surplus, Riley is pushing for more than $300 million in personal income and business tax cuts to be phased in over five years. Early in his administration, when state revenues were down, Riley had proposed a $1 billion tax plan that would have been the largest tax increase in state history. But voters defeated the proposed increase 2-1 in a special election.
Baxley said she opposes Riley’s proposed income tax cuts and prefers that extra state funds go towards education and other government services.
But both candidates favor abolishing annual property appraisals in favor of appraisals every four years. During his tenure, Riley instructed his revenue commissioner to order annual appraisals, a move he said state law required. Baxley has criticized the Riley administration for this, noting that her first business as governor would be to do away with annual appraisals, which she describes as a de facto tax increase on Alabamians.
Baxley is pushing for the state to set a minimum wage of at least a dollar more than the federally mandated rate, now $5.15 an hour. Riley is opposed to a state-mandated increase.
Historic Election Year For Governor's Races
According to an early AP story out on the main debate:
Baxley, Riley Debate Differances On Tax Cuts, Credibility
And of course the Alabama bureau of AP put out this story a couple of days ago, which just struck me as funny.
Washington Scandals Don't Touch Alabama's GOP Governor?
So why have the Washington scandals not touched Bob Riley? Because the pathetically weak Alabama press corps did nothing to investigate the stories. Riley's connections to Bush and his lobbyist cronies have been on public display for any reporter willing to look and connect the dots. Unfortunately, since Sen. John McCain is now courting the conservative base in his obvious run for president in 2008, his staff would not cooperate with our own attempt to investigate all the connections.
So the best we can hope for is a change in the power balance in the U.S. House and Senate.
Also according to the latest polls:
Democrats Hold Double-Digit Lead in Competitive Districts; GOP Troubles Extend into Home Territory
With less than two weeks to go before the midterm elections, the Democrats not only continue to maintain a double-digit advantage nationally, but also lead by the same margin in the competitive districts that will determine which party controls the House of Representatives, according to the latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
Nationally, the Democrats hold a 49 percent-38 percent lead among registered voters, and a nearly identical 50 percent-39 percent lead among those voters most likely to cast ballots on Nov. 7.
An oversample of voters in 40 competitive districts - identified by a consensus of political analysts-shows that voting intentions in the battleground districts are about the same as they are in the "safe" House districts. Among registered voters, the Democrats lead by 11 points in competitive districts (50 percent-39 percent) and by the same margin in safe districts (49 percent-38 percent).
So even though none of the Alabama races will make a big difference in the Congressional elections, we can watch from here and have some hope that there is a good chance the power balance will change in D.C.
Sources in Washington indicate to us that the Senate could end up in a 50/50 split, putting the tying vote on many issues into the hands of Vice President Dick "Shooter" Cheney. What a wonderful prospect.
We will leave you with this final point. It is a point which we tried to get Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley to embrace in the last three weeks of the governor's race, but she was obviously too afraid of being labeled a liberal to reach out to the most intelligent and progressive voters in this state who see no candidates with any creativity at all in their political platforms.
To demonstrate this point, just turn to the group Birders United.
According to estimates from the National Geographic Society, there are 15 million or more voting age Americans who have a serious interest in the welfare of birds. Huge numbers of adults in our country watch birds, feed birds, keep lists of birds, and give large sums of money to organizations that protect bird habitats.
In the United Kingdom the formidable political force of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is frequently compared to the powers of the Teamsters Union in the United States. But most of the millions of bird people in America do not realize that they have the potential voting power to control the outcome of many elections in our country.
This is not just a utopian dream. In recent presidential contests, a swing of just a few thousand votes would have changed the outcome in a number of key states.
For example, if only 270 Republican bird watchers in Florida had shifted their votes in the 2000 presidential election, President Bush would not have won the election. In many states the number of adult bird enthusiasts is so large that an organized bird watcher vote could control the outcome of almost any election.
It is a big mystery to me, and a number of my closest friends, why some people who support conservation efforts continue, for other reasons, to vote Republican.
Hey, if you really think it is more important for a president to bash gays openly than to support sensible public policies on environmental issues, by all means vote Republican. But now that you know there is a such thing as a gay Republican (thanks to the Foley page scandal), maybe it would be worth reconsidering which party you vote for - or if not, why not just consider staying home on election day?
Better yet, go bird watching. Let the rest of us decide...
I will not be happy voting in a church thanks to the Bush Justice Department's policy tearing down the wall between church and state. But I will be voting there anyway. And I will be voting for Ms. Baxley and any other Democrat worth checking on the electronic ballot.
Let's just hope Diebold doesn't steal the elections for all these so-called Christian Republicans. It's not really all that funny what corruption and hypocrisy is supported by some people in the name of Jesus Christ.
As the scandal over gay Republican former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley boils over in Washington, it should not totally overshadow a more sinister scandal involving the total corruption of the system of financing elections in America.
If you missed Bill Moyers' special on PBS last night, you can watch it on the rerun or online.
"It's a dizzying scope of perfidy and politics that boggles the imagination, and although Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay have been brought down, the system remains as vulnerable as ever," Moyers says. "The scale of corruption still coming to light dwarfs anything since Watergate. In one sense it's the age-old tale of greed, but greed encouraged now by the way our system works. Deep in the plea agreements of Jack Abramoff and his cronies is the admission that they conspired to use campaign contributions to bribe politicians; campaign finance is at the core of the corruption. They took great pains to cover their tracks, and they might have pulled it off except for a handful of honest people, and the work of some enterprising print reporters, Senate investigators, and the ethics team at the department of justice."
PBS: Capitol Crimes
I'm sorry to laugh out loud, but this story just keeps getting better and better. It shows the perfect hypocrisy of Republicans, and further discredits organized religion too.
The talking heads are pounding it again tonight. Keep it up, y'all...
Foley Says He Was Abused By Clergyman
Disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley said through his lawyer Tuesday that he was sexually abused by a clergyman as a teenager, but accepts full responsibility for sending salacious computer messages to teenage male pages.
Pages Warned About Foley
House Republicans Grapple With Gay Scandal
Florida GOP Picks Replacement for Foley
FBI Examining Foley's E-Mail to Teens
Foley Checks Into Rehab
House Members Rip Gay Republican
Gay Republican Resigns From Congress Over E-Mails
It may be easy to slumber in the air conditioning on the longest days of the year and forget the mid-term elections now only five months away. But if you are awake and keeping up, here are four good reasons to vote against Republicans in November.
One, the world thinks the United States of America is the biggest threat to global security on the planet thanks to the failed policies of our dicktater-in-chief.
Bush Says 'Absurd' to Charge U.S. is Biggest Threat to Global Security
Two, the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate is playing politics with the war in Iraq, trying to paint the Democratic Party as the "cut and run" party. The Democrats in the Senate, meanwhile, are just trying to reign in an out of control executive branch and bring some sense to U.S. foreign policy.
With Eye on Elections, Senate Debates Iraq War
The Shadow War, In a Surprising New Light
Three, if you think anyone can make a living on $5.15 an hour, while corporations are posting record profits and corporate executives are taking home record salaries and bonuses, then vote Republican. If you think the workers of America deserve to be paid a living wage, vote Democrat.
Republican Controlled Senate Kills Minimum Wage Increase
Four, if you are a racist and think this country should roll back civil rights, vote Republican. If you think the Voting Rights Act should be renewed, vote Democrat.
Republicans Cancel Renewal of Voting Rights Act
We have been asked by another Alabama blogger to comment on the proposed Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriages that will be on the ballot next Tuesday, June 6.
Jeff Vreeland with the Politics in Alabama blog says he plans to have more to say about it in the next few days. We had not necessarily planned to get into this issue, since we figure it is a done deal anyway. But the invite is too interesting to avoid.
But before we comment on anything, some research is necessary. This ain't like talk radio y'all where we feel comfortable saying the first thing that pops into our heads.
So the first thing we had to do before posting was to search around and find the language of the amendment. The best we can tell from online research anyway, no news organization in Alabama has actually published the language yet. There have been stories and even editorials about it, along with stories about public opinion surveys on the issue.
Thanks to the friendly folks at the Alabama Secretary of State's office, however, we had the language in hand within minutes. When you go to the polls next Tuesday, this is what Amendment One will say:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that no marriage license shall be issued in Alabama to parties of the same sex and that the state shall not recognize a marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred as a result of the law of any other jurisdiction. (Proposed by Act 2005-35)
For clarification purposes, the Christian Coalition Web site indicates a "Yes" vote supposedly "protects traditional marriage" and a "No" vote "Does not protect traditional marriage." But of course that radical, right-wing group of homophobic nutjobs is FOR the amendment.
This is important, since sources tell us that preachers all over Alabama are recommending a "yes" vote, since "the language is confusing."
Then a look at the public opinion polls seems useful.
According to the University of Auburn University's E-Commons site, a survey they conducted found that 54 percent of Alabamians strongly support an amendment. Sixty-nine percent of Republicans support it, while Democrats "are more equally divided," according to poll director Jim Seroka.
This differs markedly from the national surveys. According to a Pew Research Center survey, only the slimmest of majorities, 51 percent of Americans, continue to oppose legalizing gay marriage.
According to some newspaper stories in the state, the amendment might be just as bad for the rights of traditional married couples as it is for gay couples. Opponents of the amendment contend the measure may affect health insurance benefits for children, inheritances, domestic violence protections and property transactions.
An attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center said the amendment would not strengthen Alabama law or protect traditional marriage, and that the amendment is just a political ploy to turn out conservative, Christian voters.
"The Christian Coalition wants to get their people out to vote," said Rhonda Brownstein, the SPLC's legal director.
The Alabama Legislature passed the bill setting up the amendment vote in the 2005 regular session. Democrats in the Legislature won in a move to add the measure to the primary ballot, while Republicans wanted it on the general election ballot in November.
Allison Neal, a law fellow with the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, said his organization opposes the amendment as legal overkill.
"It is overkill. It divides people into categories," he said. "This is not just about marriage. It is about domestic partnerships, common-law unions, access to health and retirement benefits, and benefits for children."
Howard Bayless, chairman of the board of the gay rights group Equality Alabama, hopes people in Alabama will be more understanding than the Christian Coalition and vote against the amendment.
Gay neighbors have difficulty visiting sick partners in the hospital, for example, and this bill would only make that more difficult.
Former Gov. Don Siegelman, who is also on the ballot next Tuesday as the one of the Democratic Party's nominees for governor, took a strong stand in favor of the gay marriage ban amendment on Alabama's "For the Record" show last night.
When asked where he stands on the amendment, he quickly said "I'm for it" almost before the question was out of the moderator's mouth. He justified this position by saying it was based on "nature."
But we suspect if he had actually done some research, he would learn that scientists have conducted study after study showing that nature, not nurture, is behind the fact that some people are born gay. In other words, no gay teacher or parent can turn a person into favoring one sex over the other in bed. It's in the genes. There's no escaping it, and this is NOT a matter of opinion.
Lucy Baxley took a different tack when asked the question on the show the night before. She would not reveal how she will vote on the amendment, since she said her vote is a private matter. But she did say her position is that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
We have no doubt Judge Roy Moore and Gov. Bob Riley will come out for it, and Riley's latest television commercials allude to it, along with his "right to life" position on abortion and arresting all the illegal immigrants and deporting them.
So, now that we have some information, here is our position.
We will vote against the amendment banning gay marriage, because we think it is just another dumbass reactionary use of the electoral process to push a right-wing agenda and discriminate against Americans who are not white, heterosexual, married and live in the suburbs and drive everywhere they go.
Marriage should be a private matter between consenting adults - not an issue for the state. As a simple matter of civil rights, citizens of this country should not be discriminated against because of their race, gender, political party affiliation or sexual orientation.
This amendment codifies discrimination into the state Constitution, which should be scrapped and rewritten in any event. The problem with rewriting it now is this: Do you trust the idiots in power in Montgomery at this juncture to do the rewriting? We don't.
But at least we should be able to vote down state sanctioned discrimination every chance we get at the election polls.
We therefore urge a "No" vote on Amendment One.
Officials with the Alabama Democratic Party are trying to figure out what to do today about Larry Darby, a candidate for the party's nomination for attorney general.
Darby is the founder of the Atheist Law Center in Montgomery and a longtime advocate for the separation of church and state. He made something of a name for himself a couple of years ago by getting quoted in the news for his opposition to judge Roy Moore's idea of sneaking a granite monument of the Ten Commandments into the state Supreme Court building.
Recently, however, Darby has come out of the closet so to speak as a Holocaust denier, an anti-Semite and a white supremacist.
Party officials say they were not aware of Darby's extremist views until the Associated Press ran a story about it last week and we posted this story. But the Southern Poverty Law Center's magazine, the Intelligence Report, had published something of an expose on Darby back in the fall of 2005.
Strange Bedfellows: Disgraced Holocaust denier hosted by Alabama atheist
Joe Turnham, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Alabama, said Monday morning he is trying to figure out how to de-certify Darby.
"But this is a sensitive issue," he said. "Darby is a lawyer."
Turnham said he just thought Darby was an atheist and an activist for the separation of church and state.
"I had no idea he was a holocaust denier and a racist," he said.
Turnham says he doubts Darby could win the race in any event, although the Democratic Party only has two candidates running in the June 6 primary. The winner between Darby and Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson will face the winner of the Republican Primary, most likely the incumbent Troy King, who is running against Mark Montiel.
But to have a George Wallace-style racist in the party in the year 2006 could damage the party's image and give political ammunition to Republican candidates all over the state, Turnham acknowledged.
"We are trying to figure out what to do about it now," he said. "I doubt if I would certify him in any event."
For more information on this issue, check with the blogger Hammer of Truth.
by Glynn Wilson
Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, a potential anti-war candidate in the 2008 presidential field, according to AP, urged fellow Democrats on Monday to show more backbone in challenging President Bush on his decision to invade Iraq.
"We must get out of our political foxholes and be willing to clearly and specifically point out what a strategic error the Iraq invasion has been," Feingold told an audience at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
Watch the re-run on C-SPAN on TV, or watch the video online here.
Feingold, who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees, said some Democrats in Congress gave in to "intimidation" by the Bush administration when they voted to authorize the war in 2002.
"If we do not show both a practical and emotional readiness to lead in the fight against terrorism, we will lose in '06 and we will lose in '08, just like we did in '02 and '04," he warned.
Feingold called for the censure of Bush over the administration's warrantless surveillance program back in March. So far, only two Democrats, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barbara Boxer of California, have signed on as co-sponsors. Some on the hard left, and even some Republicans, have said censure is not the answer, impeachment is...
Feingold has also proposed that U.S. troops leave Iraq by the end of the year, rejecting criticism that such a move could lead to chaos there.
"I believe the situation would probably get better" if U.S. troops left, he said. "The lesson of insurgency is when the occupying power leaves, it tends to lessen, rather than increase, the level of violence."
He said people ask him at every stop he makes out in the country, including Montgomery, Alabama, why Democrats won't stand up publicly for what they believe - especially against President George W. Bush. This includes Bush's decision to invade Iraq, rather than pursuing al Qaeda.
Iraq was not on the administration's list of countries where al Qaeda was operating on 9/11, he pointed out.
"It was not even on THEIR list," he said.
Feingold, who cast the lone vote against the USA Patriot Act in the Senate, also said he has no confidence in the assurances issued Monday by Bush's new appointee to the CIA, Gen. Michael Hayden, that the NSA has not been spying on American citizens without warrants.
Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say
by Glynn Wilson
It's no mystery why a lot of Americans are disengaged from the news and cynical about politics. It's hard to find a news organization or a politician that will just give people the straight dope and say what they really mean.
Sheep are hard-wired to be led, but it takes a shepherd in possession of some knowledge and the confidence to get out front on the issues to get a majority of the flock to follow into difficult terrain.
To demonstrate the point, I still somehow remember an old story I heard from a political science professor at the University of Alabama who came here from Cuba after Fidel Castro took power there in 1959. In the heady days after the Cuban Revolution and the early days of television and in-door plumbing, Castro took to the tube to explain to the people there exactly how to use a flush toilet.
That's right. Castro explained to the Cuban people how to use a flush toilet to get them all onboard making the country a more sanitary place. I'm assuming the new sewer systems were funded by the old Kremlin, but hey, who cares who pays for it as long as it works.
The point is it was a striking story to the professor, and he told it to his classes to demonstrate how leaders should lead by shooting straight with people and being willing to actually "educate" the masses.
I bring it up this morning because, while the polls are looking up for the Democrats in the upcoming elections in 2006, there is also a danger that the new leaders in the Democratic Party will squander an opportunity to take this country in a "brighter" direction.
Look no further than NBC's Meet the Press, where I just wanted to scream when I saw the disingenuous but so-called "objective" questioning from Tim Russert and the side-stepping answers by the Democratic Party's House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California.
As one prime example, in his act to appear to "nail down" a politician on an issue, Russert asked over and over again if she would support banning "all" political campaign contributions from lobbyists.
Well, that's a stupid question, first of all because it will never happen. In fact, it may not even be Constitutional under the First Amendment.
In her attempt to avoid being nailed down, the best Pelosi could come up with was to say she supports public financing of political campaigns. The problem is, no one, save Ralph Nader, has tried to educate the public and explain exactly how that idea would help diminish the giant corporations' influence on our government and give the public a say in politics once more.
There is no serious proposal on the table in Congress to move to a system of public financing. There should be, but who can explain it and lead the masses to that trough?
Pelosi also dodged the question on whether she would support an impeachment trial for President George W. Bush if the Democrats take back a majority in the House or Senate come November. At least she supports an "investigation," but the public is already ahead of the politicians on this issue. A majority of Americans want Bush impeached. So why dance around the issue?
Pelosi even danced around the question for a story in today's Washington Post. Here's the lede.
Democratic leaders, increasingly confident they will seize control of the House in November, are laying plans for a legislative blitz during their first week in power that would raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi ... said in an interview last week that a Democratic House would launch a series of investigations of the Bush administration, beginning with the White House's first-term energy task force and probably including the use of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Pelosi denied Republican allegations that a Democratic House would move quickly to impeach President Bush. But, she said of the planned investigations, "You never know where it leads to."
Democrats Plan Probe Of Bush If It Wins the House
Stop dancing Nancy. The public will back you up - but only if you are willing to take a strong stand and "just do it."
Where's the evidence that the Republicans are in trouble?
Look no further than the non-partisan Cook Political Report.
There is growing evidence that Republicans will face a voter turnout problem in the November midterm elections.
The GOP faces not only enormous misgivings among voters about the war in Iraq, which amounts to 70 or 80 percent of President Bush's problems, but also a combination of Social Security, mounting budget deficits, Hurricane Katrina, Harriet Miers, port security, immigration, gasoline prices and various scandals. History tells us that when one party is either complacent or disillusioned, and the other party is highly motivated, agitated or angry, the results can be devastating to the former while providing boundless opportunities for the latter.
A new Cook Political Report/RT Strategies national survey of 1,003 adults, conducted Thursday through Sunday, showed 36 percent approving of the job Bush is doing and 59 percent disapproving. The results were virtually the same among registered voters....
Studies show that voters in Bush-friendly red states drive significantly more miles each month than those in blue states, and it's a pretty logical assumption that gasoline usage is much greater in the predominately suburban, rural and small town congressional districts most often represented by Republicans, than in more compact, urban districts usually held by Democrats. That means the longer gasoline prices remain high, the worse it will be for GOP candidates.
Also in today's Post, a prominent GOP pollster, who also happens to be a chief architect of the Republicans' 1960s and '70s Southern strategy, says the recent White House shake-up - an attempt to jump-start the administration and boost President Bush's "rock-bottom" approval ratings - are "too little, too late" to "salvage Bush's presidency."
"This administration may be over," Lance Tarrance said last week. "By and large, if you want to be tough about it, the relevancy of this administration on policy may be over."
He cited the RT Strategies polls, which shows that 59 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance.
Tarrance said it would be extremely difficult for any president to bounce back this late in his administration and reassert influence on Capitol Hill when his approval rating barely exceeds his party's base support and half of all adults surveyed said they "strongly disapprove" of his performance. An overwhelming 73 percent of independents disapprove of Bush's performance, and two-thirds of those "strongly disapprove."
Washington Post story
Back in Alabama
Meanwhile back at the ranch in Alabama, Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley picked up another endorsement in her quiet march to become the state's Democratic Party nominee for governor.
Alabama New South Coalition Endorses Baxley for Governor
As reported in a somewhat misleading story by the Montgomery bureau of the Associated Press this week, in the absence of a dramatic acquittal in the Siegelman-Scrushy trial in Montgomery, Baxley will likely face Gov. Bob Riley in the November general election.
The AP story overplayed early expectations about Judge Roy Moore, although as we have reported here before, it is too early to count the Ten Commandments Judge out just yet. Much of his support will be of the "stealth" variety, which is to say they will not show up in the polls.
So what's the lesson for Journalism 202?
If you are a news reporter, ask intelligent questions that get to the point - and don't be afraid to educate your audience. But to take on the mantle of educating an audience is way too much responsibility for today's corporate news media. They might offend an advertiser or stockholder and lose a dollar or two.
A great Southern writer told me not so long ago that he "learns something" every time he reads one of my articles. It was not a compliment, because the philosophy of corporate, objective journalism is never to educate, only to "inform."
But many readers have e-mailed since this Web site came online to say they turn here on a regular basis because it is one of the few places in media-land of any format where they can expect to find "the truth."
As for Political Science 202, politicians should stop being afraid of taking too strong a stand and losing a few votes. Say what you mean and mean what you say, and the flocks will follow you into the promised land - a land where George W. Bush is tried, convicted and removed from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
If there is a God, God knows Bush has committed enough crimes in his lifetime. Shouldn't he have to pay for a few of them before he heads back to the ranch?
Election 2006 - and voter dissatisfaction with the Republicans - offer hope for the Democrats to reclaim one or both houses of Congress. But Democratic leaders have shown little understanding of the potential for a powerful national message that targets George W. Bush's trampling of constitutional principles that Americans hold dear, not to mention his use of fear and deception to stampede the public into a disastrous war in Iraq.
Instead Democratic leaders are falling into their old uninspiring pattern of passivity, triangulation and check-list issues aimed at disparate interest groups.
For the full story, go to ConsortiumNews.Com
A year ago, with Republican victories in the 2004 elections still fresh and with President Bush's job-approval ratings still above 50 percent, Democrats' chances of capturing the House looked fairly slim. Today, however, with Bush's approval ratings hovering around 42 percent, the possibility of a Democratic takeover - although less than 50-50 - is very real, according to Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report.
Even though House Democrats need a net gain of only 15 seats this November, that task is fairly daunting because the playing field is so small: Few House Republicans are retiring, and few of the Republican incumbents who ought to be vulnerable are in districts that actually are competitive.
Nevertheless, the Democrats do have a real shot at ending the GOP's control of the House. A simple statistical model that Cook Political Report Senior Editor Amy Walter and I developed several years ago suggests that the 2006 House election will be very close.
Read the full story here
Deposed U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, reportedly created a political action committee in Alabama and transferred some of that money to a possibly illegal fund in his home state, where the GOP hammer has been indicted on corruption charges related to campaign finance irregularities.
We put the link up on the news page this morning to the story in the New York Times regional newspaper's story, in which Dana Beyerle reported from records in the secretary of state's office that show DeLay's Alabama PAC, Americans for a Republican Majority, transferred $25,000 in October 2002 to another PAC, Texans for a Republican Majority.
NYT: Organization Used for Suspect Contributions
In a busy day for the Associated Press, the wire service matched the story and moved its version about 7:36 p.m.
AP: DeLay Operated PAC in Alabama
According to the reports, the records show that DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority, "under a slightly different name," also gave $11,000 in May 2002 to then-U.S. Rep. Bob Riley when he was seeking the Republican Party's nomination for governor of Alabama.
Riley said last week he would donate $1,000 to charity to make up for contributions from Washington lobbyist and DeLay associate Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty last week to wire fraud and is expected to turn state's evidence against a number of Republicans, including a number of sitting members of Congress and possibly Riley.
Sources tell us that the Washington Post, USA Today, the Birmingham News and possibly other news organizations are investigating the Delay and Abramoff connections to Riley and Alabama, including a Tuscaloosa company involved in trying to set up a national lottery in Russia.
We are spending time confirming these stories ourselves, and have obtained the records independently through the Alabama Secretary of State's Web site.
Sources are also saying things like "this will bury Riley when all the facts come out." Of course Riley's office denies direct knowledge in the links to Abramoff and Delay money, and will no doubt try the Montgomery two-step to escape being tainted in those scandals.
A lot of information about the Abramoff stuff has already been posted on Judge Roy Moore's blog, although some of it has come in the comments section and not been verified.
This will get very interesting before it's over and it will be most interesting to see which news organization gets the most dirt and the best story.
Just when you think it's safe to take a break from the news for a few hours, things start popping again.
According to highly placed and reliable sources, a scheduling hearing in federal court has been set for 8:30 a.m. in Montgomery Friday in what could be the "conspiracy" show trial of former Gov. Don Siegelman and deposed HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy.
The primary purpose of the hearing before Justice Mark E. Fuller, appointed to the court by President George W. Bush in 2002, is to set a trial date and rule on pending motions in the case, including one to try Siegelman and Scrushy separately and one for a dismissal of the case for "prosecutorial misconduct."
The judge may also consider and rule on whether there should be a change of venue if there is a trial and other procedural motions relating to jury selection and the admissibility of certain expert witness testimony, and whether or not there was an "actual conspiracy" in the case.
The trial date in the case is critical, especially to the Democratic Party, since the primary vote in the upcoming governor's race is set for June 6. If the trial is scheduled for March or even April, the Siegelman camp feels that would allow plenty of time for a determination in the case and time for a full campaign in the primary - if the case is dropped along the way or results in a not guilty verdict.
A later trial date could put a real crimp in the party's plans, according to party officials and other experts.
One insider in the Siegelman camp - who expressed concerns about delays on the part of the prosecution already - said they have a full realization about the political realities if the hearing on Friday goes badly. A guilty verdict, of course, would certainly knock Siegelman out of the race.
"If it goes badly Friday," according to one highly placed source, "Siegelman's dance in this show may be over."
The National Security Agency uses local law enforcement agencies to track members of anti-war groups as they prepare for protests, internal NSA documents show, according to the Baltimore Sun.
This practice is not an entirely new thing. The Nixon administration used law enforcement in the 1960s and early 1970s to spy on groups opposing the war in Vietnam and civil rights groups. In response, Congress passed the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, making the practice illegal.
What is new is that the Bush administration has now admitted using the NSA to spy on American citizens, in clear violation of the law, according to most legal experts. A fierce debate is now going on in Washington about the practice in the context of the so-called "war on terror," with Republican lawyers scrambling to cobble together a legal justification for stomping all over the Constitution.
Samuel Alito, Bush's latest nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, if confirmed, could help the administration pass a legal justification. As we have reported here a number of times already, Alito has authored memos in the past putting forward a novel legal theory called "unitary executive authority," which would allow the president to circumvent the law in a "time of war."
But according to the Constitution, only Congress can declare war, and the "war on terror" is not a declared war against another state. So the debate will hinge, in part, on whether the attacks on 9/11 were an act of war or a crime.
If the Democrats were in power, it would be handled as a crime and chances are we would not be involved in this illegal war in Iraq. It serves the Republican Party to call it "war," so that's where we are. The American people have a say in this, but the Bush administration is good at keeping people so afraid that they will not speak out against it. Thus our present dilemma.
If the American people would stand up against this - especially those who like to call themselves conservatives who are at heart civil libertarians who do not want the federal government to become like the Big Brother depicted in George Orwell's book 1984 - there is a chance to turn the situation around and restore trust in the American government at home and abroad.
If the American people remain silent, like the German people did in the run up to war in Nazi Germany in the late 1930s, then American democracy is on the brink of being doomed to the dustbin of history.
Let's Walk Out on a Stout Limb with Krystal Ball 
by Glynn Wilson
Editor and Publisher
LocustFork.Net
They say you can't predict the outcome of elections this far in advance.
But what THEY don't know is that here at The Locust Fork, we have a friend named Krystal Ball - and she tends to read between the headlines and develop good sources and comes to us sometimes in a window on the computer screen that looks a lot like a Web browser connected to the Internet.
So right or wrong, as the commander once said about his country, here are her first set of predictions for 2006.
We stand by them with the offer of a stout brew to anyone who challenges them in the comments section and proves to be right.
Here goes.
The scandal involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff is changing the political landscape in the nation's capital and the Alabama Capitol in ways that the legacy media and the masses do not yet grasp. This will change the political calculus in the Congress even more than the Enron scandal or the Katrina debacle or even the Tom Delay scandal all by itself.
While the pollsters are still predicting that the Republican Party will hold onto a majority in both houses of Congress, and that Gov. Bob Riley is the front runner in the Alabama governor's race, Krystal Ball says they are wrong.
Prediction One: The Democratic Party will retake a majority in either the U.S. House or Senate, maybe both.
The Democrats only need six seats in the Senate and 15 in the House. While a turn in many races still appears to be a long-shot, just wait until Abramoff testifies about everything he knows on how Republican members of Congress enriched themselves illegally as public officials.
Some of them are going down. Remember, you heard it here first.
Prediction Two: Just from a preliminary investigation into Bob Riley's own connections to Abramoff, it is reasonable to conclude that he will end up being damaged politically more than anyone yet knows.
Hence:
Prediction Three: There is a much stronger chance than anyone is predicting at this point that Judge Roy Moore will be the Republican nominee for governor of Alabama. He has more support from Alpha and the trial lawyers than I suspected - and his stealth religious vote will be more than the pollsters will ever pick up on the telephone.
Next, while everyone has heard former Gov. Don Siegelman's plea about a "political prosecution" - for taking money from Richard Scrushy in exchange for a position on the state health board - what no one seems to get yet is that it is true.
In September 2001, George W. Bush appointed Leura Garrett Canary as U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama. Her husband, Bill Canary, has a long history as political fixer for the GOP, especially for the Bushes and, you guessed it, he has strong ties to Karl Rove, Jack Abramoff - and Riley from his days in Congress.
There is more money in them hills than the $1,000 Riley gave to charity this week. The trick will be if any of the newspapers in this state are willing to put up the time and resources to go after it, or whether some new blogger will spend the time to dig out the truth.
Everyone who is anyone knows that political spoils such as positions on health boards are business as usual in Montgomery and Washington. And while it is unfortunate, there really is nothing illegal about it. Unethical, yes, but you don't go to jail for being an unethical person people can't trust. You just have less of a chance of winning when you run for office.
So:
Prediction Four: Siegelman will not be convicted and the case may never even get to trial.
That does not mean, however, that he will be the Democratic Party nominee come June 6.
Back in the 1980s, Siegelman was a progressive, pro-environment Democrat. But to get elected in 1998, he sold out to Alabama Power and half the Business Council crowd. When he was not strong enough to sell his lottery plan, his administration basically fell apart - except for continuing to recruit more automobile plants to the state with huge tax breaks that may never pay off and create a big fat ton of suburban sprawl in the process.
So why does he deserve a second chance in the governor's mansion? Maybe he doesn't.
Here's where Krystal Ball gets a bit hazy.
Siegelman has a lot of business support and strong support in the African-American community. But to tell you the truth, his brain is just not that big and he is not the greatest campaigner in the world. Remember last time when he had to wear his arm in a sling from shaking people's hands?
And he has a chip on his shoulder about the press, which makes it hard for him to do the kind of PR job we are all now familiar with out of Washington.
The critical factor here is whether the "We Love Lucy" Baxley campaign can take off.
She has strong support among state employees, but we have our doubts in other quarters. Krystal Ball gives her a fair chance - if she can raise the level of political dialogue a bit and hammer home some winning issues to eat into Siegelman's base.
If she could get past Siegelman - and if Jim Folsom Jr. or someone else doesn't jump into the race (a real possibility) - she might have a chance against Judge Roy Moore with the more moderate religious crowd, considering her strong stance on faith and willingness to talk about it in public. Even the preachers Krystal Ball talks to think Moore is way too radical to be handed the reins of state government.
But it is going to take a stronger platform then she unveiled on Wednesday and a tireless campaign to sell it. Does she have what it takes? Krystal Ball says "wait and see."
If Siegelman's case is dropped soon enough, and if he can put together a strong campaign, he could win the nomination. But how would he fare against Riley, if he is not indicted himself, or Judge Roy Moore?
It will literally depend on issues in the news at the time and which base group is more fired up to turn out at the polls.
Heck, it may even depend on the weather. Would someone check the Farmer's Almanac for June 6, 2006? It ain't free online and Krystal Ball says it will be "mostly cloudy."
So what about a straightforward answer to the question: Who will be the next governor of Alabama?
Krystal Ball's face is looking back at me with a strange expression of doubt. But an image keeps emerging and disappearing. It looks a lot like a piece of paper in the shape of the Ten Commandments.
The odd thing is, it is not carved in stone.
As for the fate of our dick-tater-in-chief in Washington, Krystal Ball sometimes plays evil tricks on us.
The image keeps changing from what appears to be a ranch in Texas to the bars of what look a lot like a jail cell. Could it be that George W. Bush will be the first president in U.S. history to land behind bars?
That may be wishful thinking on the part of Krystal Ball. She tends to be a liberal-tarian, although she seems to like John McCain.
Speaking of McCain, could he be the Republican nominee for president in 2008? Krystall Ball says she is "cautiously optimistic," although the chances are a bit slim due to the lock-step mentality of today's Republican Party - dominated as it is by a family named after a shrub.
Glynn Wilson is a veteran reporter, free-lance writer and Net publisher who writes at least one column a week under the titles Under the Microscope or Connecting the Dots. His articles have been published in the New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, Dallas Morning News and many other newspapers and magazines, and his articles, columns and photos are available for syndication.
Finally, the prospects are brightening that George W. Bush and his neoconservative allies might face some accountability for their endless deceptions, their high-handed governance of the United States and their repeated trampling of international law, according to Robert Parry at ConsortiumNews.Com.
As unlikely as it might have seemed just a few months ago, he reports, the mid-term congressional elections in 2006 are shaping up as not only a pivotal political moment but a referendum on what Bush has done over the previous five years.
It’s a chance for Americans to say No to “preemptive wars” fought for trumped-up reasons; No to torture and other violations of civilized behavior; No to record federal budget deficits; No to rampant cronyism that has become business as usual - from Halliburton's contracts in Iraq, to Jack Abramoff's lobbying of Congress, to the mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina and other federal emergencies.
Poll after poll reveals a political awakening across the United States, a shaking off of the drug-like sleep of propaganda. Belatedly, large numbers of Americans are demanding the truth. They want to know how their great country was led so far off course.
In our view, a big part of that answer lies with what happened inside the major U.S. news media, which today can be viewed as split between a powerful conservative message machine and an intimidated mainstream media that fears angering Bush, a mix of bullies and the bullied.
Full Story
|
|