Beware liberal bloggers Bill-O is sending Fox Noise flying monkeys after you

Host tries to get aggressive liberal blogger booted from law school For Bill O'Reilly, ambushing your political enemies with a video camera is just fine, as long as the camera is pointed in the opposite direction. Blogger Mike Stark has a history of haranguing O'Reilly during his call-in radio show, and he once visited the Fox host's house to mock him over sexual harassment allegations. And now Stark, 39, has become the target of a network executive working on behalf of the combative Fox News pundit. Fox VP Dianne Brandi has written to the dean of the Univeristy of Virginia's law school, where Stark is in his second year, urging an investigation of his conduct. Stark told RAW STORY his dean has shown him a copy of the letter but would not allow it to be distributed to others. The letter accuses Stark of violating the university's codes of conduct, and it warns that he would have trouble passing the fitness review required for admission to the bar. The showdown began with Stark's calls to O'Reilly's radio show -- "telling the truth when he didn't want to talk about the truth," as Stark characterizes it -- and escalated to a videotaped confrontation in O'Reilly's driveway. Brandi claimed the visit amounted to harassment, but Stark said he sees it as a reasonable response after O'Reilly sent a producer to the home of Jet Blue CEO David Neeleman when the airline sponsored this summer's YearlyKos conference of progressive bloggers and activists. O'Reilly made YearlyKos one of his favorite targets in August, when he smeared the conference's namesake blog, Daily Kos, with a few offensive comments dredged from the thousands posted by readers every day. Stark accosted O'Reilly at his Manhasset, NY, home and implored him to "stop lying" about the blog. He also distributed copies of a 3-year-old sexual harassment lawsuit filed against O'Reilly to his neighbors and displayed signs branding the host a pervert -- actions some say cross ethical boundaries. "Nobody's going to convince me that what I did is wrong," Stark said in a recent interview. O'Reilly is no stranger to ambushing his political enemies and shoving cameras in their faces. Just two weeks ago, an "O'Reilly Factor" producer showed up at a public book signing to ask former "View" co-host Rosie O'Donnell about her speculating that 9/11 was an inside job. In Stark's eyes, his actions are no different than those authorized by the Fox host, especially the Jet Blue visit. That's not how O'Reilly or Fox News sees things, and the bombastic host's latest assault mirrors earlier incidents when Fox's legal beagles have been unleashed against critics. O'Reilly's most famous legal troubles came in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former coworker. Before that lawsuit was even filed, O'Reilly and the Fox News legal team hit the host's accuser -- Andrea Mackris, a former Fox News producer -- with a countersuit claiming she was trying to extort $60 million from O'Reilly. The top-rated cable news host eventually settled for several million dollars and dropped the extortion suit against Mackris, who claimed O'Reilly had accosted her with sexually harassing phone calls. O'Reilly would ask his then-producer about masturbation, encourage her to purchase vibrators and appeared to be pleasuring himself during the phone calls, Mackris alleged. O'Reilly's legal troubles provided plenty of giggles for his critics when the story broke in October 2004. Stark, who runs the blog Calling All Wingnuts and is a regular commentor at Daily Kos, latched on to the most amusing allegation in the suit, taken from O'Reilly's description of his shower fantasies in a phone call with Mackris. "Then I would take the other hand with the falafel (sic) thing and I'd put it on your p---y but you'd have to do it really light, just kind of a tease business," O'Reilly told Mackris. Stark was confused as to how the Middle Eastern dish of chickpeas and vegetables would fare in the scene O'Reilly outlined. "How'd you keep the falafel together in the shower," Stark asked O'Reilly in the video as the host, wearing gym shorts and a T-shirt emerges from his house to fetch the morning paper. The antagonism directed O'Reilly's way is not limited to the driveway confrontation. Stark also distributed copies of the sexual harassment lawsuit to O'Reilly's neighbors in official-looking envelopes, and he displayed signs in the neighborhood branding O'Reilly a "pervert" and saying he "can't be trusted with your daughters." The letter to Stark's dean claims his actions "may constitute criminal harassment" under New York law, and it warns that a civil lawsuit could be headed Stark's way, he told RAW STORY. While he acknowledges that some may take issue with his tactics, Stark said the letter was more about damaging his personal reputation than raising any serious legal concerns. He has followed up with a letter to Fox News CEO Roger Ailes requesting an apology "for the attempt to harass and intimidate me at my school place," but he's received no response from Fox. "Ms. Brandi’s false and malicious assertions have the potential to redound to Fox’s negative benefit," Stark wrote to the network chief, "and Mr. O’Reilly’s bizarre abuse of the legal process reflects poorly upon the Fox News brand." Brandi, the Fox lawyer, also told the law school dean that Stark recently threatened to post O'Reilly's home address online, a claim the activist disputes. Her letter is not limited to defending O'Reilly; it alleges Stark has harassed his guests as well. Widely quoted political analyst Larry Sabato appeared on The O'Reilly Factor in late July, and that prompted an e-mail and phone call from Stark to Sabato "to inform guests that appear on O'Reilly's programs of his irresponsible rhetoric and behaviors." Brandi claimed Stark's letter and phone call interfered with the ability of Sabato -- one of the most prolific experts on elections -- to express his views on talk shows. The letter encouraged an investigation into whether Stark violated the university's code of conduct. "I have no public comment whatsoever," Sabato told RAW STORY via e-mail when contacted for this article. Stark said his dean does not plan to follow-up on the allegations in the letter. Calls and e-mails to the University of Virginia law school seeking comment were not returned. Brandi and a Fox News spokesperson did not return calls seeking comment. Despite the letter, Stark said he does not plan to curtail his criticism of O'Reilly, who he calls a "propagandist" whose methods deserve to be challenged. "This guy's going to other people's houses," Stark said, "and I had to impress the gravity of that on him by going to his house." Stark posted the following video online in August, after O'Reilly began targeting sponsors of the Yearly Kos

Ex-publisher says News Corp wanted her to lie to protect Giuliani

Ex-Publisher Says News Corp. Official Wanted Her to Lie to Protect Giuliani By RUSS BUETTNER Judith Regan, the book publisher who was fired by the News Corporation last year, asserts in a lawsuit filed today that a senior executive at the media conglomerate encouraged her to mislead federal investigators about her relationship with Bernard B. Kerik during his bid to become homeland security secretary in late 2004. The lawsuit asserts that the News Corporation executive wanted to protect the presidential aspirations of former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Kerik’s mentor, who had appointed him New York City police commissioner and had recommended him for the federal post. Ms. Regan makes the charge at the start of a 70-page filing that seeks $100 million in damages for what she says was a campaign to smear and discredit her by her bosses at HarperCollins and its parent company, the News Corporation, after her project to publish a book with O.J. Simpson was abandoned amid a storm of protest. In the civil complaint filed in state court in Manhattan, Ms. Regan says the company has long sought to promote Mr. Giuliani’s ambitions. But the lawsuit does not elaborate on that charge, or identify the executive who she alleged pressured her to mislead investigators, nor does it offer details or evidence to back up her claim. Ms. Regan had an affair with Mr. Kerik, who is married, beginning in the spring of 2001, when her imprint, Regan Books, began work on his memoir, “The Lost Son.” In December 2004, after the relationship had ended and shortly after Mr. Kerik’s homeland security nomination fell apart, newspapers reported that the two had carried on the affair at an apartment near Ground Zero that had been donated as a respite for rescue and recovery workers. Mr. Kerik, who in 2004 said he withdrew his nomination because of problems with his hiring of a nanny, was indicted last week on federal tax fraud and other charges. “Defendants were well aware that Regan had a personal relationship with Kerik,” the complaint says. “In fact, a senior executive in the News Corporation organization told Regan that he believed she had information about Kerik that, if disclosed, would harm Giuliani’s presidential campaign. This executive advised Regan to lie to, and to withhold information from, investigators concerning Kerik.” Officials of the News Corporation were asked in a telephone call for comment on the lawsuit, but had yet to issue a statement. One of Ms. Regan’s lawyers, Brian C. Kerr of the firm Dreier L.L.P., said she possesses evidence to support her claim that she was advised to lie to federal investigators who were vetting Mr. Kerik. But Mr. Kerr declined to discuss the nature of the evidence. “We’re fully confident that the evidence will show that Judith Regan was the victim of a vicious smear campaign engineered by News Corp. and HarperCollins,” Mr. Kerr said. The News Corporation controls a vast array of media outlets worldwide, including Twentieth Century Fox, the New York Post and the Fox News Channel, where Ms. Regan once hosted a talk show.

Vote puts early primary in doubt

Vote puts early primary in doubt Senate restores Jan. 15 date but Democrats refuse to go along Charlie Cain / Detroit News Lansing Bureau LANSING -- Michigan lawmakers failed Thursday in their attempt to save Michigan's endangered Jan. 15 presidential primary. The Senate voted 26-9 on a bill to restore the primary in a way that could pass legal muster with a judge who this week declared the law establishing the primary unconstitutional. But Democrats refused to vote for a companion procedural motion to give the bill "immediate effect." And without that, the bill cannot become law until around March 1 of next year -- long after the proposed primary vote. The state parties have until Wednesday to tell the secretary of state, who oversees elections, if they plan to hold a primary. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Michelle McManus, conceded that without immediate effect the primary is all but dead. She blamed Democrats and their union allies who want party caucuses, rather than a primary. Caucuses likely would work to the favor of ex-North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who has powerful friends in organized labor, because unions would have a better chance of controlling caucuses than a primary in which anyone who requested a Democratic ballot could vote. "These guys want to do it behind closed doors, they want political bosses to decide who their presidential candidate is," she said. Democratic caucuses likely would attract around 100,000 voters, while a projected 1 million would be expected to vote in a Democratic primary. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has a substantial lead among likely Michigan primary voters. Her name remains on the ballot, but the other leading Democrats, including Edwards, have taken their names off because the date violates the national party's pre-set calendar. Those advocating an early primary say it would give Michigan a greater voice in selecting both parties' nominees. Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, had urged his colleagues during Senate debate to vote to restore the primary. "If you don't support immediate effect, you have destroyed our opportunity to have a presidential primary on Jan. 15," he said. "Make us relevant in this (nominating) process." Bishop was hoping the House would pass the bill and return it to the Senate, where another vote on immediate effect then could be held. But later Thursday evening, House Speaker Andy Dillon, D-Redford Township, cast doubt that will happen. Dillon said the primary wouldn't be very meaningful if all of the Democrats, except Clinton, decide not to participate. "It costs us $10 million to have the election," Dillon said. "When the (top) Democrats pulled out, it hurt the quality of it ... I'm not sure it's worth $10 million to hold a primary that only involves one party." Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis said the Senate "took the right step to re-establish" the primary, and urged House Democrats to quickly pass the primary legislation. GOP spokesman Bill Nowling said the Senate vote was troublesome. "I think we can still pull off a Jan. 15 primary," he said. "With the Senate vote, we got half a loaf, so we'll take that and keep moving forward. We're just in limbo at the time being." Republicans say a presidential primary remains their first option. But if the primary fails to win legislative support, Republicans would likely hold a statewide presidential nominating convention on Jan. 25 and 26. Between 3,000 and 5,000 party activists would likely participate in a GOP convention. Debbie Dingell, a Michigan member of the Democratic National Committee, worked feverishly to round up votes for the primary. And she said Thursday it isn't dead. "Not yet," she said. "We're still moving forward on the legal side and the Legislature may come back next week and could take it up." If the primary isn't held, Dingell said the fallback plan is to hold a Democratic caucus the same day as New Hampshire's primary, which will take place in early January -- although the date has not yet been set. "I want the primary because I think it's the right thing," Dingell said. The primary law was struck down Wednesday by Ingham County Circuit Judge William Collette. He said it was unconstitutional since it would have allowed the lists of voters who took part in the primary to go only to the Democratic and Republican parties. He said the Legislature would have had to give the law, approved in August, a two-thirds vote to allow the spending of public money to benefit a private interest, in this case the political parties. The law didn't have two-thirds support. In other developments on Thursday, the national Republican Party, as expected, said it will punish five states -- including Michigan -- for scheduling nominating contests before Feb. 5. It said Michigan would lose half of its delegates to next summer's nominating convention. But GOP Michigan Chairman Anuzis said he took that as an idle threat. "I remain confident that all of Michigan's 60 national delegates will be seated next year in Minneapolis-St. Paul," he said.

Enjoy the dark ages

Enjoy the dark ages by Jack Lessenberry 11/7/2007 How would you like it if a group of religious nuts seized your state government and vowed to choke off important advances in science and medicine — even at the expense of further damaging our state's badly limping economy? Well, guess what. That's what's happened in Michigan, without most of us even noticing, and that's no exaggeration. I am talking about embryonic stem cell research, biology's hope of the future. Our state is being prevented from making progress or doing research in this vital area by fundamentalist zealots — mostly, the badly misnamed group Right to Life of Michigan. Right to Life was set up, as you likely know, to prevent women from having the right to control their own reproductive systems. They are, in other words, an anti-abortion group. That's fine; Right to Life is perfectly free to argue against what the U.S. Supreme Court says is a constitutional right. They are, at least, fairly honest about where they are coming from on abortion, though, like most of their ilk, they generally show little or no interest in what might become of the unwanted babies they would force women to bear. But now they are also doing their best to destroy our medical and economic hopes for the future. They oppose stem cell research, something that doesn't involve destroying a single potential life, though they sometimes lie and say it does. They also like to pretend researchers can learn just as much from stem cells that come from healthy adults, though virtually no biologists believe that. The fact is that embryonic stem cell research has more potential for good than any other technology in a long, long time. Embryonic stem cells are, scientists tell me, sort of a fast-growing, universal genetic substance that, properly prodded, can grow into all sorts of different kinds of cells. Thanks to a new technique called "somatic cell nuclear transfer," it may be possible to solve the problem of tissue rejection. The potential that opens up is almost beyond imagining. Otherwise crusty scientists have been known to wax lyrical about the potential of all this. There is a real possibility that, with time and experimentation, the effects of diseases from Parkinson's to Alzheimer's may be rolled back. People with severe spinal cord injuries might be able to recover function in their paralyzed limbs. Michigan has excellent research facilities, including the University of Michigan's medical center and the Van Andel Institute in Grand Rapids. But not only can such research not qualify for government funding here, it cannot even be legally done. Believe it or not, Mississippi's laws on embryonic stem cell research are better than ours. Only four small, backward states have laws as restrictive as ours: North and South Dakota, Arkansas and Louisiana. None of those states have the ability to do world-class stem cell research anyway. We do, but our scientists, such as Sean Morrison, director of the University of Michigan's Center for Stem Cell Biology, are forbidden from it by our medieval laws. Some of our best scientists have left. Others are, sadly, certain to go. State Rep. Andy Meisner (D-Ferndale) knows how stupid this is. He's holding hearings on a bill that would allow embryonic stem cell research. State Sen. Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing) is trying to do the same thing in the Michigan Senate. But they are unlikely to succeed. The elected zombies Right to Life controls are too strong. There is an alternative, however: Putting a constitutional amendment on next year's ballot that would allow this, and a group called Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research and Cures is trying to do just that. Right to Life, which has a lot in common with the Taliban, will fight that tooth and nail. They know that if it gets on the ballot it will win overwhelmingly. You can contact the good guys at stemcellresearchformichigan.com or 248-948-5555. By the way, here's something else the Taliban won't tell you. Every day they stymie stem cell research is another day they steal money from you. Civilized states like California know this. Our pathetic president has twice vetoed, you may remember, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, his fellow Republican, promptly encouraged his state to defy the Shrub and invest $3 billion. He's no fool; a nonpartisan study shows they'll get back up to $12.6 billion as a result. Naturally, this doesn't matter, because we don't need new jobs or money in Michigan, right? After all, we'll always have clapboard churches. And, for the refined, Gregorian chants. Coming a Cropper: State Sen. Alan Cropsey (R- Dewitt, west of Lansing) isn't a guy you would normally think of as a transportation expert. During his college days at that intellectual powerhouse, Bob Jones University, he studied how to teach math (fundamentalist math, naturally) to little kids. Nor is he on the transportation committee. But he has been fighting hard to protect the interests of Matty Moroun, the shadowy billionaire who wants monopoly control of commercial traffic across the Detroit River. Old Matt has that now, thanks to his ownership of the Ambassador Bridge. Economically, that ancient bridge is the single most important border crossing between the United States and Canada. More than $100 billion worth of stuff crosses it every year, and if something were to happen to it, there is no backup system. For a long time, Matty contended there was no need to build any other bridge, that one wasn't needed. Then one day a joint Canada-United States group called DRIC, for Detroit River International Crossing, started a serious, federal-and-state-funded study of where a new bridge should go. Suddenly, the Matster announced that he would build a second bridge, right next to his old one. Imagine that. He said we should stop studying other alternatives, right now. You'd expect him to say that, just as you would expect cooler heads to tell him to stuff it. What you wouldn't expect is that Alan Cropsey would turn into Matty Moroun's free (?) lobbyist. During the budget negotiations, Cropsey tried hard to kill the DRIC study, even though that would mean the state would have to pay millions of dollars back to the federal government. What reason did he give? "None that made a whole lot of sense," state Sen. Ray Basham, a Democrat who is on the transportation committee, told me. About all Cropsey would say in public was that the state couldn't afford a publicly funded bridge. No, except that such a bridge would mean lower tolls for the taxpayers. A fully loaded tractor-trailer pays far less to cross the much longer Mackinac Bridge than what Matty soaks 'em for. Plus, while Cropsey probably didn't learn much about diplomacy at Bob Jones, he needs to understand, however dimly, that Canada is a sovereign country. All indications are that they don't want a second Ambassador Bridge, and if they say no, Old Matty will have to stop his second span right in the middle of the river. That might make for an interesting wrought-iron work of abstract art, but wouldn't be much help in transportation terms. Wouldn't it be a good idea for some reporter at this point to carefully scrutinize who has been donating to Alan Cropsey's political campaigns?

FBI calls on colleges to guard against spies

FBI Calls on Universities to Guard Against Spies By Kim Zetter November 07, 2007 3:43:23 PMCategories: Surveillance The FBI's relationship with university students and academics has never been one of wine and roses -- see the agency's covert campaign to discredit Albert Einstein. Therefore, it might be a bit surprising to know that some university presidents are now embracing the agency and are perhaps even willing to become its eyes and ears on campus. The National Security Higher Education Advisory Board, launched in 2005, consists of 20 university presidents around the country who are working with the FBI on matters of campus security and counter-terrorism to identify threats to students and staff. But the board is also being asked to guard against campus spies who might be out to steal not-yet-secret secrets. According to this report from NPR, the presidents are being advised to think like "Cold War-riors" and be mindful of professors and students who may not be on campus for purposes of learning but, instead, for spying, stealing research and recruiting people who are sympathetic to an anti-U.S. cause. Speaking this week at Penn State University, FBI Director Robert Mueller told an audience that universities need to guard against spies who are out to acquire bits and pieces of technology and research and said he's worried that "pre-classified and pre-patented" technologies could fall into the wrong hands. The NPR report doesn't say how universities would accomplish this without clamping down on their ordinarily open, information-sharing nature. Presumably, one possible way, not discussed in the NPR piece, would be to simply bar some foreign students and academics from entering the U.S. Another possible solution, used in the past, would be to bar U.S. academics from publishing or otherwise publicly presenting research that the government deems sensitive. Mueller says, however, that the FBI isn't trying to impose its will on campuses; it simply wants to make academics cognizant of these issues. "It is certainly not our intent to interfere in any way with the academic environment, but we must remain alert to the threats we all face, and we must learn to balance openness with awareness," he told Penn State. In addition to helping the FBI fight terrorism and guard against research theft, a 2005 FBI press release about the advisory board also discusses having universities develop school curricula aimed at helping the FBI recruit on campus. Director Mueller said "As we do our work, we wish to be sensitive to university concerns about international students, visas, technology export policy, and the special culture of colleges and universities. We also want to foster exchanges between academia and the FBI in order to develop curricula which will aid in attracting the best and brightest students to careers in the law enforcement and intelligence communities." Graham Spanier, president of Penn State University and head of the FBI's advisory board, told NPR that he's finding some universities resistant to the FBI's friendly overtures.

Dems take a humorous swipe at Romney

Dems take humorous swipe at Romney By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer 27 minutes ago Democrats are taking a humorous swipe at Republican Mitt Romney's attempt to turn his supporters' discards into campaign cash. The Democratic National Committee planned to launch an online auction Friday to sell goods symbolizing the past policy positions they say Romney has dumped. The presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor this week asked supporters to sell off old items to benefit his presidential bid. Romney Campaign Manager Beth Myers sent an e-mail to supporters and asked them to sell their old belongings on "Mitt Market," an online auction site. "Do you have items lying around that you don't use?" the campaign asked on its site. "From bicycles that the kids have outgrown to old electronics or baseball cards, your stuff may be someone else's treasure." Democrats then turned the tables with a tongue-in-cheek stunt. "It comes as no surprise that a presidential candidate who has so cravenly pandered to the right wing of his party by auctioning off his past would ask supporters to do the same," DNC spokesman Damien LaVera said. "Unless smooth-talking Mitt Romney was planning on recycling those old tax-raising, pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-immigrant, pro-gay rights and pro-campaign finance reform positions in a general election, we thought we'd auction them off for charity." Democrats' online packages include representations of past positions Romney held while campaigning for public office in the moderate-to-left Bay State. Included in the kit are a snowman to represent Romney's reluctance to participate in a YouTube debate that included a question on global warming from a melting snowman, a DVD with examples of Romney's changed policy stances and a pair of flip-flop sandals. The Romney campaign wasn't laughing. "It just proves that the last person they want to run against is a chief executive like Governor Romney with a proven record of accomplishment who is determined to change the status quo of Washington and the free-spending, high-taxing ways of the Beltway Democrats," said Sarah Pompei, deputy press secretary.( Flipin Mitt spokesperson must be hitting the Kool-Aid hard before making this comment) The DNC said it would donate a matching amount from the auctions to a pet shelter. That gibe was intended to highlight animal rights activists' criticism of Romney for strapping the family Irish setter in a dog carrier to the roof of the car before taking his family on a 12-hour road trip in 1983. The dog survived the ride.

House approves business surcharge

House approves business surcharge Plan to replace service tax money faces Senate fight November 9, 2007 BY CHRIS CHRISTOFF FREE PRESS LANSING BUREAU CHIEF LANSING -- The drive to repeal an unpopular tax on services before it takes effect Dec. 1 got another boost Thursday from the state House, which voted to replace it with a bigger business tax. The vote sets up a political dance with the Senate, where majority Republicans support killing the service tax but not necessarily replacing the lost $614 million in revenue this year with another tax. AdvertisementThe House bill was supported by a long list of the state's largest businesses -- the Detroit Three automakers included. They determined a business tax increase was better than the 6% service tax passed Oct. 1 in a frenzied rush to balance the state budget with tax increases. Auto companies face big taxes for warehousing under the services tax. Although the Legislature is scheduled to begin a 2-week recess today, the House and Senate left the door open for meetings next week to try to resolve the tax issue. The House bill passed on a 58-48 vote, with only two Republicans joining 56 Democrats. The bill would repeal the tax on services -- roundly condemned by business groups for its impact on businesses large and small -- and instead impose a 32.9% surcharge on the new Michigan Business Tax. The MBT takes effect Jan. 1 to replace the Single Business Tax. The surcharge would drop to 27.3% after 2008. No business would pay more than $2 million. The surcharge would affect about 60,000 businesses that are expected to pay the MBT next year. It would not affect another 40,000 businesses that would pay a cheaper, alternative business tax, according to the state Treasury Department. Insurance companies would not pay the surcharge because they would not pay the MBT, but rather pay a different tax based on their premiums. Treasury analysts said that, compared with the sales tax on services, the MBT surcharge would shift a larger burden of business taxes to out-of-state companies. The Senate voted Wednesday to repeal the tax on services, but that bill did not address the lost revenue the repeal would cause. Some Senate and House Republicans oppose a replacement tax and called for further budget cuts instead. Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm, however, said she wouldn't support eliminating the services tax without a replacement tax that produces the same revenue. House Minority Leader Craig DeRoche, R-Novi, complained that Democrats would not consider a Republican plan to cut $650 million. DeRoche called the Thursday evening vote a Democratic rush to raise taxes. Majority Democrats rammed through the bill without allowing GOP amendments or debate on it. Democrats called DeRoche an irrelevant player who refused to take part in negotiations or committee hearings on the bill. House Speaker Andy Dillon, D-Redford Township, said it was important that the House pass the measure before the recess as a show of good faith to businesses that supported it. Earlier this week, Ford Motor Co. Chairman Bill Ford lobbied Granholm and legislative leaders in Lansing. The surcharge would have a relatively minor impact on automakers because of a $2-million cap on payments

Rep. Wexler Will Urge the Judiciary Committee to Hold Immediate Hearings on Impeachment!!!

Rep. Wexler Will Urge the Judiciary Committee to Hold Immediate Hearings on Impeachment!!! Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2007-11-07 20:48. Congress Rep. Robert Wexler sent his constituents this beautiful and admirable Email today: As a person who supports holding this Administration accountable for their deceptive actions, you may be interested to know about the recent votes in the House regarding H.Res. 333, "Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors." I share your belief that Vice President Cheney must answer for his deceptive actions in office, particularly with regard to the preparations for the Iraq war and the revelation of the identity of covert agent Valerie Plame Wilson as part of political retribution against her husband. That is why I voted against the motion to table debate on H.Res. 333. Along with only 85 other Democrats, I opposed tabling the measure and supported beginning immediate debate and a vote on the Cheney impeachment resolution. The vote on tabling the Kucinich resolution was rejected, and the House subsequently voted to refer the matter to the Judiciary Committee. Vice President Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration have demonstrated a consistent pattern of abusing the law and misleading Congress and the American people. We see the consequences of these actions abroad in Iraq and at home through the violations of our civil liberties. The American people are served well with a legitimate and thorough impeachment inquiry. I will urge the Judiciary Committee to schedule impeachment hearings immediately and not let this issue languish as it has over the last six months. Only through hearings can we bring begin to correct the abuses of Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration; and, if it is determined in these hearings that Vice President Cheney has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors, he should be impeached and removed from office. It is time for Congress to expose the multitude of misdeeds of the Administration, and I am hopeful that the Judiciary Committee will expeditiously begin an investigation of this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or concerns. I sincerely appreciate your input and hope that you will feel free to contact me anytime I may be of assistance to you. In addition, I hope you find my website (http://wexler.house.gov) a valuable resource in keeping up with events in Washington and in South Florida. With warm regards, Congressman Robert Wexler SignatureCongressman Robert Wexler

Announcing Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani, MSNBC failed to note Robertson's numerous controversial remarks

Announcing Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani, MSNBC failed to note Robertson's numerous controversial remarks Summary: Reporting on the announcement that Pat Robertson would endorse Rudy Giuliani for president, MSNBC's Contessa Brewer stated, "A big coup, of course, for Giuliani, who is fighting to win the votes of social conservatives." NBC political director Chuck Todd described Robertson as "the guy that almost invented the social conservative political movement" and asserted: "Robertson is a foreign policy hawk, and on foreign policy he sees eye to eye with Giuliani." But neither Brewer nor Todd noted that Robertson has repeatedly made controversial and inflammatory comments, including calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and endorsing the late Rev. Jerry Falwell's comments that "the abortionists," "the feminists," and the American Civil Liberties Union "helped this [the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks] happen." During the 9 a.m. hour of the November 7 edition of MSNBC Live, reporting on the announcement that Pat Robertson, former Republican presidential candidate, founder of the Christian Coalition founder, and host of the Christian Broadcast Network's (CBN) 700 Club, would soon endorse former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) for president, MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer reported: "It now appears that Pat Robertson, the evangelist, is going to come out and endorse Rudy Giuliani to be the Republican nominee for president. This is expected to happen at 9:30 this morning. A big coup, of course, for Giuliani, who is fighting to win the votes of social conservatives." NBC political director Chuck Todd described Robertson as "the guy that sort of almost invented the social conservative political movement" and asserted: "Robertson is very much a foreign policy hawk, and on foreign policy sees eye to eye with Giuliani." Todd later added: "[I]t's interesting. I mean, abortion and gay rights -- they are just not playing in this election. I don't know if you want to say that it's pragmatism when it comes to Republicans, or the fact that Pat Robertson looks around and says, you know what, they're all flawed, OK, but my number one priority is foreign policy. Well, if that's the case, the guy that probably lines up closest on foreign -- on some of the key foreign policy issues regarding the Middle East, both Israel, Iran, and Iraq -- well, then Robertson lines up closest with Giuliani." However, neither Brewer nor Todd noted Robertson's history of controversial remarks. As Media Matters for America has extensively documented, Robertson has repeatedly made controversial and inflammatory comments, including calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and endorsing the late Rev. Jerry Falwell's comments that "the abortionists," "the feminists," and the American Civil Liberties Union "helped this [the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks] happen." From the 9 a.m. hour of the November 7 edition of MSNBC Live:

BREWER: Good Wednesday morning, everyone. I'm Contessa Brewer. We have some breaking political news now. It now appears that Pat Robertson, the evangelist, is going to come out and endorse Rudy Giuliani to be the Republican nominee for president. This is expected to happen at 9:30 this morning. A big coup, of course, for Giuliani, who is fighting to win the votes of social conservatives. And another big endorsement this morning: Sam Brownback, who was a presidential candidate himself, the conservative senator from Kansas, now is going to endorse his former Republican rival, John McCain. Let's get right to Chuck Todd, NBC's political director. Chuck, big endorsements this morning. But how effective are they really? How influential in terms of getting votes?

TODD: Not influential of getting votes, but influential of creating this idea and story line that social conservatives are completely split in this Republican primary. You know, Pat Robertson, this is the guy that sort of almost invented the social conservative political movement. You know, Jerry Falwell started it, but Pat Robertson made it practical and rode it to a second-place finish in the Iowa caucuses back in 1988. He comes out for Rudy Giuliani. You know, a year ago, the idea of that would have seemed crazy. But in the last few months it doesn't seem so crazy. You know, Robertson, very much is a foreign policy hawk and on foreign policy sees eye to eye with Giuliani. Meanwhile, you go over to John McCain. John McCain and Sam Brownback have been very chummy in the Senate for quite some time. Brownback had been flirting with possibly endorsing Giuliani. I mean, the one person he didn't want to endorse was Mitt Romney. And see - and that's what all of these endorsements have in common.

BREWER: Why is that? Why did he have such a problem with Mitt Romney?

TODD: It's interesting, for Brownback, he was uncomfortable that Romney, I think, was a flip flopper on this stuff, or a Johnny-come-lately on social conservatism. Not quite sure if that's where Pat Robertson is going to be, and why he did this. I mean, it will be interesting to see what he says. But that's sort of like I said the common denominator here. This isn't not good for Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney. Both of them have been trying to figure, to be the candidate that could coalesce social conservatives. Instead, they're as split as ever. Pat Robertson, look, as a political leader anymore, his days are - you know, he's sort of waning as far as influence is concerned, but symbolism, it's huge, and that's why I think the Giuliani campaign is --

BREWER: OK, but here's Mitt Romney, who has already won an endorsement from Bob Jones III, he founded this very famous Christian university. You have James Dobson, Focus on the Family, who says none of these guys are who I want representing my views. And now you have Robertson coming out and saying Giuliani is my man. Well what about his stand on abortion?

TODD: Well it's interesting. I mean, abortion and gay rights -- they are just not playing in this election. I don't know if you want to say that it's pragmatism when it comes to Republicans, or the fact that Pat Robertson looks around and says, you know what, they're all flawed, OK, but my number one priority is foreign policy. Well, if that's the case, the guy that probably lines up closest on foreign -- on some of the key foreign policy issues regarding the Middle East, both Israel, Iran, and Iraq -- well, then Robertson lines up closest with Giuliani. I mean, one of the things that a lot of us overlook when it comes to Giuliani is, yes, he is a social moderate or liberal when it comes to gay rights or an abortion, but not -- he's very much in the conservative when it comes to foreign policy as far as his ideology on that or when it comes to taxes. So, you know, on one hand you sit there and you say, wow, the New York City mayor is getting Pat Robertson endorsement? It's sort of cats and dogs living together. This seems nuts. But watching this campaign over the last three or four months, it isn't that nutty and it isn't that surprising. Again, collectively, Brownback for McCain, Robertson for Giuliani, this is not something that's going to make Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson happy. Because it's just more proof that social conservatives aren't going to coalesce. And that's good news right now, for the national front-runner, Rudy Giuliani.

BREWER: So what we'll do is we'll stay on top of this, and once again, that announcement about Robertson's endorsement is expected to come at 9:30. So we'll be looking at that. Chuck, thanks. [...] BREWER: We want to go back to Washington, D.C., now, where we understand the political breaking news that we've been following this morning is under way. Apparently an announcement about who is endorsing Rudy Giuliani. Let's listen in.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- International Family Entertainment, who has a very important announcement and statement to make. Thank you.

ROBERTSON: Thank you. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to give a prepared statement and then I guess we'll take some questions. In less than two months, American voters will begin choosing the nominees of their respective political parties for the office of the presidency of the United States. To me, the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists. Our second goal should be the control of massive government waste and crushing federal deficits. Uppermost in the minds of social conservatives is a selection of future Supreme Court justices and lower court judges who will sit on both the federal circuit courts and the district courts. Our world faces deadly peril: Nuclear-armed North Korea and the foreboding of nuclear arms in Iran. Deadly violence from Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel. The possible overthrow of Pakistan's government. And drawn-out wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In all of the crises which confront our nation and the world, we need a leader with a bold vision who is not afraid to tackle the challenges ahead. For months I have contemplated our future and the outstanding group of men who are offering themselves to the Republican Party to be its standard bearer in the 2008 presidential election. Today, it is my pleasure to announce my support for a mayor, America's mayor, Rudy Giuliani, and a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans. Rudy Giuliani stood tall as his city was rocked by the worst terrorist act in America's history. Rudy Giuliani took a city that was in decline and considered ungovernable and reduced its violent crime, revitalized its core, dramatically lowered its taxes, cut through a welter of bureaucratic regulations and did so in the spirit of bipartisanship which is so urgently needed in Washington today. He proved time and again that he is a true fiscal conservative. Rudy served as a high official in the Justice Department of Ronald Reagan and later, as a United States attorney, won a claim as a valiant crime fighter. Justice triumphed as he took down mafia dons, drug traffickers, and corrupt politicians. He understands the need for a conservative judiciary and, with the help of the distinguished Ted Olson, who's here today, and other members of his team, has assured the American people that his choices for judicial appointments will be men and women who share the judicial philosophy of [Supreme Court Chief Justice] John Roberts and [Justice] Antonin Scalia. Today, I wish Rudy Giuliani success in the caucuses and primaries which will take place in a few months. And beyond that, it is my hope and prayer that he will lead the Republican Party to victory in November of 2008. Congratulations. GUILIANI: Thank you very much. ROBERTSON: Thank you. GIULIANI: Thank you very, very much, Pat. I am very, very honored by this endorsement. Pat Robertson is very well known leader, person of great, well-deserved reputation, someone who has, as Ted pointed out, run for president of the United States, been all across this country, understands, I think to a very large extent, what America is all about, and has very well articulated what are the overriding issues of our time: dealing with the Islamic terrorist war against us, dealing with that in a way in which we are safe or as safe as we can be, and we conclude it with victory and success as quickly as it reasonably can be done, and the enormous importance of having --

BREWER: All right, Rudy Giuliani there, accepting the endorsement from Pat Robertson today to be the Republican nominee for president. Of course Pat Robertson is a staunch conservative, founded the Christian Coalition, founded the Christian Broadcasting Network. And in a time when the Republican candidates are fighting to win support from the Christian right, obviously, his endorsement means something there to Rudy Giuliani. Bad day for Mitt Romney though, and Fred Thompson with this endorsement. We've also heard today that Sam Brownback has endorsed John McCain for president. So, there you are on the political front

Michigan Repugs loses delegates

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Republican Party announced Thursday that it will punish five states for scheduling early nominating contests. New Hampshire, Florida, South Carolina, Michigan and Wyoming will lose half of their delegates to the national convention, said Mike Duncan, chairman of the Republican National Committee. RNC rules require the punishment for states that hold their nominating contests earlier than Feb. 5. Iowa, which plans to hold Republican caucuses on Jan. 3, would not be penalized because, technically, the caucuses are not binding on convention delegates. Nevada, which plans to hold its caucuses on Jan. 19, would not be penalized for the same reason. The RNC voted 121-9 Thursday to impose the penalties. Duncan, who has final say over the matter, said he will abide by the vote. "After significant examination we convened a meeting today and upheld the rules that were unanimously passed by our party in 2004," Duncan said in a statement. Nevertheless, state party leaders expressed optimism that their entire delegations will be seated, perhaps hoping that the eventual nominee will restore them. "While not surprised, I was disappointed that the full committee did not recognize the validity of Florida's position that it is not in violation of the rule," Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer said in a statement. "This is a long process and I continue to be confident that Florida will ultimately seat its full delegation." Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis(R-tool) said, "I remain confident that all of Michigan's 60 national delegates will be seated next year in Minneapolis-St. Paul. ... There will be much discussion in the coming months about the makeup of the national convention, including the credentialing of delegates." Wyoming is scheduled to hold its nominating conventions on Jan. 5. Michigan is to hold its Republican primary on Jan. 15, pending the outcome of a lawsuit. South Carolina Republicans vote on Jan. 19 and Florida on Jan. 29. New Hampshire has not yet set a primary date, though it is required by state law to hold its primary at least seven days before any other, raising the possibility of a December vote. On the Democratic side, the party has vowed to strip all the delegates from Florida for violating party rules by moving up its primary.

Fox Noise losing it: airs bizarre claim that Hillary ordered hit on cats

Fox News airs bizarre claim that Hillary ordered hit on cats David Edwards and Jason Rhyne Fox News on Wednesday aired a bizarre accusation that Sen. Hillary Clinton is connected with the murder of two cats. Sen. Clinton's accuser is Kathleen Willey, the one-time White House aide who in 1993 claimed to have been groped by then-president Bill Clinton in the Oval Office. Willey raised the strange cat-killing allegation -- and a raft of others -- in her new book, Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton. The Fox and Friends morning program detailed charges in the book that Willey's cat, Bullseye, was the victim of a targeted hit by a Clinton-hired henchman. "A man, he was pretending to be a jogger, he came up to me and just asked did I ever find my cat?" Willey told the New York Sun, who also picked up the cat story Wednesday. "He mentioned my cat by name and [said], 'Yeah, that Bullseye was a really nice cat.'" Willey told the Sun the abducted cat was part of an intimidation plan organized by the Clintons after she was called to testify in Paula Jones' sexual harassment suit against the president. "But it didn't stop there," said Fox News host Brian Kilmeade. "Does the name Fluffy mean anything to you? A year later she bought a cat, named it Fluffy. That cat ended up dead as well underneath the porch. She thinks somehow, and she claims somehow, the person who did this is linked back to Hillary." Willey appears to found her accusations on the word of conservative talk show host Melanie Morgan, who says she had a conversation in which a private investigator named Jack Palladino all but admitted to being the culprit in the cat business. "The only regret that I had about the whole thing was that Hillary did not pay me in a timely fashion," the P.I. allegedly said, according to Morgan's account. But the online newspaper WorldNetDaily, which is affiliated with the publisher of Willey's book, reported on Wednesday that Palladino denied those charges outright and is even threatening a libel lawsuit. "It's total fantasy," Palladino said."No, that's too kind; it's a lie." The cat killings are the least of Willey's accusations against the Clintons, who she suspects -- wholly without evidence -- were involved in the murder of her husband. She also contends the couple orchestrated the attempted theft of an early manuscript of Target. The UK's Daily Mail also published a story on those claims, which the conservative website Drudge Report linked to in a banner reading "Here comes Kathleen." At the close of their Clinton segment, Fox and Friends offered the disclaimer that the new book's publisher, World Ahead, had "from time to time bashed the Clintons." The company is also behind such titles as I've Always Been A Yankees Fan: Hillary Clinton in Her Own Words and Their Lives:The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine. Left-leaning watchdog group Media Matters has more on Willey's suspicion that the Clintons were involved in her husband's death. The following video is from Fox's Fox & Friends, broadcast on November 6, 2007.

Detroit NAACP gets complaints over new ID requirement

Voter complaints over new ID requirement hit NAACP November 6, 2007 BY NIRAJ WARIKOO FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER The Detroit NAACP has received a number of complaints today from voters turned away at the polls because of a new photo ID requirement. About 40 voters have called into the local offices of the NAACP, said Melvin (Butch) Hollowell, general counsel for the civil rights organization. "The complaints started first thing this morning," Hollowell said. "Voters are angry and confused." Hollowell said the number of complaints is about 40% higher than the number of complaints usually received during presidential or gubernatorial elections, which draw higher numbers of voters. "It's really a mess," he said. The problem is that there was not any effort by the Secretary of State's office to make the public aware of the new requirement, Hollowell said. The Detroit NAACP, Michigan ACLU, and other groups filed a complaint earlier this year that challenges the photo ID requirement. Kelly Chesney, Secretary of State spokeswoman, said that "we have worked very hard to get the message out" about the photo ID requirement. And, she said, her office has not heard of major voter problems today. "We have not heard complaints from our local election officials that people are being turned away," she said. If a voter does not have a photo ID, they can sign an affadavit to vote, she said. Hollowell said his office got a call from a man turned away from voting because he didn't have an ID. Hollowell also said that at some voter locations, poll workers were given incorrect and outdated information from 2005 that mistakenly said voters should be given a provisional ballot if they sign any affadavit. Those ballots would usually not count, he said. Hollowell said that Detroit election officials have been contacted and are working to solve that problem.

Not stopping with Cheney, Kucinich plans to impeach Bush

Kucinich not stopping with Cheney, plans Bush impeachment resolution too Jason Rhyne Published: Tuesday November 6, 2007 (Update at bottom: GOP blocks Dem-led motion to kill impeachment resolution; measure sent to House Judiciary ) Presidential hopeful Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who brought an impeachment resolution against Vice President Dick Cheney to the House floor on Tuesday, says he is also planning a similar resolution to impeach President Bush. The news came during a conference call Kucinich held with supporters Monday evening, although technical problems kept most on the call from being able to hear the congressman. But activist David Swanson, who spoke directly with Kucinich during the call, summarized the contents of his conversation in an email: "He is going to introduce a privileged resolution on the floor of the U.S. House Tuesday morning to force a vote on his resolution to impeach Cheney," confirmed Swamson. "While that bill includes offenses related to Iraq and Iran, Kucinich plans to focus his remarks on Iran and the fact that the current Pentagon bill includes funding to retrofit bombers to carry 15-ton bombs." Concerning the possible resolution against Bush, Swanson said Kucinich "wanted to let everyone know that he will not only continue pushing for the impeachment of Cheney but will also take up the impeachment of Bush with a new resolution." It's unclear as to when such a resolution would brought to the floor, or how dependent its introduction would be on the success of today's move against Cheney. The former Cleveland mayor will hold a press conference today at 3:00 p.m. Swanson added that Kucinich was prepared for a debate on the substance of the charges against Cheney, but also mentioned the measure could be tabled --a move that effectively kills a pending matter by ending debate -- or sent to committee. If the latter option happens, the committee in question will be the House Judiciary. The Kucinich campaign's website states that the technical problems with the conference call were because "public interest in the issue exceeded technological capacity." The call will be rescheduled. Kucinich's "privileged resolution" on the Cheney matter is a maneuver which will require a vote from all House members -- and allows him to act in spite of protestations from Democratic leaders, who don't want a vote to come to the floor, according to Politico's Ryan Grim. According to The Hill newspaper, Kucinich's idea -- which would put legislators on the record about Cheney's impeachment -- is making some Democrats uneasy. "If he pulls it off, it could make for an uncomfortable situation for Democratic leaders and centrist Democrats," The Hill's Mike Soraghan writes of Kucinich's plan. "Liberal activists are pushing for impeachment, while leaders worry such a move could turn off independent voters. They have made it clear that impeachment of Cheney or President Bush is off the table." Democrats might be tempted to opt to send the resolution to committee, according to Soraghan, who says that such a move "avoids an immediate floor vote and might be the most appealing option to the Democratic leadership." Despite its apparent unpopularity among Democratic legislators, the Kucinich proposal is not necessarily out of line with American public opinion: a July poll from American Research Group found that 54% of those surveyed favored the "US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney." “Congress must hold the Vice President accountable," Kucinich said in a statement last week. "The American people need to let Members of Congress know how they feel about this. The Vice President continues to use his office to advocate for a continued occupation of Iraq and prod our nation into a belligerent stance against Iran. If the Vice President is successful, his actions will ensure decades of disastrous consequences.” House Republicans vote against Democratic-led move to table Cheney impeachment measure; resolution sent to House Judiciary In an unexpected move, House Republicans on Tuesday voted against a measure to kill an impeachment resolution introduced against Vice President Dick Cheney by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). A motion to table, which would have ended debate on the resolution, had been brought by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) soon after Rep. Kucinich took to the floor to read from his proposed articles of impeachment. "Impeachment is not on the agenda," Rep. Hoyer had told Fox News earlier on Tuesday."We have some major priorities. We need to focus on those." Although the roll call vote had initially appeared to favor Hoyer's motion, Republicans -- who had at first voted in with the majority leader -- began to switch their votes. That decision is being widely interpreted as an attempt to embarrass the Democratic leadership, which is not keen on seeing further action on the impeachment resolution. “I am surprised that Republicans would treat an issue as important as the potential impeachment of a vice president of the United States as a petty political game,” Hoyer said in a statement. "Republicans gleefully said they wanted the debate to show the public how many Democrats would actually support impeaching Cheney, which they consider a move supported only by a fringe element of anti-war activists," reports the Washinton Post. According to The Hill newspaper, Republican sources credit Congressman John Shadegg (R-AZ) with the idea of trying to keep the debate afloat. The final vote count on the measure was 251-162. Following the failure of his motion, Rep. Hoyer immediately moved to have the resolution sent to the House Judiciary Committee, which the House eventually approved in a 218-194 vote along strict party lines. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) told Fox News on Monday that moving forward with impeachment was not in the best interests of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). "If she were to let this thing out of the box," said Conyers, "considering the number of legislative issues we have pending ... it could create a split that could effect our productivity for the rest of the Congress." The Baltimore Sun's blog, The Swamp, describes the resolution as "buried in committee." But a spokeswoman for the House Judiciary did not rule out consideration of the measure. "We were surprised that the minority was so ready to move forward with consideration of a matter of such complexity as impeaching the Vice President," she said. "The Chairman will discuss today's vote with the Committee members but it would seem evident that the committee staff should continue to consider, as a preliminary matter, the many abuses of this Administration, including the Vice President." Kucinich said in a press conference late Tuesday afternoon that he believed the measure may still have a life. "I've spoken to Mr. Conyers and I'm quite confident that the ball is in good hands," said Kucinich.

Kentucky gets a little blue

AP) - Democrat Steve Beshear easily defeated the scandal-plagued Republican incumbent Tuesday to become governor of Kentucky, pulling off a political comeback 20 years after he last held office. Gov. Ernie Fletcher had won four years earlier on a campaign promise to clean up Frankfort, but was weakened by an indictment charging that he rewarded politically connected Republicans with jobs at the expense of Democrats. A Lexington attorney who had lost his last two political races, Beshear had little problem against Fletcher. He reminded voters about Fletcher's scandal at every opportunity, whether in televised debates, political ads or stump speeches. Beshear made ethics a key issue in the gubernatorial race, saying Fletcher not only broken his promise from four years ago but had actually made a mess of his own. With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Beshear had 619,567 votes or 59 percent, to Fletcher's 435,856 votes or 41 percent. "Tomorrow begins the hard task of governing," Beshear told jubilant Democrats at the Frankfort Civic Center. "Tomorrow begins the time when I call on every person in this state to come together with us, join hands with us, because together folks we can make Kentucky a much better place to call home." The civic center crowd cheered loudly as former Democratic Govs. Wendell Ford, Julian Carroll, Martha Layne Collins and Brereton Jones walked on stage, revving up the crowd for Beshear, who had run unsuccessfully for the job in 1987. Fletcher said he called Beshear and congratulated him "on a vigorous campaign." In his concession speech at a Lexington hotel, he said it was time for him to move on, and he would work for a smooth transition. "As someone once said, high office brings distinction, but also trouble. Oh I wish I'd have seen that more clearly when I stood here flush with victory four years ago," he said, an apparent reference to the legal woes that spilled over to members of his administration. At least 14 people were indicted, including the governor himself, who was charged with scheming to violate state hiring laws. Fletcher issued pardons to everyone but himself. Prosecutors dropped the misdemeanor charges against Fletcher in a deal, in which he acknowledged that the evidence "strongly indicates wrongdoing" by his administration and that the actions "were inappropriate." The governor has since maintained that the investigation and resulting indictments were politically motivated by Democrats to lessen his chances of being re-elected. John Mason, a Lexington engineer, said he voted for Beshear even though he wasn't an enthusiastic supporter. "I'm actually voting against Fletcher," Mason said. "I've never seen a guy screw up in a governorship the way he has," Mason said as he left the polls at a small church. Another Lexington voter, Patrick Galbin, said he voted for Fletcher. "I think his problems have been mostly politics," Galbin said. "I think he's done a fine job. I think he's got high morals, and that's what the state needs." Both candidates used religious themes in the campaign. Beshear emphasized his roots as the son of a western Kentucky preacher. On the eve of the election, Fletcher ordered the Ten Commandments to be displayed in the Capitol along with other framed historical documents. He said the timing had nothing to do with the election, though his opponent and political scientists scoffed at that notion. An ordained Baptist minister, Fletcher tried to get the focus off the hiring scandal by criticizing Beshear on the issue of casinos. Beshear favors a referendum - not yet on the ballot - that would amend the Kentucky Constitution to allow casino gambling. Fletcher tried since early in the campaign to paint the governor's race as a referendum on casinos, saying a vote for Beshear would be the same as voting for expanded gambling. Allowing casinos at horse racing tracks and in a handful of communities along the state's borders, Beshear contends, would generate $500 million in additional tax revenues that could be used to improve the lives of Kentuckians. But before the constitution could be changed to legalize casinos, voters would have to approve it in a ballot referendum. Fletcher aired a series of TV ads vilifying casinos, saying, if legalized in Kentucky, they would bring a number of social ills, including divorce, suicide and prostitution. And in debates, the governor continually raised the issue, saying Beshear's support for a constitutional amendment on gambling shows he is out of touch with Kentucky voters. Political scientist Kendra Stewart, a professor at Eastern Kentucky University, said some people will argue Beshear won because of his support for gambling. Stewart said, however, that Beshear came out on top because of Fletcher's perceived ethical lapses. "I wouldn't say it's enough to be a referendum on gambling, but there are certainly politicians who would spin it that way," she said. ad 611,925 votes or 61 percent, to Lee's 394,953 votes or 39 percent.

What if? Rep. Joe Knollenberg

Ad going after Joe Knollenberg support of Shrub veto on SCHIP.

Poll: Clinton would smoke Rudy

Clinton would cream Giuliani, poll finds By: David Paul Kuhn One year before voters go to the polls to select the next president, the Republican Party is as weak as it has been in a generation, a detailed new poll suggests. In a hypothetical match-up between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, bloc after bloc of traditionally Republican voters break for Clinton:She wins the South. She polls evenly with voters who attend church at least once a week. She splits families with a household income above $100,000. She loses rural voters and men — but only by a narrow margin. All are constituencies Republicans have dominated for decades; George W. Bush won each by double-digit margins. The findings from The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press remain preliminary, considering even the primaries are still two months off. But Pew questioned an unusually large number of voters to try to paint the most accurate picture possible of where the presidential contest stands today. Should the race continue down its current trajectory, the poll finds Clinton defeating Giuliani by eight percentage points. Other recent polls, however, have placed Giuliani ahead of Clinton in a head-to-head race. But those polls predict Clinton would beat Fred Thompson, John McCain or Mitt RomneyAnd Barack Obama would defeat Giuliani — though narrowly — according to at least four polls taken in October. In fact, Democrats hold a marked advantage over Republicans in the eyes of voters. In July 2004, the Democratic Party had a slight lead as the party “better able to manage the federal government” and as the party that is “more honest and ethical.” Today Democrats lead both categories by double-digit margins. By even larger margins, Democrats are seen as the party “more concerned about people like me” (by 29 percentage points) and the party best able to bring about “needed change” (by 22 percentage points). Other polling has also showed that for the first time in decades Americans now see the two parties as equally qualified to face down national security threats — erasing the “security advantage” Republicans have long relied on. Republican insiders dismiss the findings as “largely irrelevant” because they come so far before Election Day. “I don’t take comfort in any of the numbers that are out there right now, but I also don’t put much stock in them because it is so premature,” said Rep. Adam Putnam (Fla.), the number-three Republican in the House. Pew’s pollsters agree that as well as Democrats are positioned today, much could change in the next year. “It’s very early in the race, and we would all be shocked if the South went for Clinton,” said Michael Dimock, Pew’s associate director of research. One factor the poll “reflects is the lack of focus among Republicans right now,” he said. That lack of focus is visible when partisans are asked to rate their own political camp. Only 36 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say the GOP “does an excellent or good job” of “standing up for traditional GOP positions” on issues like reducing the size of government, cutting taxes, and promoting conservative social issues. That’s a decline of 25 points since July 2004. In fact, it’s the lowest Republican rating for the GOP since Pew began tracking the issue in 2000. If it turns out to be a subway race between Giuliani and Clinton, Pew further found that two-thirds of Republicans say their vote for the Republican would be more accurately described as a vote “against Clinton” and “not for Giuliani.” Yet, as Dimock notes, “Republican enthusiasm and engagement could really turn and that’s the big unknown at this point.” Democrats do not have a significantly better view of their party than Republicans do of the GOP, but Democrats have long been skeptical of their tribe. Republicans, however, have become “increasingly negative,” as Pew puts it, about their party. And they are falling behind in the party loyalty stakes, Pew interviews of some 20,000 Americans this year have found. About a third of voters call themselves Democrats and a quarter call themselves Republicans — but when independents’ leanings are added to the mix, roughly half of Americans lean Democratic and only 36 percent lean Republican. That Democratic advantage in party identity is larger than at any time since tracking began in 1990. Bush’s poor approval ratings are a factor. His approval rating has dropped from around 50 percent in October 2003 to about 30 percent today. That is roughly equal to Jimmy Carter's ratings at the low point of the 1979 energy crisis and Richard Nixon's in the worst days of Watergate. Additionally, the unpopular war in Iraq, the lack of a clear Republican front-runner and dismay among some conservatives about the authenticity of leading GOP candidates all play a role in the Democrats’ powerfully fortified position today. Pew conducted its survey of 2,007 adults from Oct. 17 to Oct. 23. The sample size was nearly twice that of a normal poll.

Clinton gains endorsement of AFSCME

Union Gives Endorsement to Clinton By STEVEN GREENHOUSE Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton received the endorsement yesterday of one of the nation’s largest and most politically active labor unions, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which has 1.4 million members. The union’s executive board voted to endorse Mrs. Clinton, capping a 10-month process in which the union’s leaders interviewed candidates, sponsored candidate forums and polled members nationally and in several key states. “We looked for the candidate who will fight for working families and who has the greatest ability to win,” said Gerald W. McEntee, the union’s president. His union has 30,000 members in Iowa, making it a major force in the Democratic caucuses there in January. Mr. McEntee, who is chairman of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s political committee, said his union planned to spend $60 million on get-out-the-vote efforts and issue education next year, second only to the spending planned by the Service Employees International Union. Mr. McEntee said his union would also mobilize 40,000 members to do campaign work. Labor officials said 23 members of the union’s board had voted to endorse Mrs. Clinton, of New York, while 10 had voted for other candidates or for no endorsement. Several board members argued against endorsing Mrs. Clinton, saying she would have trouble beating a Republican next year because her negatives are so high. The campaigns of Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina sought to play down the endorsement. David E. Bonior, Mr. Edwards’s campaign manager, said, “Given that 30 percent of their national membership lives in New York, and the long history that President Clinton has with President McEntee, this comes as no surprise.”(translation: Ah crap) Mr. McEntee and his union were somewhat embarrassed in 2004 after they endorsed Howard Dean early on, only to see him fade quickly. Mr. Edwards received the endorsement yesterday of the service employees’ state council in New Hampshire even though former President Bill Clinton had personally intervened on his wife’s behalf. The service employees’ union has 10,000 members in New Hampshire, which should help Mr. Edwards in that state’s primary.

Curve ball is finally named

US television network CBS said Thursday it had identified a man known to intelligence agents as "curve ball," whose fake story of biological weapons drove the US argument for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The network's 60 Minutes program identified the man as an Iraqi defector named Rafid Ahmed Alwan who arrived at a German refugee center in 1999. The program said that after a two-year investigation it had found that Alwan had lied about being a chemical engineer in charge of a facility making mobile biological weapons in order to bolster his case for asylum in Germany. 60 Minutes had learned that Alwan did study chemical engineering but that he was far from a star pupil who later went on to work at a Baghdad television production company where he was accused of theft, it added. Alwan eventually ended up in the hands of German intelligence and was able to provide credible descriptions of the Djerf al-Nadaf plant because he had actually worked there, albeit not as head of a biological weapons program. According to 60 Minutes, Alwan embellished his account by saying 12 workers had been killed by biological agents in an accident at the plant. Summaries of his debriefings were sent to the CIA and then became a pillar for the US decision to invade Iraq, according to 60 Minutes, which said the information was passed to then secretary of state Colin Powell to use at the United Nations in a major speech justifying military action against Iraq. The program said it had also obtained a copy of a letter from the head of German intelligence to former CIA chief George Tenet saying that Alwan appeared to be believable but that there was no evidence to verify his accounts. A spokesman for the former director told 60 Minutes that Tenet had never seen the letter. The program quotes CIA officials including former Central Group Chief Margaret Henoch as saying she doubted Alwan's authenticity all along. Alwan's story unraveled when CIA interrogators confronted him with evidence that his story was false after weapons inspectors had examined the Djerf al-Nadaf plant and found no evidence of biological agents, 60 Minutes said. Alwan is now believed to be living freely in Germany, probably under an assumed name, the program said. "It was a guy trying to get his green card (residency permit) essentially, in Germany, and playing the system for what it was worth," the program quotes former CIA senior official Tyler Drumheller as saying. The 60 Minutes program is due to be broadcast on Sunday.

Report: Army short on personnel to supply troops

Report: Army short on personnel to supply troops By Richard Lardner and Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press WASHINGTON — The Army does not have enough personnel or training to adequately supply its soldiers in combat, and it needs an additional 2,000 military and civilian personnel with the authority to sign and manage contracts, according to a new report obtained by the Associated Press. Saying that providing forces on the move with ever-changing technologies is not as simple as it once was, the report said the Army "lacks the leadership and personnel (military and civilian) to provide sufficient contracting support." The 106-page report, titled "Urgent Reform Required," says that the Army has seen a 600% increase in workload and is dealing with more complex contracts, yet staffing has consistently declined or remained stagnant since 1990. Contracting should be treated as a key priority, and not as an "institutional side issue," the report said, describing Army contract personnel as "understaffed, overworked, under-trained, under-supported, and, most important, under-valued." It recommends adding 400 military personnel and about a thousand Army civilians and says another 600 Army staff should be assigned to the Defense Department's contract management agency to provide greater oversight of the contracts. U.S. officials familiar with the report did not say how much the additional personnel would cost. The Army's contracting workforce now has just over 10,000 people. FIND MORE STORIES IN: Iraq Afghanistan Army Kuwait David Berteau Jacques Gansler The report also calls for creating general officer positions within the Army's contracting workforce — a move to attract talented men and women to a field most would otherwise avoid because of dim prospects for career advancement. Citing key problem areas, the report said the Army's policies are outdated, training is lacking and a little more than half of the military and civilian contracting personnel are certified for their current jobs. An Army contracting fraud scandal has generated more than 80 criminal investigations. However, higher numbers, better quality and more clout within the Army's contracting ranks are expected to reduce opportunities for fraud, waste and abuse as tens of billions of dollars continue to be spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the officials said. The panel is chaired by former Pentagon acquisition chief Jacques Gansler and was established in August by Army Secretary Pete Geren. It was given a broad mandate to examine how the military branch acquires the gear and services it needs each year to operate. Since 2001, provisional offices have spring up in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Qatar and other locations to buy items such as bottled water, laundry services, barracks, food, transportation, and warehouse services. But in certain places, such as Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, there were too few qualified people, too little oversight, high staff turnover, and poor record-keeping. In the midst of those shortcomings came a huge flow of dollars for the war, creating an environment ripe for misconduct and inefficiency. A separate Army task force was assigned to examine a random sampling of the 6,000 contracts worth nearly $2.8 billion issued since 2003 by the Kuwait office in a search for rigged awards and sloppy work. That review is to be completed by the end of the year. The Army Criminal Investigation Command already has 83 ongoing criminal investigations related to contract fraud in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan. Nearly two dozen military and civilian Army personnel have been charged or indicted and more than $15 million in confirmed bribes has changed hands, according to the command. Gansler is now director of the Center for Public Policy and Private Enterprise at the University of Maryland. Other panel members included David Berteau, a former defense acquisition official, retired Army generals David Maddox and Leon Salomon, and retired Navy rear admiral David Oliver. Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not

Republican hypocrite runs as pro traditional marriage candidate while husband is a pro gay media giant lobbyist..

GOP candidate rails against marriage equality as husband lobbies for pro-gay media giant by PageOneQ The husband of a self-described "pro-traditional marriage" Republican candidate has made more than $500,000 by lobbying for a corporate leader in gay media programming, PageOneQ has learned. Jill Holtzman Vogel, a candidate for State Senate in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, launched an advertising campaign Thursday touting her position as a "strong voice for pro-family" legislation. Holtzman Vogel's husband, Alex, is a high-profile D.C. lobbyist and a key advisor to his wife's campaign. While his wife runs a campaign with strong anti-gay messaging, Alex Vogel continues to serves as a lobbyist for gay-friendly Viacom, which broadcasts shows condemned by conservatives such as Queer as Folk, The L Word, TransGeneration, and the cartoon Rick & Steve: The Happiest Gay Couple In All The World. Filings at the US Senate's US Lobby Registration & Reporting Disclosure Page reveal that Vogel's firm has earned $510,000 in the last 3 years for its work lobbying on behalf of the media giant. Six months after his firm was hired, Viacom officially launched the LOGO network, which so-called "pro-family" groups immediately condemned. The station began broadcasting on June 30, 2005 in 18 million homes. Last December, Time Warner Cable and MTV Networks announced a joint program to expand the distribution of LOGO.. Responding to the launch of LOGO, Dr. Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America's Beverly LaHaye Institute said, "Gay activism, solidly established in our schools, is now spreading right into the nation's living rooms… LOGO is an assault on our children's innocence." According to Robert Knight of conservative Concerned Women For America's Culture and Family Institute, "Viacom's dalliances with the homosexual lifestyle, both on subscription cable and network television, have always been ‘in your face.' Viewers should be given a cut-off switch to prevent this from pouring into their homes and polluting the minds of their children." In 2006 Viacom received a 100 percent rating in the Human Rights Campaign Equality Index. A cadre of benefits is extended to LGBT staff, including the ability to designate same-sex partners to receive benefits. Additionally, the company insurance plan covers medical, dental and vision for same-sex partners and short-term disability payments following gender reassignment surgery. All employees of Viacom are required to attend diversity training on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. In a bitterly contested primary race, Holtzman Vogel beat social conservative Mark Tate. Since then, she has tried to win back social conservative voters, many of who are concerned with what the candidate calls the "homosexual lifestyle." In her general election campaign, Holtzman Vogel has said she will "be a strong voice in advancing pro-life issues and traditional marriage." Vogel has sought and received the support of Virginia's "family values" community, including the Virginia Conservative Action PAC (VCAP), and the organization's president Robin DeJarnette. Vogel is also supported by anti-marriage equality activist Laurie Letourneau. While a resident of Massachusetts, Letourneau founded Mass Voices for Traditional Marriage. Following the events in Massachusetts leading to where lesbian and gay couples can be married, Letourneau left the state, telling the Worcester Telegram that Massachusetts "is a cesspool. It's pathetic, we have an ineffective church and a bunch of wimps in the legislature." Letourneau filed a complaint against Tate in the primary campaign that led to Tate's indictment on 11 felony counts, nine for perjury and two for election fraud. The indictments, reported the Associated Press, came three weeks to the day before the primary election day. The charges were later dropped, raising questions as to whether or not Letourneau's actions were made at the behest of the Holzman Vogel campaign. Messages left at two of Jill Holtzman Vogel campaign offices and for Alex Vogel Thursday morning have not been returned to PageOneQ. Developing… MCL comment: They don't mind taking money from gays but they want to limit gay Americans rights at the same time... Ain't America grand

Kilpatrick's press secretary arrested for domestic abuse

Kilpatrick's press secretary arrested Allen charged with domestic abuse, resisting arrest November 2, 2007 BY BEN SCHMITT AND ZACHARY GORCHOW FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS The attorney for Matt Allen, the press secretary for Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, said he expects him to be arraigned today on domestic abuse charges. Allen’s attorney, Richard Steinberg, said police arrested Allen for domestic violence and resisting and obstructing arrest.Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said in a statement that police responded at 2:35 a.m. to a 911 call in the 2000 block of Seminole. When police arrived, a woman identifying herself as Allen’s spouse said there had been an argument and that Allen became upset and shoved her into a wall.The domestic violence charge is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days in jail. The resisting/obstruction charge is a felony punishable by up to two years in prison.Allen, a former military police officer, attended the Detroit Press Club Steak Out media event Thursday night that served free beer and wine at the Marriott Hotel inside the Renaissance Center. AdvertisementDetroit police spokeswoman Yvette Walker said this morning that Allen is in custody and the situation remains under investigation.She said she was unsure about the extent of injuries to Allen’s wife, who is the complainant.She declined to release further details.Steinberg called the incident “a petty quarrel that got blown out of proportion and escalated after the police got involved.” He said Allen’s wife, Tania Allen, called police, but declined to answer who he thought was blowing the incident out of proportion.“I expect Matt to be completely exonerated,” he said.Worthy said in her statement: “Domestic violence is a crime that doesn’t discriminate. It has no racial, ethnic or class boundaries. If you or someone you know is a victim of domestic violence please contact your local police department. In an emergency, call 911.”Stewart McMillin lives two doors down from the Allens. He called Matt Allen a great guy who moved into the neighborhood about four years and fixed up the red brick colonial he shares with his family. “He cares about this community,’’ McMillin said.McMillin recalls an incident this summer in which Allen’s wife came to his house one evening and was visibly upset. McMillin said Tania Allen told him that she and her husband had been fighting.“She was clearly upset and disappointed. She didn’t like the way that Matt was behaving,’’ McMillin said.When McMillin walked her home, he said, Matt Allen appeared upset. “He swore a little.’’It's not the first time Allen has been in the media spotlight for personal matters.Allen told the media in September that during the past four years he failed to live full time in the city of Detroit, or keep his automobile registration and insurance registered to his Detroit residence.Allen said he has owned a home in Detroit, but for personal reasons also has lived at his parents' home in Huntington Woods. Allen's automobile registration and insurance are now registered in Detroit.In an interview, Allen called the situation an oversight. He declined to elaborate on what the personal reasons were for living in Huntington Woods or how much time he spent there.A number of city residents register their automobiles to addresses of relatives outside the city to avoid paying higher insurance rates.Allen denied any effort to pay a lower insurance rate.In late 2005, Kilpatrick ordered all of his appointees to live in the city.Come back to freep.com for more on this story as it dev

Dennis Kucinich will force a vote on Cheney impeachment

Kucinich says he will force House vote on Cheney impeachment Nick Juliano Published: Friday November 2, 2007 Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) announced he would move to force a vote next week on his resolution calling for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. “The momentum is building for impeachment,” Kucinich said in a statement on his Web site. “Millions of citizens across the nation are demanding Congress rein in the Vice President’s abuse of power. Kucinich said he plans to introduce a privileged resolution, which would have priority for a House floor vote, on Nov. 6. A vote on the measure would be required within two days. Observers expect a motion to table Kucinich's resolution, which has 21 Democratic co-sponsors. It is almost certain that such a move to kill the resolution would be successful, but activists are urging members of Congress to support Kucinich's move. "We need you to ask your representative to vote No on tabling, Yes on giving impeachment a chance," wrote David Swanson on the pro-impeachment Website AfterDowningStreet.org. "Those who vote Yes to table cannot use the excuse that 'We don't have the votes,' since others will at that same instant with exactly the same exertion be voting No. Please scroll down to contact Congress and the media right away!" Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has long said that impeachment was "off the table" and Kucinich has had little success spurring legislative action on his resolutions, despite the growing number of lawmakers who have signed on as co-sponsors since it was introduced this spring. Kucinich's full statement is reprinted below: # Kucinich Will Introduce Privileged Resolution To Force Up Or Down Vote On Cheney Impeachment WASHINGTON, D.C. (November 2, 2007) — Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) announced today that he will be offering a privileged resolution on the House floor next week that will bring articles of impeachment against the Vice President, Richard B. Cheney. “The momentum is building for impeachment,” Kucinich said. “Millions of citizens across the nation are demanding Congress rein in the Vice President’s abuse of power. “Despite this groundswell of opposition to the unconstitutional conduct of office, Vice President Cheney continues to violate the U.S. Constitution by insisting the power of the executive branch is supreme. “Congress must hold the Vice President accountable. The American people need to let Members of Congress know how they feel about this. The Vice President continues to use his office to advocate for a continued occupation of Iraq and prod our nation into a belligerent stance against Iran. If the Vice President is successful, his actions will ensure decades of disastrous consequences.” The privileged resolution has priority status for consideration on the House floor. Once introduced, the resolution has to be brought to the floor within two legislative days, although the House could act on it immediately. Kucinich is expected to bring it to the House floor on Tuesday, November 6. H. Res. 333, Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President, has 21 cosponsors. They are: Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Robert Brady (D-PA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Henry Johnson (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. James Moran (D-VA), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Rep. Albert Wynn (D-MD).