Democrats pursue unity even as party divisions deepen
Mood:  d'oh
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Hillary Clinton called for party unity lately. But the presidential candidate has her work cut out for her.

Democrats pursue unity even as party divisions deepen

The Democrats' political divisions could be worse than New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said they were when she called last month for a cease-fire among the party's warring factions and a renewed focus on beating Republicans in the next election.

Her call for unity came at a time when a major sector of the party's working-class base appeared to be splitting apart, a key Senate Democrat was criticizing his party's credibility on national security and new polling data showed that a majority of the nation's working class has turned against unions, one of the party's most loyal allies.

These developments within the past two weeks have Democrats re-examining their future political strategies:

♠ Two of the country's biggest and most influential labor organizations, the Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union, have left the AFL-CIO, taking $20 million in dues money from the powerful labor federation, which is one of the Democrats' chief donors. Their main complaint: The AFL-CIO spends too much money on election campaigns and not enough on union organizing.

♠ Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, former chairman of the centrist-leaning Democratic Leadership Council, which has entered into a strategic political partnership with Mrs. Clinton, said many Americans don't think Democrats "have the backbone" to protect the nation.

"Many Americans wonder if we're willing to use force to defend the country even under the most compelling circumstances," Mr. Bayh told the Associated Press last week.

♠ In another setback for unions, who have long been a pivotal voter constituency for the Democrats, a national survey of nonunion workers by independent pollster John Zogby found that only one-third of workers want to unionize their workplace, while a 56 percent majority do not.

With union membership in the midst of a sharp downturn, "these survey results seem to indicate that, under present circumstances, no amount of organizing effort would be able to turn around the decline," said David Denholm, president of the Public Service Research Foundation, which funded the poll.

Democratic strategists acknowledge that their party is undergoing a sometimes divisive debate about the party's direction after last year's election losses, but view this as a natural process of recovery.

"I think it's normal for a party to go through what the Democratic Party is going through after a loss. People are looking to see what we need to do differently that will put us back into the majority," said Maria Cardona of the New Democrat Network.

Mrs. Cardona says it is "too early to tell what kind of effect [the AFL-CIO's breakup] will have" on the party, but agreed with Mr. Bayh "that we need to formulate a message of confidence that we are willing to use force to secure this nation."

Meantime, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Howard Dean has announced that he has put or is in the process of putting dozens of paid party organizers in 25 states as part of his drive to rebuild the party's grass-roots campaign apparatus.

"Nearly 90 [regional organizers] have been recruited so far, and more come on every day," the DNC said in a memo to its members.

Washington Times ~ Donald Lambro ** Democrats pursue unity even as party divisions deepen

Protesting soldier mom changed story on Bush
Mood:  chatty
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

PROTESTING SOLDIER MOM CHANGED STORY ON BUSH

The mother of a fallen U.S. soldier who is holding a roadside peace vigil near President Bush's ranch -- has dramatically changed her account about what happened when she met the commander-in-chief last summer!

Cindy Sheehan, 48, of Vacaville, Calif., who last year praised Bush for bringing her family the "gift of happiness," took to the nation's TV outlets this weekend to declare how Bush "killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity."

CINDY 2004

THE REPORTER of Vacaville, CA published an account of Cindy Sheehan's visit with the president at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 2004:

"'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.'

"The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

"The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

"For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

"'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy said."

CINDY 2005

Sheehan's current comments are a striking departure.

She vowed on Sunday to continue her protest until she can personally ask Bush: "Why did you kill my son?"

In an interview on CNN, she claimed Bush "acted like it was party" when she met him last year.

"It was -- you know, there was a lot of things said. We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity. And we wanted him to look at the pictures of Casey.

"He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name. He came in the room and the very first thing he said is, 'So who are we honoring here?' He didn't even know Casey's name. He didn't want to hear it. He didn't want to hear anything about Casey. He wouldn't even call him 'him' or 'he.' He called him 'your loved one.'

Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party.

BLITZER: Like a party? I mean...

SHEEHAN: Yes, he came in very jovial, and like we should be happy that he, our son, died for his misguided policies. He didn't even pretend like somebody...

END

On her current media tour, Sheehan has not been asked to explain her twist on Bush; from praise to damnation!

Drudge Report Exclusive ** Protesting soldier mom changed story on Bush

Super rich libtards vow to raise $ 80m for Dems
Mood:  silly
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

George Soros pulled the plug on the failed American Coming Together organization and is trying a new direction. He is organizing a group of 80 super-rich leftists to raise and donate at least $ 200k each year for the next 5 years. The $ 80m total would be used to build advocacy groups, think tanks, etc. with the goal of stopping the decline of the Dem party.

I just love it that with the mainstream media and all of Hollyweird promoting the "progressive" agenda, they still haven't figured out that it isn't that their message isn't clear, but that it is one the American people don't believe in.

With all that money, you'd think someone would have bought them a clue.
Ah, yes. The democratic party. The party of the people...

Well, this is the liberal way. Throw money at the problem, especially if it is somebody else's money.

For them to start throwing their own money... well, I guess they are really getting desperate.

Rich Liberals Vow to Fund Think Tanks

At least 80 wealthy liberals have pledged to contribute $1 million or more apiece to fund a network of think tanks and advocacy groups to compete with the potent conservative infrastructure built up over the past three decades.

The money will be channeled through a new partnership called the Democracy Alliance, which was founded last spring -- the latest in a series of liberal initiatives as the Democratic Party and its allies continue to struggle with the loss of the House and the Senate in 1994 and the presidency in 2000. Many influential Democratic contributors were left angry and despairing over the party's poor showing in last year's elections, and are looking for what they hope will be more effective ways to invest their support.

Financial commitments totaling at least $80 million over the next five years generated by the Democracy Alliance in recent months -- at a time when some liberal groups, such as the George Soros-backed America Coming Together, are floundering -- suggest that the group is becoming a player in the long-term effort to reinvigorate the left. The group has a goal of raising $200 million -- a sum that would inevitably come in part at the expense of more traditional Democratic groups, although alliance officials say donors have committed to maintaining past contribution levels.

Alliance chairman Steven Gluckstern, a retired investment banker, said that President Bush's victory over Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record) (D-Mass.) last year after millions of dollars had been poured into pro-Democratic "527" groups caused many contributors to think that a dramatically new approach is needed.

"It wasn't only the failure to win, it was the question 'What does it take to win?' " Gluckstern said. "Among the lessons learned was that to bring back the progressive majority in this country is not just a periodic election investment strategy."

The Democracy Alliance will act as a financial clearing house. Its staff members and board of directors will develop a lineup of established and proposed groups that they believe will develop and promote ideas on the left. To fulfill their million-dollar pledge, each partner must agree to give $200,000 or more a year for at least five years to alliance-endorsed groups.

The alliance is the brainchild of longtime Democratic strategist Rob Stein, who spent years studying conservative groups -- in particular their success in sustaining GOP politicians and achieving many of their policy goals. Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network, is working with Stein and is a leading promoter of his effort.

Rosenberg said liberals and Democrats now face a conservative "information-age Tammany Hall, a 21st century political machine, that is simply better than what we have on our side.

"The infrastructure we have was built for a different time and mission. It was built around the congressional majority we had for 60 years in the 20th century, the labor movement and the urban-ethnic city machines," he added.

As alliance officials see it, many liberal groups are designed to protect an agenda that was enacted by past Democratic majorities -- as opposed to generating new ideas and communication strategies to win support from voters who do not belong to labor or other traditionally Democratic constituencies.

Among those on the board are Ann S. Bowers, founding trustee of the Noyce Foundation and former executive at Intel Corp.; Albert C. Yates, former president of Colorado State University; and California high-tech entrepreneur Davidi Gilo.

The goal of the alliance, according to organizers, is to foster the growth of liberal or left-leaning institutions equipped to take on prominent think tanks on the right, including the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution, the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute, as well as such training centers as the Leadership Institute and the Young America's Foundation.

Almost all the alliance partners have been active donors of the Democratic Party and liberal interest groups. Many said they have concluded that their spending to date has lacked strategic coherence.

"There never has been an organized or coordinated look at connecting the dots of the progressive movement," said San Francisco businessman Mark Buell. He and his wife, Esprit de Corps founder Susie T. Buell, are major Democratic donors. Mark Buell, an alliance board member, said: "For 40 years, we had a voice somewhere, the White House, Congress, the Senate. For the first time, we find ourselves without a voice."

"To be effective in the 21st century in promoting your beliefs, it is necessary to have a financially secure institutional infrastructure that has the capacity to promote consistently and coherently a set of ideas, policies and messages," Stein said. "We understand that it's very hard to promote a belief system and to be operationally high performing if you don't have multi-year funding."

The shift of big money givers to the alliance poses a threat to the survival of such pro-Democratic independent groups as America Coming Together and the Media Fund. These two groups depended on many of the same donors to raise $196.7 million in 2003 and 2004. ACT recently announced that it is closing state offices and laying off most staff members. Democratic sources said its long-term survival is in doubt.

Soros, the billionaire financier, was the most prominent backer of the 2004 Democratic groups, but he has assumed only a modest role in the Democracy Alliance. He has stopped donating to ACT.

There has been a flourishing of new, pro-Democratic think tanks and advocacy groups in recent years. Clinton administration chief of staff John D. Podesta established the Center for American Progress; former Democratic congressional aide David Sirota recently set up the state-oriented Progressive Legislative Action Network; and author David Brock helped create Media Matters for America last year, among others. All these groups are potential recipients of money from alliance partners.

In addition, the number of liberal bloggers on the Web has been growing at a fast pace, and their blogs have become both central forums for debate over party strategies and hugely successful vehicles for campaign fundraising, including raising through online contributions more than two thirds of the $750,000 used in the surprisingly competitive House campaign of Democrat Paul Hackett in Ohio. Rosenberg has created the New Politics Institute, an organization that works with bloggers.

Alliance organizers said they are seeking to avoid involvement in the ideological disputes that have plagued Democrats in recent years. But it may prove difficult to avoid them when the list of organizations eligible for contributions is drafted.

Stein has spent considerable time in the midst of internal Democratic wars, having served as chief of staff to the Clinton-Gore transition in 1992 and strategic adviser to former Democratic National Committee chairman Ron Brown. In recent years, he has become a venture capitalist.

Jockeying for cash among possible recipient organizations has already begun. Robert L. Borosage, director of the liberal Campaign for America's Future, said the alliance will fund a "set of institutions in this city to be in the national debate, and we would like to be one of them."

Stein, who closely examined the finances of institutions on the right and left over the past two years, contends that there is a huge financial imbalance favoring conservatives that he puts at $295 million vs. $75 million.

In 2003, the 19 progressive organizations with budgets exceeding $1 million spent a total of $75 million, he said. In contrast, the 24 national think tanks on the right had $170 million in spending, along with state-based policy centers' $50 million and campus-based conservative policy organizations' $75 million to $100 million, according to Stein.

Liberal groups have been disproportionately dependent on one-year foundation grants for specific projects, Stein said, while the money flowing to conservative groups has often involved donors' long-term commitments with no strings attached. Stein noted that of 200 major conservative donors, about half sit on the boards of the think tanks they give to, increasing the strength of their commitment.

Yahoo News ~ Washington Post - Thomas B. Edsall ** Rich Liberals Vow to Fund Think Tanks

Also at... News Max.com ~ Carl Limbacher ** Fat Cat Libs to Raise $80M for Dems

Dems looking in wrong place for lost voters
Mood:  silly
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

It's sadly pathetic that the democrat's have to go as far back as FDR and JFK, just to be able to say they stand for anything. Yet they're what many of the older democrats look back on.

Democrats are looking in the wrong place for their lost voters

The Democratic National Committee is in San Antonio this weekend trying to develop a strategy to bring more Hispanics under the tent after a steady decline of support from the nation's largest minority in recent elections.

And while San Antonio is clearly a cut above my hometown as a convention city, the Democratic honchos might have learned more about the party's plight at my 20th high school reunion in El Paso last week.

Certainly, they wouldn't have gotten any of the inside jokes about how my border brothers and I gave each other nicknames like "El Fin," "Beak" and "Gator." But the DNC would have gotten a lesson on why an increasing number of my former classmates have abandoned the Democratic hustings of their parents and are now voting Republican.

To understand how solidly Democrat El Paso still is as a city, consider this: While President Bush carried red-state Texas with 61 percent of the vote last year, 56 percent of El Pasoans voted for Sen. John Kerry.

But virtually none of the 10 or so guys I hung around with in high school still call El Paso home, a sad commentary on the brain drain that besets the border city. The group includes a physician, a microbiologist, a financial analyst, a schoolteacher, a pharmaceutical rep, a cop and a couple of salesmen.

The majority are Hispanics whose parents are either first- or second-generation Mexican immigrants. Of those parents, I'd be willing to bet that about 70 percent of them are products of the civil rights era and are die-hard Democrats.

Going into the reunion, I was ready for numerous discussions to steer toward politics.

When people hear you cover politics for a living, they tend to treat you like an electoral confessional, regaling you with the reasons why they voted for Ross Perot for president or Chuy De la O for El Paso mayor. (The late De la O was a colorful political dreamer who had one good eye and was known to don Uncle Sam outfits during campaigns.)

Yet I was mildly surprised by what my old buddies had to say about the last presidential election. About half, I'm guessing, voted for Bush. And the other half were sticking with the Democratic Party, but by a thread.

The physician in the group, a Houston pediatrician who is African American, described the shift best.

"Being black, you can probably guess what my political leanings are," he said. "But I find myself increasingly in the middle anymore. The Democrats don't want to hold anybody accountable for anything, and the Republicans still have some conservative views on social and health programs that make me uncomfortable."

The Bush backers were vocal about their support, saying they appreciated the president's strong faith in God and his firm stand against terrorists. The Democrats were markedly more guarded, and none of them offered a spirited defense of the party.

That's when it struck me: In their silence, what the latter group seemed to be saying is that they don't know what the party of FDR and JFK stands for anymore.

This weekend, I expect DNC Chairman Howard Dean to talk a lot about investing in the political infrastructure to reach out to Hispanics, blacks and women.

But that investment will only lead them to voters. They still must find a message that resonates with these groups that are no longer exclusively on the liberal fringe.

Related story...
San Antonio Express News ~ Rebeca Rodriguez ** Democrats are seeking to woo back Hispanics

San Antonio Express News ~ Jaime Castillo ** Democrats are looking in the wrong place for their lost voters

Activists indicted for allegedly transporting illegal immigrants
Mood:  d'oh
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Headline should read, "Two criminals arrested last month with three illegal aliens", or maybe just "Five criminals arrested"

Activists indicted for allegedly transporting immigrants

TUCSON - Two border activists arrested last month with three undocumented immigrants in their vehicle have been indicted by a federal grand jury.

Daniel Strauss and Shanti Sellz and the three men were stopped by U.S. Border Patrol agents 25 miles from the Mexican border on July 9.

Strauss and Sellz, volunteers with the No More Deaths group, were arrested under a federal statute making it a crime to transport illegal entrants.

The two activists told the agents they were taking the men to Tucson's Southside Presbyterian Church because they were vomiting and suffering from bloody diarrhea.

Border Patrol officials have said the men were not ill and refused medical aid once in custody.

Federal prosecutors said Strauss and Sellz were indicted Wednesday on one count each of conspiracy to transport an undocumented immigrant and transporting an undocumented immigrant.

They are scheduled to be arraigned Aug. 11.

Prosecutors said the conspiracy charge carries a 10-year maximum sentence and the transporting charge carries a five-year maximum sentence.

Information from: Arizona Daily Star

The Arizona Republic ~ AZ Central - Associated Press ** Activists indicted for allegedly transporting immigrants

Hollywood bucks down the drain as ACT falls apart
Mood:  chatty
Topic: Columns

George Soros and a motley crew of Hollywood entertainers, technology leftists and all the traditional Dem special interests used the umbrella group Amercia Coming Together to spend $ 200 million to elect John Kerry. They organized and ranted and blew money like it was water. They did manage to elect a Democrat to secretary of state in Missouri. Money well spent. Here is the kicker, ACT is broke but Kerry hung on to some of the money that he raised. Ask yourself why.

America Coming Together Comes Apart
The Democrats’ great hope goes away.

A few days after the 2004 election, America Coming Together, the giant pro-Democratic voter turnout group that had raised about $200 million from George Soros, Peter Lewis, and a variety of Hollywood moguls, released a list of its accomplishments. Obviously, ACT, as big as it was, had not put John Kerry over the top, but the group had "held conversations at 4.6 million doorsteps about the truth about the Iraq war, about the state of our healthcare system, about the economy." It had registered half-a-million new voters. In the last days of the campaign it had made 23 million phone calls, sent out 16 million pieces of mail, and delivered 11 million fliers. And on top of it all, it had "launched the largest get-out-the-vote effort the Democratic Party has ever seen," turning out "unprecedented levels of voters in the battleground states."

It all sounded very, very impressive. And then ACT listed its accomplishments at the polls, and the results seemed far less impressive. ACT had "helped ensure George W. Bush’s defeat in several of the key states and made the race close in others." It had "enabled Democrats to take back the Oregon state legislature for the first time in 10 years." It had helped Missouri Democrat Robin Carnahan win election as Missouri secretary of state. And finally, "In New Hampshire, we saw wins for the presidential race and the governor’s race, as well as a gain of four state senate seats."

And that was it. Soros and all his colleagues had spent $200 million to elect a Democratic secretary of state in Missouri.

The question that hung in the air at the time was whether, after such a defeat, the big donors would continue to support ACT — to get ready for the next big campaign — and help it grow into an even larger turnout machine. And now we have the answer: No.

On Tuesday ACT, which had already downsized dramatically in the months since the election, pink-slipped most of its remaining staff and shut down all its state offices. The money had dried up, the donors were on to other things, and the "largest get-out-the-vote effort the Democratic Party has ever seen" was over.

Throughout its life — it started when Ellen Malcolm of EMILY's List, Steve Rosenthal of the AFL-CIO, former Clinton operative Harold Ickes, and others held a downcast post-election dinner in November 2002 at a restaurant in Washington's Dupont Circle neighborhood — America Coming Together operated on the assumption that big, big money would bring victory to the Democratic party. The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law had just taken effect after the 2002 elections, and it revealed in stark terms that Democrats, despite their image as the party of the little guy, had for years been far more dependent on seven-figure contributions than Republicans were. With unlimited contributions to the parties banned by McCain-Feingold, Malcolm, Rosenthal, Ickes, and their colleagues — the group included representatives of the Service Employees International Union, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Sierra Club, and several other groups on the left — had to find a way to keep the big Democratic donors engaged. America Coming Together — a so-called "527" group that could still legally accept big contributions — was the answer.

In July 2003, they traveled to Southampton, to the estate of George Soros, where Soros's political consultants made a pitch for spending large amounts of money on Democratic-voter turnout. Soros, his friend and giving partner Peter Lewis, and several others present agreed that it was a good idea, and the money began to flow. "We came out of that with a big commitment from George and Peter Lewis and some of the other participants," Ellen Malcolm told me when I interviewed her for my book, The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. "So all of a sudden this little idea..." Malcolm paused for a moment before saying, "We could do more."

A lot more. Soros, who would eventually give ACT $20 million of his own money, virtually dictated the size and scope of the new organization; he was personally responsible for its massive effort in all the swing states. "He’s very good at pushing out the limit," Malcolm told me before the election. "At one point, we thought we could only do seven or nine states. And George would come in and say, 'No, you can do this.' He helped us put together some other ways to raise money and pushed us into doing all the states. And he was right."

When rich Democrats across the country saw that Soros and Lewis had joined up with America Coming Together, they decided to hop on board, too. There was Hollywood producer Stephen Bing, who gave $12 million. There was Hyatt hotel heiress Linda Pritzker, whose family gave $5 million. And the Service Employees International Union, which gave $3 million. And Massachusetts technology entrepreneur Terry Ragon, who gave $3 million. And Texas technology executives Jonathan McHale and Christine Mattson, who together gave $3 million And the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, which gave $2.1 million. And New York philanthropist Lewis Cullman, who gave $2 million. And Rockefeller heir Alida Messinger, who gave $1.5 million. And Agnes Varis, head of AgVar Chemicals, who gave $1.5 million. And Illinois broadcasting magnate Fred Eychaner, who gave $1.5 million. And Seattle tech entrepreneur Robert Glaser, who gave $1.2 million. And the Teamsters Union, which gave $1 million. And Colorado entrepreneur Tim Gill, who gave $1 million. And television producer Marcy Carsey, who gave $1 million. And Pennsylvania financier Theodore Aronson, who gave $1 million. And Oregon publisher Win McCormack, who gave $1 million. And heiress Anne Getty Earhart, who gave $1 million. And Texas technology entrepreneur James H. Clark, who gave $1 million. And the American Federation of Teachers, which gave $1 million. And Florida millionaire Dan Lewis, who gave $1 million. And Ohio philanthropist Richard Rosenthal, who gave $1 million. And clothing entrepreneur Susie Tompkins Buell, who gave $1 million.

And those were just the ones who contributed $1 million or more. In all, America Coming Together, along with its sister organization, the Media Fund, raised and spent about $200 million. And as Election Day approached, the organization gave off an air of confidence born of the belief that it was simply too big to fail.

In a way, it didn't fail. In 2004, America Coming Together helped create a record Democratic turnout — a performance that would have been a fabulous success had not the other guys turned out even more. In the end, though, the problem for ACT was not that it failed to turn out voters. The problem was, despite its claims to be reaching more people than ever before, it really did not reach a lot of new people. America Coming Together was not, in fact, America coming together; it might more accurately have been named Traditional Democratic Party Constituencies Coordinating Like Never Before. You could go to any office of ACT and find lots of people from NARAL, or the Service Employees union, or Planned Parenthood. They were the same old groups doing the same old thing, only more so.

Despite all the hype and all the press releases, the effort really wasn’t about converting new voters to the Democratic party. Rather, it was about squeezing just a little more juice out of a lemon that had been nearly squeezed dry in the past. Steve Rosenthal’s well-regarded successes in previous elections had not involved attracting large numbers of new people to the cause. They involved getting union voters to turn out in ever-greater percentages, even as the percentage of union households in the electorate shrank. The problem was, you could do that for only so long. At some point, every union member or union household member of voting age could turn out and it still wouldn’t be enough to elect a Democratic candidate. For that, you had to expand your appeal, and that was something ACT failed to do. Malcolm, Rosenthal, and Ickes discovered that you could call it America Coming Together, but saying so didn't make it true.

— Byron York, NR's White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time. This piece is adapted from the book.

National Review ~ Byron York ** America Coming Together Comes Apart

Origional story at...
This Blog **** Libtard grassroots organization, Americans Coming Together... falls apart

Another Fitzgerald indictment - still not Rove, Dem fundraiser accused of taking kickbacks from teachers' pension fund
Mood:  chatty
Now Playing: Another Fitzgerald indictment - still not Rove, Democrat fundraiser that is accused
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Chicago and Democrat contributors...why am I underwhelmed with surprise?

Millionaire charged with taking kickbacks from teachers' pension fund
By Andy Shaw

A politically connected businessman has been indicted for a second time on federal fraud charges. Stuart Levine (left) is linked to a scam involving the Illinois Teachers Pension Fund along with one of the Democratic party's biggest fund raisers, Joseph Cari.

The message from the feds Wednesday is crystal clear: Chicago City Hall is only one of the fronts in the war on government corruption. It also appears to be rampant at the boards and commissions that oversee billions of dollars in state of Illinois programs. One of the alleged scammers is multi-millionaire businessman Stuart Levine. Another is Joe Cari, one of the Democratic parties biggest national fundraisers.

Joseph Cari, a 52-year-old Chicago lawyer and major Democratic party fundraiser for Bill Clinton, Al Gore and others, allegedly conspired with Highland Park businessman Stuart Levine, a former member of the Illinois Teachers Retirement System. The two were attempting to extort $850,000 in kickbacks from a Virginia investment firm that was seeking an $850 million contract to invest the money of 325,000 retired teachers.

"Cari called the firm and told the firm they had to sign the contract by the end of the day or their application for the money would be pulled off the table. He made clear this is the way things are done in Illinois," said Patrick Fitzgerald, U.S. attorney.

Levine, who has already been indicted for allegedly shaking down hospitals and medical schools as a member of the state's hospital construction board, is facing 14 additional counts in the new indictment. He allegedly extorted several hundred thousand dollars from investment firms that wanted a piece of the teachers' $30 million pension fund.

"He used fraud and extortion to put those funds to use for the benefit of his friends, not for the teachers," said Fitzgerald.

Levine was appointed to the boards by former Governor George Ryan and reappointed by Governor Blagojevich. He is a longtime friend and major contributor to the state's former attorney general, Jim Ryan.

At Wednesday's announcement the feds talked about where the investigation is going.

"We're obviously very concerned about how the state boards are operated. This is a broad investigation, and if there's anyone out there who has information about any corrupt conduct, regardless of individual involvement in the state board, we want them to come forward," Fitzgerald said.

Stuart Levine is fighting the charges in the hospital shakedown scheme, but the government has at least one major cooperating witness. We don't have a reaction to the new indictment from Levine or his attorney, but Joe Cari is pleading guilty along with another lawyer, Steven Loren of Highland Park, who allegedly drafted the phony legal documents in the scam. Both lawyers are cooperating with the government.

ABC 7 Chicago ~ Andy Shaw ** Millionaire charged with taking kickbacks from teachers' pension fund

Firm ordered abortion, ex-employee says
Mood:  irritated
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

From The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Firm ordered abortion, ex-employee says

Because of various health issues, April Thompson said she had reason to believe she might never have a child.

When she got pregnant, the joy she wanted to share with her employer quickly turned sour when, she said, her boss demanded that she get an abortion or risk losing her job.

Thompson's attorney, Ed Buckley, said the woman eventually was fired by Piedmont Management Associates, a homeowners association management firm, for refusing to get the abortion.

Thompson recently filed a lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court against the company and its president, Celia Ebert, on grounds of discrimination and emotional duress. "We believe that the conduct of forcing a women to get an abortion falls into intentional infliction of emotional distress," Buckley said.

Ebert's attorney, Benjamin I. Fink, said his client would not comment on the lawsuit.

"Ms. Ebert and Piedmont Management categorically deny Ms. Thompson's allegations," Fink said in a statement. "Piedmont Management is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate in its employment practices."

Thompson could not be reached for comment. Buckley said she is on doctor-ordered bed rest and is due to deliver in the fall.

According to the suit, Thompson began working at Piedmont Management Associates in April 2002 and was promoted to closing director and director of administrative services in fall 2003. Buckley said things were going so well for Thompson that in May 2004, Ebert gave her a loan with the promise that a raise was forthcoming. In June, she got the raise and began paying back the loan, Buckley said.

But on a personal level, Thompson was suffering from endometriosis, and a doctor recommended a hysterectomy to handle the condition, which can lead to severe pain and infertility.

Thompson, 30, sought a second opinion from a fertility doctor and decided on laparoscopy surgery. According to the lawsuit, when Ebert found out Thompson was seeing a fertility doctor, she told her she was "worried that she was trying to get pregnant."

"If you get pregnant, you will have to move because I am not putting up with any babies around here and you also won't have a job," the lawsuit says Ebert told Thompson. "The guys and I do not even hire single mothers because of the problems. I know you have some great delusion that you will be a great mother, but you won't — you can't even take care of your dog."

In December 2004, Thompson's doctor told her laparoscopy surgery did not address her medical condition and recommended the hysterectomy. Thompson said Ebert agreed to give her medical and vacation time for the procedure. On Jan. 24, Thompson went in to schedule her hysterectomy and was told she was pregnant. According to the lawsuit, when Ebert found out, she demanded that Thompson get an abortion.

Fink, Ebert's attorney, said Ebert "and Piedmont Management intend to vigorously defend Ms. Thompson's claims and are confident that through the legal process Ms. Thompson's allegations will be shown to be completely false."

Atlanta Journal-Constitution ~ Ernie Suggs ** Firm ordered abortion, ex-employee says

Dem Jon Corzine gave much as $615,600 (gift tax included) to a former flame who runs one of the biggest state-employee unions
Mood:  smelly
Now Playing: NJ GOV RACE - MCGREEVEY REVISITED
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Jon Corzine (left), Carla Katz (center), and Bill Michaelcheck (right) at the Pierre Hotel, Annual Paradise Ball 2002 >>>>>

JON CORZINGED

WASHINGTON - The New Jersey governor's race exploded into a firestorm yesterday, with the revelation that super-rich Sen. Jon Corzine gave $470,000 to a former flame who runs one of the biggest state-employee unions.

The value of the donation ballooned to as much as $615,600, because Corzine also paid the gift tax.

The Democrat stonewalled questions about whether he gave any other money to sultry Carla Katz, who represents 9,000 New Jersey state employees as head of Local 1034 of the Communications Workers of America.

Republican rival Doug Forrester — backed by some watchdog groups — charged the gift represents a conflict of interest because Katz and other unions have vowed to seek billions in taxpayer funds for pay hikes from the next governor.

"I believe that if someone is responsible for representing the public interest in a negotiating process of any form, the nature of the financial relationship that existed — or continues to exist — should be known," Forrester said.

"There needs to be no question on the part of the public that the actions that are being taken are being taken solely with the public interest in mind," Forrester told The Post in a telephone interview.

Corzine refused to say if he made any other gifts to Katz and her family, declaring, "I'm a public official but I also have a private life."

The senator denied there's any conflict of interest, saying that if he's elected governor, he wouldn't be the one directly negotiating with his ex-girlfriend.

Spokesman Tom Shea refused to say if Corzine still provides financial support to Katz , saying: "He's just chosen not to discuss a private relationship."

But Larry Noble of the Center for Responsive Politics said, "As a political matter . . . I think he has to answer whether there is an ongoing financial relationship. The voters are going to want to know."

New Jersey Republican Chairman Tom Wilson called it "d?j? vu all over again" and evoked memories of the sleaze that led former Gov. Jim McGreevey to resign after putting a man with whom he'd had an affair into a sensitive job.

"She's not somebody who owns a widget company in Secaucus. She's the president of the largest bargaining unit for state employees," Wilson said of Katz.

Corzine is the richest U.S. senator in his own right, worth at least the $261 million he made as Goldman Sachs CEO. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is a billionaire through his wife.

On Dec. 18, 2002, Corzine granted a $470,000 loan to Katz through a company he controls so she could buy her Bloomsbury, N.J., home from her ex-husband, according to documents uncovered by The Star-Ledger and New York Times.

Katz met Corzine in 1999 during his campaign for Senate. Their relationship went public in 2002, a year before his divorce became final.

The relationship ended in July 2004 and Corzine turned the loan into a gift on Dec. 9 — one week after he launched his campaign for governor.

But the two remain close. She kissed him on the cheek when her union backed his bid for governor on June 27.

Corzine says he paid the gift tax. His campaign wouldn't reveal the amount, but the nonpartisan Tax Foundation pointed to an Internal Revenue Service chart indicating the federal tax on a $470,000 gift is $145,600.

Katz ducked reporters yesterday at the Local 1034 headquarters in West Trenton, with aides saying she was in meetings.

Additional reporting by Angelina Cappiello
The New York Post ~ Deborah Orin and Ian Bishop ** JON CORZINGED

Hillary would lose to Rudy and McCain
Mood:  chatty
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

All that hand ringing has been for nothing. Gallup has Hillary getting soundly beat by Rudy or McCain. The truth is that Hillary will probably lose to someone else because the GOP is so strong going into the mid-terms that they will probably be able to nominate someone much more conservative than Rudy or McCain and still beat Hillary.

Poll: Clinton trails Republicans

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., would do better than Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., against potential 2008 Republican presidential rivals John McCain and Rudy Giuliani -- but would still lose, a Gallup Poll showed Wednesday.

Both McCain, a senator from Arizona who challenged then-Texas Gov. George Bush for the Republican nomination in 2000, and Giuliani, mayor of New York City during the Sept. 11 attacks, would beat Clinton in the trial matchup, 50 percent to 45 percent, the poll showed.

Either of the two Republicans would beat Kerry 54 percent to 41 percent. In the presidential election last Nov. 2, Bush beat Kerry 51 percent to 48 percent.

None of the prospective candidates tested by Gallup has announced plans to seek the presidency in 2008.

Gallup's latest nationwide survey of 922 registered voters was conducted by telephone over a four-day period ending July 28. The survey had a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

Gallup's Jeffrey M. Jones said the results showed "the Republican candidates have an edge at this point with at least a slight lead" in the hypothetical races.

Clinton, a first-term senator from New York seeking re-election in 2006, appears to be the "stronger of the two Democratic candidates" 28 months before the parties begin the presidential primary process that chooses the parties' respective nominees, Jones said.

The Gallup Poll showed both McCain and Giuliani enjoying strong appeal among the independent swing voters, who often decide the outcome of the nation's presidential elections.

McCain and Giuliani each drew support from at least 50 percent of the independent voters surveyed by Gallup, while Clinton attracted no more than 41 percent and Kerry got no more than 38 percent.

McCain and Giuliani also did a better job stealing Democratic support from Clinton and Kerry than the Democrats did luring Republican support from the Republicans. Clinton drew no more than 12 percent of Republican voters in the trial heats against McCain and Giuliani.

McCain and Giuliani drew at least 18 percent of the Democratic voters in the trial heats against Clinton and at least 22 percent in trial heats against Kerry.

Indianapolis Star ~ Stewart M. Powell ** Poll: Clinton trails Republicans