Amnesty International Leadership Donated Thousands To Lurch Heinz Kerry
Mood:  smelly
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Amnesty head supported Kerry, Kennedy, ACLU

Think Amnesty International is above partisan politics? The chairman and the executive director of the U.S. arm of the organization, which called Gitmo a gulag, both donated money to John Kerry?s presidential campaign. The director is a lawyer who also supported Ted Kennedy and works with the ACLU.

Amnesty leadership aided Kerry

The top leadership of Amnesty International USA, which unleashed a blistering attack last week on the Bush administration's handling of war detainees, contributed the maximum $2,000 to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.

Federal Election Commission records show that William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty USA, contributed $2,000 to Mr. Kerry's campaign last year. Mr. Schulz also has contributed $1,000 to the 2006 campaign of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

Also, Joe W. "Chip" Pitts III, board chairman of Amnesty International USA, gave the maximum $2,000 allowed by federal law to John Kerry for President. Mr. Pitts is a lawyer and entrepreneur who advises the American Civil Liberties Union.

Amnesty USA yesterday told The Washington Times that staff members make policy based on laws governing human rights, pointing out that the organization had criticized some of President Clinton's policies.

"We strive to do everything humanly possible to see that the personal political perspectives of our leadership have no bearing whatsoever upon the nature of our findings and the conduct of our work," a spokesman said.

Amnesty International describes itself as nonpartisan. Disclosure of the leadership's political leanings came yesterday as the Bush administration continued to lash out at the human rights group for remarks last week by Irene Khan, Amnesty's secretary-general.

Mrs. Khan compared the U.S. detention center at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where more than 500 suspected al Qaeda and Taliban members are held, to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin's "gulag" prison system.

At the same time, Mr. Schulz issued a statement calling Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top administration officials "architects of torture." Mr. Schulz suggested that other countries could file war-crime charges against the top officials and arrest them.

Since Sunday, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Vice President Dick Cheney; and President Bush have accused Amnesty International of irresponsible criticism.

Yesterday, it was Mr. Rumsfeld's turn.
"No force in the world has done more to liberate people that they have never met than the men and women of the United States military," Mr. Rumsfeld said at the Pentagon press conference. "That's why the recent allegation that the U.S. military is running a gulag at Guantanamo Bay is so reprehensible. Most would define a gulag as where the Soviet Union kept millions in forced labor concentration camps. ... To compare the United States and Guantanamo Bay to such atrocities cannot be excused."

Amnesty International has hit the White House for refusing to treat suspected al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists as prisoners of war subject to the Geneva Conventions; for abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq; and for a list of largely unsubstantiated complaints from detainees at Guantanamo.

Mr. Rumsfeld said "at least a dozen" of the 200 detainees released from Guantanamo "have already been caught back on the battlefield, involved in efforts to kidnap and kill Americans."

Mr. Schulz posted a statement yesterday on Amnesty's Web site (www.amnesty.org) that said, in part, "Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration ignored or dismissed Amnesty International's reports on the abuse of detainees for years, and senior officials continue to ignore the very real plight of men detained without charge or trial."

Amnesty International's Web site states it is "independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government."

Washington Times ~ Rowan Scarborough ** Amnesty leadership aided Kerry

Loss of Middle Class a ''Crisis'' for Democrats
Mood:  chatty
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Loss of middle class a 'crisis' for Democrats

The Democratic Party, the self-proclaimed defender of the middle class, was trounced by Republicans among those voters in the 2004 election, according to a Democratic advocacy group that says the party faces "a crisis with the middle class."

A report released yesterday by Third Way says support for Republicans begins at much lower income levels than researchers had expected: Among white voters, President Bush got a majority of support beginning at an income threshold of $23,300 -- about $5,000 above the poverty level for a family of four.

The report says the economic gains of Hispanics have translated into strong Republican gains, as have economic strides across every category, save for black voters.

"As Americans become even modestly wealthier their affinity for Democrats apparently falls off. With middle income voters, it is Democrats -- the self-described party of the middle class -- who are running far behind Republicans, the oft-described party of the rich," the report says.

Although Mr. Bush's popular-vote margin of victory over Sen. John Kerry in 2004 was less than three percentage points, the Massachusetts Democrat lost the middle class -- defined by the report as voters living in households with incomes between $30,000 and $75,000 -- by six percentage points. Among white middle-class voters, the gap was 22 percentage points.

Voters from middle-class households made up 45 percent of the electorate last year, those making less than $30,000 constituted 23 percent of the vote, and households above $75,000 accounted for 32 percent of the vote. The median income among the voters was $54,348.

Polls show that voters identify the Democratic Party as the party of the middle class and that Democrats beat Republicans on middle-class issues such as jobs, health care and education, but that hasn't translated into votes, said Jim Kessler, policy director for Third Way, which was created after the 2004 election with the goal of "modernizing the progressive cause."

"Middle-class voters think Democrats care about issues they care about, but they don't care about the middle-class voter as much as they care about other voters -- that they're No. 4 or 5 on the priority list," Mr. Kessler said. Put another way, he said, "they think Democrats care about somebody else's schools, health care, jobs."

The report showed that Democrats continue to do well among black voters, and that did not change with income or education levels. But those findings "masked the deficit they faced with the remaining middle class," Mr. Kessler said.

A spokesman for the Democratic National Committee didn't return calls for comment. Sarah Feinberg, spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said House Democrats plan to push for middle-class voters in the 2006 election cycle.

"Democrats are certainly going to be working to talk to middle-class voters and to make sure middle-class voters understand that their priorities are our priorities," she said, pointing to polls that show voters concerned about rising gasoline prices and access to affordable health care.

She said Congress instead has focused on business-friendly measures such as class-action lawsuits and bankruptcy reform.

"One of the main things we've been talking about this election cycle is the fact that the Republican leadership and the Republican Congress are very out of step with middle-class families, and almost everything in this country," she said.

Many in the Democratic Party, particularly among those on the left, say there are no policy lessons to be learned from the 2004 election, that the party failed to get out its message and that it was overshadowed by a strong president at war. But centrist Democrats have continued to argue that the party may be in bigger danger than many loyalists think.

This month's issue of Blueprint, a magazine published by the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, has several articles looking at statistics similar to Third Way's income data, such as Mr. Kerry's losing married parents of young children by 19 percentage points, taking 40 percent of the group compared with Mr. Bush's 59 percent. Those parents made up 28 percent of the electorate.

Washington Times ~ Stephen Dinan ** Loss of middle class a 'crisis' for Democrats

Democrats want to raise taxes on rich to fund schools
Mood:  silly
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Democrats want to raise taxes on rich to fund schools

Speaker announces plan to put $1.7 billion into education annually.

SACRAMENTO — Assembly Democrats proposed Tuesday raising taxes on wealthy Californians to help increase education spending as an alternative to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed state budget. The Democratic spending plan calls for increasing the state income tax bracket on couples earning over $285,000 from 9.3 percent to 10 percent and to 11 percent on couples earning more than $570,000. The tax hike would generate about $1.7 billion a year for education spending.

"Above all else, Assembly Democrats believe that Californians deserve a budget that funds our schools and builds opportunity for our children," Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, said. "That is why our budget is one that will provide our schools with far more resources for education than the one that the governor has proposed in his May (budget) revise."

Democrats are expected to have difficulty getting the proposal through the Legislature, where it will need a two-thirds vote — meaning bipartisan support is required — and then obtaining the governor's signature. Schwarzenegger and most Republican lawmakers oppose any tax increases to balance the budget.

"This proposal is dead on arrival, as far as increasing taxes," said Assemblyman Rick Keene, R-Chico, vice chairman of the Assembly Budget committee.

Democrats estimate the hike would generate about $2.4 billion when first implemented because it would apply to more than a full fiscal year, and then generate about $1.7 billion annually after that.

The Democratic spending plan also eliminates Schwarzenegger's plans to implement $408 million in pay cuts for state employees and home health-care workers and shift $469 million in teacher pension costs onto local school districts.

Schwarzenegger spokesman Rob Stutzman suggested the only way Democrats would get a tax increase approved would be for the Legislature to place it directly on the ballot — again a move which would require bipartisan support since it is too late now to draft an initiative and collect signatures in time for the expected special election this fall.

"As for a tax increase, the governor remains opposed to tax increases," Stutzman said. "If the legislature wants to put that forward, that's certainly their right to do so. If they can muster a two-thirds vote, they can put it on the ballot even."

"Other than that, they should have been out circulating petitions as the governor's allies were trying to put (the governor's reform agenda) on a ballot for a potential special election this fall."

CA Press Telegram ~ Harrison Sheppard ** Democrats want to raise taxes on rich to fund schools

Benchmark 1,000th Reconstruction Project Completed
Mood:  special
Topic: News

Betas School students file through the gates of their newly renovated school to take part in the ribbon-cutting ceremony. >>>>>
(Open in new window) Click here for full size image.

Benchmark 1,000th Reconstruction Project Completed in Iraq

By Denise Calabria
Special to American Forces Press Service

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The public spotlight recently shone on an unassuming, eight-classroom school in the town of Zakho, Iraq, and for good reason. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gulf Region Division, responsible for oversight of reconstruction in Iraq, announced it had identified Betas School as its 1,000th completed reconstruction project.

The Betas School, located amid rolling hills on the outskirts of the town of Zahko, in the northernmost province of Dahuk, is home to headmaster Ibraheem Nuri, 60 students, and seven teachers.

Nuri was visibly pleased and proud. "I have been the headmaster at Betas School for many years," he said, "but I never imagined it could be such a wonderful school. I am very happy for the teachers and students."

Nuri and his students took part in the school's ribbon-cutting ceremony. The children presented flowers and refreshments to all invited guests, including local government and tribal representatives.

U.S. Army Col. Kurt Ubellohde, district engineer for the Gulf Region Northern District, and numerous Corps staff members, as well as members from Washington Group International, the company that performed the renovations, also attended the ceremony. Local Kurdish television and U.S. military media chronicled the event.

Renovations to the school included replacing water tanks, water piping, and sewer pipes; installing toilets and sinks; laying a concrete floor and terrazzo tiles; and installing ceiling fans, interior and exterior lights and a school bell. Repairs also were made to the school safety wall.

While Betas School renovation is the 1,000th project, the pristine schoolhouse also serves as a symbol of the 840 planned school projects throughout the country. To date, 171 of these projects are ongoing, and 580 school projects are complete.

Spending on reconstruction projects in Iraq has reached more than $5.5 billion. Thus far, of the 3,200 total planned projects countrywide, 2,389 have started, 1,215 are ongoing, and 1,174 have been completed in the sectors of Buildings, Health, and Education; Oil, Security and Justice; Electricity; Transportation and Communications; and Public Works and Water.

Denise Calabria is assigned to the Gulf Region Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Related Site: Gulf Region Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

<<<<< Army Col. Kurt Ubellohde, district engineer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Gulf Region Northern District, and local dignitaries cut the ceremonial ribbon at Betas School, the 1,000th project completed by the Gulf Region Division.
Download screen-resolution
Download high-resolution

U.S. Department of Defense ~ Denise Calabria ** Benchmark 1,000th Reconstruction Project Completed in Iraq

Indiana Judge rules against Planned Parenthood's sick ass, militant abortion stance protecting rapists
Mood:  celebratory
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Indiana Judge Rules Against Planned Parenthood

An Indiana judge ruled Tuesday that Planned Parenthood of Indiana must let state officials review the medical records of 84 girls younger than 14 who visited Planned Parenthood clinics.

The state's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (part of the Attorney General's office) is investigating whether Planned Parenthood failed to report child molestation. Under Indiana law, anyone under 14 who has had sex is presumed to be a victim of molestation.

On Tuesday, a Marion County Superior Court judge refused Planned Parenthood of Indiana's request for an injunction to block the State Attorney General from seizing the medical records.

Planned Parenthood argued that the request for the records was an unreasonable search and an invasion of privacy, but the judge disagreed.

In his ruling, Judge Kenneth Johnson wrote, ""The great public interest in the reporting, investigation, and prosecution of child abuse trumps even the patient's interest in privileged communication with her physician because, in the end, both the patient and the state are benefitted by the disclosure."

Planned Parenthood of Indiana said it will appeal the ruling, which it called a fishing expedition:

"This ruling puts everyone's medical privacy at risk, shaking the very foundation of the doctor-patient relationship that is at the heart of good health care," said Betty Cockrum, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana.

Cockrum said her organization takes very seriously the law regarding the reporting of abuse and neglect. And she urged the state attorney general not to seize the medical records until all appeals are exhausted. (A spokesman for the attorney general agreed to her request.)

"For our clients, trust is the cornerstone of why they choose Planned Parenthood as their provider of vital health services," Cockrum said in a statement on the Planned Parenthood website. "We are a trusted member of the community and work closely with authorities to protect the young women and men in Indiana."

Planned Parenthood said that in March 2005, an agent of the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit entered three Planned Parenthood health centers in Indiana, demanding medical information about specific minors who had received reproductive health services.

Planned Parenthood reportedly turned over as many as eight medical files before filing suit. The organization says none of the 84 minors in question had abortions.

Tuesday's ruling in Indiana has rallied pro-life groups in Kansas, where a similar legal case is unfolding.

Kansas Attorney General Phill Klines has ordered Kansas abortion clinics to turn over the medical records of dozens of women and girls who had late-term abortions in 2003. He wants to know how old the patients were and how far their pregnancies had advanced.

In October, a state judge ruled that the clinics must let Kline have the records, and the clinics are now appealing that ruling in the state supreme court.

Cybercast News Service ~ Susan Jones ** Indiana Judge Rules Against Planned Parenthood

Dutch reject Super-Europe too
Mood:  d'oh
Topic: News

Following in the footsteps of France, 63% of Dutch voters rejected ratification of the EU Constitution today. This should save England from having to vote on it and sends the bureaucrats in Brussels back to the drawing board.

Crushing defeat leaves EU vision in tatters

Massive rejection by Dutch voters likely to bury constitution

By Ian Traynor in The Hague and Nicholas Watt in Brussels

European leaders' long-held dream of anchoring the continent's greater unification in its first constitution was dissolving before their eyes last night after the Dutch delivered the second crushing blow to the idea in three days. Given the chance to have their say in their first ever referendum, the Netherlands voted by an overwhelming majority against the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe.

The Dutch rejected the treaty by 61.6% to 38.4% on a high turnout of 62%, according to a tally of almost all the votes.

Both the turnout and the margin of victory for the no camp were substantially higher than opinion polls had predicted.

Following the French rejection of the treaty at the weekend, the second blow from another founding EU member left the European elite reeling and facing the prospect of a protracted period of recrimination, conflict and crisis.

President Jacques Chirac of France said the double negative had laid bare "questions and concerns about the development of the European project". In Germany, the chancellor, Gerhard Schroder, warned that the crisis over the constitution "must not become Europe's general crisis".

Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, said the verdict of French and Dutch voters "raises profound questions for all of us about the future direction of Europe".

Although nine of the 25 members have already ratified the treaty, European leaders last night appeared to be inching towards an acceptance that the double no has killed off the constitution. Jose Manuel Barroso, the European commission president, underlined the more nuanced approach when he made no mention of the need to continue with ratification in a statement and late-night press conference.

"It is a difficult moment for Europe," Mr Barroso said, adding that heads of government would decide what to do next at their summit in two weeks. But he warned EU leaders not to abandon the treaty yet. "I think it will not be wise [for] leaders to come with new initiatives or unilateral decisions."

The Dutch revolt against their rulers in The Hague and Brussels was without parallel. For 50 years, the Netherlands has been a stronghold of European integration, home to the Maastricht treaty that produced the most striking instrument of unification - the euro single currency.

As last weekend in France, the no triumph was ascribed to multiple factors all merging into a voters' mutiny.

The three-party centre-right coalition of the Christian democrat prime minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, is strongly in favour of the constitution. It is also the most unpopular government in living memory.

The Dutch are wary of forfeiting their veto in European policy making. As the biggest per capita net contributors to the Brussels budget, they also feel bullied by the bigger countries and let down by the single currency, seen to have brought steep price rises while the currency's rulebook has been flouted with impunity by Germany and France. The economy is stagnant and unemployment has risen to 7%.

Growing anti-Muslim sentiment, opposition to EU membership for Turkey, and fears over losing control of immigration policy all contributed to the debacle for the pro-European camp, producing a surly and hostile electorate. The no camp was helped rather than hindered by a hapless government pro campaign which was late in getting off the ground and appeared to take the electorate for granted.

Mr Balkenende said he was "very disappointed" but promised to respect the outcome.

"A no is a no," he stated, but added that the ratification process for the con stitution "can continue" in the 14 member states still to state their views.

For Europe as a whole, the next weeks and months, coinciding with the British assumption of the EU presidency, seem likely to produce bitter clashes on everything from Turkish accession and enlargement to budget agreements and economic policy. There is also the question of what can be salvaged from the constitution, which took two years to be agreed.

In a sign of the changed atmosphere in Brussels, the leader of the Socialist group in the European parliament backed away from his strident calls for ratification to continue. Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, the president of the Party of European Socialists, said: "It is now up to the European heads of government to come forward with a proposal for tack ling the institutional issues which the constitution is intended to resolve. The future of the constitution must be clarified."

Tony Blair is confident fellow European leaders will eventually accept it is impossible to soldier on after such emphatic rejection by France and the Netherlands. But he accepts it may take time for Mr Chirac to concede that the constitution is dead.

UK Guardian ~ Ian Traynor and Nicholas Watt ** Crushing defeat leaves EU vision in tatters

American lawyers swarm Gitmo
Mood:  irritated
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

You saw this coming. The FBI, Newsweek and then Amnesty International have nicked the swimmer and now the attorneys smell blood. Lawyers are pouring into the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay to make sure that people who used to live in caves are happy with the hospitality of the U.S. taxpayer.

American Lawyers Swarm Guantanamo Bay Detention Center

By Jim Kouri, Vice President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police

The good news is that there are fewer slip-and-fall lawyers in the United States today. The bad news is that there are more slip-and-fall shysters in Cuba. No, they're not going to visit Fidel Castro, although I wouldn't put it past ACLU attorneys to stop by and visit with the Left's favorite dictator. These lawyers are going to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to represent the terrorists and enemy combatants being held and processed at the much maligned military prison. Life is a trade-off: fewer shysters in the US; more of them on a military facility in the Caribbean.

The latest controversy to rattle the cages of the Liberal-Left are the allegations of abuse -- abuse against Korans... excuse me... Holy Korans. The very same Holy Korans that were distributed, at US taxpayers' expense, to those who wish to decapitate, butcher and kill Americans.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff took strong exception to recent media reports of systemic torture and abuse of prisoners at the US military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The International Committee of the Red Cross "has been at Guantanamo since day one," Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday." "It is essentially a model facility."

Myers noted that the United States spends $2.5 million annually just to ensure that detainees have a proper Muslim-approved diet.

"We've passed out 1,600 Korans in 13 different languages. We've gone to extraordinary lengths to treat people humanely and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions," Myers told Bob Schieffer on the CBS News program "Face the Nation." "We get good marks for the way we take care of people."

The US military has had about 68,000 detainees in custody in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan, Myers said. There have been 325 investigations of alleged mistreatment, 100 of which have been documented. Some investigations are still pending.

Myers said that in the 100 cases where mistreatment has been substantiated, US military personnel have been disciplined -- sometimes quite seriously by court martial. There has been a range of punishments, depending on the severity of the crime, he explained.

Moreover, not all detainee deaths have occurred because of mistreatment. Myers noted that "some people have died from natural causes," and every instance of abuse was brought to light by US military personnel. "We want to treat people humanely," he said.

The number of incidents is "very small compared to the population of detainees that we've handled," Myers told Fox News' Chris Wallace.

The chairman called allegations of torture at Guantanamo false and "absolutely irresponsible." Myers disagreed with contentions made this week by Amnesty International. The human rights group this week said "the US government is a leading purveyor and practitioner of this odious human rights violation." The group also described Guantanamo as "the Gulag of our time." Former Soviet slave labor camps where millions of people died were known as the Gulag.

Myers said Amnesty International is seriously misusing the term Gulag and misapplying it to Guantanamo. "I think I'd ask them to go look up the definition of Gulag as it is commonly understood," he said.

Nonetheless, Wallace observed, allegations of torture and abuse at Guantanamo have sparked widespread media coverage and worldwide protests by disaffected Muslims. "What or who do you think is driving these demonstrations around the world?" he asked.

Myers said that some protests were premeditated provocations -- "planned before the Koran story came out in a magazine."

The Koran story is a reference to a recent allegation in Newsweek magazine that US military personnel flushed a Koran down the toilet. Newsweek later retracted the story. The US military investigated the charge and reported this week that there have been five instances in which the Koran was mishandled. Three of those errors were intentional, and none involved flushing the Koran down the toilet.

Myers noted "instructions for handling the Koran [at Guantanamo Bay] are very detailed."

"I think what contributes to this ... is sometimes the relish on some people's part to play up what I consider to be a very minor piece of this whole effort -- and I don't know why they do that," he said. "I don't know why they relish focusing on this."

Myers said that real outrage ought to be directed at the terrorists who are beheading and killing innocent men, women and children.

He mentioned specifically the murder of Sergio Vieira de Mello, who had headed up the United Nations mission in Iraq; the slaying of Margaret Hassan, "who spent essentially her entire life caring for Iraqi children"; and the beheading of a Japanese worker in Iraq.

All of these innocents, Myers told Schieffer, were killed by "savage, mass-murdering people who will stop at nothing to promote their ideology and their view of the world."

The chairman did acknowledge that there is a real debate to be had about Guantanamo, and it is: "How do you handle people who aren't part of a nation-state effort that are picked up on the battlefield?"

If you release them or let them return to their home countries, he explained, they will revert to their evil and violent ways. "These are the [type of] people that took four airplanes and drove them into three buildings on Sept. 11," Myers said.

"And we struggle of course because this is a different kind of struggle, a different kind of war; we struggle with how to handle them," he said. "But we've always handled them humanely and with the dignity that they should be accorded."

Sources: US Department of Defense, Fox News Channel, CBS News, National Security Institute

Mens News Daily ~ Jim Kouri ** American Lawyers Swarm Guantanamo Bay Detention Center

More Dems voting with GOP in the House
Mood:  chatty
Topic: Yahoo Chat Stuff

Dems are consistently switching parties in large numbers to give the GOP comfortable wins in the House. This is a reflection of the strong support President Bush shares in their home districts, concerns about mid-term elections and chaos in the Dem leadership.

'Purple power' pulls new laws through House

Many Democrats from moderate districts vote with the Republicans on House measures.

By Gail Russell Chaddock

WASHINGTON – Despite the partisan saber- rattling on Capitol Hill, a significant number of votes in the GOP-controlled House are passing with broad Democratic support.

It's a trend that surprises analysts who have noticed the numbers, and it hints at a structural advantage for the GOP as it presses its agenda heading into 2006 elections.

Call it purple power. Although Republican control of the House of Representatives is narrow - a margin of just 30 seats out of 435 total - some 20 percent of House Democrats come from districts that President Bush carried in 2004. Only 8 percent of Republicans come from districts carried by Sen. John Kerry in the presidential vote. In a landscape where most districts are clearly red (Republican) or blue (Democrat), these purple areas represent seats that could be vulnerable.

That looming reality, analysts say, is one of the factors that explains why some Democrats have crossed over to vote with the GOP on issues from tax cuts to abortion.

"For all the focus we've put ... on the growing rift in the Republican discipline, we need to also take a look at how tough it is on the Democratic side, especially for incumbents who sit in Republican districts," says Amy Walter, a congressional analyst for the Cook Political Report.

Wide range of issues at stake

The recent votes with Democratic support include issues backed by pro-business lobbyists: $70 billion in tax-cut provisions in the fiscal 2006 budget resolution, tightening rules for people who file for bankruptcy protection, and limiting class-action lawsuits. Democrats have also lined up with Republicans on some issues important to social conservatives: strict requirements for the use of driver's licenses as IDs and for parental notification when a minor crosses state lines to get an abortion.

On a bankruptcy bill that Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi said would create "modern-day indentured servants," 73 Democrats voted with the Republican majority. Fifty Democrats voted with GOP leaders on class-action reform; 42 on tightening requirements for driver's licenses, 42 for a permanent repeal of the estate tax, 41 on the energy bill, 71 on a gang deterrence bill l that some Democrats said unfairly targeted immigrants, and 54 on abortion notification.

For many of these votes, about half of the Democratic swing support came from the so-called purple-district Democrats, who may be positioning themselves for the 2006 elections.

Support is also coming from some members of the congressional black caucus, which traditionally has given Democrats the strongest party-line voting records in the House.

GOP leaders say it's a sign that their agenda is able to win broad, bipartisan support, even in a highly polarized environment. "It's a sign that we're pursuing good public policy, in the mainstream," says Rep. David Dreier (R) of California, chairman of the House Rules Committee.

In response, Democratic leaders note that none of the votes with big defections from their ranks were designated as party-line votes. "On the issues that make Democrats Democrats, we are strongly united, such as strengthening Social Security, protecting the environment, education, healthcare, and national security," says Jennifer Crider, a spokesman for Democratic leader Pelosi. "On the big fights, Democrats stick together."

But the 2006 electoral landscape is clearly coloring decisions on which votes come to be defined as defining for Democrats, analysts say. And it's giving the GOP House leadership more scope for moving its own agenda, with or without cooperation from Democratic leadership.

"If they're a Democrat from a red district, they have to be looking over their shoulders all the time, and [these votes] are a good way to demonstrate to the Republican-leaning independents in their districts that they have indeed sided with the GOP on a certain number of leading issues," says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia.

"Why would the Democratic leadership lean on their vulnerable members?" he adds. "They are going to reserve the pressure for a few matters that really matter - and Social Security is the most obvious."

In addition to the electoral calculus, business groups have worked with Republican leaders to build support for issues such as tax cuts, bankruptcy reform, and class-action reform from the grass roots, especially targeting vulnerable Democrats.

More than half of the Democratic votes for repeal of the estate tax, dubbed by Republicans the "death tax," came from Democrats in districts that Bush carried in 2004.

Similarly, nearly half the votes for bankruptcy overhaul and class-action reform came from this same 20 percent of the Democratic caucus.

"In the House, everybody needs a record every two years," says Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the US Chamber of Commerce, which spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying for a law to shift class-action lawsuits from state to federal courts. "If the only thing your party stands for is obstruction, there's not much to run on. [Former Senate Democratic leader Tom] Daschle learned that last year," Mr. Josten says.

Republicans also buck leaders

Last week's vote to lift federal restrictions on stem-cell research marked a critical mass of Republicans also willing to buck their leadership - and to buck President Bush, who he'll veto the bill. The 50 Republicans who voted against this bill included more than half of those in districts won by Kerry in 2004.

"When the klieg lights are turned off, and no one is watching, it's amazing how much bipartisanship you can find on Capitol Hill," says Michael Frank, a congressional analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Democrats who have supported GOP positions say it's a mistake to interpret their votes as a broad endorsement of the Republican agenda.

"Most of these Democratic votes were to protect themselves from attacks for being weak on crime or taxes - not out of affection for Republican or their agenda," says Rep. James Moran (D) of Virginia, who is working with Congressman Dreier to build bipartisan support for CAFTA, the Central America Free Trade Agreement.

Democratic support will be critical if the president is to win this vote, because many Republicans from manufacturing states hit by existing free-trade agreements plan to oppose it. "A lot of Democrats feel that the CAFTA votes is important for Central America, but don't want to go on record until the last minute because of fear that opposition from the Democratic leadership and its allies will make political life miserable for the next few months," he says.

Christian Science Monitor ~ Gail Russell Chaddock ** 'Purple power' pulls new laws through House

Math looks bad for Dems in Senate
Mood:  cheeky
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

GOP consolidation in a larger number of states is dashing the Dems’ hopes for regaining the Senate any time soon. The concentration of Blue state voters makes them somewhat competitive in the Electoral College and the House but the Senate is another story. If the Dems do not stem the tide in the northeast and win back some of the south and mid-west then they cannot win the Senate.

Math Doesn't Add Up for a Democrat-Run Senate

The party needs to win seats in Bush territory for any realistic chance to retake the chamber.

WASHINGTON — Growing Republican dominance of Senate seats in states where George W. Bush has run best looms as the principal obstacle for Democrats hoping to retake the chamber in 2006 or beyond.

With the recent struggle over judicial nominations underscoring the stakes, the battle for Senate control could attract unprecedented levels of money and energy next year.

Democrats are optimistic about their chances of ousting GOP senators in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, states that voted for Democratic presidential candidates John F. Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000. But the Democrats are unlikely to regain a Senate majority — in 2006 or soon thereafter — unless they can reverse the GOP consolidation of Senate seats in states that have supported Bush.

Since 2000, both parties have gained Senate seats in the states they typically carry in presidential campaigns. But this political partitioning provides a clear advantage for Republicans because so many more states backed Bush in his bids for the presidency.

If Democrats only gain in their part of the map, "it's like saying, 'We're going to win more home games but never worry about road games,' " said Matthew Dowd, a political advisor to the Republican National Committee and senior strategist for Bush's reelection campaign. "They could have a great home record but never win a majority."

Republicans control 55 Senate seats and Democrats 44, with Vermont independent James M. Jeffords holding the final spot. In next year's midterm election, Republicans will defend 15 seats and Democrats 17. And Vermont voters will choose a successor to Jeffords, who is retiring.

As the parties approach these contests, the political divide familiar from presidential campaigns figures ever more prominently in their calculations.

Twenty-nine states voted for Bush in 2000 and in 2004. Republicans now hold 44 of the 58 Senate seats in those so-called red states. That's a much higher percentage of in-party Senate seats than Presidents Reagan and Clinton were able to claim in states they carried twice.

More important, on the strength of those states alone, the GOP is on the brink of a majority in the 100-member Senate.

Democrats are just as strong in the states that voted for Kerry and Gore. But there are only 18 of those so-called blue states; Democrats hold 28 of those 36 Senate seats.

Republicans also hold four of the Senate seats in the three states that switched parties from 2000 to 2004 — New Mexico, New Hampshire and Iowa.

This distribution makes it virtually impossible for Democrats to regain a majority simply by defeating GOP senators from blue states, such as their two top targets for 2006 — Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania and Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island.

Whatever happens in those races, the Democrats' ability to win Republican-held Senate seats next year in red states such as Montana, Tennessee and Missouri — and to defend their seats in red states such as Nebraska, Florida and North Dakota — may reveal more about their long-term prospects of regaining a Senate majority.

Democratic pollster Geoff Garin noted that in the last two elections, Democrats have come close to taking the White House, even though they've lost more states than they've won. That's because the high-population states they did win — such as New York and California — have large numbers of electoral college votes. But, regardless of population, each state has two Senate seats, so Democrats must compete on a broader map to realistically contend for a Senate majority.

"You can cobble together a viable electoral college strategy with a minority of states, but you simply can't cobble together a Senate majority that way," Garin said.

As recently as the 1980s, it was common for states to split their ballots in presidential and Senate contests.

But the sharpening partisan edge of modern politics has made it tougher for senators to survive — in effect, behind enemy lines — in states that consistently prefer the other party in presidential campaigns.

The result has been a decline in the Southern Democrats, who bucked the region's growing preference for GOP presidential candidates, and in the Northeastern Republicans, who overcame their area's Democratic tide in national campaigns.

Forty-four states supported Ronald Reagan for president in 1980 and 1984. But partly because of lingering Democratic strength in the South, Republicans after 1984 controlled only 48 of the 88 Senate seats in those states, about 55%.

The trend toward consolidation gained momentum in the 1990s. Bill Clinton won 29 states twice. After his second victory, Democrats held 35 of the 58 Senate seats in those states, or 60%.

In the elections of 2000, 2002 and 2004, Republicans gained a net of six Senate seats in the red states that Bush carried twice. Democrats added four Senate seats in the blue states that twice voted against Bush; Republicans lost another blue-state Senate seat when Jeffords quit the GOP in 2001.

Republicans now hold 76% of the red-state Senate seats; Democrats 78% of the blue-state Senate seats.

This division has reshaped the political landscape most profoundly in the South. Under Bush, the GOP has won the last nine open Southern Senate seats, including five seats vacated by retiring Democrats in 2004. In all, Republicans now control 18 of the 22 Senate seats in the 11 states of the old Confederacy, compared to just 10 of those seats after Reagan's 1984 landslide.

One of the losing 2004 Southern Democratic Senate candidates, who asked not to be identified while criticizing his party, said today's highly partisan atmosphere had undermined strategies that once let the region's Democrats survive even as GOP presidential candidates carried their states.

In that era, the former candidate noted, Southern Democrats won by emphasizing independence and willingness to work across party lines. But today, the candidate said, many Southerners seem deeply reluctant to help Democrats regain Senate control and strengthen their hand against Bush.

"They were very worried about the Democrats having a majority," the candidate said.

Democratic strategists acknowledge that such partisan attitudes represent a huge problem for them in the Deep South. But they believe that in other red states, Senate races may turn more on local factors.

Democrats are most optimistic about contesting Republican-held seats in Tennessee, where Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. is the likely Democratic nominee for the seat being vacated by retiring Majority Leader Bill Frist; in Montana, where Democratic State Auditor John Morrison has begun raising money to challenge Republican Conrad Burns around economic themes; and possibly in Missouri, where Democratic polls have shown some vulnerability for first-term Republican Jim Talent.

But Democrats also must defend five incumbents seeking reelection in red states, with Florida's Bill Nelson, Nebraska's Ben Nelson and North Dakota's Kent Conrad facing potentially difficult races in states Bush carried handily.

In all these races, Republicans are likely to portray the Democrats as obstructionists whose election would empower liberals to block Bush's agenda.

Against such attacks, the Democratic candidates must walk a tightrope, motivating their base with criticism of the GOP agenda while defending themselves against the Republican charges by promising to work across party lines.

In Montana, for instance, Morrison is opposing Bush's plan to carve out private investment accounts from Social Security, but also presenting himself as a common-sense, bipartisan problem-solver.

"Most of the worthwhile public policy gets done somewhere in the center," Morrison said.

In Pennsylvania, the Democratic success in recruiting socially conservative State Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., the son of the former governor, to challenge Santorum has made that race the early choice as the marquee Senate contest for 2006.

But the fate of red-state Democrats like Morrison should offer a better measure of whether the party can topple the Republican majority pressing its advantages so forcefully.

LA Times ~ Ronald Brownstein ** Math Doesn't Add Up for a Democrat-Run Senate

Racist Barry Bonds won?t ''sign (autographs) for white people''
Mood:  don't ask
Topic: Yahoo Chat Stuff

An author is claiming that, in addition to being a jerk, Barry Bonds is a racist. He was asked to sign some jerseys to be auctioned off for a children’s cancer charity. The author claimed that, in front of several witnesses, Bonds made the racists statement and walked off.

Kittle Book

Charity case? Barry, Barry disappointing

Ron Kittle is no fan of Barry Bonds — not after his tense encounter with the slugger at Wrigley Field in 1993. Here's an excerpt from Kittle's book, describing how he approached Bonds with a couple of Bonds' game-worn San Francisco Giants road jerseys, asking him to autograph them for an auction for Kittle's charity for children with cancer:

"I paid about $110 of my own money for them, so they could be auctioned off at the golf outing. I did that all the time for stars like Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Derek Jeter and Roger Clemens. When I tell them how their autographs help the cause, every player gladly signs — with one exception.

I walked up to Bonds at his locker in the Wrigley Field visitors' clubhouse, introduced myself and said, "Barry, if you sign these, they'll bring in a lot of money for kids who need help."

Bonds stood up, looked me in the eye and said, "I don't sign for white people." If lightning hits me today, I will swear those were his exact words. Matt Williams and other Giants were in the room and they heard what Bonds said.

I stood there for a minute, and the veins in my neck were popping. I've only been that mad a few times in my life. I was going to beat the (heck) out of him, really kick his (butt), but Williams saw what was happening, so he came over and got between us. Matt said, "Ron, that's just the way he is."

I said, "White guys aren't the only ones who get cancer," but Bonds had turned his back on me and walked out of the clubhouse. Somebody must have run in and alerted Dusty Baker, who was the manager of the Giants then.

So Dusty came out of his office, put his arm around me, gave me a big old hug and said, "Aw, Kitty, he's just got that (bad) attitude again." Dusty gave me an autographed team ball for the auction, but I never got the Bonds jerseys signed. Later, I gave one of them to Scott Paulson, the Wilson sporting goods representative, and shredded the other one. But that day, I drove from Wrigley Field at about 150 miles per hour and sat there, fuming.

I'll never forget what that man said. So if Barry Bonds is looking for a breath of fresh air to live and I'm the only one who has to give it to him, unfortunately, the man will die. I just don't like guys like that."

Asked about the incident, Kittle replied, "It's a true story. How could I make up something like that?"

Bonds' spokeswoman declined comment on Kittle's story. A Giants team spokesman also declined comment.

Chicago - Daily Southtown ** Kittle Book