"Ready, Set, Go! I do support the election of Mark Hintz for Chair of the Washington State Democrats. During my brief campaign this year the overwhelming thing I heard was the need to have a Chair that had a background in the Democratic Party. I could not agree with this more and that is what I ran on. We must elect a Chair that knows what has worked and what hasn't so that the successes can be used and the mistakes fixed. Mark is that person.
I have known Mark for a few years now, and while we have not worked that closely together, I have always respected him as a Party leader. Mark and I have had numerous conversations on the need to improve our infrastructure in the Party especially in terms of technology and communications. Mark has proven these commitments as Chair of the Snohomish County Dems.
Mark understands the Party operations, the functions of the coordinated campaign, the importance of good communication and fundraising and the need to translate our message into Spanish and other languages. This can be shown by the translation and wealth of "Party info" on the Sonohomish County website. Mark also gets the idea of moving this Party forward by addressing the needs and issues of the County and LD organizations outside of the I-5 corridor. As his message gets out I am sure the voting members of the State Committee will see this as well.
Mark has also worked tirelessly in one of the fastest growing swing counties in the State and has worked to elect Democrats in areas where they have not been elected before. At the same time he has run his organization emphasizing the need to give everyone a seat at the table. This is extremely hard in Counties like Snohomish, but he has done it. Maybe it is time to have a Chair without the exclusive influence of King County.
In my eyes, Mark is the best choice to lead this Party forward. Besides, He's straight and has his original last name."-Greg Rodriguez, posting in the comments on Washblog.
I was understanding everything he said up until the last sentence. I guess it's Greg's idea of sarcasm.
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Meanwhile in Iraq...(UPDATED)
"Chalabi returns as oil boss in fuel crisis" from the Washington Post brings us up to date on the latest shenanigans. You probably remember this man as the guy who helped justify our invasion and has spent many hours kissing the shoes of George Bush. I wouldn't have to post this if any of our local media took the trouble to cover this story. No need to click to read it:
"BAGHDAD, Dec. 30 -- As a fuel crisis deepened in Iraq, the government replaced its oil minister with controversial Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi, whose poor performance in the Dec. 15 elections was a setback in his recent attempt at political rehabilitation.
The oil minister, Ibrahim Bahr Uloom, was put on a mandatory, month-long leave. He had previously threatened to resign over the government's recent decision to increase gasoline prices sharply, a move that has outraged motorists and sparked attacks on gas stations and fuel convoys.
Violence has escalated across Iraq since the elections. On Friday, two U.S. soldiers were killed, one by a bomb south of Baghdad and another by small-arms fire in the western city of Fallujah. Two mortar shells hit near a bus station in the capital, killing five people and wounding 24, police at the scene said.
Threats by insurgents seizing on the unpopularity of the gasoline price increase led to a shutdown this month of the country's most productive oil refinery, in Baiji, north of Baghdad. Assim Jihad, an Oil Ministry spokesman, said the shutdown would cost $20 million a day until the refinery reopened. Meanwhile, foul winter weather has halted oil exports from the southern city of Umm Qasr, Iraq's only major seaport. Many of Iraq's largest power plants, already struggling to meet even a fraction of the country's energy demands, run on refined fuels.
"If these issues are not solved soon, the country will be facing an uncontrollable situation," Jihad said. "Dr. Chalabi will be here for the short term, but this will need to be solved by the new government, by the Ministry of Defense and by the coalition forces."
Chalabi, whose government portfolio already includes heading the country's energy committee and overseeing security for oil infrastructure such as refineries and pipelines, will temporarily take the reins of Iraq's only major industry. He had briefly led the Oil Ministry earlier this year while the current government was being assembled.
Jihad suggested that Uloom would probably resign rather than return, meaning Chalabi's appointment would last until the parties that prevailed in the recent elections formed a new government.
Negotiations toward that end continued Friday in the northern city of Sulaymaniyah between Abdul Aziz Hakim, who heads the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a dominant Shiite Muslim party, and Kurdish leaders. Also Friday, an ally of the influential Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, whose political followers joined the Supreme Council's election ticket, said Shiite parties should pursue an alliance with Iraq's Sunni Arabs, rather than with Kurds.
Iraq's leaders have said no major decisions would be made while the composition of a new governing coalition was being determined.
"I don't think there will be any drastic changes," said Chalabi aide Haidar Moussawi when asked about Chalabi's intentions for his new post. "But I will say we have seen a lot of problems facing the industry with security and weather, and the focus will be on trying to get things under control and exports back to a level Iraq can do."
Once tabbed by some U.S. officials as a future leader of Iraq, Chalabi suffered a series of blows following the U.S.-led invasion, beginning when intelligence he provided to the Pentagon about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction proved false. He was later accused of passing U.S. secrets to the government of Iran. But in recent months, several U.S. officials have praised Chalabi's technical expertise and ability to facilitate agreements among feuding factions within the government.
"He has proven himself quite capable and experienced in dealing with all aspects of Iraq's energy sector and is well-qualified for this position," a U.S. official said on the condition that he not be named because he was commenting on an Iraqi government decision.
Based on preliminary results from the December elections, Chalabi received 8,645 votes in Baghdad, well below the threshold a top U.N. official suggested this week would be required to win a seat.
Moussawi said Friday that Chalabi could still end up in the parliament, depending on how officials interpret a technical detail of election rules relating to how remaining seats are allocated after each party meeting a specific threshold is awarded its seats.
"There is still confusion, even today at the election commission, about this, but we are hearing the party will have at least one seat," Moussawi said.
Meanwhile, in Baghdad, mortar shells fell a few minutes apart late Friday afternoon -- one on a cafe and the other on the roof of a car -- in a crowded section of the city center. Sadoon Ali, 48, was playing backgammon in a nearby restaurant when he heard the explosion. "We were standing there wondering what happened when another explosion surprised us," he said.
A man who police said was drunk and angry because a friend had been wounded in the explosion began firing shots into a crowd, sending people scattering in all directions and wounding one man in the left leg.
Also in Baghdad, the government of Sudan said it would close its embassy to meet a demand issued by the insurgent group al Qaeda in Iraq, which claimed to have abducted six Sudanese citizens last week, the Associated Press reported. Five of the men were shown in a video released by the group in recent days. Insurgents have carried out a wave of abductions and attacks that they say is designed to compel diplomats to leave Iraq."
The story gives us a good inkling of "your covert government at work" in Iraq. In a somewhat related development, "Molly Ivins Calls for Impeachment," from AfterDowningStreet.org.
Update: If you have the appetite for it, Susan Hu points out two posts (here and here ) on Booman Tribune that provide more background on the story.
"BAGHDAD, Dec. 30 -- As a fuel crisis deepened in Iraq, the government replaced its oil minister with controversial Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi, whose poor performance in the Dec. 15 elections was a setback in his recent attempt at political rehabilitation.
The oil minister, Ibrahim Bahr Uloom, was put on a mandatory, month-long leave. He had previously threatened to resign over the government's recent decision to increase gasoline prices sharply, a move that has outraged motorists and sparked attacks on gas stations and fuel convoys.
Violence has escalated across Iraq since the elections. On Friday, two U.S. soldiers were killed, one by a bomb south of Baghdad and another by small-arms fire in the western city of Fallujah. Two mortar shells hit near a bus station in the capital, killing five people and wounding 24, police at the scene said.
Threats by insurgents seizing on the unpopularity of the gasoline price increase led to a shutdown this month of the country's most productive oil refinery, in Baiji, north of Baghdad. Assim Jihad, an Oil Ministry spokesman, said the shutdown would cost $20 million a day until the refinery reopened. Meanwhile, foul winter weather has halted oil exports from the southern city of Umm Qasr, Iraq's only major seaport. Many of Iraq's largest power plants, already struggling to meet even a fraction of the country's energy demands, run on refined fuels.
"If these issues are not solved soon, the country will be facing an uncontrollable situation," Jihad said. "Dr. Chalabi will be here for the short term, but this will need to be solved by the new government, by the Ministry of Defense and by the coalition forces."
Chalabi, whose government portfolio already includes heading the country's energy committee and overseeing security for oil infrastructure such as refineries and pipelines, will temporarily take the reins of Iraq's only major industry. He had briefly led the Oil Ministry earlier this year while the current government was being assembled.
Jihad suggested that Uloom would probably resign rather than return, meaning Chalabi's appointment would last until the parties that prevailed in the recent elections formed a new government.
Negotiations toward that end continued Friday in the northern city of Sulaymaniyah between Abdul Aziz Hakim, who heads the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a dominant Shiite Muslim party, and Kurdish leaders. Also Friday, an ally of the influential Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, whose political followers joined the Supreme Council's election ticket, said Shiite parties should pursue an alliance with Iraq's Sunni Arabs, rather than with Kurds.
Iraq's leaders have said no major decisions would be made while the composition of a new governing coalition was being determined.
"I don't think there will be any drastic changes," said Chalabi aide Haidar Moussawi when asked about Chalabi's intentions for his new post. "But I will say we have seen a lot of problems facing the industry with security and weather, and the focus will be on trying to get things under control and exports back to a level Iraq can do."
Once tabbed by some U.S. officials as a future leader of Iraq, Chalabi suffered a series of blows following the U.S.-led invasion, beginning when intelligence he provided to the Pentagon about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction proved false. He was later accused of passing U.S. secrets to the government of Iran. But in recent months, several U.S. officials have praised Chalabi's technical expertise and ability to facilitate agreements among feuding factions within the government.
"He has proven himself quite capable and experienced in dealing with all aspects of Iraq's energy sector and is well-qualified for this position," a U.S. official said on the condition that he not be named because he was commenting on an Iraqi government decision.
Based on preliminary results from the December elections, Chalabi received 8,645 votes in Baghdad, well below the threshold a top U.N. official suggested this week would be required to win a seat.
Moussawi said Friday that Chalabi could still end up in the parliament, depending on how officials interpret a technical detail of election rules relating to how remaining seats are allocated after each party meeting a specific threshold is awarded its seats.
"There is still confusion, even today at the election commission, about this, but we are hearing the party will have at least one seat," Moussawi said.
Meanwhile, in Baghdad, mortar shells fell a few minutes apart late Friday afternoon -- one on a cafe and the other on the roof of a car -- in a crowded section of the city center. Sadoon Ali, 48, was playing backgammon in a nearby restaurant when he heard the explosion. "We were standing there wondering what happened when another explosion surprised us," he said.
A man who police said was drunk and angry because a friend had been wounded in the explosion began firing shots into a crowd, sending people scattering in all directions and wounding one man in the left leg.
Also in Baghdad, the government of Sudan said it would close its embassy to meet a demand issued by the insurgent group al Qaeda in Iraq, which claimed to have abducted six Sudanese citizens last week, the Associated Press reported. Five of the men were shown in a video released by the group in recent days. Insurgents have carried out a wave of abductions and attacks that they say is designed to compel diplomats to leave Iraq."
The story gives us a good inkling of "your covert government at work" in Iraq. In a somewhat related development, "Molly Ivins Calls for Impeachment," from AfterDowningStreet.org.
Update: If you have the appetite for it, Susan Hu points out two posts (here and here ) on Booman Tribune that provide more background on the story.
''Race for leader of state Democratic Party heats up'' (UPDATED)
"The campaign for chairman of the state Democratic Party has descended into intraparty bickering amid the sorts of accusations party members usually reserve for Republicans.
One candidate for chairman dropped out this week largely for personal reasons. But he said he also was stung by what he called nasty and homophobic attacks from fellow party members. Another is getting in the race at the behest of a supporter who says the front-runner is racially insensitive.
Greg Rodriguez, the former King County party chairman, dropped out of the race Wednesday. While he said he did so largely to give himself more time with his son, Rodriguez said he was bothered by whisper campaigns and blog traffic that raised questions about his decision to take his partner's last name and whether he could lead the party as a gay man.
"It's sickening that there are people in this party that will use that," Rodriguez said.
He said "there is an element of homophobia" to the questions. He said some party members also questioned his management of the King County party, while others were angry at him for switching his allegiance last year from presidential candidate Howard Dean to eventual nominee John Kerry.
Longtime Chairman Paul Berendt is resigning next month, a year short of finishing his current term. The Democrats' state committee will hold a special election to select someone to complete the term.
Rodriguez said he had heard some of the same talk about him in early 2005 when he challenged Berendt for the post.
"To this day, I do not know what I have done to some members of this party that make them so fearful and sometimes downright undermining in my quest to help make this party stronger," Rodriguez said in a letter to supporters.
Berendt said he had not heard the sort of negative tactics Rodriguez complains about and said, "I don't think there's much to it."
"This is a liberal bunch, and it would offend people if this was the kind of suggestion that was being made out there," Berendt said.
Sen. Margarita Prentice, D-Renton, said she had heard questions about Rodriguez's name change — but not in terms of an attempt to hide anything. "People always say, 'Oh, he's not a Latino, his partner is.' "
Quentin Mitchell is one who questioned in a posting on a local political Web log called washblog whether Rodriguez was the best candidate. He says he is an active Democrat in the Everett area and has not seen any organized campaign against Rodriguez. He is not a member of the state party committee that will select the new chairman next month.
He said he was curious about the name change but says he thinks it is irrelevant.
But, he said in an e-mail interview, "I am more than curious about the sexuality question."
Mitchell said sexual orientation is an insignificant factor in most jobs, but not in selecting someone to lead the state Democratic party.
"The party needs, I believe, to appeal to that vast group of uncommitted and middle-of-the-road voters in order to make its future more attractive," he said.
Given "the nascent conservatism one hears so much about, I simply do not feel that the party would benefit from Mr. Rodriguez's stewardship," Mitchell said.
The candidate most active is King County Councilman Dwight Pelz. Also running are Pierce County Democratic Chairwoman Jean Brooks and Bill Harrington, a Pierce County legislative-district chairman.
Former state Rep. Laura Ruderman also is contacting state committee members, Berendt said. She raised her name familiarity with party regulars across the state when she ran for secretary of state in 2004.
Phil Talmadge — a former Supreme Court justice, state senator and 2004 primary candidate for governor — entered the race this week after Prentice began an effort to draft him.
Prentice said she recruited Talmadge because she thinks Pelz is racially insensitive. Some of that comes, she said, in part because he has had campaigns against five African-American opponents. He lost this year to City Councilman Richard McIver, an African American, who Pelz said benefited from Seattle's liberal guilt.
"He has a history," said Prentice, a Hispanic who has long been active with ethnic party organizations.
Pelz says he has not heard those criticisms as he has campaigned for the chairmanship. He says that though he has had primary opponents who have been minorities, he has always had a good working relationship with the community.
"I live and work in a community of color, and I'm very popular," he said.
Talmadge said that until he heard from Prentice, being party chairman was "the last thing I would have decided to do."
He says he will begin to contact party members. But first he is waiting to hear what Gov. Christine Gregoire thinks of his candidacy.
Talmadge dropped out of the governor's race because of medical issues. He was a tough critic of Gregoire's. During his campaign, he shared opposition research on Gregoire with key allies of Gregoire's opponent, Republican Dino Rossi.
Talmadge said he asked Prentice to check with Gregoire personally to make sure the governor approved. "I wouldn't be foolish enough to do this if the head of the party in effect was someone who couldn't work with me," he said."-from the story in Saturday's Seattle Times.
I am curious about Berendt's reaction to Prentice's comments.
Update: Chad Shue, who is Vice-Chair of the 38th LD Democrats and General Secretary of the Sno-Co Democrats Progressive Caucus, has a few choice comments on this story:
"In addition to the list of candidates for State Chair you mention, please add the name of
Snohomish County Democrats Chair, Mark Hintz who announced his decision upon the
departure of Greg Rodriguez from the race. As to Mr. (Quentin) Mitchell saying, "he is an active Democrat in the Everett area..." please note that he is a Stanwood resident with no
Democratic attachments to the Everett except, perhaps, in a global way (much in the same way we Everett types are referred to as "Seattle area this and that" by the national crowd). We have enough problems in Everett without taking on Mr. Mitchell too. For the record, the 38th LD (Everett) endorsed Greg over two of our own Snohomish County residents (Kat Overman and
Bill Phillips) in January. Finally, having read the blog entries your article refers to, I can't imagine Greg actually basing any part of his decision to depart this race on such baseless drivel."
Update II: Noemie Maxwell, writing on Washblog takes the author of this article, David Postman, to task for this sentence concerning Phil Talmadge:
"During his campaign, he shared opposition research on Gregoire with key allies of Gregoire's opponent, Republican Dino Rossi." The Washblog post clarifies the meaning of the word "share" as it is used in this article: Talmadge is quoted as having said, "'He just gave me some information. Running for governor, you get information from all sorts of interesting places."
Update III: The April 3rd article, cited in the Washblog post, also says, "Yet the two recently shared opposition research files on Gregoire at a recent meeting at BIAW headquarters." I will let you decide whether meeting with BIAW to compare notes on a Democratic candidate for governor is an appropriate activity for a future state Democratic party chair.
One candidate for chairman dropped out this week largely for personal reasons. But he said he also was stung by what he called nasty and homophobic attacks from fellow party members. Another is getting in the race at the behest of a supporter who says the front-runner is racially insensitive.
Greg Rodriguez, the former King County party chairman, dropped out of the race Wednesday. While he said he did so largely to give himself more time with his son, Rodriguez said he was bothered by whisper campaigns and blog traffic that raised questions about his decision to take his partner's last name and whether he could lead the party as a gay man.
"It's sickening that there are people in this party that will use that," Rodriguez said.
He said "there is an element of homophobia" to the questions. He said some party members also questioned his management of the King County party, while others were angry at him for switching his allegiance last year from presidential candidate Howard Dean to eventual nominee John Kerry.
Longtime Chairman Paul Berendt is resigning next month, a year short of finishing his current term. The Democrats' state committee will hold a special election to select someone to complete the term.
Rodriguez said he had heard some of the same talk about him in early 2005 when he challenged Berendt for the post.
"To this day, I do not know what I have done to some members of this party that make them so fearful and sometimes downright undermining in my quest to help make this party stronger," Rodriguez said in a letter to supporters.
Berendt said he had not heard the sort of negative tactics Rodriguez complains about and said, "I don't think there's much to it."
"This is a liberal bunch, and it would offend people if this was the kind of suggestion that was being made out there," Berendt said.
Sen. Margarita Prentice, D-Renton, said she had heard questions about Rodriguez's name change — but not in terms of an attempt to hide anything. "People always say, 'Oh, he's not a Latino, his partner is.' "
Quentin Mitchell is one who questioned in a posting on a local political Web log called washblog whether Rodriguez was the best candidate. He says he is an active Democrat in the Everett area and has not seen any organized campaign against Rodriguez. He is not a member of the state party committee that will select the new chairman next month.
He said he was curious about the name change but says he thinks it is irrelevant.
But, he said in an e-mail interview, "I am more than curious about the sexuality question."
Mitchell said sexual orientation is an insignificant factor in most jobs, but not in selecting someone to lead the state Democratic party.
"The party needs, I believe, to appeal to that vast group of uncommitted and middle-of-the-road voters in order to make its future more attractive," he said.
Given "the nascent conservatism one hears so much about, I simply do not feel that the party would benefit from Mr. Rodriguez's stewardship," Mitchell said.
The candidate most active is King County Councilman Dwight Pelz. Also running are Pierce County Democratic Chairwoman Jean Brooks and Bill Harrington, a Pierce County legislative-district chairman.
Former state Rep. Laura Ruderman also is contacting state committee members, Berendt said. She raised her name familiarity with party regulars across the state when she ran for secretary of state in 2004.
Phil Talmadge — a former Supreme Court justice, state senator and 2004 primary candidate for governor — entered the race this week after Prentice began an effort to draft him.
Prentice said she recruited Talmadge because she thinks Pelz is racially insensitive. Some of that comes, she said, in part because he has had campaigns against five African-American opponents. He lost this year to City Councilman Richard McIver, an African American, who Pelz said benefited from Seattle's liberal guilt.
"He has a history," said Prentice, a Hispanic who has long been active with ethnic party organizations.
Pelz says he has not heard those criticisms as he has campaigned for the chairmanship. He says that though he has had primary opponents who have been minorities, he has always had a good working relationship with the community.
"I live and work in a community of color, and I'm very popular," he said.
Talmadge said that until he heard from Prentice, being party chairman was "the last thing I would have decided to do."
He says he will begin to contact party members. But first he is waiting to hear what Gov. Christine Gregoire thinks of his candidacy.
Talmadge dropped out of the governor's race because of medical issues. He was a tough critic of Gregoire's. During his campaign, he shared opposition research on Gregoire with key allies of Gregoire's opponent, Republican Dino Rossi.
Talmadge said he asked Prentice to check with Gregoire personally to make sure the governor approved. "I wouldn't be foolish enough to do this if the head of the party in effect was someone who couldn't work with me," he said."-from the story in Saturday's Seattle Times.
I am curious about Berendt's reaction to Prentice's comments.
Update: Chad Shue, who is Vice-Chair of the 38th LD Democrats and General Secretary of the Sno-Co Democrats Progressive Caucus, has a few choice comments on this story:
"In addition to the list of candidates for State Chair you mention, please add the name of
Snohomish County Democrats Chair, Mark Hintz who announced his decision upon the
departure of Greg Rodriguez from the race. As to Mr. (Quentin) Mitchell saying, "he is an active Democrat in the Everett area..." please note that he is a Stanwood resident with no
Democratic attachments to the Everett except, perhaps, in a global way (much in the same way we Everett types are referred to as "Seattle area this and that" by the national crowd). We have enough problems in Everett without taking on Mr. Mitchell too. For the record, the 38th LD (Everett) endorsed Greg over two of our own Snohomish County residents (Kat Overman and
Bill Phillips) in January. Finally, having read the blog entries your article refers to, I can't imagine Greg actually basing any part of his decision to depart this race on such baseless drivel."
Update II: Noemie Maxwell, writing on Washblog takes the author of this article, David Postman, to task for this sentence concerning Phil Talmadge:
"During his campaign, he shared opposition research on Gregoire with key allies of Gregoire's opponent, Republican Dino Rossi." The Washblog post clarifies the meaning of the word "share" as it is used in this article: Talmadge is quoted as having said, "'He just gave me some information. Running for governor, you get information from all sorts of interesting places."
Update III: The April 3rd article, cited in the Washblog post, also says, "Yet the two recently shared opposition research files on Gregoire at a recent meeting at BIAW headquarters." I will let you decide whether meeting with BIAW to compare notes on a Democratic candidate for governor is an appropriate activity for a future state Democratic party chair.
Friday, December 30, 2005
''George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally"
JOHN Dean writes (and he ought to know):
"Both claimed that a president may violate Congress's laws to protect national security
On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
It was a long story loaded with astonishing information of lawbreaking at the White House. It reported that sometime in 2002, Bush issued an executive order authorizing NSA to track and intercept international telephone and/or email exchanges coming into, or out of, the U.S. - when one party was believed to have direct or indirect ties with al Qaeda.
Initially, Bush and the White House stonewalled, neither confirming nor denying the president had ignored the law. Bush refused to discuss it in his interview with Jim Lehrer.
Then, on Saturday, December 17, in his radio broadcast, Bush admitted that the New York Times was correct - and thus conceded he had committed an impeachable offense.
There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.
These parallel violations underscore the continuing, disturbing parallels between this Administration and the Nixon Administration - parallels I also discussed in a prior column.
Indeed, here, Bush may have outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; Bush's, it is developing, may be extraordinarily broad in scope. First reports indicated that NSA was only monitoring foreign calls, originating either in the USA or abroad, and that no more than 500 calls were being covered at any given time. But later reports have suggested that NSA is "data mining" literally millions of calls - and has been given access by the telecommunications companies to "switching" stations through which foreign communications traffic flows.
In sum, this is big-time, Big Brother electronic surveillance.
Given the national security implications of the story, the Times said they had been sitting on it for a year. And now that it has broken, Bush has ordered a criminal investigation into the source of the leak. He suggests that those who might have felt confidence they would not be spied on, now can have no such confidence, so they may find other methods of communicating. Other than encryption and code, it is difficult to envision how.
Such a criminal investigation is rather ironic - for the leak's effect was to reveal Bush's own offense. Having been ferreted out as a criminal, Bush now will try to ferret out the leakers who revealed him.
Nixon's Wiretapping - and the Congressional Action That Followed
Through the FBI, Nixon had wiretapped five members of his national security staff, two newsmen, and a staffer at the Department of Defense. These people were targeted because Nixon's plans for dealing with Vietnam - we were at war at the time - were ending up on the front page of the New York Times.
Nixon had a plausible national security justification for the wiretaps: To stop the leaks, which had meant that not only the public, but America's enemies, were privy to its plans. But the use of the information from the wiretaps went far beyond that justification: A few juicy tidbits were used for political purposes. Accordingly, Congress believed the wiretapping, combined with the misuse of the information it had gathered, to be an impeachable offense.
Following Nixon's resignation, Senator Frank Church chaired a committee that investigated the uses and abuses of the intelligence derived from the wiretaps. From his report on electronic surveillance, emerged the proposal to create the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Act both set limits on electronic surveillance, and created a secret court within the Department of Justice - the FISA Court - that could, within these limits, grant law enforcement's requests to engage in electronic surveillance.
The legislative history of FISA makes it very clear that Congress sought to create laws to govern the uses of warrantless wiretaps. Thus, Bush's authorization of wiretapping without any application to the FISA Court violated the law.
Whether to Allow Such Wiretaps Was Congress's Call to Make
No one questions the ends here. No one doubts another terror attack is coming; it is only a question of when. No one questions the preeminent importance of detecting and preventing such an attack.
What is at issue here, instead, is Bush's means of achieving his ends: his decision not only to bypass Congress, but to violate the law it had already established in this area.
Congress is Republican-controlled. Polling shows that a large majority of Americans are willing to give up their civil liberties to prevent another terror attack. The USA Patriot Act passed with overwhelming support. So why didn't the President simply ask Congress for the authority he thought he needed?
The answer seems to be, quite simply, that Vice President Dick Cheney has never recovered from being President Ford's chief of staff when Congress placed checks on the presidency. And Cheney wanted to make the point that he thought it was within a president's power to ignore Congress' laws relating to the exercise of executive power. Bush has gone along with all such Cheney plans.
No president before Bush has taken as aggressive a posture - the position that his powers as commander-in-chief, under Article II of the Constitution, license any action he may take in the name of national security - although Richard Nixon, my former boss, took a similar position.
Presidential Powers Regarding National Security: A Nixonian View
Nixon famously claimed, after resigning from office, that when the president undertook an action in the name of national security, even if he broke the law, it was not illegal.
Nixon's thinking (and he was learned in the law) relied on the precedent established by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. Nixon, quoting Lincoln, said in an interview, "Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation."
David Frost, the interviewer, immediately countered by pointing out that the anti-war demonstrators upon whom Nixon focused illegal surveillance, were hardly the equivalent of the rebel South. Nixon responded, "This nation was torn apart in an ideological way by the war in Vietnam, as much as the Civil War tore apart the nation when Lincoln was president." It was a weak rejoinder, but the best he had.
Nixon took the same stance when he responded to interrogatories proffered by the Senate Select Committee on Government Operations To Study Intelligence Operations (best know as the "Church Committee," after its chairman Senator Frank Church). In particular, he told the committee, "In 1969, during my Administration, warrantless wiretapping, even by the government, was unlawful, but if undertaken because of a presidential determination that it was in the interest of national security was lawful. Support for the legality of such action is found, for example, in the concurring opinion of Justice White in Katz v. United States." (Katz is the opinion that established that a wiretap constitutes a "search and seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, just as surely as a search of one's living room does - and thus that the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements apply to wiretapping.)
Nixon rather presciently anticipated - and provided a rationalization for - Bush: He wrote, "there have been - and will be in the future - circumstances in which presidents may lawfully authorize actions in the interest of security of this country, which if undertaken by other persons, even by the president under different circumstances, would be illegal."
Even if we accept Nixon's logic for purposes of argument, were the circumstances that faced Bush the kind of "circumstances" that justify warrantless wiretapping? I believe the answer is no.
Is Bush's Unauthorized Surveillance Action Justified? Not Persuasively
Had Bush issued his Executive Order on September 12, 2001, as a temporary measure - pending his seeking Congress approval - those circumstances might have supported his call.
Or, had a particularly serious threat of attack compelled Bush to authorize warrantless wiretapping in a particular investigation, before he had time to go to Congress, that too might have been justifiable.
But several years have passed since the broad 2002 Executive Order, and in all that time, Bush has refused to seek legal authority for his action. Yet he can hardly miss the fact that Congress has clearly set rules for presidents in the very situation in which he insists on defying the law.
Bush has given one legal explanation for his actions which borders on the laughable: He claims that implicit in Congress' authorization of his use of force against the Taliban in Afghanistan, following the 9/11 attack, was an exemption from FISA.
No sane member of Congress believes that the Authorization of Military Force provided such an authorization. No first year law student would mistakenly make such a claim. It is not merely a stretch; it is ludicrous.
But the core of Bush's defense is to rely on the very argument made by Nixon: that the president is merely exercising his "commander-in-chief" power under Article II of the Constitution. This, too, is a dubious argument. Its author, John Yoo, is a bright, but inexperienced and highly partisan young professor at Boalt Law School, who has been in and out of government service.
To see the holes and fallacies in Yoo's work - embodied in a recently published book - one need only consult the analysis of Georgetown University School of Law professor David Cole in the New York Review of Books. Cole has been plowing this field of the law for many years, and digs much deeper than Yoo.
Since I find Professor Yoo's legal thinking bordering on fantasy, I was delighted that Professor Cole closed his real-world analysis on a very realistic note: "Michael Ignatieff has written that 'it is the very nature of a democracy that it not only does, but should, fight with one hand tied behind its back. It is also in the nature of democracy that it prevails against its enemies precisely because it does.' Yoo persuaded the Bush administration to untie its hand and abandon the constraints of the rule of law. Perhaps that is why we are not prevailing."
To which I can only add, and recommend, the troubling report by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, who are experts in terrorism and former members of President Clinton's National Security Council. They write in their new book The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting It Right, that the Bush Administration has utterly failed to close the venerable loopholes available to terrorist to wreak havoc. The war in Iraq is not addressing terrorism; rather, it is creating terrorists, and diverting money from the protection of American interests.
Bush's unauthorized surveillance, in particular, seems very likely to be ineffective. According to experts with whom I have spoken, Bush's approach is like hunting for the proverbial needle in the haystack. As sophisticated as NSA's data mining equipment may be, it cannot, for example, crack codes it does not recognize. So the terrorist communicating in code may escape detection, even if data mining does reach him.
In short, Bush is hoping to get lucky. Such a gamble seems a slim pretext for acting in such blatant violation of Congress' law. In acting here without Congressional approval, Bush has underlined that his Presidency is unchecked - in his and his attorneys' view, utterly beyond the law. Now that he has turned the truly awesome powers of the NSA on Americans, what asserted powers will Bush use next? And when - if ever - will we - and Congress - discover that he is using them?"-from Findlaw.com via AfterDowningStreet.org.
"Both claimed that a president may violate Congress's laws to protect national security
On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
It was a long story loaded with astonishing information of lawbreaking at the White House. It reported that sometime in 2002, Bush issued an executive order authorizing NSA to track and intercept international telephone and/or email exchanges coming into, or out of, the U.S. - when one party was believed to have direct or indirect ties with al Qaeda.
Initially, Bush and the White House stonewalled, neither confirming nor denying the president had ignored the law. Bush refused to discuss it in his interview with Jim Lehrer.
Then, on Saturday, December 17, in his radio broadcast, Bush admitted that the New York Times was correct - and thus conceded he had committed an impeachable offense.
There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.
These parallel violations underscore the continuing, disturbing parallels between this Administration and the Nixon Administration - parallels I also discussed in a prior column.
Indeed, here, Bush may have outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; Bush's, it is developing, may be extraordinarily broad in scope. First reports indicated that NSA was only monitoring foreign calls, originating either in the USA or abroad, and that no more than 500 calls were being covered at any given time. But later reports have suggested that NSA is "data mining" literally millions of calls - and has been given access by the telecommunications companies to "switching" stations through which foreign communications traffic flows.
In sum, this is big-time, Big Brother electronic surveillance.
Given the national security implications of the story, the Times said they had been sitting on it for a year. And now that it has broken, Bush has ordered a criminal investigation into the source of the leak. He suggests that those who might have felt confidence they would not be spied on, now can have no such confidence, so they may find other methods of communicating. Other than encryption and code, it is difficult to envision how.
Such a criminal investigation is rather ironic - for the leak's effect was to reveal Bush's own offense. Having been ferreted out as a criminal, Bush now will try to ferret out the leakers who revealed him.
Nixon's Wiretapping - and the Congressional Action That Followed
Through the FBI, Nixon had wiretapped five members of his national security staff, two newsmen, and a staffer at the Department of Defense. These people were targeted because Nixon's plans for dealing with Vietnam - we were at war at the time - were ending up on the front page of the New York Times.
Nixon had a plausible national security justification for the wiretaps: To stop the leaks, which had meant that not only the public, but America's enemies, were privy to its plans. But the use of the information from the wiretaps went far beyond that justification: A few juicy tidbits were used for political purposes. Accordingly, Congress believed the wiretapping, combined with the misuse of the information it had gathered, to be an impeachable offense.
Following Nixon's resignation, Senator Frank Church chaired a committee that investigated the uses and abuses of the intelligence derived from the wiretaps. From his report on electronic surveillance, emerged the proposal to create the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Act both set limits on electronic surveillance, and created a secret court within the Department of Justice - the FISA Court - that could, within these limits, grant law enforcement's requests to engage in electronic surveillance.
The legislative history of FISA makes it very clear that Congress sought to create laws to govern the uses of warrantless wiretaps. Thus, Bush's authorization of wiretapping without any application to the FISA Court violated the law.
Whether to Allow Such Wiretaps Was Congress's Call to Make
No one questions the ends here. No one doubts another terror attack is coming; it is only a question of when. No one questions the preeminent importance of detecting and preventing such an attack.
What is at issue here, instead, is Bush's means of achieving his ends: his decision not only to bypass Congress, but to violate the law it had already established in this area.
Congress is Republican-controlled. Polling shows that a large majority of Americans are willing to give up their civil liberties to prevent another terror attack. The USA Patriot Act passed with overwhelming support. So why didn't the President simply ask Congress for the authority he thought he needed?
The answer seems to be, quite simply, that Vice President Dick Cheney has never recovered from being President Ford's chief of staff when Congress placed checks on the presidency. And Cheney wanted to make the point that he thought it was within a president's power to ignore Congress' laws relating to the exercise of executive power. Bush has gone along with all such Cheney plans.
No president before Bush has taken as aggressive a posture - the position that his powers as commander-in-chief, under Article II of the Constitution, license any action he may take in the name of national security - although Richard Nixon, my former boss, took a similar position.
Presidential Powers Regarding National Security: A Nixonian View
Nixon famously claimed, after resigning from office, that when the president undertook an action in the name of national security, even if he broke the law, it was not illegal.
Nixon's thinking (and he was learned in the law) relied on the precedent established by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. Nixon, quoting Lincoln, said in an interview, "Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation."
David Frost, the interviewer, immediately countered by pointing out that the anti-war demonstrators upon whom Nixon focused illegal surveillance, were hardly the equivalent of the rebel South. Nixon responded, "This nation was torn apart in an ideological way by the war in Vietnam, as much as the Civil War tore apart the nation when Lincoln was president." It was a weak rejoinder, but the best he had.
Nixon took the same stance when he responded to interrogatories proffered by the Senate Select Committee on Government Operations To Study Intelligence Operations (best know as the "Church Committee," after its chairman Senator Frank Church). In particular, he told the committee, "In 1969, during my Administration, warrantless wiretapping, even by the government, was unlawful, but if undertaken because of a presidential determination that it was in the interest of national security was lawful. Support for the legality of such action is found, for example, in the concurring opinion of Justice White in Katz v. United States." (Katz is the opinion that established that a wiretap constitutes a "search and seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, just as surely as a search of one's living room does - and thus that the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements apply to wiretapping.)
Nixon rather presciently anticipated - and provided a rationalization for - Bush: He wrote, "there have been - and will be in the future - circumstances in which presidents may lawfully authorize actions in the interest of security of this country, which if undertaken by other persons, even by the president under different circumstances, would be illegal."
Even if we accept Nixon's logic for purposes of argument, were the circumstances that faced Bush the kind of "circumstances" that justify warrantless wiretapping? I believe the answer is no.
Is Bush's Unauthorized Surveillance Action Justified? Not Persuasively
Had Bush issued his Executive Order on September 12, 2001, as a temporary measure - pending his seeking Congress approval - those circumstances might have supported his call.
Or, had a particularly serious threat of attack compelled Bush to authorize warrantless wiretapping in a particular investigation, before he had time to go to Congress, that too might have been justifiable.
But several years have passed since the broad 2002 Executive Order, and in all that time, Bush has refused to seek legal authority for his action. Yet he can hardly miss the fact that Congress has clearly set rules for presidents in the very situation in which he insists on defying the law.
Bush has given one legal explanation for his actions which borders on the laughable: He claims that implicit in Congress' authorization of his use of force against the Taliban in Afghanistan, following the 9/11 attack, was an exemption from FISA.
No sane member of Congress believes that the Authorization of Military Force provided such an authorization. No first year law student would mistakenly make such a claim. It is not merely a stretch; it is ludicrous.
But the core of Bush's defense is to rely on the very argument made by Nixon: that the president is merely exercising his "commander-in-chief" power under Article II of the Constitution. This, too, is a dubious argument. Its author, John Yoo, is a bright, but inexperienced and highly partisan young professor at Boalt Law School, who has been in and out of government service.
To see the holes and fallacies in Yoo's work - embodied in a recently published book - one need only consult the analysis of Georgetown University School of Law professor David Cole in the New York Review of Books. Cole has been plowing this field of the law for many years, and digs much deeper than Yoo.
Since I find Professor Yoo's legal thinking bordering on fantasy, I was delighted that Professor Cole closed his real-world analysis on a very realistic note: "Michael Ignatieff has written that 'it is the very nature of a democracy that it not only does, but should, fight with one hand tied behind its back. It is also in the nature of democracy that it prevails against its enemies precisely because it does.' Yoo persuaded the Bush administration to untie its hand and abandon the constraints of the rule of law. Perhaps that is why we are not prevailing."
To which I can only add, and recommend, the troubling report by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, who are experts in terrorism and former members of President Clinton's National Security Council. They write in their new book The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting It Right, that the Bush Administration has utterly failed to close the venerable loopholes available to terrorist to wreak havoc. The war in Iraq is not addressing terrorism; rather, it is creating terrorists, and diverting money from the protection of American interests.
Bush's unauthorized surveillance, in particular, seems very likely to be ineffective. According to experts with whom I have spoken, Bush's approach is like hunting for the proverbial needle in the haystack. As sophisticated as NSA's data mining equipment may be, it cannot, for example, crack codes it does not recognize. So the terrorist communicating in code may escape detection, even if data mining does reach him.
In short, Bush is hoping to get lucky. Such a gamble seems a slim pretext for acting in such blatant violation of Congress' law. In acting here without Congressional approval, Bush has underlined that his Presidency is unchecked - in his and his attorneys' view, utterly beyond the law. Now that he has turned the truly awesome powers of the NSA on Americans, what asserted powers will Bush use next? And when - if ever - will we - and Congress - discover that he is using them?"-from Findlaw.com via AfterDowningStreet.org.
''State's top power trio sets mark for women''
"The rise of Gov. Christine Gregoire and U.S. Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell has broken another lock on a political system that remains disproportionately controlled by men.
This year marked the first time in American history that women occupied the three most powerful elected offices of a single state, both U.S. Senate seats and the governor's office.
It's not entirely accurate to say that girls rule in Washington state, but it's certainly true that women are driving the agenda as never before. While politics remains a male-dominated domain nationwide, no other state is so reliant on powerful women for results.
What that means for residents is open to debate. Murray, Cantwell and Gregoire, all Democrats, insist they are simply doing what's best for the state and their constituents.
The difference, they say, involves motivation and methods that are based on collaboration instead of competition.
They may also be in the vanguard of a new era of U.S. politics that could include a female president and elected representation that more accurately reflects the American public.
Murray was the first of the three to break into the highest echelon of statewide elected office. Her Senate career exemplifies the sea change in public perception that all three women have built on.
When "the mom in tennis shoes" was elected in 1992, gender was a prime focus of her campaign. Murray worked to promote the impression that her demeanor and worldview -- along with her gender -- would shake up the Senate's insular, male-dominated culture.
Today, Murray is a powerful Washington, D.C., fixture with the ability to funnel billions of dollars back home. She is a member of the Senate's Democratic leadership, and she is a senior member of the Appropriations Committee.
A lot has changed since she arrived in 1993. Murray is one of 14 female senators, and three states -- Washington, California and Maine -- have elected women to both Senate seats. In 1992, there were only two women in the Senate.
But the revolution isn't complete, according to those who are keeping track.
"There is still a glass ceiling for women in politics," according to the White House Project, a national organization to advance women in political leadership. "The U.S. still has not had a female president, only four of the 14 official Cabinet positions are held by women, and our country ranks 59th (tied with the tiny European nation of Andorra) in terms of women's representation in national legislatures."
Murray has moved beyond being identified for her gender. She now expects to be recognized for her legislative accomplishments.
"When I first walked in (the Senate in 1993) there was a, 'Hum, can women do this?' Now women are doing this," Murray said.
The current roster of women is not the first. Dixy Lee Ray served as Washington governor in the 1970s and before that helped shape nuclear policy for the United States. Jennifer Dunn became one of the most influential Republicans in the U.S. House in the 1990s and emerged as a close ally of both presidents Bush. In 1996, the state Republican Party nominated Ellen Craswell for governor.
Still, in the U.S. Senate, men outnumber women by a margin of more than seven to one and only eight states have a woman as governor. Gregoire does not agree that gender in politics has become a non-story.
"In the rest of the country, when I talk to folks, they make it clear, it's still unique for a woman to run for statewide elected office," she said.
Gregoire also noted that there are only a handful of female attorneys general. But the pathway seems to be getting clearer.
In a reflection of how much has changed, when Cantwell ran for the Senate in 2000, gender rarely came up. Instead, she built her campaign around the performance of the Republican incumbent, Slade Gorton, and her own experience as an executive for the tech firm RealNetworks.
Gregoire said some of the old-school thinking remains. She said every one of her female colleagues who served as attorney general were broad brushed the same way.
"When I ran in 1992 ... (people said), I was not tough enough to be attorney general," she said.
But when she made her gubernatorial bid, three fellow state attorneys general told Gregoire: "Watch, when you run for governor, (people will say) 'You're too tough to be governor.' And they were right." That's a problem unique to female candidates, she said.
"Does anybody ever remember a time when people said a male candidate is too tough to be governor?" Gregoire asked. Gregoire, Murray and Cantwell all say they work well together and find ways to maximize their influence.
Yet Murray is dominant. With more seniority and a position on the Appropriations Committee, she is in a better position to deliver results for the state. Most noticeable are the billions of dollars she has funneled for Washington state transportation projects over the years. This year, for example, Murray helped write a transportation spending bill stuffed with $516 million for Washington. Included in that total was $220 million to begin replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct.
Cantwell, meanwhile, has focused on energy policy, taking on oil executives and accusing them of gouging consumers. Cantwell scored her biggest victory in the closing days of 2005 by leading Democratic opposition to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. ANWR supporters, including veteran Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, eventually backed down. Cantwell also has been a vocal supporter of alternative fuels. She authored an amendment to the energy bill that passed Congress that provides $550 million over five years to promote and nurture biofuels. That effort bore fruit on Dec. 22 when Cantwell announced that SSA Marine, the world's largest privately held cargo terminal operator and cargo handling company, and the Port of Seattle promised to use 1 million gallons of biodiesel annually beginning in 2006.
As for being one-third of the state's political power center, Cantwell says her and her colleagues' power and productivity flows more from their close relationships than gender. "We have known each other for a long time," Cantwell said. "When you've known each other for a while it's easy to work together and get to the answers."
Murray said: "I think Chris and Maria and I work really well together. We talk to each other. There is more of an attitude of, 'How do we work this together?' By Murray's reckoning, Washington, D.C., and Washington state are better off being served by women.
"For men, winning the game is absolutely everything," she said. "For women generally it's not whether you scored more points but whether you move the ball. We want our kids to get an education, we want our families to be healthy and we want to be comfortable in our neighborhoods."
In a report on the impact of women in politics, Karen O'Connor, director of the Women & Politics Institute at American University, said research indicates that "the presence of women in legislative bodies makes a significant difference not only in what gets discussed, but also in what kinds of legislation are advanced."
O'Connor said data show that women legislators:
Conceptualize problems differently than men and are more likely to offer new solutions.
Are more likely to advance "women's issues," define women's issues more broadly than men, put them at the top of their legislative agendas, and to take a leadership role in those issue areas.
Are more likely to view crime as a societal, rather than individual, problem.
Are more likely to make certain that their policy positions are translated into new programs to help women.
Gregoire said her gender does, in fact, influence her priorities.
"I do look at things possibly a little different than others," Gregoire said. "When it came to transportation, that really was about safety for me. ... When you look at all of these issues, you will see: family leave, health care for children, education, economic development for families. That is really what defines me and what defines a lot of women."
As for her accomplishments this year, Murray is most proud of forcing the administration to provide $1.5 billion in funding for veterans, an appropriation that was originally stripped from the VA budget.
The Senate voted 96-0 in June to restore the money after Murray forced the VA to disclose it was $1 billion in the hole.
Murray has also pushed for federal money to be spent to help National Guard and Reserve troops -- and their families -- cope with long deployments.
For the coming year, Murray said she will work to pass a maritime cargo safety bill that she introduced in November with Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. Specifically for Washington, Murray said she will work to provide transportation dollars to help the state overcome its well-known traffic problems.
That effort will be maximized, she said, by working closely with Gregoire and other state officials.
As for that still untouched summit in American politics, the presidency?
"I'm more optimistic than I've ever been that in my lifetime I will see a female president or vice president," Gregoire said. "I know my daughters are going to see it in their lifetime."-from the P-I today. Thanks to Evergreen Politics for the tip.
You can't buy coverage this good, though the rovians have certainly tried.
This year marked the first time in American history that women occupied the three most powerful elected offices of a single state, both U.S. Senate seats and the governor's office.
It's not entirely accurate to say that girls rule in Washington state, but it's certainly true that women are driving the agenda as never before. While politics remains a male-dominated domain nationwide, no other state is so reliant on powerful women for results.
What that means for residents is open to debate. Murray, Cantwell and Gregoire, all Democrats, insist they are simply doing what's best for the state and their constituents.
The difference, they say, involves motivation and methods that are based on collaboration instead of competition.
They may also be in the vanguard of a new era of U.S. politics that could include a female president and elected representation that more accurately reflects the American public.
Murray was the first of the three to break into the highest echelon of statewide elected office. Her Senate career exemplifies the sea change in public perception that all three women have built on.
When "the mom in tennis shoes" was elected in 1992, gender was a prime focus of her campaign. Murray worked to promote the impression that her demeanor and worldview -- along with her gender -- would shake up the Senate's insular, male-dominated culture.
Today, Murray is a powerful Washington, D.C., fixture with the ability to funnel billions of dollars back home. She is a member of the Senate's Democratic leadership, and she is a senior member of the Appropriations Committee.
A lot has changed since she arrived in 1993. Murray is one of 14 female senators, and three states -- Washington, California and Maine -- have elected women to both Senate seats. In 1992, there were only two women in the Senate.
But the revolution isn't complete, according to those who are keeping track.
"There is still a glass ceiling for women in politics," according to the White House Project, a national organization to advance women in political leadership. "The U.S. still has not had a female president, only four of the 14 official Cabinet positions are held by women, and our country ranks 59th (tied with the tiny European nation of Andorra) in terms of women's representation in national legislatures."
Murray has moved beyond being identified for her gender. She now expects to be recognized for her legislative accomplishments.
"When I first walked in (the Senate in 1993) there was a, 'Hum, can women do this?' Now women are doing this," Murray said.
The current roster of women is not the first. Dixy Lee Ray served as Washington governor in the 1970s and before that helped shape nuclear policy for the United States. Jennifer Dunn became one of the most influential Republicans in the U.S. House in the 1990s and emerged as a close ally of both presidents Bush. In 1996, the state Republican Party nominated Ellen Craswell for governor.
Still, in the U.S. Senate, men outnumber women by a margin of more than seven to one and only eight states have a woman as governor. Gregoire does not agree that gender in politics has become a non-story.
"In the rest of the country, when I talk to folks, they make it clear, it's still unique for a woman to run for statewide elected office," she said.
Gregoire also noted that there are only a handful of female attorneys general. But the pathway seems to be getting clearer.
In a reflection of how much has changed, when Cantwell ran for the Senate in 2000, gender rarely came up. Instead, she built her campaign around the performance of the Republican incumbent, Slade Gorton, and her own experience as an executive for the tech firm RealNetworks.
Gregoire said some of the old-school thinking remains. She said every one of her female colleagues who served as attorney general were broad brushed the same way.
"When I ran in 1992 ... (people said), I was not tough enough to be attorney general," she said.
But when she made her gubernatorial bid, three fellow state attorneys general told Gregoire: "Watch, when you run for governor, (people will say) 'You're too tough to be governor.' And they were right." That's a problem unique to female candidates, she said.
"Does anybody ever remember a time when people said a male candidate is too tough to be governor?" Gregoire asked. Gregoire, Murray and Cantwell all say they work well together and find ways to maximize their influence.
Yet Murray is dominant. With more seniority and a position on the Appropriations Committee, she is in a better position to deliver results for the state. Most noticeable are the billions of dollars she has funneled for Washington state transportation projects over the years. This year, for example, Murray helped write a transportation spending bill stuffed with $516 million for Washington. Included in that total was $220 million to begin replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct.
Cantwell, meanwhile, has focused on energy policy, taking on oil executives and accusing them of gouging consumers. Cantwell scored her biggest victory in the closing days of 2005 by leading Democratic opposition to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. ANWR supporters, including veteran Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, eventually backed down. Cantwell also has been a vocal supporter of alternative fuels. She authored an amendment to the energy bill that passed Congress that provides $550 million over five years to promote and nurture biofuels. That effort bore fruit on Dec. 22 when Cantwell announced that SSA Marine, the world's largest privately held cargo terminal operator and cargo handling company, and the Port of Seattle promised to use 1 million gallons of biodiesel annually beginning in 2006.
As for being one-third of the state's political power center, Cantwell says her and her colleagues' power and productivity flows more from their close relationships than gender. "We have known each other for a long time," Cantwell said. "When you've known each other for a while it's easy to work together and get to the answers."
Murray said: "I think Chris and Maria and I work really well together. We talk to each other. There is more of an attitude of, 'How do we work this together?' By Murray's reckoning, Washington, D.C., and Washington state are better off being served by women.
"For men, winning the game is absolutely everything," she said. "For women generally it's not whether you scored more points but whether you move the ball. We want our kids to get an education, we want our families to be healthy and we want to be comfortable in our neighborhoods."
In a report on the impact of women in politics, Karen O'Connor, director of the Women & Politics Institute at American University, said research indicates that "the presence of women in legislative bodies makes a significant difference not only in what gets discussed, but also in what kinds of legislation are advanced."
O'Connor said data show that women legislators:
Conceptualize problems differently than men and are more likely to offer new solutions.
Are more likely to advance "women's issues," define women's issues more broadly than men, put them at the top of their legislative agendas, and to take a leadership role in those issue areas.
Are more likely to view crime as a societal, rather than individual, problem.
Are more likely to make certain that their policy positions are translated into new programs to help women.
Gregoire said her gender does, in fact, influence her priorities.
"I do look at things possibly a little different than others," Gregoire said. "When it came to transportation, that really was about safety for me. ... When you look at all of these issues, you will see: family leave, health care for children, education, economic development for families. That is really what defines me and what defines a lot of women."
As for her accomplishments this year, Murray is most proud of forcing the administration to provide $1.5 billion in funding for veterans, an appropriation that was originally stripped from the VA budget.
The Senate voted 96-0 in June to restore the money after Murray forced the VA to disclose it was $1 billion in the hole.
Murray has also pushed for federal money to be spent to help National Guard and Reserve troops -- and their families -- cope with long deployments.
For the coming year, Murray said she will work to pass a maritime cargo safety bill that she introduced in November with Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. Specifically for Washington, Murray said she will work to provide transportation dollars to help the state overcome its well-known traffic problems.
That effort will be maximized, she said, by working closely with Gregoire and other state officials.
As for that still untouched summit in American politics, the presidency?
"I'm more optimistic than I've ever been that in my lifetime I will see a female president or vice president," Gregoire said. "I know my daughters are going to see it in their lifetime."-from the P-I today. Thanks to Evergreen Politics for the tip.
You can't buy coverage this good, though the rovians have certainly tried.
Unity Coalition to Host Public Meeting for WA Dem Chair Candidates
"The Candidate Forum will be held on Sunday, January 8th at 2:00 at the Carpenters Hall Local 1797 at 231 Burnett Ave. North in Renton and interested Democrats are welcome to attend.
A Unity Coalition of several different Party caucuses, including the African American, Agriculture Rural, Asian Pacific, Disability, Federation of Democratic Women, Hispanic/Latino, Jewish, Labor, Progressive, Stonewall, Veterans and Young Democratic caucuses, is planning to hold a Candidate’s forum and try to get the people running for Chair to come and talk with the Coalition and answer some questions.
“I wanted someone I could trust,” said Luis Moscoso, the organizer of the event and the State Secretary of the Washington State Democrats.
I had the opportunity to sit and talk with Luis and several other folks after a meeting last week and hear about the Unity Coalition he is trying to build quickly to exert some impact on the recently announced upcoming election for Party Chair, created unexpectedly by Paul Berendt’s announcement that he’d be stepping down. One of the folks at the table, Noemie Maxwell, had recently written an interesting posting on this Unity Coalition that Luis was putting together to have an impact on selecting the new Chair. We all wanted to hear more.
Luis was elected last January by a pretty wide margin for someone who knew at most five people out of the 178 people voting prior to the election. He says he thinks they were ready for some change on some part of the ticket and they liked his message. State Secretary is an unpaid position and there has not been a lot of call for him to do much. So he’s getting to create what he wants in the position and has chosen to focus on strengthening the various Party caucuses and building coalitions between them.
Luis realized quickly that he didn’t really like the process used in the elections and wanted to see if he could make some changes in the next election cycle. Well, a piece of that election arrived early. So he went into action.
His idea is that the caucuses that participate in the forum will not endorse any particular candidate. They will talk about what they want the new Chair to do and they will ask a series of questions to each of the candidates. The questions will have to do with internal Party protocols as well as specific issues."-from Lynn Allen on Evergreen Politics.
A Unity Coalition of several different Party caucuses, including the African American, Agriculture Rural, Asian Pacific, Disability, Federation of Democratic Women, Hispanic/Latino, Jewish, Labor, Progressive, Stonewall, Veterans and Young Democratic caucuses, is planning to hold a Candidate’s forum and try to get the people running for Chair to come and talk with the Coalition and answer some questions.
“I wanted someone I could trust,” said Luis Moscoso, the organizer of the event and the State Secretary of the Washington State Democrats.
I had the opportunity to sit and talk with Luis and several other folks after a meeting last week and hear about the Unity Coalition he is trying to build quickly to exert some impact on the recently announced upcoming election for Party Chair, created unexpectedly by Paul Berendt’s announcement that he’d be stepping down. One of the folks at the table, Noemie Maxwell, had recently written an interesting posting on this Unity Coalition that Luis was putting together to have an impact on selecting the new Chair. We all wanted to hear more.
Luis was elected last January by a pretty wide margin for someone who knew at most five people out of the 178 people voting prior to the election. He says he thinks they were ready for some change on some part of the ticket and they liked his message. State Secretary is an unpaid position and there has not been a lot of call for him to do much. So he’s getting to create what he wants in the position and has chosen to focus on strengthening the various Party caucuses and building coalitions between them.
Luis realized quickly that he didn’t really like the process used in the elections and wanted to see if he could make some changes in the next election cycle. Well, a piece of that election arrived early. So he went into action.
His idea is that the caucuses that participate in the forum will not endorse any particular candidate. They will talk about what they want the new Chair to do and they will ask a series of questions to each of the candidates. The questions will have to do with internal Party protocols as well as specific issues."-from Lynn Allen on Evergreen Politics.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
''The Constitutional crises of 2006''
"In the waning days of 2005, a number of Beltway developments have pointed to 2006 as a pivotal year in the future -- if there is to be any -- of American democracy.
The most far-reaching of these has been the Bush administration's aggressive advocacy of its once-secret program of NSA spying on American citizens. No lawyer outside a small clique of Bush appointees has seriously defended the NSA program, already renewed 30 times by Bush, as legal. Indeed, the only way that it can possibly not be construed as a blatant, ongoing violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (note the key word: Foreign) is if the President has the authority, as Commander-in-Chief, to suspend or override any law. And this is precisely the claim George Bush is making.
Combine this with the fact that Bush and his cabal have also claimed that their so-called "War on Terror" -- the Dubya-launched war Bush is referring to when he calls himself a "wartime president" -- is one they expect, and presumably intend, to last for up to 100 years. In other words, what Bush is claiming is that for the next several generations, the rule of law and the Constitution need not apply. Bush is thus claiming the right as "wartime president" to do anything he likes. Anything. Hey, why not disband Congress? (There'd probably be a lot of public support for that one.) Why not suspend the 2008 election?
This is deeply alarming.
A Boston Globe story last Friday speculated, and a follow-up piece in Saturday's New York Times essentially (and without any mention of possible illegality) confirmed, that the NSA surveillance has operated by creating search terms and using computers to monitor the foreign calls not just of suspected Al-Qaeda operatives (as the White House has claimed), but all Americans' international calls, e-mails, and faxes, and some domestic communications as well -- spying on literally millions upon millions of people. If particular terms are a match, the taped calls are automatically culled and referred to a human ear for follow-up.
If true, this would certainly explain why Bush did not use the secret FISA courts to obtain warrants; no court would countenance surveillance upon countless millions of Americans. It matters little whether the spying is done by computer or by human; humans still have to select the search terms and target the individuals. Done in secret, with no accountability except to a highly politicized White House, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to prevent Bush and his cronies from using the NSA to spy upon anyone they want to.
One wonders how this might have affected the 2004 presidential campaign, for example.
The NSA scandal is not the only crisis looming. On January 9, the Senate will begin confirmation hearings on the U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito, a radical conservative who, among many other things, has advocated (in a just-exhumed 1984 memo while a Reagan Dept. of Justice lawyer) for exactly the sort of warrantless domestic spying now being conducted by Bush. In his years on the federal bench, Alito has been a rabid advocate of expanded Executive Branch power and an emasculated Congress -- right in line with Bush and with several other Supreme Court conservatives. The addition of Alito to the Supreme Court would probably doom Roe v. Wade, but far beyond that, it portends a massive expansion of corporate and state power, at the expense of the civil liberties and legal redress of ordinary Americans.
Also in January, Congress must deal, once and for all, with the PATRIOT Act. For the last two months the news has been overflowing with items, large and small, demonstrating the Bush administration's abuses of power justified by 9-11 and the "War on Terror": NSA spying, torture, CIA rendition and a gulag of secret prisons, the ongoing court battle over the fate of U.S. citizen and "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla, the clearly illegal warrantless use of nuclear radiation monitors outside thousands of Muslim-associated sites in six American cities (revealed last week by U.S. News and World Report), a Swedish report that there are now 80,000 names on the U.S. government's secret air travel "watchlist," Sen. Lindsay Graham's amendment that gutted habeas corpus rights and any hope of either due process or prisoner of war protections for prisoners in America's overseas gulag, a little-noticed 12-9-05 New York Times report that "More than 8,000 people have been mistakenly tagged for immigration violations as a result of the Bush administration's strategy of entering the names of thousands of immigrants in a national crime database," numerous revelations of government-funded, privately attributed propaganda... the list is seemingly endless, and begs the question of what further abuses of government power remain hidden from the public eye. Congress must decide next month whether any of it matters.
The nation's 2006 constitutional crisis is not simply confined to the Executive Branch. Disgraced Republican superlobbyist Jack Abramoff was reported last week to be close to a plea agreement with federal prosecutors. The deal would exchange a guilty plea for existing wire fraud and forgery charges for his cooperation in the ongoing corruption investigation of numerous members of Congress and their aides. It has already been confirmed that more than four dozen members of Congress have accepted large donations, gifts, and/or travel from Abramoff or his clients at about the same time they took legislative action favorable to Abramoff or his clients. That's only one lobbyist out of the tens of thousands within the Beltway. There's plenty more stench afoot, and Abramoff knows how Capitol Hill works and where many of the skeletons are buried. If he chooses to, he could blow the lid off of Congress. Regardless of how many Congressional indictments are handed down in 2006 (and the answer is not "zero"), the Abramoff scandals are likely to tar both Republicans and Democrats and beg the question, during an election year, of whether any politician can be trusted any longer to care about the needs and desires of his or her constituents. That is a profound crisis for democracy, and it comes at exactly the time when a Republican-dominated Congress and a heavily Republican-stacked Supreme Court are the only two political institutions with the authority to rein in the dictatorial excesses of the Bush administration.
The year 2006 brings a number of urgent international problems for the United States: illegal, immoral, and futile Bush-created wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; increasing political and moral isolation in the world; our ongoing, criminal failure to act on global warming, to name three. At home, there are other problems as well: the imminent death of a major American city (New Orleans) and the fate of its refugees; a health care system spiraling out of control.
But these are symptoms. The disease is the escalating inability of American democracy to follow the Constitution and to respect the rights and honor the participation of ordinary American citizens. The disease is a political process that cannot solve serious problems because it is wholly owned by enormous corporate and political interests, with power concentrated in a relative handful of men (and occasionally women) who owe their power to those interests -- plus, at the top, a lying, murderous president who is claiming the right to break any law.
And more and more Americans are wondering whether the voting machines are rigged.
The only solution is a clean sweep. Congress must reject Samuel Alito, and Congress, if it is (in the words the Bush White House once reserved for the U.N.) "to remain relevant," must impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney. In both cases, citizen outrage will be required to force a corrupt and reluctant Congress to act. And in November, citizens must use the leverage our once-relevant Constitution gives us, and we must sweep the whole rotten Congressional carcass from office -- conclusively enough that no Republican dirty tricks or Diebold-style tampering can alter the results. Regardless of party, we must replace lawmakers, at the local, state, and especially federal level, with candidates who are truly responsive and accountable to the ordinary people who elect them.
It's either that, or by 2007 we will be living in a de facto dictatorship. It's our choice."-Geov Parrish on Working for Change.
The most far-reaching of these has been the Bush administration's aggressive advocacy of its once-secret program of NSA spying on American citizens. No lawyer outside a small clique of Bush appointees has seriously defended the NSA program, already renewed 30 times by Bush, as legal. Indeed, the only way that it can possibly not be construed as a blatant, ongoing violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (note the key word: Foreign) is if the President has the authority, as Commander-in-Chief, to suspend or override any law. And this is precisely the claim George Bush is making.
Combine this with the fact that Bush and his cabal have also claimed that their so-called "War on Terror" -- the Dubya-launched war Bush is referring to when he calls himself a "wartime president" -- is one they expect, and presumably intend, to last for up to 100 years. In other words, what Bush is claiming is that for the next several generations, the rule of law and the Constitution need not apply. Bush is thus claiming the right as "wartime president" to do anything he likes. Anything. Hey, why not disband Congress? (There'd probably be a lot of public support for that one.) Why not suspend the 2008 election?
This is deeply alarming.
A Boston Globe story last Friday speculated, and a follow-up piece in Saturday's New York Times essentially (and without any mention of possible illegality) confirmed, that the NSA surveillance has operated by creating search terms and using computers to monitor the foreign calls not just of suspected Al-Qaeda operatives (as the White House has claimed), but all Americans' international calls, e-mails, and faxes, and some domestic communications as well -- spying on literally millions upon millions of people. If particular terms are a match, the taped calls are automatically culled and referred to a human ear for follow-up.
If true, this would certainly explain why Bush did not use the secret FISA courts to obtain warrants; no court would countenance surveillance upon countless millions of Americans. It matters little whether the spying is done by computer or by human; humans still have to select the search terms and target the individuals. Done in secret, with no accountability except to a highly politicized White House, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to prevent Bush and his cronies from using the NSA to spy upon anyone they want to.
One wonders how this might have affected the 2004 presidential campaign, for example.
The NSA scandal is not the only crisis looming. On January 9, the Senate will begin confirmation hearings on the U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito, a radical conservative who, among many other things, has advocated (in a just-exhumed 1984 memo while a Reagan Dept. of Justice lawyer) for exactly the sort of warrantless domestic spying now being conducted by Bush. In his years on the federal bench, Alito has been a rabid advocate of expanded Executive Branch power and an emasculated Congress -- right in line with Bush and with several other Supreme Court conservatives. The addition of Alito to the Supreme Court would probably doom Roe v. Wade, but far beyond that, it portends a massive expansion of corporate and state power, at the expense of the civil liberties and legal redress of ordinary Americans.
Also in January, Congress must deal, once and for all, with the PATRIOT Act. For the last two months the news has been overflowing with items, large and small, demonstrating the Bush administration's abuses of power justified by 9-11 and the "War on Terror": NSA spying, torture, CIA rendition and a gulag of secret prisons, the ongoing court battle over the fate of U.S. citizen and "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla, the clearly illegal warrantless use of nuclear radiation monitors outside thousands of Muslim-associated sites in six American cities (revealed last week by U.S. News and World Report), a Swedish report that there are now 80,000 names on the U.S. government's secret air travel "watchlist," Sen. Lindsay Graham's amendment that gutted habeas corpus rights and any hope of either due process or prisoner of war protections for prisoners in America's overseas gulag, a little-noticed 12-9-05 New York Times report that "More than 8,000 people have been mistakenly tagged for immigration violations as a result of the Bush administration's strategy of entering the names of thousands of immigrants in a national crime database," numerous revelations of government-funded, privately attributed propaganda... the list is seemingly endless, and begs the question of what further abuses of government power remain hidden from the public eye. Congress must decide next month whether any of it matters.
The nation's 2006 constitutional crisis is not simply confined to the Executive Branch. Disgraced Republican superlobbyist Jack Abramoff was reported last week to be close to a plea agreement with federal prosecutors. The deal would exchange a guilty plea for existing wire fraud and forgery charges for his cooperation in the ongoing corruption investigation of numerous members of Congress and their aides. It has already been confirmed that more than four dozen members of Congress have accepted large donations, gifts, and/or travel from Abramoff or his clients at about the same time they took legislative action favorable to Abramoff or his clients. That's only one lobbyist out of the tens of thousands within the Beltway. There's plenty more stench afoot, and Abramoff knows how Capitol Hill works and where many of the skeletons are buried. If he chooses to, he could blow the lid off of Congress. Regardless of how many Congressional indictments are handed down in 2006 (and the answer is not "zero"), the Abramoff scandals are likely to tar both Republicans and Democrats and beg the question, during an election year, of whether any politician can be trusted any longer to care about the needs and desires of his or her constituents. That is a profound crisis for democracy, and it comes at exactly the time when a Republican-dominated Congress and a heavily Republican-stacked Supreme Court are the only two political institutions with the authority to rein in the dictatorial excesses of the Bush administration.
The year 2006 brings a number of urgent international problems for the United States: illegal, immoral, and futile Bush-created wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; increasing political and moral isolation in the world; our ongoing, criminal failure to act on global warming, to name three. At home, there are other problems as well: the imminent death of a major American city (New Orleans) and the fate of its refugees; a health care system spiraling out of control.
But these are symptoms. The disease is the escalating inability of American democracy to follow the Constitution and to respect the rights and honor the participation of ordinary American citizens. The disease is a political process that cannot solve serious problems because it is wholly owned by enormous corporate and political interests, with power concentrated in a relative handful of men (and occasionally women) who owe their power to those interests -- plus, at the top, a lying, murderous president who is claiming the right to break any law.
And more and more Americans are wondering whether the voting machines are rigged.
The only solution is a clean sweep. Congress must reject Samuel Alito, and Congress, if it is (in the words the Bush White House once reserved for the U.N.) "to remain relevant," must impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney. In both cases, citizen outrage will be required to force a corrupt and reluctant Congress to act. And in November, citizens must use the leverage our once-relevant Constitution gives us, and we must sweep the whole rotten Congressional carcass from office -- conclusively enough that no Republican dirty tricks or Diebold-style tampering can alter the results. Regardless of party, we must replace lawmakers, at the local, state, and especially federal level, with candidates who are truly responsive and accountable to the ordinary people who elect them.
It's either that, or by 2007 we will be living in a de facto dictatorship. It's our choice."-Geov Parrish on Working for Change.
''The Constitutional crises of 2006''
"In the waning days of 2005, a number of Beltway developments have pointed to 2006 as a pivotal year in the future -- if there is to be any -- of American democracy.
The most far-reaching of these has been the Bush administration's aggressive advocacy of its once-secret program of NSA spying on American citizens. No lawyer outside a small clique of Bush appointees has seriously defended the NSA program, already renewed 30 times by Bush, as legal. Indeed, the only way that it can possibly not be construed as a blatant, ongoing violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (note the key word: Foreign) is if the President has the authority, as Commander-in-Chief, to suspend or override any law. And this is precisely the claim George Bush is making.
Combine this with the fact that Bush and his cabal have also claimed that their so-called "War on Terror" -- the Dubya-launched war Bush is referring to when he calls himself a "wartime president" -- is one they expect, and presumably intend, to last for up to 100 years. In other words, what Bush is claiming is that for the next several generations, the rule of law and the Constitution need not apply. Bush is thus claiming the right as "wartime president" to do anything he likes. Anything. Hey, why not disband Congress? (There'd probably be a lot of public support for that one.) Why not suspend the 2008 election?
This is deeply alarming.
A Boston Globe story last Friday speculated, and a follow-up piece in Saturday's New York Times essentially (and without any mention of possible illegality) confirmed, that the NSA surveillance has operated by creating search terms and using computers to monitor the foreign calls not just of suspected Al-Qaeda operatives (as the White House has claimed), but all Americans' international calls, e-mails, and faxes, and some domestic communications as well -- spying on literally millions upon millions of people. If particular terms are a match, the taped calls are automatically culled and referred to a human ear for follow-up.
If true, this would certainly explain why Bush did not use the secret FISA courts to obtain warrants; no court would countenance surveillance upon countless millions of Americans. It matters little whether the spying is done by computer or by human; humans still have to select the search terms and target the individuals. Done in secret, with no accountability except to a highly politicized White House, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to prevent Bush and his cronies from using the NSA to spy upon anyone they want to.
One wonders how this might have affected the 2004 presidential campaign, for example.
The NSA scandal is not the only crisis looming. On January 9, the Senate will begin confirmation hearings on the U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito, a radical conservative who, among many other things, has advocated (in a just-exhumed 1984 memo while a Reagan Dept. of Justice lawyer) for exactly the sort of warrantless domestic spying now being conducted by Bush. In his years on the federal bench, Alito has been a rabid advocate of expanded Executive Branch power and an emasculated Congress -- right in line with Bush and with several other Supreme Court conservatives. The addition of Alito to the Supreme Court would probably doom Roe v. Wade, but far beyond that, it portends a massive expansion of corporate and state power, at the expense of the civil liberties and legal redress of ordinary Americans.
Also in January, Congress must deal, once and for all, with the PATRIOT Act. For the last two months the news has been overflowing with items, large and small, demonstrating the Bush administration's abuses of power justified by 9-11 and the "War on Terror": NSA spying, torture, CIA rendition and a gulag of secret prisons, the ongoing court battle over the fate of U.S. citizen and "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla, the clearly illegal warrantless use of nuclear radiation monitors outside thousands of Muslim-associated sites in six American cities (revealed last week by U.S. News and World Report), a Swedish report that there are now 80,000 names on the U.S. government's secret air travel "watchlist," Sen. Lindsay Graham's amendment that gutted habeas corpus rights and any hope of either due process or prisoner of war protections for prisoners in America's overseas gulag, a little-noticed 12-9-05 New York Times report that "More than 8,000 people have been mistakenly tagged for immigration violations as a result of the Bush administration's strategy of entering the names of thousands of immigrants in a national crime database," numerous revelations of government-funded, privately attributed propaganda... the list is seemingly endless, and begs the question of what further abuses of government power remain hidden from the public eye. Congress must decide next month whether any of it matters.
The nation's 2006 constitutional crisis is not simply confined to the Executive Branch. Disgraced Republican superlobbyist Jack Abramoff was reported last week to be close to a plea agreement with federal prosecutors. The deal would exchange a guilty plea for existing wire fraud and forgery charges for his cooperation in the ongoing corruption investigation of numerous members of Congress and their aides. It has already been confirmed that more than four dozen members of Congress have accepted large donations, gifts, and/or travel from Abramoff or his clients at about the same time they took legislative action favorable to Abramoff or his clients. That's only one lobbyist out of the tens of thousands within the Beltway. There's plenty more stench afoot, and Abramoff knows how Capitol Hill works and where many of the skeletons are buried. If he chooses to, he could blow the lid off of Congress. Regardless of how many Congressional indictments are handed down in 2006 (and the answer is not "zero"), the Abramoff scandals are likely to tar both Republicans and Democrats and beg the question, during an election year, of whether any politician can be trusted any longer to care about the needs and desires of his or her constituents. That is a profound crisis for democracy, and it comes at exactly the time when a Republican-dominated Congress and a heavily Republican-stacked Supreme Court are the only two political institutions with the authority to rein in the dictatorial excesses of the Bush administration.
The year 2006 brings a number of urgent international problems for the United States: illegal, immoral, and futile Bush-created wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; increasing political and moral isolation in the world; our ongoing, criminal failure to act on global warming, to name three. At home, there are other problems as well: the imminent death of a major American city (New Orleans) and the fate of its refugees; a health care system spiraling out of control.
But these are symptoms. The disease is the escalating inability of American democracy to follow the Constitution and to respect the rights and honor the participation of ordinary American citizens. The disease is a political process that cannot solve serious problems because it is wholly owned by enormous corporate and political interests, with power concentrated in a relative handful of men (and occasionally women) who owe their power to those interests -- plus, at the top, a lying, murderous president who is claiming the right to break any law.
And more and more Americans are wondering whether the voting machines are rigged.
The only solution is a clean sweep. Congress must reject Samuel Alito, and Congress, if it is (in the words the Bush White House once reserved for the U.N.) "to remain relevant," must impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney. In both cases, citizen outrage will be required to force a corrupt and reluctant Congress to act. And in November, citizens must use the leverage our once-relevant Constitution gives us, and we must sweep the whole rotten Congressional carcass from office -- conclusively enough that no Republican dirty tricks or Diebold-style tampering can alter the results. Regardless of party, we must replace lawmakers, at the local, state, and especially federal level, with candidates who are truly responsive and accountable to the ordinary people who elect them.
It's either that, or by 2007 we will be living in a de facto dictatorship. It's our choice."-Geov Parrish on Working for Change.
The most far-reaching of these has been the Bush administration's aggressive advocacy of its once-secret program of NSA spying on American citizens. No lawyer outside a small clique of Bush appointees has seriously defended the NSA program, already renewed 30 times by Bush, as legal. Indeed, the only way that it can possibly not be construed as a blatant, ongoing violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (note the key word: Foreign) is if the President has the authority, as Commander-in-Chief, to suspend or override any law. And this is precisely the claim George Bush is making.
Combine this with the fact that Bush and his cabal have also claimed that their so-called "War on Terror" -- the Dubya-launched war Bush is referring to when he calls himself a "wartime president" -- is one they expect, and presumably intend, to last for up to 100 years. In other words, what Bush is claiming is that for the next several generations, the rule of law and the Constitution need not apply. Bush is thus claiming the right as "wartime president" to do anything he likes. Anything. Hey, why not disband Congress? (There'd probably be a lot of public support for that one.) Why not suspend the 2008 election?
This is deeply alarming.
A Boston Globe story last Friday speculated, and a follow-up piece in Saturday's New York Times essentially (and without any mention of possible illegality) confirmed, that the NSA surveillance has operated by creating search terms and using computers to monitor the foreign calls not just of suspected Al-Qaeda operatives (as the White House has claimed), but all Americans' international calls, e-mails, and faxes, and some domestic communications as well -- spying on literally millions upon millions of people. If particular terms are a match, the taped calls are automatically culled and referred to a human ear for follow-up.
If true, this would certainly explain why Bush did not use the secret FISA courts to obtain warrants; no court would countenance surveillance upon countless millions of Americans. It matters little whether the spying is done by computer or by human; humans still have to select the search terms and target the individuals. Done in secret, with no accountability except to a highly politicized White House, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to prevent Bush and his cronies from using the NSA to spy upon anyone they want to.
One wonders how this might have affected the 2004 presidential campaign, for example.
The NSA scandal is not the only crisis looming. On January 9, the Senate will begin confirmation hearings on the U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito, a radical conservative who, among many other things, has advocated (in a just-exhumed 1984 memo while a Reagan Dept. of Justice lawyer) for exactly the sort of warrantless domestic spying now being conducted by Bush. In his years on the federal bench, Alito has been a rabid advocate of expanded Executive Branch power and an emasculated Congress -- right in line with Bush and with several other Supreme Court conservatives. The addition of Alito to the Supreme Court would probably doom Roe v. Wade, but far beyond that, it portends a massive expansion of corporate and state power, at the expense of the civil liberties and legal redress of ordinary Americans.
Also in January, Congress must deal, once and for all, with the PATRIOT Act. For the last two months the news has been overflowing with items, large and small, demonstrating the Bush administration's abuses of power justified by 9-11 and the "War on Terror": NSA spying, torture, CIA rendition and a gulag of secret prisons, the ongoing court battle over the fate of U.S. citizen and "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla, the clearly illegal warrantless use of nuclear radiation monitors outside thousands of Muslim-associated sites in six American cities (revealed last week by U.S. News and World Report), a Swedish report that there are now 80,000 names on the U.S. government's secret air travel "watchlist," Sen. Lindsay Graham's amendment that gutted habeas corpus rights and any hope of either due process or prisoner of war protections for prisoners in America's overseas gulag, a little-noticed 12-9-05 New York Times report that "More than 8,000 people have been mistakenly tagged for immigration violations as a result of the Bush administration's strategy of entering the names of thousands of immigrants in a national crime database," numerous revelations of government-funded, privately attributed propaganda... the list is seemingly endless, and begs the question of what further abuses of government power remain hidden from the public eye. Congress must decide next month whether any of it matters.
The nation's 2006 constitutional crisis is not simply confined to the Executive Branch. Disgraced Republican superlobbyist Jack Abramoff was reported last week to be close to a plea agreement with federal prosecutors. The deal would exchange a guilty plea for existing wire fraud and forgery charges for his cooperation in the ongoing corruption investigation of numerous members of Congress and their aides. It has already been confirmed that more than four dozen members of Congress have accepted large donations, gifts, and/or travel from Abramoff or his clients at about the same time they took legislative action favorable to Abramoff or his clients. That's only one lobbyist out of the tens of thousands within the Beltway. There's plenty more stench afoot, and Abramoff knows how Capitol Hill works and where many of the skeletons are buried. If he chooses to, he could blow the lid off of Congress. Regardless of how many Congressional indictments are handed down in 2006 (and the answer is not "zero"), the Abramoff scandals are likely to tar both Republicans and Democrats and beg the question, during an election year, of whether any politician can be trusted any longer to care about the needs and desires of his or her constituents. That is a profound crisis for democracy, and it comes at exactly the time when a Republican-dominated Congress and a heavily Republican-stacked Supreme Court are the only two political institutions with the authority to rein in the dictatorial excesses of the Bush administration.
The year 2006 brings a number of urgent international problems for the United States: illegal, immoral, and futile Bush-created wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; increasing political and moral isolation in the world; our ongoing, criminal failure to act on global warming, to name three. At home, there are other problems as well: the imminent death of a major American city (New Orleans) and the fate of its refugees; a health care system spiraling out of control.
But these are symptoms. The disease is the escalating inability of American democracy to follow the Constitution and to respect the rights and honor the participation of ordinary American citizens. The disease is a political process that cannot solve serious problems because it is wholly owned by enormous corporate and political interests, with power concentrated in a relative handful of men (and occasionally women) who owe their power to those interests -- plus, at the top, a lying, murderous president who is claiming the right to break any law.
And more and more Americans are wondering whether the voting machines are rigged.
The only solution is a clean sweep. Congress must reject Samuel Alito, and Congress, if it is (in the words the Bush White House once reserved for the U.N.) "to remain relevant," must impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney. In both cases, citizen outrage will be required to force a corrupt and reluctant Congress to act. And in November, citizens must use the leverage our once-relevant Constitution gives us, and we must sweep the whole rotten Congressional carcass from office -- conclusively enough that no Republican dirty tricks or Diebold-style tampering can alter the results. Regardless of party, we must replace lawmakers, at the local, state, and especially federal level, with candidates who are truly responsive and accountable to the ordinary people who elect them.
It's either that, or by 2007 we will be living in a de facto dictatorship. It's our choice."-Geov Parrish on Working for Change.
"Rodriguez withdraws from race for state Dem chair"
Goldy breaks the news on Horsesass.org:
"Last week I wrote that Dwight Pelz had the inside track on being the Democrats’ new state party chair, but now that former state senator/supreme court justice/gubernatorial candidate Phil Talmadge has entered the fray, I hear it could be a horse race. Already the landscape has changed, with former King County Democratic chair Greg Rodriguez withdrawing from the competition.
As I’ve previously stated, Pelz can be a bit of an asshole… but he’s our asshole; if local elections were decided by a barroom brawl between party chairs, I’d want Pelz slugging it out for the Dems. As it is, there’s something enticing about the thought of Pelz verbally kicking Chris Vance’s fat tuchus all over the evening news. But maybe that’s not the chair’s primary role.
I understand that Talmadge can be a bit of an asshole too (again, in a good way), but mostly, I like him because he’s smart. In fact, last night at Drinking Liberally there was some discussion as to whether Talmadge was too smart to be chair.
I’m not suggesting that Pelz isn’t smart too, it’s just that Talmadge is all about being smart… and he’s not shy about letting people know it. The couple of times I’ve had the opportunity to talk to him I’ve found him insightful, passionate, and incredibly well informed on a wide variety of issues. But again… maybe that’s not the chair’s primary role."
"Last week I wrote that Dwight Pelz had the inside track on being the Democrats’ new state party chair, but now that former state senator/supreme court justice/gubernatorial candidate Phil Talmadge has entered the fray, I hear it could be a horse race. Already the landscape has changed, with former King County Democratic chair Greg Rodriguez withdrawing from the competition.
As I’ve previously stated, Pelz can be a bit of an asshole… but he’s our asshole; if local elections were decided by a barroom brawl between party chairs, I’d want Pelz slugging it out for the Dems. As it is, there’s something enticing about the thought of Pelz verbally kicking Chris Vance’s fat tuchus all over the evening news. But maybe that’s not the chair’s primary role.
I understand that Talmadge can be a bit of an asshole too (again, in a good way), but mostly, I like him because he’s smart. In fact, last night at Drinking Liberally there was some discussion as to whether Talmadge was too smart to be chair.
I’m not suggesting that Pelz isn’t smart too, it’s just that Talmadge is all about being smart… and he’s not shy about letting people know it. The couple of times I’ve had the opportunity to talk to him I’ve found him insightful, passionate, and incredibly well informed on a wide variety of issues. But again… maybe that’s not the chair’s primary role."
QUOTE OF THE DAY
"There are many reasons why it is crucial that the Democrats regain control of Congress in '06, but consider this one: If they do, there may be articles of impeachment introduced and the estimable John Conyers, who has led the fight to defend our constitution, would become Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Wouldn't that be a truly just response to the real high crimes and misdemeanors that this lawbreaking president has so clearly committed?"-from Katrina vanden Heuvel's op-ed in The Nation, "The I-Word is Gaining Ground," via Common Dreams.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
''Washington Democrats are already excited about the 2006 election''
We're talking about the Evergreen state here, for what it's worth:
"Local Democrats cannot wait for the November 2006 election. The Republicans' national problems—the war in Iraq, the spying on American citizens, the scandals involving the White House and GOP's Congressional leadership—are fueling the sense among locals that '06 is going to be a good year for Democratic candidates up and down the ballot.
Usually midterm elections are tough on incumbent presidents, particularly unpopular ones, and voters often don't make distinctions between candidates for local or national office. "I've been meeting with more candidates in December than I ever have before," says Democratic political consultant Christian Sinderman. Moxie Media's John Wyble, another Democratic consultant, agrees, "Everybody is gearing up. You are getting good quality candidates who are starting really early."
A key local battle will be for control of the state Senate. Currently, Democrats hold a 26-23 seat majority, but that is undercut by conservative Democrats who often vote with the Republicans. In 2006, only half of the state Senators face re- election. Of those, Republicans admit that they have more vulnerable incumbents and open seats in swing districts than the Democrats. "There aren't a lot of seats that the Republicans can go after," says GOP political consultant Dave Mortenson.
Senate races likely to draw the most attention will be in the Seattle suburbs. On the Eastside, two of the state's new generation of GOP leaders—state Senators Bill Finkbeiner and Luke Esser—already have serious potential challengers.
Finkbeiner, who represents the 45th District that includes Kirkland and Carnation, characterizes himself as a moderate Republican. The former Democrat cites his recent votes in favor of stem-cell research and raising the gas tax for transportation. He stepped down as the leader of the state Senate's Republicans earlier this month. In that role, he was often sharply partisan in his attacks on issues like the disputed election of Gov. Christine Gregoire. He says he left the leadership post because of the demands of a busy life. Democrats say he left his post because as leader of his caucus he had to vote more conservatively than his district on key issues like gay rights. Democratic consultant Wyble says, Republicans "get nervous. They've been losing these swing districts." Finkbeiner angrily dismisses the idea that he is worried about his re-election. "There's a conspiracy behind every corner," he says.
Democrat Eric Oemig is on the verge of starting to campaign against Finkbeiner. A former Microsoft engineer, he hosts the cable-access show Moral Politics and runs a Web site, www.findpurity.com, about food allergies. He is very concerned about electronic voting. "Look at how those voting machines have skewed those voting patterns; it looks like tampering," he says. He is closely following the lawsuit against the use of electronic voting machines in Snohomish County. While Oemig has qualities that could make him a good candidate—he's articulate, wealthy, and passionate about politics—his issues and political profile seem like a better fit for Seattle than the Eastside. How they will play in this shifting suburban area, parts of which are now more blue than red, will be fascinating to watch.
Over in the 48th district that includes parts of Bellevue and Redmond, Esser has already pondered contacting voters in December. "It's too early to start door-belling. It's too soon after the last election," he says. That Esser would even consider the idea illustrates his dedication to retail politics. Esser is more conservative than Finkbeiner. He voted against last year's transportation package citing his long-standing commitment to voter approval of tax increases. He wants, however, more new taxes for transportation—he's pushing hard for a joint highway and transit ballot measure for 2006. "We have momentum on transportation, we ought to move ahead," he says. As a practicing Catholic, he is staunchly pro-life and opposed to gay rights. In 2004, he highlighted his conservative views while seeking the Republican Congressional nomination against U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Auburn. His conservative profile is something the Democrats hope to exploit.
Also in 2004, educator Debi Golden ran for the state House of Representatives as a Democrat against the 45th District's incumbent moderate Republican Rodney Tom. Despite starting late, and raising relatively little money, Golden ran surprisingly well in the district getting over 48 percent of the vote. She has been bitten by the political bug and is eager to run again. As a former teacher who now works as a curriculum and course designer for Bellevue Community College, Golden plans to highlight education funding if she takes on Esser. "Luke has voted against several important education funding measures," she claims. She is a big supporter of fully funding smaller class sizes as mandated by the passage of Initiative 728 four years ago. She also feels that Esser is out of step with the district because he is unsupportive of mass transit and gay rights. Golden dismisses Esser's advantage of name recognition from representing the district since 1998. "I have name recognition too. Golden is a great last name. People are coming up to me in the supermarket and the coffee shop saying, 'Didn't you run for office?'"
At least one Democratic mastermind reminds everyone that the current favorable political conditions could all change in a year. State House Speaker Frank Chopp has helped his party pick up sixteen House seats in the last six years. He notes that one year ago President George W. Bush had just been re-elected and was riding high in the polls. Says Chopp, "It could all turn around again."-from George Howland's story in The Weakly.
"Local Democrats cannot wait for the November 2006 election. The Republicans' national problems—the war in Iraq, the spying on American citizens, the scandals involving the White House and GOP's Congressional leadership—are fueling the sense among locals that '06 is going to be a good year for Democratic candidates up and down the ballot.
Usually midterm elections are tough on incumbent presidents, particularly unpopular ones, and voters often don't make distinctions between candidates for local or national office. "I've been meeting with more candidates in December than I ever have before," says Democratic political consultant Christian Sinderman. Moxie Media's John Wyble, another Democratic consultant, agrees, "Everybody is gearing up. You are getting good quality candidates who are starting really early."
A key local battle will be for control of the state Senate. Currently, Democrats hold a 26-23 seat majority, but that is undercut by conservative Democrats who often vote with the Republicans. In 2006, only half of the state Senators face re- election. Of those, Republicans admit that they have more vulnerable incumbents and open seats in swing districts than the Democrats. "There aren't a lot of seats that the Republicans can go after," says GOP political consultant Dave Mortenson.
Senate races likely to draw the most attention will be in the Seattle suburbs. On the Eastside, two of the state's new generation of GOP leaders—state Senators Bill Finkbeiner and Luke Esser—already have serious potential challengers.
Finkbeiner, who represents the 45th District that includes Kirkland and Carnation, characterizes himself as a moderate Republican. The former Democrat cites his recent votes in favor of stem-cell research and raising the gas tax for transportation. He stepped down as the leader of the state Senate's Republicans earlier this month. In that role, he was often sharply partisan in his attacks on issues like the disputed election of Gov. Christine Gregoire. He says he left the leadership post because of the demands of a busy life. Democrats say he left his post because as leader of his caucus he had to vote more conservatively than his district on key issues like gay rights. Democratic consultant Wyble says, Republicans "get nervous. They've been losing these swing districts." Finkbeiner angrily dismisses the idea that he is worried about his re-election. "There's a conspiracy behind every corner," he says.
Democrat Eric Oemig is on the verge of starting to campaign against Finkbeiner. A former Microsoft engineer, he hosts the cable-access show Moral Politics and runs a Web site, www.findpurity.com, about food allergies. He is very concerned about electronic voting. "Look at how those voting machines have skewed those voting patterns; it looks like tampering," he says. He is closely following the lawsuit against the use of electronic voting machines in Snohomish County. While Oemig has qualities that could make him a good candidate—he's articulate, wealthy, and passionate about politics—his issues and political profile seem like a better fit for Seattle than the Eastside. How they will play in this shifting suburban area, parts of which are now more blue than red, will be fascinating to watch.
Over in the 48th district that includes parts of Bellevue and Redmond, Esser has already pondered contacting voters in December. "It's too early to start door-belling. It's too soon after the last election," he says. That Esser would even consider the idea illustrates his dedication to retail politics. Esser is more conservative than Finkbeiner. He voted against last year's transportation package citing his long-standing commitment to voter approval of tax increases. He wants, however, more new taxes for transportation—he's pushing hard for a joint highway and transit ballot measure for 2006. "We have momentum on transportation, we ought to move ahead," he says. As a practicing Catholic, he is staunchly pro-life and opposed to gay rights. In 2004, he highlighted his conservative views while seeking the Republican Congressional nomination against U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Auburn. His conservative profile is something the Democrats hope to exploit.
Also in 2004, educator Debi Golden ran for the state House of Representatives as a Democrat against the 45th District's incumbent moderate Republican Rodney Tom. Despite starting late, and raising relatively little money, Golden ran surprisingly well in the district getting over 48 percent of the vote. She has been bitten by the political bug and is eager to run again. As a former teacher who now works as a curriculum and course designer for Bellevue Community College, Golden plans to highlight education funding if she takes on Esser. "Luke has voted against several important education funding measures," she claims. She is a big supporter of fully funding smaller class sizes as mandated by the passage of Initiative 728 four years ago. She also feels that Esser is out of step with the district because he is unsupportive of mass transit and gay rights. Golden dismisses Esser's advantage of name recognition from representing the district since 1998. "I have name recognition too. Golden is a great last name. People are coming up to me in the supermarket and the coffee shop saying, 'Didn't you run for office?'"
At least one Democratic mastermind reminds everyone that the current favorable political conditions could all change in a year. State House Speaker Frank Chopp has helped his party pick up sixteen House seats in the last six years. He notes that one year ago President George W. Bush had just been re-elected and was riding high in the polls. Says Chopp, "It could all turn around again."-from George Howland's story in The Weakly.
WA Dems Chair Race: Dwight or Phil?
I'm still in shock over the size of my tab, (not for the beverages, for the FOOD) at last night's Seattle Drinking Liberally gathering. In other news, those in attendance willing to venture an opinion seem to believe the race will come down to Mr. Talmadge and Mr. Pelz. This is in spite of the report that Laura Ruderman is the only candidate known to have made any calls to State Committee members asking for support. I 'm not sure this information was worth the price, but there it is.
Update: Dwight tells me this today: "I am making calls, and gaining the support of important elected officials, and from the major organizations in labor and the environment that are the backbone of the Party."
Update: Dwight tells me this today: "I am making calls, and gaining the support of important elected officials, and from the major organizations in labor and the environment that are the backbone of the Party."
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
''Top Ten Myths about Iraq in 2005''
The blogosphere is a-twitter over this post from Juan Cole today. The myths are not all slanted in favor of the rovians or the anti-war folks:
"Iraq's situation is extremely complex. It is not a black and white poster for an American political party. Good things and bad things are happening there. The American public cannot help make good policy, however, unless the myths are first dispelled."
"Iraq's situation is extremely complex. It is not a black and white poster for an American political party. Good things and bad things are happening there. The American public cannot help make good policy, however, unless the myths are first dispelled."
''2005 Media Follies!''
The Chair recognizes one of our foremost local political pundits, Mr. Parrish, for his year end comments. We don't always agree, but the guy has paid his dues and is a member in good standing:
"As one would expect in a year when one of the underreported stories was our government's covert propaganda campaigns, there's plenty to unravel: stories that should never have been stories, stories whose reporting largely missed the point, and stories barely told at all in mainstream US media.
The good news is that, more than ever, mainstream media is no longer the last word in journalism. Foreign media, now universally available in English on the Internet, often tells a completely different (and usually more accurate) story than what we see, read, and hear here. So-called alternative media--which has been way ahead of the mainstream media on any number of issues--has repeatedly shown its relevance, to the point where the Internet is rapidly becoming the preferred news source for many Americans. But it's the mainstream that still has the largest audiences, and so it is the stories that do and don't appear there that require our attention. Here's our list, which is surely incomplete.
The Year's Most Overhyped Stories:
The fate of Terri Schiavo. Somehow, the fate of a woman who hadn't done much more than twitch in nearly two decades, and who had clearly stated that she never wanted to be kept alive in such conditions, became a crude political football for pandering Presidents and members of Congress. They should be ashamed--as should the media outlets that milked this non-story for weeks.
Intelligent Design [sic].
The "War on Christmas." What do all three of these items have in common? They were all introduced and hammered into self-serving "controversies" by the right-wing echo chamber at times when they really wanted to make sure the public wasn't paying attention to congressional or White House scandals, a disastrous war, or the death of a major American city.
Everything's Going Splendidly in Iraq. From the myth early in the year that Bush's vision for democracy was spreading like wildfire throughout the Middle East, to the notion that Iraqi troops were trained en masse and ready to fight, to entirely mythical "progress" in Iraq's economy and reconstruction, to the prediction, dutifully trotted out during three separate elections, that each such election marked a major turning point and a crippling blow for the insurgency, to an insurgency in its "death throes," it was hard to take seriously anything the White House said about Iraq. Yet, remarkably, large segments of US media did just that.
Michael Jackson's Trial.
Martha Stewart's Comeback.
Julia Roberts' Baby. OK, OK, any of the beautiful people.
Howard Dean. Now the Democratic National Committee head, Howard still shoots off his mouth (often accurately), and Republicans still get themselves all in a knot whenever he does. Get over it. He's a glorified party fundraiser now, not a public official. What he says about public policy does not matter.
Pat Robertson. He wants Hugo Chavez dead. He threatens Dover, Pennsylvania on behalf of a God who apparently can't speak for Himself. He thinks New Orleans' suffering is punishment for not meeting his warped idea of morality. WHO. CARES. The publicity just encourages him.
The Minutemen. A few hundred yahoos on the Mexican border, and a few dozen on the Canadian border, proves only that there are still unemployed racist idiots living in Orange County and its spiritual equivalents.
Plus sports, 14-Day-Accu--Pinpoint-Doppler-Radar-Insta-Weather, the usual.
The Underreported Stories:
George Bush is already a lame-duck president. There's usually a year or two grace period after the president is elected for the second time, when he can point to his second election victory as vindication for his policies and use it to get some important legislation passed. Bush has squandered his election victory. All the major initiatives he wanted to pass in Congress this year, from the privatization of Social Security to the permanent renewal of the USA Patriot Act provisions, have gone down in flames, even with a solid Republican majority in both houses. The most basic budget bills have failed to pass because Bush couldn't get a consensus within his own party. Meanwhile, members of his administration are leaking stories of Bush administration misdeeds every week. Three more years of this and the Republican Party may never recover.
The United States is becoming a torture regime. It is no longer a secret that the US tortures prisoners. But numerous aspects of this abomination remain undercovered. The year was full of shocking revelations about how far the Bush administration has taken us into totalitarian atrocities: the NSA listening to and reading US citizens' foreign telephone calls and email without warrants; the Pentagon spying on peace groups; the rendition of prisoners to secret CIA detention centers in Eastern Europe; the testimony of former prisoners at Guantanamo and victims of rendition that they were brutally abused while in prison; more evidence that the US maintains secret detention centers around the world; the Guantanamo Bay hunger strikers; dozens of deaths of "war on terror" prisoners in US custody; the Graham Amendment, which voids habeas corpus for suspects in the "war on terror"and renders moot a Supreme Court challenge to Bush's military tribunal system; the Army's newly expanded list of permissible interrogation techniques; the evidence that the decision to employ torture began at the highest levels of the White House--the list goes on and on.
Iraq is spinning out of control. Ethnic and sectarian hostilities have turned into open street battles between Shiite religious factions, battles between factions of the Sunni insurgency, mass killings of Sunnis by Shiite death squads, secret arrests, government-sanctioned torture of prisoners, and mass migrations of people between neighborhoods, cities, and provinces--an outright Balkanization of Iraq. Iraq's oil fields are rapidly deteriorating from a combination of sabotage and neglect. Oil exports are down drastically, leaving the Iraqi government without the money to pay salaries to teachers, doctors, police, and other civil servants. Meanwhile, corruption is rampant at high levels in the Iraqi government, while smaller, local governments run on extortion and bribery (a matter of basic survival when they're not getting paid a regular salary). And security analysts note that the insurgency is as healthy as ever and becoming more efficient, and more deadly, in its attacks.
Say, where is Osama bin Laden, anyway?
The Downing Street Memos. Ignored for weeks by US media until the blogosphere buzz became simply too loud, these early revelations of "fixing the intelligence around the policy" have now gone down the memory hole again. But their content has been completely corroborated by subsequent revelations.
Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera headquarters in Qatar. This British report was squelched by the Official Secrets Act, but not before it caused a sensation around the world due to its detailed plausibility--except in the US, where corporate media dismissed the allegation out of hand.
The economy is balanced on a knife-edge. The Bush administration would like you to forget that the US has a record trade deficit, a record budget deficit, and that the housing market--the one thing that's kept the US economy afloat for the past three years--is beginning to cool a little too quickly for comfort. Republican attempts to balance the budget on the backs of poor people while trying to make Bush's tax cuts permanent have garnered little attention from the press. And so has the fact that China and Japan own most of our public debt. While Bush's approval ratings rise and fall with the price of oil, a very cold winter is hitting Americans in the pocketbooks, and the press can only talk about the economy "steaming full-speed ahead." Uh huh.
The Bush administration's continued attacks on the environment. From criminal attempts to stop the implementation of the Kyoto global warming treaty and a possible successor to the privatization of public lands to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the US press hasn't cared much about Bush's shocking attempts to pillage the environment the same way his administration has pillaged the public treasury.
Republican corruption scandals. Some four dozen Congressmen, mostly Republican, have been confirmed as taking money from Jack Abramoff or his clients at about the same time they took legislative action favorable to Abramoff or his clients. Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff are just the tip of the iceberg, but our compliant press has trouble seeing even that much. Now the Supreme Court is reviewing the Texas redistricting scheme that helped the Republicans win a bigger majority in the House--a scheme that was undertaken by the Republicans after their own Justice Department had ruled it unconstitutional. This should be a much bigger scandal than it currently is.
Failures of Homeland Security: Hurricane Katrina, racism, and the gutting of FEMA. This was a huge story that, while briefly covered extensively by the US press, disappeared from the mix far too quickly and without enough analysis. And both the corruption of rebuilding contacts and the complete subsequent abandonment of New Orleans by the feds have received virtually no attention.
Likewise, the devastating earthquake in Kashmir received very little coverage. Kashmiris, of course, are used to the West not caring much about them. But we shouldn't prove them right.
Our government's global covert propaganda campaign. Armstrong Williams and the Lincoln Group in Iraq were just the start. All over the world, among countries friend and foe, the Pentagon is running an unprecedented, massive propaganda and disinformation campaign, including the planting of stories designed to find their way back into US media. The planted stories are never identified as being written by the US government. Rumsfeld said after 9/11 that he would continue to lie, and he was telling the truth.
The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and its fallout on Israeli and Palestinian politics is more important to Middle Eastern peace than anything happening in the War on Terror, yet the US press has difficulty covering Israeli and Palestinian politics beyond the latest suicide bombing. Likewise, the Palestinian elections, with the split in the Fatah Party and electoral gains by Hamas, have received almost no coverage here, nor has Ariel Sharon's split from Likud (the party he co-founded). Major shifts are happening in a very important part of the world, and Americans are oblivious. And the passive White House enabling of whatever Sharon wants to do has also received no attention.
The right-wing radicalism of Samuel Alito is no secret; it's just been deeply ignored by a too cautious press. Likewise, John Roberts' portrayal as a moderate was simply mind-boggling.
The biggest labor news in decades, the AFL-CIO split and the formation of the new Change To Win Coalition, passed with hardly a whimper in the US press. It's time to start unionizing a few more media outlets.
A sweet victory for small communities--POCLAD passing legislation in Pennsylvania to stop the construction of megachain stores in local communities--was so far off the radar that you almost had to know someone working on the campaign to have heard about it. That's shocking. Fortunately, with the Internet, it's easier than ever to find out what inspired activists across the country, and the world, are doing."-from AlterNet.
"As one would expect in a year when one of the underreported stories was our government's covert propaganda campaigns, there's plenty to unravel: stories that should never have been stories, stories whose reporting largely missed the point, and stories barely told at all in mainstream US media.
The good news is that, more than ever, mainstream media is no longer the last word in journalism. Foreign media, now universally available in English on the Internet, often tells a completely different (and usually more accurate) story than what we see, read, and hear here. So-called alternative media--which has been way ahead of the mainstream media on any number of issues--has repeatedly shown its relevance, to the point where the Internet is rapidly becoming the preferred news source for many Americans. But it's the mainstream that still has the largest audiences, and so it is the stories that do and don't appear there that require our attention. Here's our list, which is surely incomplete.
The Year's Most Overhyped Stories:
The fate of Terri Schiavo. Somehow, the fate of a woman who hadn't done much more than twitch in nearly two decades, and who had clearly stated that she never wanted to be kept alive in such conditions, became a crude political football for pandering Presidents and members of Congress. They should be ashamed--as should the media outlets that milked this non-story for weeks.
Intelligent Design [sic].
The "War on Christmas." What do all three of these items have in common? They were all introduced and hammered into self-serving "controversies" by the right-wing echo chamber at times when they really wanted to make sure the public wasn't paying attention to congressional or White House scandals, a disastrous war, or the death of a major American city.
Everything's Going Splendidly in Iraq. From the myth early in the year that Bush's vision for democracy was spreading like wildfire throughout the Middle East, to the notion that Iraqi troops were trained en masse and ready to fight, to entirely mythical "progress" in Iraq's economy and reconstruction, to the prediction, dutifully trotted out during three separate elections, that each such election marked a major turning point and a crippling blow for the insurgency, to an insurgency in its "death throes," it was hard to take seriously anything the White House said about Iraq. Yet, remarkably, large segments of US media did just that.
Michael Jackson's Trial.
Martha Stewart's Comeback.
Julia Roberts' Baby. OK, OK, any of the beautiful people.
Howard Dean. Now the Democratic National Committee head, Howard still shoots off his mouth (often accurately), and Republicans still get themselves all in a knot whenever he does. Get over it. He's a glorified party fundraiser now, not a public official. What he says about public policy does not matter.
Pat Robertson. He wants Hugo Chavez dead. He threatens Dover, Pennsylvania on behalf of a God who apparently can't speak for Himself. He thinks New Orleans' suffering is punishment for not meeting his warped idea of morality. WHO. CARES. The publicity just encourages him.
The Minutemen. A few hundred yahoos on the Mexican border, and a few dozen on the Canadian border, proves only that there are still unemployed racist idiots living in Orange County and its spiritual equivalents.
Plus sports, 14-Day-Accu--Pinpoint-Doppler-Radar-Insta-Weather, the usual.
The Underreported Stories:
George Bush is already a lame-duck president. There's usually a year or two grace period after the president is elected for the second time, when he can point to his second election victory as vindication for his policies and use it to get some important legislation passed. Bush has squandered his election victory. All the major initiatives he wanted to pass in Congress this year, from the privatization of Social Security to the permanent renewal of the USA Patriot Act provisions, have gone down in flames, even with a solid Republican majority in both houses. The most basic budget bills have failed to pass because Bush couldn't get a consensus within his own party. Meanwhile, members of his administration are leaking stories of Bush administration misdeeds every week. Three more years of this and the Republican Party may never recover.
The United States is becoming a torture regime. It is no longer a secret that the US tortures prisoners. But numerous aspects of this abomination remain undercovered. The year was full of shocking revelations about how far the Bush administration has taken us into totalitarian atrocities: the NSA listening to and reading US citizens' foreign telephone calls and email without warrants; the Pentagon spying on peace groups; the rendition of prisoners to secret CIA detention centers in Eastern Europe; the testimony of former prisoners at Guantanamo and victims of rendition that they were brutally abused while in prison; more evidence that the US maintains secret detention centers around the world; the Guantanamo Bay hunger strikers; dozens of deaths of "war on terror" prisoners in US custody; the Graham Amendment, which voids habeas corpus for suspects in the "war on terror"and renders moot a Supreme Court challenge to Bush's military tribunal system; the Army's newly expanded list of permissible interrogation techniques; the evidence that the decision to employ torture began at the highest levels of the White House--the list goes on and on.
Iraq is spinning out of control. Ethnic and sectarian hostilities have turned into open street battles between Shiite religious factions, battles between factions of the Sunni insurgency, mass killings of Sunnis by Shiite death squads, secret arrests, government-sanctioned torture of prisoners, and mass migrations of people between neighborhoods, cities, and provinces--an outright Balkanization of Iraq. Iraq's oil fields are rapidly deteriorating from a combination of sabotage and neglect. Oil exports are down drastically, leaving the Iraqi government without the money to pay salaries to teachers, doctors, police, and other civil servants. Meanwhile, corruption is rampant at high levels in the Iraqi government, while smaller, local governments run on extortion and bribery (a matter of basic survival when they're not getting paid a regular salary). And security analysts note that the insurgency is as healthy as ever and becoming more efficient, and more deadly, in its attacks.
Say, where is Osama bin Laden, anyway?
The Downing Street Memos. Ignored for weeks by US media until the blogosphere buzz became simply too loud, these early revelations of "fixing the intelligence around the policy" have now gone down the memory hole again. But their content has been completely corroborated by subsequent revelations.
Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera headquarters in Qatar. This British report was squelched by the Official Secrets Act, but not before it caused a sensation around the world due to its detailed plausibility--except in the US, where corporate media dismissed the allegation out of hand.
The economy is balanced on a knife-edge. The Bush administration would like you to forget that the US has a record trade deficit, a record budget deficit, and that the housing market--the one thing that's kept the US economy afloat for the past three years--is beginning to cool a little too quickly for comfort. Republican attempts to balance the budget on the backs of poor people while trying to make Bush's tax cuts permanent have garnered little attention from the press. And so has the fact that China and Japan own most of our public debt. While Bush's approval ratings rise and fall with the price of oil, a very cold winter is hitting Americans in the pocketbooks, and the press can only talk about the economy "steaming full-speed ahead." Uh huh.
The Bush administration's continued attacks on the environment. From criminal attempts to stop the implementation of the Kyoto global warming treaty and a possible successor to the privatization of public lands to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the US press hasn't cared much about Bush's shocking attempts to pillage the environment the same way his administration has pillaged the public treasury.
Republican corruption scandals. Some four dozen Congressmen, mostly Republican, have been confirmed as taking money from Jack Abramoff or his clients at about the same time they took legislative action favorable to Abramoff or his clients. Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff are just the tip of the iceberg, but our compliant press has trouble seeing even that much. Now the Supreme Court is reviewing the Texas redistricting scheme that helped the Republicans win a bigger majority in the House--a scheme that was undertaken by the Republicans after their own Justice Department had ruled it unconstitutional. This should be a much bigger scandal than it currently is.
Failures of Homeland Security: Hurricane Katrina, racism, and the gutting of FEMA. This was a huge story that, while briefly covered extensively by the US press, disappeared from the mix far too quickly and without enough analysis. And both the corruption of rebuilding contacts and the complete subsequent abandonment of New Orleans by the feds have received virtually no attention.
Likewise, the devastating earthquake in Kashmir received very little coverage. Kashmiris, of course, are used to the West not caring much about them. But we shouldn't prove them right.
Our government's global covert propaganda campaign. Armstrong Williams and the Lincoln Group in Iraq were just the start. All over the world, among countries friend and foe, the Pentagon is running an unprecedented, massive propaganda and disinformation campaign, including the planting of stories designed to find their way back into US media. The planted stories are never identified as being written by the US government. Rumsfeld said after 9/11 that he would continue to lie, and he was telling the truth.
The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and its fallout on Israeli and Palestinian politics is more important to Middle Eastern peace than anything happening in the War on Terror, yet the US press has difficulty covering Israeli and Palestinian politics beyond the latest suicide bombing. Likewise, the Palestinian elections, with the split in the Fatah Party and electoral gains by Hamas, have received almost no coverage here, nor has Ariel Sharon's split from Likud (the party he co-founded). Major shifts are happening in a very important part of the world, and Americans are oblivious. And the passive White House enabling of whatever Sharon wants to do has also received no attention.
The right-wing radicalism of Samuel Alito is no secret; it's just been deeply ignored by a too cautious press. Likewise, John Roberts' portrayal as a moderate was simply mind-boggling.
The biggest labor news in decades, the AFL-CIO split and the formation of the new Change To Win Coalition, passed with hardly a whimper in the US press. It's time to start unionizing a few more media outlets.
A sweet victory for small communities--POCLAD passing legislation in Pennsylvania to stop the construction of megachain stores in local communities--was so far off the radar that you almost had to know someone working on the campaign to have heard about it. That's shocking. Fortunately, with the Internet, it's easier than ever to find out what inspired activists across the country, and the world, are doing."-from AlterNet.
Monday, December 26, 2005
Bringing the War Home: ''Trying to Heal''
"As his gun truck rolled through 110-degree heat toward a pedestrian overpass in western Baghdad, one-time Columbia River High School quarterback Brian Radke swiveled his .50-caliber machine gun right and then left, clearing traffic, looking for hostile fire.
A veteran gunner, he didn't see any insurgents there on the Route Vernon Highway, a known "hot area" where enemy fire was frequent. Exactly a week earlier, his comrade from the Arizona National Guard's 860th Military Police Company, Sgt. Howard Paul Allen, had been killed by a roadside bomb at this same overpass.
That improvised explosive device, or IED, was a "platter charge," a small bomb fired by a hidden trigger man. It blew molten metal straight through the Humvee cab's armor and killed Allen, a 31-year-old father of three from Mesa, Ariz.
But on this day, Radke didn't see anyone anywhere on the two-lane highway, other than the other three soldiers in his Humvee, which was cruising at 35 mph.
But he had a "weird feeling" about the overpass and about roadside bombs of the kind that had narrowly missed Radke and his crew nine times in the previous nine months.
Radke ducked inside the Humvee, his left hand gripping his M4 carbine and his right gripping the machine gun handles up through the turret.
Then he heard a click.
Then, in a great flash of fire that rocked him hard, his world went white.
Through the smoke he saw the outline of the driver, his best friend, Army Spc. Jeremiah Robinson, 20.
First, he saw the driver's seat. Then, he saw Robinson's shoulders. Then he realized Robinson's head was missing.
He looked down. His protective vest was covered in brain matter and blood. A piece of shrapnel as big as a football was stuck in it. He couldn't move his legs. It felt like his legs had been blown off. Blood poured into his eyes. He couldn't talk. He looked down and saw his legs were gushing blood. He thought he was dead.
Then, out of a white fog drifted the image of his wife, Nova, talking.
"You are going to be OK. Stay there and fight, Brian," he heard her say. "You'll make it. You're going to be OK. You'll be OK." Then he imagined Robinson, the driver whole again also telling him to fight.
Radke felt like his arms were missing, replaced by a blast of pain. His legs seemed to blaze. His vision came and went. The truck kept lurching forward, then it hit a pillar and stopped.
Medics pulled on him, talked to him, moved him, cut his clothes off, carried him, threw him onto the hood of a truck, charged toward a Medivac helicopter, climbed on top of him to protect him, to keep him from falling off.
"I kept saying: 'I'm effed up, I'm effed up. Oh, my God, I'm effed up,' and I tried to get them to roll me on my side, so my blood would flow out of my eyes."
The chopper arrived. "I'll never forget the sound of the helicopter blades cutting through the wind, and that's pretty much all I remember."
Nearly 8,000 miles away
At the same time, in Chandler, Ariz., 7,580 miles away, Brian's wife, Nova, felt their Parson Russell terrier, Lucy, stir on her bed, then sit up and whimper. It was still dark, early morning. Then, she felt Brian's presence walk into the room. He was warm.
"I want to sleep," he told her. She wouldn't open her eyes.
"No," she said. "Don't lie down! Go back to where you were and fight. You'll be all right."
A minute later, the phone rang. It was Col. Debra Spear from the Arizona National Guard.
"Brian's been in an accident," the colonel said. "He's been hurt."
"Is he alive?" Nova asked.
"Yes," said the colonel.
"Then I'll call you back in a minute," Nova said. "I can't accept this."
As if in a dream state, she called back, then she was patched through in a phone call to Iraq and was told specifically of Brian's injuries.
His jaw was fractured, and he had head lacerations. He'd lost his right index finger. His left arm was broken in four places, his left wrist shattered. The nerves of his right arm had been ripped away. His carotid artery had been severed. He'd had a stroke and a concussion. His legs were ripped with shrapnel. He had a punctured lung. He had lost a lot of blood. A team of eight doctors worked on him for 12 hours, and then said he would live. He was in a coma and was being sent to the Landstuhl Regional Medical center in Germany.
"I was dead," he said. "The crew at the 86th CASH (86th Combat Army Support Hospital ) brought me back from the dead."
He was one of nearly 16,000 American troops who have been wounded so far in action in Iraq.
Back home
In Vancouver, Brian's parents, Lynne and David Radke, were at home when Nova called. She talked first with Lynne, about the weather and pleasantries, not wanting to break the news, but then she asked to talk to David.
By the pattern of the talk, David knew his son had been hurt. Nova said to call Col. Spears, and she couldn't tell him much. She gave David an 800 number, and he called the casualty affairs office in Washington, D.C., who patched them through to Baghdad, where they also learned the details of his injuries. They were told to get passports in order in case they had to go to Landstuhl, Germany, where Brian was being sent.
"You don't want to go to Germany," Lynne said, "because if you go there, you know they think he's going to die."
"His survival was not in danger, and the doctor told Nova that he would look like Brian," Lynne said.
On Oct. 11, the Army then flew the parents to Walter Reed, where they were picked up by a limousine and taken to see Brian, who had arrived Oct. 10. They met with Nova at Brian's bedside.
"When I saw him, I just fell to my knees and prayed in thanks that he was alive," Nova said.
Lynne and David were appalled by the tubes in Brian, by his unconsciousness and his shrapnel wounds, his bandaged arms and legs.
"My initial thought was, 'How can we hate each other so much that we can hurt each other this badly?'" said Lynne. "I knew he had hurt hands and a wounded jaw, but I wasn't prepared for what the shrapnel did."
Lynne, David and Nova were put up in a hotel at Walter Reed along with other families of the wounded. They stayed for six weeks, visiting Brian as he gradually regained consciousness and began to get well.
Every day they were thankful that he didn't seem as bad off as the dozens of soldiers with missing arms, missing legs, missing pieces of their heads.
Not enough heavy firepower
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., pulled a chair up next to Brian Radke's hospital bed in Walter Reed Army Medical Center Hospital a few days ago. Murtha, a decorated Vietnam vet who advocates an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, asked Brian if his unit had the right weapons to fight the war.
The company didn't have enough heavy firepower, Radke told him. Good armor was on the trucks, but they didn't carry enough heavy weapons.
"When I go into battle, I want killing power," he said.
Murtha did not ask for Radke's opinion on the war or his support. He simply asked how Congress could help give the troops what they need. He thanked Radke, gave him a pocket knife as a gift, said it was an honor to meet him.
Three days before, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also came into Radke's room, sat down to chat with him, and appeared to be moved when he looked at the photos of Brian's injuries as they looked when he came into Walter Reed from Landstuhl.
"I think he was shocked," Brian said. "He seemed moved. He thanked me for my service and was shocked that I hadn't got my Purple Heart medal. He said it was an honor to meet me and to keep fighting."
A couple of days later, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., pinned a Purple Heart on Brian in a ceremony at the nation's Capitol.
Many generals have visited, including Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schumacher.
Nearly 90 percent of Brian's body has been riddled with shrapnel, which is working its way out through his skin. On Dec. 12, he was having his 31st birthday dinner when a piece of shrapnel came up his throat and out his mouth. He bit down on it. Every few days another piece of metal works its way out of his body, through his mouth or skin. Doctors don't want to dig the shrapnel out, figuring it's less damaging to the body to let the metal just work its way out.
Radke has several vials of shrapnel for souvenirs.
He's lost about 55 pounds now. Instead of muscular as he once was, now he's trim and on the mend, scarred from head to foot but getting healthier.
Nova, living in an apartment at Walter Reed, shows off the vials. "I knew he was going to make it," she said. "I never doubted it."
Nightmares
"I have weird memories," he said. "Things that I thought happened, but my family tells me they didn't. I thought I was in an Iraqi hospital, and Iraqi people would come in and try and touch me, and stuff. I keep seeing Jeremiah with no head."
He also has "silent seizures," when he begins to tremble, apparently as the result of the stroke he suffered while in shock. Or he will "zone out," suddenly appearing to be in a trance or sleeping until someone wakes him up.
It's troubling, he said, that he has short-term memory lapses and may not remember what happened yesterday. He may not remember friends he used to know.
"Sometimes I'll imagine my family wearing clothes that are weird, that they don't own," he said. "And I don't deal well with change. I get upset, frightened and anxious."
Some of those effects he hopes will wear off as time goes by.
The other night, when he left the hospital to spend the night with his wife at the apartment, he couldn't sleep.
That was because the spinning ceiling fan looked like the blades of a Medivac helicopter, he said. And he couldn't get that anxiety out of his mind.
"But my family has just been unbelievable," he said. "They'd do anything for me. Nova is my rock."
He and Nova expect to remain for at least another year at Walter Reed, where he will undergo physical and occupational therapy, and surgeons will attempt to repair the nerves in his arms. In a series of four to six surgeries, surgeons plan to take nerves and tendons out of his legs and place them in his forearms to try to regenerate feeling and function in his hands. He can use his thumb and little finger on his right hand, where his index finger is missing. He has but little movement in his left hand. He has no sense of touch.
He never expects to throw a football again, or play defensive back, or play second base as he did at River, where he graduated in 1993. Or play second base as he used to at Green River Community College, where he graduated in 1995, or at Western Oregon University where he also went to school.
"It's a struggle getting dressed," he said. "I need help with everything. I can't cut my own food."
Was it all worth it?
"I don't know about that," he said. "Time will tell if what we are doing in Iraq is worthwhile. I think we had good intentions. We may have gone there for the wrong reasons, but that is not for me to say. As a soldier, I was asked to do my duty, and I did it to the best of my ability, and, unfortunately, this happened. I know it wasn't worth the loss of my best friend."
"Maybe I'll take up golf," he said.
He had wanted to be a police officer, but now he thinks he may be able to become an investigator for a government agency.
He's already had a tentative offer from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
"But I'll never, ever, ever get over the image of Jeremiah, headless. He was such a great kid, my best friend. He would do anything for you, and I was supposed to drive that day but he took my turn instead because he didn't want to gun. It could have been me who was killed instead. I won't forget that."
Dean Baker covers history and military issues. Reach him at 360-759-8009 or dean.baker@columbian.com.
Update
Previously: Army Sgt. Brian Radke, 31, a Vancouver native, suffered extensive wounds when a roadside bomb exploded in west Baghdad on Oct. 5. He quarterbacked the Columbia River High School football team in 1992 and then was assistant River football coach for three years.
What's new: After two months at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., Radke, son of Lynne and David Radke of Vancouver, is walking and talking and going out to dinner with his wife, Nova, of Chandler, Ariz. His hands and lower arms, however, are so badly injured he can barely use them.
What's next: He'll remain at Walter Reed for a year or more, housed with his wife in an apartment on the campus, doing physical therapy and undergoing several surgeries to repair shattered nerves in his arms."-from today's article in The Columbian (Vancouver, WA).
A veteran gunner, he didn't see any insurgents there on the Route Vernon Highway, a known "hot area" where enemy fire was frequent. Exactly a week earlier, his comrade from the Arizona National Guard's 860th Military Police Company, Sgt. Howard Paul Allen, had been killed by a roadside bomb at this same overpass.
That improvised explosive device, or IED, was a "platter charge," a small bomb fired by a hidden trigger man. It blew molten metal straight through the Humvee cab's armor and killed Allen, a 31-year-old father of three from Mesa, Ariz.
But on this day, Radke didn't see anyone anywhere on the two-lane highway, other than the other three soldiers in his Humvee, which was cruising at 35 mph.
But he had a "weird feeling" about the overpass and about roadside bombs of the kind that had narrowly missed Radke and his crew nine times in the previous nine months.
Radke ducked inside the Humvee, his left hand gripping his M4 carbine and his right gripping the machine gun handles up through the turret.
Then he heard a click.
Then, in a great flash of fire that rocked him hard, his world went white.
Through the smoke he saw the outline of the driver, his best friend, Army Spc. Jeremiah Robinson, 20.
First, he saw the driver's seat. Then, he saw Robinson's shoulders. Then he realized Robinson's head was missing.
He looked down. His protective vest was covered in brain matter and blood. A piece of shrapnel as big as a football was stuck in it. He couldn't move his legs. It felt like his legs had been blown off. Blood poured into his eyes. He couldn't talk. He looked down and saw his legs were gushing blood. He thought he was dead.
Then, out of a white fog drifted the image of his wife, Nova, talking.
"You are going to be OK. Stay there and fight, Brian," he heard her say. "You'll make it. You're going to be OK. You'll be OK." Then he imagined Robinson, the driver whole again also telling him to fight.
Radke felt like his arms were missing, replaced by a blast of pain. His legs seemed to blaze. His vision came and went. The truck kept lurching forward, then it hit a pillar and stopped.
Medics pulled on him, talked to him, moved him, cut his clothes off, carried him, threw him onto the hood of a truck, charged toward a Medivac helicopter, climbed on top of him to protect him, to keep him from falling off.
"I kept saying: 'I'm effed up, I'm effed up. Oh, my God, I'm effed up,' and I tried to get them to roll me on my side, so my blood would flow out of my eyes."
The chopper arrived. "I'll never forget the sound of the helicopter blades cutting through the wind, and that's pretty much all I remember."
Nearly 8,000 miles away
At the same time, in Chandler, Ariz., 7,580 miles away, Brian's wife, Nova, felt their Parson Russell terrier, Lucy, stir on her bed, then sit up and whimper. It was still dark, early morning. Then, she felt Brian's presence walk into the room. He was warm.
"I want to sleep," he told her. She wouldn't open her eyes.
"No," she said. "Don't lie down! Go back to where you were and fight. You'll be all right."
A minute later, the phone rang. It was Col. Debra Spear from the Arizona National Guard.
"Brian's been in an accident," the colonel said. "He's been hurt."
"Is he alive?" Nova asked.
"Yes," said the colonel.
"Then I'll call you back in a minute," Nova said. "I can't accept this."
As if in a dream state, she called back, then she was patched through in a phone call to Iraq and was told specifically of Brian's injuries.
His jaw was fractured, and he had head lacerations. He'd lost his right index finger. His left arm was broken in four places, his left wrist shattered. The nerves of his right arm had been ripped away. His carotid artery had been severed. He'd had a stroke and a concussion. His legs were ripped with shrapnel. He had a punctured lung. He had lost a lot of blood. A team of eight doctors worked on him for 12 hours, and then said he would live. He was in a coma and was being sent to the Landstuhl Regional Medical center in Germany.
"I was dead," he said. "The crew at the 86th CASH (86th Combat Army Support Hospital ) brought me back from the dead."
He was one of nearly 16,000 American troops who have been wounded so far in action in Iraq.
Back home
In Vancouver, Brian's parents, Lynne and David Radke, were at home when Nova called. She talked first with Lynne, about the weather and pleasantries, not wanting to break the news, but then she asked to talk to David.
By the pattern of the talk, David knew his son had been hurt. Nova said to call Col. Spears, and she couldn't tell him much. She gave David an 800 number, and he called the casualty affairs office in Washington, D.C., who patched them through to Baghdad, where they also learned the details of his injuries. They were told to get passports in order in case they had to go to Landstuhl, Germany, where Brian was being sent.
"You don't want to go to Germany," Lynne said, "because if you go there, you know they think he's going to die."
"His survival was not in danger, and the doctor told Nova that he would look like Brian," Lynne said.
On Oct. 11, the Army then flew the parents to Walter Reed, where they were picked up by a limousine and taken to see Brian, who had arrived Oct. 10. They met with Nova at Brian's bedside.
"When I saw him, I just fell to my knees and prayed in thanks that he was alive," Nova said.
Lynne and David were appalled by the tubes in Brian, by his unconsciousness and his shrapnel wounds, his bandaged arms and legs.
"My initial thought was, 'How can we hate each other so much that we can hurt each other this badly?'" said Lynne. "I knew he had hurt hands and a wounded jaw, but I wasn't prepared for what the shrapnel did."
Lynne, David and Nova were put up in a hotel at Walter Reed along with other families of the wounded. They stayed for six weeks, visiting Brian as he gradually regained consciousness and began to get well.
Every day they were thankful that he didn't seem as bad off as the dozens of soldiers with missing arms, missing legs, missing pieces of their heads.
Not enough heavy firepower
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., pulled a chair up next to Brian Radke's hospital bed in Walter Reed Army Medical Center Hospital a few days ago. Murtha, a decorated Vietnam vet who advocates an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, asked Brian if his unit had the right weapons to fight the war.
The company didn't have enough heavy firepower, Radke told him. Good armor was on the trucks, but they didn't carry enough heavy weapons.
"When I go into battle, I want killing power," he said.
Murtha did not ask for Radke's opinion on the war or his support. He simply asked how Congress could help give the troops what they need. He thanked Radke, gave him a pocket knife as a gift, said it was an honor to meet him.
Three days before, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also came into Radke's room, sat down to chat with him, and appeared to be moved when he looked at the photos of Brian's injuries as they looked when he came into Walter Reed from Landstuhl.
"I think he was shocked," Brian said. "He seemed moved. He thanked me for my service and was shocked that I hadn't got my Purple Heart medal. He said it was an honor to meet me and to keep fighting."
A couple of days later, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., pinned a Purple Heart on Brian in a ceremony at the nation's Capitol.
Many generals have visited, including Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schumacher.
Nearly 90 percent of Brian's body has been riddled with shrapnel, which is working its way out through his skin. On Dec. 12, he was having his 31st birthday dinner when a piece of shrapnel came up his throat and out his mouth. He bit down on it. Every few days another piece of metal works its way out of his body, through his mouth or skin. Doctors don't want to dig the shrapnel out, figuring it's less damaging to the body to let the metal just work its way out.
Radke has several vials of shrapnel for souvenirs.
He's lost about 55 pounds now. Instead of muscular as he once was, now he's trim and on the mend, scarred from head to foot but getting healthier.
Nova, living in an apartment at Walter Reed, shows off the vials. "I knew he was going to make it," she said. "I never doubted it."
Nightmares
"I have weird memories," he said. "Things that I thought happened, but my family tells me they didn't. I thought I was in an Iraqi hospital, and Iraqi people would come in and try and touch me, and stuff. I keep seeing Jeremiah with no head."
He also has "silent seizures," when he begins to tremble, apparently as the result of the stroke he suffered while in shock. Or he will "zone out," suddenly appearing to be in a trance or sleeping until someone wakes him up.
It's troubling, he said, that he has short-term memory lapses and may not remember what happened yesterday. He may not remember friends he used to know.
"Sometimes I'll imagine my family wearing clothes that are weird, that they don't own," he said. "And I don't deal well with change. I get upset, frightened and anxious."
Some of those effects he hopes will wear off as time goes by.
The other night, when he left the hospital to spend the night with his wife at the apartment, he couldn't sleep.
That was because the spinning ceiling fan looked like the blades of a Medivac helicopter, he said. And he couldn't get that anxiety out of his mind.
"But my family has just been unbelievable," he said. "They'd do anything for me. Nova is my rock."
He and Nova expect to remain for at least another year at Walter Reed, where he will undergo physical and occupational therapy, and surgeons will attempt to repair the nerves in his arms. In a series of four to six surgeries, surgeons plan to take nerves and tendons out of his legs and place them in his forearms to try to regenerate feeling and function in his hands. He can use his thumb and little finger on his right hand, where his index finger is missing. He has but little movement in his left hand. He has no sense of touch.
He never expects to throw a football again, or play defensive back, or play second base as he did at River, where he graduated in 1993. Or play second base as he used to at Green River Community College, where he graduated in 1995, or at Western Oregon University where he also went to school.
"It's a struggle getting dressed," he said. "I need help with everything. I can't cut my own food."
Was it all worth it?
"I don't know about that," he said. "Time will tell if what we are doing in Iraq is worthwhile. I think we had good intentions. We may have gone there for the wrong reasons, but that is not for me to say. As a soldier, I was asked to do my duty, and I did it to the best of my ability, and, unfortunately, this happened. I know it wasn't worth the loss of my best friend."
"Maybe I'll take up golf," he said.
He had wanted to be a police officer, but now he thinks he may be able to become an investigator for a government agency.
He's already had a tentative offer from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
"But I'll never, ever, ever get over the image of Jeremiah, headless. He was such a great kid, my best friend. He would do anything for you, and I was supposed to drive that day but he took my turn instead because he didn't want to gun. It could have been me who was killed instead. I won't forget that."
Dean Baker covers history and military issues. Reach him at 360-759-8009 or dean.baker@columbian.com.
Update
Previously: Army Sgt. Brian Radke, 31, a Vancouver native, suffered extensive wounds when a roadside bomb exploded in west Baghdad on Oct. 5. He quarterbacked the Columbia River High School football team in 1992 and then was assistant River football coach for three years.
What's new: After two months at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., Radke, son of Lynne and David Radke of Vancouver, is walking and talking and going out to dinner with his wife, Nova, of Chandler, Ariz. His hands and lower arms, however, are so badly injured he can barely use them.
What's next: He'll remain at Walter Reed for a year or more, housed with his wife in an apartment on the campus, doing physical therapy and undergoing several surgeries to repair shattered nerves in his arms."-from today's article in The Columbian (Vancouver, WA).
Sunday, December 25, 2005
''Democrats to woo voters on wage issue''
"WASHINGTON -- New Year's Day will bring the ninth straight year in which the federal minimum wage has remained frozen at $5.15 an hour, marking the second-longest period that the nation has had a stagnant minimum wage since the standard was established in 1938.
Against that backdrop, Democrats are preparing ballot initiatives in states across the country to boost turnout of Democratic-leaning voters in 2006. Labor, religious, and community groups have launched efforts to place minimum-wage initiatives on ballots in Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Arkansas, and Montana next fall.
Democrats say the minimum wage could be for them what the gay-marriage referendums were in key states for Republicans last year -- an easily understood issue that galvanizes their supporters to show up on Election Day.
''It's a fairness issue, and everybody gets the concept of fairness," said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, a long-time proponent of a higher minimum wage. ''It's a moral issue. It's a value."
Of the seven states that appear most likely to have a minimum wage increase on the ballot, five were decided by fewer than 10 percentage points in last year's presidential election, and all but Michigan supported President Bush. Republican senators in three of the states -- Ohio, Arizona, and Montana -- are high on Democrats' target lists, as they seek to pick up seats in Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.
Congressional Republicans' efforts to block an increase to the federal minimum wage allows Democrats to take a popular stand that contrasts the priorities of the two parties, said former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, the Democrats' 2004 nominee for vice president.
''It's a powerful political issue because it's the right thing to do," said Edwards, who visited Arizona, Michigan, and Ohio this year to rally supporters for minimum wage initiatives and plans to travel more extensively next year in key states. ''It's something that we should not be shying away from, and something we should be pushing."
Edwards, who made poverty a central theme of his presidential campaign, is working closely with local groups and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a nationwide network of community groups.
In addition, Democratic-leaning religious groups are working with local churches to build support for minimum wage initiatives. The ''Let Justice Roll" campaign is asking leaders of churches, synagogues, and mosques to talk to their members on the importance of the minimum wage in a nation-wide push timed for the weekend of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Jan. 14-16.
''We bring it straight to the voters, state by state, and all the polls indicate people want people to be paid reasonable wages for their work," said the Rev. Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches and a former Democratic House member from Pennsylvania
''I don't think it can hurt [Democrats] next year if on five or six or seven states there's a ballot initiative that can lift the minimum wage," Edgar said. ''There's a lot of enthusiasm when you talk about minimum wage."
Republicans say they're not concerned by the efforts. Voters approach ballot measures and candidates for office differently, and the president and the Republican Congress have a strong record of job and economic growth, said Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.
Many Republicans support modest increases in the minimum wage when tied to economic changes such as cuts in required overtime pay.
''America's economy is best served by reasonable increases in the minimum wage, so that we don't hurt small businesses from growing and creating future employment opportunities," Diaz said. ''Nationwide, voters will continue to reject Democrat support for higher taxes and lawsuits that impair our nation's economic progress."
Stuart Rothenberg, an independent political analyst in Washington, said the minimum wage represents an area where Democrats can put forward an accessible proposal that Republicans are uncomfortable opposing. That makes it attractive as Democrats seek to fill out an election-year agenda for a campaign they hope will turn on national issues.
''I can see it as a Democratic-labor effort to make sure that their voters turn out," Rothenberg said. ''The minimum wage hasn't been a big issue in a while, but it's always an issue that if Democrats are on the offensive, Republicans are going to be in a tough spot."
Democrats point out that under Republican control of Washington, the federal minimum wage hasn't budged since September 1997. Inflation has caused the minimum wage's buying power to erode to its second-lowest level since 1955, according to a study released this month by the liberal Economic Policy Institute.
''Things have gotten more expensive, and wages have not gone up accordingly," said Liana Fox, an analyst at the policy institute. ''People have to work more and have multiple jobs to maintain the same standard of living they would have had 20 years ago."
The inaction at the federal level has prompted a flurry of activity in various states. Seventeen states plus the District of Columbia now have minimum wages that are higher than the federal level, up from five in 1997, when the federal wage was set at $5.15. That list includes Massachusetts, where the minimum wage is $6.75 an hour.
Last year, both minimum wage increases on state ballots won overwhelmingly. Voters in Florida and Nevada -- two states that went narrowly for Bush -- overwhelmingly supported a higher minimum wage, giving ballot measures 71 percent support in Florida and 68 percent in Nevada. (The Nevada initiative must be approved again in 2006 before it can take effect.)
Democrats say they hope to replicate Republicans' success in 2004, when ballot initiatives banning gay marriage passed in all 11 states they were offered. The initiatives were credited with boosting GOP turnout in those states.
The minimum wage can have a similar cross-country resonance, particularly after Hurricane Katrina exposed the dire poverty that exists in parts of the nation, said the Rev. Paul Sherry, the Cleveland-based coordinator of ''Let Justice Roll" and a former president of the United Church of Christ. Sherry said his group is considering broadening its efforts to launch state legislative campaigns for a higher minimum wage in states including New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
''It cuts across all kinds of ideological lines," Sherry said. ''People on the conservative side of the political sphere, as well as the liberal, see the need for a decent wage for people."
Some Republicans and business groups oppose a higher minimum wage because they fear it could hurt small businesses. But some Republican lawmakers nonetheless appear reticent to oppose minimum-wage increases, since they fear Democrats could use such votes to attack them as antiworker.
Both times Kennedy offered minimum-wage increases in the Senate this year, he was narrowly defeated by Republicans. But in both instances, most Republicans voted for their own versions of a minimum-wage increase, tied to other provisions opposed by labor unions.
The votes meant that more than 80 senators twice voted this year for a higher minimum wage, but the year will end with the wage still at $5.15 an hour. Kennedy is vowing to force more votes on the issue next year.
''The support for this is off the charts," he said. ''This really is a defining kind of issue."-from the Boston Globe story today. WWJD? Rick Klein, who wrote this article, followed a bunch of us Seattle-ites around as we door-belled for Howard Dean in Des Moines in January, 2004.
Against that backdrop, Democrats are preparing ballot initiatives in states across the country to boost turnout of Democratic-leaning voters in 2006. Labor, religious, and community groups have launched efforts to place minimum-wage initiatives on ballots in Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Arkansas, and Montana next fall.
Democrats say the minimum wage could be for them what the gay-marriage referendums were in key states for Republicans last year -- an easily understood issue that galvanizes their supporters to show up on Election Day.
''It's a fairness issue, and everybody gets the concept of fairness," said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, a long-time proponent of a higher minimum wage. ''It's a moral issue. It's a value."
Of the seven states that appear most likely to have a minimum wage increase on the ballot, five were decided by fewer than 10 percentage points in last year's presidential election, and all but Michigan supported President Bush. Republican senators in three of the states -- Ohio, Arizona, and Montana -- are high on Democrats' target lists, as they seek to pick up seats in Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.
Congressional Republicans' efforts to block an increase to the federal minimum wage allows Democrats to take a popular stand that contrasts the priorities of the two parties, said former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, the Democrats' 2004 nominee for vice president.
''It's a powerful political issue because it's the right thing to do," said Edwards, who visited Arizona, Michigan, and Ohio this year to rally supporters for minimum wage initiatives and plans to travel more extensively next year in key states. ''It's something that we should not be shying away from, and something we should be pushing."
Edwards, who made poverty a central theme of his presidential campaign, is working closely with local groups and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a nationwide network of community groups.
In addition, Democratic-leaning religious groups are working with local churches to build support for minimum wage initiatives. The ''Let Justice Roll" campaign is asking leaders of churches, synagogues, and mosques to talk to their members on the importance of the minimum wage in a nation-wide push timed for the weekend of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Jan. 14-16.
''We bring it straight to the voters, state by state, and all the polls indicate people want people to be paid reasonable wages for their work," said the Rev. Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches and a former Democratic House member from Pennsylvania
''I don't think it can hurt [Democrats] next year if on five or six or seven states there's a ballot initiative that can lift the minimum wage," Edgar said. ''There's a lot of enthusiasm when you talk about minimum wage."
Republicans say they're not concerned by the efforts. Voters approach ballot measures and candidates for office differently, and the president and the Republican Congress have a strong record of job and economic growth, said Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.
Many Republicans support modest increases in the minimum wage when tied to economic changes such as cuts in required overtime pay.
''America's economy is best served by reasonable increases in the minimum wage, so that we don't hurt small businesses from growing and creating future employment opportunities," Diaz said. ''Nationwide, voters will continue to reject Democrat support for higher taxes and lawsuits that impair our nation's economic progress."
Stuart Rothenberg, an independent political analyst in Washington, said the minimum wage represents an area where Democrats can put forward an accessible proposal that Republicans are uncomfortable opposing. That makes it attractive as Democrats seek to fill out an election-year agenda for a campaign they hope will turn on national issues.
''I can see it as a Democratic-labor effort to make sure that their voters turn out," Rothenberg said. ''The minimum wage hasn't been a big issue in a while, but it's always an issue that if Democrats are on the offensive, Republicans are going to be in a tough spot."
Democrats point out that under Republican control of Washington, the federal minimum wage hasn't budged since September 1997. Inflation has caused the minimum wage's buying power to erode to its second-lowest level since 1955, according to a study released this month by the liberal Economic Policy Institute.
''Things have gotten more expensive, and wages have not gone up accordingly," said Liana Fox, an analyst at the policy institute. ''People have to work more and have multiple jobs to maintain the same standard of living they would have had 20 years ago."
The inaction at the federal level has prompted a flurry of activity in various states. Seventeen states plus the District of Columbia now have minimum wages that are higher than the federal level, up from five in 1997, when the federal wage was set at $5.15. That list includes Massachusetts, where the minimum wage is $6.75 an hour.
Last year, both minimum wage increases on state ballots won overwhelmingly. Voters in Florida and Nevada -- two states that went narrowly for Bush -- overwhelmingly supported a higher minimum wage, giving ballot measures 71 percent support in Florida and 68 percent in Nevada. (The Nevada initiative must be approved again in 2006 before it can take effect.)
Democrats say they hope to replicate Republicans' success in 2004, when ballot initiatives banning gay marriage passed in all 11 states they were offered. The initiatives were credited with boosting GOP turnout in those states.
The minimum wage can have a similar cross-country resonance, particularly after Hurricane Katrina exposed the dire poverty that exists in parts of the nation, said the Rev. Paul Sherry, the Cleveland-based coordinator of ''Let Justice Roll" and a former president of the United Church of Christ. Sherry said his group is considering broadening its efforts to launch state legislative campaigns for a higher minimum wage in states including New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
''It cuts across all kinds of ideological lines," Sherry said. ''People on the conservative side of the political sphere, as well as the liberal, see the need for a decent wage for people."
Some Republicans and business groups oppose a higher minimum wage because they fear it could hurt small businesses. But some Republican lawmakers nonetheless appear reticent to oppose minimum-wage increases, since they fear Democrats could use such votes to attack them as antiworker.
Both times Kennedy offered minimum-wage increases in the Senate this year, he was narrowly defeated by Republicans. But in both instances, most Republicans voted for their own versions of a minimum-wage increase, tied to other provisions opposed by labor unions.
The votes meant that more than 80 senators twice voted this year for a higher minimum wage, but the year will end with the wage still at $5.15 an hour. Kennedy is vowing to force more votes on the issue next year.
''The support for this is off the charts," he said. ''This really is a defining kind of issue."-from the Boston Globe story today. WWJD? Rick Klein, who wrote this article, followed a bunch of us Seattle-ites around as we door-belled for Howard Dean in Des Moines in January, 2004.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)