Feel Better, New Mexico?

New York City Still Tallying Votes | The Trail | washingtonpost.com 

By Robin Shulman
NEW YORK — It’s been 15 days since Super Tuesday, but New York City is still waiting to find out if Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton won the most-contested areas.

The Board of Elections has acknowledged that errors in reporting the election day tallies made it appear that Obama had received not a single vote in 55 election districts, when in reality his votes had simply not been counted, said Valerie Vazquez-Rivera, a spokeswoman for the board. In another 27 districts, Obama actually received no votes, she said.

Vazquez-Rivera attributed the discrepancies to human error as exhausted inspectors rushed to copy columns of numbers to be delivered to the police and then to the press.

“People have been working 16 and 17 hour days,” she said. “There were instances where they just left the Obama field blank.”

But Tuesday, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, described the results as “fraud.”

“If you want to call it significant undercounting, I guess that’s a euphemism for fraud,” the mayor said.

No election districts reported that Clinton received no votes.

New York City Still Tallying Votes | The Trail | washingtonpost.com

ABQjournal: Wilson Up Front in Protest

ABQjournal xgr: Wilson Up Front in Protest
By Michael Coleman
Of the Journal
    Republicans walked out of the U.S. House in a huff Thursday in part because the Democratic leadership refused to bring the Protect America Act to a vote and make it permanent.
    Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., a member of the House intelligence committee and a staunch advocate for the legislation, was near the front of the protest line.
    The act passed with a six-month lifespan last year, but it expired Friday. It allowed intelligence officials to intercept phone calls and e-mails from foreigners without a warrant even if their communication was routed through the United States.
    Republicans also want retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies that helped the government spy on suspects after Sept. 11.
    As House Republicans streamed out of the Capitol in protest Thursday morning, Wilson walked to the front of the pack and stood next to House Minority Leader John Boehner on the Capitol steps.
    On Friday, she was still seething over what she described as an act of breathtaking irresponsibility by Democrats on matters of national security. A vote to extend the act by 15 days to allow time for a compromise failed to pass the House.
    “It means that, at midnight tonight, we no longer have the authority to follow a new tip and listen to a foreigner in a foreign country who might be plotting against us,” Wilson told me by phone on Friday.
    Well, at least not without a warrant.
The existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act still allows U.S. intelligence officials to wiretap phones, but they need a judge’s permission.
    Wilson argues that court approval can sometimes take a couple of days— precious time when a plot might be unfolding.
    Existing wiretaps established under the six-month law will not expire for a year, even if the bill is not immediately renewed.
    Democrats who oppose the legislation, including Sen. Jeff Bingaman and Rep. Tom Udall of New Mexico, contend that Republicans are creating a overly dramatic, sky-is-falling scenario, and that the legislation is unnecessarily invasive.
    “This legislation not only fails to adequately protect the rights of Americans, but it also unnecessarily grants telecom companies retroactive immunity for assisting the government with an unlawful wiretapping program,” Bingaman said last week. “Frankly, I believe we should be doing a better job protecting the liberties of Americans.”
    Wilson said foreigners don’t deserve the same high standard of probable cause that the U.S. insists on before granting warrants to spy on American citizens suspected of crimes.
    “The real problem is when you can’t meet those high standards— and sometimes you can’t,” Wilson said. “It should never even have been required for foreigners in foreign countries who are trying to spy on us.”
    Wilson said she will keep urging House leaders to change the law permanently when Congress returns from its Presidents Day recess later this month.
    “We have to do this,” she said. “It’s absolutely vital.”

ABQjournal xgr: Wilson Up Front in Protest

Bush Lies

Think Progress » In Radio Address, Bush Hypes Consequences of Wiretapping Law Expiration

In his weekly radio address, President Bush not only blames Congress for tonight’s expiration of the Protect America Act, he says that his government will have a harder time keeping you safe:

Because Congress failed to act, it will be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attack. At midnight, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will be stripped of their power to authorize new surveillance against terrorist threats abroad. This means that as terrorists change their tactics to avoid our surveillance, we may not have the tools we need to continue tracking them — and we may lose a vital lead that could prevent an attack on America.

Nothing about the measure’s expiration prevents either law enforcement or intelligence officials from carrying out new surveillance against suspected terrorists. They will simply need to get a warrant. Nor is exigency a factor, as warrants can even be obtained after the surveillance has begun.

Furthermore, Bush’s hype over tonight’s midnight expiration is undermined by the words of his own top aides. Just 24 hours ago, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell told NPR:

Some of the [surveillance] authorities would carry over to the period they were established for one year. That would put us into the August, September time-frame. However, that’s not the real issue. The issue is liability protection for the private sector.

McConnell let slip that the real goal in the debate over the Protect America Act is not to protect America, but to protect the telecommunication companies being sued for assisting in Bush’s illegal wiretapping. The president claims he wants to protect these companies to ensure their future cooperation. However, legal warrants compel cooperation.

The only reason to insist on telecom immunity is that the telecom lawsuits are the only remaining avenue for bringing to light the administration’s illegal activities. And that is what Bush and his conservative allies will not permit, regardless of how real the cost is to America’s intelligence-gathering apparatus.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/16/bush-paa-deadline/
– – – – –

The Page – by Mark Halperin – TIME

In order to be able to discover enemy — the enemy’s plans, we need the cooperation of telecommunication companies. If these companies are subjected to lawsuits that could cost them billions of dollars, they won’t participate; they won’t help us; they won’t help protect America. [mjh: Why do Republicans defend corporations if those corporations are so un-American?] Liability protection is critical to securing the private sector’s cooperation with our intelligence efforts. The Senate has passed a good bill, and has shown that protecting our nation is not a partisan issue. And I congratulate the senators.

Unfortunately, the House has failed to pass a good bill. And now House leaders say they want still more time to reach agreement with the Senate on a final bill. They make this claim even though it is clear that the Senate bill, the bill passed last night, has significant
bipartisan support in the House.

Congress has had over six months to discuss and deliberate. The time for debate is over. I will not accept any temporary extension. House members have had plenty of time to pass a good bill. They have already been given a two-week extension beyond the deadline they set for
themselves. If Republicans and Democrats in the Senate can come together on a good piece of legislation, there is no reason why Republicans and Democrats in the House cannot pass the Senate bill immediately.

The House’s failure to pass the bipartisan Senate bill would jeopardize the security of our citizens. As Director McConnell has told me, without this law, our ability to prevent new attacks will be weakened. And it will become harder for us to uncover terrorist plots. We must not allow this to happen. It is time for Congress to ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted. It is time for Congress to pass a law that provides a long-term foundation to protect our country. And they must do so immediately.

– – – – –

Think Progress » Experts: FISA will suffice as PAA expires.

On its front page today, the conservative Washington Times reports that “intelligence scholars and analysts outside the government say that today’s expiration of certain temporary domestic wiretapping laws will have little effect on national security, despite warnings to the contrary by the White House and Capitol Hill Republican leaders.” One scholar said “there’s no reason to think” America is “in any more danger” than it’s already been in since 9/11:

Timothy Lee, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, said the last time Congress overhauled FISA — after the September 11 terrorist attacks — President Bush praised the action, saying the new law “recognizes the realities and dangers posed by the modern terrorist.”

“Those are the rules we’ll be living under after the Protect America Act expires this weekend,” Mr. Lee added. “There’s no reason to think our nation will be in any more danger in 2008 than it was in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/16/experts-fisa-will-suffice-as-paa-expires/
– – – – –

NPR: What Happens If Protect America Act Expires?

In August, Congress passed the Protect America Act, which granted the Bush administration legal authority to spy on Americans’ communications overseas without individual warrants. That law expires Saturday, and Congress is deadlocked on a new bill to replace it.

President Bush says to delay is dangerous, but many intelligence experts, including Suzanne Spaulding, say very little will actually change Saturday, even if the bill is allowed to expire.

Spaulding, who spent 20 years working on national security issues for the government and is now a private attorney in Washington, D.C., talks with Michelle Norris.

– – – – –

House Defies Bush on Wiretaps
By Dan Eggen and Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writers

Democrats immediately said that the expiration of the temporary law would have little, if any, immediate impact on intelligence gathering. “He has nothing to offer but fear,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters after Bush’s address.

“I regret your reckless attempt to manufacture a crisis over the reauthorization of foreign surveillance laws,” Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said in a letter to Bush, in defense of his colleagues in the House. “Instead of needlessly frightening the country, you should work with Congress in a calm, constructive way.”

House Defies Bush on Wiretaps

Scalia Defends Torture

[I]n an interview with BBC Radio’s Law in Action, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia defended torture, claiming that it is not necessarily barred by the Constitution:

Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to find out where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited under the Constitution? Because smacking someone in the face would violate the 8th amendment in a prison context. You can’t go around smacking people about.

Is it obvious that what can’t be done for punishment can’t be done to exact information that is crucial to this society? It’s not at all an easy question, to tell you the truth.

The BBC interviewer, however, objected to Scalia’s use of the so-called “ticking time bomb” scenario to justify government torture. “It’s a bizarre scenario,” he said. “Because the fact is, it’s very unlikely you’re going to have the one person who can give you that information. So if you use that as an excuse to commit torture, perhaps that’s a dangerous thing.” Scalia responded:

Seems to me you have to say, as unlikely as that is, it would be absurd to say that you can’t stick something under the fingernails, smack them in the face. It would be absurd to say that.

Think Progress » Scalia Defends Torture: It’s ‘Absurd’ To Say The Gov’t Can’t ‘Smack’ A Suspect ‘In The Face’

A glance at incidents or comments involving Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia that prompted calls for him to step aside in individual Supreme Court cases.

The Associated Press: A Glance at Scalia Controversies

“Senator Hothead”

McCain’s Sharp Tongue: An Achilles heel? – TIME By AP/LIBBY QUAID

(WASHINGTON) — Temper, temper. Republican John McCain is known for his. He’s been dubbed “Senator Hothead” by more than one publication, but he’s also had some success extracting his hatchet from several foreheads.

Even his Republican Senate colleagues are not spared his sharp tongue.

“F— you,” he shouted at Texas Sen. John Cornyn last year.

“Only an a—— would put together a budget like this,” he told the former Budget Committee chairman, Sen. Pete Domenici, in 1999.

“I’m calling you a f—— jerk!” he once retorted to Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley.

With Cornyn, he smoothed things over quickly. The two argued during a meeting on immigration legislation; Cornyn complained that McCain seemed to parachute in during the final stages of negotiations. “F— you. I know more about this than anyone else in the room,” McCain reportedly shouted.

Cornyn chuckled at the memory of what he called McCain’s “aggressive expressions of differences.” The Texan has endorsed McCain.

“He almost immediately apologized to me,” Cornyn said last week. “I accepted his apology, and as far as I’m concerned, we’ve moved on down the road.”

The political landscape in Arizona, McCain’s home state, is littered with those who have incurred his wrath. Former Gov. Jane Hull pretended to hold a telephone receiver away from her ear to demonstrate a typical outburst from McCain in a 1999 interview with The New York Times.

McCain has even blown up at volunteers and, on occasion, the average Joe.

He often pokes fun at his reputation: “Thanks for the question, you little jerk,” he said last year to a New Hampshire high school student wondering if McCain, at 71, was too old to be president.

Other times, his ire is all too real. This has prompted questions about whether his temperament is suited to the office of commander-in-chief or whether it might handicap him in a presidential campaign against either Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton, who are not known for such outbursts.

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger,” Domenici told Newsweek in 2000.

His irascibility fits with McCain’s proud image as a straight talker willing to say what people don’t want to hear.

Yet McCain’s temper hinders his efforts to make peace with his critics and rally Republicans behind his candidacy for president. That could be a big problem, because his most persistent foes — conservative radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson — talk to tens of millions of people each day.

McCain and his advisers insist the acrimony is about matters of policy: “We have disagreements on specific issues from time to time,” McCain recently said of his critics.

In fact, the disputes often are as much about style as they are about substance.

McCain’s tone was certainly on Dobson’s mind when he issued a stinging anti-endorsement on Super Tuesday. He mentioned various issues, but Dobson also said the senator “has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.”

Privately, some conservatives grouse that McCain can seem more convivial toward his liberal colleagues. Just last week, McCain had an animated conversation and shared a belly laugh with liberal Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy, his partner on controversial immigration reforms, on the Senate floor.

And then there is his choice of words – not just the expletives, but also the use of dismissive phrases such as “agents of intolerance” to describe televangelists Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell during the 2000 presidential campaign.

Yet McCain reconciled with Falwell before his death in 2007 and has done so with many others.

McCain has also smoothed things over with Sen. Thad Cochran, who had said very recently that the idea of McCain as GOP nominee sent a chill down his spine. McCain has battled for years with the Mississippi Republican, a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, over pet projects or “earmarks” inserted by committee members into spending bills.

On the Senate floor last Tuesday, Cochran greeted McCain warmly, with a broad smile and a hug.

Grassley described his relations with McCain as “friendly, but not close.”

“John’s a person that I have a lot of disagreements with, but you’ve got to have a lot of respect for him,” Grassley told reporters recently. “For what he’s done to defend freedom, as a Navy pilot and as a POW, you’ve got to have a lot of respect for him for sticking to his guns, being way out ahead of the president that the policy needed to change in Iraq.”

“I’m not speaking as if I’m a born-again supporter of John McCain, I’m just trying to express it the way that I see him, and maybe some aspects of him being a good president,” Grassley said.

McCain’s defenders are weary of talk about his temperament. They point out that for all the decorum of the Senate, many members are known for raging at colleagues or even throwing shoes and other objects at aides.

For that matter, Dobson, the Focus on the Family founder so concerned about McCain’s “legendary temper,” apparently has a temper of his own. “He once berated one of our staffers to tears because he simply had to wait a few minutes to see the member,” said a Capitol Hill aide who requested anonymity out of deference to his boss. Another aide said he witnessed the scene.

Since he rolled up big victories on Super Tuesday and forced his main rival, Mitt Romney, from the race, McCain has worked quickly to win over his enemies.

He delivered a well-received speech at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, and he met last week with some of his biggest congressional foes, the uniformly conservative House Republican leadership.

Progress won’t happen overnight, said conservative Republican strategist Greg Mueller.

“I hope they’ll be resolved by the time we all go to convention, but it’s going to take a while to mend some of the wounds and get everybody back together,” Mueller said.

– – –

Think Progress » Bob Corker Refuses To Say That McCain Is ‘Temperamentally Suited To Be President’

Last night on Hannity & Colmes, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) coyly suggested that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) does not have the temperament to be president. When asked by Alan Colmes whether McCain is “temperamentally suited to be President of the United States,” Corker refused to say yes.

“You know, his temperamental issues have been written about,” Corker said. Sometimes, McCain “says some things that I’m sure he doesn’t mean, walks away, and goes, why did I say that!” Colmes remarked, “I noticed that when I asked you if he was temperamentally suited, you didn’t automatically say yes.” Corker avoided the issue by saying, “Well I think he is an American hero.”

Corker acknowledged in the interview that he’s “had his moments” with McCain. Watch it:

McCain’s temperamental issues have most often been raised in dealings with his own Republican colleagues.

Earlier this year, Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) said that the thought of McCain as president “sends a cold chill down my spine. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.” McCain once called Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) “a f—ing jerk” during a debate over the fate of Vietnam MIAs. And in a heated dispute over immigration, McCain screamed, “F— you!” at Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who had been raising concerns about the legislation.

How Can We Miss Him If He Won’t Go Away?

ABQjournal Opinion: Letters

Only 300-Plus Days Left of Bush

AS I LISTENED to the president’s final State of the Union address, all I could think of was, thank God that there are only 357 days left of the most incompetent administration since Warren Harding.

It was apparent from the speech that this president is out of touch with the American people and doesn’t realize that “it’s the economy, stupid.” With the economy in shambles and in or near a recession, a few words of reassurance would have been helpful and uplifting.

This president is so engaged in the war in Iraq that he fails to recognize that people are concerned with health-care costs, fuel prices, the mortgage crisis and the looming recession.

I find it hard to believe that the president would not give us any hope that the war in Iraq will end any time soon even when two-thirds of the American people want an end to this mistake. Instead, he still tries to peddle his misconceived notion that he can bring democracy to the Middle East.

One can only hope that in the next 357 days, Mr. Incompetent will not screw up the country any further.

BOB BACA
Albuquerque

Killing Never Solved Anything

BARBARIANS. As I listened to President Bush’s State of the Union address that word came into my mind. Our president was talking about killing people in foreign lands, and our elected representatives were cheering wildly.

I am a veteran and a retired employee of Veterans Affairs. I know a little bit about our military’s victims— both intended and collateral. One of my mottoes has become “if you have to hurt someone to solve a problem, you are the problem.” Barbarians would disagree.

TERRY DUBER
Albuquerque