Scandal, job worries lift GOP insurgents to wins By STEVE EDER and JAMES DREW, BLADE STAFF WRITERS

The rising tide against Ohio’s Republican establishment on Tuesday swept away two of the party’s biggest names and scored a victory for GOP candidates who challenged business as usual in Columbus. …

That opening paragraph sounds so encouraging, speaking of insurgents and change within the Ohio Republican Party. But who is the number one “insurgent”? Ken Blackwell, current Ohio Secretary of State, who delivered Ohio for Bush and is riding a wave of evangelical support. In other words, the challenge is from the Radical Right — hardly a change of any kind. mjh

Republicans predicted that Democrats will focus on the scandal but fall short in providing plans for creating jobs and boosting the economy. [mjh: not one of the many scandals you’re thinking of]

John McClelland, a spokesman for the Ohio GOP, said the Democratic ticket is “woefully inexperienced” in comparison with the Republican nominees, who also include U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine and U.S. Rep. Bob Ney. [mjh: under investigation for involvement with Abramoff, Ney is very “experienced”.]

“[We] have longtime officeholders such as Mike DeWine who won handily, Betty Montgomery who won handily, Bob Ney won handily in his district, but at the same time you have agents of change such as Ken Blackwell, who has an agenda of growing the economy by cutting taxes, fiscal restraint, and government integrity and accountability,” Mr. McClelland said. “Those are issues that resonate across Ohio. Those are issues that Ken Blackwell is going to run on in November and issues we think we are going to win on.”

Actually, those are the issues Blackwell will run in public on. In private, among churchgoers, his campaign is completely different. mjh

Ohio 2004 election thief grabs Gov nod while (surprise! surprise!) voting machines malfunction

Congress may consider mandatory ISP snooping | Tech News on ZDNet By Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com

It didn’t take long for the idea of forcing Internet providers to retain records of their users’ activities to gain traction in the U.S. Congress.

Last week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a Republican, gave a speech saying that data retention by Internet service providers is an “issue that must be addressed.” Child pornography investigations have been “hampered” because data may be routinely deleted, Gonzales warned.

Now, in a demonstration of bipartisan unity, a Democratic member of the Congressional Internet Caucus is preparing to introduce an amendment–perhaps during a U.S. House of Representatives floor vote next week–that would make such data deletion illegal.

Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette’s proposal says that any Internet service that “enables users to access content” must permanently retain records that would permit police to identify each user. The records could not be discarded until at least one year after the user’s account was closed.

It’s not clear whether that requirement would be limited only to e-mail providers and Internet providers such as DSL (digital subscriber line) or cable modem services. An expansive reading of DeGette’s measure would require every Web site to retain those records. (Details would be left to the Federal Communications Commission.) …

In a move that may have led to broader interest inside the United States, the European Parliament last December approved such a requirement for Internet, telephone and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers. …

Critics of DeGette’s proposal have said that, while the justification for Internet surveillance might be protecting children, the data would be accessible to any local or state law enforcement official investigating anything from drug possession to tax evasion. In addition, the one-year retention is a minimum; the FCC would receive the authority to require Internet companies to keep records “for not less than one year after a subscriber ceases to subscribe to such services.”

Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the free-market Cato Institute, said: “This is an unrestricted grant of authority to the FCC to require surveillance.”

“The FCC would be able to tell Internet service providers to monitor our e-mails, monitor our Web surfing, monitor what we post on blogs or chat rooms, and everything else under the sun,” said Harper, a member of the Department of Homeland Security’s Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee. “We’re seeing a kind of hysteria …. The result will be privacy that goes away and doesn’t come back when the foolishness is exposed.”

ID Law Stirs Passionate Protest in N.H. By David A. Fahrenthold, Washington Post Staff Writer

The controversy in New Hampshire surrounds a federal law called the Real ID Act, which was approved last year after it was tacked on to a bill funding the war in Iraq and relief for tsunami victims. Its principal backer, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), said he wanted to close the kinds of loopholes that allowed some of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers to obtain official identification.

The bill requires states to check whether driver’s license applicants are in the country legally, and to require documents showing their birth date, Social Security number and home address. The act also requires that states find a way to verify that the documents are valid.

The deadline is May 2008. If states cannot meet the new requirements by then, the bill says, their licenses may not be accepted as identification at airport security screenings, federal buildings and nuclear plants. …

“We care more for our liberties than to meekly hand over to the federal government the potential to enumerate, track, identify and eventually control,” [Rep. Neal M. Kurk (R)] said, before quoting Henry and his state’s defiant motto, “Live Free or Die.”…

Emboldened by that success, groups opposed to Real ID staged a rally in late April in front of the statehouse where, according to a report in the Concord Monitor, some wore “666” on their foreheads — indicating their belief that a national system of rules for driver’s licenses is a step toward the “mark of the beast” prophesied in the Book of Revelation.

Prosecutors Opt for Wide Probe of Rep. Ney By Susan Schmidt and Chris Cillizza, Washington Post Staff Writers

Federal prosecutors signaled this week that they have decided to pursue a wide range of allegations about dealings between Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, rather than bringing a narrowly focused bribery case against the congressman.

Ney faces a primary challenge in his eastern Ohio district Tuesday, as his ties to Abramoff have become national news. It is the first time since his 1994 election to Congress that Ney has had to compete for his party’s nomination. …

The allegations against Ney have taken a toll on his political career and his prospects for reelection.

Ney will face off against financial analyst James Harris in next week’s Republican primary in Ohio’s 18th District. Despite his travails [mjh: read “crimes”], Ney has won the uniform backing of district Republican officials and is favored to win. …

Democrats acknowledge privately that the only way they can win in this Republican-leaning district, which President Bush carried with 57 percent in 2004, is for the election to be a referendum on Ney. He has vowed to remain in the race even if he is indicted.

A tough guy just bearing his cross? By Molly Ivins, Creators Syndicate

I never minded DeLay’s being a tough guy — it was his syrupy claims to carry the banner for Christianity that I found offensive, as he frog-marched the House toward being a cash-operated special-interest machine. The idea of putting pressure on lobbyists to give only to Republicans, pressuring lobbying firms into hiring only Republicans and then letting lobbyists sit at the table during committee meetings where legislation was written — it was just screaming overt corruption.

DeLay and Gingrich turned the U.S. House of Representatives, “the people’s House,” into a pay-for-play machine for corporations. Put in enough money, get your special tax exemption, get your earmarked government contract, get your trade legislation and your environmental exemption, get rid of safety regulation. …

“Stand firm,” he added. “Resist evil. Remember that all truth and blessings emanate from our Creator.” He then went with Tan to see a cockfight.

This is why DeLay’s professions of Christianity make me sick. He was there. He could have talked to the workers. Instead, he chose to walk with the powerful and do real harm to the very people whom Jesus mandated we especially care for.

One for you, two for me … By Molly Ivins, Creators Syndicate

AUSTIN – We need to keep up with the daily drip, that endless succession of special favors for special interests performed by Congress, or we’ll never figure out how we got so far behind the eight ball. While the top Bushies lunge about test-driving new wars (great idea — the one we’re having is a bummer, so let’s start another!), Congress just keeps right on cranking out those corporate goodies.

Earlier this month, the House effectively repealed more than 200 state food safety and public health protections. Say, when was the last time you enjoyed a little touch of food poisoning? Coming soon to a stomach near you. What was really impressive about HR 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act, is that it was passed without a public hearing.

“The House is trampling crucial health safeguards in every state without so much as a single public hearing,” said Erik Olson, attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “This just proves the old adage, ‘Money talks.’ The food industry spared no expense to ensure passage.”

Thirty-nine attorneys general, plus health, consumer and environmental groups, are opposing the law. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the food industry has spent more than $81 million on campaign contributions to members of Congress since 2000.

The bill would automatically override any state measure that is stronger than federal law — the opposite of what a sensible law would do. …

Here’s another little gem, one of those “it was after midnight and everyone wanted to go home” deals. A no-cost sweetener to encourage oil and gas companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico — and who needs more encouragement these days than the oil companies? The poor things are making hardly any money at all.

Just have the federal government waive the royalty rights for drilling in the publicly owned waters. Turns out this waiver will cost the government at least $7 billion over the next five years.

I roared with laughter upon reading that U.S. Rep. Joe Barton of Texas had assured his colleagues that the provision of the energy bill was “so noncontroversial” that senior House and Senate negotiators had not even discussed it. That’s one of the oldest ploys in the Texas handbook of sneaky tricks and has been successfully used to pass many a sweet deal for the oil industry.

“The big lie about this whole program is that it doesn’t cost anything,” U.S. Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts told The New York Times. “Taxpayers are being asked to provide huge subsidies to oil companies to produce oil — it’s like subsidizing a fish to swim.”

God Bless Molly Ivins, Part I