Conservatives grumble over Bush’s policies By Ralph Z. Hallow, The Washington Times: Nation/Politics

In interviews and speeches, lawmakers and rank-and-file activists said they believe Mr. Bush is a conservative but is heeding advisers who want him to chase votes in the political center and even left of center, including Hispanic votes.

Although this year’s CPAC audience is critical of the president and the Republican Congress on some issues, it is not in full rebellion, like audiences at past CPACs.

In 1972, CPAC activists were in revolt over the liberalism of President Nixon [mjh: LOL!] and spawned a movement to run Sen. John Ashbrook against him for the Republican nomination. In 1976, a majority at the CPAC supported Ronald Reagan over President Ford, another Republican liberal. And in 1992, CPAC activists supported conservative stalwart Pat Buchanan over the first President Bush.

But for some veteran conservatives, the president is in more trouble with his core supporters than he may realize.

“He has alienated his conservative base,” said former Rep. Bob Barr, Georgia Republican. “By pursing the same policies he is now, he nearly lost the 2000 election — by blurring distinctions between Republicans, the conservative party, and Democrats, the liberal party.”

Trouble on Bush’s right? Cal Thomas

It would be difficult to find a more committed supporter of President Bush than Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.). Pence, who is in his second term, is a self-described “Christian-conservative-Republican, in that order.” He is the essence of the Bush base, which is why his Jan. 22 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) gathering in Washington ought to cause concern at the White House. After testifying to his pro-Bush (and pro-Reagan) credentials, Pence suggested that the “ship of conservative governance has gone off course.”

Pence’s indictment included this line: “… many who call themselves conservatives see government increasingly as the solution to every social ill and – let us be clear on this point – this is a historic departure from the limited-government traditions of our party and millions of its most ardent supporters.”

Congressional Republicans and the Bush administration apparently believe they can buy the votes of a number of groups – including the elderly (prescription drug benefits) and Hispanics (amnesty for illegal aliens)….

Are they listening at the White House? Perhaps they think they can dismiss conservatives with the familiar, “Where else can conservatives go?” They can “go” into inaction or they can stay home and not vote. It has happened before.

Ask President Bush No. 41, who raised taxes after promising he wouldn’t. He later said it was a major mistake, but too late to win him reelection. In a close election people of principle can mean the difference between victory and defeat.

mjh’s Dump Bush weBlog: Conservatives grumbling — like the rest of us

AP Wire | 01/31/2004 | Democrats Press Scalia on Cheney Case

Democrats are increasing their pressure on Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to step aside from considering a case involving his friend, Vice President Dick Cheney.

The Supreme Court agreed last month to take up Cheney’s appeal in a case that involves his refusal to disclose the identities of members of his energy task force. Three weeks later, Scalia and Cheney went duck hunting together in the marshes of southern Louisiana.

Scalia maintains there was nothing improper about the trip … “I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned.” …

In addition to the duck hunting trip this month, Scalia had dinner with Cheney in November after Bush administration lawyers had asked the court to consider his case. …

Robert Destro, a law professor at Catholic University of America, who specializes in legal ethics … predicted that Scalia will stick with his decision to hear the case, and not respond to what Destro called “a bunch of hooey.”

The case probably will be argued in April, although a date has not been scheduled.

Search this blog for Scalia

Nuke safety rules may be revised

The Bush administration is moving to replace government safety requirements at federal nuclear facilities with standards written by contractors — after Congress directed the government to start fining the contractors for violations.

Long-established government minimum standards at the more than two dozen nuclear weapons plants and research labs around the nation would become unenforceable guidelines under the Energy Department proposal.

Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., an author of the 2002 legislation ordering the fines, accused the administration this week of distorting Congress’ intent with a plan that “will likely decrease worker protection.”

John Conway, chairman of an advisory board overseeing safety at the Energy Department, said the proposal would weaken safety standards covering more than 100,000 workers at the facilities.

Bush relentlessly changes everything he can to benefit corporations. There may be thousands of examples like this one. mjh

Veto Threatened on Bill to Restrict Powers Under Terrorism Law By ERIC LICHTBLAU, NYTimes

The Bush administration, stepping up the debate over its antiterrorism policies, threatened on Thursday to veto a pending bill that would scale back the government’s powers under the USA Patriot Act.

Attorney General John Ashcroft told reporters that the bill, sponsored by Senate Republicans and Democrats, “unilaterally disarms America’s defenses” against terrorists and that President Bush intended to veto the measure if Congress passed it.

The threat of a veto represents an unusual pre-emptive strike by the administration. The bill has not even come up for a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Look at Asskraft’s (sic) hyperbole about ‘unilaterally disarms America’s defenses.’ What a liar.

Note that Duhbya has had zero vetoes, a modern record. Will his first veto be an attack against the Legislature’s attempt to rein-in the out-of-control Executive? mjh

Democratic Contenders Attack Bush on Iraq, Terrorism, Trade and Economy

”A president has to be able to walk and chew chewing gum at the same time,” said Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, arguing that Mr. Bush had focused on the war on terrorism at the expense of other domestic needs.

A cutting remark from the nice guy, but not quite up to his earlier dig. mjh

mjh’s Weblog Entry – 05/05/2003: Big Belt Buckle

”Just because you speak the language of regular Americans does not mean your agenda is not the agenda of corporate America. Just because you walk around on a ranch in Texas with a big belt buckle doesn’t mean you understand and stand up for rural America.”

Security Poor in Electronic Voting Machines, Study Warns By JOHN SCHWARTZ, NYTimes

Electronic voting machines made by Diebold Inc. that are widely used in several states have such poor computer security and physical security that an election could be disrupted or even stolen by corrupt insiders or determined outsiders, according to a new report presented today to Maryland state legislators.

Authors of the report — the first hands-on attempt to hack Diebold voting machine systems under conditions found during an election — were careful to say that the machines, if not hacked, count votes correctly, and that issues discovered in the “red team” exercise could be addressed in a preliminary way in time for the state’s primaries in March. …

The authors of the report said that they had expected a higher degree of security in the design of the machines. “We were genuinely surprised at the basic level of the exploits” that allowed tampering, said Mr. Wertheimer, a former security expert for the National Security Agency.

William A. Arbaugh, an assistant professor of computer science at the University of Maryland and a member of the Red Team exercise, said, “I can say with confidence that nobody looked at the system with an eye to security who understands security.” …

In the security exercise, members of the attack team said they were surprised to find that the touch-screen machines used by voters all used the same physical key to the two locks that protect their innards from tampering. With hand-held computers and a little sleight of hand, they found, the touch screens could be reprogrammed to make a vote for one candidate count for an opponent, or results could be fouled so that a precinct’s tally could not be used.

In addition, they said, communications between the terminals and the larger server computers that tally results from many precincts do not require that machines on either end of the line prove that they are legitimate, an omission that could allow someone to grab information that could be used to falsify whole precincts worth of votes.

And the server computers do not have the latest protection against the security holes in the Microsoft operating systems, and they are vulnerable to hacker attacks that would allow an outsider to change software, the group found.

The authors of the report also said smart cards that are shipped with the system for voters and supervisors to use during elections have standard passwords that are easily guessed. …

Mr. Wertheimer said the application of security was inconsistent, with encryption applied in some places without the accompanying technology of authentication to ensure that the machines that are communicating with each other are the ones that are supposed to be communicating and that an interloper has not jumped in. “It’s like washing your face and drying it with a dirty towel,” he said. …

There is much more to be done, Mr. Arbaugh said. Working on the exercise for just a week to prepare for the one-day attack, he said, “we got the tip of the iceberg.”

He added, “It seemed everywhere we scratched, there was something that’s pretty troubling.”

The panel recommended that election officials take several steps to improve security, including placing tamper-proof tape on vulnerable parts of voting machines and installing software that will alert officials to any changes to the machine.

If those steps are taken, Mr. Arbaugh said, “the assurance of this election will be comparable to that of past elections.”

The report can be found at www.raba.com.

Georgia Takes on ‘Evolution’ By ANDREW JACOBS, NYTimes

A proposed set of guidelines for middle and high school science classes in Georgia has caused a furor after state education officials removed the word ”evolution” and scaled back ideas about the age of Earth and the natural selection of species.

Educators across the state said that the document, which was released on the Internet this month, was a veiled effort to bolster creationism and that it would leave the state’s public school graduates at a disadvantage. …

A handful of states already omit the word “evolution” from their teaching guidelines, and Ms. Cox called it “a buzz word that causes a lot of negative reaction.” She added that people often associate it with “that monkeys-to-man sort of thing.” … [mjh: yeah, ignorant people]

“Evolution” was replaced with “changes over time,” and in another phrase that referred to the “long history of the Earth,” the authors removed the word “long.” Many proponents of creationism say Earth is at most several thousand years old, based on a literal reading of the Bible. …

In the past, Ms. Cox, has not masked her feelings on the matter of creationism versus evolution. During her run for office, Ms. Cox congratulated parents who wanted Christian notions of Earth and human creation to be taught in schools. …

“Creation is not science, so it should not be taught in science class,” said Dr. Ayala, a professor of genetics at the University of California at Irvine. “We don’t teach astrology instead of astronomy or witchcraft practices instead of medicine.”

Do you think it is a coincidence that barriers between church and state are being torn down by the born-again President? Is it coincidence that the same people who say there is no science supporting global warming also believe there is no science supporting evolution? Is it coincidence that education is declining as Christian radicals attack it right and left? An ignorant populace is more easily lead, especially by unscrupulous tyrants. Welcome to “faith-based democracy” (ie, a theocracy). mjh