ABQjournal: Runoff Ousts Cummins
I know the agony of defeat — and that sense that voters
must be idiots. I also know, indirectly, the thrill of victory. So, my modest sympathies go out to Tina Cummins and I offer a weak
congratulations to Don Harris. I hope I’m wrong about him. mjh
Moderates Unhappy but Sticking With GOP for Now By Claudia Deane and Chris
Cillizza
One potential wedge is the role of conservative religious groups in determining the party’s agenda. In the most recent
Post-ABC News poll, 44 percent of GOP moderates said that conservative religious groups have “too much influence” in the Bush
administration, compared with 17 percent who thought those groups didn’t hold enough sway [mjh: how can one be a
moderate and think that?]. About a third saw religious conservatives as appropriately influential. …
The poll offered a
couple of consolations for the Republican leadership: First, conservatives in their party still outnumber moderates (55 to 39
percent in the most recent survey). Second, few moderates currently see the Democrats as an appealing alternative. Asked which
party they would support if the midterm elections were being held now, 13 percent of Republican moderates chose the Democrats, and 80
percent stuck with the GOP.
Political Center Makes a Comeback By David S. Broder
In Congress and in constituencies across the country, last week
demonstrated a powerful and welcome trend: After a long eclipse, the people in the political center, the moderates, have regained
their voice and are reasserting themselves. [mjh: yeah, all 39% of them] …
Now that public mood — which was amply
demonstrated in last Tuesday’s off-year voting — has stiffened spines in the Capitol. On Thursday at least 22 House Republican
moderates balked at cutting programs for low-income people and at opening portions of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil
drilling. They forced the leadership of their party to pull a budget bill endorsed by the president and containing those provisions.
It was the second successful rebellion by the long-scorned Main Street Coalition [mjh: aka RINOs to their disdainful cohort], which also nudged the Bush administration to reverse itself
on encouraging pay at less than prevailing local wages for Hurricane Katrina reconstruction.
This is the FBI, not the CIA. But now that those
troublesome walls between departments have been removed for efficiency, are their also secret FBI prisons? mjh
IN THE PAST FEW weeks there have been
two significant disclosures concerning the rules that govern domestic spying, just as the House and the Senate are preparing to reconcile
versions of a bill to reauthorize key provisions of the USA Patriot Act.
The first was a release by the FBI of internal reports
documenting violations of the rules of domestic surveillance in national security cases.
The second was a story by Post staff
writer Barton Gellman revealing that the number of “national security letters” — a kind of administrative subpoena used by the FBI to
obtain normally private records — has exploded since the passage of the Patriot Act and now reaches 30,000 per year.
These
reports open a timely window onto the question that animates the debate over the Patriot Act: How responsibly is the government
using its spying powers? Though they don’t provide a complete answer, the new disclosures are troubling. …
… at least 13 cases between 2002 and 2004 of violations serious enough that the FBI itself determined they must be reported to
an executive branch agency called the Intelligence Oversight Board. Moreover, the case numbers on the released documents suggest that
there were hundreds of potential violations examined by the bureau during that period. This is cause for concern.
Limits On Patriot Act By Dan Eggen, Washington Post Staff Writer
Congress edged closer yesterday to limiting some of the
sweeping surveillance and search powers it granted to the federal government under the USA Patriot Act in 2001, including a provision
that would allow judicial oversight of a central tool of the FBI’s counterterrorism efforts, according to Senate and House aides.
Scott McClellan went to great pains to try
to prevent Voice of America reporter Paula Wolfson from reading aloud from this section of the U.S. criminal code.
US CODE: Title 18,1001. Statements or entries
generally
Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive,
legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or
covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or
representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or
fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
While it is possible Abramoff
didn’t actually deliver a meeting with Bush in exchange for money, it is actually possible he did. Either way, it says a lot about
Republican ethics that he would say he could. mjh
Lobbyist Sought $9 Million to Set Bush Meeting – New York
Times By PHILIP SHENON
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 – The lobbyist Jack Abramoff asked for $9 million in 2003 from the president of a
West African nation to arrange a meeting with President Bush and directed his fees to a Maryland company now under federal scrutiny,
according to newly disclosed documents.
The African leader, President Omar Bongo of Gabon, met with President Bush in the Oval
Office on May 26, 2004, 10 months after Mr. Abramoff made the offer. There has been no evidence in the public
record that Mr. Abramoff had any role in organizing the meeting or that he received any money or had a signed contract with Gabon. …
A document from Mr. Abramoff’s files that was released last week by a Senate committee shows that in the summer of 2003 he pushed
to sign President Bongo as a client, even offering to travel to Gabon immediately after an August golfing vacation to Scotland “with the
congressmen and senators I take there each year.” …
Mr. Abramoff, a Republican fund-raiser who once was one of the most powerful
lobbyists in Washington [mjh: and a good buddy of Tom DeLay, whom he flew to Scotland for golf, as I recall], has been indicted in
Florida on federal fraud charges. He is also under investigation by a federal grand jury in Washington and two Senate committees.
Remember to take your driver’s license when you vote today. Rumor has it Don Harris
forgot his — again. mjh
Something happening here … – Los Angeles Times By Mark Rudd
Given that President Bush is now talking
about Iraq as only one skirmish in an unlimited struggle against a global Islamic enemy, a struggle comparable to
the titanic, 40-year Cold War against communism, shouldn’t a massive critique of the global war on terrorism already be underway?
Yet the [anti-war] movement has remained small and politically isolated since the original outpouring of opposition in the spring
of 2003, during the run-up to the war. In part, it was the victim of its own early success, the spontaneous demonstrations
involving millions of people in the streets here and around the world trying to stop the war before it began. When this initial outburst
failed, many became demoralized and hopeless. …
Let us remember that here, in our own
town, our fellow citizens gathered to protest the rush to war and were gassed and shot at. Bernalillo County Sherrif Darren White —
Bush’s local campaign manager — said, in effect, let me at them, I’ll show them justice, when he felt APD had been too lenient. Not to
mention the exhortations to (shut up and) “support the troops” and the slander of unpatriotism. The Radical Right did just what they
wanted: they shut us down harshly and quickly. Now Bush smears for not standing up to his strong-arm tactics, for going along at the
time. Like a bully who smacks you in the face with your own hand.
But building a movement can be done. To increase
our ranks, we’ll need to break through the too-common belief that change is impossible.
We’ll also need to take on the larger
war. As the next battle heats up, perhaps against Iran or Syria, the movement will have to ask the American people to look honestly at
who we are in the world. The antiwar movement will have to engage in the most difficult dialogue of our lives with our neighbors. …
[In the case of Vietnam,] we helped stop a war of aggression by our own country. This was American democracy at its best. I lived
through it, I saw it with my own eyes.
If all of us “gray-hairs” were to tell our stories, we might be able to make a
contribution. At least we could help people find hope in this dark time.
From “never trust anyone over
30” to ‘let the gray-hairs speak’ in just 40 years. That’s progress.
As for “American democracy at its best,” well, I saw it,
too. It seemed horribly inefficient and chaotic and unclear. I hope it wasn’t our best, though I do celebrate people demanding the
government follow us now and then.
I don’t begrudge Rudd the wisdom of his years, and I appreciate him speaking out and
encouraging others to do the same. Bush AND al Qaeda need to learn what Rudd knows: even when violence seems to get you what you want,
it’s never worth the price. mjh
PS: isn’t it interesting that the old radicals are middle class
grandparents preaching restraint while the new radicals are the evangelical Christians versus extreme Islamists.
Aside: we
graybeards do have our stories to tell. Years ago, I got a call from Columbia University. The caller asked if I would like to
participate in an oral history of radicals from the Sixties. “Sure,” I said, “I’d be honored.” I don’t know how long we went on before
we realized the miscommunication. They wanted a different Sixties radical. I get that a lot, as the husband of Merri Rudd (who jokes she
is Mark Rudd’s little sister). As if the wife of a Sixties radical would take his name.