|
POLITICS ARCHIVES
of the Progressive Review
EARLIER
STORIES
MARCH 2004
KENTUCKY TRIES TO MAKE SENSE OF MCAIN-FEINGOLD
SPENCER S. HSU WASHINGTON
POST - Campaign workers for Kentucky Democrat A.B. "Ben"
Chandler hushed their revelry at a National Guard armory in Richmond,
Ky., last month when the doors swung open and a slew of unfamiliar
faces crashed their election night party. For the first time
in a two-month special election race to fill the House seat vacated
by Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R), Chandler loyalists met members of
a shadow campaign that had been organized 30 miles up the road
in Lexington by national Democrats. The two groups had fought
side by side -- and all but incommunicado because of new campaign
finance restrictions that are reshaping election strategies this
year. "We referred to the independent organization as the
'dark side,' " Chandler spokesman Jason Sauer said. "You
knew they were there, you felt their presence, but you went out
of your way really to know nothing more about them." . .
.
Under the McCain-Feingold
campaign finance law, candidates face sharp new restrictions
on the coordination of their advertising, voter outreach and
other campaign activities with those of national party and independent
groups. The law is intended to curb the flow of unlimited soft
money contributions to political parties from unions, corporations
and rich individuals, and to increase accountability by candidates,
who must raise and spend hard money under much tighter donor
limits. At the same time, both parties are freer to campaign
expressly against opposing candidates, no longer limited to generic
"issue advocacy" messages. That change is likely to
harden the tone of campaigns and intensify the focus on voter
mobilization efforts involving mail, telephone messages and grass-roots
volunteers, party strategists said.
MOST ENJOYABLY
TIME-WASTING CAMPAIGN WEBSITE YET
WE ALMOST
didn't get today's issue out we were having so much pointless
fun with Fund Race, a website that allows you to find out all
sorts of fascinating data, including to whom your neighbors are
contributing. We even found a neighbor we had lost track of 30
years ago, and a Dean supporter at that.
Also included
is a breakdown of which candidates spent the most on airfare
and which used the cheapest airlines. For example, Bush, Sharpton
and Dean spent between $539 and $723 a flight while Kucinich,
Clark, and Lieberman, thanks to favoring Southwest, spent only
in the $300s.
The neighborhood
database is a little tricky to use. Best to start with your zip
code. Then scroll down until you come to someone who lives near
you. Then clip and paste that address into the form and submit
again. This time you should have contributions sorted by distances
from the GPS position of your neighbor. The database is a bit
fussy - such as preferring 'Lane' to 'Ln'
You can
also bring up a depressing national map showing where the money
for the two archaic parties is coming from . . . and it looks
pretty red across the land.
HISTORY'S HINTS
FOR THIRD PARTIES
SAM SMITH,
GREEN HORIZON QUARTERLY - America's third parties have been immensely
important to the country as catalysts of political and social
progress. Their efforts lent weight to the anti-slavery movement,
to the institution of an income tax, and to women's rights. While
most of the power in 20th century politics was held by centrist
or conservative white Protestants and Irish Catholics, the major
reforms of that period stemmed from three third party movements:
the Populists, the Progressives and the Socialists.
One reason
journalists and historians tend to discount the impact of third
parties is because of their obsession with apexes of power and
those who inhabit them. In reality, however, change often comes
not from the top or the center but from the edges. Ecologists
and biologists appreciate the importance of edges as sources
of life and change, whether they be the boundary of a forest,
the shore of a bay or the earth's patina so essential to our
being that we call the atmosphere. The political edge, at least
metaphorically, has many of the same critical attributes. . .
Third
parties have come in all sorts of shapes and colors. Some have
aimed at a single issue such as slavery or drinking. Some have
been driven by the popularity of an individual such as Teddy
Roosevelt or Ross Perot. The ones with the deepest effect on
the country's history have tended to be both parties and movements
spreading like a virus throughout American culture, such as the
Populists, Progressives and Socialists. To be any of these represented
a commitment far beyond today's membership in one of the major
parties. Finally, there have been statewide parties such as the
Farmer Labor Party, New York's Liberal and Conservatives, and
the DC Statehood Party that were far more successful within their
constituency than many national third parties.
There
is, it appears, no one right way to run a third party in the
U.S. It always has to be a form of guerilla politics because
the rules are so thoroughly stacked against those not Democrats
or Republicans. Thus the judging the right tactics at the right
time, as opposed to planning moves strictly on the basis of their
presumed virtue, would seem to be the wisest course. To slow
down traffic I might be morally justified in stepping into the
Interstate, spreading my arms, and shouting, "stop,"
but it is probably not the most useful thing I could do for the
cause. Besides, like some third party presidential candidates,
I might not have another opportunity. My initial virtue might
turn out to have been terminal. . .
TO SUBSCRIBE
IF BUSH WINS, THE TERRORISTS WIN
BUT DON'T TRUST US; ASK A TERRORIST
OPHEERA
MCDOOM, REUTERS - [A] videotape of a man describing himself as
al Qaeda's European military spokesman also claimed responsibility
for the Madrid bombing, saying it was in retaliation for outgoing
Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's domestically-unpopular
support for the U.S.-led Iraq war. . .
The statement
said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign,
and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic
candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader
"more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by
force rather than with wisdom."
In comments
addressed to Bush, the group said: "Kerry will kill our
nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the
cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and
Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire you
(Bush) to be elected."
BLACK PROGRESSIVE WINS ILLINOIS SENATE PRIMARY
DAVID
MENDELL, CHICAGO TRIBUNE - Barack Obama, an African-American
state senator and former civil-rights lawyer from Hyde Park,
won a landslide victory over six competitors Tuesday to assume
the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate, setting the stage
for a crucial contest in November that could tip the balance
of power in Congress. Obama, 42, whose initial campaign strategy
was to build a coalition of blacks and liberal whites, instead
surprised even his strategists by amassing broad support from
throughout the party.
He won
over not only urban black voters, but also many suburban whites.
With 89 percent of precincts reporting around the state, Obama
led his next closest rival, Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes, by
54 percent of the vote to 23 percent, as expected strong support
for Hynes from Chicago's Democratic machine failed to materialize.
If elected
in the fall, Obama would return a seat to the Democrats that
is held by Republican Peter Fitzgerald, who is retiring. With
the Republicans now holding control of the Senate by a slim edge,
an Obama victory could prove pivotal in transferring control
of the chamber to Democrats. It would also make him the only
black senator, and perhaps one of its most liberal.
In his
campaign, Obama said he would "act like a Democrat"
if he were sent to Washington, an implication that current Senate
Democrats have ceded ideological arguments to Republicans for
political expediency. Obama, for example, was a vocal critic
of the Iraq invasion when most Democrats were still mulling their
positions or supported the war. Obama's impassioned campaign
oratory revolved around an appeal for equality for all people:
that Americans of all races, ethnicities, faiths and incomes
are bound by a common human decency.
But in
his media advertising, the erudite Obama relied on his resume
to distinguish himself from rivals. Obama, whose mother was a
white Kansan and whose father was Kenyan, was raised primarily
in Hawaii and Indonesia. He graduated from Columbia University
and was the first black to be president of the Harvard Law Review.
DAN JOHNSON-WEINBERGER - It felt like
history tonight. Tonight it felt like we were a part of launching
a national statesman. His speech (which, like all of them, are
done without notes or a Teleprompter) felt like a national convention
speech. . .
With an
entourage and a spotlight and a sense of mission, it felt like
State Senator Barack Obama became someone different tonight.
And he called it out. I think he felt it too. He said "You
have put me in a mood! You make me feel like I can be a better
man. You make me feel like we can eradicate poverty. That we
can give every child the education he or she deserves. Yes, we
can!". . .
He reminded
us why we are here and the only measure of our success: if we
can make the lives of regular people measurably better, we have
succeeded. If not, we have failed. Because "audacious hope"
in the face of real struggle and real despair and real uncertainty
-- that is what we can deliver. Not the "willful ignorance"
of President Bush and the Republican congressional leadership
that solve poverty and racism by wishing them away. But hope
for a better day, by shifting our priorities, away from "protecting
the privileged" and towards decency.
HOW THE LEFT LETS THE RIGHT LABEL IT ELITIST
TOM FRANK,
TOM PAINE - The massive distortions and contradictions between
~~ two right-wing populisms should be plain to anyone with eyes.
~~ One populism rails against liberals for eating sushi and getting
pierced; the other celebrates those who eat sushi and get pierced
as edgy entrepreneurs or as consumers just trying to be themselves.
One despises Hollywood for pushing bad values; the other celebrates
Hollywood for its creativity and declares that Hollywood merely
gives the people what they want. And yet the same organizations
often the same individuals are advocates of both.
Why aren't
these contradictions crippling for the Right? Partly because
liberals refuse to take backlash populism seriously. They simply
don't bother to answer the stereotype of themselves as a tasteful
elite, seeing it as a treacherous and obvious deceit mounted
by the puppet masters of the Right. A smaller coterie of liberals
don't bother with it because they believe that conservative populism
is merely camouflage for racism, which they believe to be epidemic
in the United States.
~~ I encountered
a spectacular version of this pathology at a leftist gathering
in Chicago. After listening to a devastatingly accurate critique
of the media business, I stood up and pointed out that dozens
of regular, church-going people across the Midwest shared the
premises of the critique without knowing itthey simply mistook
"liberalism" for the economic and corporate forces
that actually do control things. I encouraged the speaker to
make an effort to connect with those regular people and to try
to turn their class resentment right-side up. I was corrected
almost immediately by another audience member, who angrily said
that she wanted no part of any effort to make an outreach to
the Ku Klux Klan.
There
is a grain of truth in the backlash stereotype of liberalism.
Certain kinds of leftists really do vacation in Europe and drive
Volvos and drink lattes. (Hell, almost everyone drinks lattes
now.) And there is a small but very vocal part of the Left that
has nothing but contempt for the working class. Should you ever
attend a meeting of a local animal-rights organization, or wander
through the campus of an elite university, you will notice that
certain kinds of Left politics are indeed activities reserved
for members of the educated upper-middle-class, for people who
regard politics more as a personal therapeutic exercise than
an effort to build a movement. For them, the Left is a form of
mildly soothing spirituality, a way of getting in touch with
the deep authenticity of the downtrodden and of showing you care.
Buttons and stickers desperately announce the liberals goodness
to the world, as do his or her choice in consumer products. Leftist
magazines treat protesting as a glamour activity, running photos
of last months demo the way society magazines print pictures
from the charity ball. There is even a brand of cologne called
Activist.
Then there
is that species of leftist who believes that being on the Left
is an inherited honor, a nobility of the blood. There is little
point in trying to convert others to the cause, they will tell
you, especially in benighted places like the deep mid west: you're
either born to it or you aren't. This species of leftist will
boast about the historical deeds of red-diaper babies or the
excellent radical pedigree of so-and-so, son of such-and-such,
utterly deaf to the repugnant similarities between what they
are celebrating and simple aristocracy.
Leftists
of these tendencies aren't really interested in the catastrophic
decline of the American left as a social force, in the drying
up and blowing away of leftist social movements. If anything,
this decline makes sense to them: the Left is people in sympathy
with the downtrodden, not the downtrodden themselves. It is a
charity operation.
~~ Until
the American Left decides to take a long, unprejudiced look at
deepest America, at the kind of people who think voting for George
Bush constitutes a blow against the elite, they are fated to
continue their slide to oblivion.
NADER SUPPORTERS HARASSED BY DEMOCRATS
JANICE
D'ARCY, HARTFORD COURANT, ST PETERSBURG, FL - Those who publicly
have stood by their Nader vote here have had to develop a Teflon
skin as well as an appreciation for the all-caps e-mail. After
Zundmanis sent out 700 e-mails to former Nader supporters this
week reminding of the meet up, a reply popped up in her inbox.
It read, "ROT IN HELL." Then there are the family feuds,
bumper sticker defacing and worse.
Palmer
opens her eyes wide when she almost gleefully recounted the series
of humiliations since 2000. Worse than the verbal abuse and being
spit on, she said, was the Christmas drive when she casually
mentioned her Nader support to her Democratic mother. "I
could hear the vertebrae in her neck snap her head toward me,"
Palmer said. Her mother demanded Palmer pull the car off the
road and let her out.
Rob Lorei,
news director at the public radio station WMNF in St. Petersburg,
told his story with a more bemused tone. "We got the reputation
that somehow we were backing Nader," he said of the station,
which serves the six counties where Nader drew one-third of his
Florida support in 2000. An odd result, given there are many
more tanning salons here than alternative coffee shops. But there
is at least one distinction: In a landscape of Hooters and amusement
parks, WMNF airs Noam Chomsky lectures.
Many angry
Democrats concluded after the election that Lorei's progressive
radio station was a Nader mouthpiece and it should share the
blame. Though the station broadcast a Nader interview and hosted
open call-in shows that Nader supporters flooded to argue for
their candidate, Lorei said there was no explicit or implicit
endorsement. He points out the station offered air time to all
the candidates but only Nader and other third-party candidates
took the offer. Lorei's protests were dismissed by the callers
and e-mailers that besieged the station with hostility in the
weeks and months after the 2000 results.
KERRY AND BUSH TRY TO COVER FAULTS WITH
FAUX MACHISMO
JAMES
RAINEY, LA TIMES - If it's not Kerry tossing a football across
an airport tarmac, it's President Bush stomping around his Texas
ranch in denim and cowboy boots. Bush waves the starter's flag
at NASCAR's Daytona 500. Kerry blasts away at pheasant with a
double-barreled shotgun. . .
Many political
scientists, historians and gender experts say that a good portion
of the presidential image-making in 2004 will center on masculinity.
Driving the paternal imperative, they say, is the anxiety many
Americans feel because of the war in Iraq and the threat of terrorist
attacks at home. . .
The televised
images of machismo may be as overt as Bush powering along the
Maine coast in his father's cigarette boat or Kerry exchanging
slap shots and forechecks on the hockey rink. But the manly theme
also will be cast in more subtle and euphemistic terms, as pundits
talk about the candidates' "authenticity," "decisiveness"
and "toughness.". . .
American
politicians have not been above feminizing their opponents dating
back to the era of powdered wigs, playing on the stereotypical
notion that only the "manly" can lead. Some critics
of the day called Thomas Jefferson "womanish." In 1840,
President Martin Van Buren - accused of wearing a corset and
taking too many baths - lost to William Henry Harrison. The challenger
purportedly took care not to be seen in the tub.
Adlai
E. Stevenson found himself belittled as "Adelaide"
in two unsuccessful 1950s presidential confrontations with Dwight
D. Eisenhower, the retired war hero. And in 1984, onetime movie
cowboy Ronald Reagan made swift work of Walter F. Mondale, who
was labeled a "quiche eater" by Republican true believers.
. .
Other
gender judgments creep into the campaign in more subtle forms,
said Michael Messner, a USC sociologist. Messner said he has
heard television commentators repeatedly describe Kerry as too
verbose and intellectual to connect with average voters, in contrast
to the plainspoken Bush.
"It's
a particularly American definition of masculinity that, somehow,
if you are intellectual and have a lot of book learning and talk
in ways that make that clear, then you are feminized," said
Messner, who researches gender stereotypes. "You are seen
as someone who could waffle when it comes time to make a big
decision. All of that is code for not being masculine enough."
Far less
oblique were the Internet rumors that Kerry used Botox to remove
facial wrinkles (he denied it) and the Republican Party press
releases that routinely jab Kerry as the "International
Man of Mystery," after the foppish title character of the
Austin Powers movies.
But political
handlers say there is a danger in striking the manly man pose
too blatantly, and it can be summed up in one word: women. They
will cast more votes than men in November. And although some
female voters may crave a paternal figure they feel can protect
the country, polls indicate more women remain preoccupied with
so-called "soft" issues such as jobs, education and
healthcare. In recent surveys, women tend to be more critical
of Bush.
NOT ALL MEN ACT AS SILLY AS KERRY AND BUSH
IN FACT THERE ARE 26 OTHER WAYS TO DO IT
ELIZABETH
HOPKIRK, EVENING STANDARD, UK - Gender expert Dr Stephen Whitehead
has published a handy A to Z of male types - 27 distinct and
recognizable types of men - to help women make their way through
the labyrinth of the male mind.
Dr Whitehead,
a senior lecturer at Keele University, and member of the Cabinet
Office Forum on Gender Research, spent 15 years studying and
writing about masculinity, traveling the world researching his
book The Many Faces Of Men. . .
The good
news, for all those women who despair of ever reconstructing
their boyfriends, is that Dr Whitehead concludes men can and
do change. "Over the course of a lifetime, it is possible
for men to change, even if they don't mean to," he said.
"No man ever reaches a final state of masculinity. He is
always working at it, trying to be a man in whatever setting
he finds himself."
But he
suggests that men often hold the misguided belief that women
want a man with traditional views and a healthy bank balance.
"Today many women don't need a man for financial security.
They want something much more important - love and emotional
support. However, many men find it very difficult to understand
this," said Dr Whitehead. . .
Dr Whitehead
concludes: "To understand men, you have to understand it
is nurture, not nature, that rules their lives. Masculinity is
not something men are born with."
27 VARIETIES OF MALES
Adonis:
obsessed with his body, usually sports a fake tan
Alpha
Male: extremely competitive, lives for the next deal
Backpacker:
sexy but dangerous; a relationship daytripper
Chameleman:
adaptable, smooth, urbane and attractive - but never the man
you think he is
Club Man:
blazers, old school ties, football shirts. Into male bonding
Cool Poser:
fashion-conscious
Corporate
Man: relishes security, a follower not a leader, but faithful
Gadgetman:
techno-freak, poor eyesight. Insular and socially inept
Jeffrey:
social animal in a world of half-truths. Compelling character.
Jester:
loves laughter and an audience but prone to melancholy
Libman:
pro-feminist male, politically correct, very well read
Manchild:
ageing stud with rich tastes and little dignity
Mr Angry:
moody, aggressive but doesn't see his actions as damaging
Murdoch:
Napoleonic self-belief, usually justified. Ruthless, untiring
Neanderthal:
anti-feminist with outdated views on relationships
Preacher:
fundamentalist views. Single-minded, fervent and intense
Risker:
optimistic and overdrawn at the bank, likes to push his luck
Romancer:
calculating seducer, dislikes women but pursues them
Rottweiler:
lager drinker who loves his mates and his country
Sigmund:
lots of inner angst, low self-esteem but reliable and caring
Teddy
Bear: sensitive, vulnerable and a good listener - but not sexy
Trainspotter:
middle-aged, plenty of brown cardigans, and obsessed with data
collection
Uniform
Man: emotionally insecure. Rigid, brittle temperament
Wallflower:
unambitious couch potato with predictable behavior
Wayne:
heroic, unchanging, loyal and steadfast. Think John Wayne
Zebedee:
floundering and confused. Needs nurturing. Unreflective but busy
NADER AND THE
NEWMANITES
DOUG IRELAND, LA WEEKLY - Nader has now
jumped into bed with the ultra-sectarian cult racket formerly
known as the New Alliance Party and its guru, Fred Newman: Ralph
was the star attraction at a January conference of "independents"
that was just a front for the Newmanite crazies. . . The New
York Times reported Nader says he'll "link up" with
existing "independent" parties in New York and elsewhere
- which can only mean the Newmanites (who control New York's
Independence Party and similar remnants of the Reform Party in
many states).
This cult
is the antithesis of every value Nader holds dear. A Maoist grouplet
in the '70s, the Newmanites morphed into supporters of Pat Buchanan
in the Hitler-coddling commentator's 2000 takeover of the Reform
Party. Newman recruits and controls his followers through a brainwashing
scheme baptized "social therapy," designed to create
blind allegiance to Newman. He has frequently dipped his rhetoric
in the poisonous blood-libel of anti-Semitism, denouncing Jews
as "storm troopers of decadent capitalism." By French-kissing
the cultists to get on the ballot, Nader has allowed himself
to be used as bait to lure the unsuspecting into the Newmanite
orbit, where they risk being sucked into the cult. That's a betrayal
of the many young people to whom Nader is still a hero. And an
acid commentary on Nader's judgment.
DOUG IRELAND, LTR TO VILLAGE VOICE - Nader quite
consciously allied himself with the odious Newmanites knowing
full well who and what they were because, having brushed off
the Greens, Nader was desperate for their help in getting himself
on the ballot. The Boston Phoenix article I cited quotes Nader's
campaign manager, Teresa Amato, as saying quite baldly that she
and Ralph discussed the Newmanites' odiferous past before he
decided to join with them. And as Ralph runs around the country
putting his campaign together, he is actively soliciting the
help of Newman's network of brainwashed illuminati. Latest example:
The March 5 Austin Chronicle reported that, on his recent visit
to Texas, Nader met with and recruited (for a role in his campaign)
Linda Curtis, longtime head of the Texas Newmanite front group.
FEBRUARY 2004
BUSH SLOGAN OF
THE DAY
Don’t
switch horses mid-apocalypse - Wonkette
POLITICS STOPS AT THE DOLLAR'S EDGE
CTR FOR
RESPONSIVE POLITICS - President Bush begins the head-to-head
battle for the White House against Sen. John Kerry with a $100
million advantage in fund raising. For that, Bush can thank his
incumbent status, his network of fund-raising Pioneers and Rangers
-- and several of the top contributors to the Kerry campaign.
Nearly
half of Kerry's biggest financial supporters contributed more
money to Bush than to Kerry himself through Jan. 30 of this year,
according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics'
study of campaign finance reports filed this month with the Federal
Election Commission. . .
Bush raised
a total of $145 million for his re-election effort in the first
13 months of the election cycle, dwarfing Kerry's $33 million.
Kerry's third-largest contributor, Citigroup, gave more than
$79,000 in individual and PAC contributions to the presumptive
Democratic nominee through January. Louis Susman, Citigroup's
vice-chairman, is one of Kerry's biggest fund-raisers. But the
financial services giant gave more than $187,000 to the Bush
campaign during the same period, good enough for 12th on the
president's list of top contributors.
Goldman
Sachs contributed nearly $65,000 to Kerry through January, earning
it the No. 6 ranking among Kerry's top givers. But the company's
employees and PAC sent Bush nearly $283,000 -- more than four
times the amount it gave to Kerry. Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson
and managing director George Walker are Bush Pioneers who have
raised at least $100,000 for the campaign.
Even Mass
Mutual, which ranks among the biggest donors to Kerry over the
past 15 years, has contributed more money to Bush than to its
home-state senator in the current election cycle. The insurance
conglomerate gave $69,000 to Bush through January, compared with
slightly more than $50,000 to Kerry. Mass CEO Robert O'Connell
was a Bush Pioneer in 2000.
In all,
nine of Kerry's top 20 donors favor Bush with their contributions.
Kerry's top contributor, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom, has given nearly $106,000 to his campaign. But the nation's
largest law firm has contributed an additional $65,000 to the
Bush campaign.
Kerry's
No. 2 contributor, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, has been
far more lopsided in its giving. The trial law firm has contributed
nearly $92,000 to Kerry and just $4,000 to Bush. The firm's chairman,
Mike Ciresi, is one of Kerry's top fund-raisers.
Two of
Kerry's top donors -- Chicago-based Clifford Law Offices and
Hill, Holliday, the Boston-based ad firm -- have given no money
to Bush. Bob Clifford of the Clifford Law Offices and Hill, Holliday
Chairman Jack Connors are top fund-raisers for Kerry.
Half of
Kerry's top contributors through January are law firms. Two-thirds
of Bush's top contributors represent the financial sector. Bush's
No. 1 financial supporter, with nearly $458,000 in individual
and PAC contributions, is Merrill Lynch, the financial services
firm that has topped the list of the president's contributors
since he began fund raising last spring. Second among Bush's
top donors is PricewaterhouseCoopers with nearly $430,000 in
contributions.
JIM RIDGEWAY ON RALPH NADER
JAMES RIDGEWAY, VILLAGE
VOICE - Somewhat surprising, on the surface, are the lefties
huffing and puffing about what a horrible thing Nader has done
to them. But they ought to remember that the left, especially
the New Left, never cared for Nader. He actually comes out of
the conservative, small-town, family-values world that politicians
love to talk about. Nader has this in common with Edwards, another
lawyer with whom he shows some affinity, and Kucinich. Nader
always has been attacked on the left as just another liberal
because he put his faith in the court system as a civilized way
to seek fairness and equality. Not only did Nader not run around
making bombs and yelling at the cops during the 1960s, he -unlike
a good number of the former lefty leaders- has not changed his
course one iota. The Republican political strategists apparently
believe that the election could be decided by the base supporters
of both parties. If the Democratic candidates want to lose more
of their base than they already have, then they should go ahead
and attack Nader for being a spoiler.
DEPARTMENT OF SILLY TALK
 [Add this to another published
suggestion - that Nader immolate himself - and you get some idea
of the level of psychotic denial abroad in the liberal camp]
HENDRIK HERTZBERG - More
than any other single person, Ralph Nader is responsible for
the fact that George W. Bush is President of the United States.
Nader is more responsible than Al Gore, who, in 2000, put himself
in the clear by persuading more of his fellow-citizens to vote
for him than for anybody else, which normally—in thirty-nine
of the forty-two previous Presidential elections, or ninety-three
per cent—had been considered adequate to fulfill the candidate's
electoral duty. Nader is more responsible than George W. Bush,
whose alibi complements Gore's: by attracting fewer votes, both
nationally and (according to the preponderance of scientific
opinion) in Florida, Bush absolved himself of guilt for his own
elevation. A post-election rogues' gallery—Jeb Bush, James
Baker, Katherine Harris, William Rehnquist and four of his Supreme
Court colleagues—helped, each rogue in his or her own way,
but no single one of them could have pulled off the heist without
the help of the others. Nader was sufficient unto himself.
JAMES RIDGEWAY, VILLAGE VOICE - If the DLC wonks, unimaginative
leftists, and others devoted to the "Beat Bush" agenda
can manage to stop gnashing their teeth over Ralph Nader's "betrayal"
long enough to really think about it, they might just find that
the consumer advocate's candidacy can help, rather than hurt,
their cause. As a practical matter, until Nader gets on the ballot,
his independent bid for the presidency doesn't have much potential
to affect those all-important electoral votes. . . From both
within and outside a presidential run, Nader has the ability
to push issues into the limelight when they are ignored by other
politicians. For example: Universal health care has been spearheaded
by the Nader groups since Hillary Clinton made her famous flop.
Likewise corporate crime—it was the Nader groups in Washington
and their allies in California who were most responsible for
exposing Enron. It wasn't anybody in the Democratic Party, that's
for sure....
Somewhat more surprising,
on the surface, are the lefties huffing and puffing about what
a horrible thing Nader has done to them. But they ought to remember
that the left, especially the New Left, never cared for Nader.
He actually comes out of the conservative, small-town, family-values
world that politicians love to talk about. Nader has this in
common with Edwards, another lawyer with whom he shows some affinity,
and Kucinich.... The Republican political strategists apparently
believe that the election could be decided by the base supporters
of both parties. If the Democratic candidates want to lose more
of their base than they already have, then they should go ahead
and attack Nader for being a spoiler.
JACOB SULLUM, HIT & RUN - President Bush says John Kerry
is "for tax cuts and against them; for NAFTA and against
NAFTA; for the PATRIOT Act and against the PATRIOT Act; in favor
of liberating Iraq and opposed to it." Fair enough. A similar
rap against Bush might say that he is "for fiscal restraint
and against it; for free trade and against free trade; for federalism
and against federalism; in favor of nation building and opposed
to it." We won't hear this litany from the Democrats, of
course, and most conservatives who care about such things will
keep quiet too. Let the great debate begin.
DOUG IRELAND, LA WEEKLY - I wrote columns in support
of Nader's 2000 candidacy, and I was one of just two dozen hardy
writers and intellectuals who signed a New York Times ad supporting
him in 1996, as my personal protest against the Clintons' destruction
of the New Deal legacy and the endless Clintonian corruptions.
But the political context this year is dramatically different.
Four years ago, there
was a genuine progressive base for a protest candidacy, and the
similarities in the positions taken by Gush and Bore were quite
striking. Today, the rank-and-filers of disparate American progressivism
are unanimous in their perception of Bush as the most dangerous
president of our lifetime, one whose radical reactionary governance
has given the lie to his infinitely more moderate 2000 promises
of "compassion." Nader is tone-deaf to the fact that
his audience has already left the theater. And John Kerry, for
all his flaws, is far from an enforcer for reaction. Nader himself
has already conceded this point: he said "yes" when
asked by Tim Russert if there would be a significant difference
between another Bush administration and a Democratic one. He
made it explicit the next day on MSNBC, admitting to Chris Matthews
that " Kerry and Edwards would certainly be much better
than Bush."...
THE ONLY NON-HYSTERICAL STORY ABOUT NADER
WE'VE READ
JOSHUA WEINSTEIN, PORTLAND
PRESS HERALD, ME - Ralph Nader's decision to run for president
could reverberate in the Maine Green Party, even though the party's
2000 candidate said Sunday he is running as an independent. In
fact, there is a chance he could show up as the Green nominee
on Maine's ballot in November.
Greens in this state had
different reactions to Nader's candidacy Sunday, with some saying
they wish he were running as a Green and others saying not only
should Nader not run as a Green, but the party itself should
not offer a presidential candidate at all...
State Rep. John Eder,
who represents Portland and is the only Green legislator in the
nation, said he will not vote for a Green for president this
year, because "people are pretty unified in their feeling
that we have to get rid of (President) Bush. And who can argue
with that? Really?"
Eder said he will vote
for the Democratic nominee this time. He said the party would
be better off focusing on local, rather than national elections
this year. "This is where we're making the most inroads,"
he said.
Ben Meiklejohn, the party's
Maine co-chairman and a member of the Portland School Committee,
said Nader's announcement "is actually causing a bit of
debate."...
Julian Holmes, a retired
physicist who lives in Wayne, switched from Green to Democrat
in order to vote for Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, but is excited
about Nader's candidacy. He plans to switch back to Green and
vote for Nader.
Pat Lamarche, who ran
as a Green Independent for governor in 1996 and received 7 percent
of the vote, said she does not think the party should field a
presidential candidate this year ­ not Nader, not anyone.
"It's of absolute, utmost importance that George Bush is
not re-elected," she said. She does not want Democrats to
be able to say that a Green was a spoiler this time around, drawing
votes away from anyone who opposes the president. Nancy Allen,
a national spokeswoman for the party and a Maine resident, said
she "was personally extremely disappointed that he decided
not to seek the Green Party nomination."
HOW TO DEFEAT A MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
Gays and lesbians, according
to NPR, add about $450 billion a year to the national economy,
a good deal more than blacks had when they started using the
economic boycott to help straighten things out. The Bush bigots
might soon find even their campaign contributors telling them
to drop the idea of a marriage amendment should such a boycott
be launched.
THE POWER ELITE'S DREAM BALLOT
MICHAEL COLBY, COUNTERPUNCH
- If you hear gleeful giggling from behind the curtain shielding
the political elites from the mere masses, you're not alone.
There's a party going on and we haven't been invited. It's a
presidential election party, where the puppeteers of our democracy
are celebrating an upcoming election that they can't lose. It's
a contest between two of their own. George Bush versus John Kerry
is a dream ballot for those whom C. Wright Mills called the "power
elite," that tight little club of economic, political and
military leaders who truly rule the nation. The power elite doesn't
care about political party affiliations. That's child's play.
In their view, fools line up to vote while the real players decide
who's on the ballot. And for some reason we still refer to the
whole charade as democracy. The joke's on you.
Bush v. Kerry is simply
nirvana for the bluebloods. As they say in the business world:
it's a win-win situation... Before the delusional Democrats out
there start peppering me with hostile emails about the absolute
necessity of getting "anybody but Bush" in the White
House, just stop yourselves long enough to consider these facts:
Kerry supported Bush's war on Iraq; Kerry supported Bush's tax
cuts; Kerry hasn't proposed one major social or environmental
initiative in over 20 years in the U.S. Senate; Kerry hasn't
put forward any meaningful policy initiatives in his campaign
for the presidency regarding jobs or health care. Kerry's campaign
seems to be all about proving that he qualifies as "anybody
but Bush." And all that takes is a pulse...
RECOVERED HISTORY
TERRY MCAULIFFE
BUSINESS WEEK, DECEMBER
22, 1997: The U. S. Attorney's Office in Washington is trying
to learn more about how McAuliffe earned a lucrative fee in helping
Prudential Insurance Co. of America lease a downtown Washington
building to the government. Prudential just settled a civil case
involving that lease for over $300,000 without admitting any
liability .... The Labor Dept. is probing McAuliffe real estate
deals that were bankrolled by a union pension fund .... And Labor
Dept. probers are looking at possible conflicts of interest in
at least two of McAuliffe's Florida real estate deals that were
bankrolled by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
pension money. Investigators want to know why McAuliffe got what
look like very sweet deals.
WASHINGTON POST, JANUARY
12, 1998: McAuliffe, the premier Democratic fund-raiser of the
decade, has spent much of the past 12 months dealing with hostile
Republican investigators, federal prosecutors and adverse news
stories. He has emerged as a key, but enigmatic, figure in two
overlapping federal investigations: the broadening inquiry into
illegal fund-raising on the part of the Teamsters union conducted
by the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York, and the Justice Department's
investigation into alleged 1995-96 Democratic presidential fund-raising
abuses. In addition, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the District
of Columbia investigated McAuliffe's role in the award of a $160.5
million federal lease, but decided against bringing criminal
charges. . . McAuliffe has given depositions to federal prosecutors
and congressional investigators, but he has not been called to
testify publicly, and he has not been charged with any crime
.... McAuliffe's success has come from his knack for being in
the middle of a deal while maintaining a critical distance. For
almost 17 years - as broker, lawyer, promoter and facilitator
- McAuliffe had estimated with uncanny precision the sustainable
distance between contributor and candidate, as well as between
seller and buyer.
BECAUSE OF THE CONTINUED
SLANDER OF RALPH NADER by Democrats in deep denial, we
went back and looked at the actual poll results in the last months
of the 2000 campaign. The chart above shows the change in the
average poll percentage from month to month. You will note that
except between July and August during a period of minimal change,
there was no correlation between Bush's percentage change and
that of Nader.
IS
THAT ALL
THERE IS?
IF things keep going the
way they are, the Democrats will nominate for president a man
who was wrong on the Iraq war, wrong on the Bush tax cuts, wrong
on the Bush education disaster, and wrong on the Patriot Act.
And despite intimations of immutability by the media, all this
has happened with many, if not most, Democrats being unaware
of the aforementioned.
In short, the Democrats
are preparing to nominate someone who agreed with George Bush
on many of the major issues of the day and has only lately discovered
that this may not have been such a good idea and so is making
gentle adjustments in both his opinions and autobiography. Not
that the latter couldn't use some help, since the most interesting
elements of it, according to the candidate's own repeated testimony,
occurred more than three decades ago.
It may be the best that
the Democrats can do, but they should realize that what they
have is not so much an opponent of George Bush as a replacement
should the president do himself in.
This, fortunately, looks
increasingly likely. Bush is basically a bully and a con man,
occupations that require a regular supply of victims and marks.
The number of people either scared of or fooled by Bush has peaked
and the only question is how many will have figured it all out
by election day.
This, however, should
not be confused with a political campaign, which requires some
self-knowledge beyond that of a victim, some motive other than
revenge, some policies other than repeal, and some dreams beyond
a Washington free of Bush barbarians.
Such goals remain beyond
the Democratic Party which has been incompetently and abusively
run for the past decade, reflected in the huge loss of electoral
positions at national and state levels. The present chair of
the Democratic National Committee believes that the sole purpose
of his organization is to put a Democrat in the White House,
which leaves in the cold thousands of Democratic officeholders
and seekers around the land. The DNC has become the permanent
capital office of the next Democratic presidential candidate,
even to having excess square footage to house such a campaign,
but there is no movement, no organization, no ideas, and no true
effort to extend the Democratic base into an increasingly insecure
homeland. Much as the labor unions have been co-opted and betrayed
by a smug, sleazy, and soporific Washington leadership, so the
Democratic Party has been turned into the plaything of an elite,
narcissistic coterie fixated on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
A symbol of this distortion
has been the front-loading of primaries, designed to concentrate
control of the party in its pinnacles of purse and power. Unfortunately,
it didn't quite work out like that because a obstreperous governor
from Vermont, and an establishment Yalie who should have known
better, used the new system to his own advantage until he was
bashed and ridiculed back into his place.
Democratic primaries used
to involve a lengthy courtship during which the voters could
decide whether they really did like the choices being foisted
upon them. In the end, there was always time and California on
your side. Bad stories had occasion to surface, bum candidates
could peak and fade, and dark horses could, if necessary, be
mounted at the last moment. Now no one even mentions California,
despite it having more population than the aggregate of a score
of smaller states.
Another factor has entered
the picture. While American politics has always centered on the
5-10% of voters who were indecisive or indifferent, the power
of this strange bloc - a kind of aristocracy of the apathetic
- has gained new importance as reality in politics is increasingly
replaced by media-generated myth.
This election has much
more in common with 'American Idol' than it does with its electoral
predecessors, a point dramatically illustrated by the number
of voters who think it's their responsibility to find an electable
candidate rather than one with whom they actually agree. This
is a deadly trap, ultimately fatal to what remains of democracy,
because it reduces the citizen to the status of a sitcom producer
rather than an active political participant. If we are all trying
to guess what each other thinks, we will all drown in our suppositions
about each other.
How important this is
can be shown by the exist polls from New Hampshire and Iowa.
In each case, eliminating all voters who made up their minds
in the last week - the least involved, the least thoughtful,
and the least committed to anything - produces strikingly different
results.
For example, counting
just the people who knew what they thought at least a week before
the caucuses causes Kerry to lose four points, Dean to gain eight
points, and Edwards to lose 12 points. Kerry would have won,
but only by eight instead of 20 points, and Dean would have beaten
Edwards.
Similarly in New Hampshire,
Kerry would have gotten the same total, but Dean would have gotten
7 more points to close the gap between the two to only six.
Obviously, in such instances,
the subsequent media commentary would have been quite different
than it was.
The point is not to bar
the apathetic from the polls, but to illustrate the degree to
which our politics has become a measure of temporary blood pressure
and not of deep belief. And, with few exceptions, the systolic
variations are directly instigated by a media far more interested
in its own goals than in the welfare of the nation. We vote like
patients gulping down four Dunkin' Donuts before having their
blood sugar measured.
This hyped-up, hurried-up
primary system seems to have produced a candidate that few Democrats
know, pursuing a politics that even he can't define, and with
rapidly diminishing opportunity to do anything about it. And
it's not even February yet. - SAM SMITH
GOP HILL STAFF SPIED ON DEMOCRATS
CHARLIE SAVAGE BOSTON
GLOBE - Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee
infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring
secret strategy memos and periodically passing on copies to the
media, Senate officials told The Globe. From the spring of 2002
until at least April 2003, members of the GOP committee staff
exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access restricted
Democratic communications without a password. Trolling through
hundreds of memos, they were able to read talking points and
accounts of private meetings discussing which judicial nominees
Democrats would fight -- and with what tactics.
The office of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms
William Pickle has already launched an investigation into how
excerpts from 15 Democratic memos showed up in the pages of the
conservative-leaning newspapers and were posted to a website
last November. With the help of forensic computer experts from
General Dynamics and the US Secret Service, his office has interviewed
about 120 people to date and seized more than half a dozen computers
-- including four Judiciary servers, one server from the office
of Senate majority leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, and several
desktop hard drives.
But the scope of both
the intrusions and the likely disclosures is now known to have
been far more extensive than the November incident, staffers
and others familiar with the investigation say. . .
Democrats now claim their
private memos formed the basis for a February 2003 column by
conservative pundit Robert Novak that revealed plans pushed by
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, to filibuster
certain judicial nominees. Novak is also at the center of an
investigation into who leaked the identity of a CIA agent whose
husband contradicted a Bush administration claim about Iraqi
nuclear programs. . .
Whether the memos are
ultimately deemed to be official business will be a central issue
in any criminal case that could result. Unauthorized access of
such material could be punishable by up to a year in prison --
or, at the least, sanction under a Senate non-disclosure rule.
POLL STUDIES GAPS BETWEEN RED AND BLUE STATES
ZOGBY - A poll of red
states (those that voted for George W. Bush in 2000) and blue
states (those that supported Al Gore) reveals a nation deeply
divided by party, ideology, the presidency of George W. Bush,
and values. The survey was conducted by Zogby International commissioned
by the O'Leary Report.
When respondents were
asked whether Bush was legitimately elected president, or whether
the 2000 election was stolen, 62% of red state voters said that
Bush is the legitimate president, while 32% said the election
was stolen from the popular vote winner, Al Gore. In the blue
states, half (50%) of the respondents said that the election
was legitimate while 44% think it was stolen.
Sixty percent of voters
in the red states gave Bush positive marks, while only 46% of
voters in the blue states agreed. Half (50%) of the respondents
in the red states want Bush to be reelected, while 42% prefer
someone new. In the blue states, the results are quite the opposite:
41% want the president to be reelected, while 51% prefer a new
president.
Voter opinions on the
political, economic, and social values espoused by former president
Bill Clinton and his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton further underscore
the divisions between Red and Blue States. A solid majority of
red state voters reject the Clinton's values (56%) while 34%
agree. Blue state voters are split with 45% responding favorable
to the Clinton's values and 47% disagreeing.
Seventy percent of red
state voters side with the proposition that marriage should be
confined to a man and a woman. Only 25% support the idea of civil
unions. Conversely, blue state voters are much more divided,
with 42% supporting civil unions, while 55% support marriage
restrictions.
When respondents were
asked how they practiced their faith, just over half(51%) of
red state voters said that they attend their local church, synagogue,
or mosque either once a week or more often, while a near-majority
(46%) of those residing in the blue states said they attend religious
services only on holidays, rarely, or never.
Nearly two-thirds (64%)
of those living in the red states are married as opposed to 56%
in the blue states. Meanwhile, one in ten (10%) voters in the
red states are single; in the blue states, one in five (20%).
A majority (51%) of those
living in the red states say they own a gun, while 64% in the
blue states do not.
In the 2000 Presidential
election, Red (Bush) states included AL, AR, AZ, CO, FL, GA,
ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NV, OH, OK, SC,
SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV, WY (and Alaska, which Zogby does not
normally include in polling).
Blue (Gore states) were
CA, CT, DC, DE, IA, IL, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA,
RI, VT, WA, WI, (and Hawaii, which Zogby doesn't normally poll).
In general terms, Gore
won the Pacific Coast states, New Mexico, the Great Lakes States,
and all of the Northeast except New Hampshire. Bush won every
other state.
THE
MEDIA MYTH ABOUT DEMOCRATIC LIBERALISM
According to the
media and the rightwing Democrats to whom it listens, there was
a time when Democrats were too liberal, a disaster from which
the Democratic Leadership Council and Bill Clinton saved the
party. Now this fraudulent argument is being revived against
Howard Dean. The Hartford Courant, for example, reported that
"Dean, the argument goes, would take the party back to a
time it would rather forget, when it was too often viewed as
the voice of the left." The chart above shows what a blatent
untruth this is. As with the Senate
and governorships, the party's recent descent began when
it became GOP Lite in the Reagan era and plummeted under Clinton.
JOHN
EDWARDS
EDWARDS GAVE LOAN TO FEDERAL JUDGE
GEOFF EARLE, THE HILL
- In 1994, when Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) was still the biggest
tort lawyer in North Carolina, he lent $30,000 to a federal bankruptcy
judge who was then overseeing a case on which Edwards's wife,
Elizabeth, did much of the legal work. The judge, J. Rich Leonard,
is a longtime friend of Edwards's. Edwards, who won election
to the Senate in 1998, did no business in Leonard's courtroom.
But in 1999, Leonard approved a $1 million contingency fee for
Nicholls & Crampton, the law firm where Elizabeth Edwards
was an associate and working on the case. She had left the firm
in 1996, three years before the parties settled and the fee was
actually awarded. She has said she received no benefits from
the award. Subsequently, Edwards supported Leonard's unsuccessful
efforts to move up the federal judicial ladder.
EDWARDS SET UP CORPORATION THAT GAVE HIM
HUGE TAX BREAK
ROBERT NOVAK CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
- Sen. John Edwards got through last Thursday night's debate
in Los Angeles, as he has his entire presidential campaign, without
being asked an embarrassing question. How can he explain setting
up a dummy corporation to avoid paying an estimated $290,000
in Medicare taxes in the two years before he ran for the Senate?
It would be an embarrassing question for a self-described populist
inveighing against privileges for the rich and powerful. . .
At 9 a.m. on June 28,
1995, articles of incorporation were filed with the North Carolina
secretary of state for John R. Edwards, P.A. (professional association),
of Raleigh, N.C. The new corporation was authorized to issue
100,000 shares of common stock -- all owned by Edwards, who is
its only employee. This is a classic Subchapter ''S'' corporation
devised to shelter income, mainly for professionals such as lawyers.
It is one of the last loopholes in the Internal Revenue Code,
and it is a big one. Edwards put his own little corporation to
good use in his last two years as a personal accident lawyer
before becoming a full-time politician. He paid himself salaries
of $600,000 in 1996 and $540,000 in 1997, on which he paid Medicare
taxes. As the sole stockholder, Edwards received dividends of
$5 million for each of those years -- all of it free from Medicare
taxes. That saved the future senator around $290,000.
||| EDWARDS ON SOCIAL
SECURITY
DRUDGE REPORT - The senator from North Carolina "strongly
opposes investing Social Security in the stock market,"
according to his campaign website. In a page titled "seniors,"
Edwards takes a stand on the controversial issue, declaring how
he "strongly opposes recent efforts to privatize Social
Security, which would jeopardize benefits by risking our Social
Security funds in the stock market."
But before he decided
he was going to seek the Democratic presidential nomination,
Edwards supported investing Social Security funds in the stock
market. In a speech on October 6, 1998 in Raleigh, Senator Edwards
told a group of senior citizens that Social Security surpluses
- money not needed immediately to pay benefits - should be invested
and kept separate. A portion of the money, up to 10 percent,
could be invested in the stock market and the remainder put in
secure investments such as treasury bills, Edwards explained.
On September 27, 1998,
Edwards told a gathering at Elon College how a small part of
the Social Security fund should be invested in stocks and bonds
"to see the kind of returns it would produce." Investment
brokers and not Washington bureaucrats should decide how the
money should be invested, Edwards said.
||| EDWARDS ON NICE
JAKE TAPPER, ABC NEWS - On Monday night, Sen. John Edwards
of North Carolina attributed his second place finish in the Iowa
Democratic Caucuses to his positive message and his refusal to
engage in negative attacks against his opponents. "The people
of Iowa tonight confirmed that they believe in a positive, uplifting
vision to change America," Edwards said to cheers.
But ABC News has obtained
an official "John Edwards for President" precinct captain
packet that includes myriad personal attacks for Edwards caucus-goers
to make against his Democratic opponents, perhaps belying this
claim.
The document - marked
"CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEDGED" (sic) and "NOT
FOR DISTRIBUTION" and signed by the senator - encourages
Edwards supporters to tell undecided caucus-attendees that former
Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is a "Park Avenue elitist from
New York City" and say Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts
has "the stale record of a Washington insider" and
"has been a part of the failed Washington politics for too
long."
The Edwards document also
slams Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and retired Gen. Wesley
Clark, who opted not to participate in the Iowa caucus, for trying
to take "shortcuts to the nomination." The document
adds: "Strong, national candidates do not skip states."
Rep. Dick Gephardt of
Missouri is called "a good man" who led Congressional
Democrats to lose control of the House of Representatives. "We
can't afford another losing national campaign," the document
says.
Other information in the
packet slams Dean for balancing Vermont budgets "on the
backs of the poor and sick," cites "another Kerry exaggeration,"
and goes after Clark for praising President Bush's "neo-conservative
foreign policy team."
"Senator Edwards
was not aware of this document," Edwards' Communication
Director David Ginsberg told ABC News, adding. "Once he
found out about it, he takes full responsibility for it. He thinks
it was wrong and has instructed the staff not to do anything
like that again."
DID EDWARDS GET RICH ON JUNK SCIENCE
AT DOCTORS' EXPENSE?
MARC MARANO, CNS NEWS
- Judgments or settlements related to medical malpractice lawsuits
that focused on brain-damaged infants with cerebral palsy helped
Edwards amass a personal fortune estimated at between $12.8 and
$60 million. . . Edwards' old law firm reportedly kept between
25 and 40 percent of the jury awards/settlements during the time
he worked there. According to the Center for Public Integrity,
Edwards was able to win "more than $152 million" based
on his involvement in 63 lawsuits alone . . .
Eldon L. Boisseau of the
Kansas-based firm Turner and Boisseau, specializing in defending
doctors' insurance companies from medical malpractice lawsuits,
agreed that physician-caused cerebral palsy "occurs only
rarely." . . . Dr. John Freeman, a professor of neurology
and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Md., also
believes there is little obstetricians can do to prevent cerebral
palsy during delivery. "Most cases of cerebral palsy are
not due to asphyxia," Freeman told CNSNews.com. "A
great many of these cases are due to subtle infections of the
child before birth," Freeman said. "That is the cause
of the premature labor and the cause of the [brain] damage. There
is little or no evidence that if you did a [caesarean] section
a short time earlier you would prevent cerebral palsy,"
he added.
NIH: In the United States, about 10 to 20 percent
of children who have cerebral palsy acquire the disorder after
birth. (The figures are higher in underdeveloped countries.)
Acquired cerebral palsy results from brain damage in the first
few months or years of life and can follow brain infections,
such as bacterial meningitis or viral encephalitis, or results
from head injury -- most often from a motor vehicle accident,
a fall, or child abuse. Congenital cerebral palsy, on the other
hand, is present at birth, although it may not be detected for
months. In most cases, the cause of congenital cerebral palsy
is unknown.
RECOVERED
HISTORY
TERRY MCAULIFFE
1997
BUSINESS
WEEK - The U. S. Attorney's Office in Washington is trying to
learn more about how McAuliffe earned a lucrative fee in helping
Prudential Insurance Co. of America lease a downtown Washington
building to the government. Prudential just settled a civil case
involving that lease for over $300,000 without admitting any
liability .... The Labor Dept. is probing McAuliffe real estate
deals that were bankrolled by a union pension fund .... And Labor
Dept. probers are looking at possible conflicts of interest in
at least two of McAuliffe's Florida real estate deals that were
bankrolled by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
pension money. Investigators want to know why McAuliffe got what
look like very sweet deals.
1998
WASHINGTON
POST - McAuliffe . . . has emerged as a key, but enigmatic, figure
in two overlapping federal investigations: the broadening inquiry
into illegal fund-raising on the part of the Teamsters union
conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York, and the
Justice Department's investigation into alleged 1995-96 Democratic
presidential fund-raising abuses. In addition, the U.S. Attorney's
Office in the District of Columbia investigated McAuliffe's role
in the award of a $160.5 million federal lease, but decided against
bringing criminal charges. McAuliffe has given depositions to
federal prosecutors and congressional investigators, but he has
not been called to testify publicly, and he has not been charged
with any crime ....
McAuliffe's
success has come from his knack for being in the middle of a
deal while maintaining a critical distance. For almost 17 years
- as broker, lawyer, promoter and facilitator - McAuliffe had
estimated with uncanny precision the sustainable distance between
contributor and candidate, as well as between seller and buyer.
1999
NEW YORK
POST: Terry McAuliffe, the wheeler-dealer who slapped down $1.35
million to let the Clintons buy their New York dream house, could
be called as a witness in a Teamsters corruption trial next month.
McAuliffe, a Washington lawyer and deal-fixer who owns a title-insurance
company, is an unnamed player in the indictment of Teamsters
political director Bill Hamilton .... Hamilton has been charged
with conspiracy, embezzlement of union funds, mail fraud, wire
fraud, making false statements to an election officer and perjury
before the grand jury. Prosecutors say Hamilton illegally schemed
with McAuliffe to swap union money for Democratic cash. At the
time, McAuliffe - who hasn't been charged - was the top money
man for the Democratic Party. McAuliffe's lawyer, Richard Ben-Veniste,
acknowledged that McAuliffe could be called as a witness in the
trial, but he insisted McAuliffe has never been a target or a
subject of the investigation. McAuliffe denies he agreed to an
alleged scheme to find Democratic donors who would give money
to top Teamsters officials running for re-election.
ASSOCIATED
PRESS: The Labor Department is suing two union officials alleging
they invested pension funds in "imprudent" deals with
companies owned by a top fund-raiser for President Clinton and
Hillary Rodham Clinton. Terence McAuliffe, the fund-raiser who
recently offered to help the Clintons purchase a home in New
York, is not a defendant in the lawsuit. The Labor Department
regulates those who manage workers' pensions, not those who do
business with such funds. The lawsuit says that in one instance
McAuliffe made $2.45 million on a deal in which the fund bought
him out of a real estate partnership. He had invested $100, the
pension fund $39 million .... The department alleges the pension
fund lost money as a result of a loan and a partnership deal
that comprised more than $47 million in investments with McAuliffe's
companies. Tax records show the fund didn't receive all the principal
and interest due under the loan.
WALL STREET
JOURNAL: In his defense of the [Clinton house] loan, Mr. McAuliffe
asks: What can Bill Clinton do for me? For starters, he could
make it tough for the U.S. Attorney's office to get to the bottom
of Mr. McAuliffe's oft-denied role in the sleazy 1996 "contributions
swap" between the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
and the Teamsters union .... What Terry McAuliffe did in essence
is make a contribution to Hillary's campaign. Its whole purpose
is to enable her to establish residence in New York, thus the
money is absolutely essential to her campaign .... In the Hillary
race, no McAuliffe "loan," no residency, no campaign.
His contribution would seem to be more than $1,000.
AND THERE'S
THE LITTLE MATTER reported by John McCaslin in the Washington
Times: Chapter 5 of the Federal Elections Commission's guide
for candidates states: "An endorsement or guarantee of a
bank loan is considered a contribution by the endorser or guarantor
and is thus subject to the law's prohibitions and limits on contributions."
JUDICIAL
WATCH: By law, neither the President of the United States, nor
any other federal employee, can supplement his income with cash
gifts. So Bill Clinton, as President, can't use cash gifts to
pay off his legal bills or supplement his income. Therefore he
cannot use cash gifts to qualify for a mortgage. It is also improper
for banks or other lenders to count the Clintons' future earnings
potential when considering them for a mortgage. One qualifies
for a mortgage based on current earnings and savings, not pie-in-the-sky
future earnings "estimates."
NEW YORK
TIMES: A former Democratic official has testified that Terence
McAuliffe, President Clinton's friend and chief fund-raiser,
played a major role in promoting an illegal scheme in which Democratic
donors were to contribute to the Teamster president's re-election
campaign, and in exchange the Teamsters were to donate large
sums to the Democrats. The official, Richard Sullivan, the Democratic
National Committee's former finance director, testified in Manhattan
at the trial of William Hamilton, the Teamsters former political
director, that McAuliffe urged him and other fund-raisers to
find a rich Democrat to donate at least $50,000 to the 1996 re-election
campaign of Ron Carey, the former Teamsters president. During
the three-week-long trial, Sullivan testified that McAuliffe
had said that if a Democratic donor made a large contribution
to the Carey campaign, then the Teamsters would contribute at
least $500,000 to various Democratic Party committees . . . McAuliffe's
lawyer, Richard Ben-Veniste, said his client had done nothing
wrong.
2001
AMERICAN
SPECTATOR: Any illusions Al Gore might have had that he could
still be leader of the Democratic Party were wiped out when he
was invited by DNC head Terry McAuliffe to the Andrews Air Force
Base sendoff of the Clintons -- and told he could not speak.
"McAuliffe didn't want him to speak, and the president didn't
want him to speak," said a DNC source. "McAuliffe really
didn't want him there, and wasn't going to encourage it. The
send-off was about good memories, success stories. And the vice
president isn't either." . . . So why go to such petty lengths
to keep Gore from addressing the administration faithful? "McAuliffe
is heading the DNC, but Clinton is going to run the party. Whoever
runs for president in 2004 is going to be Clinton's candidate,
and that isn't going to be Al Gore," said another DNC operative.
DRUDGE
REPORT - Enron-stung GOPers are discreetly eyeing the collapse
of Global Crossing [which became the 4th largest bankruptcy in
history] and its Chairman Gary Winnick, a top Democrat donor
who helped DNC head Terry McAuliffe turn a $100,000 stock investment
- into $18,000,000. McAuliffe arranged for Winnick to play golf
with President Clinton in 1999 after his cash windfall. Winnick
then gave a million dollars to help build Clinton's presidential
library . . . "McAuliffe is a guy who made millions and
millions and millions off this Global Crossing stock? And the
company goes bankrupt. And he has the gonads to criticize anyone
on Enron," blasted [a] Bush insider who asked not to be
identified . . . For McAuliffe, Global Crossing turned out to
be a bonanza. The stock had soared in the late 90s, when Winnick
once bragged that he was the "richest man in Los Angeles."
McAuliffe operated out of an office in downtown Washington that
belonged to Winnick - to help the mogul "work on deals."
McAuliffe told the NY Times' Jeff Gerth in late '99 that his
initial $100,000 investment grew to be worth about $18 million,
and he made millions more trading Global's stock and options
after it went public in '98.
WORTH
MAGAZINE - In 1995, Cincinnati billionaire Carl Lindner, whom
McAuliffe had successfully courted as a donor, put up money for
McAuliffe to buy American Heritage Homes, then the second-largest
home builder in Florida. And in 1997, Los Angeles businessman
Gary Winnick, also a Democratic donor, gave McAuliffe an early
opportunity to invest $100,000 in Winnick's new company, Global
Crossing, an owner and operator of undersea fiber-optic cables.
When the stock subsequently soared, McAuliffe made a reported
$18 million from that $100,000 investment. Two years later, McAuliffe
arranged for Winnick to play golf with President Clinton, and
Winnick then gave a million dollars to help build Clinton's presidential
library. So it went in the 1990s: McAuliffe was helping the rich
and powerful gain access to Bill Clinton, and everyone was making
money. Anyone who suggested that there was something inappropriate
about all the back-scratching-something that reeked of access
peddling-only sounded like a spoilsport. With the stock market
boom and the Internet gold rush and the whole country making
money, why not join the party?
PROGRESSIVE
REVIEW - [From a list of presidential pardons] Alvarez Ferrouillet
- laundering money to cover loan for congressional campaign of
Mike Espy's brother. Espy was Clinton's agriculture secretary;
petition was pushed by Clinton pal Terry McAuliffe.
2002
PROGRESSIVE
REVIEW - Bush also got a six-figure sum from Citibank for speeches
he gave in Vietnam. But his most amazing venture was a talk in
Japan where he was paid in shares of Global Cross LTD in lieu
of an $80,000 speaking fee. In one year, the value of the stock
went up to $14.4 million. The Wall Street Journal reported that
the day after the speech, Bush expressed curiosity about the
company over breakfast with Global Crossing's co-chairman, Gary
Winnick. Winnick reportedly suggested that Bush take his fee
in stock in their privately held firm instead of cash, and Bush
agreed. Global Crossing went public shortly thereafter, and its
stock price jumped fivefold. We don't know whether he held on
to it, but the stock has plummeted since fall from nearly 100
down to the mid 60s.
NEWSMAX
- Though he insists now that his relationship with bankrupt telecommunications
giant Global Crossing was strictly business, Democratic National
Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe admitted in 1999 that he once
worked for Global CEO Gary Winnick, who, McAuliffe said, hired
him to "help him work on deals" because Winnick "was
looking for a little political action." After President
Clinton's reelection to a second term, the top Clinton fund-raiser
began "operating out of an office in downtown Washington
that belonged to Mr. Winnick's Pacific Capital Group, a billion-dollar
operation based in Beverly Hills," the New York Times reported
in Dec. 1999. Winnick had retained Mr. McAuliffe as a "consultant,"
the paper said. The DNC chief told the Times, "Gary (Winnick)
likes the action. He wanted a stable of people around him with
great contacts" to "help him work on deals." .
. . The bankrupt ex-billionaire seems to have gotten what he
wanted. Not only did Winnick's company win a $400 million Pentagon
contract with the help of the Clinton White House, but he managed
to get a public endorsement from the president himself. "Gary
Winnick has been a friend of mine for some time now and I'm quite
thrilled by the success that Global Crossing has had," then-President
Clinton told a Calif., fund-raiser in Nov. 1999.
2004
NY POST
PAGE SIX - The last thing the Clintons want is for a Democrat
from Arkansas to defeat Bush next year," says our spy about
the ex-general [Clark] who is expected to announce his candidacy
next month. . . Our source adds, "The Clinton master plan
is for a Hillary candidacy in 2008 and they will subtly sabotage
the Democratic candidate in 2004. That's why they insist on keeping
their personal operative, Terry McAuliffe, in charge of the Democratic
committee." |