SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (4766)8/12/2003 3:13:58 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793659
 
This nomination could get interesting. Can the Dems Filibuster him under the Senate Rules? I am not sure. They are sure to make a big deal of him, it gives them a chance to play to one of their best issues, the environment.

Bush Nominates Utah Governor to Lead E.P.A.
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE - NEW YORK TIMES

WASHINGTON, Aug. 11 - President Bush today nominated Gov. Michael O. Leavitt, the three-term Republican governor of Utah, as the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, tapping a veteran of the West's volatile land use debates.

The nomination drew praise from business and Republican Party groups and mixed reviews from environmental activists, who commended Mr. Leavitt for working for clean air in the Grand Canyon and faulted him for helping to open public lands in Utah to industry and roadbuilding.

If confirmed by the Senate, Governor Leavitt would succeed Christie Whitman, whose credentials as a political moderate failed to satisfy environmentalists and at the same time raised suspicions among White House officials. She resigned in May.

"I selected Mike Leavitt because he is a trusted friend, a capable executive and a man who understands the obligations of environmental stewardship," Mr. Bush said today as he arrived in Denver for a fund-raising event. "Mike Leavitt will come to the E.P.A. with a strong environmental record, a strong desire to improve what has taken place in the last three decades."

Business interests portrayed Mr. Leavitt as a moderate consensus builder, while environmental groups, nationally and in Utah, said he supported development over conservation and was a friend of the oil and gas industries.

Mr. Leavitt, 52, said he had "a very clear environmental philosophy," which he said was based on balance.

"To me, there is an inherent human responsibility to care for the earth," he said as he stood by Mr. Bush's side. "But there's also an economic imperative that we're dealing with in a global economy to do it less expensively."

His Senate confirmation hearings, to be scheduled in September when Congress returns from its summer recess, will probably provide the stage for a politically charged battle over the Bush environmental record. Two Democratic senators who are presidential candidates made clear today they would use the hearings to denounce Mr. Bush on the environment.

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts said, "While none of us should be surprised that President Bush has chosen someone who has a record of working to undermine national environmental protections, the truth is that we aren't going to have a real commitment to the environment until we have a new president."

And Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said: "President Bush has the worst environmental record in history. The American people deserve to know whether Governor Leavitt shares the same disregard for clean air, clean water, land conservation and global warming as the president. Protecting our environment is too important ? and the damage done by the Bush administration too great ? to confirm a nominee that does."

The announcement was a well-kept secret: Mr. Leavitt's aides said they learned of it on Sunday night. It caught business interests and environmental groups by surprise, in part because Mr. Leavitt had turned down the post in June. At the time, Governor Leavitt's press secretary said that accepting it would be "highly problematic" because he was still considering whether to run for a fourth term. Already, fellow Republicans were lining up to challenge him.

Attention shifted to Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, Republican of Idaho, who had discussed the position with the White House. Friends said that Mr. Kempthorne preferred the position of interior secretary, though there is no indication that Gale A. Norton, the current secretary, is leaving the post.

The fact that Mr. Bush was considering two Western governors and appears to be keeping Ms. Norton, who comes from Colorado, suggests he is more comfortable with a Western stamp on environmental policies. Westerners traditionally are more involved in issues of federal land use than in the kind of regulatory calibrations that are central to the E.P.A.

A person close to the administration said the selection of a Westerner ? in tune philosophically with Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney ? suggested the White House had "given up a little bit on the Eastern-industrial-urban-environmental base."

The person said that administration officials had believed they could mollify swing voters with Ms. Whitman, a moderate former governor of New Jersey. But, he said, she never managed to appease Mr. Bush's environmental critics, and that left some in the administration to wonder why they had bothered to try.

"So they went with someone they trust," he said of Governor Leavitt.

Governor Leavitt, first elected in 1992 and now the longest-serving of the nation's governors, has known Mr. Bush for years. At a recent fund-raising event in Salt Lake City, Mr. Cheney described him as "a very close friend of President Bush's from their days as governors."

The E.P.A. has undergone considerable turmoil, drawing fire from administration critics. After Ms. Whitman stepped down, her deputy, Linda Fischer, became acting administrator. But when it was clear to Ms. Fischer that she would not be named to the top job, she left, effective July 12. Marianne Horinko, another deputy, has served as acting administrator since then.

Mr. Bush's announcement of his selection of Mr. Leavitt came with no advance notice. Moreover, the selection did not appear to have been cleared with administration allies on Capitol Hill. As one top Republican Senate aide said, "It was a shock to us."

In introducing Governor Leavitt today, Mr. Bush said: "As co-chair of the Western Regional Air Partnership, Governor Leavitt has been a leader in applying high standards in air quality, and he understand the importance of clear standards in every environmental policy. He respects the ability of state and local governments to meet those standards, rejects the old ways of command and control from above."

Thomas R. Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, which represents utilities, praised Mr. Leavitt for a management style that "stresses collaboration of all stakeholders in policymaking, which helps break down barriers to resolving highly charged environmental issues."

Governor Leavitt cited his own work in bringing together 13 states, 13 tribal Indian nations, three federal agencies, the private sector and environmental groups in improving air quality in the Grand Canyon.

"There is no progress polarizing at the extremes, but there is great progress, there's great environmental progress, when we collaborate in the productive middle," he said.

Fred Krupp, an environmental advocate and president of Environmental Defense, said that Mr. Leavitt had been "very good" in his efforts to protect scenic vistas and Western national parks from haze. "I'd call him a real leader in the West to address regional air issues and protect our national parks, and he deserves credit for that," he said.

But he and others gave him less credit for land issues. Most recently, Mr. Leavitt was involved in an agreement with the Interior Department over the protection of wilderness in Utah. Larry Young, executive director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, said that the arrangement essentially lost the "wilderness" designation for millions of acres of public land, opening them to mining, drilling and road-building.

In addition, he has advocated building a major highway through wetlands and sensitive shore areas around the Great Salt Lake. He has opposed the Kyoto treaty on global warming. Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, said, "I can't think of too many governors more hostile to government regulations than Mike Leavitt."
nytimes.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (4766)8/12/2003 3:14:15 AM
From: KLP  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 793659
 
Guess I want our Government to follow the laws that are already on the books. For instance, all employers are to have an I-9 for every employee, showing the proof of identity...Either a passport, or a birth certificate, AND a picture showing their picture. These I-9's are to be in their employment files.

Why should one employer have to comply, and another one not comply?

Why even have a law, if we are going to not pay attention to it?



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (4766)8/12/2003 4:21:18 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793659
 
Here's a thought from WSJ.com

Democrats are very good at last-minute changes in strategy. Should Mr. Bustamante, an uninspiring pol who has often stumbled in his public appearances, not catch on with voters, Democrats may ask Bill Clinton or other prominent party members to pressure Gov. Davis to resign. Not only would that lower the turnout among voters who are most fervent about removing Mr. Davis, but Mr. Bustamante's elevation to "acting governor" would probably turn into a major media event, showcasing California's new Hispanic governor. That would "certainly boost his visibility and stature," says Assemblyman John Campbell, a Republican.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (4766)8/12/2003 10:32:03 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793659
 
Hitchens goes after Pipes

fighting words
Pipes the Propagandist
Bush's nominee doesn't belong at the U.S. Institute for Peace.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, August 11, 2003, at 8:23 AM PT

When I read that Daniel Pipes had been nominated to the board of the United States Institute of Peace (a federally funded body whose members are proposed by the president and confirmed by the Senate), my first reaction was one of bafflement. Why did Pipes want the nomination? After all, USIP, a somewhat mild organization, is devoted to the peaceful resolution of conflict. For Pipes, this notion is a contradiction in terms.

I am not myself a pacifist, and I believe that Islamic nihilism has to be combated with every weapon, intellectual and moral as well as military, which we possess or can acquire. But that is a position shared by a very wide spectrum of people. Pipes, however, uses this consensus to take a position somewhat to the right of Ariel Sharon, concerning a matter (the Israel-Palestine dispute) that actually can be settled by negotiation. And he employs the fears and insecurities created by Islamic extremism to slander or misrepresent those who disagree with him.

This makes him a poor if not useless ally in the wider battle. Let me give two illustrations from personal experience. One of the most frontal challenges from Islamic theocracy came in February 1989, when the Ayatollah Khomeini pronounced a sentence of death upon Salman Rushdie. There then followed a long campaign by writers and scholars and diplomats, culminating in September 1998 in a formal repudiation of the fatwa by the Iranian regime. Good cause for celebration, one might think. But not to Pipes, who weighed in with a sour, sophomoric article arguing that nothing whatsoever had changed and that the Iranian authorities were as committed to Rushdie's elimination as ever. His "sources" were a few clips from the Iranian press and a few stray statements from extremists. That was five years ago. Today, Salman Rushdie lives in New York without body guards and travels freely, and there are leading Shiite voices raised in Iran in favor of the coalition's successful demolition of the Iraqi Baath Party. To put it bluntly, I suspect that Pipes is so consumed by dislike that he will not recognize good news from the Islamic world even when it arrives. And this makes him dangerous and unreliable.

Then, I heard recently, Pipes has maintained that professor Edward Said of Columbia University is not really a Palestinian and never lost his family home in Jerusalem in the fighting of 1947-48. I have my own disagreements with Said, but this is a much-discredited libel that undermines the credibility of anybody circulating it. Professor Said is deservedly respected for his long advocacy of mutual recognition between Israelis and Palestinians; yet, once again, Pipes spits and curses at anything short of his own highly emotional agenda. In the February 2003 issue of Commentary magazine, he wrote an attack on the "road map" proposals, which included the words "the so-called Palestinian refugees," and which by other crude tricks of language insinuated that there had been no Palestinian dispossession in the first place. In which case, there is obviously nothing to negotiate about, is there? It's one thing to argue, as many Palestinians are prepared to do, that not every refugee can expect "the right of return." It's quite another to deny history and to assert that there is no refugee problem to begin with.

By coincidence, that same issue of Commentary contained several columns of letters from aggrieved scholars, complaining at the way in which Pipes had misrepresented their work. Pipes himself was forced to concede grudgingly that he had been in error when he described professor John Kelsay of Princeton and professor James Turner Johnson of Rutgers as having denied that the term "jihad" had any military meaning. I admire those who admit their mistakes, especially under the pressure of fact. But Pipes hasn't just been engaged in a dispute in print with other academics. He is the founder of Campus Watch , a Web-site crusade that purports to expose heretical or subversive teachers in America. It's not pleasant to think of such an organization being run by somebody who won't, or who can't, read the published work of more distinguished colleagues.

On more than one occasion, Pipes has called for the extension of Israel's already ruthless policy of collective punishment, arguing that leveling Palestinian villages is justifiable if attacks are launched from among their inhabitants. It seems to me from observing his style that he came to this conclusion with rather more relish than regret. And, invited recently to comment on the wartime internment of the Japanese?as a comparison case to his own call for the profiling and surveillance of Muslim and Arab-Americans?he declined on the grounds that he didn't know enough about the subject. One isn't necessarily obliged to know the history of discrimination as it has been applied to American security policy?unless, that is, one is proposing a new form of it. To be uninformed at that point is to disqualify oneself, as the Senate should disqualify Pipes.

The board of USIP already contains enough people to make sure that the hawkish viewpoint does not go unrepresented. It includes Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense, and Harriet Zimmerman of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The objection to Pipes is not, in any case, strictly a political one. It is an objection to a person who confuses scholarship with propaganda and who pursues petty vendettas with scant regard for objectivity.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and author of The Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq.

Article URL: slate.msn.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (4766)8/12/2003 11:32:59 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793659
 
It's hard to out-organize the Union reps working for the Dems.

Bush aims to be out of reach by time Dems pick candidate
By Judy Keen, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON - President Bush is building the earliest, most aggressive campaign organization by an incumbent president since Ronald Reagan won re-election in 1984. Bush is aiming to have such a strong head start that Democrats will have trouble catching up after they choose their nominee.

By the time the first votes are cast in the Democratic primary election season, on Jan. 19 at Iowa's caucuses, the Bush campaign plans to have a well-established national organization of chairmen and other staffers in every county in key states, and a leader in every crucial precinct.

Bush has no opponent for the Republican nomination. He raised $34 million through the end of June, and at least $6 million since then. He is on target to collect more than $250 million before the Republican convention next August. After the conventions, both presidential campaigns will be run on $74.4 million in federal funds.

Bush attends a fundraiser Monday in Denver and has two more later this week in California.

Being well-funded and unchallenged for the nomination allows the campaign to concentrate on creating a grassroots network for fall while the nine Democrats seeking their party's nod invest energy, time and cash in states with early primaries.

Warren Tompkins, campaign chairman for Bush in four Southern states, ran Reagan's 1984 campaign in South Carolina. He says the Bush campaign "is ahead of (Reagan's) in terms of planning and preparation and organization."

Bush's father held the first fundraiser for his 1992 re-election campaign 12 months before Election Day and didn't name his campaign team until five weeks later. President Clinton named staffers for his 1996 re-election bid 15 months before the election and did a fundraising tour a month later.

Bush announced his top campaign staff 18 months before the election and immediately began raising money.

Bush tells audiences at fundraisers that "the political season will come in its own time." But his quick start means politics is beginning to pervade the White House.

His travel and many of his speeches and policy proposals are planned with key voter groups and crucial states in mind. At least a half-dozen midlevel staffers have left the White House to work on the campaign or the convention, and more will follow.

Campaign manager Ken Mehlman defends the early start. "The country is closely divided, and there are Democrats running for president who will literally say anything to win votes," he says. "We need resources to help communicate the president's message and to build a strong grass roots."

Tony Welch, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, says Bush must be worried that voters who are angry about the flat economy will deny him a second term. "The good news for us is that all that cash and no primary still do nothing to take the people's focus off the economy," he says.

What's behind Bush's strategy:

?There's plenty of money but no need to spend it now. Just 7% of what's coming in is going out, leaving the rest to blanket the nation with TV ads next year when voters are paying closer attention.

?The campaign has targeted for special attention 16-20 states that could go either way. The list will change as the race takes shape, but it includes states where Bush strategists expect to play defense (Arizona, Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire) and states won in 2000 by Democrat Al Gore that they think they can carry next year (Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, Wisconsin). All 50 states will have county and precinct organizations.

?It is critical to keep core supporters energized and make sure they are recruiting more supporters. The GOP hopes to register 3 million new voters. Each state has a goal. There are 6 million "e-leaders" who signed up on the Internet and more than 325,000 "team leaders" accountable for organizing their communities.

Ralph Reed, Southeast regional chairman for Bush's campaign, says, "We're going to run as if this is going to be one of the closest elections in our lifetime."


Find this article at:
usatoday.com