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: NickSE who wrote (13446)10/22/2003 7:15:48 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793717
 
Nice to know our Union Bosses have private jets to take them to their vacation homes in the South of France.
____________________________________________________

Jets Help Presidential Hopefuls Hit Road

By SHARON THEIMER
Associated Press Writer





WASHINGTON (AP) -- Presidential candidates are flying around the country in planes provided by businesses, labor unions and other special interests, keeping entourages on schedule without the hassles of commercial air travel.

Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., and his staff have taken $138,000 worth of flights aboard the private jet of a Dallas law firm. Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., has gotten a lift aboard union planes. Retired Gen. Wesley Clark took his first campaign trip aboard a jet owned by a government contractor.

Even though campaigns must pay for flights on private planes based on the cost of first-class airfare or a charter flight, the convenience of having a plane at the ready can be priceless to a candidate facing a frantic schedule to be in as many places as possible as quickly as possible.

President Bush doesn't have to worry about lining up planes. As commander in chief, he travels on the ultimate customized jet, Air Force One, and has reimbursed the government about $84,000 to cover campaign travel this year. At the same time, he has collected about $84 million for his campaign.

Edwards' campaign is among the most frequent users of corporate flights, logging at least $138,000 worth with the Dallas-based Baron and Budd trial lawyer firm, according to campaign reports analyzed by the Political Money Line campaign finance tracking service at the request of The Associated Press.

Interactive
In the Running



Latest News
Sen. Biden Gives Democrats Low Marks
Abortion Vote Likely to Loom in'04 Race

Congressional Democrats Lay Out Agenda

Democratic Candidates to Debate in Iowa

Kerry Offers Six-Point Environmental Plan









Baron and Budd partner Fred Baron and other firm employees have given at least $70,000 to Edwards, a former trial lawyer, campaign records show.

Edwards had at least $19,000 in flights with the Archer Daniels Midland agricultural company, which has a big stake in trade, the federal farm bill and promoting ethanol fuel products.

Gephardt reported at least $6,000 in flights on ADM planes and at least $19,000 worth on a bricklayers' union plane. Gephardt also paid the machinists' union at least $2,085 for travel on its jet. Both unions have endorsed him.

"We fly commercial as often as we can. But occasionally you'll just due to scheduling problems be forced to find alternatives to commercial travel, and both those unions have been generous as far as letting us use their planes," Gephardt spokesman Erik Smith said.

Often, Gephardt is campaigning and trying to get back to Washington to vote in Congress, Smith said.

On the flip side, providing a jet for a presidential candidate has its advantages for the special interests.

"Obviously there is a healthy opportunity for interaction with the candidate, the elected official," said Pete West, a lobbyist for the National Business Aviation Association, a corporate aviation group that wants the government to simplify candidate travel payment rules.

"The company that provides it obviously has a profile enhancement with the political candidate or elected official simply because the candidate is relying on that particular company's aircraft," he said.

Clark paid $11,133 for flights on the Acxiom Corp. jet on Sept. 18, the day after he announced his candidacy, traveling to Florida and Iowa, spokeswoman Kym Spell said. Clark lobbied for and served on the board of Acxiom, an Arkansas-based data analysis firm that has been trying to win Homeland Security Department business.

The campaign of Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., reported at least $19,000 in flights on planes owned by the Colorado-based Tomay Inc. investment firm.

Tomay chief executive Richard Rogel's family gave to Lieberman. Lieberman's campaign paid Los Angeles-based River Horse Investments at least $7,400 for travel costs and The Limited, based in Columbus, Ohio, at least $2,100; employees of each are donors to Lieberman.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., often uses his wife's Flying Squirrel charter airline, paying it at least $70,000 so far.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's campaign reports showed no apparent use of corporate planes; a spokesman said the campaign may have had a few such flights and was checking.

At least one Democratic hopeful, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, intentionally spurns the use of corporate jets, his campaign said.

Bush's campaign is required to reimburse the government for the campaign portion of trips, including flight costs for himself, first lady Laura Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and campaign staff. Reimbursement is based on first-class service, walk-up coach fare if there is commercial service but no first class, or the charter rate if there's no commercial service.

The government pays travel costs for Secret Service agents, who guard the president on all trips.

The Bush campaign paid White House Airlift Operations about $84,000 from May to September, campaign finance reports show. The Republican National Committee paid at least $21,000 to White House Airlift in the same period.

The campaign sometimes uses corporate planes; it paid Florida-based Zurich Insurance $1,015 for an air charter, for example. Company chief executive Thomas Petway III is one of Bush's "Rangers," people who raised at least $200,000 for the president's re-election campaign.

Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel would say only that the campaign follows the law.
customwire.ap.org



To: NickSE who wrote (13446)10/22/2003 7:59:11 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793717
 
God forbid that Rumsfeld should do this!

Mr. Rumsfeld had made a mistake in refusing to criticize General Boykin, and that he had allowed personal loyalty to get in the way of political wisdom.
______________________________________
October 22, 2003
General Was Wrong on Islam, Bush Says
By DOUGLAS JEHL

ASHINGTON, Oct. 22 — President Bush said today that he disagreed with comments by a top Pentagon general who has cast the campaign against terrorism in religious terms, but the Defense Department said the officer would not be reassigned.

Mr. Bush, talking with reporters aboard Air Force One as he flew to Australia, did not say whether he thought the officer, Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, should be disciplined for comments likening the battle against Islamic militants to a struggle against Satan. But the president did say that he had told Muslim clerics during meetings in Indonesia that the general's statement "didn't reflect my opinion" nor "reflect what the government thinks."

Mr. Bush's comments were the first he has made publicly about General Boykin's remarks, and they came as some Congressional Republicans began to suggest that General Boykin be moved aside temporarily or even resign.

"The political reality up here is that no one thinks Boykin will survive," said a senior Congressional Republican official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Although Senator John Warner, who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, has been among those voices calling for General Boykin's temporary reassignment, a Pentagon spokesman, Larry DiRita, said today that "nobody's thinking about asking him to step aside."

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters on Tuesday that General Boykin had requested an internal investigation, a request that Mr. Rumsfeld said he endorsed. But Mr. Rumsfeld declined to criticize the general's comments.

The general, a highly decorated Army officer, who was confirmed by the Senate in June as deputy under secretary of defense for intelligence, came under criticism last week, when NBC News and The Los Angeles Times reported details of comments he had made in talks at Christian evangelical churches: that the enemy in the war on terrorism is Satan, that God put Mr. Bush in the White House, and that a prominent Muslim militia leader in Somalia is an idol-worshiper.

On Friday, the Pentagon issued a statement in which General Boykin said he wanted to apologize "to those who have been offended by my statements." But the general also made clear that he had no intention of resigning and that he believed that at least some of his remarks had been taken out of context.

The same day, Senator Warner, Republican of Virginia, and Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, wrote a letter to Mr. Rumsfeld in which they asked that an internal investigation be conducted. On Tuesday, Senator Warner made his criticism public, saying on the Senate floor that General Boykin should step aside in order to focus on responding to the investigation.

"When you start trying to explain what you did say, you need time out to do a little study," Senator Warner said. Representative Jim Turner, a Texas Democrat, who met with Mr. Rumsfeld this morning, said he also favored reassigning General Boykin in order to send a message "that the war on terror is not a war on Islam."

Religious leaders from several denominations have spoken out against General Boykin's remarks, saying that they posed the danger of inflaming anti-American sentiment across the Islamic world.

Mr. Rumsfeld was to meet behind closed doors on Capitol Hill today with senators from both parties for a regular meeting on Iraq, but Congressional officials said they expected the issue of General Boykin to be raised.

A sense of Republican anger about Mr. Rumsfeld's handling of the matter was apparent on Capitol Hill this afternoon. Two Republican Congressional officials said that they believed that Mr. Rumsfeld had made a mistake in refusing to criticize General Boykin, and that he had allowed personal loyalty to get in the way of political wisdom.
nytimes.com



To: NickSE who wrote (13446)10/23/2003 1:03:42 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793717
 
I blame Frist for this. As Majority Leader, he should have been able to squeeze one more vote. Or figure a way around the procedural problem.
______________________________________

October 23, 2003
Class-Action Legislation Fails in Senate
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 — Senate Democrats effectively killed a measure on Wednesday that would push certain class-action lawsuits out of state courts and into the federal judiciary, handing President Bush and the Republican leadership a significant defeat.

The bill failed on a procedural motion by just one vote when the Republican leadership got 59 of the 60 votes needed to block a Democratic filibuster.

"We just witnessed a missed opportunity to address a critically and vitally important issue," Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, said after the vote. He said he was "clearly disappointed" by the outcome, but vowed to try to reach a compromise.

President Bush has made changes in tort law a big feature of his agenda in Congress, and it is a staple of his speeches. Business groups had aggressively lobbied for the class-action legislation, which would remove most class-action suits with at least 100 plaintiffs and at least $5 million at stake from state courts and relocate them in the federal courts. Legal experts say federal courts offer a more favorable climate to corporations. The House had already approved a version of the bill.

The bill would also cover "mass tort" suits involving personal injury, like those filed by women who believe they have been harmed by silicone breast implants. The mass tort provision had been stripped from the bill when it was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but Republican leaders restored it before they brought the bill to the floor.

"Mass tort is something most of our colleagues didn't bargain for, but it's in this bill," Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, said during the debate. He added, "This legislation is killing a housefly with a shotgun."

Members of both parties agree that the nation's class-action system has problems. They complain that plaintiffs' lawyers shop around for sympathetic state courts and walk off with millions of dollars in fees while consumers often wind up with coupons of little or no value.

But trial lawyers, consumer groups and the bill's Democratic opponents argued that the measure went too far, eliminating the right of the poor and disenfranchised to band together and seek legal redress from corporations. Republicans, and the business groups that support them, contended that corporations were being crushed by heavy legal fees.

"You can pick a large company anywhere in the United States and take them to a backwoods court, somewhere in Mississippi or Texas, and you can absolutely destroy them, even though the company is from another state," said Thomas Donohue, the president of the United States Chamber of Commerce.

The bill would push most class-action suits into the federal judiciary, though it contains an exception for suits where at least two-thirds of the plaintiffs are from the same state and the defendants are also from that state. Senator John B. Breaux, Democrat of Louisiana, wanted to expand that exception, by allowing state courts to hear such cases even if the defendants are from a different state.

Mr. Breaux said his compromise would be "far superior to doing nothing at all." But Republicans said they would not consider it, so he voted to block the bill from moving ahead.

The vote was a cliffhanger; Republicans knew going in that they had 57 votes. Business lobbyists waited nervously in the reception room outside the Senate chamber to learn the outcome, as did lobbyists for trial lawyers and consumer groups.

Eight Democrats and one independent, Senator James M. Jeffords of Vermont, joined 50 Republicans in voting to allow the bill to move forward; Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama was the only Republican to favor blocking the bill.

Several Democrats who were lobbied hard by business leaders, including Charles E. Schumer of New York, Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, voted against the bill.

Ms. Landrieu cast the final vote against the bill, and complained afterward that Senate Republicans were unwilling to make certain concessions to win her vote. Among other things, Ms. Landrieu wanted the mass tort provision stripped from the bill, and she wanted a provision that would allow unclaimed settlement coupons to be donated to charity, not claimed by the lawyers or the defendants, as is now the case.

"They knew my vote was important; I knew my vote was important," she said, adding, "I wanted to go last, because I wanted to send a signal that the Landrieu vote would not have been that difficult to get."

nytimes.com



To: NickSE who wrote (13446)10/23/2003 6:53:48 PM
From: NickSE  Respond to of 793717
 
In Afghanistan's villages, ambitious push for democracy
csmonitor.com

Chiefs, tribal elders learn the basics as the nation prepares for a new constitution.

KUDIKHEL, AFGHANISTAN – It's a scene that has been repeated for centuries: Tribal elders sitting in circles on Persian carpets, making alliances, resolving disputes, and planning future campaigns.

But there's something very 21st century about this ancient gathering in a sprawling home at the foot of Afghanistan's White Mountains. The first sign is the Magic Markers, the easels, and the corporate-style focus groups.

"We want national unity," says one tribesman. "And reconstruction of roads and irrigation systems," says another. "Don't forget about education and security," says a third.

"Hold on, I'm still on national unity," pleads the group leader, writing in elegant Pashto script on white butcher paper.

Welcome to Democracy 101, Afghanistan style. In gatherings like this around the country, aid workers and democracy trainers are teaching the basics of the democratic process to village chiefs and tribal elders, as the nation prepares to rewrite and enact a new constitution in December.

Turning such a feudal society into a democracy may not be as dangerous as fighting a guerrilla army of religious zealots, but it could be just as challenging - and as important.

It's an ambitious undertaking in a society that has always resisted change, but especially so because it changes the timeworn way Afghans have solved problems. Before, they always turned to powerful men - warlords, mullahs, or kings - to get things done.

Now, in theory, the bottom of that feudal system - the maliks - will help teach a form of government that puts citizens first, and holds the old feudal lords accountable.

Maliks are village elders. They are on the lowest rung in the power structure, beneath kings, warlords, and landowning khans, but they're above normal citizens. In villages, maliks are the often the only law, acting as judge, jury, and occasionally peacemaker.

But some experts still say that the relatively democratic nature of village-level politics, led by maliks, may form a building block for democracy in Afghanistan.

"There is a very strong tradition of democracy in Afghan culture, of a common man speaking and knowing his voice will be heard," says David Edwards, an expert on Afghan civilization at Williams College, now working on a film project in Kabul. "In some ways, [using maliks] may be the only way to overcome the warrior culture ... and to make the message appeal to the people."

Nobody here thinks it's going to be easy, however.

For many Afghans, democracy has taken on negative connotations, as anti-American sentiment increases with the slow pace of reconstruction. Some pro-Taliban mullahs have taken to blaming every new and old social ill - from prostitution to alcohol to disco-dancing - on democracy.

And after a half-century of violent swings from monarchy to Soviet colony to strict Islamic state, most Afghans have no idea what it means to vote. Individual rights for men are the stuff of fantasy; rights for women are, at best, an afterthought.

Democracy trainers like Mohammad Naseeb say their toughest task is breaking old habits of thought, such attaching one's future to a powerful man.

"We are democratizing culture, slowly," says Mr. Naseeb, managing director of Welfare Association for the Development of Afghanistan (WADAN), in Kabul. "We want a democracy that is locally acceptable; we don't want it to be seen as a threat."

Most of the communities Naseeb visits know change is inevitable, he adds. "With all the divisions of the past 23 years, the feudal system is changing. People realize you can't stay in power by grabbing it. You have to share it."

There are just a handful of projects like WADAN's across the country. In Kandahar and parts of southwestern Afghanistan, for instance, Afghans for a Civil Society is conducting democracy training in villages and urban centers.

But with proposed elections just months away, most Afghans will have very little knowledge, let alone faith, in the democratic system.

While WADAN's goals sound grand, its work in this part of eastern Afghanistan, in the Pashtun-dominated state of Nangrahar, is still a modest pilot project. Spending about $50,000 in grants from the US-government's National Endowment for Democracy and other donors, WADAN trainers have conducted three-day seminars in three districts thus far. By late June 2004, they will have trained 450 maliks in nine districts.

But the effect of this modest project could be profound. If all goes as planned, these maliks will pass their democratic lessons to 900,000 Afghan villagers.

At the district headquarters in Sorkh Rod, a flat, fertile farming region near Jalalabad, WADAN has invited 40 maliks to hear presentations on why they should prevent their neighbors from growing opium poppies this year.

Maulvi Azizur Rehman, a local Muslim scholar, provides the moral reasons. "There are people who say we don't use poppies, we just grow them," says the scholar. "But the holy prophet Muhammad, peace be unto him, said that everything having to do with drugs, from the use to the cultivation, is forbidden."

If the maulvi's audience, dressed up in their best turbans, doesn't look impressed, it may be because Sorkh Rod has traditionally been a prime belt for opium cultivation. But the very fact that a maulvi has been given a stage at all, in post-Taliban Afghanistan, sends a powerful message nonetheless. It counters the anti-American propaganda that democracy and Islamic teachings are incompatible.

And in Kudikhel, where the ideas flowed faster than the Pashto script, and in some of the three dozen villages visited so far by WADAN, the groups are more engaged.

WADAN plans to work in nine districts, each encompassing several villages, during the one-year pilot project, which ends next spring.

"As maliks, we do believe in the central government, even though ... they haven't fulfilled even one promise after two years," says one participant, Haji Mohammad Ashin Khan, stroking his long white beard. "If they help us with money, then we will do the work ourselves, contributing local labor. If they don't help us," he says, shrugging, "then they are not our government."

A trainer picks up the sheets of butcher paper and pins them to a wall at the front of the room. One by one, the group leaders describe the ideas that their group discussed, some of the presentations turning into political stump speeches.

"So many aid agencies have promised us a lot, but they haven't given us a single thing," says one speaker.

His voice turns into a barely controlled rage, like Al Sharpton in a turban. "We want the government to help us, and if they do, we will be responsible for their security. If they don't help us, the time will come when terrorists come back to plant bombs on the roads, and neither the government nor we will be able to stop them."

Mohammad Qasim, the malik from Markikhel village, knows that it will take time for the government to be strong enough to deliver on its promises.

In the meantime, he says that maliks will provide the only government that most of his villagers have ever known. "I hope this is the beginning of a good process and that something good will follow," he says. "We want practical results, not just words."