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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: T L Comiskey who wrote (12075)4/1/2005 8:43:21 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 361324
 
Delay is certifiable. And for more insanity: President Nominates Cheney's Son-in-Law

By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A25

President Bush has nominated Vice President Cheney's son-in-law, a prominent Washington lawyer who represents companies in the homeland security field, to be the general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security.

Philip J. Perry, who is married to Cheney daughter Elizabeth Cheney Perry, is a partner at the Washington law office of Latham & Watkins, and has represented Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin Corp. in dealing with the department.

In Bush's first term in office, Perry was general counsel to the White House Office of Management and Budget, where he helped draft the 2002 legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security.

Earlier, Perry, of Virginia, was acting associate attorney general.

After a stint in mid-2003 with the Bush reelection campaign, Perry rejoined Latham & Watkins as a litigator and a leader of its homeland security practice. In 2003 and 2004, he was registered as a lobbyist for Lockheed Martin.

Lobby registration documents he filed with Congress state that he helped the firm secure liability protection from lawsuits prompted by terrorist attacks, under the 2002 SAFETY Act. The department granted the liability protection in June, making the firm one of only about eight whose products have been certified for coverage.

Among Perry's other clients in the last two years were private prison firm Corrections Corp. of America and hospital proprietor HCA Corp., but he did not represent them on any work with Homeland Security, the congressional filings said.

If he is confirmed, government ethics experts said, Perry would likely have to recuse himself from decisions involving his former clients for some period of time.



To: T L Comiskey who wrote (12075)4/1/2005 8:46:48 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Respond to of 361324
 
Looks like Democrats turning tables on Republicans: Democrats Use Bush Social Security Tactics Against Republicans

April 1 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush began his battle for private Social Security accounts by targeting vulnerable Democrats. Now Democrats are turning the tables, using similar tactics to pressure Republican lawmakers.

House Democrats are holding town-hall meetings on Social Security in the districts of Republicans, including Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania and Jon Porter of Nevada, who face potentially tight races next year. At least three events next week will focus on opposition to Bush's plan.

``I see a shift in the strategy,'' said Jennifer Duffy, an analyst at the non-partisan, Washington-based Cook Political Report. ``Democrats are playing the president's game.''

The change reflects the declining support in public-opinion polls for Bush's plan to let workers younger than 55 invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in stocks and bonds. In a Pew Research Center poll of 1,505 adults taken March 17-21, 44 percent said they supported private investment accounts, compared with 46 percent in February and 54 percent in December.

As the Democrats turn up heat on Republicans, Bush has switched from pressuring Democrats up for re-election in Republican-leaning states, such as Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, to shoring up support among members of his own party and traditional allies from states such as Alabama, Iowa and Kentucky.

``There's a lot of wariness on behalf of Republicans,'' said Dick Armey, the former House Republican leader who is now chairman of FreedomWorks, a Washington group favoring limited government.

``The president hasn't sold this notion even within his own party,'' said Representative Earl Pomeroy, a North Dakota Democrat who held a town-hall meeting in Minnesota Republican Gil Gutknecht's district on March 24.

Targeting Republicans

``Voters in those congressional districts think like voters in the district I represent,'' Pomeroy said in a phone interview from North Dakota. ``Social Security means a lot to these people, and they don't want their member running off to privatize the thing just because the president tells them to.''

Democrats plan at least three town-hall sessions in districts represented by Republicans next week, beginning with one on April 3 in Republican Chris Chocola's district in South Bend, Indiana, that will feature Democrat Jan Schakowsky of Illinois.

The districts are areas where ``neither party holds the comfortable majority of voters,'' said Duffy, who tracks congressional races.

Chocola, in a 2002 campaign statement, pledged ``no cuts in benefits, no increase in the retirement age and no new taxes,'' according Brooks Kochvar, his chief of staff.

System `Bankrupt'

Chocola's position has been consistent, Kochvar said. ``The system is bankrupt and we need to look at solutions to these problems,'' he said. ``He thinks we should explore personal accounts as one of the many options to help fix the problem.''

Representative Sander Levin of Michigan, who is leading opposition in the House to Bush's plan, is holding an April 4 discussion in the Pennsylvania district represented by Gerlach, who won his last two races with 51 percent of the vote.

Gerlach has ``slid from an anti-privatization posture to a more nebulous one after getting the squeeze from Tom DeLay and the president,'' said Bill Burton, communications director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. DeLay, a Texas Republican, is the House majority leader.

``I am concerned that privatization of the system would adversely affect its solvency for future generations'' and look forward to seeing ``how this solvency issue is resolved,'' Gerlach responded in a written statement.

Nevada Visit

Representative Hilda Solis, a California Democrat, is holding a town-hall meeting April 4 in Republican Porter's district in Nevada. Porter has said he's open to private accounts, while opposing benefit cuts, according to Ryan Temme, a Porter spokesman.

``We hope by the time they come back from the congressional recess, they will make their intentions clear,'' said Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for Americans United to Protect Social Security, an umbrella group for private-account opponents that is organizing the events. It represents the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor organization, and other activist groups.

According to Social Security Administration data, 17 percent of the people in Gerlach's and Chocola's districts receive Social Security benefits. That is higher than the national average of 15.8 percent. In Porter's district in Nevada, 18 percent of the population receives retiree, disability or survivors' benefits, according to the agency's data.

Lack of Commitment

``Republicans haven't been as united, and they have not made a lot of commitments'' to Bush's plan, said Duffy, the political analyst. ``So it's a little bit easier to go after them individually.''

Bush began his drive with trips to states represented by Senate Democrats including Nelson, Conrad and Max Baucus of Montana, whom the White House considered open to private accounts. In a Feb. 3 speech in Great Falls, Montana, Bush warned lawmakers that ``when the people really figure we got a problem, they're going to demand a solution.''

A month later the president was targeting states such as Alabama, home to Senator Richard Shelby, a Republican who has said he isn't committed to any particular fix. ``Woe be to the politician who doesn't come to the table and try to come up with a solution,'' Bush warned March 10 in Montgomery, Alabama.

Bush's shift was probably strategic, Armey said. ``He just made a tactical decision that we would do the suppress-the- Democrat-fire trips first and then shore-up-the-Republicans trips second,'' he said.

`Heavy Lift'

This week Bush continued to target Republicans who've been allies in other efforts, such as cutting taxes. On March 30, he traveled to Iowa after Senator Charles Grassley said in a public- television interview last week that a legislative fix for Social Security would be a ``very heavy lift'' and put its chances of passage this year at ``less than 50-50.''

After Bush rallied supporters in Cedar Rapids, Grassley gave reporters a rosier assessment. ``I'm gaining confidence, because of the fact that the president is working so hard,'' he said.
bloomberg.com



To: T L Comiskey who wrote (12075)4/2/2005 12:01:29 PM
From: Ron  Respond to of 361324
 
Was DeLay's threat a crime?

Tom DeLay won't say what he meant when he said Thursday that "the time will come for the men responsible" for the death of Terri Schiavo "to answer for their behavior." But New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg has a pretty good idea of what DeLay meant -- and he says DeLay's threats may have amounted to a felony.

In a letter sent today to DeLay, Lautenberg said he was "stunned to read the threatening comments" DeLay had directed at "federal judges and our nation's courts of law in general."

"As you are surely aware, the family of Federal Judge Joan H. Lefkow of Illinois was recently murdered in their home," Lautenberg wrote. "And at the state level, Judge Rowland W. Barnes and others in his courtroom were gunned down in Georgia.

"Our nation’s judges must be concerned for their safety and security when they are asked to make difficult decisions every day. That’s why comments like those you made are not only irresponsible, but downright dangerous. To make matters worse, is it appropriate to make threats directed at specific federal and state judges? You should be aware that your comments yesterday may violate a federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 115 (a)(1)(B). That law states:

"'Whoever threatens to assault…. or murder, a United States judge… with intent to retaliate against such… judge…. on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished [by up to six years in prison].'

"Threats against specific federal judges are not only a serious crime, but also beneath a member of Congress. In my view, the true measure of democracy is how it dispenses justice. Your attempt to intimidate judges in America not only threatens our courts, but our fundamental democracy as well.

"Federal judges, as well as state and local judges in our nation, are honorable public servants who make difficult decisions every day. You owe them – and all Americans – an apology for your reckless statements."
DeLay so far has declined to clarify his threatening comments.

-- Tim Grieve salon.com