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: LindyBill who wrote (132151)8/13/2005 8:11:32 AM
From: John Carragher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793790
 
A tougher battle for the 'burbs
Santorum easily carried the counties outside Phila. before. But voters are shifting to the left.
By Thomas Fitzgerald
Inquirer Staff Writer

On Paoli Pike one night last week, dozens of protesters jeered, waved signs and banged pots as an SUV carried Republican Sen. Rick Santorum to an appearance touting It Takes a Family, his book of conservative thought.

Inside Chester County Books & Music Co., about 150 people lined up to have Santorum sign their copies with a Sharpie. Several said they were praying for him.

The competing scenes, replayed the next night in Bryn Mawr, offered a hint of the coming battle for the coveted voters of the Philadelphia suburbs as Santorum heads into a difficult 2006 reelection campaign.

Although he carried the four suburban counties comfortably in 1994 and 2000, analysts say his controversial book has helped raise Santorum's right-wing profile at a time when voters there are drifting leftward.

So has his outspoken leadership on other causes: opposing stem-cell research as the destruction of human life, fighting gay marriage, and advocating intelligent design as an alternative to the theory of evolution.

In early polls, Santorum trails his likely Democratic opponent, State Treasurer Bob Casey Jr., and regional breakdowns show that the percentage of voters saying the senator deserves reelection is lower in the Philadelphia suburbs than elsewhere.

Both sides recognize the importance of the region and are targeting Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery Counties, where registered Republicans still outnumber Democrats - but by a margin that has narrowed in recent years.

The key, they say, is moderate Republicans who have proved willing to split their tickets, supporting GOP candidates for local offices and the state legislature while voting Democratic in presidential and statewide contests. Years of polls show the moderates are discomfited by the national GOP's stance on social issues such as abortion.

"Santorum was able to win his two elections because he carried the southeast, so this is the place," said Berwood Yost, a pollster at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster.

Santorum, the Senate's third-ranking Republican leader and a favorite of conservative Christian groups, has already drawn fire from Democrats for pushing Congress' intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, his unwavering support for President Bush, and, now, the book.

In it, Santorum blames liberal "elites" for problems besetting families. In one passage, Santorum questions why women find careers more gratifying and socially rewarding than staying home with children. "We can thank the influence of radical feminism," he writes.

"He's in a bit of a dream world," said Ellen O'Shea of Willistown, a mother of two who was wearing an apron and patrolling the road with a sign.

"I didn't realize I brought down Western civilization," said O'Shea, a customer representative. "I work out of necessity; there's only four short years till college."

Her sister Andrea Lynch of Malvern, in an apron and a pair of holly-wreath oven mitts, said she found Santorum offensive and judgmental. A registered Democrat, Lynch said she had voted Republican and is a fan of Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.).

Santorum supporters said he was voicing uncomfortable truths about the strain popular culture puts on families.

"He's bringing up the questions people are dealing with in their everyday lives," said Katie Buonanno, 34, of East Goshen. "We need to talk about where the country is going, and it's good to be challenged. We don't get that kind of leadership."

At the book-signing, Santorum said he called the traditional family "ideal" for raising children but did not advocate "being intolerant" of others.

Santorum said he knew snippets of his 449-page book would come back to bite him as ads aimed at moderate suburban women. He argued that attacks would actually help his reelection by making his opponents look "cynical and negative." He said he hoped he would get credit for courage.

"In a world of sound bites, it's risky," Santorum acknowledged. "The cynical attitude of Washington is you can fool all the people all the time and all you need to do is the political dance. I don't play that game."

When he was first elected in 1994, Santorum benefited from national trends in what became a referendum on anger over "big government" and President Bill Clinton's failed health-care plan. Santorum narrowly beat Sen. Harris Wofford.

Six years later, he ran against former Rep. Ron Klink, an antiabortion and pro-gun Democrat who was making his first statewide race and had little money. Analysts say that with social issues neutralized, suburbia's moderate Republicans honored their roots.

"That was before Rick Santorum decided to be the hero of the 'I'm right, you're wrong' wing of the Republican Party," said Jay Reiff, Casey's campaign manager.

Now, Santorum will likely face Casey, who, along with his namesake father, the late governor, has always run well in southwestern Pennsylvania, the other major swing area in the state. That region is dominated by conservative Democrats who split their tickets.

Pollster Yost said Santorum also had the burden of Bush's sagging popularity in the state, especially over Iraq and the proposal to partially privatize Social Security. "Essentially Casey can do to Santorum what he did to Wofford," Yost said.

John Brabender, Santorum's strategist, said that Casey's support from trial lawyers and opposition to caps on medical malpractice suits and to making the Bush tax cuts permanent are powerful messages. "Rick has a great story to tell in the southeast," Brabender said.

And he's the incumbent. Just a few hours before another book signing in Bryn Mawr on Thursday, Santorum visited Valley Forge National Historical Park to pass out more than $24 million in federal funding for three projects, the bulk of it for improvements to Route 422 near the park.

To Democratic consultant Larry Ceisler, that's a smart move. "What's happened so far is Santorum is running a national race," Ceisler said. "He should run a local race talking about all he's done for Pennsylvania."



To: LindyBill who wrote (132151)8/13/2005 8:35:49 AM
From: John Carragher  Respond to of 793790
 
Elmer Smith | FOR SALE: CONGRESSMEN

REMEMBER freedom fries?

That was the patriotic euphemism someone came up with a few years ago when France (dare I say the word) refused to support us in the War on Terror. Because the word France and its derivations were not to be uttered by freedom-loving Americans. This was back when the president said that they were either with us or against us.

Turkey, which was with us in the past, decided to sit this one out. They refused to provide U.S. troops a staging area.

But, did we stop using Turkish towels or gnawing on Turkish taffy? Well, no. Because Turkey had something that France apparently didn't - a well-placed lobbyist.

Hard to be better-placed than former U.S. Rep Bob Livingston. Turkey paid $9 million between 2000 and 2004 for his considerable influence, according to a recent report by Public Citizen, Ralph Nader's watchdog group.

Livingston, who left Congress under a cloud seven years ago, is the featured player in the report, Congressional Revolving Doors: The Journey From Congress to K Street. He is the tall dog in this collection of curs. But he runs with a pack.

He is one of 86 people who have left Congress in the last seven years to peddle their influence from lobbyists' row on K Street in Washington. So far, 58 of the 112 Republicans who left Congress since 1998 have registered as lobbyists.

Republican Party rules that limit access by Democratic lobbyists have made it much less lucrative for Democrats. But 28 of 86 departing Democrats have managed to tie on the feed bag despite this restriction.

Relieved of such nagging considerations as what works best for the people, congressmen-turned-lobbyists are free to sell snake oil to former colleagues and make millions doing it.

Livingston billed $1 million for supervising lobbyists his first year because he was prohibited by law from active lobbying that year. His "earnings" rose to $4.8 million a year later when he was no longer bound by the supervisory charade. His company has banked $40 million in six years.

For the $9 million it paid him, Turkey got a $1 billion supplemental appropriation that had been threatened by the budget knife after Turkey refused to support the war effort. Livingston calls. Congress listens.

Even well-intentioned legislation can end up riddled with caveats designed to benefit the clients of influential lobbyists.

Senate Bill 852, introduced by Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., this year, was written to create a publicly run $140 billion trust fund for workers who have suffered or died from asbestos-related illnesses. But companies facing bankruptcy because of huge liability claims against them would get the option of paying much smaller sums into the fund.

"The Senate plainly wants a more rational asbestos claim system," Specter said in a press release. "I believe this legislation offers a realistic prospect. of accomplishing that."

But it also offers a windfall savings of $20 billion to 10 asbestos companies if the bill is enacted before their bankruptcy proceedings are completed. Eight others would have contributions to the fund capped at $27.5 million for 30 years regardless of how many cases they have pending or how much they earn.

Companies spent $171.4 million in one year on lobbyists in an effort to produce the results most favorable to them.

Some of that money will make its way into campaign coffers. Ethics rules force lobbyists to creatively finance campaigns. But they get it done. Who knows? This could work out for the asbestos victims in the long run. They are voters. But I'd bet you some freedom fries the asbestos companies will get what they paid for.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send e-mail to smithel@phillynews.com



To: LindyBill who wrote (132151)8/13/2005 10:11:30 AM
From: unclewest  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793790
 
That article (posted again below) is the best current analysis I've read on the subject so far.

It is clear to me the politicians and their commissions and staffs bungled this one...and they continue to bungle it.

I thought SECDEF Aspin's refusal to provide the requested combat support in Somalia, prior to the big fight, was bad enough...It absolutely disgusts me to think that Clinton's two SECDEFS, Les Aspin and Bill Cohen, coupled with a few White House lawyers, placed us all in a box that not only precluded the prevention of, but actually enabled 9/11.

I have to wonder if the documents stolen from the National Archives by Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, were not part of a cover-up of their flawed policy of preventing time critical national defense information from getting to those with a need to know.

The worst of the worst is Congress placing some of the same idiots who created the flawed Clinton policy of "Report No Evil" on the very commission investigating the flawed policy.

Have to acknowledge General Shelton's wisdom. The only Chairman JCS, we ever had with a Special Forces background, got our own SF folks to identify the enemy. And look at the job our SF Intel folks did. They identified the bad guys by name, rank, service number and location.
The lessons we learned at Ft Bragg about independent thought coupled with thinking outside the box could have paid off big-time for the country we all swore to defend...If they only listened.

No ODA would ever brush off Intel developed by our own in-house folks. Instead, knowing how good they are, an ODA would study the data in deepest detail and incorporate the info in their attack planning.
There is a durn good reason we have an Intel NCO on every "A" Team. And there is a lesson to be learned here for other orgs.

Our congressional officials are exposed to huge amounts of data as they travel the country and the world. In these times of continuous high threat asymmetrical warfare, every US Congressperson should have an Intel Specialist on their staff. That person's sole job should be to ensure important Intel information is reported to the Congressional member and/or from the Congress member to other orgs with a need to know.

I believe our Special Forces today, coupled with other SOF Forces, have everything we need to delay, disrupt and dismantle terrorist organizations World-Wide. To accomplish this, they have to be able to respond immediately to info they develop. I believe GWB and Rumsfeld understand this better than any similar leadership team we ever had. I believe their decision to bring another SF warrior, General Schoomaker, out of retirement to be Chief of Staff of the Army, in these trying times, has proven to be an incredibly wise move.
unclewest

Commission: Able Danger Only Told Us About Atta

By Captain Ed on 9/11 Commission

The AP reports tonight that 9/11 Commission co-chairs Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton have changed their story yet again. Now the two say in a joint statement to the press that they do recall hearing that Able Danger had identified Atta, two days after Hamilton categorically denied it -- and for a man who had supposedly never heard of Able Danger, Hamilton's recall of detail of the briefing appears impressive (via Tom Maguire):

In a joint statement, former commission chairman Thomas Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton said a military official who made the claim had no documentation to back it up. And they said only 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta was identified to them and not three additional hijackers as claimed by Rep. Curt Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees.

"He could not describe what information had led to this supposed Atta identification," the statement said of the military official.

They also said no else could place the other three hijackers with Atta in a purported terror cell code-named "Brooklyn" during the time period cited by Weldon.

Compare this to what Hamilton said on August 9th:

"The Sept. 11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell," said Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. "Had we learned of it obviously it would've been a major focus of our investigation."

Now we hear Hamilton say the exact opposite. The Commission heard about Atta -- they just ignored it, claiming now that the evidence shown at the briefing did not match up with their timeline for Atta's first entry to the US. That would have been an interesting claim had Hamilton made it when first asked. Now, with his categorical denial still ringing in our ears, it sounds more like another excuse to wriggle out of a debacle they themselves made.

The only development this gives us is an admission that the Commissioners themselves had awareness of Able Danger's assessment of Atta as a terrorist a year before the 9/11 attacks -- and they didn't bother to mention it at all in their report, not even to refute it as contrary information that they could refute. For a group which wound up berating two administrations for only listening to that evidence and intelligence which fit their policies, it at least smacks of the pot calling the kettle black. At worst, it smells much worse than that.