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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: longnshort who wrote (8609)11/14/2006 10:47:22 PM
From: Ann Corrigan  Respond to of 224669
 
There's a large Muslim community in CAN. Evidently the Canadian government is conciliatory to them when they insist their religious laws take precedence over civil law.



To: longnshort who wrote (8609)11/15/2006 9:55:59 AM
From: Ann Corrigan  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 224669
 
Will it be Murtha or Stoyer?:Murtha's Bid for House Post May Weaken Democrats' Ethics Image

By Kristin Jensen and Brian Faler

Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) -- John Murtha's bid to become House majority leader may undermine Democrats' efforts to portray themselves as more honest than the Republicans they defeated last week.

Government-watchdog groups say Murtha, 74, has used his position as the senior Democrat on the defense appropriations subcommittee to direct federal dollars to political donors. They also recall that he was investigated, though never prosecuted, in the Abscam bribery scandal that led to the convictions of seven lawmakers in the 1980s.

``If Representative Murtha is selected to be the majority leader, it will be a clear sign that the new Congress has no intention of ending the culture of corruption,'' said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a Falls Church, Virginia-based nonprofit group that focuses on ethics in government. ``Murtha personifies what is wrong with Congress.''

House Democrats will pick their leaders tomorrow after last week's elections gave them control of the chamber for the first time in 12 years. Murtha is challenging Maryland Representative Steny Hoyer, 67, the current No. 2 Democrat in the House, for the majority leader job; California Representative Nancy Pelosi, who's in line to become speaker of the House, has endorsed Murtha.

Hoyer, who said yesterday that he had the support of a majority of Democrats for the post, wouldn't comment on whether ethics concerns should disqualify Murtha from the majority leader's job. ``I'm not going to get into that,'' Hoyer said. ``We're going to have a unified caucus, and I'm going to be positive.''

`Looking Forward'

Murtha's spokesman, Andrew Koneschusky, declined to comment on criticism of Murtha's ethics. ``We are looking forward, not backward,'' he said.

Murtha has earned a reputation for being one of the most prolific lawmakers at doling out earmarks -- federal dollars added to spending legislation, sometimes anonymously, to pay for lawmakers' pet projects.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based group that campaigns against waste in federal spending, estimates that Murtha's western Pennsylvania district received between $80 million and $100 million in earmarks in 2006 and will receive an additional $80 million next year. Murtha says the projects help bring jobs to an area hurt by steel-plant closures.

Center of a Scandal

Earmarks were at the center of the congressional scandal that resulted in the resignation and imprisonment of California Republican Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, who admitted taking $2.4 million in bribes for steering money to defense contractors.

``Earmarks have become known as the currency of corruption,'' Boehm said.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said this year's defense budget included 2,847 earmarks worth $9.4 billion, almost five times as many as in 1994, and twice the dollar value.

``Securing pork for one's district or state is a time- honored tradition in American politics that knows no ideological boundaries,'' said David Primo, a political science professor at the University of Rochester in New York.

Murtha received at least $179,400 from defense companies' political action committees in the 2005-06 election cycle, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, a Washington-based company that tracks campaign finance.

More Than the Chairman

The amount he received not only exceeded the $109,600 that the Republican chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee, Florida Representative Bill Young, received -- it was more than any other member of Congress got.

Watchdog groups say Murtha has also steered a large number of earmarks to politically connected lobbying firms that have given to his re-election campaigns.

His sixth-largest career donor is the PMA Group, a Washington lobbying firm founded by former appropriations committee staffer Paul Magliocchetti, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis based on employee, family and PAC contributions. PMA won at least 64 special projects in the 2006 defense-spending legislation.

``He's been a serial abuser of earmarks,'' said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. ``To be talking about trying to change the tone and the pay-to-play system -- he has been, more so than just about any other Democrat, the personification of that system.''

Abscam Memories

Murtha's candidacy has also revived memories of the Abscam investigation. The American Spectator, a conservative magazine, in September posted a video and transcript on its Web site of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's attempted sting in January 1980.

During the meeting, an undercover FBI agent showed Murtha $50,000 in a drawer in front of him. The congressman first said ``I'm not interested,'' then told the agent, ``You know, we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't.''

The video was played during the 1980 trial of two Abscam defendants during which Murtha testified as a witness, according to the New York Times.

Six U.S. representatives and a senator were convicted in the scandal. Murtha denied any wrongdoing and the House ethics committee found no reason to sanction him. ``I am disconcerted that some are making headlines by resorting to unfounded allegations that occurred 26 years ago,'' Murtha said in a statement yesterday.

Reagan's Commandment

The complaints by ethics-in-government groups haven't been publicly echoed by Democrats on Capitol Hill. ``Ronald Reagan had the 11th commandment: Speak no ill of a fellow Republican,'' said Representative Jim Cooper of Tennessee. ``We need to adopt the same thing on our side.''

Murtha, a Vietnam War veteran with close ties to the Pentagon who has served in Congress for 32 years, drew national attention last year when he called for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

The call for withdrawal ``changed the national debate'' on Iraq, Pelosi said in her Nov. 12 letter of support for Murtha.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said elevating Murtha would knock Democrats off the political high ground on good- government issues.

``This is not the face you'd want out there when you're talking ethics,'' Sloan said. ``It sends a message that they're not taking the culture of corruption quite as seriously now that they're in power.''



To: longnshort who wrote (8609)11/15/2006 11:50:33 AM
From: Ann Corrigan  Respond to of 224669
 
Is it perfect justice?:Enter, Pariah: Now It’s Hugs for Lieberman

By MARK LEIBOVICH, NY Times

November 15, 2006
WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 — Senator Joseph I. Lieberman strode into a Democratic caucus gathering like he owned the place or, at the very least, like someone who is a flight risk and could leave at any minute, taking the Democrats’ new majority with him.

In other words, everyone was extra-special nice to the wayward Democrat on Tuesday.

“It was all very warm, lots of hugs, high-fives, that kind of stuff,” said Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado.

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon marveled, “One senator after another kept coming up and shaking his hand.”

And Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas noted, “I gave him a hug and a kiss.”

Mr. Lieberman received a standing ovation at a caucus luncheon after Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, who is poised to become the majority leader, declared, “We’re all family.”

All of which is particularly touching in light of recent history. It was, after all, just three months ago that Mr. Lieberman became something of a party pariah after losing the Democratic primary in Connecticut but continuing his re-election bid as an independent.

Mr. Lieberman won re-election last week without help from most of his Democratic Senate colleagues, who backed Ned Lamont, his Democratic rival, over their “good friend Joe Lieberman.”

These would be many of the same good friends “who were happy to leave my dad by the side of the road,” as Mr. Lieberman’s son, Matthew, put it in an election night speech. These, presumably, would include “friends” like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, all Lamont supporters.

“It’s clear that the Democrats need him at this point more than he needs them,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, whom Mr. Lieberman genuinely does consider a close friend. “How sweet is this?”

Indeed, it is hard to imagine how Mr. Lieberman could have emerged better from last week’s election. He was re-elected comfortably, and the Democratic Party he still belongs to is now in the majority, assuring him the chairmanship of the powerful Homeland Security Committee.

Yet that majority is slim enough, 51 to 49, to turn Mr. Lieberman into arguably the Senate’s most influential member. If he defects, the Senate would effectively be under Republican control because Vice President Dick Cheney would cast tie-breaking votes.

“It was very painful to him to have all these people he thought were his friends embrace his opponent,” Ms. Collins said. “They just threw him overboard. But now, not only is he re-elected resoundingly, but he is also the key to which party controls the Senate.”

Mr. Lieberman’s situation underscores the precarious calculus of political friendships. People close to him say he remains miffed, if not bitter, about what he considers the betrayal of allies who supported an unknown, untested and unfamiliar candidate.

In recent months, Mr. Lieberman has frequently invoked the Harry Truman maxim that if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.

Mr. Lieberman has suggested he has felt especially wounded by Mr. Dodd, Connecticut’s senior senator, with whom he had shared a close bond since arriving in the Senate in 1989. Mr. Dodd had supported Mr. Lieberman in the primary, but endorsed Mr. Lamont after he won. Mr. Dodd’s appearance with Mr. Lamont at a Democratic “unity” rally and in a campaign commercial infuriated Mr. Lieberman, friends said.

Mr. Dodd said in a brief interview Tuesday, “We all make decisions, and those decisions have consequences.”

Earlier in the day, he attended a Capitol Hill news conference that drew every Democrat in Connecticut’s Congressional delegation except Mr. Lieberman.

Friends said the strains between Mr. Lieberman and his Democratic colleagues show.

“It will take a little time for the room to really warm up from both ends,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, one of the few Senate Democrats who supported Mr. Lieberman in his general election campaign. “I would not be forthright if I didn’t say there was some healing and work that has to be done.”

During the campaign, Mr. Lieberman said repeatedly that he would continue to vote with the Democratic caucus, but there were calls from the left for the Democratic leadership to strip him of his seniority and committee assignments if he won.

But as Mr. Lieberman claimed a healthy lead in polls, Mr. Reid reached out to him. Over time, Mr. Reid’s and other Democratic leaders’ support for Mr. Lamont became half-hearted, or nonexistent, according to Mr. Lamont’s campaign.

Mr. Lieberman classifies himself as an “independent Democrat” and has said that recent events left him feeling “liberated” and “unshackled,” not exactly reassuring words to Democrats.

He stirred more anxiety Sunday, when in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he refused to rule out becoming a Republican (while adding, “I hope I don’t get to that point”).

In brief remarks to reporters Tuesday, Mr. Lieberman said he had refused to rule out switching parties largely because Tim Russert, the show’s host, “kept pressing me on it.”

But Mr. Lieberman also said that while “most of my vote clearly came from independents and Republicans” in Connecticut, “it’s fair to say that I couldn’t have won without Democratic support.”

Mr. Lieberman restated that it was possible he could join Senate Republicans, but he added, “I’m not going to threaten on every issue to leave the caucus.”

Clearly, friends say, he is relishing his sudden ascent from Democratic reject in Connecticut to Senate kingmaker in Washington. “He is just sitting there in the catbird seat, and it must be delicious for him,” Ms. Collins said.

Mr. Lieberman was asked Tuesday if he viewed his position as similar to a swing vote on the Supreme Court, a role often played by former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor or Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. The parallel had not occurred to him, Mr. Lieberman replied, but he considered it “a complimentary analogy.”

He beamed as he said this, as he did for much of the day.

David D. Kirkpatrick contributed reporting.