There are only 15 days to go until the national
referendum on the COMPETENCE, CHARACTER and
CREDIBILITY of the _resident and the VICE
_resident...At least two more US soldiers have died in
Iraq. For what? The neo-con wet dream of a Three
Stooges Reich...Here are five compelling pieces,
including the passionate anti-Bush arguments of a
retired Methodist Bishop and another prominent
Republican, as well as the Tampa Tribune editorial
refusing to endorse Bush and declining to endorse
anyone. This conservatie newspaper has endorsed the
Republican every year since Eisenhower in '52, except
for '64 (Goldwater-Johnson) when, like this year, it
refused to endorse either candidate. These three
stories highlight the vast bi-partisan popular front
of resistance to this illegitimate, corrupt and
incompetent regime. There is an Electoral Uprising coming at the Ballo Box on November 2nd. The other two stories in today's
LNS distribution, from Fraudida and Ohio, underscore
the nation-wide efforts of the Bush Cabal and its
wholly-owned-subsidiary-formerly-known-as-the-Republican-Party
to steal this election, as it did in 2000, with the
complicity of the US regimestream news media, their
full partner in a Triad of shared special interest
(i.e., energy, weapons, media, pharmacueticals,
chemicals, tobacco, etc.) Do not let it happen again.
If enough of us vote they cannot steal it...
Michael Cudahy, www.truthout.org: We will find out in
a few short weeks whether Republican moderates can be
bought off by the occasional bone and a seat at the
children's table, or whether they will regain their
voice and become major players in setting the party's
political agenda for future generations.
William Boyd Grove, Charleston Gazette (WV): Webster
defines blasphemy as “profane or contemptuous speech,
writing, or action concerning God or anything held as
divine.”
Blasphemy is running rampant in our country as this
election campaign proceeds, trivializing holy things
as it moves on. The latest instance of it was the
distribution by the Republican National Committee, in
West Virginia and Arkansas, of a brochure with a
picture of a Bible with the word “banned” across it,
and another with the hands of two men with a wedding
ring with the word “allowed” across it.
The implication is that the election of Sen. John
Kerry would lead to the banning of the Bible and the
approval of same-sex marriage. Those who distributed
the brochure know that the claim is not true and not
possible. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution
would not allow it, and Sen. Kerry’s election would
not lead to it. The brochure is not only insulting to
the intelligence of West Virginians, targeted to the
stereotype of Appalachians as “dumb hillbillies,” it
is blasphemous; it is profane and contemptuous writing
concerning God and the Bible.
Tampa Tribune Editorial: We find ourselves in a
position unimaginable four years ago when we strongly
endorsed for president a fiscal conservative and
``moderate man of mainstream convictions'' who
promised to wield military muscle only as a last
resort and to resist the lure of ``nation building.''
We find ourselves deeply conflicted today about the
presidential race, skeptical of the promises and
positions of Sen. John Kerry and disappointed by the
performance of President George W. Bush.
As stewards of the Tribune's editorial voice, we find
it unimaginable to not be lending our voice to the
chorus of conservative-leaning newspapers endorsing
the president's re- election. We had fully expected to
stand with Bush, whom we endorsed in 2000 because his
politics generally reflected ours: a strong military,
fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and small
government. We knew him to be a popular governor of
Texas who fought for lower taxes, less government and
a pro-business constitution.
But we are unable to endorse President Bush for re-
election because of his mishandling of the war in
Iraq, his record deficit spending, his assault on open
government and his failed promise to be a ``uniter not
a divider'' within the United States and the world.
Herald Tribune (S.W. FLA): Several days before the
state's felon voter list was sent to county elections
offices across Florida, state officials expressed
doubts about its reliability.
The doubts were serious enough that Gov. Jeb Bush was
advised to "pull the plug" on the entire project,
according to an e-mail written by a state computer
expert and obtained by the Herald-Tribune.
Bush refused the request, the e-mail said, and told
the Department of State to proceed with the purge of
nearly 48,000 voters.
Two months later, after flaws in the list were exposed
in the press, the state abandoned the effort to purge
voters on the list. Those flaws were revealed after
Secretary of State Glenda Hood lost a court battle to
keep the list hidden from the public.
Associated Press: Presidential votes from Ohio's
predominantly black precincts, most of which use
punch-card ballots, went uncounted at three times the
rate of those from predominantly white precincts in
the 2000 election, according to a newspaper analysis.
The pattern could repeat on Nov. 2, the Columbus
Dispatch reported Sunday based on its
precinct-by-precinct computer analysis comparing 2000
election results from U.S. Census race data.
Ohio had 94,569 uncounted presidential votes in 2000,
which would not have been enough to sway the outcome.
President Bush won Ohio by about 167,000 votes over
Democrat Al Gore.
In precincts where 90 percent or more of the
voting-age population is black, 4.8 percent of ballots
had no votes counted for president.
In precincts where the population was more than 90
percent white, the rate of uncounted presidential
votes was 1.7 percent. The statewide rate was about 2
percent.
Support Our Troops, Save the US Constitution,
Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Restore Fiscal Responsibility in the White House,
Thwart the Theft of a Second Presidential Election,
Save the Environment, Break the Corporatist
Stranglehold on the US Mainstream News Media, Rescue
the US Supreme Court from Right-Wing Radicals, Cleanse
the White House of the Chicken Hawk Coup and Its
War-Profiteering Cronies, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat the Triad, Defeat Bush (again!)
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101804F.shtml
The Power of GOP Moderates to Defeat George W. Bush
By Michael Cudahy
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 18 October 2004
If President George W. Bush is reelected, the
direction of the Republican Party is likely to undergo
a massive and fundamental shift. Long-held principles
of liberty, integrity and respect for human rights -
established by Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln and
Dwight Eisenhower - could be relegated to the pages of
history books.
Should the president win reelection we could see
national identity cards, a continuation of
irresponsible fiscal policies, and a foreign policy
that rejects a decades long respect for
multilateralism. These are positions that have defined
the party for the better part of the 20th century and
are deserving of this president's consideration.
Ironically, the decision rests in the hands of the
centrist or "moderate" wing of the Republican Party -
the very people whose values will be devalued if this
administration is permitted another four years in
office. Representing only 18-20% of registered
Republicans nationwide, they are in a position to
supply Democrat John Kerry with the 3-5% points he
needs to win an extremely close presidential election.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W.
Bush mesmerized many of his party's centrist members
with talk of "compassionate conservatism," and a
desire for bipartisanship cooperation.
"President Bush's rhetoric during the 2000
campaign held the promise for a significant change of
direction," said Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI). "There
was a strong bipartisan desire for mutual respect and
cooperation - for the good of the country. We were
exhausted by the bitter partisan infighting, but this
administration's behavior has only made the problem
worse."
"We are seeing policy initiatives that are
diametrically opposed to the promises we heard four
years ago," Chafee says. "The president is advancing
an extreme agenda that rejects everything from
worldwide environmental cooperation to the banning of
access to abortions for service members overseas."
"Moderates were in a position to provide significant
assistance to this president," says Chafee. "Sadly, he
chose a different direction."
The question that needs to be addressed is the
commitment and courage of rank and file Republican
centrists. Are they prepared to overthrow the
neo-conservative Republicans that betrayed President
George H.W. Bush in 1992, or has their will been
broken by the strong-arm tactics of the last 12 years?
"The problem with moderates," says Ann Stone
Chairman of Republicans for Choice, "is that they are
so moderate, so civil, and generally so silent.
Nonetheless," Stone says, "only 38% of her membership
will be supporting President Bush."
In talking with Republican activists who have
consistently supported moderate positions for decades,
I discovered that none were willing to speak on the
record.
To a person they are intimidated by the extremely
personal and well organized attacks by members of the
Bush administration's political operation.
"When I talk anecdotally to moderate Republicans,
it's very hard to find one who is going to vote for
Bush," said John Zogby, president and CEO of the
polling firm Zogby International, in an interview with
Salon.com. "On the other hand, it's not showing up in
our polling." In fact, Zogby's latest polls show 87
percent of Republicans backing Bush. "I'm just
watching and waiting and saying to myself maybe
there's something going on here, because I'm hearing
it."
Consequently, it is hard to understand why
respected and visible moderate Republican leaders like
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator John McCain,
and former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani went to
such lengths at the Republican Convention in New York
to provide President Bush with important political
cover. It is particularly difficult to understand when
this administration has done virtually nothing to
support their concerns.
While some political analysts suggest it is a
strategy to reestablish influence for the centrist
Republican agenda, other observers question whether
the benefits will be worth the price.
"A second Bush term would be a disaster for
American women," said, Evelyn Becker Deputy
Communications Director at NARAL. "We would see an
effort to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with
ultraconservative justices in an attempt to overturn
Roe v. Wade, as well as continued and aggressive
legislative moves to limit women's access to birth
control, proper family planning and health care
services," she said.
The November election will also decide other major
legislative battles critical to party moderates. We
are certain to see the Bush administration set new
standards in partisan politics. This extreme behavior
could precipitate a serious conomic crisis, as a
result of irresponsible tax policies and out of
control government spending, while threatening the
American tradition of free speech with measures such
as the USA Patriot Act.
We will find out in a few short weeks whether
Republican moderates can be bought off by the
occasional bone and a seat at the children's table, or
whether they will regain their voice and become major
players in setting the party's political agenda for
future generations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Cudahy is a political writer and analyst
from Massachusetts. He was a former national campaign
staff member for President George H.W. Bush, Executive
Director for Elliot Richardson's Committee for
Responsible Government, and National Communications
Director for the Republican Coalition for Choice.
-------
http://www.wvgazette.com/section//200410071
October 08, 2004
William Boyd Grove
Republican presidential campaign blasphemous
Webster defines blasphemy as “profane or contemptuous
speech, writing, or action concerning God or anything
held as divine.”
Blasphemy is running rampant in our country as this
election campaign proceeds, trivializing holy things
as it moves on. The latest instance of it was the
distribution by the Republican National Committee, in
West Virginia and Arkansas, of a brochure with a
picture of a Bible with the word “banned” across it,
and another with the hands of two men with a wedding
ring with the word “allowed” across it.
The implication is that the election of Sen. John
Kerry would lead to the banning of the Bible and the
approval of same-sex marriage. Those who distributed
the brochure know that the claim is not true and not
possible. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution
would not allow it, and Sen. Kerry’s election would
not lead to it. The brochure is not only insulting to
the intelligence of West Virginians, targeted to the
stereotype of Appalachians as “dumb hillbillies,” it
is blasphemous; it is profane and contemptuous writing
concerning God and the Bible.
Clergy usually do not take public, partisan positions
in an election. I have never before done so in more
than 50 years of ministry as a pastor and a bishop.
But in this election, the use of false teaching
concerning scripture and the Christian faith by a
political campaign demands response from religious
leaders.
It is now widely believed that, of course, nearly all
persons of religious faith will vote for President
Bush. That “conventional wisdom” has originated in the
Republican Party and been advanced by an uncritical
media. The claim is not correct, and the statistics
supporting it have been distorted and oversimplified.
The “religious right” is not the only voice of
religious faith in this country!
The issues on which the religious right has focused in
this campaign are almost solely abortion and same-sex
marriage. While those are important issues that need
and deserve discussion, they are not the only, or even
the primary, issues to which the Bible is relevant. On
the other issues in the campaign, the president’s
policies are not in accord with Biblical teaching, or
with the teaching of his own church.
The media has made much of the fact that Sen. Kerry’s
position on abortion contradicts the teaching of the
Roman Catholic Church and, as a result, some bishops
may deny him the Eucharist. Why does the media not
investigate whether or not President Bush’s policies
are consistent with the teachings of his church, the
United Methodist Church? Such an investigation would
reveal that the president’s policies are contrary to
the Social Principles of his church (official church
teaching), and to the broad consensus of ecumenical
church teaching on many significant issues. I will
name only three:
War and Peace: The Social Principles of the United
Methodist Church, and the dominant position among the
churches of the world is that war is always a last
resort. Pre-emptive war, now official U.S. government
policy, can never be justified by church doctrine.
Care of the environment, or “stewardship of creation”:
According to Genesis, the human was made responsible
for the creation “to till it and to keep it.” In
violation of the Social Principles of the president’s
church, the policies of the administration have rolled
back legislation protecting the environment that has
been in force for many years under presidents of both
parties, and our government has refused to sign
international treaties on global warming and other
threats to the environment.
Concern for the poor: Jesus, quoting the prophet
Isaiah, said “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me
because he has sent me to bring good news to the
poor.” The teaching of the president’s church seeks
fulfillment of that promise to “bring good news to the
poor.” However, these last years have seen a dramatic
increase in the number of persons living in poverty in
the United States and millions have been added to the
number without health care. The gap between the
wealthy and the middle class and poor has increased
each year under the policies of the government.
Not only are the policies of this government in
conflict with scripture and the teachings of the
president’s church, but President Bush has been
unwilling to listen to the counsel of religious
leaders unless he knows in advance that they agree
with him. Being open to other points of view within
the Christian community is one of the marks of mature
Christian life. The bishops of the president’s church
repeatedly and unsuccessfully have sought a meeting
with the president. He is only the second president
since Washington who has refused to have a discussion
with Methodist bishops.
In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the National
Council of Churches sent small delegations of
Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant leaders to meet with
the leaders of Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia,
the Vatican and the United States of America. In
nearly all of those visits, the delegation met with
the head of state. Of those governments, only the
president of the United States and his administration
refused to receive a delegation.
I do not question President Bush’s personal faith. But
he has not studied the scriptures in relation to
issues of justice and peace, or else he has ignored
those teachings. The result is that he has allowed his
religious beliefs, dominated by his political
ideology, to make him absolutely certain that he is
right, and unwilling to listen to other voices.
He is slow to admit a mistake because he believes his
decisions are just and righteous. The dogged
determination and staying on message that some so
admire is self-righteous and very dangerous. It casts
the current struggle against terrorism in “holy war”
terms, as a conflict between absolute good on one side
and absolute evil on the other, the same perspective
held by the terrorists. The issues are between good
and evil. The methods of the terrorists are evil. But
it is very dangerous for us to see ourselves as
totally righteous.
A mature understanding of scripture could help the
president avoid the arrogance and hubris that have so
offended the rest of the world. And in such a
situation, to exploit, distort and manipulate religion
for political advantage is blasphemous. It is to
trivialize the holy for self-serving purpose.
Religious talk can be very cheap. Jesus said, “Not
everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the
kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will
of my father in heaven.” What is the will of “my
father in heaven”? That is a huge question. The
president and his campaign would do well to reflect on
that question, and to avoid the tendency to believe
that they already know the answers. They also might
consult with others who have studied the question who
might have a different point of view. And meanwhile,
they should be careful to avoid the sin of blasphemy.
Grove, a former West Virginia United Methodist bishop,
lives in Charleston.
http://www.tampatrib.com/News/MGBU3UEHF0E.html
Why We Cannot Endorse President Bush For Re-Election
Published: Oct 17, 2004
We find ourselves in a position unimaginable four
years ago when we strongly endorsed for president a
fiscal conservative and ``moderate man of mainstream
convictions'' who promised to wield military muscle
only as a last resort and to resist the lure of
``nation building.''
We find ourselves deeply conflicted today about the
presidential race, skeptical of the promises and
positions of Sen. John Kerry and disappointed by the
performance of President George W. Bush.
As stewards of the Tribune's editorial voice, we find
it unimaginable to not be lending our voice to the
chorus of conservative-leaning newspapers endorsing
the president's re- election. We had fully expected to
stand with Bush, whom we endorsed in 2000 because his
politics generally reflected ours: a strong military,
fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and small
government. We knew him to be a popular governor of
Texas who fought for lower taxes, less government and
a pro-business constitution.
But we are unable to endorse President Bush for re-
election because of his mishandling of the war in
Iraq, his record deficit spending, his assault on open
government and his failed promise to be a ``uniter not
a divider'' within the United States and the world.
Neither can we endorse Sen. Kerry, whose
undistinguished Senate record stands at odds with our
conservative principles and whose positions on the
Iraq war - the central issue in this campaign - have
been difficult to distinguish or differentiate.
It is an achingly difficult decision to not endorse a
candidate in the presidential contest, and we do not
reach this decision lightly.
The Tribune has endorsed a Republican for president
ever since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952, with one
exception. We did not endorse in the 1964 presidential
race because, as we said at the time, ``it is our
feeling that unless a newspaper can recommend a
candidate with complete conviction that he be the
better choice for the office, it should make no
endorsement.''
Like the country, this editorial board finds itself
deeply divided about the president's prosecution of
the war and his indifference to federal spending.
Bush Overstated The Evidence
Although Bush came to office having lost the popular
vote, the nation rallied behind him after the
terrorist strikes of 9/11. He transcended the
political divide and became everyone's president the
moment he picked up that bullhorn on the ashes of
ground zero and promised the terrorists that they
would hear from us. Aside from a few dancing
extremists, the world stood with us.
Bush told us to wait, and we confidently stood with
him. With surety and resolve, he struck Afghanistan
and the hillside holes of al-Qaida extremists. For
taking out the Taliban and bringing about national
elections in Afghanistan this month, the president
deserves much credit. While we still haven't caught
Osama bin Laden, the ace of spades, our troops have
successfully caught and imprisoned many other al-Qaida
leaders.
But before securing Afghanistan, Bush grew convinced
that Iraq posed an imminent threat to America and so
directed soldiers and supplies there.
His administration terrified us into believing that we
had to quickly wage war with Baghdad to ensure our
safety. Vice President Dick Cheney said he had
``irrefutable evidence'' that Saddam had reconstituted
his nuclear program. National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice wrongly asserted that aluminum tubes
found in Iraq could be used only for nuclear weapons.
And the president himself said he couldn't wait for a
smoking gun in the form of a ``mushroom cloud.''
Again, this editorial board stood solidly with the
president in his resolve to take the fight to the
terrorists where they live, forever changing American
foreign policy with our first-ever ``pre-emptive''
war.
Once we got to Baghdad, however, we found out that the
president was wrong and that the reasons for launching
the war were either exaggerated or inaccurate. There
were no stockpiles of WMD and no link between Saddam
and the terrorists that struck on 9/11.
As it turns out, the neoconservatives in the Bush
administration were bamboozled by dubious sources
named Curveball and Chalabi, whose integrity and
access to real- time information was repeatedly
questioned by our own intelligence services.
No Dissension Allowed
But groupthink took hold among the neocons, while
those with contrary points of view, like Secretary of
State Colin Powell, were sidelined until after key
decisions were made. It was almost as though someone
who asked tough questions was seen as siding with the
terrorists.
When Gen. Eric Shinseki, then Army chief of staff,
said that hundreds of thousands of troops would be
needed to secure a postwar Iraq, his argument was
dismissed and the general summarily pushed aside.
But after Baghdad fell, we saw how insufficient troop
numbers led to the looting of hospitals, businesses
and schools - everything but the Oil Ministry, which
our forces secured.
At the time, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said
with great hubris that the uprising was ``untidy'' but
not unexpected. And the president himself challenged
the enemy to ``bring it on.''
Now we learn from Ambassador Paul Bremer, former
presidential envoy to Iraq, that ``we never had enough
troops on the ground'' to stop the insurgency. Baath
party loyalists went underground only to launch a
guerrilla campaign that makes Iraq less safe today
than immediately after Baghdad fell.
The insurgents have taken back cities like Fallujah,
which we mistakenly ceded to them last April. And they
continue to undo the reconstruction of schools, roads,
clinics and the electrical grid built by our troops
and an array of mostly American contractors. Most
problematic, they keep blowing up rebuilt oil
pipelines whose revenues were supposed to pay for the
reconstruction.
In one of his too-rare press conferences, the
president stood strong in promising that Iraq would be
sovereign by June 30, even though no one could
identify who would get the keys to the country. Bush's
resolve in meeting the deadline for the creation of an
interim government was commendable.
Still, despite deliberate steps to rebuild Iraq, we
find ourselves today in an open-ended war that has
taken the lives of 1,081 American servicemen and
women, and wounded or maimed 7,862 more. Financially,
the war has cost us $126 billion - money that could
have been better spent securing the homeland - and is
a major reason for the largest federal deficit in
history.
More Fear Ahead
What bothers us is that the president says that even
knowing what he knows now, he still would have invaded
Iraq because Saddam had the ``intent'' to make nuclear
weapons and was a ruthless dictator who killed his own
people. If this nation-building succeeds, the
president says, we will have built a friend in the
Middle East.
Because of the invasion, one other renegade country -
Libya - decided to disarm its nuclear program, a real
success for the president.
Still, we are troubled by Bush's talk about a broad
``forward strategy of freedom'' to ``transform'' the
Middle East. We believe it unwise to use our military
to impose democracy on Arab countries, which would
rather determine their own future. We fear this model
of forced democracy will only fuel recruiting
campaigns for terrorism.
And how about Iran and North Korea, who have
considerably more advanced nuclear capabilities than
Iraq ever had? Are we going to brashly send our
overstretched military to war there too?
An American president should take the country to war
only as a last resort, only after exhausting every
diplomatic channel and only after asking demanding
questions and weighing concrete evidence. On the Iraq
war, President Bush failed on all counts.
The Iraq war came about because of a profound failure
of intelligence that went unchecked and unquestioned
by the president, who shows no sign of having second
doubts. He admits to making no mistakes except for a
few presidential appointments - presumably disloyal
people who dared to speak up.
Bush's re-election campaign continues to stoke fear.
``You better have a president who faces these
terrorists down before they hurt us again,'' he said
in the first debate.
Cheney, who continues to maintain that Iraq was in
league with al-Qaida despite evidence to the contrary,
went so far as to say that electing Kerry would invite
another terrorist strike.
We don't like Kerry's talk about a ``global test,''
but neither should we summarily dismiss the court of
world opinion, which, you will remember, was with us
less than three short years ago.
And finally, Bush has done little to broker peace
between the Israelis and Palestinians, a conflict that
continues to ferment hatred in the Arab world.
Bush's Spending Ways
While his prosecution of the war is the principal
reason we cannot endorse the president's re-election,
we are also deeply disappointed by his failure to
control federal spending.
It must be said that Bush has been a friend to
business, and his promise to simplify the tax code is
alluring. He also has dramatically reduced government
regulations that slow commerce and cost money. As one
example, he rightfully ended the requirement that
businesses report any employee complaint of carpal
tunnel syndrome.
It should also be noted that his tax cuts spurred a
sputtering economy and benefited not only the rich,
but the middle class too. He doubled the child credit
to $1,000, reduced the marriage penalty and favored
elimination of the death tax, all positions we
supported.
However, although the numbers from recent months are
more promising, the tax cuts did not spur the expected
job growth. The nation has lost jobs during the Bush
presidency, the first administration since Herbert
Hoover's to oversee a net loss of jobs.
But while the recession, 9/11 and profligate spending
by Congress have grown the deficit, two-thirds can be
traced back to the president's tax cuts, according to
the Office of Management and Budget.
Bush's mistake was failing to couple tax cuts with
reduced spending. Instead of asking some sacrifice
from the public, he allowed Congress to keep spending,
including a giveaway program of farm subsidies.
Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill. Even
Franklin Roosevelt scaled back New Deal programs after
Pearl Harbor.
The result: Bush has turned the $150 billion surplus
he inherited into a $450 billion deficit.
At one point, Congress tried to impose some fiscal
discipline. Lawmakers said they would not pass the
Medicare prescription drug benefit if the cost
exceeded $400 billion over 10 years.
So what did the administration do? It fudged the
numbers.
Thomas Scully, former head of the Medicare agency,
threatened to fire chief actuary Richard Foster if he
dared to tell lawmakers that the true cost stood
between $500 billion and $600 billion.
To make matters worse, the president's law prohibits
Medicare from negotiating the best prices from
pharmaceutical companies.
Against this backdrop of spending, Bush announced a
mission to Mars and support for a missile shield
defense system, a Cold War throwback that would be
nice to have but wouldn't stop the car bombs and
speedboats that are today's terrorists' weapons of
choice.
At the same time, Bush has done nothing to shrink the
size of the federal government. He has not cut one
agency's budget. In fact, at the Department of
Education, he has actually increased spending by 68
percent.
We support a strong and accountable education system,
but we do not support the added layer of federal
regulation that Bush has imposed on Florida schools
through his No Child Left Behind act.
The president modeled his plan after Florida's A-Plus
Plan, which was doing well enough by itself. Now we
have two government programs that send conflicting
messages to Florida parents, teachers and students.
Yet, while throwing money at programs of questionable
urgency, Bush has failed to adequately fund the
Department of Homeland Security. Penny- pinching there
means firefighters and police still lack radios that
can talk to one another, cargo shipments at airports
and seaports are not screened, and hospitals and
biohazard labs feel underfunded and underequipped.
Government Behind Closed Doors
At the birth of the 9/11 millennium, President Bush
rallied us around a new world order that required some
loss of freedoms so that the government could do a
better job of protecting us.
He passed the Patriot Act, which, while not perfect,
gives law enforcement agencies the much-needed ability
to talk with one another.
While we supported the Patriot Act, we are concerned
by the president's relentless attack on open
government.
According to the libertarian Reason Foundation, Bush
has nearly doubled the number of classified documents,
urged agencies to refuse Freedom of Information Act
requests and invoked executive privilege wherever
possible.
His administration doesn't want citizens to know when
hazardous chemicals are routed through their towns,
how the repair of tenuous electric grids is going or
who was at the table to form the nation's energy
policy.
Typical of this administration, only industry
lobbyists and like-minded people were allowed at the
table to craft the energy plan. People who might
dissent - consumer groups and conservationists - were
not invited.
Within a year of Cheney's energy task force, the
administration had given billions in subsidies to
energy firms and begun weakening pollution laws while
opening up wilderness areas to exploitation. The
administration misled people by calling a plan to
weaken pollution controls the Clear Skies initiative.
As one example, the new law allows coal- burning power
plants to avoid installing pollution-control equipment
during renovations.
The Failed Compassionate Conservative
President Bush told us that he was ``uniter, not a
divider,'' but shortly after taking office, his
administration took a sharp right turn that has
divided this country.
We were glad to see him sign the ban on late-term
abortions. While we don't favor the criminalization of
abortion, we want to see the number of abortions
reduced. It is not uncommon to place limits on
freedoms, such as freedom of speech or freedom of
assembly. Limits on abortion can be justified too.
We also agree that religion and tradition define
marriage as the union of a man and a woman. However,
we believe marriage laws should rightfully be left to
the states. We don't support the president's decision
to engage this country in a fight for a constitutional
amendment to ban gay marriage.
Probably most disappointing, however, is his
leadership in Washington.
Besides the White House, Republicans control the House
and the Senate and all committee chairs. But rather
than reach across the aisle, this president has
deepened the divide in Congress, where Republican
leaders have uninvited Democrats from conference
committees where differences are reconciled. We would
not condone such behavior from Democrats and shouldn't
accept it from Republicans.
We had expected something different, given Bush's
tenure in Texas.
People view Bush as a man with strong convictions. And
while he's clearly convinced of the rightness of his
ways, that doesn't mean he's always right.
This president doesn't try to hear from people who
disagree, choosing instead to keep the counsel of
staunch supporters. He disdains news conferences and
brags that he doesn't read the newspapers. He counts
on his core group of insiders to tell him what he
needs to know.
When asked if he consulted his father, the only other
president to have waged war against Iraq, Bush
unabashedly said that he spoke to a ``higher father.''
Presidential decisions about sending men and women to
war should be based on fact, not prayer.
Still, the president seems like a nice guy. He is
plain-spoken and says what he means. People who've met
him come away impressed. If he were a drinking man,
they say, they would enjoy having a beer with him. But
we're not electing Mr. Congeniality. We're electing
the leader of the free world and should set a higher
standard than likability.
On a large scale, Bush has failed to deliver on his
promise to be a compassionate conservative.
Kerry Concerns Us Too
We have written today mostly about Bush because he was
our choice the last time around and we believed his
conservative principles were most closely aligned with
ours.
But neither do we see the senator from Massachusetts
as someone we can endorse.
We're not sure what Kerry thinks. He supported the war
in Iraq, then opposed adequately funding the troops.
His plan to secure the peace in Iraq is to cozy up to
European countries that don't have our interests at
heart.
This is the same man who as a senator for 20 years has
no significant legislation to his name and voted
against all of the major weapons systems that have
made America the most powerful country in the world.
Kerry would repeal Bush's tax cut for Americans who
earn more than $200,000, but he doesn't say how he
would create his promised 10 million jobs. And he
promises to lower health insurance premiums, though
the math looks fuzzy.
He made veracity an issue by putting his noble service
in Vietnam front and center in his campaign. He wants
to be treated as a hero, but 30 years ago he claimed
Americans committed atrocities. He seems shocked that
people doubt him and don't consider him a hero.
Early Voting Starts Tomorrow
When early voting opens in Florida on Monday, you can
begin going to the polls to pick the leader you think
will best protect us and move our country forward.
The president's backers argue that his resolve and
strength prove him to be the best leader for the next
four years. Kerry's people argue that it's time for a
change.
You've heard from the candidates and you've heard our
analysis.
Now it's time for you to vote.
Voting is a matter of faith, since no one can predict
what either candidate will do. Voting is a personal
choice, one of the most personal things we do. We
encourage you to look deep within yourself and choose
the candidate you think most clearly represents your
views.
Of one thing we are certain: America is the greatest
country on earth and will survive, no matter the
outcome on Nov. 2.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041016/NEWS/410160348
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article published Oct 16, 2004
Bush urged to 'pull the plug' on voter purge
By Chris Davis and Matthew Doig
STAFF WRITERS
Several days before the state's felon voter list was
sent to county elections offices across Florida, state
officials expressed doubts about its reliability.
The doubts were serious enough that Gov. Jeb Bush was
advised to "pull the plug" on the entire project,
according to an e-mail written by a state computer
expert and obtained by the Herald-Tribune.
Bush refused the request, the e-mail said, and told
the Department of State to proceed with the purge of
nearly 48,000 voters.
Two months later, after flaws in the list were exposed
in the press, the state abandoned the effort to purge
voters on the list. Those flaws were revealed after
Secretary of State Glenda Hood lost a court battle to
keep the list hidden from the public.
Bush said Friday that he was never warned about any
problems before the list was released.
But his denial contradicts a May 4, 2004, e-mail in
which Florida Department of Law Enforcement computer
expert Jeff Long describes how election officials told
Bush the list needed to be abandoned.
"Paul Craft called today and told me that yesterday
they recommended to the Gov that they 'pull the
plug,'" on the voter database, Long wrote in an e-mail
to his boss, Donna Uzzell.
Long added that state election officials "weren't
comfortable with the felon matching program they've
got."
"The Gov rejected their suggestion to pull the plug,
so they're 'going live' with it this weekend," Long
wrote.
Long was recounting a conversation he had earlier that
day with Craft, the Department of State's top computer
expert and the point man on the felon purge list.
Long's primary responsibility was to provide Craft
with his department's database of convicted felons.
Friday, Long confirmed the contents of the e-mail,
saying that he didn't remember the specifics, but
Craft told him about the meeting with Bush.
"I think Paul was saying he was experiencing some
difficulties with" the felon list, Long said.
But the governor wanted state elections officials to
fix the problems and get the list released, Long said.
"The governor's office, I think, was wanting to move
forward anyway with making it right," he said.
Craft oversaw the process of matching the felon data
with voter registration rolls to create the felon
purge list. Florida is one of a handful of states that
prohibit convicted felons from voting.
Democrats and civil rights groups, wary of the purge
list from the beginning, blasted Bush because
Democrats outnumbered Republicans on the list 3-to-1
and nearly half the list was made up of black voters.
They also noted that Hood had spent more than $100,000
in legal fees fighting to keep the list secret.
After a judge made the purge list public in July, the
Herald-Tribune reported that only 61 Hispanics, who
tend to vote Republican in Florida, were on the list.
Subsequent reports revealed that the FDLE data did not
include Hispanic as one of the race categories,
virtually assuring that Hispanic felons would not be
matched to Hispanic voters.
So far, Hood's office has characterized the flaws as
honest mistakes.
But Ralph Neas, president of People for the American
Way, said Long's e-mail shows that Bush was
responsible for the creation of a flawed list that
could help his brother win the presidential election.
"This isn't functionaries making decisions below the
governor. This is the governor directly overruling the
recommendations of state employees," said Neas, whose
group serves as the legal arm of the NAACP. "This
shows a direct, personal involvement of the governor
in the decisions of state employees directly related
to the conduct of elections. It is nothing short of
astonishing."
In a written statement, Hood spokeswoman Alia Faraj
said, "Paul Craft has never recommended anything to
the governor about the central voter database."
But Faraj didn't address whether other state
department officials asked Bush to scrap the project
on May 3.
It is not clear from the e-mail if the Hispanic flaw
was among the problems that led election officials to
consider ending the list before it was created.
Faraj said Long was referring to other technical
issues that were later resolved, not the Hispanic
flaw.
Long said he could not recall what specific problems
Craft cited as reasons the list should be scrapped. He
also said he could not characterize Craft's level of
concern over Bush's decision to push ahead with the
list.
Craft hung up on a reporter seeking comment Friday.
In the e-mail, however, Long wrote that the governor's
decision forced FDLE and election officials to
complete last-minute work that had not been started.
"They'll be putting on 4 training workshops around the
state, starting Monday here in Tallahassee … none of
which has been scheduled, noticed, or sites arranged
for as of yet!!" Long wrote. "Needless to say, Paul's
going NUTS!"
The e-mail was among more than 1,000 pages of FDLE
documents on the felon voter purge obtained by the
Herald-Tribune under Florida's public records law.
Long's e-mail cites two problems that election
officials had with their list.
Department of State officials had discovered some
unanticipated problems with the FDLE database of
felons. In addition, they didn't know how to deal with
conditional clemency, a process that restores voting
rights if a felon fulfills certain requirements, such
as drug treatment.
U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Boca Raton, called the
e-mail a "smoking gun" that ties Gov. Bush to the
flawed effort to purge felons.
"This governor has overseen the most biased, the most
unfair election effort in modern Florida history,"
Wexler said. "He's essentially trying to rig the
election for George Bush."
Wexler said the revelation of Bush's involvement in
decisions about the purge list underscores the need
for an internal investigation into how the list was
created.
He called on state Attorney General Charlie Crist to
investigate.
A Herald-Tribune reporter gave Bush a copy of the
e-mail at a press conference Friday in Punta Gorda. In
a brief interview afterward, Bush denied that any
meeting took place May 3 with Craft or other election
officials.
"He didn't call me," Bush said of Craft. "Once it
became clear after talking to the secretary of state
that there were problems with the list (in July),
that's when we decided to end it."
So far, the only review of the purge list project is
being conducted by Hood's inspector general.
That investigation has been going on for more than
three months with no published findings. Under state
public records law, records generated from such
investigations become public after 60 days.
But Department of State officials have not turned over
any documents from the investigation despite repeated
requests from the Herald-Tribune.
"The Florida Department of State is processing the
Sarasota Herald-Tribune's requests -- plural," Faraj
said. "We'll get them to you as soon as we're at that
point."
Faraj told the Herald-Tribune last week that Kirby
Mole, Hood's inspector general, had not finished his
review. She said she had no idea whether it would be
completed before the November election. Faraj said it
would be inappropriate for Mole to talk with the
press.
In addition, the Herald-Tribune has received no
response to repeated requests to interview Hood.
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/18/loc_loc1elex2votingb.html
Monday, October 18, 2004
Newspaper: More votes uncounted in black areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press
COLUMBUS - Presidential votes from Ohio's
predominantly black precincts, most of which use
punch-card ballots, went uncounted at three times the
rate of those from predominantly white precincts in
the 2000 election, according to a newspaper analysis.
The pattern could repeat on Nov. 2, the Columbus
Dispatch reported Sunday based on its
precinct-by-precinct computer analysis comparing 2000
election results from U.S. Census race data.
Ohio had 94,569 uncounted presidential votes in 2000,
which would not have been enough to sway the outcome.
President Bush won Ohio by about 167,000 votes over
Democrat Al Gore.
In precincts where 90 percent or more of the
voting-age population is black, 4.8 percent of ballots
had no votes counted for president.
In precincts where the population was more than 90
percent white, the rate of uncounted presidential
votes was 1.7 percent. The statewide rate was about 2
percent.
"Those variations are strikingly associated with
poverty and lower education," said Herb Asher, an Ohio
State University political-science professor who began
studying punch-card voting more than two decades ago.
All the predominantly black precincts are in Cuyahoga,
Franklin, Hamilton, Montgomery and Summit counties.
Only Franklin County uses electronic ballots; the rest
use punch cards, which are in 68 of Ohio's 88
counties.
The rate of uncounted votes is also high in Ohio's
Appalachian counties, which are associated with higher
poverty and lower educational levels, Asher noted.
Holmes County, home to the state's highest
concentration of Amish, also had many uncounted votes
because Amish voters typically skip the presidential
question.
There is no way to tell for sure how many voters
intentionally did not cast a vote for president, but
exit polls indicate the percentage of uncounted votes
is higher than the rate of purposefully skipped votes.
Punch cards were vilified after the 2000 recount in
Florida, marred by incompletely punched holes, more
than one vote for president or improperly aligned
cards.
A federal judge has postponed trial until after the
election in a 2002 American Civil Liberties Union
lawsuit that seeks to declare Ohio's punch-card system
unconstitutional. The ACLU said the aging machines are
too error prone and violate the voting rights of
blacks, who are more likely to live in punch-card
counties.