Analysis: Showcased in these ads, which will be the most effective storyline for the fall?

McCain "Safe" ad

Moveon.org "Not Alex" ad

Obama "Country I Love" ad


All three are running in Wisconsin. Wisconsin will be (is?) a battleground state. The Obama bio ad is running in 18 states--including many states where a Democrat has not been competitive for years. McCain's ad was the first one to be "up" (meaning: on t.v. in any given state).

So many elections are about defining yourself and defining your opponent. This is exactly what each campaign, and Moveon.org, are trying to do. Moveon.org started out as a special interest group trying to end the war in Iraq and has since expanded considerably to give its 2 cents on most liberal political causes. There is some question among Republicans as to why McCain waited so long to try to define himself. Why didn't he use the months that he had without an opponent to try to define himself and whoever his opponent would be? Notice how Obama talks about Kansas values (the values of the "heartland") and not big city Chicago values. Is he trying to court those working class Clinton supporters? Shouldn't he have won their support already?

Feel free to go to the websites to see more videos and get more information (if you like busses as much as my 2 year old son, you should check out McCains website where they have a "Cribs" tour of the Straight Talk Express Bus--no joke) (btw: shouldn't it be "Pimp My Ride" instead of "Cribs"?)

www.johnmccain.com
www.barackobama.com
www.moveon.org

There is no opinion or analysis: Tim Russert has died.

Tim Russert.

RIP

Your enthusiasm for politics and your intensity for what we think is so important are unmatched and are admired. Thank you. We will work hard to continue your tradition of clinical analysis of all that is political. We learned from you that it's OK to love politics. Again, thank you. Your influence continues. . .

Analysis: Clinton suspends campaign, endorses Obama.

History...

Analysis: Too little too late?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24908975/

Obama quits church after long controversy
Candidate seeks to distance himself from Wright


ABERDEEN, S.D. - Barack Obama said Saturday he has resigned his 20-year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago "with some sadness" in the aftermath of inflammatory remarks by his longtime pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and more recent fiery remarks at the church by another minister.

"This is not a decision I come to lightly ... and it is one I make with some sadness," he said at a news conference after campaign officials released a letter of resignation sent to the church on Friday. "I'm not denouncing the church and I'm not interested in people who want me to denounce the church," he said, adding that the new pastor at Trinity and "the church have been suffering from the attention my campaign has focused on them."

Obama said he and his wife have been discussing the issue since Wright's appearance at the National Press Club in Washington last month that reignited furor over remarks he had made in various sermons at the church. "I suspect we'll find another church home for our family," Obama said. "It's clear that now that I'm a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, inlcuding guest pastors, the remarks will imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my longheld views, statements and principles," he said.

Obama said he had "no idea" how the resignation would "impact my presidential campaign, but I know its the right thing to do for the church and our family."

‘A pretty personal decision’"This was a pretty personal decision and I was not trying to make political theater out of it," he said.


--LAST REQUIRED POSTING WINDOW ENDS TODAY!!!
KEEPING POSTING ANYWAY. . .
:)

Analysis: Will this unify or split the Democrats? Good or bad for John McCain?

Fla., Mich. Delegates Each Get Half a Vote
Compromise Prompts Anger From Clinton Campaign


By Dan BalzWashington Post Staff Writer Sunday, June 1, 2008; Page A01
After hours of emotional testimony and sometimes contentious debate, Democratic Party officials agreed yesterday on a pair of compromises to seat Florida's and Michigan's delegations to their national convention. But a part of the deal drew an angry reaction and the threat of a subsequent challenge from the campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The compromises by the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee called for both delegations, originally barred from the convention for violating party rules, to be seated in full in Denver but with each delegate casting only half a vote.

The actions by the committee were aimed at bringing the long and sometimes-bitter Democratic nomination battle between Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Clinton (N.Y.) to a close and to ensure party unity as the Democrats head into the general election. But the decisions prompted bitter and sometimes-tearful reactions from some members of the audience, who repeatedly shouted over the committee members as they voted.

Obama remains the heavy favorite to win the nomination, with his campaign hoping that he can secure enough delegates over the next week to do so. Puerto Rico's primary will be held today, and the last two states, Montana and South Dakota, will vote Tuesday. The committee's decisions represented a significant setback to Clinton, who had passionately called for seating both delegations with full votes.

The net result was a gain of 87 delegate votes for Clinton and 63 for Obama. Until yesterday's action, the magic number for winning the nomination was 2,026 delegates. Now the winner will need 2,118. According to a count by the Associated Press, as of last night, Obama controlled 2,052 delegates to Clinton's 1,877.

Obama campaign officials said they will redouble efforts to win over enough superdelegates to put their candidate over the top as quickly as possible, but Clinton hopes to emerge with more popular votes and continues to press the case that she would be a stronger general-election candidate than Obama.

"We're extremely gratified that the commission agreed on a fair solution that will allow Michigan and Florida to participate in the Convention. We appreciate their efforts, and those of the party leadership of both states, to bring this resolution about," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.
The Florida agreement included a provision calling for the delegates to be allocated on the basis of the state's Jan. 29 primary, a decision that would net Clinton 19 more delegates than Obama. Clinton's campaign had pushed for a proposal to seat the full delegation with full voting power, but when that failed, her supporters on the committee relented, and the compromise was approved without a dissenting vote, 27 to 0.

But it was the Michigan plan, approved by a 19 to 8 vote, that drew sharper opposition because of the way that state's delegates will be awarded. Under the plan, Clinton will be given 34.5 delegate votes in Denver to Obama's 29.5 delegate votes, a percentage distribution recommended by leaders of the Michigan Democratic Party but opposed by the Clinton campaign officials, who said it violates the results of Michigan's Jan. 15 primary.

This article continues at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053102355.html?hpid=topnews

Opinion: What's your opinion of this article?

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=756918

Energized McCain wins over one teen
Posted: May 31, 2008
Mike NicholsE-MAIL

Greendale - Odd men in cow suits and rubber masks, or holding handwritten signs alluding to "Adolf Bush," usually provide the only unscripted moments at big campaign events.

So I didn't show up too early for an appearance by John McCain at Martin Luther High School - and was relegated to the "remote" room where we Wisconsinites often seem to end up.

Watched him along with a couple hundred others on two television screens that could, as easily, have been transmitting from Tuscaloosa.

Sometimes, though - lo and behold - the world comes to you.

No sooner did the man walk off the screen at the end of his event, than he came through the door. Right there in the scarred and wrinkled flesh.

This is Wisconsin in 2008, baby. We're all in the front row now.

"Wisconsin," as Congressman Paul Ryan was quoted as saying, "is going to be the center of the political universe."

At least for John McCain.

And the first impression?

"Very pale," said Morgan Johnson, a senior at Muskego High School who just turned 18 and was there with her aunt. "That was the first thing I noticed about him."

Yep. There's been a lot of speculation about Barack Obama becoming the blackest president ever. John McCain might just become the whitest.

But, allowed Morgan, "he looked good for his age."

The truth is that McCain, who is 71, gets younger when he walks right up and starts talking.
This is no somnambulant Reagan. You don't worry about him being under-engaged. You worry about him being over-engaged.

With all due respect to the "McSame" crowd, this is not George W. Bush either. I mean, with our current president, you cringe every time you hear him try to pronounce Ahmadinejad.

With McCain, you worry a little he is pronouncing it with extreme fluidity, over and over, in his sleep.

Obama, then again, is apt to add a "Sir" at the end and say it in person - without preconditions.
Morgan's aunt, Lisa Klug, asked the best question of the day.

She asked McCain what he "would say to Morgan to get her to vote for you instead of Obama."

Morgan is a self-described moderate who would have voted for Hillary in the primary, had she been 18. And she lives in Wisconsin, where John Kerry beat George Bush by fewer than 12,000 votes - which means she could well be a president-maker.

Many of her peers like Obama.

"He is young," she said. "I am not going to lie. I think his race has a lot to do with it."

She, personally, is basing her vote on other things.

"Base it on issues," Morgan said.

McCain walked spryly over and responded to Lisa's question by making light of his years. What America really needs now is a president who is "very, very, very, very , very old," he said, repeating a joke from "Saturday Night Live."

Then he told Lisa, in a more serious vein, that he will "try to make sure (Morgan) can believe she will inherit a safer and more prosperous world."

Therein lies the rub, of course. Elections are about the future, and to a lot of young eyes, McCain looks like the past.

Not to Morgan, though. She likes his experience and his fiscal conservatism. Likes him on a personal basis. Thought he looked good. Is inclined to vote for him.

All you wonder now is if he can repeat the feat.
About 12,000 or so times.

E-mail mnichols@journalsentine.com.

Opinion: Is this good public policy and/or is it the correct decision by the court?

California's top court legalizes gay marriage

By LISA LEFFThe Associated Press Friday, May 16, 2008; 2:45 AM
SAN FRANCISCO -- California's Supreme Court declared that gay couples in the nation's most populous state can marry _ a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.

Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after _ religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.

"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law," declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. She added: "We're going to get married. No Tupperware, please."

A crowd of people raised their fists in triumph inside City Hall, and people wrapped themselves in the rainbow-colored gay-pride flag outside the courthouse. In the Castro, long the center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt wept as he watched the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life. This is a life-affirming moment," he said.

By the afternoon, gay and lesbian couples had already started lining up at San Francisco City Hall to make appointments to get marriage licenses. In West Hollywood, supporters planned to serve "wedding cake" at an evening celebration.

James Dobson _ chairman of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, which has spent thousands of dollars to get the measure on the ballot _ called the ruling an outrage.
"It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional marriage by passing a constitutional amendment. ... Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny," he said in an e-mailed statement.

In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.

Massachusetts in 2004 became the first, and so far only, state to legalize gay marriage; more than 9,500 couples have taken advantage of the law. But the California ruling is considered monumental by virtue of the state's size _ 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million _ and its historical role as the vanguard of many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.

California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households, according to 2006 census figures.

THIS ARTICLE CONTINUES AT:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051502290_2.html

Opinion: Is this good public policy? Does the U.S. Government too often "govern by crisis?"

39 Republicans Join Democrats As Mortgage Bill Passes House


By Lori MontgomeryWashington Post Staff Writer Friday, May 9, 2008; Page A01
The House yesterday approved an ambitious plan to rescue hundreds of thousands of homeowners at risk of foreclosure by helping them trade exotic loans with rapidly rising monthly payments for more affordable mortgages backed by the federal government.

Bucking a White House veto threat, 39 Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the bill, the centerpiece of a broader housing package that represents Washington's most aggressive response to the nation's housing crisis. The measure aims to unfreeze mortgage markets by expanding the Federal Housing Administration's reach and strengthening mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It also would create a $7,500 tax credit for first-time home buyers to try to boost sales and slow plummeting home prices.

GOP House leaders blasted the bill as a bailout for speculators and irresponsible borrowers. But the measure, sponsored by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), gained strong support from rank-and-file Republicans worried that escalating foreclosures are ruining lives and decimating neighborhoods.

Despite President Bush's condemnation of the bill this week, White House officials seemed to leave the door open to negotiation. And key Republicans are working with Democrats on a similar plan in the Senate.

"People are in a world of hurt. My sense is there's maneuvering room," said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), whose state has been among those hardest hit. "There's still a good chance they'll get a bill the president can sign, knowing that a lot of the country needs help."

More than 1.2 million homes are in foreclosure, and an additional 3 million are forecast to join them over the next two years. Home prices have fallen more than 10 percent, and state and local tax collections are suffering. Polls show the economy is the top concern among voters, with one in four respondents saying they have been directly affected by problems in the housing market.

The borrowers most at risk of foreclosure -- and who have drawn policymakers' attention -- are those who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments but cannot sell or refinance because the value of their homes has fallen so far that they owe more than their homes are worth.

The Bush administration has tried to help such borrowers by urging banks to reduce their mortgage debt. The administration also has eased eligibility standards so borrowers who have missed a few payments can qualify for cheaper loans insured by the federal government through the FHA. But those initiatives have helped relatively few families.

Frank's proposal calls for the FHA to respond more aggressively, by offering to insure mortgages for even the least creditworthy borrowers if their banks will forgive a portion of the debt and help them stay in their homes. Under the proposal, lenders would have to take a significant loss, permitting borrowers to pay their original loans with new loans worth no more than 90 percent of their homes' new, lower value. Extra fees charged by the FHA would lower the payoff to lenders to 85 percent of a home's current value.

Borrowers would get lower monthly payments and an immediate equity stake in their property. If home values rise, the plan requires homeowners to share their profits with the federal government when they sell or refinance.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that as many as 500,000 homeowners will benefit from the program. But more than a third of those borrowers are likely to default, the CBO estimates, forcing the FHA to pay off their loans and take possession of their property at a cost to taxpayers of $1.7 billion.

The White House has balked at that price tag, calling Frank's bill an "attempt to shift costs to taxpayers [that] constitutes a bailout." But there are signs that the administration is open to compromise.

In a speech Monday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke appeared to endorse Frank's plan. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and other administration officials have spoken favorably of it. On Wednesday, even as Bush declared his intention to veto the measure, one of his top economic advisers told the Wall Street Journal that differences between the White House and congressional Democrats were not "insurmountable."

Yesterday, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush supports the concept of Frank's plan. "As a basic concept, it's what we're already doing. But it's what we're doing on steroids," he said.

"Is it possible to have additional housing legislation? Yes, it's possible. And maybe the Frank bill could change so much that there could be legislation we could accept," Fratto said. "But I think we're far away from that."

In House debate, many Republicans echoed the administration's concerns. Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) said Frank's bill would "bail out scam artists and those who were speculating in the market, and they want taxpayers to pick up the tab."

But other Republicans cringed at the indictment of troubled borrowers and said they were disappointed by the veto threat.

"What's offensive is some of the rhetoric," said Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio), who voted for the measure. "They say it rewards speculators. No, it doesn't. It's limited to homeowners. They say it's a $300 billion bailout. No, it's not. It costs $1.7 billion."

"Would I have written the bill the way Chairman Frank did? No, but we're not in charge anymore," LaTourette said. The housing mess "calls for some bold action. People are expecting us to do something."

The House voted 266 to 154 to approve Frank's rescue plan and a broad array of other housing initiatives. The House also voted 322 to 94 to approve an $11 billion package of housing tax measures, including the $7,500 credit for first-time buyers who purchase a home this year. Under the measure, the credit would have to be repaid to the government over 15 years.

The package moves to the Senate, where Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and the committee's senior Republican, Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, are working on a similar proposal. Senate Republicans have been more resistant than their House counterparts to broad plans to intervene on behalf of distressed homeowners.

But Francis Creighton, vice president for government affairs at the Mortgage Bankers Association who is working with both the administration and Congress to slow the rate of foreclosures, said he expects a compromise to be reached.

"We believe the administration is as committed to addressing this situation in the market as anybody. There's still a lot of time for negotiation," Creighton said. "Everyone wants to support something that can fix the housing crisis."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/08/AR2008050803482.html


FOR USE ONLY AFTER COMPLETING ALL YOUR AP EXAMS:
http://www.therightfoot.net/mystuff/whatever/swf/bubblewrap.swf

NO BLOGGING TODAY.

Study, Review, Prepare, Sleep, Eat, Breathe.

COURAGE !!!

Just do it!

Impossible is nothing!

Live in the moment and enjoy it.

You can do it...

THINK.

WORK YOUR WAY THROUGH IT.

YOU KNOW MORE THAN YOU THINK YOU KNOW.

YOU'LL BE FINE !!!

P.S. #2 pencils, black or blue pen, a watch to keep track, social security number (optional). No cell phones.

Opinion: Should the U.S. Government subsidize what farmers grow even when food prices are at record levels? Is this special interest too powerful?

Negotiations On Farm Bill Add Billions For Nutrition

By Dan MorganSpecial to The Washington Post Saturday, April 26, 2008; Page A03

House and Senate negotiators reached tentative agreement yesterday on a new $290 billion, multiyear farm bill that would add about $10.4 billion for nutrition programs while continuing to channel billions of dollars to farmers, even if prices stay at current record levels.

Key details remain to be worked out, but lawmakers said a final deal could come next week on the bill. The government would spend $10 billion more than allocated by congressional budget committees last year. The Bush administration had proposed an increase of about $5.5 billion.

The current farm bill expired last October but has been extended a number of times.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said the agreement would include a new permanent program that guarantees aid to farmers and ranchers suffering weather-related losses, a priority of senators from Western states hit by drought.

Included in the bill is $405 million to be spent over 10 years on the cleanup of farm-related pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. The program, sponsored by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) would help reduce the runoff of nutrients and other pollutants from farms.

The bill would reduce the tax credit for ethanol made from corn to 45 cents per gallon from 51, but the tax credit would be extended through 2010.

Rising food costs gave a strong impetus to stepped-up funding for programs such as food stamps that help poor and near-poor families. Farm bill versions passed by the House and Senate last year proposed modest increases in food stamp benefits and eased standards of eligibility for the program.

Last week, Senate negotiators (CONFERENCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS) offered a $9.5 billion increase over 10 years. Yesterday, they upped that offer by $800 million to $900 million, sources indicated.

The bill also includes a provision that would require the labeling of imported meat and vegetables for the first time, a response to rising concerns about food safety.

Morgan is a contract writer for The Washington Post and a fellow at the German Marshall Fund, a nonpartisan public policy institution.

Analysis: Who will win in PA, by how much, and what will it mean to the race?

Read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/opinion/19herbert.html

My Prediction:
McCain by a lot.
I'll give my Democratic predictions later...(you should comment on the Democratic race, not the GOP side).

Analysis: Is this the opening that Sen. Clinton has needed?

MISHAWAKA, Ind. - A political tempest over Barack Obama's comments about bitter voters in small towns has given rival Hillary Rodham Clinton a new opening to court working class Democrats 10 days before Pennsylvanians hold a primary that she must win to keep her presidential campaign alive.

Obama tried to quell the furor Saturday, explaining his remarks while also conceding he had chosen his words poorly.

"If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that," Obama said in an interview with the Winston-Salem (N.C.) Journal.

But the Clinton campaign fueled the controversy in every place and every way it could, hoping charges that Obama is elitist and arrogant will resonate with the swing voters the candidates are vying for not only in Pennsylvania, but in upcoming primaries in Indiana and North Carolina as well.

Political insiders differed on whether Obama's comments, which came to light Friday, would become a full-blown political disaster that could prompt party leaders to try to steer the nomination to Clinton even though Obama has more pledged delegates. Clinton supporters were eagerly hoping so.

They handed out "I'm not bitter" stickers in North Carolina, and held a conference call of Pennsylvania mayors to denounce the Illinois senator. In Indiana, Clinton did the work herself, telling plant workers in Indianapolis that Obama's comments were "elitist and out of touch."

At issue are comments he made privately at a fundraiser in San Francisco last Sunday. He was trying to explain his troubles winning over some working-class voters, saying they have become frustrated with economic conditions:

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The comments, posted Friday on The Huffington Post Web site, set off a blast of criticism from Clinton, Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain and other GOP officials, and drew attention to a potential Obama weakness — the image some have that the Harvard-trained lawyer is arrogant and aloof.

His campaign scrambled to defuse possible damage.

There has been a small "political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter," Obama said Saturday morning at a town hall-style meeting at Ball State University in Muncie, Ind. "They are angry. They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they're going through.

"So I said, well you know, when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country."
After acknowledging his previous remarks in California could have been better phrased, he added:

"The truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation, those are important. That's what sustains us. But what is absolutely true is that people don't feel like they are being listened to."

Clinton attacked Obama's remarks much more harshly Saturday than she had the night before, calling them "demeaning." Her aides feel Obama has given them a big opening, pulling the spotlight away from troublesome stories such as former President Clinton's recent revisiting of his wife's misstatements about an airport landing in Bosnia 10 years ago.

Obama is trying to focus attention narrowly on his remarks, arguing there's no question that some working-class families are anxious and bitter. The Clinton campaign is parsing every word, focusing on what Obama said about religion, guns, immigration and trade.

Clinton hit all those themes in lengthy comments to manufacturing workers in Indianapolis.
"The people of faith I know don't 'cling' to religion because they're bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich," she said.

"I also disagree with Senator Obama's assertion that people in this country 'cling to guns' and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration," Clinton added.

"People don't need a president who looks down on them," she said. "They need a president who stands up for them."

McCain's campaign piled on Obama, releasing a statement that also accused him of elitism.

One of Clinton's staunchest supporters, Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., acknowledged there was some truth in Obama's remarks. But he said Republicans would use them against him anyway.

At a campaign rally in Wilson, N.C., former state Democratic Party chairman and current Clinton adviser Tom Hendrickson said rural voters don't need "liberal elites" telling them what to believe.

Bill Clinton was the featured speaker of the rally but avoided commenting on Obama's remarks. When asked about it afterward, he said simply, "I agree with what Hillary said."
___
Jim Kuhnhenn reported from Muncie, Ind. Associated Press writer Mike Baker in Wilson, N.C., contributed to this report.

COMPASSION FORUM (CNN) 7:00 our time Sunday. Clinton, Obama, McCain (invited). The presidential candidate forum on faith, values and current issues at Messiah College.

(Study and review a little bit more tonight)

Opinion: Forty years after his death, how is Dr. King still impacting our lives today? He was so in tune with reality. What would he say today?

He was tired, sick and running a fever. He wasn't planning to go, but his advisors asked him to go anyway. This is part of the short remarks he agreed to give after Ralph Abernathy agreed to give the speech. That speech turned into a great introduction of Dr. King. Abernathy is the person who "cathces" King after the speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0FiCxZKuv8

Opinion: Should the Senate and the President back changes in the surveillance laws in the U.S.?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House of Representatives voted Friday to back the Democratic-sponsored revisions to federal surveillance laws.

The vote was 213-197 in favor of a revision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill that was supported by the Democratic leadership.
One member voted present.

The vote came after a secret session Thursday night in the House. It was the first time the House has met in secret since 1983.

The Democratic plan would allow telecommunications companies to be sued for their role in the administration's much-disputed warrantless surveillance program.

The bill now goes to the Senate, but both the Senate and President Bush have made it clear that they will not support the bill without an immunity provision.

Bush has spent weeks pressuring the House to grant retroactive legal immunity to the phone companies that took part in the program, initiated after the September 11 attacks.

Bush argues that legal protection is needed for companies to continue cooperating with the government and has vowed to veto the House Democratic proposal, which would allow the lawsuits to move forward in federal courts.

The full article is much longer and has much more information. See it here:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/house.fisa.vote/index.html

Opinion: Does any of this matter?

Obama is imitating Ken Starr

Clinton is a monster

McCain has a bad temper

... and apparently when the republican party and the democratic party created their parties they forgot to make the names of their parties proper nouns. Why would they do that? OR MAYBE THEY DIDN'T !!!!!

By popular demand: Super Tuesday II: Your Thoughts.

Analysis: Is the conservative movement changing?

Biography of one of the purest conservatives William F. Buckley, Jr.:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/27/buckley.obit/index.html?eref=rss_showbiz

Fareed Zakaria's column in a recent Newsweek called "The End of Conservatism"(at the end he mentions Political Ideology!):
http://www.newsweek.com/id/112770

Long-time conservative columnist and commentator George Will writes about John McCain:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022703205.html

(if you answer the first question and want to give your predictions for March 4 and its aftermath, go for it)

Analysis: Did any candidate benefit from the 2-21-08 Democratic debate?

How did Sen. Clinton, Obama, or McCain gain ground because of this debate?

Clinton vs. Obama Debate REPLAY Sat & Sun, 7 p.m. CENTRAL

Wisconsin Primary . . . Your Thoughts.

Analysis or Opinion: Veepstakes! Who do you think probable GOP nominee John McCain should/will nominate as his running mate?

Bob Novak said today on Meet the Press that a possible nominee could be Congressman Paul Ryan. He's young, he's a tax cutter, he's from the Great State of Wisconsin.

If you answer the first question, you can answer this question too:
Who should the Democratic nominee nominate for VP? Imagine a Jim Doyle vs. Paul Ryan vice-presidential debate!

If you answer the first and second question, you can answer this question too:
Can you tell us about your experiences seeing and listening to presidential candidates in WI?

REMEMBER: Test on the Civil Rights Chapter on Wednesday.
REMEMBER: Monday is a great day to get out there and work for the candidate of your choice. What a great experience to talk about later: go door to door or you can even make phone calls from home now-just go to your candidate's website to find out how. If your candidate wins or comes close, you get to claim that YOU made it happen! :)

Opinion: What reasoning are you using to determine who has what number of delegates on the Democratic side?

Bonus Question: Does Mike Huckabee have an obligation to get out of the race and unify the GOP or does he have an obligation to fight for every vote and every delegate while as he says: "giving voters a choice?"

Dems Links:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22477414/
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/8/222029/9679
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241780172051641.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/more-on-the-delegate-discrepancy-272/?mod=blogs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/08/AR2008020803801.html?hpid=topnews
GOP Links:
http://www.truveo.com/Gov-Mike-Huckabee-Speaks-at-CPAC/id/4028670326
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/09/washington-state-3-others-become-unlikely-battlegrounds-for-dems/

Analysis, Opinion: SUPER DUPER TUESDAY !

Analysis: What will you be watching for on Tuesday? How will you "decide" who won?

States won?
Delegates won?
Certain states? (MO, CA, NJ, NY, IL, GA...)
"Obvious" Momentum?
Media Proclamations?
Candidate concession speeches?
Big, populous states vs. small states?
Relative closeness or distance in the results?
Region of the country?
Race?
Gender?
Age?
Conservative Christians?
Registered Republicans as opposed to Independents?
Registered Democrats as opposed to Independents?

Campaigns and Elections:
If you're interested in campaigns and elections, you might want to take a look at this magazine that is offered online this month for free. I subscribe and have shared a couple of articles with you from past issues. I find it quite interesting (especially the advertising--check out the one that focuses on "Rich Republicans")
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/intellisphere/politics0208/index.php

Super Tuesday Spreadsheet:
I'll share my Super Tuesday Spreadsheet with you via moodle so you can impress your friends and neighbors as you keep track of who wins which state and their delegate accumulation. I borrowed the template from someone else and then updated it for the other party. It's an ongoing process.

Analysis: What does it all mean? Candidates "FREEZE" their efforts.

After a strategy that would have been brilliant if it worked, Rudy Giuliani, "America's Mayor", is expected to end his presidential campaign today and endorse John McCain. Who benefits? Who loses?

After focusing on Iowa and not winning, continuing has campaign, but failing to win a state, John Edwards vowed to fight on to the convention. Today he is expected to drop out of the campaign. Who benefits? Who loses?

Forget the popcorn, get your seatbelt! Here we go...

Things to look forward to:
1. A Giuliani endorsement of John McCain
2. A Rush Limbaugh appearance for McCain?
3. Conservatives rationalize that McCain will be more conservative than Clinton or Obama?
4. A smaller debate field on Wednesday and Thursday night (head to head!)
5. The fight for an Edwards endorsement
6. An opening for Michael Bloomberg to get into the race? (Conservatives don't like McCain, Liberals don't all like Clinton--enter an Independent)?

This just in . . .

On Friday the Regional Director for the Obama campaign called to talk to me. The call was unsolicited by me and it is the first such call I've received. I've decided to share any contact/involvement information with you that is sent to me. If I'm contacted by other campaigns, I'll share that information with you as well. You can do something with all of it or none of it. It's up to you. I do think that you should get involved in some campaign, some cause, or some movement if you haven't already. IF YOU NEED HELP DOING THAT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. I'LL HELP FIND THE CORRECT CAUSE FOR YOU: RIGHT, LEFT, OR SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE!

Attention all high school civics, government and social studies teachers:

My name is Hy Safran and I am your regional director for Obama for America, Barack Obama's presidential campaign here in Wisconsin.

Senator Obama engages Americans from all backgrounds, political affiliations and age groups and welcomes them to his movement for Change and Progress. Just because most high school students can't vote, does not mean they can't be involved and make a difference in the political process.

As your regional director, it would be my pleasure to welcome the high school students to this great cause. There are many ways for students to get involved from volunteering at home, at school at the state headquarters in Milwaukee and throughout the greater region.
Please forward this information on to your colleagues and of course, to your students.


Phone Banking (Making Calls for Barack)
- Monday --> Friday (3-9)
- Saturday (10-6)
- Sunday (12-9)

Canvassing (Knocking Doors for Barack)
- Feb 1st --> 19th

*Internship positions (which look great on college applications) also exist for students who are truly dedicated to Barack's cause for uniting America.

Obama for Wisconsin State Headquarters: 633 S. Hawley Rd Milwaukee, WI 53214 (just past Miller Park located inside the Milwaukee Union Labor Building)

---Please feel free to contact me by phone or email at any time -- hsafran@barackobama.com 319/899-8008-- Hy SafranObama for AmericaRegional Field Director, Wisconsin319/899-8008http://barackobama.com/

Analysis: Was the South Carolina Democratic primary a setback for race relations in the U.S.?

An interesting question to consider as you read the chapter on Civil Rights and as Friday marks the beginning of Black History Month.

Unrelated bonus questions:
Who will win in Florida in the GOP primary Tuesday?
What will the outcome mean for Sen. McCain or Mitt Romney?
Will you watch the Republican debate on Wednesday or the Democratic debate on Thursday?
Do you have enough popcorn ready to watch the Super Duper Tuesday returns on February 5?

Also: Take a look at the Nevada Caucus information below.

No post due this week. Go Review for the EXAM!

The next blog window is January 14-27.

Check out this blog post from MHS Graduate Elliot Anderson an activist in Nevada (complete with photo op with former President Clinton):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/24/02722/1701/271/442142

My inside man in Nevada says the Dem. caucuses are crazy. He says they are putting a lot of pressure on the people running the caucuses to make sure they are run fairly (he is running the open caucus at the Mirage). He said he actually yelled at Terry McAuliffe (former DNC chair) to make sure former President Bill Clinton had credentials when he entered the caucus for a last minute vote-canvass!

From what CNN is showing, it's a lot more of a raucous caucus than in Iowa.


SO I WAS THINKING:
Why isn't the Obama camp making more of the fact that they won more delegates in Nevada than Clinton did? Why aren't they saying, "Hey, we actually won!" 13-12 delegates.

THEN I WAS THINKING:
Maybe the Obama camp is planning ahead for Feb.5 Here's the thought process: If Clinton wins the two biggest states of CA and NY and wins the most delegates, but Obama wins the most states throughout the Midwest and the West, maybe 15 of the 22 states (according to MSNBC's Chuck Todd), he could claim that as a victory. However, if he's harping on the fact that the delegate count is most important, Clinton can come back and say, "Barack, last month you said it was delegates that count the most, not the popular vote/number of states."

So, Feb. 6 Obama says, "Congratulations to Hillary for winning the most delegates, but we're happy we won the most states in a cross-section of the country in the rural areas and the cities and the suburbs. This shows we have what we will need to win in the general election: a broad-based support throughout the country."

Just some thoughts...

Analysis: Based on your knowledge of the 4th Amendment and other constitutional principles, does the Patriot Act violate the U.S. Constitution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act (an extensive explanation which seems pretty accurate)

http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/highlights.htm (The US Department of Justice provides the argument in favor of the Patriot Act)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4759727&sourceCode=gaw (an interesting debate site)

http://w2.eff.org/patriot/ (the argument against the Act)

Analysis or Opinion: Dem or GOP Presidential Nominating Process: Your thoughts...

Holy Cow! The excitement. Romney spent millions of dollars in Iowa and didn't win. Huckabee and McCain have ganged up on him to make sure that in addition to losing to Huckabee in Iowa he will lose to McCain in New Hampshire. They must figure he'll get out then and it will be a two-person race (not including Thompson who is from TN who might compete in South Carolina and not incluiding Giuliani's Feb. 5 Super Tuesday strategy of lose all the early states and then win a bunch in the "national primary"). Huckabee got a bump of only 1% in the NH polls, but McCain got about a 4% bump and now leads in NH where Romney was a neighboring governor (and he owns a vacation home there).

Holy Cow! The excitement. Clinton spent a lot of money (and raised a lot of money) and came in third in Iowa. Edwards spent essentially the last six years in Iowa and came in second. An African-American former community organizer from the south side of Chicago won in almost all-White Iowa (98%). Edwards says it's a two-person race now. He says it's a race between the forces of change (Obama, Edwards) and the status quo (Clinton) is over. He actually has called for a debate between just him and Obama! Obama got a bump in the NH polls of 3% and is now tied with Clinton while Edwards trails. Change is the word of the day, week, and year! The amazing thing is that Clinton has been defined as NOT the candidate of change. Who could have predicted that 6 months ago!
(btw: WI Governor Jim Doyle just endorsed Obama as did former presidential candidate Bill Bradley).

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? THE EXCITEMENT!

P.S. Governor Huckabee has indicated he can't come to MHS next month. Hopefully he doesn't have an "arrogant and bunker mentality." :)

No required posts during the break. Next required posts are for the period of January 3-13-08.

FYI: The following is your next test. Due in class on January 8, 2008.

Civil Liberties Organizational Test
2 points possible per case
Show that you have a notecard indicating all the necessary information to show understanding of each of the following cases related to CIVIL LIBERTIES and the major topic that this case is known for (include any TESTS that are created). (Include: Case name, Brief facts of the case, Decision of the Court, Constitutional reasoning or precedent that was set)

1. Gitlow v. New York
2. Powell v. Alabama
3. Mapp v. Ohio
4. Gideon v. Wainwright
5. Near v. Minnesota
6. Griswold v. Connecticut
7. Roe v. Wade
8. Brandenburg v. Ohio
9. Schenck v. United States
10. Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell
11. Miller v. California
12. Texas v. Johnson
13. Miranda v. Arizona
14. Tinker v. Des Moines
15. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
16. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PN v. Casey
17. Bowers v. Hardwick
18. Lemon v. Kurtzman
19. Weeks v. United States
20. Furman v. Georgia

Please take the survey below. If you have any "other" topics you think should have been included, post them to the blog.

Anonymity is overrated, so please include your name and hour. This counts as your post for this week, but feel free to post something to the blog anyway. Again, if you think there is something missing from the survey, feel free to communicate it here. Your responses may or may not change or add parts to the class, but I'm interested in your feedback either way. Obviously, a large part of our charge is to learn government and politics AND to get ready for an AP Exam in May. That can't change, but maybe some input on the "delivery method" will make it more meaningful or significant for you (or maybe it's perfect right now)!

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=U6sYgA0PP94eVHkh3mUoOA_3d_3d




Thanks to John B for the following. It is interesting:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/"WASHINGTON (CNN) — Is Mike Huckabee the new Howard Dean? That's what one prominent conservative thinks, and he's warning his fellow Republicans not to nominate the former Arkansas governor.Rich Lowry, an editor of the conservative publication the National Review (which endorsed rival Mitt Romney this week), writes on the Republican Web site Townhall.com Friday that nominating Huckabee would amount to "an act of suicide" for the party."Like Dean, Huckabee is an under-vetted former governor who is manifestly unprepared to be president of the United States," Lowry writes. "Like Dean, he is rising toward the top of polls in a crowded field based on his appeal to a particular niche of his party.""As with Dean, his vulnerabilities in a general election are so screamingly obvious that it's hard to believe that primary voters, once they focus seriously on their choice, will nominate him," he adds.Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, has gained ground in several key primary states largely due to his appeal to Republican evangelical voters. Recent polls have suggested he now holds a double-digit lead over Romney in Iowa, and is in front of Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson in South Carolina.And in the latest sign Huckabee's campaign is gaining serious momentum, veteran GOP strategist Ed Rollins — the architect of Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide re-election victory — has signed on to help manage the operation.Not so fast, says Lowry. According to the conservative commentator, nominating a Baptist minister would turn one of the party's assets — its message of social conservatism — into a liability."[A] Baptist pastor running on his religiosity would be rather overdoing it," he wrote. "Social conservatism has to be part of the Republican message, but it can't be the message in its entirety."In response to Lowry's column, campaign manager Chip Saltsman defended Huckabee's electability and record as governor."Rich Lowry should know that four of the past five U.S. presidents have been governors, and all but Ronald Reagan were from the South," Saltsman said. "Mike Huckabee's candidacy is picking up steam because his optimistic, conservative message is resonating with voters who are looking for a leader with vision and experience. He has been elected four times for statewide office, twice as governor, in a Democratic-state because he places a premium on results, and that's what the American people are looking for."
– CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney"

What does Oprah have to do with the presidential election? Do we need a talk show hostess to tell us who’s best qualified to run this country?

The edited questions above were posted by "Tuffy" on the NY Times blog. See other postings and the story at the link below.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/08/oprah-in-des-moines/

Lineup for the Sunday morning shows:

Rudolph W. Giuliani’s advisers reportedly see his upcoming appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” as a “firewall that must bring to a halt two weeks of troubling news for their candidate.”

Mike Huckabee might also want to use his interview on “Fox News Sunday” as a firewall against troubling news in the midst of weekend coverage about a convicted rapist paroled during his administration in Arkansas and his position on AIDS in the 1990s. Senator John McCain is also booked on the program.

One Democratic candidate, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., is on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

And then there’s Senator Chuck Hagel, the maverick Nebraska Republican, still not a candidate, on CBS’s “Face the Nation” along with Senator Jay Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia.

Their colleague Senator Dianne Feinstein is set to appear on CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer,” as is Representative John Boehner, the House minority leader. President (not General) Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan is also scheduled.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/08/sundays-breakfast-menu-dec-9/

Opinion: Which presidential candidate would you like to see in person and ask a question? What would you ask?

Check here for a list of candidates and information about them:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/candidates/index.html

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/?nid=roll_08campaign

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/


REMEMBER: THE POLITICAL SCIENCE CLUB MEETS THURSDAY AT 2:30 IN ROOM 250.

Submit a youtube question by Midnight Sunday! See link below:

http://www.youtube.com/republicandebatesplash

(This is not a required assignment, but you could show your submitted question to the class for extra credit.)

Extra Credit: No post REQUIRED this week. Comments on the following?

Michigan Court OKs Early Primary
By KATHY BARKS HOFFMANThe Associated Press Wednesday, November 21, 2007; 3:38 PM

LANSING, Mich. -- Michigan's Jan. 15 presidential primary can go forward, the state Supreme Court decided Wednesday, keeping alive the state's bid to be one of the 2008 campaign's first contests.

The court decision should make it easier for New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner to schedule that state's primary, which New Hampshire law requires to be the nation's first. Gardner has been waiting to see what the Michigan courts would do.

The high court's decision should clear the way for the Republican and Democratic parties to take part in the Jan. 15 primary. Both have already filed letters with the secretary of state saying that's their plan.

However, by holding its primary so early _ in violation of the national parties' rules _ Michigan stands to lose half of its delegates to the Republican National Convention, reducing the number to 30, and all of its 156 delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

N.H. Primary Set for Jan. 8

Opinion: What do you think Paul's impact will be on this election, if any, and what will it mean for the other candidates?

Presidential hopeful Ron Paul is bieng called "the political phenomenon of the 2008 White House race". As a conservative libertarian he supports "decriminalization of marijuana and expresses tolerance for same-sex unions but fiercely opposes abortion". He does insist "on a strict interpretation of the US Constitution" and is a stauch supporter of the second amendment, however, he "[rejects] the idea of the United States as the world's policeman".

Also, he calls for the "immediate withdrawal of US soldiers deployed in Iraq but also those stationed in South Korea, Japan and Europe." He even "wants the United States to quit the United Nations, NATO and the World Trade Organization.""[Paul] argues for a return to the gold standard and eliminating the income tax.

"Though his views are so radical, he holds 5-6% of the Republican vote and polls show he is attractive to both Democrats and those who are not affiliated with either party. He has even raised "8.1 million dollars" and "raised 4.2 million dollars via the Internet from about 37,000 donors."Paul is certainly one of the most unorthodox and radical candidates of the presidential race, however he seems to be drawing support from both sides.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071117/pl_afp/usvote2008republicanspaul;_ylt=Au5yJB6oWab43RwvPvQtBZOyFz4D
(Question contributed by Joanna Z)

Opinion: Should issues related to immigration play a big role in the 2008 presidential election?

The Issue the Democrats Dread
__
By E. J. Dionne Jr.Friday, November 2, 2007; Page A21

More significant than Hillary Clinton's supposed gaffe at the end of Tuesday's Democratic presidential debate is the subject around which she tiptoed so delicately: immigration.

Democrats fear the issue because it could leave them with a set of no-win political choices.

Examined on its face, Clinton's statement on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's proposal to let illegal immigrants obtain driver's licenses was careful and reasonable.

While acknowledging that current law on immigration is inadequate, she defended Spitzer's idea by noting that if illegal immigrants are going to drive anyway, licensing them would protect all drivers.

Yet Clinton eventually cut into the debate to amend her statement: "I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done." Her opponents jumped all over her. John Edwards accused her of saying "two different things in the course of about two minutes."

In the short run, Clinton's exquisite calibration of her positions was the issue. But her debate dance reflects a deeper worry among Democrats that Republicans are ready to use impatience with illegal immigration to win back voters dissatisfied with the broader status quo.

The issue is especially problematic because efforts to appease voters upset about immigration -- including a share of the African American community -- threaten to undercut the Democrats' large and growing advantage among Latino voters. For Republicans, the issue is both a way of changing the political subject from Iraq, the economy and the failures of the Bush presidency and a means of sowing discord in the Democratic coalition.
--This opinion piece continues at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/01/AR2007110101987.html

Political Videos for 12-21-07

Analysis: Democrat Joe Biden says he's the most qualified to be president. Why hasn't his campaign been more successful in recent polling?

There is a Republican debate Sunday 10-21-07 at 8:00 p.m. (on Fox News).


Check out questions and answers of Joe Biden at the following address:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/10/04/DI2007100401628.html

Opinion: Is money a problem in politics? What big or small changes should be made to the system (if any)?

Getting Around Rules on Lobbying
Despite New Law, Firms Find Ways To Ply Politicians
By Elizabeth WilliamsonWashington Post Staff Writer Sunday, October 14, 2007; Page A01

In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.

Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.

The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.

Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting (celebrating) one lawmaker.

"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "

Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.

But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.

At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"

No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.

If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
(...this article continues at www.washingtonpost.com)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101301275.html

Analysis: Do you think the country is ready for a President Romney?

Check out the article that you can link to via the following Hypertext Markup Language:

Mitt's Mission
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21049285/site/newsweek/

Analysis: How will things change at the Justice Department if Judge Mukasey is confirmed by the Senate?

Rulings by Mukasey Are Called Conservative, Fair
By Robert Barnes and Michael A. FletcherWashington Post Staff Writers Friday, September 21, 2007; Page A03

Judge Michael B. Mukasey clearly believed that the defendant did not have a case. He dismissed her assertion that the New York City Police Department fired her because she had accused a more senior officer of rape, without allowing a jury to hear the case. But a higher court disagreed and told the judge to hold a trial.

There, the jury found for Karen Sorlucco, and ordered the police department to pay her nearly $265,000. But again Mukasey disagreed, making a rare decision to overturn the jury's verdict, partly because he believed that the victim had committed perjury. "It would be grossly unjust for the jury verdict to stand," the judge said.

And, again, a higher court disagreed: "The trial court overstepped its bounds, and usurped the jury's function of judging credibility." It ordered Mukasey to enter judgment in Sorlucco's favor.

The case, finally settled in 1992, fairly early in Mukasey's career on the bench, showed a judge insistent on doing what he felt the law compelled, even when a jury and a higher court disagreed. "It's difficult whenever a judge takes away a jury verdict, but he was doing his job as he saw it," said Minna J. Kotkin, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, whose legal clinic handled Sorlucco's appeal. She added, "I don't think civil rights has been his first love."

Many lawyers who have practiced before Mukasey, 66, describe him as conservative but not doctrinaire, and fair. The long judicial record created by Mukasey's 18 years as judge on the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of New York included thousands of cases that ranged from high-profile terrorism trials to lengthy insurance battles over liability in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the twin towers, and a case in which a jury awarded $100 to a woman who said boxer Mike Tyson grabbed her buttocks.

His generally conservative demeanor on the bench and his self-confidence seem particularly pronounced in his handling of the complex trial of Omar Abdel Rahman, the "blind sheik," after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. After a long Rahman complaint at sentencing, he said: "You should be assured that there is no shortage of will in this country to deal with the threat of violence from any source. If you look at the record of even the relatively recent past -- the last 50 years of this country -- you will find that this country has faced militant fascism, and prevailed; it faced militant communism, and prevailed."

Mukasey also told Rahman: "The one thing that the sentence in this case will certainly assure to the citizens of this city and of this country, who deserve it, is that you and the others who are being sentenced here will never be in a position to do again what the evidence showed overwhelmingly that you did in this case."

While many commentators saw that trial, and Mukasey's handling of another case involving terrorist Jose Padilla, as models of jurisprudence in handling terrorism suspects, Mukasey came away from his experience deeply skeptical that the current criminal justice system is up to that relatively new task. He has since suggested that a separate national court might be needed for such cases.

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, is said to have told his American captors that he wanted a lawyer and would see them in court," Mukasey wrote last month. "If the Supreme Court rules . . . that foreigners in U.S. custody enjoy the protection of our Constitution regardless of the place or circumstances of their apprehension, this bold joke could become a reality." His statement matched the Bush administration's view.

In another op-ed column, Mukasey said he agrees with the proposition that government "is entitled, at least in the first instance, to receive from its citizens the benefit of the doubt." But while Mukasey ruled that he supported the administration's detention of Padilla as an "enemy combatant," he showed independence by ruling over the administration's objections that Padilla had the right to an attorney.

In a later case, Mukasey also ruled against a government bid to administer drugs to Susan Lindauer, a mentally unstable woman who had been charged as an agent of Iraq, to be able to try her in court.

Roland Thau, a federal public defender in Manhattan who has appeared before Mukasey, said: "He gave you a very good trial. He is very sharp, very focused. It was interesting to argue before him because he was interested in ideas and language."
(this article continues at www.washingtonpost.com)

Opinion: Is the plan that the president announced a good idea?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Thursday night conditions on the ground in Iraq have improved sufficiently to start bringing some U.S. troops home, and urged Americans divided over the war to "come together."

In a televised speech to the nation, Bush said he would reduce U.S. force strength by 5,700 troops by Christmas and, by next July, reduce the number of combat brigades from 20 to 15, a decrease of roughly 30,000 troops.

The first step in that process will come later this month, when 2,200 Marines leaving Anbar province will not be replaced, the president said.

"The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is 'return on success' -- the more successful we are, the more American troops can return home," Bush said during a 17-minute address from the Oval Office.

"In all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy."

The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker told Congress this week that progress had been made on the ground in Iraq since Bush in January sent 30,000 additional troops. The move was termed "the surge."

Petraeus said the surge campaign has met its military goals of reducing sectarian killings by more than 50 percent nationwide and by more than 80 percent in Baghdad.

Analysis: What impact will the Rove departure have on the White House and politics in general?

As Rove Departs, President Again Turns to Gillespie
By Michael A. FletcherWashington Post Staff WriterThursday, August 16, 2007

CRAWFORD, Tex., Aug. 15 -- When George W. Bush needed a communications adviser during the 2000 Florida recount, which determined whether he would be president, he turned to Ed Gillespie. When Bush needed someone to shepherd two of his Supreme Court nominees, he again called on Gillespie. And when longtime confidant and counselor Dan Bartlett stepped down this summer, Bush brought Gillespie to the White House.

Now, with the departure of Karl Rove, the president's closest adviser, Gillespie, 46, a former lobbyist and Republican National Committee chairman, has once again been asked to help fill the void.
(...this story continues at www.washingtonpost.com)

Analysis: Is there a significant difference between the previous Republican-controlled Congress and the current Democratic-controlled Congress?

Explanatory Note: In the 2006 elections many voters seemed to vote for Democrats because they thought the policies in Iraq would change. In addition, many on the left thought a Democratic-controlled Congress would change what they perceived as violations of the principles of the Bill of Rights. With the current policy in Iraq and the information from the article below in mind, analyze whether or not there are any real differences in substance between the leadership of the two parties.

House Approves Wiretap Measure
White House Bill Boosts Warrantless Surveillance
By Ellen Nakashima and Joby WarrickWashington Post Staff WritersSunday, August 5, 2007

The Democratic-controlled House last night approved and sent to President Bush for his signature legislation written by his intelligence advisers to enhance their ability to intercept the electronic communications of foreigners without a court order.

The 227 to 183 House vote capped a high-pressure campaign by the White House to change the nation's wiretap law, in which the administration capitalized on Democrats' fears of being branded weak on terrorism and on a general congressional desire to act on the measure before an August recess.

The Senate had passed the legislation Friday night after House Democrats failed to win enough votes to pass a narrower revision of a statute known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The original statute was enacted after the revelation of CIA abuses in the 1970s, and it required judicial oversight for most federal wiretapping conducted in the United States.

Privacy and civil liberties advocates, and many Democratic lawmakers, complained that the Bush administration's revisions of the law could breach constitutional protections against government intrusion. But the administration, aided by Republican congressional leaders, suggested that a failure to approve what intelligence officials sought could expose the country to a greater risk of terrorist attacks.

Democrats facing reelection next year in conservative districts helped propel the bill to a quick approval. Adding to the pressures they felt were recent intelligence reports about threatening new al-Qaeda activity in Pakistan and the disclosure by House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) of a secret court ruling earlier this year that complicated the wiretapping of purely foreign communications that happen to pass through a communications node on U.S. soil.

The bill would give the National Security Agency the right to collect such communications in the future without a warrant. But it goes further than that: It also would allow the interception and recording of electronic communications involving, at least in part, people "reasonably believed to be outside the United States" without a court's order or oversight.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto emphasized that the bill is not meant to increase eavesdropping on Americans or "to affect in any way the legitimate privacy rights" of U.S. citizens. Data related to Americans in communications with foreigners who are the targets of a U.S. terrorism investigation could be monitored only if intelligence officials have a reasonable expectation of learning information relevant to that probe, a senior U.S. official said.

"There are a lot of people who felt we had to pass something," said one angry Democratic lawmaker who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of caucus discussions. "It was tantamount to being railroaded."

In a sole substantial concession to Democrats, the administration agreed to a provision allowing the legislation to be reconsidered in six months.

Some House Democrats were still upset by what they saw as a deliberate scuttling by the White House of negotiations on a compromise bill. On Thursday, Democratic leaders reached what they believed was a deal with the government's chief intelligence official, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, only to be presented with a new list of conditions at the last minute. The White House and McConnell have denied that a deal had been reached.

"I think the White House didn't want to take 'yes' for an answer from the Democrats," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), an intelligence committee member.

The administration said that its bill is aimed at bringing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 into step with advances in technology, primarily by restoring the government's power to gather without a warrant foreign intelligence on targets located overseas.
(this article continues...go to www.washingtonpost.com)

Opinion: Who won the Democratic Debate (and who did well or poorly in the debate?)

Democratic Debate: Monday July 23, 6:00 p.m. (our time) on CNN

Republican Debate: September 17 on CNN

* Bonus Question (not as important as the politics question and is only asked as an aside about the state of the media and the "young viewer")

Do you care that the questions are submitted on YouTube or is it a publicity stunt that is not a real change in the way that major networks report the news? Is this an exciting change that will make the news more interactive or not?

Analysis: Do you think that Senator McCain's campaign shake-up will put his candidacy on track toward the nomination?

Analysis: Do you think the president's decision will have any political impact on him or the presidential candidates?

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - President Bush spared former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak investigation Monday, delivering a political thunderbolt in the highly charged criminal case. Bush said the sentence was just too harsh.

Bush's move came just five hours after a federal appeals panel ruled that Libby could not delay his prison term. That meant Libby was likely to have to report soon, and it put new pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff.

"I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a statement. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald disputed the president's assertion that the prison term was excessive. Libby was sentenced under the same laws as other criminals, Fitzgerald said. "It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals," the prosecutor said.

Libby's attorney, Theodore Wells, said in a statement that the Libby family was grateful for Bush's action and continued to believe in his innocence.
Bush's decision enraged Democrats and cheered conservatives — though some of the latter wished Bush had granted a full pardon.

"Libby's conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq war," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Bush's decision showed the president "condones criminal conduct."

Unlike a pardon, which would have wiped away Libby's criminal record, Bush's commutation voided only the prison term.

The president left intact a $250,000 fine and two years' probation for his conviction of lying and obstructing justice in a probe into the leak of a CIA operative's identity. The former operative, Valerie Plame, contends the White House was trying to discredit her husband, a critic of Bush's Iraq policy.

Bush said his action still "leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby."

Libby was convicted in March, the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair roiled the Reagan administration in the 1980s. Arms were secretly sold to Iran to gain freedom for American hostages, with the money funneled to anti-communist guerrillas in Nicaragua in spite of a congressional ban. Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush, issued pardons for six former officials shortly before leaving office in 1992.

Testimony in the Libby case revealed the extraordinary steps that Bush and Cheney were willing to take to discredit a critic of the Iraq war.

Libby's supporters celebrated the president's decision. "President Bush did the right thing today in commuting the prison term for Scooter Libby," said House Republican Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri.

"That's fantastic. It's a great relief," said former Ambassador Richard Carlson, who helped raise millions for Libby's defense fund. "Scooter Libby did not deserve to go to prison and I'm glad the president had the courage to do this."

Already at record lows in the polls, Bush risked a political backlash with his decision. President Ford tumbled in the polls after his 1974 pardon of Richard M. Nixon, and the decision was a factor in Ford's loss in the 1976 presidential election.

White House officials said Bush knew he could take political heat and simply did what he thought was right. They would not say what advice Cheney might have given the president.

On the other hand, Bush's action could help Republican presidential candidates by letting them off the hook on the question of whether they would pardon Libby. Bush said Cheney's former aide was not getting off free.

"The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged," Bush said. "His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting."

A spokeswoman for Cheney said simply, "The vice president supports the president's decision."

The White House said Bush came to his decision in the past week or two and made it final Monday because of the ruling of the appeals panel, which meant Libby would be going to prison soon.

The president's announcement came just as prison seemed likely for Libby. He recently lost an appeals court fight that was his best chance to put the sentence on hold, and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons had already designated him inmate No. 28301-016.

Bush's statement made no mention of the term "pardon," and he made clear that he was not willing to wipe away all penalties for Libby.

The president noted Libby supporters' argument that the punishment did not fit the crime for a "first-time offender with years of exceptional public service."

Yet, he added: "Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable." Bush then stripped away the prison time.

The leak case has hung over the White House for years. After CIA operative Valerie Plame's name appeared in a 2003 syndicated newspaper column, Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald questioned top administration officials, including Bush and Cheney, about their possible roles.
Nobody was ever charged with the leak, including Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage or White House political adviser Karl Rove, who provided the information for the original article. Prosecutors said Libby obstructed the investigation by lying about how he learned about Plame and whom he told.

Plame believes Libby and other White House officials conspired to leak her identity to reporters in 2003 as retribution against her husband, Joseph Wilson, who criticized what he said was the administration's misleading use of prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Attorney William Jeffress said he had spoken to Libby briefly by phone and "I'm happy at least that Scooter will be spared any prison time. ... The prison sentence was imminent, but obviously the conviction itself is a heavy blow to Scooter."

A White House official notified the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, of the decision. Walton, a Bush appointee who served in the White House under the president's father, had cited the "overwhelming" evidence against Libby when he handed down his sentence. A courthouse spokesman said Walton would not comment.
___
Associated Press writer Matt Apuzzo contributed to this report.

Opinion: Should public policy decisions be made to address global warming?

As the World Warms, the White House Aspires
By Dana MilbankFriday, June 1, 2007 (from WashingtonPost.com)

Yesterday, as the temperature pushed toward 90 degrees in the capital, global warming caused a meltdown in the Bush administration's message machine.

Just as President Bush was about to wheel out his "new international climate change framework," the NASA administrator, Michael Griffin, declared that there is no need to take action against global warming.

"Whether that is a long-term concern or not, I can't say," he said in an interview with National Public Radio, adding: "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with." In fact, Griffin found it "rather arrogant" to suggest that global warming is a bad thing.

A couple of hours after the broadcast, Griffin's boss took the stage at the Ronald Reagan Building to endorse just such arrogance -- an initiative aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. "The United States takes this issue seriously," Bush said.

This mixed message led to a rather cool reception for Jim Connaughton, the president's adviser on the environment, as he briefed reporters on the plan at noon.

"Will the new framework consist of binding commitments or voluntary commitments?" asked CBS News's Jim Axelrod.

"In this instance, you have a long-term, aspirational goal," Connaughton answered.

Aspirational goal? Like having the body you want without diet or exercise? Or getting rich without working?

"I'm confused," Axelrod said. "Does that mean there will be targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions, and that everybody will be making binding commitments?"

"The commitment at the international level will be to a long-term, aspirational goal," the Bush aide repeated.

Axelrod had his answer. "Voluntary," he concluded.

"Well," said Connaughton, "I want to be careful about the word 'voluntary.' "

Opinion: If, like MHS grad Elliott Anderson, you were delivering a Memorial Day address, what would you say to the nation?

Bush pays tribute to fallen U.S. troops
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press
President Bush urged Americans to use Memorial Day to rededicate themselves to fighting for freedom around the world and pray for the safety of U.S. troops serving overseas.

"In Iraq and Afghanistan, millions have shown their desire to be free," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address. "We are determined to help them secure their liberty. "

On Monday, Bush will mark his sixth Memorial Day as a wartime president with a visit to Arlington National Cemetery. He is to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns to honor those who have died in past and current conflicts.

"From Valley Forge to Vietnam, from Kuwait to Kandahar, from Berlin to Baghdad, brave men and women have given up their own futures so that others might have a future of freedom," he said. "Because of their sacrifice, millions here and around the world enjoy the blessings of liberty. And wherever these patriots rest, we offer them the respect and gratitude of our nation."

Bush used his radio address to tell the story of Sgt. David Christoff Jr. of Rossford, Ohio, one of at least 3,431 members of the U.S. military who have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003. Christoff signed up for the Marines the day after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, saying he didn't want his brother and sister to "live in fear," Bush said.

Christoff was deployed to Iraq, where he fought in street battles in Fallujah and earned a Purple Heart for wounds suffered in action. He returned to Iraq and was killed last May in the volatile Anbar province.

"When his family received his belongings, his mother and his father each found a letter from David," Bush said. "He asked that they pray for his fellow Marines and all those still serving overseas."

Bush said U.S. troops are helping build democracies that respect the rights of their people, uphold the rule of law and become allies in the fight against extremists.

"On Memorial Day, we rededicate ourselves to freedom's cause," the president said.

For their weekly radio address, Democrats called on Elliot Anderson of Las Vegas, who spent four years on active duty with the Marine Corps, including a seven-month deployment to Afghanistan.

Anderson said patriotism is an American value, not a Democratic or a Republican one.

"I strongly oppose our involvement in Iraq's civil war, but I am still proud of my service to my country," Anderson said.

"But I know I speak for many of my friends overseas when I say that the best way to honor the troops is to responsibly end our involvement in Iraq's civil war. As long as President Bush stays committed to the same policies that aren't working, it won't be easy. But I am proud to see Democrats and now some brave Republicans standing up to him."