"For the sake of perception, I think there is always going to be a cloud hanging over whether or not this Justice Department, run by John Ashcroft, will ever have the objectivity and the independence to do the kind of investigation required."

--Senator Tom Daschle

This leak business is so disturbing, such an egregrious violation of federal law, that even Republicans are starting to speak out. Larry Johnson, former CIA analyst and counterterrorism official at the State Department and "registered Republican," had this to say to Terence Smith on the Newshour tonight:

Let's be very clear about what happened. This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.

So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's out them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.

I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it. His entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted: to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.

Does anyone honestly believe that Ashcroft's Justice Department can be trusted to conduct an investigation of the White House's leak of the identity of an undercover CIA agent? How convenient that the Republican-controlled Congress let the independent counsel statute, used so ruthlessly by the Republicans against Clinton, expire last year.

Just imagine if the Democrats were to spend as much time and money investigating this Bush administration as the Republicans did during the Clinton administration, only to learn that Hillary made some money on a shady real estate deal and that Bill got blown in the Oval Office! Hell, who needs Ken Starr anyway? Anyone with a computer and an Internet connection can find enough damning evidence to support sending Bush & Co where they belong.

Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

Somebody do some research on this one, please:

Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted.

Bush & Co Lie About Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame

The story goes something like this. US Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Africa by Vice President Dick Cheney to come back with some evidence that Iraq tried to obtain yellow cake uranium from Niger. Not only did Wilson fail to find any such evidence, he also made his findings public after Bush & Co used the yellow cake as one of many false justifications for invading Iraq. Robert Novak reported on July 14 that a White House staffer told him that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plane, was a CIA operative, and that's why Wilson got the assignment. Two months later, the White House is getting some well deserved heat for acting to discredit Joseph Wilson and endanger his wife by outing her identity out of spite and vindictiveness.

Now the Bush cronies are taking an interesting tack. At the executive level, Condi Rice appeared on the talk show circuit this Sunday to say that she knew nothing about the leak's source, although she didn't condemn it, which would have been the appropriate thing to do. She made no effort to admit that it was a mistake, and tried to stifle further questioning by saying that it was now being investigated by the Justice Department. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan echoed her comments today, and dismissed claims that Karl Rove was behind the leak as "ridiculous."

At the public discourse level, the message is more convoluted and goes something like this:

1) Joseph Wilson had it in for Bush and purposefully used his yellow cake findings to discredit the White House.
2) Bush & Co weren't solely responsible for the leak, as Robert Novak was the one who actually reported it and the CIA corrobated it. (At least six other journalists may have been contacted by the White House, including Andrea Mitchell, Alan Greenspan's wife.)
3) Valerie Plame wasn't really that secret of an agent anyway.

"If Mrs. Wilson wasn't undercover, then this is a non-story ginned up by her husband, a unabashed Bush-hater who wrote in the notoriously left-wing Nation magazine earlier this year that under Bush, "America has entered one of it periods of historical madness."

White House critics want to paint a picture of Mrs. Wilson as a super secret spy working abroad whose life was endangered because of a White House vendetta, while in reality she was apparently safe and sound working stateside as a CIA weapons analyst at the time of the Novak report. "

Give me a fucking break. I don't have to tell you that Bush's father was head of the CIA before he took up residence in the White House. His administration would have known better than to out a US agent over a political squabble, but apparently his son's men (largely one and the same) have no sense of decency or tact. By outing Wilson, they put foreign friendlies at risk and damaged our intelligence efforts in ways that we won't soon understand or appreciate. And for those who are scoring this at home:

Leaking classified information and identifying an undercover CIA operative are felonies. The maximum penalty is 10 years in prison and $50,000 in fines.

I say, let's not make this personal, at least not yet. Whether Karl Rove is to blame doesn't matter. Hopefully a full investigation will get to the heart of this. (Howard Kurtz suggests that this may not be likely, as leak investigations don't often pan out.)

This White House is a mess at the very least, and felonious at worst. This leak is just another reason why Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld and the rest need to be looking for new jobs come next November. Or sitting behind bars.

Ted Rall explains what David Brooks and other conservative pundits just don't understand:

Bush's detractors despise him viscerally, as a man. Where working-class populists see him as a smug, effeminate frat boy who wouldn't recognize a hard day's work if it kicked him in his self-satisfied ass, intellectuals see a simian-faced idiot unqualified to mow his own lawn, much less lead the free world.

Rall goes on to explain that we really hate Bush because he stole the election. (As if he hasn't given us 1000 more reasons to hate him since.)

Schwarzenegger Promises to Model California After Texas

If I hadn't heard him say it with my own ears, I wouldn't believe it. It's funny, but I remember often hearing the word "Californication" when I lived in Texas, referring to the influx of people from the West Coast during the economic boom. Now we have a bodybuilder Republican from Austria who thinks that Texas does a good job of serving the public interest. Only the most ignorant Californians could listen to this comment without gagging.

SCHWARZENEGGER: I am for Prop. 53. I think it's a good beginning. But the fact of the matter is that we need a lot of infrastructures in California. Infrastructure with highways and with the transportation, railroads. Infrastructure with our water supply, infrastructure with our ports. We need that. We should model ourselves after Texas. In Texas, they have committed $140 billion for infrastructure (unintelligible) with building 4,000 miles of transportation -- railways, freeways, highways and all those kind of things. They have already taken the position where we were first in export -- now it's Texas, the first in export. Because they are really aggressive. That's what California ought to do.

Sounds to me like someone has been listening to Karl Rove.

Bush Lied and People Died

White House web site has the letter Bush wrote to Congress requesting authority to invade Iraq because of their involvement in the attacks of 9/11.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

If you've ever asked the question "Are They Insane?!"
Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition

Interesting psychological study posted here from the original in the Psychological Bulletin

An important conclusion that follows from our analysis is that political attitudes and beliefs possess a strong motivational basis. Conservative ideologies are adopted in part because they satisfy various psychological needs. Variables significantly associated with conservatism, we now know, include fear and aggression, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, uncertainty avoidance, need for cognitive closure, personal need for structure, terror management, group-based dominance, and system justification.

We regard political conservatism as an ideological belief system that is significantly (but not completely) related to motivational concerns having to do with the psychological management of uncertainty and fear. Specifically, the avoidance of uncertainty (and the striving for certainty) may be particularly tied to one core dimension of conservative thought, resistance to change. Similarly, concerns with fear and threat may be linked to the second core dimension of conservatism, endorsement of inequality. Although resistance to change and support for inequality are conceptually distinguishable, we have argued that they are psychologically interrelated, in part because motives pertaining to uncertainty and threat are interrelated

Prediction on California Recall
Why California will delay the recall

A panel of judges decides today whether or not to reinstate the Oct. 7 recall. I predict they will find a reason to delay.

The Republicans didn't expect Bustamante to be doing so well.
Their boy isn't guaranteed the automatic victory they were hoping.
They need time to get McClintock out.
They need time to slander Bustamante.

Predictions: The judges vote to delay. The Republicans beat up on Bustamante in the super-bowl debate Wednesday. McClintock drops out. LOTS of wild stories about Bustamante. ES&S sells electronic voting machines to California. (ES&S in FL) (ES&S in FL) Recall and Arnold win in March.

Where have all the flowers gone?
Let’s recap the series of events for the viewing audience:
* Clinton left the country with its first budget surplus in 40 years
* Bush gave that surplus to his rich friends, promising to leave future generations to foot the bill. It will take OUR taxes and someone else’s fiscal discipline to pay down this debt.
* Bush started a war, funded with OUR taxes.
* Bush’s friends profit from the war, paid for by US.
* Bush’s friends profit from the rebuilding after the war, paid for by US.
* Bush’s friends will profit from the oil business coming from Iraq after the rebuilding.
The budget surplus goes to the rich. Deficits benefit the rich. War benefits the rich. Rebuilding benefits the rich. Oil revenues benefit the rich.

The occupation of Iraq is costing US taxpayers nearly $4 BILLION PER MONTH. Total cost to the US for war and occupation = $100 BILLION and the federal deficit is nearing $500 BILLION.

Here’s what Clinton left us:

Instead of a $455 billion deficit, the surplus that year was $230 billion.

Here’s what Bush is leaving us:
Record federal deficit of $304 billion, NOT COUNTING the extra $87 billion.

The $1.3 trillion tax giveaway to the wealthy accounted for over two-fifths of the lost surplus, according to a CBO report.

Most of the not-yet-in-effect tax cuts would benefit the nation's wealthy households by trimming their marginal income tax rates and by reducing, and over time ending, taxes on estates.

Who benefits from the war:

The Carlyle Group stands to make huge profits from the war in Iraq.

Halliburton
Cheney claimed to have cut ties with the company, and had nothing to do with a large no-bid contract for oil reconstruction work in Iraq. He was still receiving large deferred salary payments and continues to hold 433,333 unexercised Halliburton stock options.

Other Facts:
* George Bush Sr. is a former director of Halliburton. He is now one of the directors of The Carlyle Group, one of the largest defense contractors in the world.
* Halliburton has signed contracts and provides services to Chevron.
* The Bush Administrations' National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice, was a former director of Chevron and held a quarter of a million shares of Chevron stock. She even had a tanker named after her before being appointed by President Bush.

More money, please
President Bush’s $87 billion war spending request to Congress offers new details about the costs of reconstructing Iraq and is drawing criticism from Democrats that the White House is willing to spend more on Iraqis than on U.S. citizens.
Of the president's request, nearly $5.8 billion would go toward rebuilding Iraq's electricity system, $2.1 billion is earmarked for its oil infrastructure, $3.7 billion for water and sewer building, $800 million for telecommunications and transportation improvements, and $900 million to upgrade hospitals and health care.
U.S. taxpayers will construct two prisons in Iraq, build houses and finance the importation of $900 million worth of fuel to a country with the world's second-largest oil reserves.

”In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. “ President Eisenhower, 1961

Naked WTO Protest in Cancun

Last Monday, 29 fair trade activists showed that they are willing to do anything to bring attention to their cause, even if it means stripping naked and spelling out "No WTO" in the sand with their bodies.

Nonetheless, not many Americans were paying attention. Some might be aware of the WTO because of the protests in Seattle, but ask them to connect WTO to free trade or globalization and they'll likely draw a blank.

Free trade is one of those terms that is tossed around quite casually in the US press, with little explanation of what it means. For most of the world, free trade means being coerced by the United States, via the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, to "liberalize" markets and remove trade barriers. Unfortunately, the resulting "free" markets have little respect for human rights, health care or the environment. And evidence shows that the resulting economic conditions benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.

Yesterday, global trade talks collapsed at the World Trade Organization summit in Cancun. It looks like some of the world's poorest people are finally sick and tired of being exploited by the richest. Lori Wallach, Director of the Public Citizens Global Trade Watch, explained why during an online interview with the Washington Post.

"The poor countries had a specific agenda of changes to the existing WTO rules to remedy the problems proven through nine years of implementation-- such as an increase in the number of extremenly poor and increased global hunger.

The Bush Administration calls itself the great promoter of democracy, free trade and the global trade system. Yet it just imploded the WTO summit by paying lip service to the demands of a majority of WTO signatory nations who require more democratic decision'making, fairer trade and true multilateralism. These countries refused to simply sign off on the corporate agenda for WTO pushed by the U.S. and its small rich country coalition of corporate shilling.

This model of globalization is not working for us, and it doesn't seem to be working for most of the people in the big rich countries either. So why are we doing this, and who is it benefitting? These are the kinds of questions that the Bush administration does not want to answer...which may explain in part why they are always spreading lies about and trying to undermine the Venezuelan government.

Many of the countries that have flouted core aspects of the WTO globalization model -- blocking imports, not having a convertible currency, strictly regulating foreign investment, etc... have grown the fastest and pulled more of their people out of poverty. Meanwhile the strictest adherence to the WTO model have seen their growth slow down, have faced domestic social and political instability cause by desparate peasant farmers who have lost their livelihoods. And in some instances, have spectacularly crashed -- like Argentina, the WTO and IMF's poster child of perfect compliance to the model.

From WWII to the early 70s. U.S. wages grew 80 percent. In the next period, even though the share of trade represented in our GDP doubles (ie, trade is a lot bigger part of our economy), real wages have remained flat. Part of that result can be seen outside of manufacturing employment. During debates on WTO and NAFTA we were all promised these agreements would bring our high-tech future where we would work as professionals instead of sweating on a tractor or in front of a steel furnace. Yet now we learn that over 3 million high-end service jobs (doctors, architects, engineers, etc.) are slated to be shipped overseas. Everyone needs to ask their elected officials and anyone running for office, 'Just what in the hell kind of work will we be doing here in the U.S. in the future?'"

That's exactly the question I would like to ask Mr. Bush and his free-trade brethren. I wonder, if I took off my clothes would they pay attention to me?

September Eleventh Families March For Peaceful Tomorrows

from Newsday

More than 1,000 demonstrators carrying flowers, flashlights and glow sticks in paper bags solemnly marched from Union Square to Ground Zero Wednesday night and formed a "circle of hope" where 2,792 people lost their lives in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

The silent vigil, which included no political speeches, placards or organization signs, was dedicated to peace and the memory of the victims. For safety reasons, candles also were banned. A flute player led the marchers, some holding pictures of the fallen.

The two-hour march and encirclement ceremony ended at 9:45 p.m. with the pealing of a St. Paul Chapel bell driven to the site on the back of a trailer.

Vice President Dick Cheney Cancels 9/11 Appearance
Cites Security as the Problem

This is the world we now live in. A great tragedy befell this great nation two years ago, and now the Vice President can't attend a memorial because he required all potential attendees to pass through metal detectors.

I'm reminded of how Bill Clinton used to make his way through crowds, shaking hands and touching people as he walked through them. George Bush and Dick Cheney can't let crowds get too close to them.

Citing logistical and security problems, Vice President Dick Cheney Wednesday canceled an appearance in Thursday's massive morning memorial at the World Trade Center site.

Cheney will instead attend a smaller Manhattan event in the afternoon for Port Authority officers killed in the attack two years ago, those involved in the last-minute switch said.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg requested the change because Cheney's security protocol required all 15,000 people expected at Ground Zero to pass through metal detectors, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said.

One law enforcement source who declined to be identified said Bloomberg and other city officials balked at forcing the bereaved to walk through metal detectors. At the same time, Cheney's Secret Service team didn't want to take unusual risks.

As with last year's commemoration, however, access is expected to be tightly restricted to those with pre-issued credentials, all subject to searches. Next year's Republican National Convention is also expected to involve some use of Ground Zero as backdrop, prompting another security challenge.

That's right, next year's Republican National Convention is going to be held in New York City, and will use Ground Zero as a backdrop.

Karl Rove, Herr Goebbels Would Be Proud of You!

George Bush Must Go
Reason #631: The Everglades

I'm sick and tired of the arrogance of this president and his henchmen. They have hobbled the US economy, made a complete mess of US foreign policy and are determined to reverse every hard-earned environmental protection passed over the last 30 years.

Does any Republican remember that it was Nixon who signed the EPA into law? Thanks to this Republican president, the EPA and the Department of Interior have become little more than a front for industry insiders to make sure they have unfettered and unregulated access to mine, refine, cut timber and foul our air and water. Their strategy in a nutshell seems to be simple: ignore the laws that are already in place while working to rewrite them. Their message to those who oppose environmental protection has been, Fight environmental laws in the courts and we'll look the other way, or better yet, we'll argue on your behalf.

A brief filed today with the U.S. Supreme Court by the federal government argues that municipal water management districts can pipe dirty water into cleaner water without any permit under the federal Clean Water Act.

The decision by the United States to side with the water management district in its Supreme Court battle comes on the heels of the State of Florida’s decision in June to weaken pollution rules for the Everglades, including allowing a twelve year delay in requiring a stop to phosphorus pollution (which kills native Everglades vegetation). That decision, like this one, was criticized widely as conflicting with an $8 billion 30-year government civil works project launched in 2000 to restore the Everglades, the nation’s largest subtropical wetlands and home to 68 endangered and threatened species.

“Once again, the Bush administration is letting the American people down on behalf of polluters, in this instance, abdicating its responsibility to ensure that the nation's clean water law and regulations are upheld,” said Robin Mann, Chair of the Sierra Club's National Clean Water Campaign.

Nothing is sacred to these people, expect the almighty dollar. Shame on them and the parents who didn't raise them to know the difference between right and wrong. And shame on us for electing them. (Oh, they weren't elected, you say? Well let's get them out of the White House then!)

Is this the future of democracy in America?

As the following site sums up:

God bless Bush's America. God help us all.

Now play that over in your head occasionally for the next 14 months and then VOTE.

Damn, Boy, Whose Side Are You On?!

It took a Scottish newspaper to report this one:

THE United States allowed members of Osama bin Laden’s family to jet out of the US in the immediate aftermath of September 11, even as American airspace was closed. Former White House counter-terrorism tsar Richard Clarke said the Bush administration sanctioned the repatriation of about 140 high-ranking Saudi Arabians, including relatives of the al-Qaida chief.

Is this shocking? Surprising? Unbelievable? It shouldn't be. It's just another point in a line:

Bush has had a long history of doing business with the bin Ladens

The Carlyle Group (including Bush Sr. and James Baker) watched the 9/11 attacks with the bin Ladens.

Then, they arranged for the Saudis to leave the country.

Then, represented the Saudis in a lawsuit AGAINST the families of the victims of the attacks.

Then, covered up the intelligence report on the Saudi support for terrorism.

When does a trend of activities become treason?
"Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self deception has grown too heavy. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven't done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing)."

The Double Whammy of Bush's Fiscal Policy
More Money for the Rich; More Money for Oilmen

President Bush is touring the country this week, trying to convince the nation that things aren't as bad as they look, that the economy is improving and we shouldn't pay any attention to rising unemployment or the $1 billion we're now spending each week on the Iraqi quagmire.

Most Americans realize that Bush's tax cuts favor the rich, and some are okay with that. Your average middle-class Republican trusts the wealthy to use their extra cash to reinvest in the economy and create jobs. But this doesn't seem to be happening, given that millions of jobs have been lost since the cuts. Furthermore, the wealthy are using some of their cash to finance Bush's reelection campaign at $2,000-a-plate fundraising dinners, but that's not much, considering the cash they've been handed - $88,000+ for taxpayers in the highest bracket, with the wealthiest getting untold millions more in their pocket.

Many of these same Bushites are oilmen, which isn't surprising given that Bush and Cheney are former oilmen and the administration is full of former oil executives.

A new report by The RAND Corporation points out that Bush's friends in the oil business have an inherent incentive not to produce too much oil, and NOW with Bill Moyers' David Brancaccio notes that the extra cost to the American economy pretty much equals Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

So there is your double whammy: Bush raids the Treasury to give tax cuts to his wealthy donors while turning a blind eye as his oil buddies rake in the profits by falling short on production and raising prices.

DAVID BRANCACCIO: Why should refineries ensure plentiful supplies anyway? Since it's fair to say they do make more money when there's less gasoline. Why spend money to expand capacity if the result is lower gasoline prices? Verleger thinks that allegation is a little far-fetched.

PHILIP VERLEGER: They have the crude oil. They'd like to refine it. And they're really good at this. So-- I just-- you know, that's a story that does not seem to fly.

DAVID BRANCACCIO: Other analysts see it differently. Yesterday, the Rand think tank published a study based on wide discussions with refining industry officials. According to the study, those in the industry are patting themselves on the back for getting so efficient by ridding themselves of so much capacity. The study includes one executive's "happy" thought: "I think the industry has learned that it's okay to fall short on product. There is no reward being long on product or production capability." [see page 4 of the following PDF]

In other words, there's no margin in being on the side of the little guy. If you're an investor in one of these refining companies, you may agree with that wholeheartedly. If you're driving somewhere this holiday weekend in a vehicle that requires fossil fuel, you may not. We can all agree on at least one thing, however. The biggest spike in gasoline prices on record is not just a household budget issue. It slows down the entire economy, costing by some estimates, as much as a billion dollars a week. Do the math. At that rate, it could cost us 52 billion dollars a year - almost as much as we got back from the president's latest tax cut.

US Diplomat Calls Four European Allies "Chocolate Makers"

This is the kind of stuff we've come to expect from an administration that provokes instead of persuades, and resorts to name calling and threats when it doesn't get its way.

Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg proposed in April the establishment of a new European military command headquarters. Belgium has said that they will go ahead with plans to build the center near Brussels in 2004.

Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt told a meeting of Belgian ambassadors in Brussels on Tuesday that the new headquarters was necessary for Europe to be able to 'plan and execute European operations autonomously' - in other words, without interference from the US.

The European Union has long planned for a common European military capacity that would allow it to formulate and pursue a defence policy separate from that of the US-dominated Nato.

In unusually blunt language, US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher on Tuesday scoffed at the four European countries for continuing to support the proposal for the command centre.

He described the April meeting as one between 'four countries that got together and had a little bitty summit' and then referred to them collectively as 'the chocolate makers'.

After reflecting on his comments, Mr Boucher explained he had seen the phrase in press reports and said that he should not have repeated them.

Schwarzenegger Lays an Egg; Hit By Egg

Arnold Schwarzenegger, action hero and budding Republican political star, laid a big egg on democracy when he announced that he will participate in only one of the four scheduled gubernatorial debates, and even then only the one which gives candidates the questions beforehand. In related news, he was pelted with an egg at California State University, Long Beach.

As Schwarzenegger worked the crowd, the egg splattered on the back of his left shoulder. An aide tried to wipe it off, but he simply peeled off his coat and went ahead with his speech.

Schwarzenegger has agreed to participate in only one debate, on Sept. 24, in which the questions will be provided to candidates in advance -- unlike Wednesday's debate. That decision has drawn criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike.

Even though Schwarzenegger has opted out of the debate, organizers say they would welcome a last-minute change of heart.

Schwarzenegger's absence fit into his campaign strategy of appearing in public in controlled settings where he avoids protracted questioning from reporters, and critics have said he is not attending because he cannot see the questions in advance.

Hundreds of students crammed the university quad for Schwarzenegger's speech under the hot afternoon sun. Some were Young Republicans invited from other schools, according to the actor's campaign.

Several opponents from La Raza Student Association heckled him for his past support of Proposition 187, which sought to deny services to illegal immigrants. They held a sign saying "Hasta la vista Latinos." Supporters drowned out the hecklers with chants of "Arnold, Arnold, Arnold."

Diebold CEO Promises to "Deliver" Votes to Bush

Diebold Inc. is one of several firms competing for the contract to provide voting machines in Ohio. Republican State Senator Jeff Jacobson has asked Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, also a Republican, to disqualify Diebold "after security concerns arose over its equipment." Now it turns out that Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell, as one of George W. Bush's Rangers/Pioneers, promised in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

So how do the Republicans rationalize this obvious conflict of interest? They say that the accusations against Diebold and O'Dell are unfair, and besides, it's just business as usual. Ok, maybe that's the problem.

O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors - known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.

The letter went out the day before Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, also a Republican, was set to qualify Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election.

In his invitation letter, O'Dell asked guests to consider donating or raising up to $10,000 each for the federal account that the state GOP will use to help Bush and other federal candidates - money that legislative Democratic leaders charged could come back to benefit Blackwell.

They urged Blackwell to remove Diebold from the field of voting-machine companies eligible to sell to Ohio counties.

"Ordinary Ohioans may infer that Blackwell's office is looking past Diebold's security issues because its CEO is seeking $10,000 donations for Blackwell's party - donations that could be made with statewide elected officials right there in the same room," said Senate Democratic Leader Greg DiDonato.

Diebold spokeswoman Michelle Griggy said O'Dell - who was unavailable to comment personally - has held fund-raisers in his home for many causes, including the Columbus Zoo, Op era Columbus, Catholic Social Services and Ohio State University.

Ohio GOP spokesman Jason Mauk said the party approached O'Dell about hosting the event at his home, the historic Cotswold Manor, and not the other way around. Mauk said that under federal campaign finance rules, the party cannot use any money from its federal account for state- level candidates.

"To think that Diebold is somehow tainted because they have a couple folks on their board who support the president is just unfair," Mauk said.

Blackwell said Diebold is not the only company with political connections - noting that lobbyists for voting-machine makers read like a who's who of Columbus' powerful and politically connected.

"Let me put it to you this way: If there was one person uniquely involved in the political process, that might be troubling," he said. "But there's no one that hasn't used every legitimate avenue and bit of leverage that they could legally use to get their product looked at. Believe me, if there is a political lever to be pulled, all of them have pulled it."

Blackwell said he stands by the process used for selecting voting machine vendors as fair, thorough and impartial.

Since when can you count on politicians, especially Republicans, to be fair, thorough or impartial?

The real story is that what is happening in Ohio is happening all over the United States, as a handful of corporations with strong political affiliations compete for large and profitable government contracts. Our single most important right as citizens is the right to vote, but without accurate, honest and impartial elections, how can we be sure that our vote counts? Learn more at: blackboxvoting.com.

Al Franken could never have guessed that Fox News would help him market his new book, "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right." But that is exactly what Fox did when it sued, claiming that his book's title infringed on their trademark phrase, "fair and balanced." The judge dismissed the frivolous suit and also warned Fox that "its ownership of the phrase it claimed to have spent $61 million developing was extremely dubious. And sales of Franken's book soared sky-high on the publicity, hitting #1 on Amazon's list Thursday."

Here is an excerpt from a Salon interview with Franken. (You'll find another one worth reading at AlterNet.org.)

Franken: [U]sing the word 'press' [in Fox's complaint] for WashingtonDispatch.com is very much their style. It's distortion, it's shoddy, and it's lame. So I talk about Fox, I talk about Ann Coulter, I talk about the Wall St. Journal editorial page, I talk about the Washington Times, I talk about Bernie Goldberg, and Rush -- all those people employ that sort of m.o., they all do the same thing. Also just that Fox trademarked "fair and balanced" -- that's pretty ironic in and of itself, although the judge ruled that their trademark probably wasn't valid. And then there's the bullying thing, which -- O'Reilly went on his radio show and said that the purpose of the lawsuit was to punish me for coming after Fox.

So this is the mindset of the right, that they have to punish you. Joe Wilson, the former Gabon ambassador, was sent to Niger by the CIA and came back and said the uranium claims weren't true. And when the controversy started broiling again about the 16 words in the State of the Union address and Wilson wrote the piece in New York Times, senior administration officials blew the cover on his wife, who was a covert [CIA] operative. And it jeopardized the lives not only of her contacts but every American, because she was a covert agent in weapons of mass destruction. And it's a way of intimidating other analysts who might come forward, and there's a parallel here: You will be punished if you come after us.

I really think the Wilson thing is the most disgraceful action of any White House since Iran Contra.

Salon: More than Clinton and Monica?

Franken: There's a difference between getting a blow job and lying about it, and blowing a national security asset.