From: Todd Lockwood
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 9:19 PM
Subject: Digest #086

Worth reading in its entirety at the source URL:

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/30_moore.html

The Truth is Puttin¹ on its Shoes:
An Inquiry Into the "Innocent" Mr. Rove

A BUZZFLASH GUEST COMMENTARY
by James C. Moore, Co-Author of "Bush¹s Brain," The Political History of Karl Rove

I am very tired of writing about Karl Rove. Lately, though, I have felt a
kind of moral obligation, and almost a patriotic duty to remind people of
the man who really runs the White House. Politically, and strategically,
nothing has happened in the Bush Administration without Rove¹s imprimatur.
Reporters have discovered Rove¹s steely control in the form of what they
call a "leak proof" White House. Nothing comes out of the Bush White House
without Rove¹s approval. Generally, that means nothing comes out of the
White House.

Until Karl Rove wants something to leak.

Rove¹s temper has always been his weak spot. He cannot seem to control his
anger. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote in the New York Times that there
was no truth to the allegations that Iraq had tried to purchase yellowcake
uranium from Niger, Rove is said to have gone "ballistic." No one who has
known Rove for any period of time doubts that Rove was the one who
orchestrated the leak, which "outed" Ambassador Wilson¹s wife as a CIA
agent. Rove has always made sure that his enemies knew he will strike back,
and swing with deadly power.

Rove wasn¹t just trying to intimidate Ambassador Wilson. If, as many
believe, he is responsible for the leak, Rove wanted to send a message to
everyone in the intelligence community that they all needed to keep their
mouths shut. As the war was being sold, intelligence cooked, and the media
spun, Rove and the White House had informed intelligence operatives and
scientists that they were not to publicly repudiate the phony claims about
aluminum tubes, which the White House falsely argued were part of an Iraqi
gas centrifuge to make enriched uranium. One national reporter told me that
calls to scientists and intelligence operatives to ask about the aluminum
tubes, which turned out to be rocket bodies, yielded the confession the
scientists and intelligence agents had been ordered to say nothing.

"We are not having this conversation," the reporter was told.

An uncontrolled temper may be Rove¹s only weakness as a political counsel.
In Ron Susskind¹s Esquire Magazine article on Rove, he described sitting
outside the presidential advisor¹s White House office hearing Rove scream
into the phone, "Tell him we¹ll f**k him. We¹ll f**k him like nobody ever
has." During the presidential campaign, Rove lost his cool in front of a few
hundred people on the tarmac in Manchester, New Hampshire, as I stood and
watched while Rove screamed at my colleague Wayne Slater about an innocuous
story of mostly recycled information.

No one, though, knows Rove¹s vindictiveness better than John Weaver. Were it
not for Karl Rove, Weaver might still be a leading Republican political
consultant. In Texas, Rove and Weaver had been successful partners, until
Weaver chose to go out on his own and build a client list. A few months
later, Weaver hired an employee away from Rove. Before too long, as
competition grew between Rove and Weaver, disgusting rumors began to
circulate about Weaver¹s personal life, and reporters and potential clients
wondered about Weaver¹s judgment. The stories, which many reporters have
said originated with Rove, dried up Weaver¹s business, and he left Texas.
Eventually, Weaver became the lead political strategist to Senator John
McCain¹s presidential campaign. After McCain lost the bitter primary battle,
Weaver discovered he was squeezed out of party work by Rove, who was now in
charge of all things Republican. Weaver became a Democrat, an advisor to the
Democratic National Committee, simply because Rove was never content to
leave him alone.

Similar stories are innumerable in Rove¹s political march to power. Anyone
who has watched Rove¹s rise in presidential politics, and has reported on
his machinations, is not surprised to learn that Ambassador Wilson suspects
Rove as being the source of the leak, or, as a minimum, a senior
administration official who condoned the leak. Washington reporters, who
have learned of Rove¹s political discipline, are also immediately suspicious
of the presidential advisor. It fits his historical pattern of behavior.

The circumstantial evidence is already in. And it points at Karl Rove.

And if the Bush Administration is serious about protecting this country, if
Rove committed this treasonous act, he needs to be prosecuted under the
Patriot Act he has so ardently supported.

________________________________________________________

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/01/business/01CALL.html?th

The Iraq Reconstruction Bonanza

Complaints about the $20 billion down payment that President Bush wants for
the reconstruction of Iraq are going in the wrong direction. There's no
question that the United States has an obligation and clear interest in
rebuilding the country it invaded. The cost cannot be whittled down through
political compromise or disguised as a loan.

The real problem is that without strong legislative safeguards and
oversight, billions of taxpayer dollars are sure to be wasted through
insufficiently competitive contracts to politically connected firms like
Halliburton and Bechtel. That has largely been the pattern until now.
Congress also needs to make sure that reconstruction programs do not fritter
away their resources by relying on expensive American workers and
supervisors when qualified, reliable and currently unemployed Iraqis could
easily do the work

It is clear that the White House cannot be left to manage the process on its
own. The Bush administration's promises of more competitive bidding and more
use of Iraqi labor are welcome, but difficult to put much faith in. It is
hard to enter the debate over postwar Iraq without tripping over a business
associate or political ally of the White House.

On Tuesday, The Times reported that President Bush's former campaign manager
and other businessmen with close ties to the White House have formed a
business designed to use their connections to help other companies share the
postwar bounty.

Senator Frank Lautenberg and other Democrats are right to call for hearings
on Halliburton's contract. But Congress should look beyond that deal and
work out fair and clear rules for awarding future contracts with public
disclosure.

Unless Congress puts an end to this kind of profiteering, American taxpayers
are almost certain to be saddled with much higher long-term reconstruction
costs. The rebuilding of Iraq's shattered public services and vital
infrastructure, already behind schedule, will be subjected to further
dangerous delays. As the elections approach, Mr. Bush will find himself
facing even louder demands than he's now getting from the conservative right
and the liberal left to cut the nation's financial and military losses.
Bowing to these pressures could have disastrous results. The faster Iraq's
economy and society are restored, the sooner American troops can safely
return home without leaving behind a new breeding ground for terrorism.

________________________________________________________


"The question of whether we were misled into the war in Iraq isn't a liberal
or conservative or Republican or Democratic question, it's an American one.
Protecting the democracy that we ask our sons and daughters to die for is
our responsibility and our trust. Demanding accountability from our leaders
is our job as citizens. It's the American way. So may the truth win out."

- Bruce Springsteen  http://www.brucespringsteen.net/news/index.html


________________________________________________________

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9030

What's Wealth 

Jonathan Tasini is the national director of American Rights At Work.

Poverty is wealth. Sickness is health. Bankruptcy is retirement security.
These would be fitting slogans to describe the administration's economic
plan, matching its rhetoric with the reality of what is happening to people.
Robotically, maddeningly, every question about the economic crisis facing
tens of millions of Americans is answered with the line "the economy is
moving," which deliberately ignores the harsh economic times facing America.
In part, the administration promises the people that recovery is near by
citing Gross Domestic Product (GDP) statistics. But, the focus on the
quarterly growth statistics and the official unemployment numbers is an
incredible Orwellian scam.

The GDP tells us that dollars are flowing somewhere but sheds little light
on who is benefiting from the economic activity. For those making economic
policy, real people are apparently an abstraction, no matter how many road
shows the administration orchestrates using banners proclaiming, "JOBS,"
"GROWTH" and "Strengthening American's Economy." But, the economy is not
some abstraction.

In thinking how we should judge how good the economy looks, here are some
pieces that, when fit together, paint a grim picture of workers' real lives.
It is, indeed, a startling notion that, in the richest country in the world,
more than 34.6 million people (including 12.1 million children) live below
what the government says is the "poverty line." But, what about those who
live above the "poverty line" of $18,244 for a family of four? How does a
family of four earning the enormous sum of, say, $25,000 clothe, feed, house
and educate themselves?

Ironically, from the standpoint of economic activity, a number of the dire
circumstances faced by real people pump up the Gross Domestic Product
statistic. Sick people with no insurance run up the costs of health care --
which is rung up as economic activity. As for debt, Consumer Federation of
America found that in one year, credit card companies had mailed five
billion solicitations -- nearly 50 per U.S. household -- trying to dole out
$3 trillion in unused lines of credit. That's about $30,000 per household --
and, when expended to make ends meet, that credit card debt contributes to
economic activity. Not to mention the legal activity generated by
bankruptcies.

Indeed, the relative importance of the GDP number is another reflection of
the growing gap between the rich and the poor. Rich people love a rise in
the GDP because it usually means they are making money. The press is almost
always giddy over a quarterly rise in the GDP, but rarely looks at what that
means for real people over the long term. Each time the press focuses on a
short-term analysis of a dry government statistic, it has missed the
long-term undermining of peoples' daily lives.

________________________________________________________

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=News&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=44012

American Library Association responds to Attorney General remarks on
librarians and USA PATRIOT Act: A statement by ALA President Carla Hayden

(Chicago) The American Library Association (ALA) has worked diligently for
the past two years to increase awareness of a very complicated law - the USA
PATRIOT Act - that was pushed through the legislative process at breakneck
speed in the wake of a national tragedy.  Because the Department of Justice
has refused our requests for information about how many libraries have been
visited by law enforcement officials using these new powers, we have focused
on what the law allows.  The PATRIOT Act gives law enforcement unprecedented
powers of surveillance - including easy access to library records with
minimal judicial oversight. Among the many changes in U.S. law and practice
enabled by the act is the federal government's ability to override the
historical protections of library reading records that exist in every state.  
States created these confidentiality laws to protect the privacy and
freedoms Americans hold dear.  These laws provide a clear framework for
responding to national security concerns while safeguarding against random
searches, fishing expeditions or invasions of privacy.

Librarians are committed to ensuring the highest quality library service and
protection of our patrons' records.  This commitment is why we are among the
most trusted members of our communities, from Maine to California.  We take
great pains to be educated about the federal and state laws that govern our
ability to serve our communities - which is why we're so concerned.

Over the past two years, Americans have been told that only individuals
directly involved in terrorism need be concerned.  This is not what the law
says. The act lowers the legal standard to "simple relevance" rather than
the higher standard of "probable cause" required by the Fourth Amendment.

In March 2003, the Justice Department said that libraries had become a
logical target of surveillance. Which assurance by Mark Corallo are we to
believe?

We also have been told that the law only affects non-U.S. citizens.  This is
not what the law says. In fact, the act amended the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) in such a way that U.S. citizens may now be
investigated under the lowered legal standards applied to foreign agents.

And now Attorney General John Ashcroft says the FBI has no interest in
Americans' reading records. While this may be true, librarians have a
history with law enforcement dating back to the McCarthy era that gives us
pause.  For decades, and as late as the 1980s, the FBI's Library Awareness
Program sought information on the reading habits of people from "hostile
foreign countries," as well as U.S. citizens who held unpopular political
views.

We are deeply concerned that the Attorney General should be so openly
contemptuous of those who seek to defend our Constitution.  Rather than ask
the nations' librarians and Americans nationwide to "just trust him,"
Ashcroft could allay concerns by releasing aggregate information about the
number of libraries visited using the expanded powers created by the USA
PATRIOT Act.

Or, better yet, federal elected officials could vote - as several U.S.
senators and representatives from across the political spectrum have
proposed - to restore the historical protection of library records.

For more information, please visit http://www.ala.org/oif/ifissues/usapatriotact/

________________________________________________________

If you get HBO, watch Bill Maher's show this week; it's the final one of the
season, so he pulled out some stops. His guests were Michael Moore, Aaron
McGruder (artist/creator of the comic strip "Boondocks", one of the few
willing to be openly critical of Bush) and Charles Barclay-- yes, the
basketball player-- who gave me reason to assess him completely anew.  They
all had some significant things to say-- Moore particularly, of course-- and
didn't pull any punches.

Maher also interviewed John Mellencamp with a head of a Farmer's Union, with
insights into the corporate politics of farming. Plus you get to see Darrel
Issa at his smarmy worst. Worth catching before it's pulled at the end of
the week.

________________________________________________________

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story=638=762=1=/nm/20031001/en_nm/media_gore_dc

Former VP Gore in Talks to Buy TV News Channel

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore  is close to a buying a cable TV channel,
putting him in a position to launch a liberal news outlet to counteract the
increased popularity of conservative stations like the Fox News Channel, a
source familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.

Gore and a group of investors are in talks to buy Newsworld International, a
cable news channel owned by Vivendi Universal, for $70 million, the source
said.

"Vivendi is near a deal but the deal is not done yet," said the source,
referring to Gore's bid.

Gore's spokeswoman and Vivendi executives declined to comment.

If Gore succeeds, Newsworld International could compete with Fox News
Channel, which has unseated CNN as the most widely watched news channel in
the United States with a formula of brash talk show formats mixed with hard
news.

Reports surfaced earlier this year that Gore was seeking financial backers
for a liberal cable channel to help Democrats counter conservative media
voices.  

________________________________________________________

When I read the title of this article, I thought I might lead in with a
"well, DUH!"  But when you see who commissioned the report, and what they
concluded, you will see yet another example of the dreadful myopia of the
Bush junta;

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/01/politics/01DIPL.html?th

U.S. Must Counteract Image in Muslim World, Panel Says

The United States must drastically increase and overhaul its public
relations efforts to salvage its plummeting image among Muslims and Arabs
abroad, a panel chosen by the Bush administration has found.

"Hostility toward America has reached shocking levels," the panel stated in
its report, which will be released Wednesday. "What is required is not
merely tactical adaptation but strategic, and radical, transformation."

The report added that "spin" and manipulative public relations "are not the
answer," but that neither is avoiding the debate. A copy of the report was
made available Tuesday to The New York Times.

The panel warned that the war in Iraq and the intensified conflict in the
Middle East had increased anger at the United States, and that people
throughout the world were ignorant of or misinformed about American
policies.

The panel's recommendations ‹ including the establishment of a special White
House coordinator for public relations efforts abroad ‹ come at a time when
some American officials acknowledge that programs even in the last couple of
years have been confused and fitful.

The Bush administration, for example, started a program called "shared
values" last year, a series of television commercials showing that Muslims
in the United States lead lives of dignity and equal rights. The
advertisements were suspended after several Arab countries refused to show
them.

Many in the administration were privately critical of the commercials,
agreeing with Arab and Muslim spokesmen who said they were irrelevant to
Muslim concerns about American policies toward Iraq and Israel.

The advisory panel said that it recognized that American policies might well
be the root of the problem, but that Washington could do far more to present
its side of the issues and rebut widespread misinformation among Muslims
overseas.

________________________________________________________

Pursuant to the previous article, you have to wonder if it's at all possible
to bridge the gulf between our cultures:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/01/opinion/01BANS.html?th

Silenced Again in Kabul

WASHINGTON ‹ American efforts to build a democratic, tolerant Afghanistan
are facing a serious challenge: the draft of the Afghan constitution, which
may be made public as early as this week, does not yet provide for crucial
human rights protections, including freedom of thought, conscience and
religion. The United States and the international community should insist
that the draft presented by the constitutional commission explicitly protect
these core human rights for all Afghans.

Despite reports to the contrary, the current draft versions of the
constitution enshrine particular schools of Islamic law, or Shariah, that
criminalize dissent and criticism of Islam through blasphemy laws.

If this draft is ratified in December by the loya jirga, or grand council,
the freedoms of Afghan citizens would continue to be in the hands of judges
educated in Islamic law, rather than in civil law. Official charges of
blasphemy, apostasy or other religious crimes could still be used to
suppress debate, just as they were under the Taliban.

Making changes in the draft is all the more important because, as
Afghanistan's Human Rights Commission and the United Nations' Assistance
Mission in Afghanistan have reported, Afghan reformers seeking to express
their views on their new constitution have been hindered by threats,
harassment and even imprisonment. In one case, an editor and a reporter have
been charged with blasphemy for publishing an article questioning the role
of Islam in the state.

On our recent trip to Kabul as members of the bipartisan United States
Commission on International Religious Freedom, we met many Muslims who
recognize the compatibility of Islam with human rights. Yet these Muslims
are being intimidated into silence by vocal and well-armed extremists.

________________________________________________________

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/01/business/worldbusiness/01visa.html?th

Cap on U.S. Work Visas Puts Companies in India in a Bind

BANGALORE, India, Sept. 30 - Prasad Tadiparti, global general manager of
human resources at MindTree Consulting, is working his way around what he
calls "a logistical nightmare."

He is trying to anticipate what skills his clients in the United States may
need in the next few years and match them with the profiles of his
approximately 1,000 software engineers and others. All this while factoring
in how many are willing to travel, how many hold valid visas to work in the
United States, and for how long.

The "nightmare" is a sharp drop - to 65,000 from 195,000 - in the number of
H-1B visas granted for skilled foreign professionals. The change, effective
Wednesday, is making the business environment tougher for Indian software
services companies like MindTree.

________________________________________________________

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/01/national/01CALI.html?th

Top Independent Quits California Race

Saying it was her best hope of preventing Arnold Schwarzenegger from
becoming governor, Arianna Huffington dropped out of the recall race.

Ms. Huffington's announcement was the latest sign that the race is narrowing
into a Davis-Schwarzenegger contest, with momentum moving away from Mr.
Davis and toward Mr. Schwarzenegger.

Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee,
acknowledged in a stopover at a union get-out-the-vote phone bank in Oakland
that Mr. Davis's future was in doubt. "There is a chance here that Arnold
Schwarzenegger is going to be governor," Mr. McAuliffe said, trying to add
urgency to the workers' task. "I think it is going to be very close."

A Los Angeles Times poll to be published Wednesday shows the percentage of
voters favoring the recall of Mr. Davis growing and Mr. Schwarzenegger
pulling away from the pack of would-be replacements.

The poll shows voters supporting the recall by 56 percent to 42 percent, up
from 50 to 47 in early September. The survey also had Mr. Schwarzenegger
with 40 percent support; Lt. Gov. Cruz M. Bustamante, a Democrat, with 32
percent; and State Senator Tom McClintock, a Republican, at 15 percent.
Three weeks ago, the Los Angeles Times poll showed Mr. Bustamante ahead of
Mr. Schwarzenegger by 30 to 25, with Mr. McClintock at 18 percent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16864

Schwarzenegger: It's Who You Know

Robert Scheer

If Gray Davis is replaced as governor by Arnold Schwarzenegger, chalk it up
as a Hollywood victory of illusion over substance. It's an illusion
exploited by the state's right-wing Republican leadership, which has
rejected one of its own, Tom McClintock, for an actor whose political
program, beyond the one-liners, is virtually unknown.

here's no evidence that he has made hard choices in matters of principle,
even in his movie or weightlifting careers. For example, in explaining a
boastful claim of participating in group sex in a gym, he now claims it was
all a lie to promote himself and his industry. Later in his career, he read
from the scripts that paid the big money, but if he had any qualms about the
social effect of the senseless movie violence in them, we haven't heard
them.

What script will he read from now, who will do the writing, and will he
again freely lie to advance his career? He has pledged firm allegiance to
the Bush White House, never mentioning the 3 million jobs lost nationally
and $500 billion in red ink run up under this administration. Nor has he
uttered a word of criticism of Bush's Texas cronies who so ruinously gamed
the California energy market

Schwarzenegger's political scriptwriters are pro-big business and fervently
anti-labor. This is a candidate who takes campaign money from powerful
corporate players but blasts unionized workers, including those in law
enforcement and fire departments, as reprehensible special interests. In a
recent interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, he attacked Davis for
reinstating the eight-hour workday and provisions for overtime pay, as well
as signing the family leave law.

Ironically, in Schwarzenegger's one foray in political action, he pushed
through a liberal initiative that promised to guarantee after-school
programs for kids otherwise left to the vices of the street. But because he
would not face the difficult choices required by budget priorities, the law
has yet to provide funding to help a single child. His campaign for governor
­ like his campaign for kids ­ is just another slick actor's pose.

________________________________________________________

If I had to guess, I would suppose that Clark is going to get the nod,
because corporate money will go his way. But I really don't want
"corporate-friendly."  Here's hoping that Dean's influence can at least help
frame a platform that brings the Democratic party back at least a little bit
towards its proper roots. In a section of this article that I cut, the
author talks about the lack of "passion" and "conviction" in the Democratic
party. Excuse me? Another reason to keep supporting Dean:

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8986

Finding Their Voice

I went to last night's Democratic candidates' debate at Pace University in
lower Manhattan looking for those three things. And I wanted to see what
Howard Dean, the current frontrunner in New Hampshire and in the money
chase, and Wesley Clark, the hot newcomer, did with them.

If you were scoring the debate as a boxing match, Dean would have won on
points. He fended off multiple attacks from John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, John
Edwards and Gephardt. The three senators' efforts to paint Dean as a
tax-raiser for his insistence on repealing all of the Bush tax cuts do
nothing to challenge the fundamentally Republican premise behind their
pandering -- that we should strangle "big government" by eliminating taxes.
Nor are their stabs at painting him as a protectionist for insisting on
tough enforcement of labor and environmental standards in our trade
agreements likely to stick. Gephardt's attempt to displace Dean as the true
defender of the party's liberal values isn't going to work as long as voters
remember the Missourian's endorsement of Bush's Iraq invasion last fall. And
Dennis Kucinich's challenges from Dean's left got little traction, mainly
because the pesky populist hasn't shown any movement in the polls in places
like Iowa and New Hampshire.

The only other winner, obviously, was Wesley Clark. In this, his first
debate, the general showed he could play in the majors right from the start,
as he explained with ease his conversion from Reagan-Bush voter to Democrat.
But he's running on his resume -- which is a Democratic consultant's dream
-- rather than any original ideas. (He's a decorated military top-brass
veteran, a Southerner with Baptist/Catholic/Jewish roots and a socially
liberal investment banker).

Nominating Clark will mean a continuation of Clintonism, not only because
he's surrounding himself with the creepier half of Clinton's staff--Bruce
Lindsey, Rahm Emanuel, Mickey Kantor and Mark Fabiani have all attached
themselves to his banner. From what he's said so far, he's offering
corporate-friendly economic policies, Clintonite rhetoric about defending
"education, health care, the environment and Social Security," high-flying
talk about a "New American Patriotism" (remember the "Bridge to the 21st
Century"?) and well-targeted attacks on the Right that pander to the
Democratic base.

Looking ahead, it's quite possible that Clark's late entry will hasten the
winnowing process, with Dean as the party's liberal and Clark as its
centrist. The general's biography nullifies some of the other Washington
candidates' putative strengths -- Edwards, the other significant Southerner
(Bob Graham is fading rapidly), looks like a pup next to him; Kerry, the
other "war hero," is far less attractive; and he's got the Clinton blessing
that Lieberman hoped to inherit. And the punditocracy is rooting for him. If
he manages to translate his relatively strong national poll numbers into
money and troops on the ground in the early states, while Dean holds onto
his large and loyal base, we might be in for a clarifying debate after all.

________________________________________________________



http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/01/business/01CALL.html?th

F.C.C. to Enforce No Call Registry

Michael C. Powell, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission,
said the agency would enforce enforce a national do-not-call registry
starting today despite logistical complications caused by a federal judge's
ruling.

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Michael K. Powell,
said the agency would be able to start the program even though the ruling
meant the F.C.C. could not get a copy of the do-not-call list's 51 million
phone numbers from the Federal Trade Commission, the agency that created and
maintained the list. Under new federal regulations, telemarketers who call
phone numbers on the list face fines of up to $11,000 a violation.

Judge Edward W. Nottingham in Denver ruled last week that the F.T.C.
regulations creating the registry violated the free speech rights of the
telephone solicitors. Late Monday, Judge Nottingham told the F.T.C. it was
not permitted to share the list or to otherwise indirectly operate the
registry.

________________________________________________________

How difficult was it for them to fork over $2000.00 each? Most of them
probably received fifty times that in tax breaks from Bush:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25290-2003Sep30.html?referrer=email

Bush Bests His Own Fundraising Record

Stops Bring in $5.3 Million in a Day

President Bush broke his own one-day record for fundraising with a two-stop,
12-hour visit to the Midwest, but he could not leave the leak investigation
behind.

Bush, speaking to 1,700 supporters who had paid $2,000 each for a sandwich
and a 28-minute speech, condemned "needless, partisan bickering that
dominates the Washington, D.C., landscape and the zero-sum politics of
Washington."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Action Items:

From MoveOn:

In front of a national audience last night, Arianna Huffington outlined the
dramatically simple reality facing Californians: if you don't vote against
the recall, Arnold Schwarzenegger will become governor. Today we're passing
along a letter from her explaining why she dropped out of the race and is
working to defeat the recall. Please get the word out that a vote for the
recall is a vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger: FORWARD THIS EMAIL to friends,
coworkers and family. --- Help us show that California does not want Arnold
Schwarzenegger for governor -- sign the "No Recall" pledge:

Please forward this email!

Dear Friend,

Last night I withdrew my candidacy from the recall race and today I am
writing to sound an alarm about what is at stake in this election. I am
devoting all my time and energy in these remaining six days to defeating the
recall -- and to defeating the Arnold Schwarzenegger-Pete Wilson forces that
are trying to use the recall to hijack our state. Please help me do that by
forwarding this message.

I have signed MoveOn's "Recall No, Democracy Yes" pledge and I urge you to
do the same. More than 260,000 people have pledged to do something -- such
as forwarding this email! -- in these last days to defeat the recall and
stop Arnold Schwarzenegger. Click here to sign the pledge:

   http://moveon.org/pac/recall/

From the beginning of my campaign I have said that I opposed the recall on
principle. It was backed by a bunch of Republican sore losers looking for a
backdoor way to overturn an election they lost. Nevertheless, once the
recall was set, I felt that the opportunity it offered to elect a truly
independent and progressive governor was too important to let pass. And so I
entered the race.

Now that it's clear that's not going to happen, my highest priority is to
issue a wake up call and bring a sense of urgency to what is at stake. The
people of California simply cannot afford to have Arnold Schwarzenegger as
their governor.

In 2000, we were taken in by a charming, affable man who promised us
compassion but gave us war in Iraq, a soaring deficit, millions of lost
jobs, two million more people living in poverty, and the rollback of vital
environmental protections. I look at Arnold Schwarzenegger, and see more of
the same. We don't need another figurehead for all the usual Republican
special interests. Let's not be fooled again.

When this race started, Arnold Schwarzenegger was an unknown quantity. And a
week before the election there is still far too much we don't know about
him.

If, as he says, he is going to balance the budget but raise no taxes,
shouldn't he have to tell us -- before the election, not after -- precisely
what vital programs and services he proposes to cut to make that happen --
and precisely who is going to feel the pain of those cuts?

Arnold Schwarzenegger has spent millions of dollars crafting and selling a
political persona that is completely contradicted by reality:

*    He promised to take no special interest money, but then turned around
and raised millions from special interests for his campaign.

*    He painted
himself as an outsider, but then surrounded himself with Pete Wilson
operatives and a Who's Who of GOP insiders.

*    He went on Oprah to appeal
to women, but didn't include a single woman on his team of economic
advisors. In a state where there are tens of thousands of women in positions
of power, including both U.S. Senators, there was not even one woman who he
thought worthy of adding to the mix?

*    A vote for the recall is a vote
for Arnold Schwarzenegger. We must not vote for a fantasy leader and end up
with a nightmare: a Bush Republican who thinks the answer to all of
California's problems can be found in making life even easier for businesses
and giant corporations.

We can defeat the recall. But what will it take? It will take forwarding
this email to all your friends, and picking up the phone and talking to
those friends who might need your encouragement to vote, or who might need
to hear more about what's at stake from you before they make up their mind.
There are already 260,000 of us working against the recall in these simple
ways. Sign the "Recall No, Democracy Yes" pledge to join us:

http://moveon.org/pac/recall/

Sincerely,

-- Arianna Huffington    October 1st, 2003

If you forward this email to others, please be sensitive that you are
sending to friends or colleagues who want to hear from you on this. Spam
hurts our campaign.

________________________________________________________




The Digests are a labor of my own personal passion. I receive no money for
these. They grew out of a realization that most people work long hours (I
certainly do), with the hairy eyeball over their left shoulder most of the
day, making it impossible to do in-depth investigations of the news for
themselves.  The stories collected are usually condensed to the most salient
or important points. My only desire is that the news in them is shared and
explored further. If you know someone who would like to stay informed, but
doesn't have time to search seven or eight papers every day, send these to
them, and ask them if they would like to be included in my mailings.

You can also find them archived online at a friend's website;
A perfect way to introduce someone to them:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/misc/politics/pwa.html


Thank you,

Todd Lockwood