Delay ruled unethically fit; Refuses to step down

DeLay says he won't step down

By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The second-most-powerful Republican in the House, Tom DeLay of Texas, rejected calls Thursday from Democrats and watchdog groups that he step down as majority leader after the House ethics committee admonished him for abusing his power.

DeLay, a 10-term House veteran, said he remains focused on fighting terrorism and preventing another 9/11. "By the Democrats' actions today, it is clear they are focused on something else entirely: a smear campaign," he said.

The war of words all but ended the unwritten, seven-year ethics truce between Democrats and Republicans in the House. In harsh language, Democrats demanded that Republicans remove DeLay if he refused to step down.

"Republicans must answer — do they want an ethically unfit person to be their majority leader, or do they want to remove the ethical cloud that hangs over the Capitol?" House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said.

Wednesday's admonishments, coming six days after another warning from the ethics committee, could end any hopes DeLay had of becoming House speaker when Dennis Hastert of Illinois retires. (Related story: Ethics panel rebukes DeLay again)

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri said the actions came as a result of a personal vendetta by Rep. Chris Bell, a first-term Texas Democrat who lost a primary this year after DeLay's redistricting plan was implemented. "We're seeing some election-year politics playing out," Blunt told CNN.

The latest rebukes came late Wednesday from the committee of five Republicans and five Democrats. They were unanimous. In a letter to DeLay, the panel said his actions "went beyond the bounds of acceptable conduct."

The panel said DeLay:

• Created the appearance of favoritism when he helped facilitate a golf fundraiser with executives of Westar Energy, which was seeking legislative help.

• Raised concerns by contacting the Federal Aviation Administration to help locate a planeload of Texas state legislators who had fled to Oklahoma to thwart action on the redistricting plan. House standards forbid using government resources in a partisan conflict.

• Pressured Rep. Nick Smith, R-Mich., to switch his vote on a Medicare prescription-drug bill by offering to endorse Smith's son in a Republican primary. Smith refused, and his son lost the primary.

In addition, DeLay was rebuked in 1999 for threatening retaliation against a trade group if it hired a Democrat as its president.

The committee deferred action on another complaint that DeLay in 2002 illegally funneled corporate funds to state legislators through a political action committee he created. A Texas grand jury is investigating; three of DeLay's political associates have been indicted in the case.

The committee did spare DeLay more severe punishment: a formal investigation, a more serious letter of reprimand or even expulsion.

"Admonishment is not a good thing," said Ken Gross, an election law expert who has represented both Democrats and Republicans in ethics cases. "It's on the mild side, but not completely insignificant."

Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., said there is "no sentiment" among Republicans to remove DeLay as leader before the Nov. 2 elections. But, he added, "If he's indicted, that changes the whole thing. He'd have to step down."

Less clear is the effect DeLay's case will have on current House races. Democrats will likely still have a tough time reversing the Republicans' 227-205 advantage. But they saw a new opportunity to make DeLay an issue in campaigns. On Thursday, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent an e-mail to supporters asking for contributions to help "efforts to unseat DeLay."

Some Republicans were already seeking to put distance between themselves and the majority leader. In Oregon, Republican Goli Ameri, who is challenging Democratic Rep. David Wu, said in an ad that if elected, "When Tom DeLay is wrong, I'll look him in the eye and I'll let him know that."

Contributing: William M. Welch

Delay's actions found unethical for a second time this week

Ethics panel rebukes DeLay for second time in a week

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House ethics committee rebuked Majority Leader Tom DeLay for the second time in a week for questionable conduct, sternly warning the Texas Republican to temper his behavior.

The committee late Wednesday admonished DeLay for creating an appearance of giving donors special access on pending energy legislation and using the Federal Aviation Administration to intervene in a Texas political dispute.

Last week, the same committee admonished DeLay for offering to endorse the House candidacy of a House member's son in exchange for the member's favorable vote on a Medicare prescription drug bill.

The committee's publicly issued findings constituted the panel's mildest punishment, and spared DeLay from a lengthy investigation.

But the committee noted the rare back-to-back admonishments and that in 1999 DeLay received an ethics committee warning for pressuring a lobby company to hire a Republican.

"In view of the number of instances to date in which the committee has found it necessary to comment on conduct in which you engaged, it is clearly necessary for you to temper your future actions," the committee said in a letter to DeLay.

DeLay is one of the nation's most partisan political leaders and most successful money-raisers. He has long been known in the Capitol as "The Hammer."

The committee of five Democrats and five Republicans delayed action on an allegation that DeLay violated Texas campaign finance laws. A Texas grand jury investigation has so far led to indictments of three DeLay associates and eight corporations.

DeLay said he considers the complaint against him dismissed, but accepted the committee's guidance.

He called the complaint another personal attack by Democrats that fell short "not because of insufficient venom, but because of insufficient merit."

The panel told DeLay that he created an appearance of favoritism when he mingled at a 2003 golf outing with executives of Westar Energy of Kansas.

The tournament at a Virginia resort came just days after the executives contributed $25,000 to Texans for a Republican Majority, a fund-raising organization associated with DeLay.

In addition, company executives donated $33,200 to six House campaigns.

The committee concluded DeLay was "in a position to significantly influence" legislation Westar sought because he is a House leader and at the time was involved in House-Senate efforts to negotiate an energy bill.

The legislation sought by Westar was inserted in the energy bill by another lawmaker, but eventually was withdrawn.

The committee made clear that DeLay did not solicit contributions from Westar in return for a favor, which would have been far more serious.

"Representative DeLay took no action with regard to Westar that would constitute an impermissible special favor," according to the report from the panel led by Chairman Joel Hefley, R-Colo. and senior Democrat Alan Mollohan of West Virginia.

DeLay also raised "serious concerns" by contacting the Federal Aviation Administration in 2003 to chase down a Texas Democrat's private plane. State Democratic legislators were fleeing Texas to prevent Republican state lawmakers from passing a DeLay-engineered redistricting plan.

While Democrats and government watchdog groups unleashed a stream of criticism of DeLay's conduct, the committee findings are unlikely to derail him if Republicans retain control in November.

Wednesday's admonishments stem from a a three-part complaint filed by freshman Rep. Chris Bell, D-Texas. He lost his primary because of the DeLay-inspired redistricting plan.

Bell said DeLay should step down from his leadership position. "The old rule is three strikes and your out," Bell said.

The committee said it would take up DeLay's objections that the complaint by Bell contained "innuendo, speculative assertions or conclusionary statements."

DeLay, 57, was elected in 1984 to a district representing the Houston suburb of Sugar Land.

He began his ascent in Congress after Republicans captured the House in 1994 — successfully running for the No. 3 position as majority whip.

As the chief vote-counter and fund-raiser for House Republicans, he kept the party united on key votes when it possessed only a slim majority over the Democrats.

When Newt Gingrich stepped down as speaker in 1998 after a damaging ethics investigation, DeLay played a major role in raising little-known Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., to the speakership. DeLay became Majority Leader in 2002 after Dick Armey, R-Texas, retired.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Bush Backers Give Campaign Money To Ralph Nader

Swift Boat Veterans Float Nader Some Money

By Brian Faler

Thursday, October 7, 2004; Page A07

Swift Boat Veterans for Nader? A handful of donors to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an organization that has run controversial ads attacking Democrat John F. Kerry, have also given money to independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader.
Five donors, who contributed a total of $13,500 to the anti-Kerry group, also gave $7,500 to the longtime consumer advocate. That has infuriated some Democrats, who complain that Nader is taking money from supporters of not only a Republican group, but also one he has repeatedly denounced. In August, at a speech at Tulane University, Nader called the group "proxies" for the Bush campaign, which, he said, was attempting to "smear" the Democratic nominee.

"If Nader wishes to have any credibility left with progressives, he must give back all right-wing money," said Robert Brandon, co-founder of anti-Nader United Progressives for Victory, which unearthed the contributions.

The Nader camp rejected suggestions that it was hypocritical of him to accept the money -- and said the donations were evidence of its candidate's ability to appeal to voters from across the political spectrum. "Twenty-five percent of our voters are people who voted for Bush. I'm not surprised there's some overlap in funding, as well," said spokesman Kevin Zeese. "If they support us, they support us," he said. "We can still criticize their advertising campaign."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13142-2004Oct6.html

Bush Administration Wrong: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq

Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq

Thursday, October 7, 2004 Posted: 1:00 AM EDT (0500 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.

Link

Cheney plugs FactCheck.com and gets slammed by FactCheck.org

Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO of Halliburton Co., and the vice president even got our name wrong. He overstated matters when he said Edwards voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops, to send them to war." He exaggerated the number of times Kerry has voted to raise taxes, and puffed up the number of small business owners who would see a tax increase under Kerry's proposals.

Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO of Halliburton Co., and the vice president even got our name wrong. He overstated matters when he said Edwards voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops, to send them to war." He exaggerated the number of times Kerry has voted to raise taxes, and puffed up the number of small business owners who would see a tax increase under Kerry's proposals.

Visit FactCheck.org and read what they have to say

Fox News Poll: Senator Edwards wins debate

Who won Tuesday night's vice presidential debate?

a. Vice President Cheney (46%)
62,792

b. Senator Edwards (53%)
70,002

c. I did not watch (1%)
826

d. None of the above (0%)
773

134,393 total votes

Speaking Facts to GOP Talking Points

The below entry was posted at the Bush/Cheney 2004 Campaign Site:

GOP Official Campaign Blog

OCTOBER 5, 2004

Cheney Wins

Vice President Cheney won tonight because he countered rhetoric with the facts. Here are some quotes that will be remembered from this debate:
“So they, in effect, decided they would cast an anti-war vote, and they voted against the troops. Now, if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to standup to Al Qaeda?” -- Vice President Dick Cheney

“Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that's not very distinguished. You missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee. Almost 70% of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee. You've missed a lot of key votes on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform. Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you Senator Gone. You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate. Now, in my capacity as Vice President I am the President of the Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.” -- Vice President Dick Cheney

Posted by GeorgeWBush.com at 11:29 PM


___________________________________
The Facts

Fact #1: Both Kerry and Edwards voted to give the president the ability to use the military against Iraq with the agreement that the president would develop a coalition. The resolution specifically said, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate." Edwards made it clear at the time of his vote that he hoped to avoid war by enlisting broad support from the United Nations and US allies:

Edwards( Oct. 10, 2002 ): I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side. Second, strong domestic support and a broad international coalition will make it less likely that force would need to be used.

The president failed to put together that coalition, leaving American soldiers vulnerable in Iraq. This administration took the focus off of Al Qaeda, Afganistan and the War on Terror by attacking Iraq, which was proven by the 911 commission to not have any involvement in the attacks of 911. The Administration furtheer failed the troops by not supplying them with adequate equipment (ie Flack Jackets,Body Armor, Armored Humvees etc.)

Fact #2: Several journalist have documented at least two instances in which Cheney had met Edwards previously. Edwards escorted Elizabeth Dole when she was sworn in as North Carolina's other senator on January 8, 2003, according to Gannet News Service. Cheney administered the oath.

Cheney also was present with Edwards at a National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 1, 2001, when a transcript shows Cheney acknowledged Edwards among those at the gathering:

Cheney: (Feb. 1, 2001): Thank you. Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I are honored to be with you all this morning.

Leave it to the GOP to claim a victory on false statements. ~Eximius

Talk Show Host, Lars Larson says "discrimination in the constitution is good"

October 5, 2004

Oregon-During a phone interview today with Gorgene Rice of the Yes on 36 Campaign (Oregon anti-gay marriage amendment), Lars Larson, an Oregon talk show host, made the statement that having discrimination written into the (Oregon) Constitution is good.

The response came from Larson when a caller by the name of Jimmy raised the concern that if Measure 36 were to pass, it would write discrimination into the Oregon Constitution by denying equal protection under the law.

The caller expressed futher that "The constitution isn't there for you (meaning Lars Larson and the Yes on Measure 36 campaign) to discriminate." Larson responded, "as a matter of fact it is". Jimmy further stated, "Your writing discrimination into the constitution", Larson responded again, "yes we are. In fact, some discrimination is good".

Lars Larson, of course, believes discrimination belongs in the Oregon Constitution. I wonder how many other Oregonians share this belief. ~Amadeus

Two Bush Donors Kick In $2 Million To Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

WASHINGTON — A political action group of Vietnam War veterans that has attacked Democratic candidate John F. Kerry over his combat record has begun a new television and direct mail blitz, enriched by $3 million in contributions from two longtime financial supporters of President Bush and the Republican Party.

In filings with the Federal Election Commission last week, officials of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth disclosed two $1-million donations from Harold Simmons, a billionaire chemical and waste industry magnate, and another $1 million from oilman T. Boone Pickens. Both base their corporate empires in the Dallas area.

The mammoth donations are the latest evidence of how Republicans and Democrats are capitalizing on unlimited contributions flowing to 527 political action groups. The Swift boat veterans operation has been one of the most conspicuous examples of the growing use of tax-exempt independent groups by both parties as stalking horses to advance controversial ad campaigns.

Simmons and Pickens have provided hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to GOP candidates and committees.

Pickens had already given the Swift boat group $500,000. And Simmons contributed more than $90,000 to Bush's two Texas gubernatorial races.

With its treasury swelled by the two Texans, the Swift boat group has launched a new cycle of campaign ads claiming that Kerry "betrayed his fellow veterans" by meeting with "enemy" Vietnamese negotiators in Paris during the Vietnam War.

In the ad, two wives of former prisoners of war rebuke Kerry for his April 1971 antiwar speech to a U.S. Senate committee, which first brought him national fame.

Mary Jane McManus, who is identified as one of the POW wives, says that Kerry gave "aid and comfort to the enemy." A second woman is identified as Phyllis Galanti, whose husband, Paul, is a former POW who was appointed by the Bush administration to a Veterans Affairs advisory council and who had criticized Kerry in an earlier campaign ad.

During his 1971 speech to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry talked about private meetings he had attended the previous May in Paris with representatives from the U.S.-backed South and communist North Vietnamese governments.

Kerry advocated an immediate pullout during his Senate appearance, but he has since denied any intent to intervene in the peace process, shepherded by the Nixon administration. Kerry attended the meetings while on his honeymoon in France, but it is not clear how he happened to meet with delegation members.

The anti-Kerry ads are running on national cable and in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Nevada and New Mexico. Sean McCabe, a spokesman for the Swift boat group, described the $1.4-million effort as "the most expensive media buy the group has made to date."

McCabe said the operation had also begun a nationwide direct mail campaign aimed at 1.2 million voters.

The Swift boat group's latest burst of activity and funding was dismissed Monday by Kerry aides, who have long complained of collusion between the Bush campaign and the anti-Kerry veterans. Democrats have bridled all summer over the Swift boat group's questioning of Kerry's medals and battle accounts. The charges were heavily covered in the media but remain unsubstantiated by military records and key eyewitnesses.

"Given the national laughingstock this discredited group is, you would have thought that the Bush-Rove money men would have invested in something more reliable and useful, like snake oil," said Kerry campaign spokesman Michael Meehan.

Calls to a Bush campaign spokesman were not returned. Neither of the Texas business executives could be reached for comment. A Simmons spokeswoman said the two men were "business friends."

With holdings that include chemicals and sugar, Simmons' net worth is reportedly $1 billion, according to Forbes magazine's annual survey of financial wealth. Pickens is close behind at $750 million.

Simmons' Waste Control Specialists firm won permission this year from the Texas Health Department in its efforts to dispose of low-level nuclear waste in West Texas. Environmentalists are fighting the decision.

In 1993, he paid a penalty of $19,800 to the Federal Election Commission for exceeding the $25,000 annual contribution limit in 1988 federal elections by nearly $45,000. The fine was paid after a conciliation agreement with the FEC.

With their support of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Simmons and Pickens join a growing list of multimillion-dollar donors to the 527 groups in this election. Unlike political parties, 527 groups — named for a section of the Internal Revenue Service code covering political organizations — are governed by the tax code and can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions.

"This would be a convenient way for Harold Simmons to score some points for George Bush without being directly connected to the campaign," said Andrew Wheat, research director for Texans for Public Justice, a nonprofit policy and research group based in Austin.

Republicans at first filed complaints with the FEC alleging that liberal 527 groups were violating the campaign finance reform law.

But after the FEC ruled in May that it would not reign in the 527s this year, Republicans began forming their own groups. Chief among them were the Swift boat group, which has raised more than $8.7 million from wealthy donors in Texas and 65,000 small contributors, and Progress for America Voter Fund, which shares some of the same donors and has raised $30.7 million since June.

Link

In the Senate, Raising a (Quiet) Republican Voice Against the Administration

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 - One day after the Supreme Court sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush, his running mate, Dick Cheney, went to the Capitol for a private lunch with five moderate Republican senators. The agenda he laid out that day in December 2000 stunned Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, sending Mr. Chafee on a painful journey of political conscience that, he said in an interview last week, has culminated with his decision not to vote for Mr. Bush in November.

"I literally was close to falling off my chair," Mr. Chafee said, recounting the vice president's proposals for steep tax cuts, missile defense programs and abandoning the Kyoto environmental accords. "It was no room for discussion. I said, 'Well, you're going to need us; it's a 50-50 Senate, you're going to need us moderates.' He said, 'Well, we need everybody.' ''

For Mr. Chafee, who was a prep school buddy of the president's brother Jeb and whose father, the late Senator John Chafee, was close to the first President Bush, that day was the beginning of an estrangement with the president, whom he had worked to elect. In the months since, he has opposed Mr. Bush on everything from tax cuts to gay marriage and the war in Iraq. Now, this life-long Republican has concluded that he cannot cast his ballot for the leader of his party.

"I'll vote Republican," he said, explaining that he would choose a write-in candidate, perhaps George Bush the elder, as a symbolic act of protest. Asked if he wanted Senator John Kerry to be president, Mr. Chafee shook his head sadly, as if to say he could not entertain the question. "I've been disloyal enough," he said.

On Capitol Hill, some regard Mr. Chafee, a soft-spoken, gentle man who once shoed horses for a living, as the Republican counterpart to Senator Zell Miller, the fiery Georgia Democrat who is campaigning for Mr. Bush. But the truth is more complex. While Mr. Miller is retiring, Mr. Chafee is planning to run again in 2006. His misgivings about his party's conservative tilt have thrust him into a powerful position in Washington, where Republicans' memories are still fresh of how another moderate, Senator James M. Jeffords of Vermont, defected in 2001 and became an independent, temporarily giving Democrats control of the Senate.

Mr. Chafee insists he has no intention of defecting. But it is no secret that Democrats would welcome him, and already, Mr. Jeffords is offering him counsel.

"I understand the feelings that he has," Mr. Jeffords said. "I'm going to be talking to him, so I'm not going to say any more. I probably shouldn't have even told you that."

At 51, Mr. Chafee, who was appointed to the Senate after his father's death in 1999 and then won handily in an election the following year, is a curious figure in Washington. Pensive and intellectual, he hardly appears suited for the bare-knuckle world of politics and seems to exist on the periphery of things, ambling about the Capitol like an absent-minded professor making a study of its power-hungry inhabitants.

Some call him quirky; others think of him as the accidental senator, a political version of the loner protagonist in the Anne Tyler novel "The Accidental Tourist."

"I don't think he marches to the same drummer as other politicians," said M. Charles Bakst, a political columnist for The Providence Journal who has followed Rhode Island politics since the 1960's, when John Chafee was governor. "When they march, one of their big drums is party, and I don't think he cares very much what this party says or what another party says."

But Mr. Chafee says he does care. In heavily Democratic Rhode Island, he has been a Republican since birth; his parents named him Lincoln after the first Republican president. He says he is waiting for the moderate wing of the party to rise again; in the meantime, he was asked if he went to bed at night wondering how he could remain a Republican.

"Yes," he said, "I don't deny that."

Born into wealth and privilege, Mr. Chafee never envisioned following his father into politics. Instead, after graduating from Brown University in 1975, he took his grandfather's advice to "get a trade." Having grown up around horses, he settled on a blacksmith school in Bozeman, Mont., and spent seven years working at harness race tracks.

Setting The Record Straight: Bush Military Service

MILITARY RECORDS

Associated Press

BUSH SERVICE President Bush never was disciplined while serving in the Texas Air National Guard, never failed a physical and never asked his father or family friends for help to get him into the Guard during the Vietnam War, the White House said. The statement came in response to a dozen questions submitted by The Associated Press in light of accusations about Mr. Bush's service. The Texas Air National Guard stripped Mr. Bush of his pilot status in August 1972 for failing to take the annual medical exam required of all pilots. Former Air National Guard officials say it was rare for a pilot to skip his physical exam. The A.P. asked whether Mr. Bush ever participated in a disciplinary process during his Guard service, whether he ever received a critical report or was ever present for a conversation in which his performance, conduct or physical condition were raised by a superior officer. "No and this is clear from the president's records, which have been made public," the White House said in an e-mail response.

Fabricated Kerry Posting Leads to Apology from Fox News

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 - Plenty of news media analysts thought Senator John Kerry looked good at Thursday night's presidential debate, but Fox News went a step further, posting a made-up news article on its Web site that quoted Mr. Kerry as gloating about his fine manicure and his "metrosexual" appearance.

Fox News quickly retracted the article, saying in an editor's note on its Web site that the article "was written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast.'' It said, "We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice."

The article, posted on Friday on foxnews.com, was written by Carl Cameron, the chief political correspondent for Fox News, and included several bogus quotes from Mr. Kerry, supposedly assessing his performance in the debate.

"Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" the article quoted Mr. Kerry, the Democratic candidate, as telling his supporters in Florida after the event.

"Women should like me! I do manicures," the story also quoted him as saying. It also had Mr. Kerry contrasting himself with President Bush: "I'm metrosexual - he's a cowboy."

Before the debate, several Fox News commentators remarked on the air about how Mr. Kerry had reportedly gotten a manicure that day.

Mr. Cameron has been reprimanded over the incident, said Paul Schur, a spokesman for the network. "This was a stupid mistake and a lapse in judgment, and Carl regrets it," Mr. Schur said.

He declined to say how Mr. Cameron had been reprimanded or whether action had been taken against others at Fox News who reviewed the article before it was posted. Mr. Cameron, who is well respected in news media circles, declined to discuss the incident when reached on Saturday. He is continuing to report from the campaign trail.

The gaffe comes at a time when journalistic errors and lapses both big and small have called into question the credibility of a number of major news organizations.

Less than two weeks ago, CBS News and Dan Rather - who is a frequent target of conservatives who accuse him of liberal bias - apologized for a "mistake in judgment" in relying on unsubstantiated documents for a report about President Bush's National Guard service.

On Saturday, it was Democrats who were chuckling over the incident at Fox News, a network that portrays itself as "fair and balanced" but is often accused by liberals of having a pro-Republican bias.

The Kerry campaign sought to turn the Fox retraction against Mr. Bush.

"Fox is doing the right thing by admitting its mistake and correcting the record," said Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign. "George Bush would be well served to heed the lesson and admit to his own mistakes."

DeLay Cases Could Imperil His Climb Within the House

By CARL HULSE and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 - Representative Tom DeLay, the majority leader rebuked by House ethics officials for pressuring a fellow member to switch his vote on a health care bill, still faces potentially more serious accusations, subjecting him to a new scrutiny that even some Republicans say could complicate his political future.

Mr. DeLay, the take-no-prisoners Texan known for maintaining strict discipline in his caucus, is entangled in a series of inquiries here and in Texas regarding his fund-raising and other activities. In Texas, three of his top aides have been indicted; in Washington, the House ethics panel is deciding whether to initiate a formal investigation.

On Friday, Republicans publicly rallied around their leader, though some said privately that the surprise ethics rebuke on Thursday - the second for Mr. DeLay, who was previously chastised for pressuring interest groups to hire Republicans - could hinder the leader if he tried to become speaker.

Democrats, who are already making Mr. DeLay an issue in their campaigns, attacked him on Friday for what Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, called a "continued abuse of power.'' She said there was "an ethical cloud over this Capitol because of how he is conducting business here.''

The fracas is evoking memories of past ethics battles that have roiled Capitol Hill, and contributed to the ouster of two previous House speakers, Jim Wright, a Democrat, and Newt Gingrich, a Republican. Both ultimately faced calls from their own party members to step down, which is not the case with Mr. DeLay.

"If there is any pattern, it is that whenever anybody gets in power and becomes an effective leader in Washington, the other side, rather than beating them with ideas and philosophy, does a flank movement on ethics charges,'' said Representative Jack Kingston of Georgia, the vice chairman of the House Republican Conference.

Mr. Kingston predicted that by Monday the ethics rebuke would be a "nonstory.''

But more than one Republican, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear they would anger their party's powerbroker, said Mr. DeLay's ethics history might make it difficult for him to become speaker someday.

"There are a lot of folks who want to see that happen, and they're a little depressed right now," one said.

A spokesman for Mr. DeLay, Stuart Roy, dismissed the Democratic criticism as politically motivated, and said the leader was not worried about the speaker's job. "He has said in the past that the only job he ever wanted was whip,'' Mr. Roy said, "and he has let everything else take care of itself.''

The rebuke, issued Thursday night, stems from last year's vote on the Medicare prescription drug bill. The committee found that as the bill appeared headed to defeat, Mr. DeLay offered to endorse the son of a Michigan congressman, Representative Nick Smith, in a Congressional primary in return for Mr. Smith's vote in favor of the measure. Mr. Smith, a Republican who considered the bill too expensive, refused; he was admonished for what the panel said was exaggerating the pressure and inducements made to him.

The bill passed; Mr. Smith's son lost the primary.

For the ethics panel, which is composed of five members of each party, investigating the House majority leader is a task so delicate that the panel made public its 62-page report practically under cover of darkness, dropping it off in the House press gallery without comment.

In fact, the House had been awaiting the ethics panel's decision on a separate complaint, filed by Representative Chris Bell, Democrat of Texas, that accuses Mr. DeLay of illegally soliciting campaign contributions, laundering campaign contributions to influence state legislative races and improperly using his office to influence federal agencies. An announcement could come as early as next week.

The admonishment was particularly surprising since Mr. DeLay had not figured prominently in the controversy surrounding Mr. Smith. "It is like a second hurricane," one Republican official said.

Some wondered if a trade was afoot - a public slap in the Smith case in exchange for a decision not to pursue Mr. Bell's complaint. Others said the ethics panel now had no choice but to look into those accusations.

"Mr. DeLay has a track record now in the ethics area, and it's a bad one," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group that has called for the ethics panel to hire an independent counsel to investigate Mr. DeLay. "There's just no basis on which the House ethics committee can do anything now but seriously move forward with an investigation into the ethics complaint pending before it."

Democrats are encouraging their candidates to invoke Mr. DeLay's name in campaigns. Since the indictments, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has demanded that Republican candidates return donations from Mr. DeLay.

"He hasn't reached the stage of Newt Gingrich, but he has reached the center of gravity, where people do see him as representing the Republican Party in the House of Representatives, and as somebody who abused the rules of the House," said the committee's chairman, Representative Robert T. Matsui of California, in an interview on Friday.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

1st Presidential Debate: Online Polls

September 30, 2004 Presidential Debate Network Polls

Fox News Network

Ironically no poll was displayed at FNC. The results of other network polls were displayed under the headline:

Both Campaigns Claim Win; Polls Favor Kerry

MSNBC

Who won the debate? * 748030 responses

Pres. Bush
31%

Sen. Kerry
69%

CBS

Who won the presidential debate?

John Kerry: 91.20%

President Bush: 7.96%

Neither man. It was a draw: 0.84%


ABC

Who Won? (Among Debate Viewers)

Kerry 45%
Bush 36
Tie 17

AOL:

Who won the debate?
John Kerry 55%
George Bush 45%

Did it change the candidate you support?
No: 72%
Yes, I now support Kerry: 19%
Yes, I now support Bush: 9%
Total Votes: 471,086

CNN:

Who do you think won the debate?

George W. Bush
12% 5542 votes

John Kerry
87% 40498 votes

Neither, it was a draw
2% 738 votes
Total: 46778 votes


USA Today

Regardless of which candidate you happen to support, who do you think did the better job in the debate: John Kerry or George W. Bush?

Kerry: 53%
Bush: 37
Neither: 1%
Both/equally: 8%
No opinion: 1%

George W. Bush: The Art of Ignorance

In George Bush's speech to a hand-picked crowd of GOP loyalists on Friday, he again disregarded everything John Kerry said in the debate and instead conjured up his own idea.

October 1,2004 Speech
Allentown, Pennsylvania

Bush: Last night, Senator Kerry only continued his pattern of confusing contradictions. After voting for the war, after saying my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision -- (applause) -- he now says it was all a mistake.

Here is what Kerry actually said at Friday's debate in his response to Jim Lehrers question: Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?

September 30,2004
1st Presidential Debate

Kerry: No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put -- that I'm offering.

I believe that we have to win this.

The president and I have always agreed on that.

And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence.

But I also laid out a very strict series of things we needed to do in order to proceed from a position of strength.

Then the president, in fact, promised them.

He went to Cincinnati and he gave a speech in which he said, "We will plan carefully. We will proceed cautiously. We will not make war inevitable. We will go with our allies."

He didn't do any of those things. They didn't do the planning.

They left the planning of the State Department in the State Department desks.

They avoided even the advice of their own general. General Shinsheki, the Army chief of staff, said you're going to need several hundred thousand troops. Instead of listening to him, they retired him.

The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said, "Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor."

That's what we have here.

And what we need now is a president who understands how to bring these other countries together to recognize their stakes in this. They do have stakes in it. They've always had stakes in it.

The Arab countries have a stake in not having a civil war. The European countries have a stake in not having total disorder on their doorstep.

But this president hasn't even held the kind of statesman-like summits that pull people together and get them to invest in those states.

In fact, he's done the opposite. He pushed them away.

When the Secretary General Kofi Annan offered the United Nations, he said, "No, no, we'll go do this alone."

To save for Halliburton the spoils of the war, they actually issued a memorandum from the Defense Department saying, "If you weren't with us in the war, don't bother applying for any construction."

That's not a way to invite people.

Many people have said that George Bush looked like he was anywhere but the debate. I have to confess, I agree with them.

source: 9/30/04 Debate Transcript

CNN's "Undecided" Voter Turns Out To Be A GOP Operative

Yesterday, CNN's Bill Hemmer interviewed "undecided" voter, Edward Martos. Martos, which has been pointed out by many, is actually a GOP operative who is involved heavily with the University of Miami College Republicans' and who has served as the Assistant Editor in Chief of the College Republicans' newsletter. He is such an undecided voter that he actually helped draft the constitution of the University Of Miami College Republicans. Martos, of course, by all measure, is not an undecided voter, but CNN refuses to report that they were duped.

Martos made the statement below to CNN, descussing why he is an "undecided" voter.

"Well, they took the words out of my mouth, Tony and Vicky. I've got to say, though, that I think, first and foremost, from Bush I'm looking for him to explain, you know, that he understands some of the things he did wrong, that he is going to take an approach that is slightly different from what he has been doing. At the same time, though, I think the problems in foreign policy are so great that -- and he created them himself -- that he's the only one capable of solving the problem."

"From Kerry, I do want to see some precise answers. I want him to frame everything that he's been saying, provide some answers for accusations that he's been flip-flopping, and I want to see some tenacity. I want him to broaden the discussion away from Iraq. I want him to talk about issues like free trade area of the Americas and North Korea."

It is clear that GOP talking points are buried in his statement. ~Amadeus

Martos Involvement in University Of Miami College Republicans:

Committee membership: http://www.umcrnc.org/2003-11-20.html
Forum Participant: http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=263401&messageid=1092424983&lp=1096653704
U of M Constitutional Review Committee: http://www.umcrnc.org/conmin3.html

GOP prompts it's members to vote for Bush in on-line polls after the debate

Yesterday I recieved a link from a local GOP activists prompting me to vote for Bush in various on-line network polls. At first I thought it was a joke and then I realized that the GOP already knows Bush is a joke which is why they need their minions to log on and stuff online polls. That aside, the link took me to the GOP website, whereas the message below was posted.

As for the statement that the Democratic Party sent out an email encouraging grassroots activists to participate in online polls, I recieved nothing of the sort. I am one of those grassroots activists that they are referring to and I didn't recieve this so-called email. I checked with several of my collegues, but they didn't recieve this so-called email either, nor was it posted on the DNC website.

If anyone has it, put it in comments. I am curious to see it. I will be contacting the GOP headquarters this morning to see if they can actually produce this email.

_____________________________________________________
Vote in Online Polls After the Debate

The Democratic Party recently sent out an email encouraging their grassroots activists to vote in online polls regarding the debate. Don't let them fix the results! Make sure your voice is heard!

Vote in Online Polls After the Debate

After the debate, visit national and local news sites to vote in online polls about the debates.

Sites With Active Polls

AOL
CBS News
CNN
MSNBC

Sites That Will Probably Have Polls

ABC News
Fox News
USA Today

http://gopteamleader.com/myissues/view_issue.asp?id=2322
______________________________________________________

Here is a response from one of the Bush supporters regarding the debate. It was posted on the same page as the above message:
______________________________________________________
homosexual4bush 10-1-2004 3:36:36 AM
Hey Kerry! Who cares if Bush lied about Iraq to get us into war. You have to lie to get anything done in the world today. 1000 dead isn't much, either. It's a small price to pay to insure that Saddam won't use those nuclear weapons he certainty had on us.
______________________________________________________

You gotta love the GOP. With people like this, it is any wonder why we have idiots like Bush running this country. ~Amadeus