Political News — October & November 2006

Article 1

Pre-election poll on Bush & War

29% approve of Bush’s management of war; 38% for management of economy, Consistent with these numbers: “Among registered voters, 33 percent said they planned to support for Republicans, and 52 percent said they would vote for Democrats.” Iraq War Frames ’06 Vote in Last Poll Before Election New York Times, 1/11/06 Adam Nagourney & Megan Thee

WASHINGTON, Nov. 1 — A substantial majority of Americans expect Democrats to reduce or end American military involvement in Iraq if they win control of Congress next Tuesday, and say Republicans would maintain or increase troop levels to try to win the war if they hold on to power on Capitol Hill, according to the final New York Times/CBS News poll before the midterm election.

The poll found that just 29 percent of Americans approve of the way President Bush is managing the war in Iraq, matching the lowest mark of his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of Americans said Mr. Bush did not have a plan to end the war, and an overwhelming 80 percent said Mr. Bush’s latest effort to rally public support for the conflict amounted to a change in language but not policy.

The poll underlined the extent to which the war has framed the midterm elections. Americans cited Iraq as the most important issue affecting their vote, and majorities of Republicans and Democrats said they wanted a change in the government’s approach to the war. Only 20 percent said they thought the United States was winning in Iraq, down from a high of 36 percent in January.

Even beyond the war, the Times/CBS News poll, like most polls taken this fall, included worrisome indicators for Republicans as they go into the final days of a campaign in which many of them are bracing for a loss of seats in both the Houser and the Senate.

In a year when there are many close races, and where the parties’ success at turning out their voters could prove key, Democrats were more enthusiastic than Republicans about voting and more likely to say they would support their party’s candidates, though Republicans were slightly more likely to say they would turn out.

Fifty percent of independent voters, a closely watched segment of the electorate in such polarized times, said they intended to vote for the Democratic candidate, versus 23 percent who said they would vote for a Republican.

Article 2

Foley Timeline

THE HUFFINGTON POST’S DAILY BRIEF (10/13/06) A top staffer to former Rep. Mark Foley (D-FL) testified yesterday that he alerted House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL)'s chief of staff to Foley's inappropriate contact with Congressional pages as early as 2002. Kirk Fordham, who once served as Foley's chief of staff, spent nearly five hours in closed-door testimony before the House Ethics Committee as the investigation into Foley's conduct and the GOP's handling of the situation continued.

A top staffer to former Rep. Mark Foley (D-FL) testified yesterday that he alerted House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL)'s chief of staff to Foley's inappropriate contact with Congressional pages as early as 2002. Kirk Fordham, who once served as Foley's chief of staff, spent nearly five hours in closed-door testimony before the House Ethics Committee as the investigation into Foley's conduct and the GOP's handling of the situation continued.

The saga of Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record) dates to at least five years ago. U.S. News has assembled a timeline about Foley, his personal involvement and electronic communications with current and former pages in the House of Representatives, and what other members of Congress knew about the situation:

2001: Some congressional pages were allegedly warned about Foley, according to Page Alumni Association President Matthew Loraditch. ( ABC World News with Charles Gibson)

2003: Foley, a Florida Republican, reportedly writes sexually explicit instant messages to a male House page using the screen name "Maf54." (Associated Press)

May 2003: Foley faces questions about his sexual orientation as he prepares to run for a Senate seat in Florida. He later drops out of the race. (AP)

Fall 2005: A former page contacts the office of his sponsor, Rep. Rodney Alexander (news, bio, voting record), a Louisiana Republican, about E-mails he had received from Foley that asked about the boy's age, then 16, and his birthday and requested a picture. (AP)

Article 3

GOP's Latest Assault on Labor Laws

GOP's Latest Assault on Labor Laws The Party of Big Business has done away with unions for over 8 million workers by catagorizing them as management. A similar move in 05 had done away with the overtime higher pay rate for millions. FROM THE HUFFINGTON POST (BY ARRIANA), EXCELLENT BLOG WITH NOTED CONTRIBUTORS, see bio below of John Sweeney, the one who wrote this article (AFL-CIO President).http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-sweeney/national-labor-attack-boa_b_30968.html The Bush administration's attack on working people just hit a peak when the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) broadened the definition of who can be considered a supervisor and therefore denied federal labor law protection. Essentially, Bush's labor board gave employers a road map to block workers' freedom to belong to unions by putting them into a pseudo-management category. As dissenting NLRB members Wilma Liebman and Dennis Walsh wrote, the decision "threatens to create a new class of workers under federal labor law--workers who have neither the genuine prerogatives of management, nor the statutory rights of ordinary employees." Most professionals--the fastest growing occupational group of workers--could fall into this phony category, Liebman and Walsh warn. By 2012, they "could number almost 34 million, accounting for 23.3 percent of the workforce." The Bush NLRB not only ignored decades of legal precedent and its mission to protect rather than restrict workers' rights. It completely ignored the realities of today's workforce, which is more skilled and educated than those of previous generations. Workplace hierarchies have flattened out. Few employees today are in jobs that don't require them to exercise some independent judgment, to show someone else how to perform a task, to pass assignments on to co-workers. This should not cost them their right to a union voice on the job. Under the board's decision, even low-level employees who spend only 10 to 15 percent of their time directing the work of others can be labeled "supervisors." The rights of anyone who spends 7 hours and 10 minutes a day on routine duties and 50 minutes on "supervisory functions" are at risk. Most immediately affected by the board's ruling are the charge nurses at an acute care hospital in Michigan whose supervisory status was under question in the lead Kentucky River case. As RNs Working Together, a coalition of AFL-CIO unions that represent nurses, notes, using independent judgment and directing workflow during their shifts makes nurses responsible caregivers, not supervisors. Taking away the union protection nurses count on when they raise concerns about patient care can have devastating effects on the quality of our health care. The board's decision will resonate well beyond nurses, though. The union rights of building trades workers, newspaper and television employees, technicians and many others are on the line. As The New York Times points out, the board made specific reference to retail workers, providing a blueprint for reclassifying employees of Wal-Mart, grocery stores and other retail operations as supervisors. "The assignment of an employee to a certain department (e.g., housewares) or to a certain shift (e.g., night) or to certain significant overall tasks (e.g., restocking shelves) would generally qualify" a retail worker as having the supervisory responsibility of "assigning," the board's majority wrote. JOHN SWEENEY, AFL-CIO President The son of Irish immigrants, John J. Sweeney was elected president of the AFL-CIO in October 1995 and has been re-elected three times since. Born in the Bronx in New York, Sweeney launched his trade union career with the Ladies Garment Workers. As SEIU president from 1980–1995, Sweeney led the successful Justice for Janitors campaign and increased SEIU membership from 625,000 to 1.1 million. Under Sweeney’s leadership, the AFL-CIO moved far more resources into the support of national union organizing efforts and dramatically expanded its program for issues education and political action. Sweeney also led the federation to support legalization for undocumented immigrants and expanded outreach to and leadership opportunities for women, people of color, immigrant workers and students. As AFL-CIO president, he established the union movement’s first accredited National Labor College and spearheaded the innovative Working America affiliate that now includes more than 1 million members.

The Party of Big Business has done away with unions for over 8 million workers by catagorizing them as management. A similar move in 05 had done away with the overtime higher pay rate for millions. FROM THE HUFFINGTON POST (BY ARRIANA), EXCELLENT BLOG WITH NOTED CONTRIBUTORS, see bio below of John Sweeney, the one who wrote this article (AFL-CIO President).http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-sweeney/national-labor-attack-boa_b_30968.html

FROM THE HUFFINGTON POST (BY ARRIANA), EXCELLENT BLOG WITH NOTED CONTRIBUTORS, see bio below of John Sweeney, the one who wrote this article (AFL-CIO President).

The Bush administration's attack on working people just hit a peak when the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) broadened the definition of who can be considered a supervisor and therefore denied federal labor law protection. Essentially, Bush's labor board gave employers a road map to block workers' freedom to belong to unions by putting them into a pseudo-management category. As dissenting NLRB members Wilma Liebman and Dennis Walsh wrote, the decision "threatens to create a new class of workers under federal labor law--workers who have neither the genuine prerogatives of management, nor the statutory rights of ordinary employees." Most professionals--the fastest growing occupational group of workers--could fall into this phony category, Liebman and Walsh warn. By 2012, they "could number almost 34 million, accounting for 23.3 percent of the workforce." The Bush NLRB not only ignored decades of legal precedent and its mission to protect rather than restrict workers' rights. It completely ignored the realities of today's workforce, which is more skilled and educated than those of previous generations. Workplace hierarchies have flattened out. Few employees today are in jobs that don't require them to exercise some independent judgment, to show someone else how to perform a task, to pass assignments on to co-workers. This should not cost them their right to a union voice on the job. Under the board's decision, even low-level employees who spend only 10 to 15 percent of their time directing the work of others can be labeled "supervisors." The rights of anyone who spends 7 hours and 10 minutes a day on routine duties and 50 minutes on "supervisory functions" are at risk. Most immediately affected by the board's ruling are the charge nurses at an acute care hospital in Michigan whose supervisory status was under question in the lead Kentucky River case. As RNs Working Together, a coalition of AFL-CIO unions that represent nurses, notes, using independent judgment and directing workflow during their shifts makes nurses responsible caregivers, not supervisors. Taking away the union protection nurses count on when they raise concerns about patient care can have devastating effects on the quality of our health care. The board's decision will resonate well beyond nurses, though. The union rights of building trades workers, newspaper and television employees, technicians and many others are on the line. As The New York Times points out, the board made specific reference to retail workers, providing a blueprint for reclassifying employees of Wal-Mart, grocery stores and other retail operations as supervisors. "The assignment of an employee to a certain department (e.g., housewares) or to a certain shift (e.g., night) or to certain significant overall tasks (e.g., restocking shelves) would generally qualify" a retail worker as having the supervisory responsibility of "assigning," the board's majority wrote. JOHN SWEENEY, AFL-CIO President The son of Irish immigrants, John J. Sweeney was elected president of the AFL-CIO in October 1995 and has been re-elected three times since. Born in the Bronx in New York, Sweeney launched his trade union career with the Ladies Garment Workers. As SEIU president from 1980–1995, Sweeney led the successful Justice for Janitors campaign and increased SEIU membership from 625,000 to 1.1 million. Under Sweeney’s leadership, the AFL-CIO moved far more resources into the support of national union organizing efforts and dramatically expanded its program for issues education and political action. Sweeney also led the federation to support legalization for undocumented immigrants and expanded outreach to and leadership opportunities for women, people of color, immigrant workers and students. As AFL-CIO president, he established the union movement’s first accredited National Labor College and spearheaded the innovative Working America affiliate that now includes more than 1 million members.

Essentially, Bush's labor board gave employers a road map to block workers' freedom to belong to unions by putting them into a pseudo-management category. As dissenting NLRB members Wilma Liebman and Dennis Walsh wrote, the decision "threatens to create a new class of workers under federal labor law--workers who have neither the genuine prerogatives of management, nor the statutory rights of ordinary employees."

Most professionals--the fastest growing occupational group of workers--could fall into this phony category, Liebman and Walsh warn. By 2012, they "could number almost 34 million, accounting for 23.3 percent of the workforce."

The Bush NLRB not only ignored decades of legal precedent and its mission to protect rather than restrict workers' rights. It completely ignored the realities of today's workforce, which is more skilled and educated than those of previous generations. Workplace hierarchies have flattened out. Few employees today are in jobs that don't require them to exercise some independent judgment, to show someone else how to perform a task, to pass assignments on to co-workers. This should not cost them their right to a union voice on the job.

Article 4

Mexico: People in the streets over stolen election

Mexico: People in the streets over stolen election From Green Left Weekly, September 27, 2006. Visit the Green Left Weekly home page. MEXICO: Convention elects AMLO as legitimate president Neville Spencer On September 16 — Independence Day — 1,025,724 registered delegates and many thousands of others gathered at the National Democratic Convention in Mexico City’s main square, the Zocalo. Accusing right-wing president-elect Felipe Calderon of usurping power through electoral fraud, they elected Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (known as AMLO) as Mexico’s legitimate president. The official result announced following the July 2 presidential election put Calderon 0.58% ahead of AMLO, who stood as the candidate of the left-leaning For the Good of All coalition. AMLO accused the National Action Party (PAN), to which Calderon and current president Vicente Fox belong, of orchestrating widespread fraud. Evidence was produced of fraud in many polling places and a full recount of the vote was called for, though even this could not have resolved problems such as destroyed or stuffed ballot boxes. Following a series of massive protests, the Federal Electoral Tribunal agreed to recount only 9% of polling places, resulting in only minor changes to the official tally. The call for the National Democratic Convention was made by AMLO when it became clear that no significant action was going to be taken to address the charges of fraud. In spite of rain, an estimated 1.5-2 million turned out. Even the sizeable Zocalo could not contain the crowd. Part of the convention was the endorsement of a “plan of resistance”. This includes numerous protests, not just against the electoral fraud, but also against a variety of different threats to the wellbeing of Mexico’s workers and poor posed by a new PAN government. A national day of action against the privatisation of energy is part of the plan. The PAN has proposed privatising electricity and the state oil company Pemex. Pemex is one of the world’s largest oil companies. The nationalisation of oil, which took place in the 1930s, has been a source of national pride for Mexico. Until the neoliberal turn of the 1980s, it was also a source of funding for some of the social benefits that Mexico had at a level above the standard of most Third World countries. A week of action is planned for October around the defence of free state education. The central act of the convention was the recognition of AMLO as the legitimate president. An alternate proposal, that he be “head of resistance”, was not as well supported, the argument given being that this would give too much legitimacy to Calderon’s election. It was decided by the convention that AMLO would form a government and a swearing-in ceremony would be held on Mexico’s Revolution Day, November 20. This would put it ahead of Calderon’s swearing in on December 1. A mass mobilisation is also planned for that day to try to prevent Calderon being installed as president. The convention itself was a continuation of the existing campaign against electoral fraud that began soon after the July ballot. The Zocalo had already been the site of earlier demonstrations, including the largest demonstration in Mexico’s history on July 30. The crowd at that demonstration was estimated at up to 2.4 million. The Zocalo and surrounding area had also been under a continuous occupation for several weeks prior to the convention, with AMLO directing the campaign from a tent in the square. On September 1, deputies from the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), of which AMLO is a member, disrupted Fox’s attempt to give the annual state-of-the-nation address to the parliament. Instead it was handed out in written form. Fox was also forced to avoid protesters the night before the convention. It is traditional for the president to give the “grito” from a balcony of the National Palace overlooking the Zocalo the night before Independence Day. With the Zocalo full of demonstrators, Fox stayed away. Although the convention set the stage for a continued mass movement, it is still quite possible that the movement will fade. The convention marked the lifting of the occupation of the Zocalo, even though new plans for protest were made. The PRD, which is the dominant component of the For the Good of All coalition, is a generally social-democratic party used to not rocking the boat too much. Another PRD leader, Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, was also robbed of a probable victory in the 1988 presidential election. He chose not to try to mobilise any resistance for fear that it might lead to violence. Both AMLO and the movement around him at least seem to be in a more combative mood than that. A letter from Cardenas was read out at the convention opposing the idea of declaring AMLO president and calling for the institutional order to be respected. The reaction of the crowd was one of anger. The alternative government to be formed by AMLO is not going to actually exercise any power but will primarily be symbolic, though it could act as an organiser of ongoing opposition. Even if protests fail to force Calderon from power and fade away, the mood of militancy will at least be notched up over the coming period.

From Green Left Weekly, September 27, 2006. Visit the Green Left Weekly home page. MEXICO: Convention elects AMLO as legitimate president Neville Spencer On September 16 — Independence Day — 1,025,724 registered delegates and many thousands of others gathered at the National Democratic Convention in Mexico City’s main square, the Zocalo. Accusing right-wing president-elect Felipe Calderon of usurping power through electoral fraud, they elected Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (known as AMLO) as Mexico’s legitimate president.

On September 16 — Independence Day — 1,025,724 registered delegates and many thousands of others gathered at the National Democratic Convention in Mexico City’s main square, the Zocalo. Accusing right-wing president-elect Felipe Calderon of usurping power through electoral fraud, they elected Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (known as AMLO) as Mexico’s legitimate president.

The official result announced following the July 2 presidential election put Calderon 0.58% ahead of AMLO, who stood as the candidate of the left-leaning For the Good of All coalition. AMLO accused the National Action Party (PAN), to which Calderon and current president Vicente Fox belong, of orchestrating widespread fraud. Evidence was produced of fraud in many polling places and a full recount of the vote was called for, though even this could not have resolved problems such as destroyed or stuffed ballot boxes. Following a series of massive protests, the Federal Electoral Tribunal agreed to recount only 9% of polling places, resulting in only minor changes to the official tally. The call for the National Democratic Convention was made by AMLO when it became clear that no significant action was going to be taken to address the charges of fraud. In spite of rain, an estimated 1.5-2 million turned out. Even the sizeable Zocalo could not contain the crowd. Part of the convention was the endorsement of a “plan of resistance”. This includes numerous protests, not just against the electoral fraud, but also against a variety of different threats to the wellbeing of Mexico’s workers and poor posed by a new PAN government. A national day of action against the privatisation of energy is part of the plan. The PAN has proposed privatising electricity and the state oil company Pemex. Pemex is one of the world’s largest oil companies. The nationalisation of oil, which took place in the 1930s, has been a source of national pride for Mexico. Until the neoliberal turn of the 1980s, it was also a source of funding for some of the social benefits that Mexico had at a level above the standard of most Third World countries. A week of action is planned for October around the defence of free state education. The central act of the convention was the recognition of AMLO as the legitimate president. An alternate proposal, that he be “head of resistance”, was not as well supported, the argument given being that this would give too much legitimacy to Calderon’s election. It was decided by the convention that AMLO would form a government and a swearing-in ceremony would be held on Mexico’s Revolution Day, November 20. This would put it ahead of Calderon’s swearing in on December 1. A mass mobilisation is also planned for that day to try to prevent Calderon being installed as president. The convention itself was a continuation of the existing campaign against electoral fraud that began soon after the July ballot. The Zocalo had already been the site of earlier demonstrations, including the largest demonstration in Mexico’s history on July 30. The crowd at that demonstration was estimated at up to 2.4 million. The Zocalo and surrounding area had also been under a continuous occupation for several weeks prior to the convention, with AMLO directing the campaign from a tent in the square. On September 1, deputies from the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), of which AMLO is a member, disrupted Fox’s attempt to give the annual state-of-the-nation address to the parliament. Instead it was handed out in written form. Fox was also forced to avoid protesters the night before the convention. It is traditional for the president to give the “grito” from a balcony of the National Palace overlooking the Zocalo the night before Independence Day. With the Zocalo full of demonstrators, Fox stayed away. Although the convention set the stage for a continued mass movement, it is still quite possible that the movement will fade. The convention marked the lifting of the occupation of the Zocalo, even though new plans for protest were made. The PRD, which is the dominant component of the For the Good of All coalition, is a generally social-democratic party used to not rocking the boat too much. Another PRD leader, Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, was also robbed of a probable victory in the 1988 presidential election. He chose not to try to mobilise any resistance for fear that it might lead to violence. Both AMLO and the movement around him at least seem to be in a more combative mood than that. A letter from Cardenas was read out at the convention opposing the idea of declaring AMLO president and calling for the institutional order to be respected. The reaction of the crowd was one of anger. The alternative government to be formed by AMLO is not going to actually exercise any power but will primarily be symbolic, though it could act as an organiser of ongoing opposition. Even if protests fail to force Calderon from power and fade away, the mood of militancy will at least be notched up over the coming period.

AMLO accused the National Action Party (PAN), to which Calderon and current president Vicente Fox belong, of orchestrating widespread fraud. Evidence was produced of fraud in many polling places and a full recount of the vote was called for, though even this could not have resolved problems such as destroyed or stuffed ballot boxes. Following a series of massive protests, the Federal Electoral Tribunal agreed to recount only 9% of polling places, resulting in only minor changes to the official tally.

The call for the National Democratic Convention was made by AMLO when it became clear that no significant action was going to be taken to address the charges of fraud.

In spite of rain, an estimated 1.5-2 million turned out. Even the sizeable Zocalo could not contain the crowd. Part of the convention was the endorsement of a “plan of resistance”. This includes numerous protests, not just against the electoral fraud, but also against a variety of different threats to the wellbeing of Mexico’s workers and poor posed by a new PAN government.

Article 5

Iraq Death Count, 3 times Bush's estimate

The California skeptics recognize that each person counts as one. Though some may be more of a benefit to mankind, each person feels and suffers. To make so much of nearly 3,000 U.S. soldiers dying is to slight humanity, for 50 times as many Iraqis have died. This incredible waste was brought about through our political process. (We are not so sure that Gore and the Democrats would not have followed a similar policy, for they share to a lesser degree the same IMF view of the world) Iraqi official: 150,000 civilians dead

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A stunning new death count emerged Thursday, Iraq’s health minister estimated 150,000 civilians have been killed in the war — about three times previously accepted estimates.

Moderate Sunni Muslims, meanwhile, threatened to walk away from politics and pick up guns, while the Shiite-dominated government renewed pressure on the United States to unleash the Iraqi army and claimed it could crush violence in six months.

After Democrats swept to majorities in both houses of the U.S. Congress and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld resigned, Iraqis appeared unsettled and seemed to sense the potential for an even bloodier conflict because future American policy is uncertain. As a result, positions hardened on both sides of the country's deepening sectarian divide.

Previous estimates of Iraq deaths held that 45,000-50,000 have been killed in the nearly 44-month-old conflict, according to partial figures from Iraqi institutions and media reports. No official count has ever been available.

Health Minister Ali al-Shemari gave his new estimate of 150,000 to reporters during a visit to Vienna, Austria. He later told The Associated Press that he based the figure on an estimate of 100 bodies per day brought to morgues and hospitals — though such a calculation would come out closer to 130,000 in total.

"It is an estimate," al-Shemari said. He blamed Sunni insurgents, Wahhabis — Sunni religious extremists — and criminal gangs for the deaths.