Mood:  d'oh

Angelides finding it tough to win over voters in his party

Tom Chorneau, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau

Sacramento -- Mary Canavan, a 62-year-old real estate agent from Berkeley, stands as one of the biggest barriers to Democrat Phil Angelides becoming governor.

After weeks of putting off a decision, the lifelong Democrat said she is almost certain to cast her vote for Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- a choice lots of Democrats up and down the state are considering, including many living in the liberal strongholds of the Bay Area.

"It depresses me to say it, but I've got no compelling reason to vote for Angelides," she said. "I've never supported anyone but Democrats -- I think I might have voted once for a Republican. But I just think the Democrats in this state are having a real hard time communicating a message -- and that's appalling."

Democrats are the state's majority party with almost 6.7 million members -- 1.3 million more than Republicans -- and thus play a defining role in the outcome of virtually every election.

Polls show that only about 60 percent of Democrats support Angelides -- well below the 70 percent benchmark considered necessary for his success.

Schwarzenegger is attracting up to 21 percent of Democrats, according to a September poll from the Public Policy Institute of California. Meanwhile, the governor has almost 80 percent of GOP voters and nearly 50 percent of independents.

Most polls also show Schwarzenegger enjoying surprising strength in Los Angeles County and in the Bay Area -- both places that typically vote heavily Democratic and that the state treasurer needs to win.

The governor's showing is a big turnaround from only a year ago. On the eve of the unpopular 2005 special election, 81 percent of Democrats told the Field Poll they were not inclined to support Schwarzenegger for re-election.

Voters explained that their change of heart is the result of both actions by the governor that they favor and failure so far by Angelides to rally voters to his side.

Many voters said they simply don't have a sense of what kind of leader Angelides would be.

"I don't know what he supports -- does he support universal health care or the minimum wage? I don't know," said Oakland resident Doug Latimer, 50, an independent voter who remains undecided in the governor's race.

"I don't know what his particular stands are on environmental issues," he said. "That's a failure that falls on him and falls on the strategy of the Democratic Party -- the press as well. We should know all this by now."

Michael Feeley, 53, of Berkeley, is a registered Democrat but said he will be voting for Schwarzenegger.

"The biggest thing the governor has done, since making some horrible mistakes last year, is that he's been working with the Democrats," Feeley said. "I like that. I think he's done a good job bringing the two sides together."

Feeley noted as examples compromise agreements that the governor worked out with the Legislature's Democratic leaders on restricting greenhouse gases and on raising the minimum wage.

Bill Carrick, senior strategist for Angelides, said he is not surprised to hear voters complain that they do not know enough about his candidate -- even with less than a month to go before the election. He said Angelides has suffered from not having as much campaign cash as he would have liked.

"The reality is that we went through a primary with a lot of negative back-and-forth, and then to a general election with a depleted treasury and very limited ability to go on the air," he said.

The Democratic Party, not encumbered by the same contribution limits, has spent $14 million trying to fill the void. But Carrick noted that the party ads could not be used to promote Angelides himself, because of new campaign rules.

"We ended up with the situation in which we had to decide whether to spend the money trying to ID Phil in August or in October," he said. "We made the decision -- and, in my judgment, the proper one -- to spend the money in October."

A new biographical ad began running statewide on Tuesday. Carrick said that as the campaign rolls out, voters will learn more about Angelides and, he believes, many will chose to vote for him over Schwarzenegger -- especially Democrats.

"There are two sets of voters that we want to talk to: the Democrats, of course, and the 'decline-to-state,' " Carrick said. "The more information voters have about Phil, the more likely they are to vote for him."

Still, Angelides' mission is complicated by the fact that another big group of voters have formed an opinion about the state treasurer -- a negative one.

A Field Poll conducted in September found 22 percent of voters have yet to form an opinion about Angelides, but 43 percent said they already had formed an unfavorable view of him.

Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, said those unfavorable views are likely the result of voters getting their first impression of Angelides from millions of dollars of worth of TV ads put on by the Schwarzenegger campaign that criticized the Democratic candidate's plans to raise taxes.

"That's really a problem," DiCamillo said. "A large chunk of voters have formed an opinion based on an issue that not you but your opponent has framed."

DiCamillo said it is critical for Angelides to get Democrats back. He noted that the last Democrat who lost a gubernatorial race -- Kathleen Brown, who was defeated in 1994 -- had 65 percent of Democrats heading into the final month. Her opponent, former Gov. Pete Wilson, had corralled 80 percent of GOP voters.

Dianne Feinstein, who lost to Wilson in 1990, also never attracted more than 65 percent of Democrats in pre-election polls, DiCamillo said.

"We're seeing Angelides is in the same boat," DiCamillo said. "He's got to turn this around."

Some voters said they still think there's time.

"Right now, if the election were tomorrow and I had to choose between the two of them, I'd either abstain on that office or even, maybe, vote for Arnold -- as much as that makes me cringe," said Ryan Kelling, 27, of Walnut Creek, who is registered as a decline-to-state but described himself as a left-leaning voter.

Kelling said Angelides seems to have spent all his time on the "anti-Arnold" platform. "I relish the opportunity to hear from Angelides about who he is and why I should vote for him," he said.

San Francisco Chronicle ~ Tom Chorneau ** Angelides finding it tough to win over voters in his party

Simply put, Phil Angelides doesn't come off as being a uniter. Just look at his commercials. They offer no real substance. Just attack after attack, usually attempting to link Schwarzenegger with Bush. It makes you wonder what he's really running for since his whole campaign has been about attacking Bush and not offering any real contrast with Schwarzenegger or any solutions to help Californians. Angelides is simply a piss poor choice of a candidate.

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 8:18 AM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 14 October 2006 8:56 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  silly

Democrats Find Their Values Issue

By Don Feder

In the most bizarre twist of a surreal campaign, Republicans could lose control of the House of Representatives due in part to disgraced Congressman Mark Foley’s salacious e-mails to under-aged pages.

If that happens, the beneficiary will be the party that has uncritically embraced the gay-rights movement -- which in turn embraces other things.

Speaking of double standards:

In 1983, Massachusetts Congressman Gerry Studds was found to have had sexual relations with a 16-year-old male page (No mere cyber-stalking for the Bay State perv.) He was censured by the House, then repeatedly reelected by his ethically-challenged constituents, with the blessings of the Democratic Party.

In 1989, Barney Frank admitted to shacking up with a male prostitute, who he met through a personal ad in The Washington Blade (“hot bottom plus large endowment equals good time.”) Senor Large Endowment ran a prostitution ring out of the congressman’s D.C. condo. Frank was censured, then re-elected, with Democratic support. Today, he’s one of his party’s senior statesmen.

Bill Clinton copulated orally with intern Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. Granted, Monica was an adult (chronologically, at least). But isn’t this about men in a position (you should pardon the expression) of authority exploiting young people in their charge?

His vice president, and the 2000 Democratic presidential candidate, called Mr. Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah Zipper “one of our greatest presidents.”

And still the party of It’s-Only-About-Sex is trying to drive House Speaker Dennis Hastert from office. (“What did he know, and when did he know it?” they sputter, repeating their favorite Watergate refrain.) They intend to ride the issue like Seattle Slew -- from here to November 7th. North Korean nukes, atomic Iran, worldwide jihad? Nada compared to erotic e-mails.

Now -- at long last -- the Democrats have their very own values issue, in the person of a pro-abortion, anti-traditional marriage (he voted against the federal marriage amendment) “Republican,” who slunk around in dark cyber alleys.

So, what exactly is the great lesson Democrats want us to learn from the Foley scandal?

Don’t talk dirty to kids?

But their Hollywood friends do it all the time. Besides, what is sex education -- pushed by their friends in the teachers’ unions -- if not talking dirty to kids?

Adults shouldn’t come on to adolescents?

But their allies in the gay rights movement want to lower or abolish age-of-consent laws.

Men shouldn’t be in a position where they can proposition teens?

But Democrats booed a Boy Scout color guard at their 2000 convention, because the Scouts said no to sending boys off into the woods with gay scoutmasters -- which makes about as much sense as letting Bill Clinton sleep in a pup tent with cheerleaders.

We should support parents trying to protect teens from sexual predators?

But a Democratic filibuster in the Senate killed the Child Custody Protection Act, which would have made it a federal crime to take a minor across state lines for an abortion, thereby avoiding a parental-notification law in their home state. You think those 15-year-olds going out-of-state for abortions are impregnated by other 15-year-olds? In most cases, teen pregnancy results from statutory rape.

I guess the point the Hastert lynch mob is trying to make is this: The day of reckoning dawns only for Republicans.

Gay rights has become as much a part of Democratic orthodoxy as abortion-on-demand, racial quotas, driver’ licenses for illegal immigrants, and a blind faith in the power of negotiations to keep Kim Jong Il from developing nuclear weapons.

The Democrats are into mainstreaming the Gay Lobby. And many members of the Gay Lobby are into sex with youth.

Heterosexual molesters at least have the good taste not to organize and lobby for their sickness. There is a North American Man-Boy Love Association (whose motto is “sex before eight or it’s too late”). There is no North American Man-Girl Love Association. NAMBLA often participates in gay-pride parades.

Paeans to “intergenerational sex” permeate gay literature, from the poems of Alan Ginsberg to the play “The Vagina Monologues.” In one charming vignette in Eve Ensler’s play, a 13-year-old girl is plied with alcohol and seduced by a 24-year-old woman. The act is justified by the child’s declaration: “If it was rape, it was a good rape.” Following a protest, the girl’s age was changed to 16 (still younger than those Foley stalked) and the “good-rape” line deleted.

The 1972 platform of the National Coalition of Gay Organizations included a demand for “repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.”

In 2004, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force joined with the Woodhull Freedom Foundation (an out-of-the-closet, sex-with-kids group) to focus first on studying America’s “archaic” sex laws, as a prelude to overturning them.

In “The Gay Report,” prepared by two gay researchers, 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed reported having had sex with boys, aged 16 to 19, and in some cases younger.

According to a study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 81 percent of priestly sex-abuse victims were boys and adolescent males. In coverage of the scandal, the media resolutely ignored this reality by referring to the perps as “pedophile priests,” instead of homosexual pedophile priests.

Male homosexuals represent roughly 2.5 percent of the population, yet account for over one-third of adults who prey sexually on children. In other words, a gay male is 13 times as likely to be a sexual predator as a heterosexual male.

“We’re outraged by middle-aged men in trench coats cyber-flashing teens!” the Party of Feigned Morality declares. But if the explicit exchanges are spoken, written, or taught in the sacred name of AIDS education or tolerance training, the acts rise from the sordid to the sublime.

Consider instruction given to children as young as 12 at a March 2000 conference sponsored by -- now get this -- the Massachusetts Department of Education. (At least Foley wasn’t paid to come on to kids.)

Designated a statewide “Teach-Out,” one well-attended session was titled, “What They Didn’t Tell You About Queer Sex and Sexuality in Health Class.” Here children were instructed in such good-sex practices as the placing of hands in various body cavities.

The conference was secretly taped. Here’s one exchange that took place between a student and an instructor:

Educator: “What orifices are we talking about?”

(Student hesitates)

Educator: “Don’t be shy, honey; you can do it.”

Student: “Your mouth.”

Educator: “Okay.”

Student: “Your ass.”

Educator: “There you go.”

Student: “Your pussy. That kind of place.”

Comparing Foley’s instant messages (“What are you wearing?” “Don’t forget to measure for me.”)  to this smut is like comparing Flopsey, Mopsey, and Cottontail to The Illustrated Marquis de Sade.

So the newly minted Party of Virtue, the Legion of Decency reborn, insists that Hastert must go and Republicans must lose control of the House because -- unbeknownst to them -- a pathetic little perv from the Sunshine State sent suggestive instant messages to pages.

Will the Democrats now turn over a new page and denounce efforts to abolish age of consent laws, support the Boy Scouts of America, and push for passage of the Child Custody Protection Act?

Fat chance.

As soon as the election is over, their moral indignation over adults who come on to kids will be forgotten faster than Clinton’s campaign pledge of a middle-class tax cut or O.J. Simpson’s promise to spend the rest of his days tracking down the “real killers” of Nicole.

Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website, DonFeder.com.
FrontPageMagazine ~ Don Feder ** Democrats Find Their Values Issue

The current democrat party leadership represents the worse values this country has ever seen. They have the most corrupt agendas throughout their party and their various left-wing sidekick causes. They are a party who tries to disguise their corruption as progress. They think they have progressive values when they really have corrupting values.

Since the sixties they have put forth a movement of corrupting the values of America. The democrats have stood for every sexual corruption to come down the pike.

So what do democrats stand for today?

Corrupting the opinion of the American people about what natural sexuality is.

Corrupting our children's sexuality and our corrupting our parental rights to have any say.

Corrupting our Constitution by pretending that we have no right to have representation, pretending the issues must be decided in the Courts to corrupt our vote so it means nothing.

Corrupting our National Security by screaming over and over that we ourselves are the enemy and by sticking up for the rights of our enemies.

Corrupting our right to live freely, making a good life for ourselves, and to prosper by taxing the living daylights out of us.

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 3:03 AM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 14 October 2006 8:04 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  d'oh

NEW YORK -- Air America Radio, a liberal talk and news radio network that features the comedian Al Franken, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, a network official told The AP.

The network had denied rumors just a month ago that it would file for bankruptcy. On Friday, Air America spokeswoman Jaime Horn told The Associated Press that the filing became necessary only recently after negotiations with a creditor from the company's early days broke down.

The network will stay on the air while it resolves issues with its creditors, Horn said. In addition to Franken, the network also features shows from liberal talk show host Randi Rhodes and Jerry Springer.

Horn declined to name the creditor with which talks had reached a logjam. The company will operate in the interim with funding from its current investor group.

Air America also said Friday it had named Scott Elberg as its new CEO. Elberg, a former general manager of the radio station WLIB in New York, has been with the network since May of last year.

The filing marked the latest turbulence at the liberal talk radio network, which went on the air two years ago. This April, Danny Goldberg stepped down as CEO and was replaced by an interim chief executive from a management consulting firm.

"Nobody likes filing for bankruptcy," Elberg said in a statement. "However, this move will enable us to concentrate on informing and entertaining our audience during the coming months."

Breitbart.com ~ Associated Press - Seth Sutel ** Air America Radio Files for Chapter 11

Related: The Smoking Gun ** AIR AMERICA filing: Assets: $4.3 million --
Liabilities: $20.2 million -- 'Al Franken, Inc.' is owed $360,749.98

The Radio Equalizer ~ Brian Maloney ** BLAME US ANYWAY -
Air America Failure Is An O'Reilly/FOX News Plot!

The Radio Equalizer ~ Brian Maloney ** NO DEAL - Drobny's Air America Purchase Plan Shelved

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 3:42 PM EDT

Updated: Friday, 13 October 2006 8:11 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  special

Life as you've never seen it

Famed photog takes us inside the human experience

Photo Gallery: LIFE photos by Lennart Nilsson

It's a journey through the human body never imagined. Here are the most stunning, detailed photos of new human life ever photographed - published in the United States for the first time.

Titled "Life," the collection of oversize color images from scientific photographer Lennart Nilsson magnifies the wonders of the human body like never before.

Nilsson is best known for his iconic 1965 Life magazine cover shot of a living human embryo - the first time that life at such an early stage was captured on camera.

Using the world's most powerful electron microscope in Sweden, Nilsson has documented everything from the inner ventricles of the brain and plaque deposits on teeth, to the HIV virus encompassing a white blood cell - all blown up to show exacting detail.

But most impressive is the step-by-step photos of a fetus forming, shown in the photo gallery below. While such images won't quell the abortion debate anytime soon, their beauty alone deserves pause and admiration.

NY Daily News ~ Julian Kesner ** Life as you've never seen it

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 2:01 AM EDT

Updated: Friday, 13 October 2006 2:07 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

Deceptive Dimocrats, claiming to be conservatives

The numbers of political commercials on TV and radio are starting to escalate. I see now why some people vote for Demented-crats. Here's the content of a commercial they're running. I've seen more than a few of them with the candidate claiming conservatism. Must be a good thing, right? On the other hand, the fact folks claim to be conservative might tell you something, no matter how brainwashed you are, nobody claims, "Hey! I'm a liberal".

In a particular local ad, they show the candidate in military uniform, and state he joined after 9/11 to fight terrorism ... he has conservative values ... he's pro GUN, he's PRO-LIFE, heck, he's against amnesty for illegals. They never mention his party throughout the entire ad, and in the last few frames of the ad, so much small print covers a third of the screen at the bottom, you can't possibly read it. You guessed it ... A DEMENTED-CRAT. WOW, seems this guy is for everything the Demented-crat party is not. How does he plan on accomplishing anything? His party is far left. Either he's a liar about his views, which is indicative of his deceptive ad, or, I'm Santa Claus.

Well, yesterday, none other than Rush Limbaugh reenforced attention to this issue and commented on some former pro QB who is running as a DIM, demonizing his conservative Republican opponent by saying he was pro-illegal amnesty. This so called DIMocrat, claimed to be pro-life, pro-gun, pro-religion, and whatever else is a conservative value or issue. You can't be a conservative and uphold present DIMocrat issues, and espouse conservative values without being a LIAR. This is a strategy by the DIMs to lie to voters, portray themselves as conservatives, simply to get elected. There is not a DIM who can vote their conscience on any issue, if the Demented-crat leadership is voting in another direction. Ask Joe Leiberman.

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 7:00 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  surprised

Houdini pony's epic journey (Full Image)

An intrepid pony broke out of a locked, fenced stable and ran three miles to the home of his 12-year-old mistress.

Basil's epic journey, through the Swansea Valley in the dark, began when he was re-stabled, reports the BBC.

The 18-year-old Welsh cob used his teeth to slide his paddock door lock open before jumping a fence.

He then had to pass along 14 different roads in the dark en route to the farm in Cilybebyll, near Pontardawe.

Farmer Lyn Evans said his 12-year-old daughter Emily burst out crying "with a mixture of surprise and relief" when she saw Basil.

He said: "He had to pass 14 different roads on the journey home. Then he walked down on to the A474, which is a busy road, turned left and crossed the carriageway.

"He would have had to ignore numerous turn-offs, choose the right direction at a crossroads and then make it back to the farm."

Basil had been restabled in Rhos, three miles away, two weeks before.

"Emily rides him in the fields at the farm but we thought it was better to keep him at the stable so she could practice her show jumping," Mr Evans added.

"But we took her to visit him every evening after school and she had tucked him up in the normal way the night he set out."

Ananova.com UK ** Houdini pony's epic journey

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 5:33 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

'Foley problem' surfaces for Ohio Democrats

Scandal puts spotlight on gubernatorial candidate's vote on pedophilia

In the wake of the Mark Foley scandal, questions are circulating below the radar screen in Ohio about the past record of Democratic Rep. Ted Strickland on pedophilia.

Strickland is the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Ohio running against Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell.

The issue surfaced Dec. 15, 2005, when the left-leaning Athens News reported on an anonymous letter-writing campaign to Democratic voters citing Strickland's vote as "present" and not in support of the 1999 House Concurrent Resolution 107 that condemned an American Psychological Association study supporting "nonnegative sexual interactions between adults and adolescents."

The APA study claimed scientific evidence established that sex between adults and underage minors might be positive for children.

HCR 107 passed with a strong bipartisan coalition of 355 congressmen voting "yea" and only 13 congressmen, including Strickland, voting "present."

Strickland's refusal to vote "yea" has been interpreted as implicit support for pedophilia, as he was given a chance to join an overwhelming congressional bipartisan majority voting to condemn the APA study.

In the Democratic primary, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Brian Flannery openly challenged Strickland on his HCR 107 vote. Flannery still has posted on his gubernatorial website Strickland's July 27, 1999, speech on the House floor explaining his refusal to condemn the APA pedophilia study.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, it troubles me that sometimes in this Chamber we stand and say things that we ought not to say. We criticize people that we have no right to criticize.

We recently voted to condemn a scientific study and an organization, an organization that has done as much as any organization in this country to fight child abuse.

WND Managing Editor David Kupelian in his best-selling book "The Marketing of Evil" has noted a tendency since sex researcher Alfred C. Kinsey published his sexual behavior books in the late 1940s and early 1950s to use flawed social science research to endorse sexual practices traditionally considered deviant.

Bloggers in Ohio argue that the behavior of the Democratic Party in Washington expressing outrage over Foley's e-mails demands "a full vetting" of the seven-year old controversy over Strickland's refusal to take a strong stand against the APA study arguing that pedophilia can be beneficial to children.

The argument is that Democrats are pursuing a double standard, condemning Republicans on sexual misconduct issues while giving Democratic candidates a pass.

The HRC 107 controversy resurfacing in the last month of the Ohio gubernatorial campaign also has brought back another controversy over sexual misconduct that first was launched by Flannery, Strickland's Democratic challenger.

On March 17, during the primary campaign, Lynn Hulsey reported in the Dayton Daily News that Flannery had accused Strickland of hiring from 1997 to 1999 a male congressional and campaign staffer who had been convicted of exposing himself to children. As Hulsey wrote:

According to Athens police, the man's case stems from 1994, when he was arrested for public indecency after several children reported he'd exposed himself. Police records show he was found guilty, although the exact charge is unclear.

Flannery also accused Strickland of taking the man with him to Italy after his 1998 congressional campaign. Again, Hulsey wrote:

Strickland said campaign workers planned to treat themselves to the trip if Strickland won, but as it turned out only Strickland and the man were able to go.

Hulsey reported Strickland had learned of the sexual misconduct charge against his employee late in the 1998 campaign through an anonymous letter, but he discounted the letter since it was sent anonymously. Hulsey quoted Strickland as saying "perhaps" he should have pursued the matter more aggressively, but at the time he took no action. The man left Strickland's office of his own accord in 1999, after the reported trip to Italy with Strickland.

After the Foley scandal, these resurfacing charges against Strickland are creating a firestorm among Ohio's political blogs.

Among Strickland's endorsers is the choice of Ohio's openly pro-homosexuality PAC, the Equality Ohio Campaign Fund, or EOCF. In endorsing Strickland, EOCF emphasized his service as a minister, a psychologist and a professor, commenting:

Representative Strickland has long been an ally of and advocate for LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bi-sexual-Transvestite) people. He maintained a 100% rating with the Human Rights Campaign's Congressional Scorecard while in Congress. He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA).

The EOCF noted Ted Strickland is married to Frances Strickland who lives in Simpsonville, Ky. The EOCF closed its endorsement by commenting that Frances "is an educational psychologist and author of a widely-used screening test for kindergarten-age children."

Related offer: Get Ken Blackwell's "Rebuilding America: A Prescription for Creating Strong Families, Building the Wealth of Working People, And Redeveloping Our Cities."

World Net Daily.com ** 'Foley problem' surfaces for Ohio Democrats

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 3:47 PM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 12 October 2006 4:33 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  d'oh

VIDEO: Reid land deal may violate rules

Full Image: Sen. Harry Reid's two lots on the outskirts of Las Vegas were never owned by the government, but the piece of land joining Reid's property to the street corner -- a key to the shopping center deal -- came from the government in 1994.

Democrat leader reaped $1.1 million from sale of land he didn't own

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.

In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.

The Nevada Democrat's deal was engineered by Jay Brown, a longtime friend and former casino lawyer whose name surfaced in a major political bribery trial this summer and in other prior organized crime investigations. He's never been charged with wrongdoing -- except for a 1981 federal securities complaint that was settled out of court.

Land deeds obtained by The Associated Press during a review of Reid's business dealings show:

The deal began in 1998 when Reid bought undeveloped residential property on Las Vegas' booming outskirts for about $400,000. Reid bought one lot outright, and a second parcel jointly with Brown. One of the sellers was a developer who was benefiting from a government land swap that Reid supported. The seller never talked to Reid.

In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price to a limited liability corporation created by Brown. The senator didn't disclose the sale on his annual public ethics report or tell Congress he had any stake in Brown's company. He continued to report to Congress that he personally owned the land.

After getting local officials to rezone the property for a shopping center, Brown's company sold the land in 2004 to other developers and Reid took $1.1 million of the proceeds, nearly tripling the senator's investment. Reid reported it to Congress as a personal land sale.

The complex dealings allowed Reid to transfer ownership, legal liability and some tax consequences to Brown's company without public knowledge, but still collect a seven-figure payoff nearly three years later.

Reid hung up the phone when questioned about the deal during an AP interview last week.

The senator's aides said no money changed hands in 2001 and that Reid instead got an ownership stake in Brown's company equal to the value of his land. Reid continued to pay taxes on the land and didn't disclose the deal because he considered it a "technical transfer," they said.

They also said they have no documents proving Reid's stake in the company because it was an informal understanding between friends.

The 1998 purchase "was a normal business transaction at market prices," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. "There were several legal steps associated with the investment during those years that did not alter Senator Reid's actual ownership interest in the land."

Senate ethics rules require lawmakers to disclose on their annual ethics report all transactions involving investment properties -- regardless of profit or loss -- and to report any ownership stake in companies.

Kent Cooper, who oversaw government disclosure reports for federal candidates for two decades in the Federal Election Commission, said Reid's failure to report the 2001 sale and his ties to Brown's company violated Senate rules.

"This is very, very clear," Cooper said. "Whether you make a profit or a loss you've got to put that transaction down so the public, voters, can see exactly what kind of money is moving to or from a member of Congress."

"It is especially disconcerting when you have a member of the leadership, of either party, not putting in the effort to make sure this is a complete and accurate report," said Cooper. "That says something to other members. It says something to the Ethics Committee."

Other parts of the deal -- such as the informal handling of property taxes -- raise questions about possible gifts or income reportable to Congress and the IRS, ethics experts said.

Stanley Brand, former Democratic chief counsel of the House, said Reid should have disclosed the 2001 sale and that his omission fits a larger culture in Congress where lawmakers aren't following or enforcing their own rules.

"It's like everything else we've seen in last two years. If it is not enforced, people think it's not enforced and they get lax and sloppy," Brand said.

Concealed from Congress
Reid and his wife, Landra, personally signed the deeds selling their full interest in the property to Brown's company, Patrick Lane LLC, for the same $400,000 they paid in 1998, records show.

Despite the sale, Reid continued to report on his public ethics reports that he personally owned the land until it was sold again in 2004. His disclosure forms to Congress do not mention an interest in Patrick Lane or the company's role in the 2004 sale.

AP first learned of the transaction from a former Reid aide who expressed concern the deal hadn't been properly reported.

Reid isn't listed anywhere on Patrick Lane's corporate filings with Nevada, even though the land he sold accounted for three-quarters of the company's assets. Brown is listed as the company's manager. Reid's office said Nevada law didn't require Reid to be mentioned in the filings.

"We have been friends for over 35 years. We didn't need a written agreement between us," Brown said.

The informalities didn't stop there.

Taxes handled loosely
Brown sometimes paid a share of the local property taxes on the lot Reid owned outright between 1998 and 2001, while Reid sometimes paid more than his share of taxes on the second parcel they co-owned.

And the two men continued to pay the property taxes from their personal checking accounts even after the land was sold to Patrick Lane in 2001, records show.

Brown said Reid first approached him in 1997 about land purchases and the two men considered the two lots a single investment.

"During the years of ownership, there may have been occasions that he advanced the property taxes, or that I advanced the property taxes," Brown said. "The bottom line is that between ourselves we always settled up and each of us paid our respective percentages."

Ultimately, Reid paid about 74% of the property taxes, slightly less than his actual 75.1% ownership stake, according to canceled checks kept at the local assessor's office. One year, the property tax payments were delinquent and resulted in a small penalty, the records show.

Ethics experts said such informality raises questions about whether any of Brown's tax payments amounted to a benefit for Reid. "It might be a gift," Cooper said.

Brand said the IRS might view the handling of the land taxes as undisclosed income to Reid but it was unlikely to prompt an investigation. "If someone is paying a liability you owe, there may be some income imputed. But at that level, it's pretty small dollars," he said.

Land swapped
Nevada land deeds show Reid and his wife first bought the property in January 1998 in a proposed subdivision created partly with federal lands transferred by the Interior Department to private developers.

Reid's two lots were never owned by the government, but the piece of land joining Reid's property to the street corner -- a key to the shopping center deal -- came from the government in 1994.

One of the sellers was Fred Lessman, a vice president of land acquisition at Perma-Bilt Homes.

Around the time of the 1998 sale, Lessman and his company were completing a complicated federal land transfer that also involved an Arizona-based developer named Del Webb Corp.

In the deal, Del Webb and Perma-Bilt purchased environmentally sensitive lands in the Lake Tahoe area, transferred them to the government and then got in exchange several pieces of valuable Las Vegas land.

Lessman was personally involved, writing a March 1997 letter to Interior lobbying for the deal. "This exchange has been through many trials and tribulations ... we do not need to create any more stumbling blocks," Lessman wrote.

For years, Reid also had been encouraging Interior to make land swaps on behalf of Del Webb, where one of his former aides worked.

In 1994, Reid wrote a letter with other Nevada lawmakers on behalf of Del Webb, and then met personally with a top federal land official in Nevada. That official claimed in media reports he felt pressured by the senator. Reid denied any pressure.

The next year, Reid collected $18,000 in political donations from Del Webb's political action committee and employees. Del Webb's efforts to get federal land dragged on.

In December 1996, Reid wrote a second letter on behalf of Del Webb, urging Interior to answer the company's concerns. The deal came together in summer and fall 1997, with Perma-Bilt joining in.

In January 1998 -- just days before he bought his land -- Reid applauded the Lake Tahoe land transfers, saying they would create the "gateway to paradise."

None of Reid's letters mentioned Perma-Bilt. Reid's office said the senator never met Lessman nor discussed the Lake Tahoe land transfer or his personal land purchase. A real estate attorney handled the 1998 sale at arms-length, aides said.

"This land investment was completely unrelated to federal land swaps that took place in the mid-1990's," Manley said.

Lessman said he never talked to Reid or asked for his help before the 1998 land sale, and only met the senator years later at a public event. "Any suggestion that the land sale between Senator Reid and myself is somehow tied in with the Perma-Bilt exchange is completely absurd," Lessman said.

Rezoning
Clark County intended for the property Reid owned to be used solely for new housing, records show. Just days before Reid sold the parcels to Brown's company, Brown sought permission in May 2001 to rezone the properties so a shopping center could be built.

Career zoning officials objected, saying the request was "inconsistent" with Clark County's master development plan. The town board in Spring Valley, where Reid's property was located, also voted 4-1 to reject the rezoning.

Brown persisted. The Clark County zoning board followed by the Clark County Commission voted to overrule the recommendation and approve commercial zoning. Such votes were common at the time.

Before the approval in September 2001, Brown's consultant told commissioners that Reid was involved. "Mr. Brown's partner is Harry Reid, so I think we have people in this community who you can trust to go forward and put a quality project before you," the consultant testified.

With the rezoning granted, Patrick Lane pursued the shopping center deal. On Jan. 20, 2004, the company sold the property to developers for $1.6 million. Today, a multimillion dollar retail complex sits on the land.

On Jan. 21, 2004, Reid received more than $1.1 million of the sale proceeds. Reid disclosed the money the following year on his Senate ethics report as a personal sale of land, not mentioning Patrick Lane.

Business partner's past
Brown has been a behind-the-scenes power broker in Nevada for years, donating to Democrats, Republicans and charities. He represented a major casino in legal cases and dabbled in Nevada's booming real estate market.

Brown befriended Reid four decades ago, even before Reid served as chairman of the Nevada gaming commission and decided cases involving Brown's clients.

Brown's name has surfaced in federal investigations involving organized crime, casinos and political bribery since the 1980s.

This past summer, federal prosecutors introduced testimony at the bribery trial of former Clark County Commission chairman Dario Herrara that Brown had taken money from a Las Vegas strip club owner to influence the commission. Herrara was convicted of taking kickbacks. Brown was never called as a witness.

Brown declined to discuss past cases where his name surfaced, including Herrara. "The federal government investigated this whole matter thoroughly, and there was never any implication of impropriety on my part," he said.

USA Today ~ Associated Press - John Solomon, Kathleen Hennessey **
Democrat leader reaped $1.1 million from sale of land he didn't own

UPDATE: SENATE DEM LEADER HANGS UP ON AP WHEN QUESTIONED ABOUT SWEETHEART LAND DEAL

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 3:17 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 12 October 2006 3:55 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  cheeky

Why the Left Dropped the Foley Story Early

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The Drive-Bys cannot let go of the Foley story. The Foley story is already starting to fizzle. The only thing keeping it alive is Hastert going on television and talk about it. Somebody needs to tell him: "Issue written statements. If you want to assure everybody that anybody who knew anything before X about Foley gets canned, put out a written statement and be done with it. But you give them video, and you give them a whole day to keep that story alive and so forth." But this story came too soon in their cycle.

According to The Prowler in the American Spectator, "One of the stories going around Democrat Party circles is that party operatives like Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, CREW, and American Family Voices weren't quite ready for prime-time with the opposition research materials they had gathered for this election cycle. According to one political consultant with ties to the DNC and other party organizations, quote, 'I'm hearing the Foley story wasn't supposed to drop until about ten days out of the election. It was supposed to be the coup de grâce, not the first shot.'"

So, Rush, why did they drop it out there? "Another DNC operative told the American Spectator, bad polling numbers across the country. 'Bush's national security speeches were getting traction beyond the base, gas prices were dropping, economic outlook surveys were positive. We were seeing bad Democratic numbers in Missouri, Michigan, Washington, Arizona, Florida Pennsylvania, even parts of New York,' says the operative. 'A month before, we were looking at launching an offensive against Republicans who according to polling barely held a five-seat majority if the election were to be held at the end of August. That was doable for Democrats from September 1 to November 7. But by mid-September, Republicans were back to having held seats for a 15-seat majority." This is according to Democrat polling. "In the Senate, it looked like a wash. We held seats in Florida, Nebraska, picked up seats in Pennsylvania, but that that was about it. They were holding in Missouri and possibly within reach of Maryland and Washington. We were looking at a disaster in the making,'" said this Democrat operative. "So how to remedy? 'You pull out the bright shiny things that distract the average American voter away from the issues we all know they care about -- national security, anti-terrorism -- and focus on the ugly: Foley and Iraq.'"

So it's exactly what I said to you in the first hour: the Democratic Party cannot afford elections on issues. You need to ask yourself issues questions in determining whether or not you're going to vote and how you're going to vote. Now... "Conventional wisdom had Republicans seeing improving numbers in races across the country throughout the month of September, after Congress spent the month of August and September at home campaigning, but some Republicans disagree that the polls were improving that dramatically. At any rate, what no one disputes was that the GOP was sensing some wind at its back and reinvigorated base with Bush on the stump, Congress quietly at home not creating any more messes for the media to hit on. Now, of course, the Foley story has left a far bigger mess a month out of the election than anyone had expected." This is something that they attempted to drop ten days out. They had to go early with it. They cannot afford elections on issues.

Now, does the Foley story have legs? Can they make it last through the election? The odds I think, are no. And the main reason is, unless they've got something really, really brand-new that nobody knows anything about yet, all they can do is recycle a bunch of prurient, irrelevant sex details after Foley has already been gone 12 days now. People's emotional reservoirs are not that large -- and I don't think the American people have the emotional reservoir to continue to care about the Foley mess more than anything else for four more weeks. But that's the task the Democrats have. They have to do everything they can to keep this election off of issues. They have to keep it off of taxes going up; they have to keep it off of surrendering in the war on terror and the war in Iraq. They have to keep this election off of things that matter. The economy. They have nothing to stand on. They have no ideas or issues on any of those issues, none that they're willing to admit publicly.

Now, if somebody could just get Denny Hastert off television and somebody get a message to these stupid Republicans going on TV predicting their own defeat, then this thing will turn around like that (snapping fingers) overnight. Offense, offense, offense. The perspective needs to be, what happens if the Democrats lose? They haven't won a House election since 1992. What happens if they lose another one? They've the ones that have raised the bar to the point so high now that they don't have to win both houses or it's a loss and a humiliating one to boot.

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...
(Prowler: Saved by Foley. Why Democrat hit squads dropped the big one early)
(American Thinker: Prowler reports CREW/Dem collaboration)
(American Thinker: Mark Foley is Not Important)
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
Rush Limbaugh.com ** Why the Left Dropped the Foley Story Early
Related: Rush Limbaugh.com ** What Happens If the Democrats Lose?

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 3:02 AM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 11 October 2006 3:35 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  party time!

Index sees fourth record high in two weeks; price of oil under $59

NEW YORK -- The Dow Jones industrial average set its fourth record close in two weeks Tuesday, finishing less than a point above its previous closing high.

After a lackluster day of trading, broader indexes also rose slightly, putting the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index back near its 5 1/2 year highs.

Investors nudged stocks slightly higher in gains in advance of Alcoa’s after-the-bell quarterly financial report which traditionally marks the start of earnings season.

“If I’m an investor and I didn’t already buy, I don’t know what’s going to make me buy now,” said Doug Sandler, chief equity strategist, Wachovia Securities. “We’ll wait for the facts to come in when earnings come out.”

The Dow Jones industrial average closed the day up 9.36 points, or 0.08 percent. Its previous record, set Thursday, was 11,866.69. The broader Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index rose 2.76 points, or 0.20 percent, while the Nasdaq composite index added 3.66 points, or 0.16 percent.

Earnings season began in earnest Tuesday when the aluminum maker Alcoa Inc. reported an 86 percent jump in third-quarter profit after the closing bell.

Investors will be watching earnings keenly and they’re likely to take a hard line toward companies that either merely meet analysts’ expectations or disappoint by however narrow a margin. Wall Street is split between those who feel stocks are at a top and those who feel the market has further to run.

September, which is historically the weakest month of the year, was one of the strongest months this year. The market is coming off the strongest three-month period in a decade, said Scott Fullman, director of investment strategy for Hapoalim Securities USA.

“When you combine all these factors, you can understand why the bull’s a little tired,” Fullman said.

Oil prices closed sharply lower, with a barrel of light sweet crude dropping $1.44 to settle at $58.52 on the New York Mercantile Exchange, its lowest close since Feb. 16.

Bond prices fell sharply, with the yield on the 10-year Treasury note at 4.76 percent, up from 4.70 percent Friday. The U.S. bond market was closed Monday for Columbus Day. The U.S. dollar rose against other major currencies. Gold prices were mostly lower.

In company news, biotech drugmaker ImClone Systems Inc. rose $1.19 to $31.09 after it said its chairman and another board member resigned, following a week of squabbles between the company and billionaire financier Carl Icahn, who owns about 14 percent of ImClone.

Icahn said last month that half the board should be removed because directors were unable to accept a $36 per share offer for the company from a bidder that The New York Times identified as Sanofi-Aventis SA. Sanofi fell 24 cents to $43.35.

Google Inc., which confirmed late Monday its plans to buy Internet video sharing Web site YouTube Inc. for $1.65 billion in stock, fell $2.35 to $426.65 after its 2 percent rise in trading Monday.

Grocer and food distributor Supervalu Inc. rose $1.38 to $32.37 after it reported second-quarter profits had nearly quadrupled from the year-ago period. Supervalu, which attributed much of its earnings increase to its purchase of Albertson’s grocery stores, also boosted its guidance for the year.

Overseas, Japan’s Nikkei stock average rose 0.25 percent. Britain’s FTSE 100 rose 0.69 percent, Germany’s DAX index gained 0.55 percent and France’s CAC-40 rose 0.47 percent.

MSNBC.com ~ Associated Press ** Dow industrials climb to new record close

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 2:01 AM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 11 October 2006 2:15 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink