Russia and the world have lost a great and courageous journalist. The killing of Anna Politkovskaya on October 7 is horrifying and shocking, but not unexpected. Read Katrina vanden Heuvel's tribute to a fearless chronicler of the mass executions of Chechen civilians at the hands of Russian troops and security forces. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=128465
You can also tune in to Democracy Now today (Monday) morning at 6&9am PST to hear vanden Heuvel talk about Politkovskaya's life and work with Amy Goodman. Check out the show's website to see if a radio station near you is one of the more than 500 outlets coast to coast broadcasting the program or listen online. In So. Calif., on KPFK, 90.7 fm. *** Newsweek - Oct 7, 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15167150/site/newsweek/ A Political Limbo How low can the Republicans go? By Marcus Mabry Newsweek Web Exclusive Oct. 7, 2006 - Come hell or high water-ran the conventional wisdom-Republicans could rely on two issues to win elections: the war on terror and values. Then came Mark Foley. The drip-drip-drip of scandal surrounding the former Congressman from Florida, which became a deluge this week, now threatens to sink Republican hopes of keeping control of Congress, says the NEWSWEEK poll out today. And that was the good news for the GOP. More worrisome still, the Foley fiasco is jeopardizing the party's monopoly on faith and power. For the first time since 2001, the NEWSWEEK poll shows that more Americans trust the Democrats than the GOP on moral values and the war on terror. Fully 53 percent of Americans want the Democrats to win control of Congress next month, including 10 percent of Republicans, compared to just 35 percent who want the GOP to retain power. If the election were held today, 51 percent of likely voters would vote for the Democrat in their district versus 39 percent who would vote for the Republican. And while the race is closer among male voters (46 percent for the Democrats vs. 42 percent for the Republicans), the Democrats lead among women voters 56 to 34 percent. The pace of the news on the Foley scandal is making it difficult for Republicans to stop their slide. On Thursday, House Speaker Dennis Hastert declared that mistakes were made in handling the Foley case and that he would remain in his post to make sure the misdeeds were thoroughly investigated. Almost immediately, ABC News reported that three more former pages had come forward to say that they had received suggestive e-mails and instant messages from Foley. And just as Republicans were attempting to form a united front to paint the timing of the Foley revelations as Democratic dirty tricks-What did Nancy Pelosi know and when did she know it?-the Republicans got a fratricidal shot out of the dark-on Iraq. Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner declared that the United States had 90 days to quell the violence in Iraq, or risk losing the war. To top it off, on Friday an aide to Karl Rove resigned over the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling and corruption scandal. Meanwhile, the president's approval rating has fallen to a new all-time low for the Newsweek poll: 33 percent, down from an already anemic 36 percent in August. Only 25 percent of Americans are satisfied with the direction of the country, while 67 percent say they are not. Foley's disgrace certainly plays a role in Republican unpopularity: 27 percent of registered voters say the scandal and how the Republican leadership in the House handled it makes them less likely to vote for a Republican Congressional candidate; but 65 percent say it won't make much difference in determining how they vote. And Americans are equally divided over whether or not Speaker Hastert should resign over mishandling the situation (43 percent say he should, but 36 percent say he shouldn't). The scandal's more significant impact seems to be a widening of the yawning credibility gap developing between the President, his party and the nation. While 52 percent of Americans believe Hastert was aware of Foley's actions and tried to cover them up, it's part of a larger loss of faith in Republican leadership, thanks mostly to the war in Iraq. For instance, for the first time in the NEWSWEEK poll, a majority of Americans now believe the Bush administration knowingly misled the American people in building its case for war against Saddam Hussein: 58 percent vs. 36 percent who believe it didn't. And pessimism over Iraq is at record highs on every score: nearly two in three Americans, 64 percent, believe the United States is losing ground there; 66 percent say the war has not made America safer from terrorism (just 29 percent believe it has); and 53 percent believe it was a mistake to go to war at all, again the first time the NEWSWEEK poll has registered a majority in that camp. As a result, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's approval rating has fallen to just 30 percent, and more Americans believe he should resign than remain, 48 percent vs. 37 percent. And while a plurality of Americans approve of the job Condoleezza Rice is doing as Secretary of State, 48 percent vs. 32 percent who disapprove, on the heels of Bob Woodward's bestselling critique of the Bush administration, "State of Denial," a solid majority, 58 percent, believe Rice did not pay as much attention as she should have been expected to pay to the domestic terror threat posed by al Qaeda before 9/11. (Only 22 percent believe she did.) Democrats now outdistance Republicans on every single issue that could decide voters' choices come Nov. 7. In addition to winning-for the first time in the NEWSWEEK poll-on the question of which party is more trusted to fight the war on terror (44 to 37 percent) and moral values (42 percent to 36 percent), the Democrats now inspire more trust than the GOP on handling Iraq (47 to 34); the economy (53 to 31); health care (57 to 24); federal spending and the deficit (53 to 29); gas and oil prices (56 to 23); and immigration (43 to 34). And even if the Republicans manage to bail out their ship before the midterms, they'll have a hard time matching their one-time strengths to voters' priorities. A third of registered voters, 33 percent, say the single most important issue that will decide their vote will be Iraq; compare to 20 percent who say the economy and only 12 percent who say terrorism, which ties with health care. The good news for the GOP? The election is still four weeks away. © 2006 MSNBC.com ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ *** http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/opinion/09krugman.html?th&emc=th The Paranoid Style By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: October 9, 2006 Last week Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, explained the real cause of the Foley scandal. "The people who want to see this thing blow up," he said, "are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros." Most news reports, to the extent they mentioned Mr. Hastert's claim at all, seemed to treat it as a momentary aberration. But it wasn't his first outburst along these lines. Back in 2004, Mr. Hastert said: "You know, I don't know where George Soros gets his money. I don't know where - if it comes overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from." Does Mr. Hastert really believe that George Soros and his operatives, conspiring with the evil news media, are responsible for the Foley scandal? Yes, he probably does. For one thing, demonization of Mr. Soros is widespread in right-wing circles. One can only imagine what people like Mr. Hastert or Tony Blankley, the editorial page editor of The Washington Times, who once described Mr. Soros as "a Jew who figured out a way to survive the Holocaust," say behind closed doors. More generally, Mr. Hastert is a leading figure in a political movement that exemplifies what the historian Richard Hofstadter famously called "the paranoid style in American politics." Hofstadter's essay introducing the term was inspired by his observations of the radical right-wingers who seized control of the Republican Party in 1964. Today, the movement that nominated Barry Goldwater controls both Congress and the White House. As a result, political paranoia - the "sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy" Hofstadter described - has gone mainstream. To read Hofstadter's essay today is to be struck by the extent to which he seems to be describing the state of mind not of a lunatic fringe, but of key figures in our political and media establishment. The "paranoid spokesman," wrote Hofstadter, sees things "in apocalyptic terms. ... He is always manning the barricades of civilization." Sure enough, Dick Cheney says that "the war on terror is a battle for the future of civilization." According to Hofstadter, for the paranoids, "what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil," and because "the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated." Three days after 9/11, President Bush promised to "rid the world of evil." The paranoid "demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals" - instead of focusing on Al Qaeda, we'll try to remake the Middle East and eliminate a vast "axis of evil" - "and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid's sense of frustration." Iraq, anyone? The current right-wing explanation for what went wrong in Iraq closely echoes Joseph McCarthy's explanation for the Communist victory in China, which he said was "the product of a great conspiracy" at home. According to the right, things didn't go wrong because the invasion was a mistake, or because Donald Rumsfeld didn't send enough troops, or because the occupation was riddled with cronyism and corruption. No, it's all because the good guys were stabbed in the back. Democrats, who undermined morale with their negative talk, and the liberal media, which refused to report the good news from Iraq, are responsible for the quagmire. You might think it would be harder to claim that traitors are aiding our foreign enemies today than it was during the McCarthy era, when domestic liberals and Communist regimes could be portrayed as part of a vast left-wing conspiracy. What does the domestic enemy, which Bill O'Reilly identifies as the "secular-progressive movement," have to do with the religious fanatics who attacked America five years ago? But that's easy: according to Mr. O'Reilly, "Osama bin Laden and his cohorts have got to be cheering on the S-P movement," because "both outfits believe that the United States of America is fundamentally a bad place." Which brings us back to the Foley affair. The immediate response by nearly everyone in the Republican establishment - wild claims, without a shred of evidence behind them, that the whole thing is a Democratic conspiracy - may sound crazy. But that response is completely in character for a movement that from the beginning has been dominated by the paranoid style. And here's the scary part: that movement runs our government. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
