Life in OUR America, Volume 6, The Livyjr Files Options

[jeffmoskin]

Eliot Spitzer does not have strong record of prosecuting government corruption ....

And he has the appearance of fighting white-collar crime .....

Which is a shell game ....

October 20, 2006
Ex-Stock Exchange Chief Told to Return Millions
By LANDON THOMAS Jr.

A New York judge ruled yesterday that Richard A. Grasso, a former chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, would have to return as much as $100 million he received as part of a fiercely contested $139.5 million payout.

The judge, Justice Charles E. Ramos of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, said that Mr. Grasso did not disclose to his fellow directors on the board of the exchange the extent to which his soaring compensation had caused his pension and savings to balloon in size and that he violated his contract by withdrawing $87 million before his retirement. Interest and money from a separate retirement account would raise the total.

The ruling was not the judge’s final word on the dispute — he did not directly address the central claim in the lawsuit brought by Eliot Spitzer, the New York attorney general, that Mr. Grasso’s compensation was unreasonable under the state’s not-for-profit law. But the ruling bolstered Mr. Spitzer’s main argument in support of that claim — that the exchange directors were not fully informed about Mr. Grasso’s compensation.

Whether his pay was reasonable or not is to be decided at a subsequent trial — one that would likely focus on the $80 million he was paid between 1999 and 2001.

Mr. Grasso said yesterday that he would appeal, which would further delay a nonjury trial that had been scheduled to start last month.

In September 2003, Mr. Grasso was forced to resign as chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, the world’s largest stock market, amid an outcry over the disclosure of his $139.5 million compensation package, all of it tied to accrued pension and retirement savings. John S. Reed, Mr. Grasso’s temporary successor, commissioned an inquiry into Mr. Grasso’s pay. That report was passed on to Mr. Spitzer, who sued in 2004. Since then the two sides have been embroiled in a drawn-out series of legal skirmishes.

The ruling is a major legal setback for Mr. Grasso, who for the last three years has battled to make the case that the exchange’s board was well aware of all aspects of his pay and approved the package accordingly.

Justice Ramos also ruled yesterday against Mr. Grasso’s claim that he was terminated and thus due an additional $95 million in severance pay. And the judge dismissed a countersuit for disparagement that Mr. Grasso had filed against his temporary successor, Mr. Reed.

In his ruling, the judge was responding to several legal motions filed by Mr. Spitzer, claiming that Mr. Grasso violated his contract by withdrawing pension savings before his retirement and failed in his duty as chairman of the board by not keeping his fellow directors informed of his escalating pension.

Mr. Grasso said in a statement: “Today’s ruling is riddled with errors. One month ago, the Appellate Division told Justice Ramos not to try this case himself until the Appellate Division had decided important legal questions before them. Today, Justice Ramos somehow rejected the testimony of dozens of directors that they approved every dime they paid me, and decided that these men and women did not know what they were doing.”

Mr. Grasso said that he had instructed his lawyers to appeal and that he looked “forward to the jury trial that the state constitution promised me.”

For Mr. Spitzer, who leads his Republican opponent in the race for New York governor by a wide margin, the ruling is a welcome riposte to the criticisms he has faced that in place of winning in the courtroom he has bullied companies and executives into reaching settlements.

“I have maintained since the beginning that the principles at stake in this issue were clear and the facts were egregious,” Mr. Spitzer said in an interview yesterday. “At every turn the government perspective has been vindicated. The defendants have done nothing more than scream louder and louder and their arguments are vacuous and wrong.”

In his ruling, Justice Ramos said he wanted to reach a payment solution within the next 30 days.

In the unlikely event that Mr. Grasso follows the court judgment and writes a $100 million check, Mr. Spitzer would be expected to drop the case, as he could claim that he had received the amount he had originally asked Mr. Grasso to return. Mr. Grasso would still be a wealthy man, getting to keep tens of millions of dollars in compensation from his more than three decades at the exchange.

While having to return a significant portion of his pay package carries its own financial punishment, it is the judge’s sweeping rejection of Mr. Grasso’s long-held contention that the exchange board had been aware of his growing pay that represents a more resonant defeat.

Justice Ramos said it was “shocking” that the board could have been “unaware of a liability of over $100 million,” and he said that Mr. Grasso violated his fiduciary duty as a director to keep his board fully apprised of how quickly his pension benefits were accumulating. “Mr. Grasso’s duty is to be fully informed and to see to it that the board was fully informed,” he wrote. “He failed in this duty.”

Between 1999 and 2002, as Mr. Grasso’s annual pay soared to a high of $31 million, his pension plan, a supplemental executive retirement plan, or SERP, grew at an even faster clip, topping out at over $80 million in 2003, when Mr. Grasso made the decision to withdraw his funds.

That decision, which according to the depositions of several directors he made because he was fearful that another board would prevent such a withdrawal, set in motion the events that would lead to the public controversy over his pay and his eventual resignation. In the subsequent years, all the participants have been deposed over the matter, with many directors on the wider board claiming that they had no idea how fast Mr. Grasso’s SERP had grown.

In his decision, Justice Ramos draws the crucial conclusion that Mr. Grasso did not inform members of his board about his escalating SERP. “Mr. Grasso’s failure to disclose the amount of his SERP thwarted the compensation committee from performing its duty,” he wrote. “Year after year, it made decisions to pay him without knowing his true compensation.”

At the crux of the judge’s ruling is his decision that Mr. Grasso must return the $87 million in pension savings that he withdrew from the exchange before he retired. And it also supports a similar argument made by directors like Henry M. Paulson Jr., the former Goldman Sachs chief and current Treasury secretary who led the campaign for Mr. Grasso’s ouster. In his decision, the judge said that the pension withdrawals that he made in 1995 and 1999, totaling $35 million, were unlawful transfers and should be recognized as loans.

Lawyers from Mr. Spitzer’s office calculate that Mr. Grasso would owe interest of about $15 million on that sum. Mr. Grasso will also be required to return money from a separate retirement account that is not yet vested.

That brings the total to close to $100 million, representing a significant portion of the $185 million he was paid as head of the stock exchange from 1995 to 2003.

Gretchen Morgenson contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/business/20nyse.html

[Livyjr]

That Grasso case is not a case of prosecuting government corruption ....

The Stock Exchange is private, so far as I know ....

And the New York Stock Exchange is down in New York City ....

Far, far removed from me and my concerns as a New York State citizen ....

And while it might be of interest to some how much money this Grasso was getting ....

UPSTATE ....

That is not really a function of OUR realities .....

UPSTATE ....

GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION IS A FUNCTION OF OUR REALITY ....

And that particular government that is corrupt is the one that Eliot Spitzer defends as the New York State Attorney General ....

If this Grasso doesn't give back this money ...

That doesn't affect how corrupt New York State government is ...

And if Grasso does give back this money ...

NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT WILL STILL BE CORRUPT ...

And that is thanks to its PROTECTOR ...

Which is Eliot Spitzer ......

IF ...

As Attorney General ....

Eliot Spitzer is the CHAMPION OF THOSE WHO ARE CORRUPT in New York State government .....

Then to someone who is from UPSTATE ....

Versus New York City ....

Which is Eliot Spitzer's TURF ....

ELIOT SPITZER IS BAD FOR NEW YORK .....

And if Eliot Spitzer is protecting corruption in New York State government as Attorney General ....

It will proliferate under him as Governor ....

TO HIS BENEFIT ....

And to that of the Democratic Party, perhaps, as well ...

BUT NOT TO OUR BENEFIT ...

THE CITIZENS OF THIS STATE ....

And so ...

And jeffmoskin ....

The fact that Eliot Spitzer calls himself a democrat don't mean doodly-squat to me ...

IT'S JUST A WORD ....

And an empty word at that ....

For by itself ...

It conveys no real meaning ....

Here in OUR America ....

Especially from state-to-state ....

Eliot Spitzer is an ELIOT SPITZER-O-CRAT ....

And the Democratic Party ....

Is the HORSE THAT HE IS RIDING ....

First to the New York State CAPITAL ...

CORRUPT AS IT IS, THANKS TO "BLIND-EYE ELIOT" SPITZER ....

And then ...

ONWARDS AND UPWARDS ....

TO THE CAPITAL DOWN THERE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. ....

AS PRESIDENT SPITZER ....

AND OUR NEW YORK STATE TREASURY WILL BE FUELING AND FUNDING THAT VOYAGE .....

TO OUR DETRIMENT ...

And so .....

[Livyjr]

UPSTATE, jeffmoskin ....

UPSTATE ....

The New York Stock Exchange .....

Is looked at askance, I would say .....

It is not deemed the province of honest men ....

Nor is it deemed the province of wise men ....

Rather, it is considered a safe haven for pirates, and thieves and assorted con-men .....

And apparently ....

FOOLS on its Board of Directors ....

AND A BIG THIEF FOR ITS HEAD MAN ....

And so ....

How New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer got any authority or jurisdiction to involve himself as New York State Attorney General in what is in reality a PRIVATE DISPUTE in that matter is beyond me ....

And as far as I am concerned ....

It is a whole lot of to-do about nothing ...

A THIEF RIPPING OFF OTHER THIEVES AND PIRATES AND FOOLS ....

BUT IT SURE IS GETTING ELIOT SPITZER'S NAME IN THE PAPERS ....

WHICH IS THE NAME OF ELIOT SPITZER'S GAME ....

USE THE OFFICE SHAMELESSLY TO GENERATE SENSATIONAL HEADLINES ....

THAT CONTINUOUSLY CALL ATTENTION ....

TO ELIOT SPITZER ....

AS THIS ALLEGED "CRIME FIGHTER" .....

WHEN THE REALITY BEHIND THE SCENES IS MUCH, MUCH DIFFERENT ....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

NY TIMES

October 20, 2006

"Ruling Is Due for Justice Who Lobbied for Bush Pick"

By RALPH BLUMENTHAL

HOUSTON, Oct. 18 — A year after the Bush administration enlisted a Texas Supreme Court justice in its unsuccessful bid to put Harriet E. Miers on the United States Supreme Court, a special state court is to announce Friday whether the judge was guilty of “willful and persistent” violations of judicial ethics for his role in that effort.

The justice, Nathan L. Hecht, 57, the longest-serving member of the Texas high court and a friend of Ms. Miers for 30 years, testified before the State Commission on Judicial Conduct that he had given about 120 interviews to reporters in which he promoted her nomination.

Justice Hecht, a Republican who is running for re-election, also said he had reported back to the White House on questions he was asked about Ms. Miers, President Bush’s longtime counsel.

Justice Hecht was widely portrayed in news reports as Ms. Miers’s “spokesman.”

Defending himself before commission members, he said he had been swept up in a “tsunami” of news coverage.

“I felt I was drawn kicking and screaming into the process,” he testified.

But under questioning, he acknowledged, “Nobody forced me.”

Justice Hecht also told the commission that he had been advancing a public interest in Ms. Miers’s nomination, that she was not a candidate for elective office and that he was entitled to free speech.

But the commission, citing rules it said had been devised by Justice Hecht’s own court, argued that the judge had improperly lent the prestige of his office to advance someone else’s “private interests,” illegally used his name to endorse “another candidate” for “public office,” and violated the State Constitution by conduct discrediting the judiciary.

Texas judges themselves had asked for the prohibition against political endorsements to fend off requests from fellow party candidates.

Judges in Texas run for election on party lines.

The commission decided in May that the justice’s actions on behalf of the White House and Ms. Miers merited a public admonition, the lightest form of reprimand, which carries no criminal or civil consequences.

But Justice Hecht sought to overturn the sanction by appealing to a Special Court of Review, which is randomly selected by the Texas Supreme Court, the nine-member bench on which Justice Hecht has served since 1989.

The Texas Supreme Court has final authority over civil and juvenile delinquency cases; the Court of Criminal Appeals has ultimate jurisdiction over criminal cases.

In an unusual move, the special court — two state appellate judges from Dallas and one from El Paso — had announced this month that it would release its ruling at a court hearing and news conference in Fort Worth on Oct. 23.

But this week it said instead that it would notify the parties by e-mail and fax on Friday.

No explanation was given for the change.

Mark L. Greenwald, a special counsel for the commission, said that if the court dismissed the admonition against the judge, “I would hope the commission would appeal it, to get the United States Supreme Court on board.”

An appeal from a ruling by a special review court can be made only to the nation’s highest court.

Mr. Greenwald said the minimal reprimand sought by the commission translated to “please don’t do that again.”

Charles L. Babcock, a lawyer representing Justice Hecht, said the judge had an unblemished record and was set on vindication.

“He’s a candidate for re-election,” Mr. Babcock said.

Even the admonition, he said, “has a very nasty effect.”

The justice’s appeal was supported in friend of the court briefs submitted by the Republican Party of Texas and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Texas.

In testimony to the Special Court of Review in August, Justice Hecht traced the start of his involvement in Ms. Miers’s nomination to a call from President Bush’s senior adviser, Karl Rove, on Oct. 1, 2005, two days before Mr. Bush announced his choice to fill the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Justice Hecht told the court that Mr. Rove had asked him to talk to callers about Ms. Miers’s “faith, about her religious background,” and that the group included James C. Dobson, a conservative leader and founder of Focus on the Family.

Justice Hecht said he also answered news media queries, which he said were so numerous that he was asked to report back to a White House aide on the nature of the questions.

He conceded to the court that he told one reporter, “I’m a P.R. office for the White House,” but he later called that a joke.

Justice Hecht said he had considered the Code of Judicial Conduct during his campaign in support of Ms. Miers’s nomination but did not think he was in violation of it.

That opinion, he said, was reinforced by two senior appellate judges with whom he conferred.

The evidence Mr. Greenwald presented to the special review court included a television interview in which Justice Hecht vouched for Ms. Miers as an opponent of abortion, citing her attendance at “a church that is — takes an open pro-life stance.”

He also said of Ms. Miers:

“She is very charming, of course."

"Everybody says gracious, but also very determined.”

Mr. Greenwald told the court the case was “Shakespearean.”

Faulting Justice Hecht, he said, “The very individual who is part of that process of making sure that the rules and canons are in compliance with the law, being charged with violating that canon.”

Mr. Babcock, Justice Hecht’s lawyer, said he agreed that the case was Shakespearean but for different reasons.

“Imagine the senior-most appellate justice of this state being sanctioned for speaking truthful speech on a matter of public importance that is core speech in our democracy,” he said.

“Tragedy, true."

"Comedy tonight, perhaps.”

[Livyjr]

UPSTATE ....

That is not really a function of OUR realities .....

UPSTATE ....

GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION IS A FUNCTION OF OUR REALITY ....

And that particular government that is corrupt is the one that Eliot Spitzer defends as the New York State Attorney General ....

If this Grasso doesn't give back this money ...

That doesn't affect how corrupt New York State government is ...

And if Grasso does give back this money ...

NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT WILL STILL BE CORRUPT ...

And that is thanks to its PROTECTOR ...

Which is Eliot Spitzer ......

IF ...

As Attorney General ....

Eliot Spitzer is the CHAMPION OF THOSE WHO ARE CORRUPT in New York State government .....

Then to someone who is from UPSTATE ....

Versus New York City ....

Which is Eliot Spitzer's TURF ....

ELIOT SPITZER IS BAD FOR NEW YORK .....

And if Eliot Spitzer is protecting corruption in New York State government as Attorney General ....

It will proliferate under him as Governor ....

TO HIS BENEFIT ....

And to that of the Democratic Party, perhaps, as well ...

BUT NOT TO OUR BENEFIT ...

THE CITIZENS OF THIS STATE ....

And so ...

NEW YORK STATE EXECUTIVE LAW ARTICLE 5 - DEPARTMENT OF LAW

S 60. Department of law.

There shall continue to be in the state government a department of law.

The head of the department of law shall be the attorney-general who shall receive an annual salary of one hundred fifty-one thousand five hundred dollars.

S 63. General duties.

The attorney-general shall:

1. Prosecute and defend all actions and proceedings in which the state is interested ...

And have charge and control of all the legal business of the departments and bureaus of the state, or of any office thereof which requires the services of attorney or counsel, in order to protect the interest of the state ....

But this section shall not apply to any of the military department bureaus or military offices of the state.

No action or proceeding affecting the property or interests of the state shall be
instituted, defended or conducted by any department, bureau, board, council, officer, agency or instrumentality of the state, without a notice to the attorney-general apprising him of the said action or proceeding, the nature and purpose thereof, so that he may participate or join therein if in his opinion the interests of the state so warrant.

2. Whenever required by the governor, attend in person, or by one of his deputies, any term of the supreme court or appear before the grand jury thereof for the purpose of managing and conducting in such court or before such jury criminal actions or proceedings as shall be specified in such requirement; in which case the attorney-general or his deputy so attending shall exercise all the powers and perform all the duties in respect of such actions or proceedings, which the district attorney would otherwise be authorized or required to exercise or perform; and in any of such actions or proceedings the district attorney shall only exercise such powers and perform such duties as are required of him by the attorney-general or the deputy attorney-general so attending.

In all such cases all expenses incurred by the attorney-general, including the
salary or other compensation of all deputies employed, shall be a county charge.

3. Upon request of the governor, comptroller, secretary of state, commissioner of transportation, superintendent of insurance, superintendent of banks, commissioner of taxation and finance or commissioner of motor vehicles, or the head of any other department, authority, division or agency of the state, investigate the alleged commission of any indictable offense or offenses in violation of the law which the officer making the request is especially required to execute or in relation to any matters connected with such department, and to
prosecute the person or persons believed to have committed the same and
any crime or offense arising out of such investigation or prosecution or both, including but not limited to appearing before and presenting all such matters to a grand jury.

4. Cause all persons indicted for corrupting or attempting to corrupt any member or member-elect of the legislature, or the commissioner of general services, to be brought to trial.

5. When required by the comptroller or the superintendent of public works, prepare proper drafts for contracts, obligations and other instruments for the use of the state.

6. Upon receipt thereof, pay into the treasury all moneys received by him for debts due or penalties forfeited to the people of the state.

7. He may, on behalf of the state, agree upon a case containing a statement of the facts and submit a controversy for decision to a court of record which would have jurisdiction of an action brought on the same case.

He may agree that a referee, to be appointed in an action to which the state is a party, shall receive such compensation at such rate per day as the court in the order of reference may specify.

He may with the approval of the governor retain counsel to recover moneys or property belonging to the state, or to the possession of which the state is entitled, upon an agreement that such counsel shall receive reasonable compensation, to be fixed by the attorney-general, out of the property recovered, and not otherwise.

8. Whenever in his judgment the public interest requires it, the attorney-general may, with the approval of the governor, and when directed by the governor, shall, inquire into matters concerning the public peace, public safety and public justice.

For such purpose he may, in his discretion, and without civil service examination, appoint and employ, and at pleasure remove, such deputies, officers and other
persons as he deems necessary, determine their duties and, with the approval of the governor, fix their compensation.

All appointments made pursuant to this subdivision shall be immediately reported to the governor, and shall not be reported to any other state officer or department.

Payments of salaries and compensation of officers and employees and of the expenses of the inquiry shall be made out of funds provided by the legislature for such purposes, which shall be deposited in a bank or trust company in the names of the governor and the attorney-general, payable only on the draft or check of the
attorney-general, countersigned by the governor, and such disbursements
shall be subject to no audit except by the governor and the attorney-general.

The attorney-general, his deputy, or other officer, designated by him, is empowered to subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, examine them under oath before himself or a magistrate and require that any books, records, documents or papers relevant or material to the inquiry be turned over to him for inspection, examination or audit, pursuant to the civil practice law and rules.

If a person subpoenaed to attend upon such inquiry fails to obey the command of a subpoena without reasonable cause, or if a person in attendance upon such inquiry shall, without reasonable cause, refuse to be sworn or to be examined or to answer a question or to produce a book or paper, when ordered so to do by the officer conducting such inquiry, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

It shall be the duty of all public officers, their deputies, assistants and subordinates, clerks and employees, and all other persons, to render and furnish to the attorney-general, his deputy or other designated officer, when requested, all information and assistance in their possession and within their power.

Each deputy or other officer appointed or designated to conduct such inquiry shall make a weekly report in detail to the attorney-general, in form to be approved by the governor and the attorney-general, which report shall be in duplicate, one copy of which shall be forthwith, upon its receipt by the attorney-general, transmitted by him to the governor.

Any officer participating in such inquiry and any person examined as a witness upon such inquiry who shall disclose to any person other than the governor or
the attorney-general the name of any witness examined or any information
obtained upon such inquiry, except as directed by the governor or the
attorney-general, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

9. Bring and prosecute or defend upon request of the industrial commissioner or the state division of human rights, any civil action or proceeding, the institution or defense of which in his judgment is necessary for effective enforcement of the laws of this state against discrimination by reason of age, race, creed, color or national origin, or for enforcement of any order or determination of such commissioner or division made pursuant to such laws.

10. Prosecute every person charged with the commission of a criminal offense in violation of any of the laws of this state against discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin, in any case where in his judgment, because of the extent of the offense, such prosecution cannot be effectively carried on by the district attorney of the county wherein the offense or a portion thereof is alleged to have been committed, or where in his judgment the district attorney has
erroneously failed or refused to prosecute.

In all such proceedings, the attorney-general may appear in person or by his deputy or assistant before any court or any grand jury and exercise all the powers and perform all the duties in respect of such actions or proceedings which the district attorney would otherwise be authorized or required to exercise or perform.

11. Prosecute and defend all actions and proceedings in connection with safeguarding and enforcing the state`s remainder interest in any trust which meets the requirements of subparagraph two of paragraph (b) of subdivision two of section three hundred sixty-six of the social services law.

12. Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper.

The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.

The term "persistent fraud" or "illegality" as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct.

The term "repeated" as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and
distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person.

In connection with any such application, the attorney general is authorized to take proof and make a determination of the relevant facts and to issue subpoenas in accordance with the civil practice law and rules.

Such authorization shall not abate or terminate by reason of any action or proceeding brought by the attorney general under this section.

13. Prosecute any person for perjury committed during the course of any investigation conducted by the attorney-general pursuant to statute.

In all such proceedings, the attorney-general may appear in person or by his deputy or assistant before any court or any grand jury and exercise all the powers and perform all the duties necessary or required to be exercised or performed in prosecuting any such person for such offense.

15. In any case where the attorney general has authority to institute a civil action or proceeding in connection with the enforcement of a law of this state, in lieu thereof he may accept an assurance of discontinuance of any act or practice in violation of such law from any person engaged or who has engaged in such act or practice.

Such assurance may include a stipulation for the voluntary payment by the alleged violator of the reasonable costs and disbursements incurred by the attorney general during the course of his investigation.

Evidence of a violation of such assurance shall constitute prima facie proof of
violation of the applicable law in any civil action or proceeding thereafter commenced by the attorney general.

S 63-a. Action by attorney-general for forfeiture of public office.

The attorney-general may maintain an action, upon his own information or upon the complaint of a private person, against a public officer, civil or military, who has done or suffered an act which by law works a forfeiture of his office.

S 63-b. Action by attorney-general against usurper of office or
franchise.

1. The attorney-general may maintain an action, upon his own information or upon the complaint of a private person, against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises within the state a franchise or a public office, civil or military, or an office in a domestic corporation.

The attorney-general may set forth in the complaint, in his discretion, the name of the person rightfully entitled to the office and facts showing his right thereto.

Judgment may be rendered upon the right of the defendant and of the party so alleged to be entitled, or only upon the right of the defendant, as justice requires.

Where two or more persons claim to be entitled to the same office or franchise, the attorney-general may bring the action against all to determine their respective rights thereto.

2. If the complaint sets forth the name of the person rightfully entitled to the office and the facts showing his right thereto, a provisional order to arrest the defendant may be granted by the court if the defendant by means of his usurpation or intrusion has received any fees or emoluments belonging to the office.

3. Where a defendant is adjudged to be guilty of usurping or intruding into or unlawfully holding or exercising an office, franchise or privilege, final judgment shall be rendered, ousting and excluding him therefrom, and in favor of the state or the relator, as the case requires, for the costs of the action.

As a part of the final judgment in an action for usurping or intruding into or unlawfully holding or exercising an office, franchise or privilege, the court, in its
discretion, also may award that the defendant, or, where there are two or more defendants, that one or more of them, pay to the state a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars.

The judgment for the fine may be docketed and execution may be issued thereupon in favor of the state, as if it had been rendered in an action to recover the fine.

4. Where final judgment has been rendered upon the right and in favor of the person alleged in the complaint to be entitled to an office, he may recover, by action against the defendant, the damages which he has sustained in consequence of the defendant`s usurpation, intrusion into, unlawful holding or exercise of the office.

S 63-c. Action by the people for illegal receipt or disposition of public funds or other property.

1. Where any money, funds, credits, or other property, held or owned by the state, or held or owned officially or otherwise for or in behalf of a governmental or other public interest, by a domestic, municipal, or other public corporation, or by a
board, officer, custodian, agency, or agent of the state, or of a city, county, town, village or other division, subdivision, department, or portion of the state, has heretofore been, or is hereafter, without right obtained, received, converted, or disposed of, an action to recover the same, or to recover damages or other compensation for so obtaining, receiving, paying, converting, or disposing of the same, or both, may be maintained by the state in any court of the state, or before any court or tribunal of the United States, or of any other state, or of any territory of the United States, or of any foreign country, having jurisdiction thereof, although a right of action for the same cause exists by law in some other public authority, and whether an action therefor in favor of the latter is or is not pending when the action in favor of the state is commenced.

The attorney-general shall commence an action, suit or other judicial proceeding, as prescribed in this section, whenever he deems it for the interests of the state so to do; or whenever he is so directed, in writing, by the governor.

2. Upon the commencement by the state of any action, suit or other judicial proceeding, as prescribed in this section, the entire cause of action, including the title to the money, funds, credits, or other property, with respect to which the suit or action is brought, and to the damages or other compensation recoverable for the obtaining, receipt, payment, conversion or disposition thereof, if not previously
so vested, is transferred to and becomes absolutely vested in the state.

3. Any court of the state in which an action is brought by the state, as prescribed in this section, may direct, by the final judgment therein, or by a subsequent order, that any money, funds, damages, credits, or other property, recovered by or awarded to the plaintiff therein, which, if that action had not been brought, would not have vested in the state, be disposed of, as justice requires, in such a
manner as to reinstate the lawful custody thereof, or to apply the same or the proceeds thereof to the objects and purposes for which they were authorized to be raised or procured; after paying into the state treasury out of the proceeds of the recovery all expenses incurred by the state in the action.

4. Any corporation, board, officer, custodian, agency, or agent, in behalf of any city, county, town, village, or other division, subdivision, department, or portion of the state, which was not a party to an action, brought as prescribed in this section, and which claims to be entitled to the custody or disposition of any of the money, funds, damages, credits, or other property, recovered by, or awarded to the
plaintiff, by the final judgment in the action, or any of the proceeds thereof, and not disposed of as prescribed in subdivision three, may bring a special proceeding against the attorney-general at any time after the actual collection of the money and its payment into the state treasury, or the actual receipt of the property by the state, in the supreme court, county of Albany, seeking disposition of the money or other property.

S 63-d. Attorney-general; death penalty prosecutions.

1. The attorney-general shall, whenever required by the governor or his
designee after a request of the governor by a district attorney, direct that the resources and personnel of the department of law be used to provide assistance relating to the prosecution or appeal of any case where the defendant may be subject to the penalty of death.

Such assistance shall include the use of any department resource or services,
which the attorney-general deems proper, and may be performed or provided by the attorney-general or any employee of the department of law.

Assistance pursuant to this section may only be provided with respect to proceedings where:

(i) the defendant is represented by counsel appointed pursuant to the provisions of section thirty-five-b of the judiciary law or the defendant is receiving expert, investigative or other services pursuant to such section, or

(ii) the defendant, through counsel retained privately by the defendant through his or her own means or through the means of a person other than the defendant, or through representation by pro bono counsel, is able to marshal substantially greater legal and investigatory resources than those reasonably available to the district attorney.

2. A request of the governor made by a district attorney for assistance in a death penalty case shall be accompanied by a certificate of need stating that as a result of cases where the defendant may be subject to the penalty of death additional resources or personnel are needed to supplement the district attorney's staff and available resources in order to fulfill such district attorney`s responsibilities.

S 64. Costs recovered.

Costs recovered by the attorney-general may be applied by him in payment of the expenses incurred by him in the action or proceeding in which they are received, or of any expenditure which he is authorized to incur not otherwise provided for.

He shall, at the close of each fiscal year, render to the comptroller an account of such costs received, with vouchers of such expenditures.

S 65. Register.

The attorney-general shall keep a register of all actions and proceedings prosecuted or defended by him, and of all proceedings in relation thereto, and shall deliver the same to his successor.

S 66. Destruction of certain records, books and other data by the attorney-general.

In any action or proceeding or by other process of law, in which a money judgment or award shall have been procured in favor of the people of the state of New York, any department of the state of New York, or duly constituted division, bureau or board thereof, and which judgment or award has been duly paid and satisfied, the department of law, with the consent of the commissioner of education
as provided by section one hundred forty-seven of the education law, may after the expiration of six years from the time of payment of said judgment or award destroy all statistics, documents and papers filed with or used by the department of law in procuring said judgment or award.

S 67. Additional counsel.

The governor or attorney-general may designate and employ such additional attorneys or counsel as may be necessary to assist in the transaction of any of the legal business mentioned in section sixty-three of this chapter and such attorneys or counsel shall be paid a reasonable fee upon the certificate of the governor and attorney-general, the amount thereof to be audited and allowed by them or to be paid by the attorney-general out of costs, penalties and judgments collected by him, prior to the payment thereof into the state treasury as required by section one hundred twenty-one of the state finance law.

S 70. Deputy attorney-general to act as special district attorney.

Whenever the governor shall advise the attorney-general that he has reason to doubt whether in any county the law relating to crimes against the elective franchise is properly enforced, the attorney-general shall require from the district attorney of such county, and it shall be the duty of such district attorney forthwith to make to the attorney-general a report of all prosecutions and complaints within his county during the year then last past for offenses under the election law and of the action had thereon.

The attorney-general shall assign one or more of his deputies to take charge of prosecutions under the election law.

Such deputy shall represent the people of this state in all such prosecutions before all magistrates and in all courts and before any grand jury having cognizance thereof.

The deputies so assigned shall be appointed pursuant to section sixty-two of this chapter.

They may be especially appointed thereunder for the purpose of such assignment and for the performance of the duties herein described.

Whenever the attorney-general shall advise the governor that there is occasion for an extraordinary term in any such county to inquire into and try cases arising under article sixteen of the election law, the governor may appoint an extraordinary term of the supreme court to be constituted and held for the trial of criminal cases in such county, pursuant to section one hundred forty-nine of the judiciary law.

Grand and petit juries shall be drawn and summoned for said term in the manner
provided by law, and such cases shall be brought before such inquest and court as the attorney-general shall direct.

All the provisions of sections sixty-three and sixty-seven of this chapter shall apply to such extraordinary term.

It shall be the duty of the district attorney of the county, and of the assistants, clerks and employees in his office, and of all police authorities, officers and men within any such county, to render to the attorney-general and his deputy whenever requested, all aid and assistance within their power in such prosecutions and in the conduct of such cases.

The jurisdiction conferred upon the attorney-general herein to prosecute crimes, is concurrent in each county with that of the district attorney; but whichever of such
officers shall first assume jurisdiction of a particular offense shall have exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute for the same unless or until the governor shall, by written order filed with both such officers, give such jurisdiction to the other.

S 70-a. Statewide organized crime task force.

1. There shall be established within the department of law a statewide organized crime task force which, pursuant to the provisions of this section, shall have
the duty and power:

(a) To conduct investigations and prosecutions of organized crime activities carried on either between two or more counties of this state or between this state and another jurisdiction;

(b) To cooperate with and assist district attorneys and other local law enforcement officials in their efforts against organized crime.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the governor and the attorney general may, and without civil service examination, jointly appoint and employ, fix his compensation, and at pleasure remove, a deputy attorney general in charge of the organized crime task force.

The attorney general may, and without civil service examination, appoint and
employ, and at pleasure remove, such assistant deputies, accountants and
other persons as he deems necessary, determine their duties and, with
the approval of the governor, fix their compensation.

The payments of salaries and compensation of such officers and employees shall be in the same manner as is prescribed in subdivision eight of section sixty-three
of this chapter.

3. The deputy attorney general in charge of the organized crime task force may request and shall receive from the division of state police, the state department of taxation and finance, the state department of labor, the temporary state commission of investigation, and from every department, division, board, bureau, commission or other agency of the state, or of any political subdivision thereof, cooperation and assistance in the performance of his duties.

Such deputy attorney general may provide technical and other assistance to any district attorney or other local law enforcement official requesting such assistance in the investigation or prosecution of organized crime cases.

4. The deputy attorney general in charge of the organized crime task force is empowered to conduct hearings at any place within the state, to administer oaths or affirmations, subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, examine them under oath or affirmation, and require the production of any books, records, documents or other evidence he may deem relevant or material to an investigation.

He is empowered to apply for search warrants pursuant to article six hundred ninety of the criminal procedure law, and, except in exigent circumstances, shall give prior notice of the application to the district attorney of the county in which such a warrant is to be executed, and in such circumstances, shall give such notice as soon thereafter as practicable; provided, however, that the failure to give notice of a search warrant application to a district attorney shall not be a ground to suppress the evidence seized in executing the warrant.

He may designate an assistant to exercise any such powers.

Every witness attending before such deputy attorney general or his assistant shall be examined privately and the particulars of such examination shall not be made public.

If a person subpoenaed to attend upon such inquiry fails to obey the command of a
subpoena without reasonable cause, or if a person in attendance upon such inquiry shall, without reasonable cause, refuse to be sworn or to be examined or to answer a question or to produce a book or paper, when ordered so to do by the officer conducting such inquiry, he shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

5. Upon the application of the deputy attorney general in charge of the organized crime task force, the supreme court or a justice thereof may impound any exhibit marked in evidence in any hearing held in connection with an investigation conducted by such deputy attorney general, and may order such exhibit to be retained by, or delivered to and placed in the custody of, such deputy.

When so impounded, such exhibit shall not be taken from the custody of such deputy except upon further order of the court or a justice thereof made upon five days notice to such deputy, or upon his application or with his consent.

6. In any hearing held in connection with an investigation conducted by the deputy attorney general in charge of the organized crime task force, the attorney general may confer immunity in accordance with the provisions of section 50.20 of the criminal procedure law, but only after affording the appropriate district attorney the opportunity to be heard in respect to any objections which he may have to the granting of such immunity.

7. With the approval of the governor and with the approval or upon the request of the appropriate district attorney, the deputy attorney general in charge of the organized crime task force, or one of his assistants, may attend in person any term of the county court or supreme court having appropriate jurisdiction, including an extraordinary special or trial term of the supreme court when one is appointed pursuant to section one hundred forty-nine of the judiciary law, or appear before the grand jury thereof, for the purpose of managing and conducting in such court or before such jury a criminal action or proceeding concerned with an offense where any conduct constituting or requisite to the completion of or in any other manner related to such offense occurred either in two or more counties of this state, or both within and outside this state.

In such case, such deputy attorney general or his assistant so attending shall exercise all the powers and perform all the duties in respect of such actions or proceedings, which the district attorney would otherwise be authorized or required to exercise or perform.

In any of such actions or proceedings the district attorney shall only exercise such powers and perform such duties as are required of him by such deputy attorney general.

S 71. Attorney-general to appear in cases involving the constitutionality of an act of the legislature.

Whenever the constitutionality of a statute is brought into question upon the trial
or hearing of any action or proceeding, civil or criminal, in any court of record of original or appellate jurisdiction, the court or justice before whom such action or proceeding is pending, may make an order, directing the party desiring to raise such question, to serve notice thereof on the attorney-general and that the attorney-general be permitted to appear at any such trial or hearing in support of the constitutionality of such statute.

The court or justice before whom any such action or proceeding is pending may also make such order upon the application of any party thereto, and the court shall make such order in any such action or proceeding upon motion of the attorney-general.

When such order has been made in any manner herein mentioned it shall be the
duty of the attorney-general to appear in such action or proceeding in support of the constitutionality of such statute.

[jeffmoskin]

“Tragedy, true."

"Comedy tonight, perhaps.”

ARTIST: Stephen Sondheim
TITLE: Comedy Tonight
Lyrics and Chords

Something familiar, something peculiar
Something for everyone: a comedy tonight
Something appealing, something appalling
Something for everyone: a comedy tonight


Nothing with kings, nothing with crowns
Bring on the lovers, liars and clowns
Old situations, new complications
Nothing portentous or polite
Tragedy tomorrow, comedy tonight

Something convulsive, something repulsive
Something for everyone: a comedy tonight
Something aesthetic, something frenetic
Something for everyone: a comedy tonight

Nothing with gods, nothing with fate
Weighty affairs will just have to wait
Nothing that's formal, nothing that's normal
No recitations to recite
Open up the curtain, comedy Tonight

Something familiar, something peculiar
Something for everybody: comedy tonight
Something that's gaudy, something that's bawdy
Something for everybawdy: comedy tonight

Nothing that's grim, nothing that's Greek
She plays Medea later this week
Stunning surprises, cunning disguises
Hundreds of actors out of sight

Pantaloons and tunics, courtesans and eunuchs
Funerals and chases, baritones and basses
Panderers, philanderers, cupidity, timidity
Mistakes, fakes, rhymes, crimes
Tumblers, grumblers, bumblers, fumblers


No royal curse, no Trojan horse
And a happy ending, of course
Goodness and badness, manifest madness
This time it all turns out all right
Tragedy tomorrow, comedy tonight.


from "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum"
http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/comedyto.htm

This post has been edited by jeffmoskin: Oct 20 2006, 05:42 PM

[Livyjr]

NEW YORK STATE EXECUTIVE LAW ARTICLE 5 - DEPARTMENT OF LAW

S 63. General duties.

The attorney-general shall:

13. Prosecute any person for perjury committed during the course of any investigation conducted by the attorney-general pursuant to statute.

From http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...24&#entry546524

"Livyjr," a concerned reader asks, "Can you point us to anything in the record, outside of PLAINTIFF's own statements, that would make it clear to us readers out here that New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer himself would have known that Julie M. Sheridan was knowingly and willfully lying to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals when she told that body that PLAINTIFF was never INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED to the Stratton VA Hospital on August 22, 2001?"

And that answer is yes ....

For it would indeed be foolish on my part ...

To fall into the trap ...

Of having made statements ...

That ultimately .....

Cannot be corroborated .....

By some independent evidence ....

And so ...

Here, I simply go back in time ...

To an AFFIRMATION OF LISA ULLMAN ...

Dated August 16, 2002 .....

About one (1) year after the August 22, 2001 PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN went down ......

That was submiited by Spitzer's Office .....

To Hon. George B. Ceresia, Jr. .....

A Justice of the New York State Supreme Court ....

In Rensselaer County .....

Early on in connection with this matter ....

That ultimately made its way to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City ....

This past fall ...

And in that August 16, 2002 AFFIRMATION ......

Ms. Ullman is quoted as follows:

LISA ULLMAN, being a duly licensed attorney in the State of New York and an ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL in the offices of Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, does hereby affirm under penalties of perjury pursuant to CPLR 2106:

1. I am an ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE STAFF OF ELIOT SPITZER, Attorney General of the State of New York, ATTORNEY for the State respondents in this proceeding.

I HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED THIS CASE AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE FILE.

I make this affirmation in opposition to PETITIONER'S (PLAINTIFF) motion for leave to reargue and renew.

2. This proceeding was commenced by pro se petitioner PLAINTIFF under Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Law and Rules ("CPLR"), who requested a court order compelling the release of certain mental health records.

SPECIFICALLY, PETITIONER HAD BEEN INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO THE VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW 9.45 FOR SEVERAL HOURS ON AUGUST 22, 2001, and had obtained redacted versions of documents pertaining to that COMMITMENT.

IN THIS PROCEEDING, HE SOUGHT A COURT ORDER COMPELLING RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE HIM WITH UNREDACTED VERSIONS OF THOSE DOCUMENTS.

end quotes

And so .....

On August 16, 2002 .....

Some three (3) years before Julie M. Sherman told her bald-faced lies to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City on behalf of the "STATE" of New York in this matter ...

The OFFICE of New York State Attorney General Eliot "Big EL" Spitzer .....

Was well aware of what had transpired in this matter ...

In reality ...

And so ...

If under penalty of perjury in August of 2002 ....

Lisa Ullman of Spitzer's office told the truth to Hon. George B. Ceresia, Jr. ....

That on August 22, 2001 .....

PLAINTIFF HAD IN FACT BEEN INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO THE STRATTON VA HOSPITAL IN ALBANY, NEW YORK .....

Because of John Christian Braaten's FRAUDULENT 9.45 "PSYCHIATRIC ARREST ORDER" .....

What was it that Julie M. Sherman was doing ...

When she lied to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City in the fall of 2005 ...

When Sherman told the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals ...

That it never really happened the way Ullman swore it did back in August of 2002?

How many different "versions" of the "truth" does Eliot Spitzer get to spread around, anyway?

And that answer is ....

As many as he needs, apparently ...

Based on the circumstances ...

And so .....

[Livyjr]

ARTIST: Stephen Sondheim
TITLE: Comedy Tonight
Lyrics and Chords

Something convulsive, something repulsive

Something for everyone: a comedy tonight

Something aesthetic, something frenetic

Something for everyone: a comedy tonight

jeffmoskin ....

You are truly a man of many horizons ....

And interests ...

And that is a fact ...

[Livyjr]

Liv, Spitzer is on a fast train to become Gov.

He has a strong record of prosecuting so-called white collar crime.

He is a Democrat.

Do you really think he will be worse for NYS than Pataki?

NEW YORK STATE EXECUTIVE LAW ARTICLE 5 - DEPARTMENT OF LAW

S 63. General duties.

The attorney-general shall:

13. Prosecute any person for perjury committed during the course of any investigation conducted by the attorney-general pursuant to statute.

From http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...24&#entry546524

"Livyjr," a concerned reader asks, "Can you point us to anything in the record, outside of PLAINTIFF's own statements, that would make it clear to us readers out here that New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer himself would have known that Julie M. Sheridan was knowingly and willfully lying to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals when she told that body that PLAINTIFF was never INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED to the Stratton VA Hospital on August 22, 2001?"

And that answer is yes ....

Up here in the State of New York ...

Where I am, jeffmoskin ....

New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is helping to screw a disabled veteran to the wall for the "crime" in the State of New York of having integrity and enough knowledge of the law himself to haul the State of New York into court to expose yet more corruption ...

And so ...

Eliot Spitzer joined in with a plot or conspiracy or just a group effort, if you will, to permanently remove this person as a witness against the State of New York ....

To silence him ...

In what really is a sophisticated version of a cheap mob hit ....

And Eliot Spitzer's role in that was to provide legal cover ....

And his office did that very well ...

Because his office can resort to manipulation of evidence ....

And subornation of perjury ....

To provide this cover with ....

And Eliot did that ....

LIKE THE PROFESSIONAL POLITICIAN THAT HE IS ....

With a well-honed nose ....

For where the money is ....

That will go into his pocket ...

To fuel his political aspirations ....

And being a disabled veteran myself ....

As well as being for integrity in government ...

Well, I have taken a bit of umbrage at this myself ....

And so ...

I personally don't think very much of Eliot Spitzer because of this ....

Because Eliot Spitzer is very willing to cause lies to be told to crush a disabled veteran ....

And this in a time of alleged war ...

Here in OUR America ....

Of course this particular disabled veteran that Eliot Spitzer has helped to consign to a living hell was not a Democrat ...

And so ...

The Democrats don't give a damn about any of this ...

Which is really a pretty strong statement about the Democrats themselves ...

In an alleged time of war ...

Here in OUR America ....

That as a party ...

They can all stand back and let Eliot Spitzer destroy the life of an honorably-discharged American combat veteran because he would not tolerate the same corruption in New York State government that they and Eliot Spitzer are ready and willing to not only tolerate ....

But take control of ....

Come January of next year ...

Nor do the Democrats really care about Eliot Spitzer's "falseness" in this matter ....

And his demonstrated lack of integrity ...

ALL THEY CARE ABOUT ..

IS GETTING CONTROL ...

OF THE "STATEHOUSE" IN ALBANY, NEW YORK ...

And all the graft, corruption and patronage that comes along with it ....

And so ...

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ITSELF IS READY AND WILLING TO TURN A BLIND EYE ON ELIOT'S BLIND EYE IN THIS MATTER ...

And so ....

That's my thoughts on the subject of New York State Attorney General AND DEMOCRAT Eliot Spitzer as of right now, this morning ....

And so ...

This post has been edited by Livyjr: Oct 21 2006, 06:18 AM

[Livyjr]

"Envoy: U.S. showed 'stupidity' in Iraq"

By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press
Last updated: 5:26 p.m., Saturday, October 21, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A senior U.S. diplomat said the United States had shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in Iraq but was ready to talk with any group except Al-Qaida in Iraq to facilitate national reconciliation.

In an interview with Al-Jazeera television aired late Saturday, Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department offered an unusually candid assessment of America's war in Iraq.

"We tried to do our best but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq," he said.

end quotes

And that is an understatement if there ever was one ....

Arrogance ....

Stupidity ...

And let us not forget negligence .....

And should that be criminal negligence, perhaps?

And if it is ....

Well ....

The list of culpable actors starts with George W. bush ...

And it includes Donald Rumsfeld ...

And Paul Wolfowitz ....

And that Feith dude ....

And Dick Cheney has to be in there ....

And there is the initial crew, anyway ...

And so ...

[Livyjr]

"Allen faces questions on Iraq war stance"

By BOB LEWIS, Associated Press
Last updated: 11:25 p.m., Friday, October 20, 2006

RICHMOND, Va. -- Republican Sen. George Allen called for "changes in tactics" in how the U.S. is fighting the Iraq war on Friday as he continued to face questions about his morphing position on the war.

"The situation there is one that needs adjustments, that needs changes in tactics."

"We need to adapt to the situation on the ground," Allen said at a campaign event Friday morning with GOP leaders of the state legislature.

Even so, Allen, whom polls show to be in a tight Senate race with Democratic candidate Jim Webb, has yet to reject or criticize the hard line on Iraq that he had touted for months and that President Bush repeated Thursday at an Allen fundraiser.

Allen and Webb appeared separately later Friday in Hampton at a forum of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, where each signed up for lifetime membership.

Allen used the event to try to put behind him allegations that he has been insensitive to racial concerns, recounting efforts to provide money for historically black colleges and universities, as well as his trip to Selma, Ala., with Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., to honor the bloody civil rights march there 40 years ago.

Once regarded only as a warm-up race for a presumed 2008 Allen presidential bid, the race became competitive in August after Allen singled out a man of Indian descent before a mostly white crowd at a rally and called him "macaca," which can be considered a racial slur.

Webb couched the coming election as "a choice between those who have power and those who will stand up to power."

Webb has been a critic of the war since 2002, before the U.S.-led invasion, when he wrote that it would mire the United States in a bloody and protracted quagmire and destabilize the oil-rich region.

He cited the war, in part, for his decision to leave the GOP.

He was asked no questions about Iraq at the Friday event.

Allen began shifting his public position on the unpopular war two weeks ago after fellow Virginia Sen. John Warner, a five-term moderate and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, returned from an Iraq visit saying the war was "drifting sideways," with Iraq's fledgling government unable to disarm its deadly sectarian militias.

Allen continued to hedge his views on the war at the NAACP event.

"Progress in Iraq has not been sufficiently fast as far as I'm concerned," Allen said.

But he added, "to leave Iraq a safe haven for terrorists is not an acceptable risk."

On Friday, Allen began televising a new ad in which John Warner says, "George and I stand for a safe and strong America."

Even in conservative Virginia, polls show lagging support for the war.

A recent Washington Post poll of 1,004 likely Virginia voters showed that 44 percent believed the war worth fighting considering its costs to the U.S., and 54 percent said it was not worth fighting.

But Allen won't stiff-arm the president, who on Thursday raised an estimated $600,000 for him in a paid media campaign that is costing both sides well over $1 million a week in television time alone.

"I think the point of the matter we ought to take into consideration is the risk here, the risk facing our country, how we need to improve, how we need to adapt, how the Iraqi people have to stand up for their own sovereignty and control their own destiny," Allen said Friday.

A Washington Post poll released Sunday showed Allen favored by 49 percent of voters surveyed last week, while Webb had 47 percent support.

The results were within the poll's margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[Livyjr]

"Hutchison: WMD info swayed vote on Iraq"

By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press
Last updated: 7:46 p.m., Friday, October 20, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, one of President Bush's most ardent loyalists on the war in Iraq, voiced her strongest criticism yet of the administration's reasons for going to war.

In a debate with her challenger in the Nov. 7 election, Hutchison, R-Texas, said she would not have voted for war had she known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But she also made it clear she does not support troop withdrawal.

"If I had known then what I know now about the weapons of mass destruction, which was a key reason that I voted to go in there, I would not vote to go into Iraq the way we did," Hutchison said.

"But I have to say, I don't think the president would have asked for that vote, either."

"We had intelligence that we relied on."

Her comments Thursday night come as a small but growing number of Republicans are suggesting a change in the Iraq strategy may be necessary.

She recently has been edging slightly away from President Bush on the war.

This week she told Texas newspapers the option of partitioning Iraq into semiautonomous regions should be considered.

The White House said it has rejected that option.

In July 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee found key U.S. assertions leading to the Iraq war -- that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was working to make nuclear weapons -- were wrong or based on faulty CIA analyses.

A September report by a Democratic Senate panel said the White House painted a portrait of Iraq of having ties to al-Qaida based in part on intelligence it knew was flawed.

Republicans attacked the report as recycled information and accused Democrats of election-year politicking on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks.

Hutchison's opponent, Democrat Barbara Radnofsky criticized the senator's debate statement, saying it was evidence the U.S. should not be in Iraq.

"It's clear the Senate papers reflect a lack of consensus or decisiveness that there were weapons of mass destruction."

"They were there, she just didn't read them," Radnofsky said.

------

On the Net:

Hutchison campaign site: http://www.texansforkay.com

Radnofsky campaign site: http://www.radnofsky.com/

end quotes

The alleged "intelligence" that America relied upon to go into Iraq was "intelligence" that was fabricated out of whole cloth by the BUSH REGIME in Washington, D.C. ....

And that is now quite old news ....

That is the subject of several books on this FIASCO over there in IRAQINAM ....

SO ....

Must be this TEXAS Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison doesn't read ....

Like George W. Bush don't read ...

I guess when you already do know everything that there is to know, however ....

Like George W. Bush does ....

And this TEXAS Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison ....

Then there is no reason to read anything ...

Since you can't learn anything from it anyway ....

And so ...

[Livyjr]

"Analysis: U.S. faces hard Iraq options"

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press
Last updated: 3:55 p.m., Friday, October 20, 2006

With pressure mounting for changing policy in Iraq, the U.S. faces tough options -- including partitioning the country, setting a date for a phased troop withdrawal and offering a role for neighboring powers whose influence Washington once sought to curb.

None offers a guarantee of success in bringing peace -- and some are unpalatable to powerful groups within the fragmented country.

But with midterm elections approaching, key figures in both U.S. political parties have concluded that "staying the course" offers little chance of ending the bloodshed and establishing a stable, democratic Iraq anytime soon.

Those doubts increased Thursday when the U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, said a two-month crackdown had failed to curb the violence and that security plans were under review.

"The violence is indeed disheartening," Caldwell said.

Faced with growing doubts about the war, President Bush said Friday he would consult with top generals in the next few days to see if a change in tactics was necessary in Iraq.

"We are constantly adjusting our tactics so we can achieve the objectives and right now, it's tough," the president told The Associated Press.

Much attention has been focused on the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Indiana Rep. Lee H. Hamilton that is due to recommend new strategies.

Although those recommendations are not expected until after next month's elections, a number of options are reportedly under discussion, including dividing Iraq into a Kurdish north, Shiite south and a Sunni district in central Iraq.

Iraq's parliament has approved legislation to allow formation of self-ruled federal regions -- a measure that would provide considerable autonomy but keep the country intact.

But even that limited division has drawn strong opposition from Sunni Arab leaders and radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who fear it would lead to the breakup of the country and deprive Sunnis of a share of Iraq's vast oil wealth.

Establishment of a large, self-ruled Shiite ministate in the south could also open the door to expanded influence by Shiite-dominated Iran and trigger a bloody power struggle among Shiite factions.

Tens of thousands of Sunnis and Shiites could be forced from their homes in areas dominated by the rival sect.

Another possibility would be for the United States to announce a phased troop withdrawal.

Supporters believe that would encourage the Iraqis to set aside their differences and reach an agreement on sharing power once the Americans depart.

"Many of these Iraqi leaders know what needs to be done and they need the United States to give them the political cover to do it," Mideast expert Kenneth M. Pollack said in an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations.

"But absent that kind of ultimatum from the United States, I don't think that we're going to break that political logjam."

The risk, however, is that such a move would only encourage an even bloodier fight for power among Iraqi factions, including al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's Baath party.

An al-Qaida-linked group this month declared its own Islamic state in areas around Baghdad with large Sunni populations.

Rumors are circulating in Baghdad that Saddam's party plans to unveil a new political program, offering talks with the Americans on ending the war.

But hatred of the Baathists runs deep within the Shiite political leadership, and the specter of a new role for the party could only worsen the rift between Sunnis and Shiites.

To prevent that, some U.S. analysts have suggested the United States should encourage a reconciliation conference, bringing in not only Iraqis but also countries such as Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

To do that, Washington would likely have to turn to the United Nations to avoid allegations that the conference represented a bid by the Americans to impose a settlement in Iraq.

"The United States should seek to `lead' from the sidelines, and work with regional friends and allies," wrote former Pentagon analyst Anthony Cordesman.

He also recommended that the United States seek multibillion dollar multilateral economic and military aid packages that are "clearly conditional on Iraqi political compromise and conciliation."

All that would require the United States to acknowledge a role for countries like Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration has accused of helping terrorism.

Earlier this year, the Americans offered low-level talks with the Iranians on the situation in Iraq, which Tehran refused.

The Iranians could try to link cooperation in Iraq with U.S. acceptance of their nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes.

Washington suspects the Iranians want to build a nuclear weapon.

Syria, which the U.S. has accused of facilitating the movement of foreign fighters into Iraq, may also hold out for U.S. pressure for a peace deal with Israel.

Whatever options are pursued, the prospects for a stable, prosperous and democratic Iraq appear guarded.

"Iraq at best will remain messy for years to come, with a weak central government, a divided society and sectarian violence," Richard N. Haass of the Council on Foreign Affairs wrote this month in the Financial Times.

"At worst, it will become a failed state racked by all-out civil war that will draw in its neighbors."

------

Robert H. Reid is correspondent-at-large for The Associated Press and has reported frequently from Iraq since 2003.

[Livyjr]

"An angry Bruno erupts - Senate majority leader says Democratic victories could cut region's funding"

By RICK KARLIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Saturday, October 21, 2006

ALBANY -- It wasn't your typical ribbon-cutting.

In an unusual public display of anger, state Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno on Friday veered from what started as a congratulatory talk about a new science facility at the College of Saint Rose to a stern political warning for upstate and the Capital Region if Republicans lose control of his chamber.

Bruno pointed out to local educators, business leaders and philanthropists that he's a key player in New York's annual budget process and the sole Capital Region member of the "three men in a room" who control state spending.

The other two are Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Manhattan Democrat, and Gov. George Pataki.

While this troika has frequently been criticized in the media and by government watchdogs as an unhealthy concentration of power, Bruno said it's worked well for the Albany area.

"Think that's a coincidence?" he asked, after recounting the region's successes.

"That happened because as majority leader I sit at a table and for the press people who don't like it, three men in a room works pretty well."

The region, Bruno said, could lose out on the millions of dollars in pork barrel spending he has generated since he took the Republican Senate's reins in 1995.

"I was there for 18 years watching dollars flow to New York City and flow to Long Island," Bruno said of the period before that.

"What did we get here?"

"Pretzels."

For 18 years, he repeated, "I sat there in a corner and bided my time."

Bruno's remarks came as he is on the verge of becoming the state's most powerful Republican and the only major figure not from New York City.

But if the Republicans lose seats in the Senate, Bruno's power, if not the GOP majority, could be in jeopardy.

State government next year is expected to be dominated by Democrats.

Eliot Spitzer maintains a wide lead over Republican John Faso in the governor's race, and the Assembly is controlled by a clear Democratic majority.

Opinion polls predict that other statewide races are likely to go to the Democrats as well, with Andrew Cuomo ahead of Jeanine Pirro in the attorney general's contest and incumbent Alan Hevesi comfortably leading Chris Callaghan for comptroller.

Spitzer, Cuomo and Hevesi are from New York City.

Senate Republicans, meanwhile, have a slim four-seat majority and face a number of closely contested races next month.

They include the 35th District, where Democrat Andrea Stewart-Cousins is in a rematch against incumbent Nick Spano, who won by 18 votes in 2004.

Moreover, there have been rumblings that Bruno could face dissension in his own ranks, particularly if the GOP loses seats, which he also may have been alluding to on Friday.

"There are people out there who would like to dump me," he said.

In typical blunt style, Bruno acknowledged his stridency, saying "I got up a head of steam this morning and I heard some news this morning and it wasn't what I want to hear," he said.

Bruno spokesmen wouldn't say what the news was, but one possibility is remarks made Thursday by Democratic Assemblyman Ron Canestrari of Cohoes about Republican Senator Dean Skelos.

"I made a comment that some think he may be the next majority leader of the Senate," Canestrari said of the remark, which came during a debate with his Republican Assembly challenger, Kandi Terry, who works for the Senate finance committee.

Skelos, from Long Island, and Binghamton Senator Tom Libous have long been said to be interested in Bruno's job.

Bruno was at Saint Rose to accept thanks for the $500,000 he appropriated for a new geology classroom.

Although his district doesn't include Albany, it borders it, and he frequently works with local politicians from both parties to fund projects across the region.

He started out talking about the Capitol Region's recent success stories stemming in part from state spending, such as development of a nanotechnology research center at the University at Albany and a planned computer chip plant in Saratoga County.

Democratic Albany Assemblyman Jack McEneny, who was at Friday's ceremony, took Bruno's blast in stride.

"What an act to follow," said McEneny.

"Don't hold back, say what you mean," he said with a smile.

McEneny also gave a nod to Bruno's clout:

"We are all much the richer for his tenure."

Karlin can be reached at 454-5758 or by e-mail at rkarlin@timesunion.com.

end quotes

Old Joe Bruno ....

What a class act is OUR Joe ....

Politics has made him a very rich man ....

Rich, indeed ....

Old Joe knows where the nickles and dimes are ....

And how to get them over into his pocket, alright ....

Joe helped himself to some $14 MILLION of OUR state tax dollars ....

And he built himself a smallish replica of POMPEY'S THEATER in Rome ....

For Joe's baseball team, the RENSSELAER COUNTY FATCATS to play baseball at ....

Which stadium features a bust of Joe done up in the Roman style ....

And the stadium is named after JOE BRUNO, of course ....

And then there is the JOE BRUNO MOVIE THEATER in decrepit Troy, New York ....

Yeah, we will miss Joe Bruno, alright ....

[Livyjr]

"'Terror sting' verdict doesn't make us safer"

Letters to the Editor, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Sunday, October 22, 2006

I have been following your detailed reporting of our local "terror sting" case.

When reading Fred LeBrun's Sept. 17 commentary, I was hopeful that the case would be resolved in favor of the accused.

Upon reading Brendan Lyons' reports, I felt less optimistic.

The outcome is very sad for the accused men, their families, their community and for all the rest of us.

I cannot help but think that we are no safer with Mr. Hossain and Mr. Aref behind bars than we were before.

From the very beginning, it seemed to me that basing charges on the duplicitous "friendship" of a convicted felon who would benefit from his deceitful "work" should not be permissible in a state governed by the rule of law.

Furthermore, how can we expect the jurors to make the right decision when they have not even seen the evidence that prompted the sting?

I very much hope the case is appealed.

I like to believe that some day these government "stings" will be considered as wrong as slavery is now.

ILSE B.

Voorheesville

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story...date=10/22/2006

end quotes

If it ever was ....

America is no longer a "state" governed by "rule of law" .....

Not since at least 2000, anyway ...

And New York State has not been a "state" governed by "rule of law" for much, much longer than that ....

And so ...

[Livyjr]

Liv, Spitzer is on a fast train to become Gov.

He has a strong record of prosecuting so-called white collar crime.

He is a Democrat.

Do you really think he will be worse for NYS than Pataki?

"Ballots should include 'None of the Above'"

Letters to the Editor, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Sunday, October 22, 2006

The closer we get to Election Day, it seems more rhetoric and empty promises are tossed around by the candidates and incumbents.

The trend of negative attacks and lack of substance in proposals is becoming the norm of our system.

The "right" image and putting the proper "spin" on an issue far outweighs actual solutions.

Even the physical balloting process is suspect.

As I have watched this year's various campaigns unfold, I have become a more cynical constituent and find there is one item I would like added to the voting machines this year ... a line that states "None of the Above."

SUSAN S.

Valatie

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story...date=10/22/2006

[Livyjr]

"Envoy: U.S. showed 'stupidity' in Iraq" 
 
By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press
Last updated: 5:26 p.m., Saturday, October 21, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A senior U.S. diplomat said the United States had shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in Iraq but was ready to talk with any group except Al-Qaida in Iraq to facilitate national reconciliation.
 
In an interview with Al-Jazeera television aired late Saturday, Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department offered an unusually candid assessment of America's war in Iraq.

"We tried to do our best but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq," he said.

No, No, George

With apologies to Mr. Hank Williams

Now look here George ....

Quit acting smart ....

Stop being that old brazen sort ....

Don't you go sellin' this country out ....

No, no George ....

Just because you think you've found ....

The system that we know ain't sound ....

Don't you go throwin' your weight around ....

No, no, George ......

'Cause the Kaiser tried it and Hitler tried it ....

Mussolini tried it, too ....

Now they're all sittin' around a fire and did you know something?

They're saving a place for you ....

Now George ...

You ought to get it clear ....

You can't push folks around with fear ....

'Cause we don't scare easy over here ....

No, no, George

What makes you do the things you do ....

You gettin' folks mad at you ....

Don't bite off more'n you can chew ...

No, no, George

'Cause you want a scrap that can't win ....

You don't know what you're getting in ....

Don't go around leading with your chin ....

No, No, George ....

Now you got tanks ....

Some fair size tanks ....

But you're acting like a clown ....

'Cause man ....

Nobody's all that impressed ....

Or scared ....

Or shocked ....

Or awed ...

And you're getting caught ....

With your pants down .....

Don't go throwin' out your chest ....

You'll pop the buttons off your vest ....

You're playing with a hornets' nest ....

No, no, George

You know, you think you're somebody the world should dread ....

Just because you're seein' red ....

You better get that foolishness out of your head ....

No, no, George ....

And you might be itchin' for a fight ...

Quit braggin' about how your BIG GRIZ Cheney can bite ....

'Cause you're sitting on a keg of dynamite .....

No, no, George ....

[Livyjr]

"'Stay the course' until when?"

First published: Sunday, October 22, 2006

A realist with a wintry smile, James A. Baker III, who helped make George W. Bush's presidency possible, is seeking ways to salvage it.

After the 2000 election, Baker orchestrated the Bush campaign's lawyering against the Gore campaign's lawyering that tried to overturn Bush's 537-vote Florida margin.

Today Baker is co-chairman -- with former Rep. Lee Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat -- of the Iraq Study Group, which will issue recommendations after Thanksgiving.

International crises rarely conform tidily to electoral cycles.

Too bad.

America's electoral cycles are constitutional facts: Every two years, elections take the nation's temperature.

Every four years, the nation selects the occupant of the office responsible for formulating foreign policy.

Today the policy of "staying the course" means Americans dying to prevent Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other.

If in January 2009 more than 100,000 U.S. forces remain in Iraq, there might be 100 fewer Republicans in Congress.

So "stay the course" is a policy stamped with an expiration date.

Here, then, are four questions the Study Group might address:

What are 140,000 U.S. forces achieving in Iraq that could not be achieved by 40,000?

If the answer is "creating Iraqi security forces," a second question is:

Is there an Iraqi government?

In his book "State of Denial," Bob Woodward quotes Colin Powell, after leaving the administration, telling the President that strengthening Iraq's military and police forces is crucial, but that "if you don't have a government that you can connect these forces to, then, Mr. President, you're not building up forces, you're building up militias."

And making matters worse.

Third, what limits on U.S. aims are set by the character of the Iraqi people, as we now understand that?

Bing West, a former Marine who frequently visits and writes about Iraq, wrote in the October issue of The Atlantic Monthly about accompanying coalition forces that seized an oil pumping station near Basra in March 2003:

"The engineers were appalled to find open cesspools, rusted valves, sputtering turbines, and other vital equipment deteriorating into junk."

"Heaps of garbage lay outside the walls of nearby houses."

"Yet inside the courtyards, tiny patches of grass were as well tended as putting greens."

"That defined Iraq: a generation of tyrannical greed had taught Iraqis to look out for their own, to enrich their families, and to avoid any communal activity that attracted attention."

Hence, a fourth question:

In a (perhaps intentionally) opaque statement on "The Charlie Rose Show" (Oct. 6), Baker said:

"If we are able to promote representative -- representative government, not necessarily democracy, in a number of nations in the Middle East and bring more freedom to the people of that part of the world, (Iraq) will have been a success."

Can President Bush's "freedom agenda," which Iraq has shredded, be recast by the Study Group showing that there is more than semantic sleight-of-hand in the distinction between democracy and representation?

Perhaps the Study Group will function as did the Tower Commission, which provided a pivot point for the last two years of a troubled presidency.

Chaired by former Sen. John Tower, the Texas Republican, it analyzed the Reagan administration's failings that produced the Iran-contra fiasco.

This story is told in the book "Saving the Reagan Presidency" by David Abshire, to whom Reagan gave extraordinary powers to examine his administration's dysfunctions and recommend remedial measures.

Abshire, a seasoned diplomat now advising the Study Group, told Reagan that his presidency could not be revived without the removal of Don Regan as White House chief of staff.

Regan was removed.

The Study Group almost certainly will, like the Tower Commission, refrain from making personnel recommendations.

But is it plausible that the Bush presidency can pivot without changing senior Defense Department personnel?

In September 1942, the U.S. government purchased 58,575 acres of wilderness in eastern Tennessee.

Soon there was a town, Oak Ridge, and amazing scientific facilities.

Thirty-four months after the purchase, an atomic blast lit the New Mexico desert.

After 43 months in Iraq, U.S. forces still struggle to cope with improvised explosive devices.

On Sept. 19, Hamilton said "the next three months are critical."

On Oct. 5, Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said that the next "two or three months" are critical.

If only the worsening insurgency were, as the President suggested Wednesday, akin to North Vietnam's 1968 Tet Offensive.

The insurgency is worse: Tet was a military defeat for North Vietnam.

The President says the war in Iraq will be "just a comma" in history books, but by Nov. 26, the Sunday after Thanksgiving, with the Study Group's recommendations due, the comma will have lasted as long as U.S. involvement in World War II.

George Will's e-mail address is georgewill@washpost.com.

end quotes

"That defined Iraq: a generation of tyrannical greed had taught Iraqis to look out for their own, to enrich their families, and to avoid any communal activity that attracted attention."

Sounds a lot like a definition of the CORRUPT REPUBLICAN EMPIRE of New York, as well ....

And that is right here ....

In OUR own America ....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

No, No, George

With apologies to Mr. Hank Williams

Now George ...

You ought to get it clear ....

You can't push folks around with fear ....

'Cause we don't scare easy over here ....

No, no, George

What makes you do the things you do ....

You gettin' folks mad at you ....

Don't bite off more'n you can chew ...

No, no, George

'Cause you want a scrap that can't win ....

You don't know what you're getting in ....

Don't go around leading with your chin ....

No, No, George ....

"GOP losses could spark partisan warfare"

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press
Last updated: 4:16 p.m., Sunday, October 22, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The White House is bracing for guerrilla warfare on the homefront politically if Republicans lose control of the House, the Senate or both -- and with it, the president's ability to shape and dominate the national agenda.

Republicans are battling to keep control of Congress.

But polls and analysts in both parties increasingly suggest Democrats will capture the House and possibly the Senate on Election Day Nov. 7.

Democrats need a 15-seat pickup to regain the House and a gain of six seats to claim the Senate.

Everything could change overnight for President Bush, who has governed for most of the past six years with a Republican Congress and with little support from Democrats.

"Every session you change the way you do business with the Congress."

"And you test the mood of the Congress, find out what their appetite will be."

"But it doesn't change your priorities," the president told ABC News.

Former President Clinton had to deal with the Democrats' loss of control of Congress in 1994.

But Clinton had something Bush does not: six more years to regain his footing.

Bush has barely over two years left.

The loss of either house in voting next month could hasten Bush's descent into a lame-duck presidency.

"If he loses one house here, President Bush will enter the last two years very wounded," said David Gergen, a former White House adviser who served in the administrations of Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton.

"He will have the capacity to say no to Democratic legislation, but he won't have the capacity to say yes to his own legislation," said Gergen, who teaches at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

Democratic victories essentially could block Bush's remaining agenda and usher in a period of intense partisan bickering over nearly every measure to come before Congress.

Loss of either chamber also could subject his administration to endless congressional inquiries and investigations.

The president and chief political strategist Karl Rove last week expressed renewed confidence of retaining both House and Senate; others are not so upbeat.

"All of our numbers look pretty bad and there's no question that there's a jet stream in our face," said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Furthermore, some of Bush's fighting in the trenches is likely to be with fellow Republicans as they seek to find a new standard bearer for 2008 -- and distance themselves from an unpopular war, the unpopular president who waged it, and congressional scandals that include inappropriate e-mails to House pages from ex-Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla.

"There's no question that the Republican coalition is stressed over the way Washington has been handling fiscal matters, the Foley affair, the Iraq war," said GOP consultant Scott Reed.

"All of these are coming together at the same time."

Already, Republicans are showing divisions on Iraq policy.

Fresh skepticism has come from Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner of Virginia, Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, a longtime Bush family loyalist.

If Republicans lose their majorities, it will be that much harder for Bush to hold together already splintering GOP cohesion on Iraq.

Bush has been quoted by journalist Bob Woodward as saying, "I'll stay in Iraq even if the only support I have left is from my wife and my dog."

A Democratic takeover and Republican defections could make that day seem closer.

While the Senate has been difficult for Bush, even with GOP control, the House for most of his presidency has delivered for him.

That could be about to change.

The White House traditionally loses seats in midterm congressional races.

The most recent exception was 2002, when Bush's party picked up seats.

Many Democrats see the upcoming elections as a mirror image of 1994, with the parties reversed.

Then, Republicans rallied behind firebrand Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, announced a "Contract with America," and stormed to victory, seizing both House and Senate from Democrats.

It was a huge blow to Clinton, made worse by the lavish and almost-presidential reception Gingrich received around Washington as he was inaugurated as House speaker.

Doug Schoen, Clinton's pollster then, said those times were bleak, including Clinton's baleful insistence to reporters in early 1995 that "the president is relevant."

But Clinton soon figured out how to enhance his relevance and influence, reaching out to Republicans on some of their own issues, such as welfare law overhaul and "talking about the common good," said Schoen.

Clinton went on to easily win re-election in 1996.

But Schoen said he doubts Bush can do the same:

"After 9-11, except for a brief period, he's governed from the right."

"There's so much bitterness and division, it's going to be tougher for him to do it than perhaps it was for Clinton."

Some of Bush's sharpest critics would rise to top positions with a Democratic takeover.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., probably would become speaker.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., a foe of extending Bush tax cuts, would become chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, who has sponsored legislation calling for steps that could open the way to Bush's impeachment, would lead the Judiciary Committee.

If Democrats win the Senate, Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada -- one of the most outspoken of all Bush critics -- probably would ascend to majority leader.

The Republican Party chairman, Ken Mehlman, even raises the specter of a leadership troika of Pelosi, Reid and Democratic party chief Howard Dean, in GOP fundraising mailings to Republicans.

Bush, in his own get-out-the-vote appeal, told Republicans:

"The consequences of not succeeding this fall are dire for our agenda for America."

Bush even suggested last week that insurgents in Iraq were stepping up their violence in a bid to influence the elections.

Polls in 2006 show a more dramatic tilt toward the Democrats than polling in 1994 showed a tilt toward Republicans.

But redistricting has made far fewer congressional districts competitive.

A Democratic takeover of one or more chambers would all but guarantee that Bush would not get his Social Security overhaul or further tax cuts through Congress.

One Bush initiative that actually might see improved chances is his immigration proposal for a "guest worker" program.

That actually has more Democratic than Republican support.

Stephen Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University, said a loss of House or Senate would cripple Bush domestically -- but might actually give him more room to find a way out of Iraq.

"Were he to choose to moderate the course in Iraq, the Democrats would say, 'I told you so' and the Republicans would say, 'Thank you,'" said Wayne.

[Livyjr]

And here ...

IS THE REAL COST ....

TO US ....

THE CITZENS OF THIS CORRUPT ****-HOLE THAT IS THE STATE OF NEW YORK ....

OF ENDEMIC GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION ....

AND JUST PLAIN INCOMPETENCE ....

THAT COMES FROM PUTTING A BUNCH OF WORTHLESS BOTTOM-FEEDERS AND POLITICAL HACKS AND THUGS IN CHARGE OF OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS UP HERE ....

IN THIS CORRUPT REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED ****-HOLE ....

"Rensselaer County faces tax hike - 25.9% increase would cover expected gap in $278M spending plan"

By KATE PERRY, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Saturday, October 21, 2006

TROY -- Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino said Friday the county faces a harsh financial reality and a 25.9 percent tax increase is part of it.

For five years, Jimino and the county Legislature used millions from the county's reserve fund balance to close budget gaps and create palatable tax increases.

But the well is dry: The fund balance is projected to disappear by the end of the year, and mandated costs like Medicaid, heath insurance and retirement continue to rise, Jimino said as she presented her version of the 2007 county budget.

The increase would cover an $11 million budget gap in the $278 million spending plan.

"The day has come when we must use today's property tax dollars to pay for the mandated programs as well as the non-mandated programs and services that our constituents have come to rely on," Jimino said from a lectern in the gymnasium of the Troy Boys and Girls Club.

The proposed increase, Jimino said, means a resident with a home assessed at $100,000 would pay $639.27, an increase of $131.06 over last year.

The increase is $4.23 per $1,000 of assessed value.

During her presentation Jimino never stated the actual 25.9 percent tax increase number.

Those in attendance had to do their own math or ask her after the presentation for the figure.

The budget will be reviewed and likely changed by the county Legislature in November and adopted in early December.

Jimino also suggested eliminating 37 positions, which she said will come from various departments including social services and the county attorney's office.

Those positions likely would be eliminated by attrition, Jimino said, rather than layoffs.

Six factors have a major impact on 2007's budget, Jimino told the crowd of politicians, students and press gathered for her presentation.

She projected the county will lose $1.2 million in sales tax revenue in 2007 from shoes and clothing, a change made in March to encourage shopping in Rensselaer County.

Medicaid costs, which have climbed $10 million since 2001, are projected to increase by $1 million in 2007.

The county's share of health insurance is estimated to grow by $2.2 million in 2007.

While the county will pay less into the retirement system in 2007 than it did this year, Jimino still counts it as a drain on taxpayers, noting it has risen close to $6 million in the last five years.

Lastly, Jimino said, the county's debt service is expected to reach $9.5 million in 2007, up about $1.5 million from this year.

She noted that for the first time the county's budget includes the sales tax revenue it distributes to municipalities on behalf of the state, an accounting change required by the state comptroller's office.

Jimino's budget increased by $5 million over 2006, but with the accounting change in place, it increased a total of $23 million, according to Jimino spokesman Chris Meyer.

Democratic and Republican legislators proposed budget cuts to lessen the tax increase.

But Democrats, who want the county to implement long-range plans to save money and gain revenue, were eager to criticize Jimino and the Republican majority.

Democratic Minority Leader Ginny O'Brien said Rensselaer County's proposed increase stands out dramatically from its neighbors.

Earlier this month, Albany County Executive Mike Breslin proposed cutting taxes by 2.3 percent and officials in Schenectady County projected a 2 percent tax increase.

Saratoga County won't present its tentative budget until Nov. 1, but County Treasurer Samuel Pitcheralle said the county could reduce taxes.

"These counties have to contend with Medicaid, just as we do," O'Brien said.

"The difference is management and how the county's resources are being administered."

While Rensselaer County may be putting up big numbers this year, all four counties have increased the amount of money they collect from residents in recent years.

The New York State Association of Counties reports from 2002-05 the following increase in tax levies: Albany County, 70.1 percent; Rensselaer County, 45.2 percent; Saratoga County, 30.5 percent; and Schenectady County, 27.6 percent.

O'Brien charged county Republicans only consider tax increases and new fees to close budget gaps.

But the Republican Majority Leader Bob Mirch said he wants the Legislature to consider major cuts.

"The changes I want to look at are eliminating the (sheriff's) road patrol, that's several million dollars," he said.

He's also interested in eliminating the health department and if all else fails, the entire county government with the exception of the jail and sheriff's department.

Perry can be reached at 454-5092 or by e-mail at kperry@timesunion.com.

end quotes

"The day has come when we must use today's property tax dollars to pay for the mandated programs as well as the non-mandated programs and services that our constituents have come to rely on," Jimino said from a lectern in the gymnasium of the Troy Boys and Girls Club.

And that is a LARGE CROCK OF CRAPOLA if there ever was one .....

Because by OUR Constitution up here ....

Outside of the Health Department ..

And the Sheriff's Department ....

And the County Highway Department ....

THERE REALLY ARE NO SERVICES THAT WE CAN DEPEND ON FROM THE COUNTY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT, HERE IN NEW YORK STATE .....

AND IN RENSSELAER COUNTY, THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT IS CORRUPT ...

And so ....

THAT DEPARTMENT IS COMPLETELY UNTRUSTWORTHY ....

And so ...

What we have instead is a glorified SYSTEM OF WELFARE ...

At OUR expense ....

For all of these political hacks and their extended families ....

Who see the county treasury as something due them and theirs ....

And so ...