The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) also released a book, Articles of Impeachment Against President Bush. The Center is extremely influential in high-profile court fights over issues such as wiretapping, the treatment of detainees by the US, and felon voting rights.

"We have the book, we are calling for the impeachment of the President, and we're supporting Conyers's resolution," Bill Goodman, CCR Legal Director, told Atlanta Progressive News.

"The fraudulent basis on which the President got us into the war in Iraq; the obvious criminality of the warrantless wiretapping; indefinite detention in violation of the Constitution; torture as a part of indefinite detention and other ways; special rendition and torture, which is the outsourcing of torture... All of these violate various laws of the US, and they also violate his oath office which he swears to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and he's doing just the opposite, he's undermining the Constitution and attempting to destroy certain parts of it," Goodman said.

Meanwhile, at least eight (8) US cities, including Arcata, Santa Cruz, and San Francisco, each in California; and Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro, Newfane, and Putney, each in Vermont, have passed resolutions calling for Bush's impeachment.

The recent city resolutions in Vermont have directly led to US Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) having signed H. Res 635 on March 09, 2006, David Swanson, 36, Washington DC Director of ImpeachPAC, asserted in an interview with Atlanta Progressive News.

"One of the big stories here is the town resolutions helped someone sign on the resolution that could move us in the direction of impeachment. Even though getting your city or town to pass a resolution doesn't legally force the house to impeach, it can compel your congress member to get on board," Swanson said.

Sanders's Office did not provide a statement about his co-sponsoring H. Res 635, prior to deadline, and referred this writer to an official statement on Sanders's website.

"I can very well understand why the citizens of Newfane, Putney, Dummerston, Marlboro, and Brookfield voted yesterday to support the impeachment of President Bush and ask me, as Vermont's Congressman, to introduce those articles. It is my view that President Bush's Administration has been a disaster for our country, and a number of actions that he has taken may very well have been illegal," Sanders said. Sanders, the only Independent, or non-Democrat, currently co-sponsoring H. Res 635, is current for US Senate to replace retiring US Senator Jim Jefforts (I-VT).

However, Sanders stopped short of saying he would introduce outright articles of impeachment, saying citizens should focus on getting Republicans out of power in the 2006 election if they want to end Bush's disastrousness. Signing H. Res 635 indicates Sanders's support for a more exploratory investigation.

Mr. Swanson, along with Bob Fertik of Democrats.com, have been perhaps the most prominent citizen activists on this issue. ImpeachPAC was featured in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week. "Bob has been pushing for impeachment since Gore won the election. This is Bob's moment now after five years," Swanson said.

US Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) was the other latest member of US Congress to sign on to the bill. Capuano's Office did not immediately return calls from Atlanta Progressive News.

Over 14% of US House Democrats now support the impeachment probe; almost 7% of all US House Representatives now support the probe. In December 2005, there were 231 Republicans in the US House, 202 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 1 vacancy, a clerk for the US House of Representatives told Atlanta Progressive News.

The best represented states on H. Res 635 are California (7), New York (6), Massachusetts (3), Georgia (2), Minnesota (2), and Wisconsin (2).

The current 30 total co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

"I have a Citizen Co-sponsorship page on my website, http://johnconyers.com, where over 42,000 people have added their names to the 30 Members of Congress calling for the creation of a special committee to investigate possible impeachable offenses. My website also has a form for people to write a letter-to-the-editor for their local newspaper. It is grassroots activity like this, and the efforts of thousands of others, that has led to greater awareness of and support for my resolution," Rep. Conyers told Atlanta Progressive News.

"What a lot of activists group want is the next step, which is Articles of Impeachment. You don't have to pass this type of bill first. I think there's a fair chance that if the list of co-sponsors grows dramatically, Conyers and others will take that next step of introducing articles of impeachment," Swanson said.

At least two members of Congress are prepared to sign such a bill if it were to be introduced, sources tell Atlanta Progressive News. One of them is US Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), whose office clarified earlier Associated Press reports, by saying Lewis would indeed sign such a bill, assuming that any bill of impeachment would of course be introduced as a result of a thorough process, such as one including the investigation called for in H. Res 635.

Shocking allegations appeared in The Baltimore Chronicle today. Dave Lindorff writes that he and Barbara Olshansky (also an attorney at CCR) will reveal in an upcoming book that "members of Congress–even firebrands like Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)–have been strong-armed behind the scenes by the Democratic National Committee not to introduce an impeachment bill in the House."

Conyers's bill was initially referred to the US House Rules Committee, which has not taken action. None of the US House Democrats on the Rules Committee have signed on as co-sponsors. The Ranking Democrat on the Committee is US Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY). Democratic members of the Committee are Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Doris Matsui (D-CA), and James McGovern (D-MA). Republicans currently outnumber Democrats on the committee by about a two-to-one ratio.

The US House Rules Committee would need to take action on H. Res 635 because it calls for the creation of a Select Committee, in other words the creation of a new committee that is not a standing committee, Jonathan Godfrey, Communications Director for US Rep. Conyers, told Atlanta Progressive News. Such a Committee would need to be staffed, Godfrey noted.

If the Democratic Party is able to retake the US House of Representatives, Rep. Conyers would become Chairman Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee, whereas he is currently the Ranking Democrat on the Committee. The Judiciary Committee would oversee any actual impeachment investigation.

If not acted on this session, the bill would have to be reintroduced next session. It is possible that a new bill could include new language regarding Bush's approval of illegal NSA domestic wiretapping.

For now, however, sources in Washington DC tell Atlanta Progressive News that H. Res 635 is a venue for coalition among members of Congress who are willing to consider impeachment for a variety of reasons.

Even though H. Res 635 does not specifically reference the NSA domestic wiretapping issue, some Members of US Congress have found the wiretapping issue to be a compelling reason to sign on as a co-sponsor, sources say.

In other words, why introduce separate legislation to address a single issue when momentum has been built with H. Res 635?

The thing about H. Res. 635 is, it deals with impeaching Bush over a cluster of issues from misleading the public to go to war, to authorizing torture. Wiretapping was not listed as one of the reasons to investigate the grounds for Bush's impeachment in the bill because the existence of the secret, illegal wiretapping had not come to light yet when the bill was being prepared.

US Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) withdrew her name from H. Res 635 last month, whereas she had been listed as a cosponsor throughout January 2006. Lofgren cited a clerical error for her name having been listed in the first place. Lofgren's Office told Atlanta Progressive News the Representative learned of her being listed as a co-sponsor after reading an exclusive article by Atlanta Progressive News issued January 01, 2006.

H. Res 635 reads as its official title: "Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."

Atlanta Progressive News has provided near-exclusive–and during most times, exclusive–coverage of the progress of H. Res 635. We will continue to follow this story and any related developments.

Resources:

Find Out More About The Center for Constitutional Rights

Find Out More About ImpeachPAC

Find Out More About The Honorable John Conyers

About the author:

Matthew Cardinale is the Editor and National Correspondent of Atlanta Progressive News. He may be reached at matthew@atlantaprogressivenews.com

Syndication policy:

This article may be reprinted in full at no cost where Atlanta Progressive News is credited.

The numbers of war veterans enrolled in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has continued to grow, and many feel the strain.

"I want to excel and advance and get stronger," said Simpson. "But at the same time, I don't want to pull a muscle or do the wrong exercise that can hurt a certain part of my body, because then I'll be helpless."

In Texas, a group of veterans staged a protest march covering the distance to the nearest VA hospital: 250 miles.

"[It takes] four-and-a-half to five hours .. one way," said Vietnam War vet Polo Uriesti.

Uriesti said his father, a veteran of World War II, suffers a greater hardship. But he said the headaches and flashbacks of post-traumatic stress still flare up without warning.

"I just … it chokes me up," said Uriesti.

The VA acknowledged some veterans suffer those problems but said most do not.

"Last year, 97 percent of veterans who came to us for a primary care appointment got that appointment within 30 days, and 95 percent of those who came for an acute care appointment got it within 30 days," said R. James Nicholson, secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Audit: VA Fudged Reports

But an inspector general's audit found real problems with the way the VA has come up with those numbers. The audit found that some VA staff, feeling "pressured," actually fudged the numbers, and error rates were as high as 61 percent.

In Atlanta, one veteran who the VA said got an appointment within a week actually waited nearly a year.

Another veteran in Boston who reported seeing a VA doctor within hours actually waited 472 days.

The VA said it has been steadily improving the system, but many veterans' groups worry the situation will only get worse as new Iraq veterans keep pouring in.

"The numbers are simply going to overwhelm them, and they are not going to have the proper funds to deal with these folks on a long-term, chronic basis," said David Gorman of the advocacy group Disabled American Veterans.

Uriesti worries what his two sons, set to serve again in Iraq, may face if they need care, given the gaps in the VA system so many veterans now face.

When governments and/or corporations perpetrate gross injustice and war - or do nothing to stop it - we, the people, must take action to end the violence and exploitation.

Through the power of information and boycott, Consumers For Peace offers you a non-violent way, every day, to act on behalf of justice and peace. Our focus is the Iraq War.

We propose a boycott of ExxonMobil Corporation products and the products and services of nine firms that are in a position to influence ExxonMobil through its board of directors to achieve these goals:

1. Immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops and mercenaries from Iraq; and reparations for the loss of Iraqi lives and property.

2. Impeachment of George W. Bush; and criminal prosecution of executive branch officials who have lied to congress about the war and/or have commited war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Republican Party leaders said the survey explains why GOP lawmakers are rushing to distance themselves from Bush on a range of issues - port security, immigration, spending, warrantless eavesdropping and trade, for example.

The positioning is most intense among Republicans facing election in November and those considering 2008 presidential campaigns.

"You're in the position of this cycle now that is difficult anyway. In second term off-year elections, there gets to be a familiarity factor," said Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., a potential presidential candidate.

"People have seen and heard (Bush's) ideas long enough and that enters into their thinking. People are kind of, `Well, I wonder what other people can do,'" he said.

The poll suggests that most Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job. The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday of 1,000 people, found that just 37 percent approve of his overall performance. That is the lowest of his presidency.

Bush's job approval among Republicans plummeted from 82 percent in February to 74 percent, a dangerous sign in a midterm election year when parties rely on enthusiasm from their most loyal voters. The biggest losses were among white males.

On issues, Bush's approval rating declined from 39 percent to 36 percent for his handling of domestic affairs and from 47 percent to 43 percent on foreign policy and terrorism. His approval ratings for dealing with the economy and Iraq held steady, but still hovered around 40 percent.

Personally, far fewer Americans consider Bush likable, honest, strong and dependable than they did just after his re-election campaign.

By comparison, Presidents Clinton and Reagan had public approval in the mid 60s at this stage of their second terms in office, while Eisenhower was close to 60 percent, according to Gallup polls. Nixon, who was increasingly tangled up in the Watergate scandal, was in the high 20s in early 1974.

The AP-Ipsos poll, which has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, gives Republicans reason to worry that they may inherit Bush's political woes. Two-thirds of the public disapproves of how the GOP-led Congress is handling its job and a surprising 53 percent of Republicans give Congress poor marks.

By a 47-36 margin, people favor Democrats over Republicans when they are asked who should control Congress.

While the gap worries Republicans, it does not automatically translate into GOP defeats in November, when voters will face a choice between local candidates rather than considering Congress as a whole.

In addition, strategists in both parties agree that a divided and undisciplined Democratic Party has failed to seize full advantage of Republican troubles.

"While I don't dispute the fact that we have challenges in the current environment politically, I also believe 2006 as a choice election offers Republicans an opportunity if we make sure the election is framed in a way that will keep our majorities in the House and the Senate," said Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Stung by criticism, senior officials at the White House and the RNC are reminding GOP members of Congress that Bush's approval ratings may be low, but theirs is lower and have declined at the same pace as Bush's. The message to GOP lawmakers is that criticizing the president weakens him - and them - politically.

"When issue like the internal Republican debate over the ports dominates the news it puts us another day away from all of us figuring out what policies we need to win," said Terry Nelson, a Republican consultant and political director for Bush's re-election campaign in 2004.

Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company on Thursday abandoned its quest to take over operations at several U.S. ports. Bush had pledged to veto any attempt to block the transaction, pitting him against Republicans in Congress and most voters.

All this has Republican voters like Walter Wright of Fairfax Station, Va., worried for their party.

"We've gotten so carried away I wouldn't be surprised to see the Democrats take it because of discontent," he said. "People vote for change and hope for the best."

RONALD REAGAN'S Eleventh Commandment famously ordered his party: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.

For ambitious and bitchy politicians, it was always a demanding precept and in practice they have obeyed it about as assiduously as they've kept the seventh (or for that matter the sixth) of the decalogue of Moses. But the great unwieldy and shifting coalition of the Republican Party has somehow managed to hold itself together rather better than the infamously feuding Democrats, whose favourite form of assembly has long been the circular firing squad.

Not any more. Republicans are falling out among themselves like the starving Israelites in the desert. The political din in Washington is dominated by members of the ruling party shouting at each other. Just this week you could have heard it across town everywhere Republicans were gathered. At the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, was Bruce Bartlett, a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, explaining to a large and sympathetic audience why his criticism of President Bush's economic policies had led him to be fired from a conservative research institute. In the pages of conservative journals a furious fight among neoconservatives was sparked by the apostasy of Francis Fukuyama. In a new book, the man who declared the End of History has denounced the Iraq war and his erstwhile neocon friends who supported it.

And up on Capitol Hill the loudest noise of all came from Republican members of Congress rushing to distance themselves from President Bush. They ignored Mr Bush's pleas not to reject the transfer of half a dozen US ports to a company owned by the Dubai Government and in the process sent warning that they have passed the point where loyalty to the President was compatible with their own electoral success.

These skirmishes are part of a broader war now raging within the Republican Party. In its ferocity this internecine strife is worse than anything seen in Washington since the first Bush Administration ended so disastrously in 1992. Traditional conservatives are bashing neoconservatives; free-market Republicans are attacking big business Republicans; fiscal conservative are furious with big-spending conservatives; national security, America-first Republicans are in open warfare with free-trading, open-immigration Republicans.

The obvious reason is that the party is in a slump in electoral fortunes. Nothing loosens the ties of loyalty like the prospect of losing power. After a brief and tepid recovery at the start of the year, President Bush's approval ratings are back in the 30s. Almost two thirds of Americans think their country is on the wrong track. Republicans in Congress are about as popular as Asian ducks on a chicken farm.

The disparate and proximate causes of the Republican implosion are obvious: Iraq, first and foremost; the continuing slow response to Hurricane Katrina (bewilderingly, most of the money that Congress authorised for reconstruction has still not got anywhere near New Orleans); a growing tide of corruption scandals; and, most recently, the Dubai ports debacle.

A run of events like this would make even the most loyal of partisans feel just a little fractious. But the deeper reason for Republican unease is that linking these apparently unconnected disasters is a common thread: a suggestion that Republicans have lost quite a bit of their soul.

In Congress the party has presided over the biggest increase in the federal government since Lyndon Johnson. The Clinton Administration and previous Democrat-controlled congresses were niggardly by comparison. Doubts about Iraq have set in not just about the conduct of the war but over the very idea behind the effort in the first place. Conservatives who have always harboured deep suspicions about the wisdom of government getting involved in people's lives are scratching their heads as to how they could have signed on to a project that has the US Government trying to remake an entire region of the world.

The corruption scandals also demonstrate how far Republicans have wandered from their faith. Supposedly conservative politicians have grown to enjoy the pleasures of office, and have become even more zealous than the Democrats in protecting them.

If Iraq shows what happens when conservatives go wrong abroad, Katrina illustrates the disasters they can produce at home. Michael Brown, the infamous head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, was not the only political hack with no experience of or real interest in government to be put in charge of a vast government bureaucracy. He just happened to be one who was found out. The Dubai ports sale farrago has even undermined the Bush Administration's reputation for keeping the nation secure from external threats.

When it comes to spending money, waging "nation building" wars or responding to natural disasters, putting Republicans in charge of an expanding government is like putting teetotalers in charge of a brewery - you shouldn't really be surprised if things don't work out as you might hope.

The conventional wisdom in Washington as the November mid-term elections approach is that the Republicans are in serious but not catastrophic trouble; that thanks to the vicissitudes of the electoral arithmetic and a Democratic Party that can outdo the Republicans in every category for ineptitude, the expectation is that the party will hold on to its control of congress with a slimmed-down majority.

But that might be even worse news for the Republicans. Holding on to power in Congress by a slim margin for the last two years of an unpopular President's term might just set the stage for a genuine disaster in the much more important presidential and congressional elections of 2008.

To reinvigorate their own fortunes, a growing number of Republicans are secretly hoping the Democrats get a chance to screw things up for a change.

gerard.baker@thetimes.co.uk

"The purpose of this legislation is to keep the public from knowing about the harm they may be exposed to in food," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, a chief critic of the measure.

Several critics argued that the bill was rushed through the House without complete hearings as a favor to a specific industry -- at the same time that members are talking about the evils of lobbying and proposing stricter ethical rules.

Under the bill, any state that wanted to keep its own tougher standards for food labeling would have to ask for approval from the Food and Drug Administration, which has been criticized by food safety groups as slow to issue consumer warnings.

The measure was approved after a debate in which House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco accused the Republican majority of "shredding the food safety net that we have built in this country."

The measure passed 283 to 139, with the support of many Democrats. The Bay Area's 12 Democratic members opposed the bill, while Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, supported it. The legislation faces a tougher battle in the more evenly divided Senate, and there are signs of growing opposition to the measure.

California's two Democratic senators are threatening to block the bill from coming to the Senate floor. A group of 39 state attorneys general, including many Republicans, has warned of the consequences of the measure. State food and drug regulators and agricultural officials also are urging the Senate to reject the bill.

A major target of the legislation is Prop. 65, which was approved by two-thirds of California voters in 1986 and requires labeling of substances that may cause cancer or birth defects. The law has inspired other states to follow suit with their own rules on food labeling that are more stringent than federal standards.

Critics say the laws have added costs for food manufacturers and distributors, who must comply with different rules in different states. The industry's backers claim the different warning labels confuse consumers.

"There is no reason nor is there any excuse to allow regulatory inconsistency to drive up costs and keep some consumers in the dark on matters that may affect their health," said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga.

But California officials said the new legislation would reverse the gains made through Prop. 65. Many companies, fearing the warning labels, have changed their food to meet the state's tougher standards. Bottled water companies have cut arsenic levels, and bakers have taken potassium bromate, a potential carcinogen, out of many breads, doughnuts and other bakery goods.

"We've had a lot of success in getting them to reformulate," said California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

Opponents of the bill complained that it was rushed to the House floor without a public hearing, where state regulators and food safety advocates could have testified against it.

"That is the job of Congress, to hold hearings, to introduce facts, to listen to debate," said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., who co-sponsored the bill but opposed it on the floor, saying it needed a thorough public debate. "I am wondering right now what the food industry is afraid of. Why are they trying to ram this piece of legislation through the House?"

Critics of the measure also have been frustrated that California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill despite being urged to do so by Waxman and Rep. Mary Bono, R-Palm Springs, early last month.

"Your silence on this legislation is inexplicable," Waxman wrote in a letter to the governor. "It not only rolls back essential existing laws, but it takes away your ability, and the ability of the California Legislature, to respond to future public health issues."

A spokeswoman for the governor said Schwarzenegger may still jump into the debate.

"The office is reviewing it," said spokeswoman Margita Thompson. "Once the determination is made if the governor should weigh in and how, we will."

The vote Wednesday was a sign of the tremendous power of the food industry in Congress. Corporations and trade groups that joined the National Uniformity for Food Coalition, which backed the bill, have contributed more than $3 million to members in the 2005-06 election cycle and $31 million since 1998, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

The industry also has many top lobbyists pushing the bill, including White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card's brother, Brad Card, who represents the Food Products Association.

A leading fundraiser for the bill's chief sponsor, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., has also been lobbying on the bill. Matt Keelen, a Republican consultant whose fundraising firm raised more than $315,000 in political action committee donations for Rogers in 2001, is now a lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers of America, which has led the charge for the measure.

"The food industry wants to take the states out of the picture because they can't control them," said Andy Igrejas of the National Environmental Trust, which opposes the bill. "This is how they do it. They make campaign contributions, and they hire people close to members of Congress."

But Rogers denied there was a backroom deal with the food industry. He said supporters of the bill simply believe federal standards work better than state standards on food safety.

"A chicken grown in Louisiana is going to end up on a plate in Michigan. Peas grown in Florida are going to end up in Louisiana," Rogers said. "This is an interstate matter."

The House passed an amendment late Wednesday allowing states, including California, to continue to issue warnings about the heath effects of mercury in fish and shellfish.

But the House defeated an amendment by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara, that would have let states keep laws that warn consumers about exposure to substances that could cause cancer, birth defects, reproductive health problems or allergic reactions associated with sulfites.

The House also rejected a proposal to allow states to label meat that has been treated with carbon monoxide. The gas is used to keep meat looking a healthy red or pink for longer, but consumer groups say it allows stores to sell potentially dangerous meat that has already spoiled.

E-mail Zachary Coile at zcoile@sfchronicle.com.

A source in the national staff said a meeting was held this morning to give them the bad news, with similar gatherings throughout the day. "Eighty through attrition and buyouts," the source said. "They are going staff by staff."

The paper has more than 800 editorial employees, many represented by the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild. Rick Weiss, a Post reporter and Guild unit chair at the paper, could not be reached for comment this morning.

Another national staff writer, who attended this morning's meeting, said editors raised the issue of travel costs as well, saying the paper would continue to travel with major government figures, but hinting that other travel may be curtailed. The reporter said people were unsurprised by the announcement. "There was no slash and burn, no doom and gloom," the source said. "They said the model is changing."

Other cost cuts also are being rumored, including the eventual closing of at least two foreign bureaus and changes to some other overseas bureaus that would have staffers working out of their homes.

Sources said editors explained that some of the foreign cuts were the result of high costs covering the Iraq war, up to $1 million per year. But they stressed that war coverage would not be reduced, at least for the moment.

Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. and Publisher Bo Jones did not return calls from E&P seeking comment.

Post spokesman Eric Grant offered no comment when asked about the pending cuts or any official announcement, saying only, "not at this point."

Joe Strupp (jstrupp@editorandpublisher.com) is a senior editor at E&P.

Because the errors added votes equally for each candidate, the glitch did not change the outcome of Tarrant County races but narrowed the margin of victory in some statewide races. In the close Republican primary race for Texas Supreme Court, for example, incumbent Don Willett edged past former Justice Steve Smith by only about 1 percentage point with the corrected vote tallies.

Questions about possible problems were raised by election staff late Tuesday night, as it became apparent to some that the county would far exceed the 76,000 votes cast in the 2002 primary elections.

But elections officials did not look into the discrepancies that night because they were dealing with a new system, new procedures and some new equipment, said Gayle Hamilton, Tarrant County's interim elections administrator.

"We didn't think there was a problem," Hamilton said. "We should have stopped right then.

"But we didn't question it at that time."

The problem stemmed from a programming error by Hart InterCivic, which manufactured the equipment and wrote the software for the local voting system. The system is designed to combine electronic early voting results and totals from paper ballots on Election Day.

The error caused the computer to compound the previous vote totals each time the election totals were updated throughout the night, rather than keep a simple running total, officials said.

"The system did what we told it to do," said John Covell, a vice president with Hart. "We told it incorrectly."

The program was designed specifically for Tarrant County, and no other counties reported similar problems, elections officials said.

By 7 a.m. Wednesday, campaign officials for Robert Higgins, who ran against Republican state Rep. Anna Mowery in state House District 97, showed up at election headquarters wanting to know how more than 20,000 people could have voted in that race.

"We were watching the results and we knew what the universe of numbers should be," Higgins said. "We expected about 8,000 in our race and got about 21,000."

Election officials then began reviewing the results and discovered errors. Hart officials were called in and spent much of Wednesday reviewing election results.

By late Wednesday, officials were still running reports showing precinct-by-precinct totals -- about 5,000 pages in all -- to examine and compare the data with information collected by election judges countywide.

"Then we will feel very comfortable that the information is correct," County Administrator G.K. Maenius said. "We're going to be working on this continuously."

Democratic Party Chairman Art Brender said he had been on the verge of calling elections officials to get precinct-by-precinct data when he was told that there had been a problem with totals on election night.

"I was concerned about the results when I saw them," he said. "I thought there were too many."

Republican Party Chairwoman Stephanie Klick also said she was skeptical of the results when she saw that some GOP races had 114,000 voters turning out to cast ballots.

"That would have been a record turnout," she said.

Brender said the glitch drives home the need for a paper trail for the next election. Officials hope by the May elections that a device will be added to the electronic eSlate machines used in early voting to record paper copies of ballots cast. The Texas secretary of state's office must first give its approval.

For the ongoing review of Tarrant County data, printouts kept by election judges are being matched to the recording tape in the voting machines.

"I'm not concerned about the accuracy of data when it came in and was preserved," Brender said. "I'll be comfortable with electronic voting when there's a verifiable paper trail."

County officials say they don't know how much it will cost to correct the numbers. Hamilton said the county will waive the usual charge for candidates who want a recount.

In 2002, Tarrant County election officials did not report final tallies for more than a day after polls closed because of a different programming error that caused machines to ignore votes for individual candidates when a voter cast a straight-party ballot.

Republican and Democratic party officials are responsible for canvassing the election returns, which makes them official, by March 18. The returns will then be turned over to the state, party officials said.

IN THE KNOW

Voting glitch

A sample of the vote tallies illustrates the computer glitch in Tarrant County that led to overcounting of votes for Tuesday's primaries. The results listed below were taken from the Republican governor's primary in Tarrant County. The computer erred by adding previous totals to the running vote total, compounding the number of votes cast each time election officials tallied the totals throughout election night.

Time Vote counts Ballots cast Phantom votes
8:27 p.m. 1,352 1,352 0
9:04 p.m. 6,398 5,046 1,352
9:35 p.m. 14,129 7,731 6,398
10:15 p.m. 20,176 6,047 14,129
10:55 p.m. 27,895 7,719 20,176
12:30 p.m. 28,374 479 27,895

Source: Tarrant County Elections Center

PINELLAS PARK - Mayor Bill Mischler and council member Ed Taylor won re-election Tuesday by massive landslides.

Both Mischler and Taylor won their races with a 4 to 1 majority.

Mischler polled 3,000 votes, or 80.3 percent of the vote, to Randy Heine's 735 votes, or 19.7 percent.

Taylor received 2,948 votes, for 80.5 percent. Opponent Marshall Cook received 715 votes, for 19.5 percent.

"I'm glad to get back and work with Ed Taylor and the rest of council," Mischler said. "I think we're on the move and we've got some horizons (to reach) in the next few years."

Mischler and Taylor both said they wanted to thank their supporters.

"Marshall was a friend yesterday. He'll be a friend tomorrow. Nothing's changed there," Taylor said. "I'll see him at council meetings."

Mischler and Taylor had both campaigned on their records and the recent growth in the city.

Heine and Cook ran campaigns that touted the opportunity for change.

The race was notable for its rancor that began about 21/2 years ago when Heine began appearing at City Council meetings to comment on issues. Heine, a long-time political foe of the mayor, also used the time to dog Mischler and challenge him to answer charges and questions.

As the election neared, Cook complained about the placement of Mischler's signs, saying they were illegally placed on public rights of way although city officials traditionally allow political signs there during the last week or so of the election season.

And on Election Day Cook charged that the voting machines malfunctioned in several precincts, including his own precinct at Skyview Recreation Center. When Cook tried to vote for himself, the machine defaulted to a vote for Taylor. A precinct worker finally moved Cook to a different booth.

Later in the day, Cook said he had other reports of voting machines malfunctioning in similar ways.

Nancy Whitlock, communications director for the Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections Office, said there had been a problem at Cook's precinct. One machine, she said, registered a different answer when voters touched it. Poll workers recalibrated it to fix the problem.

Whitlock said she did not know how many people had voted before the problem was caught. But the machines, she said, allow voters to look at their votes before finalizing them.

No one else complained, so it is unlikely the problem affected many, if any, other votes, she said.

Bush humor-if there ever was any -- is long gone. It represents a dilemma of sorts for political cartoonists. What more can they do? George Bush is a totally failed president - without doubt the worst president in American history, and he is doing his best-albeit probably unconsciously – to bring the country slowly, but inexorably, to ruin. The Republican Congress is totally spineless, trying nothing more to cling to some concept they call "power," although they too realize at bottom that "Bush is the worst." How does one poke fun at all this dreadfulness? Humor, which always clings precariously to truth, has lost its edge, overpowered by gruesome reality.

I, along with countless other writers have catalogued the Bush failures, his ineptness, his total inability to govern. But to what end? Yes, his poll numbers are in now in the mid 30's, unprecedented for a second term president just reelected. And his vice President, the loathsome Dick Cheney, is somewhere in the vicinity of 18%. As one writer pointed out, this is less than believes in space aliens and ghosts – which is about a third of the population. How can one govern when being totally out of sync with America's values ands standards? Is democracy now on the decline in the U.S.? Have greed, self interest and spin won the day? Has the American public been made fools of by the clever machinations of Karl Rove, the Dr. Frankenstein of American politics, the man who took this half-brained creature, this pseudo-moron, George Bush, and transformed him into president of the U.S.?

I have a writer friend who argues that Bush has reached the end, that he is now road kill. No longer is congress rejecting him, but he believes that the "military elite" will stop Bush before his madness leads to another military debacle. I find little comfort in this view.

What military elite?

Consider the military "men" who have served Bush over the course of his presidency. Colin Powell, Army general, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and Vietnam combat veteran, may well go down in history as America's Neville Chamberlain, a man with the backbone of jello, who as secretary of state couldn't bring himself to stand up for his own convictions to a pathetic weakling, George Bush, but chose, rather, to "obey orders" like a toy soldier. I hope Powell lives long enough to see his disgrace recorded in the history books. Children of the next generation will grow up seeing Powell in the same light as our generation saw Neville Chamberlain upon his return from Munich in 1938 with paper in hand, signed by Herr Hitler, that "peace was at hand." These children will learn of the disgrace of Colin Powell, one of America's greatest failures, as he went before the United Nations in February, 2003, waving his own papers-those from George Tenet -- to present George Bush's drummed-up, bogus case for war with Iraq. It will take some time, but truth and justice will prevail. To paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous line, "The arc of history is long but it bends toward [truth and justice]. Colin Powell will die with his cowardice – not his medals -- clutched to his chest.

Look at another Vietnam combat veteran, John McCain, and you see much the same thing, a physical hero who endured years of captivity and torture in a North Vietnamese prison camp, but in the end, just another moral coward, unable to lead, a man who stands for nothing -- nothing, that is, except the insatiable desire to be president. There is not an ass in Washington McCain won't kiss to be president. I saw McCain on Jay Leno a few months ago trying to act like a cool dude. He was truly pathetic. You would really have to be sick to vote for John McCain for president.

And look again at another Vietnam fighter pilot, "top gun" Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Congressman from California, just convicted of fraud and tax evasion and sentenced to eight years in federal prison. As a young man he was "full of piss and vinegar," but as a real adult, faced with real responsibilities, he was a total failure. Like George W. Bush, he never grew up. He never learned what real life was all about.

All three "heroes" have at the end of the day disgraced themselves and disgraced their country. What are we to make of this? For one, they are all Republicans. And in one way or another closely associated with George Bush. Is that a coincidence? Perhaps.

Only two members of Congress have ever worn the Congressional Medal of Honor, Sen. Daniel Inyoue of Hawaii and former Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, both Democrats.

But it's not hopeless for the GOP in the courage/cowardice category. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is a Vietnam combat veteran, wounded in action. And Hagel opposes most of George W.'s Iraq war policies. And then there is Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a 37-year Marine Corps veteran of two wars, who like Hagel has little use for the cowardly George Bush.

And on the subject of cowardice, consider this. In a recent hunting escapade, Dick Cheney accidentally shot one of his hunting comrades. There may have been negligence involved, but that is up to the local district attorney to decide. But more importantly, I think, is the nature of the hunt. These were not wild birds. The birds were bred in captivity. They had spent their lives in pens, and then on hunting day, were released for the sole purpose of being killed by Dick Cheney and cohorts for pure sport as they flew into the open sky for their only moments of brief freedom. Whether you are an animal lover or not, there is something disgusting and degrading about this kind of hunt and something less than human about those who participate in it.

All this brings to mind words from Kurt Vonnegut from his book of essays, "Palm Sunday," when he addressed the graduating class of his alma mater, Cornell, in May 1980.

"I pity you people of today for not having truly great leaders to write about---Roosevelt and Churchill and Chiang Kai-Shek….Oh, sure, we [may] have another war coming, and another great depression, but where are the leaders this time? All you have is a lot of ordinary people standing around with their thumbs up their ass."

So, America, these are the leaders you elected. You chose them. Now, what are you going to do about it?

Gerald S. Rellick, Ph.D., worked in aerospace industry for 22 years. He now teaches in the California Community College system. He can be reached at grellick@hotmail.com

We already know the Bush administration is the gang that can't shoot straight. Just ask Texas attorney Harry Whittington. He's still recovering from wounds at the hands of a wayward shotgun blast from Dick Cheney.

But you have to wonder just how Bush's Teflon presidency from the first term turned into such a mismanaged public relations disaster the second time around.

Three words: Typical political arrogance.

Typical political arrogance is a bipartisan Washington disease. It infects those in power, Republican or Democrat, with the belief they are above the law and do not have to answer to the forces of truth, justice or the American way.

In reality, Bill Clinton screwed a lot more than just an intern but the downhill slide of America into a fascist state causes many to overlook that fact and long for the good old days when we worried more about who was noshing on the First Member than thinking about 2500 dead American military men and women in a useless war.

Clinton, like Bush, is a mean, venal little man who thought nothing of using the power of the White House to ride roughshod over enemies and destroy if they got in the way. Unlike Bush, Clinton is a charming rogue, a Peck's bad boy who causes us to shake our heads in disbelief but still admire his ability to get away with things.

You could dump Bush's charm into a thimble and still have room left for a shot of bourbon. He's a shallow, humorless man who lacks the charm of a Bill Clinton or the humor of a Ronald Reagan. Both Reagan and Clinton overcame scandals to leave office as popular Presidents. Bush may well leave office as one of the most distrusted and despised Presidents in modern times.

Yet no President in modern times is, or was, an honorable man. Clinton's presidency will be remembered more for scandal than anything else and the Monica Lewinsky scandal wasn't the only case of questionable conduct in office. His associated attorney general, Webster Hubbell, went to jail for tax evasion and defrauding the government. Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy took bribes and resigned in disgrace. Clinton lost his license to practice law for lying to a federal grand jury. And he lied about American involvement in Somalia, a "peacekeeping" operation that cost too many American lives.

Reagan's legacy is marred by Iran-Contra and a conservative agenda that still haunts the country today. Courts convicted a dozen members of his administration for misconduct or malfeasance in office. Jimmy Carter's credibility took a hit when Bert Lance, his director of the Office of Management and Budget, was indicted for financial misconduct and his brother signed on as a paid consultant to Libya. He recently has been linked to the UN oil-for-food scandal.

Yet Republicans still talk about the good old days when Reagan was President and Democrats say Clinton only lied about sex.

Sadly, both sides of the political spectrum suffer from selective myopia that allows them overlook failings of their own party while lambasting the same conduct by their opponents.

Presidents and Congressmen aren't the only ones who suffer from Typical political arrogance So do the party faithful, Republican and Democrats, who follow blindly and avoid the truth about failure.

Originally published at and © Copyright 2006 by Capitol Hill Blue