Author: jpol

The new Keystone poll just out today has got to be sending some very nervous tremors through the halls of the DSCC, the DNC, and the Bob Casey for Senate campaign. Even while confirming that Rick Santorum remains very vulnerable in the upcoming Pennsylvania Senate race, the poll suggests that the DSCC-annointed Democratic candidate, Bob Casey jr., will have a very difficult time defeating Santorum this fall if he wins the primary on May 16th.

In a nutshell: Casey’s once-dominant double-digit lead over Santorum is in a free-fall. As undecideds learn more about Casey they are overwhelmingly opting for Santorum in a hypothetical (until the voters decide in the May 16th primary) Casey v Santorum Senate race, this despite the fact that a growing majority of Pennsylvanians want someone other than Santorum to represent them in the Senate.

Chuck Pennacchio

PA Senate

Keystone Poll

Bob Casey

Rick Santorum


Bob Casey, the son of a former Pennsylvania Governor with the same name, has been running a pretty much invisible campaign, ducking debates in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh where extensive media coverage would be insured, and referring most press inquiries to his campaign manager, rather than offering up his own sound bites. Casey is a very conservative Democrat whose positions on the issues are often indistinguishable from Rick Santorum’s, and his stealth campaign seems geared toward shielding the voters from learning too much about where he stands on the issues.

That strategy does not appear to be working. The Keystone poll suggests, as others have before it, though not in such stark terms, that as voters learn more about Casey they opt for Santorum in a still-theoretical two-man Casey v Santorum Senate race.

The current situation is eerily reminiscent of the 2002 Pennsylvania Gubernatorial race when Bob Casey squandered a double-digit lead in the early polls, eventually suffering a double-digit defeat in the primary to Ed Rendell, who went on to win the governorship. Then as now, Casey ran a largely stealth campaign, and it backfired, as Dr. Terry Madonna, who today presides over the Keystone Poll at F&M college, ably chronicled at the time. Is this deja vu all over again?

According to the Keystone trends voters appear to feel, and by an ever-expanding margin, that it is time for a change in the U.S. Senate:

• March 2005: 41% feel it is time for a change
• June 2005: 42% feel it is time for a change
• Sept. 2005: 47% feel it is time for a change
• Feb. 2006: 50% feel it is time for a change
• May 2006: 52% feel it is time for a change

That trend represents quite an opportunity for Bob Casey Jr., the candidate the design of this poll questionaire clearly assumes will be the Democratic nominee (Democratic challengers Chuck Pennacchio and Alan Sandals are mentioned in only one question, despite the fact that this is a very long questionaire). Is Casey up to the task?

Since the last Keystone poll in Feb’06 here is how the “Favorable/Unfavorable” numbers have changed:

• Santorum’s favorable rating increased from 38% to 39%; His Unfavorable rating decreased from 34% to 33% (+2 net change). 28% are undecided or don’t know.

• Casey’s favorable rating is at 30%, unchanged. His unfavorable rating increased from 8% to 13% (-5 net change). 57% are undecided or don’t know. The percentage of respondents who said they “Don’t know enough about” Casey to have an opinion about him dropped from 45% in February to 38% in Late April/early May, yet apparently none of those voters developed a favorable opinion of Casey. They all migrated into the “unfavorable” category (+ 5) or into the “undecided” category (+4).

After asking lots of questions about Ed Rendell, Lynn Swann, Rick Santorum, and Bob Casey Jr. the poll finally gets around to asking how voters will vote in the primary, and here for the first and last time the names of Chuck Pennacchio and Alan Sandals come up. Not surprisingly, 63% say they will vote for Casey versus a combined 7% for Pennacchio and Sandals (still Pennacchio and Sandals vote total is + 74% versus February). By the time Pennacchio and Sandals are mentioned, the notion that this is a pre-ordained Santorum v Casey election has been firmly implanted in the consciousness of the respondents. The validity of this question and its response is further illustrated by the fact that 62% of respondents say they are “certain” to vote in the primary. Only 8% say they probably will not vote in the primary. Contrast that response with the fact that historically less than 10% of registered voters actually do vote in primaries. Clearly the Keystone poll’s assessment of the viability of Pennacchio or Sandals cannot be taken seriously.

Finally, the $64,000 question. Who would you vote for if the Senate election were held today?:

• Casey: 47% (-3)
  

• Santorum: 41% (+ 2)
  

• Net change: 5-point shift toward Santorum and away from Casey. Casey’s edge over Santorum has declined from +16 in November’05 to plus 11 in February’06 to a slim 6-point lead in Late April/early May’06. That trend represents a 63% slide.

Have Casey’s numbers bottomed out? The trend lines suggest otherwise.

Virtually 100% of the voters who formed an opinion of Casey since the last Keystone poll in February 2006 have decided that they are now “unfavorably” disposed toward him or are undecided. His favorable rating remained unchanged.

As Casey’s unfavorable’s increased, a statistically significant 5-point shift occurred toward Santorum in a still-hypothetical Casey v Santorum Senate race.
38% remain in the “don’t know enough about” Casey to have an opinion column. If the trend continues on its current path, the majority of those voters will opt for Santorum as they learn more about Casey.

Conclusions:

• The voters are tired of Rick Santorum. They want a new Senator.
  

• Casey is not the new Senator they want!

The official Democratic leadership line that “only Casey can beat Santorum” in November now appears to ring pretty hollow. The developing trends suggest that Santorum will catch and pass Casey, perhaps months before the November election, despite the evidence that Santorum is a very vulnerable candidate. The mounting evidence would seem to suggest that Casey is even more vulnerable than Santorum.

Postscript:

Ranking of the “favorable” ratings of those Polled by Keystone:

• Ed Rendell: 48%
  

• Rick Santorum: 39%
  

• George Bush: 33%
  

• Bob Casey Jr,: 30%
  

• Lynn Swann: 29%

A war of words erupted recently between Pennsylvania Senate Candidate Chuck Pennacchio and three prominent pollsters: Muhlenberg College, Franklin & Marshall’s Keystone Poll, and the Quinnipiac poll. Pennacchio had charged that the polls were deceptively tailored to sway voter opinion in favor of the DSCC annointed candidate Bob Casey Jr. The pollsters in turn responded in a joint statement, branding Pennacchio’s charges “unsubstantiated and reckless.”

Yet the latest Quinnipiac Poll released Thursday April 6th, in particular the press release that accompanied it, would seem to add considerable credibility to Pennacchio’s case, and it would appear to leave the Quinnipiac Poll with some explaining to do.

Chuck Pennacchio

Bob Casey Jr.

Alan Sandals


The Quinnipiac Poll press release headline suggests a poll that is chock full of good news for Bob Casey Jr.: Casey Leads Santorum By 11% In Pennsylvania, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Few Dems Would Drop Casey Because He Is Pro-Life.

Ignoring the Casey v Santorum vote totals for the moment, the poll reveals Pennsylvania voter sentiment on a number of items that might sway the election away from Rick Santorum, given his close ties to the Bush administration and his support for the Iraq war:

• 62% of Pennsylvanians polled disapprove of the way in which in which George W. Bush is handling the war in Iraq.
  

• 55% think going to war in Iraq was the “wrong thing.”
  

• 59% think we should decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, or remove them entirely.
  

• 51% of Pennsylvanians generally favor abortion rights vs. 41% who generally oppose abortion rights.
  

• Only 35% approve of the job President Bush is doing as President.
  

• Only 44% approve of the job Rick Santorum is doing as Senator.
  

• Only 43% think Rick Santorum deserves re-election.

The Quinnipiac Poll press release suggests modest slippage for Casey:

Pennsylvania incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum has inched up slightly against Democratic State Treasurer Robert Casey Jr. and now trails the challenger 48 – 37 percent in his reelection battle, with 12 percent undecided…

This compares to a 51 – 36 percent Casey lead in a February 13 poll…

“Sen. Rick Santorum has narrowed the gap a little…” said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

One might argue whether slipping from a 15-point lead in February 2006 to an 11-point lead in late March/early April 2006 (-27%) is really merely “a little” narrowing of the gap between the two candidates. But that characterization clearly could not have been applied if the press release had highlighted the true trend rather than simply comparing the new poll only with the one that preceded it. Here, alas, is the trend in the last four polls:

Quinnipiac Poll	Casey	Santorum	Casey’s Edge
Oct. 2005	52%	34%	+18 points
Dec. 2005	50	38	+12 points
Feb. 2006	51	36	+15 points
Apr. 2006	48	37	+11 points

Casey’s margin of victory over Santorum has decreased By 7-points, or 39% from October 2005 to April 2006. That kind of precipitous downtrend does not inspire confidence that Casey’s lead over Santorum will hold into the fall if he is the Democratic nominee, and it makes one wonder if Quinnipiac is deliberately attempting to minimize the seriousness of Casey’s slippage in the polls by ignoring the full trend and instead referring only to the February and April 2006 surveys. That press release headline: Casey Leads Santorum By 11% In Pennsylvania, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Few Dems Would Drop Casey Because He Is Pro-Life also seems rather incomplete. One would think the sharp Casey decline versus Santorum might have also found its way into that poll press release. Back in October 2005 when Casey opened up his short-lived 18-point advantage over Santorum, the Quinnipiac press release headline blared: “Casey Surges As Santorum Slides In PA Senate Race.” The same headline with the names reversed might well have applied to this latest poll.

CASEY IS VIEWED LESS AND LESS FAVORABLY BY PENNSYLVANIA VOTERS:

Question: Is your opinion of State Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. favorable, unfavorable, mixed, or haven’t you heard enough about him?

Have favorable opinion of:	Oct. 2005	Dec. 2005	Feb. 2006	Apr. 2006
Bob Casey Jr.	38%	40%	34%	33%
Rick Santorum	33	35	34	32

Since October Casey’s favorable rating has dropped by 5-points or -13% while Santorum’s have remained almost unchanged. Casey maintained a 5-point advantage in favorability ratings over Santorum back in October 2005. Now he has a statistically meaningless 1-point advantage.

CASEY REMAINS LARGELY A MYSTERY TO PENNSYLVANIA VOTERS:

When voters are asked their opinion of Bob Casey, Jr. a surprisingly large percentage, far larger than Santorum, do not know enough about him to express an opinion:

Don’t know enough about:	Oct. 2005	Dec. 2005	Feb. 2006	Apr. 2006
Rick Santorum	18%	14%	17%	19%
Bob Casey Jr.	33	34	38	40

Thus fully 40% of voters questioned by Quinnipiac know too little about Casey to be able to express an opinion about him, and that number has increased by 7-points or + 21% since October. 2005. Another 10% have an unfavorable opinion of Casey and 16% have a mixed opinion of him. Adding up the numbers, Only 33% say they have a favorable opinion of Casey versus 66% who either don’t know enough about him, have an unfavorable opinion of him, or have a mixed opinion of him, hardly numbers that the Casey campaign can take comfort in. Given that a majority of Pennsylvanians differ with Casey on the war in Iraq (Casey opposes removing troops or setting a timetable for withdrawal), on abortion rights, on Congressional intervention in the Schaivo case (a question Quinnipiac polled about in April 2005: “Casey Widens Lead In Pennsylvania Senate Race, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Schiavo, Social Security Take Toll On Santorum,” a week before Casey also endorsed Congressional intervention in the Schiavo case), and quite likely on other issues not taken up by Quinnipiac like the Patriot Act, gun control, warrantless NSA wiretaps, stem cell research, the death penalty, et al, it would take a true leap of faith to conclude that Casey’s narrowing lead over Santorum will continue to hold as voters learn more about where Casey stands on the issues. Quinnipiac asked only about one issue, abortion, and the responses reveal that Casey’s views on that subject (he favors overturning Roe v Wade) are still a mystery to the vast majority of Pennsylvania voters:

Question: On the issue of abortion, do you happen to know whether Bob Casey Jr. is pro-life or pro-choice?

”Pro-Life”	”Pro-Choice”	Don’t Know
23%	8%	69%

That’s right, only 23% of Pennsylvania voters surveyed know that Casey is anti-choice.

QUINNIPIAC SPINS THE ABORTION QUESTION:

But does it matter? Quinnipiac suggests that it does not. The press release states:

“Only 15 percent of voters say they would vote against a candidate based only on his position on abortion.”

Oh really???

Quinnipiac bases that statement on a rather bizarre question it has not asked in previous polls, one that almost seems designed to produce this low response while completely ignoring responses to another question in the same poll and other questions in previous polls that suggest a very different conclusion:

If a political candidate were to take a stand on abortion that was different from your own, would you vote against that candidate on the basis of that issue alone, or would you consider other things before deciding who to vote for?

In response to that question 15% of the respondents said that they would “vote against” the candidate they disagreed with about abortion while 82% said they would “consider other things before they dedided who to vote for.” That is a far cry from suggesting, as the Quinnipiac press release seems to do, that only 15% would vote against a candidate based on whether they disagreed only on the one issue of abortion.

The press release makes no mention of another question in this same poll that produced a far more significant and very different response. As background, The poll found that more than 90% of those polled by Quinnipiac did not know enough about the other Democratic Senate candidates, Chuck Pennacchio and Alan Sandals, to have an opinion about them, and it correctly noted that “Casey overwhelms two largely unknown candidates in the Democratic primary.”

Quinnipiac returned to the abortion question, asking respondents who had earlier indicated a preference for “pro-life” Casey if they would consider changing their vote to “pro-choice” Pennacchio or Sandals.

In answer to this question 28% said they would be “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to change their vote in the primary. Only 34% said they would be “not likely at all” to change their vote in the primary.

This would seem a rather astonishing shift — based solely on the abortion issue — toward two candidates who are relatively unknown to over 90% of Pennsylvania voters. Why does Quinnipiac ignore these findings in its press release and instead suggest in the headline and again in the text that “Few Dems Would Drop Casey Because He Is Pro-Life”?

It is worth noting at this point that the Quinnipiac finding that Casey would get 63% of the vote in the May 16, 2006 primary versus a combined 9% for Pennacchio and Sandals is misleading. The poll suggests that a large percentage of Casey voters might change their minds based on the abortion issue (and perhaps other issue Quinnipiac did not ask about), and 25% remain undecided. That primary could become competitive in a hurry if the voters discover the differences between Casey and his two opponents. The current numbers would seem more a reflection of the failure of the media than a gage of voter sentiment.

Clearly, the Quinnipiac press release notwithstanding, Casey’s opposition to abortion rights does matter and will have a significant influence on how people vote, especially as they learn more about where Casey stands on this issue and where his two opponents in the primary stand on the issue.

In December 2005 Quinnipiac asked Casey voters:

If I told you that Bob Casey Jr. and Rick Santorum both oppose legalized abortion, what would you do – Would you still vote for Bob Casey Jr, would you vote for Rick Santorum, or would you not vote at all?

In response to that question 29% of Casey voters who said they who were pro-choice indicated that they would now either vote for Santorum, would not vote at all, or would vote for someone else rather than vote for Casey.

And in April 2005 Quinnipiac respondents were asked:

As you may know both Rick Santorum and Bob Casey Jr. are pro-life on the issue of abortion. If there were an independent candidate on the ballot who was pro-choice on the issue of abortion, how likely would you be to vote for that pro-choice candidate instead of (Casey/Santorum) — very likely, somewhatlikely, not very likely or not likely at all?

In response to that question 46% of respondents who had originally said they planned to vote for Casey changed their minds and indicated that they would vote for the “pro-choice” candidate.

WHY IS QUINNIPIAC SUGGESTING THAT THE ABORTION ISSUE WILL HAVE LITTLE BEARING ON HOW PENNSYLVANIANS WILL VOTE WHEN ALL OF THEIR POLLING DATA CLEARLY SUGGESTS THAT THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE?

NEW RASMUSSEN POLL FURTHER FANS THE FLAMES:

The new Rasmussen poll reveals a similar downward spiral for Casey to the one Quinnipiac failed to report in its press release:

Rasmussen Poll	Casey	Santorum	Casey’s Edge
Nov. 2005	54%	34%	+ 20 points
Jan. 2006	53	38	+15 points
Feb. 2006	52	36	+16 points
Mar. 2006	48	38	+10 points
Apr. 2006	50	41	+9 points

According to Rasmussen, Casey’s once 20-point lead against Santorum has been halved to 10-points. Unlike Quinnipiac, Rasmussen comments honestly upon the trend:

“The latest Rasmussen Reports election poll in the Keystone State shows Democrat Bob Casey leading Santorum 50% to 41%. That’s the first time in all six polls we’ve conducted on this race that Casey’s lead has slipped to single digits. It’s also the first time Santorum has moved above the 40% mark since last July.”

That’s not all. Rasmussen also asked about the abortion issue after the initial round of questions:

“After asking survey respondents who they would vote for, we informed them that the National Organization for Women (NOW) is concerned about Casey on the abortion issue and is endorsing another candidate in the primary. We then asked a second time about how each respondent would vote.”

The resulting shift is astonishing:

NOW Doubts about Casey revealed to respondents	Casey	Santorum
Before	50%	41%
After	41	46

For the first time, Santorum actually beats Casey in the Fall election. Once voters know about how Casey has earned the disfavor of NOW over his stance on choice, his vote total plummets by -18% while Santorum’s increases by + 12%.

Rasmussen states what Quinnipiac seems to want to avoid stating:

“The change was dramatic enough that, having heard the new information, voters favored Santorum by a five-point margin (46% to 41%). This suggests a lack of voter knowledge about Casey that could make the race more competitive than it seems at this time.”

Other polls have also suggested that Casey’s lead is disintegrating:

• The Keystone poll had Casey leading Santorum by 19-points last June, by 14-points in November, and by only 11 points in February. That trend represents a 42% backslide for Casey.

• The Zogby Poll had Casey 10-points ahead of Santorum last October, but only 8-points ahead of him in March. That is a 20% backslide.

  And Finally, returning to the Quinnipiac poll, that poll suggests that Chuck Pennacchio and Alan Sandals represent far more formidable competition for Rick Santorum than either the media or the pollsters seem willing to admit.

  The Quinnipiac poll indicates that if the election were held today Alan Sandals would garner 32% of the vote against Santorum and would lose the election by only 13-points, this despite the fact that 92% of respondents don’t know enough about Sandals to have an opinion about him.

  The Quinnipiac poll indicates that if the election were held today Chuck Pennacchio would garner 30% of the vote against Santorum and would lose the election by only 15-points, this despite the fact that 94% of respondents don’t know enough about Pennacchio to have an opinion about him.

  If Sandals and Pennacchio can get over 30% of the vote against Santorum with less than 10% of the voters knowing much about them, imagine how they’d do if the voters learned more about them, especially in view of the fact that both differ much more significantly with Santorum on major issues than Casey does.

  The true message revealed by these polls is that it is time for the media to inform, and it is time for the pollsters to stop spinning.

When I attended the Pennsylvania State Democratic Party Endorsement Convention last weekend (March 24-25, 2006) in Grantville, Pa. I was astonished to hear Bob Casey Jr. repeatedly referred to as a moderate Democrat. Casey supporter after Casey supporter I spoke with displayed an abysmal ignorance about how similar Bob Casey Jr. and Rick Santorum are on a host of critical social issues. Many reacted angrily when told about his stand on the Schiavo case, the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, his ambiguous stand on civil unions, the role of religion in government, Roe v Wade, warrantless wiretaps, et al, often claiming that Casey’s positions on those and other issues are being grossly misrepresented.

And so, ladies and gentlemen, I bring you Bob Casey Jr. in his own words:

Bob Casey Jr. on Stem Cell research:

“I support the current federal policy on embryonic stem cell research and would oppose the Castle bill to expand federal support of embryonic stem cell research.”

citation

Bob Casey Jr. on the influence of religion on his role as a public official:

“My Catholic faith and the values reflected in that faith have always had a profound impact on me as a person and as a public official. I try to live up to the teachings of my faith in my personal life and in my public life. “

citation

Bob Casey Jr. on abortion rights:

“As a pro-life Democrat, I have a different position on abortion than many national elected officials and that’s why an organization like NARAL won’t support me in the campaign.”

citation

“Most American people recognize [the right to privacy] to some degree or another, and I think that some privacy-related court decisions… are correct. But let me add that I do draw a line. The right to privacy does not trump the right of the unborn.”

“You can’t say you have a position I have and not believe that [Roe v Wade should be overturned].” “You can’t have it both ways and say, ‘I am pro-choice but,’ or ‘I am pro-life but.”

citation

Lancaster County Action Questionnaire asked whether Casey supported a woman’s “right to abortion.” He responded: “Oppose.”

citation

Bob Casey Jr. on Equal Rights for Homosexuals:

“I don’t support gay marriage, but I also don’t support a constitutional amendment banning it. That would be tremendously divisive. However, I do support same sex unions that would give gay couples all the rights, privileges and protections of marriage.”

citation

But he responded differently to a Questionnaire that asked: What is your position on government requiring that benefits be provided to same sex partners?

Casey’s response: “Oppose”

citation

Questionnaire: What is your position on legislation allowing homosexuals to adopt children?

Casey’s response: “Oppose”

citation

Bob Casey Jr. on the Iraq War:

“I don’t think we were intentionally mislead [in the runup to the war in Iraq].”

citation

“I don’t think you can, as a matter of policy, articulate a long-term strategy if you don’t have the facts to make that determination.”

citation

“Once [Iraq] was underway, like a lot of Americans, I was supportive of what our troops were trying to do there, based on what we were told by our government. We found out later the intelligence was, at best, faulty and, at worst, misleading. We can learn a lot of lessons from that, but the key thing now is to finish the job.”

citation

“Some people think that pulling out is a good idea and a timeline is a good idea — I don’t agree with that.”

citation

Bob Casey Jr. on Congressional intervention in the Terry Schiavo Case:

“I think you should err on the side of life. I think some kind of congressional review was appropriate.”

citation

Bob Casey Jr. on Display of The Ten Commandments in government buildings:

“I don’t oppose [such displays]. I do think politicians spend a lot more time talking about that question than trying to live the 10 Comandments. No matter what your religious beliefs, there are some universal truths in those commandments that we all ought to live by.”

citation

Bob Casey Jr. on the Death Penalty:

Questionnaire: What is your position on repealing the death penalty in Pennsylvania?

Casey’s Answer: “Oppose”

citation

“I believe that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for those who have committed heinous crimes.”

citation

Bob Casey Jr. on Gun Control:

“I’ve been a strong supporter of the second amendment, the right to bear arms. That’s evidenced not just by what I’ve said but the support I’ve gotten over the last decade from sportsmen’s groups, including the NRA.”

citation

“I don’t think [the people of Pennsylvania] want battles to take place on a whole list of laws and regulations that impact gun owners and the right to bear arms.”

citation

“Casey is not only not with us on this stuff, but he’s a little bit hostile,” said Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

citation

Bob Casey Jr. on the Patriot Act:

“The agreement on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization is a victory in the war on terror and a triumph of bipartisanship. This agreement should clear the way for the renewal of this vital law and will continue to give law enforcement the tools that they need to target terrorists and prevent another terrorist attack. We cannot let the PATRIOT Act expire and we cannot give the terrorists an opening to plan another attack. I am pleased that the reauthorization addressed some of the issues regarding the protection of the rights of Americans.”

citation

Bob Casey Jr. on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court:

“the arguments against Judge Alito do not rise to the level that would require a vote denying him a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.”

citation

Bob Casey Jr. on warrantless NSA Wiretaps:

“I think we should be making sure we give law enforcement and federal agents the tools they need to fight terrorism.”

citation

And on their legality:

“Well, that is a judgment that lawyers are going to make,” said Casey, a lawyer

citation

Bob Casey Jr. On universal health care:

Sorry! Bob Casey’s silence is deafening on this issue. The single page on his web site devoted to issues does not contain a single word about health care.

And now you know why I plan to vote for Chuck Pennacchio in the May 16th state primary (where the voters will pick the nominee, much to the chagrin of the DSCC), and why I will never vote for Bob Casey Jr.

It isn’t often that Bob Casey Jr., — the would-be Democratic Senate candidate for Pennsylvania hand chosen by Chuck Schumer and the DSCC — takes a public stand on anything, a fact not lost on the Santorum campaign’s new website, Where’s Bob Casey?

As the web site of Casey’s principle opponent for the nomination, Chuck Pennacchio, points out, Casey’s views are usually closer to those of Rick Santorum (especially on social issues like abortion rights, gun control, an exit strategy from Iraq, stem cell research, congressional intervention in the Schiavo case, the Patriot Act, et al) than they are to rank-and-file Democrats.

But on the rare occasions when Casey does speak out, he almost seems intent upon alienating the progressive Democratic base, an odd strategy for a candidate who is going to desperately need those votes to defeat Santorum in the fall, should he win the nomination. Of course it is the voters who will determine just who the Democratic candidate will be, not Chuck Schumer or Governor Ed Rendell. There is, after all, a May 16th primary, much to the chagrin of the DSCC.

Casey did it when he endorsed Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court back on January 24th.

He did it again when he strongly endorsed the Patriot Act back on February 6th. (That press release has since been scrubbed from his web site and replaced with one that says that he is for educating children).

And he did it yet again on February 21st when he told the Harrisburg Patriot-News that he opposed nearly all gun control legislation including a ban on assault weapons and mandatory background checks.

Last Friday he did it yet again.

According to a recent American Research Group poll 70% of Democrats want to see President Bush censured for unauthorized wiretapping (61% favor impeachment). But not Bob Casey Jr. As usual he supports George W. Bush, and he doesn’t even seem to care whether Bush’s wiretapping initiatives are legal or not:

…Ever since Sen. Russell Feingold (D., Wis.) floated a resolution censuring President Bush for his domestic spying program, news reports have chronicled the ways congressional Democrats tried avoiding questions about it.

…Democratic Senate candidate Bob Casey Jr. took on the question Friday after a child-care forum in Philadelphia.

“I don’t think I’d support it,” said Casey, who has campaigned with Feingold and received $3,500 from his political action committee. “I think we should be making sure we give law enforcement and federal agents the tools they need to fight terrorism.”

Asked whether he nonetheless agreed with Feingold’s overarching message that the wiretapping program is illegal, Casey punted the question.

“Well, that is a judgment that lawyers are going to make,” said Casey, a lawyer. “And that is an important answer.” – Carrie Budoff

So let’s get this straight. Casey doesn’t know if the wiretap program is legal or not. That is for lawyers, not he, to decide, even though he is a lawyer. Legal or not though, he opposes censure and wants to continue providing “law enforcement and federal agents the tools they need to fight terrorism.” Sounds like something Rick Santorum would say, doesn’t it?

This is why I support and am working to elect Chuck Pennacchio, a progressive Democrat and the only person I believe can defeat Rick Santorum this fall. You can’t beat Santorum by sounding like him every time you open your mouth.

A giant new oil field was discovered this past week in Mexico, and that generated big headlines.

It is no secret that Iraq sits atop the second largest proven oil reserves in the world (112 billion barrels), hence the rumors that we went to war for oil, but less well known is the fact that Iraq’s potential oil reserves are largely unexplored, and that U.S. Government estimates suggest that the true Iraqi reserves may be as high as 432 billion barrels, which would place it number one in the world, far ahead of Saudi Arabia’s 259 billion barrels in proven reserves.

Afghanistan has long been eyed as a rich site for an oil pipeline, and it has also been known to have modest oil and natural gas reserves of its own. Suddenly the word modest may no longer apply, but the mainstream media doesn’t appear to regard the discovery of major new oil and gas reserves in Afghanistan to be much of a story.

You might be excused if you didn’t notice this AP story two days ago. It wasn’t widely carried, nor was it afforded front-page status:

Wed, March 15, 2006

Huge energy reserves found in Afghanistan

By AP

WASHINGTON — Two geological basins in northern Afghanistan hold 18 times the oil and triple the natural gas resources previously thought, scientists said yesterday as part of a U.S. assessment aimed at enticing energy development in the war-torn country.

Nearly 1.6 billion barrels of oil and about 15.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas could be tapped, said the U.S. Geological Survey and Afghanistan’s Ministry of Mines and Industry.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai described the estimates as “very positive findings,” particularly since the country now imports most of its energy, including electricity.

“Knowing more about our country’s petroleum resources will enable us to take steps to develop our energy potential, which is crucial for our country’s growth,” said Karzai, whose government was created after the U.S.-led invasion in 2001 and later won national elections.

The $2-million US assessment, paid for by the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, was nearly four years in the making.

U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton, whose agency includes the Geological Survey, said the assessment would help Afghanistan better understand and manage its natural resources.

Afghanistan’s petroleum reserves were previously thought to hold 88 million barrels of oil and five trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

“There is a significant amount of undiscovered oil in northern Afghanistan,” said Patrick Leahy, the U.S. Geological Survey’s acting director.

Officials anticipate companies could begin energy exploration in two or three years.

So is Afghanistan about to emerge as a major new oil supplier, and is all of this a surprise to the Bush administration? Russian technicians discovered oil in Afghanistan in 1960. The New York Times reported on May 13, 1960 (sorry, no link) that the reserves were estimated at 300,000,000 barrels, and “significant gas deposits were also reported.” adding that “the problem of getting the oil over the Hindu Kush Mountains appears to be insurmountable.”

Technology has changed. Why do I doubt that this comes as a major surprise to the Bush administration, and why is the discovery of a major new oil field in Mexico big news to the U.S. mainstream media, while similar finds n Afghanistan barely merit ink?

Finally, is it a coincidence that the Bush administration seems to obsess over Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Venezuela, all of which sit atop considerable reserves of black gold?

While one must give him credit for his candor, CBS Pentagon correspondent David Martin made a disturbing, if not surprising admission at the CBS newsblog, Public Eye, the other day:

“This week I killed a story about the battle against Improvised Explosive Devices after a senior military officer told me it contained information that would be helpful to the enemy,” writes Martin in his opening paragraph.

Questions spring immediately to mind, like how did that senior military officer know just what was in Martin’s story, for example? Is Martin turning his stories over to military officials for vetting before submitting them?

But Martin’s apparent self-censorship becomes more disturbing as he writes more:

I didn’t find [the officer’s] argument about how it would help the enemy very persuasive, but because there’s a war on I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. I’ve done that a number of times over the years, and each time it’s turned out that going with the story wouldn’t have caused any harm [emphasis added]. It’s always a difficult decision, made more difficult by the fact that it always seems to happen late in the day when you’re under deadline pressure. When I killed the story on Thursday, it was 5:30 – an hour to air – and I left the Evening News broadcast without a lead story which they had been counting on all day. Not a good career move.

More beneath the fold.
Martin’s account continues:

So how do you decide that a story contains sensitive information that shouldn’t see the light of day? In war, you can make an extreme case that almost any accurate information about the U.S. military is news the enemy can use. A story about the Army being “stretched too thin” or even “broken” by the pace of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could be said to encourage the enemy to fight on. A story I did this week about new pictures of abuse from Abu Ghraib could be said to increase the likelihood of violence against American soldiers in Iraq. Indeed, the Pentagon made exactly that case when it went to court to try to prevent the photos from being released under the Freedom of Information Act. But that’s too hypothetical for me. The story I killed dealt with specific techniques and how well they were or weren’t working against IEDs. It wasn’t as simple as “you report this and American soldiers will die,” but I could see how it might conceivably be news the enemy could use to make their IEDs more effective. It wasn’t clear cut, but it was close enough. So how do you decide that a story contains legitimate secrets? It’s like the famous definition of pornography – you know it when you see it [emphasis added].

You know it when you see it???

Martin’s own account challenges that assertion when he admits early on that he did not find the argument to kill this story very compelling, and that whenever he has acquiesced in the past to implied pressure to kill a story “each time it’s turned out that going with the story wouldn’t have caused any harm.” More likely Martin knows that his continued successful career depends upon remaining on the good side of those same military officers who ask him to kill stories that fail to please them. Nor is his claim credible that he refused to kill a story on the new Abu Ghraib photos based on Pentagon arguments that they would “encourage the enemy” because “that’s too hypothetical for me.” Those photos have been shown on Australian television and in non-U.S. media across the globe. There was no story to kill. It was out there for all to see.

Martin is a veteran correspondent who has covered beats that included intelligence matters, the FBI and CIA, the State Department and the Pentagon for the Associated Press, Newsweek and CBS. Perhaps because he can be trusted to kill an occasional story for the Pentagon, he was the recipient of one of the early “scoops” in the lead-up to the war: the military’s “shock and awe” strategy for its initial strike on Baghdad. He was also the first reporter to be told and to report, on the opening day of the war, that the U.S. was launching a strike on a palace bunker in southern Baghdad in an attempt to take out Saddam Hussein.

As mainstream media reporters go, though, he is one of the better ones, and it was also Martin who reported that, in the immediate aftermath of planes flying into the Pentagon and World Trade Center on 9/11, “Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.”

I repeat that Martin is to be congratulated for his candor in reporting episodes of self-censorship on the Public Eye blog. But his admission underscores one of the basic reasons why the U.S. mainstream media has become an ever increasingly poor source of objective reporting. If you don’t play ball you do not get the scoops, and if you do not get the scoops you will soon be out of a job. The regretable thing is that the government would not hold the careers of working correspondents and reporters in their hands were it not for the fact that there is always some journalist eager and willing to do their bidding in return for being an insider.

Judith Miller is living proof of that.

A new Quinnipiac poll is out that is widely reported by the media as showing would-be Democratic Senate candidate Bob Casey, Jr. holding a 15-point lead over Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senate race.

For those not familiar with this race, Bob Casey Jr. is the candidate the Democratic Establishment has anointed as its chosen candidate to oppose Santorum this fall. Most of the other potential candidates were muscled into withdrawing from a primary race to make way for Casey, though Chuck Pennacchio, a progressive running an insurgent campaign, remains in the race and is building an impressive grass-roots organization determined to capture the nomination for their candidate. Bob Casey Jr. is the state’s Auditor General and son of Bob Casey Sr., former Pennsylvania Governor. The Democratic Party hierarchy believes that Casey, a Conservative, is the best candidate to beat Santorum both because of his name recognition, and because they perceive of Pennsylvania as “blue” Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with “red” Alabama in-between. The problem is that it is often difficult to tell Santorum and Casey apart, much to the consternation of Progressive Pennsylvania Democrats. Casey is anti-choice and supports over-turning Roe v Wade. He opposes stem-cell research; supported Congressional intervention in the Terri Schiavo case; endorsed the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito; supports capital punishment (Santorum actually comes down on the opposite side of this issue); supported going to war in Iraq and opposes an exit strategy with a timetable; supports prayer in schools; supports the Patriot Act; opposes gun control et al. Many of the same large corporate PACs have contributed to both the Santorum and Casey campaigns.

Still, the Quinnipiac Poll suggests that dissatisfaction with Santorum is propelling Casey toward a Senate seat in Washington. Or does it? My reading of the actual poll suggests very different conclusions to me. (More beneath the fold. Take the poll).

What the Quinnipiac Poll says to me is that Pennsylvanians are not at all happy with Santorum, (or with George W. Bush), and that Casey is currently the choice of many voters simply because he is not Santorum. But the poll also indicates that the voters are largely ignorant of Casey’s stand on the major issues, and that both Casey and Santorum are at odds with the majority of Pennsylvanians on many of those issues. The implication is that much of Casey’s current support may well melt away as the voters become aware of how similar he is to Santorum on so many core issues. Currently Casey is said to be causing considerable consternation, even among his strong supporters, for running a largely “invisible” campaign. Chuck Pennacchio points out that the Democrats lost when they ran a social conservative against Santorum in 2000. “An anti-choice Democrat cannot beat an anti-choice Republican in a high-profile race,” says Pennacchio.

Now, to the meat of the Quinnipiac Poll:

Rick Santorum gets relatively low grades from Pennsylvania voters:

• 43% of respondents approve “of the way Rick Santorum is handling his job as
  United States Senator” compared with 42% who disapprove. A surprisingly high 21% of Republicans disapprove.

• 31% have a favorable opinion of Rick Santorum versus 29 % who have an unfavorable opinion of him.
• 57% rate Santorum only “so-so” or “bad” as a senator. 37% rate him “great” or “good.” 20% rate him “bad” versus only 6% who rate him “great.”
• By a margin of 44% to 41% Pennsylvanians feel Santorum does not deserve to be re-elected.

George W. Bush fares much worse than Santorum:

• A whopping 59% of Pennsylvanians disapprove “of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as
  President” versus only 37% who approve. 24% of Republicans, 88% of Democrats, 59% of Independents, 56% of men and 61% of women disapprove of Bush’s handling of his job.

• Perhaps more significant, the disapprovals exceed the approvals in every one of the seven sub-geographies within the state, contrary to the popular perception that except for Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is a “red” state. Supposedly conservative Northwest Pa. gives Bush 48% disapproval versus 46% approval; Likewise Southwest Pa. registers 49% approval versus 47% disapproval. Those “red” Central Pennsylvanians disapprove of Bush by 51% versus 46% approval.

Pennsylvanians on the Abortion:

Unlike Santorum and Casey, Pennsylvanians support abortion rights:

• 53% think abortion “should be legal in all or most cases” versus 41% who think it should be “illegal in most cases or all cases.”
  

  37% of Republicans, 64% of Democrats, 60% of Independents, 51% of men, and 53% of women support abortion rights.

Five of the seven geographies support abortion rights and those that do not are fairly evenly split on the issue, another refutation of the Philadelphia/Pittsburgh/Alabama analogy:

• Allegheny County (Pittsburgh): 49% support; 42% oppose.
• Philadelphia: 58% support; 37% oppose.
• Northeast Pa.: 48% support; 45% oppose.
• Southeast Pa.: 70% support; 25% oppose.
• Northwest Pa.: 47% support; 45% oppose.
• Southwest Pa.: 41% support; 49% oppose.
• Central Pa.: 47% support; 48% oppose.

Pennsylvanians do not support the war in Iraq:

• 60% of Pennsylvanians disapprove “of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq.”
  

  27% of Republicans, 87% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, 57% of men, and 62% of women disapprove of Bush’s handling of the war.

• Five of seven geographies disapprove of the handling of the war. Northwest Pa. narrowly supports Bush’s handling of the war by 46% versus 45% who disapprove. Southwest Pa. also narrowly supports the president’s handling of the war 48% to 47%.
• Unlike both Casey and Santorum, 55% of Pennsylvanians now believe going to war in Iraq was the “wrong thing for the United States to do” versus only 40% who believe it was the “right thing.”
• There was majority disapproval of the decision to go to war in five of the seven geographies excluding only Northwest and Southwest Pa. Even in those geographies a sizeable minority of 42% and 43% respectively feel going to war in Iraq was a mistake.

Asked “if the 2006 election for Senator were being held today, and the candidates were Bob Casey Jr. the Democrat and Rick Santorum the Republican for whom would you vote?” Casey is favored by 51% to Santorum’s 36% — a seemingly comfortable 15-point edge. But dig deeper and the numbers suggest many of those who say they will vote for Casey are simply expressing a deep dissatisfaction with Santorum while not knowing a whole lot about Casey:

• Only 34% have a favorable opinion of Bob Casey, Jr., barely ahead of Santorum who has a 31% approval rating.
• Only 6% have an unfavorable opinion of Casey versus 29% who have an unfavorable opinion of Santorum.
• 22% have a mixed opinion of both Casey and Santorum.
• A whopping 38% say they “haven’t you heard enough about” Casey to register an opinion. Only 17% say that of Santorum.

Note that While 51% say they would vote for Casey if the election were held today only 34% have a favorable opinion of him. 66% either view him unfavorably, have a mixed opinion, or do not know enough about him to express an opinion. Those statistics could prove enormously troublesome for Casey as more and more voters currently leaning toward him learn that his positions on major issues are more in sync with the views of Rick Santorum than they are with the views of most Pennsylvania voters.

The poll indicates that 34% of respondents regard Santorum’s views on issues as “extreme.” Only 10% regard Casey’s views as “extreme” despite the fact that he and Santorum agree on so many core issues. This would seem to suggest that the voters know much more about Santorum’s positions than they know about Casey’s.

Doubts are beginning to make their way into the media as well. Associate Editor and liberal columnist Gil Smart writes in the Lancaster Sunday News:

… Bob Casey Jr. is running for Rick Santorum’s U.S. Senate seat, and polls show him way ahead. But I don’t know a single Democrat/liberal/ progressive/whatever who is actually excited about the Casey candidacy. They might hold their nose and vote for him come November — most would vote for Mephistopheles himself over Santorum — but they won’t be giving money, and they won’t be working on Casey’s behalf.

Because their perception, and I think it’s correct, is that the Democratic establishment wants Casey because they think he can win. How is he going to change things? It doesn’t matter.

Except that some people think it does.

That’s why there’s such a groundswell of support for Chuck Pennacchio, Casey’s opponent in the Democratic primary.

Pennacchio may not be as telegenic as Casey, and he doesn’t have the name recognition, but he does have core beliefs that weren’t crafted via focus group. He is authentic. And that’s something you simply can’t say about Casey…

And John Nichols writes in The Nation:

On the day Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats unanimously rejected the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito, their anointed candidate for what is seen as the country’s most vulnerable Republican-held Senate seat [Bob Casey Jr.] announced his support for the President’s pick…

For activists like Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the move confirmed concerns about Casey. “As a Pennsylvanian, I am particularly appalled that local and national Democrats would hand our Senate nomination to someone who openly supports giving Roe an Alito-induced death,” said Michelman…

It’s no secret that prominent Democrats–including Hillary Clinton… are backing a candidate critics call “Santorum Lite” because they think Casey… is known and seemingly popular. He consistently leads Santorum in the polls, and if his lead holds through November, Democrats will be one seat closer to retaking the Senate. But Casey’s lead has been dwindling as Santorum’s camp takes shots at him from the right while pro-choice and pro-gay rights moderates and liberals grumble about the Democrat’s conservative stances on social issues.

The Casey controversy illustrates the perils of early intervention by Washington Democrats in the process of selecting Senate candidates at the state level; in their drive to find a strong contender, DC power brokers often bet on candidates who are more conservative than the grassroots activists who form the party’s base…

…in Pennsylvania… Chuck Pennacchio, a college professor and former Congressional aide, has positioned himself as the progressive alternative to Casey on issues ranging from abortion rights to the Iraq War… “Democrats will have a choice between a watered-down version of Rick Santorum and a strong Democrat who will consistently stand with them on the issues they care about,” argues Pennacchio…

Pennacchio may be right. When a contender like Casey splits with the base, it raises worries about whether that candidate offers enough of an alternative to generate the high turnout needed from liberal partisans, let alone to attract the votes of those prochoice independents and Republicans whose defections could tip Pennsylvania and the Senate to the Democrats. A late-January Zogby poll actually showed that when voters are informed about Pennacchio and his positions, he beats Santorum by a slightly wider margin than would Casey. Unfortunately for Pennacchio, he’s still struggling to get his message out. He trails far behind Casey in the primary polls and won’t be getting any help from DC Democrats. But his grassroots campaign will be raising alarm bells between now and the May 16 primary, warning Democrats who care to listen that they run the risk of nominating a candidate who can’t win in November.

The Democratic establishment may be betting that Santorum-haters will vote for Casey simply because he is not Rick Santorum. I for one am working for Chuck Pennacchio. I will vote for Chuck Pennacchio in the May primary. I will not vote for Bob Casey Jr. this fall if he is the Democratic nominee, and if the progressive circles I travel in are any indication, there are a lot of Pennsylvanians who, while wanting desparately to send Rick Santorum packing, aren’t desparate enough to vote for a candidate like Casey, who many of us consider to be Santorum’s Democratic counter-part. How ironic if it ends up that head-in-the-sand Democrats end up re-electing an unpopular Rick Santorum to the United States Senate.

A rather extraordinary event has taken place this week in Mexico City where Cuban officials and U.S. energy executives were meeting at the Hotel Maria Isabel Sheraton, owned by Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide. The meetings were disrupted and had to be moved to a Mexican-owned hotel this past Saturday when the Hotel Maria Isabel abrubtly evicted all 16 members of an official Cuban trade delegation after one night, withholding the balance of their three day deposit in the process. It was reported that the Cubans suddenly found themselves out on the street, surrounded by their bags. The episode is rapidly escalating into a major international incident.

One might imagine that some sort of inappropriate conduct by the Cubans had led to this extraordinary turn of events, but no such conduct has been alleged or even suggested. Rather, according to Kirby Jones, president of the US-Cuba Trade Association, the U.S. government pressured the hotel owner to expel the Cubans, claiming that the company was in violation of the 1996 Helms-Burton Act. Starwood officials confirmed that the U.S. Treasury Department had requested the expulsion, and a spokeswoman for the US embassy in Mexico was quoted as saying that “US law prohibits US persons and entities from providing services to Cuban national persons or entities, and the Sheraton, as a subsidiary of a US company, is bound by US law.”

It is not surprising that the Bush administration, never one to be bothered by the laws of other nations, would attempt to exert pressure on U.S. companies doing business in other countries when it suits their agenda. Unfortunately for Sheraton and the Bush administration, the expulsion of the Cuban officials appears to violate Mexico’s local and national laws prohibiting discrimination. Mexico secretary of foreign affairs Luis Ernesto Derbez, observed that the Helms-Burton law “does not exist” in Mexico, “and should not be applied, in our nation,” Echoeing similar sentiments, Mexican foreign minister, Luis Ernesto Derbez, says the idea that a United States law is being enforced on Mexican soil is troubling. “There does not exist and neither should there exist the extraterritorial application of this law in our nation,” he said. Mexican authorities are investigating and exploring sanctions against the hotel ranging from fines to closure. The Cubans have also been notified that they can file for damages in Mexican courts if adequate grounds can be demonstrated. Mexico City Mayor Alejandro Encinas has independently threatened to have the hotel shut down if local prosecutors determine that local anti-discrimination laws were broken. Adding to the questionable legality of the U.S. government demand and Starwood’s compliance, the Mexican Congress, in 1996, enacted a law forbidding companies here to comply with the U.S. embargo of Cuba.

Cuba is also outraged. An editorial in the state-run newspaper, Granma, equated the expulsion with “petty meanness” and represented “an outrage” against Mexican sovereignty. “The tentacles of the blockade and the United States’ criminal economic war against Cuba tend to extend themselves to every corner of the planet, including to the detriment of the sovereignty and laws of other states,” the editorial said.

There seems to be no dispute of the involvement of the U.S. government in this embarrassing and almost certainly illegal incident. The New York Times reports that “On Friday, the United States Treasury Department contacted the company that owns the Sheraton and warned them that they were violating federal laws against trading with Cuba by allowing the meeting to take place in their hotel.” According to the Times, “The hotel told the Cuban representatives to leave, and sent their room deposits to the Treasury Department.”

While the Bush administration’s coziness with, and largesse towards, the U.S. energy industry is well documented, the coziness evidently chills when it comes to dealing with Castro’s Cuba, which is trying to entice American oil companies to join Chinese, Canadian, Indian and Norwegian companies into oil exploration deals in Cuban waters. The Cubans were urging the U.S. companies to lobby against the U.S. embargo of Cuba so they could invest in the Cuban energy sector. Substantial oil reserves were discovered in Cuban waters two years ago, and Cuba has announced plans to double drilling capacity and exploration for oil in Cuban waters. The U.S. embargo currently prohibits American companies from competing for the lucrative contracts. The meetings in Mexico City were attended by Texas executives representing Exxon Mobil and Valero Energy Corporation. the Louisiana Department of Economic Development was also represented, as were Texas port authorities.

The fact that these events occured at a conference dealing with oil hardly seems a coincidence. U.S.-Cuba Trade Association President Jones maintains that he has arranged nine other meetings attended by Cuban officials in Mexico on different topics, including several held at a Westin Hotel in Cancun, also owned by Starwood, with no U.S. interference. “It is absolutely extraordinary,” says Jones, “that…the U.S. government on a Friday night should engage in efforts to kick 16 Cubans out of a hotel in Mexico, sitting and meeting with U.S. businessmen.” Jones mocked the broad interpretation of the law, arguing that “if you take this to its logical extreme, no Cuban can stay at any American hotel in the world and no Cuban can buy a McDonald´s hamburger anywhere.” He noted that, with the United States increasingly seeking energy sources close to home, it is ridiculous that U.S. oil companies be forbidden from competing with the Chinese, Europeans, Canadians and others in the sea off Cuba. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates there could be 5 billion barrels of oil in the area plus large quantities of natural gas.

With President Bush advocating, in his State of the Union address, less dependence on Middle East oil, and with Venezuela, angered by alleged spying by U.S. diplomats, threatening to close U.S. oil refineries owned by Citgo, the U.S. unit of Venezuela’s state oil company, one has to wonder about the Bush administration’s provocative hostility toward the possibility of the opening of new oil markets 90 miles off U.S. shores.

Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, continues to be one of the Bush administration’s worst nightmares. In a February 3rd interview aired on PBS, and summarized at Raw Story, Wilkerson went further than he has in past criticisms of the administration, branding the case for war presented at the United Nations on February 5, 2003 by Colin Powell “a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council.” Wilkerson continues to hold Powell blameless for “falsehoods of which Powell had never been made aware,” instead calling the lapses a “profound intelligence failure.” Still, he hints at darker motives: “I have to believe that. Otherwise I have to believe some rather nefarious things about some fairly highly placed people in the intelligence community and perhaps elsewhere.” Yet Wilkerson’s use of the word “hoax” suggests a personal belief in a level of deceit and treachery that certainly rises above the level of an “intelligence failure.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word “hoax” as “to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous.”

Powell’s February 5, 2003 United Nations speech, you’ll recall, laid out the case against Saddam Hussein, alleging that his regime maintained stockpiles of WMD and was actively engaged in developing nuclear weapons. Editor & Publisher Editor Greg Mitchell dubbed it “the single most important moment in the march to war,” despite the fact that Powell’s evidence turned out to be almost entirely without foundation. Wilkerson participated in the briefings that preceded the speech and now describes his participation as “the lowest point in my professional life.” According to Raw Story Wilkerson has some pretty solid opionions about just who perpetrated the hoax, even though he does not come right out and say it:

…Wilkerson also agreed with the interviewer that Vice President Cheney’s frequent trips to the CIA would inevitably have brought “undue influence” on the agency. When asked if Cheney was “the kind of guy who could lean on somebody” he responded, “Absolutely. And be just as quiet and taciturn about it as– he– as he leaned on ’em. As he leaned on the Congress recently– in the– torture issue.”

Wilkerson stood strongly by his earlier description of Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld as having formed a cabal to hijack the decision-making process, emphasizing both their determination to ignore the Geneva Conventions and the “inept and incompetent” planning for post-invasion Iraq. And he concluded, “I’m worried and I would rather have the discussion and debate in the process we’ve designed than I would a dictate from a dumb strongman. . . . I’d prefer to see the squabble of democracy to the efficiency of dictators.”

Wilkerson, Powell’s chief of staff from 2002 to 2005, and a long-time friend and associate of Powell’s, first turned heads in a frank interview he gave CNN for its documentary “Dead Wrong,” broadcast in August 2005 where he first described his participation in the UN speech briefings as “the lowest point” in his life:

…”I wish I had not been involved in it,” says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. “I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life.”

…”(Powell) came through the door … and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers, and he said, ‘This is what I’ve got to present at the United Nations according to the White House, and you need to look at it,'” …”It was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose…”

In the CNN documentary Wilkerson aimed most of his animus at former CIA director George Tenet:

“George actually did call the Secretary, and said, ‘I’m really sorry to have to tell you. We don’t believe there were any mobile labs for making biological weapons.” “This was the third or fourth telephone call. And I think it’s fair to say the Secretary and Mr. Tenet, at that point, ceased being close. I mean, you can be sincere and you can be honest and you can believe what you’re telling the Secretary. But three or four times on substantive issues like that? It’s difficult to maintain any warm feelings.”

But it was not until two months later that Wilkerson made international headlines On October 19, 2005 in a Washington, D.C. speech before the New America Foundation where he accused Vice President Dick Cheney and secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld of spearheading a “cabal” to hijack U.S. foreign policy. He also lashed out at then national security advisor Condoleeza Rice for excluding relevent officials from the decision-making process.

This criticism was not coming from some low-level bureaucrat. Wilkerson brings an impressive resume to the table. From Sourcewatch:

“Colonel, U.S. Army (Retired) Larry Wilkerson joined General Colin L. Powell in March 1989 at the U.S. Army’s Forces Command in Atlanta, Georgia as his Deputy Executive Officer. He followed the General to his next position as Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, serving as his special assistant. Upon Powell’s retirement from active service in 1993, Colonel Wilkerson served as the Deputy Director and Director of the U.S. Marine Corps War College at Quantico, Virginia. Upon Wilkerson’s retirement from active service in 1997, he began working for General Powell in a private capacity as a consultant and advisor.

“In December 2000, Secretary of State-designate Powell asked Wilkerson to join him in the Transition Office at the U.S. State Department and, later, upon his confirmation as Secretary of State, Secretary Powell moved Wilkerson to his Policy Planning Staff with responsibilities for East Asia and the Pacific, and legislative and political-military affairs. In June of 2002, the Director for Policy Planning, Ambassador Richard Haass, made Wilkerson the associate director. In August of 2002, Secretary Powell moved Wilkerson to the position of Chief of Staff of the Department.

“Wilkerson is a veteran of the Vietnam war as well as a U.S. Army ‘Pacific hand,’ having served in Korea, Japan, and Hawaii and participated in military exercises throughout the Pacific. Moreover, Wilkerson was Executive Assistant to US Navy Admiral Stewart A. Ring, Director for Strategy and Policy (J5) USCINCPAC, from 1984-87. Wilkerson also served on the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College at Newport, RI and holds two advanced degrees, one in International Relations and the other in National Security Studies.”

While Colin Powell has himself called his UN speech a blot on his record, Wilkerson’s blunt criticism of the Bush administration has not endeared him to his former boss. In a Q&A following his October 19, 2005 speech he acknowledged that:

“…I have paid a price, and it is a high price for me. I’ve paid the price that Colin Powell and I see eye to eye a lot less than we used to…. The great respect I have for the man emanates as much from his ability to tolerate me in my many dissenting opinions as it does from his leadership qualities… But at the end, I actually was physically thrown out of his office on one occassion, and that was a first in 16 years.

It showed, I think, his exasperation and it showed his tolerance level had sunk considerably for dissenting opinions. He’s not happy — I think that’s fair to say — with my speaking out because — and I admire this in him too — he is the world’s most loyal soldier and feels that his inveterate optimism is right and that we will overcome these problems. And I share that. However, I feel like as a citizen and as a person very much concerned with the military — it was my old home — I need to speak out…

And speak out he has. Wilkerson saw from the inside the case for war being constructed, and he has branded it a hoax. The administration likely regards him as a traitor, but the American people should salute him as a true patriot.

An article in the current edition of The New York Observer resurrects many questions, some perhaps unintentionally, about the decision-making processes at The New York Times in recent years regarding just what is news and what is not. A clear pattern has emerged suggesting that the Times under the direction of publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger, has often seemed more concerned with advancing the agenda of the Bush administration than in fulfilling its legendary motto: “All the news that’s fit to print.” The long delay that preceded the publication of James Risen’s December 16th blockbuster detailing Bush-authorized surveillance on Americans by the NSA is but the latest example, and placed in the context of previous curious behavior, cries out for some answers.
In the Observer article, entitled “Risen Gave Times A Non-Disclosure On Wiretap Book,” by Gabriel Sherman, new details are revealed, others confirmed or expanded upon, that raise questions about why the Times waited for over a year, not “a year” as the original Times article suggested, to finally publish this huge story that could well implicate the president in impeachable offenses. The Times fudging of the timeline is significant, and it was almost certainly intentional. If the Times had the story “a year” ago, that would have been December, 2004 — after the presidential election. The Observer confirms that the Times had the story before the election, a decision that, intentional or not, insulated the White House from disclosures that might well have cost it the election:

…In October 2004, Mr. Risen first presented editors with a story about the secret N.S.A. wiretapping program, the sources said.

The article goes on to describe a tense relationship between James Risen and the Times, suggesting that he was not entirely on board with the decision to hold the story. It is also difficult to avoid the suspicion that the NSA story might not ever have seen the light of day in the Times were it not for its impending disclosure in Risen’s book “State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration.” The Observer gives us an inside view:

New York Times editors published reporter James Risen’s December account of National Security Agency wiretapping without having seen the manuscript of Mr. Risen’s book on the same subject, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the events.

…When [The Times] decided to send the long-gestating N.S.A. piece to press in December, Times editors couldn’t confirm whether Mr. Risen’s manuscript contained the wiretapping story or not. In the end, they didn’t see the book until a week before it was in bookstores.

Through several months in late 2005, Mr. Risen and bureau chief Phil Taubman had clashed over whether Times editors would get a preview of the book’s closely guarded contents, sources said. It was not until Dec. 27 —- 11 days after the wiretapping story had run -— that Mr. Risen relented and allowed Mr. Taubman to see the manuscript. Mr. Risen insisted that senior editors who viewed the pre-publication copy sign nondisclosure agreements and agree not to discuss the book’s contents…

…On Jan. 9, author James Bamford reviewed Mr. Risen’s book in The Times’ arts section. “Among the unanswered questions concerning the domestic spying story is why,” Mr. Bamford wrote, “if Mr. Risen and The Times had first come upon the explosive information a year earlier, the paper waited until just a few weeks before the release of the book to inform its readers.”

According to people with knowledge of the Washington bureau, the publication of Mr. Risen’s book was the endnote to a months-long internal struggle between Mr. Risen and Times editors over ownership of the book’s contents.

…Mr. Risen left on book leave in January 2005. According to multiple sources, he told editors he was writing a book about former C.I.A. chief George Tenet—and did not reveal that he would be using previously reported Times material about the N.S.A. wiretapping in the book.

Mr. Risen returned to the paper in June 2005. By September, rumors were circulating in the bureau that the book would contain the N.S.A. material.

Executive editor Bill Keller has said in public statements that the book was not a factor in the timing of the N.S.A. story. But sources with knowledge of the internal debate at The Times said that editors, unsure what Mr. Risen’s book might say, pressed to publish the story before the end of the year…

…[Mr. Risen’s] use of the book as a release valve for unpublished Times material has left his relations with the paper strained. Inside The Times, newsroom sources said, there is mounting speculation that Mr. Risen may be in negotiations to return to his former employer, the Los Angeles Times.

Another passage in the Observer article suggests that Keller disagreed with the Times decision to withhold the NSA revelations for over a year:

In public appearances promoting the book—which is currently ninth on the Times best-seller list— Mr. Risen has declined to discuss the back story of the N.S.A. piece. “I’ve agreed with the paper not to get into all the internal deliberations except to say that I think it was a great public service when we did publish it, because now we can have this debate about the substance of this issue,” Mr. Risen told Larry King on Jan. 16.

One can’t help but wonder if implicit in that statement is Risen’s belief that holding the story was something other than “a great public service.”

And so the Times sat on a story that might have brought down the Bush administration had they published it before the 2004 election.

Flash back to the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq when the now-discredited Judith Miller wrote story after story, virtually all of them wrong, suggesting that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear, chemical and biological capabilities that represented a grave threat to world peace. Most of these stories graced the front page of the Times despite questionable documentation, while some others that suggested otherwise, including some by James Risen, were buried deep within the paper if they were published at all (see Now they Tell us, New York Review of Books). Again, intentional or not, the Times, through the influence of its front page and the questionable reporting of Judith Miller, acted as facilitator for the Bush administration’s march to war.

Now flash forward to the events that ultimately brought Ms. Miller down, the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation. Ms. Miller, you’ll recall, went to jail rather than reveal that Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. “Scooter” Libby, had played a role in the leaking of the identity of Valerie Plame, a covert CIA employeee and wife of Niger “yellowcake” whistleblower Joseph Wilson. Miller’s insistence upon blanket immunity was dubious at best, but again let me cite a passage from the Observer article:

This week, Ms. Miller told an audience in Florida that The Times spent $1.7 million on her legal defense.

Remember that Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and Managing Editor Bill Keller knew that Miller was shielding Libby, another revelation that, if it were made public, could have impacted the 2004 election to the detriment of George W. Bush. Through the silence of the Times and the delaying impact of its $1.7 million dollars, the facts would not become known until after the 2004 election.

The Observer article alludes to another story of less import, but equally disturbing:

…any exit by Mr. Risen would carry legal considerations for The Times. Mr. Risen is among the journalists currently held in contempt in the civil case brought by former Los Alamos atomic scientist Wen Ho Lee, who is suing the government for leaking his private information to the press. The Times faces fines of $500 a day—currently stayed on appeal—for Mr. Risen’s refusal to identify the confidential sources of his Lee stories.

Wen Ho Lee, you’ll recall, was the nuclear scientist at New Mexico’s Los Alamos National Laboratory, accused, and ultimately exonerated, of stealing U.S. nuclear technology on behalf of China. The story was broken in March 1999 by James Risen and Jeff Gerth in The New York Times, and the Times relentlessly pursued the case based on leaked information that proved to be groundless. From an excellent recap in Salon:

Once the Lee case came to light, the media, and particularly the New York Times, picked up the story and ran with it, blaring charges that it was the most serious instance of nuclear espionage since the Rosenbergs. The accusations about Chinese spying and Clinton administration involvement seeped into contemporary political folklore… The coverage of the case in the mainstream press was shameless and lazy.

And also from Salon, and more to the point, “How the New York Times helped railroad Wen Ho Lee”:

Its reporters relied on slim evidence, quick conclusions and loyalty to sources with an ax to grind. Too bad the paper of record learned nothing from its role in Whitewater.

Ultimately the Times apologised for its Wen Ho Lee coverage, but their subsequent actions leave one in doubt about lessons learned. Meanwhile the Times, in a case with eerie similarities to Judith Miller’s, finds itself in court shielding sources who, for partisan gain, attempted to implicate the Clinton administration in a major national security scandal on the eve of a presidential campaign in which George W. Bush ultimately prevailed.

Then there is the case of Steven Hatfill, the former U.S. Army bioweapons expert hounded by then Attorney General John Ashcroft and by the FBI — but never charged — as a “person of interest” in the Anthrax attacks that occurred in the months following 911. That story was also broken by the Times, this time by Nicholas Kristoff, and again the Times relentlessly assisted its anonymous government sources in tarring a man against whom the government apparently lacked any evidence.

Both the Wen Ho Lee case and the Hatfill case are working their way through the courts, and so far the Times’ attempts to have them dismissed have failed. In both cases the Times is shielding sources with a political agenda, interested in anything but “the public’s right to know,” just as was the case with Judith Miller’s sources.

Today the Times is at the receiving end of a Justice Department leak investigation over its NSA surveillance story. How ironic that the story they almost did not print may finally result in the Times shielding a true whistleblower.