Column/Legend
1 - Prefix  - L-Life,  H-Homosexual Behavior/Perversion, R-Religion/Legal Persecution/ACLU, E-Education, M-Media Bias, O-Other
2-7 - Yr, Mo, Dy
8 - L -Letter to Editor, C-Commentary, O-Op-Ed, M-Metro

Hotlink Index of this weeks's family values related news:  [Life]   [Homosexual Behavior/Perversion]   [Religion/Religious Persecution]   [Education]   [Media]   [Other]

LIFE
L041108      Good news
L041108      Specter denies pro-choice litmus test
L041109      Conservatives target Specter
L041109L    The blue states have more in common with the Confederacy than they think.
L041110      Court asked to halt doctor-assisted suicide
L041110C    An ominous Specter
L041111       Specter asks to appeal to peers
L041111C     An ominous Specter: Part II
L041111E     Specter's voting record
L041112       California looks for gold rush to stem-cell research
L041112C    An ominous Specter: Part III
L041112E     Red-state Democratic senators
L041112E     Senate chairmanships

HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR/PERVERSION
H041108      MINNESOTA   Priest told to remove homosexual material
H041108E   11 states make smart move
H041109     States lining up to outlaw same-sex 'marriage'
H041110     A word of thanks
H041110     GEORGIA   Lawsuit challenges gay 'marriage' ban
H041112L   Moral values and social justice

RELIGION/RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
R/E041113L  Debating evolution
R041109       Driving the blues from Jesusland
R041109       Momentous shift
R041109       Parents take evolution warning to trial
R041110       Judiciary panel seen as tinderbox
R041110       Taxing sermons
R041110E     Secession
R041111       Bush names Gonzales attorney general
R041111      Falwell to form 'Faith' coalition
R041112      Frist's warning
R041112M   Hearings barred on 2 faiths' holidays

EDUCATION
E041110M  Board OKs sex-ed program
E041111M  Sex-ed critics intend to fight
E041112      Mum's the word
E041112L   Sex education in schools

MEDIA
M041108      Maureen's meltdown
M041108C   Like a broken record
M041108E    Moore for less
M041109      Newsweek's voice-over
M041109E    Deal with it, Hollywood
M041110      Press 'blew' election coverage
M041111L    Diversity of political views
M041112      NPR for DNC
M041112      Thankless duty
M041112      Tick-tick-tick
M041112E    Accountability of the press
M041113C    Obama fever

OTHER
O041108       Bush share of Hispanic vote rose to 44 percent
O041108       CONNECTICUT   Woman accused of sex with boy, 8
O041109C     …. and culture collide
O041109C    Voter trend shift
O041110       Gonzales to succeed Ashcroft
O041111       NEW YORK   Woman gives birth at 56
O041111       Paris in the fall

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

M041108   Maureen's meltdown
    The New York Times' Maureen Dowd, who in her first postelection column last week accused President Bush of "dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule," apparently thinks she went too easy on the Republican. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that her second postelection column, published yesterday, bordered on the hysterical.
    "Just how much did Karl Rove hate not being one of the cool guys in high school in the '60s? Enough to hatch schemes to marshal the forces of darkness to take over the country?" Miss Dowd asked.
    "Oh, yeah," she answered.
    The columnist added: "W.'s presidency rushes backward, stifling possibilities, stirring intolerance, confusing church with state, blowing off the world, replacing science with religion, and facts with faith. We're entering another dark age, more creationist than cutting edge, more premodern than postmodern. Instead of leading America to an exciting new reality, the Bushies cocoon in a scary, paranoid, regressive reality. Their new health care plan will probably be a return to leeches.
    "America has always had strains of isolationism, nativism, chauvinism, puritanism and religious fanaticism. But most of our leaders, even our devout presidents, have tried to keep these impulses under control. Not this crew. They don't call to our better angels; they summon our nasty devils."
    Miss Dowd repeated some of this yesterday on NBC's "Meet the Press." Her conservative colleague, William Safire, appeared on the program with her, and gently assured Miss Dowd that everything would be OK, and that someday the Democrats will return to power.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L041108   Good news
    Not all Democrats are depressed over the election results.
    "The good news is pro-life Democrats are winning campaigns," says Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats For Life of America. "Pro-life Democrats win because they withstand the pressure of the national party and represent the values of their local communities.
    "Evidence of this is in West Virginia. We won the governor's race in West Virginia despite the fact that President Bush carried the state. We also won legislative races in states all over the country including Iowa, Missouri, Michigan and made the runoff in two separate congressional contests in Louisiana."
    Mrs. Day adds: "We are hopeful the national party will reassess its pro-abortion stance after the disastrous results of Tuesday night. They are costing us elections and abandoning our founding values of protecting and advocating for those who need a helping hand. At the top of that list should be helping protect the rights of the unborn."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O041108   Bush share of Hispanic vote rose to 44 percent
 

By Brian DeBose
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Bush's rising popularity with Hispanic voters spells trouble for Democrats in future elections.
    The president took 44 percent of the Hispanic vote on Election Day, up nine percentage points from 2000. Strategists say if that support continues to grow — reaching 50 percent or higher — it could equate to a Republican lock on the White House when coupled with the 62 percent support that the party enjoys among white male voters.
    "The other piece of the puzzle is, the gender gap is narrowing ... in the realm of public opinion," said Michael McKenna of the research firm MWR Strategies.
    Election Day exit polls showed Mr. Bush receiving the nod from 48 percent of female voters — a group that traditionally supports Democrats.
    "When you take the Hispanic vote, it gets pretty tough for Democratic strategists who are looking to see 'where do I get votes from,' " Mr. McKenna said.
    He conducted a nationwide survey of 800 Hispanic voters from Oct. 27 to 29 with a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.
    The poll showed Mr. Bush with "a solid advantage" among Hispanic voters on social and national security issues. Twenty-five percent of Hispanic voters who supported the president did so because of his religious beliefs and values, while 39 percent supported him because of his stance on national security.
    Mr. Bush's Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, however, had the advantage on economic issues. Forty percent of Hispanic voters supporting the Massachusetts senator said the economy was paramount to their decision.
    Because immigrants, the majority of whom are Hispanic, are among the fastest-growing segments of the population, Republicans see their support as key to future elections. Hispanics recently overtook blacks as the nation's largest minority group.
    Mr. McKenna said polls showing Republican gains in the Hispanic voting blocs in Texas and in the swing states of Florida and New Mexico are real problems for Democrats.
    "If the Democrats begin to lose their handhold on Mexican voters in Texas and then New Mexico, even with [Governor] Bill Richardson, the Democrats couldn't hold on to New Mexico," he said.
    Exit polls gauging the Hispanic vote, however, are being disputed.
    "The Willie C. Velazquez Institute put out their own poll showing that Kerry got 67 percent of the Latino vote, and Bush got 31 percent," said Maria T. Cardona, a Democratic strategist with the New Democrat Network.
    She said exit polls of Hispanic voters in the 2000 election were flawed because they did not include Cuban voters.
    "The polls from 2000 show that Bush actually got 65 percent of Hispanic voters in Florida and Gore got 35 percent," she said, after the Cuban voters were included.
    Exit polls from Florida this year showed that Mr. Kerry got 45 percent of the Hispanic vote and Bush got 55 percent, "and that is a 10 percent drop."
    Hispanic organizations such as the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) are claiming victory regardless of their political leanings because the vote for their ethnic group increased by nearly 3 million.
    But one thing is clear: "Hispanics cannot be simplistically or accurately characterized as a core constituency for either party," said Janet Murguia, NCLR executive director.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H041108   President's domestic agenda to include marriage amendment
 

By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Bush administration and Republican leaders yesterday signaled that a domestic agenda including a constitutional amendment on marriage will dominate the congressional calendar, even though foreign policy and the war in Iraq dominated the presidential campaign.
    When the 109th Congress convenes in January with more Republicans taking seats in the House and Senate, the focus will also include health care, as well as restructuring Social Security and the Internal Revenue Service.
    Ballot measures against same-sex "marriage" passed last week in 11 states.
    Karl Rove, senior White House political adviser, said "absolutely" Mr. Bush will continue to push for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
    "We cannot allow activist judges to overturn that," Mr. Rove told "Fox News Sunday."
    "We cannot allow activist local elected officials to thumb their nose at 5,000 years of human history and determine that marriage is something else.
    "If we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a union of a man and a woman," Mr. Rove said.
    Mr. Rove said the president does not oppose states allowing some legal recognition short of marriage for homosexual couples.
    "Some of the issues that have been raised, for example, visitation rights in hospitals or the right to inherit or benefit rights, property rights ... can all be dealt with at the state level without overturning the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman," he said.
    Broad reforms top the list of the House agenda, including malpractice and tort reforms, Social Security and the tax system, said House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican.
    "I think this is the only time in generations that you might have a chance to be able to do it," Mr. Hastert said of the political climate for change.
    Intelligence-reform measures will likely be completed during the lame-duck session when Congress returns Nov. 16 for unfinished business.
    "I think we need to get it done. It's important for the security of this country. It's important for us to know what's happening — you know, and to keep our intelligence and to keep our security sound," Mr. Hastert said.
    "We also have some other important things to do. We need to get the budget done. I would hope that we can do that. And we have a highway bill that means over 1.5 million jobs in this country. It also helps the economy and the transportation needs, that we need to get that done as well," Mr. Hastert said.
    Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican and chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, said the White House will be more engaged in negotiations to finish the intelligence-reform bill.
    "The president will need to get into this, I think, in order to get it across the finish line," Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Republican, said, while appearing with Miss Collins on CBS' "Face the Nation."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L041108   Specter denies pro-choice litmus test
 

By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Sen. Arlen Specter, who set off a firestorm of controversy last week among conservatives who interpreted certain remarks as a warning to President Bush not to nominate pro-life judicial candidates, pledged yesterday to treat the president's choices fairly and quickly.
    Mr. Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican next in line to lead the Senate Judiciary Committee, said his earlier remarks had been taken out of context and he would not attempt to impose a "litmus test."
    Karl Rove, senior White House political adviser, said Mr. Bush has been assured that all court nominees will be treated fairly.
    "Senator Specter is a man of his word, and we'll take him at his word if he becomes chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee," Mr. Rove told "Fox News Sunday."
    "He told the president, 'I will make certain your nominees receive a hearing. I'll make certain they receive a vote, and the appellate nominees will be brought to the floor,' " Mr. Rove said.
    For his own part, the Pennsylvania Republican yesterday said he would not require nominees to back his stance on Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision making abortion a constitutional right.
    "Although I am pro-choice, I have supported many pro-life nominees," Mr. Specter said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
    "That doesn't mean that I have a litmus test, or that I don't give appropriate deference to whom the president nominates."
    Mr. Specter made his initial statements during a Wednesday night press conference, as he was discussing the success of Democrats in blocking the confirmation of Mr. Bush's judicial picks who are pro-life.
    "When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely. The president is well-aware of what happened when a bunch of his nominees were sent up with the filibuster. And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning," he said.
    Mr. Specter said yesterday that his comments were not intended to serve as a warning to Mr. Bush and that "my record is pretty plain."
    "The fact is that I have supported all of President Bush's nominees in committee and on the floor. I have never applied a litmus test. I have supported Chief Justice [William H.] Rehnquist for confirmation as chief justice when I knew he had voted against Roe v. Wade," said Mr. Specter, noting that he also supported Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
    However, Mr. Specter opposed the nomination of Judge Robert Bork, who was chosen by President Reagan, but rejected by the Senate.
    The Senate requires 60 votes to end debate and vote on a judge, and Republicans now hold 55 seats, which, Mr. Specter said, is not enough to break the Democrats' logjam.
    "The concern as to confirmation is really the recognition of a political fact," said Mr. Specter, who urged Mr. Bush to reach out to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.
    Senate staffers said last week that discussions are under way to consider whether Mr. Specter should serve as the Judiciary Committee chairman or elect an alternative committee member. Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, is the most senior committee member next to the current chairman, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, but has indicated he wants to remain the head of the powerful Senate Finance Committee.
    Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, is next after Mr. Specter in seniority and is under consideration as a prospective chairman.
    James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, says he is not convinced by Mr. Specter's assurances that all judicial nominees will be treated fairly.
    "He is a problem, and he must be derailed," Mr. Dobson said on ABC's "This Week."
    Mr. Dobson described Mr. Specter's original remarks last week as "one of the most foolish and ill-considered comments that a politician has made in a long time."
    "There are many, many members of that committee [who] are more qualified and less of a problem then Senator Specter," he said.
    Responding to Mr. Dobson's criticisms, Mr. Specter said, "The situation on getting 60 votes is not my making. It is the making of the Democrats, and they have demonstrated it."
    The decision will be left to the Senate as to who will lead the committee during the next congressional session, not the president, Mr. Rove said.
    "Just as we wouldn't like them to decide who are the staff assistants at the White House, they certainly do not want us to determine who's committee chairman on the Hill," Mr. Rove said.
    NBC "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert asked Mr. Rove whether Mr. Bush is so indebted to evangelical Christians that he must nominate a Supreme Court justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
    Mr. Rove said no judge will face any litmus test on any issue that might come before the court.
    "The president said during the campaign that in virtually every speech that he gave, that he would continue to nominate men and women to the bench who are well-qualified and who would strictly interpret the law, who knew the difference between personal agendas and personal views on the one hand and the strict interpretation of the law. He'll continue to uphold that commitment," Mr. Rove said.
    "He has sent forward some terrific nominees, men and women of tremendous intellectual and legal abilities, and they are people who share his philosophy. The judges are to be impartial umpires, not activists, not legislators who just happen to be wearing robes, but to be impartial umpires who strictly interpret the Constitution and apply it," Mr. Rove said.
    Mr. Bush is expected to have several opportunities to shape the court, with most justices old or in ill health. The current court is one of the oldest in history, with two members older than 80 (Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice John Paul Stevens) and only Justice Thomas younger than 65.
    The chief justice was diagnosed recently with a serious form of cancer, and press reports also have said Justice O'Connor is interested in retiring.
    Mr. Dobson said the Senate confirmation of new Supreme Court justices will be the most important job of the new Congress.
    "And especially, especially, putting conservative judges on the judiciary, that is the key to everything," Mr. Dobson said.
    "Miguel Estrada would be at the top of the list," Mr. Dobson said, referring to a conservative nominee to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the District whose name was withdrawn in the face of a Democratic filibuster.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O041108   CONNECTICUT   Woman accused of sex with boy, 8
    BRIDGEPORT — A woman faces charges of having sex with an 8-year-old boy whom investigators said she considered her boyfriend.
    Tammy Imre, 29, was arrested Friday and charged with sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor. A judge set bail at $250,000 yesterday.
    Police began investigating in September after the third-grader's mother discovered a letter the accused had written him, in which she tells the boy she doesn't "want anyone but you."
    She continued: "Now tomorrow it's supposed to rain, you can come over .... Love ya! I want you!"
    Police said the boy, the playmate of the suspect's 7-year-old daughter, initially denied doing anything with her because he feared getting into trouble. He later told police he had sexual intercourse with her and that she gave him a key to her apartment.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R041109   Momentous shift
    "One of the biggest surprises in the presidential election may have been the ground shift — a momentous one for Democrats — in how Hispanics voted: namely, in enormous numbers and, very often, Republican," New York Times editorialist Carolyn Curiel writes.
    "Now, even though they claimed a majority of the Latino vote, Democrats suddenly find themselves in real danger of losing one of the biggest pieces of their base, one that had been counted on for loyalty approaching that of African-Americans. This happened, in part, because the Republicans went to church," the writer said.
    "In making their gains, the Republicans exploited a largely unheralded fact: Among minority groups, Hispanics rank with the most religious. About one-third told pollsters they consider themselves born-again Christians. The vast remainder are Roman Catholic, often devoutly so.
    "As part of their larger strategy of appealing to pastors and other church leaders, the Republicans, in effect, franchised their product, President Bush, through the pulpits. In the process, they found an especially receptive audience in Hispanics. Their ties to the Democratic Party traditionally have been though labor unions, which have diminished in strength and influence."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M041109   Newsweek's voice-over
    Media Research Center President L. Brent Bozell III is calling on Newsweek to issue a public apology in its next issue for misinforming the public about television ads produced by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
    Newsweek said in its post-election special issue: "When the Swift Boat vets made ads attacking [Sen. John] Kerry with images from his 1971 testimony, they used a voice-over, an actor reading Kerry's words." (The Newsweek story was written by Evan Thomas, based on reporting from Eleanor Clift, Kevin Peraino, Jonathan Darman, Peter Goldman, Holly Bailey, Tamara Lipper and Suzanne Smalley.)
    "We have checked with people representing the Swift Boat Veterans and they confirm they used the actual Kerry testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in their ads. This nonsense in Newsweek about how an actor's voice-over was used instead of the authentic Kerry tape is misinforming the public, as much of the media did during the entire campaign when it came to covering the Swift Boat Veterans.
    "Newsweek still has it wrong and must correct the record with an apology to the Swift Boat Veterans in its next issue," Mr. Bozell said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R041109   Driving the blues from Jesusland
 

By Wesley Pruden

Oh, dear. This may be considerably more serious than we thought.
    Four years ago 36 days of uncertainty in Florida transformed the Gore-Lieberman team into the Sore-Loserman ticket, but the anger if not the rancor soon subsided. Alec Baldwin threatened to move to France but never did and eventually denied ever promising to leave. He may still be hanging about an airport somewhere in Southern California looking to hitch a ride to the Ivory Coast, but most of the losers, as grown-ups will, regrouped and reorganized to fight another day.
    But this time the sore losers are serious. They're not just threatening to abandon their CDs, bongs, gongs, sandals, and dirty underwear and pile into ancient Volvos with bags of vegan trail mix and bean sprouts to move on to Canada, Britain and France.
    The Internet is buzzing with talk of subtracting the blue states and forming a new nation, alternately called Jesusland, or Coastopia or simply the Blues. The Pentagon is monitoring the borders for unauthorized insurgent-troop movements but Fort Sumter was still in federal hands at press time. Ghostbusters were dispatched late yesterday to Maine to watch the grave of Joshua Chamberlain, who saved Lincoln's bacon at Gettysburg, but early this morning the turf above the general's coffin was still undisturbed. The White House so far has had no comment, but President Bush is said to have asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to retrieve contingency plans for the defense of the capital from the Pentagon vaults, where the documents, crumbling with age, have lain undisturbed since the tumult over the assassination of Lincoln subsided 139 years ago. Military bases have been put on full alert and West Point and Annapolis were told to stand by for further orders.
    A manifesto posted yesterday on the Internet in behalf of the Peoples Republic of Coastopia was couched in language that sent Stonewall Jackson rollicking in laughter, in the way that stern Presbyterian elders rollick in paradise: "We are tired of rednecks in Oklahoma picking the leader who will determine if it is safe for us to cross the Brooklyn Bridge. We are sick of homophobic knuckle-draggers in Wyoming contributing to the national debate on our gay marriages. So we have done the only thing we could. We seceded."
    The communiqué identified the departing states as Washington, Oregon and California and all of New England, and "we have taken Iowa and Illinois, mostly because we need the fine produce of Iowa's soil, and the museums of Chicago are fabulous." All this without firing a shot, so far as the Department of Homeland Security will say. (Tom Ridge was unavailable for comment.)
    Although the constitutional officers of Coastopia were not identified, a written constitution was apparently ratified at a constitutional convention held at a Starbucks in Provincetown. "A word about our politics," the manifesto continued. "Abortions will be safe and legal [apparently not everyone is Coastopia is gay] and homosexual men and women will be free to marry at their discretion. We will have our own currency and trade with any countries we want. Everyone will have health care. Everyone will have an identity card. Homelessness and unemployment will be virtually unknown [since no one will work]. We believe in a meritocracy and a huge chasm between church and state. 100% of our cars will be hybrid by 2006."
    Recruiting offices in the rebel states have apparently been swamped by volunteers clamoring to climb aboard the last streetcar from "Old America." Said one recruit identified only as Sean: "Mmmmmm. Hazelnut lattes. I was also trying to decide which country to move to ... and American Coastopia sounds lovely. Just need to find a man to share it (and my latte) with and it will be heaven. *Sigh.* "
    Ask and do tell: A recruit named Greg posted this message for the mess sergeant: "Oh, and I'd like a soy hazelnut latte, what with me being lactose intolerant and all that." A prospective citizen named Hillary posted a message, presumably not from one of the Senate Office Buildings, asking the Coastopian military authorities to "sign me up, unless I can figure out a way to hide out in France for the next four years." The Marines in the assault on Fallujah can thank Allah they don't have to face the Coastopian legion. An American insurgent named Lee is ready to march toward the sound of his gums: "Can someone come and get me? I'm too depressed to get out of my pajamas."
    Jefferson Davis lives. Secession is clearly in the air.

    Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Times.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L041109   Conservatives target Specter

ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Conservative opponents of Sen. Arlen Specter's bid to become Senate Judiciary Committee chairman are flooding Republican committee members with calls demanding he be passed over.
    But the Pennsylvania Republican also has been making calls in an effort to cement his chairmanship, one official told the Associated Press.
    Without any change in the support of the leaders who backed his re-election last week, Mr. Specter is likely to take over as chairman of the committee that will consider President Bush's judicial nominees.
    Mr. Specter embarked on a media blitz yesterday to help repair the damage from his comment last week that it would be unlikely for the Senate to confirm pro-life judges. He told CNN, "I think I can help the president and I think I can help the country."
    Sen. Rick Santorum, a fellow Pennsylvania Republican and the Senate's leader on pro-life issues, issued a general statement of support for Mr. Specter on Thursday.
    "I look forward to working with Senator Specter to guarantee that every judicial nominee put forth by President Bush has an up or down vote," said Mr. Santorum, who is chairman of the Republican Conference but not a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
    An aide said yesterday that Mr. Santorum would leave the decision to the Judiciary panel members, who will vote on who their chairman should be.
    Conservatives are inundating those senators with calls and e-mails trying to sway those votes.
    One Republican senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who asked not be identified, said his office had received more than 1,000 phone calls Friday opposing Mr. Specter.
    The senator said that was the most phone calls on one subject since the debate over a constitutional amendment on homosexual "marriage" in July.
    No one in the Senate has openly opposed Mr. Specter's future chairmanship, aides said, although several senators have said they want to talk to him before he gets the job.
    "Very rarely do they speak out against other members," said the Rev. Pat Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, who wants Mr. Specter voted down. Republican leaders "are putting their finger in the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing. This drama still has to be played out."
    Mr. Mahoney said conservative groups plan to protest at the Capitol next week, and are working to turn votes and the Senate leadership against a chairmanship for Mr. Specter.
    "This isn't what we worked for," he said. "It sends the exact wrong message to the core of the Republican Party that helped win this election. No matter what Senator Specter says, there is a complete lack of trust between him and us now, no matter how much he tries to do damage control."
    Senators also are taking White House political adviser Karl Rove's Sunday statements as White House support for the pro-choice Mr. Specter, Senate aides said.
    Mr. Rove told "Fox News Sunday" that Mr. Specter assured the president that he would make certain that all appellate nominees receive a prompt hearing and reach the Senate floor.
    "Senator Specter's a man of his word, and we'll take him at his word," Mr. Rove said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H041109   States lining up to outlaw same-sex 'marriage'
 

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The next round of proposals to amend state constitutions to define marriage will begin in a few weeks as lawmakers in as many as nine states promise to get such measures before voters.
    In Texas yesterday, state Rep. Warren Chisum "pre-filed" a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
    Virginia lawmakers have pre-filed a similar amendment, while state legislators in Washington, Idaho, South Carolina and Alabama have said they will introduce marriage amendments as soon as possible.
    Marriage amendments already are being processed in Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Tennessee, where they require a second legislative approval to go before voters.
    The 11-for-11 election victories for marriage amendments Nov. 2 "will encourage legislators in other states to follow suit," said Glen Lavy, a lawyer with the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, which is involved in many legal battles over same-sex "marriage."
    Last week's vote "was an overwhelming endorsement of the idea that marriage is what it always has been — [the union of] a man and a woman," he said.
    The amendment votes should give state legislatures "some confidence that this is an issue that the American people are behind and are willing to support," said Joshua Baker, legal analyst at the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy in Washington, which tracks same-sex "marriage" issues.
    However, at least one marriage amendment is expected to have a bumpy ride. Last spring, the Massachusetts legislature passed, by a 105-92 vote, a compromise amendment to reserve marriage for heterosexual couples and create civil unions for same-sex couples.
    Neither traditional-values groups nor homosexual rights groups were pleased with the amendment.
    It now has to go before the new legislature and win at least 101 votes before it can go before voters. But the odds that the Massachusetts amendment will pass lengthened Nov. 2, when three amendment supporters were voted out of office.
    Homosexual rights activists say these new amendment opponents, with help from lawmakers who will change their minds and vote against the amendment, will sink the measure if it comes up.
    It is likely that legislative leaders won't even bring it up. Senate Minority Leader Brian P. Lees, a Republican and co-sponsor of the amendment, has told the Republican newspaper of Springfield, Mass., that the measure might be dropped.
    "Gay marriage is in place. It would be very hard to take something away that is already there," Mr. Lees said, referring to a Massachusetts court's unprecedented decision to legalize same-sex "marriage" last year.
    Amendment supporters outnumber opponents 103-to-96, the State House News Service says. This assumes "everyone maintains their vote" from last year, said a reporter at the Boston-based news service.
    In Wisconsin, where Republicans control both legislative chambers, the marriage amendment is likely to go to a vote early next year. If it passes, as expected, it could go to voters a few months later.
    In Tennessee, the legislature passed its marriage amendment for the first time in May. It now has to be approved by a two-thirds vote in each legislative chamber before it can go to voters. Clearing that hurdle shouldn't be hard because the amendment passed the first time through by lopsided votes — 86-5 in the House and 28-1 in the Senate.
    Seventeen states have constitutional amendments defining marriage. Voters in Hawaii, Alaska, Nebraska and Nevada approved amendments in the 1990s and early 2000s. On Nov. 2, amendments were approved by voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah.
    Missouri and Louisiana passed amendments earlier this year. The Louisiana amendment has been overturned by a lower court ruling and is under appeal.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R041109   Parents take evolution warning to trial

ATLANTA (AP) — A trial opened yesterday over whether a warning sticker in Atlanta biology textbooks that says evolution is "a theory, not a fact" violates the separation of church and state by promoting religion.
    The case is one of several battles that have been waged in recent years in the Bible Belt over what role evolution should play in science classes.
    Cobb County schools put the disclaimers in biology texts two years ago after more than 2,000 parents complained that the books presented evolution as fact without mentioning rival ideas about the origin of life, namely creationism.
    A group of parents and the American Civil Liberties Union then filed a lawsuit over the stickers.
    "It's like saying everything that follows this sticker isn't true," said Jeffrey Selman, a parent who filed the lawsuit.
    The sticker reads: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
    An attorney for the school district, Linwood Gunn, said the sticker was meant to "encourage critical thinking" and did not imply that evolution was wrong. Mr. Gunn said it was silly to consider the stickers a promotion of religion.
    "It doesn't say anything about faith. It doesn't say anything about religion," he said.
    But U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper asked Mr. Gunn why it is necessary to have a sticker to clarify evolution as a theory. "Why put a sticker on the book when that's already in the book?"
    Mr. Gunn replied that school board members simply were trying to accommodate all views.
    The first witness, parent Marjorie Rogers, started the drive to put the stickers in the books. She said it was only fair to put a small disclaimer in a textbook where religious-based ideas about the origin of life are not mentioned.
    "I don't want the Bible taught in the classroom. But there is a wealth of science that would support intelligent design, and that is not taught," she said. "There should be a marketplace of ideas."
    The judge also heard from a science teacher who said some students point to the sticker and argue that evolution is "just a theory."
    The sticker "diminishes the status of evolution among all other theories," teacher Wes McCoy said. "I was worried. I didn't want college admission counselors thinking less of their science educations, thinking they hadn't been taught evolution or something."
    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism was a religious belief that could not be taught in public schools along with evolution.
    The theory of evolution says evidence shows that current species of life evolved over time from earlier forms and that natural selection determines which species survive. Creationism credits the origin of species to God.
    The trial, which will be decided by the judge, is expected to last several days.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O041110   Gonzales to succeed Ashcroft
 

By Scott Lindlaw
ASSOCIATED PRESS

With a hug and words of high praise, President Bush named Alberto Gonzales as attorney general on Wednesday, elevating the administration's most prominent Hispanic to a highly visible post in the war on terror.
    "His sharp intellect and sound judgment have helped shape our policies in the war on terror," Bush said of the man who has served as the White House's top lawyer over the past four years.
    In an announcement in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Bush touched on Gonzales' personal story - a boy who grew up poor in a family of eight children in a two-bedroom house in Texas - and now is in line for a Cabinet post.
    "'Just give me a chance to prove myself,' that is a common prayer for those in my community," said Gonzales, who would be the first Hispanic to hold the nation's top law enforcement job. "Mr. President, thank you for that chance."
    If confirmed by the Senate, the 49-year-old Texan would replace John Ashcroft, who announced plans on Tuesday to step down after four stormy years in the post.
    Even before the formal announcement, one Senate liberal welcomed the appointment of "someone less polarizing" to the position. "We will have to review his record very carefully, but I can tell you already he's a better candidate than John Ashcroft," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Judiciary Committee.
    Commerce Secretary Donald Evans also announced his resignation on Tuesday, and Republican officials have said they expect other departures from Bush's Cabinet and senior staff as he prepares for a second term in office.
    Gonzales' career has been linked with Bush for at least a decade, serving as general counsel when Bush was governor of Texas, and then as secretary of state and as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court.
    "My confidence in Al was high to begin with. It has only grown with time," the president said, hugging his longtime Texas confidant as he concluded his remarks.
    Gonzales has been at the center of developing Bush's positions on balancing civil liberties with waging the war on terrorism - opening the White House counsel to the same line of criticism that has dogged Ashcroft.
    For instance, Gonzales publicly defended the administration's policy - essentially repudiated by the Supreme Court and now being fought out in the lower courts - of detaining certain terrorism suspects for extended periods without access to lawyers or courts.
    He also wrote a controversial February 2002 memo in which Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture law and international treaties providing protections to prisoners of war. That position drew fire from human rights groups, which said it helped led to the type of abuses uncovered in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
    The American Civil Liberties Union said it expected the Senate to closely examine those issues during confirmation hearings. The ACLU said it had no position on Gonzales, but added: "Particular attention should be devoted to exploring Mr. Gonzales' proposed policies on the constitutionality of the Patriot Act, the Guantanamo Bay detentions, the designation of United States citizens as enemy combatants and reproductive rights."
    Some conservatives also have quietly questioned Gonzales' credentials on core social issues. And he once was a partner in a Houston law firm which represented the scandal-ridden energy giant Enron.
    Gonzales would be the first Hispanic attorney general.
    But shifting him to Justice would create a vacancy in the White House counsel's office. Bush advisers said two people would be naturals for the job. One is White House staff secretary Brett Kavanaugh, a lawyer who has been waiting nearly 16 months for confirmation on the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. He was also a top lawyer in two cases that dogged the Clinton White House. As associate independent counsel under Kenneth Starr, he worked on both the long-running Whitewater case and the 1998 Clinton impeachment case.
    Harriet Miers, a deputy chief of staff who was once Bush's personal lawyer, would be another candidate, one Bush adviser said.
    Ashcroft announced his resignation on Tuesday, along with Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a Texas friend of the president's.
    After a National Security Council meeting, Bush was sat down Wednesday with Secretary of State Colin Powell, another figure being closely watched. Powell has been largely noncommital when asked about his plans.
    The gospel-singing son of a minister, Ashcroft is a fierce conservative who doesn't drink, smoke or dance. His detractors said he gave religion too prominent a role at the Justice Department - including optional prayer meetings with staff before each work day. He has also been a willing lightning rod for critics who said his policies for thwarting terrorists infringed on the rights of innocent people.
    Ashcroft championed many of the most controversial government actions following the Sept. 11 attacks, most notably the USA Patriot Act. It bolstered FBI surveillance powers, increased use of material witness warrants to hold suspects incommunicado for months. When there was a break in a terror case, he was the man at the lectern soberly informing the American people.
    "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved," he said in resignation letter to Bush, dated Nov. 2 - Election Day.
    McClellan said Bush got the letter that same day, before the results of the election were known.
    Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., voiced pleasure Wednesday with Ashcroft's departure and exhorting Bush "to make good on his promise of renewed bipartisan cooperation" with Democrats.
    Evans, Bush's 2000 campaign chairman and close friend of more than three decades, said he longed to return to Texas.
    Bush was considering this year's campaign money man, Mercer Reynolds, for Evans' job. As national finance chairman for the Bush campaign, Reynolds raised more than $260 million to get him re-elected.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R041110   Judiciary panel seen as tinderbox
 

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Republicans and Democrats are bracing for what they say could be the most bitter partisan fight in more than 25 years on the Senate Judiciary Committee, already the scene of some of the Senate's most acrimonious showdowns and stalemates.
    Judiciary staffers and senators are preparing to hold hearings for a new attorney general and possibly a new Supreme Court justice and chief justice. Normally contentious under any circumstances, these confirmation hearings could be poisoned by the continued fighting between Democrats and Republicans over nine of President Bush's nominees to lower courts, which the Democrats are filibustering.
    "It's an opportunity for Democrats to show whether they learned anything from the last two elections and whether they're now prepared to work with Republicans on behalf of the American people or if they want to continue obstructing," said Don Stewart, spokesman for Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican and member of the Judiciary Committee.
     "It's going to be huge," Mr. Stewart added, comparing it to the bitter confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. "It has the potential to be a perfect storm if the Democrats want to obstruct. It's Clarence Thomas cubed."
    Although some Democrats privately expressed concern that obstruction on Mr. Bush's judge picks and legislative agenda may have contributed to their loss of four Senate seats, other Democrats remain defiant.
    Republicans "don't have a mandate," said Barry Piatt, spokesman for Sen. Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota. "This was a very close election, and many of the Senate seats they picked up were won very narrowly."
    Republicans hope that Minority Leader Tom Daschle's loss to former Rep. John Thune in South Dakota — a state that Mr. Bush won by 21 percentage points — will be a warning to Democrats from other conservative states who are thinking of blocking Mr. Bush's nominees.
    "Democrats, especially those from red states who know they're in the crosshairs, are going to have to reconsider the promiscuous use of the filibuster," said Sean Rushton, director of the conservative Committee for Justice.
    North Dakota voted for Mr. Bush by a margin of 27 percentage points, but Mr. Dorgan's spokesman called the idea that Democrats are misusing the filibuster "baloney."
    "There have been a few extreme right-wing judges who have been rejected," Mr. Piatt said. "Ninety percent have been confirmed. What more do they want?"
    Nine Bush nominees have been approved by the Judiciary Committee and then blocked by Democrats from a final vote on the floor of the Senate.
    With 51 Republicans in the Senate, the party needed to pick up nine Democrats to garner the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and force a final vote on a nominee being filibustered by Democrats. After last week's wins, however, Republicans will have 55 senators starting in January and will need to peel off just five Democrats — several of whom have voted with Republicans on nominees in the past.
    The most pressing matter now facing the Senate Judiciary Committee is last night's announcement that Attorney General John Ashcroft will resign. His replacement must be approved by the committee and confirmed by the full Senate.
    Also facing the Senate Judiciary Committee is the expected retirement of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who recently announced that he suffers from thyroid cancer. As Chief Justice Rehnquist undergoes treatment for his illness, Senate Republicans are preparing for the vacancy.
    His retirement would leave the White House facing possibly two separate hearings: one to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist and a second to elevate a sitting justice to chief justice.
    Richard J. Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who is likely to become the minority whip and is a member of the Judiciary Committee, sounded a note of caution, but also indicated a willingness to fight the White House over nominations.
    "With diminished numbers on the Democratic side, we need to carefully pick our battles, and we have to look for common ground with the administration when we can find it," he said. "But no one should think my Democratic colleagues and I are going to back off when we believe that the president is advocating something that might not be in the best interest of the country."
    Jude McCartin, spokeswoman for Sen. Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico Democrat, said her boss will consider each nominee individually.
    "Senator Bingaman feels strongly that any nominee ought to be within the mainstream," she said. "He makes no decisions before the hearing. He's got no litmus test other than that the nominee ought to be within the mainstream."
    Democrat Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana — where Mr. Bush got 60 percent of the vote — isn't paying the matter much attention, his spokeswoman said.
    "We're just trying to recover from the election," Meg Keck said. "It seems kind of early to be focusing on this."
    A primary question swirling around Judiciary Committee circles during the past week has been whether Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, will assume the committee gavel in January as scheduled. Conservatives were outraged by comments that Mr. Specter made last week, which they interpreted as a warning to Mr. Bush not to put forth pro-life nominees for the Supreme Court.
    Mr. Specter denied any such warning, and calls for Mr. Specter's scalp appear to have ebbed.
    "I think he will be the next chairman of the committee, and I think he's been duly warned," said one Republican staffer on the Judiciary Committee.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H041110   GEORGIA   Lawsuit challenges gay 'marriage' ban
    ATLANTA — Homosexual-rights supporters filed a lawsuit yesterday seeking to throw out a same-sex "marriage" ban voted into Georgia's constitution last week.
    They said the amendment contained misleading language, asking voters only if they wanted to define marriage as between a man and a woman, not whether they wanted to ban civil unions. The measure passed by a 3-1 margin on Nov. 2, winning with huge margins among almost every demographic.
    In the Fulton County lawsuit, the homosexual-rights supporters call the amendment "fatally flawed" and say the language on the ballot "had the effect of unfairly attempting to influence voters." The plaintiffs include two Democratic state legislators and a University of Georgia law professor.
    The lawsuit names Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican, as defendant. At a caucus meeting Monday for Republican Party members of the state House, members promised to fight the lawsuit.
    "We will take all actions necessary to defend the decision of the people and will not look kindly upon any tampering with our state constitution," said Rep. Glenn Richardson, Dallas Republican.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R041110   Taxing sermons
    A Republican congressman became "enraged" less than one week before the presidential election when the Internal Revenue Service warned that churches would risk their tax-exempt status if they prayed for the election of either President Bush or Sen. John Kerry.
    According to the IRS, prayer in favor of either the Republican or Democratic candidate — or any other national politicians, for that matter — would be viewed as a violation of the tax code and place in jeopardy the church's tax-exempt status.
    "This is a complete infringement on the right to free exercise of religion," said North Carolina Republican Rep. Walter B. Jones, a Catholic and longtime advocate of free speech for religious leaders. "The government should never be in the business of telling religious institutions how to pray."
    Kristen Quigley, the congressman's spokeswoman, told Inside the Beltway yesterday that Mr. Jones will soon reintroduce H.R. 235, legislation that would change the tax code so clergy of all faiths could address the moral and political issues of the day without fear of being attacked by the tax collector.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M041110   Press 'blew' election coverage
 

By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The press could be facing an identity crisis in a post-election world.
    "We blew it. It's that simple," said Jon Friedman, media editor of CBS.MarketWatch.com. "The news media, especially those in New York and Washington, completed underestimated the intensity of people who live between the coasts, in the red states and the South."
    The press gave them "short shrift," Mr. Friedman said, while reinforcing one another's insular beliefs.
    "If you habitually talk to people who only agree with you, and are of the same mind, you start thinking, 'Yes, this is how it is,' " Mr. Friedman said. "We've treated the fact that Bush won as some sort of accident which can't be explained. And I say 'we,' because I am one of those journalists in New York."
    He has advice, though.
    "Both the media and Kerry supporters should try to understand what really happened here, and make some sense of it — to understand who is voting for a president, as well as who is running for president," Mr. Friedman said.
    Fixated by persuasive polls favoring Democratic challenger John Kerry and the allure of his support in Hollywood or from high-profile pundits, much of the so-called liberal press outlets overlooked the clout of values voters, Wal-Mart Republicans, evangelical Christians and others who included traditional American ideals in their political ideology.
    "The liberal media is the biggest and most immediate loser of Mr. Bush's win. They staked their prestige on defeating the president, and they lost," said Jed Babbin, contributing editor of the American Spectator magazine.
    Mr. Babbin categorizes this stubborn genre of journalists as "legacy media," based on a computer term.
    "Legacy computer systems are old, outdated and not adapted to the needs of the audience. Legacy media — CBS, The Washington Post, the New York Times — are exactly the same," he said. "They forget to write for their audience. They don't have to agree with them, but they also can't hold them in contempt. Legacy media write for themselves — not their audience."
     Mr. Babbin added, "These people missed the idea that the world is passing them by. They'll go the way of the dinosaur unless they reach out to the real American audience."
    Some believe the press is not so heinous, however.
    "Self-criticism is good, but I am not sure why journalists want to beat themselves up over not covering a certain class of voter," said Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor and Publisher magazine. "Essentially, the election turned out as many pollsters predicted it would. There was no huge upset. It was not like Ronald Reagan's landslide over Jimmy Carter in 1980."
    He thinks the press is not disconnected from the public, as some fear.
    "As much as people rail against the media as being elitist, we predicted who would win key battleground states based on newspaper endorsements for candidates Bush and Kerry," Mr. Mitchell said. "We made the correct prediction in 14 out of 15 states. To me, that indicates the papers reflected their own voters. They were not out of step with them."
    Editorial philosophy could be slow to change, though.
    "Much as we can delude ourselves otherwise, elections aren't about candidates, or conventions, or strategists, or advertising, or even issues. Elections are about voters — in this case, the 120 million Americans who thought through what they want in a president and acted on their beliefs," John McCormick, deputy editor of the Chicago Tribune's editorial page, noted yesterday.
     "Not that we'll remember the lesson come 2008," he added.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H041110   A word of thanks
    "Dear Justice Marshall: On behalf of the American Conservative Union, its Board of Directors and ACU's 1 million members, permit me to offer our heartiest congratulations and thanks for almost single-handedly making possible President George W. Bush's historic election victory," ACU Chairman David Keene writes in a letter to Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
    It was the Massachusetts high court which, by mandating same-sex "marriage" in that state, thrust the issue into national prominence during the election year.
    "Had it not been for your courageous decision to ignore the will of the people of the Bay State, turn your back on 4,000 years of Judeo-Christian moral teaching, and unilaterally impose your own progressive personal opinions on the law, marriage might never have become the defining issue of the 2004 presidential election," Mr. Keene wrote in a letter sent this week to the chief justice.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L041110   Court asked to halt doctor-assisted suicide

ASSOCIATED PRESS
    The Bush administration asked the Supreme Court yesterday to block the nation's only law allowing doctors to help terminally ill patients die more quickly.
    The appeal from Attorney General John Ashcroft had been expected since May, when a lower court ruled the federal government could not punish Oregon doctors who prescribed lethal doses of federally controlled drugs.
    Oregon voters approved the law, and since 1998 more than 170 people have used it to end their lives. Most had cancer. The Bush administration has argued that assisted suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" and that doctors take an oath to heal patients, not help them die.
    The law, known as the Death With Dignity Act, lets patients with less than six months to live request a lethal dose of drugs after two doctors confirm the diagnosis and determine the person's mental competence to make the request.
    Paul Clement, acting solicitor general, said in the appeal that the law cannot stand because it conflicts with the federal government's powers. The court probably will decide early next year whether it will hear the case.
    Meanwhile, the court ruled that a drunken-driving accident is not a "crime of violence" allowing the government to deport a permanent resident, in the first of three cases this term delineating the rights of immigrants.
    In an 11-page opinion by ailing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the court ruled unanimously in favor of Josue Leocal, a Florida man challenging his deportation to Haiti in 2002 after pleading guilty to a felony charge of drunken driving.
    The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the DUI offense was a "crime of violence" under the immigration statute because he had caused injury to others.
    The Supreme Court disagreed. It said the plain meaning of the statute suggests that the felony offense must require intent in causing harm — not mere negligence as in Mr. Leocal's case — before immigrants are subject to the drastic consequence of deportation.
    "Drunk driving is a nationwide problem, as evidenced by the efforts of legislatures to prohibit such conduct and impose appropriate remedies," Chief Justice Rehnquist stated. "But this fact does not warrant our shoehorning it into statutory sections where it does not fit."
    Mr. Leocal, 47, was sentenced to more than two years in prison in 2000 on the felony charge, but his attorney had argued that he had never been arrested before during nearly 20 years in the United States, nor did he deliberately intend to cause harm.
    Later this term, the court will rule on two other immigration cases in which the government argues it should have wide discretion to send back or indefinitely detain foreigners in a post-September 11 world of heightened terror threats.
    In a second ruling yesterday, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a decision in a case involving a dispute over cargo damage in a train wreck. The court ruled unanimously that a contract negotiated as part of a federal maritime law protects Norfolk Southern Railway Co. from having to pay large damages, even though the accident happened on land, not at sea.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O041111    NEW YORK   Woman gives birth at 56
    NEW YORK — A day-old brother and sister were welcomed as celebrities yesterday as their beaming mother, thought to be the oldest woman in the United States to give birth to twins, showed them off.
    Wearing a pink silk bathrobe, Aleta St. James choked up as she introduced her newborn son, Gian, and daughter, Francesca, at a press conference.
    "This is the most incredible thing I've ever done in my life. This is a miracle that God blessed me with," she said.
    The single mother, who turns 57 tomorrow, delivered the twins by Caesarean section on Tuesday at Mount Sinai Medical Center. They were conceived through in vitro fertilization using donor eggs.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O041111   Paris in the fall
    "Enjoyed your article," James B. Davis writes about our item on disgruntled Americans who are contemplating moving to Canada or beyond because they can't stomach four more years of President Bush.
    Mr. Davis, fittingly enough, is founder of Help.Them.Leave.com, a 501(c)3 organization that offers relocation assistance for "disenfranchised" citizens at absolutely no cost.
    "In return for your irrevocable renunciation of your United States citizenship, and a sworn statement that you will never return, we will provide free one-way transportation to one of our politically matched, recommended countries on one of the jets we have chartered to provide this service," the organization states.
    It goes so far as to carefully match relocation countries to political leanings:
    •Leftists: France, Germany, Italy or Spain
    •Socialists: Canada, Denmark, England, Finland, Norway or Sweden
    •Communists: Cuba or North Korea
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R041111   Falwell to form 'Faith' coalition
 

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Rev. Jerry Falwell, whose Moral Majority organization is credited with aiding Ronald Reagan's 1980 election, announced yesterday the formation of the Faith and Values Coalition to build on the "values voters" who last week helped re-elect President Bush.
    Calling the new coalition a "21st-century Moral Majority," Mr. Falwell said the group aims to maintain the momentum that led to impressive gains for social conservatives Nov. 2, when voters in 11 states passed amendments banning same-sex "marriage" and Republicans expanded their majorities in both houses of Congress.
    Founded in 1979, the Moral Majority was a pioneering force in organizing the religious right during the Reagan era.
    Since the Moral Majority disbanded in 1989, Mr. Falwell said, he has been "inundated" with requests to "finish what you started 25 years ago." He added, "I can honestly say I feel the leading of the Holy Spirit to answer that call."
    Thus, he is "committed to lending my influence to help send out at least 40 million evangelical voters in 2008," he said. "The thought of a Hillary Clinton or John Edwards presidency is simply unacceptable and quite frightening."
    The 71-year-old pastor will chair the organization, which will be based in Lynchburg, Va., where Mr. Falwell leads Thomas Road Baptist Church and is chancellor of Liberty University. The new coalition has a database of 300,000 names, but no budget. Its Web site, www.faithandvalues.us, will be launched today, an official said.
    Mathew Staver, president of the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, will be the vice chairman. The Rev. Jonathan Falwell, Mr. Falwell's second-oldest son, will be executive director. Tim LaHaye — co-author of the best-selling apocalyptic "Left Behind" fiction series — will be the board chairman.
    Mr. Falwell said the organization will aim to confirm pro-life and strict-constructionist federal judges, pass a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution, and pave the way toward election of a like-minded president in 2008.
    "The time is right because election polls showed that marriage and morality are a mandate," Mr. Staver said.
    The coalition aims to include Jews, Catholics, Mormons and other groups not usually associated with evangelical Protestants. One Catholic strategist said that, if successful, it will definitely stir up Virginia politics.
    "Will the new people he brings in outweigh the people who will be turned off and end up voting Democrat?" asked state Sen. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, a conservative Republican. "The older Democrats will use Jerry Falwell's presence to paint all us Republicans as bad people."
    Although no other evangelical organizations — such as the Family Research Council, the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family — or evangelists Pat Robertson, D. James Kennedy or Franklin Graham have signed on with the new coalition, Mr. Staver said he hopes they will join.
    The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, was skeptical of whether the new group will succeed.
    "Falwell keeps threatening to reanimate the Moral Majority," Mr. Lynn said. "Has he never seen an old horror movie? Every time they bring Frankenstein's monster back, it just gets worse."
    He added, "Some things should be left dead and buried."
    John Green, a political science professor at the University of Akron, said Mr. Falwell's group could benefit Christian conservatives.
    "With the decline of the Christian Coalition, there isn't another organization to represent the interests of Christians outside the Republican Party," he said. "Not all the goals of the Republican Party are the same as that of the Christian activists."
    However, among the nation's 26.5 million evangelicals, Mr. Falwell's favorability ratings are the lowest among major religious leaders, according to a poll conducted last spring of 1,610 adults by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. His 44.1 percent favorability rating fell below that of Mr. Robertson, founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network (54.2 percent), Pope John Paul II (59.4 percent), Mr. Graham (73.1 percent) and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson (73.3 percent).
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L041111   Specter asks to appeal to peers

ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, wants to make his case to be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee directly to the panel's Republican members next week.
    Conservative groups want senators to pass over Mr. Specter for the chairmanship because of his pro-choice views, his postelection comment that pro-life judges would be unlikely to be confirmed by the Senate and his role in blocking past conservative nominees such as Robert Bork.
    Mr. Specter has been calling and meeting with senators individually to assure them that he wouldn't personally block Bush nominees from votes by the full Senate.
    The senator now wants to go in front of the party's Judiciary Committee members in a private meeting next week, said Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican and a committee member.
    "I expect we'll sit down with him and hear what his plans are to support the president and his nominees," Mr. Cornyn said yesterday. "The ball's in Senator Specter's court to satisfy the Republicans on the committee and in the Republican conference."
    The Republican committee members get the first vote on whether Mr. Specter will replace Sen. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, who is stepping down as chairman because of party-imposed term limits. Whatever decision they make can be appealed to the full Republican caucus later.
    It was not known whether Mr. Hatch agreed to call the meeting or when it would be held.
    Mr. Cornyn, who met with Mr. Specter privately on Tuesday, said he also expected Mr. Specter to make some type of public announcement or assurance to confirm what he has been telling senators privately.
    "I know that private conversations are sometimes remembered differently in the future," Mr. Cornyn said. "That's why it's important to memorialize things in a public fashion where everybody's clear on what the understanding is."
    A public statement also would help senators who are being flooded with calls and e-mails from pro-life groups.
    "I have a responsibility to them to tell them this is why I voted to support Senator Specter's chairmanship," Mr. Cornyn said.
    If those things happen, "I think he is likely to be confirmed," the Texan said.
    Conservative groups have announced plans to protest Mr. Specter's prospective chairmanship at the Capitol next week and are working to turn votes and the Senate leadership against him.
    Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said the president's judicial nominees face a "difficult Senate Judiciary Committee if Senator Arlen Specter is elevated to the chairmanship."
    No Republican senator has opposed Mr. Specter publicly, and several have come to his defense.
    Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, offered his support yesterday, saying Mr. Specter "has a good case to make for why he should be chairman."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R041111   Bush names Gonzales attorney general
 

By Joseph Curl and Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Bush yesterday nominated White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, a son of migrant workers, to succeed Attorney General John Ashcroft as head of the Justice Department and become the administration's most prominent Hispanic member.
    "His sharp intellect and sound judgment have helped shape our policies in the war on terror — policies designed to protect the security of all Americans, while protecting the rights of all Americans," Mr. Bush said in a brief announcement.
    "As the top legal official on the White House staff, he has led a superb team of lawyers and has upheld the highest standards of government ethics," he said. "My confidence in Al was high to begin with; it has only grown with time."
    "This is the fifth time I have asked Judge Gonzales to serve his fellow citizens, and I am very grateful he keeps saying 'yes,' " Mr. Bush joked of his longtime friend from Texas, whom he calls "The Judge."
    If confirmed, as expected, by the Republican-controlled Senate, Mr. Gonzales, 49, would become the first Hispanic to hold the country's top law-enforcement position. The White House announced Mr. Ashcroft's resignation on Tuesday.
    Mr. Gonzales said his nomination inspired "great humility and gratitude."
    "As a former judge, I know well that some government positions require a special level of trust and integrity. The American people expect and deserve a Department of Justice guided by the rule of law, and there should be no question regarding the department's commitment to justice for every American. On this principle, there can be no compromise," said Mr. Gonzales, a graduate of Harvard Law School.
    Although his confirmation seems assured, Mr. Gonzales is likely to face stiff questioning during hearings over his role in a White House opinion on legal and treaty requirements relating to the treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    Critics say the memo led to the abuse of war prisoners at the Abu Ghraib facility near Baghdad — an accusation denied by the Bush administration.
    The nomination drew early praise from a prominent Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will hold the hearings on Mr. Gonzales, and at least one civil-liberties group that had opposed Mr. Ashcroft at every turn.
    "It's encouraging that the president has chosen someone less polarizing," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York. "We will have to review his record very carefully, but I can tell you already he's a better candidate than John Ashcroft."
    Two other Democratic senators — Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the party's ranking member on the Judiciary Committee — also said the nomination was very likely to pass.
    Mr. Leahy, who has been a thorn in Mr. Bush's side on judgeships, said he did not expect a fight over the nomination of Mr. Gonzales. And Mr. Dorgan noted that the Senate generally lets the president choose his own Cabinet.
    The American Civil Liberties Union, which opposed Mr. Ashcroft's nomination and consistently challenged him while he was in office, said yesterday that it was taking "no official position" on the Gonzales nomination.
    But the liberal organization called for a full and thorough Senate confirmation process that scrutinizes his positions on key civil liberties and human rights issues, adding that "particular attention should be devoted to exploring Mr. Gonzales' proposed policies on the constitutionality of the Patriot Act, the Guantanamo Bay detentions, the designation of United States citizens as enemy combatants and reproductive rights."
    In a January 2002 legal opinion, the White House counsel's office had suggested that Mr. Bush, as commander in chief, was not restricted by prohibitions on torture of prisoners as defined by U.S. law and under international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions owing to the president's "complete authority over the conduct of war."
    "The war against terrorism is a new kind of war, a new paradigm that renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions," the memo said.
    That paper was targeted yesterday by the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank.
    "By condoning the use of torture, seeking to evade U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions, and disregarding the constitutional rights of detainees, he has contributed to a climate that has placed U.S. soldiers at greater risk and brought the American system of justice into disrepute," the group said.
    The center, created by Clinton administration official John Podesta, who now serves as president and chief executive officer, said the Senate should "insist on complete access to the memoranda he has written on these subjects and a full accounting of his role in these critical decisions."
    But Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Mr. Gonzales had faced "the many challenges of the war against terror with tireless dedication and patriotism."
    "I strongly believe that Judge Gonzales would be a worthy candidate to lead the Justice Department into the future as our government faces the critical tasks of restructuring our law-enforcement resources to keep America safe. I am proud to count Judge Gonzales as a friend, and I believe he would be an excellent nominee to be America's next attorney general," he said.
    Mr. Gonzales, who is married and has three sons, was born in San Antonio.
    He grew up in a two-bedroom house with seven siblings and his parents, migrant workers who never finished elementary school.
    "They worked hard to educate their children and to instill the values of reverence and integrity and personal responsibility," Mr. Bush said.
    The nominee referred to his heritage just once in his comments yesterday.
    "When I talk to people around the country I sometimes tell them that within the Hispanic community there is a shared hope for an opportunity to succeed. 'Just give me a chance to prove myself' — that is a common prayer for those in my community," he said.
    "Mr. President, thank you for that chance. With the consent of the Senate, God's help and the support of my family, I will do my best to fulfill the confidence and trust reflected in this nomination."
    One of the nation's leading Hispanic lobby groups voiced support for the Gonzales nomination last night.
    "We are pleased that one of the first acts since President Bush's re-election both rectifies and marks an historic milestone for the Latino community," said the National Council of La Raza.
    •Charles Hurt contributed to this report.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R041112   Frist's warning

    With the pressure now on to break filibusters, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist last night told the Federalist Society that Democrats face a choice — either stop, or face a rules change that will make judicial filibusters a thing of the past.
    "The Senate now faces a choice — either we accept a new and destructive practice, or we act to restore constitutional balance," Mr. Frist said in prepared remarks he was set to deliver to the group of conservative legal minds in Washington last night.
    "One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end," he said. "The Senate must do what is good, what is right, what is reasonable and what is honorable. The Senate must do its duty."
    Mr. Frist last year introduced a rules change for judicial nominations in which each successive vote would reduce the number necessary to defeat a filibuster. The first time a filibuster was voted on, 60 votes would still be required, but the second time would take 57 votes, the third time 54, the fourth time 51, and the fifth time a simple majority.
    Before the election Mr. Frist, Tennessee Republican, had predicted that a pickup of three or four seats, though still leaving Republicans shy of the 60 votes needed to guarantee an end to filibusters, probably would persuade Democrats to stop filibustering anyway.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M041112   Tick-tick-tick
    CBS News is still awaiting the conclusion of the independent investigation into its discredited "60 Minutes Wednesday" report on President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service, a network spokeswoman said yesterday.
    The network asked former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi, who retired last year as president and chief executive officer of the Associated Press, to examine how the network aired a story it later said it could not vouch for.
    "The panel is hard at work, and the report will be ready when the panel tells us it's ready," said Sandy Genelius, CBS News spokeswoman.
    The panel has insisted that its report be made public after it is submitted to CBS, AP reports.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M041112   NPR for DNC
    For years, conservatives have complained about the leftward bias of National Public Radio. Now it appears that NPR has gone beyond promoting liberal causes on the airwaves to funding liberal political candidates.
    Six NPR employees gave a total of $4,383 in contributions to Democratic candidates and committees in the 2003-2004 election season, according to Federal Election Commission records discovered by San Francisco activist Michael Petrelis.
    The most generous Democratic donors at NPR were engineer Jan Andrews ($1,000 to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign), producer Rod Abid ($500 to the Kerry campaign and $250 to a Democratic National Committee fund) and reporter Michelle Trudeau ($500 last year to former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's presidential campaign and $500 this year to the Kerry campaign).
    Mr. Petrelis found no NPR donations to Republicans. In a letter to the nonprofit's executives, Mr. Petrelis noted that "guidelines seem quite clear about barring political donations from NPR journalists."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M041112   Thankless duty
    It wasn't often that newly resigned Attorney General John Ashcroft received favorable press, as the following statement, issued by Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, alludes:
    "Attorney General John Ashcroft's retirement ... comes after four of the most difficult years any former attorney general has ever served. The attack on our home front put him, as the nation's chief law enforcement officer, in the critical position of having to draw a balance between intense law enforcement and respect for our civil liberties. He experienced one of the nastiest and contentious nomination reviews in recent history. Through it all, John Ashcroft maintained his integrity and we say 'well done, good and faithful servant.'"
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E041112   Mum's the word
    The Arlington-based Leadership Institute aims to ride President Bush's coattails onto college campuses, dispatching 20 field representatives to higher institutions nationwide to launch independent conservative student organizations.
    The institute says its Campus Leadership Program representatives face a recruiting hurdle in that, "predictably, leftists prefer campuses to be conservative-free zones."
    The institute notes that Valparaiso University's administration granted CLP field representative Michael Sweeney permission to set up a recruiting table on the condition that he speak to students only if spoken to.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L041112   California looks for gold rush to stem-cell research
 

By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

California is preparing for an influx of scientists and biotechnology firms, after voters there endorsed billions of dollars in state funding for embryonic stem-cell research.
    Proponents of the California ballot initiative — approved 59 percent to 41 percent last week — hope its passage also will pressure Congress and President Bush to loosen federal restrictions on such research.
    "It's really a whole new world," Daniel Perry, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, said of California's vote last week to dedicate up to $3 billion over 10 years to both adult and embryonic stem-cell research, with preference given to the latter.
    "It puts California ahead not only of other states and the federal government, but of the world," said Mr. Perry, whose group pushed for the initiative.
    California's initiative — which will be financed by state bonds that won't start coming due for five years — was designed to skirt Mr. Bush's 2001 federal policy, which granted federal funding to embryonic stem-cell research for the first time, but limited it to a group of stem-cell lines already created.
    The California effort will fund various types of stem-cell research, but give preference to that which the federal government doesn't fund — namely, new embryonic stem-cell lines and embryonic stem cells derived through human cloning. The initiative specifies that groups can derive their embryonic stem cells from leftover embryos at in vitro fertilization clinics, or from using the human cloning process.
    Supporters say such research could hold the cures to numerous diseases, but opponents say human embryos are alive and shouldn't be destroyed in the name of science. They also note that adult stem cells — not embryonic — are the only ones to have produced any useful treatments so far.
    "California has voted to support embryonic stem-cell research, jeopardizing both their moral and financial standing," said Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council.
    But other states may follow California, Mr. Perry said, especially once their top professors and biotech firms start relocating to California to obtain the research dollars.
    Already, Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology said it will open a California laboratory. The Associated Press reported this week that former Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, who heads the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, is urging state lawmakers to support the research in their state, in order to keep up with California.
    Dr. William B. Hurlbut, consulting professor in the Program in Human Biology at Stanford University, warned that although California's initiative probably will draw entrepreneurs, it is "not at all clear that it's a way to make money," because the field is young.
    California's strong support, coupled with the likelihood of other states following suit, "will strengthen the hand of Republicans and Democrats in Congress" who are trying to lift federal restrictions, Mr. Perry said.
    But Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, said the rest of the country simply isn't with California, and the state's move won't have a heavy influence on Washington.
    "A strong majority of the country believes life begins at conception," he said, noting that Democrats tried to make an issue out of Mr. Bush's stem-cell policy during the presidential election campaign, but it didn't work.
    The senator from Kansas said the majority of the country sided with conservative values, giving Republicans the White House and additional seats in the House and Senate, and making it unlikely that the federal stem-cell policy will change.
    Mr. Brownback plans to bring back his proposed federal ban on cloning human embryos for any purpose, including research. That initiative lost steam in the past, but Mr. Brownback said there are more votes for his bill because of Republican election victories.
    Dr. Hurlbut, who is also a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, believes that in the end a "patchwork" of state policies will force the president and Congress to address the issue.
    The best answer, he said, is to get around the moral problems by finding a way to produce embryonic stem cells without creating and destroying embryos — a goal he is working to prove is technically feasible.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M041113C   Obama fever
 

By Michelle Malkin

Here are a few mainstream media rules of thumb: Minority Democrats in public office are inspirational role models. Minority Republicans in public office are embarrassing sellouts.
    Minority Democrat politicians are principled. Minority Republican politicians are misguided.
    Minority Democrat politicians represent the hopes and dreams of all Americans. Minority Republican politicians are traitors to their "communities." These rules are unwritten, of course, but the minority politician double standard is glaringly obvious in the national media fawning over newly elected U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois Democrat.
    After Mr. Obama's Democratic National Convention address this summer, the New York Times exulted: "As quickly as overnight, a new Democratic star is born." A headline in the Christian Science Monitor echoed: "A star is born." USA Today panted: "Rising star brings Democrats to their feet." NBC's Andrea Mitchell enthused: "I think the real breakout tonight is Obama. I mean Teresa is a fascinating story, but Obama is a rock star." And Newsweek's Howard Fineman proclaimed: "He is the best argument for the American dream that's around in politics."
    Mr. Obama's personal story is certainly impressive. The bi-racial Mr. Obama is son of a Kenyan immigrant and a rarely mentioned white mother (who raised him after his father ditched the family and returned to Africa when Mr. Obama was 2).
    A civil rights lawyer, Mr. Obama skyrocketed in the Democratic ranks from Illinois state senator to U.S. senator in just a few short years. He has been blessed with good looks, good luck, polished speaking skills and prodigious fund-raising abilities. After his historic election victory, Mr. Obama appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press," ABC's "This Week," and a slew of cable and local news shows. His autobiography, "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance," was a recent best-seller, and he has now signed with D.C. "superagent" Robert Barnett for future lucrative book deals.
    Mr. Obama isn't the only example of "the American dream that's around in politics," however. At least two other noteworthy minority politicians won unprecedented election victories last week. But you won't hear Andrea Mitchell or Howard Fineman swoon over their success stories — because these invisible American Dream candidates belong to the wrong party and believe all the wrong things.
    Republican Van Tran, a Vietnamese-American, staunchly defends the Second Amendment, immigration enforcement, traditional marriage, tax cuts, the war in Iraq and the sanctity of life. He is also a self-described "Reagan kid" and an outspoken anticommunist who escaped his native land at age 10. He has been targeted for his views and carries a concealed weapon to protect himself. Mr. Tran was elected to the California State assembly and is the first Vietnamese-American to serve in the statehouse.
    Republican Bobby Jindal, 33-year-old son of Indian immigrants, was elected to Congress with a whopping 78 percent of the vote in his Louisiana district. A pro-life Catholic, Rhodes Scholar, free-market health-policy guru, reform-minded college administrator and Bush adviser, Mr. Jindal bounced back from a close gubernatorial loss to become the first Indian-American in Congress since 1956. He raised so much money for his campaign that he showered $25,000 of it on the Republican National Committee, $12,500 on the Louisiana Republican Party, and an estimated $125,000 on 45 Republican candidates around the country.
    Mr. Tran and Mr. Jindal are remarkable rising stars, but as New York Times editorial writer Adam Cohen seemed to suggest in a derisive Jindal profile, minority conservatives are regarded by the mainstream media elite as "freakish" — no matter how impressive their resumes or resounding their electoral victories or moving their personal stories.
    Doubt that such media bias exists? The next time "objective" journalists gush about Mr. Obama, drop them a note and ask them to name a single minority Republican public official (besides pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, dovish Colin Powell) they truly admire.
    Don't expect a reply.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

0041108C   Defining the values victory
 

By Bruce Bartlett

An extremely important debate is going on within both parties today that will have a very important impact on our nation's future political direction. The basic question: Why did George W. Bush win and John Kerry lose?
    There are many different ways this question can be answered. Many will look at it in purely geographical terms. Why did Mr. Kerry lose states Al Gore won? Others will look at it in organizational terms. Why was President Bush better able to turn out his base?
    Others will frame the question tactically. For example, was it a mistake for Mr. Kerry to bring up Mary Cheney's sexual orientation during the last debate? Many will also say it all boiled down to the candidates. Mr. Bush was just a better candidate than Mr. Kerry.
    The answers to these questions will do a lot to determine the nominees of the respective parties in 2008. If Democrats conclude Mr. Kerry was just a bad candidate but everything else was fine, then they will simply look for someone who has whatever Mr. Kerry is perceived not to have or lacks whatever baggage he is thought to carry.
    The postelection debate will also determine congressional strategy. Because many Democrats believed the 2000 election was essentially stolen from them and that Mr. Bush was therefore not a legitimate president, they felt justified in following a scorched-earth policy. They blocked his judicial nominations, threw roadblocks in front of many of his initiatives and resisted cooperation even on measures they basically supported, such as Medicare drug coverage.
    Right now, Democrats seem to be leaning toward the idea Mr. Bush's victory is based primarily on turning out religious nuts to vote for him. These people are viewed in certain Democratic quarters as the American Taliban. It is thought that if they gain political power, not only will abortion and same-sex "marriage" be banned, but so will dancing, rock-'n'-roll and any "R"-rated movie.
    This is nothing but nonsense, but it's commonly believed in places like Hollywood and New York's Upper West Side. They really believe Mr. Bush is the ayatollah and it's only a matter of time before all women are walking around in burkas. No wonder they fought George Bush so strenuously.
    The truth is that values, which exit polls found motivated many of Mr. Bush's supporters, have much less to do with religion than Democrats believe. Ironically, the real problem is liberals have imposed their beliefs on America in exactly the way they imagine conservatives want to do. Often, the real frustration isn't even with the liberal goal but how it was achieved.
    Consider the most divisive issue of all: abortion. Had the courts left it alone, the states would gradually have changed their laws, with some being very permissive and others maintaining tight restrictions. This would have eventually led to one of two outcomes. Either it would stabilize, as people moved to states that suited their moral or religious beliefs, or it would have pressured Congress to adopt something that probably would look much like the trimester system we have today.
    But the democratic process was not allowed to operate. It was too time-consuming, too messy and too uncertain for those who wanted legalized abortion immediately. So the Supreme Court imposed it by fiat, thus leaving those against abortion or even just uncomfortable with it feeling disenfranchised, as if their views count for nothing. Moreover, the lack of a legislative solution also means there is no way to tinker with the system to fix obvious flaws, such as the problem of partial-birth abortion, without reopening the whole question for debate.
    A similar situation has arisen over same-sex "marriage." Liberals are too quick to assume all opposition to it is based solely on hatred of homosexuals, when it is based more on a fear courts will impose it by judicial fiat without the consent of the people.
    Consequently, there are grwoing numbers of voters who are secular in their beliefs but find themselves within the values coalition. They oppose making abortion illegal, but also oppose Roe vs. Wade. They have no problem with same-sex "marriage," but are appalled that a single court in our most liberal state is effectively imposing a national policy allowing it. Such people are not prudes, but they don't want their children viewing nudity or listening to profanity on the public airwaves.
    If Democrats conclude there is nothing to the values issue except religion, they will be very mistaken. Unfortunately, they may conclude they will have to rely even more on the courts to impose their agenda in the future, thus making the fight over Supreme Court appointments even more bitter.

    Bruce Bartlett is senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis and a nationally syndicated columnist.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M041108C   Like a broken record
 

By Mark Steyn

Mustn't gloat, mustn't gloat. Instead, we must try and look sober and reflective and then step smartly to the side and let the Democrats tear themselves apart.
    I am reluctant to intrude on family grief, especially as the Dems are doing such a sterling job all by themselves. But, when big shot Democrats look at last Tuesday's results and instantly announce the reason they flopped was because... .
    Whoa, hang on a minute, my apologies. There's been a clerical error here: That was my postelection column from 2002. My postelection column from 2004 goes like... well, actually, it goes pretty much the same.
    It would be easier just to take the second week in November off every two years and let my editors run the timeless classic whither-the-Democrats? column. All that changes is the local color. In 2002, I was very taken by the band at Missouri Democratic headquarters attempting to rouse the despondent faithful with Steve Allen's peppy anthem, "This Could Be The Start of Something Big," and noted that the party faced the opposite problem: This could be the end of something small.
    As they've done for a decade now, the Democrat bigwigs worried about it for a couple of weeks and then rationalized it away: In 2000, they lost because George W. Bush stole the "election"; in 2002, they lost because of that "vicious" attack ad on Max Cleland. The official consolation for this year's biennial bust hasn't yet been decided, but Tom Daschle's election eve lawsuit alone offers several attractive runners, including the complaint Democrats were intimidated by Republicans "rolling their eyes." Could be a lot more of that if this keeps up.
    So it seems likely — just to get my 2006 postelection column out of the way here — that in a couple years' time the Democrats will have run on the same thin gruel as usual and be mourning the loss of another two or three Senate seats. You want names and states? Well, how about West Virginia? Will the 88-year-old Robert C. Byrd be on the ballot in 2006? And, if he's not, what are the Dems' chances of stopping West Virginia's transformation to permanent "red state" status?
    It also seems likely — just to get my 2012 postelection column out of the way here — that in eight years' time the Dems will have run on the same thin gruel as usual and, thanks to the 2010 census and the ongoing shift of population to the South and West, lost another five House seats and discovered the "blue states" are worth even less in the electoral college — though in fairness their only available presidential candidate, the young dynamic Southerner, 94-year old Robert C. Byrd, managed to hold all but three of Mr. Kerry's states.
    I had a bet with myself last week: How soon after election night would it be before the Bush-the-chimp-faced-moron stuff started up again? Forty-eight hours? A week? I was wrong. Bush Derangement Syndrome is moving to a whole new level. On the morning of Nov. 2, the condescending left were convinced Mr. Bush was an idiot