Prosecutors just one part of the story, along with victims, conduct of defense <nbsp/>

(PNI) Regarding the prosecutorial- misconduct series, "The Gray Area of Courtroom Conduct."

There are three sides to any capital-case story: the prosecution, the defense and the victim/victim's family. We spent five years of hearings and two months in a trial with Maricopa County prosecutor Juan Martinez during my sister's murder-trial case (State vs. Dixon) and never saw prosecutorial misconduct.

Yet we saw multiple instances of defense manipulation, including delays, frivolous motions, etc., all of which were painful for the family of the victim.

The series is comprehensive, but the other two sides of the story should be explored and told.

--Leslie James, Phoenix

Montgomery driven by politics

I thoroughly enjoyed your special report on prosecutors who cross the line.

The larger point I took from the story was Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery's lack of accountability with regard to all the misconduct in his office. When he does learn of it, he treats it as if it is of little concern.

He is too busy chasing his ideology to manage his own office. He is the most political prosecutor we have seen here in a long time. It's time he gives up chasing ghosts and do his job as county attorney.

--Bill Acree, Phoenix

Kochs are good for Democrats

Columnist Doug MacEachern ("For liberals, Kochs are evil personified," Oct. 28) claims liberals demonize the Koch brothers.

Ironically, the Kochs are the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party in decades.

They have dumped huge amounts of cash into the "tea party" movement, and their radical notions have alienated moderates and split the GOP in two.

The tea party basks in righteous indignation and a negative, confrontational style.

That approach works well with older voters and in the red states, but it alienates most Americans and nearly guarantees Democratic presidential victories in the next several elections.

Despite the worship of Ronald Reagan, the GOP has missed his most critical message. Reagan was a great president because he made us feel good about ourselves.

Not because he lowered taxes or made the government smaller. His sincerity and honesty brought people together rather than driving them apart.

Reagan was a pragmatist and resolutely committed to success.

He never would have condoned the tea party's quixotic quest to repeal "Obamacare" 40 times! It only serves to illustrate how powerless the tea party is.

--M.L. Frischenmeyer,Chandler

Health law is a godsend to me

Although I did have problems accessing healthcare.gov early on, in about the second week of October, I was able to access information regarding what plans at each company were available to me.

Once I decided which company and which plan I wanted, I contacted a company representative directly to sign up. My experience was very positive, and the process easy.

I've been buying my own health insurance for almost 14years, and I can tell you the Affordable Care Act, even with all the rollout problems, is a godsend!

Although I do have a pre-existing condition, (I'm sure almost everyone over 45 has one), I'm healthy and only need to see my doctor for annual checkups.

For 14years, I've struggled almost every year to remain insured.

My last coverage was going to cost me about $1,300 per month just for myself. Under the Affordable Care Act, my insurance will cost me $575, my policy is much better and my deductible is lower.

For anyone who will ever have to buy his or her own insurance, you can thank the Affordable Care Act for making it even possible.

--David Johnson, Mesa

Cartoon open to interpretation

Steve Benson's cartoon Sunday shows a serpent and a sleeping baby. It's no surprise the baby is "Obamacare" and the serpent is the GOP.

I think many people who are demonized by the left feel the cartoon should be just the opposite. The snake is Obamacare, and the baby represents average American taxpaying citizens who have families and small businesses.

It could also be taken a step further with the serpent just titled "Big (out of control) Government." Labels for the cartoon are numerous. Pro-lifers see the snake as abortion, with the baby representing, well, a baby. You get the idea.

--Charles Lopresto, Phoenix

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Prosecutors just one part of the story, along with victims, conduct of defense <nbsp/>

(PNI) Regarding the prosecutorial- misconduct series, "The Gray Area of Courtroom Conduct."

There are three sides to any capital-case story: the prosecution, the defense and the victim/victim's family. We spent five years of hearings and two months in a trial with Maricopa County prosecutor Juan Martinez during my sister's murder-trial case (State vs. Dixon) and never saw prosecutorial misconduct.

Yet we saw multiple instances of defense manipulation, including delays, frivolous motions, etc., all of which were painful for the family of the victim.

The series is comprehensive, but the other two sides of the story should be explored and told.

--Leslie James, Phoenix

Montgomery driven by politics

I thoroughly enjoyed your special report on prosecutors who cross the line.

The larger point I took from the story was Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery's lack of accountability with regard to all the misconduct in his office. When he does learn of it, he treats it as if it is of little concern.

He is too busy chasing his ideology to manage his own office. He is the most political prosecutor we have seen here in a long time. It's time he gives up chasing ghosts and do his job as county attorney.

--Bill Acree, Phoenix

Kochs are good for Democrats

Columnist Doug MacEachern ("For liberals, Kochs are evil personified," Oct. 28) claims liberals demonize the Koch brothers.

Ironically, the Kochs are the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party in decades.

They have dumped huge amounts of cash into the "tea party" movement, and their radical notions have alienated moderates and split the GOP in two.

The tea party basks in righteous indignation and a negative, confrontational style.

That approach works well with older voters and in the red states, but it alienates most Americans and nearly guarantees Democratic presidential victories in the next several elections.

Despite the worship of Ronald Reagan, the GOP has missed his most critical message. Reagan was a great president because he made us feel good about ourselves.

Not because he lowered taxes or made the government smaller. His sincerity and honesty brought people together rather than driving them apart.

Reagan was a pragmatist and resolutely committed to success.

He never would have condoned the tea party's quixotic quest to repeal "Obamacare" 40 times! It only serves to illustrate how powerless the tea party is.

--M.L. Frischenmeyer,Chandler

Health law is a godsend to me

Although I did have problems accessing healthcare.gov early on, in about the second week of October, I was able to access information regarding what plans at each company were available to me.

Once I decided which company and which plan I wanted, I contacted a company representative directly to sign up. My experience was very positive, and the process easy.

I've been buying my own health insurance for almost 14years, and I can tell you the Affordable Care Act, even with all the rollout problems, is a godsend!

Although I do have a pre-existing condition, (I'm sure almost everyone over 45 has one), I'm healthy and only need to see my doctor for annual checkups.

For 14years, I've struggled almost every year to remain insured.

My last coverage was going to cost me about $1,300 per month just for myself. Under the Affordable Care Act, my insurance will cost me $575, my policy is much better and my deductible is lower.

For anyone who will ever have to buy his or her own insurance, you can thank the Affordable Care Act for making it even possible.

--David Johnson, Mesa

Cartoon open to interpretation

Steve Benson's cartoon Sunday shows a serpent and a sleeping baby. It's no surprise the baby is "Obamacare" and the serpent is the GOP.

I think many people who are demonized by the left feel the cartoon should be just the opposite. The snake is Obamacare, and the baby represents average American taxpaying citizens who have families and small businesses.

It could also be taken a step further with the serpent just titled "Big (out of control) Government." Labels for the cartoon are numerous. Pro-lifers see the snake as abortion, with the baby representing, well, a baby. You get the idea.

--Charles Lopresto, Phoenix

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Horne's defense plan detailed

As the campaign-finance allegations against Attorney General Tom Horne hang in legal limbo, documents obtained by The Arizona Republic offer insights into the case Horne and his co-defendant would make if it goes to court.

An attorney representing Kathleen Winn, Horne's director of community outreach, argues in the documents that allegations the two illegally coordinated campaign efforts are based on speculation. Attorney Timothy La Sota also questions investigators' tactics, revealing they not only continued to tail Horne more than a year after the alleged violation, but also followed Winn's attorney, Larry Debus.

Investigators' techniques "raise questions of bias and political motives and taint this entire investigation," La Sota wrote in a letter to the Secretary of State's Office.

"Despite all the resources poured into this investigation, all the interviews and surveillance … the FBI and Maricopa County Attorney's Office have speculation and conjecture, but not hard evidence," he wrote.

Horne and Winn last year were accused of unlawfully coordinating campaign spending during the 2010 election, when Horne was the Republican candidate for attorney general and Winn was chairwoman of Business Leaders for Arizona, an independent-expenditure committee. Both have denied wrongdoing.

After a 14-month investigation, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery accused Horne and Winn of collaborating to quickly raise more than $500,000 to run negative ads against his Democratic opponent. By law, candidates are not allowed to coordinate certain activities with independent-expenditure committees.

Montgomery pursued a civil-enforcement action, but a judge this month ruled the case could not move forward because of legal technicalities and procedural failings by the Secretary of State's Office, which found reasonable cause exists to believe a campaign-finance violation occurred.

"While we certainly welcomed Mr. La Sota's submission, it doesn't change our reasonable cause determination," said Matt Roberts, Secretary of State Ken Bennett's spokesman. "It doesn't sway our opinion at all."

Montgomery declined to comment on La Sota's letter.

A spokesman for the FBI also declined to comment.

The judge said the secretary of state must submit the case to the Arizona Attorney General's Office to determine how to proceed. The Attorney General's Office can send the case to another law-enforcement agency or a private attorney for review, Montgomery has said.

While the case is with the Attorney General's Office, Horne, Winn "and immediate staff such as executive assistants," won't have access to information, discussion, or decisions on the case, according to Horne's spokeswoman.

In his letter to the secretary of state, La Sota says:

Despite authorities' "exhaustive" and "expensive" investigation, they were only left with "speculation and conjecture" about coordination.

La Sota wrote that calls between Winn and Horne before the release of an attack ad against Horne's Democratic rival were tied to a complex real-estate deal -- not the ad. Horne never referred anyone to an independent campaign to make a donation, never suggested to Winn the names of people to be solicited for contributions, never spoke to anyone about contributing to an independent campaign, and never weighed in on how an independent campaign's money should be spent.

A statute that Winn and Horne are accused of violating is unconstitutional.

La Sota argues the Arizona Revised Statute 16-905 "is blatantly unconstitutional" because contribution limits were too low, and therefore violated free speech and equal protection under the U.S. and Arizona constitutions. La Sota points out that the state Legislature this session raised contribution limits partly because "they were ripe for a free-speech challenge."

La Sota says Montgomery, in testifying before lawmakers, blamed the number of investigations by his office on low contribution limits. An affidavit from an official with the Goldwater Institute declaring current individual contribution limits under current state statutes are unconstitutional is included with La Sota's letter.

The FBI "came with an agenda and that was to get Tom Horne."

La Sota questions why the FBI was involved in the investigation. Authorities have said the FBI took the case because Horne was conflicted from investigating himself. La Sota accuses the FBI of attempting to "intimidate witnesses and lie to them in order to get them to say what they wanted." He accuses the FBI of threatening to use "the 'Martha Stewart' treatment"-- to send them to prison for lying -- to get them to cooperate.

La Sota says the FBI's undercover surveillance of Horne was "the most unseemly part" of the investigation. "The FBI was following the Arizona Attorney General around years after alleged civil campaign finance violations had been committed, looking for any type of infraction that they might be able to pin on him," he wrote. "What in the world did this have to do with a civil campaign finance matter?"

During that surveillance, the FBI saw Horne back a borrowed car into a Range Rover and leave without leaving a note. An FBI report states Horne did not leave a note because he was having an extramarital affair with a subordinate who was with him during the accident. Earlier this month, he pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor hit-and-run charge stemming from the incident and paid a $300 fine.

Democrats are trying to use Horne's driving offense -- and the FBI report accusing him of an affair -- to their advantage as Horne gears up for a re-election campaign. One Democratic senator has called on lawmakers to initiate impeachment hearings against Horne, and this week, the state Democratic Party called on him to explain the circumstances surrounding the accident.

La Sota also takes issue with investigators having a mole in the Attorney General's Office: "A one point and perhaps still to this day, the FBI had what they call a human asset apparently inside" the agency. La Sota said the mole raises questions about potential "invasions of attorney-client protected relationships to federalism concerns."

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Ryan Defends His 'Yes' Vote on Automatic Defense Cuts

WASHINGTON – Representative Paul D. Ryan, the Republican nominee for vice president, on Sunday defended his decision to support automatic cuts in defense spending as a way to force a deal on reducing the deficit, an approach that was sharply criticized by his running mate, Mitt Romney.

Mr. Ryan said that he backed the deal, which could result in an automatic 8 percent cut in defense spending in January, in an effort to compromise with Democrats on deficit reduction.

“I worked with President Obama to find common ground to get a down payment on deficit reduction,” Mr. Ryan said on the CBS News program “Face the Nation.” “It wasn’t a big down payment, but it was a step in the right direction.”

Mr. Ryan emphasized that he and his fellow House Republicans had come up with alternative spending cuts to prevent the automatic reductions from taking effect. He accused Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats of failing to do their part.

“We passed, in the House, a bill to prevent those devastating defense cuts by cutting spending elsewhere,” Mr. Ryan said. “The Senate’s done nothing. President Obama’s done nothing.”

“We wanted to have a bipartisan agreement; we got that,” he added. “And the president hasn’t fulfilled his end of that bipartisan agreement.”

The House bill, which Mr. Ryan wrote and Senate Democrats oppose, would stave off reductions in military spending by cutting safety-net programs for the poor, including food stamps, school lunch subsidies and children’s health insurance.

Mr. Obama said in an interview broadcast on Sunday that any budget deal should require the wealthiest Americans to do their part by paying higher taxes, an approach that has been rejected by Mr. Ryan and Mr. Romney.

In a “Face the Nation” interview, Mr. Obama said that he was “willing to do more” to work with Republicans to find additional spending cuts. ”But we’ve also got to ask people like me or Governor Romney who have done better than anybody else over the course of the last decade, and whose taxes are just about lower than they’ve been in the last 50 years, to do a little bit more.”

At the Democratic National Convention, former President Bill Clinton accused Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan of planning to eliminate tax deductions that help the middle class and the poor, including for home mortgages and charitable donations, to cover the costs of their proposed tax cuts.

In a separate appearance on the ABC News program “This Week,” Mr. Ryan declined to say whether that was true.

“Our priorities are high-income earners should not get these kinds of loopholes,” said Mr. Ryan, who repeatedly refused to specify the particular loopholes he had in mind.

“We want to have this debate with Congress,” he said. “And we want to do this with the consent of the elected representatives of the people and figure out what loopholes should stay or go and who should or should not get them.”

On foreign policy, Mr. Ryan told the host of “This Week,” George Stephanopolous, that he and Mr. Romney agreed with Mr. Obama’s plan to leave Afghanistan by 2014. But he said he feared that the troops lacked adequate resources.

“Where we’ve taken issue is making sure that the generals on the ground get the resources they need throughout the entire fighting season so that they can keep our soldiers safe and operating counterinsurgency strategy,” said Mr. Ryan, who described the killing of Osama bin Laden ”a great success.”

Mr. Ryan also defended Mr. Romney, who has been criticized by Democrats for describing Russia as the country’s “No. 1 geopolitical foe.”

On “Face the Nation,” Mr. Ryan said that a nuclear Iran was the United States’ biggest foreign policy threat, and that Mr. Romney meant to say that “among the other powers, China and Russia, that Russia stands as a great threat.”

View the original article here

John Edwards' defense team rests its case

John Edwards' lawyers swiftly wrapped up their case in his corruption trial Wednesday, without calling either the former Democratic presidential candidate or his former mistress to the stand.

By Chuck Burton, AP

John Edwards leaves a federal courthouse in Greensboro, N.C., on Wednesday after his defense team rested.

By Chuck Burton, AP

John Edwards leaves a federal courthouse in Greensboro, N.C., on Wednesday after his defense team rested.

That decision, after a little more than two days of evidence, signals the defense team's confidence that federal prosecutors have not proved Edwards broke campaign-finance laws as part of the elaborate scheme to cover up the extramarital affair, former federal prosecutors and election-law experts said.

"Juries like a smoking gun, and there's no smoking gun here," said Steven Friedland, a former federal prosecutor who teaches at North Carolina's Elon University School of Law. He has been in the courtroom for much of the trial.

Closing arguments are set to begin Thursday. Jurors could begin deliberations as early as Friday.

Federal prosecutors offered nearly three weeks of testimony, arguing Edwards oversaw a conspiracy to use nearly $1 million from two wealthy supporters to hide his pregnant mistress, Rielle Hunter, during the 2008 presidential campaign. The government contends that violated the $4,600 limit on what individuals could donate to a federal candidate in that election.

This week, the defense countered with witnesses who steered clear of the lurid details of the sex scandal and instead delved into campaign-finance regulations in an effort to show the money amounted to personal gifts that did not require disclosure as campaign receipts.

Among the strongest defense witnesses: Lora Haggard, who oversaw campaign-finance compliance for Edwards' 2008 presidential campaign. She said the money from Edwards' backers — banking heiress Rachel "Bunny" Mellon and Texas lawyer Fred Baron— was never reported to the Federal Election Commission, which oversees the election laws Edwards is accused of violating.

Even after Edwards had been charged, Haggard said, FEC auditors did not require the sums to be disclosed as contributions.

Defense lawyers also sought to undermine the credibility of Andrew Young, a former Edwards aide who falsely claimed paternity of Hunter's daughter with Edwards. To evade reporters, Young and his wife spent a year in hiding with Hunter and served as a conduit for the Mellon and Baron money.

Edwards, a one-term senator from North Carolina, ran for president in 2004 and 2008 and was the Democratic Party's vice-presidential nominee in 2004.

James Walsh, a former FBI agent hired by the Edwards defense team to track the cash, estimated the Youngs may have kept half of it, some of which went to build their $1.5 million home near Chapel Hill, N.C.

Trial watchers had waited to see whether Edwards, a former trial lawyer known for his rapport with juries, would take the stand. But experts said that would have exposed him to a tough cross-examination about his many public lies on the affair. It also would have proved risky to call Hunter, a former campaign videographer, portrayed during the trial as unpredictable.

"The defense case was not sexy," Friedland said. "But they don't want sexy; they want, 'not guilty.' "

Michael Toner, a former FEC chairman and a prominent Republican election lawyer, said the Department of Justice is wasting taxpayer money with the Edwards prosecution. "As odious as these payments were, there were not, as a legal matter, for the purpose of influencing a federal election," he told USA TODAY.

Other legal experts, however, say prosecutors may have established enough of a link between the money from Edwards' backers and his presidential ambitions to raise alarms with jurors. Baron, who died in October 2008, had an official role in Edwards' second presidential bid, serving as the finance chairman.

Mellon, who is 101, did not testify. But Bryan Huffman, a North Carolina decorator and Mellon confidant, testified that she wrote the checks solely to support Edwards' presidential ambitions. She was displeased to learn the money had been used to conceal a mistress, he said. "Maybe you should probably pay for your girlfriend yourself," Huffman quoted Mellon as saying.

Prosecutors have made "a plausible case that the money was solicited because of the election," said Richard Briffault, an election-law expert at New York's Columbia University. "The jury now has to decide whether he is being prosecuted for being a bad guy or for violating the law, a question that has shadowed this case from the beginning."

Edwards faces up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines if convicted on all six counts of conspiracy and campaign-finance violations.

Contributing: The Associated Press

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

View the original article here

Democrats Playing Defense In 2012 Governors&apos; Races - Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- Democrats are playing defense in governors' races in 2012, protecting eight seats – some in conservative states like North Carolina and Montana – while Republicans are safeguarding just four. But one of those is in Wisconsin, where a recall effort against incumbent Scott Walker has emerged as a national test of the confrontational measures many GOP governors have taken to balance state budgets.

Both parties agree the landscape is quite different than in 2010, where 37 states elected governors at the height of the economic downturn and amid roiling voter anger over government spending and debt. Republicans netted 6 new seats that year, including important presidential bellwether states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. There are currently 29 Republican governors, 20 Democrats and 1 independent.

This year, just 8 seats are up for grabs against a backdrop of a slowly improving national economy and a presidential contest that will draw a broader range of voters. Republicans are casting the contests as a referendum on their own party's leadership in tough times while Democrats are calling it a potential course correction after two years of GOP overreach.

"The public in a number of states in 2010 thought they were sending the message that with new leadership in the governor's office they'd get an accelerated recovery. Instead they got a hard right turn in ideology," said Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association in an interview.

O'Malley pointed to Ohio, where voters soundly rejected a ballot measure backed by Republican governor John Kasich to curtail public employee unions, and Florida, where Rick Scott's aggressive budget cuts and remote style helped sink his approval ratings to record lows last year.

"The governors we elected over the last couple of cycles have come into office, made tough gutsy decisions that haven't always been popular. But they've been honest enough to tell their voters we can't afford to do things the same way," said Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, chairman of the Republican Governors Association.

Nowhere are the parties' contrasting visions on more vivid display than in Wisconsin, where Democrats submitted more than a million petitions in January to recall Walker, whose efforts to slash state worker benefits and end their collective bargaining rights drew fierce protests from union members and other activists.

The special election is expected to take place in June, with a likely primary in May to select a Democrat to challenge Walker. Former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, a favorite of labor leaders, is expected to run, and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is also exploring a race.

Both parties agree that the Wisconsin recall is likely to be the closest governor's race of the year, and possibly the most expensive.

Democrats have modest hopes for a pickup in Indiana, where Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels is stepping down after two terms. Rep. Mike Pence, a 6-term Republican from eastern Indiana, is running to replace Daniels, but John Gregg, a Democrat and former state House speaker, is mounting a strong effort.

Indiana is heavily Republican and Obama's popularity in the state has dropped considerably since winning the state in 2008, the first Democratic presidential hopeful in 40 years to do so. But the DGA's O'Malley said the strengthening auto industry, both nationally and in Indiana, could boost Gregg's chances.

Some states with elections this year are expecting to retain current governors, including Republicans Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota and Gary Herbert of Utah and Democrats Jack Markell of Delaware and Peter Shumlin of Vermont.

But from there, Republicans expect to be on offense.

_ In Washington state, where two-term Democrat Christine Gregoire is stepping down, Rob McKenna, the popular GOP attorney general, is running to replace her. Washington has not elected a Republican governor in 30 years, but party leaders say McKenna is a good fit for the state which Obama won handily in 2008 and will likely do so again this time. Longtime Rep. Jay Inslee is expected to be the Democratic contender.

_ In Montana, a conservative state where Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer is stepping down after two terms, Republicans are enthusiastic about their chances despite a June primary that has drawn at least 7 hopefuls so far. Former Rep. Rick Hill is considered a favorite. Attorney General Steve Bullock leads the Democratic field.

_ In Missouri, where incumbent Democrat Jay Nixon is seeking re-election, Republicans hope the state's slow economic recovery and an expected tight presidential and senate contest could help their chances of recapturing the seat. Dave Spence, a wealthy suburban St. Louis businessman, is among the candidates running in the August GOP primary.

_ In West Virginia, a rematch is shaping up between incumbent Democrat Earl Ray Tomblin and Republican Bill Maloney, who came within 3 points of beating Tomblin in a 2011 special election despite almost no political experience and little name recognition. The RGA's McDonnell predicted Obama's presence at the top of the ticket this time was likely to drag down Tomblin. Obama lost the state to Republican John McCain in 2008 by 13 points.

_ In North Carolina, where incumbent Democrat Bev Perdue is stepping down after a single rocky term, Republicans are enthusiastic about Pat McCrory, a former Charlotte mayor who came within a few points of beating Perdue in 2008. Former Rep Bob Etheridge and Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton are among the Democrats expected to compete in the May primary.

_ In New Hampshire, where Democrat John Lynch is retiring, Republican conservative activists Ovide Lamontagne and Kevin Smith are vying for the Republican nomination while former state Senate Majority Leader Maggie Hassan is a favorite in the Democratic primary. New Hampshire went heavily Republican in 2010 after a gradual Democratic shift in the prior decade. It's considered a swing state in this year's presidential contest and could even lean Republican if former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee. Obama won the state handily in 2008.

Republicans also have a significant financial advantage in the 2012 contest. The RGA raised $44 million in 2011 and had nearly $27 million cash on hand in the group's most recent filing, while the Democrats raised $20 million and had about $12 million on hand.

___

Related on HuffPost:

Get Alerts Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!

View the original article here

Senate clears way for passage of big defense bill (AP)

WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats and Republicans are pushing for harsher sanctions against Iran's Central Bank as fears of Tehran developing a nuclear weapon outweigh concerns that any step would drive up oil prices and hit Americans at the gas pump.

The Senate on Wednesday weighed whether to add the sanctions measure to a massive, $662 billion defense bill that moved closer to passage. A vote on the sanctions was likely Thursday.

On Wednesday, lawmakers voted 88-12 to limit debate on the legislation, and looked to wrap up the bill by week's end.

The legislation would authorize funds for military personnel, weapons systems, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and national security programs in the Energy Department. The bill is $27 billion less than what President Barack Obama requested for the budget year beginning Oct. 1 and $43 billion less than what Congress provided to the Pentagon this year.

Tougher sanctions against Iran have widespread support in Congress, reflecting concerns not only for U.S. national security but ally Israel's as well. Last week, the Obama administration announced a new set of penalties against Iran, including identifying for the first time Iran's entire banking sector as a "primary money laundering concern." This requires increased monitoring by U.S. banks to ensure that they and their foreign affiliates avoid dealing with Iranian financial institutions.

But lawmakers pressed ahead with even tougher penalties despite reservations by the administration.

Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., offered an amendment to the defense bill that would target foreign financial institutions that do business with the Central Bank of Iran, barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.

The sanctions on petroleum would only apply if the president determines there is a sufficient alternative supply and if the country with jurisdiction over the financial institution has not significantly reduced its purchases of Iranian oil.

Lawmakers cited the recent International Atomic Energy Agency report that Iran is suspected of clandestine work that is "specific to nuclear weapons," its alleged role in the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the United States and the attack on the British Embassy in Tehran.

"One of the greatest threats to our nation and our ally Israel is Iran," Menendez said, insisting that the United States must take steps to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

"We cannot, we must not and we will not let that happen," Menendez said, "but the clock is ticking."

Kirk said the amendment was clear: "If you do business with the Central Bank of Iran, you cannot do business with the United States."

The administration harbors concerns about the enforcement of the measure, which has more than 80 backers in the Senate. Denis McDonough, White House deputy national security adviser, held a closed-door Capitol Hill meeting with several senators on Tuesday, including Kirk and Menendez.

After the session, Kirk sought to allay concerns about rising gasoline prices.

"I've had detailed conversations with Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, who described a great willingness by Saudi Arabia to increase (oil) production," Kirk told reporters.

A vote on the amendment was expected on Thursday.

The Senate approved dozens of amendments by voice vote on Wednesday. Among them:

_Linking funds for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund to a requirement that the Obama administration certify to Congress that Pakistan is trying to counter improvised explosive devices.

_Calling on the president to devise a plan, with input from the military and NATO, for accelerating the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

_Seeking an urgent intelligence assessment of Libya's stockpile of about 20,000 portable anti-aircraft missiles and the threat they pose to the United States and its allies.

View the original article here

In Senate's Approval of Defense Bill, Indefinite Detention of Citizens Ignored (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | In an evening vote, the U.S. Senate approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 Thursday, according to USAToday.com, with high profile sections 1031 and 1032 intact. With all senators voting, the roll call was 93 favoring passage and 7 opposing. Senate.gov shows that three Democrats, three Republicans and one Independent opposed passage of the measure. It's apparent to me that the idea of the United States becoming a police state was not vile enough for those 93 senators.

Sections 1031 and 1032 empower the military to detain American citizens on United States soil indefinitely. Although the stated intention of these sections indicates the intent is to allow the arrest and detention of terrorists linked to al-Qaeda, the wording is broad enough to allow the same treatment for anyone deemed to be a threat to national security.

Such broad wording for something that goes against the very rights given to each American by the Constitution, including representation and a speedy trial of peers, could be used very subversively in the hands of the wrong people.

Yes, it's true the country needs the NDAA to be approved, but at least three senators (Udall, Rand and Feinstein) proposed amendments to NDAA, Senate Bill 1867 to remove the indefinite detention wording applying to citizens in this country. Three times the Senate voted to allow what amounts to the military taking over the job of both civil law enforcement and the civil judiciary.

Sections 1031 and 1032 were opposed by CIA Director David Petraeus and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta; the military is not interested in taking on these additional responsibilities. All those who voted for passage of S.B.1867 must know something these two men and concerned citizens do not know.

The House of Representatives passed their own version of the NDAA before sending it to the Senate for a vote. The House bill did not contain sections 1031 or 1032; they were added by Senator Levin of Michigan as the sponsor. Now the two legislative bodies will have to hash out the differences before the bill can be sent to President Obama for consideration. There may yet be time for citizens to wield the power of their views with their elected officials.

Smack dab in the middle of the baby boomer generation , L.L. Woodard is a proud resident of "The Red Man" state. With what he hopes is an everyman's view of life's concerns both in his state and throughout the nation, Woodard presents facts and opinions based on common-sense solutions.

View the original article here

Top Dems oppose detention policy in defense bill (AP)

WASHINGTON – Top Democrats on the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees are opposing provisions in a sweeping defense bill that would require military custody of terrorist suspects and limit the government's authority to transfer detainees.

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., the lawmakers — Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy and Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein — said the provisions would undercut U.S. counterterrorism efforts and urged him to remove the sections from the bill. The Obama administration also opposes the provisions.

"Professionals in the intelligence community and law enforcement need the flexibility to use all tools to effectively interrogate, incarcerate and bring terrorists to justice," Leahy and Feinstein wrote Oct. 21 along with 11 other Democratic senators.

The issue has exposed divisions within the Senate and the Democratic Party.

The Senate Armed Services Committee approved the $683 billion defense bill in June that would authorize spending on military personnel, weapons systems and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. The panel, led by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., approved the provision on military custody on a 25-1 vote.

But the administration's opposition and Reid's concerns have delayed Senate consideration of the legislation with about 10 weeks remaining in the session.

The provision in the bill would require military custody of a suspect determined to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliate and involved in the planning or an attack on the United States. The administration argues that such a step would hamper efforts by the FBI or other law enforcement to elicit intelligence from terror suspects, and Reid has said "limitations on that flexibility, or on the availability of critical counterterrorism tools, would significantly threaten our national security."

Levin has argued that the provision included a national security waiver that the administration could exercise to bypass the requirement.

This isn't the first time Congress has tried to limit the administration on the detainee issue. Last year's defense bill barred the transfer of detainees at the naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States. The omnibus spending bill that President Barack Obama and Congress approved in April also prevented the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to the U.S., prohibited the construction or modification of facilities in the United States to house detainees and required the defense secretary to notify Congress before transferring a terror suspect to a foreign country.

Congressional Republicans and some Democrats want to keep the facility at Guantanamo open despite Obama's efforts, which have proven unsuccessful, to close the prison. Lawmakers also favor trying suspects in military commissions instead of federal courts.

Separately, Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to Obama expressing frustration with the administration's unwillingness to discuss the House-passed defense bill's provisions on terror suspects. The House bill, approved this past summer, includes different provisions limiting the administration's authority on handling detainees that the White House opposes.

"The administration has shown a willingness to undertake nothing short of extraordinary action regarding targeting terrorists overseas," McKeon wrote in an Oct. 20 letter. "Yet is has shown none of this resolve when it comes to detaining our enemies instead."

McKeon argued that the administration has "foreclosed options that are critical to our national security."

The House and Senate versions of the defense bills need to be reconciled and cleared by Congress for the president. In doubt is Congress' four-decade record of completing defense bills and sending them to the president.

View the original article here