Politics, Sleep, and the Pursuit of Food...

Talk about ridiculous

2006-11-28T20:06:00.000-05:00

Newt Gingrich -- you are one dumb man.

Big Newt decides America, in its effort to sidestep those big, bad terrorists, needs to forego our principles, or at least radically alter them. For serious:

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.

Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a "different set of rules" may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.

"We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade," said Gingrich, a Republican who helped engineer the GOP's takeover of Congress in 1994.

This is pretty damn ballsy for someone representing the Republican Party, the group of people that likes to paint their rivals as cowards when it comes to American foreign policy and national security. Because from what I'm reading, Mr. Gingrich seems to be a bit scared of our principles.

That GOP has some nerve. If you're going to accuse Democrats of cutting and running, that's one thing. But to do so while cutting and running from one of our core principles? Yeah, I'll say it: unAmerican.

Unacceptable, but hardly shocking

2006-07-18T17:51:00.000-04:00

The Republicans' answer to real problems this country faces, such as increasing hostilities in the Middle East? Attempting to ban gay marriage.

Over at DailyKos, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) writes a short, but sweet diary expressing her frustration with these misplaced priorities. Take a peek.

As the skies over Israel and Lebanon fill with missles and rockets, here is the House's legislative agenda, crafted by Republicans:

*H.J. Res. 88 - Constitutional Amendment to Prohibit Same Sex Marriages: Right wing Republicans failed to pass this amendment today, which would amend the Constitution to state that "marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." Republicans in the House are pushing forward with the bill despite the fact that the Senate already defeated its own version of this amendment earlier in the year, ending any possibility that the amendment will go to the states for ratification this year.
*H.R. 2389 - Pledge Protection Bill - Republicans will bring this bill to the house floor tomorrow. The bill strips federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of the jurisdiction "to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance, as defined in section 4 of title 4, or its recitation."

It's become painfully clear that Republicans can't govern. Is November here yet?

Could this finally be it?

2006-07-18T13:02:00.000-04:00

So there have been many times in W's presidency where I suspected/hoped that his actions/inactions would lead to his and Cheney's resignation and embarrassment. Unfortunately, so far, this has not happened (though Plamegate, which still isn't completely finished, came close).

Well, with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's admission that Bush had, in fact, blocked an internal probe into eavesdropping operations conducted by the Department of Justice, we will hopefully see some backlash and action from the Congress and the American people. It's just one more albatross on the necks of those Republicans running for Congress this fall, and it's one more thing to add onto the ever-growing list of things to investigate when Dems gain a majority of at least one of the houses in November, along with subpoena power.

Here's hoping that this leads to a plethora of unflattering moments for the Bush Administration, so that Democrats might enjoy an even better shot at reestablishing better and balanced government in Washington.

Hillary's Cheerleaders

2006-07-17T12:18:00.000-04:00

Why, all of a sudden, do we have Republican pundits like Dick Morris coming out to make the case for Hillary Clinton taking the Democratic nomination? No, this isn't a trick question -- the answer's pretty goshdarn easy.

See, they know how polarizing Hillary is. They know that Hillary's fav and unfav ratings are very close to being the same number. They know that, in order to continue controlling America and our government, all they need to do is scrap together 50.1% of the vote (they didn't even have to do that in 2000). And finally, they understand that, should Hillary be the Democratic nominee, we'd be giving them votes right from the start.

So insert yet another Republican talking head -- Frank Luntz. He knows Hillary's tough, and you better trust him because, after all, he's done "extensive focus-group research in Iowa and New Hampshire."

Their strategy is transparent: get Democrats to run with the frontrunner again and, as a result, nominate a candidate that the Republican sleaze machine can salivate over.

Unfortunately for the Repubs, once John Edwards shows all of these phonies up when he comes in first in Iowa, Hillary's going to have a massive problem on her hands -- and so is the GOP.

Stem Cell Politics

2006-07-16T19:57:00.000-04:00

I've lost respect for this White House. There are some Democrats that have proudly never given an ounce of their respect to the Bush Administration, but that's not me. At the beginning, I must confess that I did not anticipate how recklessly this country would be run. I was a sixteen year old high school junior when the Supreme Court handed the election to Bush, and while I was upset that Gore had "lost," I didn't understand that the hijacking of the election was only a hint of things to come.

After 9/11, we all rallied around the President, waving flags, sorry that the terrorist attacks had occurred, but grateful that the world was united with us, ready to defeat terrorism and its ugly face -- Osama bin Laden. It didn't take long for this unity and determination to evaporate, as Bush put the final touches on his plan to finish the job his dad didn't -- depose Saddam. This new war provided Karl Rove and Co. the perfect opportunity to prolong the importance of foreign policy and national security in the American political debate, and in effect, scare people into voting for the Republicans in 2004.

While this Republican approach has been sickening, the tactics the approach uses commanded respect from me. Though the Republicans were all agreeing on a strategy that played upon the fear of the American voter -- while handsomely rewarding the wealthiest of the wealthy with substantial tax cuts -- they were still all agreeing, and that's what got me. It was disgusting, but it was formidable. There were no weaknesses to be seen...

Until the emergence of Bush's plan to demolish Social Security as we know it. The plan to introduce private accounts into the current system threatened to disrupt a piece of public policy so intricately woven into the American way of life by FDR. This was Bush's test -- did the conservative tide that resulted from Rove's scare tactics have enough strength to topple a cornerstone of the New Deal agenda? The answer, for now, is no. Just as FDR did in 1937 with the Court-packing Plan, Bush challenged a fundamental American institution and came out worse for the wear. But this is not important simply because American principles, like working today to be rewarded tomorrow, won. This defeat is crucial because it shows the beginning of the end for Republicans.

The unraveling of Bush's flawed plan for Social Security reform exemplified the odd and intriguing stupidity the Republicans have shown since the 2004 election. Introducing Social Security reform in the face of strong AARP opposition, creating a faulty prescription drug insurance program for seniors, invading Iraq with no justification and no exit strategy, are just a few on a long list of PR blunders. And while these were bad, lately, the White House and congressional Republicans have gotten worse. The aforementioned issues allow most Republicans to take the same side, strengthening their party, albeit in losing efforts. But with the Republican Congress introducing issues like immigration reform and stem cell research, the GOP has further paralyzed itself. These issues ostensibly contain too many fault lines for a simple-minded political party to negotiate. The introduction of these topics allows the Democrats to stand by, watching with the rest of the American people, as the majority party in the Congress attempts to hide the quaking fault lines within itself while pretending to accomplish something in what has turned out to be a truly do-nothing Congress.

Watch this week as the Republican Congress forces the President to issue his first veto on a piece of legislation that 70% of the American public wants passed, and tell me the Republicans aren't seriously fucking up.

What a nutcase

2006-06-07T01:04:00.000-04:00

Katherine B. Harris was the Secretary of State in Florida who did all she could to hand the 2000 election to George W. Bush. Now she's a Republican Senate candidate in Florida who has horrible poll numbers, yet continues to press on with that ugly smile on her face.

Her campaign has been a mess from the beginning. She's gone through more campaign managers than the number of times Darryl Strawberry has been in prison for drugs. She moves from theme to theme, settling on the fact that God wants her to be in the race -- yeah, seriously.

But the thing is... she's nuts enough to wonder why people don't shout her down during her speeches. "On Memorial Day, Ms. Harris rode in a parade and visited two Veterans of Foreign Wars halls and one American Legion post, and was not audibly jeered or heckled by anyone, a fact that surprises even her, 'based on the press I get.'" Katherine: it's because Democrats and liberals know how nuts you are! Why wouldn't they shout you down and make you look like you couldn't handle Nelson this November? Because you can't!

If Harris was to pull off the miracle of all miracles, I have a good idea of who her first friend in the Senate would be; that's right, another nutcase. (Elizabeth Dole.)

Yet another sign of how far the President has fallen...

2006-04-06T14:04:00.000-04:00

In today's Washington Post, columnist George Will writes about the Illinois governor's race. Judy Topinka, the Republican challenger, and her aide, when asked whether she wanted assistance from our esteemed President, offered the following testimony to his downfall:

'We just want him to raise money.' Topinka does not demur as the aide adds: 'Late at night.' Pause. 'In an undisclosed location.'

Methinks that President Bush isn't going to be making many trips this election season.

Republicans losing identifiers

2006-04-04T23:05:00.000-04:00

Well, well, well. Perhaps Republicans do appreciate the damage wrought on this country by the Bush Administration.

In a Gallup poll released today, 33% identified as Democrats, 34% as Independents, and 32% as Republicans -- a four point drop in Republican identifiers since 2000.

While I'm still nervous about this election, I'm getting progressively pleased with all of the little hints that may point to an uprising this November. Keep your fingers crossed!

James Dobson and I agree?

2006-01-07T00:41:00.000-05:00

I think hell just froze over. I can't believe I'm typing this, but James Dobson gets it right. From Talking Points Memo:

James Dobson: 'If the nation’s politicians don’t fix this national disaster, then the oceans of gambling money with which Jack Abramoff tried to buy influence on Capitol Hill will only be the beginning of the corruption we’ll see. Some religious leaders want new ethics rules for Congress, but that’s only a band-aid fix. Politicians need to root out this infection. Gambling – all types of gambling – is driven by greed and subsists on greed. That makes it morally bankrupt from its very foundation. Gambling creates addicts, breeds crime and destroys families. We need courageous office holders who will begin the process of shutting down lotteries, casinos and other gambling outlets.'

Gambling is a menace. In the long run, nothing good comes from it. Good for James Dobson.

Democrats numbers up? Beware

2006-01-06T20:58:00.000-05:00

An AP/Ipsos poll released today provided some encouraging news to Democrats nationwide. Americans prefer a Democratic Congress to a Republican Congress by a 49 percent to 36 percent margin. Also, W found out that his campaign-style public relations strategy on Iraq did not work after all. After seeing his poll numbers bump up into the mid-40's for a few weeks now, his approval rating is now at 40 percent. Further, only 34 percent of Americans approve of the job this Republican-controlled Congress is doing, while 63 percent disapprove.

Unfortunately, it is easy to jump to conclusions when stumbling upon this data. While many might believe that voters are itching to get to the voting booth now to unseat the ineffective Republicans, the problem is that it's very easy to spread the blame so that the voter never feels it's their congressperson to blame, but the 434 others. If you combine that with the power of incumbency, it's still a tall mountain to scale. Democrats need to start construction on a positive, substantive message.

Things are looking good, but we're nowhere near finished yet.

Fingerhut spoiling it

2006-01-06T15:02:00.001-05:00

So while Ohio finally gets the candidate for governor it needs in Ted Strickland, Eric Fingerhut thinks he needs to walk in and mess it up?

State Sen. Eric Fingerhut moved closer to officially entering the Democratic primary for governor by filing a notice of a campaign and sending out invitations to a fundraiser in his Cleveland-area base.

Fingerhut's entry would give U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland major competition for the nomination in the May 2 primary. Former state Rep. Bryan Flannery of Strongsville also is in the race but has little recognition outside the Cleveland area. Fingerhut ran an unsuccessful campaign in 2004 for U.S. Senate, losing to incumbent Republican George Voinovich 64 percent-36 percent.

Actually, the bit about major competition is completely erroneous. A candidate that ran a shit-infested campaign in 2004 against Voinovich cannot possibly muster enough support to even have a shot at derailing Strickland's well-financed and well-established campaign. Strickland's been in this race for several months now, and in the polls, he already has the lead over the Republicans' three-headed monster (Petro, Blackwell, and Montgomery). Why would voters vote for a state senator that was badly beaten by a moderately popular Republican, when they have the choice of voting for a U.S. Congressman that has established himself as a pragmatic, dedicated public servant that has proven success at winning?

I'm not upset because I think Strickland is going to falter because of this decision to run; I'm upset that Fingerhut would run, jeopardizing the first legitimate shot for Democrats to break through the Republicans' stranglehold on Ohio, especially knowing that he got his ass handed to him in 2004. What a joke.

The latest CNN anchor to see the light...

2005-09-02T10:31:00.000-04:00

Anderson Cooper just couldn't hold it in anymore when Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-LA appeared on his show last night.

SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D), LOUISIANA: Anderson, there will be plenty of time to discuss all of those issues, about why, and how, and what, and if. But, Anderson, as you understand, and all of the producers and directors of CNN, and the news networks, this situation is very serious and it's going to demand all of our full attention through the hours, through the nights, through the days.
Let me just say a few things. Thank President Clinton and former President Bush for their strong statements of support and comfort today. I thank all the leaders that are coming to Louisiana, and Mississippi, and Alabama to our help and rescue.We are grateful for the military assets that are being brought to bear. I want to thank Senator Frist and Senator Reid for their extraordinary efforts.Anderson, tonight, I don't know if you've heard -- maybe you all have announced it -- but Congress is going to an unprecedented session to pass a $10 billion supplemental bill tonight to keep FEMA and the Red Cross up and operating.

COOPER: Excuse me, Senator, I'm sorry for interrupting. I haven't heard that, because, for the last four days, I've been seeing dead bodies in the streets here in Mississippi. And to listen to politicians thanking each other and complimenting each other, you know, I got to tell you, there are a lot of people here who are very upset, and very angry, and very frustrated. And when they hear politicians slap -- you know, thanking one another, it just, you know, it kind of cuts them the wrong way right now, because literally there was a body on the streets of this town yesterday being eaten by rats because this woman had been laying in the street for 48 hours. And there's not enough facilities to take her up. Do you get the anger that is out here?

Maybe CNN's doing a decent job for once?

Jack Cafferty on CNN... Amazing

2005-09-01T18:50:00.000-04:00

Jack Cafferty blew up on CNN...

The thing that's most glaring in all of this is that the conditions continue to deteriorate for people who are victims and the efforts to do something about it don't seem to be anywhere in sight.

[Snip...]

The questions that we ask in The Situation Room every day are posted on the website two or three hours before we go on the air and people who read the website often begin to respond to the questions before the show actually starts. The question for this hour is whether the government is doing a good job in handling the situation.

I gotta tell you something, we got five or six hundred letters before the show actually went on the air, and no one - no one - is saying the government is doing a good job in handling one of the most atrocious and embarrassing and far-reaching and calamatous things that has come along in this country in my lifetime. I'm 62. I remember the riots in Watts, I remember the earthquake in San Francisco, I remember a lot of things. I have never, ever, seen anything as bungled and as poorly handled as this situation in New Orleans. Where the hell is the water for these people? Why can't sandwiches be dropped to those people in the Superdome. What is going on? This is Thursday! This storm happened 5 days ago. This is a disgrace. And don't think the world isn't watching. This is the government that the taxpayers are paying for, and it's fallen right flat on its face as far as I can see, in the way it's handled this thing.

We're going to talk about something else before the show's over, too. And that's the big elephant in the room. The race and economic class of most of the victims, which the media hasn't discussed much at all, but we will a bit later.

Yeah, I don't have anything to add. Perfect.

Why you should be upset

2005-09-01T18:32:00.000-04:00

How much clearer does this have to be??? Sidney Blumenthal, from Salon.com, provides a perfect explanation of how Iraq is really coming back to hurt us.

A year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed to study how New Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane, but the Bush administration ordered that the research not be undertaken. After a flood killed six people in 1995, Congress created the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, in which the Corps of Engineers strengthened and renovated levees and pumping stations. In early 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in U.S., including a terrorist attack on New York City. But by 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut the Corps of Engineers' request for holding back the waters of New Orleans' Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year (for a total reduction in funding of 44.2 percent since 2001) forced the Corps to impose a hiring freeze. The Senate had debated adding funds for fixing New Orleans levees, but it was too late.

As if we needed anymore explanation -- this is why Iraq was a bad choice.

Crystallization, pt. 2

2005-09-01T18:29:00.000-04:00

Today's political situation, crystallized

2005-09-01T18:23:00.000-04:00

New York Times has some balls

2005-09-01T11:28:00.000-04:00

The New York Times' editorial today, criticizing President Bush for being "casual to the point of carelessness," ripped President Bush by claiming the country is "waiting for a leader." The opening paragraph sets the tone:

George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom. In what seems to be a ritual in this administration, the president appeared a day later than he was needed. He then read an address of a quality more appropriate for an Arbor Day celebration: a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast. He advised the public that anybody who wanted to help should send cash, grinned, and promised that everything would work out in the end.

[snip...]

It would be some comfort to think that, as Mr. Bush cheerily announced, America "will be a stronger place" for enduring this crisis. Complacency will no longer suffice, especially if experts are right in warning that global warming may increase the intensity of future hurricanes. But since this administration won't acknowledge that global warming exists, the chances of leadership seem minimal.

Talk about not mincing any words. The events this summer -- abductions, terrorist attacks on another Western democracy, a lackluster response to both skyrocketing gas prices and the crippling flood -- has America headed toward the malaise that Jimmy Carter captured in his speech 26 years ago. Complacency seems to be the name of the game, and until we become proactive (which involves taking care of the less fortunate, seriously sizing up the current threat to our American brothers and sisters, stopping the him-hawing of the administration in dealing with the spike in oil prices, and admitting that global warming is the root of these mammoth storms that now seem to be annual occurrences), we'll be as lost as we've ever been.

Does this make anyone else mad??

2005-08-10T12:16:00.000-04:00

Maureen Dowd wrote a phenomenal column that's in today's New York Times. She points out the inconsistencies that I, for one, have overlooked.

It's amazing that the White House does not have the elementary shrewdness to have Mr. Bush simply walk down the driveway and hear the woman out, or invite her in for a cup of tea. But W., who has spent nearly 20 percent of his presidency at his ranch, is burrowed into his five-week vacation and two-hour daily workouts. He may be in great shape, but Iraq sure isn't.

It's hard to think of another president who lived in such meta-insulation. His rigidly controlled environment allows no chance encounters with anyone who disagrees. He never has to defend himself to anyone, and that is cognitively injurious. He's a populist who never meets people - an ordinary guy who clears brush, and brush is the only thing he talks to. Mr. Bush hails Texas as a place where he can return to his roots. But is he mixing it up there with anyone besides Vulcans, Pioneers and Rangers?

W.'s idea of consolation was to dispatch Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, to talk to Ms. Sheehan, underscoring the inhumane humanitarianism of his foreign policy. Mr. Hadley is just a suit, one of the hard-line Unsweet Neo Cons who helped hype America into this war.

My favorite line is the "populist who never meets people." How true is that?? He likes to be portrayed as the people's guy, the guy you can have a beer with. Yet he can't even get outside an environment that totally agrees with him. He's the people's man when it's convenient (when he's surrounded by those advisors like Stephen Hadley).

Don't get me wrong -- I don't have a problem with him isolating himself, but don't act like you're some populist if you're doing it. We've seen W in action in unscripted press conferences, and each time we hear the ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssst leaking from the balloon that his staffers and cabinet members work so hard to keep inflated.

President Bush, grow some balls. You can start by actually talking to that mother yourself. Blow up your own balloon.

The Myth that is Sherrod Brown's Electability

2005-07-28T19:28:00.000-04:00

Over at Daily Kos, there seems to be this divide between those who want Sherrod Brown to step in the Ohio Senate Race to challenge Mike DeWine, and those who want Tim Ryan to do the same. I think if you take a look at history and realize that Brown always seems to be "interested" in the seat, but he never moves on it, the choice becomes easier to make. Bottom line? There cannot be a "wait-your-turn" policy any longer. It's time for a breath of fresh air. Enter Tim Ryan.

A new blog has been set up at http://ryanvdewine.blogspot.com. The first post goes through and clarifies for Democrats why we need to get moving on Tim Ryan's candidacy instead of waiting around for Sherrod Brown to make up his mind. I'll paste most of it here, and if you'd like, you can check out the rest of the blog on your own at the above address.

Name Recognition

Strength:
Brown has shown that he can win a state-wide race. With eighteen districts in Ohio, Ryan has exposure in only 1/18th of the state. Brown has at least been in the ballot in every district.

Weakness:
Secretary of State 1983-1991? I recall us winning Ohio occasionally a decade or so ago. But clearly yesterday's game plan isn't winning us many victories. This is the 21st century. Clinton showed that being an unknown from the middle of nowhere can be overcome with the proper strategy. Has Brown learned how to win using the techniques of today, or is his experience from more than a decade ago a liability?

Our Type of Liberal

Strength:
If you are reading this blog then it is almost certain that you want DeWine out. And unless you are only angry at him because of his son's tryst, you - like I - are on the left side of the spectrum. Without a doubt, Brown has a lot of the beliefs that I do. And probably the rest of y'all as well. He's our type of liberal.

Weakness:
So was Walter Mondale. Come visit us in Ohio. We don't like 'damned liberals!.' Is it a shame? Yes. But the old "anti-life anti-gun owl-loving liberal' is costing us the votes of Blue Collar workers. In Ohio, Democrat's appeal has always focused on our ability to deliver a strong economy and jobs, but people tend to get caught up in all this talk of "Values". We don't need that here. People are hurting. Schweitzer proved it can be done with his 'Montana Miracle'. I can't see Brown pulling that off here in Ohio.

Age

Strength:
When it comes to the Senate, people are old. Really old. And apparently voters like that and often avoid electing youth to the Senate.

Weakness:
We are a party that is ever growing older. We need fresh blood. A wait-your-turn policy doesn't work. I personally equate age with a decreasing amount of passion. With youth comes inspiration, and to win against DeWine we need somebody capable of awakening Ohio. We need that special spark. Brown is no JFK.

Experience

Strength:
Brown has leadership experience. He's been a leading voice in fighting CAFTA.

Weakness:
Which is why we need to keep him there. You don't remove your strongest leaders. Until we win it back, the House needs Brown.

Establishment

Strength:
Brown is a well-established candidate. He is Ohio's most senior national Democrat, and is the best connected when it comes to the party establishment.

Weakness:
If there is one thing that Coingate has taught us, it is that being around for a long time often has negative repercussions. Ohio has a messy history. Even though the party machines of the old days are gone, they aren't dead yet. This leads to an environment where connections matter more than talent. Unless Brown can get tons of Republican endorsements across the states, his connections are useless in a general election. So what if Brown has the ODP's favor? They don't have much of a winning streak. To win we need to show Ohio that '06 is about starting over. We want a breath of fresh air, and in this election, establishment equals Columbus.

Decent Guy

Strength:
Brown certainly looks like a nice enough guy. Certain people are always mentioning how personable he was.

Weakness:
So was John Kerry. We have nearly twenty million people here. The Democratic candidate will not have an opportunity to shake everybody's hand. This is about image. 'Decent' doesn't cut it.

Charisma

Strength:
I've heard that Brown is fairly charismatic.

Weakness:
Seeing is believing, and the onus lies on Brown. Having a website created doesn't cut it. How will he look during a debate?

Contact Tim Ryan's staff here, and let him know we're depending on him to be a major part of the Democratic sweep in Ohio come 2006!

[UPDATE]: While re-reading this, and after taking criticism from some folks at Daily Kos, I think this was out of line. This was a hatchet job on Sherrod Brown. I recognize that hardly any information about Tim Ryan was presented, so here it is.

Tim Ryan is 32 years old. He's from Niles, Ohio, and he currently represents the 17th District in Northeastern Ohio, which encapsulates Youngstown, Warren, and the Akron area. He was an Ohio state senator from 2000-2002, leading efforts to establish a state-based earned income tax credit, to standardize the reporting of community school data, and to bring college students into the debate over higher education funding.
He serves on the House Armed Services Committee, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and co-chairs the House Manufacturing Caucus, and he's focused on strenghtening manufacturing in America and making college more affordable for everyone.

Ryan's voting record:
--Rated 10% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record (has not come out against Roe, just wants abortions markedly reduced)
--Rated 25% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record (probably for the better)
--Rated 89% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record
-YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs
-NO on capping damages and setting time limits in medical lawsuits
--Rated 90% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record
--Rated 100% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes
--Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record (something that will go over well in Southern Ohio)
--Rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration
-NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment
--Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record
--Rated 100% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes

I think you can see that Rep. Ryan is a very principled voter. Doesn't really contradict himself.

For your reference:

Live Strong

2005-07-27T13:54:00.000-04:00

Thomas Friedman's column in today's New York Times is one of the best ones I've ever read. Connecting the courage and passion of Lance Armstrong to the political world, Friedman asks why Armstrong's virtues can't be fixtures in the American way of life.

There is no doubt that Lance Armstrong's seventh straight victory in the Tour de France, which has prompted sportswriters to rename the whole race the Tour de Lance, makes him one of the greatest U.S. athletes of all time. What I find most impressive about Armstrong, besides his sheer willpower to triumph over cancer, is the strategic focus he brings to his work, from his prerace training regimen to the meticulous way he and his cycling team plot out every leg of the race. It is a sight to behold. I have been thinking about them lately because their abilities to meld strength and strategy - to thoughtfully plan ahead and to sacrifice today for a big gain tomorrow - seem to be such fading virtues in American life.

Sadly, those are the virtues we now associate with China, Chinese athletes and Chinese leaders. Talk to U.S. business executives and they'll often comment on how many of China's leaders are engineers, people who can talk to you about numbers, long-term problem-solving and the national interest - not a bunch of lawyers looking for a sound bite to get through the evening news. America's most serious deficit today is a deficit of such leaders in politics and business.

Citing the recent demand made by new Morgan Stanley CEO, John Mack, that his pay over the next two years be the average of the CEOs of corporations such as Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch, Friedman lashes out at those that are more concerned about what they will receive as opposed to what they can give. He explains that in his recent visit to Ireland, he learned that the Irish, recently becoming the second-richest nation in the European Union, have learned how to "play offense," as he labels it. The Irish are not cocky and selfish three year olds; they have a focused plan built around common principles. They sacrifice for the common good.

Friedman, wrapping it up, then easily points out the differences (it's not like it's hard) between today's selfish, "defensive" American culture, with Ireland's self-less and "offensive" renaissance.

Wouldn't you think that if you were president, after you'd read the umpteenth story about remier U.S. companies, like Intel and Apple, building their newest factories, and even research facilities, in China, India or Ireland, that you'd summon the top U.S. business leaders to Washington to ask them just one question: "What do we have to do so you will keep your best jobs here? Make me a list and I will not rest until I get it enacted."

And if you were president, and you had just seen more suicide bombs in London, wouldn't you say to your aides: "We have got to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil. We have to do it for our national security. We have to do it because only if we bring down the price of crude will these countries be forced to reform. And we should want to do it because it is clear that green energy solutions are the wave of the future, and the more quickly we impose a stringent green agenda on ourselves, the more our companies will lead innovation in these technologies."

Instead, we are about to pass an energy bill that, while it does contain some good provisions, will make no real dent in our gasoline consumption, largely because no one wants to demand that Detroit build cars that get much better mileage. We are just feeding Detroit the rope to hang itself. It's assisted suicide. I thought people went to jail for that?

And if you were president, would you really say to the nation, in the face of the chaos in Iraq, that "if our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them," but that they had not asked? It is not what the generals are asking you, Mr. President - it is what you are asking them, namely: "What do you need to win?" Because it is clear we are not winning, and we are not winning because we have never made Iraq a secure place where normal politics could emerge.

Oh, well, maybe we have the leaders we deserve. Maybe we just want to admire Lance Armstrong, but not be Lance Armstrong. Too much work. Maybe that's the wristband we should be wearing: Live wrong. Party on. Pay later.

For you baseball fans -- if you're down by a run going into the bottom half of the ninth, and you get a leadoff double from your first man at-bat, what do you do? That's right. You sacrifice the man over to third with the next batter. You make the next batter hit himself into an out so that you can get the runner to third base. You don't let the batter swing away and pad his individual statistics. You're after the team win, not the increased batting average or a larger amount of RBIs. After 9/11 passed, we had that runner on second. We were in the position to score. We had the world rallying around us. But because of the culture we're in, the culture that Friedman outlines above, we're blowing it. Instead of being smart and staying focused on the terrorists, on Afghanistan, on al-Qaida, our president got greedy and tried to hit a homerun.

It looks more and more like America's hitting popups instead of doing what's necessary to get that run in. How much longer before our inning ends?

Santorum Not Moral After All?

2005-07-27T10:50:00.000-04:00

Santorum's ass gets handed to him in this letter to the editor in today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

As a teacher for the Diocese of Pittsburgh for 14 years, one important lesson I learned was that no matter what I said to the child, whatever the parents said superseded my message. What parents say and how they live sends a message stronger than any teacher's voice no matter what the issue.

Sen. Rick Santorum and his wife have taught their children a powerful lesson on civic responsibility by refusing to pay any tuition money to the Penn Hills School District for their children who attended the Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School ("Penn Hills Loses Bid to Charge Santorum," July 12). Released from that payment on a technicality shows that even an upstanding, moral gentleman like Sen. Santorum teaches his children the following lessons:

1) Take advantage of the system whenever you can.
2) The little guy pays while the rich and powerful guy gets away with it.
3) As a Catholic, you have no obligation to pay your share to the common good in spite of Catholic social doctrine.

Finally,
I am shocked that our religious leaders who see Sen. Santorum as some sort of faith-and-morals hero have not spoken up on this issue at all.

SISTER LIGUORI ROSSNER

It's not looking good for Rick Santorum.

A Raise for Lying about Betraying a CIA Agent?

2005-07-27T10:28:00.000-04:00

Because this is the message we need to send to our nation's youth...?

The top pay for senior White House aides, including Chief of Staff Card, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and Legislative Affairs Director Candida Wolff, was boosted to $161,000 at the beginning of July, according to a list sent to Congress and obtained by National Journal.
Others receiving the bump: Stephen Hadley, Scooter Libby. The era of personal responsibility is dead! Long live the era of personal responsibility!

Ideas only get you so far...

2005-07-25T11:11:00.000-04:00

It seems that we liberals have trouble finding charisma in our candidates. You might be saying "What?? What about FDR, JFK, or Clinton?" Well, that's precisely my point. If you go back 70, 40, and 15 years, respectively, yeah, we did find it at those places in time. But you're not remembering the debacles of Dukakis, Mondale, and Kerry either. And narrowing the focus to statewide races, the ultimate bellweather state -- Ohio -- has nothing to boast of in terms of the recruitment of candidates. Tim Hagan for Governor? Eric Fingerhut for Senate? Yeah right. It's no wonder both got trounced.

But I think we're starting to see this dumb politics change. Democrats are realizing how much Ohio means to them politically and electorally, and more importantly, they're starting to see how they've been screwing up. We have two solid Democratic candidates for Governor to start with (Ted Strickland and Michael Coleman), and we're now hearing rumors of national Democrats pressuring Rep. Tim Ryan, D-OH, 17th District, to run for the Senate seat currently held by Mike DeWine. I believe this last race is key, and in order for Democrats to build the kind of majority that Republicans enjoy today, we need Ryan to run.

Why? Refer to the title of this post. I think most of us know that, when taken in their most basic forms, liberalism beats conservatism ten times out of ten. But like it has been discussed many, many times, we're not selling it. Bill Clinton once said, "Democrats win when people think," but our problem is, we're not making them think. We're not enticing them to think. Republicans have the advantage because their philosophy, this new "values"-based conservatism, thrives on people NOT being able to think for themselves. It shoves charismatic candidates in front of voters in the midst of a media machine that lets people off the hook. In many ways, this media system that we have today, with all of its "yellow journalism," wants to do the thinking for people. Liberalism is the smart way to go, but conservativism is the easier way to go. So what do Democrats need? Well, in one word, charisma.

We have the policies, ideas, and proposals needed to turn things around, but until voters realize we do, until, like Thomas Frank explains in "What's the Matter with Kansas," voters realize that cultural well-being is the extension of a healthy economy (yes, a bit of a Marxist base-superstructure theme), we're not going anywhere. I don't care how many Reform Ohio Nows or Blue 88s or MoveOn.orgs we have, there will always be an obstacle between our party and those Reagan Democrats (that are basically prisoners of war stuck in the Republican camp), unless we can connect with them like Republicans do. Like Stan Greenberg explains in Two Americas, while the Republicans are seeking electoral success by dividing the nation and getting their 51% of the vote, we need to make sure we're targeting 100%. An example is Barack Obama at last year's Democratic Convention. Almost a year ago today, he gave that great speech that discussed the role of hope and unity in this great democratic experiment that we've all been a part of (well, most of us at different times) for the past 229 years. He offered the rhetoric and the ideas, but he was charismatic. Everyone liked him, not just liberal Democrats.

So what does this all mean? We need Tim Ryan to run for the U.S. Senate. It's Ohio; Mike DeWine's approval ratings are dropping; he's a Republican in a state where being a Republican might just not be an advantage anymore; Ryan plays the role of the underdog great as seen in his upset election victories in 2000 and 2002; lastly, Ryan has the charisma, dedication, and passion that those Ohio Reagan Democrats need to see from the Democratic Party again. If we're going to build this Democratic machine, an essential piece of the puzzle is charisma, so that, when added to our logic (which we know wins out in the end), we come much closer to solving the puzzle than the Republicans do. We need to stop picking people to represent our party who are "electable," because for one reason or another, they're actually quite the opposite. "Electable," to me, means "safe," which then means "scared." Why don't we start being bold for a change? A great way to start would be recruiting Tim Ryan to run for Senate.

Deception

2005-07-21T16:18:00.000-04:00

Good authors are able to take ideas and thoughts that are continuously recycled, dust them off, polish them, and then present them in a refreshing manner. Thomas Frank is a good author.

Frank wrote What's the Matter with Kansas, and in it, he is able to do all of the above. For those of you that haven't read it (I think I am one of the last people to read it, so if you haven't, you better hurry up!), the book focuses on Kansans repeatedly getting tricked into voting for candidates and policies that are against their economic interests in the name of social interests, because they're told that they are more important. I'm not going to say anymore, because, below, Thomas Frank says it so much better than I do. Sit back, relax, and enjoy.

...A state is spectacularly ill served by the Reagan-Bush stampede of deregulation, privatization, and laissez-faire. It sees its countryside depopulated, its towns disintegrate, its cities stagnate -- and its wealthy enclaves sparkle, behind their remote-controlled security gates. The state erupts in revolt, making headlines around the world with its bold defiance of convention. But what do its rebels demand? More of the very measures that have brought ruination on them and their neighbors in the first place.

This is not just the mystery of Kansas; this is the mystery of America, the historical shift that has made it all possible.

In Kansas the shift is more staggering than elsewhere, simply because it has been so decisive, so extreme. The people who were once radical are now reactionary. Though they speak today in the same aggrieved language of victimization, and though they face the same array of economic forces as their hard-bitten ancestors, today's populists make demands that are precisely the opposite. Tear down the federal farm programs, they cry. Privatize the utilities. Repeal the progressive taxes. All that Kansas asks today is a little help nailing itself to that cross of gold.

Amen. Before we look at the social issues of abortion, capital punishment, etc., we would be well-served to take notice that each of those issues stem from poverty. In a more civilized world, with less poverty, we would have less abortions. In an environment with less poverty, we'd have fewer murderers to judge and sentence. Poverty is the most mentioned subject in the Bible, making over 3,000 appearances. You know why extremist conservatives like to talk about the social issues? Because they divide us. They like the issues where you're either for or against. They don't mind getting 50.1% of the vote, because that means they are still in power. While there are some conservatives who don't mind discussing poverty, those wing-nuts that would rather talk about social issues than poverty are afraid of a unifying issue. Poverty is simply a moral wrong -- virtually no one disagrees with that, not even most of the extreme partisans. What is disagreed upon is how much priority should be assigned to the subject.

Economic realities shape social realities. Frank asks us whether we're going to continue to crucify ourselves by voting for policies which dig ourselves further, or whether we're going to wake up and do everything we can to get off the cross. I choose the latter.

Ohio's Embarrassment

2005-07-13T07:41:00.000-04:00

In May of 2005, Survey USA polled Ohioans to find the approval/disapproval ratings of the job Bob Taft has done as Governor of Ohio. The result? A horrible 19% were willing to say that they approved of Governor Taft's job. 19%. Not even one in five Ohio voters think Taft is doing a job they can approve of. You wouldn't think it could get much worse. Well, it did.

After enjoying a four point "spike," to 23% in June, Taft's nice little Worker's Comp. scandal is proving to be one hell of an anchor. Survey USA, today, released the numbers from their tracking polls for each U.S. governor. Our esteemed governor was the worst thought of among his or her constituents in the United States. Only 17% of Ohio voters approved of Taft's performance; that is fourteen percent less than the second to the lowest on the list (Frank Murkowski, Alaska). 76% of Ohioans polled disapproved -- the highest disapproval rating of any governor by fifteen percent. It's pretty hard to go down from 19%, but Taft did it. The sad thing is, it's about the only thing he's done successfully (and legally) this term.

Going deeper, the encouraging thing for Ohioans is the demographic breakdowns, especially among partisans. Of course Democrats hate Taft; that's a given. The Republicans, though, come close to having just as many disapproving of Taft's performance as Democrats. Republicans disapprove of Taft's performance by a 71 percent to 21 percent margin, and it hardly gets better among conservatives -- 71 percent to 22 percent. His best demographic group is the group of voters 18 to 34 years old -- "only" 66 percent disapprove of his performance.

The Democrats' opportunity in the 2006 elections that should be a dream for any Democratic political consultant managing a state race. The exact statistics don't need to be repeated -- Ohio's economy sucks; we've lost more manufacturing jobs in the last two years than any other state in the nation, and our middle-class ,working families continue to feel squeezed. Time will tell who will step in to take the Democratic nomination, but given this electoral environment, whoever emerges should be thought of as the front-runner in an open seat election. As a University of Akron student has written, "Ohio is on the fast track to hell, and Gov. Bob Taft is the conductor.

Bob Taft's done a horrible job. But shouldn't we all have expected that when we first learned his last name?

The Difference between Liberty and Those Fundamentalists Hijacking the Republican Party

2005-07-10T01:19:00.000-04:00

I found this comment while reading an excellent post on Daily Kos. It really could not be put any better. Thought I'd share it with everyone!

Voltaire: "I disagree with everything you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

Right-wing Fundamentalists: "I don't understand anything you say, and therefore you have no right to exist and I have the right to destroy you."

Common Sense

2005-07-07T14:49:00.000-04:00

This is the common sense America has been sorely lacking. Kos makes a lot of sense here, and I think this is the best summation of what has happened in the past few years all the way up to today's events in London.

Bush's latest rationale for maintaining the course in Iraq adventure has been the "flypaper strategy" -- it's better to fight the terrorists over there than at home. Nevermind that the Iraqis never asked to have their country turned into a dangerous den of terrorism, insurgency, violence and death. For war supporters looking for an excuse, any excuse, to justify the continued disastrous American presence in Iraq, the flypaper rationale was as good as any.

Except that it's not working. The war isn't making the West any safer. In fact, it's creating a whole new class of terrorists. Today it was London. Next time it could easily be the United States. And waging the war in Iraq, rather than make us safer, is further motivating Islamic terrorists to strike at the West.

...snip...

Bush (and Blair) took their eyes off the prize -- neglected to finish the job in Afghanistan, let Al Qaeda off the hook to rebuild and reorganize, and helped swell its ranks with an unecessary and inept campaign in Iraq.

There are consequences to the mess in Iraq. And today, we're seeing one of them. Unfortunately, it won't be the last.

With Iraq obviously not connected to Al-Qaeda, it's clear we took are eyes off the ball in invading Iraq. Sure, Saddam Hussein was a threat to his own people, but he was not a threat to the United States. North Korea was certainly more of a threat to the United States at that time than Saddam was. And now that we've invaded Iraq, we're only breeding more resentment from the Middle East toward America.

I haven't really addressed the war in here, and I think it's because I haven't really known for sure how I've felt. Slowly, along with the rising number of deaths, my opposition to the war has risen. This morning I had my epiphany, and though I'm madder now about these terrorist attacks, for some reason, than I was on September 11, 2001, I realize that in many ways these terrorist attacks certainly were not discouraged by our actions in Iraq, and perhaps they were even encouraged by our invasion. It all clicked for me this morning when I heard about the British attacks -- people aren't really protesting this war, because they're not seeing the effects of it, they're only starting to. Kos is right though -- this is one of the consequences of what has happened to U.S. Foreign Policy under the Bush Doctrine. I'm worried, though, that 1.) It's going to take something more serious happening, perhaps to the U.S., before people start to realize that the war is only intensifying things and making us less safe, and that 2.) People will think that the only answer, should this horrible thing happen, is even more misguided violence.

Our world has certainly changed since September 11, 2001, but that doesn't mean that we have to sacrifice our common sense because of it. The focus is terrorism, and while it may be nearly impossible to totally defeat, we sure would be well-served to take the focus off Iraq and put it on organizations like Al-Qaeda.

History's Pretty Cool

2005-07-05T22:22:00.000-04:00

It's amazing how history continues to address today's problems. Props to PoliticalWire for this awesome find.

"Just as the President has a right to nominate without assigning reasons, so has the Senate a right to dissent without giving theirs."
-- President George Washington, quoted in The Papers of George Washington, p. 401.

An Ohio Watergate?

2005-07-03T14:05:00.000-04:00

As I was reading the Sunday paper, I noticed a story from the AP with the headline "Thieves Target Ohio Democratic Party Headquarters."

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- Thieves have targeted the Ohio Democratic Party headquarters this week, stealing a computer and a BlackBerry belonging to party chairman Denny White.

Columbus police say one or more burglars climbed a wall Monday night and crawled through an unlocked second-story window at the party headquarters about three blocks from the Statehouse.

The break-in occurred a week after Democrats began airing a 30-second T-V ad that links Republican officeholders with the state's failed $55 million rare-coin investment with GOP fundraiser Tom Noe.

Police say it is unclear if the theft had anything to do with politics, or the investigations into investments at the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation.

A Republican Party spokesman denies that the GOP had anything to do with the break-in.

Shades of Watergate anyone? Of course the GOP denied it, but even if they did it, I wouldn't expect anything less. What would anyone else want with White's Blackberry and computer? And perhaps security should be stepped up a bit???

Bush's Tuesday Address

2005-06-25T00:30:00.000-04:00

An AP story released today previewed Bush's speech to the nation scheduled for Tuesday night.

Friday's meeting came as the White House makes plans for the president's prime-time speech about Iraq next week.

The speech -- Tuesday night at Fort Bragg in North Carolina -- will mark the anniversary of the return of sovereignty to Iraq. It's aimed at shoring up flagging public support for the Iraq mission.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said the president wants the American people to hear his view of "the way forward" in Iraq.

McClellan said the U.S. mission there is at a "critical moment." He acknowledged that Americans are seeing "bloody images on their TV screen," but maintains they "haven't really heard" the administration's "clear strategy for success."

Okay. First of all, if this is a crucial speech, make it look like it's one. Don't parade around another military base. Don't arrange for a friendly audience. Don't act like the valedictorian who got his 4.0 by getting out of Chemistry and the like. If it's "hard work," like you claimed it was during the campaign, get in the Oval Office, and show us that. If this speech is such a "critical moment," like our friend Scott McClellan insists it is, then stop treating it like a party. The American people deserve to know what is going on. McClellan's right -- we do see the images on our TV screen -- but if you think that by laying out this administration's strategy for success in Iraq in Fort Bragg you're going to lend the speech credibility, you are dreadfully wrong.

President Bush -- please grow up. Treat this like the serious situation that it is. Though you may not want to believe it, more and more people are disagreeing with the direction you're taking this country. You know what? That's too nice. You're tanking. You're pulling a Bill Buckner in front of the whole country. Don't you remember 9/11 and the support you got? Granted that was then and this is now, if you want to appear presidential like you did in 2001, get in the White House. Get in the Oval Office and act like a president.

There are those that will not like you and/or will not listen to you no matter what. But there are also those who are looking toward you for some sign of hope that you're no longer going to treat the world like your own game of RISK. If you want these people to listen to what you have to say, move the frickin' speech into the White House. If you want people pissed off because you're taking away their evening TV again in exchange for a speech that looks like a mockery of the current situation, stay in Fort Bragg.

Freedom?

2005-06-23T08:47:00.000-04:00

Bob Herbert has written an outstanding piece in today's New York Times, "Cruel and Unusual," and in it, he points out that Jeb Bush is going against his conservative roots. Starting by asking Governor Bush whether he has any sense of decency, Herbert continues to expose Bush's horrible, unconscionable move to open an investigation against Michael Schiavo.

This is unbelievable to me. There is no evidence that Michael Schiavo did a thing wrong, and so Jeb Bush's investigation is a blatant power play, some attempted payback for being made to look like an idiot (Jeb, buddy, you are -- face it!). Governor Bush's attempt to investigate Michael Schiavo is not only a waste of time, it's not what democracies stand for according to his brother, President Bush. President Bush delivered a speech on freedom in November 2oo3 for the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, and his definition of a successful society seems to contradict his brother's actions.

There are, however, essential principles common to every successful society, in every culture. Successful societies limit the power of the state and the power of the military -- so that governments respond to the will of the people, and not the will of an elite. Successful societies protect freedom with the consistent and impartial rule of law, instead of ... selectively applying the law to punish political opponents.

Though President Bush usually wins the contest of "Most Inept" between him and his brother, I think he actually loses the contest here. President Bush, to his credit, writes a good description of what a successful society and democracy should look like. Distinctly American, President Bush's concept notes that the power of the state is limited in successful societies, and governments are dedicated to the protection of freedom "with the consistent and impartial rule of law, instead of selectively applying the law." The limited power of the state doesn't just mean when it's convenient; it means consistently. Is there anyone out there that can actually claim that Governor Bush's actions are not steeped in some kind of selectivity? This whole story was selective. Millions of Americans experience this horror every day, and yet we focus on this one example, and we legislate from this one example, and our government intrudes on its own concept of freedom with this one example. Where is our Congress with these other cases?

It is clear now that the government should just STAY OUT of this case. Jeb, I never thought I'd say this, but maybe you should listen to your little brother...

A Little Scary?

2005-06-23T08:26:00.000-04:00

Frankly, I'm a little scared. Political Wire is showing a story from today's Wall Street Journal about what will ensue the second, wait.. the millisecond Rehnquist announces his retirement from the Court.

With a looming Supreme Court vacancy, the Wall Street Journal reports White House officials "recently reinvigorated their screening of potential candidates, but officials decline to speak publicly about the process since no seat on the high court is open."

Meanwhile, the Christian Science Monitor says interest groups "are ready to react with warp-speed in a media environment that's only grown more diverse and saturated... With the push of a
computer button, talking points will go out to hundreds of thousands of activists; cable TV and the blogosphere will hum with intensity."

This reads like some ultra-weird sci-fi, poli-sci novel to me. I can see someone in a dark room with their eyes red with exhaustion having a press release all ready to go, with their finger hovering over the mouse ready to click "submit." We've heard about how uncivil politics has become over the last few decades, but I have a feeling that when Rehnquist or any other justice announces his or her retirement, what we've experienced over the past few decades will be nothing compared to what we will have to get through.

Edwards in London

2005-06-21T18:08:00.000-04:00

Recently former Senator and Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards traveled to London to speak at the London School of Economics. The text of the speech that he gave is posted on his One America Committee's website. I thought I'd post the end because I liked it so much. I hope whoever becomes the leader of the Democratic Party begins to start talking like this in the next few years . This is what Edwards was so good with during the campaign, and whether he emerges as the front-runner for 2008, or passes off his way of transforming principle into a narrative to someone else, the Democratic Party would be well-served to start talking this talk... and walking it too.

This is what we started more than two centuries ago—a great experiment in the history of mankind. Ordinary citizens gathered in their churches, in their stores, in their homes to pursue a greater good, both civic in its promise and human in its hope.

It gave the farmer the same rights as the president. It gave the blacksmith the same chance as the ship merchant. And it gave the men and women who said that we had not honored our ideals the right to speak out in the great calls of change.

America is a place that believes in ascension and the dignity of hard work. This is what we believe. And every day we give a person the chance to lift themselves up – whether they live in Los Angeles, London or Lusaka--we increase the chances of a just world.

This is what we can do when we never forget that we are all connected. That when countries achieve liberty and economic strength it helps us all. And that when tragedies happen thousands of miles from our homes, they hurt us all.

This is what we must never forget as we move forward. This is what gives our pillars their strength. And this is at the heart of our promise to those children who are resuming their lives in Thailand after the tsunami.

Remember that a young boy has just put his new fishing boat in the water. He's got hope again. He's trying to make his way in the world. And he's counting on all of us to steer him toward his dreams.

Talk about powerful. The speech was rather boring until the end, but he brings it all together here. The more I read about poverty, the more I'm beginning to realize that we can't just advocate government handouts without encouraging responsibility. It's irresponsible, and it hurts the cause and those poverty-stricken families more than it helps them. With that being said, in order for poverty to be solved, government can't just sit there. It does have a role. We're all part of something larger, and if we believe what the Bible tells us, there's no greater good than helping those who are less fortunate. Edwards makes an excellent point using the young boy at the end. Like any other young child, he wants to do things himself... he wants to be the captain of the boat -- but he does need help in getting pointed in the right direction. We all have a duty as human beings, with our connection to him, to help him get on the right track. How can we do that best? Edwards says, and I believe he's right, that our best effort at ending poverty should be a project that relies heavily (NOT SOLELY) upon government.

Dick "Double Standard" Cheney

2005-06-20T16:17:00.000-04:00

Dick's latest, thanks to Political Wire...

"I thought Durbin was totally out of line. I watched some of his comments on the floor of the United States Senate. For him to make those comparisons was one of the more egregious things I'd ever heard uttered on the floor of the United States Senate."
-- Dick Cheney, in a radio interview.

Dick, buddy -- you must be forgetting about your lovely conversation with Senator Leahy (D-VT) almost a year ago to the day? Let me refresh your memory.

Vice President Dick Cheney blurted out the "F word" at Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont during a heated exchange on the Senate floor, congressional aides said on Thursday.

The incident occurred on Tuesday in a terse discussion between the two that touched on politics, religion and money, with Cheney finally telling Leahy to "f--- off" or "go f--- yourself," the aides said.

"I think he was just having a bad day," Leahy was quoted as saying on CNN, which first reported the incident. "I was kind of shocked to hear that kind of language on the floor."

Is the word "fuck" not egregious to you Mr. Cheney? At least Senator Durbin had a valid reason for his statement. Where's yours?

Whiteout Fever

2005-06-20T16:00:00.000-04:00

I'm willing to bet that the Bush Administration has a contract with Bic to get all the whiteout they need. Why, you ask? Take a look at what Think Progress dug up.

For those of you reading this that STILL do not see the slime dripping from the Bush Administration, taking a look at this might be a good start (though if you don't believe it now, you might just not want to).

Well George, What Is It?

2005-06-18T16:50:00.000-04:00

President Bush issued a statement today.

But it is the president's Iraq policy that has taken the biggest slide in the polls. Once a mainstay of his public support, his handling of the Iraq war was backed by only 41 percent in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll this month -- his lowest level of support yet on Iraq.

Bush acknowledged discontent over his decisions but signaled no shift in policy or timing for the American presence in Iraq. 'Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror,' he said. 'This mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight.'

"This mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"? But I thought you declared it accomplished on May 1, 2003?

Emboldening the extremists

2005-06-17T15:30:00.000-04:00

The unfortunate thing about the truth coming out regarding the Schiavo tragedy is the embarrassment for the GOP, which results in even more destructive action.

Who is it this time? Jeb Bush.

Gov. Jeb Bush asked a prosecutor Friday to investigate why Terri Schiavo collapsed 15 years ago, calling into question how long it took her husband to call 911 after he found her.

In a letter faxed to Pinellas-Pasco County State Attorney Bernie McCabe, Bush said Michael Schiavo testified in a 1992 medical malpractice trial that he found his wife collapsed at 5 a.m., and he said in a 2003 television interview that he found her about 4:30 a.m. He called 911 at 5:40 a.m.

"Between 40 and 70 minutes elapsed before the call was made, and I am aware of no explanation for the delay," Bush wrote. "In light of this new information, I urge you to take a fresh look at this case without any preconceptions as to the outcome."

Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment Friday from The Associated Press. In comments in The Miami Herald, he said Terri Schiavo would not have survived if her husband had not immediately called 911.

"It's absolutely preposterous," Felos said. "If he had waited 70 minutes she would have been dead."

While Frist handles his embarrassment a bit differently, Bush is trying to come up with some justification for the way he acted. Here's a thought -- maybe he just should have stayed out of the whole thing.

His looking for some excuse instead of just going on silent is also an example of the Religious Right swallowing just one more person on the way to their theocratic dream world. We'll see how that works out, but I'm willing to bet that with the swollen ranks of the right-wing extremists, the Republican Party has a large problem on the horizon.

Refreshing...

2005-06-17T15:16:00.000-04:00

So there ARE Republicans who are just as sick of the calls for a theocracy from the conservative Christians as we are.

Former Republican Senator John Danforth wrote an awesome Op-Ed piece today in the New York Times.

It would be an oversimplification to say that America's culture wars are now between people of faith and nonbelievers. People of faith are not of one mind, whether on specific issues like stem cell research and government intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, or the more general issue of how religion relates to politics. In recent years, conservative Christians have presented themselves as representing the one authentic Christian perspective on politics. With due respect for our conservative friends, equally devout Christians come to very different conclusions.

It is important for those of us who are sometimes called moderates to make the case that we, too, have strongly held Christian convictions, that we speak from the depths of our beliefs, and that our approach to politics is at least as faithful as that of those who are more conservative. Our difference concerns the extent to which government should, or even can, translate religious beliefs into the laws of the state.

People of faith have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to bring their values to bear in politics. Many conservative Christians approach politics with a certainty that they know God's truth, and that they can advance the kingdom of God through governmental action. So they have developed a political agenda that they believe advances God's kingdom, one that includes efforts to "put God back" into the public square and to pass a constitutional amendment intended to protect marriage from the perceived threat of homosexuality.

Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers.

But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.

Frist Doesn't Want to Talk About It

2005-06-16T14:57:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post, today, published an article with the headline "Frist: Schiavo Autopsy Results End Case." I'm thinking even the dumbest, stupidest, dimmest political mind in the nation, when presented with the context, could figure out why he desperately wants to see this thing end.

First of all, what an embarrassment for the doctor who so many people seemed to treat as a god walking amongst mere mortals in the Senate. This is what the Doc said in the middle of the whole controversy: "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli." Either he was looking elsewhere when he saw this response, or he's a horrible doctor, cause I just read that Schiavo's autopsy said that...

Terri Schiavo suffered severe, irreversible brain damage that left that organ discolored and scarred, shriveled to half its normal size, and damaged in early all its regions, including the one responsible for vision, according to an autopsy report released yesterday.

"Including the one responsible for vision." Hmmm... Her brain was half -- HALF -- the size of a normal brain. How the heck does a doctor so revered not see this glaring deficiency in his voluntary diagnosis?

It starts with "am" and ends with "bition."

Dr. Frist got caught putting his hand in the cookie jar, trying to build his profile as America's favorite doctor, and then trying to transform this status into the Republican Party's nomination for president.

And ya know, as Capitol Buzz suggests, it's no wonder why Dr. Frist was so hellbent on getting medical malpractice reform: "Frist wants to keep himself from being sued. At the very least, he should be fired."

My E-mail to Mainstream Media Outlets...

2005-06-14T16:33:00.000-04:00

Today while visiting some mainstream media sites, such as CNN and MSNBC (which I hardly do anymore), I decided I was so sick of seeing stories about the Jackson verdict and the trial that I had to tell these people how disappointed I was with their coverage.

So, I typed out an email that I think properly conveyed my disgust, and I sent it. I thought I'd provide a copy of the email for everyone to read, in hopes that many others might send something like this to these media outlets as well. The e-mail is below...

To Whom It May Concern:

I'm disappointed by your 24 hour coverage of the Michael Jackson verdict. I know you probably get feedback about your choice of stories, and each letter or e-mail probably says pretty close to the same thing, but I have talked to so many people, and most seem to agree: the amount of attention this case has gotten is disgusting.

Democracy relies upon civic engagement, and for American citizens to be engaged, they need information -- information that is relevant to the political process. I'm sure journalism classes have taught you as much. My point is that when we are fed information that is wholly irrelevant in comparison to other stories in the news (the Downing Street Memo, the inability of twenty senators to support an anti-lynching resolution), we do not get the information, the knowledge we need to effectively participate in our political discourse, and thus, we become even more alienated from the political process.

You may click the delete button on your e-mail program (heck, you may have already done it, and I am just wasting time typing these words), but if and when you do, I want to make sure there is a feeling of guilt that accompanies the click of your mouse. Why? Because when you delete this email without responding to it, you're letting every other American down, including yourself, by actively denying Americans their right to be informed.

Thank you,

Craig Berger
Meadville, PA

Bipartisan Bayh

2005-06-14T14:34:00.000-04:00

Survey USA recently released approval ratings for each of the 100 senators in the Senate. In looking through these, I spotted potential presidential candidate, Sen. Evan Bayh's (D-IN) numbers.

Asked "Do you approve or disapprove of the job Evan Bayh is doing as United States Senator?," Indiana residents yielded a pretty consistent response across the board. First, 67 percent believe that he is doing a good job. But more intriguing are the numbers among Republicans and conservatives. Republicans approve of the job Bayh has done by a 61 percent to 29 percent margin, while conservatives approve Bayh's performance 62 percent to 29 percent. While popular among the right, he interestingly still maintains his popularity among those residents that are either liberal or Democrats. Self-avowed liberals approve by a 74 percent to 16 percent margin, while Democrats approve of his performance by an even wider margin, at 77 percent to 15 percent. The moderate numbers are much the same.

When one looks across the board, it is hard to find an approval number anywhere below the 60 percent mark. With Bayh's success in Indiana, a traditionally conservative state, could Evan Bayh be the darkhorse to challenge Hillary?

80%? That's a B-, we can do better.

2005-06-14T12:44:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, the Senate passed a resolution apologizing to the descendants of those who were lynched in the past century and a half. Sounds nice, right?

But please wait before you heap praise upon the Senate. I'm glad that Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and George Allen (R-VA) sponsored this resolution, and I'm certainly happy there was not a "no" vote cast against it. But... and this is a huge "but"... the bottom line is that Senators were not held accountable. Those cowards that did not want to make a statement against the Senate's repeated efforts fifty years ago to filibuster anti-lynching laws did not have to. The bill only had 80 co-sponsors, while there was no individual senator's vote on record (the vote was held as a voice-vote). Here's a piece of the story in today's New York Times.

Although the Senate garnered praise on Monday for acting to erase that stain, some critics said lawmakers had a long way to go. Of the 100 senators, 80 were co-sponsors of the resolution, and because it passed by voice vote, senators escaped putting themselves on record.
'It's a statement in itself that there aren't 100 co-sponsors,' Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said. 'It's a statement in itself that there's not an up-or-down vote.'

The stain's residue is still there. There are senators still more concerned about getting votes from their racist supporters than standing against something morally wrong. To use George W. Bush's metaphor, we're trying to turn the corner on racism, but I think some of us are still going straight.

Bottom line? It's hollow. It was a nice symbolic effort, but when it scores an 80% like it did yesterday, that is hardly substantive. I don't consider a B- an effort I should be content with should I get that grade on some paper or exam, and the Senate should not do so either.

Signs of Hope

2005-06-13T12:20:00.000-04:00

So if the Democrats really do intend on getting the majority back in the Congress, they need to jump on chances like these and seek to connect these situations with a platform regarding values. Hypocrisy is not a value, and the Democrats need to point that out.

U.S. Rep. Don Sherwood has apparently become a target for the Democrats, who say a “domestic incident” with a 29-year-old woman has left him vulnerable in his district. Still, even loyal Democratic Party officials concede the four-term Tunkhannock Republican will be hard to beat.

“We certainly think he’s vulnerable,” said Sarah Feinberg, spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “We’ve had several Democrats who have contacted us with an interest in running against him."

Democratic Party officials say at least one Democrat in the 10th Congressional District plans to mount a serious challenge to Sherwood.

The last paragraph is what is so encouraging. With Republicans messing up left and right (read: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely), the Democrats have their best chance in a long time of fielding good candidates. I'm blogging from the 3rd District in Meadville where an entrenched, ineffective Republican has only been around so long because the Democratic Party around here can not get top-notch candidates to run. Take 2004 for example -- a nut by the name of Steven Porter ran. An academic, Dr. Porter, along with his campaign manager, ran a campaign that was based upon the preposterous idea that you were doing well if you were consistently shouting over Mr. English. This guy, if he had actually made it to Washington, probably would have been censured within the first month for his unruliness! Yet, to illustrate my point, this guy still got 40% of the vote! 4 out of every 10 people that voted in the district voted for him! With jobs flying out of here left and right and the Congressman sitting on his haunches not doing a thing, this could have been an interesting race -- had the Democrats run someone who actually had a chance. Maybe we'll see this now with the Republicans having seemingly forgotten what "values" means. All the Democrats have to do is be proactive and write their own, non-hypocritical narrative connecting traditional liberal values with the issues Americans are facing every day.

The Republicans love to talk about individualism, and perhaps, at certain times in history, that's not a bad thing to discuss. But right now, we need community. The Democrats would be well-served to start zeroing on a message that seeks to make connections between their proposals and the "common good."

The Mainstream Media's Obsession with Damsels in Distress

2005-06-10T20:55:00.000-04:00

I'm convinced our national, mainstream media is desperate. Desperate like the girl or guy that can't seem to get their mind off the opposite sex and who they are crushing on for two minutes.

The news media is desperate, so they are sitting there waiting. For what are they waiting? For whom are they waiting? We saw it last week, in the story of Natalee Holloway. We saw it the last few years in the trial of Scott Peterson. Remember Jessica Lynch? We saw it with Chandra Levy. And even before that with Jon Benet Ramsey. They're waiting for the next white, attractive, female to turn up missing so they can report on the damsel in distress.

It's really like an assembly line. Once one matter is resolved -- either through the unfortunate death of someone, the reunion of the damsel and her family, or the case being closed -- another one is found. That is, one that fits the requirements. Eugene Robinson wrote an article in the Washington Post on the phenomenon of the "damsel in distress" obsession in the media, and I'll let him speak for me a bit here:

A damsel must be white. This requirement is nonnegotiable. It helps if her frame is of dimensions that breathless cable television reporters can credibly describe as "petite," and it also helps if she's the kind of woman who wouldn't really mind being called "petite," a woman with a good deal of princess in her personality. She must be attractive -- also nonnegotiable. Her economic status should be middle class or higher, but an exception can be made in the case of wartime (see: Lynch).
Put all this together, and you get 24-7 coverage. The disappearance of a man, or of a woman of color, can generate a brief flurry, but never the full damsel treatment. Since the Holloway story broke we've had more news reports from Aruba this past week, I'd wager, than in the preceding 10 years.

Of course this is not meant to trivialize the tough times these families went through, and it should not be read that way -- but the media should be criticized for making these tough times even more unbearable. Though it's horrible, the ongoing reporting of Elizabeth Smart's disappearance seven days after it happened will not affect me if I live in Salem, Ohio. Why do I need to know about the trial of Scott Peterson every day? The only thing that's happening with these situations is the pain for those families is becoming that much more magnified -- they're put under a microscope for the rest of the world to see. Why? Because these news networks exploit the stories for their own financial advantage.

And to twist the argument around, just in case someone actually thinks these families do enjoy the coverage, there are thousands of other families going through the same thing. 2,100 times a day a parent or primary care-giver feels a situation where their child is missing is serious enough to call the police (http://www.klaaskids.org/pg-mc-mcstatistics.htm). Families that are missing boys, families that are African-American, Asian-American, families that are poor -- do they get that coverage? And there are those who say that America has moved past bigotry?

Certainly we do have the First Amendment, which allows for a free press. However, with every freedom comes a responsibility. Maybe the media should be a bit more responsible with their coverage -- if they're going to do these stories, fine. But in my opinion, in order to do these stories up to my standards and Eugene Robinson's standards, it would be fifty years from now and they'd still be reporting these same stories. Why? Because there are more of these "distressed" people than just the white, petite, middle-class, attractive females that the mainstream media tells us about.

Democrats -- The Party of.. Values?

2005-06-10T20:13:00.000-04:00

This is fairly encouraging...from Political Wire:

A new Westhill/Hotline poll finds that 44% of voters say Democrats "better share" their values
compared to 40% of Republicans.

I would certainly hope so... after the close-mindedness, unethical behavior, and hypocrisy of some prominent Republicans has come to light, I would hope the public starts to question the Republicans' hold on the term "values."

UPDATE: Try this on for Republican values... Watch a Republican committee chair unilaterally shutdown a hearing.

Bill O'Reilly.. what a dirtbag

2005-06-10T16:18:00.000-04:00

So Bill O'Reilly has gotten even dirtier.

The other day, on June 7th, he doctored a tape of Senator Joe Biden (D-CT) speaking of the need for the President to create a commission to investigate the various detention camps the United States operates around the world on the June 5th's edition of ABC's "This Week." Senator Biden, who actually suggested that a commission be formed in his interview, was suddenly made to look like he was saying the opposite thing on O'Reilly's program. Take a look for yourselves:

http://www.perrspectives.com/images/fox_videogate_060805.jpg

So let me get this straight. Bill O'Reilly, the guy who ripped Dan Rather apart for his use of unreliable sources in the story regarding Bush and his National Guard service, took something someone said, flipped it around, criticized it in his usual condescending manner, and then proposed what the guy said in the first place? Bill, I can't figure out whether your ratings have declined because you've been doing this all along and people are just catching on, or whether you're so desperate to improve them that you resort to this garbage.

How 'bout some economic justice?

2005-06-10T12:18:00.000-04:00

Came across Paul Krugman's column today in the New York Times. I think it has a lot to say regarding our increasingly economically polarized society today, and the comparison of this society to that of thirty or forty years ago.

Working families have seen little if any progress over the past 30 years. Adjusted for inflation, the income of the median family doubled between 1947 and 1973. But it rose only 22 percent from 1973 to 2003, and much of that gain was the result of wives' entering the paid labor force or working longer hours, not rising wages.

Meanwhile, economic security is a thing of the past: year-to-year fluctuations in the incomes of working families are far larger than they were a generation ago. All it takes is a bit of bad luck in employment or health to plunge a family that seems solidly middle-class into poverty.

But the wealthy have done very well indeed. Since 1973 the average income of the top 1 percent of Americans has doubled, and the income of the top 0.1 percent has tripled. Why is this happening? I'll have more to say on that another day, but for now let me just point out that middle-class America didn't emerge by accident. It was created by what has been called the Great Compression of incomes that took place during World War II, and sustained for a generation by social norms that favored equality, strong labor unions and progressive taxation. Since the 1970's, all of those sustaining forces have lost their power.

Since 1980 in particular, U.S. government policies have consistently favored the wealthy at the expense of working families - and under the current administration, that favoritism has become extreme and relentless. From tax cuts that favor the rich to bankruptcy "reform" that punishes the unlucky, almost every domestic policy seems intended to accelerate our march back to the robber baron era.

It's not a pretty picture - which is why right-wing partisans try so hard to discredit anyone who tries to explain to the public what's going on.

What I don't understand is the idea that taxation is evil. Taxes are now being placed on products such as alcohol, tobacco, and other "sins," because, apparently, those evils, coupled with the wrong of taxation, makes a good marriage. Taxation is not the universal bad thing it is made out to be. When we think of things that are supported by taxes, we realize that our police departments, fire departments, and other necessary services in our communities could not run without that funding. In fact, when you think about it, there could even be something patriotic about paying taxes. You give to your government so that it can become better, so that it can provide the services that benefit the common good. Granted, the government needs to improve upon how it spends some of the money. But, with fiscal responsibility exercised, taxation is a necessary means for supporting our government.

As the policy has drifted away from favoring the lower and middle-classes, we can see what has happened. One of the more staggering numbers for me is the doubling of the average income of the top one percent of Americans, and the tripling of the top 0.1 percent. In a statistic I read elsewhere, the six richest people in the world own more collectively than the poorest 60 million. Socialism starts to look pretty good right about now. And no, I'm not a socialist, but when there's this huge gap with policies favoring the wealthy still in place, I'm sure that's what some people are seriously inclined to think.

I think the most frustrating thing about this whole thing is that we have the means of fixing it, we just do not have the will. The resources are there, but sadly, the motivation is not.

Apparently Bush is unpopular?

2005-06-07T22:49:00.000-04:00

From Alterman:

This just in: The new ABC News/Washington Post poll, here, shows 52 percent of Americans disapprove of the job President Bush is doing overall, reports ABC News' Polling director Gary Langer — the most in more than 75 ABC/Post polls since his presidency began. His approval rating is 48 percent.

Bush's Iraq approval ratings haven't fared much better: 41 percent said they approve of the job the President is doing in Iraq, while 58 percent disapprove — matching his career-high Iraq
disapproval mark.

George W. Bush’s approval rating is now a full twenty points lower than Bill Clinton’s was on the day he was impeached. Dear media, that means you gotta stop referring to him as a "popular president,” and no less important, stop treating him like one. If you want to be wimps about everything, fine, just don’t blame it on his ‘popularity.’ Blame it on yourselves.

Lower than a president about to be impeached? Twenty points lower??

Reform Ohio Now

2005-06-06T18:55:00.000-04:00

Alright, conservative initiatives and referenda on the ballot do not have to be the only issues Ohioans are asked to decide come election time. An organization called Reform Ohio Now has put forth a package of legislation for voters to approve on the ballot in November that needs support. It all looks pretty good. Who's to say liberals can't do the same thing that Republicans did with conservative voters when they placed the Gay Marriage amendment on the ballot for approval? The following are three different proposals that will reshape and rebuild a better Ohio government in the future.

Its a ballot initiative, and the petitions have just arrived, ready for people to grab, hit the steets and get it on the 2005 ballot.

Campaign Finance Reform. In December 2004, the Ohio legislature increased the amount that large donors can give to politicians from $2,500 to $10,000 and weakened Ohio's century-old ban on corporate contributions. This initiative would lower contribution limits to $1,000 per election cycle for legislative candidates and $2,000 per cycle for statewide candidates, tighten the ban on corporate contributions, and prevent fat cats from skirting the limits by giving contributions through their children. (Read the text of this measure here.)

Independent Redistricting. Most elections in Ohio are not competitive because politicians conspire in drawing districts that are handpicked to ensure that either a Democrat or Republican wins in a landslide. This initiative would take the redistricting process out of the hands of partisan incumbents and put this responsibility into a non-partisan commission whose members could not be lobbyists, former politicians, or party leaders. (Read the text of this measure here.)

Election reform. Ohio elections are currently administered by the Secretary of State, who is elected in a partisan election. Previous Secretaries of State have Chaired the Campaigns of Presidential candidates and taken other actions that draw into question their impartiality in administering elections. This initiative would create a non-partisan elections board to adminster Ohio elections, ensuring that voters will have confidence in election outcomes. (Read the text of this measure here.)

This effort needs VOLUNTEERS to collect signatures. You can sign up to volunteer right here.

The Georgetown Administration's Lesson

2005-06-03T14:24:00.000-04:00

I came across this story on the Sojourners website. It's encouraging to see students making a direct difference, while living out their faith.

This spring, more than 25 Georgetown University students declared that they would not eat until the university administration agreed to give its support staff a living wage. The nine-day strike followed years of pressure from the Living Wage Coalition, a student group founded in 2001 several months after a similar organization at Harvard succeeded in raising the minimum wage for their campus employees.

Armed with research showing that Georgetown workers earned well below what is considered a living wage for Washington, D.C., the Living Wage Coalition thoughtfully and strategically organized students and faculty, negotiated with administration officials, hosted weekly worker appreciation breakfasts, and built relationships with D.C. labor unions and advocacy groups.

The hunger strike coincided with Holy Week, which marks the end of Lent, a season of reflection and sacrifice. Strikers reminded university officials of Georgetown’s roots in the Jesuit tradition and its commitment, as it says in the university’s mission statement, to 'live generously in service to others.' When administration officials said they didn’t have the money to raise wages, students reminded them that Georgetown had raised $15 million for a boathouse. Was a boathouse more important than people? Student Gladys Cisneros pointed out that university President John J. DeGioia may teach an ethics and global poverty class, but 'when it comes to them [the administration] actually changing something, they don’t want to do it.'

By publicly highlighting the discrepancy between what the university said it stood for and what it was actually doing, the students awakened the moral consciousness of the student body, staff, and administration. Their dedication and courage forced Georgetown’s elite to confront their commitment to the poor.

...At Georgetown, the administration in the end accepted the students’ proposal for a wage increase and agreed to give contract employees the right to unionize, English language classes, and access to the library. For students who care about social justice but doubt their own ability to change things, this was welcome news. And it’s a reminder that, as striker Elena Stewart said, 'one’s belief in God and in the fundamental goodness and dignity of every person must be grounded in action and not just wishing for things to change.'

Something very similar to this was successful at Harvard. Maybe the religious right should use this as an example. This is the interaction of faith and politics at its best. This is what should happen when the two combine: a struggle for the common good. Barack Obama said it during his famous speech at the DNC last summer -- it matters to us, or it should, that a fellow human being can not make enough money to sustain a healthy and meaningful life. We're serving ourselves -- humankind -- by combining faith and politics here, and no one is getting hurt or being disadvantaged. Makes the fight for "family values" through the taking away of rights look pretty silly...

Edwards '08?

2005-06-03T13:15:00.000-04:00

According to the Asheville Citizen-Times, John Edwards has already started his 2008 Campaign for President.

John Edwards says he hasn’t decided whether to make another bid for the presidency, but the former Democratic candidate for the nation’s top job appears to be campaigning hard for his party’s nomination in 2008.

Edwards, a one-term North Carolina senator who was Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry’s running mate in 2004, stressed his familiar 'two Americas' theme in a speech Thursday to about 2,000 liberal Democratic activists.

...'I have no doubt he’s running for president,' former national Democratic Party chairman Don Fowler said in a telephone interview from South Carolina. 'I know he would couch his response in all sorts of qualified terms, but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.'

Edwards, who was criticized during his campaign for being weak on foreign policy, also met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair during a recent visit to London and is examining U.S.-Russia affairs at the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations.
Edwards, a native of Seneca, S.C., who turns 52 on June 10, heads a recently created poverty-research center at the UNC Chapel Hill, his alma mater.

Since November, he has traveled to Iowa and New Hampshire, which hold the nation’s first presidential contests, and swing state Ohio. He remains politically active through his One America Committee and has helped other Democrats raise money.

Welcome

2005-06-02T21:24:00.000-04:00

Just wanted to welcome any readers that just might be reading this new political blog that I've set up. This blog allows me to have a forum for my ramblings about politics, while allowing those non-political people the opportunity to get to read the xanga without anything political at all.

Please check out the links on the bottom right. It took me forever to get them in and saved without something happening, like me hitting the wrong button, or that window all of a sudden moving to another webpage.

Disgusting

2005-06-02T18:36:00.000-04:00

Why don't people get it???

A member of my church gave to me a copy of the Ohio Restoration Project. This project is led by so-called Christians who have a plan for Ohio. The project will target 2,000 pastors throughout the state to become "patriot pastors." These patriot pastors will be briefed on a specific political agenda and asked to submit names of their parishioners in order to increase a database to 300,000 names. These pastors will be asked to place voter guides in their church pews.
Ken Blackwell, Ohio's secretary of state and a governor hopeful, is named throughout the document. Blackwell will be featured on 30-second radio ads promoting this group's agenda and supporting the "Ohio for Jesus" rally set for the spring of 2006. At the end of the document are the words, "America has a mission to share a living savior with a dying world."

Hypocrisy... Gross hypocrisy

2005-06-01T15:50:00.000-04:00

Wow.. what the hell?

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Aides to the late president Richard Nixon have said that former FBI deputy director Mark Felt, unmasked as the anonymous Watergate source known as "Deep Throat," had breached professional ethics by leaking information.

G. Gordon Liddy, a Nixon operative who engineered the 1972 break-in at
the Democratic National Campaign headquarters in the Watergate building in Washington, and served four and a half years in jail for it, said Wednesday that Felt "violated the ethics of the law enforcement profession."

G. Gordon Liddy -- yeah, I'm not sure anyone cares what you have to say. Although you would know about violating ethics, wouldn't you?

'Pro-Life?'

2005-05-25T18:03:00.000-04:00

Pete Stark and James R. Langevin should be thanked for these awesome quotes. From Yahoo! News:

Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said the embryonic research bill would force taxpayers to finance "the dismemberment of living, distinct human beings."

The rhetoric didn't sway many Democrats.

"I don't need a lecture from the majority leader on moral and ethical leadership," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., referring to questions that have been raised about DeLay's travel, fundraising and associations with a lobbyist now under federal criminal investigation.

Supporters of the measure said many embryos that would be
studied would otherwise be discarded rather than implanted in the wombs of surrogate mothers. The moral obligation, they argued, rested on Congress to fund research that could lead to cures for diseases like Parkinson's and
Alzheimer's.

"Being pro-life also means fighting for policies that will eliminate pain and suffering," said Rep. James R. Langevin, D-R.I., who was paralyzed at 16 in a gun accident.

I love how those that oppose embryonic stem-cell research explain their hostility toward it by saying that they believe life is "sacred." The words that are being used are not the problem. The problem is the implication and assumption that these people seem to be making -- that those for the federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research do not believe life to be sacred. Langevin's statement nails it -- being pro-life should not merely mean defending what they believe to be life inside a mother's womb, but it can and should entail, in addition, the improvement of the quality of life for those who are undergoing pain and suffering.

Republican Christianity

2005-04-29T19:30:00.000-04:00

The Republican Christianity (from the April 28th edition of The Campus)
BY: Craig Berger

The term “Circle of Trust” is immediately recognized by those readers who have seen “Meet the Parents” and/or “Meet the Fockers.” For those of you who have not been privileged enough to watch either of these movies, Greg Focker, in the first movie, somehow manages to maneuver his way, with much difficulty, into his girlfriend’s father’s (Jack Byrnes) “circle of trust,” so that he gets Byrnes’s blessing to marry his daughter. In order for Focker to be a true member of the Byrnes family, he must meet and exemplify the very specific qualities that Jack has set forth.

So the first paragraph appears to have absolutely nothing to do with the title – I’m sure you realize this by now. Actually, though, it does. The term “Circle of Trust” connotes a private, exclusive, country-club image. For a few years now, we have seen a non-fictional “Circle of Trust” develop right in front of our eyes. This circle is found right at the heart of today’s Republican Party. The circle’s standards and guidelines have been set forth by people named Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Ralph Reed, and these pre-requisites are then implemented by people named Bill Frist, Karl Rove, and Rick Santorum.

The circle is centered on Christianity. See, apparently, in order to be a legitimate Christian, you must be Pro-Life, and you must not believe in the right of others to attack racism, homophobia, and sexism. Over the past few weeks, some Republicans, especially in the Senate, have increased the frequency of attacks on Democratic Senators for what they say is a rejection of judicial nominees based on their religion, Christianity. Most of these critics are of the right-wing, radical, and fundamentalist persuasion. Because these Democratic senators object to the extreme views that these judicial nominees possess, in the eyes of these Republicans, this makes these Democrats un-Christian. Apparently the only form of Christianity accepted is that of these right-wingers.

Jim Wallis, a visitor to Allegheny in the fall of 2003, and the founder of a Christian group and magazine named Sojourners – a group dedicated to “integrating spiritual renewal and social justice” – has spoken out against this religious McCarthyism. Poverty, Wallis explains, is one example of the religious right dropping issues that do not fit neatly into their two-headed message. Poverty is mentioned in the Bible 3,000 times, Wallis asserts, yet when is the last time those within the circle mentioned this topic on their own accord? Their silence on the issue seems to imply that it is not a value that falls in line with "true Christianity." What about environmentalism? Wallis points out that many people would argue that whether or not we protect what God provided us is certainly a moral issue. Is there not some morality in whether or not a government goes to war as a first resort as opposed to a last resort? “Values” encompasses much more than gay marriage and abortion (the only discussions that the members of the circle seem to value).

This circle, developed by the ideologues and zealots of right-wing, fundamentalist Christianity, seems to have seized most of the Republican Party. These Republicans of the Religious Right, over the past few years, have been redefining the term “values.” The plurality of the word no longer represents a vast array of beliefs and opinions to be valued. Instead, the plurality reflects the two beliefs/opinions to be valued by the extreme right. For the most part, Republicans have redefined the term to mean “opposed to gay marriage and against abortion.” If you, the reader, believe that gay marriage and abortion are morally wrong, congratulations – according to these Republicans, you’re set.

But what if you believe “values” is a word that reflects much more than stances on abortion and gay marriage? What if, as a Christian, you believe that poverty is an important moral issue? What if you are a Christian and a member of Students for Environmental Action? What if you believe that the war in Iraq was not waged correctly? What if something the Republican Party is telling you to value is not something you value? These are all valid questions, and in fact, there are quite a few people in America asking them. One poll done after the election in November posed the question, “What is the greatest moral crisis facing America?” The results? Sixty-four percent said either greed and materialism or poverty and economic justice was the most serious problem. Sixteen percent chose abortion and eleven percent chose gay marriage as the largest moral crisis facing America. Though many Republicans would love to have us think that the only two issues embedded in the word “values” are abortion and gay marriage, it is apparent that this is not the case[1].

The bottom line is that Christianity encompasses many different beliefs, opinions, and ideas – not just those sanctioned and approved by the Republican Party. To some degree, Republicans and the Right have succeeded: they have already been rather successful at painting Democrats and liberals as unreligious. But now, they are upping the ante – liberals that are Christians, in their eyes, are not the true kind. This is, quite simply, a lie. Abortion and gay marriage should not define Christianity. While liberal Christians may not share the same priorities as their conservative brethren, they still believe in the fundamental tenant of Christianity: God offered humanity Jesus Christ, His son, so that we all could be saved and enjoy eternal life.

[1] http://hnn.us/articles/9082.html, http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2005/03/gods_politics_jim_wallis.html