More Evidence Bush Wrong on WMD

Quess what--yet another investigation shows Bush was wrong. Don't count on viewers of Fox News to find out about this. I wish they had looked more at the politicization of the process.

WMD Commission Releases Scathing Report
Panel Finds U.S. Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons Was 'Dead Wrong'

By Katherin Shrader

Associated Press
Thursday, March 31, 2005; 8:50 AM

In a scathing report, a presidential commission said Thursday that America's spy agencies were "dead wrong" in most of their judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the war and that the United States knows "disturbingly little" about the threats posed by many of the nation's most dangerous adversaries.

The commission called for dramatic change to prevent future failures. It outlined 74 recommendations and said President Bush could implement most of them without action by Congress. It urged Bush to give broader powers to John Negroponte, the new director of national intelligence, to deal with challenges to his authority from the CIA, Defense Department or other elements of the nation's 15 spy agencies.

MORE

Chimp Facial Expressions

Official Calls Bush-Chimp Comparison Bad Taste
Thu Mar 31, 2005 08:22 AM ET

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Belgian trainers helping police to understand body language have caused a controversy by likening George Bush's facial expressions to a chimpanzee's.

Interior Minister Patrick Dewael said he was unaware of the pictures when he signed a letter promoting the training package for police dealing with unruly soccer fans, and said the idea was "of bad taste," Het Laatste Nieuws daily reported.

The training presentation pictured the U.S. president's face in various expressions beside photographs of a chimpanzee, the paper showed on its front page, in what was meant to be a humorous introduction to the subject of reading expressions.

Dewael's office was not immediately available for comment.
_________________

I don't see what the fuss is all about. After all, the technique appears valid:

Kerry aide calls for an end to Schiavo `circus'

Kerry aide calls for an end to Schiavo `circus'
By Andrew Miga
Thursday, March 31, 2005 - Updated: 02:38 AM EST

WASHINGTON - America may be transfixed by the emotionally wrenching Terri Schiavo case, but Sen. John F. Kerry [related, bio] has had little to say on the raging national controversy over reconnecting Schiavo's feeding tube.
Kerry's low profile in the explosive battle is in contrast to that of fellow Bay Stater U.S. Rep. Barney Frank [related, bio], who helped lead the Democratic response to the conservative-dominated coalition seeking to keep Schiavo alive.
Kerry (D-Mass.) was unavailable for comment on the case yesterday, but a senior aide accused politicians and journalists of exploiting the case.
``This is a terribly difficult personal tragedy for this family to experience, and elected officials and journalists should respect their privacy and stop treating it like a political circus,'' said Kerry senior adviser David Wade.
``Senator Kerry's prayers are with Mrs. Schiavo, her husband and her parents,'' Wade added. ``The courts have ruled and it's time for the politicians to step aside.''
Several Bay State congressmen, with the notable exception of U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-South Boston), have denounced GOP-led efforts in Congress aimed at getting federal courts to intervene and restore Schiavo's feeding tube.

Kerry on Bush's Budget

Bush's Budget Assaults Our Values

by John Kerry

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Last week's debate on the federal budget should remind all Americans that Washington is not working for them.

If the president gets his way, Lawrence residents should prepare themselves for cuts in everything from home heating assistance to vocational education to law enforcement. The president tried to cut the $1.3 million grant currently revitalizing Haverhill's Acre, Mount Washington and Highlands neighborhoods, but fortunately we were able to block that cut in the Senate.

The votes last week were more than ticks in the won-loss column; they were assaults on our nation's values. Honesty, opportunity and responsibility were all cut from this budget. These cuts should give us all cause for concern, because in the end budgets are a statement of your priorities. They are your values backed up by dollars and cents.

When considering the budget of the United States, honesty at minimum means actually counting every dollar we plan to spend. It sounds simple -- it's what every American does -- but this budget doesn't do it.

Ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost at least $400 billion over 10 years. That's not in the budget. The president's Social Security scheme will cost another $750 billion over 10 years. That's not in the budget. The budget ignores interest on the debt, which not even the most creative accountant would leave out.

This budget is like an Enron budget -- smoke the numbers, cook the books, hide the truth and hope no one finds out. When Enron went bust, stockholders were the losers. When this budget goes bust, the American taxpayer will be the loser. They'll lose because this budget does exactly what Enron did: It makes irresponsible choices the administration does not want you to know about.

The responsible choice would be to honor those who have worn our nation's uniform, but the administration made a different choice. They're raising veterans' health care fees by $250 a year while cutting taxes for millionaires. They welcome home our troops with $2.6 billion in unanticipated co-payments and fees instead of cracking down on offshore tax shelters. The result of these irresponsible choices: In Massachusetts alone over 22,000 veterans could be forced to leave the VA health care system, including 7,600 active patients. Some in Washington may be quick to embrace the symbols of patriotism with words, but too often deeds lag behind.

Responsibility also means keeping our nation on sound financial footing for the long run, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates we'll be facing over $5 trillion in new debt because of this president. These debts not only hurt your children in the future -- they hurt you and every family today. Almost 8 cents of every tax dollar goes just toward paying interest on the debt. By contrast, you only pay about 2 cents on the dollar for education. $160 billion goes to interest on the debt, not to giving health care to every child, fully funding No Child Left Behind, securing our energy independence or funding a military family's Bill of Rights. Eight cents on the dollar is a lot of money, and it's not buying you more security and it's not buying your kids a better education. On the other hand, bankers in Japan and Korea and Taiwan are benefiting, and you should be worried about it. Responsible leaders wouldn't turn our economic future over to the whims of foreign bankers. They would fight to keep it in responsible hands here at home.

The American people also deserve a budget that keeps faith with the promise of opportunity for all, special privileges for none. One of the dangers in tight fiscal times is you start hearing a lot of empty talk about tough choices that are really nothing more than excuses to destroy opportunity. We heard the excuses from the administration during the recession, we heard them during the war, and we've heard plenty more excuses during this budget debate.

The administration makes a number of "tough choices" in this budget under the guise of fiscal restraint. The budget gives a huge tax cut to people making over $1 million a year, but cuts heating aid and vocational education in Massachusetts by over $20 million. The budget wastes billions of dollars in corporate loopholes, while Boston Children's Hospital should expect a $7 million cut and almost 28,000 students across the state could be kicked out of after-school programs. The budget wastes billions more in offshore tax shelters, but cuts Even Start literacy programs in Springfield, Holyoke, Northampton, Greenfield, Pittsfield, Orange and across the commonwealth. The Safe and Drug Free School Program is completely eliminated.

There is not a tough choice in the list above, and there can be no excuse. The people deserve better, and that starts by demanding our leadership do a better job budgeting our cherished values of honesty, responsibility, and opportunity. John F. Kerry is the junior senator from Massachusetts and was the Democratic candidate for president in 2004.

New Source Debunks Bush's Social Security Plan

Are private investments a good idea in place of Social Security? We've had previous posts questioning the value of private accounts. Now Oliver Willis has found an unexpected source of information--Social Security On Line. The government's own site debunks Bush's proposals in this Q&A exchange:

Question:
I think I could do better if you let me invest the Social Security I pay into an Individual Retirement Plan (IRA) or some other investment plan. What do you think?

Answer:
Maybe you could, but then again, maybe your investments wouldn't work out. Remember these facts:

-Your Social Security taxes pay for potential disability and survivors benefits as well as for retirement benefits;

-Social Security incorporates social goals - such as giving more protection to families and to low income workers - that are not part of private pension plans; and

-Social Security benefits are adjusted yearly for increases in the cost-of-living - a feature not present in many private plans.

Filiblog to Save the Filibuster

Democracy Cell Project calls for Filiblog on the Nuclear Option:

It's Time to Begin the Filiblog!!

Senator Bill Frist is sitting on his nuclear option. The filibuster is in danger. Right now, the future of the filibuster rests in the hands of a few Senators--and, of course, US.

Because after all, THEY WORK FOR US. So no matter who you voted for, or what your persuasions are--take the time to think about this issue. Really think. Do you want checks and balances? Do you want discussion of judgeships? Or are you thinking that it is a good thing to rush appointments to the Federal bench through without much discussion?

The Democracy Cell Project is inviting all other blogs to begin what we are pleased to introduce as the FILIBLOG.

RALLY THE FILIBLOGSTERS

We are calling out to all of you, become filiblogsters by contacting the Senate and let them know how you feel about using the nuclear option in the confirming of judges. If the filibuster is to survive, the time to filiblog is now. Phone, fax, and e-mail your concerns and comments.

www.senate.gov

Senator Bill Frist
509 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D. C. 20510
202-224-3344
202-228-1264 (fax)
In Nashville
615-352-9411
615-352-9985 (fax)

You can start with Senator Frist and keep the filiblog going by contacting your own senators: www.senate.gov

FILIBLOG TODAY TO SAVE THE FILIBUSTER!

Kerry Reference Library Back On Line

The Kerry Reference Library is back, now moved to: http://kerrylibrary.invisionzone.com/
(It was necessary to move due to Forum Flash shutting down recently.)

The Kerry Reference Library started during the 2004 campaign and currently has about 2500 articles on the candidates and issues. The Library continued to be updated after the election, including new sections on moral values, Bush's second term nominees, Tom DeLay and the Republican Congress, and Terri Schiavo. Multiple other issues are present, so this site should also be a useful resource even for people not interested in the articles on Kerry or Bush.

Of course news and interviews on John Kerry have also been updated. At present articles posted until last Thursday have been moved over, and I'll be updating in the near future. There's still a little work to be done. For example, the graphics files (including Avatars and photos in some of the posts) have not been moved yet.

Registered members have been emailed with the new link, but many people read as guests and might not know where the new site is. To help get the word out to all former readers, as well as others who might be interested, I'd appreciate it if anyone with sites or blogs on related topics would post the new link.

The Best Government Money Can Buy

The Washington Post reports on how the "Fortune 500 companies that invested millions of dollars in electing Republicans are emerging as the earliest beneficiaries of a government controlled by President Bush and the largest GOP House and Senate majority in a half century."

In a front page article, the Post reviews the benefits received for their investment by companies such as MBNA Corp, Exxon, Wal-Mart, and other Fortune 5000 companies from Republican initiatives including limitations on class action suits, the bankrupcy law, and Alaska oil drilling. Wal-Mart, for example, has been a major contributor to Republicans, and benefits from the restrictions in class action suits as it is believed to be the most sued company in America.

Battle Ground Ohio

The New York Times reports on an attempt by Christian conservative leaders to take control of the state government and the Republican Party. Ohio is often considered a bellwether state, and whether they succeed could be an indicator of how far religious organizations can succeed in other states.

While George Bush used the religioius right to win a narrow election in 2004, in the future this might pit the religious right against the GOP establishment, with such divisions making it harder for them to win general election campaigns. If the religious right succeeds in controlling the Republican nominees, it might make it particularly difficult to win. Republican leaders fear this may occur:

Republican officials are watching warily. The chairman of the state party, Robert T. Bennett, warned that the decade-long dominance of his party could be jeopardized if it was pushed too far to the right. "This is a party of a big tent," Mr. Bennett said. "The far right cannot elect somebody by itself, any more than somebody from the far left can."

Good News, Bad News

The good news is that support for George Bush and the Republican leadership have fallen. Bush's approval has fallen to 45%, while support for the Congressional leadership has also fallen.

The bad news is that this translates into marginal improvements for the Democrats. The number of people identifying themselves as Democrats did increase from 32% to 37% in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, but the Pew Research Center Poll shows that people don't feel any better about the Democratic leadership.

The Democrats aren't able to capitalize on the Republicans misfortunes. The public opposes the President's Social Security schemes, but the Democrats have not offered any alternatives. The public opposes the Republicans on the intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, but have not heard a coherent position from the Democrats.

There are a few factors in play in the Schiavo case:

1. Some felt it helpful to let the Republicans damage themselves over this on their own. The problem is that it is not guaranteed that the Democrats actually benefit from public opposition to the Republican position
   
   
2. This may have been part of a deal to prevent a more widespread law from being written. This still leaves the impression of a Republican victory in Congress and nobody knows what the Democrats thought.
   
   
3. Republicans have been much better than Democrats at articulating a coherent underlying philosophy for at least 20 years, which has contributed to their control of all three branches of government
   
   
4. Democrats don't have the synergy with media the Republicans do. There are more spokesmen besides the leaders of the House and Senate. This was a good issue for Dean to speak out on but his comments received little publicity. If it was the Republicans, his comments would be all over Fox and talk radio at very least. This could also be a good issue for Kerry with his religious background, but his comments were butchered by being turned into a short sound bit.

These aren't problems which can be solved overnight. In an age of coverage based upon sound bites and brief news reports, the Democrats can't easily get across a coherent philosophy without any previous history in the minds of the public--but they most start somewhere. The Republicans have had a long head start on outlining their philosophyt to the public, making it easier to speak in sound bites on any single issue. I recently discussed one attempts by Democrats to do this in the Principles Project. I agreed with some people who commented that this was too long winded and sometimes poorly written, and even disagreed on some specifics in their ideas, but do find it hopeful that some Democrats are thinking along these lines.

Related Posts:

Kerry Sticks to Liberal Values at Kennedy Library Foundation Award
The Era of Big Government is Back--Under George Bush
The Rights of the Individual vs. The State
Liberalism Is A Demanding Faith

Blogs Influence Social Security Coverage

Liberal blogs do have some impact on the news media. This comes from ABC News's The Note today:

(f) Trustees say Social Security goes "broke" one year earlier, in 2041. (We add the quotation marks so we don't get spam from Josh Marshall's readers, and we're aware that the system still has money in it to pay about three-fourths of present benefit levels then.) Benefits exceed revenues in 2017, not 2018, the trustees project.

Fake Picture Alert

Reportedly this picture of the Bush twins circulating on the internet is a fake:

Republican Place Pandering Over Real Values

The hypocrisy of the Republicans is seen in this report from the LA Times. The key line is that "Bush's responses to the Schiavo case and the school shootings track with the preferences of two of his core constituencies." It's not a matter of the Republicans having real values. They just pander to the religious right and the gun lobby to get votes.

Bush Speaks Out and Stays Silent

His responses to the Schiavo case and the school rampage track with the preferences of two core constituencies.

By Ronald Brownstein
Times Staff Writer

March 24, 2005

WASHINGTON ? Does the "culture of life" extend to the victims of gun violence?

That's the question critics are asking after President Bush's contrasting responses to the two events dominating national attention this week.

Although Bush made a special trip back to Washington from vacation to sign legislation offering a new federal right of appeal to Terri Schiavo's parents, the president and his aides have said almost nothing about the mass shooting in Red Lake, Minn. ? the deadliest outbreak of school violence since the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Littleton, Colo.

The Minnesota tragedy has increased alarm among some school safety professionals about Bush's efforts to eliminate funding for two major programs meant to prevent classroom violence, including a Clinton administration initiative to help schools hire more police officers.

"It makes absolutely no sense that at a time when we are talking about better protecting bridges, monuments, dams and even the hallways of Congress, that we are going backward in protecting the hallways of our schools," said Kenneth S. Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services, a consulting firm.

Bush's responses to the Schiavo case and the school shootings track with the preferences of two of his core constituencies.

Conservative Christians pressed Bush to intervene for Schiavo, while the National Rifle Assn. and other gun-owner groups generally look to minimize the relevance of political responses to mass shootings.

MORE

West Wing: Television Imitates Reality, But Does it Better

In real life, we got nauseated watching Democrat Ron Silver cross over to support George Bush in the last election. On West Wing, Ron Silver's charcter, Democratic political consultant Bruno Gianelli, is working as an advisor to the Republican candidate for President.

The similarities between Silver/Bruno supporting the Republican end there. The Republican who Bruno supports is Arnold Vinick, played by Alan Alda, and is closer to Hawkeye Pierce (who Alda played on M*A*S*H) than a modern Republican. Vinick, who could never win the Republican nomination in real life, is a Republican Senator who I could support for President. He has been shown to be a man of integrity, and who is socially liberal. including support for abortion rights.

Bruno supports Vinick on West Wing because he is a man who can unite the country, supporting principles which are supported by the majority of people and are good for the nation. He advises Vinick that he could help him to a fifty state victory rather than carving out an electoral college victory by pandering to the right wing.

In real life Silver abandoned principle to support a Republican nominee who has placed politics above country, and has been one of the most divisive Presidents in history. Rather than supporting a man who has policies which are good for the country, Silver has supported George Bush, who has undermined the nation's security and has abandoned the principles this country was founded upon.

For those who are upset about the prospect of supporting a Republican for President even on a TV show, there remains hope. While Vinick leads on television, a real life Zogby poll shows a majority of viewers supporting the probable Democratic nominee Matt Santos, played by Jimmy Smits. If only real life Presidential elections were a choice between two good men as they are on the fantasy world of West Wing.

Center for American Progress Releases Health Care Proposal

The Center for American Progress, a think tank with some Clinton ties, has come out with a new heath care proposal. I have only had time to look at the proposal quickly. On first impression, one of the best things I can say about it is that it is certainly not a reintroduction of HillaryCare. Like the plan proposed by John Kerry during the 2004 election campaign, this plan starts with existing health plans and acts to make them more affordable.

The program does depend a lot upon extending Medicaid to low income individuals, which may be more realistic than a more extensive program but is far from desirarable. Wherever possible, I prefer plans which extend Medicare coverage rather than Medicaid.

In comparison to Kerry's plan (with information still available at the Doctors and Nurses for Kerry web site) I see a couple of concerns on quick review. The plan proposes to take preventative services out of the insurance system and start a new benefit plan. In practice I find that once there is a question of which of two plans is to cover a service, chaos often results and nobody winds up paying. There is not an absolute dividing line between what is preventative and what is normal care for a disease. If I draw a Lipid Profile on a diabetic patient (who typically have abnormal lipids), is this part of standard care for the patient to be covered by their ususal insurance, or is screening for lipid abnormalities to be the responsibility of the new preventative service system? I prefer Kerry's approach of encouraging traditional insurance plans to cover preventative care.

They suggest paying for these benefits through a new Value Added Tax. I fear this would be a much harder sell politically than Kerry's suggestion of rolling back the tax cuts on those making over $200,000 per year. There will be plenty of opposition to setting up an entirely new tax system, and the fear that once a small Value Added Tax is initiated to pay for this, it will follow the path of most taxes and continue to grow.

Center for American Progress Releases Heatlh Care Proposal

The Center for American Progress, a think tank with some Clinton ties, has come out with a new heath care proposal. I have only had time to look at the proposal quickly. On first impression, one of the best things I can say about it is that it is certainly not a reintroduction of HillaryCare. Like the plan proposed by John Kerry during the 2004 election campaign, this plan starts with existing health plans and acts to make them more affordable.

The program does depend a lot upon extending Medicaid to low income individuals, which may be more realistic than a more extensive program but is far from desirarable. Wherever possible, I prefer plans which extend Medicare coverage rather than Medicaid.

In comparison to Kerry's plan (with information still available at the Doctors and Nurses for Kerry web site) I see a couple of concerns on quick review. The plan proposes to take preventative services out of the insurance system and start a new benefit plan. In practice I find that once there is a question of which of two plans is to cover a service, chaos often results and nobody winds up paying. There is not an absolute dividing line between what is preventative and what is normal care for a disease. If I draw a Lipid Profile on a diabetic patient (who typically have abnormal lipids), is this part of standard care for the patient to be covered by their ususal insurance, or is screening for lipid abnormalities to be the responsibility of the new preventative service system? I prefer Kerry's approach of encouraging traditional insurance plans to cover preventative care.

They suggest paying for these benefits through a new Value Added Tax. I fear this would be a much harder sell politically than Kerry's suggestion of rolling back the tax cuts on those making over $200,000 per year. There will be plenty of opposition to setting up an entirely new tax system, and the fear that once a small Value Added Tax is initiated to pay for this, it will follow the path of most taxes and continue to grow.

Correction to Previous Post

CORRECTION:
When I first heard of this they were quoting Republicans in the state legislature which led to the impression that this was a Republican sponsored idea, but per the article linked above, the sponsor is a Democrat. (I also assumed he was a Republican as the area he represents is far away from the usual Democratic parts of the state.) The argument still holds as to why legislators should stay out of this, but we can't blame the Republicans for this idea.

Reactions to The Terri Schiavo Case

There's been a variety of responses to the Terri Schiavo case since the bill was passed giving federal courts jurisdiction. In California, the California Medical Association voted, with agreement by all but one of the 450 members, to "express its outrage at Congress' interference with medical decisions."

Congress is planning to have a hearing next week to decide if further national legislation is needed. Some do not believe this is a good idea:

"We don't really have a problem that requires federal action," said William J. Winslade, a bioethicist and law professor at the Institute for the Medical Humanities at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. "The state laws have already covered these situations relatively well."

There has been speculation that Harry Reid made a deal with the Senate Republicans to allow them to pass the measure without requiring a quorum (and without debate) in order to prevent such a move. Reportedly the compromise was to have such a law which only affects Terri Schiavo rather than more general legislation. If the Republicans are now going to go ahead and do this, the Democrats played dead in the Senate for nothing.

As a physician who is sometimes involved in end of life decisions which may result in cessation of life support, I am glad that they (so far) have prevented the current Congress from getting involved in more widespread legislation. I fear that the result of such legislation, considering the degree to which the Republicans are pandering to the religious right, could wind up unnecessarily inhibiting cessation of life support. The Schiavo case got messy due to differences of agreement in the family, followed by politicians butting in where they shouldn't. Most of the time these matters go remarkably well, but it is best having a somewhat free hand to do what makes sense at the time, while trying to follow the wishes of the family and those which may have been expressed by the patient. I fear what a mess the Republicans will make out of this.

An example of the bad judgement we can see from Republican legislators comes out of Michigan where a state legislator wants to prohibit spouses who have been involved in adulterous affairs from making decisions involving cessation of life support. (I initially heard this on radio reports over the local NPR stations, and it is also reported here.) Should these matters be taken to the courts, the court should certainly consider the presence of adultery in deciding whether a spouse is acting in the patient's best interests, but I feel it is overstepping the bounds of the legislature to make a blanket rule that adulterous spouses can no longer represent the interests of their spouse.

Howard Brody, a professor at Michigan State University's Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, took a similar position to mine:

Brody said the current judicial process to consider such issues is a good one.

"Who would be the person to best know Terri's wishes and who could best report to us what Terri wanted? That person might well be the person who lived with Terri day in and day out," said Brody, who added that a court has not stopped Michael Schiavo from being his wife's legal guardian.

"Who are we to say that they're wrong?"

“Since Taking Office, the President Has Cut the SBA More Than Any Other Agency”

We hear in the corporate propaganda press frequently that Bush is a friend to small business. However, the definition of small business is somewhat reaching, because if Bush and friends had their way, the real small business owners of America would be wishing they had filed for bankruptcy a few weeks ago, before the bankruptcy bill passed.

Real small business owners know that they have a friend in John Kerry. I’m talking about the small businesses that are the cornerstone of the American economy, the “rural, low-income, women-owned, minority-owned and home-based small businesses” that you don’t hear about in the news every day, the small businesses that are currently struggling under the Bush economy. Some of those businesses grow and prosper, and become larger corporations, but many remain family owned small businesses, mom and pop shops, as they used to be know and still are in rural areas. If you think about it, everyone knows someone who owns a small business, but companies like Wal-Mart would seek to drive those companies out of business.

Once again, due to John Kerry’s tireless work as Ranking Member of Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship, they still have fighting chance (unless the House rejects this).

Thursday the Senate passed the bipartisan Kerry-Snowe amendment which restores “$78 million for critical programs at the Small Business Administration (SBA) that President Bush had proposed drastically cutting or eliminating all together.”

MORE

John Kerry: The Eternal Optimist

Although the article in the new issue of Time about John Kerry could not manage to do with out a touch of snark, it’s a good read. Among notes of interest were the acknowledgment that he is using his email list “of more than 3 million supporters to promote causes he championed as a candidate” and that “Kerry plans to write a book on his views on national security.”

Here are a couple quips from the article, The Eternal Optimist:

Besides stumping and writing, Kerry is hoping to curry favor within the party by donating some of the $14 million left over from his campaign fund. He offered a vote of confidence to former rival Howard Dean, giving the national party $1 million when Dean took over as chairman. He donated $250,000 to the recount effort of Christine Gregoire, who eventually won a very close Governor's race in Washington. Venturing into local politics, he will probably endorse Antonio Villaraigosa in a runoff election for mayor in L.A., choosing a loyal supporter over incumbent James Hahn. "He gets to travel and gets to pick up IOUs," says former party chairman Steve Grossman, a Boston fund raiser who served as Dean's campaign chairman.

Kerry is also embracing the Senate with new fervor. Derided as an absentee Senator by Bush and other critics in 2004, Kerry seems almost everywhere on Capitol Hill these days, introducing bills to expand health care to all children, enlarge the military by 40,000 troops and rewrite election laws to allow any citizen to register to vote on Election Day. "I'm in a position to be more effective on these issues," he says.

MORE

Republican Sleeze

The Republicans have become so sleezy that even conservative columnist David Brooks objects. He notes:

Back in 1995, when Republicans took over Congress, a new cadre of daring and original thinkers arose. These bold innovators had a key insight: that you no longer had to choose between being an activist and a lobbyist. You could be both. You could harness the power of K Street to promote the goals of Goldwater, Reagan and Gingrich. And best of all, you could get rich while doing it!

After exposing recent abuses, he concludes by noting "It took a village. The sleazo-cons thought they could take over K Street to advance their agenda. As it transpired, K Street took over them."

With control of Congress being such a lucrative business, the Republicans are doing everything possible to hold onto power, ethical or not. Georgia Republicans are taking ideas out of the DeLay playbook with redistricting.

Ed Kilgore, sitting in at Talking Points Memo, looks at yet another act of abuse, but his theories on why we see such corruption more under Republicans is worth repeating:

There are Democratic and Republican Commissars, but in my experience, the GOPers are the most numerous and vicious. Why? For the same reason that you tend to have more corruption in Republican administrations: when you don't much care about the positive uses of government, and you don't have the political guts to cut it back as much as you would like, then government becomes little more than a vast patronage operation. And if chaos in services ensues, hey, it's just more proof that government's bad to begin with, right?

White House Expresses Orwellian View of Consent of the Family

The Texas law which led to the discontinuation of life support for Baby Sun contrary to the wishes of the baby's mother came up at a White House press briefing this morning. We saw more Orwellian logic come out of the White House, this time from Scott McClellan. In describing the legislation, signed by George Bush, which allows hospitals to discontinue care considered futile without the consent of the family, McClellan stated: "The legislation was there to help ensure that actions were being taken that were in accordance with the wishes of the patient or the patient's family."

A Remarkable Event: Bush Returns Early from Vacation

George Bush rushed to sign the Terri Schiavo bill last nigh, which is very unusual for a President who loves to spend time on vacation. AMERICAblog noted four items which George Bush did not find important enough to spend his time on:

1. The tsunami victims -- More than 100,000 people died in the worst natural disaster of our lifetime. Millions were left homeless. It happened just after Christmas and hit hard our staunch ally, Thailand. (Many, many Muslims were devastated by this disaster.) Bush couldn't be bothered to step outside for FIVE minutes and offer his heartfelt sympathy to an event that had the rest of the world riveted and shocked. It took Bush DAYS to do anything, even after his aides had bungled our first offer of aid.

2. Investigating 9/11 with Congress -- Bush spent months hemming and hawing and avoiding having to meet with the bipartisan panel trying to look into the worst attack on US soil in history. He finally, grudgingly, spent a few hours but insisted he appear with Cheney by his side, cause they were busy and needed to get this over with.

3. Heck, 9/11 itself -- On the day of the worst attack on US soil in our history, Bush spent hours and hours flying around the country when he could have just spent a few minutes to get in front of a camera and reassure the nation that he was in charge and we'd get through this.

4. Military funerals -- Bush is the first President in US history during wartime (and presumably peacetime as well) who has refused to attend a SINGLE military funeral to honor one of our fallen soldiers. It's not just the couple of hours he can't be bothered to spend; Bush thinks it would be bad politics to remind people that young men and women die in war, so why bother honoring them? They can take a hit on the battlefield, but Bush won't risk taking a hit in the polls. And if things are going so swimmingly in Iraq, why does he STILL refuse to honor our military?

George Bush and The Wrath of Khan

The Baltimore Sun shows where one Bush advisor received her views on stem cell research: "Diana Schaub, a Loyola College professor and adviser to President Bush, is convinced that cloning and embryonic stem cell research are evil. She says this belief was formed, in part, by watching Star Trek."

Most likely this view is based upon the stories on Khan, who appeared in a 1967 episode and in the 1982 movie The Wrath of Khan in which genetically enhanced humans wage war with humanity.

Star Trek does have some valuable lessons, which we previously discussed. Certainly we must always be watchful for potential misuse of science. However, there is a limit to how much to decide policy based upon adverse events in a television show. For example, denying people the benefits of stem cell research based upon fear of war waged by genetically enhanced humans is rather absurd.

It would have been far better if advisors to Bush learned from the positive lessons of Star Trek, including tolerance, accepting science rather than religious rule and superstition, and noninterference in the affairs of other cultures.

Women in Combat, More Prone to PTSD

If you read any ancient history, you know that centuries ago it was commonplace for women to fight side by side with men on the battlefield. This is not the stuff of mythology. It is fact.

Today, in Iraq women are on the front lines again fighting side by side with their male counterparts.

On a mission just south of Baghdad over the winter, a young soldier jumped into the gunner's turret of an armored Humvee and took control of the menacing .50-caliber machine gun. She was 19 years old, weighed barely 100 pounds and had a blond ponytail hanging out from under her Kevlar helmet.

"This is what is different about this war," Lt. Col. Richard Rael, commander of the 515th Corps Support Battalion, said of the scene at the time. "Women are fighting it. Women under my command have confirmed kills. These little wisps of things are stronger than anyone could ever imagine and taking on more than most Americans could ever know."

However, now we are starting see the effects women fighting on the front lines and studies are indicating that more women are suffering from more debilitating forms of PTSD. According to Paula Schnurr, a lead researcher for a 6 million dollar study on the effects of PTSD in women, “data indicate that female military personnel are far more likely than their male counterparts to have been exposed to some kind of trauma or multiple traumas before joining the military or being deployed in combat. That may include physical assault, sexual abuse or rape.”

Read More

Allow Terri Schiavo A Gentle Death

Assuming the feeding tube remains out, I imagined we would need some scientific data to counter charges from the right regarding the inhumanity of starving Terri Schiavo. I have read literature from hospices in the past regarding this, including advice that those on the verge of death (who are more aware than Terri Schiavo currently is) are often more comfortable without being fed.

I was planning to attempt to dig up such information from a medical or nursing journal. The New York Times saved me from going to the trouble. I often complain about the inaccurate information on medical issues contained in stories in the news media. In this case the New York Times did a fine job:

Experts Say Ending Feeding Can Lead to a Gentle Death

By John Schwartz

To many people, death by removing a feeding tube brings to mind the agony of starvation. But medical experts say that the process of dying that begins when food and fluids cease is relatively straightforward, and can cause little discomfort.

"From the data that is available, it is not a horrific thing at all," said Dr. Linda Emanuel, the founder of the Education for Physicians in End-of-Life Care Project at Northwestern University.

In fact, declining food and water is a common way that terminally ill patients end their lives, because it is less painful than violent suicide and requires no help from doctors.

Terri Schiavo, who is in a persistent vegetative state, is "probably not experiencing anything at all subjectively," said Dr. Emanuel, and so the question of discomfort, from a scientific point of view, is not in dispute.

Patients who are terminally ill and conscious and refuse food and drink at the end of life say that they do not generally experience pangs of hunger, since their bodies do not need much food. But they can suffer from dry mouth and other symptoms of dehydration that can be treated effectively.

Once food and water stop, death usually comes in about two weeks, and is caused by effects of dehydration, not the loss of nutrition, said Dr. Sean Morrison, a professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. "They generally slip into a peaceful coma," he said. "It's very quiet, it's very dignified - it's very gentle."

The process of dying begins in the kidneys, which filter toxins from the body's fluids. Without new fluids entering the body, the kidneys produce less and less urine, and the urine becomes darker and more concentrated until production stops entirely.

Toxins build up in the body, and the delicate balance of chemicals like potassium, sodium and calcium is disrupted, said Deborah Volker, an assistant professor of nursing at the University of Texas who has written extensively on end-of-life issues.

This electrolyte imbalance disrupts the electrical system that triggers the action of muscles, including the heart, and eventually the heart stops beating.

Defining Liberal Principles

Following the election there has been considerable discussion among liberals as to clarifying what it is that Democrats believe. I believe we are in the process of a realignment and redefinition of the meanings of liberal versus conservative. We've seen the south move from being solidly Democratic to solidly Republican. With socialistic economic theories being discredited in practice, the old definitions based upon economics have eroded, with many of the strongest proponents of capitalism now being on the left while many on the right, including the current GOP leadership, have abandoned support for the free enterprise system and small government in their practices if not rhetoric. Social issues have become the more meaningful distinguishing features of the two parties, with church attendance (or lack of attendance) being the best predictor of an individual's vote.

With many people working on statements of principles for which Democrats and liberals stand, one group I found of interest was The Principles Project which is working on a 500 word statement of principles. While not affiliated with the Democratic party, an article in the Washington Post does show these connections: The honorary co-chairmen are Reps. Harold E. Ford Jr. (Tenn.) and Janice D. Schakowsky (Ill.), as well as David Wilhelm, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) sent the group a letter of support, saying that "an effort like this can help us better define shared commitments."

Their statement stresses principles such as defending dignity based upon the belief that all men are created equal. They endorse strengthening democracy by measures such as transparency and tireless vigilance against corruption and abuses of power. They support promoting progress, including innovation and entrepreneurship along with cultivating the arts and science, and ensuring a quality education for everyone. They note that America’s security requires an effective military, as well as commitment to enduring alliances, and stress the importance of preserving our belief in democracy and human rights in pursuit of global objectives.

While there are items I would have stated differently, it is a good start at a cohesive statement of general principles which most liberals could support. With the right wing noise machine regularly dominating the media with their hatred, opposition to progress and science, xenophobia, homophobia, racism, and blind support for a government which becomes increasingly more intrusive in our lives, it is important to have such clear statements of an opposing viewpoint.

RELATED STORIES:
Kerry Sticks to Liberal Values at Kennedy Library Foundation Award
The Era of Big Government is Back--Under George Bush
The Rights of the Individual vs. The State
Liberalism Is A Demanding Faith

The Eternal Optimist

The Eternal Optimist
John Kerry is on the road again, listing excuses for losing in 2004 and looking like a 2008 campaigner
By PERRY BACON JR.

It seemed as if the campaign had never ended. There was John Kerry standing on a chair in a blue neighborhood of Atlanta, in the Democrat-friendly tavern Manuel's, speaking to 100 folks, many of them wearing Kerry-Edwards T shirts. The Massachusetts Senator insisted that he wasn't "one to lick wounds," but then he did: he noted that Bush had won with the smallest percentage margin ever for an incumbent and complained that the Republican team had six years to develop its electoral strategy while his had only eight months. And although he claimed that "my focus is not four years from now," he made sure his audience knew just how viable a candidate he had been--and could be again. "We actually won in the battleground states," Kerry said, adding that his loss in Ohio was so close that if "half the people ... at an Ohio State football game" had voted differently, he would be in the Oval Office now.

Kerry's words and moves suggest that he thinks Nov. 2, 2004, was merely a detour on his road to the White House. He has been holding private dinners with potential fund raisers and policy advisers, signaling he might run again and blaming his political strategists for many of the mistakes his campaign made last year, such as not responding swiftly to ads attacking his Vietnam service. He has set up a political-action committee to finance his travels around the country, which will include stops in 20 cities over the next two months to give speeches and headline fund raisers for other Democrats. And he is constantly e-mailing his list of more than 3 million supporters to promote causes he championed as a candidate, like expanding health insurance to all children and preventing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Kerry plans to write a book on his views on national security.

Besides stumping and writing, Kerry is hoping to curry favor within the party by donating some of the $14 million left over from his campaign fund. He offered a vote of confidence to former rival Howard Dean, giving the national party $1 million when Dean took over as chairman. He donated $250,000 to the recount effort of Christine Gregoire, who eventually won a very close Governor's race in Washington. Venturing into local politics, he will probably endorse Antonio Villaraigosa in a runoff election for mayor in L.A., choosing a loyal supporter over incumbent James Hahn. "He gets to travel and gets to pick up IOUs," says former party chairman Steve Grossman, a Boston fund raiser who served as Dean's campaign chairman.

Kerry is also embracing the Senate with new fervor. Derided as an absentee Senator by Bush and other critics in 2004, Kerry seems almost everywhere on Capitol Hill these days, introducing bills to expand health care to all children, enlarge the military by 40,000 troops and rewrite election laws to allow any citizen to register to vote on Election Day. "I'm in a position to be more effective on these issues," he says. But some of his powerful colleagues disagree. In a meeting with labor leaders, Kerry questioned whether Democrats had a coherent message opposing Bush's Social Security plan, annoying Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, who told Kerry not to lecture him on strategy, considering his failures in the presidential campaign. And some Democrats on Capitol Hill privately scoff at the idea that Kerry--never particularly popular in the Senate--can expect a leadership role just because he won 59 million votes last year. "In terms of having a louder voice in the Senate," says a Senate Democratic staff member, "I seriously doubt that."

In addition, Kerry faces an also-ran problem. "It's been a long time since the Democratic Party gave somebody a second chance," says Grossman. "That's a big challenge to overcome." But it might not be the biggest. Kerry may find that there is little he or any other contender can do to get his party's nomination if Hillary Clinton decides to run. The New York Senator holds a commanding lead in every poll of Democratic voters, and some major party fund raisers are saying they expect her to have a huge financial advantage over her opponents. "She'll crush them all," says a lobbyist who plans to raise funds for 2008 candidates.

But Kerry, for now, doesn't seem daunted. Discussing his health-care bill at a town-hall meeting in Atlanta, he offered advice on how to get it passed that seemed a nod toward his future. "We had a very, very close race," he said. "I've learned in politics that you don't stop. You've got to keep going."

The Right's Battle Against Science Extends to Imax Theaters

In a previous discussion of Disney World, I commented on how Disney often supports diversity and scientific ideas in an age when science is under attack from the right wing. I noted how Ellen's Energy Adventure at Universe of Energy promotes the ideas of creation of the universe in the big bang, discusses evolution, and is hosted by lesbian Ellen DeGeneres. In another era we would take it for granted that educational movies would include evolution and the big bang, but we cannot take this for granted in Bush World. The New York Times reports on how several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are being intimitated from displaying scientific ideas:

A New Screen Test for Imax: It's the Bible vs. the Volcano
By CORNELIA DEAN

The fight over evolution has reached the big, big screen.

Several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are refusing to show movies that mention the subject - or the Big Bang or the geology of the earth - fearing protests from people who object to films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of Earth and its creatures.

The number of theaters rejecting such films is small, people in the industry say - perhaps a dozen or fewer, most in the South. But because only a few dozen Imax theaters routinely show science documentaries, the decisions of a few can have a big impact on a film's bottom line - or a producer's decision to make a documentary in the first place.

People who follow trends at commercial and institutional Imax theaters say that in recent years, religious controversy has adversely affected the distribution of a number of films, including "Cosmic Voyage," which depicts the universe in dimensions running from the scale of subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies; "Galápagos," about the islands where Darwin theorized about evolution; and "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor.

"Volcanoes," released in 2003 and sponsored in part by the National Science Foundation and Rutgers University, has been turned down at about a dozen science centers, mostly in the South, said Dr. Richard Lutz, the Rutgers oceanographer who was chief scientist for the film. He said theater officials rejected the film because of its brief references to evolution, in particular to the possibility that life on Earth originated at the undersea vents.

MORE

RELATED POSTS:
The Bush Theocracy vs. Science
Return to the Dark Ages
Supression of Knowledge by the Right

Pandering Trumps Principles for the GOP

The Terri Schiavo case has attracted public attention as it has significance on many levels. The primary concerns involve the right to refuse medical care, but there are many other issues raised. One of the lessons seen here is confirmation that for the current Republican leadership talk about princles is generally just words to attract votes--and trying to attract votes is all that really matters.

Just as with opposing deficits, arguments in favor of state's rights were just tactics for the Republicans when they were out of power, not true principles.When out of power, the Republicans would argue for the need to restrict the power of those in Washington in favor of those on the local and state level as a way to reduce the impact of laws passed by Democrats. Since they have been in control in Washington, they freely ignore these principles. This is at least the third time since the 2000 election that we have seen how little true support the Republicans really have for Federalism:

• Following the 2000 election, Republicans went to the Supreme Court to overrule the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court on what should clearly have been decided at the state level regarding their election. While discriminatory practices--generally the true principle being supported by those who call for state's rights--may sometimes require federal intervention, this hardly applied here. In this case it was the Supreme Court which overruled the state court's attempts to see that all votes were counted. The prospect of controlling the White House trumped Republican beliefs in Federalism.
• The malpractice proposals from the GOP, which are really designed to protect insurance companies from loses and not solve the true malpractie problems, call for Congress to set an arbitrary limit on non-economic settlements. In other words, if someone's negligence should cause a problem such as blindness or death of a child, where the damages have a large non-economic component, Congress would override the judgement of the local court which has evaluated the case with regards to determining settlements. Here support for the insurance industry, which has been a major contributor to the GOP, trumps Federalism. Obtaining the support of physicians who do not realize how little the Republican proposals will do for them is an added benefit.
• Congress is now looking to the federal courts to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case. People may have honset disagreements over how it should be handled. Regardless of these disagreements, the case was tried in the Florida courts. The decision to allow the husband to withhold life support in the case of his brain dead wife is consistent with general medical practice. The decisions of the Florida courts should be the final word in such a situation. Here we see that pandering to the Religous Right means more than their old principles. Unfortunately, separation of church and state is one principle which the Republicans do not understand.

For those of us who follow politicis closely, finding that the Republicans are ignoring their previously stated principles is no surprise. We are aware of the work of people like Frank Luntz who tell fellow Republicans what to say for maximum political gain, regardless of principles.
For the typical voter, seeing how easily the Republicans will flip flop on principles like Federalism would be of little concern. There is, however, a principle which the Democrats need to argue, as there is the prospect for developing a new dividing line between the parties. This is a question of government interference in the private decisions of individuals. Ronald Reagan spoke of getting the government off our backs, but this was yet another case of Republicans deciding upon the words to use rather than supporting principles. Here is one of may situations where it is the Democrats who truly in support of getting the government off people's backs.

Becoming known as the party which supports the rights of the individual against unjust government intervention would be a valuable way for the Democrats to define themselves, rather than allowing the Republicans to continue to define them. This is not only the right principle to support, but one which could be beneficial poliltically. Once people understand that this is why liberals take a position, people might be more understanding of decisions they disagree with personally, such as keeping the government out of decisions over matters such as abortion rights, stem cell research, and sexual preference.

Being the party of individual liberty could also help attract new areas of support. Once identified as the party of big government intrusion into individual's lives, the Republicans may keep their support in the south, but are likely to have difficulties in the more individualistic western states.
Republicans have done an excellent job of nationalizing issues and expanding their support. As Republcans take unpopular positons such as with teh Terri Schiavo case, the Democrats must take advantage of this to show a true distinction between the party themselves and the true party of big government intrusion in people's lives.

More Data Questions Value of Social Security Privitization

Retirement Accounts Questioned
Paper Challenges Expected Benefits

By Jonathan Weisman

Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 19, 2005; Page E01

Nearly three-quarters of workers who opt for Social Security personal accounts under President Bush's "default" investment option are likely to earn less in benefits than those who stay with the traditional Social Security system, a prominent finance economist has concluded.

A new paper by Yale University economist Robert J. Shiller found that under Bush's default "life-cycle accounts," which shift assets from stocks to bonds over a worker's lifetime, nearly a third of workers would bring in less in benefits than if they remained in the traditional system. That analysis is based on historical rates of return in the United States. Using global rates of return, which Shiller says more closely track future conditions, life-cycle portfolios could be expected to fall short of the traditional system's returns 71 percent of the time.

MORE

RELATED POSTS ON SOCIAL SECURITY:
Social Security and the Young, or Beware the Great Deceiver
Democrats, Social Security, and the Investor Class
Democrats Response on Social Security
Fact Check Disputes GOP Claims on Social Security
No End to The Absurd From Bush on Social Security
Bush World Meets Bizzaro World on Social Security
Cheney: Privitize Social Security, Or Else?
Social Security, A Program For All Times
Women & Social Security, Some Facts and a Calculator
Fact Check on Bush's Social Security Proposals
"The Money in the Account" is NOT All Yours
Social Security Privitization in Chile
Scheming Your Social Security Down the Drain, What Privatization Could Mean to You

Kerry Interviewed on CNN

Sen. John Kerry back in the fight

He's been speaking out on the road and on the Hill

By Judy Woodruff
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry seems to be putting himself into the political arena more earnestly and more often.

He's been speaking out on the road and on the Hill -- promoting, among other things, his plan to expand health care coverage to all children.

On Tuesday, we talked with Kerry in his Senate hideaway for one of the few television interviews he has given since Election Day.

Social Security reform

I began by asking him if he agrees with Vice President Cheney's assessment that President Bush won a mandate in November for the centerpiece of his social security reform plan: personal retirement accounts.

Kerry: No. No, I don't agree.

I mean, look, the president won re-election and we honor that and respect it. But if 60,000 people had voted the other way, half the people in a football stadium in Columbus, Ohio, on a Saturday, you'd have a different outcome in this race. The president won by the narrowest margin of any incumbent president winning in history.

I think what he won a mandate for is to govern by unifying the country, bringing people together and seeking the common ground, not pushing an ideological agenda, notwithstanding every other point of view. So I hope the president in the next weeks, months, will reach out.

We're ready to work, we're ready to work in the interest of the country. That's what the country wants, is really get rid of the politics, get rid of the fighting, and find the common interest of the American people.

Woodruff: You say get rid of the fighting, but Democrats have made it clear, you and others, you oppose the president's plan, and yet it's clear that Social Security in the long run has a real solvency problem.

Kerry: Sure.

Woodruff: You've got people, baby boomers retiring. Don't Democrats have an obligation to talk about what you would do?

Kerry: Sure, and we have and we will continue to. But what we're opposing by the administration's own admission does nothing, nothing -- understand that -- zero, to cure the problem of solvency.

Privatization is not related to solvency. And so what we're trying to do is stop something that requires borrowing $2 trillion or more, adding to the debt of our nation and putting Social Security at risk.

That's a moral responsibility. That's not politics.

If the president will stop pushing the privatization and admit it's not going to pass and it's a failure, and move to a broad discussion of how we strengthen Social Security for the long run, he'll have a lot of partners here. We're ready to do that.

Woodruff:: So you're saying that will happen?

Kerry: I'm convinced. But you know what, Judy? The real crisis facing America -- you know, once again the president is out selling something in an artificial way. The real crisis facing America is not Social Security. It's health care, it's Medicare, Medicaid, and that's why I'm pushing so hard to get 11 million children who have no health insurance at all, to get them covered.

Woodruff: But this is a point. You call it Kids First.

Kerry: Right.

Woodruff: And you just put this plan out there last week. It would cost $22 billion a year. Is that realistic, Senator, at a time when we are in such -- this country is in such tight fiscal constraints?

Kerry: You bet it's realistic. You bet it's realistic.

You know what the president's tax cut that he hasn't yet given to people to make it permanent costs over the next 10 years? $1.6 trillion. Just next year alone, the president's tax cut for people earning more than $1 million a year costs $32 billion.

So this is a value's choice. What are your values? What are the values of the American people?

Do we cover children with insurance who are not getting immunizations for diseases that we know we've cured, who don't get medicine for asthma? One out of three kids doesn't get medicine for asthma. Do we cover them or do we give millionaires a tax cut? That's the values choice for America.

And I know where I stand, and unfortunately we know where the president stands. He wants a tax cut for millionaires. I want to cover children.

Woodruff: Now, you've also said you would go into the districts of members of Congress who vote against this plan. The Republicans are saying, good, they'll pay for your plane ticket to do that.

Kerry: Oh, that's...

Woodruff: Who's bluffing whom here? I mean...

Kerry: Look, this was a very close election. And the fact is that a lot of parts of the country were a margin of less than a percentage point.

They can put all the bravado out there they want, they can use their talking points, and can play their game. But I can tell you this, when the American people start to get organized around this issue, as they are, they're going to feel it at the ballot box. And that's how you make issues move here.

What I'm going do is take this incredible energy that people gave as a gift to our country to change our nation. Three million people on an e-mail list, countless numbers of people -- we have over 600,000 people who have signed on as cosponsors of this effort. When those people start organizing in their districts, I think you're going to see senators and congressmen sing a different tune.

Bush's Iraq policy

Woodruff:: About this time one year ago, John Kerry was hoping that the crisis in Iraq would help him defeat President Bush. We all know how that turned out. But Sen. Kerry is not backing away from his criticism of the president's Iraq policy. In our one-on-one interview, I asked Sen. Kerry whether the situation in Iraq is better now than what he had predicted during the campaign, given on the recent elections there and the moves towards democracy.

Kerry: No, I think it's what I said it would be. In fact, when I came back from Iraq about a month and a half ago before the elections, I said that we will -- that we ought to have the elections, that the Iraqi people want to vote and they're going to turn out in significant numbers.

But the real issue is how do you patch this government together and provide services to the Iraqi people as rapidly as possible so we can get our troops home and so we can reduce the risk to our troops?

I don't believe the administration has done all that's possible to get further international cooperation. They're certainly not training at a rate that the king of Jordan or the president of Egypt told me they're prepared to train. They're just not doing it.

So, I think you can do a better job of moving faster, but that doesn't mean -- we're all excited about what's happening in Iraq. I think it's great, even if it's not the reason that the president gave us for going to war and it's not the reason that the Congress gave him permission to go to war.

Middle East

Woodruff: The Middle East, more broadly. In Lebanon you've got big moves to get the Syrians out of there. The Palestinians are sounding more moderate. You've got stirrings of democracy in other parts of the Middle East. Is it -- couldn't it be said that all of this is an outgrowth of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein?

Kerry: No. The assassination of Hariri, we don't know why that took place and what happened. We just don't -- nobody has a rationale for it yet. The death of Arafat was a God-decided moment, not a war- decided moment. And everybody will tell you that those are the two principal reasons for what's happening.

Now, have things changed because of the election? Of course they have. I mean, I'd be silly not to honor what happened in terms of that election. It's wonderful.

I was there in the West Bank the day that the Palestinians voted. And it was -- you couldn't help but be moved and touched by the way in which they took pride in what they were doing and trying to accomplish. We've all of us always advocated democracy and pushed democracy.

I put out an initiative two years ago called the Greatest Middle Eastern Initiative, which could push democracy faster. I still believe we could be doing a more effective job of transitioning were we to have more of the world at our side in this effort.

Iran

Woodruff: Well let me ask you about Iran. Right now the president is engaging some U.S. allies. He's taking a less confrontational approach.

Kerry: Good for him, long overdue.

Woodruff: Is that any different from what a John Kerry would have done?

Kerry: It's what I advocated for long time. The president has adopted the John Kerry policy. I said you ought to be involved with the French, the British and the Germans. I raised this during the campaign, Judy. You can go back and see it in the course of debates and otherwise. I'm glad it's happening finally.

But, you know, should we jump up and down and be so excited in America because four years later we do things we should have done four years ago? Look, I hope it works. I want to keep moving in this direction. I'm glad the president's attempting a better and different diplomacy. It's good for our country. But I believe there's still more we can do more effectively and I hope we continue to move in that direction.

Presidential politics

Woodruff: We're already asking people what do they think of 2008, who do they think should be the Democratic nominee? Right now Sen. Hillary Clinton is out front in a couple polls. Is she the frontrunner?

Kerry: If she wants to be. I don't -- it doesn't matter to me who's the frontrunner right now. I think all of this talk about 2008 is unbelievably premature and then we have barely three months beyond the last election or four months, whatever. It's just too early.

And I think the focus for our party and for everyone really ought to be on these issues that we're just talking about and on 2006. We've got to win governorships, we've got to win state houses, legislators, Congress, senators. I'm going to focus on those efforts and, you know, what happens in the future will take care of itself.

Woodruff: Well, we checked, we looked back into -- and realized that it's been over 100 years since a losing presidential nominee came back to win the White House. It was Grover Cleveland in 1892. Does that history discourage you?

Kerry: I don't know what you're talking -- I mean, I thought Richard Nixon came back from losing and won in 1968. I don't think that's correct research, actually.

Woodruff: Since a losing presidential nominee came back...

Kerry: Yes, Vice President Nixon ran in 1960, lost to President Kennedy and he won the election in...

Woodruff: Four years later was the caveat. I didn't make it clear.

Kerry: Oh, well, I'm not sure.

Woodruff: Four years later.

Kerry: Look, you know what, I don't care what has happened or not happened. It's too early to be making decisions or thinking about it.

I'll make my judgment when the time comes and I don't care what history says or did. Now is now and these are the -- you know, the whole different set of issues, whole different set of circumstances.

But it's way too early to be thinking. It's just -- it's crazy to be thinking about it now. We've got 2006, all of us, to work on together as a unified party and that's what we're going to do.

Neocon Fighting Secrets Exposed

Blogs have been revealing the secret fighting techniques of some of the most powerful neocon warriors. We've shown a picture of their baby-eating technique. POE News revealed many of Rumsfeld's fighting techniques in a series of pictures.

Knowledge is Power has now revealed Ten Ways Dick Cheney Can Kill You:

Neither site pointed out the most deadly technique from Rumsfeld and Cheney--the technique which has killed far more people than any of these methods: lying the country into war.

Bush Flip Flops on Support For Free Speech in FCC Nomination

So much for Bush's earlier claims to be a free speech advocate. Previouslly I quoted Bush, in one of his rare statements I agree with, in stating "As a free-speech advocate, I often told parents who were complaining about content, you're the first line of responsibility; they put an off button (on) the TV for a reason. Turn it off."

This philosphy is not seen in his nomination of Kevin Martin to replace Powell as FCC chairman. Martin, who is currently on the FCC, is even further to the right than Powell in attempts to regulate "indency." The religious right has been pushing for his appointment, and we see that Bush has given in to the religious right rather than sticking to his previously stated principles of free speech. Martin wanted to go even further than the FCC in fining CBS $550,000 for the Janet Jackson's "waredrobe malfunction."Martin also wants to extend current restrictions to cable television and satelite radio.

Kerry on Budget

Remarks by Senator John Kerry “Unbalanced Washington’s Unbalanced Budget Debate” As Prepared for Delivery

This week’s debate on the federal budget should remind all Americans that Washington is not working for them.

To the public, the budget debate can seem as confused as it is contentious. The fact is, underlying this debate are fundamental choices about American values. The votes this week weren’t just ticks in the won-loss column; they were assaults on our nation’s character. Honesty, Opportunity and Responsibility were all cut from this budget. And these cuts should give us all cause for concern, because in the end budgets are a statement of your priorities. They are your values backed up by dollars and cents. And the American people who every day choose between doctor bills, car payments, saving for retirement and saving for college deserve better - because they understand better than anybody how to make a budget and live by it. They don’t get to hide the consequences in a cloud of spin.

Honesty, Opportunity and Responsibility - these are values most Americans live by, the values we pass along to our children - to tell the truth, to live up to responsibilities, and to work and sacrifice so our kids will have greater opportunities than we did.

Hold this budget to those simple values: Is it honest? Responsible? Does it create opportunity for all Americans? By any standard this budget fails to measure up, and even sells out our most cherished values.

Surely, when you’re talking about the budget of the United States, honesty at least means actually counting every dollar we’re planning to spend. It sounds simple, it’s what every American does, but this budget doesn’t do it.

Ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to cost almost $400 billion over the next ten years. That’s not in the budget. The President’s Social Security scheme will cost over $750 billion over the next ten years. That’s not in the budget. Saving middle-class families from enduring a major tax hike from the Alternative Minimum Tax will cost over $600 billion over ten years. That isn’t in the budget either, and astonishingly, neither is interest on the debt, which not even the most creative accountant would leave out.

What’s more, the President said he wouldn’t spend any of the Social Security Trust Fund. Now he’s spending all of it. The Bush Administration seems to be banking on Mark Twain’s old adage that, “A good lie will have traveled half way around the world while the truth is putting on her boots.” Well, the truth is catching up with them today.

Think about how crazy Washington must seem to people at home reading the headlines. They’ve already heard about the Medicare actuary who was forced to fudge the numbers and lie to Congress to keep his job. They’ve heard about the falsified numbers in Iraq on everything from the cost of the war to the number of trained Iraqi troops. They’ve heard about the EPA scientists who were pressured to downplay the harmful effects of toxic mercury. And now they’re learning the Administration funded fake newscasts to mislead people all across America. It’s one thing to watch Jon Stewart; it’s another to use your tax dollars and try to imitate him.

This budget is like an Enron budget: smoke the numbers, cook the books, hide the truth and hope no one finds out. When Enron went bust the stockholders were the big losers. When this budget comes home to roost, the American taxpayer will be the loser.

America will lose because this budget does exactly what Enron did. This budget makes irresponsible choices the Administration doesn’t want you to know about. They don’t want you to know they’re breaking a 200-year tradition of responsible leadership. For George Washington, responsibility meant the judgment to relinquish power, setting our nation on course for sustainable democracy. For Harry Truman, responsibility meant doing the right thing by our troops with the GI Bill. For Bill Clinton, responsibility meant the discipline to use the economic success in the 90’s to pay down the debt. And for us, taking these lessons from the past, responsibility means telling the truth about the budget and making the tough choices to be fiscally responsible while we invest in the future. That begins by rejecting a tax cut for the wealthy that we just can’t afford.

The truth is, this budget breaks faith with so many Americans, none more so than those who wear our nation’s uniform. We’re not being responsible to those who’ve served by raising veterans’ healthcare fees by $250 a year while we cut taxes for millionaires. We’re not supporting our troops when we welcome them home with $2.6 billion in unanticipated co-payments and fees when we could be cracking down on offshore tax shelters.

Several years ago I met an Air Force veteran I’ll never forget - Joey Dubois. Joey sits in a wheelchair, proud of his country and his service. But he’s still being docked his disability pay in this budget because we say we can’t afford to pay for it. If our sense of responsibility tells us anything, it’s that there are plenty of places to cut back, but veterans like Joey Dubois have earned the right to not have their disability pay cut by the nation they defended.

And if responsibility means anything, it should also mean a budget that keeps faith with those who wear the uniform today. We could be helping military families meet the inevitable increased expenses when a loved-one is deployed. Thousands of reservists, for example, take a cut in pay when called to active duty. Some employers make up the difference in lost wages, but many can’t afford it. We should offer a tax credit to small businesses to help pay difference. We should allow all service members to make free withdrawals from Individual Retirement Accounts for deployment-related expenses, like increased child-care and other costs. Instead of so many of us spending so much effort to stop bad things from happening, it’s time we came together to start making good things happen - and that starts with doing the right thing by our troops.

As many as one-in-five members of the National Guard and Reserves don’t have health insurance. That’s bad policy and bad for our national security. When a member of the National Guard or Reserve is mobilized, and unit members fail physicals because they haven’t seen a doctor in two years, that’s bad for readiness and bad for unit effectiveness. As part of a Military Family Bill of Rights, we could make health insurance available to all members of the National Guard and Reserve, whether mobilized or not. In a time of war, that’s what living up to the value of responsibility demands we do.

You know, some on the other side are quick to embrace the symbols of patriotism with words, but too often deeds lag behind. Let’s be clear: this budget leaves our nation’s patriots behind, and that’s unacceptable.

Responsibility also means keeping our nation on sound financial footing for the long run - keeping our responsibility to the next generation by refusing to dump mountains of debt on their shoulders. The Administration even has the audacity to claim this budget cuts the deficit in half in five years. But you heard the numbers before, the over $1.6 trillion in new deficits over the next ten years. The deficit isn’t going down - it’s moving fast in the wrong direction.

Think about it: The Congressional Budget Office estimates we’ll be facing over $5 trillion in new debt because of this President. These debts not only hurt your children in the future - they hurt you and every working family today. Almost eight cents of every tax dollar you pay goes just toward paying interest on the debt. By contrast, you only pay about two cents on the dollar for education. So, $160 billion goes to interest on the debt, not to giving healthcare to every child, not to fully funding No Child Left Behind, not to securing our energy independence or funding a Military Family’s Bill of Rights. Eight cents on the dollar is a lot of money, and it’s not buying you more security and it’s not buying your kids a better education. But you want to know who’s benefiting from our deficits? Bankers in Japan and Korea and Taiwan, and you should be worried about it. Responsible leaders wouldn’t turn our economic future over to the whims of Asian bankers, they would fight to keep it in responsible hands here at home.

The American people also deserve a budget that keeps faith with the promise of opportunity for all, special privileges for none. One of the dangers in tight fiscal times is you start hearing a lot of empty talk about tough choices. Too often the tough choices you hear about are excuses for serving the special interests at the expense of real opportunity. You heard the excuses from the Administration during the recession, you heard them during the war, and you’re going to hear more excuses during this budget debate. But I don’t think creating real opportunity is a tough choice; it’s the responsible choice.

Let me give you an example: This budget gives a tax cut for millionaires - that’s right, people making over $1 million a year - that will cost a little over $32 billion next year alone. The Administration is saying we have to make the tough choice to NOT provide healthcare to every child, even though that $32 billion could insure every one of the 11 million American children living without health insurance. What would you choose? If you were President for a day would you insure every child or would you give millionaires a little more play money?

Maybe you wouldn’t insure every child. Maybe you would fully fund No Child Left Behind. Maybe you would start rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure. But I know that none of you would give millionaires another tax break when we can make any number of choices that make our nation stronger and our people richer.

The budget is full of choices like this, but the Administration isn’t making tough choices, it’s making the wrong ones. The budget sells off the Arctic wilderness to oil companies while cutting funding for renewable energy of the future. They refuse to negotiate cheaper drug prices for seniors while the budget cuts healthcare for poor children, pregnant women and the disabled. The budget wastes billions of dollars in corporate loopholes while gutting the Manufacturing Extension Program that has created so many jobs. The budget wastes billions more in offshore tax shelters, but cuts funding for literacy programs and the Safe and Drug Free School Program. I just listed a lot of choices and there wasn’t a tough choice among them. If this nation is ever going to move forward, the Administration needs to stop making excuses and start making smart choices.

Pare back all the rhetoric, and here’s the difference on opportunity in the budget we’re debating this week. They say let's not import less expensive drugs. Let's not negotiate better drug prices. Let’s ignore the 45 million Americans without any health care coverage. Let's forget about patients' rights. Let's weaken coverage. Let's raise premiums with a phony small business health plan. Let’s pretend the answer for families struggling to afford insurance is just another tax cut for the wealthy that leaves them behind. And while we’re at it, let's dump the responsibility for covering low-income families and their kids on the states, and let them take the heat for dumping them altogether. That's how the president who promised to usher in a “responsibility era” proposes to deal with a real and present health care crisis. The President says he wants to create an “ownership society,” but the fact is it’s nothing more than a cradle-to-grave “irresponsibility era” that leaves you on your own.

Instead, we could be talking about a Kids First proposal that would be the first step toward ending this irresponsibility era and keeping our promises. And when it comes to giving kids health care coverage, it's a promise we not only can afford to keep, but one we cannot afford to break.

Covering all kids would reduce avoidable hospitalizations by 22 percent. Covering kids means replacing expensive critical care with inexpensive preventive care. And the long-term cost savings, not only in health care, but in education, in job training, in the stress on our families - are incalculable. We do know that children enrolled in public health insurance programs achieve a 68% improvement in measures of school performance. If no child is left behind in the doctor's waiting room, then we’ll have a much better chance of ensuring no child is left behind in school.

That’s a debate we could be having - if we had a budget that reestablished national responsibility for children's health care, built a strong partnership with the states, and most of all, kept faith with parents, who are fundamentally responsible for raising healthy kids. But that’s not the debate we’re having today - because the values of honesty, responsibility and opportunity have been cut from this budget and silenced. The facts are hard to argue with. An honest budget would actually tell the truth. A responsible budget would put the American people’s interests ahead of the special interests. A budget built on opportunity wouldn't destroy it for so many. It doesn’t have to be this way. I met so many families with so much faith in the promise of America. They hate hearing about a budget that slashes funding for science programs, because they believe their children should be at the center of the next revolution in technology. Every American I meet has a vision for greatness in America. It isn’t always the same. For some the dream is energy independence. For others it’s Internet access for every American. For others the dream is healthcare for every child.

People outside Washington believe there’s nothing we can’t achieve if we have the right priorities and work hard enough. They know a budget is more than a balance sheet. It’s an affirmation of the values that really define us: honesty, responsibility, and opportunity. A budget should be a statement of fiscal responsibility, and a declaration of responsible priorities. Let me put this as plain as I can: as a statement of fiscal responsibility, this budget is a sham. As a statement of responsible priorities, it fails the test of common sense. The result: opportunity lost for countless Americans.

Every time America has been challenged, our citizens have risen to the occasion to do the hard work necessary. We’ve exported Democracy abroad, and we should be proud of it, but we have to start making our Democracy stronger here at home. No one knows tough choices better than the American people, and that’s why we must have the courage and conviction to build a new coalition and speak the truth. When we do that, we will find a powerful ally in the American people. Thank you.