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.

Kerry to Speak on Budget Priorities Tomorrow

You absolutely have to admire John Kerry’s fire. He said it earlier today, that we have to continue to fight and he is right. If you are like me, you are feeling a little mournful about the day. But, there is so much work to be done and we have to pick ourselves up and do whatever it takes to get back on the winning side in the Senate and the Congress.

On that note, I just got word that John Kerry will make a major speech on America's budget priorities tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. to the Center for National Policy.

Senator Kerry will provide an honest assessment of the president's budget, the priorities in it, the priorities left behind, and what it means for the American people.

MORE

Kerry on Senate Vote Allowing ANWR Drilling

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Below is a statement from Senator John Kerry on the Senate’s vote today to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. The Cantwell-Kerry amendment would have removed a provision in the president’s budget that will allow oil companies to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It failed 49-51.

“Today we saw a Republican sneak attack on one of our most treasured natural wonders. It’s a sad day when the voices of the American people are ignored and the Senate sells off America's public lands to the highest bidder.

“Our work is not done. In the last 24 hours alone, more than 260,000 Americans have stood with us in my online petition to fight to protect our Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That fight is not over. This is more than a battle over the wildlife refuge; it's a battle over two very different visions of our energy future. The President has a plan to sell off our public lands to the special interests that his own scientists and economists admit will not make us less dependent on foreign oil and will not lower prices at the pump. We have a vision that will put America's energy future in the hands of Americans - by inventing our way to real energy independence and having energy sources that create jobs and lower prices.

“We must continue to fight to make sure that American ingenuity wins out over a special interest funded partisan agenda.

John Kerry, Standing Up for America's Future

In the past few weeks, we’ve seen a lot from John Kerry as he continues to stand up and fight for America’s Future. One of things that I have always admired about Senator Kerry is his strong commitment to the environment. From Kids First, to the ANWR fight, to pre-packaged news, and Small Business, John Kerry is not backing down.

Here are a few quips from another press release on the Arctic Refuge battle and some other Kerry news for the night…

"The fight over ANWR is more than a battle over the wildlife refuge, it's a battle over two very different visions of our energy future. The President has a plan to sell off our public lands to the special interests that will make us no less dependent on foreign oil and will not lower prices for consumers at the pump. We have a vision that will put America's energy future in the hands of Americans - by inventing our way to real energy independence, we will have energy sources that create jobs and lower prices - energy sources that no terrorist can hijack, no cartel can embargo, and that no American soldier will ever have to risk his life to defend.”

MORE

Kerry Protests Prepackaged News

Raw Story reports that the following letter, drafted by Senator John Kerry (D-MA), will go out this afternoon to Federal Communications Chairman Michael Powell, demanding an inquiry into the role of government agencies in ‘prepackaged’ news provided to news networks:

March 15, 2005

The Honorable Michael Powell Chairman Federal Communications Commission Room 8-B201 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554

Dear Chairman Powell:

I am disturbed by recent press reports, including a New York Times article published on March 13, 2005, stating that prepackaged news reports produced by the federal government are being broadcast on local television stations across the country without an acknowledgment of the government’s role in their production.

It appears that federal agencies, in an increasingly common practice, are producing and distributing hundreds of television news segments, many of which are subsequently broadcast on local television stations throughout the country. Very often, these segments are being broadcast without properly revealing that they were written and produced by the federal government.

Broadcast industry standards already discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) has sought to forbid federal agencies from creating prepackaged news reports “that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials.” Each year since 1951, Congress has enacted a government-wide prohibition on the use of appropriated funds for the purposes of “publicity or propaganda.” Yet this practice continues to flourish, and to make matters worse, the source of the information is not shared with the public.

I strongly believe that the federal government should not be permitted to manipulate public opinion by providing news organizations with so-called “news reports” that have been created by public relations experts, which are then broadcast without proper disclosure. Every American is entitled to know the source of prepackaged information that is broadcast on TV and characterized as “news.” Taxpayers have a right to know if their tax dollars have been used to produce the news they’re watching. This is especially disconcerting in light of recent disclosures that federal agencies have compensated professional journalists for presenting and supporting Bush Administration policies

I ask that you undertake an immediate, full and thorough investigation into this issue. I also ask that you determine if there has been a violation of the applicable statute or agency rules that govern a broadcaster’s obligation to disclose the source of materials that it broadcasts. In addition, please identify whether there are loopholes in your existing statutory authority that prevent you from effectively dealing with this issue and whether there are appropriate enforcement mechanisms in place to stop non-disclosure of news clips produced by the federal government.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry

Updates from Light Up the Darkness on ANWR Drilling

There’s a CITIZEN ROLL CALL at JohnKerry.com. Add your name now!

We have only 24 to 48 hours to try and save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Republicans are trying to sneak legislation through the Senate approving oil drilling and they are incredibly close to winning. We have to stop them.

I am joining with Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) in offering a critical amendment to stop this sneak attack on our environment. We will fight on the floor of the Senate, but we need you by our side.

There are seven key Republican Senators whose votes will decide the future of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Before they vote, we need to make sure they know that their constituents are watching, and that they will not be able to support drilling without anybody noticing.

Update (10:10 am, pst) - From John Kerry’s email alert:

Bring the fight to the home states of the seven senators

We need to launch emergency online advertising campaigns in the home states of those seven critical senators: Senator Coleman (MN), Senator Smith (OR), Senator Specter (PA), Senator Martinez (FL), Senator Lugar (IN), and Senators Gregg and Sununu (NH).

We need your help to bring our Save the Arctic Refuge message home in these six states. Help us fund an emergency ad campaign to make sure they know how strongly the people they represent feel about protecting the Arctic. Please make an emergency donation right now. http://contribute.johnkerry.com/

When Senator Cantwell, myself and other Senators stand up in support of the Cantwell-Kerry Amendment, we will have powerful arguments on our side. (I have recapped some of those arguments at the end of this email message)

But, to win, we need to be able to report directly to our Senate colleagues that massive numbers of citizens around the country - and in their own states - are rising up to demand that the Senate protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

That's why your immediate signature is so critical. http://www.johnkerry.com/RollCall

The Bush Administration and its oil industry allies want to send a message that they can drill for oil wherever and whenever they want to - even if it means targeting a place as striking, pristine and irreplaceable as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

They don't care about putting America on a genuine path to energy independence. If they did, they'd support efforts to increase energy conservation and to create clean, renewable sources of energy that no terrorist can sabotage and no foreign government can seize.

Let me be very direct with you. It is going to take an immediate and impossible-to-ignore display of grassroots support to stop them. That's why your decision to sign our Cantwell-Kerry Amendment Citizens' Roll Call is so crucial.

Thank you for acting quickly on this vital request.

John Kerry

P.S. Senator Cantwell, who comes from a state in the heart of the Pacific Northwest, has - at considerable political risk - courageously stepped forward to join me in leading this fight. We need you to help us win it. http://www.johnkerry.com/RollCall

HERE ARE YOUR SAVE THE ARCTIC REFUGE TALKING POINTS

• The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's 19 million acres comprise one of the last places on earth where an intact expanse of arctic and sub arctic lands remains protected.
• Drilling in the Arctic Refuge can't make even a small dent in meeting America's energy needs. U.S. Geological Survey scientists estimate that there is very likely only enough oil to supply America's needs for six months. And oil companies admit that, even that, won't be available for at least 10 years.
• An irreplaceable natural treasure, the Arctic Refuge is home to caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, golden eagles, snow geese and more. Millions of other birds use the Arctic Refuge to nest and as a critical staging area on their migratory journeys.
• Of course, the Arctic Refuge supports more than wildlife. For a thousand generations, the Gwich'in people of Northeast Alaska and Northwest Canada have depended on it and lived in harmony with it. To them, the Arctic Coastal Plain is sacred ground.

Update (10:50 am, pst): Audubon has list of a phone numbers for the key Senators to target.

Democrats, Social Security, and the Investor Class

Another voice agrees with the view I've expressed previously (here and here) that the Democrats must do more than saying no to Bush's Social Security proposals in the hopes that the Republicans will self-destruct.

I discussed this primarily from the viewpoint of the younger voters who are interested in private accounts. John Zogby looks at this from the viewpoint of an overlapping block of voters--those who consider themselves part of the investor class. This includes a growing number of people who have investments in retirement accounts. Zogby warns that the Republicans could achieve a realignment of voters regardless of whether Bush wins on Social Security. He concludes with:

To the president and Republicans: You may lose the battle over Social Security personal accounts, but ultimately you may very well win the war over party realignment. To the Democrats: Just saying no is not a policy and demographics are not destiny. Ignore the "ownership society" at your own peril.

Related Story on Democrats and the investor class

Kerry stumps for health care

Kerry stumps for health care

By TOM BAXTER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 03/15/05

The problems facing the nation's health care system far outstrip those of Social Security, Sen. John Kerry told an Atlanta audience Monday in the first of a series of forums across the nation designed to promote his plan to guarantee medical coverage to the nation's children.

"We've got a problem with Social Security, sure, but it's a long-term and not even a short-term problem," Kerry (D-Mass.) told more than 100 medical professionals, lawmakers, activists and others at the Academy of Medicine on West Peachtree Street. "The crisis is in Medicare and Medicaid and the lack of affordable health care for all Americans."

The 2004 Democratic presidential nominee is trying to build public support for his "KidsFirst Act," in which the federal government would assume all responsibility for enrolling and insuring all children under 21 whose family incomes are under the poverty level. Currently, the states pay half of this cost, and with tight budgets and a patchwork of regulations, many children fall through the cracks.

In exchange for increased federal aid, the states would assume coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicaid for children of families up to three times the poverty level ($47,010 annual income for a family of three).

The deal would result in more than $10 billion in savings to the states every year, and the additional costs to the federal government could be paid for by not proceeding with the Bush administration's proposed additional tax cuts for Americans making more than $300,000 a year, Kerry said.

The prevention of medical problems detected early in life also could result in major savings to the health care system, he said.

The proposal presents a "moral choice," Kerry said: "Health care for all kids vs. tax cuts for those who make more than $300,000 a year."

The town-hall-style program had some of the trappings of a campaign stop, although Kerry said he is trying to enlist bipartisan support. KidsFirst has been endorsed by several public health groups, including the March of Dimes and the National Association of Children's Hospitals, as well as some labor organizations.

"I think this is definitely a bipartisan effort. This is an American problem. We're talking about our children," said program moderator Dr. Sandra Fryhofer, a Piedmont Hospital internist who is a past president of the American College of Physicians.

The forum in Atlanta was the first of a series on KidsFirst that Kerry said he will conduct across the country in coming months. He said he also plans to write a book about what American families have at stake in issues such as health care and the environment.

At a meeting later with editors of the Journal-Constitution, Kerry said he wants to have a town meeting in South Georgia so that people "can come to me and pepper me with questions, so we can have a real discussion."

Making his first trip to Georgia since the primary elections last March, Kerry said he plans to sit down later in the week with his former rival and now the Democratic national chairman, Howard Dean, to discuss the future of the party.

Kerry, Cantwell Join to Fight Arctic Drilling

I reported earlier that Senator Cantwell would be sponsoring an amendment in opposition to the GOP’s insertion of an amendment to drill in the Arctic Refuge into the budget.

The fight is on to save the Arctic Refuge. John Kerry’s Senate website just released a press release regarding a press conference tomorrow with Senator Cantwell to announce the Cantwell-Kerry amendment:

Washington, D.C. - Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) will be joined by colleagues and supporters as they announce their plans to introduce a budget amendment in opposition to efforts to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge at a Capitol Hill press conference tomorrow - Tuesday, March 15.

The Cantwell-Kerry amendment rids the budget of language that opens ANWR to drilling. Kerry and Cantwell are leading the charge to protect this valuable natural refuge, and supporters and colleagues will share their views on this important fight.

WHAT: John Kerry and Maria Cantwell announce budget amendment to block arctic drilling

WHO: Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Senator John Kerry (D-MA), Savannah Rose Walters, 13 year old girl from Florida who is fighting to save the Arctic Refuge, Bishop Mark McDonald from Alaska, Other colleagues and supporters

WHEN: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 11:00 a.m. WHERE: Russell Senate Office Building Russell Caucus Room (Room 325)

The founders of LightUpTheDarkness.org feel that this is a critical fight that must not be overlooked. We urge our readers to participate in the various Actions Alerts here on our Blog and our Environment page.

Suppression of Knowledge By the Right

The right wing is continuing on a number of fronts to suppress free speech, unbiased news, and scientific knowledge.

Evidence of Fox New's bias is so strong that even Howard Kurtz, who is normally in bed with the right wing both ideologically and literally, had to acknowledge it. (Kurtz is married to Sharri Annis, who has worked as a Republican political operative and has written for the National Review and Wall Street Journal).

Kurtz discussed a report from the Project for Excellence in Journalism which found that:

In covering the Iraq war last year, 73 percent of the stories on Fox News included the opinions of the anchors and journalists reporting them, a new study says.

By contrast, 29 percent of the war reports on MSNBC and 2 percent of those on CNN included the journalists' own views.

These findings -- the figures were similar for coverage of other stories -- "seem to challenge" Fox's slogan of "we report, you decide," says the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Kurtz also noted a quote in a Detroit News story last week regarding Fox's bias:

Speaking of Fox, a Detroit News story last week called it "consciously biased" -- without attribution -- and quoted onetime Fox producer Dan Cooper as saying: "In the morning, everyone is told what today's key issues are and how those issues are viewed by Fox News. The entire staff understands how the organization feels about them."

Cooper subsequently denied making this statement but Detroit News editor Mark Silverman reviewed the reporters notes and found "we believe his story accurately portrayed what you said to him."

Bob Edwards, former host of NPR's Morning Edtion and now a host for XM Satellite Radio spoke on the media at Centre College in Kentucky. Reportedly Edwards warned that the United States is in a period like the McCarthy era of the 1950s, in which the government is stifling political dissent while the news media and the public fail to speak out in vigorous opposition. He alsosaid the "Bush administration holds reporters in contempt" and has become the "all-time champion of information control."

The Washington Post also reviewed attempts by the religious right to prevent teaching of evolution. They note that "the growing trend has alarmed scientists and educators who consider it a masked effort to replace science with theology." They quote Southern Baptist minister Terry Fox, pastor of the largest Southern Baptist church in the Midwest, as seeing this as part of the culture war of the religous right, believing that"If you can cause enough doubt on evolution, liberalism will die."

Unfortunately, if these reactionaries get their way, not only will liberalism die, but so will modern civilization.

Kerry Sticks to Liberal Values at Kennedy Library Foundation Award

There's been new interest in John Kerry's reception of the Distinguished American Award at the Kennedy Library Foundation. An account was posted in February on Light Up the Darkness, but I didn't have the opportunity to see this until it was broadcast on C-SPAN yesterday.

Kerry's description of George Bush's budget has been the most frequently quoted aspect of the talk and subsequent question and answer session:

"There is nothing in the presidents budget that is either truthful or makes sense. Nothing. The war is not included in the President's budget, the social security fix is not included in the President's budget..."

When asked about foreign policy, Kerry stated he is presenting his views in an upcoming book. Hopefully this will demonstrate his expertise in foreign affairs to a larger audience, and correct some of the misconceptions on his views from the smears of the Bush reelection campaign and right wing media.

I found Kerry's discussion of politics to be the most interesting aspect. Unlike other Democrats who are talking about needing to change our values, Kerry showed once again that he is the last man to flip flop. Kerry argued we should stick to our values. Most people voted against him not because of disagreement with his positions, but because of distortions from the Bush campaign and media. He noted that 77% of those voting for Bush held misconceptions such as that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks or that Saddam had WMD. What we need to do is not change values, but to find ways to get out the truth about what is going on.

Unlike Al Gore, John Kerry is remaining active following his loss to George Bush. He realizes the need to wage a continuing campaign and to start now to define his positions should he run again in 2008. When this is delayed until after a primary battle, it makes it easy for the right to run their typical smear campaign to redefine the Democratic candidate, as I discussed previously.

Arctic Refuge Vote Scheduled

The Senate convenes on Monday to begin consideration of the 2006 Budget which contains a vote on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I have read reports that the vote is scheduled for Wednesday, and others say Tuesday. We will get that info and keep you updated. Senators to target are Landrieu LA, Inouye HI, Akaka HI, Smith OR, Chafee RI, Snowe ME, Collins ME, McCain ME, Coleman MN, DeWine OH. DeWine was just said on Thursday that he wasn’t happy about “ANWR being shoved back in there.” I also read an article that ads were being run in areas of Florida, attempting to target Martinez. So this is definitely within reach.

Send Fax and Place Call Toll Free1-888-8-WILDAK (1-888-894-5325)

Two Days. Just Two Days to Say Two Things
Democrats have not lost our voice and Bush HAS NO MANDATE.America Demands Alternative, Renewable Energy

1. NATIONAL SECURITY
"You've got companies that have facilities 30 or 50 miles from ANWR. It seems like a natural extension" of their current North Slope activities, said Norton, who called getting at the refuge's oil "a national security issue."

AMERICANS SUPPORT alternative energy development.. Even in red state Montana, 62% of Montana seniors stated investing USB funds in renewable energy projects should be a priority.

OIL PRODUCTION could not begin until at least 2013.THE OIL does not have to be sold in the US.ANWR could produce 1 million barrels of oil per day, with a possible total of 8 billion barrels which the US consumes in less than a year.

The US USES 20 million barrels of oil per day, 44% for cars.

US CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS account for 25% of the world’s oil. Raising CAFÉ standards to 40 MPG would save 3 million barrels of oil per day.

GLOBAL OIL demand is increasing as developing countries emerge.ANWR would have no impact on gas prices.

2. DRILLING AREA
“Bush said oil exploration can be limited to a 2,000-acre site”

MAP OF 2000 ACRES TO SCALE (This is telling and needs to be posted EVERYWHERE)
THE ANWR.org web site, sponsored by the Arctic Power Lobby, states; “Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development.”OPENING ANWR will likely lead to opening state land, and possibly some tribal land as well.

THE OIL is believed to be in many small pockets scattered across the Coastal Plain.

PIPELINES will be required to connect to the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System.

RIVERS AND STREAM BEDS, key habitat for fish and wildlife, will be stripped of millions of tons of gravel to be used to construct roads, airstrips, and drill pads.

MOST PEOPLE do not realize that between 300 and 400 oil industry related spills per year occur in Alaska, averaging 300 gallons per spill. Most spills are not reported in the media.

MANY CONSIDER the Alaska Pipeline itself is ripe for a major disaster, according to an article published in the Washington Post in November 2000. The pipeline is over 25 years old and the oil industry has not spent the money required for proper maintenance, according to whistleblowers.

3. HABITAT EFFECTS
WOULD BE FIRST Refuge opened to drilling since the 1960s.

SOME PICTURES of Muskoxen are not on the Coastal Plain, (a complaint I’ve seen on some right wing sites). The Coastal Plain is barren, frozen and dark.

“RIPARIAN HABITAT frequently used by muskoxen are also likely to be used as sites for gravel and water extraction and winter road construction….” Muskoxen had become extinct across most of Alaska, 51 were introduced to the Coastal Plain in 1969 which has grown to the herd of approximately 400 today.

THE COASTAL PLAIN of the Arctic Refuge is America’s only on-shore denning site for polar bears.

THE PORCUPINE RIVER CARIBOU herd, numbering some 129,000 animals, migrates from south of the Brooks Range in the Arctic Refuge and Canada, to give birth to their young on the Coastal Plain.

130 SPECIES OF BIRDS nest and feed on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge, coming from as far away as Asia, Antarctica, and the Chesapeake Bay.

WHO VISITS The Refuge? Answer: Not Many (From the home page of the Arctic Power Lobby’s web site.) “Norton mailed the nation's network and cable news anchors a videotape – supplied by Arctic Power, a pro-drilling lobbying group in Alaska – showing the coastal plain in wintertime.” As if protecting wildlife and the environment only have value if people are going to visit.

Speculation on Kerry's Future

Mass. reps wait in the wings as Kerry mulls future
By Noelle Straub
Monday, March 14, 2005

WASHINGTON - To run or not to run poses a complex dilemma for Sen. John F. Kerry as he ponders a series of choices looming in his political future: whether to pursue re-election in 2008, launch another presidential bid, or try to juggle both.
Speculation has already spread through Massachusetts Democratic circles about Kerry's intentions, given the pent-up ambition of nearly half the state's congressmen, who likely would try for Kerry's seat if he gave it up.
Kerry has clearly aimed to stay in the national spotlight since losing the election, keeping his name on the list of possible 2008 Democrat contenders.
But the next presidential election coincides with the end of Kerry's Senate term in 2008, posing a dilemma the Bay State senator did not face during his failed presidential bid. This time around there would be political pressure for Kerry to give up his seat if he decides to spend his time jetting around the country in a second attempt at capturing the Oval Office.

MORE

Correction re Baby Eating President

Our previous post was in error. George Bush does not eat babies. He just kills their parents. Over 1000 American kids have now lost their parents in Iraq.

Neocons Exposed As Baby-Eating Cult

A Democratic Plan for Social Security

I have had some recent posts on Social Security in which I suggested that the Democrats should put out their own proposal on Social Security before Bush gets off the hook by declaring victory for a compromise plan. This view has met a degree of opposition from Democrats--more in reposts on Democratic Underground than in my original posts here. I have also defended John Kerry against attacks on this point.

I've noted the need for Democrats to present their views, rather than just appearing to be saying no to Republican proposals. By this I don't mean a concrete set of legislation, but statements to show more clearly how the plans from Democrats differ from those of Republicans.

Josh Marshall, who has probably written more on Social Security than anyone in the blogosphere, has also taken a stand in agreement with this position:

If the Democrats handle this right, the political suffering of the president and his party has scarcely begun. And they should suffer mightily for pressing a policy that would carve a path of devastation through the American middle class.

The grafs above only make sense if what the two are talking about is a much longer-term problem of public fuzziness over just what Democrats stand-for. And that very much is a problem -- one that had no little to do with their losing the presidential contest in November. But this is why Democrats need to take the opportunity of the Social Security debate to outline their values, their vision of where the country should be going on Social Security and related issues. Flatly opposing phase-out is not the problem; it's the first step to the solution.

In an earlier post, Josh Marshall also states:

This is a golden opportunity for Democrats to start explaining their vision of where we should be going as a society and how it differs from that of the Republicans'. That's what an opposition party does.

Sour Grapes from MyDD

Jerome continues his senseless bashes on John Kerry. This time he claims JohnKerry's website was a near-complete failure. It looks like sour grapes from the guy who lost the battle that mattered.

Jerome, along with his associate, and fellow Kerry-basher Kos, was on the Dean payroll to provide advice on the use of the internet. Where it counted, they failed. A poll from the Des Moines Register conducted at the time of the Iowa caucus found that most people who used the internet to find information on candidates voted not for Dean but for John Kerry.

Disney World vs. Bush World

Disney World is under attack again from the left again, this time in Counterpunch. While there is no doubt that the place is pure fantasy, I do not share the author's dislike of the place. Disney World does sell pure fantasy, but there is nothing wrong with escapism. The comparisons to the fantasy at Disney World to the fantasy world view promoted by the Bush administration is not a fair comparison. Disney openly admits their world is fantasy. Defenders of Bush World do not.

If you want to use a standard of ideological purity, sure Disney would not pass. They do not intend to take a stand on current political disputes, and the point is to be a place for fun for everyone, regardless of beliefs. While Eisner refused to distribute Fahrenheit 911, we must also keep in mind that it was Miramax, a Disney subsidiary, which financed the movie.

Disney has often been boycotted by the right for "promotion of the homosexual agenda." My favorite park, Epcot, contains two sections. World Showcase is dedicated to understanding of different nations, which is far preferable to the Bush World philosophy of spreading democracy by invading them. Rather than hating the French as advocated by the right, visitors to Disney World can view a great movie on the country, eat fantastic pastries at Boulangerie Paitisserie, or eat at either of two French restaurants. (Dining tips: the less well known Bistro de Paris on the upper floor is much better than Chefs de France on the main level. The absolute best food in the World is at California Grill in the Contemporary Resort and Flying Fish at the Boardwalk. Try to hit California Grill during fireworks at Magic Kingdom, when the lights are dimmed and the sound is piped in. I usually wait until after Illuminations is completed at Epcot to have dinner at Flying Fish.)

Epcot also contains Future World, dedicated to science and progress--two ideas under attack in Bush World. Perhaps the most radical departure from Bush World orthodoxy is seen in Ellen's Energy Adventure at Universe of Energy. The show promotes the ideas of creation of the universe in the big bang, discusses evolution, and is hosted by lesbian Ellen DeGeneres.

Despite any political commentaries, the real reason we go to Disney World is for fun. That's where I went on Inauguration Day to escape the bad news, rather than going to Washington, D.C. as I initially planned. Unlike Bush World, you can turn off the fantasy if desired and return to reality. If Disney World is really so bad, I wonder why the author of the Counterpunch article went there at all.

We're Number 13

If George Bush wants to spread democracy through the world, there might be a little work to do at home. Freedom House has ranked the countries of the world with regards to being democratic. The United States falls at number 13, pulled down by the number 14 rank for corruption. This puts us well behind Canada (9th), and between Germany and Austria. I guess if they can turn things around after their Nazi era, there remains hope for America post-Bush. We are also three spots ahead of post-Franco Spain, six spots ahead of Chile, and, don't forget Poland at number 27. We are the eighth most Democratic country in NATO and 4th in the G8. Finland is number one world wide.

Who Would Have Guessed The SOB Does Have a Heart?

I guess this proves that Tom DeLay actually does have a heart. Never would have guessed, but i did find this in the New York Times. Of course they were wrong about WMD.

DeLay Is Treated by Cardiologist

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: March 11, 2005

ASHINGTON, March 10 (AP) - Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, was treated for a heart ailment on Thursday at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., his office said.

MORE

Secret Ending To Next Star Wars Movie Revealed

GOP Election Tampering May Involve Bill Frist

Former New Hampshire Republican Party Executive Director Chuck McGee was sentenced to seven months in prison yesterday for the 2002 phone jamming scheme per the Union Leader. We reported on another conviction of a head of a Republican consulting group in February.

Josh Marshall has further background, pointing out that Bill Frist chaired NRSC, the campaign committee of the Senate GOP, when this election tampering was first organized, and that there is talk that this plan was reviewed in advance with the NRSC.

Fact Check Disputes GOP Claims on Social Security

Pro-Bush Group Overstates Social Security Shortfall

Summary

In a new TV ad, Progress for America exaggerates the true state of Social Security's finances by comparing it to the Titanic. The ad claims the system will go "bankrupt" if nothing is done and that we must rescue the program "before it hits the iceberg." Actually, neutral experts predict the system can pay between 70 and 80 percent of currently scheduled benefits even if the Trust Fund is exhausted, which isn't predicted to happen for another 37 years, at least.

The ad also touts Bush's plan for "voluntary personal retirement accounts" as though that would improve the system's finances. But even the White House now acknowledges that individual accounts alone do nothing to fix the system's long-term financial shortfall.

MORE

No End to The Absurd From Bush on Social Security

Only George Bush would try to turn poor access to health care and shorter life span by blacks to his political advantage--an argument as absurd as the one we covered yesterday. Obama's not going to let him get away with this one.

Obama slams Bush for linking accounts to blacks' life span
Social Security pitch `stunning,' he says

By Jeff Zeleny, Washington Bureau
Published March 11, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday called President Bush's suggestion that African-Americans could reap greater rewards from overhauling Social Security a "stunning" argument that ignored the true health issues facing blacks in this country.

As the president launched a two-day tour through the South to build support for his controversial plan to revamp Social Security, Democrats challenged a White House assertion that blacks would particularly gain from Bush's proposed private retirement accounts because they have fewer years to collect benefits considering they die younger.

"It is puzzling to me that we are even having this debate about whether Social Security is good or not for African-Americans," said Obama, an Illinois Democrat. "I frankly found the statement that the president made somewhat offensive."

MORE

TV Alert

C-SPAN Sunday evening:

American Politics: Sen. Kerry Remarks at JFK Library (6:30pm)

Republicans Benefit From Porn Industry

I've previously commented on Congressman Upton's perverse values, in considering his bill to increase fines for indency on television to be "delivering something of real value to American families." It's not as if he gave them something they could really use, like health care or jobs.

It turns out that Upton is also a hypocrit, along with forteen other members of Congress. Upton accepted over $56,000 in contributions from corporations and executives who make substantial profits from selling pornography. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington issued a report fifteen members of Congress who received such contributions.

Read The News--Don't Watch TV

A study to be published in Mass Communicatins & Society showed distinct differences between people who received their news from television versus print media, again casting doubt about the conservative claims of a liberal media:

Liberals who gleaned most of their news from television in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks increased their support for expanded police powers, bringing them closer in line with the opinions of conservatives, a study by a UW-Madison researcher shows.

In contrast, heavy newspaper reading by liberals was related to lower levels of support for expanded police powers and for limits on privacy and freedom of information, basically reinforcing the differences between liberals and conservatives, says Dietram Scheufele, a journalism professor who conducted the study.

The lead investigator says "It wasn't just a Fox News phenomenon. It was across all of the TV coverage." The article specifically cites coverage on CNN and MSNBC to show it isn't just a Fox News phenomenon. As CNN and MSNBC have moved considerably towards the right, this is no surprise. No information on this account how network news compared to cable news. That might be academic anyways, with the recent moves to the right by NBC and CBS.

Court Nominees No Better The Second Time

We've seen the terrible appointees to the Cabinet from George Bush, and the choice of an opponent of the UN as ambassador. Battles over court appointees remain ahead. The New York Times has provided some examples of the types of nominees Bush plans to send back who were previously rejected by the Senate:

William Myers III, one of the seven filibustered nominees, has built a career as an anti-environmental extremist. He was a longtime lobbyist for the mining and cattle industries. Then, as the Interior Department's top lawyer, he put those industries' interests ahead of the public interest. In one controversial legal opinion, he overturned a decision that would have protected American Indian sacred sites, clearing the way for a company to do extensive mining in the area. Mr. Myers has been nominated to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco. That court plays a major role in determining the environmental law that applies to the Western states.

Terrence Boyle, who has been nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, is also a troubling choice. He has an extraordinarily high reversal rate for a district court judge. Many of the decisions that have been criticized by higher courts wrongly rejected claims involving civil rights, sex discrimination and disability rights. Mr. Boyle's record is particularly troubling because the court reversing him, the Fourth Circuit, is perhaps the most hostile to civil rights in the federal appellate system, and even it has regularly found his rulings objectionable.

Thomas Griffith, who has been nominated to the powerful Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has the unfortunate distinction of having practiced law in two jurisdictions without the required licenses. While practicing law in Washington, D.C., he failed to renew his license for three years. Mr. Griffith blamed his law firm's staff for that omission, but the responsibility was his. When he later practiced law in Utah as general counsel at Brigham Young University, he never bothered to get a Utah license.

Mr. Myers, Mr. Boyle, and Mr. Griffith were chosen for their archconservative political views, not their qualifications for the bench. No impartial person interested in choosing only the best possible judges would have put them at the top of the list. The federal judiciary is one of the cornerstones of American government - one of the three branches the nation's founders created, and set against one another, to guide the nation and keep it free. Surely this vital institution deserves better.

Bush Failing To Keep Us Safe In The Air

It's amazing that voters fell for the line that Bush was keeping us safe from terrorism. Here's yet another counter example:

Pilots' group: Aviation security programs failing

TSA: Report card 'a cheap union publicity stunt'

From Mike M. Ahlers
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An airline pilots group is giving dismal grades to aviation security, saying "gaping holes" remain almost four years after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.

The group gives failing or near-failing grades to the government and airlines for most aspects of security, from the airport perimeter to the cockpit, concluding that security measures deserve a grade point average of about 1.1.

The best grades go to two areas that have received a lot of attention.

Airport baggage screening received a grade of "B." Cockpit doors also received a "B," although the group noted that strengthened cockpit doors are not mandated in cargo planes of foreign carriers.

The "Aviation Security Report Card" was compiled by the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations, a trade association of five pilot unions that represent 22,000 pilots. The Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations is smaller, and it has tended to be more critical of government and industry than the Air Line Pilots Association, which represents 64,000 pilots at 41 airlines in the United States and Canada.

CAPA, for example, wants airlines to immediately install systems to counter the threat of shoulder-fired systems, while ALPA says current anti-missile systems are not suitable for deployment on commercial aircraft, a conclusion also reached by RAND Corp. researchers.

"The technology exists, or could be updated, to address many of these security problems," CAPA President Jon Safley said in a prepared statement. "But neither the airlines, the airports nor government officials have given these issues the priority they deserve."

About $5.6 billion of the Transportation Security Administration's $5.8 billion annual budget is directed toward aviation security.

In a written response, a TSA spokesman said, "CAPA's 'report card' amounts to little more than than a cheap union publicity stunt. The only thing it demonstrates is that CAPA leaders have been cutting class and missed most of the security lessons of the last year."

The Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations grades 13 areas of security. They are, from best to worse (comments reflect group's statements):

• Screening bags: "B." Baggage screening has improved, but some scanners still don't detect explosives.
• Cockpit doors: "B." The reinforced doors work, but are not mandated on cargo or foreign carriers.
• Federal air marshals: "C." Air marshals do a good job, but there are too few, and they cover a limited number of flights. The exact number of air marshals is classified.
• Crew training in classroom: "C." Security training varies widely from airline to airline, and there is no program for cargo crews.
• Perimeter security: "D." There is a lack of Transportation Security Administration oversight, and security is inconsistent from airport to airport.
• Threat intelligence: "D." Few airlines share crucial threat updates with their pilots.
• Pilots with Guns (on passenger planes): "D." The Federal Flight Deck Officer program, which trains pilots to carry handguns while in the cockpit, has "poor operational policies" that limit participation. There is only one facility that trains the pilots. The Coalition of Airline Pilots Association also opposes a requirement that dead-heading pilots -- pilots traveling as passengers -- keep their weapons in locked boxes in the plane's cargo area.
• Pilots with guns (on cargo aircraft): "D." The Federal Flight Deck Officer program for cargo pilots has just started, and numbers are limited.
• Screening passengers and employees: "C/F." There is little explosives screening for passengers, and employees are not screened.
• Screening cargo: "F." The near-total reliance on a "known shipper" program is a serious flaw. "We don't care who the shipper is, we want to know what's in the box," Safley said.
• Credentialing: "F." Available biometric identification technology has yet to be deployed by the TSA.
• Crew training -- self-defense: "F." Vital hands-on training is not mandatory, and thus neglected.
• Missile defense: "F." Shoulder-fired missiles are a serious threat even though countermeasures do exist.

Safley said the report card reflects a consensus of opinion from the leaders of CAPA's member unions. The group represents five unions, whose pilots fly for American, Southwest, ABX Air, AirTran and UPS.

The 9/11 Commission, the independent group that investigated the September 11 attacks, also has criticized aviation spending, saying the money has been spent mainly to meet congressional mandates, and that current efforts "do not yet reflect a forward-looking strategic plan systematically analyzing assets, risks, costs, and benefits."

Last week, the TSA released a survey saying that travelers gave "consistently high marks" to security screeners.

Between 80 percent and 95 percent of passengers gave positive responses when asked about seven aspects of the federal security screening process, which included thoroughness and courtesy of screeners as well as confidence in the ability of TSA to keep air travel secure.


Related Stories on Bush's Failures in Fighting Terrorism

Annan attacks erosion of rights in war on terror

US and Britain in UN secretary general's sights

Jonathan Steele
Friday March 11, 2005
The Guardian

The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, launched a fierce attack on Britain and the US yesterday for weakening human rights in the name of the war on terror.

"We cannot compromise on core values," he said in Madrid on the first anniversary of the train bombings that killed 191 people in the Spanish capital. "Human rights and the rule of law must always be respected."

Addressing a three-day conference which included about 20 heads of state and government as well as terrorism experts, lawyers and journalists, Mr Annan laid out five elements in what he called a "principled, comprehensive strategy" to fight terrorism.

He proposed a UN special envoy to monitor whether governments' counter-terrorism measures conformed to international human rights law.

"Compromising human rights cannot serve the struggle against terrorism," he said. "On the contrary, it facilitates the achievement of the terrorists' objectives by provoking tension, hatred, and mistrust of governments among precisely those parts of the population where he is most likely to find recruits."

MORE

Elizabeth Edwards Has Lumpectomy

Edwards has surgery for breast cancer

Outlook `very positive,' husband says in e-mail

JIM MORRILL

Staff Writer

Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of former Democratic Sen. John Edwards, underwent a successful lumpectomy at a Boston hospital for treatment of her breast cancer this week.

"The prognosis continues to be very positive," John Edwards announced in an e-mail Thursday. "Each step in Elizabeth's treatment proves that she is a fighter and that she is going to beat this."

Elizabeth Edwards, 55, had surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, where her diagnosis was confirmed last November, the same day her husband and his running mate, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, conceded their loss in the presidential election.

In the last few weeks, Edwards has undergone chemotherapy at Georgetown University Hospital in Washington.

Her condition was originally diagnosed by her Raleigh physician shortly before the election, though not made public until later. She was found to have invasive ductal cancer, the most common type of breast cancer. It can spread from the milk ducts to other parts of the breast or beyond.

The current five-year survival rate for breast cancer is 87 percent, up from 78 percent in the mid-1980s. About 40,000 women die of breast cancer annually.

During the presidential campaign, and especially in the months since her husband was chosen as Kerry's running mate, Edwards won a national following as a woman who comes across as more real than most political wives.

In the e-mail to supporters, John Edwards acknowledged the outpouring of support to his wife.

"Every note, every e-mail, every kind word we have received has held us up and given us strength," he wrote. "And we are blessed to be surrounded by a loving family, supportive friends, and the best health care in the world."

Kerry Leading Fight Against Alaska Oil Drilling

Kerry pledges to fight Bush on Alaska oil
Senator urges battle for environment against energy plan
- Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief
Friday, March 11, 2005

Washington -- Sen. John Kerry pledged Thursday to lead the fight against President Bush's proposal to drill for oil in the Alaska wilderness, sounding a call to arms for environmentalists to combat the administration's energy policies.

"The only mandate this administration has is for unity, to find common ground,'' Kerry said in an interview with The Chronicle. "The American people did not vote to drill in ANWR.''

Kerry characterized the president's plan for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a "phony, absolutely fraudulent offering,'' which vastly overstates the potential to reduce gas prices or the nation's reliance on foreign oil. He called it the "ideological linchpin'' to a broader, more reckless environmental policy.

"They need to be called out on it, and I intend to do it,'' Kerry said.

MORE

Related Articles

Who Needs Those Socialist Free Roads Anyways?

In return for lower taxes, we get a bigger deficit, and (the dream of the far right) more toll roads:

Congress Paving the Way for Tolls on Interstates

Legislation backed by the Bush administration would let states charge drivers fees to fund new highways or to reduce rush-hour traffic.

By Richard Simon
Times Staff Writer

March 10, 2005

WASHINGTON — With traffic congestion growing worse — and state and federal budgets as red as the brake lights from cars backed up on a Los Angeles freeway — Congress is moving toward relaxing a decades-old restriction on tolls on interstate highways.

The legislation, backed by the Bush administration, would give states greater authority to impose tolls to reduce gridlock.

These charges could be levied to raise money for new highway construction. Or motorists could be charged varying tolls during the day, with higher tolls in effect during rush hours to nudge drivers into making some of their trips during less busy times.

MORE

Republicans Attempt To Limit DeLay Investigations

House Ethics Panel in Gridlock
Democrats Refuse to Participate Under New GOP Rules

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 11, 2005; Page A02

The House, facing new controversy about the travel of Majority Leader Tom DeLay, was left last night with no mechanism for investigating improper behavior by its members when Democrats shut down the ethics committee by refusing to accept Republican rules changes that restrict the panel's power.

Democrats said they do not plan to allow the ethics committee to organize until Republicans repeal a series of rule changes they pushed through in January, making it more difficult to initiate an investigation unless at least one Republican member supports the probe.

The committee met in secret for 2 1/2 hours. It was the first meeting since House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) replaced the chairman and two other members with lawmakers more loyal to the leadership. "These rules undermine the ability of the committee to do its job," Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.), the panel's top Democrat, said in an interview after a 5 to 5 vote that stalemated action. "An ethics committee has to do a good job if it's going to do any job at all."

The standoff followed a Washington Post report that DeLay accepted a trip to South Korea in 2001 from a group that had registered as a foreign agent. House rules prohibit members from taking gifts from such groups. The ethics committee has admonished DeLay three times in the past year for official misconduct, and some ethics experts believe that the latest revelation could trigger another investigation.

MORE

Bush World Meets Bizzaro World on Social Security

On the Bizzaro World everything is backwards. In Bush World, nothing is as it seems or as said. Bush World and Bizzaro World have joined into one as George Bush now claims that private accounts would provide a safety net for Social Security.

That's about as strange as my recent speculation on what Dick Cheney would say now that Bush has recruited him to promote his Social Security plans. In Bush World, truth really is stranger than fiction.

Make Washington Listen to the Needs of Our Kids

Today, John Kerry held a press conference to kick off a month long campaign to push the Senate Finance Committee for hearings on the Kids First Act. After his press conference, Kerry sent out an email to his 3 million strong email list, urging his supporters to continue to press their Senators to support Kids First.

Here are some of the major points Kerry stressed in his email:

Millions of families wake up every day to the stark reality of knowing their children have no health insurance. Surely, the Senate can wake up one day this spring and devote a few hours to hearing their stories.

Our Kids First momentum is building every day. Organizations including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the March of Dimes, Every Child Matters, and the AFL-CIO have endorsed our Kids First Act. And over 500,000 people have signed on as citizen co-sponsors of our bill. The best way to make Washington listen is to put that total over one million in the next 30 days.

MORE

Republicans Only Welcome

Dean slams Bush on town-hall meetings
By Jonathan Kaplan

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said yesterday that President Bush’s policy of excluding non-Republicans from town-hall meetings on Social Security reform was “not an American thing to do.”

Patrick g. Ryan DNC Chairman Howard Dean met yesterday with House Democrats.

Dean spoke at the House Democrats’ weekly meeting for 15 minutes and took questions from lawmakers, according to several sources inside the well-attended closed-door gathering. He made the comments about the town-hall meetings at a press conference after the closed-door session. At the press conference, House Democratic leaders said they were most exercised about Bush’s town-hall meetings, which are open only to Republican voters and party activists. “We continue to hold hundreds of town-hall meetings that are open to all Americans. … We have honest discussions,” said Rep. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), criticizing Bush’s most recent event, last Friday in Westfield, N.J., which was open only to Republicans. MORE

More Broken Rules by DeLay

Foreign Agent Paid For Trips by Lawmakers
DeLay May Have Broken House Rules

By Mike Allen and R. Jeffrey Smith

Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 10, 2005; Page A01

A delegation of Republican House members including Majority Leader Tom DeLay accepted an expense-paid trip to South Korea in 2001 from a registered foreign agent despite House rules that bar the acceptance of travel expenses from foreign agents, according to government documents and travel reports filed by the House members.

Justice Department documents show that the Korea-U.S. Exchange Council, a business-financed entity created with help from a lobbying firm headed by DeLay's former chief of staff, registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act on Aug. 22, 2001. DeLay; his wife, Christine; and two other Republican lawmakers departed on a trip financed by the group on Aug. 25 of that year.

MORE

Dan Rather's Work Continues

Dan Rather stepped down tonight as anchor of CBS News, dedicating his final moments to courage. This included a dedication "To my fellow journalists in places where reporting the truth means risking all." Most likely he meant reporters in dangerous areas whose lives are literally in danger. I can't help but wonder if he was also thinking of the lesser but real dangers faced by reporters, such as himself, who try to report the truth in Bush's America.

The full text of his final sign off were:

"We have shared a lot in the 24 years we've been meeting here each evening. And before I say good night this night, I need to say thank you. Thank you to the thousands of wonderful professionals at CBS News, past and present, with whom it has been my honor to work over these years.

"And a deeply felt thank you to all of you, who have let us in to your homes night after night. It has been a privilege and one never taken lightly.

"Not long after I first came to the anchor chair I briefly signed off using the word 'courage.' I want to return to it now, in a different way, to a nation still nursing a broken heart for what happened here in 2001, and especially to those who found themselves closest to the events of September 11th.

"To our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in dangerous places. To those who have endured the tsunami, and to all who have suffered natural disasters and who must now find the will to rebuild.

"To the oppressed and to those whose lot it is to struggle in financial hardship and failing health. To my fellow journalists in places where reporting the truth means risking all.

"And, to each of you, courage.

"For the CBS Evening News, Dan Rather reporting. Good night."

The words I'll always remember Dan Rather for date back to taking on Richard Nixon, up through trying to take on George Bush. He won the first battle, but lost the second--so far. Rather was correct on the facts about Bush, but that didn't excuse the use of unsubstantiated documents. Unfortunately he missed one major lesson of Watergate, that the coverup can be worse than the crime. In this case, Rather's failure to immediately resolve the problem overshadowed Bush's far worse misconduct in the National Guard.

While this mistake likely resulted in Rather stepping down a year earlier than planned as anchor, he plans to remain a reporter. This may be for the best. Rather, who has been in third place as anchor, may be an example of the Peter Principle. He was a far better reporter than anchorman. At this moment, an investigative reporter is what we need far more than another pretty face reading the news.

Rather recongnizes the dangers faced by the news media in Bushworld:

"I confess that I am concerned that we may be reaching the point where too many members of the press fear being labeled unpatriotic or partisan if they challenge the actions or decisions of political leaders of any persuasion.

"What the country doesn't need, particularly just now, is a press that's docile -- never mind obsequious or intimidated. I don't agree with those who say, 'Dan, it's already happened,' but I do recognize there's some danger."

It is unclear to what degree CBS will allow Rather to continue, but I hope that Dan Rather finds a way to dig up and report the truth, and maybe even win the final battle against George Bush, as he did against Richard Nixon.

A Vision For The Future

There has been considerable response to my earlier post on the attacks on Kerry, both here and on Democratic Underground. One point I find important is why it is important for the Democrats to make their positions clear. Republicans have a narrative people understand. It may be lies, but still people think they know what they are voting for. For example, they think they are voting for small government and the free market. (The fact that they are really getting bigger government and crony capitalism instead is a different matter). Don't even get me started right now on voting for "moral values."

They aren't so sure with the Democrats. Conservatives in the media claim the Democrats don't have anything to say other than to say no to what the Republicans want, and a lot of people are buying this.

Kerry is working towards forming a true European style opposition. That would likely include proposing alternative to the Republican plans. It would give people a clearer picture of why they should vote for the Democrats.

It is necessary to start now, and not wait until the next election cycle. One reason the Republicans are so successful is that they have been pushing their views for years. It is too late to do this in an election campaign. By then, the media concentrates on the horse race and ideas are condensed to a sound bite.

The Republicans were prepared for that. When Bush gave his sound bites, people who have heard the conservative message for years knew what he was talking about and were programmed to go along. When they heard Kerry sound bites, they had not heard his ideas before and that was not enough. That was one of the reasons why Kerry's message was perceived to be unclear and weaker than Bush's.

Kerry learned from his defeat and appears to be moving in the right direction towards building an effective opposition. We might not agree with every position and every strategy, but the point is that he is working on a strategy. We can agree to disagree on some issues, such as whether Democrats need to propose their own Social Security plan, without needing blog posts attacking the others. While Jerome is not clear on why he is criticizing Kerry now, I object to the idea of his knee jerk protests which seem to be simply because something is coming from John Kerry.

Bloggers Flip Flopping on the Kerry Attacks

Bill Maher has been saying a lot lately that we cannot just oppose things working back from the idea that we hate Bush. I think he missed the boat here. We oppose the things Bush does, and Bush is unique in proposing objectionable ideas so consistently. On the other hand, there may be some truth to this idea with regards to John Kerry and parts of the liberal blogosphere.

We've heard repeated complaints that John Kerry wasn't aggressive enough in pushing his message and that is why he lost. (Never mind that, while some things could have been done better, Kerry was often aggressive, but the media just didn't bother to cover what he had to say.) Now Kerry is being attacked for the opposite. MyDD attacks Kerry for recommending that Democrats should propose a plan rather than just waiting for the Republicans to self destruct over Social Security.

Kerry is right in wanting to take the initiative. I've argued the same recently. We cannot just sit back and wait for the Republicans to self destruct. It hasn't happened in the last four years, and it won't just happen now.

As I warned earlier, Bush is a master at flip flopping. He will change his proposals, such as he did with Medicare reform and Homeland Security, in order to be able to say he passed something. They guy's even known for taking credit for measures passed in Texas which he actually opposed at the time.

We are risking the support of the young--the same people who supported Kerry in 2004. While most oppose Bush's plans, many of the young are interested in Bush's proposals. They believe the claims that they Social Security will go broke, and compared to this anything looks good.

My suspicion remains that the Republicans will ultimately come to a compromise which includes add on investment accounts, as was advocated by Bill Clinton. Why let them take the credit, while the Democrats just look like the party which is saying no while proposing nothing of their own? After all, isn't this what the Republicans are accusing us of virtually every day?

Jerome also notes the Zogby poll which shows Bush still winning if they voted today, but this is rather meaningless. First, there is the bandwagon effect with many people going over to the winner. Secondly, Bush has dominated the news to a degree far greater than in any campaign. Bush has had the State of the Union along with all his other public appearances, while Kerry has hardly been in the news lately. If there really was a new vote, we'd be hearing a lot more from Kerry. Fortunately we are hearing from him now on Social Security, and I hope the Democratic leadership takes his advice.

Kerry Fortifies War Chest, Keeps Momentum for 2008

There has already been a lot of speculation for the 2008 election, which has been discussed here in recent days. There are certainly far more pressing matters to be concerned about these days, like Social Security, the Bankruptcy Bill, and regaining control of the House and Senate in 2006.

However, in my opinion John Kerry sits in a unique position these days, which places him ahead of the game with other mentioned possibilities for 2008.

There is his email list that is 3 million strong and participants on his list remain active when Kerry sends out a call to action. Then there is the fact that Kerry’s financial backers have not shied away from support of Kerry, either. Finally, Kerry has shown since getting back to work in the Senate that he’s not backing down.

He's been actively pursuing legislation that he campaigned on in 2004, such as healthcare for kids, support for Military members and their families and small business legislation that supports that true members of the small business community, not the big business community that Bush supports.

The Boston Herald reports today that Monday night John Kerry hosted an “intimate political gathering” with about 100 of his top fundraisers.

MORE

Cheney: Privitize Social Security, Or Else?

Bloomberg reports that Bush is turning to Dick Cheney to sell private Social Security accounts. They note that "Vice President Dick Cheney has been President George W. Bush's go-to guy on national security. Now Bush is counting on Cheney to do the same on Social Security."

Bush doesn't understand that people just don't want his plan. It's a bad idea. While Cheney was able to sell the voters on other bad ideas, such as the invasion of Iraq and reelecting George Bush on the terrorism issue, in this case I do not believe it will work.

Dick Cheney is the wrong messenger for this cause. His message won't translate well to Social Security privitization. Sure it fooled people on national security in the last election, but nobody's going to fall for the line that terrorists will attack us if we don't privitize Social Security.

Reward Your Friends

Bush may be many things, but nobody can ever accuse him of not remembering to help those who helped him get where he is:

White House to Launch Push For Pro-Business Regulation

By JOHN D. MCKINNON
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
March 9, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is expected to launch a push for business-friendly regulation, possibly including streamlined and more flexible pollution standards, chemical-handling rules, and workers' medical-leave protections.

The stated aim is to improve the overall climate for U.S. manufacturing, a sector hammered by recession and overseas competition during much of President Bush's first term.

But Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a pro-consumer group that monitors the White House Office of Management and Budget, called the effort a new assault on anticompetitive rules that amounts to rewarding Mr. Bush's political supporters in the business world.

MORE

GAO: Terror Suspects Buying Firearms

Yet another way in which Bush policies place us at greater risk from terrorism:

Terror Suspects Buying Firearms, Report Finds

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

ASHINGTON, March 7 - Dozens of terror suspects on federal watch lists were allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year, according to a Congressional investigation that points up major vulnerabilities in federal gun laws.

People suspected of being members of a terrorist group are not automatically barred from legally buying a gun, and the investigation, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, indicated that people with clear links to terrorist groups had regularly taken advantage of this gap.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, law enforcement officials and gun control groups have voiced increasing concern about the prospect of a terrorist walking into a gun shop, legally buying an assault rifle or other type of weapon and using it in an attack.

MORE

Bad News for the GOP on Social Security

It looks like Bush's idea for private accounts just isn't catching on--and is risking political damage for the GOP. A bad idea--but what else would you expect from the guy who predicted in 1978 that Social Security would go bankrupt in ten years? The latest news:

Personal accounts tank in polls, GOP says

DAVID ESPO

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The heart of President Bush's plan for Social Security, allowing younger workers to create personal accounts in exchange for a lower guaranteed government benefit, is among the least popular elements with the public, Republican pollsters told House GOP leaders Tuesday.

The pollsters also stressed the political stakes involved in pursuing Bush's plan to overhaul the Depression-era program, according to a memo circulated at a session in the Capitol.

Older voters consider a candidate's views on Social Security to be "as important, or in some cases, more important than issues like the war, health care and education," they wrote.

MORE

Kerry Critical of Bolton Nomination

Kerry slashes Bush’s new UN pick; Reid offers more muted critique

RAW STORY

In a release issued this afternoon, former presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said President Bush’s nominee to be ambassador to the United Nations was “baggage we cannot afford,” RAW STORY has learned.

“I recognize John Bolton’s long service to our country, but this is just about the most inexplicable appointment the President could make to represent the United States to the world community,” Sen. Kerry will assert.

“If the President is serious about reaching out to the world, why would he choose someone who has expressed such disdain for working with our allies?” Kerry will tell the press. “Mr. Bolton once said ‘if the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.’ Mr. Bolton once celebrated our failure to win the U.N.’s support for the Iraq invasion as ‘further evidence to many why nothing more should be paid to the U.N. system.’ Now we’re supposed to believe he’s the right person to represent the United States at the United Nations?”

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice defended Bolton’s record at a press conference Monday.

“The United States is committed to the success of the United Nations, and we view the U.N. as an important component of our diplomacy,” Rice said.

Kerry strongly disagrees.

“As under secretary of state for arms control and international security for the past four years, Mr. Bolton has achieved little in the way of either of these vital aims,” Kerry continues. “We secured more nuclear materials in the two years before September 11th than in the two years after. North Korea and Iran are burgeoning nuclear states. At this critical time in our history, he is not the best person to rally the world together in our common goals of defeating terrorism and making the world safer from the threat of weapons of mass destruction. ”

“Quite simply,” Kerry concludes, “Mr. Bolton’s nomination carries with it baggage we cannot afford.”

MORE

Kerry Organizes Coalition Behind Kids First

Kerry Organizes Grassroots Coalition Behind KidsFirst Act,

Calls for Senate Action

Kerry to Unveil Results of "Give Voice to Our Values" Internet Campaign; Coalition Calls for Finance Committee Hearing on Kerry Children’s Health Care Plan

Tuesday, March 8, 2005

John Kerry will be joined by health care, children’s and labor organizations to call for Senate action on his KidsFirst Act in a Capitol Hill press conference tomorrow - Wednesday, March 9.

Senator Kerry will discuss his plan to further mobilize grassroots activism to force Congress to act now to provide health insurance for every child in America. He will also unveil the results of his citizen co-sponsor campaign and highlights from calls made by thousands of people across the country testifying to the importance of insuring every child.

Organizations participating in the press conference include Families USA, the National Association of Community Health Centers, Every Child Matters and the AFL-CIO. The plan has been endorsed by 14 leading health care, children’s and labor organizations.

WHAT: John Kerry and health care, children’s and labor groups call for Senate action on KidsFirst

WHEN: Wednesday, March 9, 2005 Noon

WHERE: Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 562

Half Ass Bush

It isn't April 1 yet, but The Specious Report has a picture and article on a proposed Bush half cent, or half ass if you g0 by the picture on the back.

The coin has some problems. Each costs 81 cents to mint, increasing the deficit with every coin. Instead of saying "In God We Trust" it will say "Trust Me."

Kerry Urges More Aggressive Stance Against Bush

The Washington Post reports that John Kerry isn't entirely happy with Harry Reid's leadership., urging a more aggressive stance and "needed to set up what amounted to a perpetual campaign and needed a plan to prevent Bush from seizing the middle ground in the Social Security fight."

I've made a similar argument regarding Bush and Social Security here previously.

It isn't clear if this is really a feud:

David Wade, a Kerry spokesman, brushed off the incident saying that Kerry and Reid are very close. "Almost nothing would make John Kerry happier than to see Harry Reid become Senate majority leader," he said.

Democrats Document GOP Abuse of Power

Report by House Democrats Alleges GOP Abuse of Power

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer

Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and other revolutionaries used accusations of arrogant and heavy-handed tactics to stir a populist revolt against 40 years of Democratic domination of Congress before the GOP takeover of 1994.

Now, after 10 years of Republican control, House Democrats are making strikingly similar charges against today's Republicans.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) plans to lash out at the chamber's Republican leaders today with a report accusing them of abusing their power through parliamentary tactics designed to suppress dissent.

The report contends that rules governing major legislation "severely restrict or sometimes even totally block the minority's ability to debate or amend bills." It charges that Republicans on the Rules Committee have intentionally "used emergency meeting procedures and late-night meetings . . . to discourage Members and the press from participating in the legislative process."

MORE

Pictures We Wish Were Real

Lawyers' panel indicts Bush, Blair

Julian Ryall

Tokyo, Monday 07 March 2005 - US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair deserve life sentences, with the possibility of parole after 25 years, for the war crimes and genocide in Iraq, according to a lawyers' panel.

Speaking on Monday at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan, Kohki Abe, a professor of law at Kanagawa University, said they should face the "maximum penalty available". That would not include the death penalty, however, as the members of the tribunal opposed capital punishment, he added.

Abe is the chief justice of a four-person panel of the International Criminal Tribunal for Iraq (ICTI) that has judged the two leaders guilty of a series of charges.

The tribunal has headquarters in Istanbul, Turkey, and a final meeting of regional panels is scheduled for June.

MORE

More Republican Values

We know Republicans tend to be the ones who profit from trash TV, and the red state people watch such garbage much more than those in the blue states. Now, if we can believe Drudge, there is another bit of evidence on the moral values of Republicans as Michele Zipp, editor of Playgirl, has revealed that she is a Republican.

More ’08 Speculation

More speculation today for the ’08 Democratic nomination run from Chris Matthews, who is reporting that Al Gore won’t run in ’08. It seems that the speculation makers are having a hey-day today…

Al Gore won't run for president in 2008 (Chris Matthews)
The 2008 Presidential campaign will not include Al Gore. I'm reporting tonight that the former Vice President and 2000 Democratic Presidential nominee will not run for President. I've been given this scoop from a perfect source who informed me that the purpose of this disclosure at this time is to end speculation about a campaign that will never occur.
So, now that Al Gore is out... what does this mean for the likely 2008 battle between Hillary and John Kerry?

Ron reported earlier today on a story from the Boston Herald, about a comment that Ted Kennedy made yesterday on ABC-TV’s “This Week.”

The San Jose Mercury also has a take on that story, today... “Sorry, Hillary, but Teddy's a Kerry man.”

Social Security, A Program for All Times

Yesterday on Meet the Press Joe Klein supported changes in Social Security arguing that Social Security is suited to the industrial age but not well suited to the information age. I had a tough time making any sense out of this argument. While much has changed, some of the basic principles of investing and retirement saving remain the same. It still makes sense to have a constant source of income to fall back on first, and then to use extra money to invest in riskier ventures, such as the stock market, in the hopes of greater gains. The increased deficit brought about thanks to Bush's reckless economic policies further makes it unwise to consider options which further increase the deficit.

Trying to figure out what he meant by this, I ran a search on Klein's articles on Social Security. I found many mentions of the change from the industrial to information age, but each was written under the assumption that such a change was a clear reason for a change in Social Security. The closest I could come to understanding Klein's logic came from this recent column in Time:

The day after the President's speech, the party's congressional leaders gathered at the Franklin D. Roosevelt memorial to carp. How 70 years ago! "Progressive" Dems—and I use the term advisedly, since liberals seem more interested in preserving the past than in discovering the future—are right to admire Roosevelt. But the Roosevelt they worship is a bronze sculpture, frozen in time. The real F.D.R. was a gutsy innovator. . .

(The article concludes with:) There is, then, a profitable discussion to be had between "ownership" Republicans and "third-way" Democrats about transforming the stagnant bureaucracies of the Industrial Age. Republicans refused to play during the Clinton presidency; the stunned and churlish Democrats are refusing now. It will be interesting to see whether Bush, at the height of his powers, actually tries to break the impasse.

The logic seems to be that an idea from 70 years ago is ready for change simply because things have changed over 70 years. That, in itself, makes no more sense than it would to say we should abandon breathing air as this is what we did 70 years ago.

Perhaps Klein makes this argument better in another column, but after reading several I am unable to find anything more meaningful. Unless Klein can come up with a better argument, moving from the industrial age to the information age is no reason to abandon a system that works.

Related Stories:

Last Week's Meet the Press: Morning News Good and Bad
Social Security and the Young, or Beware the Great Deceiver

Andrei Cherny Popular in Great Britain

Political Wire has a brief item on Andrei Cherny, noting that his book The Next Deal is becoming popular in Great Britain. Cherny is described as a former Al Gore speech writer. In addition to being a former Gore speechwriter, Cherny headed up Kerry's speech writing early in the campaign. Last October Cherny even chatted with bloggers over at the official Kerry Blog.

Kennedy Backs Kerry in 2004

Ted K `respects' Hillary, but Kerry gets his vote
By Andrew Miga
Monday, March 7, 2005
WASHINGTON - Sen. Edward M. Kennedy [related, bio] said yesterday that while Sen. Hillary Clinton may be the early 2008 Democratic presidential front-runner, he's still backing Sen. John Kerry [related, bio].
``Oh yes,'' Kennedy replied when asked if he is sticking with Kerry despite Clinton's popularity surge. ``And I have enormous respect for Sen. Clinton. I admire and respect her. She's qualified for the job, but my man is John Kerry.''
Kennedy, appearing on ABC-TV's ``This Week'' program, said that he expects Kerry, who lost by three percentage points to President Bush [related, bio] in November, will make another run for the presidency in 2008.
``I'm from Massachusetts, and we have a candidate, I think, probably up there as well,'' said Kennedy, who campaigned extensively and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Kerry in 2004.
A recent Zogby poll put Clinton out front with 32 percent, double what Kerry received. Kerry, meanwhile, has positioned himself for a potential 2008 run, working to keep his core supporters in place.
The defeated 2004 Democratic nominee tonight will host an organizational meeting for ``Keeping America's Promise,'' his political action committee, at his Georgetown mansion. Aides said it would be a ``conversation'' about the leadership role Kerry should play in the Democratic Party.
Last week, Kerry was the keynote speaker at a fund-raiser for Clinton at a private Washington home that raised $180,000. Kerry will host another Clinton fund-raising event in Boston this May.
Kennedy, meanwhile, strongly disagreed with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's recent statement that his religious faith has no bearing on his politics. Schwarzenegger is married to Kennedy's niece, Maria Shriver.
``The most important influences are my family and my faith,'' Kennedy told ABC. ``All of the members of my family, we're very, very spiritual. It's been a very central part of my life. In my faith, resurrection is the spirit of hope, it's the spirit of optimism.''

Teresa Remains in the News

In The Northwest: Teresa Heinz Kerry hasn't lost her outspoken way

Monday, March 7, 2005

By JOEL CONNELLY
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST

What made Teresa Heinz Kerry so refreshing to some voters, and threatening to others on the 2004 campaign trail, is summed up when THK talks about her speech to last year's Democratic convention:

"Nobody told me what to do," she told a Saturday fund-raiser here.

The implicit afterword: Nobody better try.

The sails of the philanthropist wife of Sen. John Kerry were not trimmed by November's narrow electoral defeat.

The softly accented voice gives pointed advice to the Democratic Party, which she lately joined, formerly having spent 15 years as wife of a Senate Republican.

Heinz Kerry flew into town on her own Gulfstream jet (the Flying Squirrel, named for a Sun Valley ski run) direct from a conference on global philanthropy at Stanford.

She talked energy-efficient building design with Seattle Art Museum boss (and old friend) Mimi Gates. She dined at Wild Ginger and flew back east with takeout food from the Third Avenue restaurant.

At a lunch for Rep. Adam Smith, guests were treated to more spicy observations than will likely be heard at all fund-raisers under the Westin's roof from now to the 2008 presidential race. A sampling:

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: A practicing Catholic, as is her husband, Heinz Kerry remains outraged at attacks by bishops on her husband's pro-choice views.

"You cannot have bishops in the pulpit -- long before or the Sunday before the election -- as they did in Catholic churches, saying it was a mortal sin to vote for John Kerry," she said.

Heinz Kerry gave no examples. Last year, a few ultraconservative prelates said they would not allow the Democratic nominee to receive communion in their dioceses. The bishop of Colorado Springs declared that Catholics voting for pro-choice candidates were not welcome at the communion rail.

"The church has a right and obligation to teach values," Heinz Kerry declared. "They don't have a right to restrict freedom of expression, which they did."

COUNTING THE VOTES: Heinz Kerry is openly skeptical about results from November's election, particularly in sections of the country where optical scanners were used to record votes.

"Two brothers own 80 percent of the machines used in the United States," Heinz Kerry said. She identified both as "hard-right" Republicans. She argued that it is "very easy to hack into the mother machines."

"We in the United States are not a banana republic," added Heinz Kerry. She argued that Democrats should insist on "accountability and transparency" in how votes are tabulated.

"I fear for '06," she said. "I don't trust it the way it is right now."

A SECOND KERRY RUN: Heinz Kerry won't stand in the way of a second presidential bid by her husband. She tersely summed up emotions at the end of November's long election night: "No tears, some sadness."

"I think we should focus on '06: If '06 doesn't work out, '08 will be impossible," she argued. "If it were right for John to do it -- and he felt right -- he would do it again (in 2008). If he didn't feel it right, he wouldn't."

Theresa Heinz Kerry campaigned tirelessly -- "When I put out, I put out" -- but seemed to scorn the political wife's expected role of fixing her husband in adoring upward gaze.

At Saturday's fund-raiser, she talked openly about conflicting emotions when confronted with her spouses' ambitions. Born in Mozambique of Portuguese parents, she was married to Republican Sen. John Heinz of Pennsylvania. Heinz was killed in a 1991 air crash.

She inherited her husband's fortune, took charge of Heinz family endowments and married Kerry in 1995.

"I kept my first husband from running for office for four years," she explained. "Terrified" at the prospect of public life, as a non-native born American, Heinz Kerry adjusted to what she described as a life of "losses, diseases, hurt, disappointments and many joys."

She confessed to similar self-doubts when John Kerry launched his bid for the White House: "I'm too old. I can't handle it. I have too much to do."

A hike by herself in the Sawtooth Mountains of Idaho gave THK time to reach another conclusion: "I thought, 'There's no way I have a right to keep him from doing it'. "

She was always a hit in Seattle -- even while Deaniacs had John Kerry's campaign in the doldrums -- but ran into bumps on the campaign trail.

She responded to nasty questions by a columnist with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a paper owned by right-wing mogul Richard Mellon Scaife, using words familiar to many Americans: "Shove it!"

The Drudge Report, a popular conservative Web site, missed no opportunity to run unflattering pictures of THK or float untruthful personal rumors about her husband.

A gossipy, superficial book on the 2004 campaign by the Washington, D.C., bureau of Newsweek depicted Heinz Kerry as a loose cannon requiring constant maintenance.

Heinz Kerry is still steamed at what the Republican attack machine did to her husband.

"Think about last year," she said. "Once John had his nomination, the Republicans spent $90 million to destroy his reputation."

She cited dirty tricks used in the campaign to mobilize what the religious right called "Values Voters."

"In West Virginia, John was going to burn Bibles," she said. "It's not 'values.' It's outright lies."

Often a vigorous overseer of grants, Heinz Kerry has taken a lesson from the concentrated incoming fire she received from the right flank.

"We have to develop a discipline for this party, so the people of this country know more clearly what it is to be a Democrat," she said.

She came away from 2004 with a high opinion of Americans' ideals and gratitude to a campaign that exceeded Bill Clinton's winning vote total of 1996 by 9 million votes.

"Basically, we are at a crux, a crossroads right now," Heinz Kerry said. "It's no place for self-indulgence. It's no place for looking back. We must be totally committed to this journey ... to believe again, to hope again."

More Articles on Teresa Heinz Kerry

Democrats to Launch An Online Talk Show

Democrats to Launch An Online Talk Show

By Brian Faler

Monday, March 7, 2005; Page A04

The Democrats are getting their own talk show -- in cyberspace.

Two Democratic political consultants are preparing to launch a weekly online political talk show that will showcase the party's message, lambaste Republicans and, they hope, open a new front in the ongoing media wars.

It's called DemsTV.com, and each Tuesday, beginning tomorrow, the Web site will feature 20 minutes or so of talking-head chatter from a rotating cast of young Democratic operatives.

"The primary focus is on politics, and, frankly, a heavy focus is on pointing out the foibles and scandals and dirty little secrets of Republicans that we think don't receive as much coverage in the mainstream media as they might," said Dan Manatt, one of the producers.

This week, he said, the program will include opposition research on the GOP's possible 2008 presidential candidates, the panelists' picks for the "blogger of the week" and their predictions of who will be the most important Democratic leaders in the coming years.

MORE

Freeway Blogging

Dean in Republican Land

Howard Dean is speaking along with Pat Buchanan in Grand Rapids today. Grand Rapids, home of Gerald Ford, is not especially friendly Democratic territory. Perhaps that is why the local TV station has this rather unflattering photo of Dean for their web site:

Despite the GOP leanings of Grand Rapids, John Kerry did receive a large crowd when visiting there last summer:

Coverage of Kerry at a private meeting

Coverage of John and Teresa Kerry at public rally

Teresa Heinz Kerry also visited Grand Rapids earlier in the year where I had the opportunity to meet her:



Coverage of Teresa in Grand Rapids on the Official Kerry Blog

Update:

They've replaced the picture of Dean with a better picture taken at today's event, in place of the old "Angry Dean" file picture:

Kerry Helps Clinton Fund Raising

Kerry talks at Clinton fund-raising event in D.C.
By Andrew Miga

Friday, March 4, 2005
WASHINGTON - Nobody's calling them the 2008 Democratic dream ticket, but Sen. John F. Kerry [related, bio] delivered the keynote speech at a fund-raiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that raised a whopping $180,000.
``Tonight makes history,'' Kerry joked to the crowd, according to a friend who attended the event on Wednesday. ``It's the first time in four years (former Democratic National Committee chairman) Terry McAuliffe and I haven't been the ones asking you for money.''
Kerry, the defeated 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, threw his fund-raising weight behind the dinner at a private Georgetown home for the New York senator and former first lady, spending three hours schmoozing late into the evening.
The Massachusetts Democrat will also appear at a major fund-raising event for Clinton in Boston sometime in early May.

MORE

No Mandate for Bush

New Poll Finds Bush Priorities Are Out of Step With Americans
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER

Americans say President Bush does not share the priorities of most of the country on either domestic or foreign issues, are increasingly resistant to his proposal to revamp Social Security and say they are uneasy with Mr. Bush's ability to make the right decisions about the retirement program, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The poll underscores just how little headway Mr. Bush has made in his effort to build popular support as his proposal for overhauling Social Security struggles to gain footing in Congress. At the same time, there has been an increase in respondents who say that efforts to restore order in Iraq are going well, even as an overwhelming number of Americans say Mr. Bush has no clear plan for getting out of Iraq.

On Social Security, 51 percent said permitting individuals to invest part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts, the centerpiece of Mr. Bush's plan, was a bad idea, even as a majority said they agreed with Mr. Bush that the program would become insolvent near the middle of the century if nothing was done. The number who thought private accounts were a bad idea jumped to 69 percent if respondents were told that the private accounts would result in a reduction in guaranteed benefits. And 45 percent said Mr. Bush's private account plan would actually weaken the economic underpinnings of the nation's retirement system.

MORE

Kerry and Bush Together to Honor Jackie Robinson

From First Read:

Voting bloc of the day: President Bush headlines the ceremony awarding a posthumous Congressional Gold Medal to Jackie Robinson at the Capitol at 2:00 pm. Joining Bush at the event is John Kerry, who waged a "three-year, start-to-finish legislative crusade" to get Robinson the medal, a Kerry aide tells us. Kerry will comment on Robinson's civil rights record, and we suspect Bush will, too. The Kerry aide says Jesse Jackson also will be on hand

Update--Related Storie at Light Up the Darkness:
Jackie Robinson to Receive Congressional Gold Medal

ANWR: The Gloves Are Off

Last night I wrote about the GOPs’ plan to sneak drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into the budget reconciliation in the coming weeks. Thanks to “Mass” for giving me the heads up on this wonderful editorial in Outside Magazine from John Kerry on ANWR. Kerry has been a longtime foe of drilling in ANWR and one of our country’s greatest environmental activists throughout his entire career.

The Gloves Are Off
An ANWR defeat would deal a major blow to the entire concept of wilderness protection. In this exclusive essay, Senator JOHN KERRY vows to take the fight to the GOP leadership.
By John Kerry

Ask yourself: What if a Republican named Theodore Roosevelt hadn't helped write conservation into our national character? What if our march to progress and modernity had meant the step-by-step stripping, mining, and development of every inch of territory from coast to coast?

MORE

Kerry: “We Made States More BLUE Than They Were Before”

The Boston Herald has a brief story on Kerry receiving the Distinguished American Award last night from the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.

The Herald reports that Kerry emphasized the positive results of his campaign, including the fact that “the presidential election brought out some 10 million more Democratic voters than President Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign.” Kerry called his campaign “the largest grassroots effort in history,” and said, “We made states more blue than they were before.”

Sen. John F. Kerry last night slammed President Bush's plan to cut federal support to the fiscally strapped Amtrak passenger rail system, calling the proposed budget cut “incomprehensible.”

More - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=446

ACLU and Human Rights First Charge Rumsfeld Responsible for Torture in U.S. District Court

The ACLU and Human Rights First have filed a lawsuit against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in a Northern Illinois U.S. District Court today. They charge that “Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld bears direct responsibility for the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody.” Former government and military officials have joined the lawsuit as co-counsel.

Lead counsel in the lawsuit, Lucas Guttentag says Rumsfeld, “gives lip service to being responsible but has not been held accountable for his actions.” The groups have charged Rumsfeld with violations of the United States Constitution and international laws “prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.”

MORE - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=444

Kerry 2008 Watch

Some very early 2008 speculation from the Washington Post:

Kerry Sets the Stage for a Second Act

• Campaign '08 Watch Begins: We solemnly vowed in November not to start ginning up stories about the next presidential election until at least March, and mirabile dictu: An enticing invitation crossed our desk just in time. "Thank you for your interest in joining John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry at their home on March 7 in Washington, DC for a special meeting to discuss the formation of Senator Kerry's political action committee, Keeping America's Promise."

Woo-hoo! It's not every day that a defeated '04 Democratic nominee sets up a new PAC. "This is the kind of thing he has to do" to run for prez again, Dan Payne, a Dem media consultant and longtime Kerry acquaintance, told us yesterday. "It seems to me that candidates have been forming PACs before they made a run for president for a long time."

The senator's camp wouldn't comment on whether Keeping America's Promise is an effort to maintain and invigorate Kerry's base for 2008, stressing instead his "focus on strengthening the Democratic Party," as spokeswoman Katharine Lister put it.

Kerry is supposedly eager to help out new DNC Chairman (and former rival) Howard Dean, but Lister's official statement to us seemed more Kerry-centric than anything else. "Keeping America's Promise, a leadership PAC which will officially start raising funds in the second quarter of this year, will be the vehicle that helps Kerry transform the infrastructure, energy and excitement from his presidential campaign into a permanent grass-roots organization that promotes the causes Kerry advocated on the campaign, and supports candidates up and down the ticket across the country," she said.

And, of course: "Keeping America's Promise will also help amplify and promote Kerry's leadership agenda in the Senate." His friend and loyal campaign operative John Giesser is running the PAC.

Last week the '04 candidate came in second, with 16 percent vs. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's 32 percent, in a Zogby poll on potential Democratic contenders. Al Gore came in third with 12 percent. Not that anybody pays attention to such meaningless early speculation. We certainly don't.