Kerry Endorses Villaraigosa: A Day of Hopes, Dreams and Aspirations

Through out John Kerry’s 2004 campaign the resounding theme was hope for the future. Today I stood at Los Angeles Valley College and listened once more as John Kerry talked about hope for the future. That hope he said, for Los Angeles residents was in Antonio Villaraigosa.

"There are the issues on the ballot when you vote for mayor of this city, and that's why I'm here to endorse your next mayor," Kerry told the thousand or more Villaraigosa supporters at the rally.

"I'm not here against anybody," Kerry said, perhaps referring to the contingent of Hahn supporters off to the side who were there to show their dissent, "I'm here for somebody -- I'm here for a set of hopes, dreams and aspirations that we know can make a difference in the quality of our lives."

“We made a difference in 2004 and Antonio will make a difference in Los Angeles,” Kerry said. “Antonio will make Los Angeles safer.”

I spent a lot of time from August ’03 through to Election Day covering Kerry events here in Los Angeles and during that time, I witnessed the mutual respect and friendship between John Kerry and Antonio Villaraigosa. Today was one of those full circle moments, when John Kerry had the opportunity to do for Antonio Villaraigosa, what Villaraigosa had done for Kerry. It wasn’t a Kerry has the limelight day, though plenty of Kerry supporters where there and more than once the crowd chanted the familiar “Kerry, Kerry, Kerry” chant.

Kerry did take the opportunity to point out the issues that are central to Antonio’s campaign and he tied them into the issues that were central to his own campaign in 2004. For truly those are the issues that important to Americans all across our country. After all, who doesn’t want healthcare, public safety and a good education for their kids? In every city and every small town across this country, we all want the same things.

While Kerry did not directly mention the Kids First Act today, which he will be holding events on later this week, he did mention the need for healthcare for kids and the fact that it can make a huge difference in the lives of kids who do not have healthcare now. No doubt, many of the millions of kids with out healthcare in this country live right here in the city of Los Angeles.

LOT'S MORE

LUTD Breaking 5000 Hits--For the Second Time

Light Up The Darkness is showing continued success in presenting the principles behind our support for John Kerry and or opposition to the current policies of the Republican controlled government. For the second time since started post-election, Light Up The Darkness exceeded 5000 hits in a single day yesterday. This was largely thanks to the addition of Buzz Flash to the sites linking to us. This includes frequent links at the Daou Report among other major blogs.

Today also marks the 13th time in 2005 LUTD has exceeded 1000 hits in a single day. Our initial blog, The Unofficial Kerry Blog, was exceeding 2000 hits around the election but, as anticipated, blog readership dropped off by mid November. The success of LUTD is showing continued interest in democratic principles.

Another landmark passed was having over 100 comments to a single post. Those reading the mirrored posts on the Unofficial Kerry Blog are encouraged to also join us at LUTD for our active discussions. Many of the posts are also discussed over at Democratic Underground and other sites. While we are concentrating on LUTD, The Unofficial Kerry Blog does remain active, sometimes posting items in greater detail on Kerry events and statements than on LUTD.

LUTD also had the first mailing this week for its email list. Those who are not on the mailing list are encouraged to sign up here.

Spread of Nazis in United States

We are seeing a spread of Nazis in the United States. This group has grown to 123 so far, with plans to quicky spread to 1000. No, don't panic, I'm not speaking of the evil kind, or even of Bush supporters (or grandfather). I'm referring to the spread of franchises, based upon the original Soup Nazi stand which gained fame from being included in a Seinfeld episode.

The planned franchises will include a sign with the original strict orders for ordering, such as "Have your money ready!" and "Move to the extreme left after ordering!" Unlike on the show, workers will be prohibited from shouting, "No soup for you!" at customers who disobey.

Related Story:
The Jerry Seinfeld Rule for Voting Republican

Civil Unions, Gay Marriage, and Reducing Government Intrusion

This started out as a response to comments on civil unions in one of the posts on our affiliated blog, Light Up The Darkness, and ultimately became enlarged into this. It pointed out that Kerry's support for civil unions made this a topic of discussion on the old Kerry blog. This raises the question of whether we should continue to stress this issue. I'm not sure that discussing civil unions on the blogs (as opposed by politicians) makes much of a difference.

Bloggers (as well as people who read blogs) and general voters are different populations. Bloggers who oppose gay marriage are more likley to be extreme in their views and be just as opposed to civil unions. On the other hand, many on line supporters of gay marriage oppose the compromise of civil unions.

The general population is different, and more moderate. While perhaps not thinking of the intellectual justification of distinguishing the religious component of marriage from the legal, many do find civil unions to be acceptable. Last year, when the right used opposition to gay marriage in their strategy of winning from the far right, a majority supported civil unions. Here in Michigan, where an anti-gay marriage proposal did pass, polling also suggested that many who voted yes did not understand the extents to which the measure discriminated against gays.

While calling for civil unions is unlikely to have much impact in the blogosphere, it is possible that liberal politicians could attract support with this idea. It didn't work in 2004, but 2008 is a different year. Opposition to government intrusion in situations such as the Terry Schiavo case may make voters more accepting of arguments to live and let live with civil unions, while less likely to fall for the gay bashing from the right.

The answer to those who vote on "moral issues" is not to compromise principles, but to place these issues in a large context. Civil unions and gay marriage should not be a question of one's personal feelings about homosexuality, but a question of how far to allow the government to intrude in the personal affairs of individuals. The Terry Shiavo case has illustrated this issue for many. Now we need to extend this to defending gays from government discrimination and to right to choice on reproductive issues (including the purchase of contraceptives).

Press Conference Recap

It is unlikley that last night's press conference will do anything about Bush's most pressing problem--his tumbling approval ratings. News of cuts in benefits won't help him sell his Social Security scheme. Wonkette provides a pictoral view of the gaffe of the night:

There was plenty of absurdity even beyond this. When asked about terrorism, Bush claimed "The al-Qaida network that attacked the United States has been severely diminished. We are slowly but surely dismantling that organization." That's why terrorist attacks are way up. This has also been a strange form of "dismantling." Last year the Center for Strategic Studies in London estimated that al Qaeda operatives tripled as a consequence of increased recruitment among those angry over the invasion of Iraq.

Bush stumbled over foreign policy questions ranging from Korea to renditioning. He was asked, "Mr. President, under the law, how would you justify the practice of renditioning, where U.S. agents who bust terror suspects abroad, taking them to a third country for interrogation? And would you stand for it if foreign agents did that to an American here?"

Bush dodged and avoided answering, starting out by saying "That's a hypothetical." During the course of his rambling, amost incoherent answer, he even resorted to bringing up September 11 as justification, noting "We're still at war."

When asked about John Bolton, Bush said, "John Bolton is a blunt guy. Sometimes people say I'm little too blunt." Blunt barely touches the problems with Bolten. As for Bush, he got it wrong. People don't say he's too blunt, but that he's not very sharp.

Mr. Frist Goes To Washington

The Economist (a conservative newsweekly honest enough to endorse Kerry over Bush), looks at Bill Frist this week. Here's the key portions:

Mr Frist seemed to take a moderate tack in the culture wars. In his 1989 book “Transplant” (part memoir, part cri de coeur about organ transplants) he was resolutely scientific rather than theological on the question of when life begins and ends. He even recommended changing the legal definition of “brain death” to make it easier to harvest the organs of anencephalic babies (who are born with a fatal neurological disorder but show signs of mental activity). Social conservatives fiercely resisted his elevation to the Senate leadership.

But look at him now. One moment Fristy is leading the congressional charge into the Terri Schiavo case, masterminding a bill to give federal courts jurisdiction over the case, and “diagnosing” Ms Schiavo as being conscious on the basis of watching a video and talking to a neurologist who had not seen her for two years. The next he is threatening “the nuclear option”—changing the Senate's rules to stop Democrats filibustering judicial nominees. On April 24th he was a speaker—albeit by videotape—at a Christian rally at which the “oligarchs” of the Supreme Court were denounced as “unelected and unaccountable, arrogant and imperious, determined to redesign the culture according to their own biases and values.”

Why has Mr Frist thrown in his lot with the religious right? It is possible that he has enjoyed a private conversion. But the more likely explanation is that an intensely ambitious man desperately wants to be president. At his young gentleman's academy in Nashville, his nicknames were “Mr President”, “Precious” and “Wilbur”; at Princeton, Harvard Medical School and the Stanford University Medical Centre, he was a super-achiever, so keen on practising surgery that he even adopted stray cats from Boston shelters for the sole purpose of dissecting them. And now he is in the Senate—a club whose inhabitants think about becoming president as often as normal humans think about sex.

Mr Frist seems to have made two calculations. The first is that you cannot win the Republican nomination unless you have “people of faith” on your side. The second is that such people are very angry. They thought that the 2004 election, with its clean sweep of the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate, would allow them to roll back secular liberalism. But they find themselves blocked on every front: by a liberal press that is intent on destroying their champions, such as (Saint) Tom DeLay; by the Democratic minority, which is using every trick in the book to block their agenda; and by an activist judiciary, which seems impervious to the will of the people.

Both these calculations are absolutely right, but they are hardly risk-free—as the filibuster debate shows. Mr Frist's natural constituency—business conservatives—already worry that the filibuster fuss will distract attention from things like trade liberalisation and litigation reform. The stakes will soon get higher. If Mr Frist's nuclear strategy fails, he risks disappointing the religious right, emboldening the Democrats and trashing his reputation as an efficient majority leader. If he succeeds, he risks throwing the Senate into turmoil, alienating moderate voters, and stoking up the appetite of the religious right to move on to something else (like overturning Roe v Wade).

No Comment From Supporters of the Culture of Life

Hospital to end life support

Houston woman faces second fight in 2 months over husband's care

By TODD ACKERMAN
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

A San Antonio hospital has decided to withdraw life support from the Friendswood invalid whose family successfully fought a Houston facility with the same plans last month.

Southeast Baptist Hospital notified the family of Spiro Nikolouzos last week that doctors plan to turn of his ventilator and stop feeding him intravenously May 3. The notification followed the hospital ethics committee's determination that continued care would be futile.

"Can you believe a hospital's trying to do this again?" Nikolouzos' wife, Jannette, said. "It's very aggravating — I never thought this would happen again."

She vowed to fight Southeast Baptist, but said she hasn't contacted Mario Caballero, the Houston lawyer whose court filings stopped St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital from pulling the plug before she could find another facility to take him.

Southeast Baptist officials would not talk about the case, citing patient confidentiality laws.

Spiro Nikolouzos' case attracted significant attention in Houston in March, the same time the Terri Schiavo drama reached its climax. It shone a light on a seldom-used Texas law that allows hospitals to remove a patient from life support 10 days after notifying family of its intentions. The family has that time to find an alternative facility.

MORE

Deliberately Misled By The Right

Our friends over at Democracy Cell Project are upset because in reports of Bush's lies on WMD stories are using an euphemism such as "deliberately misled" such as in "Half of all Americans, exactly 50%, now say the Bush administration deliberately misled Americans about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the Gallup Organization reported this morning."

That's ok--continue to say Bush deliberately misled the public. Everyone knows what it means. Let them use this euphemism and then extend this to everything else Bush has deliberately misled us about.

One mistake I think Kerry made in the 2004 election was to not stress the fact that Bush's whole campaign was based upon lying about his positions and record during the campaign, Kerry needed to point out how Bush was lying on campaign issues and then extend that to Bush lying about policy matters. There were just too many lies to try to fight each individually--it was necessary to get out the message that the entire campaign was based upon lies.

Responding to all the lies was necessary. In the past, the conventional wisdom was to avoid responding because it just gave more publicity to the lies. When dishonest attacks are responded to, it often leads to people being more likely to remember the attack rather than the response. With the ability of the right to spread lies quickly with blogs, talk radio, and right wing propaganda sources disguised as news organizations, such as Fox News, the conventional wisdom doesn't hold. A lie left unanswered quickly is considered truth.

I suspect that Kerry was too much a gentleman to call Bush a liar. The news media is reluctant to call someone a liar.. Maybe having euphemisms such as "deliberately misled" in common use will make it easier for Democrats to speak up every time we are deliberately misled by Republicans, and maybe even for reporters to include this in their reports.

During the Vietnam war, it helped strengthen the case for opponents of the war when there was common talk about the "credibility gap" from those supporting the war. It helped bring down Richard Nixon for it to be generally considered that yes, despite his earlier protests, he certainly was a crook. If we are to stop the subversion of democracy by the current GOP (that's Grand Orwellian Party) leadership, it is necessary for the public to realize how often we are being deliberately misled by the right.

Hammer the Hammer

Hit Tom DeLay and hear his wisdom. Play the game here.

Kerry Challenges Administration’s Big Business Agenda

Continuing his challenges to the Bush administration’s big business policies, John Kerry spoke today on the Senate floor honoring the 25 million small businesses in America while pointing out the inequities of the Bush administration’s support for the real small businesses of America.
Here’s some quips from Kerry’s floor statement:

“National Small Business Week is a time to celebrate the hard work of millions of American entrepreneurs… Today, those Americans are more than small business owners. They are employers, community leaders, and the keepers of the American Dream.

“Our small business owners not only remind us of the opportunities America provides to those willing to work for it – they also remind us how much opportunity small businesses provide to all Americans.

“Small businesses drive our economy, comprising over 99 percent of all firms and over half of our GDP. Two-thirds of all new American jobs are created by small businesses. A majority of Americans depend on their small business employer for health insurance. Our small businesses are responsible for countless inventions and innovations that have elevated the standard of living in the U.S. and around the world.

“Entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in America. Three in four adults have considered starting a small business, and with the advent of the Internet those numbers are going up.

“Supporting our small businesses is a win-win proposition for America. We can afford it. The people want it. And our economy needs it.

“That’s why it’s so hard to understand the administration’s lack of support. The SBA budget has been cut over a third since 2001, the largest reduction of any federal agency. Those cuts would have been far greater if Congress had not intervened… Time and time again we have received unanimous support in the Senate to rebuff proposed administration cuts. That’s because supporting small business shouldn’t be a partisan issue and never has been.

“We shouldn’t have to fight so hard for something that so obviously benefits America. This administration often claims the pro-business mantle. But if they were honest they would clarify that that means big business, not small business.

“Look at the bankruptcy bill. The bill helps big credit card companies and banks, but increases red tape and bureaucracy for small businesses. Small business owners know the path to success is often through failure, but the president’s bankruptcy bill discourages risk-taking and entrepreneurship.

“Look at the tax cuts. The administration claims the tax cuts primarily benefit small business, but in reality only the biggest small businesses get the majority of the cuts. More than half of small business owners received less than $500, and almost a quarter got no tax cut at all.

“Look at energy policy. While American families and small businesses struggled with gas prices, oil companies earned record profits in the fourth quarter of 2004: ExxonMobil up 218 percent, ConocoPhillips up 145 percent, Shell up 51 percent, ChevronTexaco up 39% and BP up 35 percent. Show me the small business that saw that kind of growth in the fourth quarter of last year.

“Look at what’s going on with federal contracts right now. Congress set the goal of each federal agency awarding at least 23 percent of its contracting dollars to small businesses. So what did the administration do? They allowed $2 billion worth of contracts to be reported as going to small businesses that, in fact, went to some of our biggest businesses. The money went to Raytheon, Northup Grumman, General Dynamics and Hewlett-Packard. Even the state of Texas was treated as a small business.

“An administration concerned with small business would be outraged by this and do something about it. This administration has done nothing. They have not accepted requests for an audit. They have not taken substantive steps to reform the contracting process. They have not prosecuted anyone for misrepresenting their organization as a small business…

“Small businesses are hit particularly hard by our healthcare crisis. Most small business owners want to do right by their employees and offer healthcare, but too many can no longer afford to... Since 2000, premiums for family coverage have gone up 59 percent, compared with inflation increases of nearly 10% and wage growth of over 12 percent. Some small businesses have reported their premiums increasing by more than 70 percent in one year.

“Of the 45 million uninsured Americans, almost two-thirds are small business owners, their employees and their families. In a nation founded on the principle of opportunity, that is unacceptable.

“We need a healthcare plan that gives small businesses access to the range of plan choices and consumer protections offered through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program…

“Getting a small business healthcare plan passed should be a top priority for all of us this Congress. We can’t allow skyrocketing healthcare to slow down our economy or dampen entrepreneurship in America.

“Small businesses and entrepreneurs are America's single greatest economic resource. Time and again small business – not large corporations – have pulled our economy out of trouble, developed technological breakthroughs, and changed the way we do business in America for the better… Read the entire floor speech here.

Defending the Enlightenment

The religious right has been working for years to use the powers of the state to impose their views on others. We are seeing more and more signs of people fighting back, such as with this editorial in today's Boston Globe:

Whose nation under God?
By Robert Kuttner April 27, 2005

WHEN John Kennedy was running for president and passions were running high about whether a Catholic could serve both the American citizenry and Rome, a joke made the rounds about a priest and a minister whose friendship nearly came to blows. Finally the priest phoned his old friend. ''What a pity," he said. ''Here we are, both men of the cloth, fighting over politics." ''It's true," said the minister. ''We're both Christians. We both worship the same God -- you in your way, and I in His."

America, which separated church and state precisely to protect the private right to worship, has long had its share of religious absolutists who have wanted to harness the power of the state to their own view of revealed truth. But never before in our history has the government deliberately and cynically intervened on the side of the zealots.

President Bush, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and company are playing with serious fire. As the joke suggests, there is no challenging revealed truth. That's why the state stays neutral.

What's under siege here is nothing less than the Enlightenment. Please recall that what we benignly remember as the Renaissance coexisted with centuries of vicious religious persecution -- Christians persecuting heretics like Galileo, expelling and slaughtering Muslims and Jews, then doing bloody battle with each other following the Protestant Reformation.

The philosophers of the Enlightenment were men of science who understood that faith could not be disputed but that reason could be subjected to the test of logic and evidence. The American Revolution was a triple triumph -- for political democracy, religious tolerance, and for the free inquiry demanded by the scientific method.

Today's religious extremists are not only trying to use the state, with all its power, as religious proselytizer. They oppose science when it happens to conflict with their version of revealed truth. They twist history to claim that the Republic's freethinking Founders, like Jefferson, Adams, and Madison, were really theocrats like themselves. They long for the predemocratic world of absolutes circa 1500.

Although proponents of state sponsorship of ''faith-based" activities claim that all faiths are equally eligible, the politically dominant soon attempt to dictate the approved faith. Leon Wieseltier has observed, ''It is never long before one nation under God gives way to one God under a nation."

MORE

Kerry: ‘Administration Abandons Small Contractors’

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, today called on the Bush administration and the head of the Small Business Administration (SBA) to start ensuring small businesses receive their fair share of federal contracts.

“The deck has been stacked against small businesses so large corporations have an unfair advantage when it comes to competing for federal contracts, and the administration must start ensuring small businesses have a chance at their fair share of the $300 billion federal pie,” said Kerry.

In December 2004, the SBA Office of Advocacy released a report finding that 39 large corporations in 2002 received over $2 billion in contracts that the Administration mistakenly counted as small business contracts. Although the problems that caused $2 billion in false reporting still exist today, Administrator Barreto refuses to audit the problem -- preventing small businesses from getting their share of contracts as required by law.

“Administrator Barreto boasts that the Administration surpassed its small-business contracting goal for the very first time in 2003. That would be something to applaud, if accurate. There is compelling evidence that those claims are wrong. If so, small businesses may have lost out on billions in contracts,” Kerry added.

Recently, the Administration also ignored requests by small-business leaders and Kerry to remove an anti-small business provision slipped into the emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan. The provision gives special treatment to the Department of Energy to count subcontracts toward their small-business prime contracting goals yet doesn’t increase the agency’s total small-business contracting goals.

“It is disappointing that the White House chose to ignore numerous requests from small businesses to weigh in on this harmful provision and protect our nation’s small contractors,” Kerry said.

To address the concerns of the small-business community and to continue his efforts to support the nation’s entrepreneurs, Sen. Kerry has reintroduced his Small Business Federal Contractor Safeguard Act, S.137, to expand protections for small businesses with federal contracts. In addition, Sen. Kerry has repeatedly called on the administration to implement the women’s procurement program that became law in December of 2000. Currently, women-owned small businesses make up 30 percent of all business, yet receive just 3 percent of all federal contract dollars.

Bush Gets Man-Date

I Want To Hold Your Hand

Oh, yeah, I'll tell you somethin' I think you'll understand
When I say that somethin' I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand

Oh, please say to me you'll let me be your man
And please say to me you'll let me hold your hand
Now let me hold your hand
I want to hold your hand

And when I touch you I feel happy inside
It's such a feelin' that my love I can't hide
I can't hide
I can't hide

Yeah, you've got that somethin' I think you'll understand
When I say that somethin' I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand

And when I touch you I feel happy inside
It's such a feelin' that my love I can't hide
I can't hide
I can't hide

Yeah, you've got that somethin' I think you'll understand
When I feel that somethin' I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand

Individualism vs. Republican Social Conservativism

The contradictory beliefs of more traditional small government conservatives and the religious right, which promotes a government which is more intrusive in individual's lives, is bound to cause problems for conservatives In The New Republic Andrew Sullivan warns that:

unless the religious presence within Republicanism becomes less dogmatic and fundamentalist, the conservative coalition as we have known it cannot long endure. Advocates for government restraint cannot, in good conscience, keep supporting a party that believes in its own God-given mission to change people's souls. Believers in fiscal discipline cannot keep backing an administration that boasts of its huge spending increases and has no intention of changing.

Sullivan doesn't think this will necessarily lead to an end of Republican dominance of the government, but there are areas where the Republican electoral strategy is in danger. The Los Angeles Times warns that the social conservativism of the South is incompatible with the individualism of the west. They note that "The social conservatism that keeps the South red may not be enough for the West. Old-fashioned individual liberty and Democratic populism are getting a hearing."

Loss of the west could eliminate the GOP's advantage with thier lock on the south:

Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico and Arizona have elected Democratic governors, as have the swing states of Oregon and Washington. Democrats picked up a House seat and a Senate seat in Colorado and won both houses of the Legislature. Democrats took the Montana Legislature to go along with their new chief executive.

Even in the presidential contest, Democrat John Kerry had strong showings in New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado. If they had gone to Kerry instead of George W. Bush, Kerry would have won. . .

Rather than trying to sound more like the religious right on the so-called moral issues, Democrats might be better if they did a better job of differentiating themselves from the Republicans in supporting individual liberty and opposing the Republican support of bigger government and more intrusion in individual's lives. With the Republicans in control of all three branches of government, the traditional mistrust of government seen in the west should be easy to turn against the Republicans.

Kerry Statement Today on Energy Dependence

"President Bush's meeting today with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah is a stark reminder of our country's dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and how much that dependence threatens our national security.

"America is growing more - not less - dependant on foreign oil, and our dependence on foreign oil is shortchanging our goals in the war on terror. Even if oil miraculously drops to $30 a barrel, over the next 25 years the U.S. will send over 3 trillion American dollars out of the country, much of it to regimes that don't share our values. In the past Hamas received almost half of its funding from Saudi Arabia. We know al Qaeda has relied on prominent Saudis for financing. And Saudi Arabia sponsors clerics who promote the ideology of terror.

"We can no longer allow America's dependence on foreign oil to compromise our energy security. Instead, we must invest in inventing new ways to power our cars and our economy. I'll put my faith in American science and ingenuity any day before I depend on Saudi Arabia.

"The administration's energy policy works for Saudi Arabia, it works for big oil and gas companies, but it doesn't work for the American people. The president's energy bill, by his own admission, does nothing to lower gas prices; will increase oil imports by 85% by 2025; and 95% of the tax benefits in the package - over $8 billion - go directly into the pockets of big oil and gas companies.

"Jawboning OPEC nations to increase production is short-term solution to a long-running problem. We need to invest in America's energy future - not Saudi Arabia's - and the only way to do that is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

Dean the Moderate

Howard Dean attracted considerable support from the left in his campaign for the 2004 nomination despite being a rather moderate Democrat. It looks like some on the left are finally catching on to this as the Progressive Democrats of America have criticized his stand on Iraq:

Howard Dean recently stated regarding Iraq, "Now that we're there, we're there and we can't get out." While Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) honors and respects Governor Dean's effort to expand, empower, and energize the Democratic Party grassroots base, and further respects his engagement of small contributors and individual activists, we take strong exception to Governor Dean's statements on Iraq.

Of course those of us backing Kerry over Dean could have warned the leftists all along that Dean was not one of them.

Bush Administration Retaliates Against Kerry Supporters, Violating Principles of Democracy

It was bad enough when Richard Nixon had his enemies list. Now George Bush is proving John Dean was right in declaring the Bush administration to be Worse Than Watergate. Under Bush, even businessmen who contributed to John Kerry are considered enemies.

Georgte Bush ran for President in 2000 claiming to be a uniter, not a divider before becoming one of the most divisive Presidents in history. He once again shows that he does not consider himself to be President of all the people--only those who support him. Our democracy has worked because of the ability to unite following an election, along with checks and balances to prevent one party from moving in an extreme direction. These checks and balances have broken down as this has been just the latest example of the anti-democratic practices of the Bush administration and allies in Congress.

Since the Republicans have tanen over, we have seen:

• A breakdown of the checks and balances in Congress, as even Republican committee chairs who deviate from the party line are removed
• Pressure placed upon K Street to have businesses only contribute to Republicans, or face a loss of thier contacts in government
• Attacks on the judicial system, as even Republican-dominated courts are considered too liberal when they attempt to uphold the Constitution against the extremism of the current GOP leadership
  
• Town hall meetings paid for by taxpayers to discuss government policy, where only Bush supporters are allowed
• This latest act where supporters of John Kerry are excluded from discussion of telecommunications standards, as reported below:

The Bush Administration punishes some Democrat backers
By VIVECA NOVAK AND JOHN DICKERSON

Sunday, Apr. 24, 2005
The Inter-American Telecommunication Commission meets three times a year in various cities across the Americas to discuss such dry but important issues as telecommunications standards and spectrum regulations. But for this week's meeting in Guatemala City, politics has barged onto the agenda. At least four of the two dozen or so U.S. delegates selected for the meeting, sources tell TIME, have been bumped by the White House because they supported John Kerry's 2004 campaign.

The State Department has traditionally put together a list of industry representatives for these meetings, and anyone in the U.S. telecom industry who had the requisite expertise and wanted to go was generally given a slot, say past participants. Only after the start of Bush's second term did a political litmus test emerge, industry sources say.

The White House admits as much: "We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that," says White House spokesman Trent Duffy. Those barred from the trip include employees of Qualcomm and Nokia, two of the largest telecom firms operating in the U.S., as well as Ibiquity, a digital-radio-technology company in Columbia, Md. One nixed participant, who has been to many of these telecom meetings and who wants to remain anonymous, gave just $250 to the Democratic Party. Says Nokia vice president Bill Plummer: "We do not view sending experts to international meetings on telecom issues to be a partisan matter. We would welcome clarification from the White House."

Will This Be The Last Straw For DeLay?

Things are looking worse and worse for Tom DeLay. Here's the latest:

DeLay Airfare Was Charged To Lobbyist's Credit Card

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 24, 2005; Page A01

The airfare to London and Scotland in 2000 for then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was charged to an American Express card issued to Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist at the center of a federal criminal and tax probe, according to two sources who know Abramoff's credit card account number and to a copy of a travel invoice displaying that number.

DeLay's expenses during the same trip for food, phone calls and other items at a golf course hotel in Scotland were billed to a different credit card also used on the trip by a second registered Washington lobbyist, Edwin A. Buckham, according to receipts documenting that portion of the trip.

House ethics rules bar lawmakers from accepting travel and related expenses from registered lobbyists. DeLay, who is now House majority leader, has said that his expenses on this trip were paid by a nonprofit organization and that the financial arrangements for it were proper. He has also said he had no way of knowing that any lobbyist might have financially supported the trip, either directly or through reimbursements to the nonprofit organization.

The documents obtained by The Washington Post, including receipts for his hotel stays in Scotland and London and billings for his golfing during the trip at the famed St. Andrews course in Scotland, substantiate for the first time that some of DeLay's expenses on the trip were billed to charge cards used by the two lobbyists. The invoice for DeLay's plane fare lists the name of what was then Abramoff's lobbying firm, Preston Gates & Ellis.

MORE

Republicans Continue To Push Dishonest View of 2004 Election

Not only did the Republicans win with a campaign based upon dirty tactics ranging from dishonesty in describing their own policies to greatly distorting Kerry's proposals and record, to outright voter suppression, but now they try to cover up their deceptions. Today the Williamsport Sun-Gazette takes issue with recent statements from John Kerry regarding Republican dirty tricks. They claim that Democrats lost not due to Republican tricks:

"We would suggest an alternative explanation for Democrats' electoral troubles at the national level: They've jumped off the left end, openly rejected mainstream American values, devoted themselves to blaming America first in foreign affairs and embraced high-tax, high-spend economics."

It is remarkable how many deceptions they sneak into this paragraph alone! Let's look at them one by one:

• "Democrats' electoral troubles at the national level" This is a common tactic of Republicans, claiming greater support and success, dating at least back to the days of Richard Nixon claiming support of the "silent majority" prior to being forced from office. Their claims of major electoral troubles are greatly exaggerated. George Bush won reelection by a remarkably small margin for an incumbent President, especially during war time. Republicans would have lost House seats if not for their redistricting shenanegans. Republicans did better in the Senate, but primarily by taking Democratic seats in red states as a long process of realignment has continued.
  
  
• "They've jumped off the left end" It is Republicans who won by moving to the extremes, successfully bringing out far more people on the right than anticipated, allowing them to win despite Kerry's greater support among both liberals and moderates. While Republicans may have won the vote, a majority of voters supported Democrats' positions on virtually every position polled. Republicans try to paint their opponents as being far more liberal than they really are, such as when they claimed that Kerry was ranked the number one most liberal Senator, when his overall record was actually at number eleven.
  
  
• "openly rejected mainstream American values" Most likely a code word for not engaging in the gay bashing which helped bring right wingers to the polls. Despite opposition to gay marriage, the general public overall is becoming more tolerant of gays, including support for civil unions--the position held by John Kerry. It is the Republicans who are opposing the principles American was founded on including separation of powers and separation of church and state. They violate American values as they support greater governmental intrusion in people's oppose successful programs such as Medicare and Social Security.
  
  
• "devoted themselves to blaming America first in foreign affairs" A fiction to hide the fact that Republican are clueless as to the real problems we face, with phoney claims that we were attacked on 9/11 because al Qaeda hates us for our freedom, and all the lies to get us into an unnecessary war (while failing to adequately take on terrorism).
  
  
• "embraced high-tax, high-spend economics" It is the Republicans who have run up a record deficit while the Democrats advocated a pay as you go policy. The only high taxes the Republicans care about is having any taxes at all on the ultra-wealthy. The Republicans attempted to reduce taxes for the wealthy alone until the Democrats insisted upon the middle class tax cut. From John Kerry to Howard Dean, Democrats are now led by fiscal conservatives who realize that the only thing worse then higher taxes and higher spending is higher borrowing and higher spending.
  
  

Kerry: Bush, EPA fail the public on mercury In Earth Day visit, calls for tougher pollution laws

Kerry: Bush, EPA fail the public on mercury In Earth Day visit, calls for tougher pollution laws
By MATT MURPHY, Sun Staff

LOWELL -- With the Merrimack River glimmering in the background, Sen. John Kerry yesterday chided the Bush administration and the Environmental Protection Agency for weakening its stance against mercury pollution.

“You can't talk about a culture of life in one breath and turn around and poison our children with the next,” Kerry told a small crowd, including several environmental youth groups, on the riverfront behind the Tsongas Arena.

Kerry's remarks came during an event celebrating the 35th anniversary of Earth Day,
which featured several speakers addressing mercury contamination in the Merrimack Valley and the related health risks.

According to Merrimack River Watershed Council President Elizabeth Coughlin, the Department of Agriculture in a March 8 report identified the Merrimack Valley as one of nine “hot spots” in North America for mercury contamination in its waterways.

The pollution emanates from coal- and oil-fueled power plants locally and throughout the Midwest. Mercury falls into Massachusetts' rivers, lakes and streams when
it rains, poisoning wildlife and making fish unsafe to consume, particularly for pregnant women and children.

Dr. David Bellinger, of Children's Hospital in Boston, said high levels of mercury have been found to contribute to mental retardation and cerebral palsy in infants, create learning disabilities in young children, and affect the adult cardio-vascular system.

“The current approach is for people to limit their consumption of fish,” Bellinger said. “What we need is to stop mercury from getting into the fish so people can make choices based on what they like to eat.”

Kerry agreed, calling for a renewed effort to make choices that will help save the environment.

“It's a real problem in our country today that parents can't take their kids fishing and, if they're lucky enough to catch something, bring it home to eat,” Kerry said.

The senator criticized President Bush's environmental policies from logging to air- and water-quality standards, but singled out the EPA for issuing revised guidelines last month on mercury pollution.

The
new EPA rule walks away from the more stringent regulations set forth in a similar 2000 plan, by extending the time frame under which mercury pollution will be curtailed, Kerry said.

He also hammered the agency for lying to the American public, explaining that the EPA had disregarded a Harvard University study commissioned by the government that found great health benefits in stricter emission standards.

“We need to take this Earth Day and recommit to going into the community and reconnecting with these important issues,” Kerry said. “We need to make these voting issues again.”

Matt Murphy's e-mail address is mmurphy@lowellsun.com.

Kerry Introduces Bill To Help Home Owners

John Kerry has co-sponsored yet another bill with Republicans, perhaps showing how he might have worked with the Republican Congress to promote progressive goals if elected:

NAR Applauds Senate Introduction of Homeownership Tax Credit Bill
Friday April 22, 11:08 am ET

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 22, 2005--The National Association of Realtors® praised U.S. Sens. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.), John Kerry (D-Mass.) and four other senators of both parties for introducing this week the Community Development Homeownership Tax Credit Act, S. 859, which would help as many as 50,000 families a year achieve the American dream of homeownership. Companion legislation known as the Renewing the Dream Tax Credit Act, H.R. 1549, was introduced in the House last week by Reps. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.).

Modeled after the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, the legislation is expected to generate nearly $2 billion in private investment annually for the construction and/or rehabilitation of approximately 50,000 homes for sale to lower-income families. The credit is also expected to produce 122,000 construction and related jobs, $4 billion in wages and $2 billion in federal, state and local tax revenue. The program would provide investors with a tax credit of up to 50 percent of the cost of developing each home.

The bill is similar to legislation that was introduced in both the House and Senate last session and gained the support of a bipartisan majority of Congress. The homeownership tax credit also enjoys the strong support of President Bush. NAR is part of a coalition of over 40 housing and community organizations that back the measure.

"The homeownership tax credit will help thousands of families a year purchase a home by bridging the gap between the development cost and the price at which these homes can be sold in many lower-income communities," said NAR President Al Mansell, CEO of Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage in Salt Lake City. "As Realtors®, we're committed to helping every family achieve the American dream of homeownership. We look forward to working with Congress and the administration to enact homeownership tax credit legislation this year."

The National Association of Realtors®, "The Voice for Real Estate," is America's largest trade association, representing more than 1 million members involved in all aspects of the residential and commercial real estate industries.

Information about NAR is available at http://www.realtor.org. This and other news releases are posted in the Web site's "News Media" section in the NAR Media Center.

The Jerry Seinfled Theory of Voting Republican

The players change, the manager changes, the ballpark changes. About the only thing that stays the same is the uniform. When you get down to it, what you're really rooting for is the shirt." --Jerry Seinfeld

Jerry Seinfeld's observations on baseball remind me a lot of current politics. While many long-time Republicans supported John Kerry in 2004, realizing his views are more in accordance with their underlying values than the extremist views of the neoconservatives currently in control of the Republican party, many people continued to vote Republican. Obviously the players have changed. The "ballpark" has also changed--in this case the underlying viewpoints. While there are no uniforms, what they were really rooting for was just the party name.

On foreign policy, imagine if a Democrat had taken office receiving specific warnings from the previous administration about a foreign threat and ignored it, and then continued to ignore continuing warnings about an impending attack. In the old days, Republicans would have been all over such incompetence, not voting to reelect the administration based upon national security concerns.

True Republicans would respect the military service of John Kerry, not attack it in order to make the record of someone such as George Bush who avoided his responsibilities appear less objectionable.

The modern conservative movement often refers to the Goldwater take-over of the GOP in 1964 as their start, forgetting how Barry Goldwater was a major opponent of their new allies on the religious right. Republicans who in the past promised to get government off our backs now support a government which has become more intrusive in individual's lives.

Republicans warned about deficits and big government in the past, Bill Clinton announced that the era of big government is over, and left office with a surplus. George Bush brought back both deficits and big government. Corporate welfare has replaced their support for free enterprise.

Republicans oppose the current judges, forgetting most were appointed by Republicans. For example, according to the Los Angeles Times, "Ninety-four of the 162 active judges now on the U.S. Court of Appeals were chosen by Republican presidents. On 10 of the 13 circuit courts, Republican appointees have a clear majority. And, since 1976, at least seven of the nine seats on the U.S. Supreme Court have been filled by Republican appointees." Similarly Republicans have forgotten their old support for Federalism on issues ranging from the Terri Schiavo case to tort reform.

If Republicans had cool uniforms, maybe Jerry Seinfeld's ideas on baseball would apply to voting Republican. Unfortunately, not only have they abandoned their values, they don't even have uniforms. Observing the Bush administration, a better analogy would be to say that the emperor wears no clothes.

Kerry's Senate Floor Statement on the Nuclear Option

John Kerry on Republican Congressional Leadership's Failure To Focus on Real Priorities of the American People

Below are the remarks of Senator John Kerry on the Senate floor this afternoon.

Senator John Kerry Washington's Broken: The Nuclear Option April 21, 2005 Remarks As Prepared for Delivery Senate Floor

Mr. President, the Republican “nuclear option” has been discussed endlessly on editorial pages, talk radio, and in this chamber. This ongoing debate is about much more than Senate procedure. At its core it’s a debate about where we’re headed and what kind of nation we want to become. And beneath it are questions about Washington, which seems headed in a direction that clashes with the will of the American people.

The fact we even are talking about this issue is a stark reminder that Washington is not fighting for the broad interests of the American people. From the outside looking in, our Democracy appears broken - endangered by one party rule intent on amassing power, often at the expense of real work the American people elected us to do.

In recent weeks alone we have witnessed as disturbing a course of events as I have ever seen in this city. Republican leaders of Congress are crossing lines that should never be crossed:

The line that says a leader in the House of Representatives should never carelessly threaten or intimidate federal judges. The line that says the leader of the Senate should never accuse those who disagree with his political tactics of waging a war against people of faith. The line that says respect for core constitutional principles should never be undermined by a political party’s quest for power. Most important of all, the line that says a political party’s leaders should never let their thirst for power overshadow the needs and interests of those who elected them - the American people.

It’s almost hard to believe that in a Congress where leaders of both parties once worked together to find common ground despite ideological differences, we face this moment at all.

Yesterday, when Jim Jeffords announced his retirement, I remembered a very different Washington that Jim’s words captured so eloquently almost four years ago. He spoke of a political tradition where leaders represented their states first. “They spoke their minds,” he said, “often to the dismay of their party leaders…and did their best to guide this city in the direction of our fundamental principles.”

My distinguished colleague, Senator Voinovich, had the courage to respect that tradition earlier this week, but such acts of courage, sadly, are increasingly rare. And I want to talk about this for just a minute. Senator Voinovich is being vilified on talk radio and the Internet for having the audacity to say he wanted more time and more testimony. Senator Voinovich did not say he planned to vote against the president’s nominee; he just said he wants to make an informed decision on a matter of great importance. That doesn’t seem so controversial, but my distinguished colleague, Senator Chafee said he had never seen such an act as Senator Voinovich’s in his four years in Washington.

Before the era of C-SPAN and 24-hour news and the World Wide Web, Senators showed courage and independence all the time. Senators did not think twice about acting on their conscience ahead of partisanship. Today, Senator Voinovich is subjected to widespread denigration in partisan circles, when Americans should really admire and respect his independence.

Open your eyes and look at what’s happening right now in Congress and you're quickly reminded that the people who run Washington have lost touch with the mainstream values and priorities of the American people.

What does it tell you when an embattled House Majority Leader is willing to go on talk radio and attack a Supreme Court Justice, let alone one appointed by Ronald Reagan and confirmed by a nearly unanimous Senate? A justice who ruled in favor of President Bush in Bush v. Gore. Ronald Reagan’s nominee to the highest court in the land can’t even escape Tom DeLay’s partisan assaults, and yet here on the floor of the Senate there’s no outcry - no moderating Republican voice willing to say this shocking attack has no place in our democracy.

I guess none of this should be a surprise - not after we learned what the Majority leader has planned this Sunday. The Majority Leader plans to headline a religious service devoted to defeating, I quote, a “filibuster against people of faith.” When the Leader of the Senate questions the faith of any Senator who opposes his procedural changes to Senate, he goes beyond endangering rules that protect the cherished rights of the minority in our democracy.

Make no mistake: this may be an isolated issue, but the rights of the minority are fundamental to our democracy, and diluting those rights would be a threat to our democracy.

Mr. President, forces outside the mainstream now seem to effortlessly push Republican leaders toward conduct the American people don't want from their elected leaders: Abusing power. Inserting the government into our private lives. Injecting religion into debates about public policy. Jumping through hoops to ingratiate themselves to their party’s base, while step by step, day by day, real problems that keep American families up at night fall by the wayside here in Washington.

Congress, Washington, and our democracy itself are being tested. We each have to ask ourselves, will we let this continue?

Will Republicans in the House continue spending the people’s time defending Tom DeLay, or will they get back to defending America? Will Republican Senators let their silence endorse Senator Frist’s appeal to religious division, or will they put principle ahead of partisanship, refuse to follow him across that line, and instead heal the wounds of this institution and begin addressing the countless challenges facing our nation?

It’s time to come together to fulfill our fundamental obligations to our soldiers and military families, who have sacrificed so much. It’s time to bring down gas prices and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It’s time to find the common ground to cover the 11 million children in this country living without health insurance.

Are we really willing to allow Washington to become a place where they can rewrite the ethics rules to protect Tom DeLay - and then sell out the ethics of the American people by refusing to rewrite the law to provide health care to every child in America?

Are we really willing to allow the Senate to fall in line with the Majority Leader when he invokes faith to rewrite Senate rules to put substandard, extremist judges on the bench?

It’s not up to any one of us to tell another colleague what to believe as a matter of faith.

But I can tell you what I believe: When tens of thousands of innocent souls have perished in Darfur-when 11 million children are without health insurance-when our colossal debt subjects our economic future to the whims of Asian bankers-no one can tell me that faith demands this Senate spend its time arguing over a handful of judges. No one with those priorities can use my faith intimidate me.

It’s time we make it clear that we’re not willing to lay down and put this narrow, stubborn agenda ahead of our families, ahead of our Constitution, and ahead of our values.

The elected leadership in Washington owes the American people better than this. We must hold elected officials accountable and demand that Washington does the people’s business.

What’s at stake is far more than the loss of civility, or the sacrifice of bipartisanship. What’s at stake are our values as a country - like respecting the rights of the minority, separation of church and state, honesty and responsibility.

Every one of us knows there’s no crisis in confirming judicial nominations when over 90% of the president’s nominees have already been confirmed.

No, what’s at stake is something far greater - a struggle between a great political tradition in the United States that seeks common ground so we can do the common good - and a new ethic that, on any given issue, will use any means to justify the end of absolute victory over whatever and whoever stands in the way.

A new view that says if you don’t like the facts, just change them; if you can’t win playing by the rules, just rewrite them. A new view that says if you can’t win a debate on the strength of your argument, demonize your opponents. A new view that says it’s ok to ignore the overwhelming public interest as long as you can get away with it.

For what? For a so-called ‘nuclear option’ that seeks to put extreme, substandard judges on the federal bench against the will of the American people.

Why? Is it worth undermining our democracy on behalf of Priscilla Owens, who took contributions from Enron and Halliburton and ruled in their favor? Is it worth this distraction from the people’s business to confirm Charles Pickering, who fought against implementing the Voting Rights Act and manipulated the judicial system to reduce the sentence of a convicted cross-burner? Is it worth throwing out 200 years of Senate tradition to defend William Myers, Janice Rogers Brown and Bill Pryor, whom numerous members of the impartial American Bar Association deemed unqualified?

Mr. President, the fact that we even have to debate a nuclear option over these judges tells you this is all about one party rule and its quest for unchallenged power. It’s time to put Americans back in control of their own lives - and put Washington back on their side. It’s time get Washington under control, and that starts by restoring some accountability.

Accountability for all the false promises - like the failure to move toward energy independence. The truth is we’re more dependent on foreign oil than ever before, and Americans are suffering, paying $2.35 a gallon.

Accountability for breaking faith with military families, who unnecessarily struggle to pay the bills and deal with lost benefits when loved ones are called to duty.

Accountability for the fiscal insanity, for the record deficits, for the mounting debts that cede dangerous amount of control over America’s economic future to central bankers in Asia and oil cartels in the Middle East. That’s a debate we owe the American people.

Accountability for the 44 million Americans without health care, and middle class Americans one doctor’s bill away from bankruptcy, and especially the eleven million children - sons and daughters of working parents - without any health care at all.

That’s what the American people are willing to see Washington debate with passion. People are tired of politicians passionately seeking power and not much else. Americans sent us here to struggle with important questions - like how we make our great country stronger, or how we bring Americans together around our shared values without driving Americans farther apart.

We continue to witness a sad decline in the quality of our debate and a coarsening of dialogue in American politics. It’s not what our Founding Fathers envisioned, but, worse than that, it’s not what the American people expect of their leaders. We need to change it. We must at long last begin restoring what the American people want and haven’t had for far too long - a Washington that works for them.

Join the discussion of Kerry's Senate activities, and video message, at Light Up The Darkness

Kerry Video Emailed to Supporters

There are moments in our work together when it's important to step back, look each other in the eye, and decide what we need to do next.

This is one of those moments.

The Republican Party's leaders have set America on an extraordinarily dangerous path. We are no longer just debating the merits of one policy over another. It's far more fundamental than that. The far right seems set on a path that challenges the fundamentals of how we make our democracy work best for all of us. I can't literally sit in your living room and talk about what's going on and how we need to rise to the occasion. So, I've chosen the next best thing, recording a video message that I hope each and every member of the johnkerry.com community will take the time to watch.

http://www.johnkerry.com/action/valuesvideo

It's essential for us to come together right now because, every day, Republican leaders are crossing lines that should never be crossed:

• The line that says a leader in the House of Representatives should never carelessly threaten or intimidate federal judges.
• The line that says a leader in the Senate should never accuse those who disagree with his political tactics of waging a war against people of faith.
• The line that says respect for core constitutional principles should never be undermined by a political party's quest for power.
• And, most important of all, the line that says a political party's leaders should never let their obsession with amassing power overwhelm the needs and interests of America's families.

The enclosed video message addresses the vitally important moment that our nation has reached. Decisions are about to be made that will shape America's future. I urge you to take a few minutes to watch the video -- and to forward it to your friends. But, most of all, I encourage you to join with the entire johnkerry.com community in committing yourself to acting to give voice to our values in the critical days ahead and holding Republicans in Washington accountable.

http://www.johnkerry.com/action/valuesvideo

Sincerely,

John Kerry

Increased Pharmaceutical Freedom in Canada

Two changes in regulations related to medications in Canada of note:

Canada has approved a cannibabis-based painkiller for people with multiple sclerosis. This makes Canada the first country in the world to approve a medication similar to marijuana.

While we are having problems in the United States of pharmacists refusing to dispense contraceptives, Canada is moving in the opposite direction, making it easier to receive the "morning after" pill by making them available without a prescription.

Kerry: Don't tell me what God wants

From the Boston Herald:

Kerry: Don't tell me what God wants
By Noelle Straub
Thursday, April 21, 2005 - Updated: 03:55 AM EST

WASHINGTON - Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday attacked Republicans for having an ``orthodoxy of view'' and overly inserting religion into politics, accusing them of using God as a justification for appointing conservative judges.
``I am sick and tired of a bunch of people trying to tell me that God wants a bunch of conservative judges on the court and that's why we have to change the rules of the United States Senate,'' Kerry told a group of Bay State residents who traveled to Capitol Hill for U.S. Rep. Martin Meehan's annual legislative seminar.
The Bay State senator was referring to a possible GOP move to alter Senate rules that would prevent Democrats from filibustering President Bush's judicial nominees.
``I am sick and tired of (them saying) they somehow have a better understanding of Christianity, of the Judeo-Christian ethic, of values,'' Kerry added. ``We're talking about values? You show me where in the New Testament Jesus ever talked about the value of having taxes and taking money from poor people to give to the rich people in this country.''
The Bay State senator added that the Christian values and Catholic church he grew up with ``was a church of universality and understanding and true freedom of conscience'' and that there was never this kind of ``imposition of values'' into politics.
Quoting the Biblical line that ``faith without works is dead,'' Kerry cited budget cuts to schools, literacy programs and Medicaid as distorted values.

Kerry Before Senate on Gas Prices and Energy Dependence

“Mr. President, once again today President Bush will talk about the rising cost of gas hurting Americans at the pump - and he’ll talk about our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.

“The issue today is not that the President doesn’t understand the problem, it’s that he has no solutions. Just last weekend President Bush used his radio address to urge Americans to support his energy legislation. He said, ‘American families and small businesses across the country are feeling the pinch from rising gas prices.’ President Bush is right that families are struggling; he’s wrong about the energy bill.

“The energy plan he continues to campaign for will make us more dependent on foreign oil, it will keep gas prices at record highs instead of making them affordable for consumers, and it will make our air and water more polluted instead of investing in a cleaner future.

“Mr. President, we need honest leadership and sound solutions to solve this very real energy crisis. This crisis affects our economy, our security, and our environment.

“The President’s status quo energy policies are hurting consumers at the pump, and no amount of tax payer funded, campaign style events can cover it up, because the evidence is posted on signs at every gas station in America. Americans are paying an average of $2.28/gallon at the pump. That’s up six cents in just the last week and over 50 cents in the last year. For the fourth week in a row gas prices are at an all-time high, and have now increased a staggering 56% since 2001.

“A recent Gallup survey revealed that 44% of Americans believe it’s ‘extremely important for Congress and the President to address gas prices.’ But you only need to look at the legislation promoted by the President and set to be voted on in the House this week to see that yet again Washington isn’t doing the work of the American people.

“Under this Administration, higher gas prices cost American consumers an extra $34 billion. Airlines, truckers and farmers spent an extra $20 billion last year alone. That’s a regressive energy tax on the backs of working Americans if I’ve ever seen one.

“But the Administration’s friends got off a lot easier, and this energy bill will make their load even lighter. While American workers and families were struggling, oil companies earned record profits in the fourth quarter of 2004: ExxonMobil up 218%, ConocoPhillips up 145%, Shell up 51%, ChevronTexaco up 39% and BP up 35%. What’s the President proposing? Just think about this: Ninety-five percent of the tax benefits included in the package - more than 8 billion dollars - goes directly into the pockets of big oil and gas companies. At a time when oil prices are at historic highs, our energy policy should be aimed at investing in new and renewable sources of energy, not lining the pockets of big special interests.

“What’s good for is the Administration’s contributors has not been good for our economy. Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan has said, ‘Markets for oil and natural gas have been subject to a degree of strain over the past year not experienced for a generation.’ The Chairman of the President’s own Council of Economic Advisors has admitted, ‘High energy prices are now a drag on our economy.’

“The problem goes even deeper. The Administration’s failure to propose a real energy policy also threatens our national security. We are more dependent on foreign oil than ever before, forcing us to into dangerous and compromising political entanglements with nations in the Middle East. America will never be fully secure until we free ourselves from the noose of foreign oil.

“Unfortunately, this so-called energy plan does nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But don’t just take my word for it - the President’s own economists found that oil imports will actually increase 85% by 2025 under a proposal like this. The President’s economists also found that ‘changes to production, consumption, imports, and prices are negligible.’ You don’t have to be an expert on oil or energy to understand this, you just have to able to count to figure out that God only gave us 3% of the worlds’ oil reserves - Saudi Arabia has 65% of them - we can’t drill our way to energy independence, we have to invent our way there.

“Mr. President, this energy bill isn’t even a band-aid on a very real energy crisis that threatens our economy and hurts our national security. About the only thing it does well is fatten the coffers of big energy companies. There is a reason Senator McCain, called the energy bill the ‘No Lobbyist Left Behind Act.’

“What kind of message do these policies send? If your profits go up, so do your subsidies. If the policy makes us more dependent on foreign oil, make the status quo even worse.

“Mr. President, we should be doing better than this. Energy policy gives us a rare chance to address so many challenges at once.

“If we end our dependence on foreign oil, we strengthen our national security.

“If we lead the world in inventing new energy technologies, we create thousands of high-paying American jobs.

“If we learn to tap clean sources of energy, we preserve a clean environment for our families and future generations.

“If we remove the burden of high gas prices, American consumers can spend elsewhere and give our economy the boost it needs.

“Unfortunately, this energy bill accomplishes none of these goals. Instead, it is laden with handouts to corporate special interests. When it comes to real energy policy, President Bush has run out of gas. The solutions to our energy crisis are staring us in the face, yet we continue to ignore them.

“Mr. President, it is long since time Washington came together on real energy policy -- to Americans who are suffering the consequences of Washington’s failure, we owe more than staged events to promote policies that don’t hold the answers.”

The Economic Costs of Suppressing Science

First Read reports on the controversy in Kansas over teaching of evolution versus intelligent design, and we see more signs of friction between the goals of the pro-business aspects of the GOP and the religious right. Apparently some people realize there is more money to be made in promoting science, and its marketable products, than in suppressing science to pander to the religious right:

Lawrence, KS-based investor and "self-employed businessman" John Burch will convene a meeting in his hometown tomorrow to lay out a case that this revived debate over the teaching of intelligent design versus evolutionary biology not only sends the wrong message to potential investors in Kansas bioscience, but that phasing out the teaching of evolution will deprive Kansas students of the education they need to go work in that industry.

"It's not a religious issue, it's an economic issue," Burch tells First Read, noting that the initiative includes 40,000 new jobs. He wants to see if "this age-old debate," as he calls it, "can be reframed as an economic workforce issue." Burch seems to be trying to sidestep the actual evolution-vs.-intelligent design argument by saying that the teaching of creationism "has nothing to do with the needs of Kansas science students if they're going to be part of the workforce in the bioscience economy."

Burch's meeting tomorrow will feature speakers who favor the teaching of evolution, including the head of the Kansas science standards curriculum revision committee and a rep for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, whereas the board of education hearings in Topeka in early May will feature experts who favor the teaching of intelligent design. Supporters of evolution are boycotting those hearings.

Republican Health Care Proposals Worsen the Problem

Health Savings Accounts have become the major Republican proposal for changing health care as they attempt to eliminate the system of employer-paid health coverage while being unwilling to consider increased governmental involvement as occurs in most of the developed world. Their real goal is to relieve supporters in business of their current health care expenses.

John Kerry was actually sympathetic to the problems faced by businesses, and aware of how this reduces American competitiveness. While Kerry's health care plan sought to reduce the burdens faced by businesses while expanding health care coverage, Republican proposals are directed purely at saving money for businessmen.

Previously Republicans attempted to reduce health care costs for business by encouraging movement towards HMO's, which were changed from a method of providing health care to a scheme to allow businesses to pay less on health care. As this HMO model has been found to be both economical inefficient and to be a poor method of delivering quality care (especially in the Medicare population, where Republicans continue to push for HMO's), Republicans were forced to go back to the drawing board and develop the HSA idea.

The Commonwealth Fund has published a review of the Republican proposal for Health Savings Accounts, finding that they provide little benefit for the uninsured, who will not receive sufficient tax benefits to make health care affordable, and are likely to exacerbate current problems as they "undermine the entire structure of job-based coverage among small firms."

We looked at earlier studies of problems with HSA's in January, showing the likelihood that this will lead to people avoiding payment for routine and preventative care out of reluctance towards paying out of their own funds. This results in long term increases in health care expenses. It is far less expensive to treat diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia early than to pay for bypass surgery, dialysis, and long term care following strokes. Similarly it is preferable, and less expensive, to screen for cancer than to pay for expensive treatments.

Action Alert: William Myers Could Be the Test Vote on the “Nuclear Option”

There is a petition on TedKennedy.com, that John Kerry emailed his supporters about earlier today. Just incased anyone missed the email or is not on his email list, here’s the Action Alert:

Say No To William Myers
William Myers was rejected as a judicial nominee last year, but President Bush has nominated him again. Republican Senate leaders are scheming to win this time – and win at any cost. They intend to seize absolute power by changing the rules to limit the rights of Democrats to be heard.

Myers has spent his career trying to dismantle the protections our courts exist to preserve. He was a former lobbyist for the mining, grazing and cattle industries and a Bush Administration bureaucrat. His only experience has been manipulating laws and regulations for corporate gain, against the public interest. He’s unqualified to sit on the largest federal appellate court in the country.

Sing the Petition Here.

From John Kerry’s email:

"It will come as no surprise to you that Senator Kennedy is in the forefront of efforts to stop the Republican scheme to change the fundamental Senate rules and create a system in which President Bush's judicial appointments can be approved without a single Democratic vote.

Things could all come to a head in the coming days. The focal point may well be William Myers, a nominee rejected last year who's been nominated again. He could be the test vote on the so-called "nuclear option."

John Kerry Fights to Halt Devastating Transit Cuts to Massachusetts and Nationwide Projects

Busy, busy, busy... that's what John Kerry has been lately in the Senate. Sometime in between the Mercury Polution Hearing and the Bolton Hearing, John Kerry managed to slide in introducing an ammendment to the Senate Finance Committee that would prevent the cut of $1.7 billion in transit projects and improvements over the next six years. Always the environmentalist, Kerry also pointed out that mass transit also improves the quality of life by cutting air pollution.

Fighting to stop major proposed cuts to transit in Massachusetts, Senator John Kerry today worked to amend the six year transportation bill currently pending in Congress. Without changes to the legislation, Massachusetts would lose $50 million for transit projects and improvements over the next six years. Nationwide, the cuts would total $1.7 billion.

“Now is not the time to cut funding for mass transit," insisted Senator Kerry. “Beyond its economic benefits, transit reduces our dependence on foreign oil. It also improves our quality of life by cutting the air pollution linked to lung disease, heart disease and cancer. In one year, one person using mass transit instead of driving to work can keep 77 pounds of toxic pollutants out of the air we breathe."

More

John Kerry Statement at Today's Senate Democratic Policy Committee Hearing on Toxic Mercury Pollution

In other Senate news today, the Senate Democratic Policy Committee held a hearing on mercury pollution in response to the continual denials of Republican-lead committees to hold hearings on the mercury pollution. Here is John Kerry’s statement today from the hearing:

Washington, D.C. - "I want to thank the members of the panel for joining us today to wrestle with an issue that's not just an environmental issue, but which is as real and present a health care crisis as you'll find in numerous communities across our country.

"When fathers across America take their kids fishing but can't risk cooking the catch for dinner because of the risk of mercury contamination, that's a health care issue. When expectant mothers can't trust the tuna fish sandwich they are eating because it might some day lead to seizures in their child, we have a public health problem on our hands. When teachers are seeing increases in learning disabilities around mercury hotspots, we have an education and a public health issue staring us in the face. And what's most troubling is that Washington's not being honest about it.

"In this city, it's almost become standard-fare for honesty to be sacrificed for political expediency. We saw it when the President's budget left out literally trillions in spending. We saw it when a Medicare actuary was forced to fudge the numbers and lie to Congress to keep his job. We saw the falsified numbers in Iraq on everything from the cost of the war to the number of trained Iraqi troops. We saw the fake newscasts produced by the Bush Administration and funded with your tax dollars.

More & Links

Kerry Defending Freedom of Religion and Religious Tolerance

John Kerry has been promoting religious tolerance in the work place with proposed legislation since 1997. Unfortunately some Democratic blogs have misinterpreted the latest version of this bill, sponsored along with Rick Santorum in the hopes of finally having a chance of passage.

The point of this legislation is tolerance. Tolerance works both ways. The goal is to allow people the ability to practice their religious beliefs in the work place under certain circumstances. This includes wearing religious garb and observing holidays. This aspect appeals to Republicans, giving the bill a fighting chance to pass. What is important from our point of view is that in allowing such freedom of religious expression, the bill also places reasonable limits to prevent such religious expression from interfering with the owners of a business or its customers.

The act has received increased attention due to the recent problems of pharmacists refusing to dispense contraceptives due to their religious beliefs. The bill provides a fair compromise here. A pharmacist would be allowed to refuse to dispense the contraceptive only if there was another pharmacist on duty in the same pharmacy who would dispense the contraceptive. This protects the customers right to receive whatever medications are prescribed by their doctor.

In an ideal world it would not be necessary for such legislation. In an ideal world employers would respect the religious practices of their employees wherever possible, but we would not face problems such as pharmacists refusing to dispense medications. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a country where the religious right is increasingly imposing their views upon others. Kerry's measure would place reasonable limits here, such as guaranteeing that contraceptives are dispensed regardless of the religious views of the pharmacist.

Vanessa Kerry in Boston Marathon

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., hugs his daughter Vanessa at the finish of the Boston Marathon, Monday, April 18, 2005, in Boston. Vanessa ran with the Dana Farber Marathon team to raise money for the Dana Farber Cancer Institute. Teresa Heinz Kerry walks at left.

Three States Fighting NCLB

It's not been a good month for No Child Left Behind. Last week there were reports of reduced progress by students since the requirements took effect. Now three states, Connecticut, Utah, and Texas, are refusing to follow federal regulations.

Connecticut is suing the US Department of education fo rmandating changes without providing the funding. The Texas education commissioner decided the requirements are flawed and decided to disregard some of the requirements. The Utah State Senate appears to be on the verge of passing a bill, already passed by the House, which rules that Utah's regulations will be followed where they conflict with the US Government's.

Chris Heinz won't run for office in 2006

Chris Heinz won't run for office in 2006
By Associated Press
Monday, April 18, 2005 - Updated: 03:45 PM EST

PITTSBURGH - Chris Heinz, the stepson of U.S. Sen. John Kerry who was widely rumored to be considering a run for Congress, said Monday that he won't seek office in 2006.
The son of the late Sen. John Heinz III had stumped for Kerry during his unsuccessful presidential bid last year, sparking rumors that Heinz would follow that with his own campaign against U.S. Rep. Melissa Hart. Heinz, 32, is the youngest of John and Teresa Heinz Kerry's three children.
``I'm definitely not doing it in 2006. I've thought about it in my life, but it's just not right at this particular time,'' Heinz told The Associated Press by phone from New York City, where he lives.
During the presidential campaign, the curly, dark-haired Heinz was often compared to John F. Kennedy Jr. in looks and lineage. He was named one of last year's 50 hottest bachelors by People magazine.
Just before last year's presidential election, Heinz registered as a Democrat in the Pittsburgh suburb where his family has a home.
A Yale graduate with a master's degree in business administration from Harvard, Heinz said he is working with some friends in private equity to develop businesses.

Increased Risk of Global Terrorism Reported

Following recent reports of the Bush administration deciding not to publish the annual report on Patterns of Global Terrorism when the data showed the failure of the war on terrorism, more data has come out showing an increase in terrorism. Aon's Map, in their second annual report, shows an increase in the risk of global terrorism.

Kerry says new plan helps kids

Kerry says new plan helps kids
By Marie Delahoussaye

Former Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass, promoted his health-care program at a city-hall-style forum held on campus Saturday.

Kerry's bill, the Kids Come First Act, would increase federal Medicaid funding and expand the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Kerry said children's health insurance is a critical first step to meeting the needs of American families. He criticized President Bush's tax policy and lamented the growing economic burdens imposed by globalization that are squeezing American families out of health care.

"In the wealthiest country in the world, it's an outrage that there are children going without immunizations, asthma medicine and basic health-care needs," Kerry said.

Kerry said his bill would provide coverage for 11 million children who cannot afford private insurance and currently don't qualify for CHIP or Medicaid. The act would fully finance Medicaid programs, which states now spend $10 billion on annually.

In return for free federal Medicaid coverage of families with incomes at or below the federal poverty line - $15,670 annual income for a family of three - states would agree to expand CHIP coverage.

CHIP would expand coverage to families earning up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level, or $47,010 annual income for a family of three.

The federal government would continue to match state money spent on CHIP at $2.65 to the state's dollar, and coverage would be expanded to include 19- to 21-year-olds.

Kerry's bill would also require states to make their CHIP programs more accessible and continuous.

Texas currently has the highest rate of uninsured children in the nation at 22 percent, according to statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau. During the 78th Legislature, state CHIP funding was substantially cut, benefits were cut, and eligibility requirements changed.

Texas families are required to renew CHIP every six months, which has led to decreased enrollment.

Kerry's bill would mandate continuous and automatic enrollment.

"You go to day care, you're enrolled. You go to school, you're enrolled," Kerry said.

Kerry also talked about rejuvenating American democracy through continuous engagement.

"What we need to do is put accountability back into our democracy and back into our political process," Kerry said.

Kerry said he felt more energized than ever and is optimistic about the growth of the Democratic Party.

"I don't buy into the notion that the party is out of touch," he said. "We are building a strong grass-roots coalition, and I am really committed to helping our party win back seats in the House and Senate in the 2006 midterm elections."

Kerry said his health-care initiative fits into a wider focus on preparing America's children to be successful citizens.

He said the Kids Come First Act epitomizes the moral values that have dominated the political debate.

"Politicians of both parties all walk and talk about the importance of children," Kerry said. "What they ought to be doing is reflecting the ethics of America and changing the law to provide health care to every single American."

Forget Colter--I'd Rather See This Time Cover

Ann Coulter Cover Girl

I didn't get angry, as many liberals did, when Time made George Bush Person of the Year. After all, like him or hate him, he is a major player in all the governmental disasters we are now seeing. I found him as deserving of title as earlier winners, such as the one pictured here.

Bush on the cover makes sense. Ann Coulter (aka Ms. Right) does not. The article does touch on her weaknesses as a real pundit, informing readers that "People say that Jon Stewart has blurred the line between news and humor, but his Daily Show airs on a comedy channel. Coulter goes on actual news programs and deploys so much sarcasm and hyperbole that she sounds more like Dennis Miller than Limbaugh."

The article fails to fully describe the dishonesty and hatred seen in Coulter's work, but we do get a small taste of her bigotry:

"Coulter says profiling makes sense when Muslims have committed virtually all the terrorist attacks against Americans for the past 25 years—she begins a terrorism timeline in her latest book with Iranian militants taking Americans hostage in Tehran in 1979. She says of Timothy McVeigh's bombing in Oklahoma City, Okla., "One does not a pattern make." And why wouldn't al-Qaeda recruit white or black Americans? "It's harder than it sounds. You're increasing the transaction costs."

"It would be easier to accept Coulter's reasoning if a shadow of bigotry didn't attach to many of her statements about Arabs and Muslims. At the reception after her CPAC speech, she mocked some of the more ornate claims of torture from suspected terrorists detained by the U.S.: "It's completely insane stuff. 'The government flew me to Las Vegas and made me have sex with a horse,'" she said to laughter. But then she added with a grin, "Liberals are about to become the last people to figure out that Arabs lie." How did such a flagrantly impolitic person become such a force in our politics?"

People like Coulter who would have been ignored as an extremist kook in earlier years receive far more attention than they deserve. Placing her on the cover might sell a few more issues, but hardly is something Time should be proud of.

Kerry Campaigns for Kids in Austin

Kerry Campaigns for Kids in Austin

Former Presidential candidate John Kerry brought a different campaign to Austin Saturday, a campaign to get health coverage for more american children. The Massachusetts senator, speaking at the U-T Recreation Center, declared that 11-million children are uninsured, 1.4 million of them in Texas, ranking the state as second worst, behind California. Kerry is proposing legislation for the federal government to take over medicaid responsibilities from states. Surveys show that 88% of uninsured children in Texas have at least one working parent. Hidalgo and El Paso counties rank as having the most uninsured children in Texas.

Kerry Right Again--This Time on Iraqui Weapons

It seems that every day or two there is another article showing that Kerry was right and that Bush was wrong. We've seen that Kerry was right in criticizing Bush for "oursourcing" the capture of Bin Laden. We received further evidence just yesterday that Bush was wrong on the claims of links between al Qaeda and Saddam. Today's news is that Kerry was right in the final days of the campaign when he criticized Bush for allowing Iraqui weapons to be stolen. The New York Times reports:

Equipment plundered from dozens of sites in Saddam Hussein's vast complex for manufacturing weapons is beginning to surface in open markets in Iraq's major cities and at border crossings.

Looters stormed the sites two years ago when Mr. Hussein's government fell, and the fate of much of the equipment has remained a mystery.

It is looking more and more that the only thing Bush was right about was Iraq being a source of terroist weapons. Unfortunatley is a problem which came about as a result of George Bush's failed foreign policy.

Airports Not Safer per GAO Report

Having just traveled last week, I experienced what appeared to be increased airport security. No more roadside check in or non-passengers going to the gates. Rather than giving the suitcases to the agent at the counter, they were all taken over to the security line. Before boarding, the carry-on bags appeared to be checked more than the past, including a request to remove my laptop and camcorder--presumably favorite terrorist weapons after box cutters. (I'm not sure why my Nikon digital SLR was considered any less a threat than the slightly smaller camcorder).

With all this extra screening, you'd think we were somewhat safer. Of course I knew that not everything is being done. We heard Bush admit during the debates that we didn't have the money to do what Kerry recommended--an admission I was surprised wasn't capitalized on more by the campaign.

It turns out I was wrong in assuming that security was at least somewhat improved from before 9/11, per this AP report:

Screening at U.S. airports is no better now than before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a member of the U.S. House of Representatives who was briefed Friday about an investigation conducted by the Government Accountability Office and one by the Homeland Security Department.

"A lot of people will be shocked at the billions of dollars we've spent and the results they're going to see," said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the House aviation subcommittee.

MORE

Further Evidence Of Bush Lies on Iraq Policy

Intelligence reports undercut US claims of Iraq-Qaeda link: top US senator

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A top Democratic senator released formerly classified documents that he said undercut top US officials' pre-Iraq war claims of a link between Saddam Hussein's regime and the Al-Qaeda terror network.

"These documents are additional compelling evidence that the Intelligence Community did not believe there was a cooperative relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, despite public comments by the highest ranking officials in our government to the contrary," said Senator Carl Levin.

The declassified documents undermine President George W. Bush's administration claims regarding Iraq's involvement in training Al-Qaeda operatives and the likelihood of a meeting between September 11, 2001, hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001, Levin said in a statement.

In October 2002 Bush said: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses."

But a June 2002 CIA report, titled "Iraq and al-Qa'ida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship," said "the level and extent of this is assistance is not clear.

The report added that there were "many critical gaps" in the knowledge of Iraq-Al-Qaeda links due to "limited reporting" and the "questionable reliability of many of our sources," according to excerpts cited by Levin.

The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons programs said much of the information on Iraqi training and support for Al-Qaeda was "second-hand" or from sources of "varying reliability."

And a January 2003 CIA report indicates some of the reports of training were based on "hearsay" while others were "were "simple declarative accusations of Iraqi-Al-Qaeda complicity with no substantiating detail or other information that might help us corroborate them."

In December 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney said Atta's meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague was "pretty well confirmed."

But, according to Levin, a June 2002 CIA report says: "Reporting is contradictory on hijacker Mohammed Atta's alleged trip to Prague and meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer, and we have not verified his travels."

And a January 2003 CIA report says "the most reliable reporting to date casts doubt on this possibility."

Levin requested the documents' declassification in April 2004 as part of his minority inquiry within the Senate Armed Services Committee into Iraq intelligence failures.

Facts on Terrorism Down the Memory Hole

Once again, when the facts show the failures of Bush's policies, the reaction is to cover up the facts. We have further evidence of Bush's failures in fighting terrorism which the Bush administration is attempting to suppress. Previously the State Department has published an annual report on Patterns of Global Terrorism. This year's report showed there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any other year since the report was started in 1985.

Condoleezza Rice's office ordered that the report not be published this year after the report contradicted the Bush administration's claims of successes in the war on terrorism:

"Instead of dealing with the facts and dealing with them in an intelligent fashion, they try to hide their facts from the American public," charged Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA analyst and State Department terrorism expert who first disclosed the decision to eliminate the report in The Counterterrorism Blog, an online journal. (From Knight Ridder.)

Investigative Comedian Exposes Hannity

New York Daily News exposes how those guests on right wing talk shows manage to stay on topid--they're coached:

Fox News host: Repeat after me

If the conservative guests on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" sound especially on-message, that's because they're being coached by the best:

Sean Hannity himself.

On the March 31 installment of the shouting-head show, the guests included two of the late Terri Schiavo's former nurses, Trudy Capone and Carla Sauer Iyer, arguing that their patient wasn't brain-dead.

Between commercials, according to an off-air audiotape obtained by investigative comedian Harry Shearer for last Sunday's episode of his weekly radio program, "Le Show," Hannity coached the women on exactly how to respond when liberal co-host Alan Colmes cross-examined them.

"Just say, 'I'm here to tell what I saw,'" Hannity can be heard instructing his guests. "No matter what the question, 'I'm here to tell you what I saw. I'm here to tell you what I saw.'"

Hannity adds helpfully: "Say, 'I'm not going to be distracted by silliness.' How's that? Does that help you? Look into that camera. Look at me when I'm talking."

On the air, Iyer performs beautifully. "I don't have any opinions or judgments. I was there," she declares

After the segment ends, Hannity gushes off the air to the nurses: "We got the points out. It's hard, this isn't easy. But you did great, both of you. Thank you, guys. Those nurses are powerful, aren't they?"

On his radio show, Shearer injected: "Yeah, especially when they do what you tell 'em to do. Very powerful when they follow instructions from the host!"

A Fox News flack didn't respond to Lowdown's detailed message yesterday.

Denny Hastert's Late Payment

It's nothing compared to all the scandles surrounding Tom DeLay, but now Business Week is reporting some potentially embarassing news regarding Dennis Hastert:

Signatures restaurant, the expense-account haven owned by super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, has hosted at least 60 GOP fund-raisers since it opened on Washington's Pennsylvania Ave. NW in early 2002. But the June 3, 2003, lunchtime gathering was special: The guest of honor was House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and the event was a relatively intimate gathering dominated by lobbyists from Greenberg Traurig, the law and lobbying firm where Abramoff then worked.

The problem? Nobody paid for the lunch -- or reported it in disclosure documents as an in-kind contribution -- as federal election law requires, BusinessWeek Online has learned. The tab -- which Hastert's office would not disclose -- was paid only this month, around the time that BusinessWeek Online began to investigate fund-raisers for Republican politicos held at Signatures. Hastert's office says his staffers uncovered the oversight.

Capitol Hill Republicans are sweating over fallout from their relationships with Abramoff. The lobbyist is under investigation by two Senate committees and a criminal task force involving the Justice Dept. and the IRS for allegedly defrauding his clients -- Indian tribes flush with casino cash -- out of millions of dollars.

MORE

Prediction on Estate Tax in Senate

The Kiplinger Letter today predicts that Senate Republicans will not have the votes to abolish the estate tax as in the House. They predict a compromise that would end the tax for most individual estates. They expect the Senate to approve an increase in the exemption to somewhere between $5 million and $10 million and decrease the maximum tax rate to 25% sometime this year or next.

ADL to Senator Frist: Playing Religious Card Is 'Unacceptable' In Judicial Confirmation Debate

NEW YORK, April 15 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Deeply troubled by reports that Senator Bill Frist will appear in a telecast organized by conservative Christian groups that portrays the filibustering of judicial nominees as "against people of faith," the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today urged Dr. Frist to reconsider his participation in the telecast, stating that: "Whatever one's views may be on this or any other issue, playing the 'religious' card is as unacceptable as playing the race card."

In a strongly worded letter to the Senate majority leader, Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National director, said he was "deeply troubled" by Dr. Frist's decision to appear in the "Justice Sunday" telecast on April 24. The program's message, "...is deeply flawed and a dangerous affront to fundamental principles of American democracy," Foxman said.

"The heated debate regarding the status of the filibuster in the United States Senate is a quintessentially political contest, not a religious struggle," Foxman said. "Nor should it be portrayed as such. Whatever one's views may be on this or any other issue, playing the 'religious' card is as unacceptable as playing the race card."

Organized by the Family Research Council, the "Justice Sunday" telecast will be aired on Christian television and radio networks and stations and will be broadcast over the Internet.

------

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

Reform Jewish Movement Calls on Sen. Frist to Repudiate Claim That Judicial Nominees are Victims of A 'Filibuster Against Faith'

Reform Jewish Movement Calls on Sen. Frist to Repudiate Claim That Judicial Nominees are Victims of A 'Filibuster Against Faith'; RAC Director Saperstein: Support for "Justice Sunday" Event is Disingenuous, Dangerous, Demagogic

WASHINGTON, April 15 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In response to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's plan to join a telecast whose organizing theme is that those who oppose some of President Bush's judicial nominees are engaged in an assault on "people of faith," Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, issued the following statement:

The news that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist plans to join a telecast whose organizing theme is that those who oppose some of President Bush's judicial nominees are engaged in an assault on "people of faith" is more than troubling; it is disingenuous, dangerous, and demagogic. We call on him to reconsider his decision to appear on the telecast and to forcefully disassociate himself from this outrageous claim.

Senator Frist must not give legitimacy to those who claim they hold a monopoly on faith. They do not. They assert, in the words of Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and organizer of the telecast, that there is a vast conspiracy by the courts "to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms." There is no such conspiracy. They have been unable to ram through the most extreme of the President's nominees, and now they are spinning new claims out of thin air.

Alas, this is not an isolated incident. This past week, the Christian Coalition convened a conference in Washington entitled, "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith." Their special guest speaker was the House Majority Leader, Rep. Tom Delay. When leaders of the Republican Party lend their imprimatur to such outrageous claims, including, at the conference, calls for mass impeachment of Federal Judges, it should be of deep concern to all who care about religion. It should also be of concern to President Bush whose silence, in the wake of the claims made both at the conference in Washington and in the upcoming telecast, is alarming.

The telecast is scheduled to take place on the second night of the Passover holiday, when Jews around the world gather together to celebrate our religious freedom. It was in part for exactly such freedom that we fled Egypt. It was in part for exactly such freedom that so many of us came to this great land. And it is in very large part because of exactly such freedom that we and our neighbors here have built a nation uniquely welcoming to people of faith -- of all faiths. We believe Senator Frist knows these things as well. His association with the scheduled telecast is, in a word, shameful. We call upon to him to disassociate himself from the claim that the Senate is participating in a filibuster against faith, and to withdraw his participation from the April 24th event.

Another Republican Suggests DeLay Step Down

Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado has said "Right now, I would not encourage him to leave. If he chose to resign as majority leader until these matters are resolved, that's probably not the worst idea."

Frist Panders to Religious Right on Nuclear Option

The Republicans are continuing with the formula they used in the 2004 elections--pandering to the religious right to try to squeak by with a narrow majority. What has worked in the short run will likely doom the Republicans long term as the center continues to move towards the Democrats. The New York Times reports on how Frist is attempting to use religion to push his political agenda.

Or maybe things are not as they appear. Many believe Frist is a vote or two short on the Nuclear Option. It isn't even certain that a majority is sufficient to bring about such a major rules change in the Senate. With Democrats threatening to block all other legislation if Frist goes through with the nuclear option, some in the Corporate Welfare branch of the GOP are hoping that Frist fails, knowing they have a lot to lose in a paralyzed Senate.

Perhaps Frist is going before the religious right at this time anticipating a failure on the nuclear option. He could then tell them he did everything he could to change the rules to facilitate the appointment of more conservative judges, and then return to business as usual as the Congress continues to redistribute the nation's wealth to the ultra-wealthy. Stringing along the religious right while throwing them an occasional bone wouldn't be a new strategy for the Republicans, considering that it was their usual policy pre-Bush.

Frist Set to Join Religious Effort on Judicial Issue

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

ASHINGTON, April 14 - As the Senate heads toward a showdown over the rules governing judicial confirmations, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as "against people of faith" for blocking President Bush's nominees.

Fliers for the telecast, organized by the Family Research Council and scheduled to originate at a Kentucky megachurch the evening of April 24, call the day "Justice Sunday" and depict a young man holding a Bible in one hand and a gavel in the other. The flier does not name participants, but under the heading "the filibuster against people of faith," it reads: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."

Organizers say they hope to reach more than a million people by distributing the telecast to churches around the country, over the Internet and over Christian television and radio networks and stations.

Dr. Frist's spokesman said the senator's speech in the telecast would reflect his previous remarks on judicial appointments. In the past he has consistently balanced a determination "not to yield" on the president's nominees with appeals to the Democrats for compromise. He has distanced himself from the statements of others like the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, who have attacked the courts, saying they are too liberal, "run amok" or are hostile to Christianity.

The telecast, however, will put Dr. Frist in a very different context. Asked about Dr. Frist's participation in an event describing the filibuster "as against people of faith," his spokesman, Bob Stevenson, did not answer the question directly.

MORE

The Economist: Time For DeLay to Go

The conservative British newsmagazine, The Economist, has joined with several other conservatives in realizing that Tom DeLay has become a liability to their cause in an article entitled Time for him to go:

The longer you study the DeLay affair, the more clearly it has passed the point where conservatives have more to lose than gain by rallying around him. If they continue to support Mr DeLay, they risk tarring the entire movement with his ethical problems. If they replace him with a clean new face (say, Roy Blunt, the majority whip), they save themselves months of distraction and begin to rein in their increasingly dangerous affair with K Street, the lobbyists' home in the capital. . . .

Mr DeLay embodies an abuse of power that is becoming a huge problem for the Right. Look back over the former pest-controller's career in the capital and two intertwined themes emerge: his willingness to push any rule to its limits (he even, temporarily, got his party to rewrite its rules forbidding people indicted for serious crimes to hold leadership posts), and his hand-in-glove relationship with lobbyists.

The Economist continued to comment on the relationship between DeLay and lobbyists:

The Hammer has not just pummelled business wallets harder than previous majority leaders. He has persuaded their owners to ditch Democratic lobbyists and replace them with Republican ones. He has put Republicanism at the heart of K Street—and K Street at the heart of Republicanism. . . .

Many Republicans see no harm in America's more businesslike party cosying up to business. But DeLay Inc should raise questions for all sorts of people on the right. For social conservatives committed to moral government: why are they now in bed with the likes of Mr Abramoff? For small-government types: why are they hand-in-glove with the pork-procurers who have pushed up federal spending? For free-market Reaganauts: why have the Gipper's heirs given so much power to people bent on twisting government to favour special interests?

For the American right, K-Street conservatism is the political version of steroids: it confers short-term strength at the expense of long-term health problems. The Republicans took over Congress in 1994 in part because they skilfully used attacks on individual politicians to suggest that the Democrats were soft on corruption. The Republicans are vulnerable to exactly this treatment. From that perspective, getting rid of Mr DeLay is only a first step. But it is a good place to start.

Broadcasters Must Reveal Video Clips' Sources

Broadcasters Must Reveal Video Clips' Sources, FCC Says

By Frank Ahrens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 14, 2005; Page A02

Television broadcasters must disclose to viewers the origin of video news releases produced by the government or corporations when the material runs on the public airwaves, the Federal Communications Commission said yesterday.

The FCC's ruling comes as video news releases produced by the Bush administration and aired as part of local television news reports have come under attack from critics who call them unlabeled Republican propaganda.

Some members of Congress say greater disclosure is needed. Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) plan to introduce an amendment to a junk fax bill today that would require government agencies -- such as the Department of Health and Human Services, whose video news release on Medicare and Medicaid was deemed propaganda by the Government Accountability Office last year -- to tell viewers that a clip was produced and paid for by the U.S. government.

MORE

DeLay Faces Further Criticism

Tom DeLay continues to be the target of criticism from Republicans as well as Democrats, this time from Newt Gingrich who said "DeLay's problem isn’t with the Democrats; DeLay's problem is with the country."

The statement came in an interview with CBS News, which also reported that "Gingrich said it's time for DeLay to stop blaming a left-wing conspiracy for his ethics controversy and to lay out his case for the American people to judge."

Earlier in the week, Republican Congressman Christopher Shays called for DeLay to step down. Not surprisingly, the Washington Post reports Shays is being shunned by many fellow Republicans, but wonders "whether Shays's rebellion remains the act of one gadfly or becomes the sort of movement that occurred after John B. Anderson became the first Republican in Congress in 1974 to call for President Richard M. Nixon's resignation."

DeLay has refused to respond to recent criticism, and instead has escalated his attacks on the judicial branch, as even conservative Republican judges are no longer acceptable to the far right wing cabal which now controls the Republican Party and has been seeking to eliminate the last traces of Constitutional separation of powers. DeLay's latest attacks on the judiciary have been so extreme that even George Bush has appeared reluctant to go along, expressing at least verbal support for an independent judiciary. Presumably Bush knows better than to bite the hand that put him in office.

DeLay has been repeatedly reprimanded by the bipartisan House Ethics Committee until he replaced the conservative Republican chairman with a DeLay loyalist, and changed the rules making it considerably more difficult to have ethics charges investigated. Previously a tie vote in the Ethics Committee, which has an equal number of members from both parties, would be sufficient to bring about an investigation. Under the new rules, the matter will not be investigated based upon such a tie. Efforts this week to have a bipartisan investigation of the House's ethics procedures were rejected.

Edwards Strives to Stay In the Public Eye

Edwards Strives to Stay
In the Public Eye
Out of Office, Former Vice-Presidential Candidate
Tries to Make the Most of His Freedom

By JOHN HARWOOD
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
April 14, 2005; Page A4

By John Edwards's standards, it has been a good week.

On Sunday night, the Democrats' 2004 vice-presidential candidate drew a raucous response -- and an honorarium -- from students at American University in Washington for a speech on eradicating poverty. On Monday morning, New York magazine published an interview in which Mr. Edwards described Republican lawmakers' actions in the Terri Schiavo case as "disgusting." By midafternoon, his remarks had drawn a response from conservative pundit Robert Novak on CNN's "Inside Politics." And that was just the start.

It can be tough for out-of-office politicians to get positive attention -- especially if their next election is three years away. But the former North Carolina senator is working hard at trying to convert the loss of his public platform into an opportunity for broken-field running that may yet take him to the White House in 2008.

"I have the freedom to do more good about the things I care about," says Mr. Edwards, in shirt sleeves for a midmorning interview at his home in Washington's Georgetown neighborhood. "The campaign I have now is to do something about poverty in America, [and] we'll just see where that leads."

A Man on the Move: With an eye on 2008–but no platform in public office–John Edwards crosses the country to remain in the spotlight. Feb. 5 (top): Mr. Edwards at a Democratic fund-raiser in Manchester, N.H. March 11 (bottom): Mr. Edwards being interviewed by ESPN during an ACC tournament basketball game in Washington D.C.



Just three months into President Bush's second term, all his potential successors are having trouble holding the spotlight. With his ambitious "freedom agenda" abroad and Social Security plan at home, Mr. Bush remains fixed at center stage.

Yet it is harder for Mr. Edwards than some past and future rivals. Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana has a Senate platform for battling the White House, such as blocking the new trade representative's confirmation until the Senate acts on his "Stopping Overseas Subsidies" bill. As a lawmaker, Mr. Bayh can court "values" voters in key states, for example, by championing ethanol alongside an Indy Racing League driver, and can tout his 2008 viability -- by announcing that two-thirds of Indianians "believe Hoosier Sen. Evan Bayh has the personal qualities needed to be a good president."

Howard Dean holds a megaphone as Democratic National Committee chairman. New Mexico governor and former cabinet secretary Bill Richardson returned to the capital last month to tell jokes at the media's Gridiron Club. Early front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York makes headlines with every step to moderate a national image shaped over eight years as first lady.

"You're going to get more appearances on 'Meet the Press' if you're a sitting U.S. senator than if you're not," says Democratic strategist Bill Carrick, a Los Angeles-based veteran of presidential politics. Such appearances in turn can generate cash since they are watched by campaign donors.

But there are advantages to not holding a public job. Mr. Edwards doesn't have to act on issues like the Schiavo case; aiding the effort to re-insert Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube through legislative action may backfire on Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, a Republican 2008 contender. He is also free to set his own policy agenda and to travel -- and has visited 15 states so far this year aside from North Carolina.

Mr. Edwards heads the new Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. The wealthy former trial lawyer and his wife, Elizabeth, will sell their Washington house and move near Chapel Hill once she completes treatment for breast cancer in a few weeks. The post provides a $40,000 salary and an opportunity to explore an issue that was a cornerstone of his 2004 message, and remains important to liberal Democratic voters. Earlier this year, on the weekend the new center was announced, he flew to New Hampshire -- the first primary state -- to deliver a speech.

His new role isn't above controversy. North Carolina Republican Party Chairman Ferrell Blount, repeating publicly a complaint some rival Democrats make privately, calls the taxpayer-supported center "a political operation fabricated out of whole cloth to promote" the former senator's ambition. The university calls it "a nonpartisan initiative ... to examine innovative and practical ideas for moving more Americans out of poverty."

Mr. Edwards also is seeking a platform with a foreign-policy think tank to fatten his international résumé. Next month he plans to visit the United Kingdom and Dubai before heading to India in the fall.

It is "very important for him to make some foreign trips," says Republican strategist Charlie Black, who advised the 1980 presidential bid of another out-of-office politician -- Ronald Reagan.

But Mr. Reagan's two terms as California governor built a firmer national foundation than Mr. Edwards's six-year stint in the Senate. And the Gipper's late rally in 1976 Republican primaries against President Ford may have provided more momentum for future campaigns than Mr. Edwards's vice-presidential candidacy, which some Democratic insiders judge as lackluster.

"Most candidates are elevated and enlarged by being the vice-presidential nominee, but that didn't happen to John Edwards," says Democratic pollster Geoff Garin. Some media attention Mr. Edwards has drawn since November centers on backstage recriminations about strategy between his camp and that of Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the presidential nominee.

Edwards advisers say he helped the ticket improve its performance in small towns and rural areas last November. In fact, Bush campaign polling data suggest Mr. Edwards's stumping helped the Democratic ticket more than Mr. Kerry's did. Daron Shaw, a University of Texas political scientist close to the Bush team, has calculated that the average Edwards appearance reduced Mr. Bush's poll standing by .389% in affected media markets, more than double the .169% average dent from Kerry visits.

With results like that, the 51-year-old once named America's "sexiest politician" by People magazine, may be gaining from his varied stratagems for staying visible. As the North Carolina Tar Heels drove toward the NCAA championship, Mr. Edwards appeared on ESPN's "Cold Pizza" to talk basketball. Through his "OneAmerica" political action committee, he sends out "podcast" commentaries. Monday night, he appeared in Washington at a dinner for the Fragile X Research Foundation, which seeks to cure a birth defect causing autism. Yesterday, he discussed poverty at Harvard; today, tax reform at the New School University in New York.

The speeches -- some free of charge, others for fees Edwards aides won't disclose -- are more sedate than campaign events. He took the stage at American University's Bender Arena without blaring rock music, and his prepared remarks didn't mention Mr. Bush.

Yet a sense of purpose was evident when he answered questions, some from students who had helped with his 2004 campaign. When one implored Mr. Edwards to seek the presidency again, he paused, smiled, and responded, "Thank you."

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111344157134206670,00.html

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are Slime Molds

ITHACA, N.Y. -- U.S. President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld may not all get a library, airport or highway named after them. But each has a slime-mold beetle named in his honor.

Two former Cornell University entomologists who recently had the job of naming 65 new species of slime-mold beetles named three species that are new to science in the genus Agathidium for members of the U.S. administration. They are A. bushi Miller and Wheeler, A. cheneyi Miller and Wheeler and A. rumsfeldi Miller and Wheeler.

MORE

Kerry Right on Bin Laden

From the New York Times:

THE MANHUNT

Bin Laden Bribed Afghan Militias for His Freedom, German Says

By RICHARD BERNSTEIN

ERLIN, April 12 - The head of the German intelligence agency, in an interview published here Tuesday, said Osama bin Laden had been able to elude capture after the American invasion of Afghanistan by paying bribes to the Afghan militias delegated the task of finding him.

"The principal mistake was made already in 2001, when one wanted bin Laden to be apprehended by the Afghan militias in Tora Bora," the intelligence official, August Hanning, said in an interview with the German business newspaper Handelsblatt.

"There, bin Laden could buy himself free with a lot of money," Mr. Hanning said.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Hanning confirmed the accuracy of the newspaper's account. She said Afghan forces had told Mr. bin Laden they knew his whereabouts and he would be arrested, but they allowed him safe passage in exchange for a bribe.

In the past, other officials - including Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the former American commander in Afghanistan - have acknowledged that Afghan militias who fought on the side of the invasion coalition had allowed leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban to get away. But Mr. Hanning is the top intelligence official to say Mr. bin Laden was among them.

Military experts have also raised questions about the practice of relying on Afghan militias in the hunt for senior Qaeda and Taliban figures, saying that once the Taliban fell the militias became more interested in gaining power in Afghanistan's many tribal regions than in fulfilling American political goals.

During the American presidential campaign, the Democratic candidate, John Kerry, frequently criticized the Bush administration for what he called outsourcing the hunt for Mr. bin Laden. The search reached its most active phase after the fall of the Taliban, when American and Afghan troops attacked Qaeda hide-outs in the Tora Bora Mountains on the border with Pakistan.

Defenders of the administration have maintained that using local troops to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban was aimed both at minimizing American casualties and preventing the conflict from becoming an "American war."

In his interview, Mr. Hanning was critical of that strategy as it applied to the goal of capturing or killing Mr. bin Laden, who, he said, was able to insulate himself inside a protective network of supporters after the early efforts to arrest or kill him failed.

"Since then, he has been able to create his own infrastructure in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area and has won many friends from the tribal groups there," Mr. Hanning said.

NCLB Fails to Pass Test

There's more evidence on the failings of Republican policies on education. We've previously discussed the evidence that abstinence based sex education is ineffective. Now a study conducted by the Northwest Evaluation Association has shown that academic growth that students experience in a given school year has apparently slowed since the passage of No Child Left Behind.

From the New York Times report on this study:

In both reading and math, the study determined, test scores have gone up somewhat, as each class of students outdoes its predecessors. But within grades, students have made less academic progress during the school year than they did before No Child Left Behind went into effect in 2002, the researchers said.

That finding casts doubt on whether schools can meet the law's mandate that all students be academically proficient by 2014. In fact, to realize the goal of universal proficiency, the study said, students will have to make as much as three times the progress they are currently making.

No Child Left Behind was originally passed with bipartisan support, but many Democrats have felt that the implementation has been faulty, concentrating on penalizing schools rather than providing the support to improve public education. Many liberals fear that the real goal of the Bush administration is to force schools to fail in order to increase use of voucher systems to provide tax money to religious schools.

AHA Action Alert on the Nuclear Option

The American Humanist Association has issued an action alert on the Nuclear Option:

Nuclear Option Puts Civil Rights, Religious Liberty, and Reproductive Freedom in Jeopardy

Tell your Senators you oppose the Nuclear Option, a reckless and unnecessary measure.

Led by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, conservative Republican senators are planning an unprecedented abuse of power that would allow a simple Senate majority to approve the lifetime appointments of ultraconservative judicial nominees, including those nominated for the Supreme Court. This maneuver, dubbed the Nuclear Option, will change Senate rules that require a supermajority (60 votes) to break a filibuster. In the past, both Democrat and Republican minority Senates have used the filibuster as a safeguard against the unbridled tyranny of the majority.

Changing Senate rules to bar extended debate on judicial nominees will set a dangerous precedent and have a negative impact on American freedom. Such a step could lead to further limits on open debate and directly jeopardize religious liberty, women's rights, scientific research, and freedom of speech.

The filibuster helps maintain the system of checks and balances put in place by the framers of the Constitution. What's really driving this attempt to rewrite the rules is an effort to seize control over the process before a Supreme Court resignation occurs. Without the safeguard of a filibuster, an ultraconservative Supreme Court could arise, overturning scores of decisions affecting civil rights and individual liberties.

Instead of trying to jam unqualified, extreme judges through the Senate, President Bush ought to nominate moderate judges who can attract broad bipartisan support.

Help keep the integrity of our three branches of government and your American freedom intact by keeping extended debate in the Senate intact.

TAKE ACTION!

Call or write your Senator, whether Republican or Democrat, and let them know that you oppose the Nuclear Option, an unprecedented abuse of power. You can call 202-224-3121 and ask for your own Senator. The Senate website www.senate.gov also lists the direct office lines and e-mail addresses for every Senator. Make sure Humanist voices are heard!

Bush Policies Help Islamic Terrorism

Yet one more person saying what many have been saying for the last few years--George Bush's policies are making America less safe:

Rushdie Says Bush Policies Help Islamic Terrorism

By Mark Egan

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Bush administration helps the cause of Islamic terrorism by failing to engage in serious dialogue with the international community, author Salman Rushdie said on Tuesday.

Rushdie -- who lived for years under threat of death after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's 1989 pronouncement that his novel "The Satanic Verses" was blasphemous -- said he believes U.S. isolationism has turned not just its enemies against America, but its allies too.

"What I think plays into Islamic terrorism is ... the curious ability of the current administration to unite people against it," Rushdie told Reuters in an interview.

MORE

Pharmaceutical Industry vs. the Religious Right on Stem Cell Research

While the Republican generally do a good job of marinating party unity despite different goals of their major factions, stem cell research might lead to a break down in this coalition. The goals of big business, in this case the pharmaceutical companies, is now clashing with those of the religious right. The Wall Street Journal today looks at the desire of pharmaceutical companies to investigate the use of stem cells for new products, but feels constrained in the current political atmosphere:

The federal action didn't place any constraints on privately funded research, but some scientists claim the White House policy has had a chilling effect on companies, in part because of corporate worries about consumer boycotts or shareholder protests. To date, research using the cells has been pioneered by university laboratories and a few small biotechnology firms in the U.S. and abroad. . .With household names like GE and Johnson & Johnson taking up stem cells, supporters are likely to see a major endorsement of their position. But stem-cell critics may seize on the chance to carry their ethics fight to companies' doorsteps. . . Advocates see the trend moving toward acceptance of stem cells. "There is pent-up desire inside the companies," says George Daley, a prominent stem-cell scientist at Children's Hospital in Boston. Once the potential of the cells is clearly demonstrated, he says, companies' qualms "will evaporate" and they will rush into the field.

The pharmaceutical industry has been a major contributor to the Republicans, who have paid them back with the prohibition against Medicare to negotiate pharmaceutical prices (as is done by state Medicaid programs) and with proposals to protect them from liability. It will be interesting to see what happens should the pharmaceutical companies begin to lobby the Republicans to change their stance on stem cell research. In this case lobbying from the pharmaceutical industry could turn out to be beneficial.

Kerry and Santorum Propose Compromise on Religion and Pharmacies

John Kerry and Rick Santorum, not a pair we'd expect to be working together, may have reached a fair compromise over the issue of pharmacists refusing to dispense certain medications based upon religious objections. The following letter appeared in today's New York Times:


April 12, 2005
Religion in the Pharmacy

To the Editor:

"Moralists at the Pharmacy" (editorial, April 3) addressed "scattered reports" of pharmacists refusing to dispense certain medications that conflict with their personal moral or religious beliefs and women seeking to have these prescriptions filled. We believe that there is a solution that accommodates the needs of both parties.

Recently, we introduced the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which clarifies current law to say a person's religious beliefs should be recognized and accommodated in the workplace as long as this does not adversely affect the employer's business or customers.

The bill is supported by a diverse coalition of more than 45 religious and civil rights groups as well as a bipartisan group of senators and representatives.

If the bill becomes law, a pharmacist who does not wish to dispense certain medications would not have to do so long as another pharmacist is on duty and would dispense the medications.

The Workplace Religious Freedom Act provides a sensible solution to the potential conflict between an employee's religious conviction and the needs of pharmacy customers.

(Senator) Rick Santorum
(Senator) John Kerry Washington, April 7, 2005
The writers are, respectively, Republican of Pennsylvania and Democrat of Massachusetts.

It is unfortunate that pharmacists would refuse to dispense medications and that Congress would need to intervene, but under the present circumstances this may be a fair compromise. The key line is the requirement that " pharmacist is on duty and would dispense the medications." This provides more protection than we currently have that a patient can receive a prescribe prescription without having to go elsewhere. As long as there is a pharmacist on duty who will dispense the prescribed medication, I can see no harm in an individual pharmacist refusing to dispense a prescribed medication. This would also place a legal obligation on the pharmacist to dispense the medication should there not be someone else available to fill the prescription instead.

One fear I've had is the possibility that if nothing is done the religious right might use boycotts, or possibly violence as has occurred with physicians who perform abortions and family planning clinics, to encourage more pharmacists to express objections to dispensing such medications, if out of fear if not true conviction. An act such as this would clearly place the law on the side of ensuring that all pharmacies dispense medications such as oral contraceptives as prescribed.

From St. Petersburg Times

Bush's believers-only speeches

A Times Editorial
Published April 9, 2005

---

The Bush administration might not appreciate the difference between campaign events that are paid for through private donations and official events put on with the public's money, but the Constitution surely does.

Everyone, regardless of their political affiliation, has a legal right to expect equal access to one of Bush's public presidential appearances. The First Amendment guarantees that government will not exclude anyone based on their political leanings. But disturbing reports have arisen around the country that entry into one of the president's Social Security speeches is being manipulated to keep out those who don't already support the president.

In Denver, three people were ushered out of a recent Bush speech because they had come in a car that sported a "No More Blood for Oil" bumper sticker. The group had done no protesting at the event, but were physically removed by a man who they thought was a Secret Service agent but came to learn was a local Republican staffer.

A similar incident occurred at the University of Arizona where a student with a "Young Democrats" T-shirt was barred from attending Bush's forum on Social Security. His ticket was crumpled up by a staff member. And in North Dakota, a blacklist of 40 people who were known progressives was used to keep them from attending a Bush speech.

This mind-set - that events must be sanitized so that no critics are anywhere near the president - permeated Bush's re-election campaign and has infected his administration. When Bush came to the Tampa Convention Center in February to tout his Social Security plan, tickets were passed out primarily through Republican Party groups and the offices of Republican elected officials. A spokesperson for Rep. Jim Davis, D-Tampa, whose district encompasses the Convention Center, said that their office did not receive any tickets for the event and has never received tickets for any event put on by the Bush administration.

It is apparent that Bush and his handlers are afraid to allow even an inkling of dissent in the audience. By avoiding legitimate questions, sticking with those that are staged and scripted, and filtering out anyone who isn't willing to cheer the the president, the administration creates the illusion that the American people are fully behind the president.

The Kerry Bashing Continues, Making Even Less Sense

Jerome, the former paid Dean hack over at MyDD, is continuing his Kerry bashing. His latest attacks have been to find ways, however weak, to compare Blair's campaign to Kerry's, presumably to blame Kerry should Blair lose. Today he writes "Yet more signs that Tony Blair is using John Kerry hand-me-downs for his tired campaign-- U2's Beautiful Day is the party's official campaign song and you get hit up with the lame-ass-splash to get into Labour's website." Never mind that Kerry didn't us a U2 song--apparently simply having a campaign song is somehow a "Kerry hand-me-down." The splash to get to the Labour website is as much reminiscent of Dean's site as Kerry's. Also, never mind that at least one Dean campaign aide is currently working for Blair.

I don't intend this to be a criticism of Howard Dean, or of all his supporters, but of his single minded supporters who see everything Dean as good and everything Kerry as evil, despite the fact that the two of them agreed on far more positions than they disagreed upon--including Iraq. Admittedly Kerry made mistakes in his campaign, but the point is that both Kerry and Dean are human, and both have good and bad qualities. If we are to judge based upon political results, Dean's total meltdown in the final weeks of the primary battle could be taken as a far more significant sign of faulty political instincts than Kerry's domination of the primary battle and close race against an incumbent president.

The mind set we repeatedly see on some of the pro-Dean blogs is that Kerry's loss to Bush is in itself proof that they were right in supporting Dean over Kerry. They have the advantage of a known result in the Bush vs. Kerry race, and a total lack of data for a hypothetical Bush vs. Dean. They ignore the difficulties in defeating an incumbent President in wartime, and the effects of the right wing attack machine.

In retrospect, looking at how Bush won and the issues which mattered, while it is impossible to say with certainty what would have happened in a race which never occurred, it does appear likely that Dean would have performed much more poorly than Kerry against Bush--most likely losing by a landslide rather than in a close election. In a race where national security was a key issue, with Republicans succeeding in making the Democrats appear weak, a Dean campaign would have played right into such false claims of Republican superiority on defense. If they could make Kerry, who was the war hero compared to Bush who went AWOL from the National Guard, imagine what they would have done with ads portraying Dean skiing in Aspen. Where "moral values" was the deciding point, a more secular candidate such as Dean would have been even weaker than the legitimately religious Kerry.

On the real issues, both sides are actually in agreement. Both oppose the manner in which Bush lied us into an unnecessary war, and both oppose the influence of the religious right on public policy. Kerry and Dean are similar in many ways, with both being socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Where Kerry and Dean do differ on the issues, the differences are generally minor, with Kerry typically taking the more liberal stand of the two. It's time for Dean's hacks to come back to reality in opposing the real proponents of policies we disagree with, rather than continuing their senseless Kerry bashing.

Salon: Kerry Takes on Bolton

Hand-to-hand combat over Bolton

We can't say whether it's unprecedented, but we can certainly say it's uncommon: A U.S. senator taking out ads in another senator's state to sway a vote on a presidential nominee. That's what John Kerry is doing today. The target is Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee -- and, more directly, John Bolton.

Confirmation hearings begin today for the man George W. Bush has nominated to serve as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and Kerry is doing everything he can to get Chafee to join Democrats in opposing Bolton's appointment. The Republicans have the numbers to confirm Bolton if he gets to the Senate floor, but Bolton has to get there first. If Democrats can get one Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to vote against Bolton, his nomination will die in committee.

Chafee, who says publicly that he's non-committal, is the Democrats' best hope, and that's why visitors to Rhode Island Web sites this week will find ads from johnkerry.com, urging a no vote on Bolton's confirmation. In an email to reporters this morning, Kerry spokeswoman Katharine Lister said that Kerry will also be running ads on some blogs and emailing his supporters in Rhode Island.

In an email that went out to Rhode Island residents registered with Kerry's Web site, the Massachusetts senator asked, "In his heart, do you think Senator Lincoln Chafee thinks it is wise to award high government posts to those who have been the architects of some of the most disastrous foreign policy decisions of the last four years?"

Kerry says that Chafee is "under enormous political pressure from the White House and right-wing organizations to cast the deciding vote in favor of the Bolton nomination," and he urges Rhode Island resident to flood Chafee's office with calls asking him to just say no.

The Foreign Relations committee is expected to vote Thursday

Kerry To Propose Improving Benefits to Military Families

From the Washington Post:

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) has kept a relatively low profile since losing the November presidential election but will return to the spotlight this week by offering a round of amendments aimed at beefing up military family benefits. One proposal would eliminate the distinction between combat and noncombat deaths and provide a common death gratuity of $100,000. Another would extend the length of time that widows and children may reside in military housing. Current law allows 180 days, which Kerry would stretch to a full year. And he wants to exempt Individual Retirement Accounts from penalties if service members withdraw money early for deployment-related expenses.

Kerry Fund Raising Helping Democrats

Senator's handouts help Dems Kerry on
By Andrew Miga
Sunday, April 10, 2005

WASHINGTON - Sen. John F. Kerry [related, bio] is fast becoming the Democratic Party's personal ATM - dispensing bundles of cash and helping to raise money for party causes and candidates such as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Kerry's highest voltage money event this spring will be a major fund-raising dinner for Clinton, D-N.Y., a potential 2008 White House rival, at a downtown Boston hotel in early May.
``It was totally Kerry's idea,'' said Kerry adviser Jenny Backus. ``She was very helpful to his presidential campaign, so he wanted to help her out early on.''

The Kerry and Clinton finance committees have been working together for weeks, aides said, to pump up the event.
``Kerry wants to do all he can to help her,'' said Backus. ``He's totally focused on helping other Democrats for the House and Senate, to help take back Congress and boost the Democratic Party all across the country.''
Unlike past presidential nominees who tend to fade after the fall race, Kerry, D-Mass., who has said he might run again in 2008, has been aggressive about keeping his network of nearly 1 million supporters intact and maintaining a high national profile on key issues such as children's health care.
Kerry's fund-raising blitz on behalf of other Democrats is central to that overall strategy.
``He's completely into winning elections for Democrats running in '05 and '06,'' said Backus.
The Bay State senator also will visit several states, including Texas, in coming weeks to boost his children's health care bill, with some fund-raising stops for various Democrats along the way.
He'll meet with activists, doctors, state legislators and host town meeting-style events to champion his bill.
MORE

Blogger Remains Unpredictable

Blogger has been very unpredictable again--you never know if it will accept a post or a comment. While most of the material is now being posted on Light Up The Darkness, we still try to mirror much of it here, especially those items which pertain to Kerry. I just added a few of my posts of the last few days.

Also join us at Light Up The Darkness for discussion of these issues. As there are often long delays before Blogger will accept a comment, most of the comments are over there.

Looking at the Good and Bad in Public Leaders

This post was initially written as a response to comments on Light Up The Darkness, and was extended to a full blog entry there:

The comments to the previous post remind me of how different the Bush years are from most years. There are expressions of both favorable and unfavorable opinions about Bill Clinton. As I noted, personally I thought little of him initially, but Clinton looks much better in retrospect. It's hard to argue with eight years of peace and prosperity. Typically, whether I like or dislike a politician or public figure, there are good things and bad things I could say--except when a Bush is in office.

When Ronald Reagan died, it was easy to compare him favorably to Bush. Reagan appears a moderate when compared to George Bush. Even when I disagreed with Reagan, he still generally appeared to be doing what he felt was best for the country. Even when there were disagreements, his actions did not lead to the degree of polarization we see now. Reagan did not bring shame upon the entire country in the eyes of the world. Reagan went after the votes of the religious right, but never pandered to them in public policy as Bush has.

Of all Reagan's decisions, I've always felt that the worst was in the choice of a Vice President. When Bush Sr. was president, I thought he was one of the worst presidents for his lack of both vision and principles--foreshadowing his son in the White House. My first thoughts of Bush Sr. are of his attacks on civil liberties, his hiding behind the flag(including tours through flag factories), and the way in which he totally missed the big picture as Eastern Europe rebelled against Communism.

There is plenty of good and bad to say both about Bill Clinton. One story which came out following the 2004 election showed how he differed from John Kerry. Clinton advised Kerry to support ammendments opposing gay marriage in states where they were on the ballot. Kerry would not compromise principle in this way. Good and bad could also be said of Hillary, who was behind one of the worst government proposals in recent memory (Hillary Care) prior to the invasion of Iraq and Bush's proposals for the privatization of Social Security.

With the Pope's funeral dominating the headlines this week, there's plenty of good I could say about him as well, despite holding vastly different views on issues such as abortion rights and birth control. This includes his assistance in helping Jews escape from the Nazis, his contribution to the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe, his opposition to Bush's invasion of Iraq, his acknowledgement that the Church was wrong in condemning Galileo, and his openings to both Jews and Muslims.

Then there's Bush. It is so rare that one man can be so wrong so consistently, with so little to say in his favor. Following 9/11 there was a time in which it appeared he deserved some credit for his moves in Afghanistan, despite both taking too long to act (allowing Bin Laden to escape) and his freezing for the first 24-48 hours after the terrorist attacks when the nation was in need of an effective leader. Even when it appeared Bush was doing the right thing, he messed up in leaving before the job was done, and even in secretly diverting funds for his real goal of invading Iraq. Never in recent memory has a President done so much to undermine the security of the United States, weaken the free market system, and trample upon the ideals upon which this nation was founded.

Republican Calls for DeLay to Step Down

Tom DeLay is trying to save his neck by getting all the Republicans to back him out ouf party loyalty, but not all are going along:

Shays: DeLay Should Quit As House Leader
GOP Congressman Tells AP That Texas Rep. Tom DeLay Should Step Down As House Majority Leader
By LOU KESTEN
The Associated Press

Apr. 10, 2005 - Private GOP tensions over Tom DeLay's ethics controversy spilled into public Sunday, as a Senate leader called on DeLay to explain his actions and one House Republican demanded the majority leader's resignation.

"Tom's conduct is hurting the Republican Party, is hurting this Republican majority and it is hurting any Republican who is up for re-election," Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., told The Associated Press in an interview, calling for DeLay to step down as majority leader.

DeLay, R-Texas, who was admonished by the House ethics committee last year, has been dogged in recent months by new reports about his overseas travel funded by special interests, campaign payments to family members and connections to a lobbyist who is under criminal investigation.

A moderate Republican from Connecticut who has battled with his party's leadership on a number of issues, Shays said efforts by the House GOP members to change ethics rules to protect DeLay only make the party look bad.

"My party is going to have to decide whether we are going to continue to make excuses for Tom to the detriment of Republicans seeking election," Shays said.

MORE

The Illusion of Republican Diversity

Both John Harwood and David Brooks have written in the past week about varied opinions among the Republicans, but have looked at this in different ways. Harwood appears surprised by poll results which show Republicans opposing Bush on major policy issues. This should hardly come as a surprise considering that polls even at the time of the election showed little agreement with most GOP positions, even among those who voted for Bush.

This might be explained by David Brooks' discussion of the Republicans being stronger due to the diversity of opinion among conservatives. His column is interesting in making one major observation, but also in being wrong over so much else. Brooks argues that "Conservatives have thrived because they are split into feuding factions that squabble incessantly. As these factions have multiplied, more people have come to call themselves conservatives because they've found one faction to agree with." He does make an important point here. The Republicans do offer something for virtually everyone. If you support capitalism, the Republicans use plenty of pro-capitalist rhetoric. If you support government economic intervention for the promotion of big business, the Republicans have even delivered (assuming you are in rooting for a business in favor with Republicans.) If you are a libertarian, again their is plenty of favorable rhetoric. If you want to impose social conservativism on your neighbor, the Republicans have even begun to deliver on these promises after years of going after the religious right without really delivering much. Similarly, Republicans still have some old fashioned isolationists, while the more interventionist neoconservatives are now more dominant.

Yes, Brooks is right here. No matter what you believe, there are Republican factions which you will likely agree with. Unfortunately for those suckered in, few of these factions have any real influence over ultimate Republican policy. In many cases, we have groups which have been oonned into supporting Republicans but who have no chance of influencing their policies.

While Brooks is right that the diversity of conservativism factions has helped gain supporters, he really misses the point elsewhere in his column. He is wrong when he argues that it is this diversity of opinion which has made the conservatives successful but argues that "Conservatives have not triumphed because they have built a disciplined and efficient message machine." It is actually the Republican noise machine which has allowed the Republicans to succeed at this scam. Their "efficient message machine" has allowed the Republicans to attract people of many viewpoints, even when the viewpoints they promote differ from the actual policies they deliver.

We have noted several times how Republicans claim to offer smaller government while actually supporting the opposite (such as here and here). They have strung along libertarians for years by promising to get government off people's backs, even though in recent years Democrats have supported policies which have been closer to libertarianism on both social issues and support for capitalism (tempered by regulations on those who abuse the system). Therefore we see the situation discussed by John Harwood in which "After winning re-election on the strength of support from nine in 10 Republican voters, the president is seeing significant chunks of that base balk at major initiatives."

Besides being wrong about the importance of the Republican noise machine in providing this illusion of diversity among the Republicans, Brooks was wrong on many other points. He is mistaken in seeing a single philosophy of liberalism in contrast to the diversity of conservativism. He believes "Liberals are less conscious of public philosophy because modern liberalism was formed in government, not away from it." In reality, there are a variety of beliefs among those who are now lumped together as liberals. While there are some remnants of the more traditional "big government" liberals, many modern liberals are fearful of the power of big government, having seen the abuses in recent years. The real difference between liberals and conservatives here is that most liberals will also concede that there have been areas of government successes, such as with Social Security and Medicare.

Brooks is again wrong when he implies that the difference between conservatives and liberals on foreign policy is that conservatives "believe the U.S. should try to change dictatorships into democracies when it can." This is just a repetition of the latest in a string of Bush's publicly stated reasons for going into Iraq. If democracy should fail in Iraq, Bush will abandon this argument as quickly as he abandoned every previous reason for invading. In the meantime, conservatives will continue to attempt to claim undeserved credit for every movement towards democracy anywhere in the world, when there is no real connection to Bush's foreign policy actions. They will also ignore the tremendous increase in support for al Qaeda which really did result from Bush's actions.

Just as it is wrong to define Republican foreign policy as the spread of democracy, it is inaccurate to characterize Democratic opposition to the war in Iraq as opposition to spreading democracy. What the Democrats oppose is lying to the American people about the reasons for going to war, going to war in Iraq at a time when it was more important to finish the job in Afghanistan and to find Bin Laden, going to war without a plan to win the peace, and going to war with a "back door draft," depleting the National Guard and reservists at a time when they were needed at home. Under the right situation, such as in the Balkins, a Democratic President was able to win support for a war which essentially was to spread Democracy.

Teresa Heinz Kerry Gifts $4 Million to Warhol Museum

Teresa Heinz Kerry is in the news once again as she continues her work as a philanthropist and environmentalist. Sandy recently posted a piece about Teresa addressing 250 doctors and scientists on the impact of environmental problems on human health, at a conference at the Herberman Conference Center in Pittsburgh.

Teresa is one of our country’s leading environmentalists. “In September 2003, she was presented with the Albert Schweitzer Gold Medal for Humanitarianism for her work protecting the environment, promoting health care and education and uplifting women and children throughout the world.”

Last night, Teresa announced “a gift of $4 million to the endowment that helps fortify Pittsburgh's lively, provocative hub of contemporary art and popular culture” at the “Spike-a-Delic Gala, dinner and dance party held at the South Side Works, a new development created by Warhol board member Damian Soffer.”

She said that the museum's founders had hoped it to "add to Pittsburgh's stature as a center for the arts" and it has succeeded in accomplishing that goal.

In 2001, the Andy Warhol Museum opened an exhibition titled "Without Sanctuary," a series of horrific photographs that showed lynchings of blacks in the United States.

In the endowment's prepared statement, Heinz Kerry praised Tom Sokolowski, the Warhol's director, for bringing the exhibition to Pittsburgh.

"What made that exhibit so successful was all the work Tom Sokolowski and the museum staff put into community outreach and education," Heinz Kerry said.

" ... People left not just provoked or saddened, but also more thoughtful, and perhaps even wiser. That is the hallmark of a great institution, and of great art."

MORE

Kerry Says Citizens Need to Pressure Lawmakers for Voting Reforms

Speaking today at a Faneuil Hall event sponsored by the Massachusetts League of Women Voters, John Kerry “told a crowd of about 100 in Boston on Sunday that all citizens must demand their right to vote and refuse to be intimidated.”

Kerry, who is using crutches as he recovers from knee surgery, said too many voters who tried to cast ballots in last November's presidential election were rebuffed. He said people must push for changes to make sure all voters are treated equally.

"Last year too many people were denied their right to vote, too many who tried to vote were intimidated," Kerry said. "There is no magic wand. No one person is going to stand up and suddenly say it's going to change tomorrow. You have to do that."

Supporters of Kerry have said voting irregularities in a largely Democratic areas made it harder for voters to cast ballots.

Voting irregularities in Ohio drove primarily Democratic challenges to the Nov. 2 election. The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit that cited Election Day problems including long lines, and a shortage of voting machines in predominantly minority neighborhoods.

MORE

Kerry: Publicize Benefit for Vets

In today’s Boston Herald, John Kerry called on MA state officials urging them “to better publicize a little-known benefit to disabled vets.” Kerry was prompted to speak out after reading Mike Barnicle’s column yesterday about Paul Bartell, “a cash-strapped North End veteran who lost both legs in Vietnam.”

Bartell has been eligible since 1968 for the annual $1,500 disability annuity, according to the state. But he was not aware he qualified until three years ago - and because the benefits are not granted retroactively, he lost out on $13,000 over the years.

“I'm just glad the Herald exposed how veterans are falling through the cracks,” Kerry said. “This is a test of our values as a state. We should be working across the aisle to make sure every veteran in our state gets every penny they deserve for putting their bodies on the line for our freedom.”

MORE

John Kerry: A Million (Virtual) People Stand with Reid at Press Conference

In an email just received from John Kerry on the Filibuster issue, Kerry thanks the over ¼ million supporters who signed his petition and acknowledges that over a million people have stood up on this issue…

Early this afternoon, Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic Leader of the United States Senate, held a press conference on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thanks to you, there were a million people standing there with him.

That's how many dedicated individuals signed petitions and newspaper ads supporting Senator Reid's determined efforts to prevent Republican leaders from undermining democracy by making judicial nominations a narrow, one-party exercise.

I am proud to report that 236,498 of those signatures were submitted by you and other members of the johnkerry.com community. We added our nearly quarter of a million names to those collected by the Democratic National Committee, MoveOn.org and other citizens' groups.

We're acting together because we know what kind of judges will sit on the bench if George W. Bush never needs a single Democratic vote to win their confirmation. And we know what kind of decisions those judges will make - decisions that will define the meaning of freedom for decades to come.

Thank you so much for standing together with over a million other citizens in this effort.
We still have a lot of work to do before the Republican leaders abandon their so-called "nuclear option." But, you helped make a powerful statement yesterday when 2.1 million people saw our ad in USA Today - and today when you stood on the steps of the Supreme Court with Senator Reid.

Sincerely,
John Kerry

Kerry Urges Romney to Sign Stem-Cell Bill

John Kerry has been a staunch advocate for stem-cell research. It was an issue that he talked about frequently on the campaign trail. In today’s Boston Herald, Kerry urges Governor Mitt Romney to sign the MA stem-cell research bill.

Stem-Cell Research Is Pro-Life, By John Kerry

For everyone, the issue of stem-cell research is deeply personal and fundamentally moral. We each dread getting a call from a doctor with the results of a diagnosis that makes our heart sink, or the day we say goodbye to a loved one.

MORE