The following is an excerpt of a press release from Redeem The Vote http://www.redeemthevote.com/, a non-profit organization working to engage America's young people of faith in the political process and educate them on issues pertinent to their lives.
ATLANTA – Three state senators announced Wednesday they have introduced legislation that would allow Georgia public high schools to offer an academic study of the Bible as an elective course.
Sen. Tim Golden (D-Valdosta), Sen. Doug Stoner (D-Smyrna) and Sen. Kasim Reed (D-Atlanta) said the proposal is designed to respect and comply with constitutional church/state issues and U.S. Supreme Court rulings. With statements of approval from Georgia’s leading religious and educational organizations, the senators are calling on a bipartisan effort to ensure adoption of the legislation during the 2006 session.
“This is an important education initiative,” said Golden, chairman of the Senate Democratic Caucus. “The Bible is the basis for much of our history, literature, music and art. It is woven into the very fabric of so many things we teach in Georgia schools.”
The proposed bill would authorize – but not require – public school systems to offer an elective course in Bible literacy in grades 9-12. The measure’s sponsors noted that with so many biblical references embedded throughout historical events, famous books and great works of art and music, a lack of biblical knowledge inhibits learning in core courses.
“It only makes sense for public schools to be able to offer a study of the Bible in an academic setting,” said Stoner, who in 2005 was named Legislator of the Year by the Georgia Association of Educators. “Under a curriculum that meets constitutional muster, schools will now have that option.”
To view the complete press release from Redeem the Vote go to http://tinyurl.com/du4pj
The New York Times http://tinyurl.com/buvb8 published an article on 01/27/06 entitled "Democrats in Two Southern States Push Bills on Bible Study." According to the New York Times, Democratic legislators in Alabama are also promoting bills to allow public school Bible courses. I applaud these legislators for taking a stand against mindless secularism and supporting the teaching of the Bible in our schools. Democrats need to embrace people of faith and show that we are not hostile to religion and moral values. The proposals in Alabama and Georgia are certainly a step in the right direction.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Tell Senators pass HR 4437
Nations must control their borders. It is a matter of economic and national security and survival. Yes, America has a proud history of welcoming immigrants which we should continue, but without condoning illegal immigration. What kind of respect does it show for the rule of law, when scofflaws are rewarded for cutting in line ahead of the millions of law-abiding individuals around the world who want to come to America ? Illegal aliens undercut wages for some of the most vulnerable Americans working in unskilled jobs. Unfortunately, our DNC Chairman Howard Dean and party leaders have become spokesmen for the cheap labor lobby and the kind of politically correct cowardice that refuses to take the matter of gaining control over our borders seriously. Likewise, President Bush pandering to big business interests has failed to take decisive action against illegal immigration and continues to advocate what amounts to amnesty for illegal aliens.
HR 4437 is a step toward real action on the problem of illegal immigration. Thirty six House Democrats had the courage to defy the party leadership and the cheap labor lobby to pass HR 4437 providing the margin of victory. Let's be heard and demand that our Senators pass this version of the immigration bill.
Your AddressYour City ST 12345January 29, 2006
Dear [Your Rep's Name]:As your constituent and an American citizen, I am greatly concerned about illegal immigration into the United States. Unlawful entry into the U.S. is a crime and a serious one. It undermines our basic rule-of-law system. It poses a significant threat to our national security. Additionally, a continuing inflow of cheap labor suppresses the wages of both hardworking U.S. citizens and legal residents. In 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 4437, which would provide funding for the construction of a 700-mile security fence along the southwestern border. Additionally, this legislation would establish a mandatory employment eligibility verification system for workers, would add new law enforcement provisions, and would tighten various loopholes in background checks and other procedures. Most importantly, this bill does not provide for a “guest worker” program, which is essentially an amnesty for those who have broken the law to enter our country.I ask you to please support this bill exactly as passed by the House. No amnesty provision should be added. Not only will this legislation help to preserve the wages of American workers and prevent the exploitation of illegal aliens, but it will also boost America’s defense against terrorists. Please stand up and fight for the rule of law and the jobs and incomes of American working people. Thank you for your consideration.Sincerely,Your Name Here
HR 4437 is a step toward real action on the problem of illegal immigration. Thirty six House Democrats had the courage to defy the party leadership and the cheap labor lobby to pass HR 4437 providing the margin of victory. Let's be heard and demand that our Senators pass this version of the immigration bill.
Your AddressYour City ST 12345January 29, 2006
Dear [Your Rep's Name]:As your constituent and an American citizen, I am greatly concerned about illegal immigration into the United States. Unlawful entry into the U.S. is a crime and a serious one. It undermines our basic rule-of-law system. It poses a significant threat to our national security. Additionally, a continuing inflow of cheap labor suppresses the wages of both hardworking U.S. citizens and legal residents. In 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 4437, which would provide funding for the construction of a 700-mile security fence along the southwestern border. Additionally, this legislation would establish a mandatory employment eligibility verification system for workers, would add new law enforcement provisions, and would tighten various loopholes in background checks and other procedures. Most importantly, this bill does not provide for a “guest worker” program, which is essentially an amnesty for those who have broken the law to enter our country.I ask you to please support this bill exactly as passed by the House. No amnesty provision should be added. Not only will this legislation help to preserve the wages of American workers and prevent the exploitation of illegal aliens, but it will also boost America’s defense against terrorists. Please stand up and fight for the rule of law and the jobs and incomes of American working people. Thank you for your consideration.Sincerely,Your Name Here
Gay marriage: a train wreck ahead for Democrats ?
I realize that many Democratic progressives (and even some centrists) think that gay marriage will be no big deal as a issue. In my view, that is dangerous wishful thinking. Gay marriage is a train wreck about to happen for Democrats which could not only alienate swing voters from our party but also split traditionally Democratic constituencies apart. Polls have indicated the vast majority of African American, Hispanic and working class white voters oppose same sex unions. The Republican-oriented Powerline blog http://tinyurl.com/9hjvf is already gloating about a Baltimore Circuit Court ruling striking down Maryland's law banning same sex marriage. Many political strategists expect that the prospect of gay marriage in Maryland will boost the re-election chances of incumbent GOP Governor Robert Ehrlich and the Senatorial candidacy of Lt. Governor Michael Steele this November.
The Washington Post reported on Wednesday http://tinyurl.com/a77s7 that Democrats in the Maryland Legislature are attempting to craft a legislative plan that would stall a state court ruling on the gay marriage law until after the November election. Unfortunately, many of these same Legislators support the concept of gay marriage and only want to delay a possible overturn of same sex union prohibitions until after the 2006 election. Democratic Party leaders in New York and California have embraced same sex marriage and both states are basically a Governor away from legal recognition of same sex unions. Gay marriage would be a reality in California if it were not for the veto pen of the Republican Governor Arnold Schwarznegger.
I support equal rights for gays and lesbians in employment and housing and certainly favor vigorous prosecution of violent crimes directed against that community. I also have no problem whatsoever with local ordinances which would allow same sex partners to register their partnerships to provide documentation for hospital visitation and insurance purposes as many corporations today provide benefits for the same sex partners of employees. But gay marriage and civil unions with the equivalent benefits of marriage (i.e., tax benefits) is simply going too far. We need to be focused on the stability of traditional families and strengthen the insitution of marriage - ending no-fault divorce laws which are so destructive to children and the family unit would be a step in the right direction.
Support for gay marriage by Democrats is political suicide in Middle America. The gay marriage battles which are being waged now in the courts and state legislatures will come to the forefront just in time for the 2008 election. To become a majority party again, Democratic elected officials and candidates would be well advised to start distancing themselves from the gay marriage debacle.
The Washington Post reported on Wednesday http://tinyurl.com/a77s7 that Democrats in the Maryland Legislature are attempting to craft a legislative plan that would stall a state court ruling on the gay marriage law until after the November election. Unfortunately, many of these same Legislators support the concept of gay marriage and only want to delay a possible overturn of same sex union prohibitions until after the 2006 election. Democratic Party leaders in New York and California have embraced same sex marriage and both states are basically a Governor away from legal recognition of same sex unions. Gay marriage would be a reality in California if it were not for the veto pen of the Republican Governor Arnold Schwarznegger.
I support equal rights for gays and lesbians in employment and housing and certainly favor vigorous prosecution of violent crimes directed against that community. I also have no problem whatsoever with local ordinances which would allow same sex partners to register their partnerships to provide documentation for hospital visitation and insurance purposes as many corporations today provide benefits for the same sex partners of employees. But gay marriage and civil unions with the equivalent benefits of marriage (i.e., tax benefits) is simply going too far. We need to be focused on the stability of traditional families and strengthen the insitution of marriage - ending no-fault divorce laws which are so destructive to children and the family unit would be a step in the right direction.
Support for gay marriage by Democrats is political suicide in Middle America. The gay marriage battles which are being waged now in the courts and state legislatures will come to the forefront just in time for the 2008 election. To become a majority party again, Democratic elected officials and candidates would be well advised to start distancing themselves from the gay marriage debacle.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Thoughts on freedom, national security and Alito
The latest issue of the Democratic Leadership Council's New Dem Dispatch has a great column on the matter of NSA surveillance and how to balance personal liberties and national security in the war on terrorism. We are often given a false choice between personal freedom or protecting our nation from the very real threat of terrorist activity. We will get a very distorted view if we listen to the Republican Propaganda machine (I think of Ann Coulter yelling traitor at everyone who questions the Bush Administration's actions) or the Democratic Left which often leaves the impression that there is no real terrorist threat for us to fight. The DLC commentary which can viewed in full at http://tinyurl.com/7vlhf stated:
"Every day our security agencies operate without clear legal authority, the risk mounts of a backlash at home and abroad against clearly legitimate intelligence operations. And every day the president holds himself as above the law, America's reputation as a lawful nation suffers.""For their part, Democrats should focus less on hashing over the administration's past behavior, and focus more on working with responsible Republicans to set new and reasonable rules for the new war that began on 9/11. That's the right thing to do, and it will also help Democrats avoid the political trap Karl Rove so publicly set last week."
I especially liked the closing paragraph of the New Dem Dispatch column, "The war on terror does not require a president above the law, and the rule of law does not require unreasonable restrictions on surveillance. Rejecting false choices is the first step towards a real debate on how we can best protect the American people and their liberties and values." That is some very sound advice from the DLC on how to deal with the issue of terrorism and national security in the upcoming campaign.
TWO VIEWS ON THE ALITO NOMINATION
The DLC's New Dem Dispatch also had a recent post dealing with the Samuel Alito nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court http://tinyurl.com/8ltr6 which presents a case against confirmation of the conservative federal jurist. The DLC column states that Alito clearly "embraces an 'originalist' view of constitutional interpretation, along with the recent, unbalanced conservative tendency to police congressional powers but not executive powers." The DLC commentary suggested that Democrats should "focus on Alito's judicial philosophy, and discard the personal attacks that figure so prominently in some of the interest-group campaigning against his confirmation."
Another perspective on the Alito nomination was presented by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) http://tinyurl.com/7tt7j in a Senate speech. Senator Byrd, a former Democratic Senate Majority Leader, made a forceful case for supporting the Alito nomination. The West Virginia Senator decried "the virulence of some outside groups from both sides of the political spectrum" which funded "multi-million dollar advertising campaigns either to proclaim or denigrate Judge Alito’s fitness for the position raged across the airwaves." Byrd stated that " a solemn, constitutional responsibility is not helped when it takes on such a tone" and also criticized the rise of partisan grandstanding in confirmation procedures. The framers fo the Constitution, Byrd said "anticipated that the Senate’s confirmation or rejection of a judicial nominee would be based on the fitness of the nominee; not on partisan politics or extraneous matters." Byrd argued, "The Framers presumably did not expect the Senate to spend its allotted time on a nominee staging partisan warfare instead of examining his or her qualifications."
Byrd continued to make some very insightful observations about the confirmation proceedings and current philosophies about the role of the judiciary. "I regret that we have come to a place in our history when both political parties exhibit such a “take no prisoners” attitude. All sides seek to use the debate over a Supreme Court nominee to air their particular wish list for or against abortion, euthanasia, executive authority, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, wiretapping, the death penalty, workers’ rights, gun control, corporate greed, and dozens of other subjects. All of these issues should be debated, but the battle lines should not be drawn on the Judiciary. They should be debated by the people’s Representatives in Congress. However, too many Americans apparently believe that if they cannot get Congress to address an issue, they must take it to the court! As the saying goes, “If you can’t change the law, change the judge! This thinking represents a gross misinterpretation of the separation of powers: it is the role of the Congress to make and change the laws; Supreme Court Justices exist to interpret laws and be sure that they square with the Constitution and with settled law."
I agree with Senator Byrd that judicial activism has been out of control and our elected officials on both sides of the aisle are pandering to narrow interest groups rather than looking at the big picture. I also concur with Senator Byrd that Judge Alito is a decent man with a strong legal background who loves his country. It is the prospect of judical activism from the right that does raise some serious concerns about the Alito nomination. As a social conservative, I would welcome a Supreme Court that might be inclined to allow greater state regulation of abortion, uphold the use of school vouchers, fail to view gay marriage as a right and sanction appropriate punishment for violent criminals. As a economic populist, I do have concerns that a conservative Republican majority on the Supreme Court may harbor radical libertarian views on the power of government to regulate commerce.
The most frightening consequence of a solidly conservative Republican majority on the Supreme Court is that we may see a shift toward a narrow interpretation of the Consitution's general welfare clause which could invalidate all government regulation of economic activity including wage and hour laws and consumer protection statutes. The libertarian Cato Institute which would love to dismantle government published a policy paper back in 1992 http://tinyurl.com/c8myg which outlined the legal reasoning and prospects for a judicial shift toward "equal protection of economic liberty" - in other words - a legal argument that the Constitution guarantees a unrestrained marketplace. Since the inevitability of Alito's confirmation makes a conservative Republican dominated Supreme Court a certainty, let's hope that this concept never becomes the law of the land.
"Every day our security agencies operate without clear legal authority, the risk mounts of a backlash at home and abroad against clearly legitimate intelligence operations. And every day the president holds himself as above the law, America's reputation as a lawful nation suffers.""For their part, Democrats should focus less on hashing over the administration's past behavior, and focus more on working with responsible Republicans to set new and reasonable rules for the new war that began on 9/11. That's the right thing to do, and it will also help Democrats avoid the political trap Karl Rove so publicly set last week."
I especially liked the closing paragraph of the New Dem Dispatch column, "The war on terror does not require a president above the law, and the rule of law does not require unreasonable restrictions on surveillance. Rejecting false choices is the first step towards a real debate on how we can best protect the American people and their liberties and values." That is some very sound advice from the DLC on how to deal with the issue of terrorism and national security in the upcoming campaign.
TWO VIEWS ON THE ALITO NOMINATION
The DLC's New Dem Dispatch also had a recent post dealing with the Samuel Alito nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court http://tinyurl.com/8ltr6 which presents a case against confirmation of the conservative federal jurist. The DLC column states that Alito clearly "embraces an 'originalist' view of constitutional interpretation, along with the recent, unbalanced conservative tendency to police congressional powers but not executive powers." The DLC commentary suggested that Democrats should "focus on Alito's judicial philosophy, and discard the personal attacks that figure so prominently in some of the interest-group campaigning against his confirmation."
Another perspective on the Alito nomination was presented by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) http://tinyurl.com/7tt7j in a Senate speech. Senator Byrd, a former Democratic Senate Majority Leader, made a forceful case for supporting the Alito nomination. The West Virginia Senator decried "the virulence of some outside groups from both sides of the political spectrum" which funded "multi-million dollar advertising campaigns either to proclaim or denigrate Judge Alito’s fitness for the position raged across the airwaves." Byrd stated that " a solemn, constitutional responsibility is not helped when it takes on such a tone" and also criticized the rise of partisan grandstanding in confirmation procedures. The framers fo the Constitution, Byrd said "anticipated that the Senate’s confirmation or rejection of a judicial nominee would be based on the fitness of the nominee; not on partisan politics or extraneous matters." Byrd argued, "The Framers presumably did not expect the Senate to spend its allotted time on a nominee staging partisan warfare instead of examining his or her qualifications."
Byrd continued to make some very insightful observations about the confirmation proceedings and current philosophies about the role of the judiciary. "I regret that we have come to a place in our history when both political parties exhibit such a “take no prisoners” attitude. All sides seek to use the debate over a Supreme Court nominee to air their particular wish list for or against abortion, euthanasia, executive authority, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, wiretapping, the death penalty, workers’ rights, gun control, corporate greed, and dozens of other subjects. All of these issues should be debated, but the battle lines should not be drawn on the Judiciary. They should be debated by the people’s Representatives in Congress. However, too many Americans apparently believe that if they cannot get Congress to address an issue, they must take it to the court! As the saying goes, “If you can’t change the law, change the judge! This thinking represents a gross misinterpretation of the separation of powers: it is the role of the Congress to make and change the laws; Supreme Court Justices exist to interpret laws and be sure that they square with the Constitution and with settled law."
I agree with Senator Byrd that judicial activism has been out of control and our elected officials on both sides of the aisle are pandering to narrow interest groups rather than looking at the big picture. I also concur with Senator Byrd that Judge Alito is a decent man with a strong legal background who loves his country. It is the prospect of judical activism from the right that does raise some serious concerns about the Alito nomination. As a social conservative, I would welcome a Supreme Court that might be inclined to allow greater state regulation of abortion, uphold the use of school vouchers, fail to view gay marriage as a right and sanction appropriate punishment for violent criminals. As a economic populist, I do have concerns that a conservative Republican majority on the Supreme Court may harbor radical libertarian views on the power of government to regulate commerce.
The most frightening consequence of a solidly conservative Republican majority on the Supreme Court is that we may see a shift toward a narrow interpretation of the Consitution's general welfare clause which could invalidate all government regulation of economic activity including wage and hour laws and consumer protection statutes. The libertarian Cato Institute which would love to dismantle government published a policy paper back in 1992 http://tinyurl.com/c8myg which outlined the legal reasoning and prospects for a judicial shift toward "equal protection of economic liberty" - in other words - a legal argument that the Constitution guarantees a unrestrained marketplace. Since the inevitability of Alito's confirmation makes a conservative Republican dominated Supreme Court a certainty, let's hope that this concept never becomes the law of the land.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Civil rights leader joins Pro-Life Democrats
Washington, DC - Jan 24, 2006 Democrats For Life of America held their annual March for Life Breakfast yesterday in Washington, D.C.. This year’s breakfast featured Dr. Alveda King, daughter of the late slain civil rights activist Rev. A. D. King and niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr..
During the years of the Civil Rights Movement, led by her uncle, Alveda's family home was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama in the heat of the struggle. "Daddy's house was bombed, then in Louisville, Kentucky his church office was bombed. I was also jailed during the open housing movement," Alveda King recalls.
Democrats For Life of America was one of the many pro-life organizations participating in the annual march proclaiming the need to protect the rights of the unborn.
“We are committed to protecting life. That’s why we are so excited about this year’s march, and hope that more Americans learn more about our efforts to foster a respect for human life from conception to a natural death,” said Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats For Life of America.
During her speech, King recalled a time when “’liberal’ meant ‘generous, caring, concerned for others.” She shared a story in which a young child she spoke to compared abortion to slavery- no choice for the unborn, no choice for the slaves, and she has since taken that message to the public. In telling her own story of being a post-abortive mother, she said, “abortion has consequences for the mother.” King spoke of her own guilt, detachment from her other children, cervical problems leading to surgery.
Democrats for Life of America were also present later in the day at the March for Life Rose Dinner. The guest speaker at the dinner was former U.S. Ambassador Ray Flynn. Flynn urged those working in the pro-life movement to continue their efforts using both their “heads and their hearts.” He recalled a time when every elected Democrat in his home state of Massachusetts was pro-life. “The only pro-choice people you could find were Republicans.” He highlighted social justice as an issue that should be part of a pro-life ethic. Flynn thanked Nellie Gray for having the courage to invite a Democrat to be the speaker at this year’s dinner. As the crowd applauded, he commented, “sounds like there are more Democrats out there.”
Democrats For Life of America was founded in 1999 to mobilize Democrats at the local, state, and national levels. Their primary mission has been to elect pro-life Democrats, support pro-life elected officials, promote a pro-life plank in the Democratic Party platform and achieve legislation that fosters respect for human life.
Democrats For Life of America currently has 32 state chapters with plans to expand the group into additional states by the end of the year. In addition to the grassroots support across America, the group has several Members of Congress who are actively promoting the group’s mission.
To learn more about Democrats for Life go to their website at www.democratsforlife.org
During the years of the Civil Rights Movement, led by her uncle, Alveda's family home was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama in the heat of the struggle. "Daddy's house was bombed, then in Louisville, Kentucky his church office was bombed. I was also jailed during the open housing movement," Alveda King recalls.
Democrats For Life of America was one of the many pro-life organizations participating in the annual march proclaiming the need to protect the rights of the unborn.
“We are committed to protecting life. That’s why we are so excited about this year’s march, and hope that more Americans learn more about our efforts to foster a respect for human life from conception to a natural death,” said Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats For Life of America.
During her speech, King recalled a time when “’liberal’ meant ‘generous, caring, concerned for others.” She shared a story in which a young child she spoke to compared abortion to slavery- no choice for the unborn, no choice for the slaves, and she has since taken that message to the public. In telling her own story of being a post-abortive mother, she said, “abortion has consequences for the mother.” King spoke of her own guilt, detachment from her other children, cervical problems leading to surgery.
Democrats for Life of America were also present later in the day at the March for Life Rose Dinner. The guest speaker at the dinner was former U.S. Ambassador Ray Flynn. Flynn urged those working in the pro-life movement to continue their efforts using both their “heads and their hearts.” He recalled a time when every elected Democrat in his home state of Massachusetts was pro-life. “The only pro-choice people you could find were Republicans.” He highlighted social justice as an issue that should be part of a pro-life ethic. Flynn thanked Nellie Gray for having the courage to invite a Democrat to be the speaker at this year’s dinner. As the crowd applauded, he commented, “sounds like there are more Democrats out there.”
Democrats For Life of America was founded in 1999 to mobilize Democrats at the local, state, and national levels. Their primary mission has been to elect pro-life Democrats, support pro-life elected officials, promote a pro-life plank in the Democratic Party platform and achieve legislation that fosters respect for human life.
Democrats For Life of America currently has 32 state chapters with plans to expand the group into additional states by the end of the year. In addition to the grassroots support across America, the group has several Members of Congress who are actively promoting the group’s mission.
To learn more about Democrats for Life go to their website at www.democratsforlife.org
Monday, January 16, 2006
Black moderates and conservatives lean Democratic
Booker Rising http://www.bookerrising.blogspot.com , a site for black moderates and conservatives, is one of my favorite blogs. As Shay (the editor) often points out most of the right-center black community is Democratic - not Republican. While there are probably still some lingering perceptions of conservative Democrats as all white Southern Dixiecrats, Democrats on the right and center are really quite diverse in terms of geography and race. Below is the post from the 01/10/06 edition of Booker Rising about Blue Dog Democrats.
What's A Blue Dog Democrat?
A Blue Dog Democrat is a moderate or conservative Democrat. While they come from every region of the United States, they are mostly associated with the South. You may have heard of the Blue Dog Coalition, which is a coalition of 37 moderate and conservative Democrats in the U.S. House. The catchy nickname is taken from the South's longtime description of a party loyalist as one who would vote for a yellow dog if it were on the ballot as a Democrat. Coalition members argued that their moderate-to-conservative-views had been "choked blue" by their party in the years leading up to the 1994 election.Rep. Sanford Bishop, Jr. (Georgia moderate), Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (Tennessee moderate-liberal), and Rep. David Scott (Georgia moderate) are black members of the Blue Dog Coalition. Note that they are all from the South.There are also Blue Dog Democratic blogs. And contrary to popular opinion, most black conservatives are Blue Dog Democrats and not Republican (the latter group is simply far more vocal....although this is starting to change), although their support for the Democratic Party is starting to erode. This is a keen example of a black conservative Democratic blogger: much harsher on liberals that this blog ever is, is religious, staunchly supports the war in Iraq and war on terrorism, but staunchly opposes the death penalty and gay marriage and supports affirmative action. I grew up in what what was surely a Blue Dog Democratic black family (believed in gun ownership, big on the military, believed welfare benefits undermined work ethic, support for the death penalty, opposition to abortion and gay rights, but supportive of unions and affirmative action), before the term arose. This probably describes much of my family today.
-End-
Thanks to Shay for shining the spotlight on the Blue Dogs. For more information about Blue Dog Democrats, there is a good Wikipedia article at http://tinyurl.com/7amw4
What's A Blue Dog Democrat?
A Blue Dog Democrat is a moderate or conservative Democrat. While they come from every region of the United States, they are mostly associated with the South. You may have heard of the Blue Dog Coalition, which is a coalition of 37 moderate and conservative Democrats in the U.S. House. The catchy nickname is taken from the South's longtime description of a party loyalist as one who would vote for a yellow dog if it were on the ballot as a Democrat. Coalition members argued that their moderate-to-conservative-views had been "choked blue" by their party in the years leading up to the 1994 election.Rep. Sanford Bishop, Jr. (Georgia moderate), Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (Tennessee moderate-liberal), and Rep. David Scott (Georgia moderate) are black members of the Blue Dog Coalition. Note that they are all from the South.There are also Blue Dog Democratic blogs. And contrary to popular opinion, most black conservatives are Blue Dog Democrats and not Republican (the latter group is simply far more vocal....although this is starting to change), although their support for the Democratic Party is starting to erode. This is a keen example of a black conservative Democratic blogger: much harsher on liberals that this blog ever is, is religious, staunchly supports the war in Iraq and war on terrorism, but staunchly opposes the death penalty and gay marriage and supports affirmative action. I grew up in what what was surely a Blue Dog Democratic black family (believed in gun ownership, big on the military, believed welfare benefits undermined work ethic, support for the death penalty, opposition to abortion and gay rights, but supportive of unions and affirmative action), before the term arose. This probably describes much of my family today.
-End-
Thanks to Shay for shining the spotlight on the Blue Dogs. For more information about Blue Dog Democrats, there is a good Wikipedia article at http://tinyurl.com/7amw4
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Bayh calls for tough stand on Iran nuclear threat
The Fort Wayne News-Tribune reports that U.S. Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) is calling for a tough stand against the plans of the radical Islamic government in Iran to develop nuclear weapons. The Indiana Senator and possible Democratic Presidential contender in 2008 has just returned from a one week trip to the Middle East which included meetings with government leaders in Iraq, Israel,Afghanistan and Pakistan who expressed concerns about the possibility of a nuclear Iraq. http://tinyurl.com/8sy86
"They are hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. That is somethingthat ought to alarm all of us," he said of Iran during a conference call with Indiana reporters. "It would be naive in the extreme to think verbal persuasion will work with the government of Iran."
I agree with Senator Bayh. The U.S. must take action to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. It will be a difficult challenge as pointed out today by Fraser Nelson in The Scotsman column "Let's admit it, Iran has the upper hand." http://tinyurl.com/cyqmm Bush cried wolf on Iraq so it may be difficult to support for military action against Iran if necessary. A few carefully targeted air strikes on Iran might help to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions and make the world a safer place.
LAMPSON LEADS DELAY
The LA Times reports some good news from Texas where former Democratic Congressman Nick Lampson is now leading indicted former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay for his House seat by a 30 to 22 margin. Lampson, a moderate Democrat, lost his Congressional seat in 2004 following a DeLay engineered gerrymandering of Texas U.S. House seats by legislative Republicans. The race is complicated by the presence of a independent candidate Steve Stockman who had 11 percent in the poll. http://tinyurl.com/aefdv
ORLANDO SENTINEL CALLS FOR DEMOCRATS TO BROADEN "SHRINKING TENT"
Citing a recent party switch by a Florida legislator, the Orlando Sentinel editorialized that the Democratic Party tent is becoming too narrow. Too many Democratic party activists still seem to think that support of absolute abortion rights is what defines our party. http://tinyurl.com/bkzhh
WORSHIPPING AT THE ALTAR OF FREE MARKETS
As Harold Meyerson pointed out in a recent Washington Post op-ed piece, laissez faire capitalism seems to disdain stability while most human beings don't. http://tinyurl.com/8xqa7 That is why Republican proposals to privatize Social Security have met public resistance. I am certainly not against capitalism per se. Markets can serve very useful purposes, but they should be used as a tool not as an object of worship. Let's face it laissez faire capitalism is the religion of many Libertarians and conservative Republicans. They worship the free market so much they are willing to sacrifice our industrial capacity and standard of living for ivory tower theories that have failed to bring about a broad based prosperity for Americans. Democrats need to champion an activist role by government to protects workers and consumers. Robert Reich points out in the American Prospect that free markets do not always lead to a free people. Reich points to the example of Chinese capitalism which co-exists quite well with a very oppressive government. http://tinyurl.com/csjj5
"They are hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. That is somethingthat ought to alarm all of us," he said of Iran during a conference call with Indiana reporters. "It would be naive in the extreme to think verbal persuasion will work with the government of Iran."
I agree with Senator Bayh. The U.S. must take action to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. It will be a difficult challenge as pointed out today by Fraser Nelson in The Scotsman column "Let's admit it, Iran has the upper hand." http://tinyurl.com/cyqmm Bush cried wolf on Iraq so it may be difficult to support for military action against Iran if necessary. A few carefully targeted air strikes on Iran might help to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions and make the world a safer place.
LAMPSON LEADS DELAY
The LA Times reports some good news from Texas where former Democratic Congressman Nick Lampson is now leading indicted former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay for his House seat by a 30 to 22 margin. Lampson, a moderate Democrat, lost his Congressional seat in 2004 following a DeLay engineered gerrymandering of Texas U.S. House seats by legislative Republicans. The race is complicated by the presence of a independent candidate Steve Stockman who had 11 percent in the poll. http://tinyurl.com/aefdv
ORLANDO SENTINEL CALLS FOR DEMOCRATS TO BROADEN "SHRINKING TENT"
Citing a recent party switch by a Florida legislator, the Orlando Sentinel editorialized that the Democratic Party tent is becoming too narrow. Too many Democratic party activists still seem to think that support of absolute abortion rights is what defines our party. http://tinyurl.com/bkzhh
WORSHIPPING AT THE ALTAR OF FREE MARKETS
As Harold Meyerson pointed out in a recent Washington Post op-ed piece, laissez faire capitalism seems to disdain stability while most human beings don't. http://tinyurl.com/8xqa7 That is why Republican proposals to privatize Social Security have met public resistance. I am certainly not against capitalism per se. Markets can serve very useful purposes, but they should be used as a tool not as an object of worship. Let's face it laissez faire capitalism is the religion of many Libertarians and conservative Republicans. They worship the free market so much they are willing to sacrifice our industrial capacity and standard of living for ivory tower theories that have failed to bring about a broad based prosperity for Americans. Democrats need to champion an activist role by government to protects workers and consumers. Robert Reich points out in the American Prospect that free markets do not always lead to a free people. Reich points to the example of Chinese capitalism which co-exists quite well with a very oppressive government. http://tinyurl.com/csjj5
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Democrats for Values oppose Alito nomination
The following is a communication that I received from Democrats for Values concerning their position on Samuel Alito's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court:
Democrats for Values has decided not to support the Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. Even though his views on right to life issues are more in line with what Democrats for Values would like to see in a Supreme Court Nominee -his other views are truly not. Alito's answers to questions certainly do not explain away the decisions he has made in the past against the disadvantaged and underclass. DFV believes the middle class and working poor ought to have more protection from the government, not less. DFV also believes America deserves a Supreme Court Nominee that considers protecting civil rights for all US citizens is paramount and his answers to questions about previous decisions are unsatisfactory in determining whether or not he will uphold the civil rights so many Americans have already died to protect.
We believe this Administration is putting forward a nomination to the Supreme Court with uncertainty about the nominee's views on the hot button issues such as abortion, and trying to distract the American people (and the U.S. Senate) from his other clearly radical far right views on other issues such as government regulation, discrimination, and benefits for the poor and disadvantaged. We would like you to call your senator and encourage him to vote on the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Democrats for Values www.democratsforvalues.com
Democrats for Values has decided not to support the Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. Even though his views on right to life issues are more in line with what Democrats for Values would like to see in a Supreme Court Nominee -his other views are truly not. Alito's answers to questions certainly do not explain away the decisions he has made in the past against the disadvantaged and underclass. DFV believes the middle class and working poor ought to have more protection from the government, not less. DFV also believes America deserves a Supreme Court Nominee that considers protecting civil rights for all US citizens is paramount and his answers to questions about previous decisions are unsatisfactory in determining whether or not he will uphold the civil rights so many Americans have already died to protect.
We believe this Administration is putting forward a nomination to the Supreme Court with uncertainty about the nominee's views on the hot button issues such as abortion, and trying to distract the American people (and the U.S. Senate) from his other clearly radical far right views on other issues such as government regulation, discrimination, and benefits for the poor and disadvantaged. We would like you to call your senator and encourage him to vote on the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Democrats for Values www.democratsforvalues.com
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Advice from the Right for Democrats
Long-time conservative leader Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation has grown disillusioned with the Bush Administration and the Republican Congressional leadership. As a principled conservative who believes in fiscal responsibility, Weyrich is disgusted by the record deficits run up by Bush and the Republican Congress. Still, Weyrich suggests the Democrats fail to offer a viable alternative to alienated conservatives. In his January 10th column, Weyrich proposes a platform which could enable Democrats to gradually gain support from voters on the right and center. Weyrich notes that he doesn't personally agree with everything in his proposed platform, but thinks it would appeal to a large segment of the American electorate that is currently disgusted with both parties. Here the suggestions from Paul Weyrich for a inclusion in a Democratic platform:
* A realistic foreign policy based on interests and prudence. With the Republicans adopting Wilsonianism and the war in Iraq not going too well, the Democrats have an opportunity to appeal to a majority of voters by opposing adventurism in foreign affairs.
* Military reform, which looks not just at how much we spend on defense but what the money actually buys and whether it is relevant to future wars.
* A policy of long-term financial soundness for the federal government. The programs Democrats favor, like Social Security and Medicare, depend on this. Republicans' imprudence on government spending opens a door for the Democrats here.
* A pro-growth economic policy, but one that focuses on jobs rather than Wall Street's profits. The quality of new jobs, which means whether they pay enough to raise a family on, needs to be central. That in turn means the Democratic Party should become the party that works to restore America's industry and manufacturing. If that brings free trade into question, so be it; the Democrats can leave free trade to the Republicans. Most Americans would rather have fair trade than free trade.
* A pro-growth policy on population also, which means the Democratic Party would once again favor large families. On abortion, the Democrats would say abortion should be legal but rare and mean it. The best way to do that is adopt the "95/10 Plan" promoted by Democrats for Life, which says that within ten years we should provide alternatives to abortion in 95% of all cases.
*Restrictions on immigration and also on out-sourcing jobs overseas. Immigration and out-sourcing are the two biggest threats to jobs middle and lower-middle class Americans need.
* Instead of the "multi-culturalism" demanded by Political Correctness, the Democratic Party should once again become the party of racial integration, which means acculturating blacks and immigrants into standard middle-class American values. That is the only way blacks and immigrants can hope to become members of the middle class economically. Movements such as that to make English America's official language should be welcomed and supported by the Democratic Party as ways to help its minority constituents.
Link to Weyrich http://tinyurl.com/9bpy5
I disagree somewhat with Weyrich's platform on the immigration issue. Democrats should be pro-immigration, but clearly anti-illegal immigration. Weyrich is probably right that support for banning abortion would not work well for Democrats, however, we need to support reasonable restrictions on abortion and provide incentives to choose life. We definitely need economic policies that are concerned with Main Street and not just Wall Street. Paul Weyrich has given Democrats some great ideas for appealing to mainstream America and working families. The question is anyone in our party listening ?
* A realistic foreign policy based on interests and prudence. With the Republicans adopting Wilsonianism and the war in Iraq not going too well, the Democrats have an opportunity to appeal to a majority of voters by opposing adventurism in foreign affairs.
* Military reform, which looks not just at how much we spend on defense but what the money actually buys and whether it is relevant to future wars.
* A policy of long-term financial soundness for the federal government. The programs Democrats favor, like Social Security and Medicare, depend on this. Republicans' imprudence on government spending opens a door for the Democrats here.
* A pro-growth economic policy, but one that focuses on jobs rather than Wall Street's profits. The quality of new jobs, which means whether they pay enough to raise a family on, needs to be central. That in turn means the Democratic Party should become the party that works to restore America's industry and manufacturing. If that brings free trade into question, so be it; the Democrats can leave free trade to the Republicans. Most Americans would rather have fair trade than free trade.
* A pro-growth policy on population also, which means the Democratic Party would once again favor large families. On abortion, the Democrats would say abortion should be legal but rare and mean it. The best way to do that is adopt the "95/10 Plan" promoted by Democrats for Life, which says that within ten years we should provide alternatives to abortion in 95% of all cases.
*Restrictions on immigration and also on out-sourcing jobs overseas. Immigration and out-sourcing are the two biggest threats to jobs middle and lower-middle class Americans need.
* Instead of the "multi-culturalism" demanded by Political Correctness, the Democratic Party should once again become the party of racial integration, which means acculturating blacks and immigrants into standard middle-class American values. That is the only way blacks and immigrants can hope to become members of the middle class economically. Movements such as that to make English America's official language should be welcomed and supported by the Democratic Party as ways to help its minority constituents.
Link to Weyrich http://tinyurl.com/9bpy5
I disagree somewhat with Weyrich's platform on the immigration issue. Democrats should be pro-immigration, but clearly anti-illegal immigration. Weyrich is probably right that support for banning abortion would not work well for Democrats, however, we need to support reasonable restrictions on abortion and provide incentives to choose life. We definitely need economic policies that are concerned with Main Street and not just Wall Street. Paul Weyrich has given Democrats some great ideas for appealing to mainstream America and working families. The question is anyone in our party listening ?
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Trade deficit spirals out of control
The U.S. Business and Industry Council has some alarming statistics about America's growing trade deficit. Our trade deficit for one month now exceeds the total annual trade imbalance for 1991. As Alan Tonelson of the Council says why wait a year, when you can do it in a month? U.S. global merchandise trade deficit, Sept., 2005: $71.32 billionU.S. global merchandise trade deficit, Oct., 2005: $73.88 billionU.S. global merchandise trade deficit, full year, 1991: $66.98 billion. The Council is now urging Americans concerned about their economic future to write their members of Congress requesting action in response to Chinese currency manipulation which places U.S. made goods at a greater competitive disadvantage. Below is a sample letter that can be sent to your Congressman.
Dear [Your Rep's Name]:
As your constituent and an American citizen, I am greatly concerned about U.S. manufacturing jobs being lost due to China’s unfair trade practices. Since 1994 the Chinese government has actively manipulated its currency, a practice deemed illegal under existing international trade law. This “currency manipulation” has helped raise the U.S. trade deficit with China from $30 billion in 1994 to $162 billion in 2004. In 2005 the deficit will exceed $200 billion.Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) have introduced S.295 a China Currency Bill that calls for a 180-day negotiation period between the U.S. and China, during which time China must fairly revalue its currency. If the negotiations are not successful, a temporary, across-the-board tariff of 27.5% will be applied to all Chinese products entering the United States. This import surcharge will counter China’s estimated, unfair currency advantage. (Economists estimate that China undervalues its currency between 15 - 40 percent, with 27.5% representing the midpoint range). If the President determines at the end of the negotiation period that China has developed and started actual implementation of a plan to revalue its currency, he may delay imposition of the tariff for another 12 months.I ask you to stand up and fight for American manufacturing and jobs. Please support this legislation and vote for its passage when it reaches the Senate floor. Thank you for your consideration of my views.
Sincerely,Your Name Here
For more information on the Council's activities to protect American jobs go to: http://www.americaneconomicalert.org
Dear [Your Rep's Name]:
As your constituent and an American citizen, I am greatly concerned about U.S. manufacturing jobs being lost due to China’s unfair trade practices. Since 1994 the Chinese government has actively manipulated its currency, a practice deemed illegal under existing international trade law. This “currency manipulation” has helped raise the U.S. trade deficit with China from $30 billion in 1994 to $162 billion in 2004. In 2005 the deficit will exceed $200 billion.Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) have introduced S.295 a China Currency Bill that calls for a 180-day negotiation period between the U.S. and China, during which time China must fairly revalue its currency. If the negotiations are not successful, a temporary, across-the-board tariff of 27.5% will be applied to all Chinese products entering the United States. This import surcharge will counter China’s estimated, unfair currency advantage. (Economists estimate that China undervalues its currency between 15 - 40 percent, with 27.5% representing the midpoint range). If the President determines at the end of the negotiation period that China has developed and started actual implementation of a plan to revalue its currency, he may delay imposition of the tariff for another 12 months.I ask you to stand up and fight for American manufacturing and jobs. Please support this legislation and vote for its passage when it reaches the Senate floor. Thank you for your consideration of my views.
Sincerely,Your Name Here
For more information on the Council's activities to protect American jobs go to: http://www.americaneconomicalert.org
The Wrong Invasion
In my view, the invasion of Iraq was a distraction to the real war on terrorism. I often disagree with conservative commentator Pat Buchanan but one of his better ideas was that the United States should annex Greenland. Like Iraq, Greenland has oil and possibly vast amounts of the resource. American explorers were the first to reach Northern Greenland. Furthermore, Greenland is part of North America and thereby subject to the Monroe Doctrine. Greenland is incapable of defending itself as a independent nation and nominally governed by Denmark. The U.S. already maintains military bases in and provides for the defense of Greenland. I doubt that the fifty five thousand or so residents of Greenland would offer much resistance to a U.S. annexation, in fact, some might welcome the opportunity to become Americans. Instead of invading Iraq, the U.S. should have invaded and annexed Greenland !
I tested this idea on the Blue Dog Democrat Yahoo Group. One reader liked the idea and suggested that many Greenlanders might be open to voluntary annexation by the U.S. The reader felt the idea was hilarious but actually had some merit. He suggested that Greenlanders could be given a small share of oil revenues and all become millionaires. That's right. A seemingly crazy concept that actually makes sense. We could make the people of Greenland rich and give them the option of coming to a warmer climate in the mainland U.S. if they would like to do so. Of course, Denmark and the European Union would be rather cool toward the idea, but a win-win situation for America and the people of Greenland. We just need to find a Democratic political leader to vigorously advocate the cause of Greenland annexation. Hillary Clinton ? It would give her a more hawkish image. John Edwards ? The right cause to get his name back into the newspapers. Mark Warner ? A way to get much needed foreign policy experience. If not us, Who... ? If not now, When.....?
I tested this idea on the Blue Dog Democrat Yahoo Group. One reader liked the idea and suggested that many Greenlanders might be open to voluntary annexation by the U.S. The reader felt the idea was hilarious but actually had some merit. He suggested that Greenlanders could be given a small share of oil revenues and all become millionaires. That's right. A seemingly crazy concept that actually makes sense. We could make the people of Greenland rich and give them the option of coming to a warmer climate in the mainland U.S. if they would like to do so. Of course, Denmark and the European Union would be rather cool toward the idea, but a win-win situation for America and the people of Greenland. We just need to find a Democratic political leader to vigorously advocate the cause of Greenland annexation. Hillary Clinton ? It would give her a more hawkish image. John Edwards ? The right cause to get his name back into the newspapers. Mark Warner ? A way to get much needed foreign policy experience. If not us, Who... ? If not now, When.....?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
