The following news release from the Federation for Immigration Reform makes a strong case that the 2006 election did not provide a mandate for illegal immigrant amnesty and guest worker programs. Voters across the country rejected Republicans on both sides of the border security issue and in many contested races Democrats took hard-line stands on illegal immigration.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Since the polls closed last
Tuesday, advocates for illegal immigrants and open borders have been busy
spinning the results as an endorsement of their calls for a massive amnesty
and guest worker program. These pundits have selectively focused on a few
races in which pro-immigration enforcement legislators were defeated, while
ignoring overwhelming evidence -- including direct referenda in which
voters approved tough immigration enforcement measures -- of bipartisan
support for enforcement.
In Arizona, where two vocal pro-enforcement Republicans were defeated as part of a nationwide repudiation of the party's overall management of the government, voters handily approved four ballot measures aimed at curbing illegal immigration. All four of the Arizona ballot initiatives were approved with more than 70 percent of the vote, including about half of Hispanic voters in the state.
"Entirely apart from their position on immigration enforcement, many Republicans lost their seats as voters registered their dissatisfaction with the overall direction of the nation. While a few pro-enforcement Republicans were defeated, it is also true that the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats who took firm stand on immigration enforcement were sent back to Washington by the voters," observed Dan Stein, president of FAIR.
Also ignored by the open borders pundits is the fact that many of the
Democrats who were swept into office last week ran on immigration
enforcement platforms. In each race in which a strongly pro-enforcement
Republican lost, they were defeated by a Democrat who vowed to be just as
tough on illegal immigration.
"Support for enforcement of immigration laws and opposition to amnesty
and guest worker programs came from Democrats as well as Republicans in the
recent elections," noted Stein. "Among Democrats, proposals for amnesty and more guest workers were widely seen as a component of the White House's overt preference for business interests over the interests of working Americans."Many of the so-called Reagan Democrats, who returned to the party in this election, have grown increasingly convinced that the current administration is betraying their most basic interests.
If the new Democratic majority wants to keep these swing voters in their camp, they would be well advised not to sell out the jobs and security of working Americans to the far left multiculturalists who see mass immigration as a tool to institute their own radical agenda, Stein warned.
"The American public sent a clear message that they want a real change in direction on a lot of issues. When it comes to immigration policy the changes they want to see are significant reductions in the number of people coming here and living here illegally," said Stein. "Neither party has a mandate from the people to enact amnesty and guest worker policies that
would further undermine the American middle class."
SOURCE Federation for American Immigration Reform
http://fairus.org
* WHY THE SOUTH IS CRITICAL TO DEMOCRATS
Chris Kromm posted a splenid analysis of why Democrats must not write off the South on the progressive blog Facing South http://southernstudies.org/
"The Democratic and progressive South-bashers are at it again.In the wake of the 2006 mid-terms, a host of Democrats and progressives are once again saying that it’s time to write off the South. Throw out Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, they say, especially in those backwards, southwards states. The November elections prove that the North is the Democrats' base, and the Midwest and West are the Democrats’ future.Nonsense. If anything, the 2006 elections underscore just how critical the South is to Democratic hopes across the country (Virginia Senate, anyone?). They also show that the South is a highly competitive region for Democrats, and that to cut and run would spell disaster for the party’s future."
"The current guru of the “forget the South” movement is Tom Schaller, the author of Whistling Past Dixie, a book which counsels Democrats to abandon the region in search of easier political pick-ups in the North and Midwest (in contrast to other Dixie doubters, who argue Democrats should look West). It was such beliefs that drove Schaller to make this bold prediction in the pages of In These Times last month (“Where the Seats Are,” October 23, 2006):“Whatever the magnitude of the coming changes, two things are certain: The Democrats are going to gain seats in the 2006 midterms, and *those gains will come from outside the South.”
"Oops. That “certain” prediction, which collided with the reality of key Democratic gains in the South on November 6, may have been off-base – but not as much as Schaller’s musings about the U.S. Senate from the same article: “None of the five targets [for Democrats in the Senate] are in the South … Current *Rep. Harold Ford* (D-Tenn.) is a formidable campaigner who hopes to take the Senate seat being vacated by Majority Leader Bill Frist, and the “macaca” blunder of Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) has breathed new life into party-switcher Jim Webb’s Virginia campaign. But these two seats are considered second-tier opportunities.”
"Right. Tell that to the Democrats, who – fortunately for them -- ignored Schaller’s advice and instead made both states competitive by injecting millions of dollars and dispatching top-shelf campaigners like Bill Clinton in the final hours. Tell it also to millions of Democrats nationally, who stayed glued to TVs and blogs for over a day as the Webb race decided the fate of the U.S. Senate.But back to the predicted “no” gains in the House from the South."
"At the end of Election Day 2006, Southern Democrats had seized no less than five seats previously held by Republicans in the U.S. House, in Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina and Texas.The next morning, another *three Southern House races – Georgia’s 8th and 12th districts, and North Carolina’s 8th – were still “too close to call.” Since then, Democrat Jim Marshall has been declared the winner in Georgia-08; Democrat John Barrow leads in still-undecided Georgia-12; and Democratic candidate Larry Kissell has successfully asked for a recount in the NC-08 race, where he trails by a tiny 449 vote margin.On top of that, there were two more Southern races – Virginia’s 2nd District and Florida’s 13th – that Republicans won by less than two percentage points.* In the Florida race, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports 61> that Democrat Christine Jennings’ race with Republican Vern Buchanan was “the second closest in the country” – Jennings lost by 368 votes – and likely would have gone the other way except for voting machine problems that led to 18,000 “undervotes” in Democratic strongholds."
" A recount is in the works. In other words: out of the 19 “key races” in the South followed by political analysts, Democrats won eight; will likely win one more (GA-12); should have won FL-13; could still pick up NC-08; and narrowly missed in VA-02.Despite this 47% victory rate – and that Democrats were competitive in 63% of these key Southern races -- I have yet to see the South-naysayers express doubts about their “certain” analysis."
"Of course, any pundit can be wrong -- it's an occupational hazard of the job -- but if there’s a defining feature of the “forget the South” crowd, it’s their certainty. Pre-elections, In These Times exclaimed that “Anything that argues counter to Tom Schaller’s compelling October examination of ‘Where the Seats Are’ can be safely dismissed as non-reality based.”
Post-November 6, Chris Bowers of the popular MyDD blog giddily declared that “This is the first time in 54 years that the party without a southern majority now has the House majority … Tom Schaller utterly vindicated.”Such sentiments can be found echoing throughout the blogosphere.But whose “reality” is “vindicated” by the 2006 election results? In addition to the key House victories for Democrats in the South, consider the following:
"Out of six U.S. Senate races in the South, Democrats and Republicans split four uncompetitive races (Florida and West Virginia for the Dems; Mississippi and Texas for the GOP).* In the two competitive U.S. Senate races, Democrats won Virginia, and they narrowly missed electing the first African American Senator in the South since Reconstruction – a remarkable achievement given that by mid-October, Republican Bob Corker had outspent Ford by over $3 million, and that was before Corker dumped another $1.35 million of his own money into the race days before the election. Democrats gained 26 seats in state legislatures across the South. "
"Although no chamber switched hands (the Tennessee senate came closest, Democrats missing by one race), Democrats strengthened their position in eight Southern states. The Republicans only did that in one state, Alabama, where Democrats still control the legislature.* Out of seven governor’s races in the South, Democrats were able to flip control to their party in Arkansas, something Republicans didn’t achieve in the region. Weak candidates doomed Democratic challengers to GOP incumbents in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, and a bizarre four-way field didn’t help Democrats in Texas. But the Democrats held on to the governor’s mansion in Tennessee, and gave the well-financed campaign of Charlie Crist a run for its money in Florida.But perhaps even more importantly, exit polls in the region reveal that the South* – far from being a conservative monolith – is deeply contested political territory.
"*The race divide* -62% of Southern whites voted Republican, while 87% of African-Americans, 57% of Latinos, and 52% of “others” voted Democrat. This is ominous for Republicans, given that the four states nationally with the fastest-growing Latino population are in the South, and Georgia and Mississippi are on the brink of joining Texas as so-called “majority minority” states. *Young Southerners.* In 2006, they preferred Democrats 51% to 48%.* *Class war.* 55% of Southerners making under $50,000 a year – 40% of those polled – voted Democrat. The 13% of those polled in a union household favored Democrats 56% to 44%.* *Conflicting faiths.* Southern Protestants -- 70% of those polled – voted Republican by a 58% to 41% margin, but all other faith groups favored Democrats. More than one out of four Southern white evangelicals (27%) – perceived as the hardened core of the Republican Party – voted for Democrats in 2006.* *Gender and marriage.* Surprisingly, Southern married women were the staunchest GOP supporters in 2006, with only 40% voting for Democrats (41% of married men did). By contrast, 60% of Southern unmarried men, and 63% of unmarried women, favored Democrats in 2006."
"Two pictures emerge from this and other data. One is that the Republican Party is increasingly the party not of "the South" in general, as some pundits claim, but _older, wealthy and white Southern voters_ – a base that puts the GOP on the wrong side of all the key demographic trends unfolding in the South.The second is that the South is a deeply divided region – red, blue and purple – and the question before Democrats isn’t whether to cut and run, but how to capitalize on constituencies and trends that clearly work in their favor.There are many other reasons for the Democratic Party not to write off the South."
"For any major party to pull up stakes in the fastest-growing region in the country is clearly a bid for political suicide.It would also put Democrats at odds with their self-image and _raison d'etre._ For Democrats to turn their backs on a region that half of all African-Americans and a growing number of Latinos and Asian-Americans call home, a place devastated by Hurricane Katrina, plant closings, poverty, and other indignities – in short, for “progressives” to give up on the very place where they could argue they are needed most – would rightfully be viewed as a historic retreat from the party’s commitment to justice for all.But most of all, November 6 proved that the “forget the South” strategy is a colossal mistake – if only because the elections revealed that, if they try, Democrats in the South can win."
I strongly agree with Kromm's observations. Tom Schaller is not only Karl Rove's favorite Democratic strategist - he's also been proven dead wrong.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Friday, November 10, 2006
Pro-life Democrats help win majority and gain clout
WASHINGTON, DC – Democrats For Life of America applauded the Democratic leadership today for recruiting pro-life Democrats to run for key Congressional races in this week’s history making elections.
“Right after John Kerry’s loss in 2004, the Democratic Party finally started talking about including pro-life Democrats in the big tent of the Democratic Party. They put their money where their mouths are and assisted pro-life Democrats. Their inclusion helped pro-life Democrats win and played a significant role in handing over control of the US Senate and House. In addition to adding Bob Casey to the Senate, Democrats will see 6 new pro-life Democrats in the House,” said DFLA’s Executive Director Kristen Day.
The new pro-life faces in the US House include: Heath Shuler of North Carolina, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, Charlie Wilson of Ohio, Chris Carney and Jason Altmire both of Pennsylvania.“We’ve said for years that when we expand the big tent of the Democratic Party, Democrats win. Tuesday night is proof. Now Democrats need to continue to allow pro-life Democrats to help set the agenda in the 110th Congress,” said Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats For Life of America. “We look forward to working with Congresswomen Nancy Pelosi and the new leaders of the House to promote an agenda that will dramatically reduce the abortion rate in America. We applaud Congresswoman Pelosi understanding that Democrats need to govern from the center and that we must put our words into action by promoting common ground as a way to solve the problems we face.”
Democrats For Life of America’s top priorities for the 110th Congress are: passing the Pregnant Women Support Act, introduced by Congressman Lincoln Davis and received bipartisan support, fully funding the National Cord Blood Inventory Act which will save lives and passing the Child Custody Protection Act.
Several pro-life democrats will assume leadership positions in the new Democratic majority in the House. Rep. Jim Oberstar will chair the Transportation Committee, Rep. Collin Peterson will chair the Agriculture Committee and Rep Ike Skelton will head the Armed Services Committee. Several other pro-life democrats will chair House subcommittees.
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 41 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.
http://www.democratsforlife.org/
* BAYH CALLS FOR DEMOCRATS TO TAKE MODERATE APPROACH
U.S. Senator Evan Bayh, who also served 10 years as Governor of Indiana, has emerged a leading possibility for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination. Bayh recently received a major boost to his campaign with the withdrawal of former Virginia Governor Mark Warner. Many political observers expect that Bayh will pick up much of Warner's support base among moderate to conservative Democrats.
USA Today www.usatoday.com reported on Bayh's likely Presidential campaign and his strategy suggestions for the new Democratic majority in their November 9 edition:
"It's up to us to prove that we're something better than just a mirror image of the people they voted against," Bayh said. "And if we serve up a highly partisan, ideologically extreme, Democratic version of what they just voted against, we're not going to do very well."
"Bayh said Democrats must focus on middle-class concerns, including affordability of health care and college, as well as pension and job security. But they also have to prove Democrats can be trusted with national security and should implement all the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission."
"He singled out reducing the nation's dependence on imported oil as an area where Democrats could immediately prove their willingness to work with Republicans. Bayh is part of a bipartisan coalition of senators backing a bill to promote energy independence through the increased use of alternative fuels and technologies."
Bayh served as Governor of Indiana from 1988 (elected as George Bush I carried the state by a wide margin) to 1998 and left office with a record approval rating. He won election to the U.S. Senate in 1998 with 64% of the vote and was re-elected in 2004 receiving 62% support despite a landslide victory by George Bush II who led the state by 20 percentage points.
Evan Bayh is a former Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council but is not really the typical DLC type. For one thing, he far more pro-labor than many DLC pols with a 93 percent rating (and a 91 percent lifetime score) from the AFL-CIO in 2005. Like many Democrats during the Clinton era, Bayh was conned by the free traders and is now taking a more worker friendly approach to trade issues. Bayh stood up to the big business interests and voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. See link to an informative article on Bayh and labor. http://tinyurl.com/pjqfl Bayh looks like a strong candidate who can uphold the traditions of Democrats while expanding the party's base.
www.allamericapac.com
“Right after John Kerry’s loss in 2004, the Democratic Party finally started talking about including pro-life Democrats in the big tent of the Democratic Party. They put their money where their mouths are and assisted pro-life Democrats. Their inclusion helped pro-life Democrats win and played a significant role in handing over control of the US Senate and House. In addition to adding Bob Casey to the Senate, Democrats will see 6 new pro-life Democrats in the House,” said DFLA’s Executive Director Kristen Day.
The new pro-life faces in the US House include: Heath Shuler of North Carolina, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, Charlie Wilson of Ohio, Chris Carney and Jason Altmire both of Pennsylvania.“We’ve said for years that when we expand the big tent of the Democratic Party, Democrats win. Tuesday night is proof. Now Democrats need to continue to allow pro-life Democrats to help set the agenda in the 110th Congress,” said Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats For Life of America. “We look forward to working with Congresswomen Nancy Pelosi and the new leaders of the House to promote an agenda that will dramatically reduce the abortion rate in America. We applaud Congresswoman Pelosi understanding that Democrats need to govern from the center and that we must put our words into action by promoting common ground as a way to solve the problems we face.”
Democrats For Life of America’s top priorities for the 110th Congress are: passing the Pregnant Women Support Act, introduced by Congressman Lincoln Davis and received bipartisan support, fully funding the National Cord Blood Inventory Act which will save lives and passing the Child Custody Protection Act.
Several pro-life democrats will assume leadership positions in the new Democratic majority in the House. Rep. Jim Oberstar will chair the Transportation Committee, Rep. Collin Peterson will chair the Agriculture Committee and Rep Ike Skelton will head the Armed Services Committee. Several other pro-life democrats will chair House subcommittees.
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 41 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.
http://www.democratsforlife.org/
* BAYH CALLS FOR DEMOCRATS TO TAKE MODERATE APPROACH
U.S. Senator Evan Bayh, who also served 10 years as Governor of Indiana, has emerged a leading possibility for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination. Bayh recently received a major boost to his campaign with the withdrawal of former Virginia Governor Mark Warner. Many political observers expect that Bayh will pick up much of Warner's support base among moderate to conservative Democrats.
USA Today www.usatoday.com reported on Bayh's likely Presidential campaign and his strategy suggestions for the new Democratic majority in their November 9 edition:
"It's up to us to prove that we're something better than just a mirror image of the people they voted against," Bayh said. "And if we serve up a highly partisan, ideologically extreme, Democratic version of what they just voted against, we're not going to do very well."
"Bayh said Democrats must focus on middle-class concerns, including affordability of health care and college, as well as pension and job security. But they also have to prove Democrats can be trusted with national security and should implement all the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission."
"He singled out reducing the nation's dependence on imported oil as an area where Democrats could immediately prove their willingness to work with Republicans. Bayh is part of a bipartisan coalition of senators backing a bill to promote energy independence through the increased use of alternative fuels and technologies."
Bayh served as Governor of Indiana from 1988 (elected as George Bush I carried the state by a wide margin) to 1998 and left office with a record approval rating. He won election to the U.S. Senate in 1998 with 64% of the vote and was re-elected in 2004 receiving 62% support despite a landslide victory by George Bush II who led the state by 20 percentage points.
Evan Bayh is a former Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council but is not really the typical DLC type. For one thing, he far more pro-labor than many DLC pols with a 93 percent rating (and a 91 percent lifetime score) from the AFL-CIO in 2005. Like many Democrats during the Clinton era, Bayh was conned by the free traders and is now taking a more worker friendly approach to trade issues. Bayh stood up to the big business interests and voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. See link to an informative article on Bayh and labor. http://tinyurl.com/pjqfl Bayh looks like a strong candidate who can uphold the traditions of Democrats while expanding the party's base.
www.allamericapac.com
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Blue Dog Democrats take 9 U.S. House seats
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 12:53 PM
Subject: Blue Dogs Howl in Victory: Coalition Will Grow to 44 Members Stro ng in 110th Congress
For Immediate Release: Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Contact: Eric Wortman 202-226-4571
BLUE DOGS HOWL IN VICTORY
Coalition Will Grow to 44 Members Strong in 110th Congress
WASHINGTON, DC – Nine new members-elect are set to join the Blue Dog Coalition, including FL-16 Tim Mahoney, IN-02 Joe Donnelly, IN-08 Brad Ellsworth, IN-09 Baron Hill, NC-11 Heath Shuler, NY-20 Kirsten Gillibrand, NY-24 Michael Arcuri, OH-06 Charlie Wilson, and PA-08 Patrick Murphy.
By electing Blue Dogs to Congress, the country has sent a strong message to Washington in support of fiscal responsibility and the bipartisan ideals that the Blue Dogs were founded upon. The Blue Dog Coalition is dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics with a particular focus on the financial stability and national security of the United States. Blue Dogs represent the center of the House of Representatives and appeal to the mainstream values of the American public.
In the 110th Congress, the members-elect will join the Blue Dogs in their fight for fiscal responsibility and greater government accountability. As moderates and fiscal hawks, the Blue Dogs have made a determined effort to reach across the aisle to engage in a real debate on fiscal responsibility – including the adoption of pay-as-you-go, a core Blue Dog value that government should not spend more than it has.
All 35 Blue Dogs who ran for re-election to the House will return to the Coalition in the 110th Congress. Those members include: Joe Baca (CA-43), John Barrow (GA-12), Melissa Bean (IL-08), Marion Berry (AR-01), Sanford Bishop (GA-02), Dan Boren (OK-02), Leonard Boswell (IA-03), Allen Boyd (FL-02), Dennis Cardoza (CA-18), Ben Chandler (KY-06), Jim Cooper (TN-05), Jim Costa (CA-20), Robert E. “Bud Cramer (AL-05), Lincoln Davis (TN-04), Jane Harman (CA-36), Stephanie Herseth (SD), Tim Holden (PA-17), Steve Israel (NY-02), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Jim Marshall (GA-08), Jim Matheson (UT-02), Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Mike Michaud (ME-02), Dennis Moore (KS-03), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Earl Pomeroy (ND), Mike Ross (AR-04), John Salazar (CO-03), Loretta Sanchez (CA-47), Adam Schiff (CA-29), David Scott (GA-13), John Tanner (TN-08), Ellen Tauscher (CA-10), Gene Taylor (MS-04), and Mike Thompson (CA-01).
The returning members have built the Coalition into a serious player in the policy arena, promoting positions which bridge the gap between ideological extremes. Many of the group’s proposals have been praised as fair, responsible, and positive additions to a Congressional environment too often marked as partisan and antagonistic.
The Blue Dog Coalition was formed following the 1994 election debacle for Democrats. The founding members chose the name Blue Dog Coalition because they literally felt “choked blue by the extremes in both parties”. Over the past 12 years, the Blue Dog Coalition has grown from a small organizing group to a 44 strong member organization when the 110th Congress convenes.
* DEMOCRATS MAKE PROGRESS IN CLOSING THE "GOD GAP"
Steven Waldman has an interesting column on the faith-based website Beliefnet.com about how Democratic gains with religious voters in this year's election. Waldman points out that Democrats fielded several strongly pro-life Congressional candidates and increased support among those who attend church on a weekly basis. A majority of Roman Catholics voted Democratic this year in U.S. House elections and the party attracted greater support from evangelical Christians as well. See link to full article at http://tinyurl.com/ykxydd Waldman describes the increase in support for Democrats among the faithful especailly Catholics and evangelical Christians.
"The "God Gap" -- One of the most important factors in recent years has been the development of a religiosity gap in which the most church-going Americans voted Republican and the least devout voted Democratic. This gap closed a bit in this election.""People who attended church weekly voted 58 percent to 41 percent for Bush in 2004. This year, they voted 51 percent for Republicans to 48 percentfor Democrats."
"Catholics -- With all the attention on evangelicals, we shouldn't lose sight of another significant result: In this election, Democrats won back the Catholic vote. In 2004, President Bush beat John Kerry among Catholics 52 percent-47 percent. The exit polls for the House races show Catholics going 57 percent-42 percent for the Democrats. Democrats gained ground among white Catholics and Hispanics.""Pro-Life Democrats – Several seats were snatched away from Republicans by pro-life Democrats. Several incumbent Republicans in the House and the Senate were unseated by pro-life Democrats. Robert Casey, Jr., who is anti-abortion, defeated Sen. Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania. Brad Ellsworth, who defeated Indiana incumbent Congressman John Hostettler, also opposes abortion, as does former pro-football quarterback Heath Shuler, who defeated North Carolina Republican Congressman Charles Taylor."
"Evangelical Democrats – While it wasn't exactly an evangelical stampede, Democrats did make noticeable improvements among white evangelical Christians. In 2004, John Kerry got 21 percent of "white evangelical/born-again" Christians. This year, the Democrats got 29 percent.""In all likelihood, these were not conservative "religious right" voters but more moderate evangelical voters who had trended Republican in recent years but supported Democratic approaches to the environment and poverty."
http://www.beliefnet.com/
If the Democratic Party can recruit more candidates with a commitment to economic fairness and traditional values, our party will have a strong appeal to people of faith.
Subject: Blue Dogs Howl in Victory: Coalition Will Grow to 44 Members Stro ng in 110th Congress
For Immediate Release: Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Contact: Eric Wortman 202-226-4571
BLUE DOGS HOWL IN VICTORY
Coalition Will Grow to 44 Members Strong in 110th Congress
WASHINGTON, DC – Nine new members-elect are set to join the Blue Dog Coalition, including FL-16 Tim Mahoney, IN-02 Joe Donnelly, IN-08 Brad Ellsworth, IN-09 Baron Hill, NC-11 Heath Shuler, NY-20 Kirsten Gillibrand, NY-24 Michael Arcuri, OH-06 Charlie Wilson, and PA-08 Patrick Murphy.
By electing Blue Dogs to Congress, the country has sent a strong message to Washington in support of fiscal responsibility and the bipartisan ideals that the Blue Dogs were founded upon. The Blue Dog Coalition is dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics with a particular focus on the financial stability and national security of the United States. Blue Dogs represent the center of the House of Representatives and appeal to the mainstream values of the American public.
In the 110th Congress, the members-elect will join the Blue Dogs in their fight for fiscal responsibility and greater government accountability. As moderates and fiscal hawks, the Blue Dogs have made a determined effort to reach across the aisle to engage in a real debate on fiscal responsibility – including the adoption of pay-as-you-go, a core Blue Dog value that government should not spend more than it has.
All 35 Blue Dogs who ran for re-election to the House will return to the Coalition in the 110th Congress. Those members include: Joe Baca (CA-43), John Barrow (GA-12), Melissa Bean (IL-08), Marion Berry (AR-01), Sanford Bishop (GA-02), Dan Boren (OK-02), Leonard Boswell (IA-03), Allen Boyd (FL-02), Dennis Cardoza (CA-18), Ben Chandler (KY-06), Jim Cooper (TN-05), Jim Costa (CA-20), Robert E. “Bud Cramer (AL-05), Lincoln Davis (TN-04), Jane Harman (CA-36), Stephanie Herseth (SD), Tim Holden (PA-17), Steve Israel (NY-02), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Jim Marshall (GA-08), Jim Matheson (UT-02), Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Mike Michaud (ME-02), Dennis Moore (KS-03), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Earl Pomeroy (ND), Mike Ross (AR-04), John Salazar (CO-03), Loretta Sanchez (CA-47), Adam Schiff (CA-29), David Scott (GA-13), John Tanner (TN-08), Ellen Tauscher (CA-10), Gene Taylor (MS-04), and Mike Thompson (CA-01).
The returning members have built the Coalition into a serious player in the policy arena, promoting positions which bridge the gap between ideological extremes. Many of the group’s proposals have been praised as fair, responsible, and positive additions to a Congressional environment too often marked as partisan and antagonistic.
The Blue Dog Coalition was formed following the 1994 election debacle for Democrats. The founding members chose the name Blue Dog Coalition because they literally felt “choked blue by the extremes in both parties”. Over the past 12 years, the Blue Dog Coalition has grown from a small organizing group to a 44 strong member organization when the 110th Congress convenes.
* DEMOCRATS MAKE PROGRESS IN CLOSING THE "GOD GAP"
Steven Waldman has an interesting column on the faith-based website Beliefnet.com about how Democratic gains with religious voters in this year's election. Waldman points out that Democrats fielded several strongly pro-life Congressional candidates and increased support among those who attend church on a weekly basis. A majority of Roman Catholics voted Democratic this year in U.S. House elections and the party attracted greater support from evangelical Christians as well. See link to full article at http://tinyurl.com/ykxydd Waldman describes the increase in support for Democrats among the faithful especailly Catholics and evangelical Christians.
"The "God Gap" -- One of the most important factors in recent years has been the development of a religiosity gap in which the most church-going Americans voted Republican and the least devout voted Democratic. This gap closed a bit in this election.""People who attended church weekly voted 58 percent to 41 percent for Bush in 2004. This year, they voted 51 percent for Republicans to 48 percentfor Democrats."
"Catholics -- With all the attention on evangelicals, we shouldn't lose sight of another significant result: In this election, Democrats won back the Catholic vote. In 2004, President Bush beat John Kerry among Catholics 52 percent-47 percent. The exit polls for the House races show Catholics going 57 percent-42 percent for the Democrats. Democrats gained ground among white Catholics and Hispanics.""Pro-Life Democrats – Several seats were snatched away from Republicans by pro-life Democrats. Several incumbent Republicans in the House and the Senate were unseated by pro-life Democrats. Robert Casey, Jr., who is anti-abortion, defeated Sen. Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania. Brad Ellsworth, who defeated Indiana incumbent Congressman John Hostettler, also opposes abortion, as does former pro-football quarterback Heath Shuler, who defeated North Carolina Republican Congressman Charles Taylor."
"Evangelical Democrats – While it wasn't exactly an evangelical stampede, Democrats did make noticeable improvements among white evangelical Christians. In 2004, John Kerry got 21 percent of "white evangelical/born-again" Christians. This year, the Democrats got 29 percent.""In all likelihood, these were not conservative "religious right" voters but more moderate evangelical voters who had trended Republican in recent years but supported Democratic approaches to the environment and poverty."
http://www.beliefnet.com/
If the Democratic Party can recruit more candidates with a commitment to economic fairness and traditional values, our party will have a strong appeal to people of faith.
Monday, October 30, 2006
NY Times: Democrats Run To The Right
Today's New York Times has a front page article titled "In Key Races, Democrats Run To The Right." http://tinyurl.com/y5tzz9 Times writers Shaila Dewan and Ann Kornblut give the following analysis of the center-right trend among Democrats candidates especially in "red" states:
"In their push to win back control of the House, Democrats have turned to conservative and moderate candidates who fit the profiles of their districts more closely than the profile of the national party."
"Heath Shuler is just such a candidate. Shuler, a retired National Football League quarterback, comes from an evangelical Christian background and holds fast to many conservative social views like opposition to abortion rights."
"But if candidates like Shuler do help the Democrats gain majority control of Congress, it will come at a political price, raising the possibility of a new centrist tilt to the Democratic Party."
"My guess is that if Democrats are in the majority, it's going to be because of these New Democrat, Blue Dog candidates out there winning in these competitive swing districts," Representative Ron Kind of Wisconsin, co-chairman of a caucus of centrist Democrats in the House, said in an interview."
"Democratic officials said they did not set out with the intention of finding moderates to run. Instead, as they searched for candidates with the greatest possibility of winning against Republicans in targeted districts, they said, they wound up with a number who reflected a more moderate approach. That is especially true in suburban areas and some rural districts, according to Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee."
"As a group, they are moderate in temperament and reformers in spirit," Emanuel said.
"But will they have an impact? Absolutely," Emanuel said. "They're going to have an impact on the Congress and the caucus."
"The candidates cover the spectrum on political issues - some are fiscally conservative and moderate or liberal on social issues, or the reverse. Their weight could help tip the balance, depending on how narrow the majority is in the House, as well as influence negotiations with Republicans on everything from Social Security to stem cell research."
"Shuler, who addresses environmental conservation from the viewpoint of an avid hunter and speaks of health care for the poor as a moral responsibility, is a prime example."
"There are currently two main groups of moderate Democrats in the House: the Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of socially conservative and moderate members formed in 1994; and the centrist New Democrat Coalition, formed in 1997."
"While there are differences between the two - the Blue Dogs tend to be more rural and Southern, with occasional alliances with Republicans, while the New Democrats are more suburban and wealthy and place a premium on party loyalty - there are members who belong to both."
"The centrist movement was embodied by former President Bill Clinton, who rose to prominence through the Democratic Leadership Council, which embraced a so-called "third way" of politics and eschewed what it saw as outdated liberalism. Yet since Clinton left office, Democrats seem to drift back in the direction of their liberal identity, nominating two presidential contenders who were seen as less committed to the moderate cause."
"Shuler, 34, grew up in a Democratic family, the son of a mailman in Bryson City, North Carolina. He has set out to bring conservative Democrats who have voted Republican, like Brenda Davis, back into the fold."
From behind the counter at Spud and Deb's Hunting and Pet Supplies in Enka, North Carolina, Davis, 41, said she voted Republican in the last election because of her religious beliefs, but this time around is supporting Shuler.
"Considering my son is a marine and he's done two tours in Iraq," Davis said, "I'm with the Democrats."
If Democrats continue to nominate candidates like Heath Shuler, I espect that many voters will consider supporting our party candidates once again. Shuler seems to have the right balance of social traditionalism and economic populism.
Democrats need to move to the mainstream on social values and national security issues. There must be no doubt about our commitment to family values and protecting America from the threat of terrorism.
At the same time, it is imperative that Democrats reaffirm support for an activist role by government to provide a safety net and protect workers and consumers. The greed of the marketplace has to be restrained by regulation to protect the public. Trickle down economic policies that have benefited the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class must be reversed. So-called "free trade" can be replaced by fair trade. A Democratic Party that embraces economic fairness for working families and respects traditional morality will become the majority party once again.
"In their push to win back control of the House, Democrats have turned to conservative and moderate candidates who fit the profiles of their districts more closely than the profile of the national party."
"Heath Shuler is just such a candidate. Shuler, a retired National Football League quarterback, comes from an evangelical Christian background and holds fast to many conservative social views like opposition to abortion rights."
"But if candidates like Shuler do help the Democrats gain majority control of Congress, it will come at a political price, raising the possibility of a new centrist tilt to the Democratic Party."
"My guess is that if Democrats are in the majority, it's going to be because of these New Democrat, Blue Dog candidates out there winning in these competitive swing districts," Representative Ron Kind of Wisconsin, co-chairman of a caucus of centrist Democrats in the House, said in an interview."
"Democratic officials said they did not set out with the intention of finding moderates to run. Instead, as they searched for candidates with the greatest possibility of winning against Republicans in targeted districts, they said, they wound up with a number who reflected a more moderate approach. That is especially true in suburban areas and some rural districts, according to Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee."
"As a group, they are moderate in temperament and reformers in spirit," Emanuel said.
"But will they have an impact? Absolutely," Emanuel said. "They're going to have an impact on the Congress and the caucus."
"The candidates cover the spectrum on political issues - some are fiscally conservative and moderate or liberal on social issues, or the reverse. Their weight could help tip the balance, depending on how narrow the majority is in the House, as well as influence negotiations with Republicans on everything from Social Security to stem cell research."
"Shuler, who addresses environmental conservation from the viewpoint of an avid hunter and speaks of health care for the poor as a moral responsibility, is a prime example."
"There are currently two main groups of moderate Democrats in the House: the Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of socially conservative and moderate members formed in 1994; and the centrist New Democrat Coalition, formed in 1997."
"While there are differences between the two - the Blue Dogs tend to be more rural and Southern, with occasional alliances with Republicans, while the New Democrats are more suburban and wealthy and place a premium on party loyalty - there are members who belong to both."
"The centrist movement was embodied by former President Bill Clinton, who rose to prominence through the Democratic Leadership Council, which embraced a so-called "third way" of politics and eschewed what it saw as outdated liberalism. Yet since Clinton left office, Democrats seem to drift back in the direction of their liberal identity, nominating two presidential contenders who were seen as less committed to the moderate cause."
"Shuler, 34, grew up in a Democratic family, the son of a mailman in Bryson City, North Carolina. He has set out to bring conservative Democrats who have voted Republican, like Brenda Davis, back into the fold."
From behind the counter at Spud and Deb's Hunting and Pet Supplies in Enka, North Carolina, Davis, 41, said she voted Republican in the last election because of her religious beliefs, but this time around is supporting Shuler.
"Considering my son is a marine and he's done two tours in Iraq," Davis said, "I'm with the Democrats."
If Democrats continue to nominate candidates like Heath Shuler, I espect that many voters will consider supporting our party candidates once again. Shuler seems to have the right balance of social traditionalism and economic populism.
Democrats need to move to the mainstream on social values and national security issues. There must be no doubt about our commitment to family values and protecting America from the threat of terrorism.
At the same time, it is imperative that Democrats reaffirm support for an activist role by government to provide a safety net and protect workers and consumers. The greed of the marketplace has to be restrained by regulation to protect the public. Trickle down economic policies that have benefited the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class must be reversed. So-called "free trade" can be replaced by fair trade. A Democratic Party that embraces economic fairness for working families and respects traditional morality will become the majority party once again.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Bob Corker firm used illegal aliens as workers
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has released a new television commercial hitting Bob Corker for hypocritically talking tough on illegal immigration even though his construction firm was cited for having illegal workers on its worksite. Harold Ford Jr. wants to control the borders and get tough on employers who break the law on hiring undocumented workers.
“Bob Corker wants us to believe he can be tough on immigration even though his company employed illegal workers who were then deported,” DSCC spokesman Phil Singer said. “How can he be trusted to make the law when his own company broke the law?”
Corker’s Company Was Investigated By INS For Hiring Undocumented Workers, Some of Whom Were Deported. According to official documents, the INS opened an investigation into Corker’s construction company, Bencor, after a February 1988 complaint that 30-50 Mexicans were working at Bencor’s Riverset Apartments project on Memphis’ Mud Island. By the time the investigation was closed in 1989, after the INS held two meetings with Bencor, four illegal workers were deported.
Corker Responsible For Illegal Hirings, Broke The Law. According to the 1986 immigration law, Corker’s Bencor was legally responsible for have illegal workers at the worksite, even if the subcontractors had been at fault. Bencor could have faced fines of up to $10,000.
Corker’s Firm Ignored Warnings. Corker’s Bencor had plenty of warning that illegal workers were working on their site. According to INS documents, INS held “two meetings with Bencor, Inc” prior to their 1988 raid. Corker’s Bencor also ignored press reports about the illegal workers.
Click Here to Watch the Ad.
Click Here for Ad Backup (PDF)
* ELLSWORTH GETS "A" RATING FROM NRA
EVANSVILLE,IN – Democratic nomineee for Congress Brad Ellsworth (Indiana-D8) received a perfect “A” rating from the National Rifle Association (“NRA”), according to the November 2006 issue of American Rifleman, the official journal of the NRA.
“I believe in the Second Amendment, and I am pleased that the NRA has recognized my support for it,” said Ellsworth.
Ellsworth is a long-time gun owner and an avid sportsman.
Ellsworth is currently serving his second four-year term as Vanderburgh County Sheriff, a post to which he was first elected in 1998. Ellsworth has served Vanderburgh County law enforcement continuously since 1982.
http://www.ellsworthforcongress.com
* FAITH AND FAMILY VALUES by Heath Shuler D-NC
HENDERSONVILLE,NC - America is only as good as the families that comprise it. Strong families, blessed with hope and opportunity, filled with ambition and dreams and guided by faith and principle are the heart of America. Growing up in the close knit community of Swain County, I learned from my parents and my church to love God, respect life, and to help those less fortunate than myself. Those fundamental principles have shaped who I am today.
I am a pro-life Democrat and I believe that all life is sacred. I also believe that a commitment to life extends beyond the womb and means ensuring that all people have adequate health care, receive a strong education, and be given proper care in their later years.
I have never shied away from openly discussing my faith. Throughout my high school, college, and professional career, I have been an active member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and a spokesman for Character Counts. I have spoken to thousands of students across the country, sharing my testimony and trying to be a positive role model for them. With the help of my wonderful wife, Nikol, we are raising our two children in the mountains of North Carolina working to instill the same values with which we were raised.
* Heath Shuler is the Democratic nominee for U.S. Congress in North Carolina's 11th District.
http://www.heathshuler.com
* JACK DAVIS MAKES THE CASE AGAINST "FREE TRADE"
Jack Davis, our Democratic and Working Families Party nominee for Congress in New York's 26th Congressional District, makes a compelling case against free trade. A strong advocate for fair trade to save American jobs, here is Davis' argument for a change in direction regarding trade policies.
After 30 years of free trade, look at the facts;
Total trade deficits of 3.8 trillion dollars.
Trade deficit of 435 billion dollars last year and increasing each year.
Trade deficit of 125 billion dollars with China, mostly manufactured products and increasing.
The total national debt is 7 trillion dollars; a new all-time record high and increasing.
Over one trillion dollars is owed to our Asian suppliers.
Federal budget deficit of $477 billion last year. Why? Workers without jobs don't pay taxes nor do companies that are not profitable.
Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, Albany, Binghamton, New York City and State of New York are all operating on deficits.
Family debt is also at record highs.
When companies lose business to foreign competitors, families lose jobs, health benefits and pensions.
An increasing gross domestic product is not a measurement of a good economy. GDP can be increased by borrowing, over spending and going into destructive debt.
An increasing value of the Dow averages is not a measurement of a good economy. Fifty percent of Americans own some stock. This increases their assets and retirement funds but is not what they live on.
A good economy for the majority of Americans is employment, a living wage, a possibility for advancement, affordable housing, affordable medical care, funded retirement, and a stable currency.
Looking at all these facts, free trade has definitely not improved our standard of living. In Engineering 101, we were taught, "If the facts don't support the theory, the theory must be wrong." I don't think they teach this theory in the University's economics or political science departments.
http://www.jackdavis.org
* THE GREATEST CHALLENGE FACING AMERICA
Jim Webb, D-VA Senate candidate
"There are many challenges facing Americans today: an unpopular war, skyrocketing health care costs, a shrinking job market and rising inequality in society. I believe in the strength of American character and the ingenuity of the American people. With the right leaders we can overcome all of these obstacles. America doesn't lack ideas, it lacks leaders willing to stand up and make courageous decisions.""I have fought — and continue to fight — to protect American values. I fought in Vietnam with the hope that the Vietnamese might share the same freedoms we enjoy. I fought as a congressional committee counselor to guarantee our veterans the treatment they deserve. I fought as Secretary of the Navy to maintain the excellence of our military. I fought, pro bono, on behalf of countless veterans and refugees, in order that they might have their voices heard in the vast government bureaucracy. And I will fight in the Senate to give all Americans the chance to achieve their dreams."
http://www.webbforsenate.com
A Little Help From Your Friends
http://www.bobcasey.com/blog/
Newspaper headlines this week confirmed what many of us have known for a long time: special interests have done very well with their buddy Rick Santorum in the Senate leadership, and they stand to lose a lot come Election Day.
Last year, Santorum voted for the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that gave oil and gas companies $2.6 billion in tax breaks. Something tells me that the only people celebrating this bill one year later are the execs at ExxonMobil who raked in the second-largest quarterly profit ever recorded by a publicly traded U.S. company.(ExxonMobil also set the record for the largest quarterly profit last year).
The execs returned the favor. Only two other congressmen have received more money from Big Oil than Rick Santorum -- out of 535, he is virtually tied for 2nd.
Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum is a big beneficiary of the industry's push. He was a leading proponent of the 2003 law that gave seniors Medicare coverage for prescription drugs, and helped shape the law in ways that benefited the industry. Battling to keep his seat in a crucial Senate race, Mr. Santorum's campaign has received almost $500,000 from pharmaceutical interests and their employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group. The industry has also helped fund television advertisements and aided get-out-the-vote efforts.
The Republican-controlled Congress has been kind to drug makers. As the prescription-drugs benefit was crafted, Republicans battled not just Democratic critics but also fiscal conservatives in their own party who opposed creating the expensive government program.
Congressional Republican leaders prevented Medicare from negotiating prices with the industry. They also killed a proposal that would have allowed the government to offer its own coverage in competition with those sold by private companies.
[Wall Street Journal, 10-25-2006]
Big Pharma has rewarded Santorum handsomely for his efforts. He has received more money from the pharmaceutical industry than any other member of Congress.
Voters are fed up with the special interests' stranglehold on Rick Santorum. We need a Senator for Pennsylvania, not ExxonMobil.
* ALERT FROM THE WORKING FAMILIES NETWORK ON PA SENATE RACE
Get the Facts: Bob Casey and Rick SantorumBefore you vote Nov. 7 for U.S. senator, check the record and get the facts.
BOB CASEY WILL FIGHT FOR WORKING FAMILIES. RICK SANTORUM HAS FAILED US.
JOBS AND WAGES
Bob Casey Will Protect Good Jobs and Wages. Casey supports raising the minimum wage and prevailing wage laws that guarantee we are paid a fair wage. He opposes unfair trade agreements like CAFTA that send our jobs overseas. (AP State and Local Wire, 7/25/06; www.bobcaseyforpa.com)
Rick Santorum Attacked Jobs, Wages, Benefits. Santorum voted for unfair trade deals like CAFTA that send our jobs overseas. He tried to eliminate the 40-hour workweek and cut our overtime pay, and opposed creating new jobs protected by prevailing wages. (S.1307, Vote #170, 7/1/05; S.AMDT. 128 introduced 3/7/05; Vote #68, 5/15/97; #93, 6/4/97; S.1072, #14, 2/12/04)
HEALTH CARE
Bob Casey Will Fight for Our Health Care. "No issue hits closer to home for me than health care." Casey advocated expanding CHIP, secured millions for our hospitals through his HELP program and supports the Family and Medical Leave Act. (The Hill, 4/26/06; Hospital & Nursing Home Week, 1/12/06)
Rick Santorum Undercut Our Health Care. Santorum supported $14 billion in cuts to Medicaid and voted against the Family and Medical Leave Act as well as the Patients' Bill of Rights, which ensures doctors answer to patients rather than to HMOs. (S.C.R. 18, 3/17/05, Vote #58; #393, 11/13/91; #22. 2/3/93; #443, 9/30/92; S.1052, 6/29/01, #220; S.2549, #121, 6/8/00)
RETIREMENT SECURITY
Bob Casey Will Strengthen Our Retirement Security. Bob Casey opposes privatizing Social Security and calls it a "scheme" that would jeopardize our guaranteed benefits. (The Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/17/06; The York Dispatch, 5/10/06)
Rick Santorum Tried to Privatize Social Security. One of the most vocal supporters of President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, Santorum co-sponsored a bill to create private accounts and voted against protecting our Social Security benefits. (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 12/6/05; The Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/27/05; S. 1302, 2005; S.Con.Res. 18, Vote #49, 3/15/05)
How you vote is a personal decision. Working America has carefully researched all the candidates' records and believes Bob Casey is the best choice for working families. Whatever you decide, please vote.Click here to learn more about the 2006 elections in Pennsylvania.
“Bob Corker wants us to believe he can be tough on immigration even though his company employed illegal workers who were then deported,” DSCC spokesman Phil Singer said. “How can he be trusted to make the law when his own company broke the law?”
Corker’s Company Was Investigated By INS For Hiring Undocumented Workers, Some of Whom Were Deported. According to official documents, the INS opened an investigation into Corker’s construction company, Bencor, after a February 1988 complaint that 30-50 Mexicans were working at Bencor’s Riverset Apartments project on Memphis’ Mud Island. By the time the investigation was closed in 1989, after the INS held two meetings with Bencor, four illegal workers were deported.
Corker Responsible For Illegal Hirings, Broke The Law. According to the 1986 immigration law, Corker’s Bencor was legally responsible for have illegal workers at the worksite, even if the subcontractors had been at fault. Bencor could have faced fines of up to $10,000.
Corker’s Firm Ignored Warnings. Corker’s Bencor had plenty of warning that illegal workers were working on their site. According to INS documents, INS held “two meetings with Bencor, Inc” prior to their 1988 raid. Corker’s Bencor also ignored press reports about the illegal workers.
Click Here to Watch the Ad.
Click Here for Ad Backup (PDF)
* ELLSWORTH GETS "A" RATING FROM NRA
EVANSVILLE,IN – Democratic nomineee for Congress Brad Ellsworth (Indiana-D8) received a perfect “A” rating from the National Rifle Association (“NRA”), according to the November 2006 issue of American Rifleman, the official journal of the NRA.
“I believe in the Second Amendment, and I am pleased that the NRA has recognized my support for it,” said Ellsworth.
Ellsworth is a long-time gun owner and an avid sportsman.
Ellsworth is currently serving his second four-year term as Vanderburgh County Sheriff, a post to which he was first elected in 1998. Ellsworth has served Vanderburgh County law enforcement continuously since 1982.
http://www.ellsworthforcongress.com
* FAITH AND FAMILY VALUES by Heath Shuler D-NC
HENDERSONVILLE,NC - America is only as good as the families that comprise it. Strong families, blessed with hope and opportunity, filled with ambition and dreams and guided by faith and principle are the heart of America. Growing up in the close knit community of Swain County, I learned from my parents and my church to love God, respect life, and to help those less fortunate than myself. Those fundamental principles have shaped who I am today.
I am a pro-life Democrat and I believe that all life is sacred. I also believe that a commitment to life extends beyond the womb and means ensuring that all people have adequate health care, receive a strong education, and be given proper care in their later years.
I have never shied away from openly discussing my faith. Throughout my high school, college, and professional career, I have been an active member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and a spokesman for Character Counts. I have spoken to thousands of students across the country, sharing my testimony and trying to be a positive role model for them. With the help of my wonderful wife, Nikol, we are raising our two children in the mountains of North Carolina working to instill the same values with which we were raised.
* Heath Shuler is the Democratic nominee for U.S. Congress in North Carolina's 11th District.
http://www.heathshuler.com
* JACK DAVIS MAKES THE CASE AGAINST "FREE TRADE"
Jack Davis, our Democratic and Working Families Party nominee for Congress in New York's 26th Congressional District, makes a compelling case against free trade. A strong advocate for fair trade to save American jobs, here is Davis' argument for a change in direction regarding trade policies.
After 30 years of free trade, look at the facts;
Total trade deficits of 3.8 trillion dollars.
Trade deficit of 435 billion dollars last year and increasing each year.
Trade deficit of 125 billion dollars with China, mostly manufactured products and increasing.
The total national debt is 7 trillion dollars; a new all-time record high and increasing.
Over one trillion dollars is owed to our Asian suppliers.
Federal budget deficit of $477 billion last year. Why? Workers without jobs don't pay taxes nor do companies that are not profitable.
Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, Albany, Binghamton, New York City and State of New York are all operating on deficits.
Family debt is also at record highs.
When companies lose business to foreign competitors, families lose jobs, health benefits and pensions.
An increasing gross domestic product is not a measurement of a good economy. GDP can be increased by borrowing, over spending and going into destructive debt.
An increasing value of the Dow averages is not a measurement of a good economy. Fifty percent of Americans own some stock. This increases their assets and retirement funds but is not what they live on.
A good economy for the majority of Americans is employment, a living wage, a possibility for advancement, affordable housing, affordable medical care, funded retirement, and a stable currency.
Looking at all these facts, free trade has definitely not improved our standard of living. In Engineering 101, we were taught, "If the facts don't support the theory, the theory must be wrong." I don't think they teach this theory in the University's economics or political science departments.
http://www.jackdavis.org
* THE GREATEST CHALLENGE FACING AMERICA
Jim Webb, D-VA Senate candidate
"There are many challenges facing Americans today: an unpopular war, skyrocketing health care costs, a shrinking job market and rising inequality in society. I believe in the strength of American character and the ingenuity of the American people. With the right leaders we can overcome all of these obstacles. America doesn't lack ideas, it lacks leaders willing to stand up and make courageous decisions.""I have fought — and continue to fight — to protect American values. I fought in Vietnam with the hope that the Vietnamese might share the same freedoms we enjoy. I fought as a congressional committee counselor to guarantee our veterans the treatment they deserve. I fought as Secretary of the Navy to maintain the excellence of our military. I fought, pro bono, on behalf of countless veterans and refugees, in order that they might have their voices heard in the vast government bureaucracy. And I will fight in the Senate to give all Americans the chance to achieve their dreams."
http://www.webbforsenate.com
A Little Help From Your Friends
http://www.bobcasey.com/blog/
Newspaper headlines this week confirmed what many of us have known for a long time: special interests have done very well with their buddy Rick Santorum in the Senate leadership, and they stand to lose a lot come Election Day.
Last year, Santorum voted for the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that gave oil and gas companies $2.6 billion in tax breaks. Something tells me that the only people celebrating this bill one year later are the execs at ExxonMobil who raked in the second-largest quarterly profit ever recorded by a publicly traded U.S. company.(ExxonMobil also set the record for the largest quarterly profit last year).
The execs returned the favor. Only two other congressmen have received more money from Big Oil than Rick Santorum -- out of 535, he is virtually tied for 2nd.
Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum is a big beneficiary of the industry's push. He was a leading proponent of the 2003 law that gave seniors Medicare coverage for prescription drugs, and helped shape the law in ways that benefited the industry. Battling to keep his seat in a crucial Senate race, Mr. Santorum's campaign has received almost $500,000 from pharmaceutical interests and their employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group. The industry has also helped fund television advertisements and aided get-out-the-vote efforts.
The Republican-controlled Congress has been kind to drug makers. As the prescription-drugs benefit was crafted, Republicans battled not just Democratic critics but also fiscal conservatives in their own party who opposed creating the expensive government program.
Congressional Republican leaders prevented Medicare from negotiating prices with the industry. They also killed a proposal that would have allowed the government to offer its own coverage in competition with those sold by private companies.
[Wall Street Journal, 10-25-2006]
Big Pharma has rewarded Santorum handsomely for his efforts. He has received more money from the pharmaceutical industry than any other member of Congress.
Voters are fed up with the special interests' stranglehold on Rick Santorum. We need a Senator for Pennsylvania, not ExxonMobil.
* ALERT FROM THE WORKING FAMILIES NETWORK ON PA SENATE RACE
Get the Facts: Bob Casey and Rick SantorumBefore you vote Nov. 7 for U.S. senator, check the record and get the facts.
BOB CASEY WILL FIGHT FOR WORKING FAMILIES. RICK SANTORUM HAS FAILED US.
JOBS AND WAGES
Bob Casey Will Protect Good Jobs and Wages. Casey supports raising the minimum wage and prevailing wage laws that guarantee we are paid a fair wage. He opposes unfair trade agreements like CAFTA that send our jobs overseas. (AP State and Local Wire, 7/25/06; www.bobcaseyforpa.com)
Rick Santorum Attacked Jobs, Wages, Benefits. Santorum voted for unfair trade deals like CAFTA that send our jobs overseas. He tried to eliminate the 40-hour workweek and cut our overtime pay, and opposed creating new jobs protected by prevailing wages. (S.1307, Vote #170, 7/1/05; S.AMDT. 128 introduced 3/7/05; Vote #68, 5/15/97; #93, 6/4/97; S.1072, #14, 2/12/04)
HEALTH CARE
Bob Casey Will Fight for Our Health Care. "No issue hits closer to home for me than health care." Casey advocated expanding CHIP, secured millions for our hospitals through his HELP program and supports the Family and Medical Leave Act. (The Hill, 4/26/06; Hospital & Nursing Home Week, 1/12/06)
Rick Santorum Undercut Our Health Care. Santorum supported $14 billion in cuts to Medicaid and voted against the Family and Medical Leave Act as well as the Patients' Bill of Rights, which ensures doctors answer to patients rather than to HMOs. (S.C.R. 18, 3/17/05, Vote #58; #393, 11/13/91; #22. 2/3/93; #443, 9/30/92; S.1052, 6/29/01, #220; S.2549, #121, 6/8/00)
RETIREMENT SECURITY
Bob Casey Will Strengthen Our Retirement Security. Bob Casey opposes privatizing Social Security and calls it a "scheme" that would jeopardize our guaranteed benefits. (The Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/17/06; The York Dispatch, 5/10/06)
Rick Santorum Tried to Privatize Social Security. One of the most vocal supporters of President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, Santorum co-sponsored a bill to create private accounts and voted against protecting our Social Security benefits. (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 12/6/05; The Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/27/05; S. 1302, 2005; S.Con.Res. 18, Vote #49, 3/15/05)
How you vote is a personal decision. Working America has carefully researched all the candidates' records and believes Bob Casey is the best choice for working families. Whatever you decide, please vote.Click here to learn more about the 2006 elections in Pennsylvania.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Casey, Ford and Webb may lead Dem shift to center
During the past 25 years, we have seen a growing trend toward ideological polarization in both major parties. Single issue constituencies and idealogues have gained power in the major parties at the expense of those with more centrist views. The reality is that the largest group of voters remains in the middle which helps to explain why Americans are increasingly alienated from both Democrats and Republicans. Since self-professed conservatives greatly outnumber those who identity theselves as liberal, it is especially critical for Democrats to appeal to the center. This year, the Democratic Party is fortunate to have three nominees for U.S. Senate who recognize the need for our party to win back social traditionalists and to stress nationalism and economic populism. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee and Jim Webb of Virginia are all in a good position to claim victory and bolster the moderate-conservative wing of the Democratic Party.
Casey, Ford and Webb are certainly not the first center-right candidates to win a Democratic nomination for a major office. In past elections, moderate to conservative Democrats have often experienced the betrayal of progressive party activists and went down to defeat as party organizations withheld support. Some Democrats would prefer to lose with ideologically perfect candidates than compromise at all on any issue - especially the social issues like abortion, gun control and gay-lesbian concerns. While the moderate to conservative rising stars of 2006 have encountered some intra-party opposition, all have gained broad-based party support in their respective campaigns. Polls show Casey with a lead while Ford and Webb are in virtual ties with their Republican opponents.
Harold Meyerson has an excellent article on Bob Casey and Harold Ford in October issue of The American Prospect http://www.prospect.org/
Meyerson points out that Ford has shifted away from a formerly held "New Democrat" pro-free trade position and embraced nationalist positions on matters such as trade and port security.
"His (Ford's) campaign was one of the first to run ads against the Dubai ports deal. 'We need to control our borders," Ford says. 'We don't want to learn that terrorists came across the border and exploded our movie theaters, or that they have blown up 25 schools in the Midwest."
Ford has favored a hard line stand on ilegal immigration opposing any amnesty plan and supports a ban on same sex marriage. The American Prospect article quotes Ford as stating "They're going to say I'm a liberal. I believe that marriage should be between men and women. I don't know any better, that's how I was brought up. We didn't have any choice. Where I grew up, when you awakened on Sunday, you went to church...I learned the faith thing the old-fashioned way ! Me, a liberal ? I chair the faith-based caucus !"
Casey is described by Meyerson as a social conservative and economic liberal. The Pennsylvania Democrat is pro-life, pro-gun rights, a strong supporter of organized labor and a proponent of activist government. Meyeron notes "Casey's conservative positions on social issues are well known. This frees him to devote the lion's share of his speeches to economic fairness." In his Senate campaign, Casey has been focused on critical matters like developing renewable energy sources, fair trade agreements, a higher minimum wage and more affordable health care.
Jim Webb does not stress social issues like abortion and gay marriage in his Virginia Senate race but definitely reflects socially traditionalist values. Webb is first and foremost a military man. He wears combat boots to his campaign appearances. Webb is a decorated Vietnam Vet - a former Marine Officer who later served as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. A former Republican, Webb switched parties over the failed military intervention in Iraq. A conservative friend of Webb, Mackubin Thomas Owens pointed out in a National Review Online column earlier this year http://tinyurl.com/mlhw5 that Webb's opposition to intervention in Iraq does not mean that he is any way soft on defense and national security matters. Owens explained in the February 13 edition of NRO that Webb has opposed the Iraq war "based on strategic considerations — he is concerned that by committing such a large force there for an extended period of time we have weakened ourselves in the long run against a rising China."
Webb is a strong Second Amendment supporter. WDBJ-TV reported in August that the Virginia Democrat favors the right of Americans to carrry weapons and defend themselves and their families. In a May interview http://tinyurl.com/hdyq6, Webb shared his views on trade policy:
"We are in a situation where workers are losing jobs because of unfair trade practices from foreign governments, and we cannot and should not allow these practices to continue. The first place I would look would be the protections available to our industries in our existing trade laws. We should make it clear to foreign governments that we will not allow them to operate outside of established international trade law to gain an advantage over U.S. companies. Beyond that, I believe it would be fair to re-examine NAFTA and other acts to try and rebalance the playing field." Webb has summed up his position on trade as "free trade is not fair trade." http://tinyurl.com/hb7k8
A victory by Ford and Webb would greatly help to break the Republican hold on the Solid South. At present, there are only four Democratic U.S. Senators from the South and just three if you fail to count Bill Nelson of Florida - a Southern accented native Floridian who represents a state that is increasingly non-Southern except for geography. To win a governing majority, it is critical that Democrats become politically viable again in the South and other red states.
Casey's election to the Senate would send a message to working and middle class social traditionalist-economic populist voters that they are welcome again and have a real voice in the Democratic Party. Such voters make up a significant part of the swing vote in Pennsylvania and other states like Iowa. Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin. As a Senator, Casey will be a spokesperson for a long neglected element of the Democratic Party's constituency. Social traditionalists, often Roman Catholics from labor union backgrounds, once formed the base of the Democratic Party in many states. It is important that we welcome these voters back to our party. Let's hope that Casey, Ford and Webb prevail in November and move our party back to the mainstream values that have been exploited by hypocritical Republicans.
* "FOLEYGATE" FALLOUT - WASHINGTON TIMES SAYS RESIGN, MR. SPEAKER
The Washington Times cannot be accused of being a liberal newspaper. I think any reasonable person would agree that the newspaper leans strongly to the right on most issues and is certainly no front from the Democratic Party. In fact, the Washington Times, like Republican talk radio show hosts, often refers to the party as the "Democrat Party."
As a fairly partisan Democrat, I was shocked to find that yesterday's Washington Times contained an editorial which reflected my views on the mishandling of "Foleygate" by the Republican House leadership. The Times is calling for House Speaker Dennis Hastert to resign which I think under the circumstances would be the appropriate thing to do. I realize that Democrats in Congress have engaged in similar misbehavior at times, but the reality is that the Republican leadership despite all of the talk about moral values participated in covering up the actions of a pedophile. That is inexcusable in my view. See link to the Washington Times editorial http://tinyurl.com/r75ua
and text below:
"The facts of the disgrace of Mark Foley, who was a Republican member of the House from a Florida district until he resigned last week, constitute a disgrace for every Republican member of Congress. Red flags emerged in late 2005, perhaps even earlier, in suggestive and wholly inappropriate e-mail messages to underage congressional pages. His aberrant, predatory -- and possibly criminal --behavior was an open secret among the pages who were his prey. The evidence was strong enough long enough ago that the speaker should have relieved Mr. Foley ofhis committee responsibilities contingent on a full investigation to learn what had taken place, whether any laws had been violated and what action, up to and including prosecution, were warranted by the facts. This never happened."
"Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, the Republican chairman of the House Page Board, said he learned about the Foley e-mail messages "in late 2005." Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the leader of the Republican majority, said he was informed of the e-mail messages earlier this year. On Friday, Mr. Hastert dissembled, to put it charitably, before conceding that he, too, learned about the e-mail messages sometime earlier this year. Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Hastert insisted that he learned of the most flagrant instant-message exchange from 2003 only last Friday, when it was reported by ABC News. This is irrelevant. The original e-mail messages were warning enough that a predator -- and, incredibly, the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children -- could beprowling the halls of Congress. The matter wasn't pursued aggressively. It was barely pursued at all. Moreover, all available evidence suggests that the Republican leadership did not share anything related to this matter with any Democrat."
"Now the scandal must unfold on the front pages of the newspapers and on the television screens, as transcripts of lewd messages emerge and doubts are rightly raised about the forthrightness of the Republican stewards of the 109thCongress. Some Democrats are attempting to make this "a Republican scandal," andthey shouldn't; Democrats have contributed more than their share of characters in the tawdry history of congressional sexual scandals. Sexual predators come inall shapes, sizes and partisan hues, in institutions within and without government. When predators are found they must be dealt with, forcefully and swiftly. This time the offender is a Republican, and Republicans can't simply "get ahead" of the scandal by competing to make the most noise in calls for afull investigation. The time for that is long past."
"House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance."
I applaud the Washington Times editors for their courage and willingness to speak out against the corrupt Republican leadership.
* NLRB CONTINUES ATTACK ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
The AFL-CIO Weblog today has a disturbing news item http://tinyurl.com/r58zl
about the latest attempt of the National Labor Relations Board to further weaken collective bargaining rights in our nation. As you may know, the Bush Administration has long been attempting to take away overtime pay protections from millions of workers. This decision is another blow to organized labor which has been under attack since the Reagan Administration declared war on the working class in early 1981.
"The Republican-dominated National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) voted along party lines to slash long-time federal labor laws protecting workers’ freedom to form unions and opened the door for employers to classify millions of workers as supervisors. Under federal labor law, supervisors are prohibited from forming unions."
"The NLRB ruled on three cases, collectively known as “Kentucky River,” but it’s the lead case Oakwood Healthcare Inc. that creates a new definition of supervisor. Dozens of cases involving the definition of supervisor now before the NLRB will be sent back, with employers having the option to craft arguments that will meet the new definition of supervisor and limit the number of workers who can join a union."
"Although the Oakwood decision covers only nurses, the expanded definition of superviors means up to 8 million workers, including nurses, building trades workers, newspaper and television employees and others may be barred from joining unions. In Oakwood, the board agreed with the employer that charge nurses are supervisors. But the ruling also sets broad definitions for determining who is a supervisor that invites employers to classify nurses and many low-level employees with minor authority as supervisors. The decision was issued Sept. 29 but not released until today."
"The board’s new definition essentially enables employers to make a supervisor out of any worker who has the authority to assign or direct another and uses independent judgment. Amazingly, the board also ruled that a worker can be classified as a supervisor if he or she spends as little as 10 percent to 15 percent of his or her time overseeing the work of others."
"AFL-CIO President John Sweeney calls the decisions “outrageous and unjustified.”
"It’s the latest example of how the Bush-appointed NLRB is prepared to use legal maneuvering to deny as many workers as possible their basic right to have a voice on the job through their union. The NLRB should protect workers’ rights, not eliminate them. If the administration expects us to take this quietly, they’re mistaken."
"This week, working people are coming together in the streets in cities across the nation to make sure everyone knows that the Bush administration is slashing workers’ right to have a voice on the job."
"In their dissent, NLRB members Wilma Liebman and Dennis Walsh say the decision “threatens to create a new class of workers under federal labor law—workers who have neither the genuine prerogatives of management, nor the statutory rights of ordinary employees.” Liebman and Walsh wrote that most professionals and other workers could fall under the new definition of supervisor, “who by 2012 could number almost 34 million, accounting for 23.3 percent of the workforce.” http://www.afl-cio.org
We must elect a Democratic Congress that will restore basic labor protections to America's workers.
Casey, Ford and Webb are certainly not the first center-right candidates to win a Democratic nomination for a major office. In past elections, moderate to conservative Democrats have often experienced the betrayal of progressive party activists and went down to defeat as party organizations withheld support. Some Democrats would prefer to lose with ideologically perfect candidates than compromise at all on any issue - especially the social issues like abortion, gun control and gay-lesbian concerns. While the moderate to conservative rising stars of 2006 have encountered some intra-party opposition, all have gained broad-based party support in their respective campaigns. Polls show Casey with a lead while Ford and Webb are in virtual ties with their Republican opponents.
Harold Meyerson has an excellent article on Bob Casey and Harold Ford in October issue of The American Prospect http://www.prospect.org/
Meyerson points out that Ford has shifted away from a formerly held "New Democrat" pro-free trade position and embraced nationalist positions on matters such as trade and port security.
"His (Ford's) campaign was one of the first to run ads against the Dubai ports deal. 'We need to control our borders," Ford says. 'We don't want to learn that terrorists came across the border and exploded our movie theaters, or that they have blown up 25 schools in the Midwest."
Ford has favored a hard line stand on ilegal immigration opposing any amnesty plan and supports a ban on same sex marriage. The American Prospect article quotes Ford as stating "They're going to say I'm a liberal. I believe that marriage should be between men and women. I don't know any better, that's how I was brought up. We didn't have any choice. Where I grew up, when you awakened on Sunday, you went to church...I learned the faith thing the old-fashioned way ! Me, a liberal ? I chair the faith-based caucus !"
Casey is described by Meyerson as a social conservative and economic liberal. The Pennsylvania Democrat is pro-life, pro-gun rights, a strong supporter of organized labor and a proponent of activist government. Meyeron notes "Casey's conservative positions on social issues are well known. This frees him to devote the lion's share of his speeches to economic fairness." In his Senate campaign, Casey has been focused on critical matters like developing renewable energy sources, fair trade agreements, a higher minimum wage and more affordable health care.
Jim Webb does not stress social issues like abortion and gay marriage in his Virginia Senate race but definitely reflects socially traditionalist values. Webb is first and foremost a military man. He wears combat boots to his campaign appearances. Webb is a decorated Vietnam Vet - a former Marine Officer who later served as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. A former Republican, Webb switched parties over the failed military intervention in Iraq. A conservative friend of Webb, Mackubin Thomas Owens pointed out in a National Review Online column earlier this year http://tinyurl.com/mlhw5 that Webb's opposition to intervention in Iraq does not mean that he is any way soft on defense and national security matters. Owens explained in the February 13 edition of NRO that Webb has opposed the Iraq war "based on strategic considerations — he is concerned that by committing such a large force there for an extended period of time we have weakened ourselves in the long run against a rising China."
Webb is a strong Second Amendment supporter. WDBJ-TV reported in August that the Virginia Democrat favors the right of Americans to carrry weapons and defend themselves and their families. In a May interview http://tinyurl.com/hdyq6, Webb shared his views on trade policy:
"We are in a situation where workers are losing jobs because of unfair trade practices from foreign governments, and we cannot and should not allow these practices to continue. The first place I would look would be the protections available to our industries in our existing trade laws. We should make it clear to foreign governments that we will not allow them to operate outside of established international trade law to gain an advantage over U.S. companies. Beyond that, I believe it would be fair to re-examine NAFTA and other acts to try and rebalance the playing field." Webb has summed up his position on trade as "free trade is not fair trade." http://tinyurl.com/hb7k8
A victory by Ford and Webb would greatly help to break the Republican hold on the Solid South. At present, there are only four Democratic U.S. Senators from the South and just three if you fail to count Bill Nelson of Florida - a Southern accented native Floridian who represents a state that is increasingly non-Southern except for geography. To win a governing majority, it is critical that Democrats become politically viable again in the South and other red states.
Casey's election to the Senate would send a message to working and middle class social traditionalist-economic populist voters that they are welcome again and have a real voice in the Democratic Party. Such voters make up a significant part of the swing vote in Pennsylvania and other states like Iowa. Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin. As a Senator, Casey will be a spokesperson for a long neglected element of the Democratic Party's constituency. Social traditionalists, often Roman Catholics from labor union backgrounds, once formed the base of the Democratic Party in many states. It is important that we welcome these voters back to our party. Let's hope that Casey, Ford and Webb prevail in November and move our party back to the mainstream values that have been exploited by hypocritical Republicans.
* "FOLEYGATE" FALLOUT - WASHINGTON TIMES SAYS RESIGN, MR. SPEAKER
The Washington Times cannot be accused of being a liberal newspaper. I think any reasonable person would agree that the newspaper leans strongly to the right on most issues and is certainly no front from the Democratic Party. In fact, the Washington Times, like Republican talk radio show hosts, often refers to the party as the "Democrat Party."
As a fairly partisan Democrat, I was shocked to find that yesterday's Washington Times contained an editorial which reflected my views on the mishandling of "Foleygate" by the Republican House leadership. The Times is calling for House Speaker Dennis Hastert to resign which I think under the circumstances would be the appropriate thing to do. I realize that Democrats in Congress have engaged in similar misbehavior at times, but the reality is that the Republican leadership despite all of the talk about moral values participated in covering up the actions of a pedophile. That is inexcusable in my view. See link to the Washington Times editorial http://tinyurl.com/r75ua
and text below:
"The facts of the disgrace of Mark Foley, who was a Republican member of the House from a Florida district until he resigned last week, constitute a disgrace for every Republican member of Congress. Red flags emerged in late 2005, perhaps even earlier, in suggestive and wholly inappropriate e-mail messages to underage congressional pages. His aberrant, predatory -- and possibly criminal --behavior was an open secret among the pages who were his prey. The evidence was strong enough long enough ago that the speaker should have relieved Mr. Foley ofhis committee responsibilities contingent on a full investigation to learn what had taken place, whether any laws had been violated and what action, up to and including prosecution, were warranted by the facts. This never happened."
"Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, the Republican chairman of the House Page Board, said he learned about the Foley e-mail messages "in late 2005." Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the leader of the Republican majority, said he was informed of the e-mail messages earlier this year. On Friday, Mr. Hastert dissembled, to put it charitably, before conceding that he, too, learned about the e-mail messages sometime earlier this year. Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Hastert insisted that he learned of the most flagrant instant-message exchange from 2003 only last Friday, when it was reported by ABC News. This is irrelevant. The original e-mail messages were warning enough that a predator -- and, incredibly, the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children -- could beprowling the halls of Congress. The matter wasn't pursued aggressively. It was barely pursued at all. Moreover, all available evidence suggests that the Republican leadership did not share anything related to this matter with any Democrat."
"Now the scandal must unfold on the front pages of the newspapers and on the television screens, as transcripts of lewd messages emerge and doubts are rightly raised about the forthrightness of the Republican stewards of the 109thCongress. Some Democrats are attempting to make this "a Republican scandal," andthey shouldn't; Democrats have contributed more than their share of characters in the tawdry history of congressional sexual scandals. Sexual predators come inall shapes, sizes and partisan hues, in institutions within and without government. When predators are found they must be dealt with, forcefully and swiftly. This time the offender is a Republican, and Republicans can't simply "get ahead" of the scandal by competing to make the most noise in calls for afull investigation. The time for that is long past."
"House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance."
I applaud the Washington Times editors for their courage and willingness to speak out against the corrupt Republican leadership.
* NLRB CONTINUES ATTACK ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
The AFL-CIO Weblog today has a disturbing news item http://tinyurl.com/r58zl
about the latest attempt of the National Labor Relations Board to further weaken collective bargaining rights in our nation. As you may know, the Bush Administration has long been attempting to take away overtime pay protections from millions of workers. This decision is another blow to organized labor which has been under attack since the Reagan Administration declared war on the working class in early 1981.
"The Republican-dominated National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) voted along party lines to slash long-time federal labor laws protecting workers’ freedom to form unions and opened the door for employers to classify millions of workers as supervisors. Under federal labor law, supervisors are prohibited from forming unions."
"The NLRB ruled on three cases, collectively known as “Kentucky River,” but it’s the lead case Oakwood Healthcare Inc. that creates a new definition of supervisor. Dozens of cases involving the definition of supervisor now before the NLRB will be sent back, with employers having the option to craft arguments that will meet the new definition of supervisor and limit the number of workers who can join a union."
"Although the Oakwood decision covers only nurses, the expanded definition of superviors means up to 8 million workers, including nurses, building trades workers, newspaper and television employees and others may be barred from joining unions. In Oakwood, the board agreed with the employer that charge nurses are supervisors. But the ruling also sets broad definitions for determining who is a supervisor that invites employers to classify nurses and many low-level employees with minor authority as supervisors. The decision was issued Sept. 29 but not released until today."
"The board’s new definition essentially enables employers to make a supervisor out of any worker who has the authority to assign or direct another and uses independent judgment. Amazingly, the board also ruled that a worker can be classified as a supervisor if he or she spends as little as 10 percent to 15 percent of his or her time overseeing the work of others."
"AFL-CIO President John Sweeney calls the decisions “outrageous and unjustified.”
"It’s the latest example of how the Bush-appointed NLRB is prepared to use legal maneuvering to deny as many workers as possible their basic right to have a voice on the job through their union. The NLRB should protect workers’ rights, not eliminate them. If the administration expects us to take this quietly, they’re mistaken."
"This week, working people are coming together in the streets in cities across the nation to make sure everyone knows that the Bush administration is slashing workers’ right to have a voice on the job."
"In their dissent, NLRB members Wilma Liebman and Dennis Walsh say the decision “threatens to create a new class of workers under federal labor law—workers who have neither the genuine prerogatives of management, nor the statutory rights of ordinary employees.” Liebman and Walsh wrote that most professionals and other workers could fall under the new definition of supervisor, “who by 2012 could number almost 34 million, accounting for 23.3 percent of the workforce.” http://www.afl-cio.org
We must elect a Democratic Congress that will restore basic labor protections to America's workers.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Threat of Terrorism Persists Five Years After 9/11
As a nation, we continue to face a very real threat of terrorism and yet the Bush Administration has failed to implement the suggestions of the 9-11 Commission. Congressman Ike Skelton (D-MO) is ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee and a leading authority on national security issues. I am reprinting below a weekly column by Congressman Skelton which is right on target concerning the war on terrorism.
"This month, Americans will take part in public and private remembrances marking five years since the attacks of September 11, 2001. The terrorists who hijacked our airplanes and attacked our national symbols committed acts of war, ruthlessly destroying the lives of thousands of innocent civilians. Although Al Qaeda terrorists had attacked U.S. targets before, these crimes left no room for doubt that the U.S. was at war."
"Today, we are in the midst of a long struggle against the evil of terrorism. American and allied forces deposed Afghanistan’s Taliban regime, which supported Al Qaeda operations and training camps, and American military units have fought and are fighting terrorist cells in a number of other countries. But the recent arrests in Britain of alleged terrorists plotting attacks aboard U.S.-bound airliners highlights our country’s need to regain our focus on homeland security."
"Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the American people have spent a great deal of time and money working to prevent other attacks on the United States. While we have had a number of successes and have thwarted terrorist attacks during that time, I fear that we have not dedicated sufficient financial support and manpower to homeland security."
"The independent 9/11 Commission, which was established by Congress to investigate 9/11 and suggest policy changes, made a number of recommendations (www.9-11commission.gov), but many have not been implemented. In fact, members of the Commission issued a report card in December 2005 regarding the implementation of critical homeland security initiatives. Commissioners gave a failing grade to U.S. efforts to pre-screen airline passengers, a “D” for checked bag and cargo screening policies, and a “C” for passenger explosive screening efforts. Five years after 9/11, this track record is unacceptable."
"Our first priority as elected officials is the security of the American people. Unfortunately, our priorities have been misplaced over the past five years. Rather than extending tax cuts to millionaires, Congress should have directed more attention and resources to homeland defense and worked to ensure tax dollars were spent using a risk-based analysis."
"The conflict in Iraq, which is separate and distinct from the war on terrorism, has also taken resources and focus away from efforts to fight terrorism. The Marine Corps’ announcement that it will soon involuntarily activate up to 2,500 Marines from the Individual Ready Reserve is a reminder that valuable resources are being spent on the conflict in Iraq rather than being sent to the front lines in the war on terrorism."
"We need to recognize the mistakes made over the last five years so our nation can move forward to a more secure future. In the days ahead, I look forward to working with my colleagues to create a new direction for homeland security policy that provides real security to the American people. We owe it to those who lost their lives on 9/11, as well as to those who are currently serving at home and abroad to keep America safe."
Thank you, Congressman Skelton, for your leadership on national security issues and hopefully you will assume the chairmanship of the House Armed Services Committee next year.
"This month, Americans will take part in public and private remembrances marking five years since the attacks of September 11, 2001. The terrorists who hijacked our airplanes and attacked our national symbols committed acts of war, ruthlessly destroying the lives of thousands of innocent civilians. Although Al Qaeda terrorists had attacked U.S. targets before, these crimes left no room for doubt that the U.S. was at war."
"Today, we are in the midst of a long struggle against the evil of terrorism. American and allied forces deposed Afghanistan’s Taliban regime, which supported Al Qaeda operations and training camps, and American military units have fought and are fighting terrorist cells in a number of other countries. But the recent arrests in Britain of alleged terrorists plotting attacks aboard U.S.-bound airliners highlights our country’s need to regain our focus on homeland security."
"Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the American people have spent a great deal of time and money working to prevent other attacks on the United States. While we have had a number of successes and have thwarted terrorist attacks during that time, I fear that we have not dedicated sufficient financial support and manpower to homeland security."
"The independent 9/11 Commission, which was established by Congress to investigate 9/11 and suggest policy changes, made a number of recommendations (www.9-11commission.gov), but many have not been implemented. In fact, members of the Commission issued a report card in December 2005 regarding the implementation of critical homeland security initiatives. Commissioners gave a failing grade to U.S. efforts to pre-screen airline passengers, a “D” for checked bag and cargo screening policies, and a “C” for passenger explosive screening efforts. Five years after 9/11, this track record is unacceptable."
"Our first priority as elected officials is the security of the American people. Unfortunately, our priorities have been misplaced over the past five years. Rather than extending tax cuts to millionaires, Congress should have directed more attention and resources to homeland defense and worked to ensure tax dollars were spent using a risk-based analysis."
"The conflict in Iraq, which is separate and distinct from the war on terrorism, has also taken resources and focus away from efforts to fight terrorism. The Marine Corps’ announcement that it will soon involuntarily activate up to 2,500 Marines from the Individual Ready Reserve is a reminder that valuable resources are being spent on the conflict in Iraq rather than being sent to the front lines in the war on terrorism."
"We need to recognize the mistakes made over the last five years so our nation can move forward to a more secure future. In the days ahead, I look forward to working with my colleagues to create a new direction for homeland security policy that provides real security to the American people. We owe it to those who lost their lives on 9/11, as well as to those who are currently serving at home and abroad to keep America safe."
Thank you, Congressman Skelton, for your leadership on national security issues and hopefully you will assume the chairmanship of the House Armed Services Committee next year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
