Today's Tampa Tribune reported that the AFL-CIO has joined the National Rifle Association in supporting a proposed law to protect the gun rights of Florida workers. One of the leading opponents of gun rights in Florida is the state's Chamber of Commerce. Big business leaders feel that that employees should not have the right to keep and bear arms while traveling to and from work. http://tinyurl.com/2xuej3
By KEVIN BEGOS The Tampa Tribune
March 28, 2007
TALLAHASSEE - The issue was whether employees have the right to keep guns in their cars at work, and the National Rifle Association got help from an unexpected ally at a committee hearing Tuesday: the AFL-CIO labor union.
The business community strongly opposes the new NRA-supported legislation, but that's no surprise, said AFL-CIO spokesman Rich Templin, who said big businesswants sweeping new property rights.
"They're seeking to put the rights of dirt over the rights of people," Templin said. "They're seeking to say that the rights of Floridians stop at the boundaries of our property. People should not have to lose their rights simply to keep a job."
Templin said the labor group was motivated by situations in other states in which workers were fired for having union material in cars.
The Florida Chamber of Commerce and other business groups said the bill attacks their right to regulate behavior on private property. The bill sponsor is Sen. Durell Peaden, R-Crestview, and an identical House bill is sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala.
Peaden said the right to bear arms is the core issue in the bill.
Chamber Executive Director Mark Wilson said the bill is the biggest assault on private property rights the Legislature has been asked to consider. He noted that for many years his group and the NRA were partners in fighting to limit government power.
"When the NRA sides with labor unions for bigger government, we have a problem," Wilson said.
Sen. Nancy Argenziano, R-Crystal River and Criminal Justice committee chairwoman, said businesses aren't the only ones with property rights.
"I think there's two property rights," Argenziano said, referring to the owner of a car and the owner of a parking lot. "I think it's a great bill."
The committee voted 7-1 to approve Peaden's bill, but with an amendment that requires the guns or other private material to be kept out of sight in the car.
The vote doesn't guarantee the bill will pass. Last year a similar bill passed initial committee stops, but it stalled later and was not brought to a full floor vote. http://www.tbo.com
A survey of union members would likely show strong support for the right to keep and bear arms among the rank and file. Let's hope that the AFL-CIO endorsement of the Florida gun rights bill is just the start of a long-term partnership between the NRA and labor.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
Coalition Co-Chairs applaud key Blue Dog priorities in Democratic budget
WASHINGTON, DC – The Co-Chairs of the fiscally conservative, Democratic Blue Dog Coalition have commended House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt for including key Blue Dog budget priorities in the Democratic Budget Resolution.
The Blue Dog Co-Chairs applauded Chairman Spratt for including the following Blue Dog-advocated budget priorities:
Adherence to pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget discipline, a principle long advocated by the Blue Dogs as a solution for putting an end to deficit spending and reducing the nearly $9 trillion national debt;
A commitment to the extension of statutory PAYGO requirements, a tool that was instrumental in the return of budget surpluses during the 1990s;
A commitment to provide adequate funding for our government’s number one priority: the defense of our country and our citizens. This budget provides for a strong national defense, matching the funding request in the President’s budget and providing increases in homeland security funding levels;
Holding the line on mandatory spending levels, putting our country back on the path to fiscal responsibility; and,
Putting an end to irresponsible deficit spending, providing for a budget surplus by 2012 and greater deficit reduction than the President’s budget over 5 years.
“I applaud Chairman Spratt for his commitment to two principles we as Blue Dogs believe are essential if a government is to be accountable to its people – a strong national defense and fiscal responsibility” said Congressman Mike Ross (D-AR), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications.
“Since PAYGO requirements expired in 2002, out of control deficit spending has resulted in trillions of dollars in new national debt. By returning to PAYGO budget discipline, this Budget Resolution takes the first step toward balancing the budget and returning our government to a fiscally responsible course.”
“With the inclusion of key Blue Dog priorities in the budget resolution, it is clear that the Blue Dogs are enhancing the Democratic agenda and making headway to restore fiscal honesty and responsibility to our budget,” said Congressman Allen Boyd (D-FL), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration. “As we work to reverse the tide of deficit spending that we have seen over the past six years, the Blue Dogs will continue to play a strong and central role in restoring our fiscal house and plotting a path for a brighter fiscal outlook in the future.”
“As a member of the Budget Committee and Policy Co-Chair for the Blue Dogs, I am proud that Congress is finally returning to the principle of fiscal responsibility,” said Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS). “Americans are not afforded the luxury of living beyond their means and our government should stop doing so at the expense of future generations. Strong PAYGO rules that the Blue Dogs fought for years to restore will help us achieve the first balanced budget proposed by Congress in six years.”
Blue Dog Whip Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) said, “Budgets are statements of our nation’s values and priorities. Unfortunately, for far too long, leaders in the House have had the wrong priorities and have been unwilling to make the tough choices necessary to balance the federal budget. By adopting strong PAYGO rules and making a commitment to fiscal responsibility, this budget takes key initial steps toward restoring our nation’s financial health.”
* BUSINESS GROUP CALLS FOR FAST TRACK REJECTION
The U.S. Business & Industry Council (USBIC) is urging Congress to reject President Bush's request for a one-year renewal of fast-track trade negotiating authority.Rather than continue fast track, the USBIC is calling for a complete moratorium on new trade agreements until the trade deficit is brought under control and balance is restored to the world trading system.
According to the USBIC, when the U.S. begins considering new trade agreements again, they should be made as the Constitution requires, with full input from domestic interests through their elected representatives—not by the Executive branch with the guidance of multinational corporations.
USBIC President Kevin L. Kearns stated that passing fast track severely limits debate on new trade deals and denies Congress the right to amend them.
Says Kearns, "Renewing fast track would allow the President to stay on a policy course that has wracked up nearly $3.6 trillion in merchandise trade deficits, lost huge chunks of vital domestic manufacturing markets to imports, and hemorrhaged millions of high-wage manufacturing jobs to foreign competitors."
The Blue Dog Co-Chairs applauded Chairman Spratt for including the following Blue Dog-advocated budget priorities:
Adherence to pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget discipline, a principle long advocated by the Blue Dogs as a solution for putting an end to deficit spending and reducing the nearly $9 trillion national debt;
A commitment to the extension of statutory PAYGO requirements, a tool that was instrumental in the return of budget surpluses during the 1990s;
A commitment to provide adequate funding for our government’s number one priority: the defense of our country and our citizens. This budget provides for a strong national defense, matching the funding request in the President’s budget and providing increases in homeland security funding levels;
Holding the line on mandatory spending levels, putting our country back on the path to fiscal responsibility; and,
Putting an end to irresponsible deficit spending, providing for a budget surplus by 2012 and greater deficit reduction than the President’s budget over 5 years.
“I applaud Chairman Spratt for his commitment to two principles we as Blue Dogs believe are essential if a government is to be accountable to its people – a strong national defense and fiscal responsibility” said Congressman Mike Ross (D-AR), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications.
“Since PAYGO requirements expired in 2002, out of control deficit spending has resulted in trillions of dollars in new national debt. By returning to PAYGO budget discipline, this Budget Resolution takes the first step toward balancing the budget and returning our government to a fiscally responsible course.”
“With the inclusion of key Blue Dog priorities in the budget resolution, it is clear that the Blue Dogs are enhancing the Democratic agenda and making headway to restore fiscal honesty and responsibility to our budget,” said Congressman Allen Boyd (D-FL), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration. “As we work to reverse the tide of deficit spending that we have seen over the past six years, the Blue Dogs will continue to play a strong and central role in restoring our fiscal house and plotting a path for a brighter fiscal outlook in the future.”
“As a member of the Budget Committee and Policy Co-Chair for the Blue Dogs, I am proud that Congress is finally returning to the principle of fiscal responsibility,” said Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS). “Americans are not afforded the luxury of living beyond their means and our government should stop doing so at the expense of future generations. Strong PAYGO rules that the Blue Dogs fought for years to restore will help us achieve the first balanced budget proposed by Congress in six years.”
Blue Dog Whip Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) said, “Budgets are statements of our nation’s values and priorities. Unfortunately, for far too long, leaders in the House have had the wrong priorities and have been unwilling to make the tough choices necessary to balance the federal budget. By adopting strong PAYGO rules and making a commitment to fiscal responsibility, this budget takes key initial steps toward restoring our nation’s financial health.”
* BUSINESS GROUP CALLS FOR FAST TRACK REJECTION
The U.S. Business & Industry Council (USBIC) is urging Congress to reject President Bush's request for a one-year renewal of fast-track trade negotiating authority.Rather than continue fast track, the USBIC is calling for a complete moratorium on new trade agreements until the trade deficit is brought under control and balance is restored to the world trading system.
According to the USBIC, when the U.S. begins considering new trade agreements again, they should be made as the Constitution requires, with full input from domestic interests through their elected representatives—not by the Executive branch with the guidance of multinational corporations.
USBIC President Kevin L. Kearns stated that passing fast track severely limits debate on new trade deals and denies Congress the right to amend them.
Says Kearns, "Renewing fast track would allow the President to stay on a policy course that has wracked up nearly $3.6 trillion in merchandise trade deficits, lost huge chunks of vital domestic manufacturing markets to imports, and hemorrhaged millions of high-wage manufacturing jobs to foreign competitors."
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Jim Webb for President ?
Before watching his electrifying response to the Bush State of the Union address, I had no idea that Jim Webb was in the ranks of great communicators like JFK and Ronald Reagan. With a mix of populism and patriotism, Webb is the one of the few political leaders who have any grasp of how to restore America's sense of unity and purpose.
Maybe a Presidential candidacy this soon in his political career seems unrealistic, but Jim Webb impresses me far more than any of the current Democratic (or Republican) Presidential prospects for 2008. Webb could attract support from across the political spectrum. There is no other political figure that I am aware of getting praise from The Nation http://tinyurl.com/38qmc9 on the left and The American Conservative http://tinyurl.com/2sg5wt on the right.
Even most students of politics have probably forgotten that Ronald Reagan first sought the Republican Presidential nomination in 1968 - only two years after his election as Governor of California. And unlike Webb, Reagan had never served as Navy Secretary. If Nixon had lost the close 1968 election to Humphrey, Reagan might well have won the Presidency in 1972 instead of 1980.My guess is that John McCain is our most likely next President leaving another open Democratic race in 2012. Webb could run in 2008 and put himself a strong position to win another four years down the road.
Just in case you missed it, here is the text of Jim Webb's great speech:
Good evening.
I'm Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia, where this year we will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown -- an event that marked the first step in the long journey that has made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth.
It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President's message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.
Further, this is the seventh time the President has mentioned energy independence in his state of the union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs. We look forward to working with the President and his party to bring about these changes.
There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction, and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight. The first relates to how we see the health of our economy -- how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans. The second regards our foreign policy -- how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.
When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.
Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.
In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.
In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy -- that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.
And under the leadership of the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in ten years, and the Senate will soon follow. We've introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We've established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines. We're working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.
With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.
I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.
Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues -- those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death -- we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way.
We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.
The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held Hostage to the predictable -- and predicted -- disarray that has followed.
The war's costs to our nation have been staggering. Financially.
The damage to our reputation around the world.
The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism.
And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.
The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.
On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.
Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.
Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves "as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other." And he did something about it.
As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.
These presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this president to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.
Thank you for listening. And God bless America.
Maybe a Presidential candidacy this soon in his political career seems unrealistic, but Jim Webb impresses me far more than any of the current Democratic (or Republican) Presidential prospects for 2008. Webb could attract support from across the political spectrum. There is no other political figure that I am aware of getting praise from The Nation http://tinyurl.com/38qmc9 on the left and The American Conservative http://tinyurl.com/2sg5wt on the right.
Even most students of politics have probably forgotten that Ronald Reagan first sought the Republican Presidential nomination in 1968 - only two years after his election as Governor of California. And unlike Webb, Reagan had never served as Navy Secretary. If Nixon had lost the close 1968 election to Humphrey, Reagan might well have won the Presidency in 1972 instead of 1980.My guess is that John McCain is our most likely next President leaving another open Democratic race in 2012. Webb could run in 2008 and put himself a strong position to win another four years down the road.
Just in case you missed it, here is the text of Jim Webb's great speech:
Good evening.
I'm Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia, where this year we will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown -- an event that marked the first step in the long journey that has made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth.
It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President's message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.
Further, this is the seventh time the President has mentioned energy independence in his state of the union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs. We look forward to working with the President and his party to bring about these changes.
There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction, and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight. The first relates to how we see the health of our economy -- how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans. The second regards our foreign policy -- how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.
When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.
Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.
In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.
In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy -- that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.
And under the leadership of the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in ten years, and the Senate will soon follow. We've introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We've established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines. We're working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.
With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.
I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.
Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues -- those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death -- we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way.
We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.
The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held Hostage to the predictable -- and predicted -- disarray that has followed.
The war's costs to our nation have been staggering. Financially.
The damage to our reputation around the world.
The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism.
And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.
The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.
On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.
Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.
Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves "as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other." And he did something about it.
As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.
These presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this president to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.
Thank you for listening. And God bless America.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Atomic Insights: Democrats increasing interest in nuclear energy
JFK AT THE OAK RIDGE RESEARCH REACTORRod Adams, publisher of Atomic Insights http://www.atomicinsights.com/ observes a growing interest in nuclear energy within Democratic Party circles. Democrats are often stereotyped as anti-nuclear but surveys have shown that rank and file Democratic voters support expansion of nuclear power by a 2 to 1 margin (Rasmussen Reports, August 2005). As Adams points out, great Democrats like Al Gore, Sr. and Henry "Scoop" Jackson were among the original proponents of building nuclear plants to meet our nation's energy needs.
Adams writes in the informative Atomic Insights blog:
For the past 30 years, there has been a perception, sometimes reinforced by actions and statements, that the US Democratic Party is reflexively anti-nuclear. At the same time, it has been the perception, sometimes reinforced with words, if not action, that the Republican Party at least wants to "keep the nuclear option open". When involved in discussions with people in the industry or related academic or government fields, I have tried to persuade people that these perceptions are over simplified and not terribly useful to the continued development of safe, clean, abundant nuclear energy.
I remind people that some of the major political support for the technology in its earliest days came from strong Democrats like Senator Al Gore Sr., Senator Henry M. Jackson and L. Mendel Rivers. I also point out that it was President Ford, not President Carter who initially signed the Executive Order that forced the shutdown of the nuclear fuel recycling industry just when it was getting to a point where it could start operating profitably.
http://tinyurl.com/267zuh
Another article also suggests increasing Democratic backing for expanded nuclear power as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions which contribute to global warming.
James Hoare
Environment News
Publication Date: February 1, 2007
The Heartland Institute
http://www.heartland.org/
Nuclear power offers a safe and economical way to meet anticipated growth in American energy demand, according to an October 2006 report by the Progressive Policy Institute, a policy arm of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).
The report, "A Progressive Energy Platform," praises nuclear power as a key weapon against asserted global climate change and air quality concerns.
"Nuclear power holds great potential to be an integral part of a diversified energy portfolio for America," the report states. "It produces no greenhouse gas emissions, so it can help clean up the air and combat climate change."
New Technological Advances
Key to the DLC's support for nuclear power are technological advances that substantially improve on an already impressive safety and environmental record.
"New plant designs promise to produce power more safely and economically than first-generation facilities," the report explains. "For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has certified three new designs that would use significantly fewer pumps, pipes, valves, and cables than first-generation facilities.
"That will reduce the plants' complexity, making them easier to inspect and maintain," the report continues. "From a safety perspective, the new plants rely on natural forces such as gravity, natural circulation, and condensation, assuring safe shutdown even in the event of an accident."
The report also notes further advances in nuclear plant design.
"In addition to these three new approved designs," the report adds, "at least four other designs may soon win NRC approval. Among these is the promising modular, 'pebble bed' reactor design. As the name suggests, these smaller plants would use hundreds of thousands of uranium pebbles rather than large cores to generate power. As researchers at MIT recently concluded, these pebbles burn more completely than their traditional counterparts."
Deregulation Needed
The report stresses, however, that technological advances such as pebble bed reactors require a great deal of time to navigate through regulatory processes and actually get built.
As a result, the report encourages Democrats to take action now to remove regulatory hurdles that slow the development and construction process.
"It will take time to bring these next-generation facilities online. Progressives should support efforts to expedite the process," the report urges.
"We certainly welcome the Progressive Policy Institute support," Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman Steve Kerekes said. "It reflects the fact that there is considerable bipartisan support for nuclear energy and there has been such support for a long time.
"We anticipate this report will have a positive impact among Democrats and among citizens as a whole," Kerekes added. "Support for clean, safe, and economical nuclear power continues to build all across America."
http://tinyurl.com/2bcxxn
Adams writes in the informative Atomic Insights blog:
For the past 30 years, there has been a perception, sometimes reinforced by actions and statements, that the US Democratic Party is reflexively anti-nuclear. At the same time, it has been the perception, sometimes reinforced with words, if not action, that the Republican Party at least wants to "keep the nuclear option open". When involved in discussions with people in the industry or related academic or government fields, I have tried to persuade people that these perceptions are over simplified and not terribly useful to the continued development of safe, clean, abundant nuclear energy.
I remind people that some of the major political support for the technology in its earliest days came from strong Democrats like Senator Al Gore Sr., Senator Henry M. Jackson and L. Mendel Rivers. I also point out that it was President Ford, not President Carter who initially signed the Executive Order that forced the shutdown of the nuclear fuel recycling industry just when it was getting to a point where it could start operating profitably.
http://tinyurl.com/267zuh
Another article also suggests increasing Democratic backing for expanded nuclear power as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions which contribute to global warming.
James Hoare
Environment News
Publication Date: February 1, 2007
The Heartland Institute
http://www.heartland.org/
Nuclear power offers a safe and economical way to meet anticipated growth in American energy demand, according to an October 2006 report by the Progressive Policy Institute, a policy arm of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).
The report, "A Progressive Energy Platform," praises nuclear power as a key weapon against asserted global climate change and air quality concerns.
"Nuclear power holds great potential to be an integral part of a diversified energy portfolio for America," the report states. "It produces no greenhouse gas emissions, so it can help clean up the air and combat climate change."
New Technological Advances
Key to the DLC's support for nuclear power are technological advances that substantially improve on an already impressive safety and environmental record.
"New plant designs promise to produce power more safely and economically than first-generation facilities," the report explains. "For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has certified three new designs that would use significantly fewer pumps, pipes, valves, and cables than first-generation facilities.
"That will reduce the plants' complexity, making them easier to inspect and maintain," the report continues. "From a safety perspective, the new plants rely on natural forces such as gravity, natural circulation, and condensation, assuring safe shutdown even in the event of an accident."
The report also notes further advances in nuclear plant design.
"In addition to these three new approved designs," the report adds, "at least four other designs may soon win NRC approval. Among these is the promising modular, 'pebble bed' reactor design. As the name suggests, these smaller plants would use hundreds of thousands of uranium pebbles rather than large cores to generate power. As researchers at MIT recently concluded, these pebbles burn more completely than their traditional counterparts."
Deregulation Needed
The report stresses, however, that technological advances such as pebble bed reactors require a great deal of time to navigate through regulatory processes and actually get built.
As a result, the report encourages Democrats to take action now to remove regulatory hurdles that slow the development and construction process.
"It will take time to bring these next-generation facilities online. Progressives should support efforts to expedite the process," the report urges.
"We certainly welcome the Progressive Policy Institute support," Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman Steve Kerekes said. "It reflects the fact that there is considerable bipartisan support for nuclear energy and there has been such support for a long time.
"We anticipate this report will have a positive impact among Democrats and among citizens as a whole," Kerekes added. "Support for clean, safe, and economical nuclear power continues to build all across America."
http://tinyurl.com/2bcxxn
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Will Congressional Democrats take action on trade deficit ?
Two research fellows from the U.S. Business and Industry Council Educational Foundation ask an important question. Will the Democrats move quickly to re-shape our broken trade policies ?
American Economic Alert
Alan Tonelson and Peter KimFriday
January 26, 2007
One of the most widespread political predictions being made in Washington these days is that the new Democratic-controlled Congress will press for big changes in U.S. trade policy. One of the clearest possible tests of the Democrats’ determination to make big fixes – and provide badly needed relief for American producers and their workers – would be the prompt passage of the currency manipulation bill proposed in 2005 by Ohio Democratic Representative Tim Ryan and former House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, a Republican from San Diego now running for president.
The bill’s main provisions would designate China’s (or any other country’s) policy of deeply undervaluing its currency as an illegal subsidy against which American victims can win compensatory tariffs through the U.S. trade law system.
Ryan-Hunter is no cure-all for the damage inflicted on domestic industry by the totality of China’s predatory trade practices. Beijing has displayed the ability and the willingness to shuffle the forms its protectionism takes to keep its trading partners off balance. But the bill would significantly narrow one of China’s most significant unfair advantages and would represent a big step forward in America’s willingness to take necessary defensive action.
Just as important, Ryan-Hunter’s swift passage will create powerful momentum for defeating the president’s request to renew his fast-track trade negotiating authority later this year, and for halting the rest of his outsourcing-centered trade agenda dead in its tracks.
Ryan-Hunter already boasts major political advantages. There’s a strong case that it’s legal under the World Trade Organization’s rules – to the extent that WTO legality can be reliably predicted. And rightly or wrongly, WTO-legality is still an important consideration for legislators.
The measure also attracted more than 170 co-sponsors in the last Congress, and to underscore its bipartisan nature, Ryan and Hunter skillfully maintained a balance between Democratic and Republican supporters. A Senate version was eventually introduced late last September, without co-sponsors, by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY).
Both bills contain national security provisions, which means that they fall under the purview of the Armed Services committees as well as the traditionally outsourcing-happy House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees. Further, even many domestic manufacturing groups still hesitant to oppose current trade policies broad-brush are enthusiastic about Ryan-Hunter. Therefore, any Congressional actors instrumental to the bill’s passage could endear themselves big-time to this constituency.
More important, the main obstacle to Ryan-Hunter was the Congressional Republican leadership – which voters tossed out of power in November. As a result, the way should be clear for the avowed party of the common man to push the bill through, at least in the House. (Senate rules make matters more complicated in the upper chamber.)When a session of Congress ends, all un-passed legislation disappears in a procedural sense and needs to start over from scratch in the following session. But the picture still looks highly promising for Ryan-Hunter. Of the 170-plus co-sponsors, nearly160 are returning to the House. This means that of the 233 Democrats comprising the new House’s majority, more than 36 percent have already co-sponsored Ryan-Hunter, as have more than 36 percent of the 202 Republicans who make up the minority.
In all, the bill in theory has already attracted more than 71 percent of the votes needed for a House majority of 218.The situation in the two House committees of jurisdiction – Ways and Means and Armed Services – is mixed. Fifty of the 61 members of the new Armed Services Committee are returnees, and 36 are Ryan-Hunter co-sponsors. Interestingly, Republican supporters on the committee outnumber Democrats, with four out of their five senior-most members on board (including lead co-sponsor Hunter).
On Ways and Means, however, only nine of the current 41 members (all returnees) have co-sponsored Ryan-Hunter. Six are Democrats, including second-ranking Democrat Fortney Pete Stark of California. Still to hop aboard: slightly more than 105 Democratic returnees and 40 Democratic freshmen, along with about 120 Republican returnees and 13 Republican freshmen.
Yet with such a big head start, reaching a House majority, especially with the new Democratic leadership’s help, should be easily within reach. Major change on the Republican side should boost Ryan-Hunter’s chances as well.
Many in this session's Republican ranks are staunch supporters of current trade policies and will surely continue fighting Ryan-Hunter – like Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri. But not only are the Republicans fewer in number this time around, they also have lost some of their most fervent ideological free trade leaders through resignation and retirement.
Moreover, many of the Democratic returnees who haven’t yet signed onto Ryan-Hunter have solid records of voting for better trade policies. At least two dozen other House Democrats have voted reliably against the outsourcing trade agenda since fellow Democrat Bill Clinton left the White House, and numerous others were at least ready to oppose the Bush administration when it made CAFTA a high-profile political battle.
Finally, although the numbers are sometimes exaggerated, many of the Democratic freshmen did make better trade policies prominent planks in their platforms.
The big question mark is the Democratic leadership, none of whom has yet signed onto Ryan-Hunter. Will the leadership follow the likely will of the majority of the Democratic caucus – and perhaps the majority of the House?
Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) will play a key role here – and unlike his acerbic and dictatorial free trade predecessor, Bill Thomas, Rangel is much more likely to approach the issue with an open mind. Although in the past he has voted for many free trade deals, Rangel voted against the Central America Free Trade Agreement and opposed the last extension of fast track trade negotiating authority. Rangel recently suggested that trade policy is one area where the administration and the new Democratic Congress could work well together, but on whose terms is unclear.
The stakes are pretty high – nothing less than survival of domestic American manufacturing. If Ryan-Hunter can’t pass a Democratic-controlled House reasonably quickly, the broader campaign to reform trade policy could be seriously undercut. At the same time, with a big leadership push, new trade policies are entirely achievable in both the House and the Senate.
Are the Democrats ready to seize this historic opportunity, and put Washington on the side of American producers and working families once again? The fate of Ryan-Hunter in the next few months will go far toward answering this central question.
http://www.americaneconomicalert.org
Congressional Democrats must act to reform our trade policies which have led to a massive trade deficit, a loss of national industrial capacity and destruction of millions of good paying jobs.
American Economic Alert
Alan Tonelson and Peter KimFriday
January 26, 2007
One of the most widespread political predictions being made in Washington these days is that the new Democratic-controlled Congress will press for big changes in U.S. trade policy. One of the clearest possible tests of the Democrats’ determination to make big fixes – and provide badly needed relief for American producers and their workers – would be the prompt passage of the currency manipulation bill proposed in 2005 by Ohio Democratic Representative Tim Ryan and former House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, a Republican from San Diego now running for president.
The bill’s main provisions would designate China’s (or any other country’s) policy of deeply undervaluing its currency as an illegal subsidy against which American victims can win compensatory tariffs through the U.S. trade law system.
Ryan-Hunter is no cure-all for the damage inflicted on domestic industry by the totality of China’s predatory trade practices. Beijing has displayed the ability and the willingness to shuffle the forms its protectionism takes to keep its trading partners off balance. But the bill would significantly narrow one of China’s most significant unfair advantages and would represent a big step forward in America’s willingness to take necessary defensive action.
Just as important, Ryan-Hunter’s swift passage will create powerful momentum for defeating the president’s request to renew his fast-track trade negotiating authority later this year, and for halting the rest of his outsourcing-centered trade agenda dead in its tracks.
Ryan-Hunter already boasts major political advantages. There’s a strong case that it’s legal under the World Trade Organization’s rules – to the extent that WTO legality can be reliably predicted. And rightly or wrongly, WTO-legality is still an important consideration for legislators.
The measure also attracted more than 170 co-sponsors in the last Congress, and to underscore its bipartisan nature, Ryan and Hunter skillfully maintained a balance between Democratic and Republican supporters. A Senate version was eventually introduced late last September, without co-sponsors, by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY).
Both bills contain national security provisions, which means that they fall under the purview of the Armed Services committees as well as the traditionally outsourcing-happy House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees. Further, even many domestic manufacturing groups still hesitant to oppose current trade policies broad-brush are enthusiastic about Ryan-Hunter. Therefore, any Congressional actors instrumental to the bill’s passage could endear themselves big-time to this constituency.
More important, the main obstacle to Ryan-Hunter was the Congressional Republican leadership – which voters tossed out of power in November. As a result, the way should be clear for the avowed party of the common man to push the bill through, at least in the House. (Senate rules make matters more complicated in the upper chamber.)When a session of Congress ends, all un-passed legislation disappears in a procedural sense and needs to start over from scratch in the following session. But the picture still looks highly promising for Ryan-Hunter. Of the 170-plus co-sponsors, nearly160 are returning to the House. This means that of the 233 Democrats comprising the new House’s majority, more than 36 percent have already co-sponsored Ryan-Hunter, as have more than 36 percent of the 202 Republicans who make up the minority.
In all, the bill in theory has already attracted more than 71 percent of the votes needed for a House majority of 218.The situation in the two House committees of jurisdiction – Ways and Means and Armed Services – is mixed. Fifty of the 61 members of the new Armed Services Committee are returnees, and 36 are Ryan-Hunter co-sponsors. Interestingly, Republican supporters on the committee outnumber Democrats, with four out of their five senior-most members on board (including lead co-sponsor Hunter).
On Ways and Means, however, only nine of the current 41 members (all returnees) have co-sponsored Ryan-Hunter. Six are Democrats, including second-ranking Democrat Fortney Pete Stark of California. Still to hop aboard: slightly more than 105 Democratic returnees and 40 Democratic freshmen, along with about 120 Republican returnees and 13 Republican freshmen.
Yet with such a big head start, reaching a House majority, especially with the new Democratic leadership’s help, should be easily within reach. Major change on the Republican side should boost Ryan-Hunter’s chances as well.
Many in this session's Republican ranks are staunch supporters of current trade policies and will surely continue fighting Ryan-Hunter – like Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri. But not only are the Republicans fewer in number this time around, they also have lost some of their most fervent ideological free trade leaders through resignation and retirement.
Moreover, many of the Democratic returnees who haven’t yet signed onto Ryan-Hunter have solid records of voting for better trade policies. At least two dozen other House Democrats have voted reliably against the outsourcing trade agenda since fellow Democrat Bill Clinton left the White House, and numerous others were at least ready to oppose the Bush administration when it made CAFTA a high-profile political battle.
Finally, although the numbers are sometimes exaggerated, many of the Democratic freshmen did make better trade policies prominent planks in their platforms.
The big question mark is the Democratic leadership, none of whom has yet signed onto Ryan-Hunter. Will the leadership follow the likely will of the majority of the Democratic caucus – and perhaps the majority of the House?
Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) will play a key role here – and unlike his acerbic and dictatorial free trade predecessor, Bill Thomas, Rangel is much more likely to approach the issue with an open mind. Although in the past he has voted for many free trade deals, Rangel voted against the Central America Free Trade Agreement and opposed the last extension of fast track trade negotiating authority. Rangel recently suggested that trade policy is one area where the administration and the new Democratic Congress could work well together, but on whose terms is unclear.
The stakes are pretty high – nothing less than survival of domestic American manufacturing. If Ryan-Hunter can’t pass a Democratic-controlled House reasonably quickly, the broader campaign to reform trade policy could be seriously undercut. At the same time, with a big leadership push, new trade policies are entirely achievable in both the House and the Senate.
Are the Democrats ready to seize this historic opportunity, and put Washington on the side of American producers and working families once again? The fate of Ryan-Hunter in the next few months will go far toward answering this central question.
http://www.americaneconomicalert.org
Congressional Democrats must act to reform our trade policies which have led to a massive trade deficit, a loss of national industrial capacity and destruction of millions of good paying jobs.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Blue Dogs Demand Fiscal Accountability in Iraq
WASHINGTON D.C.- Members of the fiscally conservative, Democratic Blue Dog Coalition demanded greater accountability and responsibility regarding the war in Iraq at a press conference in the U.S. Capitol Friday.
The Blue Dog Coalition announced its plan to introduce a resolution calling for increased fiscal accountability in funding the Iraq war. The resolution focuses on four crucial points for demanding fiscal responsibility in Iraq. The points are: a call for transparency on how Iraq war funds are spent; the creation of a Truman Commission to investigate the awarding of contracts; a need to fund the Iraq war through the normal appropriations process and not through “emergency” supplementals; and using American resources to improve Iraqi assumption of internal policing operations.
“The legislation we are introducing today addresses the glaring lack of oversight and accountability in Iraq and addresses how taxpayer dollars are spent on the war,” said Rep. Patrick Murphy. “It is long past time we kept track of the money we spend in Iraq and replace waste, fraud and abuse with oversight, responsibility and accountability. This resolution puts forward tangible, commonsense proposals that ensure more resources get to the troops in the field. These are measures everyone can agree on, regardless of political party.”
“Had requests for funds for the Iraq war been on-budget, Congress would have learned far earlier what was going wrong. Budgeting by supplemental prevents Congress from doing our job and misleads the public about the true trade-offs,” Rep. Jane Harman said.
"We have to bring accountability, transparency and honesty to the way these military operations are run by the civilian leadership at the Pentagon," said Rep. John Tanner. "The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars have been spent -- and in many cases, wasted -- toward a goal that is increasingly impossible to achieve if the Iraqi people are unable or unwilling to work together politically to stabilize their own country."
"We've found countless examples of how American tax dollars have been wasted and abused in Iraq, putting our service members’ lives more at risk," said Rep. Mike Thompson. "Congressional oversight is desperately needed. The Bush Administration must be held accountable for how military and reconstruction funds are used, and this resolution is an important first step toward making that happen."
“We are also calling for an accounting with the Iraqi government and its people,” Rep. Jim Marshall. “Iraqis must steadily progress toward full responsibility for internally policing their country. Without such progress, it is wasteful to continue our investment of lives, limbs and taxpayer dollars in Iraq.”
The conservative Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 with the goal of representing the center of the House of Representatives and appealing to the mainstream values of the American public. The Blue Dogs are dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States. Currently there are 44 members of the Blue Dog Coalition.
Blue Dog members participating in the event included: Rep. Jane Harman (CA-36), Rep. Patrick Murphy (PA-08), Rep. John Tanner (TN-08); Rep. Mike Thompson (CA-01); Rep. Jim Marshall (GA-08); Rep. Mike Ross (AR-04), Co-Chair for Communications; Rep. Allen Boyd (FL-02), Co-Chair for Administration; Rep. Dennis Moore (KS-03), Co-Chair for Policy; and Rep. Stephanie Herseth (SD-AL), Whip.
* FORD PRO-FAMILY STANCE DRAWS CRITICISM
Former Congressman Harold Ford (D-TN) is expected to become the next chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council. Baptist Press reports that Ford's likely DLC chairmanship has drawn criticism from a powerful interest group within the Democratic Party.
"The likely choice of Ford, a former representative from Tennessee, has some homosexual activists upset. Ford twice supported a proposed federal constitutional marriage amendment, in 2004 and 2006. He also vocally opposed a 2006 decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court ordering the state legislature either to legalize "gay marriage" or Vermont-style civil unions.Ford lost in a close race for the Senate last year to Bob Corker."
"National Stonewall Democrats, a group that advances homosexual causes within the party, issued a statement Jan. 12 expressing "deep concern" over the choice of Ford, saying he "possesses a poor record on issues that impact LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] families."
"Congressman Harold Ford has demonstrated a lack of leadership and judgment on family issues that causes our members great concern," Joanne Wyrick, executive director of National Stonewall Democrats, said in a statement. "His willingness to lightly amend the U.S. Constitution and to exploit gay families for political gain should alarm Democrats across the country. The Democratic Leadership Council is in need of leadership that supports and affirms all American families."The statement claimed Ford was at "odds with the past position of the Democratic Leadership Council."
"The DLC is not an official party organization but seeks to influence the direction of the party. Ford would replace outgoing Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is running for president." http://tinyurl.com/3czlvr
This blogger supported equal rights for gays and lesbians in employment and housing long before such a view was popular. I am not homophobic but recognize that gay-lesbian activists have become a major force within the party and tend to put their own narrow agenda first. Everyone has the right to participate, however, issues like gay marriage cannot be allowed to define our party. We need more Democrats like Harold Ford who recognize that our party must affirm traditional marriage.
The Blue Dog Coalition announced its plan to introduce a resolution calling for increased fiscal accountability in funding the Iraq war. The resolution focuses on four crucial points for demanding fiscal responsibility in Iraq. The points are: a call for transparency on how Iraq war funds are spent; the creation of a Truman Commission to investigate the awarding of contracts; a need to fund the Iraq war through the normal appropriations process and not through “emergency” supplementals; and using American resources to improve Iraqi assumption of internal policing operations.
“The legislation we are introducing today addresses the glaring lack of oversight and accountability in Iraq and addresses how taxpayer dollars are spent on the war,” said Rep. Patrick Murphy. “It is long past time we kept track of the money we spend in Iraq and replace waste, fraud and abuse with oversight, responsibility and accountability. This resolution puts forward tangible, commonsense proposals that ensure more resources get to the troops in the field. These are measures everyone can agree on, regardless of political party.”
“Had requests for funds for the Iraq war been on-budget, Congress would have learned far earlier what was going wrong. Budgeting by supplemental prevents Congress from doing our job and misleads the public about the true trade-offs,” Rep. Jane Harman said.
"We have to bring accountability, transparency and honesty to the way these military operations are run by the civilian leadership at the Pentagon," said Rep. John Tanner. "The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars have been spent -- and in many cases, wasted -- toward a goal that is increasingly impossible to achieve if the Iraqi people are unable or unwilling to work together politically to stabilize their own country."
"We've found countless examples of how American tax dollars have been wasted and abused in Iraq, putting our service members’ lives more at risk," said Rep. Mike Thompson. "Congressional oversight is desperately needed. The Bush Administration must be held accountable for how military and reconstruction funds are used, and this resolution is an important first step toward making that happen."
“We are also calling for an accounting with the Iraqi government and its people,” Rep. Jim Marshall. “Iraqis must steadily progress toward full responsibility for internally policing their country. Without such progress, it is wasteful to continue our investment of lives, limbs and taxpayer dollars in Iraq.”
The conservative Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 with the goal of representing the center of the House of Representatives and appealing to the mainstream values of the American public. The Blue Dogs are dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States. Currently there are 44 members of the Blue Dog Coalition.
Blue Dog members participating in the event included: Rep. Jane Harman (CA-36), Rep. Patrick Murphy (PA-08), Rep. John Tanner (TN-08); Rep. Mike Thompson (CA-01); Rep. Jim Marshall (GA-08); Rep. Mike Ross (AR-04), Co-Chair for Communications; Rep. Allen Boyd (FL-02), Co-Chair for Administration; Rep. Dennis Moore (KS-03), Co-Chair for Policy; and Rep. Stephanie Herseth (SD-AL), Whip.
* FORD PRO-FAMILY STANCE DRAWS CRITICISM
Former Congressman Harold Ford (D-TN) is expected to become the next chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council. Baptist Press reports that Ford's likely DLC chairmanship has drawn criticism from a powerful interest group within the Democratic Party.
"The likely choice of Ford, a former representative from Tennessee, has some homosexual activists upset. Ford twice supported a proposed federal constitutional marriage amendment, in 2004 and 2006. He also vocally opposed a 2006 decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court ordering the state legislature either to legalize "gay marriage" or Vermont-style civil unions.Ford lost in a close race for the Senate last year to Bob Corker."
"National Stonewall Democrats, a group that advances homosexual causes within the party, issued a statement Jan. 12 expressing "deep concern" over the choice of Ford, saying he "possesses a poor record on issues that impact LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] families."
"Congressman Harold Ford has demonstrated a lack of leadership and judgment on family issues that causes our members great concern," Joanne Wyrick, executive director of National Stonewall Democrats, said in a statement. "His willingness to lightly amend the U.S. Constitution and to exploit gay families for political gain should alarm Democrats across the country. The Democratic Leadership Council is in need of leadership that supports and affirms all American families."The statement claimed Ford was at "odds with the past position of the Democratic Leadership Council."
"The DLC is not an official party organization but seeks to influence the direction of the party. Ford would replace outgoing Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is running for president." http://tinyurl.com/3czlvr
This blogger supported equal rights for gays and lesbians in employment and housing long before such a view was popular. I am not homophobic but recognize that gay-lesbian activists have become a major force within the party and tend to put their own narrow agenda first. Everyone has the right to participate, however, issues like gay marriage cannot be allowed to define our party. We need more Democrats like Harold Ford who recognize that our party must affirm traditional marriage.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Sam Nunn critical of Bush Iraq policy
Sam Nunn built a reputation as "Mr. Defense" during his 24 years of service in the U.S. Senate. The conservative Georgia Democrat chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee for a number of years. Needless to say, Nunn has established his credibility as a true patriot who puts our national security first.
The Naples Daily-News reports that Nunn has criticized George W. Bush for rejecting the Baker-Hamilton findings and plans for a troop surge in Iraq.
"The Baker-Hamilton report gave us a way out," Nunn said. "The president didn't have to agree with everything (in the study group recommendations) but he's rejected all the major recommendations of the report."
"We are in the middle of a civil war (in Iraq). This is no longer the United States vs. terrorists. It's Sunni vs. Shiite. The United States cannot referee a civil war."
"This troop surge is too few and too late. I hope it will be successful, but I don't expect it to go well."
"The biggest threat now is from terrorists who have no country. The United States must team up with other countries to make sure nuclear material never falls into the hands of terrorists," Nunn said. http://tinyurl.com/y7bbpt
Sam Nunn is right. Our involvement in Iraq has been a distraction rather part of the war against terrorism.
* JIM WEBB: FIGHTING POPULIST
Newly elected U.S. Senator Jim Webb D-VA is quickly developing a reputation as a fighting populist with a strong concern for economic justice.
The New York Times (January 12 edition) reported:
"Webb said Thursday that he wants to “re-emphasize his commitment” to issues of economic fairness. Among other things, he expressed concern about the growing gap in compensation between corporate executives and average workers."
“Every single speech that I made for the entire campaign, I laid out the fact that we must get back to economic fairness — that we measure the health of a society not by what is happening at the apex, but by what is happening at the base,” Webb said.
“We measure the health of a society not simply by what the stock market is doing,” Webb added, “but whether the people who are doing the work of society are truly receiving a fair share” of the benefits." http://tinyurl.com/yf4mgq
The Richmond Times Dispatch has also profiled Webb's populist advocacy.
"Webb said he is going to be part of a group that includes Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D., that will work to develop economic-populism legislation and "intellectual approaches." Dorgan is a populist and advocate for family farmers; he recently wrote a book called "Take This Job and Ship It: How Corporate Greed and Brain-Dead Politics are Selling Out America." Webb said he has also had discussions with newly elected Sens. Jon Tester, D-Mont., Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio."
"While Webb didn't get into details, he hinted at interest in "fair-trade" efforts to protect U.S. workers in an era of globalization."
"We can't simply put demands on the American work force in a global economy and not ask for a level playing field with workers all around the globe," he said. http://tinyurl.com/wl5xq
I applaud Senator Webb for his willingness to speak out against corporate greed and for the interests of American workers.
The Naples Daily-News reports that Nunn has criticized George W. Bush for rejecting the Baker-Hamilton findings and plans for a troop surge in Iraq.
"The Baker-Hamilton report gave us a way out," Nunn said. "The president didn't have to agree with everything (in the study group recommendations) but he's rejected all the major recommendations of the report."
"We are in the middle of a civil war (in Iraq). This is no longer the United States vs. terrorists. It's Sunni vs. Shiite. The United States cannot referee a civil war."
"This troop surge is too few and too late. I hope it will be successful, but I don't expect it to go well."
"The biggest threat now is from terrorists who have no country. The United States must team up with other countries to make sure nuclear material never falls into the hands of terrorists," Nunn said. http://tinyurl.com/y7bbpt
Sam Nunn is right. Our involvement in Iraq has been a distraction rather part of the war against terrorism.
* JIM WEBB: FIGHTING POPULIST
Newly elected U.S. Senator Jim Webb D-VA is quickly developing a reputation as a fighting populist with a strong concern for economic justice.
The New York Times (January 12 edition) reported:
"Webb said Thursday that he wants to “re-emphasize his commitment” to issues of economic fairness. Among other things, he expressed concern about the growing gap in compensation between corporate executives and average workers."
“Every single speech that I made for the entire campaign, I laid out the fact that we must get back to economic fairness — that we measure the health of a society not by what is happening at the apex, but by what is happening at the base,” Webb said.
“We measure the health of a society not simply by what the stock market is doing,” Webb added, “but whether the people who are doing the work of society are truly receiving a fair share” of the benefits." http://tinyurl.com/yf4mgq
The Richmond Times Dispatch has also profiled Webb's populist advocacy.
"Webb said he is going to be part of a group that includes Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D., that will work to develop economic-populism legislation and "intellectual approaches." Dorgan is a populist and advocate for family farmers; he recently wrote a book called "Take This Job and Ship It: How Corporate Greed and Brain-Dead Politics are Selling Out America." Webb said he has also had discussions with newly elected Sens. Jon Tester, D-Mont., Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio."
"While Webb didn't get into details, he hinted at interest in "fair-trade" efforts to protect U.S. workers in an era of globalization."
"We can't simply put demands on the American work force in a global economy and not ask for a level playing field with workers all around the globe," he said. http://tinyurl.com/wl5xq
I applaud Senator Webb for his willingness to speak out against corporate greed and for the interests of American workers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
