TalkingDonkeys

Online Distributed Action

2006-10-28T20:17:00.000-07:00

I'd want to highlight an online effort at distributed action.

It is an attempt to highlight and link to news stories from main stream news sources on Republicans prior to the election. Distributed blog attention and discussion of these news stories will bring them higher into various search engines results, and in theory help more people be more fully informed as they research their vote online.

Paul Rosenberg of My Left Wing, describes the effort this way: “Chris Bowers of MyDD has initiated a campaign to raise the visibility of solid, mainstream stories about GOP candidates that they’d rather not have people reading. He explained the concept in detail here…
It’s easy for you to join up. Go here, copy the source code and put it into a diary on your blog. … As an extra added bonus, you can click on the links yourself, and learn lots of juicy stuff.”

Here is the links to the mainstream press articles bloggers think everyone should check out prior to the election:

–AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl
–AZ-01: Rick Renzi
–AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth
–CA-04: John Doolittle
–CA-11: Richard Pombo
–CA-50: Brian Bilbray
–CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave
–CO-05: Doug Lamborn
–CO-07: Rick O’Donnell
–CT-04: Christopher Shays
–FL-13: Vernon Buchanan
–FL-16: Joe Negron
–FL-22: Clay Shaw
–ID-01: Bill Sali
–IL-06: Peter Roskam
–IL-10: Mark Kirk
–IL-14: Dennis Hastert
–IN-02: Chris Chocola
–IN-08: John Hostettler
–IA-01: Mike Whalen
–KS-02: Jim Ryun
–KY-03: Anne Northup
–KY-04: Geoff Davis
–MD-Sen: Michael Steele
–MN-01: Gil Gutknecht
–MN-06: Michele Bachmann
–MO-Sen: Jim Talent
–MT-Sen: Conrad Burns
–NV-03: Jon Porter
–NH-02: Charlie Bass
–NJ-07: Mike Ferguson
–NM-01: Heather Wilson
–NY-03: Peter King
–NY-20: John Sweeney
–NY-26: Tom Reynolds
–NY-29: Randy Kuhl
–NC-08: Robin Hayes
–NC-11: Charles Taylor
–OH-01: Steve Chabot
–OH-02: Jean Schmidt
–OH-15: Deborah Pryce
–OH-18: Joy Padgett
–PA-04: Melissa Hart
–PA-07: Curt Weldon
–PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick
–PA-10: Don Sherwood
–RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee
–TN-Sen: Bob Corker
–VA-Sen: George Allen
–VA-10: Frank Wolf
–WA-Sen: Mike McGavick
–WA-08: Dave Reichert

Back Alive with a quick link...

2006-10-05T17:14:00.000-07:00

I know I've been gone forever, but I have not forgotten this blog, but have been moving to DC actually...

Quick post, try out this tool to quickly volunteer time and knowledge to some of the Senate campaigns this blog supports... Promise more real posts soon.

You can add a badge like this to your blog here...

The Public Good: "seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you"

2006-07-11T23:27:00.000-07:00

The idea of working and praying for the Common Good, as expressed by the prophet Jeremiah...I'm particularly touched by the expression of the private good in the context of the larger common good -- as the city prospers, so will you...

"This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: "Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters....Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper."

Jeremiah 29:3-7

Bush and Congress Approvals Drop

2006-07-03T14:02:00.000-07:00

Obama's Speech Part I

2006-06-30T17:31:00.000-07:00

E.J. Dionne Jr reviews Obama's must read speech:

"Well, yes, Obama, the senator from Illinois who causes all kinds of Democrats to swoon, did indeed criticize "liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant." But a purely electoral reading of Obama's speech to the Call to Renewal conference here misses the point of what may be the most important pronouncement by a Democrat on faith and politics since John F. Kennedy's Houston speech in 1960 declaring his independence from the Vatican. (You can decide on Obama's speech yourself: The text can be found at http://www.obama.senate.gov/speech .)

Here's what stands out. First, Obama offers the first faith testimony I have heard from any politician that speaks honestly about the uncertainties of belief. "Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts," Obama declared. "You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it."

In an interview yesterday, Obama didn't back away. "By definition, faith admits doubt," he said. "Otherwise, it isn't faith. . . . If we don't sometimes feel hopeless, then we're really insulating ourselves from the world around us."

On the matter of church-state separation, Obama doesn't propose some contrived balancing act but embraces religion's need for independence from government. In a direct challenge to "conservative leaders," he argued that "they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice."

"Folks tend to forget," he continued, "that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment," but "persecuted minorities" such as Baptists "who didn't want the established churches to impose their views."

Like most liberals who are religious, Obama finds a powerful demand for social justice embedded in the great faith traditions. He took a swipe at those who would repeal the estate tax, saying this entailed "a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need and weren't even asking for it."

But he insisted that social improvement also requires individual transformation. When a gang member "shoots indiscriminately into a crowd . . . there's a hole in that young man's heart -- a hole that the government alone cannot fix." Contraception can reduce teen pregnancy rates, but so can "faith and guidance" which "help fortify a young woman's sense of self, a young man's sense of responsibility and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy."

And if you think this sounds preachy, Obama has an answer: "Our fear of getting 'preachy' may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems."

Obama's talk will inevitably be read as a road map for Democrats struggling to speak authentically to people of faith. It's certainly that, but it would be better read as a suggestion that both parties begin to think differently about the power of faith.

"No matter how religious they may or may not be," Obama said, "people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don't want faith used to belittle or to divide. They're tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon."

I think I hear some rousing "Amens!" out there -- from Republicans no less than from Democrats."

Donate Now: Key Fundraising Date for 2006 Elections this Friday

2006-06-28T07:42:00.000-07:00

Good advise from MyDD:

"These are the final days where fundraising totals matter to the overall narrative. The Q2 fundraising deadline ends at midnight on Friday. That is only 75 hours away. The next quarter will end on September 30th, and the reports on that quarter won't be out until mid-October. Buy then, all targeting and media attention will already be in place. That makes this the final deadline where totals will signal to the media and to the political establishment that a candidate is for real. To make that national difference, you need to donate now."

My actblue donation page is here...

And the netroots listing of candidates is here...

Do what you can!

Technorati Tags: 2006 fundraising

"Why We Should Care"

2006-05-29T11:43:00.000-07:00

From Alberto J. Mora, the retired Navy general counsel last year, who wrote a memo to the Pentagon 2 years prior to Abu Ghraib warning against US violation of national and international agreements of torture and detainee abuse:

"Our forefathers, who permanently defined our civic values, drafted our Constitution inspired by the belief that law could not create but only recognize certain inalienable rights granted by God -- to every person, not just citizens, and not just here but everywhere. Those rights form a shield that protects core human dignity. Because this is so, the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel punishment. The constitutional jurisprudence of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments outlaws cruel treatment that shocks the conscience. The Geneva Conventions forbid the application of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment to all captives, as do all of the major human rights treaties adopted and ratified by our country during the last century.

Despite this, there was abuse. Not all were mistreated, but some were. For those mistreated, history will ultimately judge what the precise quantum of abuse inflicted was -- whether it was torture or some lesser cruelty -- and whether it resulted from official commission or omission, or occurred despite every reasonable effort to prevent the abuse. Whatever the ultimate historical judgment, it is established fact that documents justifying and authorizing the abusive treatment of detainees during interrogation were approved and distributed. These authorizations rested on three beliefs: that no law prohibited the application of cruelty; that no law should be adopted that would do so; and that our government could choose to apply the cruelty -- or not -- as a matter of policy depending on the dictates of perceived military necessity.

The fact that we adopted this policy demonstrates that this war has tested more than our nation's ability to defend itself. It has tested our response to our fears and the measure of our courage. It has tested our commitment to our most fundamental values and our constitutional principles.

In this war, we have come to a crossroads... Will we continue to regard the protection and promotion of human dignity as the essence of our national character and purpose, or will we bargain away human and national dignity in return for an additional possible measure of physical security?

Why should we still care about these issues? The Abu Ghraib abuses have been exposed; Justice Department memoranda justifying cruelty and even torture have been ridiculed and rescinded; the authorizations for the application of extreme interrogation techniques have been withdrawn; and, perhaps most critically, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, has been enacted, thanks to the courage and leadership of Sen. John McCain.

We should care because the issues raised by a policy of cruelty are too fundamental to be left unaddressed, unanswered or ambiguous. We should care because a tolerance of cruelty will corrode our values and our rights and degrade the world in which we live. It will corrupt our heritage, cheapen the valor of the soldiers upon whose past and present sacrifices our freedoms depend, and debase the legacy we will leave to our sons and daughters. We should care because it is intolerable to us that anyone should believe for a second that our nation is tolerant of cruelty. And we should care because each of us knows that this issue has not gone away."

Dems and the Evangelical Vote

2006-05-25T10:28:00.000-07:00

From a recent posting at the Emerging Democratic Majority:

Can Dems Win Evangelicals? ...is a question that would have been quickly dismissed a few years ago, but is now well worth asking, suggests Amy Sullivan in her New Republic Online article "The Christian Right Moves Left: Base Running." Sullivan recounts a recent incident at Messiah College in which GOP Senator Rick Santorum was char-grilled by evangelical environmentalists, who were unhappy with his opposition to the Kyoto Accords and support of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Sullivan sees the incident as emblematic of a larger trend within the evangelical community --- and a growing problem for the GOP:

...Rove is also reportedly worried about another group of evangelicals: the nearly 40 percent who identify themselves as politically moderate and who are just as likely to get energized about aids in Africa or melting ice caps as partial-birth abortion and lesbian couples in Massachusetts. These evangelicals have found the White House even less open to their concerns than their more conservative brethren have...They have also been aggravated by the refusal of the Christian right's old guard to embrace new causes like the environment and global poverty.

Others have noted the growing interest in environmental causes among evangelicals, as evidenced by their increasing references to Genesis 2:15, in which God tells Adam to "watch over" the Garden of Eden "and care for it," posited against the sorry record of the GOP on every environmental issue. Sullivan offers a revealing statistic in this context that should be of interest to all Dem candidates:

...63 percent of evangelicals in a March survey released by the Evangelical Environmental Network agreed that global warming is an immediate concern.

It is doubtful that Dems will win a majority of self-described evangelicals. Yet it is quite possible that they can win a healthy slice of the evangelical vote this year and in '08... But it won't happen automatically. As Sullivan points out, the national Democratic Party, as well as state and local candidates, must make a focused commitment and an energetic effort to make it a reality.

Quote of the Day

2006-05-05T01:25:00.000-07:00

"For people of all faiths, prayer is a powerful act of devotion. Today, people of faith gather all across the country to reflect on our many blessings as a nation and to seek thoughtful discernment on the many challenges before us.

We know that the suffering of our neighbors, both domestic and around the world, is a burden we must work to alleviate. For the nearly 1 in 5 American children living in poverty, for the nearly 46 million Americans who are uninsured, for the millions of refugees around the world, and for the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost to genocide in Darfur, we must come together around these and other common concerns to offer hope. Today and every day, we must strive to find the moral high ground to impact real change.

Today we reaffirm our commitment to work to heal our nation and to come together around our shared values to rebuild our American community with honesty, security and opportunity and to demonstrate moral leadership around the globe."

-- DNC Chairman Howard Dean, on the National Day of Prayer

A Good Cause: Net Nuetrality...Save the Internet

2006-05-02T16:05:00.000-07:00

Make History

2006-04-25T21:32:00.000-07:00

Just looked at the DNC page and over 820,000 have volunteered for this weekends 50 State Canvas....

Strongly encourage you to join in this, the first ever 50 state wide canvasing

Join in what will help reach out to 1 million doors, starting a million converstations about changing the direction of this country....the next step in the campaign to take back Congress, Governorships this year, and the White House in 08!

The Common Good

2006-04-21T15:26:00.000-07:00

I totally agree with this American Prosect essay:

"What the Democrats still don’t have is a philosophy, a big idea that unites their proposals and converts them from a hodgepodge of narrow and specific fixes into a vision for society. Indeed, the party and the constellation of interests around it don’t even think in philosophical terms and haven’t for quite some time. There’s a reason for this: They’ve all been trained to believe -- by the media, by their pollsters -- that their philosophy is an electoral loser. Like the dogs in the famous “learned helplessness” psychological experiments of the 1960s -- the dogs were administered electrical shocks from which they could escape, but from which, after a while, they didn’t even try to, instead crouching in the corner in resignation and fear -- the Democrats have given up attempting big ideas. Any effort at doing so, they’re convinced, will result in electrical (and electoral) shock.

But is that as true as it appears? Certainly, today’s Democrats can’t simply return to the philosophy that was defeated in the late 1970s. But at the same time, let’s recognize a new historical moment when we see one: Today, for the first time since 1980, it is conservative philosophy that is being discredited (or rather, is discrediting itself) on a scale liberals wouldn’t have dared imagine a few years ago. An opening now exists, as it hasn’t in a very long time, for the Democrats to be the visionaries. To seize this moment, the Democrats need to think differently -- to stop focusing on their grab bag of small-bore proposals that so often seek not to offend and that accept conservative terms of debate. And to do that, they need to begin by looking to their history, for in that history there is an idea about liberal governance that amounts to more than the million-little-pieces, interest-group approach to politics that has recently come under deserved scrutiny and that can clearly offer the most compelling progressive response to the radical individualism of the Bush era.

For many years -- during their years of dominance and success, the period of the New Deal up through the first part of the Great Society -- the Democrats practiced a brand of liberalism quite different from today’s. Yes, it certainly sought to expand both rights and prosperity. But it did something more: That liberalism was built around the idea -- the philosophical principle -- that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interest and work for a greater common interest.

This, historically, is the moral basis of liberal governance -- not justice, not equality, not rights, not diversity, not government, and not even prosperity or opportunity. Liberal governance is about demanding of citizens that they balance self-interest with common interest. Any rank-and-file liberal is a liberal because she or he somehow or another, through reading or experience or both, came to believe in this principle. And every leading Democrat became a Democrat because on some level, she or he believes this, too....

This is the only justification leaders can make to citizens for liberal governance, really: That all are being asked to contribute to a project larger than themselves....

The Democrats need to become the party of the common good. They need a simple organizing principle that is distinct from Republicans and that isn’t a reaction to the Republicans. They need to remember what made liberalism so successful from 1933 to 1966, that reciprocal arrangement of trust between state and nation. And they need to take the best parts of the rights tradition of liberalism and the best parts of the more recent responsibilities tradition and fuse them into a new philosophy that is both civic-republican and liberal -- that goes back to the kind of rhetoric Johnson used in 1964 and 1965, that attempts to enlist citizens in large projects to which everyone contributes and from which everyone benefits.

Arguing for it is the only way that Democrats can come to stand for something clear and authoritative again...."

Emergency Rooms and Easter Week

2006-04-13T22:49:00.000-07:00

I spent last weekend -- a mere 9 days after my 39th birthday -- in the UCLA cardiac emergency center.

Before I go any further, I should say that I'm fine. But at the time I felt three of the five symptoms of a heart attack: tightness in my left chest, shortness of breath and nausea. A bad trifecta of symptoms -- especially with my family history of a grandfather and a myriad of uncles having died of heart attacks.

After feeling these three in combo, I was ready to go. No additional motivation needed...my wife Laura drove me to the emergency room -- which in retrospect was the one dumb move I made...not just dialing 911 mostly out of a sense of pride that I wasn't "that bad" off.

Once there they moved me into the emergency cardiac ward, checked out my blood pressure (which was pretty high, but that is not uncommon during emergency room experiences) EKG, chest X-rays, the whole 9 yards. Nothing definite, but from the first it did not appear to be heart failure...at he first X-ray would show an odd smudge on my heart. They'd need to take another.

To my direct left was a poor older woman who was both a stage 3 chemo patient, and DEFINITELY suffering a major heart attack. To my right was a motorcycle accident victim, who seemed to drift in an out of consciousness, and had many tubes in his mouth and face keeping him breathing.

After midnight I sent an exausted Laura home. She was so tired and brave and scared for me. By 2 AM that morning they decided to move me into a semi private room, that still had nurses watching nearly every minute. I was woke up every hour for a blood test, a EKG, or a blood pressure test.

I shared the room with Carlos who is a 17 year old who was recovering from being shot four times in a gang drive by shooting in Inglewood. Amazingly for him none of the bullets most of which went through his body hit any vital organ critically.

That next morning we shared a TV, I let him choose the TV -- which everything he choose had guns and people being shot: Aliens, Dirty Harry, Platoon. None of those viewing choices really helped my nausea, but I figured the dude had just gone through enough, and I just zoned out from things and tried to sleep.

Shortly I was carted down to take the second X-ray. Before I left I wished Carlos good luck on top of the luck he had already seen. It went quickly --although I still felt light headed a bit even then -- and soon was back resting, as Carlos' parents came to take him home.

Alone for the first time during this whole ordeal: as I just rested, practiced slow breathing, and watched it as the monitor showed the calmer heart rate. I figured the second X ray results would be a few hours away at the soonest. Try to rest. Tried not to worry.

I tried some of the meditation and prayer techniques we did in church: "Breath in Jesus, breath out fear."

At that point something that was a sheer act of grace occurred: a volunteer brought a dog in. The dog's name was Lucy, a rescue Mutt, that was the gentlest and kindest animal.

There were many others like her in the center she said, with other friendly dogs, just visiting sick folks, giving them a dog to pet. After putting a sheet up on the bed, Lucy curled up near my feet. I petted her, and remembered my old family dog. After a long while, I was feeling really tired again and I wished them well and thanked them for such a kind visit.

Not long afterwards the second X-ray results came back fine and they said they would be releasing me to go home. Yesterday I took an EKG/treadmill stress test, that pretty much excluded ANY chance that what I was dealing with was heart related. Could be stress over leaving my work after 14 years, could be a pinched nerve which I may have had -- and does account for each of the symptoms I faced. Everyone all along the line said what a good decision I made to go in, and that for most people the first signs are ignored to their peril.

I'd been to emergency rooms and hospitals before. I was aware of the crisis and pain there, but I hadn't ever been there as a patient.

I slowly got back to normalcy this week, and resurfaced to see Easter this weekend.

It is impossible for me not to think of my wounded roommate, the poor cancer stricken heart patient, or the motorcyclist and think about how fragile a thing it is to be human. How when Jesus became one of us, pitched his tent with us, really experienced what it means to be human, including the suffering and pain and worry and crisis of it...what an amazing act that was.

I also think of the friendly volunteer and her calm happy doggie Lucy. What a gracious, Christ-like act that was. "I was sick and you visited me."

And lastly how great it was to be home that night to see my 2 year old son Cammy and Laura again, and to rest and be well.

Somehow those images seem like hyper-real icons of Easter to me this week. The pain, the grace and the homecoming of it all.

Tim

quote of the day

2006-04-13T21:38:00.000-07:00

Q. What is the one question that you wished you were asked more often about the Emergent Church, and how would you answer it?

A. Brian McLaren:
I wish people were more interested in the question of how the Religious Right has changed our evangelistic context.

The name "Jesus" is heard differently now than it was thirty years ago because of the amazing "success" of the Religious Right. If I say "Jesus" to many of my friends, they don't think of someone who came to forgive sin; they think of people who want to shame people for their sins. They don't think of someone who had special good news for the poor; they think of people who want to give every possible advantage to the rich because they think the poor are to blame, largely, for their poverty. They don't think of someone who overturned the status quo, but of people who represent the status quo.

They don't think of someone who talked about turning the other cheek, but of people who defend preemptive violence. So, I wish people would seek to understand the rising dissatisfaction surrounding how the Religious Right has "rebranded" Christianity, and how Emergent and other conversations like it are seeking to rediscover the Jesus of the Scriptures and fairly represent him and his message to our world.

quote of the day

2006-04-10T21:12:00.000-07:00

Good comments, good reminder from today's quote of the day from historian Gary Willis:

"Some people want to display and honor the Ten Commandments as a political commitment enjoined by the religion of Jesus. That very act is a violation of the First and Second Commandments. By erecting a false religion — imposing a reign of Jesus in this order — they are worshiping a false god. They commit idolatry. They also take the Lord's name in vain.

Some may think that removing Jesus from politics would mean removing morality from politics. They think we would all be better off if we took up the slogan "What would Jesus do?"
That is not a question his disciples ask in the Gospels. They never knew what Jesus was going to do next. He could round on Peter and call him "Satan." He could refuse to receive his mother when she asked to see him. He might tell his followers that they are unworthy of him if they do not hate their mother and their father. He might kill pigs by the hundreds. He might whip people out of church precincts….

It was blasphemous to say, as the deputy under secretary of defense, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, repeatedly did, that God made George Bush president in 2000, when a majority of Americans did not vote for him. It would not remove the blasphemy for Democrats to imply that God wants Bush not to be president. Jesus should not be recruited as a campaign aide. To trivialize the mystery of Jesus is not to serve the Gospels.

If Democrats want to fight Republicans for the support of an institutional Jesus, they will have to give up the person who said those words. They will have to turn away from what Flannery O'Connor described as "the bleeding stinking mad shadow of Jesus" and "a wild ragged figure" who flits "from tree to tree in the back" of the mind.

He was never that thing that all politicians wish to be esteemed — respectable. At various times in the Gospels, Jesus is called a devil, the devil's agent, irreligious, unclean, a mocker of Jewish law, a drunkard, a glutton, a promoter of immorality.

The institutional Jesus of the Republicans has no similarity to the Gospel figure. Neither will any institutional Jesus of the Democrats."

Thank You, Harry Taylor

2006-04-07T14:44:00.000-07:00

Tell Harry Taylor Thank you...

466 pages of people have done so already...

Slate: "The Religious Left: It is Fruitful and has Multiplied"

2006-04-06T23:28:00.000-07:00

Great article, here is a snippet:

"Lo and behold, there is a religious left. The Catholic Church is helping to lead the fight against immigration restrictions. A week doesn't seem to pass without some group convening a conference on religion and liberalism. Last year, Rev. Jim Wallis' progressive manifesto, God's Politics, became a best seller; now Jimmy Carter's book attacking the religious right is on the list.

According to research by professor John Green, white religious voters made up 21 percent of Kerry's tally, compared to 11 percent for Al Gore in 2000. If you add African-Americans and Latinos, who as a group are also very religious and liberal, the religious left amounted to about 40 percent of the Kerry vote. Not surprisingly, the religious lefties are seething over the religious right's political dominance. But they're also frustrated by their secular ideological comrades. The political left "often sees religion not merely as mistaken but as fundamentally irrational, and it gives the impression that one of the most important elements in the lives of ordinary Americans is actually deserving of ridicule," complains Rabbi Michael Lerner in his new book, The Left Hand of God. "The Left's hostility to religion is one of the main reasons people who otherwise might be involved with progressive politics get turned off."

Bible-thumping liberals: Many Democrats consider the term "progressive evangelical" to be an oxymoron. But that's ignorant. Instead, evangelicals break into three groups. The fundamentalists (think Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson) are solidly Republican and represent about 15 percent of the electorate.

The moderates represent another 9 percent. They generally voted for Bush because they agreed with him on foreign policy and abortion and gay marriage. But the ones who cared most about economics preferred Kerry, a sign of how the Democrats could win over more of them.

Finally, there are the liberal evangelicals, who make up about 3 percent of the electorate and tend to vote Democratic. They're especially concerned with poverty and the environment. All told, then, between 7 and 10 percent of the electorate are white evangelical Christians who either vote Democratic or could. That's a voting bloc equal in size to African-Americans."

"Our Faith is Offended..."

2006-04-02T00:35:00.000-08:00

This is from last April 2005, but I just came accross it and like it a lot. It's from a Pew Research Center: Faith, Politics & Progressives: A Conversation with John Podesta who is the CEO, Center for American Progress; and former Chief of Staff to President Clinton... Here are exceprts:

John Podesta:

"It's tempting to look at that and believe, as I think many opinion leaders do, that whatever common ground there is between the walls of faith and politics, it's generally on the right. I think that enhanced the belief that American politics is polarized into two warring factions: a religious right that promotes government intervention in all areas of private life, so long as it doesn't interfere with the free market, and a secular left, which would be content to do the opposite. I think that's a simplistic assessment and it may explain why it's so widely held, because it is so simplistic. But obviously, I think, as particularly people here know, the reality of this is far more complex...

Historically, whether we're talking about Frederick Douglass or Dorothy Day or Rabbi Heschel or Dr. Martin Luther King, or the millions they helped to lead, there's an America that expressed its faith by fighting for abolition and for women's suffrage, by walking picket lines, by marching for civil rights, by protesting the war in Vietnam. The progressive religious tradition not only predates the Dobsons and the Robertsons, it certainly continues to this day and I think – and this is my plea to you today – that it is something that is highly under-reported in the coverage of religion in public life today.

But we do see it in local campaigns to win a living wage for low-income workers. The Center was involved with ACORN – and a broad religious coalition – in trying to raise the minimum wage in Florida, the ballot initiative that was successful in the 2004 election. We see it in efforts to protect voting rights, we see it in the campaigns to provide debt relief to the most impoverished countries on earth, we see it in the movement to promote peaceful conflict resolution both at home and abroad. But I would argue that where we need to see much more of this and much more of this conversation is right here in this city – in the media and in every forum where the spiritual dimension of public policy is considered...

We began last June when we brought together more than 400 clergy, advocates and scholars who attended our first faith and policy conference. It was dedicated to a faith agenda aimed at bringing people together, not stigmatizing them, not dividing them. It crossed sectarian lines because our faith is offended. And people from all those traditions, I think, shared this.

Our faith is offended when our nation allows 1 in 6 children to live in poverty – we're 45 million Americans; 19 million lack health insurance – when disease, hunger, poverty and war ravage 2 billion people on the planet, when our leaders deny the damage that their policies are plainly doing to God's earth and our own society.

I don't think we had all the answers at that conference, but we started with the belief that whether you're a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or a Buddhist, you loved your neighbor and you recognized your responsibility to your community and to the nation. The people who came together, I think, truly believed that progressive governance is not only more fair and effective, but it is the right thing to do in a profoundly moral sense.

Another important thing that we did was we didn't try to teach politicians how to talk the Bible, but we did try to bring the voices of the progressive religious community into the public debate. One of the people who attended our conference and who has become quite prominent in the media these days was Jim Wallis. We had Jim Forbes, Bob Edgar, Sue Thislewaite; we had a range of religious voices that we tried to lift up, to give them the support that they needed....

We obviously need to do more than just remind people of the history of progressive social change. We have to provide a forum for a new generation of religious activists. So people sometimes ask if what we want to achieve on the left is what religious conservatives have already created on the right. I think we can probably do better than Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Tom DeLay and the others. What we're about, I think, is renewing and restoring a progressive religious tradition that for most of our history helped make ours a more benevolent, a more compassionate, a more caring society.

I'm Catholic, as I said earlier. I attend Mass, I take communion. It's a source of strength for me. I think it's really what makes me a progressive. And while – and I'll close with this – like many Catholics, there are issues where I disagree with my church, I could not help but be touched by what I think really all Americans experienced recently – the life and works of John Paul II.

He once observed that America today has what he called a heightened responsibility to be for the world an example of the genuinely free, democratic, just and humane society. That is as clear and precise a statement of what faith has to say to politics, I think, as anything I could come up with.

Those moral values not only help define me as a Catholic and as an American; they're the reason why in this time of conservative power, and particularly at a time when I see a conservative abuse of power, I'm standing my ground as a progressive and I am willing to get engaged in this fight and this debate for the direction of our country."

quote of the day

2006-03-30T23:22:00.000-08:00

From Markos over at DailyKos:

"Remember. Friday is the end of the fundraising quarter. If you have any inclination to contribute to a candidate in the near future, today is the day it can have the most impact. Even if it's $10, please give to someone, anyone. Peruse the various ActBlue fundraising pages, like the Netroots one, Firedoglake, Atrios, one of my own personal favorites James Webb in the Virginia Senate race, or your favorite candidate. "

April 29th: 50 State Neighbor to Neighbor Outreach Day

2006-03-30T08:27:00.000-08:00

Governor Dean just announced an early and massive grassroots outreach effort, timed ahead of the 2006. It's time to start getting out message out in a simple way that positive change is possible and 2006 is a referendum on the direction of the country under Bush, NOT hundreds of individual races. The outreach focuses on a simple and clear six point message of a "Democratic Vision" of a new direction for America.

Honest Leadership & Open Government
Real Security
Energy Independence
Economic Prosperity & Educational Excellence
A Healthcare System that Works for Everyone
Retirement Security

To support this national outreach day, in addition to the printed materials, they have put up high resoulution PDF files you can download and print...nice. More resources, details and online signups are here...check it out...

"Dear Fellow Democrat,

Are you ready to make history?

Thanks to the overwhelming support from thousands of Democrats, who donated to get the literature for the canvass printed and shipped, we're on schedule and gearing up for the unprecedented Neighbor-to-Neighbor Organizing Day on April 29th.

On that Saturday, thousands of volunteers will recruit hundreds of thousands more Americans committed to changing the status quo this year during door-knocking events in communities across America.

Democrats have a clear vision for America, and we're going to get the word out by making personal contact with our neighbors. And along the way we will build new relationships among volunteers on the ground, a network that will have an impact beyond a single day.

Whether you've never volunteered or you're a seasoned door-knocking veteran, it is crucial that you take part in this historic organizing push.

Please RSVP for an event near you:

http://www.democrats.org/50statecanvass/find

In many states, Democratic Party staff on the ground have already put together staging areas for massive voter contact events on the 29th. Thanks to donations from people like you, hundreds of thousands of pieces of literature are being printed and shipping in bulk to those locations right now.

If there isn't an event near you, don't worry. Some state parties will have canvassing events on alternate dates, or have other important events that planned for that weekend.

You can still plan your own canvass in your community. Our online tool makes the planning process easy, and if you create your event before April 10th, we will get doorhangers to you in time for your canvass on the 29th.

You can create your own event here:

http://www.democrats.org/50statecanvass/create

Whether you're attending an event or hosting your own, we have also put together materials on the web to help you make your canvass as effective as possible."

"The Heresy of Our Time"

2006-03-27T21:52:00.000-08:00

From Bill Moyers speech last week:

"There are no victimless crimes in politics. The cost of corruption is passed on to the people. When the government of the United States falls under the thumb of the powerful and privileged, regular folks get squashed.

We are dealing here with a vision sharply at odds with the majority of Americans. These are people who want to arrange the world for the convenience of themselves and the multinational corporations that pay for their elections. With their fundamentalist medicine men twirling the bullroarers in the woods, they would turn America into their petri dish – a replica of the Marianas, many times magnified: A society “run by the powerful, oblivious to the weak, free of accountability, enjoying a cozy relationship with government, thriving on crony capitalism,” in the words of Al Meyeroff, who led a class-action suit in behalf of the worker on the Marianas and learned what they were up against. Let this, too, sink in: If the corporate, political, and religious right have their way, we will go back to the first Gilded Age, when privilege controlled politics, votes were purchased, legislatures were bribed, bills were bought, and laws flagrantly disregarded – all as God’s will.

...These charlatans and demagogues know that by controlling a society’s most emotionally-laden symbols, they can control America, too. They must be challenged. Davidson Loehr reminds us that holding preachers and politicians to a higher standard than they want to serve has marked the entire history of both religion and politics. It is the conflict between the religion of the priests – ancient and modern – and the religion of the prophets.

It is the vast difference between the religion about Jesus and the religion of Jesus.

Yes, the religion of Jesus.
It was in the name of Jesus that a Methodist ship caulker named Edward Rogers crusaded across New England for an eight-hour work day. It was in the name of Jesus that Francis William rose up against the sweatshop. It was in the name of Jesus that Dorothy Day marched alongside auto workers in Michigan, brewery workers in New York, and marble cutters in Vermont. It was in the name of Jesus that E.B. McKinney and Owen Whitfield stood against a Mississippi oligarchy that held sharecroppers in servitude. It was in the name of Jesus that the young priest John Ryan – ten years before the New Deal – crusaded for child labor laws, unemployment insurance, a minimum wage, and decent housing for the poor. And it was in the name of Jesus that Martin Luther King Jr. went to Memphis to march with sanitation workers who were asking only for a living wage.

This is the heresy of our time – to wrestle with the gods who guard the boundaries of this great nation’s promise, and to confront the medicine men in the woods, twirling their bullroarers to keep us in fear and trembling. For the greatest heretic of all is Jesus of Nazareth, who drove the money changers from the temple in Jerusalem as we must now drive the money changers from the temples of democracy."

Don't Wait for 08: The Midterms

2006-03-27T10:02:00.000-08:00

From the Democracy Corps strategy memo on the mid term election, including a focus on how Bush's policies by and large help the wealthy and do not focus on "The Common Good:"

"Element One: Nationalizing the election around Bush. In the Congress, Republicans are rushing to find their independence, but they have supported Bush’s direction at every step. Bush is less popular than Republicans and less trusted on the issues.

Democratic message choices are stronger when referencing Bush. Indeed, Bush is weaker than the Republicans on nearly all issues, including security, as we saw in the recent NPR survey.

Bush and the congressional Republicans have nationalized the issues that now put them
in so much difficulty. We should keep the focus there, as they try to change it.

Element Two: Bush’s direction versus new direction. The choice in this election is not very complicated, as demonstrated in the most recent Democracy Corps poll.

The Republicans want to continue Bush’s direction.
The Democrats say, we need a new direction.

...Element Three: What is wrong with Bush’s direction? He governs for the few (wealthy, corporations and CEOs), when we need an America that works for everyone.

When we ask voters what is wrong with what is happening with the Republicans in Washington, it is not a complicated story: far above all other things, voters say the Republicans “work mainly for the wealthy and corporations,” with an added number saying, they “don’t watch out for the average person.”

quote of the day

2006-03-23T07:46:00.000-08:00

"And if Jesus' parable of the sheep and goats is correct (Matthew 25), the Day will be less like judging a criminal trial and more like judging a livestock show. You don't need a cross-examination to tell a sheep from a goat. Day slips into day, and after decades of goatish deeds, it will be nearly impossible to turn back."

-- Frederica Mattews Green, on the Day of Judgetment of Christ

quote of the day

2006-03-22T23:22:00.000-08:00

In a race with the "Democratic Establishment" very strongly behind one candidate, and the "Netroots" rushing to support the other candidates, Lindy Scott still brought in about 16% of the vote yesterday in the IL-06 primary. I'll have more thoughts later, but wanted to include this quote of the day. Thanks Lindy!...

"Where do we go from here? I will continue to advocate for the well being of all of our neighbors. I will continue to fight for better education for our children, good health care for all, fair treatment for undocumented immigrants, alternative forms of energy, and a foreign policy that respects other countries and their citizens.
I want to follow in the steps of Abraham Lincoln. He did not win every one of his elections. Nevertheless, he did transform his defeats into lessons that made him a better person and a better public servant. That is my goal. Let us continue to improve our world by serving our neighbors as ouselves."

- Lindy Scott, from his blog today

Still at 37

2006-03-22T09:32:00.000-08:00

Bush still stuck at 37% with 57% disapprove...

We need to keep opposing Bush policies that the American people are continuing to see with disapproval...And proposing a better path.

Lindy Scott for IL-06

2006-03-20T23:40:00.000-08:00

Especially for those readers in Chicago, take note that tomorrow is the Democratic Primary for IL-06, a race that has deservedly gotten a lot of press, and I've specifically and often praised the campaing of Lindy Scott as one to watch and support. If you live in IL-06 or have friends that do, please consider supporting Lindy.

Here are excerpts from a Feb article on his campaign from the Chicago Tribune...I think they well sum up what he has brought to this race:

If there's a stereotype of a Democrat politician--or any politician, for that matter--Lindy Scott does not fill the bill.

The trim, bearded Wheaton College professor, who's trying to succeed outgoing U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) in a west suburban congressional district, is the former pastor of a Des Plaines evangelical church and an eight-time Chicago Marathon runner.

For 16 years he taught in Mexico City, where he founded the Evangelical Free Church of Mexico, and he now teaches Spanish and the history of church-state relations in Latin America. His wife is Brazilian and their three children have tri-citizenships: the United States, Brazil and Mexico.

Though white evangelical Christians typically vote Republican, Scott says his faith led him to the other side of the aisle. "I cherish life, and life should be cherished across the board," Scott said, greeting students in the campus coffee shop with a friendly, "Hola!"

"The Democratic Party is closer to my ideals and others who are concerned for the poor, Social Security not getting privatized, no tax breaks for the wealthiest, concern for the environment. Along the whole spectrum, Democratic values are closer to my understanding of my religious beliefs.

"I'm solidly Democratic," he added. "But I'm also a unique Democrat."

That background is what Scott, 54, is hoping will help him stand out in a three-candidate 6th District Democratic primary where he is widely seen as the dark horse. The other candidates are Christine Cegelis, a Rolling Meadows businesswoman who ran against Hyde in 2004, and Tammy Duckworth of Hoffman Estates, an Iraq War veteran who has the support of the national party.

The winner will face state Sen. Peter Roskam (R-Wheaton) in November.

Scott argues he can attract moderates and turn out new voters--including Latinos--in a traditionally Republican, but changing, district. He has written several books about politics, foreign policy, social ethics and other policy issues.

He was moved to run for office the day after the 2004 presidential election. He was "saddened" that white evangelicals voted overwhelmingly for Bush, "mostly on the abortion issue, which [Bush] interpreted as a mandate on all of his policies, especially the war on Iraq..."

Scott's strategy involves expanding beyond the traditional Democratic base. He's received the endorsement of two Spanish-language newspapers. Students are walking precincts for him. And his Web site includes endorsements from more than 600 ordinary people.

"I think [my campaign] is tapping a chord of religious folk who don't like how religion has been hijacked by the far right," Scott said.

As part of an approach to "consistent across-the-board cherishing of life," Scott supports universal medical coverage and measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions. He opposes the death penalty and belongs to Democrats for Life. Although he described Roe vs. Wade as "established law," he supports parental notification for minors seeking abortions and promotes a series of proposals to make abortions rarer--including federal funding for day-care centers and insurance coverage for birth control.

"Sadly, most pro-life Republicans that I know are just pro-birth, not pro-life, because they don't care about the child or the mother after birth," he said. "How can you justify cutting [funding for] food stamps, how can you justify cutting school lunches, how can you justify cutting medical attention for children, how can you justify cutting Head Start programs, and say you're pro-life?"

Lindy Scott for Congress IL-06 Primary

2006-03-10T17:57:00.000-08:00

I've said before, Lindy Scott's campaign in IL-06 is one to watch and support... From the Chicago Sun Times today:

"If Cegelis represents the Howard Dean tradition, Lindy Scott is forging his own -- one that is both more liberal and more conservative than his opponents'. Scott, 54, teaches Spanish and Latin American studies at Wheaton College, a school associated with evangelical Christianity. A Mennonite, he believes in restrictions on abortion, such as requiring parental notification for women under 18.

"I am by far the most dangerous Democratic candidate for Roskam. Because he knows that I appeal to the values of the swing voters," Scott said.

Scott opposes $40 billion in budget cuts approved last year that would hurt food stamps and health-care programs, he said. He would vote to roll back the Bush tax cuts and supports timetables for withdrawal from Iraq.

"All my positions are attempts to cherish life across the board," Scott said.

Scott, who spent 16 years teaching in Mexico, says he expects to do well among the district's Latino voters and growing immigrant communities. A Wheaton resident, he's married to a Brazilian woman, and they have three children.

At this stage, only one thing about the primary looks certain: It is not a slam dunk for any of the candidates."

"When Would Jesus Bolt?"

2006-03-06T23:04:00.000-08:00

From Amy Sullivan, read the whole thing... Here are some quotes:

"In the last election, evangelicals made up 26 percent of the electorate, and 78 percent of them voted for Bush. That sounds like a fairly inviolate bloc. And, indeed, the conservative evangelicals for whom abortion and gay marriage are the deciding issues are unlikely to ever leave the Republican Party. But a substantial minority of evangelical voters—41 percent, according to a 2004 survey by political scientist John Green at the University of Akron—are more moderate on a host of issues ranging from the environment to public education to support for government spending on anti-poverty programs...

These moderates have largely remained in the Republican coalition because of its faith-friendly image. A targeted effort by the Democratic Party to appeal to them could produce victories in the short term: To win the 2004 presidential election, John Kerry needed just 59,300 additional votes in Ohio—that's four percent of the total evangelical vote in the state, or approximately 10 percent of Ohio's moderate evangelical voters. And if the Democratic Party changed its reputation on religion, the result could alter the electoral map in a more significant and permanent way....

There is a growing recognition among mainstream Democrats and the once-quiescent Religious Left that they can reframe issues they care about in terms that appeal to religious voters.

But winning over moderate evangelicals—or moderate religious voters generally—will take more than just repackaging old positions. It will require aggressively staking out new positions that can be used to demonstrate the tension within the GOP's religious/business coalition—embracing, for instance, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. And it means forwarding new ideas that can counter the conservative-promoted image of progressives as anti-religious—ideas like Bible-as-literature courses in public high schools, which might anger some secularists on the left but are perfectly consonant with liberal values.

A sign that Democratic leaders are beginning to get it is the plan—promoted by leaders such as Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton—to lower abortion rates by preventing unwanted pregnancies. Full-throated support of this effort, and a recognition that abstinence education plays a role in lowering teen pregnancy rates (along with birth control), puts Democrats alongside the majority of voters on this difficult issue, and it is especially appealing to moderate evangelicals.

They're not looking to punish everything outside of procreative marital sex; they just want to see fewer abortions take place. And because evangelicals generally don't have the same opposition to contraception that Catholics do, Democrats can promote the kind of plan that would truly reduce abortions, something Republicans—with their reliance on right-wing Catholics—can't afford to do.

Despite all of the punditry about a “God gap” at the voting booth, this is a better moment for Democrats to pick up support from religious moderates than any other time in the past few decades. That's because evangelicals themselves are the ones who are broadening the faith agenda, insisting that there are issues they care about beyond abortion and gay marriage, connecting Gospel messages about the golden rule and the Good Samaritan to the policies they want their government to support.

For 30 years, the Republican advantage among religious voters has come from being able to successfully control the definition of “religious,” conflating it with “conservative” and encouraging the media to do the same. Measured against that yardstick, most Democrats come up short. But when the standard is more complex, when being religious also means caring about the environment and poverty and human rights and education, the plane levels. Soon enough, Republicans start to miss the mark, and Democrats get a little closer.

This is what gives Karl Rove and the other GOP headcounters heartburn...Whether or not large numbers of moderates migrate to the Democratic Party, if they succeed in expanding the scope of “religious issues,” the GOP will lose its lock on faith."

Full Text of House Dems Statement of Faith and Principles

2006-03-01T11:16:00.000-08:00

Signed by 55 House members including Minority Leader Pelosi, here is an important statment on Democrats and thier Statement of Faith and Principles, issued yesterday by the Catholic Dem Representatives...Very important:

Statement of Principles

By Fifty-Five Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives

As Catholic Democrats in Congress, we are proud to be part of the living Catholic tradition -- a tradition that promotes the common good, expresses a consistent moral framework for life and highlights the need to provide a collective safety net to those individuals in society who are most in need. As legislators, in the U.S. House of Representatives, we work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being. We believe that government has moral purpose.

We are committed to making real the basic principles that are at the heart of Catholic social teaching: helping the poor and disadvantaged, protecting the most vulnerable among us, and ensuring that all Americans of every faith are given meaningful opportunities to share in the blessings of this great country. That commitment is fulfilled in different ways by legislators but includes: reducing the rising rates of poverty; increasing access to education for all; pressing for increased access to health care; and taking seriously the decision to go to war. Each of these issues challenges our obligations as Catholics to community and helping those in need.

We envision a world in which every child belongs to a loving family and agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion B we do not celebrate its practice. Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term. We believe this includes promoting alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and improving access to children's healthcare and child care, as well as policies that encourage paternal and maternal responsibility.

In all these issues, we seek the Church's guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience. In recognizing the Church's role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas. Yet we believe we can speak to the fundamental issues that unite us as Catholics and lend our voices to changing the political debate -- a debate that often fails to reflect and encompass the depth and complexity of these issues.

As legislators, we are charged with preserving the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom for all Americans. In doing so, we guarantee our right to live our own lives as Catholics, but also foster an America with a rich diversity of faiths. We believe the separation of church and state allows for our faith to inform our public duties.

As Catholic Democrats who embrace the vocation and mission of the laity as expressed by Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Exhortation, Christifideles Laici, we believe that the Church is the "people of God," called to be a moral force in the broadest sense. We believe the Church as a community is called to be in the vanguard of creating a more just America and world. And as such, we have a claim on the Church's bearing as it does on ours.

Rosa L. DeLauro
David R. Obey

Wm. Lacy Clay
Hilda L. Solis

James R. Langevin
Bart Stupak

Anna Eshoo
Bill Pascrell

Betty McCollum
Gene Taylor

Raul M. Grijalva
Carolyn McCarthy

John B. Larson
Ed Pastor

Joe Baca
William Delahunt

Tim Ryan
Silvestre Reyes

Mike Thompson
Linda T. Sanchez

Charles A. Gonzalez
Xavier Becerra

Diane Watson
Michael H. Michaud

Nydia Velazquez
Jim Marshall

Frank Pallone
John T. Salazar

James P. McGovern
George Miller

Tim Holden
James L. Oberstar

Dale E. Kildee
Patrick J. Kennedy

Cynthia McKinney
James P. Moran

Michael Capuano
Richard E. Neal

Mike Doyle
Peter A. DeFazio

Maurice Hinchey
Dennis A. Cardoza

Joseph Crowley
Jim Costa

Lucille Roybal-Allard
Loretta Sanchez

Robert Brady
Marty Meehan

Grace Napolitano
Luis V. Gutierrez

Jose Serrano
Stephen Lynch

Edward J. Markey
Nancy Pelosi

Lane Evans

Bush at 34

2006-02-27T19:13:00.000-08:00

As in percent.

Won't Wait Till 08 Part II

2006-02-25T15:23:00.000-08:00

Excerpts from the NY Times today...They got it right, in addition to the key policy issues at the State level, the 2006 Governors races will be a key factor in the 2008 Presidential race:

"At a time when considerable political attention is focused on the Democrats' uphill struggle to recapture Congress, leaders of both parties say Democrats appear to be in a much stronger position on another pivotal battlefield this November, the contests for governors.

Democrats have a strong chance to pick up a number of seats held by Republicans while keeping seats even in states that President Bush won in 2004, potentially allowing Democrats to put their view of government on display across a bigger swath of the country and strengthening their position for the 2008 presidential race, party officials said.

Among the states that could flip to the Democratic column are Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Nevada and Ohio, all general election battlegrounds carried by Mr. Bush, as well as New York and perhaps California....

Beyond the potentially considerable effect on education, health, transportation and other policy issues in the states, the outcome could have substantial implications for the 2008 presidential race. As Mr. Bush showed in Ohio and Florida, having a friendly governor can be critical in close general elections. As a result, this year's contests are of considerable interest to presidential contenders in both parties, many of whom are current or former governors."

Won't Wait for 08

2006-02-24T10:01:00.000-08:00

Been sick with a cold (my two year old son is patient zero) so blogging is light...

I've been thinking about the 2006 races for House, Senate and Governorships, that are looking better for dems all the time.

Please comment with good sites that you think are nationalizing the next election well. I do believe that Dems need to push this as an overall referendum on the direction of our leadership...as one election, not only as hundreds of individual elections.

One I like is the DGA's "Won't Wait for 08" Pledge...aimed at uniting our attention on the 36 govenor races this November. And Governorships will be a key battleground, one that the math is in our favor. From the Washington Post:

Democrats are positioned for gains in governors' races in November and could capture governorships in many big battleground states, giving the party an early edge in the 2008 fight for the White House.
Republicans must defend 22 of the 36 governors' offices on the ballot in November, including eight states where the incumbent retired or is barred from running again. Democrats defend 14 governorships but only one in which the incumbent is not running.

The lopsided political map, along with a tough national election climate for Republicans, put Democrats in a strong position to pick up at least the four governorships needed for a national majority. Republicans hold 28 governorships to 22 for Democrats.

But sign up here to support the DGA's "Won't Wait for 08" Pledge...

quote of the day

2006-02-17T11:17:00.000-08:00

It's very upsetting to me, as someone who's a political junkie, that it's a great virtue to name yourself a Christian and use it as a tremendous political advantage that gives you a moral standing, but then we don't hold these people to actual standards. Maybe you believe the best response to 9/11 was to invade Iraq, maybe you still think that tens of thousands of [Iraqi] lives later, it's still fine, but don't tell me it's Christian.

Maybe you think executing prisoners through the death penalty as a way to reduce crime is fine, but it's not Christian. Maybe you think giving a schmuck like me on TV a quarter million [dollars] in tax relief over the last five years when I didn't need it, while we have record deficits and soldiers without armor - it's not Christian.

Jesus wasn't a supply-side guy. This is a really polarizing, horribly polarizing time, and it's really obscene to me that people take all the politicians and use faith as a label and then don't execute the values that it's all about. If you are going to make these choices, don't tell me it's Christian; it's not."

-- Actor Bradley Whitford

Bush Stuck at 40%

2006-02-10T11:58:00.000-08:00

Dems need to stay strong in their critique against the Bush agenda and the good news is that the nation is listening. Bush remains stuck ant 40% approve with NO State of the Union bump.

Keep working...Keep speaking your mind...

Support the Democratic Party with Democracy Bonds Blog Outreach

2006-02-09T18:21:00.000-08:00

I've said before how important I see the Democracy Bond effort is at making the Democratic Party one truly owned by the people rather than special interests....

Well, check out a new viral campaign for the Democratic Party, I'll add this to my sidebar a bit later... Here this is for now...

Contribute Now

Graphic updated every 5 minutes
Create your own page now!

And here is the code to add this to your site, if you don't want to create one specific to your own blog/site...

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this campaign onto a web page.

Full Transcript: Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action

2006-02-08T17:22:00.000-08:00

Here is the full transcript from their new site....And here is the list of signatories...

Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action
Preamble

As American evangelical Christian leaders, we recognize both our opportunity and our responsibility to offer a biblically based moral witness that can help shape public policy in the most powerful nation on earth, and therefore contribute to the well-being of the entire world.1 Whether we will enter the public square and offer our witness there is no longer an open question. We are in that square, and we will not withdraw.

We are proud of the evangelical community's long-standing commitment to the sanctity of human life. But we also offer moral witness in many venues and on many issues. Sometimes the issues that we have taken on, such as sex trafficking, genocide in the Sudan, and the AIDS epidemic in Africa, have surprised outside observers. While individuals and organizations can be called to concentrate on certain issues, we are not a single-issue movement. We seek to be true to our calling as Christian leaders, and above all faithful to Jesus Christ our Lord. Our attention, therefore, goes to whatever issues our faith requires us to address.

Over the last several years many of us have engaged in study, reflection, and prayer related to the issue of climate change (often called "global warming"). For most of us, until recently this has not been treated as a pressing issue or major priority. Indeed, many of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that climate change is a real problem and that it ought to matter to us as Christians. But now we have seen and heard enough to offer the following moral argument related to the matter of human-induced climate change. We commend the four simple but urgent claims offered in this document to all who will listen, beginning with our brothers and sisters in the Christian community, and urge all to take the appropriate actions that follow from them.

Claim 1: Human-Induced Climate Change is Real

Since 1995 there has been general agreement among those in the scientific community most seriously engaged with this issue that climate change is happening and is being caused mainly by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels. Evidence gathered since 1995 has only strengthened this conclusion.

Because all religious/moral claims about climate change are relevant only if climate change is real and is mainly human-induced, everything hinges on the scientific data. As evangelicals we have hesitated to speak on this issue until we could be more certain of the science of climate change, but the signatories now believe that the evidence demands action:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's most authoritative body of scientists and policy experts on the issue of global warming, has been studying this issue since the late 1980s. (From 19882002 the IPCC's assessment of the climate science was Chaired by Sir John Houghton, a devout evangelical Christian.) It has documented the steady rise in global temperatures over the last fifty years, projects that the average global temperature will continue to rise in the coming decades, and attributes "most of the warming" to human activities.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, as well as all other G8 country scientific Academies (Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Italy, and Russia), has concurred with these judgments.

In a 2004 report, and at the 2005 G8 summit, the Bush Administration has also acknowledged the reality of climate change and the likelihood that human activity is the cause of at least some of it.2

In the face of the breadth and depth of this scientific and governmental concern, only a small percentage of which is noted here, we are convinced that evangelicals must engage this issue without any further lingering over the basic reality of the problem or humanity's responsibility to address it.

Claim 2: The Consequences of Climate Change Will Be Significant, and Will Hit the Poor the Hardest

The earth's natural systems are resilient but not infinitely so, and human civilizations are remarkably dependent on ecological stability and well-being. It is easy to forget this until that stability and well-being are threatened.

Even small rises in global temperatures will have such likely impacts as: sea level rise; more frequent heat waves, droughts, and extreme weather events such as torrential rains and floods; increased tropical diseases in now-temperate regions; and hurricanes that are more intense. It could lead to significant reduction in agricultural output, especially in poor countries. Low-lying regions, indeed entire islands, could find themselves under water. (This is not to mention the various negative impacts climate change could have on God's other creatures.)

Each of these impacts increases the likelihood of refugees from flooding or famine, violent conflicts, and international instability, which could lead to more security threats to our nation.

Poor nations and poor individuals have fewer resources available to cope with major challenges and threats. The consequences of global warming will therefore hit the poor the hardest, in part because those areas likely to be significantly affected first are in the poorest regions of the world. Millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors.

Claim 3: Christian Moral Convictions Demand Our Response to the Climate Change Problem

While we cannot here review the full range of relevant biblical convictions related to care of the creation, we emphasize the following points:

Christians must care about climate change because we love God the Creator and Jesus our Lord, through whom and for whom the creation was made. This is God's world, and any damage that we do to God's world is an offense against God Himself (Gen. 1; Ps. 24; Col. 1:16).

Christians must care about climate change because we are called to love our neighbors, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and to protect and care for the least of these as though each was Jesus Christ himself (Mt. 22:34-40; Mt. 7:12; Mt. 25:31-46).

Christians, noting the fact that most of the climate change problem is human induced, are reminded that when God made humanity he commissioned us to exercise stewardship over the earth and its creatures. Climate change is the latest evidence of our failure to exercise proper stewardship, and constitutes a critical opportunity for us to do better (Gen. 1:26-28).

Love of God, love of neighbor, and the demands of stewardship are more than enough reason for evangelical Christians to respond to the climate change problem with moral passion and concrete action.

Claim 4: The need to act now is urgent. Governments, businesses, churches, and individuals all have a role to play in addressing climate changestarting now.

The basic task for all of the world's inhabitants is to find ways now to begin to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels that are the primary cause of human-induced climate change.

There are several reasons for urgency. First, deadly impacts are being experienced now. Second, the oceans only warm slowly, creating a lag in experiencing the consequences. Much of the climate change to which we are already committed will not be realized for several decades. The consequences of the pollution we create now will be visited upon our children and grandchildren. Third, as individuals and as a society we are making long-term decisions today that will determine how much carbon dioxide we will emit in the future, such as whether to purchase energy efficient vehicles and appliances that will last for 10-20 years, or whether to build more coal-burning power plants that last for 50 years rather than investing more in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

In the United States, the most important immediate step that can be taken at the federal level is to pass and implement national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through cost-effective, market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade program. On June 22, 2005 the Senate passed the Domenici-Bingaman resolution affirming this approach, and a number of major energy companies now acknowledge that this method is best both for the environment and for business.

We commend the Senators who have taken this stand and encourage them to fulfill their pledge. We also applaud the steps taken by such companies as BP, Shell, General Electric, Cinergy, Duke Energy, and DuPont, all of which have moved ahead of the pace of government action through innovative measures implemented within their companies in the U.S. and around the world. In so doing they have offered timely leadership.

Numerous positive actions to prevent and mitigate climate change are being implemented across our society by state and local governments, churches, smaller businesses, and individuals. These commendable efforts focus on such matters as energy efficiency, the use of renewable energy, low CO2 emitting technologies, and the purchase of hybrid vehicles. These efforts can easily be shown to save money, save energy, reduce global warming pollution as well as air pollution that harm human health, and eventually pay for themselves. There is much more to be done, but these pioneers are already helping to show the way forward.

Finally, while we must reduce our global warming pollution to help mitigate the impacts of climate change, as a society and as individuals we must also help the poor adapt to the significant harm that global warming will cause.

Conclusion

We the undersigned pledge to act on the basis of the claims made in this document. We will not only teach the truths communicated here but also seek ways to implement the actions that follow from them. In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, we urge all who read this declaration to join us in this effort.

Evangelicals Launch Fight Against Climate Change

2006-02-08T17:12:00.000-08:00

A good start...as described at Christianitytoday.com:

Environmentally concerned evangelicals, including megachurch pastors, Christian college presidents, and theologians, announced their support February 8 for a major effort to combat global warming.

During a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington organized by the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN), a new coalition called the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) released a statement signed by more than 85 evangelical leaders.

The statement, Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action, says "human-induced climate change is real," and calls on the U.S. government to pass legislation establishing limits on carbon dioxide emissions—widely believed to be the primary cause of human-induced global warming.

"Millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors," the statement reads. "Christians must care about climate change, because we love God the Creator and Jesus our Lord, through whom and for whom the creation was made. This is God's world, and any damage that we do to God's world is an offense against God himself."

Organizer Jim Ball, executive director of EEN, the group known for its 2002 "What Would Jesus Drive?" campaign, stressed the importance of the statement's theological message.

"This is not a political statement being made," Ball told CT. "We are trying to be faithful to the lordship of Christ. It's my commitment to Christ that's driving me. He's said: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Global warming is going to affect millions in this century, and we feel we just can't stand by. We have to do something about it."

Among the signatories: bestselling Purpose-Driven Life author and pastor Rick Warren, World Vision president Rich Stearns, Salvation Army national commander Todd Bassett, Christianity Today editor David Neff and executive editor Timothy George, Wheaton College president Duane Litfin, and former National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) president Leith Anderson.

Litfin told CT that some evangelicals have "probably had some bind spots" in responding to environmental issues such as global warming. He said he hoped his involvement would "raise the profile of this issue within the evangelical world."

"I just want to see us more carefully trying to think through: What are the Christian's responsibilities to God's creation? I'm not sure we've fulfilled that stewardship very well, as a nation or as individuals. We can do a better job."

The effort involves a "close to half a million-dollar" ad and publicity campaign beginning with full-page ads in Roll Call and The New York Times on February 9, Ball said. The campaign will follow with a tv spot on Fox News, radio spots on Salem Radio Network, and an ad in Christianity Today.

Ball said the group is also planning tv ads on local channels "targeting some specific, traditional states" such as Kansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and South Dakota—"areas where we know there is good evangelical interest and concern," in order to further boost support for global warming legislation.

Funding for the ad campaign comes from a $500,000 grant the group recently received from the National Religious Partnership for the Environment, Ball told CT. During the press conference Ball said charitable groups such as the Hewlett Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Pew Charitable Trusts have also contributed...

While not endorsing a specific bill, the statement calls for federal legislation that would establish emission limits and require "sufficient economy-wide reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through cost effective, market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade program." Ball said he was encouraged by a nonbinding resolution that passed the Senate last year affirming this approach, but "the House is a different situation" and "a good place for evangelicals to make a difference."
Surprising Support
An October 2005 poll conducted by Ellison Research and paid for by EEN revealed that about 750 of 1,000 surveyed born-again or evangelical Protestant Christians support hallmark environmental issues like reducing global warming or protecting wilderness areas from development. About 250 say they support these issues strongly. A slight majority of evangelicals, 54 percent, said they believe Christian faith should generally encourage people to support environmental issues.

End One Party Rule in 2006

2006-02-07T21:31:00.000-08:00

Ending One Party Rupublican Rule in 2006 is looking more and more possible, especially in the House.

Do what you can to help with money and with time....

Here is the latest quote from the non-partisan polling firm, the Cook Political Report...

"A year ago, with Republican victories in the 2004 elections still fresh and with President Bush's job-approval ratings still above 50 percent, Democrats' chances of capturing the House looked fairly slim. Today, however, with Bush's approval ratings hovering around 42 percent, the possibility of a Democratic takeover -- although less than 50-50 -- is very real.

Even though House Democrats need a net gain of only 15 seats this November, that task is fairly daunting because the playing field is so small: Few House Republicans are retiring, and few of the Republican incumbents who ought to be vulnerable are in districts that actually are competitive.

Nevertheless, the Democrats do have a real shot at ending the GOP's control of the House. A simple statistical model that Cook Political Report Senior Editor Amy Walter and I developed several years ago suggests that the 2006 House election will be very close."

quote of the day

2006-02-07T17:29:00.000-08:00

"We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. [Standing Ovation] But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor."

-- Reverend Dr. Joseph E. Lowery, President of the Georgia Coalition for a People's Agenda and President Emeritus of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, at Coretta Scott King's funeral today. His speech was in front of four Presidents, obviously including Bush.

(conservative) quote of the day

2006-02-06T18:37:00.000-08:00

"That just defies logic and plain English."

- Republican Senator Arlen Spector to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales today

"A Godly Hero"

2006-02-06T17:26:00.000-08:00

From Ed Kilgore's review of the William Jennings Bryan biography, "A Godly Hero":

"The lesson for right-wing populists, especially those of the Christian right, is pretty clear:

Once upon a time, right here in America, tens of millions of people read the Bible daily and read little else; believed it to be the literal and inerrant Word of God; and somehow interpreted it as a saga wherein God repeatedly delivered His people from the predations of the rich and the powerful and the privileged, perpetually condemned their subjugation as a divine commandment, and further commanded that they respect their equality as His children.

In other words, those politicized Christians who have formed a firm alliance with Mammon and Mars on the grounds that the Word's main message today is to condemn abortion and homosexuality and feminism are forever vulnerable to those faithful who read their Bible and see otherwise."

Bono's National Prayer Breakfast Homily

2006-02-03T20:31:00.000-08:00

Read all of this...

It's that good...

"God will not accept that. Mine won’t, at least. Will yours?"

Latest Polling for Congress

2006-02-03T09:55:00.000-08:00

Good news, but we need to keep this push going... From the latest Rasussen polling on Congress:

"Forty-five percent (45%) of voters say they will vote for a Democratic candidate in their Congressional race this year while 37% plan to vote for a Republican. Democrats have a 12-point advantage among women and a 3-point edge among men.

Two weeks ago, a Rasmussen Reports survey of national adults found Democrats with an 11-point advantage on the generic Congressional Ballot.

Today, 34% believe the country is heading in the right direction. Sixty percent (60%) believe we have gotten off on the wrong track"

Just War Theory and Iraq

2006-02-03T00:33:00.000-08:00

The Church has historically had two and pretty much only two positions on War. Either pacifism, or what is known as a "just war theory." Started by Augustine and later Aquinas, Just War theory says that in certain settings, going to war may be "the lesser of two evils" and lays out strict guidelines for what those occasions are.
A key tenent of Just War Theory:

"Last Resort. A state may resort to war only if it has exhausted all plausible, peaceful alternatives to resolving the conflict in question."

And on top of the other evidence that Bush did not meet that key part of the Just War Theory, we just found this out today:

From Think Progress: Bush Made Up His Mind On Iraq Two Months Before Invasion.

"A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme...read on

"Nothing Alien About It"

2006-02-02T14:00:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama on Black Evangelicals and Democrats:
From The American Prospect, Feb 2006

"I do think that there is a strain of the Democratic Party -- it's not uniform -- that is somewhat patronizing towards people who go to church...If you go to a black evangelical church, there may be traditions that secular humanists might be uncomfortable with -- 'hoopin' and hollerin' wavin' and dancin'' -- but they are talking about health care and looking after our seniors, and trying to salvage young men from going into the prison system. So there's nothing alien about it. And yet sometimes the Democratic Party, I think, just assumes that as long as people are in a church that somehow we just can't reach them, and have nothing in common. That's simply not true and certainly hasn't been true historically."

State of the Union Fact Checking

2006-02-01T16:38:00.000-08:00

Really good fact checking against the SOTU speech last night from the Washington Post.

quote of the day

2006-02-01T15:11:00.000-08:00

"I believe that there is a plan and a purpose for each person's life and that there are forces working in the universe to bring about good and to create a community of love and brotherhood. Those who can attune themselves to these forces - to God's purpose - can become special instruments of his will."

- Coretta Scott King, in her 1969 autobiography My Life with Martin Luther King, Jr.

Play the Game Better

2006-01-29T15:02:00.000-08:00

Good article in Slate that is a realistic and sober analysis of the state of the Democrats...Michael Kisley argues that the main issue Democrats face isn't ideas, but in simply playing politics better.

How dire is it for the Democrats? George Will noted on TV the other day that they have lost five of the past seven presidential elections. This baseball-like statistic—"Democrats have lost X of the past Y elections"—has been one of Will's favorite tropes over the generations. But why now five out of seven? Two out of the past four would be equally accurate, and not nearly as grim.

And then there is election of 2000. We can argue forever (and will) about who won that election, but if the question is whose views attracted more voters, there is no dispute that the answer is the Democrats. Attributing 2000 to the Democrats means they have won two of the past three elections, three of the past four, and a non-apocalyptic three of the magic seven.

The official illustration of the Kick the Democrats movement is a map of the United States, showing huge swaths of red with just a few tiny accents of blue. Of course this gives an unrealistic advantage to big states with few people. But then so does our electoral system. The deeper flaw is the assumption that everybody in red states is red and ditto the blues. A map showing red and blue people, not states, would look a homogenous purple. John Kerry got 43 percent of the vote in states that went for George Bush, and Bush got 45 percent in Kerry states. Liberals are not nearly so rare and so culturally isolated as the official map would suggest. This is little comfort to Democrats when it comes to the math of winning elections. But it does suggest that endless self-flagellation about their values and beliefs may not be the best strategy for turning things around.

This is not an argument for complacency. Obviously the party that has lost the White House, both houses of Congress, and now the courts needs some new ideas and new energy. But it seems undeniably true to me—though many deny it—that the Republicans simply play the game better.

"A Total Lack of Reason in Political Decision-making"

2006-01-28T19:02:00.000-08:00

"Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD." - Isaiah 1:18

God seems to value reason in his interactions with the Prophet Isaiah, but a new studys hows how far we are from this idea in our own "hashing things out" politically.

A study on the brian activity of both Republican and Democrats during political debate:

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," said Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory University. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."

Bias on both sides

The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.

Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.

The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making."

ChristianityToday: "5 Reasons Torture is always Wrong And There Should be No Exceptions"

2006-01-27T17:19:00.000-08:00

Read the whole thing, but here is an excerpt from the most recent Christianity Today magazine:

"5 Reasons Torture is always Wrong
And why there should be no exceptions."

...We do not want to expose our policies, our prisons, or our prisoners to public view. We deny that we are torturing, or we deny that our prisoners are really prisoners. When pushed against the wall, we remind one another how evil the enemy is. We give every evidence of the kind of self-deception that is characteristic of a descent into sin.

It is past time for evangelical Christians to It is past time for evangelical Christians to remind our government and our society of perennial moral values, which also happen to be international and domestic laws. As Christians, we care about moral values, and we vote on the basis of such values. We care deeply about human-rights violations around the world. Now it is time to raise our voice and say an unequivocal no to torture, a practice that has no place in our society and violates our most cherished moral convictions."

Study Finds Rich-Poor Income Gap Growing

2006-01-27T10:09:00.000-08:00

The gap seems to be widening, as found in this latest study:

"In most states, the gap between the highest-income families and poor and middle-income families grew significantly between the early 1980s and the early 2000s, according to a new study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute. The study is one of the few to examine income inequality at the state as well as national level.

The incomes of the country’s richest families have climbed substantially over the past two decades, while middle- and lower-income families have seen only modest increases. This trend is in marked contrast to the broadly shared increases in prosperity between World War II and the 1970s.

In addition, while income inequality declined following the bursting of the stock and high-tech bubbles in 2000 — both of which were quite costly to the highest-income families — early national-level data suggest that inequality began growing again in 2003. Incomes at the top have rebounded strongly from the stock market correction, while the negative effects of the recent recession on low- and moderate-income families have lasted longer than usual. Thus, it appears that the two-decade-long trend of worsening income inequality has resumed.

The study is based on Census income data that have been adjusted to account for inflation, the impact of federal taxes, and the cash value of food stamps, subsidized school lunches, and housing vouchers. Income from capital gains is also included. The study compares combined data from 2001-2003 with data from the early 1980s and early 1990s, time periods chosen because they stand as comparable low points of their respective business cycles.

Income inequality increased rapidly during the 1980s. During the 1990s exceptionally low unemployment produced relatively broad-based wage growth during the latter part of the decade. This broad-based growth ended with the 2001 economic downturn. Growth in real wages for low- and moderate-income families began to slow and by 2003 wages began to decline."

Quote of the Day

2006-01-25T09:08:00.000-08:00

"Osama bin Laden released his first new audiotaped message in over a year. While there is some new material in the message, insiders say it's mostly a Greatest Threats collection. A White House spokesman says they plan to check out the message in its entirety, but they're too busy listening to your phone calls."

---Tina Fey

Lindy Scott Videos

2006-01-23T22:22:00.000-08:00

Video of Lindy Scott in the debates:
http://homepage.mac.com/t.tang/publicaffairs/iMovieTheater37.html

And individually being interviewed:
http://homepage.mac.com/t.tang/publicaffairs/iMovieTheater37.html

"It Could Happen"

2006-01-23T21:55:00.000-08:00

I've said before, the Lindy Scott Campaign for Congress (IL-06) is one to watch, to support and to learn from:

From local blog Wurfwhile:

"The Lindy Scott campaign in the 6th Congressional District raised over $103,000 by the end of last quarter (December 31) and has about $80,000 cash on hand for the upcoming primary. By traditional standards this is not a ton of money - but Scott's campaign is not a traditional campaign, and in the end it might be enough....

The Scott campaign has a 12 member Latino sub-committee devising strategy and outreach, scores of Spanish speaking volunteers walking heavily Latino precincts and dozens of posters in Latino businesses. Beyond Latino endorsements, the Scott campaign has also reached out to and received endorsements from Pakistani Americans, Filipino Americans and Indian Americans among other groups.

Independent of my own analysis, when one reads or hears descriptions of debates and forums where Scott is easily compared with the other Democratic candidates in the race, the presumed frontrunners Christine Cegelis and Ladda "Tammy" Duckworth, what strikes one is how often supporters of other candidates praise Scott's performance and find that, sometimes with reservations because of his religious background, they nonetheless could support Scott for congress. That says a lot. In a three-way race with neither candidate a natural attraction for Scott's evangelical, Latino and "Democrats for Life" base, that mainstream appeal may even say enough.

Traditionally Latinos do not vote heavily - and the 6th District is only about 12.5% Latino. But a quarter of the district doesn't speak English at home and almost 20% of it is foreign born. The combination of Lindy's extensive religious and Latino connections, his years spent living abroad in Mexico and his unassuming, charismatic and winning personality could take the Scott campaign pretty far.

Lindy Scott is by far not a likely winner in the 6th District Democratic Primary - but if he can turn out his Latino, ethnic and non-traditional Democratic base, attract cross-over votes (presumably mostly from evangelicals and alienated GOP voters attracted to his religious background and/or abortion stance) he might do a lot better than most people think. With limited funds, Scott volunteers will need to cover the district in shoe leather instead of paper mailers - and organizational ability will be key. If Scott's organization is up to the challenge, it could happen."

By Contrast, Back Down to 36%

2006-01-23T21:25:00.000-08:00

From the latest American Research Group poll:

"George W. Bush's overall job approval rating has returned to its lowest point in Bush's presidency as Americans again turn less optimistic about the national economy according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among all Americans, 36% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 58% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 34% approve and 60% disapprove."

48% and Growing

2006-01-23T21:19:00.000-08:00

Progress is progress. From the latest Gallup national polling:

"Democrats made gains in party identification on the national level and more U.S. states had Democratic leanings in 2005 than any time in the last four years.

Gallup conducted more than 42,000 interviews in its multi-day polls in 2005, and asked each American who was interviewed whether he or she identified as a Republican, independent, or Democrat. If respondents identified as independents, Gallup asked whether they leaned more toward the Democratic or the Republican Party. The large number of interviews allows for an analysis of partisanship at the state level, which Gallup has done in each of the last four years.

Overall, in 2005, basic party identification was even -- 33% of Americans each identified as Republicans, independents, and Democrats. When independents' leanings are taken into account, the Democrats gain an advantage -- 48% of Americans either identified as Democrats or leaned to the Democratic Party, while 43% identified as Republicans or leaned to the Republican Party. That represents the largest Democratic advantage since 2000.

Additionally, the number of states where the Democrats hold an edge in partisan identification grew last year for the second year in a row. Twenty-eight states plus the District of Columbia now have a Democratic advantage in party identification of more than three percentage points, while 14 have Republican advantages, and six can be considered competitive (Gallup does not normally interview in Alaska and Hawaii).

In 2002 and 2003, more states had Republican advantages than Democratic advantages."

Historic Progressive Quote of the Day

2006-01-23T15:52:00.000-08:00

With this historic quote, I choose to include more of than is often repeated. It is an amazing example of Kennedy not letting his opponents define liberalism, and his restating the true definition, including as a core part of that defintion responsible, lean, smart and effective governence.

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by 'Liberal' they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of 'Liberal.'

But if by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal...'

For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind.

I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others.

I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor.

I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies."

John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960

Democrats and "Bridge Values"

2006-01-23T09:26:00.000-08:00

A really good article from American Prospect on research from a company Environics, that supports that US voters are looking for "bridge values," rather than politcal policy... If you remember Kerry's oft quoted "I have a plan..." for various issues (including many where clearly Bush had no plan), this would show one reason why that was less effected than expected. We need, according to Environics, less stressing on "policy statements" and more on "belief statements."
I'd suggest reading the whole thing, but here are some excerpts below:

Rather than focusing on reframing the Democratic message, as Berkeley linguistics and cognitive science professor George Lakoff has recommended, or on redoubling Democratic efforts to persuade Americans to become economic populists, as another school of thought suggests, the American Environics team argued that the way to move voters on progressive issues is to sometimes set aside policies in favor of values. By focusing on “bridge values,” they say, progressives can reach out to constituents of opportunity who share certain fundamental beliefs, even if the targeted parties don’t necessarily share progressives’ every last goal...

Democrats have had a tremendous amount of difficulty in recent years recognizing the central role of cultural factors in the life of the polity and in their own demise. This is finally starting to change. In the year since election-night exit polls put the fear of God -- or the fear of people who fear God -- into Democrats, there has been a slow but marked shift within the party, and within progressive circles more broadly, in terms of approaching values questions.

Even those who have been most focused on populist economics have started coming around to this new view. Shortly after the 2004 election, the Center for American Progress launched a series of meetings with liberal religious leaders that ultimately gave rise to a new project on religion and values, which will work closely with Shellenberger and Nordhaus.

Post-election, the Democratic National Committee’s pollster, Cornell Belcher, preached the wisdom of situating traditional Democratic appeals in the language of values, while DNC Chair Howard Dean traveled the country teaching the new talk. Progressive actions on the ground reinforced the utility of the new approach, and in 2005 Tim Kaine took the statehouse in Virginia, where nearly half of state residents attend church at least once a week, by running a campaign that presented him to voters as a person of faith...

In the spring of 2005 Kaine’s pollster, Peter Brodnitz, of the polling firm Benenson Strategy Group, decided that the campaign needed to develop a strategy to handle such charges. It convened a focus group of white, conservative, religious voters, and explored different ways Kaine could reach out to them. The result was startling. Brodnitz found that once Kaine started talking about his religious background and explaining that his opposition to the death penalty grew out of his Catholic faith, not only did charges that he was weak on crime fail to stick, but he became inoculated against a host of related charges that typically plague and undermine the campaigns of Democratic candidates.

“Once people understood the values system that the position grew out of, they understood that’s he’s not a liberal,” says Brodnitz. “We couldn’t even convince them he was a liberal once we’d done that.”

Strategists who had been predicting Democratic success with a more values-based approach considered themselves vindicated. Virginia elected its second Democratic governor in a row, and its first one to survive opposition to the death penalty in an electoral fight.

"People appreciate that I have a moral yardstick, and, even if they don’t have the same one, they appreciate that I have one and it’s not all about what a speechwriter puts in front of me or what a pollster tells me,” the governor-elect told the Prospect. That moral yardstick may be just the tool Democrats need.

10 Words

2006-01-19T10:19:00.000-08:00

Here is my stab at "10 Words" or less that define the Democratic message, and actually I got it in 9:

"Smarter, effective government protecting, uniting and empowering it's citizenry."

If you like it, vote for it here.

It is a simple but useful exercise from the Gov. Tom Vilsack PAC. What are yours?

Democrat Declaration

2006-01-18T21:14:00.000-08:00

Virtually the entire Democratic Party leadership - Governors, House and Senate and local State leaders just signed a pledge for sweeping reform. Sign it too... Show your personal support for this plegde to honest, open leadership...

"Today, Democrats across America—including those in the U.S. House and Senate, our governors, mayors and state legislators—are declaring that it is time to end the Republican culture of corruption prevailing through all levels of government. We are committed to immediate change to lead this country in a new direction, to put an end to Republican business as usual, and to make certain this nation's leaders serve the people's interests, not special interests. For us, this commitment spans our lifetime, as we were elected to represent the people, not the powerful.

Our goal is to restore accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of government. To do so, we will create and enforce rules that demand the highest ethics from every public servant, sever unethical ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, and establish clear standards that prevent the trading of official business for gifts.

Honest leadership is not a partisan goal. It is the key to a stronger union. We must all work together to put progress ahead of politics. Together, America can do better. We can change this government, and the American people deserve nothing less.

Our government must reflect the absolute best of the people it serves. With honest leadership and open government, America’s leaders can once again focus on the urgent needs of the American people: real security overseas and at home, economic strength and educational excellence, affordable health care, energy independence, and retirement security.

In 2006, we, the undersigned, hereby declare that we will once again provide honest leadership and open government for all our citizens and put the Republican culture of corruption behind us, so we can make progress on the real issues facing America."

MLK Quotes of the Day

2006-01-15T12:55:00.000-08:00

I' m reposting this from last year's post on MLK day. (This may become a tradion on this blog) ...How I wish he were still here as a mentor, spiritual guide and political voice alive today.

"I've been reading a lot of Martin Luther King's writings and sermons and especially today though I should highlight two passages from two different sermons. One much more personal but both deeply moving to me. We have so much still to learn from from Martin. Had he not been killed he would be 76 this month.

Here is the first quote on what we might call today a holistic view of the Gospel:

"And what I’m doing in this struggle, along with many others, grows out of my feeling that the preacher must be concerned about the whole man. Not merely his soul, but his body. It’s all right to talk about heaven. I talk about it because I believe firmly in immortality. But you’ve got to talk about the earth. It’s all right to talk about long white robes over yonder, but I want a suit and some shoes to wear down here. It’s all right to talk about the streets flowing with milk and honey in heaven, but I want some food to eat down here. It’s even all right to talk about the new Jerusalem. But one day we must begin to talk about the new Chicago, the new Atlanta, the new New York, the new America.

And any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men (Well) and is not concerned about the slums that cripple the souls—the economic conditions that stagnate the soul (Yes) and the city governments that may damn the soul—is a dry, dead, do-nothing religion (Yes, Amen) in need of new blood."

And from another sermon, this very personal story:

"But I never will forget one night very late. It was around midnight. And you can have some strange experiences at midnight. (Yes, sir) I had been out meeting with the steering committee all that night. And I came home, and my wife was in the bed and I immediately crawled into bed to get some rest to get up early the next morning to try to keep things going. And immediately the telephone started ringing and I picked it up. On the other end was an ugly voice.

That voice said to me, in substance, "Nigger, we are tired of you and your mess now. And if you aren’t out of this town in three days, we’re going to blow your brains out and blow up your house." (Lord Jesus)

I’d heard these things before, but for some reason that night it got to me. I turned over and I tried to go to sleep, but I couldn’t sleep. (Yes) I was frustrated, bewildered.

And then I got up and went back to the kitchen and I started warming some coffee, thinking that coffee would give me a little relief. And then I started thinking about many things. I pulled back on the theology and philosophy that I had just studied in the universities, trying to give philosophical and theological reasons for the existence and the reality of sin and evil, but the answer didn’t quite come there.

I sat there and thought about a beautiful little daughter who had just been born about a month earlier. We have four children now, but we only had one then. She was the darling of my life. I’d come in night after night and see that little gentle smile. And I sat at that table thinking about that little girl and thinking about the fact that she could be taken away from me any minute. (Go ahead)

And I started thinking about a dedicated, devoted, and loyal wife who was over there asleep. (Yes) And she could be taken from me, or I could be taken from her. And I got to the point that I couldn’t take it any longer; I was weak. (Yes)

Something said to me, you can’t call on Daddy now, he’s up in Atlanta a hundred and seventy-five miles away. (Yes) You can’t even call on Mama now. (My Lord) You’ve got to call on that something in that person that your Daddy used to tell you about. (Yes) That power that can make a way out of no way. (Yes)

And I discovered then that religion had to become real to me and I had to know God for myself. (Yes, sir) And I bowed down over that cup of coffee—I never will forget it. (Yes, sir) And oh yes, I prayed a prayer and I prayed out loud that night. (Yes)

I said, "Lord, I’m down here trying to do what’s right. (Yes) I think I’m right; I think the cause that we represent is right. (Yes) But Lord, I must confess that I’m weak now; I’m faltering; I’m losing my courage. (Yes) And I can’t let the people see me like this because if they see me weak and losing my courage, they will begin to get weak." (Yes) I wanted tomorrow morning to be able to go before the executive board with a smile on my face.

And it seemed at that moment that I could hear an inner voice saying to me, (Yes) "Martin Luther, (Yes) stand up for righteousness, (Yes) stand up for justice, (Yes) stand up for truth. (Yes) And lo I will be with you, (Yes) even until the end of the world."

And I’ll tell you, I’ve seen the lightning flash. I’ve heard the thunder roll. I felt sin- breakers dashing, trying to conquer my soul. But I heard the voice of Jesus saying still to fight on. He promised never to leave me, never to leave me alone. No, never alone. No, never alone. He promised never to leave me, (Never) never to leave me alone."

As threatened an bomb was detonated on Dr. King's front porch 3 days later. No one in his family was killed, and King later said: "My religious experience a few nights before gave me the strength to face it."

Christians Against Pat Speaking

2006-01-14T13:44:00.000-08:00

Sign Up:

To: Pat Robertson

Dear Rev. Robertson,

We appreciate all your hard work and dedication to ministry over the years, but we are now asking that you please retire or at least stop making unfounded, insane-sounding comments and trying to pass them off as mainstream Christian thought such as:

1. Calling for the assassination of foreign heads of state (Hugo Chavez).
2. Telling people God will abandon or punish/destroy them (Dover, PA residents) because they exercised their right to vote against intelligent design supporting school board members.
3. Saying that morbidly overweight, elderly heads of state (Ariel Sharon) have strokes as the result of punishments from God for seeking peace rather than simple cardiovascular disease.

Seriously Pat, you're embarrassing the rest of us Christians who are trying to demonstrate God's love and mercy to a broken world already suspicious of religion and religious people.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

quote of the day

2006-01-13T19:03:00.000-08:00

"Francis Schaffer said that the church should be co-agitators with different organizations but we should never align ourselves with any political party and I would add that I think it’s nearly impossible to follow Jesus if you are following a party line.

Jesus would not have walked a party line, and he didn’t. In our Western culture, we have a two-party system. So it’s like one position and then a caricature of that position; one extreme and then a caricature of that extreme. It’s two ideas pushed in as opposite directions as you can possibly go and nobody in the middle—that’s what we have politically. And there are moments where Jesus says things that are very conservative and other moments where he is a flaming liberal.

If you’re going to follow him, you have to be willing to go back and forth. You have to be willing to be called liberal one minute and right-wing the very next. Unfortunately, the church has become so predictable in its politics that I think this whole thing has really tied the hands and feet of the church to be able to follow Jesus. Jesus was not predictable in his politics and we shouldn’t be either."

-- Derek Webb

State of Belief on Air America Radio

2006-01-12T21:49:00.000-08:00

Check out this new show on Air America Radio... (HT to StreetProphets)...

"State of Belief is based on the proposition that religion has a positive and healing role to play in the life of the nation. The show explains and explores that role by illustrating the vast diversity of beliefs in America – the most religiously diverse country in the world – while exposing and critiquing both the political manipulation of religion for partisan purposes and the religious manipulation of government for sectarian purposes.

Each week, the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy offers listeners critical analysis of the news of religion and politics, and seeks to provide listeners with an understanding and appreciation of religious liberty. Rev. Gaddy tackles politics with the firm belief that the best way to secure freedom for religion in America is to secure freedom from religion. State of Belief illustrates how the Religious Right is wrong – wrong for America and bad for religion.

Through interviews with celebrities and newsmakers and field reports from around the country, State of Belief explores the intersection of religion with politics, culture, media, and activism, and promotes diverse religious voices in a religiously pluralistic world."

Their blog can be found here, and the show airs Sundays at unday - from 5-6 PM eastern on the Air America Radio network.

"A King and a Kingdom", and "A New Law"

2006-01-12T20:13:00.000-08:00

Two good reasons to check out Derek Webs new album are these two tracks...
Lyrics below:

A King & A Kingdom

(vs. 1)

who's your brother, who's your sister
you just walked passed him
i think you missed her
as we're all migrating to the place where our father lives
'cause we married in to a family of immigrants

(chorus)
my first allegiance is not to a flag, a country, or a man
my first allegiance is not to democracy or blood
it's to a king & a kingdom

(vs. 2)
there are two great lies that i’ve heard:
“the day you eat of the fruit of that tree, you will not surely die”
and that Jesus Christ was a white, middle-class republican
and if you wanna be saved you have to learn to be like Him

(chorus)

(bridge)

but nothing unifies like a common enemy
and we’ve got one, sure as hell
but he may be living in your house
he may be raising up your kids
he may be sleeping with your wife
oh no, he may not look like you think

A New Law

(vs. 1)

don’t teach me about politics and government
just tell me who to vote for

don’t teach me about truth and beauty
just label my music

don’t teach me how to live like a free man
just give me a new law

(pre-chorus)
i don’t wanna know if the answers aren’t easy
so just bring it down from the mountain to me

(chorus)
i want a new law
i want a new law
gimme that new law

(vs. 2)

don’t teach me about moderation and liberty
i prefer a shot of grape juice

don’t teach me about loving my enemies

don’t teach me how to listen to the Spirit
just give me a new law

(pre-chorus/chorus)

(bridge)
what’s the use in trading a law you can never keep
for one you can that cannot get you anything
do not be afraid
do not be afraid
do not be afraid

Intelligent Design as Laziness

2006-01-11T15:29:00.000-08:00

From a friend of mine's blog, I really like his insight that perhaps part of what is motivating the ID movement is a form of "laziness" in in this sense:

It shows a desire to mass project a theological belief upon a population though inclusion in a science ciriculum where it doesn't belong, versus the long hard work of indivudial conversations -- one on one -- and forming actual spiritual friendships where religious topics like God as Creator are vetted out.

"Can a religious person advocate against intelligent design? I do. As an orthodox Jew, I believe in the divinity of the Bible and I subscribe to the idea that God created the world and everything in it. To me, science is a process of unlocking God’s perfection for the betterment of humanity. God wants us to learn how to heal the sick and improve our environment, so God endows us with scientific knowledge and a quest for scientific truth.

When the time comes for my sons to learn biology, I hope that they will learn just the latest science and nothing else. If my sons have to learn that God created the world by taking a science class, then I will have failed as an orthodox Jewish parent. Alternatively, if my sons’ faith in a Creator can be shaken by the content of a biology class, then I will also have failed in my efforts to instill in them the foundation beliefs of the Jewish religion...

The whole exercise is pointless, in my opinion, because I do not think that the religious Right’s vision of mass indoctrination will even work. In my experience, any meaningful personal embrace of values has to be voluntary to be effective. Values only take hold on a societal level when there is broad adoption of values at the personal level. The religious Right is attempting to force a process that can only be done one person at a time, one choice at a time."

Epiphany and Epiphanies

2006-01-10T21:02:00.000-08:00

From author Lauren Winner on Epiphany...here is an excerpt but read the whole thing:

"Epiphany — the word comes from the Greek for manifestation, or to appear or to show forth — is the season the church devotes to seeing who Jesus is. Many churches begin their observance of Epiphany with a recitation or even reenactment of the three wise men bringing their gifts to the baby Jesus.

The gifts help us to see who Jesus is: gold is a gift one gives a king; frankincense, a special incense with curative powers that was used by the Israelites in front of the Tent of Meeting, shows us that Jesus is the true tent of meeting, the place we go to meet God; and myrrh, an embalming resin used to prepare bodies for burial, shows us that Jesus was born to die.

The wise men's gifts, in other words, make something about Jesus manifest — and the wise men themselves, as the first people who will take word of Jesus to a larger audience, show forth the infant king to their corner of the world."

During Epiphany, churches also read about Jesus' baptism, a dramatic event at which God "showed forth" something of Jesus' uniqueness. This time of year, I am often reminded of a minor character in the movie Amistad, a slave who becomes a Christian; after coming to faith, he sees crosses everywhere he looks. That is what Epiphany invites us into: a new kind of seeing...

Epiphany is a season of Light. After we have packed away the Christmas lights with which we strung our trees, we find the church calendar giving us still more time and space to consider Jesus, the Light of the World, and to consider the way that we might get our own lights out from under all those bushels, and manifest Jesus to the world..."

Counting the Cost

2006-01-10T10:01:00.000-08:00

From this CSM article on the latest estimates of the cost of the Iraq war. The lowball figure is $2 Trillion. Or as it says in the article "Direct operating costs" of the war are around $4.5 billion a month according to the Marines, $7.1 billion according to Stiglitz and Bilmes."

"A new study by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes concludes that the total costs of the Iraq war could top the $2 trillion mark. Reuters reports this total, which is far above the US administration's prewar projections, takes into account the long term healthcare costs for the 16,000 US soldiers injured in Iraq so far.

"Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," the study said, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars."

The higher $2 trillion amount takes a 'moderate' approach. Both figures are based on the projection that US troops will remain in Iraq until 2010, with steadily decreasing numbers each year."

The BBC story on this same topic calls out the health costs that Steiglitz and Blimes factor in, sayting that of the approximately 16,000 US wounded that: "20% of injured US personnel have brain injuries, 6% have had amputations and another 20% have other serious injuries."

Quote of the Day

2006-01-09T14:17:00.000-08:00

This is actually an older quote, advice written shortly after Bush's re-election on how the Dems should handle future Supreme Court Nominees:

"...Here is a rule of thumb: if an otherwise qualified Supreme Court Nominee would turn the clock back 10 years, approve; back 25 years, vote no; back a half century, fillibuster."

-- Nicholas Kristoff, Pulitzer Prize winning Columnist, NY Times

Scary

2006-01-09T12:06:00.000-08:00

Bipartisan Report: Warrantless Wiretaps Illegal

2006-01-09T09:57:00.000-08:00

Highlights from this bipartisan Congressional report, covered by this Post story...in essence, this was an illegal act by the Bush admin, and a clear overreach of executive power.

"A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.

The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad.

The findings, the first nonpartisan assessment of the program's legality to date, prompted Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates to repeat calls yesterday for Congress to conduct hearings on the monitoring program and attempt to halt it.

The 44-page report said that Bush probably cannot claim the broad presidential powers he has relied upon as authority to order the secret monitoring of calls made by U.S. citizens since the fall of 2001. Congress expressly intended for the government to seek warrants from a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before engaging in such surveillance when it passed legislation creating the court in 1978, the CRS report said.

The report also concluded that Bush's assertion that Congress authorized such eavesdropping to detect and fight terrorists does not appear to be supported by the special resolution that Congress approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which focused on authorizing the president to use military force.

"It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here," the authors of the CRS report wrote. The administration's legal justification "does not seem to be . . . well-grounded," they said...

"This report contradicts the president's claim that his spying on Americans was legal," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), one of the lawmakers who asked the CRS to research the issue. "It looks like the president's wiretapping was not only illegal, but also ensnared innocent Americans who did nothing more than place a phone call."

Cool Idea, and Good Wiki

2006-01-04T19:21:00.000-08:00

Pretty cool. An innovative way for this Senate candidate to engage with (and evangelize his positions to)the people he hopes to lead...Dem hopefull Pete Ashdown has set up a compelling looking campaign wiki... (This may well have been done in other races, but I'd not seen it before...)

You can check Ashdown's Campaign wiki here, and here is a description of it from the American Press Insitute site which I excerpt from below:

"Pete Ashdown’s campaign against incumbent Senator Orrin Hatch takes a revolutionary approach using wiki technology to enable his supporters to become a true political community with a real say-so in his campaign platform.

This is not your father’s opinion poll

Ashdown has fully embraced the notion that Senators are delegates, not trustees. In order to determine what the voters want him to do if he gets elected, he has created an issue collaboration wiki on his campaign Web site. According to Wikipedia, the most famous wiki, a wiki “is a group of Web pages that allows users to add content, as on an Internet forum, but also permits others (often completely unrestricted) to edit the content.”

Ashdown begins each issue topic in his wiki with a brief statement outlining his core position and then opens the discussion up to anyone visiting the site. He participates in this discussion and uses the comments from voters to further develop his position and his plan of action. In addition to commenting on issues Ashdown has listed, voters can raise new issues not listed. Further, he hosts a chatroom on his site where voters can discuss the issues and the campaign in real-time, often with the candidate participating."

progressive quote of the day

2006-01-01T23:17:00.000-08:00

In addition to the topical "quotes of the day" and the ocassional "conservative quote of the day," I'm adding a feature to the blog which is for lack of a better term a "historic, progressive quote of the day."

This is supposed to be key quotes from political progressives that resonate with me, and that I think speak to the heart of what it has meant and continues to mean to be a Progressive and a Democrat.

Many have spoken about the need for the Democrats to "rebrand" themselves. And to shake off the negative brand associations labeled upon us by our political opponents. Maybe some of that can come from this exercise...And as always, feel free to post in the comments quotes that you find inspiring and/or important.

And given the focus of the blog, often times quotes will show an anchoring to a specific Christian position or worldview.

Starting with a quotation about the role of government, and an early cirtique to what would later be called "trickle down" economics... This isn't specifically a "Christian" quote, but it comes from an evangelical (some would call fundamentalist) who was a lay pastor, a 3 time Democratic Presidential nominee, a Democratic Congressman, and later Woodrow Wilson's Secretary of State, Williams Jennings Bryan.

It speaks to a core Progressive emphasis on "The Common Good."

"Upon which side will the Democratic party fight: upon the side of the 'idle holders of idle capital' or upon the side of "the struggling masses?" That is the question which the party must answer first, and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter.

The sympathies of the Democratic party, as shown by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic party.

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them."

-- Williams Jennings Bryan, 1896

Nancy Pelosi on the Immoral Federal Budget

2006-01-01T20:14:00.000-08:00

From today's Democratic Radio address by Nancy Pelosi...Note that the protest she refers to can be seen more over at the Sojourner's site... It involved 115 religious activists including Jim Wallis and Brian Mclaren in the act of civil disobedience protesting the latest Federal budget.

"2006 is a year of decision.

"One of the first decisions Members of Congress will make is reconsideration of the Republican budget. The federal budget should be a statement of our national values. Sadly, the Republican budget fails that test.

"That is why leaders of every religious denomination have led the fight in Washington and across the country to defeat it. Religious leaders told Congress that they are drawing a moral line in the sand against the Republican budget's misplaced priorities.

"They reminded us that the Bible teaches that to minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us. Religious leaders stated that our religious tradition teaches us that society, through government, has an obligation to meet the needs of the American people.

"In December, in the last days of this last session of Congress, the religious community descended upon Washington in peaceful protest - in the freezing cold. Over 100 were arrested while calling the Republican budget a moral failure, empty of spiritual hope and nourishing resources.

"Clearly, America can do better.

"Democrats have proposed a budget which protects the middle class, reduces the deficit, and reflects our American values. The budget decision is clear.

"We can expand opportunity by investing in education and promoting American competitiveness or we can drive students $6,000 deeper into debt on their student loans.

"In the spirit of fairness, we can expand health care to America's children and veterans, or we can limit it. Our American sense of community requires that we subsidize home heating for America's families instead of subsidizing record profits for energy companies. And we can declare our energy independence.

"We can promote prosperity by investing in innovation, small business and job creation for the many, or have budget priorities that benefit the privileged few.

"We can promote real security by truly investing in homeland security instead of having a Homeland Security Department in disarray. And as we protect and defend the American people, we must not lose sight of our duty to protect and defend the constitution and our civil liberties.

"We can demonstrate responsibility by having a Democratic pay-as-you-go budget instead of a Republican budget which increases the deficit. In recognition of the Republican budget's increase of the deficit, the Secretary of the Treasury this week sent a letter to Congress for urgent authority to increase the national debt.

"Again, the decision is clear. We must draw a fiscal line in the sand. And we must join the religious community in drawing a moral line in the sand."

First 2006 Quote of the Day

2006-01-01T10:48:00.000-08:00

From Joshua Micah Marshall at TPM:

"For folks of my political persuasion, last year ended on a very bleak note. But things started going badly for the president from the beginning of 2005 and went down hill from there. Looking toward next year, a lot of stars seem to be in alignment for the Democrats. And history, scandal and the comeuppance of past mistakes and villainies all seem stacked against the president and his party.

A moment so pregnant with possibility has inevitably turned to speculation about how the Dems could blow it -- which is a possibility well worth considering. And that leads to all the questions of which issues should the Democrats pursue, which will position them better, should they have more new ideas -- those and a thousand other questions that, together, all amount to paralysis and a morbid self-indulgence and introspection.

I say let's forget about all of that. Far better to concentrate on two things.

First, attack!

Saying that amounts to a lightning rod in itself, hoisted up for battering from all sorts of scolds. But it's nothing to be ashamed of. The point of a political opposition is to oppose -- if there are no grounds for opposition, then there is no reason for such an opposition to exist. Better to join the president's party or go out of existence. And certainly, for those who share the perspective of this site, there is plenty to oppose. To say 'attack!' simply means to maintain the initiative in the debates of the day -- always. And when it's lost to get it back as soon as possible.

Second, you can't be an opposition without knowing what you oppose and what you're for.

Bad writing is usually imprecise writing -- and its badness usually stems from the bad writer not having taken the time to think through just what he or she means to say. The cobwebs and vagaries of their minds are revealed in bad prose.

Bad politics usually stems from people not having a clear idea of what they're trying to achieve, where they're trying to go. Once you know where you're trying to lead the country, strategy and tactics and optics and gutting the other side all tend to fall into place. If not perfectly, then a whole lot easier. Where do we want to take the country? Forget the rest and think about that. That's the guiding star.

Enough of my sermonizing. Happy New Year!"

Technorati Tags: democrats 2006

Republican Governors Assoc.: "The math is not in our favor this cycle."

2005-12-31T13:07:00.000-08:00

In 2006 there will be a strong chance for Dems to win a majority of upcoming Governors' races...and the Democratic Governor's Association (DGA) is the official party organization co-ordinainting the attack. Help them out this year...

Here is the WSJ article...

Republicans May Lose Grip on Statehouses
Term Limits, Tax Backlash Could Provide
An Opportunity for Democrats in 2006

"...The math is not in our favor this cycle," said Mr. Romney, who recently became chairman of the Republican Governors Association. Republicans hold 28 seats overall, including 22 of the 36 up for election. In pivotal states such as Ohio, Florida, California and Colorado, they are girding for battles. Three Democrats have declared their intention to run for Massachusetts governor.

Democrats will have to work to hold some current seats as well -- in Iowa, where Gov. Tom Vilsack is retiring; Michigan; and Wisconsin. But gubernatorial races may be a better opportunity for the party than the Congressional contests in which redistricting has limited the number of competitive House seats. Winning governorships may also be more beneficial to Democrats chances' of taking back the White House.

"If we're going to win in '08, strengthening the Democratic party shouldn't be through Washington, but through the states," says Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. He heads the Democratic Governors Association and, like Mr. Romney, is exploring a presidential run...

Republican gubernatorial struggles are only somewhat related to the party's other national problems: President Bush's weakened standing, policy setbacks, intraparty bickering and ethics scandals. At least eight Republican governors aren't seeking re-election because of term limits or other reasons. Mr. Romney predicts Democrats could win between three to six of those seats.

Technorati Tags: 2006 Governors

Dem Hopes in the Senate 2006 Part II

2005-12-31T10:28:00.000-08:00

An excellent overview of the 7 targeted races Senator Schumer highlighted as key in retaking the Senate over at the Daily Kos...

As a reminder, the States are:

Arizona
Missouri
Montana
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tennessee

Dkos poster Rippe writes: "The big picture is this: 33 of the 100 Senate seats are up for grabs in 2006. 14 of them are Republican-held, 14 are Democrat-held, and 5 are open (additional retirements may change that).

Of course, Republicans hold a 55-44 majority in the Senate, with the one independent (the retiring Jeffords) voting with the Democrats. A Democratic net gain of 6 seats in 2006 would give us a 50-50 split. Of course, Democratic strategists would prefer to net 7 new seats in order to represent a clean Dem majority of 51."

After a good summary of the different races, that really should be read in full, he concludes:

"...Assuming that 14 hours of research and writing buys me the right to have an opinion, here's my take on these 7 races.

EXCELLENT SHOT:

Montana
Ohio
Pennsylvania

GOOD SHOT:

Missouri
Rhode Island

WE'LL NEED TO WORK HARDER:

Arizona
Tennessee"

Here is to a New Years Resolution of helping create a national, distributed, grassroots force fighting to take these states back!

Technorati Tags: 2006 senate

Year in Review

2005-12-30T10:58:00.000-08:00

Two worthwhile "Political Year in Review" articles that are worth your attention:

One from the progressive think tank "Drum Major Institute" and a key quote in this was:

"When 2005 began, PresidentGeorge W. Bush claimed a mandate after his victory over Senator John Kerry. As 2005 drew to a close, the President’s job approval rating was in the mid 30s, the lowest since he moved to the White House.
What changed?

This was the year of the Great Unveiling, in which what many knew to be true was unavoidably evidenced to the rest of the world. 2005 revealed essential truths about America, both in its pain and in its promise...

...despite a concerted effort by the conservative right to present government as the enemy, Americans intuitively understand their relationship to their public institutions. We rely on government to maintain our infrastructure, from the roads of Colorado to the levees of Louisiana. We rely on government for effective leadership, not the kind of cronyism revealed by President Bush’s choice of unqualified administrators like former FEMA head Michael Brown. We rely on government to provide insurance so we can grow old in dignity, as the President learned when Americans soundly rejected his 2005 attempt to privatize Social Security...No matter how you slice it, 2005 changed America.

Also check out the Century Foundations Best and Worst in Public Policy in 2005... As with the DMI report it does a good job of covering things that I missed or forgot but are worthy of remembering...both good and bad.

Case in point, a story definitely in the "good" camp that I had glossed over this year (and was reminded of by both articles) is the Illinois health coverage for all Children, set up by Democratic Governor Blogojevitch. It covers virtually all of the 250,000 Illinois children who previously were without any health care.

Any other good political "Year in Review" articles you liked? Good Predictions for 2006?

Technorati Tags: Year in Review

Give Today: Reporting Deadline for Candidates Tommorow...

2005-12-30T10:25:00.000-08:00

Everybody:

December 31st is the FEC end of year filing deadline for House and Senate candidates.
These really do matter, and before this key date, I updated my actblue pages to show some of the races I've supported, and would recommend that you look at as well...
There are MANY others that are worthy and that I'll be digging into for 06, but these are the ones that for many reasons caught my eye this year.

But if you are thinking of giving as part of a New Years resolution, or just something you meant to do before '05 ends, I strongly recommend getting it in today or before tommorow's deadline.

A lot of strategy happens based on the publicly reported amounts the candidates raise each quarter, it makes a difference!

(conservative) quote of the day

2005-12-28T21:15:00.000-08:00

A great statement against unchecked Presidential power:

"We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens…Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with… enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake....It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments . . . that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad."

-- Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day Oconner, 2004

quote of the day

2005-12-27T17:25:00.000-08:00

From the Slacktivist blog, on the adminstrations wiretapping of US citizens without a warrant:

"The White House's claim, essentially, is this: The president may do whatever he sees fit in order to keep the country safe. For some, those last seven words justify and legitimize the unlimited powergrab of the first eight. But many of us cannot accept the beginning of that sentence -- "the president may do whatever he sees fit" -- regardless of what follows.

Those of us who reject that claim call ourselves "democrats" or "republicans" -- words that refer to forms of government in which the leaders are accountable to the people and to the rule of law, and therefore may not simply do whatever they see fit."

Back and blogging again...

2005-12-27T17:18:00.000-08:00

Hey everybody, hope you had a good Christmas, and holiday season so far...

After a week of a pretty ugly cold, I followed that up by work travel (to Tokyo) and then family vacation...

But now am back and looking forward to the new year...

Tim

Dems Hopes for Senate in 2006

2005-12-27T17:13:00.000-08:00

New Year's Democratic Senate Strategy, as quoted by the AP news report:

"Schumer, the head of Senate Democrats' campaign efforts, said Tuesday he is focusing on seven states where he believes they can take GOP-held Senate seats in 2006: Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Montana, Tennessee, and Arizona.
"If the stars align right we could actually take back the Senate," Schumer said.

The Senate currently has 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one Democratic-voting independent. In 2006, there are five open Senate seats, as well as 14 Democratic senators seeking re-election and 14 Republicans seeking re-election.

Schumer heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which had more than $22 million available according to their last fundraising report. That's more than double the cash available to their counterparts in the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
...Schumer is also trying to pare his party's message down to a few straightforward ideas. "Mostly, it's the meat and potato issues: Save Social Security. Fix prescription drugs. Energy independence," he said."

Help Set the Dems Agenda

2005-12-01T23:44:00.000-08:00

Work travel followed by being sick. Bleh. Will post more once I'm better....

But this seemed to timely and important not to post.... The Democratic agenda for nationalizing the 2006 races is just starting to emerge, and you still have time to inject your beliefs, values and priorities into the mix...

From the DSCC:

"Visit our website to endorse the Democratic agenda. Plus, if you think something is missing from our list of priorities, you can tell us what specific issues are most important to you. We'll use the feedback we receive over the next 11 months before Election Day. Please join our new campaign today.

http://www.dscc.org/priorities"

Post-Holiday Action

2005-11-24T19:39:00.000-08:00

From the Washington Post, Reid sent Democratic Senators off to break with this message:

"Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sent a memo to Democratic senators aimed at reviewing 2005 and preparing them for 2006, said spokesman Jim Manley. "The opportunity for the party and the country could hardly be better," Reid wrote. He urged his caucus members to host town hall meetings over the recess centered around the theme "America Can Do Better," which seems likely to be the centerpiece of the much-anticipated Democratic agenda that is set to be unveiled in the new year. "

After the tryptophan break, we should come back ready for action. For the upcoming Senate races, here is where Harry Reid would like you to look at and support:

http://www.actblue.com/list/harryreid

Happy Thanksgiving and Plan for "Buy Nothing Day"

2005-11-23T16:21:00.000-08:00

Everybody:

Have a great Thanksgiving, but be sure to mark you calanders to my favorite new holiday, "Buy Nothing Day" this November 26th...

Make the busiest shopping day of the year a day of "culture jamming" and of just enjoying not buying stuff. Make it an 24 hour experiment, a fast from "consumerism" or a act of protest. But try it out.

This is an international holiday that has gone on for the last 15 years, where all you have to do is not finiancially consume stuff. Don't buy gas. Don't buy a track off iTunes. Don't buy a stick of gum. See what it feels like and what fills the space.

As it says on the above stencil, which you can download free here, "Draw Something, Sew Something, Cook Something, Sing Something, Make Somthing, Buy Nothing...November 26th!

Here are some user created posters from the Buy Nothing Day blog...

Bush Stuck at 36%

2005-11-23T10:03:00.000-08:00

From the latest polling at American Research Group:

"George W. Bush's overall job approval ratings remain unchanged from a month ago as Americans hold mixed views on the economy according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among all Americans, 36% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 58% disapprove.

When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 31% approve and 62% disapprove."

Thanksgiving and "the Least of These"

2005-11-22T13:37:00.000-08:00

From IL-06 candidate Lindy Scott's blog:

"Last Friday, in the wee hours of the morning, the U.S. House of Representatives passed (217 to 215) a budget reconciliation bill that cut $50 billion dollars from social services for our citizens. These cuts take away school lunches from poor children, food stamps from poor families, $600 million from foster care, and Medicaid funds from the sick. While these budgets cuts are further hurting poor people, extravagant tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest in our land are extended.

Jim Wallis of Sojourners has stated it very clearly:

'It is a moral disgrace to take food from the mouths of hungry children to increase the luxuries of those feasting at a table overflowing with plenty. This is not what America is about, not what the season of Thanksgiving is about, not what loving our neighbor is about, and not what family values are about....

... According to the wise mother of King Lemuel the role of government is to “defend the rights of all the unfortunate, to judge righteously, and to defend the rights of the afflicted and needy” (Proverbs 31:8-9). I can’t believe that most North Americans want resources to be taken from the poor and given to the rich. There is still time to change the course of these actions. Mr. Hastert, help us as a country retrace our steps and get back onto higher moral ground."

25,000 "Democracy Bonds" And Counting....

2005-11-18T22:12:00.000-08:00

25,000 Democracy Bonds, and counting! (in about 5 months)

Buy one today!

Arguably, a "Democracy Bond" is a marketing term, but it is a term for something imporant. A new and much needed thing in politics and in the Democratic Party. It's all about normal humans -- not lobbyists, not big corporations, funding building and owning their own party.

The more "Democracy Bonds" are bought, the more we reshape politics, and compete with Republican's big donor, big business fundraising.

As they said on the Democrats.org site when it launched: "The 'Democracy Bond' initiative is about shifting the balance of power towards the people. The Republicans raise $10 million a month from lobbyists and special interests ...We all know who owns the Republican Party -- but ordinary Americans will own our party."

And from the latest on thier blog:

"Your monthly recurring small dollar contributions have allowed the Democratic National Committee to place organizers on-the-ground in 38 of the 50 United States."

Elections in 2006 and 2008 will be deeply effected by what we do NOW.

United House Dems and Moderate Repubs Defeat GOP Budget

2005-11-17T22:53:00.000-08:00

Again, this is more like it. Nicely done Ms. Pelosi and House Dems.

And good to see 22 Moderate Republicans seeing the imorality of the GOP budget cutting education, healthcare and foodstamps especially while keeping the tax cuts in place for the wealthiest of the wealthy in our nation. From the NY Times:

"House Republican leaders were dealt a rare defeat Thursday as Democrats and 22 Republicans teamed up to kill a major health and education spending measure.
The 224-to-209 rejection of the $142.5 billion in spending on an array of social programs was the first time since the early days of the Republican takeover of the House a decade ago that the majority had come out on the losing end of such a vote.

The struggle on the measure underlined the divide over spending policy confounding House Republicans as they struggle to provide relief for hurricane victims while placating party members alarmed about growth in federal spending...

In rebelling against the spending measure, Democrats and some Republicans said it fell woefully short of fulfilling federal commitments.

They pointed, for example, to $900 million in health care cuts that took a toll on the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and on rural health care. They opposed the elimination of $8 billion to prepare for a potential flu pandemic. And they pointed to a provision that would strip money from a variety of popular education programs and leave Pell Grants to college students frozen, as part of the first reduction in education spending in a decade.

"The Republican bill to fund our nation's investments in health, education and other important programs betrayed our nation's values and its future," Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland said...

Democrats said it was unfair to reduce spending on programs like food stamps and health care for the poor to offset the costs of the hurricanes.

"This is the cruelest lie of all," said Representative Gene Taylor, a Mississippi Democrat who lost his home to Hurricane Katrina, "that the only way you can help people who have lost everything is by hurting somebody else."

(conservative) quote of the day

2005-11-16T23:43:00.000-08:00

"The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform. This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. War is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The casualties of war are from both parties.

The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years. The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration’s policies."

-- Senator Chuck Hagel

Thirty Four

2005-11-16T23:09:00.000-08:00

As in 34 percent.

That would explain this.

US Uses Chemical Weapons in Iraq

2005-11-16T08:47:00.000-08:00

A while ago, I saw a blogger describe the "War on Terror" (TM) as being fundamentally misunderstood by the Bush administration and other neoconservatives. He used an analogy I wish I had come up with:

He said something like "Neocons think the game is chess" where we win by taking more of their peices out. Our enemies know that this is not the game at all, it's more like Othello. The winner in the Global War on Terror is the one who gets the other guy to look more like them, piece by piece.

The pentagon just admitted to using a horrible chemical weapon against insurgents in the battle for Fallluja -- one that they previously denied useing -- called White Phosphorus. The BBC news piece describes the effects of the agent:

"White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen...it could burn right down to the bone."

Although Pentagon seems to be splitting legal hairs on whether this is a "incidiary" versus a "chemical" weapon. The reality of the chemical effects of White Phosphorus are terribly obvious. And they note that although Britian had signed a 1980 UN Convention which expressly forbids the use of white phosphorus against civilian targets or military targets in civilian areas, but the US had not.

None of that changes the fact that today we learned we were using this chemical weapon on people.

One more Othello peice just flipped the wrong direction.

From the BBC:

"US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said.

"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.

The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.

BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US."

quote of the day

2005-11-16T00:11:00.000-08:00

E.J. Dionne Jr on Bush's latest attack on Democrats questioning his use of pre-war intelligence as "politics" that hurt the troops:

"There is a great missing element in the argument over whether the administration manipulated the facts. Neither side wants to talk about the context in which Bush won a blank check from Congress to invade Iraq. He doesn't want us to remember that he injected the war debate into the 2002 midterm election campaign for partisan purposes, and he doesn't want to acknowledge that he used the post-Sept. 11 mood to do all he could to intimidate Democrats from raising questions more of them should have raised....

The bad faith of Bush's current argument is staggering. He wants to say that the "more than a hundred Democrats in the House and Senate" who "voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power" thereby gave up their right to question his use of intelligence forever after. But he does not want to acknowledge that he forced the war vote to take place under circumstances that guaranteed the minimum amount of reflection and debate, and that opened anyone who dared question his policies to charges, right before an election, that they were soft on Hussein.

By linking the war on terrorism to a partisan war against Democrats, Bush undercut his capacity to lead the nation in this fight. And by resorting to partisan attacks again last week, Bush only reminded us of the shameful circumstances in which the whole thing started."

Methodist Bishops Statement on Iraq (Full Text)

2005-11-15T10:54:00.000-08:00

Here is the full text of the Methodist Bishop's Statement on Iraq:

A Call to Repentance and Peace with Justice

As followers of Jesus Christ, who named peacemakers as blessed children of God, we call upon The United Methodist Church to join us in repentance and renewed commitment to Christ's reign of compassion, justice, reconciliation, and peace.

As elected and consecrated bishops of the church, we repent of our complicity in what we believe to be the unjust and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq. In the face of the United States Administration's rush toward military action based on misleading information, too many of us were silent. We confess our preoccupation with institutional enhancement and limited agendas while American men and women are sent to Iraq to kill and be killed, while thousands of Iraqi people needlessly suffer and die, while poverty increases and preventable diseases go untreated. Although we value the sacrifices of the men and women who serve in the military, we confess our betrayal of the scriptural and prophetic authority to warn the nations that true security lies not in weapons of war, but in enabling the poor, the vulnerable, the marginalized to flourish as beloved daughters and sons of God. We confess our failure to make disciples of Jesus Christ and to be a people who welcome and love all those for whom Christ died.

Aware that we are to bring forth fruit worthy of repentance, we personally and as bishops commit ourselves to:

* Pray daily for the end of war in general and the Iraq war specifically; for those who suffer as the result of war, including the soldiers and their families; the Iraqi people in their struggle to find a workable form of government; and for the leaders of the United States that they will turn to truth, humility, and policies of peace through justice.

* Reclaim the prophetic authority that calls nations, individuals, and communities to live faithfully in the light of God's new creation where all people know their identity as beloved children of God; where justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream; and where barriers are removed and all creation is healed, reconciled, and renewed.

* Commit ourselves to peacemaking as an integral component of our own Christian discipleship, which means advocating and actively working for the things that make for peace: personal, institutional, and governmental priorities that protect the poor and most vulnerable; modeling an end to prejudice toward people of other faiths and cultures; confronting differences and conflicts with grace, humility, dialogue, and respect without being so cautious in confronting evil that we lose our moral authority.

We call upon all United Methodists to join in the pursuit of peace through justice as revealed in Holy Scripture and incarnate in Jesus Christ.

* Let us move beyond caution rooted in self protection and recover moral authority anchored in commitment to Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace.
* Let us object with boldness when governing powers offer solutions of war that conflict with the gospel message of self-emptying love.
* Let us with compassion share the pain of God's children who suffer from the devastation of war and those who live in poverty resulting from misplaced priorities and misguided public policies.
* Let us work toward unity in a world of diversity, that all peoples will come to know that we belong to one another, and that "in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself … and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us"(2 Corinthians 5:19).

96 bishops decry 'unjust and immoral' situation in Iraq

2005-11-15T10:46:00.000-08:00

From the United Methodist News service:

"Ninety-six United Methodist bishops have signed a statement repenting "of our complicity in what we believe to be the unjust and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq."

The signers include more than half of the denomination's active and retired bishops, both within the United States and in the Central Conferences outside the United States. Bishop Kenneth Carder, one of the signers, told United Methodist News Service on Nov. 11 that the statement had been nearly six weeks in the making.

The statement confesses "our preoccupation with institutional enhancement and limited agendas while American men and women are sent to Iraq to kill and be killed, while thousands of Iraqi people needlessly suffer and die, while poverty increases and preventable diseases go untreated."

While the sacrifices of military personnel are valued, true security does not lie in the weapons of war, the bishops pointed out.

The bishops committed to praying daily for the end of war in Iraq and all wars in general, reclaiming the idea of living "faithfully in the light of God's new creation" and pledging to peacemaking as an "integral component of our own Christian discipleship."

DNC National Grassroots Kickoff Tommrow Night

2005-11-14T17:50:00.000-08:00

Everybody, tommorow is a nationwide organizing kickoff for the Democratic party... And if you haven't heard about it yet, it isn't too late to check it out, find a local houseparty and join in.

So far, more than 1,000 meetings are set in all 50 States... A key point in the event is a nation wide conference call with Chairman Dean

"The elections are a year away -- and that's exactly the point. We cannot wait until the last few months before an election to build an organization, and we cannot let that organization fade away after Election Day."

Democrat Bob Casey Way Ahead Against Santorum in Latest Senate Race Polling

2005-11-10T18:55:00.000-08:00

Especially with the lessons learned from the recent elections, Bob Casey Jr's latest polling for the Pennsylania Senate seat shows much promise, and for many of the same reasons.

Casey is a Catholic and well known pro-life Democrat, and a popular and competent former Treasurer of the State, he is already polling WAY ahead of Rick Santorum (see below)...

But the race will tighten in the year to come. And even though lately Casey has been outraising him, Santorum still has a much bigger total campaign war chest however.

Help even that out.

And if you are in Pennsylvania, think about volunteering...

Here is the polling with a hat tip to Political Wire:

"If the poll earlier today on the Pennsylvania Senate race was bad for Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), the new Rasmussen Reports survey is terrible.

The latest Rasmussen poll shows Santorum "continuing to lose ground in his battle for re-election" and now trails Bob Casey, Jr (D) by twenty percentage points, 54% to 34%. In the July Rasmussen survey Santorum trailed by 11 points."

A Thought Experiment

2005-11-10T18:13:00.000-08:00

Okay just a little experiment:

Pat Robertson (still fresh from his advocating assasination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez) just made this statement regarding Dover residents who voted several school board members out who supported the teaching of Intelligent Design in local science classes.

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there."

Here is the experiment: Just for a second think about the "pIcture of God" that Robertson is painting to the world with this.

Small and weak, capable of being "voted out" of town
Kinda petty and vengeful, willing to stand by and willing to abandon a city of people to disaster over a school board vote
An absent God, not caring for people asking for his help

Later, after this quote was picked up by the press, he issued this "correction" that if you really read it, doesn't correct much:

"I was simply stating that our spiritual actions have consequences and it's high time we started recognizing it. God is tolerant and loving, but we can't keep sticking our finger in His eye forever. If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin…maybe he can help them."

Again with the "don't call on God," or "I recommend they call on Charles Darwin" lines... and note, the treat of God's curse is still in there: "if they have future problems in Dover..."

In Scripture Christians are called "God's Ambassadors" and are told that when we talk to the world it is "as though God were making his appeal through us."

That is a crazy heavy responsiblity, and I'm sure I fail at it in a lot of ways.

But I see the peevish, weak, bitter caricature of a god in statements and re-statements today from Pat Robertson, I realize what damage we can do when with that responsiblity.

Kaine, Faith and Democrats Part III

2005-11-10T09:29:00.000-08:00

From E.J. Dionne today, ephasis mine in bold:

"Democrats all over the country will study how this devout Catholic explained his opposition to the death penalty as a matter of deep religious concern. The strangest thing is that because the death penalty issue encouraged Kaine to talk about his faith, it may have helped him with conservative voters.

"This is a very good proving ground for the belief that Democrats can talk about values and their faith and it will make a difference," said Karl Struble, a top Kaine adviser...

And then there were Kaine's proposals to rein in exurban sprawl, which helped him carry outer suburbs in Prince William and Loudoun counties, something even Warner had not been able to do. Pete Brodnitz, Kaine's pollster, argued that outer suburban voters saw controlling growth as a better solution to the region's transportation problems than more "taxing and paving," as Kaine would put it.

So, yes, Tuesday's elections will be seen as a rebuke to Bush. But they may be more important as the moment Democrats finally figured out how to talk without embarrassment about God and the practical uses of government."