Why Democrats Deserve To Retain Both Houses Of Congress

There's a lot of talk these days about the Republicans recapturing the House of Representatives this fall, and even having an outside chance of getting the Senate too. For anyone with a memory, this would be a terrible thing, recalling the nastiness of the Clinton years, when the GOP took Congress in the 1994 midterm election, and the bad policies of the first six years of the George W. Bush administration, when the Republicans controlled Congress (minus a brief period in 2002 when Democrats controlled the Senate).

Let's not have them measure the drapes yet. As Susan Estrich points out, the use of generic polls in making broad predictions isn't a terribly effective method of political prognosticating.

Additionally, the midterm election is far from a done deal this early in the season, for a number of reasons, as one of our favorite sites, Electoral-Vote.com, articulates.

But rather than make predictions, let's look at why giving Republicans control over even one

house of Congress is a bad idea:

Contrary to right-wing dogma and the relentless drone of Republican propaganda, this Democratic Congress has been very effective. Among their accomplishments since Barack Obama became president are health care reform, financial regulation reform, and an economic stimulus that is widely credited with saving the nation from an even worse economic downturn.

Health care reform was a goal of many presidents since at least Teddy Roosevelt nearly 100 years ago. Did the legislation go far

enough? Probably not. Inclusion of a public option or the establishment of a Medicare-for-all plan would have done more to lower costs, but the bill that was passed will go a long way to

correcting a situation that has been out of control for too long and which is simply unsustainable. Getting the bill passed above Republican obstruction - remember that not a single Republican in the House voted for the bill - and industry lobbying - millions were spent to water down the legislation - was no small feat. However much more could have been done in reforming health care, the Democrats in Congress made an historic effort and deserve praise for what they accomplished.

Similarly, financial reform represents another huge milestone, and one that has been badly needed for decades. Deregulation of many of the New Deal-era rules began in earnest during the Reagan years. During that time, the concentration of wealth in the nation shifted to the top, with the wealthiest ten percent of the population getting about a 35% share of all income in 1982 to more than 50% in 2007. At the same time, working people have had to spend down their savings and go into debt to get by. Republicans have pushed deregulation under the guise of "freedom," and now claim that efforts to re-regulate amount to "socialism" - a claim that was made by conservatives during the New Deal period and again during the Great Society era to try to derail efforts to legislate business. Never mind that true socialism isn't reflected in these efforts - if the Republicans can scare people into thinking that "the American way of life" is at stake, they will use any phrase, slogan, or pejorative they can think of.

It's worth pausing a second to consider the complete implausibility of what the Republicans are

really advocating. They've been saying since the Reagan years that business prospers when it isn't hindered by rules, and that this benefits society. Inherent in that idea is that business leaders will act in the best interests of society. As 30 years of evidence shows us, that's either

a naive notion or simply disingenuous. It's not the role of business to act in the public interest, and while we can always hope its leaders will do so, there is no law requiring them to. Rather, it's the role of government to act in the public interest, which sometimes means creating rules we all have to follow to create a fair society. Most people are confident enough to leave their house every day and travel on the roads and highways, with the reasonable assumption that they can get where they are going safely because rules are in place to guide people to drive responsibly. Would they take the chance to venture out if there were no speed limits, stop lights or rights-of-way? Why should the business world be any different? Shouldn't workers and investors be able to have the confidence that there are rules in place that make the most irresponsible excesses of business illegal or, at least, discouraged? Establishment of these long overdue rules is yet another reason the Democrats in Congress should be applauded.

Perhaps the most controversial accomplishment of the last year

and a half is the passage of the economic stimulus bill. Conservatives have worked the nation into a tizzy with hype about the growing deficit. Yes, it is true that the U.S. has a large deficit, and it's also true that Republicans have short memories. It was under Ronald Reagan that the deficit grew wildly and the U.S. went from being the largest creditor nation to largest debtor. It was the George W. Bush administration that made the situation far worse with the tax cuts for the wealthy that were passed by the Republican-controlled Congress.

It was also the Bush administration that took the surplus of the Clinton years and created a massive debt.

But now, Republicans want to talk about the deficit and scare people into thinking that it can only get better if they were in charge - betting against the memory of the people. (When presented with the idea of letting the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 - as they are scheduled to - Republicans respond by saying that the deficit doesn't matter as much as tax cuts for the wealthy. What they really mean is that they want to complain about the deficit only when it is convenient for them.)

Meanwhile, economic experts have been on record since before the stimulus, saying it needed to be larger. Conservatives succeeded in watering it down by hyperventilating about the deficit, yet none of them voted for it in the long run! (In the Senate, two Republican senators from Maine voted for the measure, along with Sen. Specter who was soon to join the Democrats; in the House, not a single Republican voted for it.) So the Democrats passed legislation that is credited with saving the economy from further ruin against virtually unified opposition.

If that's not enough for you, consider what the Republicans would do if back in control. They've already said they'd hold hearings on everything in the Obama administration they don't like, just like they did in the Clinton years, eventually hounding the president to the brink of impeachment. That's not only a waste of taxpayer money - which they claim to hold so sacred - but a waste of precious time that's needed to fix problems like climate change.

Given the opportunity, they'd also enact policies - tax cuts, deregulation, and the usual suspects - that are demonstrable failures. We already have thirty years of evidence in front of us that show that these policies don't work. It really could not be more clear.

No one can deny that the U.S. is in difficult times. It seems that many of those difficulties - especially those relating to the economy - stem from Republican policies. But in grand political tradition, the Republicans instead vilify the people who have actually made strides of progress - Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama - and blame the nation's problems on the hardest working among us. N.J. Gov. Chris Christie has spent the first eight months of his term holding out teachers, policemen and fire fighters - and their unions - as the gravest threat to our security and well being -- and Christie's become an aspiration to Republicans across the country! Indeed, Republicans in Congress held up much-needed funds for teachers and police just last month; Republican Rep. John Boehner went so far as to call the money "a bailout." If the Democrats wanted to wage a negative campaign, they could do worse than the slogan "Republicans Hurt Working People."

Democrats have been more effective controlling Congress in the last year and a half than almost any other time in decades. But there is still a lot more work to be done - the economy is still in trouble and our deadline on climate change is breathing down our necks, neither of which are problems the Republicans are equipped to handle. The Democrats deserve the chance to do it, without the harmful, obstructive and divisive policies and politics of the Republicans.

Congratulations, President-Elect Obama!

Well done!

10 Things You Don't Know About John McCain

The good folks at MoveOn.org have compiled this essential list of things the general public doesn't know about Senator John McCain.

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.

Sources: "The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day," ABC News, April 3, 2008 ; "McCain Facts," ColorOfChange.org, April 4, 2008

2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."

Sources: "McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq," Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008 ; "Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi,'" ThinkProgress, February 6, 2008

3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.

Source: "McCain Sides With Bush On Torture Again, Supports Veto Of Anti-Waterboarding Bill," ThinkProgress, February 20, 2008

4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."

Source: "McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned," MSNBC, February 18, 2007

5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.

Sources: "2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard," February 2008 ; "McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion," CNN, October 3, 2007

6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.

Sources: "Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady," Associated Press, April 3, 2008 ; "McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk,'" Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008

7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

Sources: "Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated Press, February 16, 2008 ;
"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27, 2008

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.

Sources: "Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist Influence: 'I Don't Know What The Criticism Is,'" ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008 ;
"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man," ABC News, January 29, 2008

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."

Sources: "McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam," Mother Jones Magazine, March 12, 2008 ; "Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay Comments?," ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008 ; "McCain 'Very Honored' By Support Of Pastor Preaching 'End-Time Confrontation With Iran,'" ThinkProgress, February 28, 2008

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.

Source: "John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His Environmental Record," Sierra Club, February 28, 2008

John McCain is not the person the Washington press corps make him out to be. Please help get the word out—forward this list to your friends.

The Most Dangerous Man In The Game - And The Lamest

Mike Huckabee has made a splash with evangelical Republican voters, who won the Iowa caucus for him, and many who have seen his speeches and interviews have been impressed with his low-key, calm demeanor. Huckabee's nice-guy persona is certainly a welcome change from George W. Bush's bluster and Mitt Romney's slick brand of corporate phoniness.

Even though Huckabee isn't favored to win the presidency (polls find each of the three Democrats candidates beating him), he is the most dangerous candidate to U.S. freedom and democracy: He wants to change the Constitution to suit his faith. Here is a quote from Huckabee on the campaign trail in Michigan On Monday, Jan. 14:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Among all the candidates, only Mitt Romney joins Huckabee in calling for a Constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage, but one gets the sense from Huckabee - who has never been shy about promoting his religious faith - that there is more in the Constitution that he'd like to change (and one also gets the sense that Romney's call for an amendment is just a ploy to get votes). How would the former Baptist preacher and Arkansas governor feel about enacting laws that follow the principle of separation of church and state? It doesn't sound like he'd be vigilant in that regard. As long as he and his supporters keep believing in the fallacy that the U.S. is a "Christian nation," they will continue to feel justified that their religious beliefs should be law.

Forget the fact that it would be extremely hard to change the Constitution, Huckabee's statement in Michigan tells us the kind of executive branch he would run. He'd likely follow Bush's example and forbid funding of stem cell research (in fact, Huckabee is the only GOP candidate who has given an unqualified answer to the question of stem cell research - he doesn't support it), and forbid foreign non-governmental organizations that receive USAID family planning funds from using their own, non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion services, lobby their own governments for abortion law reform, or even provide accurate medical counseling or referrals regarding abortion. As we've seen with the Bush administration, faith would influence Huckabee's decisions and guide his philosophy. Would he defer to his faith in the face of evidence to the contrary from science or culture? Our experience with the Bush administration doesn't give us confidence that he'd make decisions based on reason. After all, Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution. Would he appoint a secretary of education who did?

Ironically, the same freedom of religion which allows Huckabee and his followers to practice their beliefs as they see fit would be the first victim to a President Huckabee codifying his religion into law. We would then be one nation under his god.

Despite the scary implications, at least Huckabee is a candidate who expresses belief in something - and that may be part of his appeal. It would be hard to find a lamer candidate than Fred Thompson, who appears not to believe in anything and appears ready to take no action as president. Look at Thompsons's positions, such as they are: He wouldn't make any changes to education policy, and says only that he "favors school choice" (a euphemism for taking money away from public schools and giving it to private companies that run private schools). As for dealing with climate change, Thompson says he questions whether global warming caused by humans is real. (Translation: He'll do nothing to halt it.) He's running on a platform of no gun control, so he wouldn't do anything to keep guns from proliferating. At a time when the nation is having a dialogue about changing health care and confronting the crisis around it, Thompson has said he would let "the market, not Washington" handle it. (Translation: he would do nothing.) The war in Iraq? Thompson said he supports Bush's course, so he'd stay with it.

It would be hard to find two worse alternatives in this election than Huckabee and Thompson.

More info: The Christian Nation Myth

Is America a Christian Nation?

Fred Thompson: Too Lazy, Listless And Lame?

The GOP's Cynical Use of Religion

'The Kingdom' Of American Wish Fulfillment

Movies have long been the place where audiences see their dreams realized. People fall in love, win fortunes, find the perfect job and otherwise triumph over adversity. We know it's not always like that in the real world. But every once in a while, a movie comes along with a fantasy that just isn't healthy, and director Peter Berg's The Kingdom is such a film.

In The Kingdom, a terrorist attack occurs in Saudi Arabia, in a compound where the families of American employees of multi-national corporations live. U.S. intelligence agents make demands, twist arms and otherwise coerce their way into getting permission to enter Saudi Arabia - the kingdom of the film's title - so that they can investigate the crime that took the lives of their friends who were present at the time, despite the very clear instructions from the U.S. attorney general that they stay out of it. Apparently, the rule of law means little to Americans when revenge is at hand.

Once in Saudi Arabia, the agents are flustered and aggravated at having to comply with the rules and the customs of the Saudis. Jennifer Garner's character shows a combination of ignorance and disrespect when she meets a Saudi prince in a revealing tank top. The message to the audience is: These aren't messengers of diplomacy; to hell with Saudi customs, they have a job to do! Jamie Foxx's character is the leader and he is constantly playing the smart cop in another jurisdiction routine: "Just let me do my job because I know better than you! And I can solve this if you stop tying my hands!"

Just as Rambo once re-fought and won the Vietnam War, the Americans in The Kingdom are there to kick some terrorist ass and reassure American audiences that we could win the war on terror if only other countries' rules and laws weren't tying the hands of American tough guys (and gals).

A harrowing (and effectively suspenseful) climax has Jason Bateman's character kidnapped by terrorists, who bind and gag him, and set his execution up to be filmed, just as other torturous, real-life films of beheadings have made their way out of similar conflicts. Here is the film's inherent dishonesty: Just as the character is to be beheaded, the American agents burst into the room, killing all the terrorists and saving their friend. Using a situation that is beyond comprehension, the film suggests that American muscle can triumph over that which no one has yet been able to stop.

Early in the film, when word comes that one of their friends has been killed in the attack, Garner's character weeps. Foxx's character whispers to her, and she stops, but we aren't told until the very end what he said to her: "We're going to kill them all." That's the same sentiment that a dying terrorist leader whispers to his granddaughter near the film's end. You might think that the movie is showing how both sides are ignorant and that would be true, had we not just spent two hours seeing these U.S. agents who want to "kill them all" glorified as action heroes and problem solvers.

Newspaper ads for the film use a quote that proclaims it "the best movie of the year so far by far," according to a Fox News critic. Not surprising that the right-wing channel that has done it's best to legitimize American action in the Middle East and support a war that was a bad idea before it started would further encourage the public to see something positive in a movie that presents Americans only as do-gooders who are frustrated and hamstrung by other cultures. The movie is considered offensive enough that it has been banned in Bahrain and Kuwait, according to Daily Variety.

Anytime a movie presents itself as being topical, it owes a responsibility to the audience to present situations that bear some relation to reality. This film doesn't. Many Saudis - not just fundamentalists - resent the American presence in their country, and while the people that are victims of the attacks in the movie certainly don't deserve what happens to them, the real situation is more complex. American companies have been exploiting Saudi resources for decades, and an understanding of this would have provided a more complete picture for the film. Instead, it presents a simplistic portrait of a conflict that most audiences don't understand (especially since their ignorance is encouraged by the right-wing media), with characters descended from Rambo and other neanderthal tough guys.

The Kingdom is the most irresponsible movie in many years.

More info: Five Myths About U.S.-Saudi Relations

Frontline: Saudi Time Bomb?

Harvard International Review: The Saudi-US Relationship

Edwards: Most Electable?

While most people read about the squabbles between the Clinton and Obama campaigns, the slipping fortunes of the McCain campaign, and the foot-in-the-mouth blunders from both the Giuliani and Romney camps, one story is being ignored: In several polls from various sources, John Edwards beats each of the Republican contenders by larger margins in most cases than his Democratic challengers.

In polls taken in June and July by Zogby, Rasmussen and Newsweek , Edwards beats Fred Thompson by an average of 11%, beats Mitt Romney by an average of 12.4%, beats John McCain by an average of 7.3%, and beats Rudolph Giuliani by an average of 2% (which is still greater than Hillary's match-up with Giuliani which puts her ahead by 1%). Only Barack Obama comes out with a higher average margin of victory against Giuliani (3.2%), Thompson (13%) and Romney (13%). There is a summary of the polls on RealClearPolitics.

However, in the most recent Rasmussen report, Edwards has a 7-point lead over Giuliani, up from a 4-point lead in early June. Also, Rasmussen says that Republican voters are less opposed to Edwards than to Clinton or Obama. Giuliani and Thompson only get 68% of the Republican vote when pitted against Edwards.

Giuliani said recently that he was a "first responder" on 9/11 and that he was at Ground Zero "as much or more than" the workers who were digging through the rubble. Rudy will continue to draw as many connections as he can between himself and the events of that day. But many fire departments have complained that it was the Giuliani administration that short-changed them and made them lack necessary equipment that could have saved lives. Giuliani's comments - not to mention his lack of humility - show an insensitivity.

And Mitt Romney, when asked why none of his five sons were serving in the military, said that his sons were serving their country by trying to get him elected because "they think I will be a great president." No doubt there are thousands of Americans serving in Iraq who would rather work on a destined-to-fail political campaign instead of fighting in a war. Romney certainly can challenge Giuliani in the lack of sensitivity department.

Meanwhile, the Edwards campaign has been addressing matters of substance and talking specifics while the Republicans are beating their chests and making ill-considered quips. Edwards' health care plan remains the most thorough of those presented by any candidate (only Obama also has a substantive plan on the table). As pointed out earlier, Edwards has been setting the agenda for the Democratic contest by addressing issues and concerns that the other candidates must comment on.

UPDATE: Although not widely reported, Edwards won a California straw poll held in Los Angeles over the weekend by the California Democratic Council. The CDC is made up of Democratic clubs and organizations throughout the state. Edwards got 41% of the vote, while 20% were undecided. Obama placed next with 14%. Clinton received 8% of the vote.

More info: The Real Liberal

Edwards Struggles In Democratic Nomination Race, but Does Well in General Election Match-ups

Why the Summer of Love Remains Relevant

It has become commonplace to laugh about the Summer of Love. Conservatives, particularly, like to make fun of the excesses of that period, and some, like Ronald Reagan, built political careers by campaigning against the tenets of the counter-culture that built a movement around the notion of love.

The fact of the matter is that 1967 was anything but a peaceful, carefree period in history. The Vietnam War was heating up, with U.S. casualties mounting up to more than 11,000 that year alone, which was more than in the previous ten years combined. Race relations were deteriorating, despite (or perhaps as a consequence of) the progress of the civil rights movement, and destructive riots occurred in cities throughout the country. Anti-war forces got bigger and bolder, holding marches of previously unseen numbers, and the country found itself in a political divide unlike anything that preceded it.

Among this chaos and upheaval, people who believed in peace and understanding found a way to flourish. To some whose adherence to traditional political dogma was ingrained, it seemed a selfish, indulgent exercise, and a silly one at that. What were the hippies really accomplishing, other than "dropping out" of society, as Timothy Leary suggested? But to those with a more intellectual and open mind, the Summer of Love was an exercise in defiance, an entire way of thinking that evolved from the peaceful disobedience of the civil rights movement, and a way of being that wasn't dictated by government or corporate influence. After all, if all you need is love, how can Madison Avenue sell you things you don't really need? If you were to "get together and smile on your brother" (as the Youngbloods' song suggested), how can the government convince you to join the military and kill those they deem your enemies?

As historian Sean Wilentz points out in a recent article, the cultural divide that came to the fore in 1967 is still separating Americans today, and hasn't ever gone away. Reagan and his eventual running mate George H.W. Bush supported Barry Goldwater for president in 1964, and carried on the conservative cause in the decades that followed. Current president George W. Bush has been most damning to the peaceful side of the cultural divide. The country has another war with no end in sight, and another president who places himself and his administration above the law. Forty years ago, the U.S. had a Supreme Court that protected the rights of the powerless and strengthened individual liberties. Now, a Court packed with conservatives serves big business and gives government more power and individuals less of a voice.

Even if the Summer of Love couldn't hold sway over politics, it did permanently alter the nature of art, music, film and other creative endeavors. The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, released June 1, 1967, has been considered a cultural landmark for 40 years, and remains one of the most important works of art ever created. Music and art have always reflected the philosophy of the artists, but this period introduced the widespread acceptance of philosophical ideas in commercial, popular entertainment that could reach a vast audience. It changed the way we communicated, and now, it would be hard to imagine reaching any audience - commercial, political, artistic, even religious - without some sway from popular culture.

The lessons in the Summer of Love are there for all to see. You don't have to endorse drug use or promiscuity to appreciate the idea that human beings can live in a peaceful setting if they work at it instead of working for the purpose of war or material accumulation. It seems a far more radical idea to suggest that working for a peaceful society is not a desirable goal. Yet that's exactly what Vice President Dick Cheney said when he declared that he thought the nature of man was war, not peace. There's been little in the administrations of the last five Republican presidents to suggest that they care at all for peace, and the idea of love or understanding seems lost on them -- unless it's understanding the love of avarice.

This point is well illustrated in Mike Myers' comedy Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, when the title character confronts his nemesis, Dr. Evil:

Dr. Evil:

Isn't it ironic, Mr. Powers, that the very things you stand for -- swinging, free love, parties, distrust of authority- are all now... considered to be... evil? Maybe we have more in common than you care to admit.

Austin:

No, man, what we swingers were rebelling against were uptight squares like you, whose bag was money and world domination. We were innocent, man. If we'd known the consequences of our sexual liberation, we would have done things differently, but the spirit would have remained the same. It's freedom, man.

Pictures of young people in colorful clothes with flowers in their hair, meditating in a park somewhere, needn't be dismissed as silly anachronisms. Look at them as a portal to a different way of living, and an alternative solution to a culture of greed and war.

More info: The Hippie Era Just Won't Die

San Francisco: The Start of the Revolution

Counterculture of the Sixties

The Sixties: Years Of Hope, Days Of Rage (book review)

'Six Years of Deceit' On Global Warming

"Six Years of Deceit" is essential reading in the latest issue of Rolling Stone. Tim Dickinson lays out how the Bush administration set out to ease environmental regulations, despite rhetoric to the contrary that they were interested in protecting the environment or increasing the nation's response to global warming.

Through the Freedom of Information Act, the magazine was able to obtain thousands of pages of internal documents that show the administration led an effort to mislead the public on the issues and create doubts about generally-accepted scientific conclusions. All of which, they believe, justify their inaction in the face of the changes that most credible scientists say are happening and will only get worse - in some cases, exponentially worse.

The article quotes Rick Plitz, who once worked in the Bush administration, who said the real issue was "a political clientele that does not want to be regulated." Meanwhile, the president went out and proclaimed that "We must and we will conserve more in the United States," but yet saw to it that federal efficiency programs had their funding cut by about one-third. All of the administration's proposals involve voluntary participation, leaving it up to industries that have business interests to the contrary to do what is in the best interests of the nation and the world. The president calls this approach "flexible," but it is really just naive.

Like the war in Iraq, this administration's position on global warming and efforts to correct it seem set in stone. They're simply not going to change any of their policies in the next 19 months, and the harmful effects of their inaction will be the responsibility of the next administration, making it all the more essential that a different kind of leader be chosen to succeed George Bush.

["Six Years Of Deceit" can be read online here. The article can also be found in the June 28, 2007, issue of Rolling Stone.]

More info: Global Warming - A Real Solution by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Bush's Global Warming Foot-Dragging
Will Ferrell: Bush on Global Warming

Congress Doesn't Learn Vietnam's Lesson, Iraq War Drags On

The war is dragging on. It has now lasted longer that World War II. Yesterday, Congress failed to authorize a plan that would block funding of the Iraq war beyond April 1 of next year, meaning, in all likelihood, that the war will continue past that date. President Bush has said the war will not end on his watch, which means it will continue at least until his successor is sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009.

Withdrawl of funding for the war is the best chance anyone has to stop the Bush administration and end the war. Congress is authorized to do so under the law, and with public sentiment running so high against the war, it's a wonder they did not.

The bill introduced by Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) would have limited funds after April 1 to training Iraqi forces and for counter-terrorism efforts. A tepid, competing bill from Republicans, which was also defeated, would only have required Bush to present "progress reports" in July and September, with only the possibility that foreign aid could be withheld if certain benchmarks weren't met. A provision added to the Republican bill at the insistence of the White House would have allowed Bush to waive any penalties. In short, it was a bill with no teeth and did not challenge the administration.

To their credit, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted for the Democratic measure, which will no doubt please their Democratic supporters. John Edwards has been calling on Congress to cut off funding for the war for months now. By contrast, all of the Republican presidential candidates have said they will continue the war in one fashion or another (although their tune may change when they reach a general election where they have to appeal to a majority of Americans rather than the rapid right-wing base).

Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) described the need to end the war as soon as possible. He said, "How many more soldiers do we have to bury? How many more do we have to bring into our military and veterans hospitals? How many more thousands of innocent Iraqis have to die before we finally accept our responsibility to bring this war to an end?" In a statement, Edwards stressed the historical need for the war funding to be cut: "In 1971, Congress repealed the resolution authorizing the Vietnam War - and the war continued for four long years until Congress stopped funding it."

When generals and analysts have said there is no military solution to the war in Iraq, what can be gained by continuing the U.S. military presence there? It seems what U.S. politicans who have supported the war feel is most at stake is their careers. There's no other logical explantion for continuing this effort, which seems, like Vietnam, fated to end badly for the U.S.

In the early 1970s, Congress considered 18 proposals to restrict funding for military operations in Southeast Asia, and only five were enacted. Congress never actually cut off funds for U.S. combat operations in Vietnam itself while American troops were there, despite efforts to do just that. Combatting calls for the end of war funding, President Ford said the U.S. couldn't "abandon our friends while our adversaries support and encourage theirs." Sound familiar? Congress eventually stopped funding, and the war ended.

It's unfortunate that in more than 30 years, Congress hasn't learned anything. The deaths of many more Americans and Iraqis are sure to come in the next few years, while the countdown to the end of the war ticks away. By not ending the funding now, Congress and the Bush administration are causing the misery of thousands. All of which isn't necessary, since the lessons of history show that the end of the war - without what Bush considers "victory" - is inevitable.

More info: Echoes From an Earlier Conflict

No military solution to Iraq, U.S. general says

Experts Speak: No Good Military Options in Iran

There is no military solution for Iraq, only a political one

How Many Deaths Will It Take?

As news of the horrific scene at Virginia Tech unfolded yesterday, some pundits said now was not the time to start talking about gun control, saying that it would be an exploitation of the tragedy for political purposes. President Bush said "now is not the time" for a debate, and he said it should wait until "we're actually certain about what happened." But only someone opposed to gun control would say such a thing. If now is not the time to discuss greater gun control, when is? It's only a political issue because lines have been drawn by the political parties.

Virginia has among the most lenient gun laws in the country. There are no requirements for licensing or training, and if one buys a weapon at gun show, there is no background check or waiting period. If a person completes a background check, Virginia law requires that a concealed carry permit be issued to anyone who applies. (Virginia does not allow guns to be carried on school campuses.)

Contrary to what most people are told, the U.S. Constitution doesn't give everyone the right to own a gun. The Second Amendment conveys the right "to keep and bear arms" for the purposes of maintaining a well-regulated militia. This was written in the days before there were federal armed forces, state police, local police and so forth. In the absence of a need for a militia made up of citizens, there is no right to own a gun.

That realization is anathema to gun owners and members of the National Rifle Association, the premier special interest group in the nation, which has fought all reasonable attempts at gun control. Nothing less than completely un-regulated gun ownership will satisfy the extremists at the NRA, which is among the richest and most powerful of all lobbying groups and which can strike fear in politicians seeking to win elections. During the news broadcasts of the events yesterday, Fox News host John Gibson gave the right-wing party line: If other students or faculty had been armed, they could have defended themselves and others. It seems, to gun advocates, that the answer to violence is more violence. Preventing violence has never occurred to them. Of course, the NRA is also supported by corporations that make and sell weapons, so there is an inherent conflict of interest and a self-serving nature of their position.

Not all politicians cower to the gun lobby: Barack Obama has gone on record before this latest incident, saying the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons should be banned, state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms should be increased, and manufacturers should be required to provide child-safety locks with firearms. He also supports lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

John Edwards has said in the past he supports closing the gun-show loophole and preventing convicted criminals of owning guns. Edwards has also said, however, that gun ownership is about "independence," and he supports the right to own them. He nevertheless said he supports lawsuits that would hold gun manufacturers accountable. Hillary Clinton has advocated registering and licensing all handgun sales, and has said "there are too many guns and too many children have access." In the Senate, Clinton voted against the bill that would have granted the gun industry immunity from lawsuits.

Rudy Giuliani has said that "just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun." John McCain, who has said in the past that he favors safety locks on guns, voted against gun control legislation in the Senate. McCain voted against the assault weapons ban of 1994 (which President Bush allowed to expire in 2004) and also voted against the Brady Bill, which would have required a five-day waiting period for gun buyers.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney said in the past he supported the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill, but lately - as he courts Republican voters - he has shied away from being a strong gun-control advocate and instead, his campaign describes him as someone who has worked to ease gun-control laws.

The NRA and people who support unrestricted gun laws foster a culture of violence. Indeed, the notion that everyone should be armed encourages it. There is another way, led by people who believe a more peaceful existence is possible. It starts with legitimate, strong gun control legislation, and with efforts like the one by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to hold gun manufacturers accountable.

But as long as the likes of the Bush Administration is in charge, none of this will come to pass. The Bush Administration, along with the gun lobby and its allies in Congress, suppressed crime gun trace data, exposing the complicity of gun dealers in supplying the illegal gun market in order to aid gun makers in civil court cases and shield the industry from negative public attention.

Despite the fact that polls find gun control has strong support from Americans, there is unlikely to be any changes in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings. That's because Democrats - and Bill Clinton - believe the passage of the Brady Bill in 1993 and the assault weapons ban in 1994 led to the defeat of the Democrats in the 1994 Congressional elections, due to the intense lobbying of the NRA. Al Gore's failure to win states in the south in 2000 is also blamed on the NRA, to some degree, and their mischaracterization of his position. The NRA did the same thing to John Kerry in 2004. It matters little that gun control has broad public support, or that most law-enforcement agencies around the country support it, since the NRA's scare tactics have made the issue toxic for politicians.

As a general rule, however, no politician who takes money from the gun manufacturers or has support of the NRA can be taken seriously on gun control. Eight years after the shootings at Columbine, with all the other shootings since - including last year's incident at an Amish school in rural Pennsylvania - the country's lax gun legislation is the same. Families who have suffered losses from these senseless acts of violence deserve better than to see our national well-being held hostage by the likes of the NRA. Again, if now is not the time to talk about these issues, when? If this generation doesn't start to correct the epidemic of gun violence, who will?

More info: A Case For Gun Control

A Tragedy of Monumental Proportions

Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence

Bowling For Columbine: Teacher's Guide

What Took So Long?

Don Imus was fired, and it's about damn time.

As a radio personality, Imus was always more than a little obnoxious, but that was his "voice," and so be it. But for more than 25 years, he exhibited an attitude toward people of other colors and sexes that can only be classified as racist and sexist. Maybe it's the culture that finally became advanced enough in 2007 to say that his behavior isn't acceptable. Why wasn't he fired in the early 1980s when he dedicated the Queen song "Another One Bites The Dust" to the children of Atlanta, during the Atlanta child murders of that period? Thirty black children and young adults were killed in a two-year period, starting in 1979. Why did Imus never apologize to their families? Or to the Atlanta community? Why did the company that broadcast him never say "You went too far; we don't want to be the station that has that kind of misanthropy on the airwaves"?

Thirteen years ago, in 1994, Imus played a song that advised President Clinton on how to handle the Paula Jones situation: "Pimp slap the ho." Imus' sidekick and executive producer Bernard McGuirk recently said Hillary Clinton, after her speech in Selma, Alabama, would have "corn-rows and gold teeth" by the time her campaign against Barack Obama was finished. He also called her "a bitch." Back in the '90s, Imus referred to a black New York Times reporter as "the cleaning lady."

As New York Times columnist Bob Herbert pointed out this week, a 60 Minutes segment on Imus from 1998 confronts him with evidence that he said McGuirk was there "to do nigger jokes." Imus admitted using that word. And yet, his employers, his broadcasters did nothing. Imus regularly called Arabs "ragheads," called women "skanks," used many dismissive terms for Jewish people ("thieving Jews," "beanie-wearing little Jew boy"), and used several gay epithets, such as "lesbo" and "faggot."

What is it about talk radio that brings out the sort of people who routinely use this kind of demeaning language? Perhaps in their search for greater ratings, networks use the lowest common denominator to get the most listeners. That would be nothing new -- television networks have done it for years. (Fear Factor, anyone?) As the web site MediaMatters.org points out on a regular basis, the airwaves are full of personalities who spew bigotry on every day. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael Savage are but a few of the "commentators" that remind us every day that racism and sexism are not old prejudices that have been conquered, but rather vibrant cancers that need constant vigilance. An excellent piece today by Harvey Fierstein shows how far the culture still has to go.

Imus' defenders have said that CBS and MSNBC acted hastily and that a national dialogue should have been started on these issues. Assuming that what we've heard for the last ten days wasn't a national dialogue, what is it they wanted to discuss? Whether racist comedy is okay? Whether we want to give it legitimacy by having it fester on the airwaves? Who is the dialogue with, Michael Richards? Perhaps the end result of the dialogue was that people convinced advertisers not to support public personalities who demean others based on race and sex.

Don't anyone cry for Imus. He's going to retire with hundreds of millions of dollars and live very well the rest of his life. But his 30 years on the radio, unfortunately, left many people with the notion that making fun of someone's color is okay and demeaning someone because of their gender or religion or sexual orientation is too. Despite the money he made, that's a pretty shameful way to have lived your life.

More info: It's Not Just Imus (A Media Matters Report)
Imus' Words: Recognizing Real Racism by Jon Landau
Paying the Price (New York Times subscription required)
Our Prejudices, Ourselves by Harvey Fierstein

Obama Shows There's Money In Politics Without Lobbyists

Barack Obama's impressive first-quarter fund-raising says a lot about how this presidential race is shaping up. The $25 million his campaign has reported for the first three months of 2007 nearly matches Hillary Clinton's tally, and Obama lists 100,000 donors, more than twice the number Clinton lists. Obama's appeal could be broader, and a large donor base such as that could give him an advantage in the months ahead, when contributors get tired of writing checks every quarter.

The larger point that Obama's fund-raising illustrates is the strong support Democratic candidates have over their Republican counterparts. Democrats have raised about $80 million, while Republicans have raised about $50 million. The difference is striking because Republicans - long the party of the very wealthy and of corporate favor - have always held a financial advantage in fund-raising contests. Among the top three Democratic candidates, they list nearly 200,000 contributors. Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney list 60,000 and 33,000 contributors, respectively. (Rudy Guiliani's campaign did not disclose the number of donors.)

Republican candidate McCain was thought to be the favorite for his party's nomination, but yet his funds lagged Guiliani and Romney. McCain raised $12.5 million to Guiliani's nearly $15 million and Romney's $20 million. That news couldn't have come at a worse time for McCain, who has been severely criticized for his claims that the Baghdad streets are getting safer. Both western journalists and Baghdad merchants have said McCain is dead wrong for claiming that Americans can walk around without protection and that segments of the city are secure. That McCain walked around Baghdad wearing a bullet-proof vest with dozens of soldiers in tow and helicopters overhead seemed almost an admission of his mistake. Hardly what the people expect from the "straight talk" candidate.

Before the announcement of his first-quarter totals, Obama was quoted as saying he raised "obscene" amounts of money. He's right, of course, but for right now, that's how the game is played. Candidates who want to be competitive need very large sums of money. The influence of money in politics assures that those with large amounts of it can participate, while those who can't afford it must sit on the sidelines and watch. Money has been declared to be protected speech, which begs the question: What does no money mean? No speech? Once upon a time, citizens had to own property to be able to vote. We've now reached a point where people have to have large amounts of money to participate in elections, and since only the very wealthy have that kind of money to spread around, most people are left out and apathetic about a process that doesn't include them.

But that, too, is a notion that is being challenged in this election. John Edwards - whose campaign raised more than $14 million - said that 80% of all contributions were $100 or less.Thousands of Obama's supporters contributed only $25 or less - some as little as $5. What this says is that anyone with enough money for a pack of cigarettes or popcorn at the movies can participate. Internet fundraising is also leveling the field and allowing people of modest means to have a say in the election. Both Obama and Edwards have made use of Internet techniques to their advantage. Both candidates maintain their connection to their supporters over the web, as does Clinton. Any campaign that isn't sending e-mails to supporters on a virtually daily basis - keeping people informed of their policies and the status of their campaigns, and just letting them know they're still alive - isn't using the Internet effectively. Every e-mail doesn't have to be a request for money (and shouldn't be), but constant communication, along with alerts to public and television appearances, is a great alternative to reliance on the media.

Ultimately, what is really needed is public financing of all elections, along with a requirement that all broadcasters - as part of the public interest requirement for their broadcast license - provide free air time to the candidates. (After all, most money in elections goes to fund expensive television ad time.) That will really be a huge step to stopping the poisonous influence of corporate money on political contests. To get to that point, though, leaders like Obama and Edwards are needed, because the George W. Bushes of the political world are never going to limit the influence of money, since that's what got them there in the first place.

Edwards and Obama have each said in statements that none of the money they raised in the first quarter came from political action committees or federal lobbyists, and that their campaigns are not accepting such funds. If that had been the rule rather than the exception, how much would the other candidates have raised? If all politicians had done the same years ago, there's no way someone like George Bush would have become president. Think of all the lives that could have been saved. That's what's at stake with money in politics, and why such change is necessary.

More info: Is Money Equal To Free Speech?

Obama Raises $25 million, Challenges Clinton's Front-Runner Status

Obama Testimony On Reducing Lobbyist Influence

Romney Chooses Running Mates - If That's Okay With James Dobson

Despite an unsettled field for the Republican presidential nomination, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is already talking about potential vice-presidential running mates. At a campaign stop in South Carolina, he threw out the names of South Carolina's own conservative governor, Mark Sanford, the ethically-challenged former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and the religious right's favorite son, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

The move is, of course, presumptuous, but Romney must be willing to risk seeming a little arrogant so that he can convince conservatives that he's their guy. The extreme right-wing of the Republican Party hasn't been happy with front-runners Romney, Rudy Guiliani and John McCain. They're not even happy with Fred Thompson, former senator from Tennessee, who is said to be considering a run, and looking to fill a void for the religious right. (Doesn't look like that's happening, at least not if James Dobson - the hard right's voice - has anything to say.)

Romney had the nicest things to say about Jeb Bush, saying that "I love him." Then, seemingly admitting that President George W. Bush's standing with the public is a problem, he added "If his name weren't Bush, he'd be running for president, I'm convinced." How lucky for the rest of us that the younger Bush didn't adopt a stage name, or we'd see a continuation of this dynasty of disaster. Sanford is an obvious name to drop for anyone hoping to score points with the conservative voters in South Carolina. Christian conservatives tried to enlist Sanford himself as a presidential candidate, although he declined.

Meanwhile, conservative religious guru James Dobson, who seems to think he's choosing the next president all by himself, said Romney "can't win" because "there are conservative Christians who will not vote for him because of his Mormon faith." Out the vast field of candidates, Dobson only had good things to say about Gingrich, whom he called "the brightest guy out there." It seems Newt must be a shining example of religious redemption for Dobson to praise him like that.

The Republican Party is being held hostage by religious conservatives like Dobson, since every candidate seems to feel the need to genuflect to the religious right. McCain's gone back on his comments that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were "agents of intolerance" and even Guiliani - tough guy from Brooklyn - seems to feel it is necessary to qualify those of his socially-moderate stances that the religious right doesn't like.

Romney - who has his own troubles with the religious conservatives who don't like his back-tracking on gay rights and his Mormon faith - is clearly trying to gain favor with them by choosing three potential running mates that he knows the right approves: Sanford, whom they tried to enlist; Bush, who's been called one of the religious right's "strongest elected officials;" and Gingrich, who practically has Dobson's Focus on the Family seal of approval stamped on his forehead. All of which is designed to get an endorsement from Dobson, who claims he only talks about politics as "a private individual," so as not to upset the non-profit status of his group.

If ever there was anybody who needed a tax audit, it's Dobson. To paraphrase George Carlin, if he wants to talk politics and influence elections, let him pay his admission fee like everyone else.

More info: Romney Lists Potential Running Mates
Christian Right Labors To Find '08 Candidate
James Dobson is set to topple the political establishment