A Forgotten Issue

The fact that John Edwards is the first “front tier” candidate to declare his intention to run for president is newsworthy in itself, but the way he chose to make his announcement was even more so.

Standing in blue jeans and work boots in a New Orleans neighborhood devastated by Katrina, he spoke of poverty and citizen activism. The location was chosen because, to him, it symbolized his campaign theme of two Americas and was exemplary in both positive and negative senses, as a symbol of citizen action and government inaction. It symbolized “the power of ordinary citizens to take responsibility for their own futures” but it also symbolized the government’s incompetence in the aftermath of Katrina and its refusal to treat the issue of poverty as a moral imperative.

More and more, Edwards has become reminiscent of another Democratic presidential candidate from 40 years ago. And although John Edwards and Bobby Kennedy will ultimately be defined by the times in which they lived, their similarities may outnumber their differences. Each were tempered by a personal tragedy that fundamentally altered their life, and each (at the time of their presidential campaign) was a one-term senator with youthful good lucks, personal wealth, a fairly liberal voting record, and a thick accent that highlighted their regional upbringing. Moreover, each led a campaign focused on the issue of poverty that called on all Americans to do their part and to be patriotic for “something other than war.”

But it’s also true that Edwards doesn’t necessarily embody all of which made Bobby Kennedy who he was. After all, we may never see another candidate capable of invoking that same level of passion among the electorate. We knew Bobby too well. Because of his family, he was constantly under the spotlight. We watched him achieve unprecedented professional success at a young age, and we watched him suffer through overwhelming personal tragedy. Many supported him and what he represented, but many others felt personally vested in him. When war and bigotry divided our country, he was the one we turned to. He was the standard bearer of hope and reassurance capable of uniting us again. After Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed, it seemed as if he was the only one left.

To the impoverished mining families of Appalachia, it may have initially seemed awkward to bear their soul to a young millionaire senator from New York, but that feeling soon faded. For once, someone was there to listen; someone who embodied compassion and sincerity and strove to not only speak, but to act on their behalf. And he had the ability and influence to make good on his promises. Far from a phony, he was a saint. He became an advocate for those with no voice of their own; a true champion of the people.

Today, Edwards (the southern populist) speaks to that same issue but it’s unclear how effective he will be. After all, the issue of poverty is looked upon quite differently than it was 40 years ago. Unlike RFK and to his credit, Edwards is actually a product of humble beginnings (a mill worker’s son) and can credit his ambition and hard work, not his family estate, for his personal wealth. In fact, it is a wealth earned from years of representing the interests of everyday Americans who fell victim to powerful corporations and insurance companies. As a result, representing the powerless is natural to him because it’s an issue that he knows all too well. Long before Katrina brought renewed attention to the issue of poverty, Edwards was speaking on behalf of impoverished America and highlighting the moral responsibility of our government to provide for those less fortunate. In February of 2005, his efforts led to the establishment of a Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Depending upon its resonance with the American people, I’m hopeful that Edwards can adapt his message effectively throughout the upcoming campaign. But in doing so, it’s imperative that he not undermine the needed focus and moral clarity that conveying this message provides. The issue of poverty is conspicuously absent from today’s political discourse and the people are desperately looking for a capable new voice, a new champion. Like Bobby Kennedy 40 years ago, John Edwards may be the only one left for us to turn to.

It's the Tribes, Stupid

While researching a book about Alexander the Great's counter-guerrilla campaign in Afghanistan, author Steven Pressfield drew some parallels to our current Middle East misadventure and provides an interesting perspective worth the read.

Pressfield's contention is that we have to fully understand the history and meaning of "tribes", before we can fully understand the enemy we face today. Although it's a bit overly-simplified, Pressfield raises some interesting points by reflecting on the lessons of history, particularly from Alexander.

"...the clash of East and West is at bottom not about religion. It's about two different ways of being in the world. Those ways haven't changed in 2300 years. They are polar antagonists, incompatible and irreconcilable. The West is modern and rational; its constituent unit is the nation. The East is ancient and visceral; its constituent unit is the tribe."

"In the end, unless we're ready to treat them they way we did Geronimo, the tribe is unbeatable. They're just too crazy. They're not like us. Tolerance and open-mindedness are not virtues to them; they're signs of weakness. The tribe is too rigid to bend, and it can't be negotiated with. Perhaps in the end, our leaders, like Alexander, will figure some way to bring the tribal foe around. More likely in my opinion, they'll arrive at the same conclusion as did Lord Roberts, the legendary British general. Lord Roberts fought (and defeated militarily) tribesmen in two bloody wars in Afghanistan in the 19th century. His conclusion: get out. Lord Roberts' axiom was that the farther away British forces remained from the tribesmen, the more likely the tribesmen were to feel warmly toward them; the closer he got, the more they hated him and the more stubbornly and implacably they fought against him."

Dereliction of Duty

In difficult times, particularly during a war, the American people should seek and find reassurance from a President who speaks to their heart and provides them a vision of a better tomorrow. Sadly, we are far from that ideal today. While our brave young men and women continue to die on the streets of Iraq, we turn to the White House for answers and leadership. All we get in return is political posturing and a level of incompetence that borders on criminal. How else could you describe a so-called policy that flies in the face of the realities on the ground and results in over 100 American dead each and every month? The words of George McGovern ring true almost 40 years after they were first spoken: “I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in.”

Most recently, it appears that the President and Joint Chiefs are at odds over the troop levels in Iraq. This latest debate within the Administration is particularly significant because it illustrates how isolated and misguided the President truly is. When the Joint Chiefs wanted the additional troops necessary to secure the country after Baghdad had fallen, the President refused because of the political implications. The Administration wanted to win the war quickly and on the cheap, and an increase in troops would have sent the wrong message….particularly with a Presidential election around the corner. Now, the President is on the flip side of that argument, potentially changing course over the objections of a military establishment who has made it clear that he simply waited too long to do so.

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn -- then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities. Even the announcement of a time frame and mission -- such as for six months to try to secure volatile Baghdad -- could play to armed factions by allowing them to game out the new U.S. strategy, the chiefs have warned the White House.

The fact that this is a public topic of conversation is encouraging in itself considering the role played by the Joint Chiefs in the lead up to the war. That role was nothing less than a severe dereliction of duty and a subjugation of authority, perpetuated because of the overbearing personality of a Secretary of Defense who placed the personal consolidation of power over the integrity of the uniformed services. Instead of providing military advice directly to the President as dictated by law, their advice was filtered (and often co-opted) by Rumsfeld. As a result, they fiddled while Iraq burned….Rumsfeld ruled the Pentagon with a complicent Joint Chiefs lurking in the shadows, silently nodding in agreement.

It’s been said that the morale of the uniformed personnel in the Pentagon skyrocketed the moment Secretary Gates assumed office. Hopefully it’s a sign of what’s to come. We should also be hopeful that the trip by Gates to Iraq this week is an indication that he will be the engaged and independent presence that this debate (and this White House) desperately needs.

ICEd Out

With imperfect timing, federal agents raided meatpacking plant in six states, arresting hundreds of workers on the charge of identity theft. Immigration, and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents "...some dressed in riot gear, locked down six beef and pork processing plants early in the morning, segregating workers into groups of citizens and non-citizens after questioning." Besides being an unusually coordinated effort targeting people here illegally, ICE’s efforts were unique because they are charging most of these people with identity theft.

Certainly, stealing social security numbers is wrong. But what message is conveyed when people steal social security numbers for the purpose of getting a job in meatpacking plants? Anyone who has read Upton Sinclair’s "The Jungle" remembers the gory details of meatprocessing industry. While it is not as gruesome today, it is still a dirty, tough job.

What this story highlights is that there is a demand for labor that is not being fully met. There are people willing to work in those jobs, only they live across the border. Furthermore, this highlights a flawed immigration policy that is so cumbersome it discourages people from following the law. It is also a policy that is unenforceable without a significant increase in allocation of resources. Resources that we don’t have, and would probably be better spent elsewhere.

Without reasonable legal means, that are not so cumbersome and bureaucratic that it discourages people from seeking legal entry, many of the immigrants seeking blue collar jobs will continue to cross our border illegally. Cracking down on identity theft is great, but in this case it reveals the flaws of our un-American immigration laws. Un-American because our policies highlight our our most base fears, rather than our most valued principles.

The Silence of a Father

There was a good read by Ruth Marcus in the Post this weekend. The topic was Mary Cheney, the Vice President’s openly-gay and pregnant daughter. Normally, I subscribe to the school of thought that says family members of politicians are off-limits. However, I also believe there are certain circumstances when their words or their actions deserve some scrutiny because of their significance. Mary Cheney is a good example.

I think that most reasonable people would agree that it’s perfectly legitimate for gay men and women (or family members of gay men and women) to identify themselves as members of the Republican Party. Perhaps the policies in which they subscribe, those considered traditionally conservative, fall more under the Republican ideological umbrella. That's understandable.

What I can't understand, and what I find both hypocritical and immoral (and perhaps masochistic) is when those same men and women support candidates and elected officials in their party who claim (generally with religious justification) that they or their loved ones are lesser people simply because of their sexual preference. Beyond any comprehension, it happens time and time again.

Marcus writes: “My only regret about Mary Cheney's pregnancy is that it didn't happen earlier - say, during the 2004 presidential race, when Cheney was working for her father's campaign and his running mate was busy trying to write discrimination against people like her into the Constitution. Imagine a hugely pregnant Mary Cheney sitting in the vice president's box at the convention. Imagine Cheney and her partner, Heather Poe, cuddling their newborn onstage at the victory celebration. How perfectly that would have illustrated the clanging disconnect between the Republican Party's outmoded intolerance and the benign reality of gay families today.”

And if you think the Vice President’s daughter is off-limits to members of his party, think again. Take for instance Alan Keyes, the Illinois ’04 Republican Senatorial candidate. After characterizing homosexuality as "selfish hedonism," Keyes was asked if his assertion meant that Mary Cheney was "a selfish hedonist." Without blinking an eye, he replied "Of course she is. That goes by definition." When asked, the Cheneys simply said they chose not to dignify the statement with a response. Keep in mind that it was a statement made by the Republican Party’s candidate for U.S. Senate in one of our nation’s most populous states.

In the Senate itself, Rick Santorum once claimed that outlawing same-sex marriage and protecting "traditional" marriage was the ultimate homeland security. During that same debate, Senator Jim Inhofe pointed to a picture of his family and claimed “As you see here, and I think this is maybe the most important prop we'll have during the entire debate, my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce or any kind of a homosexual relationship.” Now that is something to be proud of!

While the rhetoric and literature used on the campaign trail is nothing short of appalling, the demonizing of homosexuals in the United States Congress is a tragic illustration of how an uncivil and intolerant mentality has become institutionalized, mostly amongst Members of the Vice-President’s own party. To me, it seems a perfect opportunity for him, particularly given his elected office and personal situation, to speak out and provide much-needed moral clarity on such a divisive issue.

Instead of condemning intolerance for what it is, calling off the attack dogs, and defending the dignity of his daughter, he chooses to place a higher priority on winning elections. Throughout his deafening silence, the defamation continues. Because of that defamation, thousands of men and women are forced to secretly live in shame because they are called immoral, and are forced to live in fear because others claim they are a threat to you and your family. While the words of a Vice President couldn’t change things over night, the words of a loving father would be a good first step.

As Marcus ponders, “Perhaps Cheney's high-profile pregnancy will help the Republican Party come to grips with those facts of life. If not, though, she's going to have to explain to her child what mommy was doing trying to help a party that doesn't believe in fairness for families like theirs.”

The Conscious of the Senate

Last Wednesday, Senator Gordon Smith woke up to news that another ten American soldiers were killed in Iraq. They were victims of roadside bombs; players in a tragic scenario that we’ve seen play out time and time again over the past 3 years.

Within the Senate, there are a rare few individuals who seek not glory, but to do what’s right. They are often the most productive legislators because they occupy that high ground somewhere between their more partisan colleagues, and the folks on the other side of the aisle. Respected by nearly all, they are often the glue that holds the Senate together. They seldom rock the boat, and when they speak out they tend to represent the very conscious of the Senate. Senator Smith is such a Senator.

Later that Wednesday, Senator Smith took the Senate floor to speak his own conscious:

“I rise tonight, however, to speak about a subject heavy on my mind. It is the subject of the war in Iraq. I have never worn the uniform of my country. I am not a soldier or a veteran. I regret that fact. It is one of the regrets of my life. But I am a student of history, particularly military history, and it is that perspective which I brought to the Senate 10 years ago as a newly elected Member of this Chamber.

When we came to the vote on Iraq, it was an issue of great moment for me. No issue is more difficult to vote on than war and peace, because it involves the lives of our soldiers, our young men and women. It involves the expenditure of our treasure, putting on the line the prestige of our country. It is not a vote taken lightly. I have tried to be a good soldier in this Chamber. I have tried to support our President, believing at the time of the vote on the war in Iraq that we had been given good intelligence and knowing that Saddam Hussein was a menace to the world, a brutal dictator, a tyrant by any standard, and one who threatened our country in many different ways, through the financing and fomenting of terrorism. For those reasons and believing that we would find weapons of mass destruction, I voted aye.

I have been rather silent on this question ever since. I have been rather quiet because, when I was visiting Oregon troops in Kirkuk in the Kurdish area, the soldiers said to me: Senator, don't tell me you support the troops and not our mission. That gave me pause. But since that time, there have been 2,899 American casualties. There have been over 22,000 American men and women wounded. There has been an expenditure of $290 billion a figure that approaches the expenditure we have every year on an issue as important as Medicare. We have paid a price in blood and treasure that is beyond calculation by my estimation.

Now, as I witness the slow undoing of our efforts there, I rise to speak from my heart. I was greatly disturbed recently to read a comment by a man I admire in history, one Winston Churchill, who after the British mandate extended to the peoples of Iraq for 5 years, wrote to David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of England: At present we are paying 8 millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano. When I read that, I thought, not much has changed. We have to learn the lessons of history and sometimes they are painful because we have made mistakes.

Even though I have not worn the uniform of my country, I, with other colleagues here, love this Nation. I came into politics because I believed in some things. I am unusually proud of the fact of our recent history, the history of our Nation since my own birth. At the end of the Second World War, there were 15 nations on earth that could be counted as democracies that you and I would recognize. Today there are 150 nations on earth that are democratic and free. That would not have happened had the United States been insular and returned to our isolationist roots, had we laid down the mantle of world leadership, had we not seen the importance of propounding and encouraging the spread of democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and the values of our Bill of Rights. It is a better world because of the United States of America, and the price we have paid is one of blood and treasure.

Now we come to a great crossroads. A commission has just done some, I suppose, good work. I am still evaluating it. I welcome any ideas now because where we are leaves me feeling much like Churchill, that we are paying the price to sit on a mountain that is little more than a volcano of ingratitude. Yet as I feel that, I remember the pride I felt when the statue of Saddam Hussein came down. I remember the thrill I felt when three times Iraqis risked their own lives to vote democratically in a way that was internationally verifiable as well as legitimate and important. Now all of those memories seem much like ashes to me.

The Iraq Study Group has given us some ideas. I don't know if they are good or not. It does seem to me that it is a recipe for retreat. It is not cut and run, but it is cut and walk. I don't know that that is any more honorable than cutting and running, because cutting and walking involves greater expenditure of our treasure, greater loss of American lives.

Many things have been attributed to George Bush. I have heard him on this floor blamed for every ill, even the weather. But I do not believe him to be a liar. I do not believe him to be a traitor, nor do I believe all the bravado and the statements and the accusations made against him. I believe him to be a very idealistic man. I believe him to have a stubborn backbone. He is not guilty of perfidy, but I do believe he is guilty of believing bad intelligence and giving us the same.

I can't tell you how devastated I was to learn that in fact we were not going to find weapons of mass destruction. But remembering the words of the soldier--don't tell me you support the troops but you don't support my mission--I felt the duty to continue my support. Yet I believe the President is guilty of trying to win a short war and not understanding fully the nature of the ancient hatreds of the Middle East. Iraq is a European creation. At the Treaty of Versailles, the victorious powers put together Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia tribes that had been killing each other for time immemorial. I would like to think there is an Iraqi identity. I would like to remember the purple fingers raised high. But we can not want democracy for Iraq more than they want it for themselves. And what I find now is that our tactics there have failed.

Again, I am not a soldier, but I do know something about military history. And what that tells me is when you are engaged in a war of insurgency, you can't clear and leave. With few exceptions, throughout Iraq that is what we have done. To fight an insurgency often takes a decade or more. It takes more troops than we have committed. It takes clearing, holding, and building so that the people there see the value of what we are doing. They become the source of intelligence, and they weed out the insurgents. But we have not cleared and held and built. We have cleared and left, and the insurgents have come back.

I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal . I cannot support that anymore. I believe we need to figure out how to fight the war on terror and to do it right. So either we clear and hold and build, or let's go home.

There are no good options, as the Iraq Study Group has mentioned in their report. I am not sure cutting and walking is any better. I have little confidence that the Syrians and the Iranians are going to be serious about helping us to build a stable and democratic Iraq . I am at a crossroads as well. I want my constituents to know what is in my heart, what has guided my votes.

What will continue to guide the way I vote is simply this: I do not believe we can retreat from the greater war on terror. Iraq is a battlefield in that larger war. But I do believe we need a presence there on the near horizon at least that allows us to provide intelligence, interdiction, logistics, but mostly a presence to say to the murderers that come across the border: We are here, and we will deal with you. But we have no business being a policeman in someone else's civil war.

I welcome the Iraq Study Group's report, but if we are ultimately going to retreat, I would rather do it sooner than later. I am looking for answers, but the current course is unacceptable to this Senator. I suppose if the President is guilty of one other thing, I find it also in the words of Winston Churchill. He said: After the First World War, let us learn our lessons. Never, never believe that any war will be smooth and easy or that anyone who embarks on this strange voyage can measure the tides and the hurricanes. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.

That is a lesson we are learning again. I am afraid, rather than leveling with the American people and saying this was going to be a decade-long conflict because of the angst and hatred that exists in that part of the world, that we tried to win it with too few troops in too fast a time. Lest anyone thinks I believe we have failed militarily, please understand I believe when President Bush stood in front of ``mission accomplished'' on an aircraft carrier that, in purely military terms, the mission was accomplished in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But winning a battle, winning a war, is different than winning a peace.

We were not prepared to win the peace by clearing, holding, and building. You don't do that fast and you don't do it with too few troops. I believe now that we must either determine to do that, or we must redeploy in a way that allows us to continue to prosecute the larger war on terror. It will not be pretty. We will pay a price in world opinion. But I, for one, am tired of paying the price of 10 or more of our troops dying a day. So let's cut and run, or cut and walk, or let us fight the war on terror more intelligently than we have, because we have fought this war in a very lamentable way.

Those are my feelings. I regret them. I would have never voted for this conflict had I reason to believe that the intelligence we had was not accurate. It was not accurate, but that is history. Now we must find a way to make the best of a terrible situation, at a minimum of loss of life for our brave fighting men and women. So I will be looking for every opportunity to clear, build, hold, and win or how to bring our troops home."

Hijacked Faith

In an event that recently crept under the radar screen, Reverend Joel Hunter stepped down as president-elect of the Christian Coalition. According to Rev. Hunter, he volunteered his resignation, but according to the chair of the Coalition Board, his resignation was called for. The significance of this event is not the decision itself, but the reasons behind it. Hunter saw the Coalition as moving beyond its traditional role of messengers who, in the name of Christianity, have done nothing but polarize Americans by putting partisan politics above a strict adherence to the faith they espouse.

Hunter envisioned a movement that could broaden its agenda beyond abortion and same sex marriage, possibly to such issues as poverty and the environment. But his positions on global warming, increasing the minimum wage and opposing the death penalty left the Coalition running for cover. “These are issues that Jesus would want us to care about," says Hunter. "My position is, unless we are caring as much for the vulnerable outside the womb as inside the womb, we're not carrying out the full message of Jesus."

Hunter believes a large number of conservative Christians are driven away from right-wing organizations like the Coalition because their energies are too narrowly focused on “moral issues.” He also believes the Coalition has lost touch with its constituents because, instead of a focus on grass-roots organizing, their focus is solely on Washington-based advocacy.

"I saw an opportunity to really broaden the conversation and broaden the constituency... I think the board just got scared. When we really got down to it, they said: 'This just isn't for us. It won't speak to our base, so we just can't go there.'" The Coalition claims that he was acting too fast without consulting his superiors, but Hunter says the Coalition's board had already signed off on this approach, only to later get cold feet. The back and forth continues...

It’s just the latest in a long line of missteps by the Coalition, which was founded 17 years ago by Pat Robertson (author of the following quotes and an advocate of dropping a nuclear bomb of the State Department, assassinating Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and bringing righteousness back to our country so the atheists, liberals and homosexuals won’t bring about another 9/11).

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."

"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together."

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."

"The strategy against the American radical left should be the same as General Douglas MacArthur employed against the Japanese in the Pacific... bypass their strongholds, then surround them, isolate them bombard them, then blast the individuals out of their power bunkers with hand-to-hand combat. The battle for Iwo Jima was not pleasant, but our troops won it. The battle to regain the soul of America won't be pleasant either, but we will win it."

The Coalition quickly became the chief lobbying group and voter organizer for the religious right but since Robertson’s resignation five years ago, it has struggled with creditors, defections by state affiliates and a dwindling presence in Washington. In the mid-1990s, its budget topped $25 million. Today, it is more than $2 million in debt. And yet they continue on their crusade with no regard for the lessons of the past. “Conservative Christians need to be more ambidextrous than just 'right' or 'left' oriented,” says Rev. Hunter. “I'm really over this whole polarization thing." I think the American people would agree.

Cuomo's Masterpiece

Few speeches in recent American history have so articulately laid out the most basic ideological differences between our two political parties as did Mario Cuomo's keynote address to the 1984 Democratic National Convention. It challenged Ronald Reagan's oft-repeated charcaterization of America as a "shining city on a hill". A brief excerpt from Cuomo:

"President Reagan told us from the very beginning that he believed in a kind of social Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. "Government can't do everything," we were told, so it should settle for taking care of the strong and hope that economic ambition and charity will do the rest. Make the rich richer, and what falls from the table will be enough for the middle class and those who are trying desperately to work their way into the middle class.

You know, the Republicans called it "trickle-down" when Hoover tried it. Now they call it "supply side." But it's the same shining city for those relative few who are lucky enough to live in its good neighborhoods. But for the people who are excluded, for the people who are locked out, all they can do is stare from a distance at that city's glimmering towers.

It's an old story. It's as old as our history. The difference between Democrats and Republicans has always been measured in courage and confidence. The Republicans -- The Republicans believe that the wagon train will not make it to the frontier unless some of the old, some of the young, some of the weak are left behind by the side of the trail. "The strong" -- "The strong," they tell us, "will inherit the land."

We Democrats believe in something else. We democrats believe that we can make it all the way with the whole family intact, and we have more than once. Ever since Franklin Roosevelt lifted himself from his wheelchair to lift this nation from its knees -- wagon train after wagon train -- to new frontiers of education, housing, peace; the whole family aboard, constantly reaching out to extend and enlarge that family; lifting them up into the wagon on the way; blacks and Hispanics, and people of every ethnic group, and native Americans -- all those struggling to build their families and claim some small share of America. For nearly 50 years we carried them all to new levels of comfort, and security, and dignity, even affluence. And remember this, some of us in this room today are here only because this nation had that kind of confidence. And it would be wrong to forget that."

Blind Intolerance

As we all know far too well, Sam Brownback has the well-earned reputation of being the voice of the religious right in the United States Senate. While some of his views clearly align him on the side of compassion and justice (particularly his efforts to end the genocide in Darfur and to address the crisis in Northern Uganda), his religious fervor has also placed him repeatedly on the side of moral self-righteousness and intolerance. As an influential member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he is in a position to publicly inject these views throughout the confirmation process of countless federal judicial nominations.

Most recently, he has taken the audacious step of placing a procedural “hold” on the nomination of Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Janet T. Neff to be a U.S. District Court judge. It’s not because of her qualifications or her record as a judge. No, it’s because she attended a lesbian commitment ceremony for her neighbor of 20 years…a legally non-binding ceremony conducted by a minister in Massachusetts.

And why would a judicial nominee place her confirmation in jeopardy by doing something like that? After all, it surely wasn’t the supportive act of a friend during an important event in her life. More so, it was probably a definitive statement of her judicial philosophy on the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage. "It seems to speak about her view of judicial activism," says an incredulous Brownback.

It constantly amazes me that the groups and individuals whose religious views are most intertwined with their lives and their ideologies do not practive more tolerance. Somehow they fail realize that every effort they undertake today to discriminate, condemn, and persecute others simply because of who they are, makes it more and more inevitable that they will find themselves on the receiving end of that intolerance tomorrow.