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.

The Consequences of War

In defending the war, its proponents often fall back on certain “truths” when they get backed into a corner by those pointing to worsening conditions on the ground. They claim that as bad as things may seem, at least the Iraqis have been liberated from the oppressive tyrant who massacred thousands of their countrymen and women over the past 20 or so years. Their lives are now blessed by the liberties we have helped provide for them. Don’t you remember the ink-stained fingers held high in triumph and in defiance to the terrorists? That would have never been possible under Saddam.

While there have been significant, even historic, events that have inspired us and given us hope that this war has been worthwhile and just, its implications are far too significant to let that assertion go unquestioned. Just ask yourself, is the life of the average Iraqi better off today than it was prior to the U.S. invasion in March of 2003?

Since that invasion, reports indicate that up to 1.6 million Iraqis have fled the country with their families because they’ve found the growing violence and instability unbearable. That number is increasing every day with most families (an estimated 100,000 per month) settling in Jordan and Syria, and others in Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, various Gulf States and Europe.

As alarming as that number may be, what’s equally alarming is that a good portion of those fleeing the country are the very people needed most in the rebuilding of a prosperous and tolerant Iraqi society. Instead of serving as high priority targets for would-be kidnappers seeking a high ransom (a reported $36 million a year industry), approximately 40 percent of Iraqi professionals, including doctors and teachers, are fleeing the war-torn country in increasing numbers. In addition, because they’ve been increasingly targeted by death squads, an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 Iraqi Christians have now fled the country.

There is also a refugee crisis within Iraq. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees now estimates that more than 1.5 million Iraqis are internally displaced, nearly half a million since February. The International Organization for Migration estimates that 9,000 Iraqis are being driven out of their homes each and every week, many to the relative security of northern Iraq.

Since the onset of the war, estimates of Iraqi civilian fatalities range from 40,000 to several hundred thousand. As violence has raged increasingly throughout the year, more and more corpses of men, women, and children have been discovered each day. Many are simply dumped in groups by sectarian death squads along roadsides or in rivers, and most are barely distinguishable because of the acid burns, bullet holes, or electric drill holes that cover their bodies. In Baghdad, a recent estimate categorized sixty-five percent of all deaths as unidentified corpses. Overall, more Iraqi civilians were killed during last month than in any other month since the invasion. According to a U.N. report, 3,709 Iraqis were killed, up slightly from the previous high in July, and an increase of about 11 percent from the number in September.

While we have rough estimates of the number of Iraqis killed each month, the extent of these numbers is difficult to determine, partially because the Iraqi government is taking steps to restrict the release of these figures. What we do know is that city morgues across Iraq have taken steps to expand their capacities because they can no longer accommodate for the growing number of corpses. In some cases, bodies are even being turned away. In other cases, bodies are buried in unmarked graves without their families being able to claim them, simply because they are too afraid to collect them. When it’s deemed safe enough, these families bribe cemetery workers to dig up the remains of their loved ones so they might have a proper burial.

If you’re a Sunni victim, there’s an increasing likelihood that you will meet a similar fate even if you make it to an Iraqi hospital for treatment. Moqtada al-Sadr allies in the Iraqi Health Ministry will see to that. The systematic killing of Sunni patients in hospitals in Baghdad and Karbala has almost become common-place.

And it keeps getting worse…. This past Thursday, bombings in Sadr City killed more than 200. The New York Times reports:

Since those attacks, quasi-armies of residents in mixed and majority-Sunni Arab neighborhoods have formed to protect their streets. Sunni Web sites are offering advice on how to kill Shiite militiamen. College students and executives pace at their homes, clutching rifles and handguns around the clock. Iraqis are posting pleas on Internet message boards to buy extra ammunition and weapons.

Despite a government-imposed curfew, Iraqis described Shiite militiamen murdering Sunnis at checkpoints, controlling neighborhoods with impunity and conspiring with Iraq's majority-Shiite police force, which the Interior Ministry controls. Other Iraqis spoke of mortar shells raining on their mosques and gun battles outside their houses, deepening their mistrust of Iraq's security forces and elected politicians.

As a result of the violence and instability, basic services for the average Iraqi lag below their pre-war levels. Areas throughout the country, particularly in Baghdad, receive less hours a day of electricity than before the war. Schools remain closed across the country because of the increasing number of Education Ministry employees and teachers who have been targeted. The country’s unemployment rate ranges from 25 percent to 50 percent. Since unemployment in the Kurdish north remains relatively low, that number is disproportionately high throughout the rest of country, particularly the western provinces.

Iraq’s oil production is still below its pre-war levels and Iraqi oil refineries are refining half of their pre-war total, resulting in widespread fuel shortages. To compensate, although it has the 3rd largest proven reserves of oil in the world, Iraq is planning on spending an estimated $800 million on imported refined oil products from its neighbors. It is now estimated that from January of 2004 to March of 2006, Iraq lost a potential $16 billion in oil exports.

The list goes on and on.

In summary, Iraq is in complete disarray and its citizens are suffering the consequences. While we can question which seeds for this disarray were sown during the totalitarianism of Saddam Hussein, it is undeniable that all have been exacerbated by the American invasion. On its own, Saddam’s removal from power was for the benefit of the Iraqi people. However, that act, coupled with the ensuing mismanagement of the war and the dramatic miscalculation of its consequences, may very well have been to their detriment.

Before, Iraqis dare not speak out against their government because of the consequences of defying Saddam Hussein. Today, those same Iraqis are changing their names or sleeping with AK-47s to protect their families and to avoid being slaughtered. These Iraqis must live every day with the consequences of a pre-emptive war our government chose to wage on their doorsteps. Most suffer, not because of what they have done or through any fault of their own, but simply because of who they are and where they were born.

The realization that the Iraqi people are worse off today than they were under Saddam Hussein is a sobering short-term prognosis, but it does not have to be the final judgment. We are at a turning point in the War in Iraq and the decisions made by our government over the next 4 to 6 months will undoubtedly have a dramatic impact on what that final judgment will be.

A re-look-see at the Constitution

While Bill Maher may not always raise the level of political discourse in this country, at least he puts a humorous twist on it. His commentary in the Boston Globe this week doesn't dissapoint. A brief excerpt:

"There's no out-of-the-box thinking in this country. If we were really looking for a new direction, we'd not just change Congress, we'd have another Constitutional Convention, as Jefferson suggested we do. Jefferson said: "Let us provide in our Constitution for its revision. . . every 19 or 20 years. . . so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation." He himself was saying, "I'm a bright guy, but even I can't foresee the iPod." Or the assault rifle.

But that's Jefferson's phrase: periodical repairs. This thing needs periodical repairs, but it hasn't been in the shop for 219 years. Of course it's belching oil. Literally. And that's because one of the glaring flaws a Constitutional Convention might correct is something called corporate personhood, which means somewhere along the way, stupid or corrupted courts gave corporations all the rights of individuals, with none of the liability. If some person defecates on your lawn, we throw him in jail, but if a corporation does it, they get a tax break. Somehow "we the people" got to be defined as Halliburton. This thing needs to go in the shop!

And I know traditionalists are saying, "But Bill, it's a sacred document!" Please, it's full of crap about pirates, for God's sake. And I don't mean the kind that copies Justin Timberlake CDs. I mean peg legs and parrots. "The founders were so brilliant." Yes, they were: the proof being, the government they designed keeps functioning even with cement-head doofuses like you in it.

Listen to Jefferson -- he was saying, "We're smart guys, we're not Nostradamus." We deal with things today no founding father could have imagined -- the Internet, global warming. Toilet paper, instead of bark. If Ben Franklin got beamed in to visit us today, the first thing he'd say is, "For 17 dollars, I get porn on my TV all day? How can the hotel afford that?" And then he'd say, "You're still using the old Constitution that we told you to revise? That's so nuts hemp must still be legal."

The New Congress and Trade

The balance of power in Congress has been tipped in favor of the Democrats. With the Democrats in power there will finally be a check on executive power and some oversight on the Iraq War. The most unfortunate possible change from this freshman class of Dems is that Congress may turn against free trade.

These aren't Democrats in the mold of Bill Clinton, who believed in free trade and investing in infrastructure. This freshman class of Democrats promises to be fiscally and socially conservative and, unfortunately, anti-free trade and anti-immigration. These democrats represent the more nationalist constituencies of this country.

Slate's Jacob Weisberg has given the incoming Democrats the “The Lou Dobbs Democrats” moniker. Like Lou, they blame free trade and immigration for the ills of the middle class. It's misplaced blame.

With trade, the costs are targeted. Anyone can point to the loss of jobs and tie that to lower wages abroad. It is much more difficult to point to the widespread benefits of trade. You would have to imagine the world without trade. Prices for basic goods at the supermarket would be higher, you couldn't get certain produce, like tomatoes, year-round. Prices at Wal-Mart, and you may not believe this, would actually be higher. Cloths, cars, computers, plane tickets, phone bills and any other good or service provided by business that cut costs by outsourcing work or importing cheaper raw materials would have higher costs, and thus, higher prices.

Who would this hurt the most? Not the super-rich CEOs. It would hurt the single moms and middle-class families who makes ends meet by shopping at Wal-Mart. It would hurt the very poorest people trying to buy basic goods.

Stifling free trade won't solve the problems of those who lost jobs due to outsourcing.
Investment in education, infrastructure and technology will. Don't expect these new Democrats to understand that, but hope that some of their older counterparts will be wiser.

Truman v. Bush

I have been reading David McCullough's Harry Truman biography. As I near the end, I am surprised by the sharp contrast between Truman's legacy and the unfavorable public opinion of his presidency around the time he announced he would not be seeking reelection.

In 1952, news polls reported that only 32 percent of the people approved of the way he was handling his job, despite his successes domestically and abroad. Sounding much like our current president Truman wrote:

I wonder how far Moses would have gone if he'd taken a poll in Egypt? What would Jesus Christ have preached if he'd taken a poll in Israel? It isn't polls or public opinion of the moment that counts. It's right and wrong.

In retrospect, Truman has been vindicated, his presidency considered an overall success.

President Bush appears to have much in common with Truman besides a disbelief in the utility of public opinion polls. Like Truman in 1952, Bush is overseeing an unpopular war, there is economic prosperity domestically and his approval rating is hovering in the 30's. Also like Truman, Bush has a stubborn belief in the decisions he makes and uses down-to-earth, straight forward rhetoric to appeal to the everyday person. The parallels beg the question; will history look back as favorably on George W. Bush? Admittedly, it is early to begin speculating, but I'll speculate no matter.

It worried me that despite all of Bush’s mistakes, he could be seen as perhaps one of the greatest presidents. But then I reflected on the leadership style of Truman and that of Bush. Because their presidencies’ have been consumed with foreign policy, I’ll focus there. Both faced their respective problems: Truman the rise of communism and Bush the emergence of Islamic extremism.

Truman was the reluctant leader. He admitted there were men more up to the task of being president than he, but the responsibility was his. In the first weeks in office Truman had to make decisions that brought an end to WWII, met with Stalin and Churchill to decide the fate of Europe and eventually implemented the Marshall plan. While Truman did not seek out these responsibilities, he made it clear that the buck stopped with him and he responded as he best knew how.

He was heavily criticized by everyone and expected to lose to Dewey in the 1948 presidential election, but won a stunning upset victory. He eventually committed American troops to fight an act of aggression in Korea, and was criticized by many for not taking General MacArthur’s advice to broaden the conflict to include China, which would purportedly bring a swift end to the war. Truman decided not to broaden the war, which he believed might risk starting World War III and end in a nuclear holocaust. While charged with being soft on communism, the Truman doctrine set the course to win the cold war.

Bush could be considered a victim of circumstances and the events on 9-11. In a way he was, but the country rallied around him and he took appropriate action in Afghanistan. After invading Afghanistan, the Bush doctrine broadened the war on terror to include Iraq.

Bush has pursued a war in Iraq that will likely be his biggest liability when historians start postulating about his legacy. It was the leadership he has shown in pursuing the Iraq War, which makes him vastly different than Harry Truman. The record will reflect that unlike Truman, Bush had a weak legal justification for going to war, pursued the war without international support and, ultimately, weakened the United Nations (UN). In setting the course for the fight against Islamic extremism, Bush has left the United States without strong international allies and the threat of military force to deal with emerging threats from Iran and South Korea.

In setting the strategy for winning the Cold War, Truman ensured the formation of the UN, bolstered its prominence in international affairs and strengthened our ties with international allies. Bush faces a new set of challenges, but one that he approaches with cowboy diplomacy, disdain for international institutions and air of arrogance, rather than humility and quiet confidence.

Two years from now I wonder what standard should be used to evaluate the success or failure Bush's presidency. One question that comes to mind is if when Bush leaves office, will the United States be better off then when he came into office? Truman certainly did.

A Brother's Thoughts

Pat Tillman’s brother, Kevin, recently wrote a powerful commentary to mark his deceased brother’s birthday, which is a day before the upcoming mid-term elections. Kevin and Pat both served in the Army Rangers during the invasion of Iraq and later in Afghanistan. Up until Pat was killed by friendly fire in April 2004, he was the Administration’s unwilling “poster boy for patriotism.”

But since his death, the subsequent cover-up by the Pentagon, and the ongoing failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kevin has spoken out more and more about the reckless Administration that has continually undermined the very things his brother fought and died for. A brief excerpt:

In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.

Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat’s birthday.

Darfur, no good options

The promise made at the end of WWII to prevent all future genocide rings hollow now. The ongoing situation in the Darfur region of Sudan is abhorrent; up to 450,000 people murdered and 2 million displaced. The genocide of non-Arabs being perpetrated by the Janjaweed militia and supported by the Sudanese government is already compared to other recent genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia.

Despite the numerous speeches and resolutions defining the atrocious events in Darfur as genocide and condemning the actions of the Sudanese government, world leaders have yet to determine how best to confront genocide or even shown a willingness to do so. It is not because of a lack of compassion, but instead, a lack of preparation. In entries to come, I will explain my take on the situation, why world leader are left with no good options to halt the killings taking place in Darfur and what changes people should demand if they feel, as I do, that there is a moral obligation to intervene in such dire situations.

Cheney v. Congress, Round II

Finally pushed over the edge, Charlie Rangel lost it in today's New York Post and called a spade a spade. In this case, calling Dick Cheney a "real son of a bitch". It was the latest, and most personal, Democratic response to Cheney's traveling circus, a.k.a. the smear and fear campaign of '06. A couple excerpts from Congressman Rangel:

"He's such a real son of a bitch, he just enjoys a confrontation," Rangel fumed, describing himself as "warm and personable." Rangel said Cheney may need to go to "rehab" for "whatever personality deficit he may have suffered."

...Asked whether he was resurrecting over-the-top charges he made last year that he believes Cheney is mentally ill, Rangel cracked, "I don't think he's shot anyone in the face lately, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt."

But don't feel too bad for Mr. Cheney because he's fired his fair share of personal potshots. And after all, at least Rangel wasn't defaming an elected official in the halls of Congress when he unleashed his tirade.

Perspective

On ABC’s This Week, Michael J. Fox discussed the effects of his Parkinson’s, advocated for embryonic stem cell research, and addressed criticisms from Rush Limbaugh and other partisan hacks. Despite the tremors which dramatically affect his physical behavior and the ability for him to communicate as effectively as he’d like, it’s a powerful interview that puts the entire issue into perspective.

E.J. Dionne, who followed Fox on the show’s next segment, summarized it well: "If you put Michael J. Fox up against Rush Limbaugh in a public debate, which is in effect what you did today, what's happening all over the country, we know that except for Rush Limbaugh's conservative base, the vast majority will shift to the Michael J. Fox side. And I think that what Fox did is made the most compelling case for embryonic stem cell research, which is if you're against it, you also have to be against in vitro fertilization. And no one who is against it really wants to say that, because you're going to create these embryos that will be destroyed."

A few excerpts:

Stephanopoulos: Rush apologized — I guess he apologized for saying you were acting. He didn't call you, did he?

Fox: He would've had more qualifications at an AA meeting. No, you know, that's beside the point. It really isn't germane to the issue. It's funny because, what I'm talking about is about hope. It's about promise. It's about moving forward. It's a forward-looking attitude about what this country is capable of and what we can accomplish for our citizens.

And so if we get sidetracked into a dialogue about whether sick people have a right to display their symptoms in public, you know, that reaction. I think it was more disappointing, from the point of view of— The campaigns, like the [Republican Senate candidate Michael] Steele campaign, their spokesman said, "It was in poor taste," which really— I mean, I'm out here and I expect that. Being in the lead, I'll take some hits. And that's fine. I'm a big boy. Well, not height-wise.

I'm experienced enough and mature enough to take my licks. But I know the community was really hurt by it. And it really brings up the specter of, "Go away. Shut the windows. Shut the doors. Close the curtains, and suffer, and don't let us know," because it's a fearful response.

And what the irony is, is that those people that are being pitied or being asked to suffer in silence don't want to suffer, don't see themselves as pitiable, don't see themselves as victims — see themselves as citizens, participants in the process, and people with aspirations and hopes and dreams for the future. They are way more positive as a whole than what I've seen from the community that opposes them.

[Later]

Stephanopoulos: You mentioned the Steele campaign. Both the Steele campaign and the Talent campaign have said you're not being fair to them, because they want to expand stem cell research, too, they say, but it's adult stem cell research.

Fox: Right, and I agree with them on adult stem cell research. I mean, let's talk about what we agree on. I agree that stem cell research is fantastic; we should pursue it. I agree that we should have no human cloning. We're against that. We're against egg farming, that notion. We agree on all of that.

The only thing is, we would like to include embryonic stem cell research, which our scientists say has the best hope for cures and breakthroughs. See, we're in agreement. I think that when they say talk about not being fair, there has been, again, not as much focus on the content of the ad. It's really the appearance of the ad. But really, because all the statements are verifiable and to direct comparison, it is, in effect, an ad for their position. If you see the ad and you agree with their position, and there are people that do, then it should incentive you to vote for them.

[Later]

Stephanopoulos: Do you think there's any way to finally find common ground with people who do believe in the end that this is tampering with tiny lives?

Fox: Well, again, the point has been made that these lives are going to be thrown away, anyway. They are marked for destruction — thousands of frozen embryos that are a byproduct of in vitro fertilization. We have routinely, before this conversation started on stem-cell research, we have for years thrown them away.
And that's the other thing, you know, this idea of snowflake babies: We're in favor of that. The truth of the matter is that it is only going to account for a tiny fraction—

Stephanopoulos: Those are the embryos that are adopted and then brought—

Fox: Absolutely. Who would have a problem with that? That's fantastic. But it will, in the end, account for only a tiny fraction of those eggs. And so our point is that the pro-life position is to use that — what up to this point is waste, of literal waste that is going to be thrown away — use it to save lives and to ensure lives for the future. I
mean, they talk about unborn. Unborn kids are going to be born with diabetes.

People are going to be dealing with a genetic predisposition to Alzheimer's or to Parkinson's or kids that are going to be injured, have spinal cord injury. That those kids may be born into a world that has the answers for that. That's our position.

[Later]

Stephanopoulos: One of the things he says is that when you're talking about all these cures, you're giving people false hope and that it's cruel.

Fox: It's so funny. What is crueler, to not have hope or to have hope? And it's not false hope. It's a very informed hope. I mean, it's hope that's informed by the opinion of our leading scientists, almost to the point of unanimity that embryonic stem cells, because they're pluripotent, because they have the capacity to be anything, and, are truly— Will [it] be a straight path to victory? Probably not. Probably you'll have stutter steps along the way.

In fact, they just did some work where they found that it actually relieved the symptoms of Parkinson's in one test, but there some residue, some tissue residue that built up, which is not ideal. But two steps forward, one step forward, one step back, you know, it's a process, it's how this country was built. It's what we do, you know. It seems to me that in the last few years, eight, 10 years, we've just stopped, we've become incurious and un-ambitious.

And hope, I mean, hope is— I don't want to get too corny about it, but isn't that what the person in the harbor with the thing—? It's about hope. And so to characterize hope as some sort of malady or some kind of flaw of character or national weakness is, to me, really counter to what this country is about.

Stephanopoulos: You're supporting it through your foundation. A lot of states are supporting it. What do you say to those who say, "You know, we don't need the federal government to get in the middle of this right now, and it's too divisive an issue?"

Fox: Well, the federal government has to be involved, because on one level, you talk about limitations; it's not just a matter of the stem cells being limited, but the restriction on federal funding. If you have an institution, a facility that can do this kind of work and it receives any federal funding at all, you lose that if you do, if you take a cell out of a Petri dish on government property. So you have to have duplication of facilities.

So now our resources are going into scientists having to duplicate federal facilities at enormous expense in order to do the most rudimentary work with stem cells, with embryonic stem cells. You have researchers that can't get funding. And so you have young researchers that are not going into the field. It's the iterations of limitation are endless. So you say: Why can't the private sector get involved? Because they have to duplicate the entire resources of the federal government in order to do it. It's just not practical.

[Later]

Fox: ...You know, that's the other notion that was put out there, was that I somehow was recruited by the Democratic Party.

Stephanopoulos: Democratic shill, I think was the word.

Fox: Democratic shill, yes. I have to look up shill in the dictionary. I think it has something to do with supporting someone whose beliefs you don't believe in for ulterior reason or something.

But, yeah, no, I'm not a shill for the Democratic Party. I approached them. I sat down to find out what candidates are pro-stem cell in races where they're opposed by anti-stem cell candidates. And I had no predisposition toward Democrats or Republicans. It'd be fine with me either way.

In fact, a Republican candidate who's pro-stem cell would be someone I'd really like to talk to. And in fact in the past I've supported, I've done commercials for Arlen Specter, who is a very aggressive pro-stem cell champion. And I know that there are others, you know. There are people like Orrin Hatch and Danforth and others who've thought about it, weighed it really carefully and found that its pro-life possibilities aren't counter to their previous positions. This is a pro-life position, and this is the responsibility of our leadership to take it down this path. It will help Americans.

Politics Over Promise

The issue of embryonic stem cell research has reemerged in the 2006 elections and it’s been interesting to see how both sides have articulated their views. Those who oppose federal funding for embryonic stem cell research have mostly tried to skirt the issue but their statements have generally boiled down to something like this: “I have consistently been a proponent of stem cell research because of the promise it brings to millions of Americans. However, I am against the federal funding of embryonic stem cells because I believe it is immoral to utilize or destroy human embryos in the name of science.”

So, let’s break down that statement into its two suppositions.

#1: “Even though I oppose embryonic stem cell research, I am a proponent of research on alternative stem cell lines that yield just as much promise.”

To claim that you fully support stem cell research because you support research on adult stem cells and cord blood is disingenuous because there is no serious opposition to those efforts. On the contrary, it would be more accurate to label them as impediments to stem cell research because nearly all experts agree that research on embryonic stem cells offers advantages that adult stem cells simply do not. That is despite the fact that adult stem cell research has a 40 year head start on embryonic stem cell research and has enjoyed a sustained funding commitment from the National Institutes of Health.

A group of 80 Nobel laureates addressed this point in a letter to President Bush on February 22, 2001:

“It is premature to conclude that adult stem cells have the same potential as embryonic stem cells -- and that potential will almost certainly vary from disease to disease. Current evidence suggests that adult stem cells have markedly restricted differentiation potential. Therefore, for disorders that prove not to be treatable with adult stem cells, impeding human pluripotent stem cell research risks unnecessary delay for millions of patients who may die or endure needless suffering while the effectiveness of adult stem cells is evaluated.”

A recent study by the National Academy of Sciences substantiates that claim:

“Adult stem cells are rare, difficult to identify and purify, and when grown in culture, are difficult to maintain in the undifferientiated state. It is because of those limitations that even stem cells from bone marrow, the type most studied, are not available in sufficient numbers to support many potential applications of regenerative medicine.”

#2: “Utilizing embryonic stem cells for research is immoral.”

The claim that utilizing embryonic stem cells for research is destroying human life is disingenuous. It’s disingenuous because the legislation that passed Congress would have allowed federal funding for this research only on stem cell lines derived under strict ethical requirements from excess in vitro fertilization embryos. Therefore, it simply would have used those excess embryos formed in fertility clinics that were slated for destruction. If you oppose the destruction of those embryos, that’s one thing. If you condone that practice while opposing embryonic stem cell research, then you’re either deeply confused or you’re shamelessly appealing to your evangelical base.

Senator Orrin Hatch, an ultra conservative and pro-lifer, is a staunch supporter of this legislation because he believes it’s possible to be both anti-abortion and pro-embryonic stem cell research. “A critical part of being pro-life is to support measures that help the living. And this research enhances, not diminishes human life. If encouraged, it can improve the lives of millions of Americans and could lead to new scientific frontiers not now in sight.” He further explains;

“As part of the fertility treatment process, it is inevitable that there will be some test tube embryos that will not be needed and will never be implanted in a mother’s womb. And let me be clear here, I believe that the highest and best use of a human embryo is to be used by loving parents to add to their family. I wholeheartedly support adoption of spare embryos and would give adoption precedence over use for research. I think most would agree with me on this.

But the fact of the matter today is that there may exist at any point in time more than 400,000 such unused embryos in the United States and each year tens of thousands of such spare embryos are routinely and unceremoniously discarded and destroyed. It is from these embryos that scientists have derived stem cell lines.

A stem cell in a petri dish or frozen in a refrigerator will never, even in 100 years, become more than stem cells. They lack the breath of life. I believe that life begins in the mother’s womb, not in a scientist’s laboratory.”

In 2001, President Bush permitted federal funding for embryonic stem cell lines created prior to August 2001. For a President who sees the world in black and white, it was an interesting decision because it placed a totally arbitrary date and time on such a “moral issue.” It was moral to conduct research on stem cells created prior to that date and time, but immoral to do so on those created after that date and time. Further, recent developments have cast doubt on the usefulness of the stem cells authorized for use by the President. It makes utilization of additional lines that much more critical. Senator Tom Harkin, the champion of stem cell research in the Senate, explains:

“The Administration originally said 78 stem cell lines were eligible for federally funded research, meaning they had to be derived before the totally arbitrary date and time of August 9, 2001, at 9 p.m. Today, only 22 of those 78 lines are available for research – not nearly enough to reflect the genetic diversity that scientists need. But more importantly, a recent study showed that all 22 lines are contaminated with mouse cells, making them dangerous to use in humans.”

The legislation that passed Congress overwhelmingly and was ceremoniously vetoed by the President would have lifted the eligibility date of August 9, 2001, as long as strict ethical requirements were met.

In arguing for passage of the bill, Senator Harkin concluded, “We don’t require our astronomers to explore the heavens with 19th century telescopes, and we don’t require our geologists to study the Earth with a tape measure. If we are serious about realizing the promise of stem cell research, our biomedical researchers need access to the best stem cell lines available.”

On the day the legislation passed the Senate, Senator Hatch issued the following statement; “Today, the Senate made a commitment to the millions of patients who are waiting for cures. Together, Republicans and Democrats, we said: We hear you. We won’t stand idly by and allow Federal policy to hamstring one of the most promising fields of research.”

For the millions who are hopeful and awaiting much-needed cures, it’s truly a shame that the President feels differently.

Rush to Judgment

In today's Washington Post, Slate's William Saletan writes an entertaining and sobering indictment of Rush Limbaugh, whose recent accusations of Michael J. Fox served as yet another reminder to us of how deeply disturbed this guy is. Here's an exerpt:

In Limbaugh's world, "there never was a surplus" under President Bill Clinton. AIDS "hasn't made that jump to the heterosexual community," and cutting food stamps is fine because recipients "aren't using them." Two years ago, he said the minimum wage was $6 or $7 an hour. Last year, he said gas was $1.29 a gallon.

Limbaugh has particular trouble distinguishing reality from entertainment. The abuse at Abu Ghraib "looks just like anything you'd see Madonna or Britney Spears do on stage," he told his listeners. Last month, he defended ABC's Sept. 11 movie against the document on which it purportedly relied: "The 9/11 commission report, for example, says, well, some of these things didn't happen the way they were portrayed in the movie. How do they know that?"

Last year, Limbaugh, who used a tailbone defect to get out of the Vietnam War draft, accused a Democratic candidate of having served in Iraq "to pad the resume." He charged veterans -- including former senator Max Cleland (D-Ga.), who lost his legs and an arm in Vietnam -- with trying "to hide their liberalism behind a military uniform . . . pretending to be something that they are not." When war is just a television show, a uniform is just a costume. Liberalism is real; losing your limbs is a pretense.

Which brings us back to stem cells. Limbaugh says Fox's ads dangle a prospect of imminent cures "that is not reality." He's right. But the ads convey another reality: a man dying of a disease that might be cured more quickly if the government dropped its restrictions on research funding. Limbaugh dismisses this as a "script" being followed by Fox's "PR people" and "the entertainment media." Script? Entertainment? This is life and death.

If he didn't average 13.5 million listeners every week, he would be a joke. The fact that he does makes him dangerous in that he'll simply continue his campaign of character assassination and misinformation. By continuing to demonize those he disagrees with, he'll further divide his listeners from people of tolerance, and further drive them from reality. By continuing to spout unsubstantiated and often completely fabricated information as justification for his politics, he'll just add further to the growing number of duped Americans who would rather turn to others for direction rather than conduct their own independent thinking.

A Question of Life

Instead of manipulating people of faith by politicizing questions of when life begins and when it ends, what if we all focused on the quality of the time in between? Wouldn’t it be revolutionary to come together and actually work toward improving the quality of the lives we all lead? What could possibly be more pro-life?

The debate over embryonic stem cell research is a perfect case in point. Scientists, medical professionals, and the American public strongly support federal funding of this research because of the immense hope and promise it brings. Opponents characterize the utilization of these cells for medical advancement as immoral. To appeal to evangelicals, some claim it mirrors abortion or murder despite the fact that the cells in question are set to be discarded regardless. Nevertheless, they claim it’s a slippery slope that will undoubtedly lead to a complete disregard for the dignity of life and an inevitable rush to clone as many human beings as possible.

When confronted by those inflicted with disease and searching for hope, these lawmakers apologize and speak of questions of morality that take precedent over the potential to improve the quality of life for millions of Americans who may someday benefit from this research. No, they claim it’s an issue they’d rather punt to the private sector. After all, to whom else should America turn to pave the way and provide leadership and focus on an issue of this importance?

Congress recently approved the federal funding of embryonic stem cells overwhelmingly, 65-37 in the Senate and 238-194 in the House. Instead of quickly signing the legislation into law, President Bush chose to issue his very first presidential veto. To date, it remains the only veto in his six years in office. Not exactly what I would call presidential leadership.

To those lawmakers who voted to uphold the president's veto, it’s time to pay the piper. And to those who respond to proponents of stem cell research with ignorance and hostility, keep it up. It only provides yet another opportunity for the world to see your true colors.

"To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past."

A couple weeks ago, Keith Olbermann reacted to the fallout after the Chris Wallace interview with President Clinton. The belligerence of Wallace, the Clinton reaction, the subsequent White House counter-reaction, and the American efforts to kill or capture bin Laden provide the pretext to Olbermann’s commentary.

It’s a commentary that gets to the heart of the question we’ve repeatedly asked over the past several years; whatever happened to personal responsibility, Presidential leadership and the “Buck Stops Here”? Far from those virtues, we have been left with an absolutist Administration who sees the world in black and white and firmly believes that the acknowledgment of anything that could remotely be construed as a mistake is nothing more than a sign of weakness.

When President Kennedy publicly shouldered the blame for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, his approval ratings shot through the roof. Although it was a military disaster, the American people stood by their President because they respected him for maturely stepping up and accepting responsibility. He told the American people that he was the President and because of it, he was ultimately responsible for the government’s decisions, both good and bad. People looked to him for results and he realized it came with the territory.

In the Wallace interview, Clinton admits that he did not do enough to capture or kill bin Laden. It was quite an admission from a man who has long been criticized for politically sidestepping personal responsibility; a man who was relentlessly and incredulously lambasted by the Right for “Monica distractions” and for focusing more on the defense of his personal shortcomings and less on conducting an effective national security strategy.

In the aftermath of Clintonism, along comes a cowboy from Texas to save the day. He was a leader who vowed to unite an increasingly polarized nation. He was also a straight-shooter who told it like it was, talked about personal responsibility, and vowed to bring integrity back to the Oval Office. And here we are today…

What’s disgusting is that this Orwellian Administration not only fails to admit past shortcomings but has led an unabashed effort to rewrite history to cover its tracks and cast it in a better light. Instead of identifying where they went wrong and reflecting on the lessons it should teach us, they have skirted responsibility, claimed those mistakes never occurred, and have spun them against their political enemies by claiming that questioning the President is unpatriotic and un-American. In fact, it reflects quite the opposite. As a result, one of the most unifying issues in our nation's history has been twisted by our elected “leadership” into one of the most divisive.

The claim that this is the worst presidential leadership since Buchanan? Maybe Olbermann’s not so off-base.

Hypocrisy Reigns

Lest I be accused of hypocrisy, let me begin by saying that I am not generally a big fan of the fourth estate a.k.a "the press". It is rather appropriate that this blog was in part inspired by the greatest president of the 20th century, because this post concerns modern-day muckraking. I have attached an article I read this evening on Slate discussing how the New York Times failed to admit its own mistakes in covering the story of the Duke lacrosse players charged with raping a stripper at an off-campus party. This paper, along with every other media form, purport to be the only honest, objective purveyors of truth keeping all of us safe from our lying and corrupt elected officials and the sleazy corporations that support them. However, when their own mistakes, shaky facts, and outright lies are exposed they do not provide the hubris they claim to be trying to get from politicians and business leaders. Oh no, instead they try to hide it, cover it up, wish it away, or bury a small retraction somewhere deep inside their publications.

Let's imagine that the muckraker who covered this story for The Times standing in front of a microphone answering questions from a group of reporters. A snapshot of it would probably look something like this:

Reporter1: "Ms. Lady, how do you respond to the allegations that you rushed this story to the front page, along with the accused’s pictures, even though you had strong evidence suggesting that the accusations might be false?"

Grey Lady: "I don't. We were operating on the best information we had at the time, and felt that we had to get this story out immediately for the good of this nation. What was to stop these suspects from running right out, hiring another stripper for another party, and then possibly raping her? Sometimes one doesn't have all the information one would like in these matters. Next question."

Reporter2: "Excuse me, Ms. Lady but are you now willing to admit that you made a mistake in reporting this story?"

Grey Lady: "Absolutely not. Do I wish we had more and better information at the time? Sure. However, our reporters and editors acted on the best information they had at the time and we are professionals who throughout this entire story have maintained our objectivity. We cannot be held accountable for everything that is said in our paper."

Well, I digress. Please, be my guest and read the Slate article for yourself.

http://www.slate.com/id/2151507/?GT1=8702

Iraq Commentary

There were a number of interesting op-eds on Iraq in the papers today. While laying out his case for withdrawal, John Murtha takes the fight to the Republican attack-machine. John Kerry does a little Monday morning quarterbacking in an interview with Bob Woodward about how he, if he was President, would have conducted foreign policy between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraqi. Dennis Ross, a scholar and Middle East diplomat under Presidents Bush 41 and Clinton, lays out his plan for Iraq. And Phillip Carter, who recently returned from Iraq after serving with the Army’s 101st Airborne Division, talks about smarter ways to conduct counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq. In doing so, he calls upon the words of T.E. Lawrence: “Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them.”

Seek First to Defame...

Earlier this year, Senator Kerry made a rather poignant statement on the floor of the Senate. Although it was delivered a number of months ago, it raises some timely and legitimate points to consider as we get closer to the upcoming elections.

“Mr. President, yesterday, Jack Murtha, a respected congressman on military matters, and former Marine Drill Sergeant and decorated Vietnam veteran, spoke out on our policy in Iraq. He didn’t come to that moment lightly. He spoke his mind and spoke his heart out of love for his country and support for our troops. I am not going to stand for a swift boat attack strategy against Jack Murtha.

“It disgusts me that a bunch of guys who have never put on the uniform of their country venomously turn their guns on a marine who served his country heroically in Vietnam and has been serving heroically in Congress ever since. No matter what J.D. Hayworth says, there is no sterner stuff than the backbone and courage that defines Jack Murtha’s character and conscience.

“Dennis Hastert - the Speaker of the House who never served - called Jack Murtha a coward and accused him of wanting to cut and run. Well let me tell you, Jack Murtha wasn’t a coward when he put himself in harm’s way for his country in Vietnam and earned two purple hearts - he was a patriot then, and he is a patriot today. Jack Murtha didn’t cut and run when his courage in combat earned him a Bronze Star, and his voice should be heard, not silenced by those who still today cut and run from the truth.

“Just a day after Dick Cheney, who had 5 deferments from Vietnam, accused Democrats of being unpatriotic -the White House accused Jack Murtha of surrendering. Jack Murtha served 37 years in the Marine Corps. He doesn’t know how to surrender - not to enemy combatants, and not to politicians in Washington who say speaking his conscience is unpatriotic.

“Robert Kennedy once said, ‘The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country.’ Chuck Hagel showed he hasn’t forgotten that when he said, ‘The Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them.’ But too many in the Republican Party forgot that long ago. They forgot that asking tough questions isn’t pessimism; it’s patriotism.

“We’ve seen the politics of fear and smear too many times. Whenever challenged, Republican leaders engage in the politics of personal destruction rather than debate the issues. It doesn’t matter who you are. When they did it to John McCain, we saw it doesn’t matter what political party you’re in. When they did it to Max Cleland, we saw it doesn’t matter if your service put you in a wheelchair. And when they did it to Jack Murtha yesterday, perhaps the most respected voice on military matters in all of Congress, we saw that this administration will go to any lengths to crush any
dissent.

“Once again, they’re engaged in the lowest form of smear and fear politics because they’re afraid of actually debating a senior congressman who has advised presidents of both parties on how to best defend our country. They’re afraid to debate a decorated veteran who lives and breathes the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor. They’re terrified of actually leveling with the American people about the way they misled America into war, and admitting they have no clear plan to finish the job and get our troops home. Whether you agree with Jack Murtha’s policy or not is irrelevant.

“The truth is there is a better course for our troops and for America in Iraq and I am going to keep fighting until we take that course for the good of our country.

“American families who have lost, or who fear the loss, of their loved ones deserve to know the truth about what we have asked them to do, what we are doing to complete the mission, and what we are doing to prevent our forces from being trapped in an endless quagmire. Our military families understand that open debate about what’s going on in Iraq doesn’t put our troops at risk; it’s the only way to get it right in Iraq so we can get their sons and daughters home.

“I think all of us should be mindful, as the White House yet again engages in character assassination to prevent Americans from listening to the words of military experts, of the consequences we have already endured from the failure to listen.

“When the administration could have listened to General Shinseki and put in enough troops to maintain order, they chose not to. When they could have learned from George Herbert Walker Bush and built a genuine global coalition, they chose not to. When they could have implemented a detailed State Department plan for reconstructing post-Saddam Iraq, they chose not to.

“When they could have protected American forces by guarding Saddam Hussein’s ammo dumps where there were weapons of individual destruction, they exposed our young men and women to the ammo that now maims and kills them because they chose not to act. When they could have imposed immediate order and structure in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam, Rumsfeld shrugged his shoulders, said Baghdad was safer than Washington, D.C. and chose not to act. When the Administration could have kept an Iraqi army selectively intact, they chose not to. When they could have kept an entire civil structure functioning to deliver basic services to Iraqi citizens, they chose not to.

“When they could have accepted the offers of the United Nations and individual countries to provide on the ground peacekeepers and reconstruction assistance, they chose not to. When they should have leveled with the American people that the insurgency had grown, they chose not to. Vice President Cheney even absurdly claimed that the ‘insurgency was in its last throes.’

“And now, after all these mistakes, who is the administration to accuse anyone of wanting to cut and run. We are in trouble today precisely because of a policy of cut and run. This administration made the wrong choice to cut and run from sound intelligence and good diplomacy; to cut and run from the best military advice; to cut and run from sensible war time planning; to cut and run from their responsibility to properly arm and protect our troops; to cut and run from history’s lessons about the Middle East; to cut and run from common sense. That is the debate they are afraid to have in our country. Shame on them.

“Instead of letting his cronies run their mouths, the President should finally find the courage to debate the real issue instead of destroying anyone who speaks truth to power as they see it. It’s time for Americans to stand up, fight back, and make it clear it’s unacceptable to do this to any leader of any party anywhere in our country.

“And I hope my colleagues will come down to this floor and debate the issue on its merits, instead of attacking the character of a man like Jack Murtha, because believe me - that’s a fight nobody’s going to win in our America.”