Other Spaces

Natural Gas "Fracking": Public Enemy #1

2011-05-27T06:29:00.000-07:00

We've been told that natural gas as an energy resource is a positive step towards the future and an environmentally-friendly energy source. Unfortunately, that is certainly not the case with the natural gas industry's use of "fracking," a horizontal drilling practice that injects chemicals and water miles underground in order to release natural gas. Currently, there is virtually no regulatory mechanism for keeping tabs on the environmental devastation caused by this practice.

One
recent article rightly points out some of the negative environmental repercussions and health issues associated with this practice: "There are many reports that identify negative effects from fracking, including: thepoisoning of wells, aquifers, streams and soil; the detrimental health effects to people living near the drilling sites." The article also cites a Cornell University study that found natural gas to be more harmful to the environment than even the dirty coal industry.

If you live anywhere near the mountains, then your state is probably complicit with the natural gas industry, and fracking is occurring in your backyard without any regulation. The Eastern section of the country has a massive natural gas reservoir called the Marcellus Shale, and drilling has begun in earnest in multiple states. Currently, my state of West Virginia has no environmental regulations to rein in the natural gas industry; fracking can and is occurring here and elsewhere, unfortunately. Further, as with the coal industry, many prominent politicians, including our governor, are "in bed" with the natural gas industry and do not favor any "pesky" regulations keeping tabs on it. Environmental problems have already occurred because of fracking, and regulation of this industry is desperately needed.

Appalachia Thanks the EPA (and The New York Times)

2011-01-23T05:47:00.000-08:00

Last week, the EPA did its job and protected communities from the devastating effects of mountaintop removal by revoking a permit for the largest mountaintop removal operation in West Virginia, Spruce Knob. In an editorial in The New York Times, the writers rightly mentions "the beginning of the end of a mining practice that has caused huge environmental harm across Appalachia." Instead of miles of pristine mountain streams being destroyed from dumping the toxic coal refuse, this mountain will now be preserved, pending appeals by Arch Coal. In the past, the EPA has been toothless in enforcing its permits and the Clean Air Act in particular; this revoking of the Spruce Knob permit shows the EPA is finally enforcing its policies, policies that protect the public from environmentally-devastating practices.

Please join me in doing everything humanly possible to stop mountaintop removal, including contacting Senators Manchin and Rockefeller, both of whom have antiquated, pro-coal approaches on this issue.

New Article on Virginia Graf in Charleston Gazette

2010-08-09T06:03:00.000-07:00

In this weekend's Gazette, the Democratic challenger to Shelley Moore Capito finally gets some deserved notice in a fairly-decent biography and write-up. Graf has been an educator for the rural poor and has worked for social justice for much of her life. In the article, she mentions that West Virginia has been last in education rankings, in salaries, and in job opportunities for far too long. My sense is that she understands the value of government programs to rectify these systemic inequities, though a larger plan for addressing West Virginia's economic problems should be introduced.

There are two main issues that are key to West Virginia's betterment that contrast Graf's positions with Capito's. On the destructive practice of mountaintop removal, Graf opposes this environmentally-unsustainable practice while Capito supports any and everything associated with the coal industry. The second issues is health care. On health care, Capito voted against the weakened Democratic bill introduced in Congress, this despite it offering quality health care opportunities for tens of thousands of West Virginians. Graf, by contrast, supports "Medicare for all" from birth to death, a program which would eliminate the for-profit healthcare companies participation as health care providers. Graf's website clarifies her positions on these and other issues.

The Gazette article is a good start for introducing voters to Graf. But, as Graf mentions, voters deserve full press coverage of candidate's positions, and "grassroots campaigns" deserve just as much attention as the races that the major parties deem worthy of their financial support.

Hope for Democrats in 2010: Possible Red-to-Blue Senate Seats

2010-07-09T05:40:00.000-07:00

Conventional wisdom is that the ruling party generally loses seats in the first midterm election after a presidential race. I'm not arguing against this logic and do think that Democrats will lose house seats, though not control of the house. According to cqpolitics race ratings, there are currently 9 toss-up senate seats: 5 of which are Democratic, while 4 are Republican.

The superiority of Democratic policies over Republican ones, from favoring environmental protection to ushering in new, landmark health care reform bill, are not in question. The recurring problem for Democrats has been an inability to articulate our policies in clear, unambiguous ways -- soundbites that present a somewhat unified policy equivalent to, say, the Republicans call for limited government. But a pragmatist must also concede that historical forces and national mood sometimes trump policy superiority; the midterm elections could be rough.

Not all is lost, though. These Republican-held senate seats are definitely winnable for Democrats:

1). Kentucky. Attorney General Jack Conway is running against Tea Party extremist Rand Paul. Kentucky, on a local level, still has many Democrats in power, and this race will be one that reflects local issues and concerns -- not as much a national race. Conway comes across as downright moderate compared to Paul's philosophy on social security and corporate protectionism. Recent polling even has the race tied. If this race is a referendum on Paul, then Conway wins.

2). New Hampshire. Congressman Paul Hodes is the Democrat running against former state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte. Obama won New Hampshire by 10 points, and the state has been trending Democratic in every major election in recent years. Hodes is relatively popular, and the Republican Party is a tarnished brand in the Granite State. Ayotte is a conservative on cultural issues, which doesn't bode well once voters get to know her views better.

3). Ohio With Senator Voinovich's retirement, this open seat, a race between Republican Rob Portman and Democratic Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher, becomes perhaps the most competitive in the nation. Portman was a Bush foot soldier and represents some very unpopular right-wing policies; he has amassed an impressive campaign chest thus far, though. Fisher needs to remind voters that Republican policies helped send Ohio manufacturing jobs overseas and ensure that he and Governor Strickland have a unified Democratic ticket.

4). Missouri Here, Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan is running against Congressman Roy Blunt for Senator Bond's open senate seat. Carnahan has the name recognition in this state which recently elected a female Democrat for its other senate seat. Bond has a lobbyist history that should hurt him, too.

Other Republican-held seats that Democrats should target: 1) Florida. Even if Crist wins, he could be persuaded to vote with the Democrats. 2). North Carolina. Elaine Marshall is a strong candidate in this state which has voted Democratic in recent years. 3) Louisiana. Charlie Melancon is a strong candidate in his challenge to David Vitter.

Mountaintop Removal and Coal Company "Reclamation"

2010-05-18T06:13:00.000-07:00

One of the great and underreported environmental travesties of our time is the destruction of hundreds of mountains in Appalachia by mountaintop removal, a form of strip mining that leaves devastating environmental consequences for local communities. But if one listens to the coal industry, one of the recurring arguments for mountaintop removal is that the destroyed and leveled mountaintops are "reclaimed," that is, used for economic and agricultural purposes afterwards. According to a new study by Appalachian Voices and the National Resources Defense Council, over 89% of destroyed mountaintops are not used for any economic purposes whatsoever, despite claims to the contrary.

Using their handy map below, one can view the nearly 500 mountains in Appalachia forever destroyed by mountaintop removal, as well as the scant few that have been used for economic or agricultural rebuilding. One more lie perpetuated by the anti-mountain coal industry has been debunked. Isn't it time we stop the horrific practice of mountaintop removal?

http://www.ilovemountains.org/reclamation-fail/

Stopping Mountaintop Removal in Appalachia

2009-12-30T06:40:00.000-08:00

Before moving to West Virginia, I thought I had encountered some of the worst types of pollution and environmental devastation, from nuclear waste being dumped in South Carolina to massive toxic sites in New Jersey. Though those are indeed horrific, mountaintop removal in Appalachia almost assuredly is the most environmentally-destructive practice I've seen.

Mountaintop removal begins with blasting an entire mountain with high levels of explosives in order to get to the rich coal underneath. Essentially, the remaining mountain dirt and debris is dumped into adjacent valleys and hollows -- and streams --, thus destroying not only the mountains but also vital Appalachian streams and rivers. Coal ash is kept in "sludge" ponds nearby; there are hundreds of such toxic ponds in Appalachia left over from mountaintop removal and coal industry practices in general. Such sludge ponds have overflowed in Kentucky before, wreaking havoc on the environment and surrounding communities.

I strongly believe that mountaintop removal is a crime against humanity and the environment that must be stopped. Collective Appalachian and national organizations must continue to be the watchdog for this destructive coal industry practice and help bring people together for environmental activism.

There's a highly informative video from the organization "I Love Mountains" that highlights this destructive practice.

John Adler's Awful Vote against Health Care Reform

2009-11-23T07:14:00.000-08:00

When I lived in New Jersey, I volunteered for an idealistic progressive congressional candidate from my hometown, Haddonfield, who went on narrowly to win his race. John Adler was someone who fought for health reform while in the state senate, who had a near-perfect environmental rating, and who fought for substantial ethics and school-funding reforms. I'm honestly not quite sure, then, who the person is now voting against Democratic-bills in congress and who makes really poor justifications for doing so, such as this explanatory letter in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

In his defense, Adler does raise the specter of the rising cost of health care, but he voted against a health care reform bill that would shave hundreds of billions of the federal deficit, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The new health care reform bill would extend health insurance to millions of uninsured Americans, extending coverage to nearly 94% of all Americans. At the core of such reform is a necessary public option that would finally provide real competition to the private insurance company monopoly over health care services. Representative Adler voted against these core issues when he voted "no" on health care reform.

I held my nose when Representative Adler voted earlier in the year to allow firearms into state parks, a clear misinterpretation of the Second Amendment and a vote that was blatant pandering to the conservative right. It is little wonder that political analysts are calling Adler's vote a "serious political miscalculation" and a "vote against Obama." But Adler's vote against health care reform, along with supposed Republican "moderates" such as LoBiondo and Lance, is nothing short of heresy and a betrayal of his progressive principles. If I were still living in New Jersey, I would not volunteer for Adler's reelection campaign and would encourage others who supported his 2008 campaign to hold him accountable for his weak-kneed pandering to the right-wing at a moment of truth, real health care reform. Perhaps, had Adler been serving in congress in 1935, he would have voted against establishing Social Security for seniors because of a few concerns over the bill. He did what was the same thing when he was on the wrong side of history and voted against health care reform in 2009.

Corzine and Christie Need to Fill Out Project Vote Smart Questionnaire

2009-07-15T11:34:00.000-07:00

At a time when it is decidely hard to pin down politicians' views on specific subjects, Project Vote Smart is an invaluable resource. The web site compiles pertinent quotations on state and national issues from politicians and provides an issue-oriented questionnaire for nearly all potential elected officials in the country. This type of transparency is what should be encouraged.

As of yet, however, neither Jon Corzine or Chris Christie have bothered to fill out the issue-position questionnaire that has been given to both campaigns by Project Vote Smart. In Corzine's defense, he did fill out a questionnaire for his 2000 senate run, but that was nearly nine years ago, and voters need to know his and Christie's views on a variety of state subjects. Fill out those questionnaires, Corzine and Christie.

New Global Warming Legislation Must Move Forward, Despite Republican Opposition

2009-05-22T06:11:00.001-07:00

President Obama and congressional Democrats are holding true to campaign promises to lessen carbon emissions and protect the environment. A recent bill that is currently in subcommittee would move toward cap-and-trade for pollution, a way to curtail the amount of carbon emissions released into the atmosphere, and dictate renewable energy mandates for American energy needs. The New York Times calls it "the most ambitious" climate legislation ever debated in Congress. Not surprisingly, some Republicans, ever close to business lobbying interests, oppose the bill and have attempted to change its wording even before it gets out of the subcommittee.

This week has been a remarkable one for the environment, as President Obama has proposed a regulation to have all cars average 39 mpg by 2016, an ambitious, but doable, goal. This aforementioned congressional bill must move forward in Congress and be approved in order to jump-start the green economy and create a shared set of environmental mandates that all companies must follow. Republicans should not be allowed to "tinker" with the language of the bill in order to placate industry interests.

In Haddonfield, Vote Ed Borden for Mayor

2009-03-26T04:22:00.000-07:00

Municipal elections and commissioner positions are sometimes not the most flashy or glamorous things in the world. On top of that, residents can be quick to criticize or turn on elected officials if local taxes go up or any other event is deemed "their fault." As someone who is more engaged with state and national politics, I've happily found myself equally engaged in a local election: the 2009 Haddonfield municipal elections.

Ed Borden, who won his first commissioner term four years ago, deserves to be the next Haddonfield mayor, in my estimation. Borden has been proactive in preserving the downtown district, has sought ways to preserve open space without raising taxes, and held down costs of his department, Public Safety. I know that if there is a way to reduce spending while also maintaining services, Borden will find that solution. From talking to him personally, I also know that Borden is deeply involved in borough issues and is well-versed constituent concerns. From a progressive vantage, Borden is pro-environment, as he was the most proactive commissioner in a recent attempt to acquire open space, and he is pro-transparency.

My sense is that the borough needs a new direction, with someone who has the legal expertise and basic understanding of borough and county concerns. Ed Borden should be elected as the next mayor of Haddonfield.

Trying to Make Sense of Republican Opposition to the Stimulus Bill

2009-02-22T18:26:00.000-08:00

The past few days have been spent in some degree of meditation and retrospection: What is the Republican justification for opposing a stimulus bill that most economists contend we as a country need? How a Republican can, with a straight face, contend that trickle-down supply-side only snake oil economics is the answer to our country's economic plight is beyond me. Further, that some Republicans are so ill-informed as to suggest that ACORN, a poverty-centered organization, is directly benefitting from the stimulus bill, when ACORN, factually speaking, isn't even mentioned in the stimulus bill.

Multiple economists suggest that a larger economic stimulus bill is needed than the one presented. Economists such as Will Straw suggest "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is an important step in getting the U.S. economy back on track. The $787 billion package includes a mix of investments in infrastructure, science, education, and health—measures to put the United States on a greener path, help those most affected by the recession, support states that would otherwise have to lay off additional workers and cut back key public services including education, and provide tax cuts for low- and middle-income people and businesses." In other words, long-term economic growth, from public works projects and other endeavors, combined with short-term relief to those in poverty and middle-class and lower-class families through tax cuts, makes this stimulus package a successful, multi-tiered approach.

President Obama has reached out to Republicans in an attempt at real bipartisanship, and Republicans have instead stuck their heads in the stand, contending that the problem can be solved by the same lame bromides ("tax cuts for the richest Americans") that got us into this economic mess in the first place. Sadly, this inaction may be a recurring gesture by Republican "leadership" in the house and senate.

New Jersey Assembly: Reelecting Albano and Milam

2009-02-03T05:17:00.000-08:00

Over in New Jersey's First legislative district, there are two Assemblyman who merit reelection, Matt Milam and Nelson Albano. Both represent what has traditionally been a Republican district, that is, Cape May county. But by having a progressive-centrist message and by having the juggernaut that is Sen. Jeff Van Drew at the top of the ticket, they both have been elected to the assembly multiple times. Over at PolitickerNJ, the latest assembly rankings have both Albano and Milam at "Leans Democratic," just a smidge above the "toss up" rank.

Milam and Albano are responsive, smart legislators who respond to local Cape May issues, such as illegal dumping on state beaches and money for rural police patrols. They are pro-environment and generally vote with the Democratic majority on the important bills, including backing affordable housing for the state's most impoverished residents. For this and many other reasons, I am compelled to think that Albano and Milam deserve reelection in 2009 and encourage other Democrats and Independents (even moderate Republicans) to volunteer and support their re-election bid.

Democrats: Govern with Humility

2009-01-26T14:16:00.000-08:00

At no other time in my adult life have Democrats controlled the White House and both the U.S. House and the Senate, the former with a massive majority. When Pres. Bush was in office, he enjoyed Republican control of both the House and Senate, and Republicans overplayed their cards, particularly in overstepping in the Terry Schiavo case and in pushing through Iraq War legislation. Democrats should pursue progressive policies but also work with Republicans on key bills. Pres. Obama should include Republicans in foreign and domestic policy talks, and Republican leaders should be seriously consulted on major bills in congress. Democrats must govern with humility and truly not be hyperpartisan, as their predecessors were.

Chris Christie's Shameful Actions as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey

2009-01-12T05:41:00.000-08:00

Do you, reader, know who Chris Christie is? He's a former Bush-Cheney "pioneer," that is, someone who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for that uber-conservative presidential team. And now he's the Republican dream candidate for governor against Jon Corzine in 2009.

His tenure as U.S. Attorney has garnered praise (and deservedly so) for his role in convicting corrupt politicians, mostly Democrats such as Sharpe James and Wayne Bryant. But Christie abused the office of U.S. Attorney when he awarded a no-bid contract to former Bush Attorney General John Ashcroft. Unfortunately, Christie, who was supposed to be nonpartisan
as U.S. Attorney, also used his office to further the Republican agenda, whether it is his attendance at Republican events or his endorsements of Republican candidates; he also participated in acontroversial college t.v. show that the college in question wouldn't air because it was too partisan.

Christie got his position as U.S. Attorney because of his fundraising for Bush-Cheney, not because of his merits, which is the definition of quid-pro-quo. He also went after Democratic politicians, including a subpoena to Bob Menendez shortly before the 2006 senate election, that never amounted to anything. Christie has abused the office of U.S. attorney and should not be lauded as some type of "reformer" or ethics-minded politician.

Unions Getting Unfairly Blamed for Auto Woes

2008-12-19T09:03:00.000-08:00

If you've paid attention to media reports concerning the auto bailout and unions, you'd almost think that unions are to blame for almost every economic mistake by the big three automakers. Despite evidence to the contrary, such as woeful management decisions by U.S. automakers, unions, which are the lifeblood of this country, are unfairly taking the blame for the downfall of American auto manufacturing.

Unions have an agenda that all companies should have: fair wages for workers, basic standards for collective bargaining on contracts, health care, and other such measures. The answer lies in making all companies, including foreign car companies in the U.S., have union labor, as well as having the cost of health care come down through a combination of private and public health care system.

Unions aren't to blame for the auto companies requested bailout money, and they shouldn't be scapegoated by the media, some Republican politicians, and other such naysayers.

A "Newer" New Deal for Obama and the U.S.?

2008-11-22T05:35:00.000-08:00

Even before Obama was elected president, a recurring issue that was brought up by commentators and the political left has been whether his election is a prelude to a new version of FDR's "New Deal." The New Deal revitalized the American economy at a time of its worst depression through government investing in jobs programs. According to Michael Lind over at Salon.com , a "Newer" New Deal is just what is needed in the Obama administration; further, according to him, by promoting economic liberalism, Obama would then bring in a supermajority of conservatives into the Democratic coalition.

First, consider Lind's findings on public support for New Deal policies. From expanding unemployment benefits (76%) to supporting a public-works style jobs creation project (86%), the American people have incredibly strong support for these New Deal policies. Lind's second proposition is one with which I have qualms: He believes that if Democrats emphasized these "Newer Deal programs," that "social conservatives" would be "welcomed to a big-tent party defined almost exclusively by economic liberalism." I unabashedly oppose conservatism, whether it is social, economic (well, not completely there), or otherwise; the thought of sharing a coalition with social conservatives, those who oppose gay rights, abortion rights, and stem cell research, is a chilling one for me.

Would Democrats rule for perpetuity under a New Deal-style economic pursuit with the Obama administration? This seems to make sense, but Lind doesn't go into whether social conservatives would then have a voice in the Democratic Party, something I don't want.

Barack Obama for President

2008-11-01T07:52:00.000-07:00

For those of us who envision an American foreign policy that balances aggression with circumspection, a domestic policy that favors policies towards the working and middle class, and a theory of governance that considers special interests to be an anathema to democracy, there is only one choice in this presidential election, and that is Barack Obama. At this critical juncture in the country's trajectory, at this moment where America is on the precipice of a major financial crises, strong, capable leadership is what is required, and this is exactly what Obama can deliver.

Obama's economic plan and health care plan, admittedly, would require some financial investment up front, but both would ensure long terms savings in consumer spending and would genuinely assure, at least in health care, real reform for the first time in years. On the environment, a topic that has all but disappeared from American public discourse, Obama would restore the environmental regulations that have all but disappeared under the Bush presidency, and he would bring the country into a new green economy, one that McCain would only be drawn kicking and screaming into.

Obama offers the promise of a new foreign policy in Iraq, one that finally withdraws troops from that neverending conflict, and he would provide some much-needed immediate credibility in foreign relations, something that has been severely damaged during the cowboy diplomacy of the Bush administration.

For these and a host of other reasons, including the prospect of having someone as talented as Joe Biden also in the White House, I wholeheartedly endorse Barack Obama for president.

Congressional Candidate Chris Myers and His Horrifying Vision on Iraq

2008-10-23T15:08:00.000-07:00

Any philosophy on the Iraq War that doesn't include a set of benchmarks for the Iraqi government and a clear withdrawal plan, with timelines, is the equivalent of political amnesia and destructive in its vision. If American troops are asked to fight a war continuously, then the justification must be extraordinary. In Iraq, there is no such justification for this conflict, one that the U.S. has been in for a longer engagement than the entirety of U.S. engagement in World War 2. Try telling that, though, to right-wing neocon sympathizer Chris Myers, a Republican candidate for congress in New Jersey's third congressional district.

Myers, in a recent interview, said that "The surge is working and we must complete the job over there to keep us safe at home." Myers philosophy on Iraq is intellectually irresponsible: There are terrorists over there, he says, so we must stay in perpetual engagement in Iraq -- no timeline, no withdrawal.

Myers, who makes no differentiation between the Shiite majority, Sunni Arabs, and other factions in Iraq, only sees "terrorists" "over there." His argument, amazingly enough, is that the Iraq War somehow makes the U.S. safe from terrorism, "We have to make sure that evil doesn't come to the United States." The Iraq War, in fact, exacerbates terrorist activity, keeps American troops in the role of moderating a civil war, and lessens America's national security. Chris Myers, who is supported by right-wing neoconservative organizations like "Freedom Watch," just doesn't get it.

Compare that to John Adler's clear, correct stance on the ill-begotten Iraq War: "We're spending a lot of money in Iraq. I think we should be spending that money in America." Adler favors a phased redeployment of troops out of Iraq, beginning in the next few months, while Myers favors perpetual occupation of Iraq with no end in sight. Adler is absolutely right in his opposition to this war and his call for a timeline and withdrawal; Myers, on the other hand, lives in neocon la-la land.

Connecticut Opens the Door for Marriage Equality for Gays -- New Jersey Should Follow Suit

2008-10-10T17:02:00.001-07:00

Some rather incredible news today: Connecticut, via a landmark Supreme Court decision, has now legalized gay marriage. For those of us who envision a future American culture where homophobia is a thing of the past, and equal rights are afforded to all, this action represents a huge step in the right direction. Supreme Court Justice Richard Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that "Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice." The state constitution is cited here, but legal protection for gay and lesbian couples, while not explicitly state as such, are part of the equal rights ethos of the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution, too.

New Jersey shouldn't wait to legalize gay marriage, as now Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut (Bravo, Connecticut) have all legalized gay marriage. What will make New Jersey's marriage equality law different, if it is indeed passed, is that it will legalize gay marriage through actual legislative vote. That vote should come sooner rather than later.

Palin's Latest, and Did Anyone in the McCain Campaign Bother to Vet Her?

2008-09-30T12:07:00.001-07:00

Anyone who knows my meager work knows that I try to focus solely on the issues, not the peripheral personal stuff that all too often substitutes for political discourse and exchange these days. Though I find myself profoundly disturbed by Sarah Palin's views on abortion (all women must be forced to bring the fetus to birth, in her opinion), global warming (not man-made, in her view), and a host of other issues, including censorship and gay rights, I am also left wondering whether the McCain campaign did any serious vetting of their vice-presidential candidate.

The Associated Press, not some liberal blog, did some basic investigation of Palin, what McCain should have first done, and have found that she took gifts from businesses while Wasilla, AK, mayor. According to the report, Palin "gladly accepted gifts from merchants" and "stepped in to help friends or neighbors with City Hall dealings." This raises some serious ethical questions about Palin's ability to govern honestly and to do so without the influence of special interest groups.

My genuine question is whether McCain really did any vetting of Palin, who seemingly has a closet full of skeletons and who has used her position to assist friends and receive free gifts. At the very least, McCain's judgment is brought into question, and Palin is once again found to be not even close to ready to serve as an able public servant.

John Adler Wins Second Debate against Chris Myers

2008-09-22T06:57:00.000-07:00

I've written a brief report over at Blue Jersey on the second debate between Democrat John Adler and Republican Chris Myers. Adler won.

Republican Congressional Candidate Chris Myers is a Hypocrite

2008-09-17T11:30:00.000-07:00

In one of the most-watched congressional races in the country, New Jersey's District 3, Republican candidate Chris Myers, the Deputy Mayor of Medford, has been running a campaign based on negative attacks on his superior opponent, State Senator John Adler, and has created faux outrage over various portrayals of Myers -- all of this while neglecting to discuss the important issues of the day. Now it seems that Myers is bringing in Pres. Bushto help his failing, cash-strapped campaign. Of course, Myers' ideology, from his support of an endless war doctrine in Iraq to his belief that oil companies rather than average citizens deserve tax breaks, are completely in line with Bush and Cheney.

Glenn Paulsen clone and apologist Chris Russell stated about the Bush-Myers event: "We were always confident that we would be able to raise the money in enough time to get our message out and to compete, but this certainly helps." Actually, there has been no message from the Myers campaign, only personal attacks on Adler and, hypocritically enough, attempts to distance Myers from the failed policies of the Bush-Cheney campaign. In fact, a few weeks ago, Myers went apoplectic (again, faux outrage just to gain media attention) simply because a flier was distributed with a picture of him walking with Bush.

Now Bush is raising money for Myers, who is behind 10-1 in fundraising, and Myers is all too eager to have his hand out. There's a hypocrite in the race for the 3rd district congressional seat, and his name is Chris Myers.

Good Things Happening for Democrats in Virginia

2008-09-14T19:29:00.000-07:00

As a native Virginian who headed home over the weekend, I was reminded how much the electoral politics have changed in the Old Dominion State. For example, in the 1990s, the U.S. senators were both Republican, and Gov. Wilder notwithstanding, so were the governors; ditto for the state senate and state delegates. As of 2008, there is a Democratic governor, a Democratic state senate, and, almost certainly, two outstanding Democratic senators in Jim Webb and (hopefully) Mark Warner. Warner has helped draw enough support in Republican parts of the state, including the Shenandoah Valley, to change the dymanics of Virginia politics. At least one congressional district, the 11th, in which Tom Davis, a moderate Republican, is retiring, is going from red-to-blue; and one near Hampton Roads might do the same.

Grassroots action on behalf of local Democrats, coupled with enough financial backing and a good strategy, has yielded some very favorable results. Is this enough for Obama to win Virginia, though?

Short Post: Bipartisanship Dead?

2008-09-07T10:34:00.000-07:00

For some reason, I've lately been thinking of bipartisan legislation (the original No Child Left Behind on the national level, for example, or environmental legislation here in New Jersey on the state level) and whether the country has become too polarized to make bipartisan legislation a reality. I'm thinking of this partly because the tenor and tone of the presidential contest is not at the high level I think it should be -- and I do, fairly or unfairly, blame conservatives for much of that negative tone.

Surely, the media's "frame narrative" that is told about bipartisanship (more ideological partisanship than ever before) needs unpacking, however accurate such a narrative may partly be. But have the dual poles of progressivism and conservatism become too distinct, too completely different to result in legislation in Washington that is, collectively speaking, for the good of the country? If, for example, comprehensive energy legislation that invested in alternative and renewable energy was also couple with something I vehemently oppose, new oil drilling in environmentally-safe (as safe as possible) sites, came up, I would support it. One reason that one commentator applauded Joe Biden as Obama's vp pick was because of bipartisanship purposes; Biden originally arrived in the senate at the time of less partisanship rankling and polarization.

Legislation must move forward when it meets certain qualitative and quantitative criteria of approval, and I would hope that the new administration and congress, come 2009, invoke a genuine spirit of bipartisanship, though I imagine that's an ideal that may not come to fruition.

Linda Stender is Right: Leonard Lance Stoops to a New Low

2008-08-27T09:15:00.000-07:00

In fundraising and general campaign financial health,Republican congressional candidate Leonard Lance is in trouble, as Huntsu over at Blue Jersey has noted that Lance has close to $200,000 in debt, including a $100,000 personal loan he made to his own campaign. With no financial help on the way from the NRCC, at least not yet, Lance has decided to use Karl Rove-esque personal attacks on his opponent, Democratic Assemblywoman Linda Stender, rather than mount a substantive campaign. And as I've written elsewhere on Blue Jersey,, Lance is a dyed-in-the-wool right-winger who sometimes is mistakenly cast as a "moderate."

Thus the Lance campaign sent out press releases supposely concerning Linda Stender's finances that accused Stender of not paying her federal and state taxes on a family business. The only problem is that, according to records, Stender makes no money off the business, the business in question is owned by her mother and sister, and Stender only has a 5% stake in the business ownership.

Stender has used this opportunity to talk about middle-class economic struggles in the state and country, which is the right course of action to take: "It is shameless that Leonard Lance and the Republican Party are attacking my 80-year-old mother and sister's small business, particularly at a time when small businesses throughout New Jersey are struggling to make ends meet," Stender said.

Why Lance, a somewhat respected, anti-partisan (at least in the state senate) politician would stoop to this low level is clear: His campaign is losing any and all traction after a difficult GOP primary, and Stender is the superior candidate for this seat. Distractions and personal attacks, especially with they are based on questionable merit, are not going to win this campaign for Lance.

Bayh or Biden?

2008-08-18T07:02:00.000-07:00

From what I'm reading online, and the general buzz surrounding vice presidential candidates, it seems that this is now a two-person race between Indiana Senator Evan Bayh and Delaware Senator Joe Biden for Obama's VP. My personal evaluation is that either of these candidates would be attractive ones, but that is a pragmatic assessment more than anything else; I think they would balance the ticket.

First, either one will be unwelcomed by elements of the progressive netroots; both senators supported the Iraq War, with Biden working especially closely with the Bush administration in its initial planning. Both, to be fair, have since basically repudiated their support for the war, and each favors a withdrawal from Iraq.

Biden is from a blue state, with a Democratic governor (Minter), which means that Dems won't lose a senator, should Obama be elected. Bayh is from a Republican-leaning state, with a Republican governor (Daniels, who is leading against Thompson), and would probably be replaced by a Republican. Strategically, it makes sesnse for Biden to be chosen, even over a Jack Reed of Rhode Island (Republican governor), in this regard. Biden, of course, would be in his 70s at the end of Obama's two terms, should Obama win, which would make him a somewhat old presidential candidate.

Both Biden and Bayh would be friends of labor, both would understand the dymanics of the progressive turn of the country; but a presidential election, of course, is based upon who is at the top of the ticket, so perhaps the pick wouldn't have major ramifications one way or another, and this holds true for McCain, too.

It's Time to Show Frank LoBiondo the Door: David Kurkowski for Congress in NJ-02

2008-08-13T07:33:00.000-07:00

Despite breaking a term-limit pledge, social conservative Frank LoBiondo, a Republican in New Jersey's 2nd district, absolutely should be taken out of office and replaced with a capable, new representative; that person should be Cape May councilman David Kurkowski. Kurkowski is slowly gaining traction in this southernmost N.J. district, and the more that LoBiondo's awful voting record and fundamentalist beliefs become apparent, the better position Kurkowski is in.

LoBiondo is a decent congressman on two issues, the environment and free trade/unions; but Kurkowski would be even better on both these issues, and he'd be working with an increased Democratic congress majority and (hopefully) President Obama and thus be able better to implement Democratic-led legislation in both these areas. LoBiondo is stridently, unapologetically pro-Iraq War and favors no withdrawal or benchmarks for the Iraqi government; Kurkowski opposes the Iraq War and and understands that strategic redeployment is necessary for our country's protection and Iraqi sovereignty.

LoBiondo's social conservatism is appalling: He has voted against Family Planning funding for women in developing nations if abortion was included as an option there, he opposes any and all stem cell research, and he voted to change the Constitution and restrict the rights of gay and lesbian couples. Meanwhile, as LoBiondo acts as an apologist for Bush-Cheney policies, the federal government continues to be less than helpful to struggling NJ-02 communities like Millville, Salem and Vineland.

Join the Kurkowski campaign and give a few bucks to his Act Blue page, if you can. New Jersey-02 deserves better than Frank LoBiondo

McCain Out of Touch on Iraq

2008-08-01T08:41:00.000-07:00

Columnist Ellen Goodman has a must-read article out on John McCain and his selective amnesia on the Iraq War:

In "McCain's Iraq War Stance Rooted in Another Era," she basically argues that McCain is reliving the end of the Vietnam War with his perpetual call for a nebulous years-away victory in Iraq and that he frames the Iraq War post-surge, chronologically, neglecting the very reason that we went into Iraq. McCain's convoluted logic is that, since the surge was "successful," the war is therefore a success; he neglects to question the origins of the war, let alone the price that the war is having on U.S. troop readiness and other matters.

I've been noting McCain's selective amnesia on Iraq for quite some time, from his claim that we'd be greeted as liberators there to his statement, about a year ago, that walking in Iraq was like walking in a peaceful American market -- this despite him being heavily guarded and recent bombings in the very area he was touring.

Something is wrong with Sen. McCain's understanding of the Iraq War; certainly, it seems clear that his policy here has been coopted by a neoconservative doctrine of endless war, but he is also confusing Shiite with Sunni, Al Queda with insurgents, the wars aims vs. the actual problems on the ground.

Will Rural Issues become Part of Political Debate in 2008?

2008-07-12T09:34:00.000-07:00

Rural America has been particularly hard hit in the past few decades, with decreasing jobs, lack of vocational and college training, and national priorities that often leave out rural programs. I was particularly pleased when John Edwards proposed a "Rural Recovery Act," which would bring new technologies to rural areas and involve government investment in rural area infrastructure. Growing up in and around Appalachia, I saw firsthand how rural areas have not been able to adjust to the economic times and how rural poverty often goes unnoticed and untreated.

I was pleasantly surprised, though, to read that Obama has a rather extensive "Rural America" Plan to get these parts of the country better footing in today's economy. One of the biggest problems, seemingly, is the way that individual family farms don't qualify for government assistance, but Obama's plan addresses that oversight, and it includes investment in rural education, invest in new communication infrastructures in rural areas, and include training and increased funds for land grant universities, particularly their agricultural departments. Obama's plan, which I haven't even gone into complete detail about, has merit to it, and I hope that his rural America plan results in an economic reversal for this important part of our country.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/ruralplan/

John McCain: Radical Conservative on Birth Control, Choice

2008-06-27T10:01:00.000-07:00

With any degree of credibility, no one can claim John McCain to be a "moderate" on social issues, and his record on birth control, health services for women, and a woman's right to choose is profoundly disturbing. Ole "Maverick" McCain has voted against funding for overseas abortion services, funding for birth control for poor women, and voted repeatedly for legislation that would chip away at abortion rights, including labeling the fetus a person. His stances on these important issues should ensure that any woman concerned about reproductive rights (or anyone at all supportive of them) should be deeply concerned about McCain's fundamentalist stances on these issues.

Take a look at the McCain file on women's issues, and prepare to be shocked by his fundamentalism -- and by the fact that it isn't someone like Santorum's instead:
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/mccain_fact_sheet.pdf

Could John Edwards Be Obama's Vice President?

2008-06-21T07:08:00.000-07:00

This week, something happened that made me nearly pinch myself because I thought I was dreaming: John Edwards was brought up as a potential vice presidential candidate by congressional allies speaking with Barack Obama's vice president search committeee. The thought of having an Obama-Edwards ticket is one that is incredibly attractive to me, as Edwards was my original choice for president, and I see him sharing many of the same values and initiatives, including reform of the status quo in Washington, as Obama.

Edwards would help shore up a shaky Democratic base for Obama: white working-class Democratic-leaning voters, many of whom supported Clinton in the Democratic primary. A recent poll taken by SurveyUSA shows that an Obama-Edwards ticket would win the swing states of New Mexico and Ohio very comfortably for the Democrats, all but guaranteeing victory for them in November. Edwards would be able to go into Appalachia and speak directly with voters there about their economic concerns and pocketbook issues -- and do so with authenticity.

This is a dream ticket for me; I hope that other Democrats agree with my assessment and see the wisdom of having these two together on the Democratic ticket.

South Jersey Needs to Support Frank Lautenberg

2008-06-12T18:22:00.000-07:00

To be sure, it would have been better for South Jersey had Rob Andrews won the Democratic primary over Frank Lautenberg. But that was not to be. It is also hardly worth disputing that Sen. Lautenberg needs to be more responsive to South Jersey needs and be more active in this part of the state. That said, I have little doubt that Lautenberg would be a superior alternative to Dick Zimmer, the N.J. GOP senate candidate, in terms of helping South Jersey. Besides getting earmarks for this part of the state, Lautenberg helped secure federal funding for the Coastal Heritage Trail, which comprises a wide swathe of the southern part of the state, as well as procuring federal funding, with Andrews' help, for a Rowan program.

It troubled me to learn that one of the first post-primary polls showed Zimmer leading Lautenberg in South Jersey, when Lautenberg, rather than the ex-lobbyist Zimmer, would be the better choice for South Jersey concerns, from federal funding for public transportation to environmental preservation to support for homeland security funds for South Jersey. The Democratic primary is over: It is time for Andrews' supporters, and South Jersey in general, to unite behind Lautenberg.

It's Time to Legalize Gay Marriage in New Jersey

2008-05-24T15:55:00.000-07:00

In 2006, New Jersey passed an important Supreme Court law that sought to procure equal rights for gay and lesbian couples, but the civil unions law hasn't fulfilled that specific edict. Garden State Equality has posted a new website (http://www.civilunionsdontwork.com/) that documents the failings of the current civil union law, and the testimony from same-sex couples is one and the same: the current law has loopholes that companies use to deny basic human rights to gay and lesbian couples. The recent ruling in California that allowed gay marriage should serve as a wake-up call to New Jersey's legislature: We need to recognize full marriage equality for gays and lebians and leave the second-class citizenship to Jim Crow laws of the past. I fully support marriage equality in New Jersey and encourage others to do the same.

Rob Andrews Plan for Iraq: Worth a Look

2008-05-11T18:00:00.000-07:00

Congressman Rob Andrews, for whom I encourage every New Jersey Democrat and Independent to vote on 3 June, has a real, thoughtful analysis of the Iraq civil war -- and how to get U.S. troops out of that seemingly endless war. Andrews' plan argues that the U.S. should leave a swathe of Iraq under the control of 75,000 Iraq troops and see how the Sunni and Shia leaders there unite to secure their own country. He calls for the total transition of U.S. troops in a reasonable timeframe, between 12-18 months. Andrews also considers that a tripartite state, with a decentralized federal government, may be a needed alternative to a strong central government.

This plan is multifaceted and complex, much as the situation and cultural context is on the ground in Iraq. Andrews needs to continue to present such policy-driven plans to the press and media because a policy-oriented approach, straight from the horse's mouth, is in distinct contrast with Lautenberg and his lack of a concrete, comprehensive plan for Iraq.

For more on Andrews' speech on Iraq, see here:

http://www.robandrewsforchange.com/iraqspeech

Andrews and Lautenberg: A Tale of Two Campaigns

2008-04-25T08:33:00.000-07:00

Thus far in the N.J. U.S. Democratic senate campaign, Congressman Rob Andrews has repeatedly put himself in the public eye and is now going to be hosting a series of town forums across the state, according to the Press of Atlantic City. Andrews has also challenged incumbent Frank Lautenberg to a series of debates, yet Lautenberg has yet to accept any of them; in fact, The Star-Ledger has reported that Lautenberg may not accept any public debates because of concerns over the senator's age and his poor speaking abilities.

The N.J. senate race thus far has been one where Andrews has constantly put himself up for scrutiny in the public eye -- what democratic debate should entail -- while Lautenberg has refused public appearances and has merely posted negative press releases on Andrews and had surrogates to the actual work for him. Talk about a contrast.

Rob Andrews for U.S. Senate

2008-04-10T14:20:00.000-07:00

A week ago, my congressman, Rob Andrews, shook up the Democratic establishment in N.J. by openly rebelling and challenging Frank Lautenberg for the Democratic nomination for U.S. senate. This was a courageous, and even possibly necessary, move, since the process of annointment and coronation was too exclusive and anti-democratic in the first place. Hence, part of my enthusiasm for Andrews bid, besides the fact that New Jersey hasn't had a U.S. senator from South Jersey for something like 50-odd years, is that his bid represents a stark change from politics-as-usual in the Democratic hierarchy; just today, for example, Andrews traveled to Newark and presented his policies and platform to groups there, while Lautenberg has seemingly viewed this process as a coronation.

Andrews' legislation has been marked by stellar environmental accomplishments, social liberalism on gay rights and a woman's right to choose, and pro-worker, pro-veteran legislation. I distinctly remember Andrews' brave resistance to Gov. Rendell's ill-conceived Delaware River dredging plan, as well as how he successfully used government regulations to keep a deadly nerve agent from being dumped in the river; this and other legislation helped earn Andrews a 100% rating from the League of Conservation Voters. A bill he co-sponsored, H.R. 251, helps small businesses avoid an additional tax; other bills ensure that military personnel can keep their private insurance while serving, as well as Andrews' backing in the recent environmentally-sound energy bill.

Andrews is a talented congressman, one who is accessible and has been called "brilliant" by those who know him best. Andrews' policy knowledge makes him a more attractive candidate than Lautenberg, since Andrews can bring a broad sense of legislative nuances to his understanding of bills -- and what they need to get passed This type of window of opportunity for New Jersey Democrats doesn't happen too often, and I fully and enthusiastically endorse Congressman Andrews for Sen. Lautenberg's current seat.

N.J. Congressman Chris Smith is No Moderate

2008-03-31T19:38:00.000-07:00

How do you characterize a Republican moderate? In my mind, such a politician would be moderate on social issues, perhaps even pro-choice, and present economic platforms that not only benefit the wealthiest persons but the average citizen; perhaps this moderate would even speak out against prominent Republican leaders when they err and question those leaders' strategies when they fail (Iraq and Bush, anyone?) Judging by these standards, NJ GOP congressman Chris Smith is anything but a moderate, though he is inevitably given this title because of his environmental record, which is good, and a few other issues.

On stem cell research and abortion rights, Smith is a staunch social conservative, Bush Republican; he refuses even the smallest amount of compromise and moderation when it comes to expanding embryonic stem cell lines and giving women the right to choose. Smith even wants to change the U.S. Constitution to prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying, and his legislative record reveals someone who favors hostile policies towards gays and lesbians. On the Iraq War, there simply is no bigger cheerleader for the Bush-Cheney doctrine of endless, resource-depleting war than Smith.

There is good reason why upstart Democratic challenger and History professor Josh Zeitz is making headway against Smith and his destructive policy positions. Smith is no moderate, and his record instead reveals that he is an out-of-touch incumbent beholden to the social conservative movement and Bush's failed domestic and international policies.

Lautenberg is Right: Five Years is Too Long in Iraq

2008-03-21T05:13:00.000-07:00

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who is possibly one of the most respected and thoughtful senators in the country, is sending out a petition to get U.S. troops out of Iraq in a strategic redeployment; I encourage anyone reading this post to sign it immediately and let Pres. Bush know that Americans are fed up with propping up a foreign government that won't take the necessary steps to take responsibility for their own country.

Lautenberg has been working on important legislation in Washington and has more committee power than in the past; his legislation includes a new farm bill that would help N.J. farmers with non-specialty subsidies, a new GI Bill with Sen. Webb, and several environmental initiatives, thus making Lautenberg receive a 100% rating from the League of Conservation Voters.

Lautenberg is right on the Iraq War, though, when he says "The best thing to do for our country is to start getting our troops home now." There will be no real, substantive change unless benchmarks and withdrawal plans are carried forth. Lautenberg understands this, but Bush and McCain simply don't.

http://www.democratsenators.org/o/19/t/70/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=95

Salon.com is Right: The Media Has Failed the American People on Iraq

2008-03-13T19:49:00.000-07:00

A war without any dead bodies portrayed, a war without any caskets allowed to be photographed, a war with nary a question of its motivation by the media: These are the hallmarks of the continuing and illegitimate war in Iraq and how it has played out in American public discourse and media. Salon.com writer Greg Mitchell argues in today's edition that the media, to use another writer's term, was basically a "lapdog" for the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq War and, to make matters worse, still parrots the talking points of the administration when it comes to the war.

Mitchell is right, of course. In rightly decrying the media's lack of questioning of the war and framing of the war, what Mitchell calls "sleepwalking into the abyss," he makes the provocative claim that the media is merely confirming whatever paradigm the administration pushes for continued conflict. Mitchell says, in quoting a colleague, that the framing goes like this: " "1) If X does not happen, there is no justification for staying; 2) X has not happened; 3) we must stay." This is the current justification for the success of the surge strategy. Since the surge has helped abate violence, we must stay in Iraq to sustain that, so the pro-war argument goes; but the previous justification for staying in Iraq was to abate the violence and give the Iraqi government a window of opportunity. So much for that justification (the Bush administration will conjure up another one soon enough).

A military reporter for The Washington Post is quoted as saying about their paper's pro-war editorial stance: "There was an attitude among editors: Look, we're going to war, why do we even worry about all the contrary stuff?" Well, that "contrary stuff" is just what the media, the fourth estate, should be involved in, whether it contradicts an administration's call to war or not. The media simply did not do its job in the run-up to the Iraq War and continues to be light on the reporting and on the coverage. A war without any dead bodies, a war with daily changing justifications that are hardly questioned by the media, a war that has been sanitized for the American public: Welcome to the media coverage of the Iraq War, circa 2003-2008.

http://www.salon.com/books/excerpt/2008/03/11/greg_mitchell/index.html

The Flawed GOP Congressional Candidates in NJ-03

2008-03-03T07:56:00.000-08:00

The only candidates to step forth for the difficult challenge of facing smart, well-funded Democratic state senator John Adler in New Jersey congressional district 3 are all flawed in their own way. First, there is BurlCO GOP machine-backed candidate Chris Myers, who refused to say how he would have voted on the original Iraq War resolution in his first press conference, has had a lackluster showing in fundraising, and is a social conservative on the issue of a womans right to choose, a position that is fundamentally at odds with the majority of New Jerseyans and voters in district 3. Then there is Ocean County freeholder Jack Kelly, who, besides working closely with GOP powerbroker George Gilmore, is best known for refusing domestic partner benefits to be passed on for a same-sex couple; this was recently covered in the Oscar-winning film 'Freeheld.' A less well-known candidate is Tabernacle Committeeperson Justin Murphy, who, like Myers, also is pro-Iraq War; Murphy, charmingly enough, even wants prayer instituted in public schools.

The fringe-right views of these flawed Republican candidates should become even more apparent as the campaign progresses, and someone emerges to take on Adler. That person is in a difficult position financially and ideologically because Republicans are so far behind in fundraising and because they promote Bush-Cheney foreign and domestic policies as the answer to the country's problems.

Misguided Conservative Obsession with Reagan

2008-02-19T05:15:00.001-08:00

One of the more bizarre phenomenons of conservative thinking is to elevate the sad and unfortunate presidency of Ronald Reagan to empyrean heights, this despite Reagan's poor record and his inability to react to crises at the time. Economic conservatives laud Reagan's tax cut philosophy, yet they fail to acknowledge that he left the country heavily in debt; surely this is an indictment, not validation, of such an economic policy. According to a debt watchdog group, "Despite his claim to hate the debt, Reagan instituted unprecedented peacetime deficit spending." Once again, a Democratic president had to clean up the economic mess left behind by a Republican president.

According to records and one Reagan biography, "By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever." Reagan's Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Interior and many other major or minor characters in his administration were either indicted or convicted of a crime. In comparative terms, Reagan's corruption makes the current unethical practices (Attorney-gate, Enron-gate, etc.) of the Bush administration seem rather tame.

Though Reagan may be best remembered for taking credit for ending the Cold War, he also should be remembered for his criminal lack of a response to the growing AIDS crises. Allen White writes in The San Francisco Chronicle that "Following discovery of the first cases in 1981, it soon became clear a national health crisis was developing. But President Reagan's response was "halting and ineffective," according to his biographer Lou Cannon. Those infected initially with this mysterious disease -- all gay men -- found themselves targeted with an unprecedented level of mean-spirited hostility." To say that Reagan abdicated his responsibility as Commander in Chief in his non-response to this growing crises may be an understatement.

There are several other reasons that Reagan should be viewed in a more critical light, from Iran-Contra to the growth of poverty in the country during his tenure; but I would encourage conservatives to look closer at Reagan's actual record (only the marginal tax rate went down; spending and other economic indicators went up) rather than romanticize this B-movie actor-cum-president. What I find strikingly similar between the current Bush administration and Reagan is that Bush 43 isn't an aberration in the conservative movement. Bush's failures, according to Reagan hagiographers, aren't conservativism's failures; but the opposite is instead true.

Van Drew Running against LoBiondo?

2008-02-11T17:22:00.000-08:00

Frank LoBiondo has easily held the congressional seat in NJ house district 2; that could all change with the possible entry of popular Cape May state senator Jeff Van Drew entering the race against LoBiondo. The Atlantic City Press is reporting that Van Drew is now considering running against LoBiondo, who is moderate and bearable on some issues but blindly supports the president when it comes to the failed policies in Iraq and even is anti-earned citizenship for all illegal immigrants.

Van Drew alienated some progressives when he voted against the death penalty abolishment bill in the state legislature, but he has a wide swathe of support along the Southern tip of N.J. As an educator I appreciate Van Drew's work a Cape May community college up and running.

The article lists good reasons for Van Drew to wait for his congressional run, but it also notes that the 2008 election is an historic opportunity for Democrats to make major gains in Congress. Van Drew shold strongly consider running, even if I too have my concerns about him running right after he won an important state senate election.

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/campaign/story/7534849p-7437582c.html

Edwards Supporters for Obama

2008-01-31T05:39:00.001-08:00

Is there any remote doubt who, between Clinton and Obama, would carry on John Edwards' compelling vision for economic equality and other issues? Edwards was the candidate who drove Clinton and Obama on their respective domestic and international policies and had the strongest withdrawal plan for Iraq, the best plan to combat global warming, and the most comprehensive universal health care plan. Though Sen. Clinton would make a fine president, she represents the Washington elite and status quo that Edwards has been fighting against.

The best candidate for us Edwards supporters now to back is Sen. Obama, who had the foresight to see that the Iraq War should have never been fought and who shares Edwards' commitment to limit the influence of corporate lobbyists and special interest groups. We Edwards supporters can still make a difference in this race and continue his vision -- but now do so through Obama and his compelling, exciting campaign for changing this country fundamentally.

Adler and Stender Poised to Pick Up Republican Congressional Seats

2008-01-11T11:44:00.000-08:00

Here in early 2008, New Jersey Democrats already have reason to be optimistic that two of the best prospects for red-to-blue congressional seats will indeed win in 2008: John Adler and Linda Stender are positioning themselves to win in their respective districts in November. Adler, who is my state senator, recently reported having over $600,000 in campaign cash, while Stender has also reported impressive early numbers.

Republicans are penny-pinched for congressional races in 2008, and the NRCC recently reported only have between $2-$3 million in cash on hand. In these two districts, the top Republican candidates, such as Tom Kean Jr. and Diane Allen, opted out of the race, perhaps because the writing is on the wall concerning how anti-Republican this election will be.

Currently, despite being one of the most liberal states in the country, New Jersey has 6 house seats controlled by Republicans; if Adler and Stender win, that would give New Jersey Democrats 9 house seats to 4 for Republicans, though N.J. stands to lose a congressional seat because of dwindling population numbers. At any rate, I agree with N.J. political reporter Tom Moran when he predicts both of these seats will go Democratic in 2008; both Adler and Stender are high-quality progressive candidates who would represent the state well in Washington.

Update: Congressional Quarterly is now reporting that Alder and Stender are in the top 5 in fundraising and funds available for house seat challengers. Note to DCCC: Go hard after these winnable seats.

Elect John Edwards as President of the Country

2008-01-02T05:01:00.000-08:00

With the middle-class squeezed more financially each day, a neverending, illegitimate war in Iraq continuing, and a natural environment that is in crises because of man-made carbon emissions, the country cannot afford another poor president who cannot respond to these crises. Edwards, who has burnished his foreign policy credentials, including serving on a bipartisan Russian commission, traveling to Uganda and Sudan, and meeting world leaders, is the best candidate to address these major problems facing our country, and he should be elected president of the U.S.

For Democrats, Edwards is a candidate who speaks with remarkable candor and clarity on issues, something that Kerry was rightly criticized for not doing in the 2004 presidential contest. Edwards also will defeat any Republican who goes up against him, as shown in poll after poll, presents the opportunity for winning in red states like Kentucky and North Carolina, and would help downticket Democrats win on the national, local and statewide level. Edwards' personal tragedies, including his son's death and Elizabeth's cancer, are things that voters can empathize with and relate that he is a strong, capable person.

With the Iowa caucuses a day away, all of the hard work for Edwards will probably come down to this state and Edwards' possible victory there. With so much emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire, I sincerely hope that these voters see the wisdom of having Edwards as the Democratic nominee. Our country would be better for it.

The Long, Strange Case of Don Siegelman

2007-12-15T05:51:00.000-08:00

The Center for American Progress, Harper's, and even MSNBC have begun giving more coverage to the strange saga of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman of Alabama. Siegelman was an extremely popular Democratic governor in a Republican state who seemingly was targeted for corruption charges because he was just that: A well-liked Democrat in a Republican state. According to the NY Times, "they [the Siegelman defense] have an affidavit from a lawyer who says she heard a top Republican operative in Alabama boast in 2002 that the United States attorneys in Alabama would “take care” of Mr. Siegelman." The story gets long, twisting, and complicated, and even involves Karl Rove and the U.S. Attorney's office in cohoots; Rove had his hand in this, seemingly, from the beginning.

The Harper's writer ends his story by saying "In the end, however, it’s completely clear that the Siegelman case is about corruption. It’s just unclear that Siegelman is the corrupt party. That charge may come better to rest ultimately in the U.S. attorney’s office." Here in New Jersey, where U.S. Attorney Chris Christie faces similar questioning about his political motivations in issuing subpoenas close to election time and for using his non-partisan office for political gain for Republicans (see multiple Blue Jersey articles), we can relate to a U.S. attorney scandal that involves Bush's cronies going after Democrats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/us/01prosecute.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Neocons Still Driving The Republican Bus?

2007-12-02T19:19:00.002-08:00

If one considers neoconservatism as the pernicious branch of conservatism that is marked by a more aggressive, even unilateral, foreign policy, most prevalently manifested in the Bush administration's false justifications to force the U.S. into war in Iraq, then one wonders just how much influence this brand of conservatism still haves in the Republican Party. Watching the latest Republican debate, which was marked by tough talk on Iraq, I am somewhat convinced that a Guiliani, Romney or McCain administration would initiate a war with Iran, despite the fateful lessons we've learned from Iraq. McCain has even been caught on camera singing "Bomb Iran" with glee, hardly the somber political perspective one would expect from a combat veteran.

Conservative columnists like Jonah Greenberg have argued that neoconservatism hasn't existed and is just a political neologism. The way that the Bush administration was usurped by Wolfowitz, Cheney and their unilateral, war-first doctrine with Iraq, however, begs the question of whether neoconservatism still marks Republican foreign policy. If Vice President Cheney's comments on Iran (no nuclear Iran allowed, even if that means invasion) were compared to McCain's, there would be virtually no difference. Neoconservatism doesn't seem to have met its death with Bush administration departures; on the contrary, this brand of conservatism, which is particularly destructive because of its pro-war, aggressive philosophy of foreign policy, is seemingly alive and well in the Republican Party.

Serious Allegations against Chris Christie

2007-11-16T05:13:00.000-08:00

U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, who should be commended for indicting several corrupt politicians across the state of New Jersey, has been accused of intimidating witnesses and hampering the defense in a high-profile case against state senator Wayne Bryant. This doesn't surprise me at all and speaks once again to Christie's blurring of the line between his rabid, self-serving brand of partisan politics -- he's a Republican who raised over 100k for the Bush administration -- and his role as a nonpartisan U.S. attorney. These allegations from Bryant are a less credible since they are coming from a state senator who has engaged in corrupt activity. But they point to a larger problem that Christie, widely viewed as a Republican gubernatorial candidate in 2009, has only created for himself. In September 2006, just before the election, Christie issued a subpoena against Bob Menendez while he was in a tight race against Tom Kean Jr. -- nothing whatsoever has come of this subpoena. He has gone on speaking tours with Republicans, did a candidate forum with Republican state senator Joseph Kyrillos that was banned from television, has implored voters to support Republican candidates, and almost exclusively focused his corruption probes on New Jersey Democrats rather than pay attention to any possible Republican corruption.

2007: A Good Year for Dems (2008 even better?)

2007-11-09T12:25:00.000-08:00

2007 was a year where Democrats nationwide solidified their gains in our increasingly progressive, pro-Democratic country. On a local level, here in New Jersey, Democrats weren't expected to do well; historically speaking, the majority party, with a governor of the same party in power, usually loses seats in the state legislature. This wasn't entirely the case in New Jersey, though Democrats here need to do a better job of stating what it is we stand for.

In the state legislature, Dems gained two seats here in South Jersey, while losing one in a Republican-leaning district in Central Jersey. In the freeholder races, Democrats gained seats in Monmouth and Cumberland counties, respectively. Several mayoral races, unfortunately, did go to Republicans, but this was in Republican-leaning districts. Strangely enough, even though Democrats hold sizable majorities in the senate and assembly in N.J., the editor of politickernj.com saw fit to declare the election a "Republican Victory":
http://www.politickernj.com/2007-republican-year-13825#comment-21578

Some of the most encouraging news for Democrats comes out of red states in 2007. Dems not only won the governorship of Kentucky, but they retook the state senate in Virginia for the first time in over a decade! What is happening in my native Virginia at the grassroots level, and because of Gov. Tim Kaine and future senator Mark Warner, is truly astounding, and Democrats continue to make gains here and across the country. It's never been a better time to join the Democratic Party, the party of fiscal responsibility, clean government, environmental protection, and a sane foreign policy.

The Solid Democratic South (Jersey, that is)

2007-11-02T08:59:00.000-07:00

In just a few days, Democrats have the opportunity to take several South Jersey state senate seats and perhaps even some Assembly seats. From Jeff Van Drew (district 1) to Rich Dennison (district 7) to Jim Whelan (district 2) to Fran Bodine (district 8), Democrats have the opportunity to have a unified voice in the state senate, thus increasing the influence of South Jersey overall in the New Jersey legislature. Trenton can't ignore South Jersey concerns if a unified bloc of legislators are there to promote them, and it looks like the results of this Tuesday's election will allow a newly-solidified Democratic majority to arise in South Jersey.

Is George W. Bush the Worst President in American History?

2007-10-22T11:34:00.000-07:00

Before assessing the question in the title, I should say that I am a liberal Democrat who opposed Bush and opposed the war before such positions were the norm for majority of Americans and that I can see how some good, thoughtful voters were scared into voting for Bush in the 2004 election. On a personal level, though he seems abrasive and stubborn at times, Pres. Bush is probably not a terrible person; I do not hate Mr. Bush or VP Cheney but instead hate their policies. But according to a strict record check, I can't help but wonder whether Bush isn't the worst president in American history, though I say this knowing that we often can't see beyond the political purview of our own political epoch.

At the beginning of 2004, just in terms of net job loss, Bush could have been accused of having one of the worst job creations records of any president, and with justification. With modest job growth, however compouned with job loss in the manufacturing and other such sectors, Bush cannot lay claim to that inauspicious designation that Hoover and others had. That said, the long-term fiscal health of the country is indeed in terrible shape, with a skyrocketing multi-trillion dollar deficit and the continued loss of American jobs overseas.

My criticism from Bush stems from his complete and total failures to address major threats such as global warming and the growing health care crises. Bush, for all intents in purposes, has no plan whatsoever to make health care more accessible and affordable for Americans, and his policies have contributed to accelerated climate change with very few caps on polluters and companies that pollute. These two moments of derilection, beyond his non-response to Hurricane Katrina, are also remembered in combination with the multiple scandals that mark the Bush administration -- his connections to Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay, Scooter Libby's indictment for perjury, and many more such moments that have led to repeated calls for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

Princeton historian Sean Wilentz, writing in Rolling Stone last year, declared the Bush presidency one of the worst in history, at least among historians (and, I would argue, that opinion is shared by many Americans); this is so despite other administrations such as the Harding one being labeled as corrupt, the Buchanan administration not reacting to the impending civil war, and the scandals of the Nixon administration. So, yes, with the caveat that one needs a strong understanding of history and presidential administrations to make a definitive statement of which president has been the worst, I think there is empirical evidence to support Bush as being the worst president in American history.

(A Common Dreams article on the Wilentz article and Bush's abuse of power:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0517-27.htm)

Putting Another Dent in the 'Liberal Bias' Myth

2007-10-12T12:10:00.000-07:00

Thank goodness for Media Matters, a progressive media watchdog group that is finally doing what media watchers should have been doing all along: holding the media accountable for pushing conservatism unevenly over progressive politics. Media Matters has already recorded how Sunday talk shows feature far more Republicans than Democrats and right-leaning panels than left-leaning ones; now they have analyzed the syndicated columnists featured in American newspapers in their report "Black and White and Re(a)d All Over: The Conservative Advantage in Syndicated Op-Ed Columns"(See the report here: http://mediamatters.org/reports/oped/)

Already drawing the ire of right-wing newspapers such as The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Media Matters' report has some alarming findings, including that 60% of American newspapers feature more conservative columnists to progressive ones, 38 states have more conservative columnists featured more than progressive editorial writers, and newspapers in the West, Southwest, and South feature (you guessed it) more conservative columnists than progressives.

I would recommend any activist to get involved in promoting a more equitable distribution of viewpoints in newspapers and in contemporary media overall. Already, I've contacted my local newspaper, the Courier Post, which favors conservative columnists over progressive ones by a 6-1 margin, to ask that they feature progressive political opinion in their op-ed choices. And so goes another myth perpetuated by the right concerning the faux idea of a "liberal media bias."

Re: On PoliticsNJ.com Bloggers Have a Following

2007-10-05T12:17:00.000-07:00

Matt Friedman over at politicsnj.com interviewed several bloggers from that site, including yours truly, concerning the role that bloggers have in political campaigns. Friedman focuses on the way that bloggers can influence political campaigns, if they can at all, and what following local N.J. bloggers have cultivated from their postings on the site. On a personal note, I was recognized at the last Democratic fundraiser I attended from my part in politicsnj.com and imagine that campaigns value the type of grassroots activism that comes with blogging, even if they can't control the content.

Politicsnj was working with CNN on the story, and the national media company continues the discussion of the role of blogs within political circles. The CNN article questions what role blogger comments have in presidential campaigns.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/05/can-blog-comments-impact-campaigns/

http://www.politicsnj.com/politicsnj-com-bloggers-have-following-7

John Adler for U.S. Congress, NJ-District 3

2007-09-20T19:32:00.000-07:00

My state senator, John Adler, is going to take on perhaps the biggest challenge of his political career: deadweight Republican incumbent John Saxton in NJ District 3. Saxton has built his reputation on helping save Ft. Dix and Ft. Monmouth from being eliminated as military bases; while Saxton certainly should receive some credit in that regard, it is the men and women of the U.S. military who really deserve the credit. A closer look at Saxton's record reveals him to be a Bush loyalist when it comes to foreign policy; he refuses to even question the president's failed policies in Iraq and continues mistakenly to think we are fighting al Queda in Iraq rather than policing a civil war. Further, his campaign contributions have come from the most sketch sources, from Jack Abramoff to Tom DeLay to Halliburton; there isn't a better prop for special interests groups than Congressman Saxton.

In stark contrast to the pro-life, anti-science, anti-stem cells funding Saxton is state senator Adler, whose work for creating healthy, smoke free environments, property tax reform, and open space preservation has made him one of the most respected state legislators in Trenton. As Chair of the senate judiciary committee and an ethics committee member, Adler has an influential and powerful post in state politics, but his work for his constituents would be better served as a congressman in Washington. Adler has a progressive record on worker rights and has been endorsed by organizations that support a better fiscal and business environment in N.J. I welcome his entry into the race for NJ-03 and can't think of a more qualified and capable individual to represent the district.

John Edwards Post-Speech Speech

2007-09-13T19:07:00.000-07:00

The Edwards campaign made a savvy move by having the former Senator provide a rebuttal to Pres. Bush's latest spin on the Iraq War. Edwards, who bought airtime on MSNBC, argued that Congress cannot keep funding an open-ended conflict -- echoing what Sen. Jack Reed did in an official Democratic response -- and that the president must come to Congress with a definite plan for withdrawal, and Congress should suspend funding of the war if he refuses.

I thought that Edwards did look presidential on some level and seemed determined, as he has been of late, to have his message heard by the American public.

Larry Craig and Republican Hypocrisy

2007-09-11T18:08:00.000-07:00

In 2004, we were told by the Republicans that gay marriage was a dire threat to the social order; some, such as escort-seeking La. senator David Vitter, actually went so far as to call it the greatest threat facing the nation. Routinely, Republicans seek to implement anti-gay legislation, from local Republicans Scott Garrett and Rick Santorum to many others, and this form of discrimination under the law is one of several ways that socially conservative Republicans have routinely denied basic rights to gays and lesbians. By socially marginalizing gays and depriving them of basic rights such as the ability to adopt children, certain states and the country overall justifies legally the type of illicit behavior exhibited by Larry Craig.

Craig was your typical conservative Republican on social issues, and his stance on gays and lesbians was totally and utterly hypocritical. Craig had voted against a hate crimes bill that included violent acts committed because of sexual orientation, and he had to long supported and voted for measures that limited marriage legally speak to heterosexuals. The legislation that he supported helped justify homophobia and promote the beliefs of anti-gay groups across the country. Give gays and lesbians full protection and entitlement under the law, and marginalization of gays and lesbians will become more anomalous as equal rights for homosexuals as such change is also initiated on the social level.

Some Bad Democrats in N.J.

2007-09-06T13:13:00.000-07:00

As someone who loves clean government and advocates public financing of elections, I am appalled that several members of the state's Democratic Party were arrested today on corruption charges. Two of the arrested were Democratic Assemblyman, and the quotes posted on politicsnj.com and the fact that they were arrested, not subpoenad, point to their guilt in the bribery case. This is a betrayal of the voters' trust and reveals these individuals, who were officials from Atlantic to Passaic County and beyond, to be undeserving of the office they hold. These Democrats give the rest of us Dems who want an ethical and clean legislature a bad name.

New Jersey Republicans in for a Bleak November

2007-08-15T07:03:00.000-07:00

Fall seems like it's a world away in these sweltering August summer days, but the November elections will be here in just a few months, and New Jersey Democrats have the opportunity to deal a crippling blow to the Republican Party and its statewide infrastructure (if it can be argued that they have one). Though I know South Jersey senate races better than North and Central ones, there are really only two competitive senate races in currently-held Democratic seats, and this is Sen. Ellen Karcher vs. media hound Ass. Jennifer Beck, and Sen. Joe Coniglio vs. Rob Coletti. Otherwise, in South Jersey alone, Democrats have a real opportunity to pick up 4 state senate seats via Diane Allen's seat (Rich Dennison is an incredibly strong and capable challenger in district 7), Sonny McCullough losing to Jim Whelan, Nick Asselta losing to rising Dem star Jeff Van Drew, and unorthodox Dem Fran Bodine defeating Phil Haines.

If the Democrats pick up those seats, they would then have a 26-14 state senate advantage over the Republicans, who are arguably the most inept state party I've ever encountered. The Assembly is a little trickier, since Dems already have a massive 50-30 advantage, but gains can be made there as well; and that doesn't even include freeholder raises in Burlington County, Cumberland County, and elsewhere.

The NJ Republicans, who recently held a fundraiser "honoring" that abyssmal failure-in-chief, Pres. Bush, stand to lose further races this November and become even more obsolete and irrelevant as a statewide party. I for one am glad for this.

Howard Dean's 50-State Strategy Paying Off

2007-08-03T08:58:00.001-07:00

A new article from The Nation illustrates just how successful Democratic Chairman Howard Dean has been in putting forth his previously-criticized 50-State Strategy Plan for putting activists and ward leaders on the ground in every part of the country. Dean's plan for attacking Republicans in traditionally-red parts of the country is already paying dividends in my native South, as the article indicates how Western N.C. Democrats have galvanized in part because of Dean's strategy.

Of course, not one district, precinct or council should go uncontested, since the Republican Party has dragged this country down the wrong path, both domestically and internationally. The epic failure of the Bush administration has resulted in uprecedented opportunities for Democrats to take state legislatures, run and win Republican-held House seats, and make general incursions into previously "hostile" territory. The Democrats in the N.C. county cited in the article, for example, are organizing like never before -- now that their are field organizers in every state because of Dean's plan --, and the N.C. Dems are now trying to unseat conservative congresswoman Virginia Foxx. The author, Bob Moser, writes, "In "purple" states like North Carolina, where Democrats dominate most local and statewide elections, it's helping to turn red counties purple and purple counties blue, uncorking a new strain of progressive populism--the kind that won Senate races in Virginia for Jim Webb, Montana for Jon Tester and Ohio for Sherrod Brown."

Dean's model also provides a strategy for N.J. Democrats to unseat the remaining Republican seats, particularly the Republican-leaning parts of District 7 where Republican Mike Ferguson is enjoying his last tenure as a congressman to Ocean County, where Dems need to convince voters they stand for them and their best interests economically.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070813/moser

John Edwards: The Real Deal

2007-07-19T18:47:00.000-07:00

In my brief time as a volunteer for the Democratic Party, I've had the pleasure of supporting various candidates for public office, Jon Corzine and Bob Menendez in N.J., Jim Hodges in S.C., and Kerry/Edwards and Clinton/Gore in various states; my fervor for candidates is perhaps most active at the time of their respective candidacies, but I can say that I've perhaps never been as excited about a candidate and his platform than I currently am for former Sen. John Edwards. All ideas, all positive initiatives, all substantial platforms -- this marks the Edwards campaign thus far.

This week, for instance, while other candidates are probably fundraising and schmoozing with the Washington elite, Edwards is touring some of the most impoverished parts of the country in hopes of bringing national attention to poor rural and urban Americans. He's visited a poultry factor in Mississippi and spoken with the workers there, he's gone to rural Virginia and talked with those who have never had health care, and he traveled to Pittsburgh to talk with workers who are struggling. This is a campaign based on substance with a candidate who has lived through many of the struggles that working class and poor Americans have lived with. I admire his work and intend to do everything possible to ensure he is elected president.

(For a Time article on Edwards' tour: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1644961,00.html

Rich Dennison For New Jersey State Senate

2007-07-11T19:35:00.000-07:00

Just north of my home in Camden County is the 7th district, a district which stretches from western Burlington County slightly north and westward and which trends Democratic. For years, this district has been represented by a Bush Republican, Diane Allen, who is hardly a leader in the New Jersey state senate and who didn't bother to vote in support of expanding stem cell lines and for civil unions for gays and lesbians.

Rich Dennison, a Democrat from Florence, N.J., would provide a new voice for 7th district voters and is much more in tune with their political views than Allen. Though Dennison's platform is still being honed, he is particularly strong in the area of health care, and I think he shares my vision of universal, single-payer health care for all; further, as someone who works in public education, I value Dennison's commitment to this institution and know that he'd work hard for teachers and students in Trenton.

I'll post more on Dennison as we get closer to the November election, but some further information on him can be found here:
http://www.our7th.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=39
Dennison, a former Clinton speechwriter,and a local resident with strong community ties, is the right person for state senate and can win this race.

Disappointed in Immigration Bill Not Passing

2007-06-28T13:49:00.000-07:00

Well, today was a day when Democrats and Republicans could have done something meaningful both to help further enforcement methods for border security and bring millions of undocumented workers out of the dark and into documentation and, for some, deserved citizenship. This was one of the times when I agreed with Pres. Bush's philosophy on a policy, and liberals and conservatives were working together on this issue. Sadly, the bill was killed before it was brought to a vote, and now the immigration policy, which is currently unacceptable in both of the aforementioned fronts (security, citizenship), remains unchanged.

Defining, Understanding Neoconservatism

2007-06-20T07:27:00.000-07:00

One could argue that the Bush #43 administration is not traditionally conservative per se, with the expansion of government programs and other matters, but instead a variation of it, what political analysts term “neoconservatism.” Neoconservatives are marked by a more aggressive foreign policy than previous isolationist conservative policies (but was Reagan really isolationist?), at least that’s how they are differentiated. One conservative analyst compares neoconservatives to a French revolutionary movement: “The new Jacobins see themselves as on the side of right and fighting evil and are not prone to respecting or looking for common ground with countries that do not share their democratic preferences." (Ryn 2003: 387)Meanwhile, academic freedom martyr and liberal witch-hunter defines neoconservatism thusly: “Today "neo-conservatism" identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.” This fits perfectly with the Bush-McCain-Wolfowitz doctrine in Iraq, and possibly, in the future, Iran. To them, there is no moral grayness and instead only clearly demarcated lines between good and evil; those who are evil are fair game for regime change, with a violent overthrow of a given government a very viable option.

Between the various branches of conservatism that threaten democracy and egalitarianism – business conservatives, who favor no regulation of business and are pro-environmental destruction; social conservatives, who favor a single moral creed that all must adhere to; and neocons, who favor bombs over diplomacy – I can’t help but think that they are all equally pernicious.

Ending the Death Penalty in N.J. and the U.S.

2007-06-04T13:13:00.000-07:00

If a recent report from an independent commission (The New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission) in N.J. is adhered to, then my adopted state will be the first in the nation to abolish the death penalty completely. "There is increasing evidence that the death penalty is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency," the report said. Gov. Jon Corzine supports the initiative, as do several Democrats in the senate and assembly. Already, senate Republicans have tried to do their scare tactics and accused Democrats of being easy on terrorists or murderers, but this tactic is wearing thin. "It is beyond reprehensible that they are even proposing that cop killers, child rapists and murderers and terrorists will not face the ultimate punishment if they commit their crimes in New Jersey," said Sen. Nicholas Asselta, R-Cumberland.

Since we can point to specific cases (Rhode Island, etc.) where innocent people were murdered after they were put on death row, this alone is a primary reason to abolish this draconian form of punishment. A recent study of death by injection found that some prisoners experience excruciating pain while still conscious during this particular method of killing. Further, the Commission found that the death penalty was not a deterrent to crime, and it cost more to keep as functioning mechanism than it was worth, though the death penalty, if I’m not mistaken, hasn’t been used in N.J. since the 1960s.

The state Supreme Court is rather liberal, the governor is behind this, and the people of N.J. may be warming up to the idea of abolishing it. I strongly encourage state officials to help end this outdated practice of punishment and to move forward with the rest of the first-world countries who have stopped this dreadful practice.

United 93, 9-11 Revisited

2007-05-13T07:07:00.000-07:00

I. The Film

In between doing loads of laundry yesterday, I caught most of the film United 93, which I hadn't planned on otherwise seeing, and it brought up some important issues concerning 9-11. The film was incredibly well done -- I'm not familiar with the work of the director, Paul Greengrass -- and it simply told the story of what happened on that fateful day, from the flight tower to the passengers who tried to overtake the plane. So many questions for me were brought up in this film, which was painful for me, as an American, to watch. Though multiple commissions have studied the terrorist plans, I'm still left wondering how these men were able to get on board the plane in the first place and why inspectors didn't catch the knives they were carrying. From what was portrayed in the film, the passengers on board United 93 weren't the only heroes that day; air traffic controllers and other aviation and military persons were working nonstop to try and stop the crises, and it seems a mix of bureacracy and lack of communication got in their way.

II. The Aftermath

The Bush administration, while acting admirably on some level after the attacks, has used the 9-11 attacks for their own twisted political purposes and has still left America vulnerable to terrorist attacks nearly six years later. The Patriot Act, passed under the provision of protecting Americans from further terrorism, violated guaranteed civil rights promised under the Constitution, and torture, in the name of the war on terrorism, has been committed by American troops. Our ports are still incredibly vulnerable, as only 5% of incoming cargo is inspected, and the bipartisan 9-11 commission gave the federal government several Ds and Fs for not fulfilling its recommended mandates in avoiding this type of catastrophe again. And, of course, we are left in an endless, unnecessary, resource-depleting war in Iraq that leaves the U.S. more vulnerable to terrorism, feeds into terrorist ideology (America as the aggressor against Islam), and distracts us from finding and punishing Osama Bin Laden, who attacked us on 9-11.

And yet the Republican Party still has the nerve to try and pass themselves off as the Party that will protect Americans from terrorism and is against intrusive laws into the personal lives of American citizens.

SurveyUSA polling on Edwards

2007-05-02T18:17:00.000-07:00

There are millions of reasons for every Democrat, Independent, progressives and moderate voters to get behind former Sen. John Edwards and his inspiring presidential campaign, from his policy initiatives for universal health care, curbing global warming and reducing carbon emissions, creating jobs for all Americans, etc. But one of the most compelling reasons for Democrats to support Edwards is that this guy will win if given the nomination. If one needs further proof, take a look at these numbers from SurveyUSA polling -- which indicate Edwards is tied with GOP juggernaut Giuliani in Virginia, and ahead of him in Missouri, Ohio and Kentucky. The polling numbers are much higher for Edwards than for Obama and Clinton, who, despite their respective qualities, present immediate difficulties for winning in key states and expanding the electoral college votes for Democrats.

http://www.pollster.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2445.1464213876

Breaking News: Republican Presidential Candidates Switch Stances!

2007-04-30T19:46:00.000-07:00

Yes, it is true. As sometimes-independent thinking Republicans such as Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain cater to the far right bases of the Republican Party, there stances on key domestic and foreign policy issues change in an instant. Besides Romney, who recently joined the NRA and decided that he was anti-choice on abortion, McCain is now in favor of Bush's deficit-increasing tax cuts (used to be against it), repealing Roe v. Wade (he told the SF Chronicle in 1999 that he didn't support a repeal), and now supports ethanol subsidies (was against them... Iowa, anyone?). Giuliani, besides being a political hack who gives Bush/Cheney talking points on Iraq, is also revealing himself to be a candidate of little consistency: He now is in favor of a flat tax when he used to be against it, has eased up on his gun control positions, and now is against partial birth abortions after being in favor of such access for women. Consistency, thy name certainly isn't Republican.

Sen. McCain and Rep. Pence on Iraq: Delusional Republicans

2007-04-10T08:03:00.000-07:00

If it isn't disappointing enough to watch Sen. John McCain do anything and everything to pander to the far right of the Republican Party, his recent assessment of Iraq, along with Indiana Rep. Mike Pence's, reveals a fundamental disconnect between Republican visions of grandeur (Cheney still calls Iraq a remarkable "success") and the realities on the ground. In particular, Rep. Pence, upon visiting a Baghdad market, stated that it reminded him of "normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime." Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that Sen. McCain "declared that his ability to walk freely around the marketplace was a sign of a significant improvement in security in Iraq." McCain even went so far as to declare that ""Gen. Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee." In contrast to McCain's rose-colored glasses, though, CNN's Baghdad correspondent Michael Ware, who has lived in Iraq for four years, quickly responded, "[I]n the hour since Sen. McCain's said this, I've spoken to military sources and there was laughter down the line. I mean, certainly the general travels in a humvee. There's multiple humvees around it, heavily armed." Sorry, Sen. McCain, no apology for misspeaking is going to suffice in justifying these bizarre, out-of-touch assessments of the situation in Iraq.

In fact, the marketplace where Pence and McCain took their leisurely stroll has often been the site of heavy bombings, and locals were less than kind in response to these two prominent Republicans delusional assessments. On the same day that both men were traipsing through the Baghdad market, schoolchildren were bombed in Kirkuk, unfortunately. Meanwhile, daily attacks on Baghdad's green zone have actually gone up rather than gone down, recently.
Pence and McCain should stop carrying water for the Bush administration and making blind assertions on the "success" of the Iraq invasion and instead focus on solutions for getting us out of this awful war.

John and Elizabeth Edwards: Grace under Fire

2007-03-23T14:52:00.000-07:00

I've supported John Edwards for president since his announcement, so the build-up to yesterday's news concerning Elizabeth Edwards' cancer was a time for disoncernment. The news of Elizabeth's cancer returning is not good, yet both of them handled a really difficult situation with grace and strength. John Edwards' vision for this country is too important to give up on, despite the incredibly difficult position he and Elizabeth are in. May this cancer be treated and his campaign be successful.

Further, though I disagree with his politics, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow revealed today that he is having a small growth removed from his pelvis next week. I wish him well, too.

Media Matters' Latest Report

2007-03-14T04:59:00.000-07:00

Media Matters, a progressive media watchdog, have created another media analysis of Sunday Talk Shows, called "If It's Sunday, It's Still Conservative," and their findings confirm what those of us who watch the media already know: Conservative voices far outweigh progressive ones on Sunday talk shows. Their reports in the past have shown that conservatives such as John McCain are far more apt to be featured in one-on-one interviews than Democrats or progressives. Their latest report reveals that, on 'Meet the Press,' 'This Week,' 'Face the Nation,' and 'Fox News Sunday,' Republicans and conservatives outweigh Democrats and progressives by a large margin, 44% to 27%.

Media Matters makes the important point that, considering Democrats swept the 2006 elections, one would expect a greater amount of Democratic voices on these shows, but only 'This Week with George Stephanopolous" has made strides in having at least as many Democrats/progressives on as Republicans/conservatives and, surprise, surprise, Fox News Sunday has the greatest deficit between featured individuals and their political affiliation, favoring Republicans over Democrats by a margin of 50% to 25%.

And I agree with Media Matters CEO and President David Brock when he says "On the whole, our report shows the all-important Sunday shows are largely out of step with what's happening in Washington and across America. The deck is still stacked in favor of conservatives.This is a serious problem for the networks, one that compromises their integrity and threatens to taint political discourse across the country." Surely, the Sunday news shows need to have more progressive and Democratic voices on their forums and featured interviews, as the right wing has been given too much voice on these programs for too long.

Official report: http://mediamatters.org/sundayshowreport/online_version/

A Bush Scandal of a Different Sort

2007-03-05T19:48:00.000-08:00

Perhaps this blog entry should be labeled "Another Day, Another Bush Scandal," but this particular scandal, or what is amounting to one, is of a somewhat different vein than the backroom dealings the Bush administration had with Enron in creating our energy policy or their illegal and covered-up wiretapping and surveillance of Americans.

Apparently, Pres. Bush is firing U.S. attorneys that don't follow a narrow ideological agenda, specifically those who refused to use the attorney office to subpoena Democrats. New Mexico U.S. attorney David Iglesias, for example, was asked to step down after he refused to issue subpoenas to Democrats before the fall elections at the behest of two New Mexico Republicans, one of whom was Senator Pete Domenici. Moreover, the California attorney who brought down corrupt congressman Duke Cunningham, was subsequently asked to step down -- and she was a Republican who was merely doing her job.

Huntsu over at the preeminent progressive N.J. blog, Blue Jersey, has covered this scandal and has some interesting postulations concerning N.J.'s own U.S. attorney, Chris Christie, who may have been pressured into subpoenaning Senator Bob Menendez ahead of the November midterms:
http://www.bluejersey.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=4164

His follow-up covers an Arkansas U.S. attorney who also lost his job (then filled by a Bush cronie a la a Patriot Act provision) due to strange circumstances. Thankfully, congress is going to hold hearings on this possible, or probable scandal.
http://www.bluejersey.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=4164

Hold Republicans Accountable

2007-02-16T12:52:00.000-08:00

The 109th Congress, which will hopefully be the last Congress ever under Republican control, was a complete and unmitigated disaster. From tax breaks to record-profiting oil companies to blindly supporting Pres. Bush's feckless policies to ignoring a mounting health care crises in this country, the Republican power brokers proved that they cannot be trusted with governing this country. Of course, the K Street lobbyists had their influence upon legislation via quid pro quo support from Republicans such as Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum and others. It is not hyperbolic to say that the Republican congress threatened many of the hallmarks of representative democracy with their abuse of power.

The checks and balances are finally in place, since Democrats rightly took over both the House and Senate, but so many redresses were committed against this country and its citizens that something else needs to be done. I encourage Rep. Henry Waxman and other committee members to hold investigations, levy subpoenas, and hold accountable all of the transgressions committed by the former Republican congress.

A joint publication from the conservative American Enterprise Institute and the liberal Brookings Institution, The Broken Branch details the failings of the last congress in crafting laws and unquestioningly following the president, among other topics.

More of the Same with Republican Jingoism

2007-01-27T07:00:00.000-08:00

With the long-deserved firing of Donald Rumsfeld, our country seemed to be on the right track for changing direction in Iraq and for replacing faux machismo bravado in the war on terror and the war in Iraq with real policy changes and a sane approach to that problem. Unfortunately for some bottom-trawling Republicans, any dissent for the war in Iraq is seen as the equivalence as treason, even though the majority of Americans oppose this illegitimate war and want our troops to be brought home soon.

The latest example of this is from new Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who calls the bipartisan Senate resolution opposing Bush's "fantasy land" approach for a troop surge a measure that "certainly emboldens the enemy and our adversaries." No, Mr. Gates, an Iraq War resolution that shows no-confidence in Bush's continuing troop surge -- Bush has already done this three or four times -- is not emboldening the enemies: Instead, it is your administration's destructive policies that helps breed terrorist ideology and creates new battlegrounds in the war on terror where none previously existed. Questioning the motives and strategies of an incompetent president is not anti-American -- it is instead a return to sanity and a way of protecting our troops from further harm in a conflict they shouldn't have been in in the first place.

Thank you, New Jersey State Legislature and Gov. Corzine

2007-01-06T07:23:00.000-08:00

The New Jersey State Legislature, both the Assembly and the Senate, get a lot of flack for not enacting property tax reform in a timely enough manner and for other issues, but I want to take a moment to congratulate them and Gov. Corzine on successful human rights initiatives that have recently passed or will most likely pass in 2007.

2006 was the year that marriage equality almost made it in N.J., but I'm very pleased with the civil unions bill that passed both houses, as it provides many of the rights of married heterosexual couples to same-sex ones. We also saw life-saving measures such as a clean needle exchange bill pass which can subsequently be used to stop the spread of AIDS and other diseases in urban areas in the state. A transgender discrimination part of the civil unions bill also passed, and N.J. will become the first state completely to abolish the death penalty, doing so because of Corzine's executive order. I also anticipate serious progress being made towards universal health care in the state in 2007 and other important human and civil rights issues.

These efforts should be commended, and the state legislature and governor have acted commendably in passing these provisions.

John Edwards for President

2006-12-14T14:42:00.000-08:00

The Democratic field for 2008 is arguably stacked with high-quality candidates, from retired Gen. Wes Clark, should he decide to run, to high-octane star Barack Obama, to respectable Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, but my allegiance for the presidential race goes to former Sen. John Edwards. Edwards is arguably the most gifted rhetorician and speaker from either party, most Americans, polling reveals, see him as an authentic, likable individual, and he is pro-labor, pro-environment, and anti-war. Edwards has apologized for voting against the original Iraq War Resolution, and I take him at his word there; he calls for U.S. troops to begin withdrawing from that awful war, and I agree with his stance on that issue over, say, Clark's non-withdrawal stance.

Edwards has spent the past few years brushing up on his foreign policy credentials by serving on a committee for foreign relations with Jack Kemp for researching democracy in Russia. He has made humanitarian missions to Uganda, Sudan, and other areas, and he has met with world leaders from Germany, Italy, and other countries. With domestic issues, Edwards has a strong record on labor rights and has received the AFL-CIO Paul Wellstone Award for his work; he has also worked to increase the minimum wage, provide rebuilding efforts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, and, of course, made combatting poverty his pet issue. When he speaks, I believe that he is being genuine in his passion for these domestic problems.

Edwards could beat any GOP candidate in 2008, though McCain and Giuliani would be formidable opponents. He has built-in support in Nevada, Iowa, and South Carolina, making him a favorite in some of the early caucuses and primaries. If you are interested in getting involved with his campaign, local Edwards for president chapters are forming around the country, and yahoogroups has Edwards chapters in almost every state.

http://oneamericacommittee.com/

Democratic Pragmatism

2006-11-16T06:50:00.000-08:00

Pragmatism. It is a word revered in American politics and perhaps one of the few systematic contributions that American thinkers have added to modern philosophy. And pragmatism is what many political commentators are calling the newly-annointed Democratic Congress to enact in their leadership role; according to this line of thinking, Democrats stunning win on election night was due to the moderate revolt over the unilateral, ultrapartisan policies of Republicans, and Democrats can provide a corrective to this by governing from the middle, not the left. In fact, most publications, including 'Time' magazine, are calling this election a victory for the American middle and not progressive politics as a whole -- perhaps a wrong-headed spin on the election outcome. One could instead argue that the elections mark the electorate's return to Clintonian liberalism rather than the slim margins of victory for Pres. Bush in the last two presidential elections.

Progressives, from Sherrod Brown in Ohio to Joe Sestak in Pa., have been winners as much as moderate Democrats in this last election, and the nation's shift in the left should also be represented in congressional initiatives when Dems take over both chambers in January. The victory of the left in this election shouldn't be understated at all since the country overwhelming repudiated the failed doctrines of the Bush presidency and instead voted to change the direction of the country. My concern is that a solely pragmatist mantra in congress will result in overly-cautious maneuvering by house and senate leaders, the promotion of non-controversial legislation, and fewer checks and balances against the reckless policies of the Bush administration during his remaining two years in office.

If pragmatism is marked by bipartisan cooperation and a management, rather than ideological, emphasis, however, then this could benefit the country in the long run and help keep the Democrats in power for several election cycles; Democrats know this, and that is why they are promoting passing legislation (minimum wage, etc.) ahead of, say, investigative hearings on the Bush administration's intelligence failures and justifications for the war in Iraq. But the American electorate has also given the Democrats a mandate for their agenda, and this must include providing a necessary checks and balance of the Bush administration's overreach of the executive branch's power. There is a time for measure pragmatism in the political arena, but there is also a time for bold initiatives and accountability; I hope that the Democrats aren't afraid to seize the latter at the appropriate times.

It's Happening

2006-11-03T19:39:00.000-08:00

What is happening in New Jersey is a microcosm of what is going on across the great country of America: Democrats are mobilizing like never before to defeat Republicans in record numbers, and return this country to domestic and international sanity. The failed policies of the Bush administration have doomed this country for six years, and the Blue Revolution is just beginning. Districts where Dems usually have no business of winning -- Pa.'s Republican-leaning suburbs, Idaho's congressional seat, N.J.'s gerrymandered 7th-district, Indiana's congressional races -- are now going blue, and the country knows that a change is necessary.

I have felt tremendous hope in these last few days of the 2006 midterms, from hearing Barack Obama speak in Philadelphia to meeting Bob Menendez, someone I hold in high regard, to supporting the race of grassroots Democratic candidate Rich Sexton. Our country deserves a health care system that works, greater opportunities for education, a plan to return our troops from the awful war in Iraq, and a counterbalance to the Bush administration's sequestering of power into the executive branch. On November 7th, the day of change for this country, long overdue, will begin in earnest.

Tom Kean Jr.'s Problem with Civil Rights

2006-10-28T10:25:00.000-07:00

It seems that Tom Kean Jr. has no problem with being surrounded by those with questionable backgrounds when it comes to racial slurs, and he has a spotty record in the state legislature when it comes to civil rights to boot.

In this morning's 'Courier Post,' Gregory Volpe states that "U.S. Senate candidate Thomas H. Kean Jr. employed on the state's dime a former state Department of Labor employee who had used the racial slur "wetback" during a meeting in front of several state employees." The Kean Jr. employee, Harry Pappas, states that Kean Jr. knew that he was being sued for using a racial slur but that Kean Jr. kept him on the campaign anyway.

This is part of a larger problem, arguably, with Tom Kean Jr.: He has a record of going against basic human civil rights and legislation that would protect the disenfranchised. When Bob Menendez gained the endorsement of an influential group of black ministers in the state, an unsavory moment in Kean Jr's voting record came to light as part of the black ministers' oppostion to Kean Jr.'s candidacy. According to Tom Hester, writing in 'Newsday,' "As an assemblyman in 2002, Kean voted against an early version of a state bill to ban racial profiling." Racial profiling is a major problem in this state and our country, but Kean Jr. obviously doesn't share such concerns for African Americans targeted for no other reason than their skin color.

Combine these two revelations with recent remarks and legislation concerning equality for gay and lesbians -- Kean Jr. wants to write discrimination into the state constitution, and he voted against a bare minimum domestic parternship law in the state senate --, and we have a senate candidate with a problem: Judging from his record and hiring practices, Tom Kean Jr. doesn't support civil rights.

Kean Jr. won't sign petition for clean election

2006-10-17T10:29:00.000-07:00

Tom Kean Jr. is long on rhetoric but short on substance, judging from his smear campaign but empty platform in his 2006 senate campaign. Kean Jr. says he is a champion of clean elections and public accountability, but he refuses to sign the Voters First Pledge from the Public Campaign Action Fund that would a) make elections fair through having public funds b) restrict gifts from lobbyists and other interest groups and c) restore accountability by making all lobbyist contributions public knowledge on the internet.

Bob Menendez, who has been the magnet for Kean Jr.'s attacks, has already signed the petition, so one wonders what is holding Kean Jr. back from signing it. Perhaps it is his close-knit relationship with lobbyists, the oil industry, and special interest groups.

http://www.votersfirstpledge.org/about

Menendez, Strengths and Weaknesses

2006-09-28T06:30:00.000-07:00

I've been watching Sen. Bob Menendez's work in the U.S. senate with marked scrutiny since he has been appointed by Gov. Corzine. His work has been stellar: He is urging the EPA to ensure the safety of environmentally contaminated (Ringwood) sites in the state, he has fought against offshore drilling in the state, he has sought increased federal funds for all original 9-11 responders, he has offered legislation that would make all incoming packages to U.S. ports examined for terrorist threats, he has rightly voted to bring all of our troops home from the awful war in Iraq within a year, he has cosponsored legislation that would provide gas tax relief, he has fought for more AIDS funding for the state, he has sought a more equitable way of distributing 9-11 grant funding for Homeland Security to high-risk areas such as New Jersey, and more.

What troubles me, though, is that he has made some missteps in his career that are now haunting him in his reelection campaign. Just today, some tape has come out about Hudson County contracts in which a Menendez campaign consultant makes comments about the then-congressman wanting a rehire of a former employee for a "favor." That could be nothing or something of interest, but there is also a federal investigation of a Housing Authority group for which he served as landlord. He showed poor judgment in recommending Zulima Farber for attorney general, even when the McGreevey administration previously vetted her.

In N.J., he is neck-and-neck with the son of a popular former governor, a Republican candidate who is short on ideas but consistent in his attacks of the Democratic freshman senator. Menendez could have this campaign in better shape -- if he had showed greater discretion in his previous dealings and made anything with even the possibility of ethical conflict public in the first place. The Menendez campaign should continue to point the finger at Kean Jr., noting that many of the attacks come from his surrogates, and emphasize that Menendez has never been indicted nor charged with ethical wrongdoing in his nearly 20-some years as a politician.

"It's Time to Censure a Lawless President"

2006-08-18T05:16:00.000-07:00

In today's article from The Nation, John Nichols argues that the courts have come to their senses by the ruling against Pres. Bush's illegal wiretapping of domestic calls. Bush has done this without abandon, hastily pointing out at every turn that he is "protecting" Americans -- at the price of the spirit of individual freedoms guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=113113

This court ruling is a victory for those of us who, heaven forbid, want the executive branch to follow the law rather than bend it to their will. Nichols is right in calling for the political system now to embrace a full censure of Pres. Bush for his actions in this instance, and I encourage both of my senators, Menendez and Lautenberg, to co-sponsor Feingold's censure resolution. By censuring the president for eschewing U.S. laws, Congress could send a strong message about his other questionably-unlawful programs, particularly in surveillance.

The argument that the elimination of the warrantless wiretapping program compromises the U.S. in the war on terror is a fallacious one: in fact, the president has so much leeway and authority -- including conducting a warrantless wiretap and then having days later to get authorization from the courts -- in this matter that there is no compromising but instead following the rule of the law.

Rich Sexton for U.S. Congress

2006-08-04T11:21:00.000-07:00

New Jersey's 3rd district, which includes my neighboring Cherry Hill, absolutely needs Rich Sexton as its next congressman. The incumbent, Jim Saxton, is connected to the well-oiled K Street lobbying regime in Washington, unabashedly supports the Iraq invasion and the war on terror, has repeatedly voted against stem cell funding, and is simply out of touch with the majority of New Jerseyans. Sexton, on the other hand, would be a fresh, progressive voice in Washington, and his service in the U.S. Navy makes him a much more powerful voice on foreign policy than Saxton. On the federal level, he would restore necessary funding for secondary and college education, fight for universal health care, and promote a sane foreign policy. Let's get behind Sexton's efforts!

http://www.richsextonforcongress.com/index.asp

For more information on Saxton's trail of questionable connections, including Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay, see the following information page:
http://www.dccc.org/gopauctionhouse/members/JamesSaxtonNJ-3.html

Conservatism: Defeated by its Own Fictions

2006-07-10T10:51:00.000-07:00

Contemporary postmodern theorists often argue for both the ultimate subjectivity of human experience and the creation of fictional realities as substitutions for an ultimate, foundational narratives that undergirds such an experience. Yet, for conservative political philosophy this fictional foundation is one of the hallmarks of its movement, whether it is a narrative of forcing traditional Judeo-Christian values into public life, arguing for a smaller government based on Jefferson or Hamilton’s writings, or that government should not intrude upon individuals and groups – no matter how much the conservatives’ actions actually contradict these claims. In fact, it is conservatism itself, whether in its more aggressive, hawkish neoconservative version that currently dominates the Republican Party, or traditional, small government conservatism that is itself a fiction, not sustainable as coherent political philosophy and only perpetuating itself through the dissemination of its own fictions.

For instance, conservative politics is grounded upon the ideal of smaller, more efficient government, and the latter part that equation – " more efficient" – is still a noble goal. The Bush administration, following the narrative of the Reagan administration, still perpetuates this myth of smaller government and the limits of government’s roles in individual lives. Yet, with the growth of the Department of Homeland Security and other organizations, government has actually increased in size and spending during Bush’s tenure in office. Further, though conservatives based their faux philosophy upon individuals not being intruded upon by the federal government, we have seen a disturbing trend towards forcing a particular morality upon the general public, including negating an individual’s right-to-die, as in the Terry Schiavo case, or legislating normative sexual practices, as in the conservative dissent to the Texas sodomy case before the Supreme Court.

But it is not only the inherent contradictions between its stated aims and its actual results that make conservatism an untenable political philosophy, it is also the exposure of its fictions, as with the Bush administration’s justifications for invading Iraq. Relying heavily on pro-American sentiment after 9-11, the fictional narrative created by neoconservatives such as Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfield was that Iraq possessed WMDs that were not only illegal but also intended for the U.S. and its allies, as well as the false justification that Hussein was in close partnership with Al-Queda. Unfortunately for Bush and conservatives, truth has a way of coming to the surface, despite obfuscations and denials from conservatives in power. But it is this very perpetuation of the mythical threat – whether from a foreign state, a non-"normative" sexual identity, or otherwise – that sustains modern conservatism.

As with all fictional justifications and constructed foundational narratives, however, conservativism is beginning to crack under the pressure of its own falsehoods, as self-sustaining myths, whether in the form of smaller government (for conservatives, the federal reaction to Hurricane Katrina was the norm, since private individuals should rebuild, not the government) or false justifications for the invasion of Iraq. Ironically, at the same time that conservative moralists argue that progressives lack a clear moral foundation and are mired in relativity, conservatism is based upon these very fictional foundational narratives and genuinely act out a worldview that emphasizes the relativity of truth.

Not Even Close

2006-06-26T19:25:00.000-07:00

"Not even close" is how I would describe the margin of victory of Bob Menendez over Tom Kean Jr. in the first two New Jersey senate debates. Sen. Menendez comes across as polished, thoughtful, and inventive in his responses, while Kean Jr. is visibly attempting to remember talking points and memorized lines; the latter's intonation and verbal rhythm are not in sinc, though he has been aggressive in attempting Menendez. Of course, the story line for both candidates is already being played out: Kean Jr. attempts to connect Menendez to Hudson County politicos, corruption, and Corzine's tax increases, while Menendez reminds voters that the latter votes lock and step with the Bush administration and is beholden to industry interests.

In the two early debates thus far, Menendez has been sharper, partly because of his political experience in such a debate setting, I would think, and Kean Jr. tonight was particularly ineffective in his discussion of foreign policy. At two points, Kean Jr. tried to avoid following up on a question concerning what to change about foreign policy concerning Israel and Palestine; talk about seeing a deer caught in the headlights. Menendez may be most effective in his rebuttals and counterpoints, however, and when he actually discusses the financial strains that New Jersey citizens are under because of heavy taxation, something he needs to do more often.

The questions from the panelists, which from these evening featured prominently from NJN News, are incisive for the most part and certainly quickly cut to perceived weaknesses in the candidates: Kean Jr.'s privileged name leading to his nomination, Menendez's former aide receiving lucrative contracts, and Kean Jr. possibly having Pres. Bush on the campaign trail, among others. The panelists were quick to point out when a candidate didn't really address the crux of what was asked, too.

But for tonight's debate and yesterday's one, Menendez has been noticeably stronger in his responses and his articulation of his views. As someone who thinks he is the better candidate for the N.J. senate position, I hope he continues to do this so successfully.

Democrats Reframing the Message

2006-05-23T19:55:00.000-07:00

Stop me if you think that you’ve heard this one before (intentional Morrissey reference there). "Democrats, as a national party, have no vision for the country nor any concrete policies, that is, outside of constant obstruction of Republican policies and voting against the president’s initiatives." You must have heard that one before, since it is oft repeated in Republican-controlled media outlets and even internalized by Democrats. Even Evan Bayh, the moderate-to-progressive Indiana senator who would make a superb presidential candidate, seemingly has internalized the Republican message about the Democrats, stating in an address to the centrist Progressive Policy Institute that "We still have a hurdle to cross with the American people in convincing them that we can be both tough and smart when it comes to securing America." In other words, in a post 9-11 age, Republicans have a better grasp of how to protect the country, and voting Democratic, until now, has been the equivalent of voting against national security interests.

Of course, nothing can be further from the truth: the neoconservative war in Iraq has resulted in the depletion of American resources and personnel and the furthering of the anti-American ideology. Worldwide terrorist acts, in fact, were up in 2004 in comparison to 2003, perhaps partly due to the misguided war in Iraq. The truth speaks for itself: Republican foreign policy is a lesson in abject failure for protecting this country. Democrats need to ensure that they are the party of the future when it comes to national security, emphasizing that a plan that has mobile, specialized forces for fighting terrorists in an intra-national war (with the host country’s approval, of course) rather than an overextended force bogged down in a country that doesn’t want American help (Iraq). All of the recommendations of the bi-partisan
9-11 commission need to be enforced to ensure better safety and security against a terrorist attack rather than the failing grades that have been received by the Republican-led leadership in implementing these changes.

Reframing the debate will mean, inevitably, that Democrats will need to fight against the conservative echo chamber that begins with Republican leadership in Congress and ends with repeated Republican talking points in the media, ranging from Fox News to right-wing radio. Republicans control both houses of congress and the presidency, a rarity in political history that will hopefully be rectified in 2006 and 2008. The echo chamber for Republican talking points is far and wide, judging how so many Americans actually believed there was a War on Christmas because Fox News hammered this point repeatedly in their daily broadcasts. But the media and the American people are becoming more savvy, and the media, both old and new, is finally beginning to do its unstated job: providing a type of checks and balance against the political machine, whether it be Republican or Democratic. Reframing the debate will mean not only pointing out the many failures of the Republican leadership, but also offering a clear, concise alternative, one that will resonate with middle-of-the-road America, an America who is waiting for the Democratic party to regain leadership and right this rudderless country.

N.J. Senate Race, Seven Months Out

2006-04-20T07:05:00.000-07:00

New Jersey’s senate race for 2006 is shaping up to be a bruiser, and possibly dominant political issues are already shaping up, including Gov. Corzine’s budget and its call for an increased sales, the environment, immigration (perhaps), and national security/Iraq. Tom Kean Jr., the presumptive Republican nominee, is barely making any stance on these issues unless it suits him politically. For example, he has decried Corzine’s call for a tax increase – it should be noted that Corzine has also called for cutting spending by billions in his budget – yet offers absolutely no alternative, nor did he try to stay on the state budget committee as a state senator (too risky!). Kean Jr. didn’t even bother to show up for an fundraising event for himself that Vice President Cheney attended; again, while he would take the hundreds of thousands raised, it is too much of a risk to be seen with a representative from the much-despised Bush administration. Kean Jr. is coming across as evasive in his beliefs and too calculated in his actions, a strategy that helped Kerry lose the 2004 presidential election.

The more that I find out about Sen. Bob Menendez, the more that I like him. Here is a pro-business, pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-sensible national security plan Democrat who is progressive in his political ideology and has already taken stands on the Dubai Ports Deal, even if a bit of posturing was involved. In South Jersey, a constituency he’ll have to win to be re-elected, he has come out against the misguided military proposal of dumping the VX nerve agent in the Delaware River. Perhaps most important, however, is that while a congressman he voted against Bush’s authorization to use force in Iraq, a very courageous stance at the time and one that has proven true since the invasion.

The elite and well-funded Republican senate committee will be throwing its weight and its conservative-funded donations behind Kean Jr., and Kean Jr. may have better name recognition because of his father, a former governor; hence, we should expect a fight for this seat in November. I support Menendez’s candidacy and hope that my fellow New Jersey citizens will do the same.

The End of Neoconservatism

2006-04-05T14:22:00.000-07:00

After 2001 my political prognosis was very different than now, in 2006. Bush’s foreign policy plans were all but approved by Congress following 9/11, including the reckless pre-emptive strike on Iraq; domestic policies, including the unfortunate Patriot Act, were almost all rubber-stamped approved by a cowering Congress; and Republicans made gains in the house and the senate in consecutive elections. Needless to say, the conservative movement seemed alive and well, though I think any contemporary political prognosis must take into account that this movement may very well be in demise, and here’s why.

The neoconservative branch of the conservative movement is markedly in decline. Fukayama, the supposed intellectual progenitor of the neoconservative movement, has stated that the Iraq War is in shambles, calls for resignations and investigations into Sec. Rumsfield and other policy "hawks" are increasing, and many initiatives of the Bush administration, including his privatization for social security, aren’t even seeing the light of day of a congressional vote. Democrats consistently outpoll Republicans in polls for 2006, and it is not a question of whether Democrats will pick up seats in the house or senate, but instead just how many. Though the media is certainly corporate -- and thus, by logical extension, conservative – and Republicans will continue to hold majorities in both chambers after 2006 in all probability, the political mood is swinging away from the neoconservative movement and instead towards progressivism.

It is important that not only will Americans move away from conservatism and all its permutations in terms of cultural identity and larger societal shifts, but also that the political structure also becomes Democratic; without votes and winning elections, this anti-Bush and anti-conservative thrust means very little except on a local level. As evidenced in the financial backing of Sen. Kerry in 2004, Democrats can compete financially with the richer Republican elite, and this relatively equal distribution of resources for election is important for Democrats to win over the electorate. In some respects, just as, factually speaking, one must support evolution over creationism because it demonstrates concrete truths, so might American society come to understand and sympathize with the demonstrable truths of progressive politics, and move towards a left-of-center country, particularly in the fields of universal health care, environmental protection, a balanced foreign policy and war on terror, preservation of civil rights, and ethical but pro-business economic policies.

Thank-you, Russ Feingold

2006-03-24T13:48:00.000-08:00

Last week, something happened in congress that reminded me why a Democratic political philosophy is more in tune with the Consitution and Bill of Rights than a right-wing one. Sen. Russ Feingold had the backbone to propose a formal censure of Pres. Bush for breaking the law with his illegal wiretapping of American citizens. First, as a reminder, I should say that Sen. Feingold is completely in favor of wiretapping terrorists, and what he is explicitly against is the illegal wiretapping of Americans by this corrupt administration.

That we cannot have a national debate about the president's actions in the wiretapping case is a tragedy, as many Democrats have run as far as possible from Feingold's measure, and Republicans, including the speaker of the House, who suggested Feingold is sympathetic with terrorists, are already villifying him. I'm ashamed that my state's senators, Menendez and Lautenberg, have yet to cosponsor the bill, yet the political pressure is on them, particularly from activist groups such as moveon.org. If the public cannot have a concrete issue or stance from which to gauge what constitutes Democratic ideals, then I think we will ultimately fail as a party -- and this would be a travesty since we are about to make historic gains in the House and Senate. Feingold defended the basic rights afforded to the American people in our nation's founding documents; the least we can do is support his courageous stance.

Tommy Moore for S.C. Governor

2006-03-13T13:57:00.000-08:00

Before leaving South Carolina for New Jersey, I volunteered for the reelection campaign of former governor Jim Hodges; since his defeat, the state has headed downhill -- higher unemployment, less funding for education, poor fiscal management, and so forth. Mark Sanford is consistently rated as one of the worst governors in America, and South Carolina needs leadership now more than ever. With this in mind, I want to encourage S.C. voters to get behind state senator Tommy Moore's (D) gubernatorial campaign. As a state senator, Moore has worked on environmental legislation, and S.C. must have a pro-environmental governor at such a delicate time balancing growth and conservation. Further, as a business owner and state senator with business ties, Moore has experience that could help restore the state's faltering bond rating and boost revenue for both businesses and consumers. Finally, any senator with experience with Homeland Security legislation, as Moore has, is an attractive one in a post-9-11 age. I hope that Moore becomes the next governor of the great state of South Carolina.

http://www.tommymooreforgovernor.com/node

Gay Marriage in N.J.

2006-02-27T05:24:00.000-08:00

Imagine, if you would, that the following described your rights as a U.S. citizen within a monogamous, loving relationship: you had no adoption rights in most states, no hospital visitation rights, no access to willed assets from the deceased, and your relationship had no legitimation under the law. What I’ve just described to you is the plight of same-sex couples throughout the state and the country, yet New Jersey is about to take a huge, life-affirming step towards rectifying this lack of basic human rights afforded to most of the population.

In February, New Jersey’s Supreme Court heard arguments for and against legalizing gay marriage, -- the ultimate, cultural boogeyman for so many Republican leaders -- and this summer will make a ruling on whether the state should legalize the institution of marriage for all persons. Many legal scholars are of the opinion that New Jersey will become the second state to protect the rights of same-sex couples and grant them the legal status afforded to heterosexual couples. Nothing would make me prouder than for our courts to grant this basic human right, especially with so many red states moving backwards by making same-sex marriage illegal. New Jersey is a progressive state with citizens who recognize that human rights and tolerance to all are not only foundational ideals built into our Constitution and Bill of Rights, but also ideals that should guide every human culture; this is perhaps why, when so much of the country is moving towards intolerant laws towards homosexuals, New Jerseyans favor gay marriage by a 56% to 39% ratio, according to a recent Zogby poll. Though some social conservatives make the claim that gay marriage threatens "traditional" Western marriages, I see nothing but fearmongering in such a wayward claim; we know that Massachusetts has not been "threatened" in any way because of their groundbreaking law that provides equal rights for gays and lesbians. Not a single institution, civic or ecclesiastical, will be threatened in our state if we legalize gay marriage.
Our state has the opportunity to lead the rest of the nation in affirming the rights of all of our citizens, straight or gay, and I encourage local civic leaders, clergy, and politicians to join me in supporting the legalization of gay marriage in our state

Separation of Church and State

2006-02-16T08:53:00.000-08:00

Having just reread Jefferson's "Query XVII" from Notes on the State of Virginia and Franklin’s Autobiography, I am more than ever convinced that our founding fathers had no intention of having religion be an institution assisted financially and promoted by the state. Jefferson writes that reason and free inquiry will lead one to Christianity (one wonders about that), not the coercion of government towards one religion; further, he argues against the persecution of Quakers under the law and that "the rights of conscience" (e.g., private/religious) should never be submitted to under some government statute. Franklin, who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, also clearly is in favor of religious liberalism and the separation of the state and church, criticizes a Presbyterian preacher for coercing his audience into being good Presbyterians, not good citizens; further, he laments the division of citizens brought about by religion, stating that some religions "serv’d principally to divide us and make us unfriendly with one another." Considering these statements, as well as the establishment clause of the first amendment, one is left with a clear sense that Jefferson and Franklin’s philosophy was founded upon the freedom of one’s private religion outside of the domain of the public.

Conservatives, however, sometimes create a faux history of America, arguing that religion is never mentioned as excluded in the Constitution, and, therefore, government funds should be used for supporting religion. This goes against both the intent of Jefferson and Franklin and against traditional interpretations of the first amendment, of course. The Bush administration has seen fit to favor faith-based initiatives, thus providing money to religious organizations and charities. This is problematic on many levels, especially because it breaks down the barrier that was intended between the public institution of the state and the private one of religion. All too often, the only religion favored in these initiatives is, of course, Christianity, thus violating the first amendment. I worry over the chipping away of these laws that guarantee the rights of all citizens, including those who want freedom from religion.

Gonzalez, NSA Wiretapping

2006-02-07T12:41:00.000-08:00

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, whom conservatives worry is too "moderate" for their liking and protested against being nominated for a Supreme Court vacancy, showed his unwavering loyalty to the Bush administration with his evasive answers to questions yesterday. Instead of actually answering questions posed by Democrats and rights-concerned Republicans (yes, there are a few), Gonzalez was ambiguous in his replies. Gonzalez stated that "'If you're talking with al Qaeda, we want to know what you're saying,'" thereby providing an obfuscation where one didn't exist before: we know that some of these wiretaps were directed towards peace activists and those with no ties to al Qaeda. This is a dishonest AG defending a dishonest president with dishonest tactics. And this is what is particularly disturbing about this power-mad administration: they do not think that they are answerable to the people and, at times, think that they are above the law. He refused to answer whether personal correspondence could be monitored, and again argued that the Iraq resolution provided the basic law for these wiretaps; as Republican Sen. Specter has pointed out, the legal justification for these wiretaps is spotty at best. From my understanding, the special FISA court could grant wiretapping authorizations very quickly and even do so after an illegal wiretap had occurred; surely, if transparency was this administration's goal, then they would have followed the rule of the law. At issue is, on one level, is basic civil rights and whether they have been violated in this instance, whether the persons spied upon were suspected of sympathizing with al Qaeda or Quaker peace activists. In either instance, the rule of law must apply, and this administration has broken it.

Two good analyses of the NSA wiretapping scandal:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/spying-and-lying-a-winni_b_15206.html

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2474

Re: "Red-State Democrats Want Off the Howard Dean Bus"

2006-02-02T06:07:00.000-08:00

First, John McIntyre and the other folks at RealClearPolitics.com have done a service to political junkies by providing a website that collects election news and polling numbers. The major problem that I have with McIntyre and his ilk, however, is that only conservative opinions are included for the most part, and the articles posted skew nearly 3-1 in favor of conservative writers over progressive or moderate ones. This is his prerogative, however, even though his version of right-wing politics is at the fringe of American political thinking; most Americans are moderates and not nearly as far to the right as McIntyre et al.

Today's article by McIntyre is titled "Red State Democrats Want Off the Howard Dean Bus," yet it really isn't about Dr. Dean and instead focuses on Alito's volatile confirmation and the rebirth of neoconservatism that it supposedly entails. He is right, however, when he says that Dems can't win running on the Alito issue; what he fails to note, however, is that neither will the Republicans, and the Alito confirmation was less about substance and loss of civil rights (what it should have been) and more about posturing, evasion, and false drama (a "devoted" wife's tears!). I can tell you that any political observer besides McIntyre would be arguing that more Republicans want off the George W. Bush bus than vice versa for Dean and the Democrats; in N.J., for example, don't expect Mr. Bush to make an appearance to conservative-cum-moderate Tom Kean, nor will he most likely make any appearance in the northeast for any candidates.

Further, as we watch the end of neoconservatism as a movement, one comes to a different conclusion about real, palpable Republican weaknesses than McIntyre suggests. McIntyre suggests that Republicans merely need to "hav[e] the courage or the fortitude to act like conservatives" when we know that this gameplan will result in a netloss for Republicans in both the House and Senate. For Republicans merely to stop the bleeding -- and bleeding there will be in '06, according to most political pundits, including Larry Sabato -- they will need to distance themselves from the corrupt members at the head of the party, the inept leadership of the Bush administration, and the failures of post-war Iraq. This is a hard thing to accomplish, however, for a party that has acted as a lapdog for the first four years of Bush, and the 2006 elections couldn't come any faster for this optimistic Democrat.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_2_06_JM.html

State of the Union?

2006-01-31T13:59:00.000-08:00

Though it is hard not to put the mute button on when Bush is speaking, tonight he will have the main forum for promoting his initiatives for 2006. That said, much like his recent speeches to pre-picked audiences in red states, don't expect much substance in this year's state of the union address; there is too much posturing to be done and reminders of the (non)connections between 9/11 and Iraq actually to have proposals based on subsequent substantive changes. In 2003, for example, Bush promised he was committed to "improving the environment," yet we know that his administration has sought to dismantle some of the laws that protect our environment, including roadless protection in state parks. Bush's record speaks for itself -- a botched response to Katrina, no post-war plan for Iraq, torture scandals, corruptions scandals for the leaders of his party, and so on -- so clever speechwriting only goes so far.

Gen. Wesley Clark has released a real state of the union address today, one from a 30 Jan. speech; it is my hope that he will be able to give his own state of the union address as president one day.
http://securingamerica.com/node/560

Ending the War in Iraq

2006-01-26T05:19:00.000-08:00

Alright, so those of us who were against or for the war in Iraq have a vested interest in democracy succeeding there; yet, my inclination is that we must begin withdrawing now so that Iraqis know that we won't be a permanent occupying force there. The public sentiment in Iraq is against our occupation, the Bush adminstration botched post-war planning, the war has cost nearly $350 billion, and it was waged under false pretenses.

That said, what would be the best way to both a) ensure that some vestige of democracy succeeds in Iraq and b) the U.S. begins withdrawal and has most troops out by the end of the year, with 2007 as the latest we are there? One can state that having the sectarian groups, the Shi'ite, Sunnis, and Kurds, form a coalition government is a good start, yet the sectarianism is still reflected in those chosen representatives from the December election; further radical Sunnis are still behind a good amount of the insurgent attacks, and many of the minority Sunnis feel disenfranchised from the entire political process. There is no magic bullet solution to this, unfortunately.

I am inclined to think that the U.S. presence there creates and fosters further problems, not solutions. Hence, if we were to withdraw and instead have a much smaller force strategically placed in the mideast somewhere (and focus more on Afghanistan), the Iraqi government would be seen as a legitimate, non-puppet entity. An attack against Iraqis would be viewed as one against the country, uniting the various sects against the perpetrators and further isolating the extremists.

We also need to yield all control of oil fields to Iraqis, procure further assistance from the U.N. and international forces, and have better control of border security. The Iraqis should control their own country and destiny, even if they have a muted version of an Islamic state; it is their choice to make, but we all have a definite interest in peace and democracy in that country, even if we were lied to in the run up to the war.

Any more ideas on withdrawing from Iraq but also ensuring that some form of democracy survives?

Looking ahead to 2008

2006-01-26T05:04:00.000-08:00

Though Democrats need to keep their eye on the prize and focus on the 2006 congressional elections for now, it certainly isn't too early to speculate upon whom to pass the mantle of presidential nominee from Kerry. Strategically speaking, I do not see Hillary or Kerry adding much in terms of electoral expansion, but either of these candidates could squeek by with a win. If expanding the electoral possibilities, appealing to rural voters, and fielding a red state candidate is important (and it is), then I think that Wesley Clark, John Edwards, or Mark Warner should receive serious consideration. In a post 9/11 age, one would think that Clark, a former supreme allied commander for NATO, would be the natural choice, especially since Edward and Warner have less foreign policy experience. But, since much of the nation's gaze has returned to domestic concerns since Katrina, a superb manager of the Old Dominion such as Warner -- Virginia has been rated the best-managed state in the union -- could have some momentum in the primaries. Of the three, Warner currently has the biggest grassroots movement to nominate him, at least from my judgment of net activism. Edwards, well, is incredily likable, even to moderates despite his rather liberal record; I could see him doing very well in red states, winning all of the debates, and being a very formidable candidate. Now if only the Republicans don't nominate Guiliani or McCain...

First Blog

2006-01-25T20:48:00.000-08:00

Alright, I'm running this as a test for what I hope will be a political blog.