Thursday, September 11, 2008

Putting America First

This letter appeared in yesterday's Daily Item. It was written by Steva Stowell-Hardcastle, who is the volunteer team leader for the Obama campaign in Union County. Here is the (unabridged) text:
Our presidential candidates recently announced their Vice Presidential running mates. What vetting processes do these potential candidates go through in order to be second in line to lead one of the most powerful countries in the world? Are our presidential candidates putting America first in deciding who best will protect and lead us?

The President-Vice President team is similar to a married couple, or to business partners in a small locally owned business. Before anyone of us would jump into marriage or a business partnership we would want to get to know our prospective partners. What are his or her values, personality, track record, ethics, and capabilities? How would this spouse or business partner take care of our children or employees if I suddenly became incapacitated? I would be looking for someone who would be able to carry on, putting our family or employees before themselves.

When I look at the two vice-presidential nominees, I wonder which was picked for purely political reasons, and which was picked because the candidate put America first. Which one was picked for mere political gain, and which was picked for an ability to protect and lead America should the President become incapacitated? John McCain met Sarah Palin just once—once— before selecting her for his ticket. She has no foreign policy experience, though our country faces an international terrorist threat, two wars, growing tensions with Russia, and potential nuclear arms production in Iran. She has no experience in the federal government, although our economy is in recession, our healthcare costs are rising, and every year our children are less able to compete in the global economy because their schools simply don’t have enough money. John McCain has been campaigning for the presidency longer then Sarah Palin has been governor of Alaska.

Barack Obama has known Joe Biden, a native of Scranton, for years. He and his staff spent months studying twenty years worth of speeches and records from potential Vice Presidential candidates. Obama wanted to leave no doubt that his running mate—the person who would help him lead and protect our great country—would be experienced, strong, and dependable, and have the track record to prove it. And did Obama make the right choice? Biden chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He’s spent decades building personal relationships with heads of state around the world. His career is a record of commitment to fairness for the middle and working class citizen. He has protected the rights of women in our country, by defending equal pay for equal work and by writing and passing the Violence Against Women Act, a piece of legislation that has protected thousands of women and children who are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

Sarah Palin is surely an up-and-coming public servant and fine person. But there can be no doubt that her selection reflects McCain’s mere political game-playing, in particular an attempt to attract the vote of disappointed women and conservative Christians. This is nothing but a blatant disregard for our country’s security, should McCain become incapacitated. Palin was picked because, for McCain, the Republican Party comes first. Joe Biden can and will protect and lead America, should the task fall to him. It’s the Biden pick that puts America first.
Congratulations, Steva!

We will be making more of an effort from now on to publish Letters to the Editor (even those not published in the paper) here on the CSCC blog to encourage discussion. Have you written a letter recently? Or are about to? Send a copy to us, too!

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

A few notes on The Daily Item

David A. Young had a strong letter about the Thruway published in The Daily Item on Monday. He suggested that the Susquehanna Valley needs the Thruway more than the Wal-Mart HQ in Arkansas needs a wider driveway paid for with federal money ($35 million was appropriated but not yet spent). He also proposes a new idea for making up the funding gap: toll the new bridge or the completed Thruway. I've had the same thought, since it seems there won't be enough money to go around in the current budget climate.

While we're talking about the Daily Item: I've noticed in the last week that The Daily Item has buried the important world news. The pending impeachment of Pres. Musharraf in Pakistan was on D8 last Saturday (that's the back of the classifieds section)--no note on page 1 about the story. The resignation of Pres. Musharraf is on A8 today--again no note on page 1. (Stories about bombings in Iraq have been similarly relegated to the anonymous back pages--but that might be understandable given how many of those stories have had to be written in the last five years.)

In contrast, a story about two guys who claim to have bigfoot in their freezer appeared on A3 last Saturday. (DNA tests have indicated it's really and oppossum, but more tests are pending.)

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

What's behind the FISA compromise?

Behind the scenes at CSCC we've had a running conversation about whether to make a big push to engage our members and our representatives in the debate about FISA--the Foreign Intelligence Suveillance Act. On one hand, it's not one of those priority issues (3 national, 3 state/local) that we identified for this year. On the other hand, it goes to the heart of our constitutional democracy: if the president can ignore the law, get the cooperation of the telephone companies (or at least some of the biggest ones) for unfettered access to all international communications, and then get the companies that knowingly broke the law retroactive immunity from any punishment, how can we believe in the protections stated in the Constitution?

Congressman Chris Carney, whom CSCC endorsed in 2006, voted to support the so-called compromise legislation that, in effect, grants retroactive immunity but restores court protections of various kinds. Many groups on the left, particularly MoveOn.org, have been fighting against retroactive immunity.

Now that Barack Obama, Jim Webb and many other Democrats have voted for the compromise, this issue seems resolved at least until next year. Here's a link to an article making the case that the compromise is better than no bill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08halperin.html?ex=1373256000&en=d4807dea94410bce&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

(Morton Halperin, "Listing to Compromise," NYTimes, July 8, 2008)

From the reading I've done, all I can say is that we don't know whether this compromise is going to be a good thing or a bad thing. We may come to regret the message that has been sent here.

Was this issue worth taking on for CSCC, when we have our big three national issues of Iraq, Health Care, and Energy/Environment/Global Warming hanging out there? Perhaps our reps were counting on our limited attention span. For our elected officials, the danger of being blamed for a terrorist attack is probably a greater political danger than being blamed for an erosion in constitutional protections. Still, we should appreciate the efforts that Sens. Dodd and Feingold make to stop the retroactive immunity provision.

One hopeful sign: MoveOn.org encouraged its members to contact Barack Obama to let him know that there are steps he can take if he becomes president that could help to limit the damage. I contacted him through his website and got an automated response almost immediately (which was expected). TEN MINUTES LATER, I got an email specfically about FISA laying out his position and stating what he would do as president. Compared to other operations, which take days to respond or never respond (that's you, Sen. Specter) to electronic communications, the Obama team seems to be in the 21st century. Perhaps they also understand why electronic freedom and privacy matter.

Monday, July 14, 2008

Congrats to CNL on the Peacemakers Picnic

Yesterday I made it to the annual Peacemakers Picnic for the first time. I do wish I'd made it to the one (I believe it was the first one) that honored Rev. Alton Motter, a friend of mine who was killed a short time later in a car accident at the age of 95.

This year's event was particularly appealing both because Joe Manzi is a leader for CSCC and for CNL and because the honorees were two leading members of other progressive organizations in town: Lois Passi of CARE and Sam Pearson of the Local Action Network LAN (and a number of other initiatives), both of whom have done much to promote peace and justice. I was predicting (on the way there, as rain clouds seemed to be moving in) that the turnout would be small. The actual count was over 40, which is a good turnout on a Sunday in July. The food was great, too.

An added treat was to hear from the Milton teacher (Mike H?) who started the ball rolling on the Cambodia Project. Milton students and the community have raised nearly $40,000 to help build a school in Cambodia. I remember raising $1,000 for class trip way back when, and that was hard enough. That kind of money is truly inspirational--an example to all the students at Milton that ordinary people can make a difference in this world. That's something for us all to remember.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

A Very Good Idea

Here is anew attempt to wrest control of Iraq policy from the bozos in the white house.

On first glance, looks very good.

http://www.responsibleplan.com/

Monday, March 17, 2008

An analysis of Chris Carney's voting record

John Peeler has just put together an analysis of Chris Carney's voting record that finds that Carney is a centrist and (surprise) neither as conservative as Don Sherwood nor as liberal as Nancy Pelosi (or even Bob Casey Jr.).



CHRIS CARNEY: Right Down the Middle

John Peeler

Representative Chris Carney (D-10), a year into his first terms and running for reelection, is portrayed by his Republican opponents as a "Nancy Pelosi liberal," even as many liberal Democrats express disappointment–and even anger–at how conservative he is. The respected, nonpartisan National Journal (March 8, 2008) has just come out with its annual ideological ratings of members of Congress, based on hundreds of votes during 2007. Now we can say with some assurance that Carney is neither a Pelosi clone nor a copy of his conservative Republican predecessor, Don Sherwood.

Overall, Carney was more liberal than 49.7 percent of House members (mostly Republicans). This centrist record held across all issue areas: he was more liberal than 52 percent of members on economic issue, 47 percent on social issues, and 49 percent on foreign policy issues.

By comparison, neighboring Democratic representatives were also moderate (Holden, 53.2 percent; Kanjorski, 57.3; Murtha, 61.2) while neighboring Republicans were notably more conservative (Peterson, 21.2; Shuster, 17.0). Carney's predecessor, Don Sherwood, scored 25.5 in 2006. Among House freshmen, Carney had the fourth lowest liberalism score among Democrats, but he was still 24 points more liberal than Sherwood. Carney's record is very close to the moderate Republican Senator Arlen Specter (45.5) and more conservative than Senator Bob Casey (71.2). Carney is much more conservative than Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD, 79.2).

Carney's centrism is not unique: the magazine's cover features him with eight other congressional freshmen. A feature article argues that the freshmen elected in 2006, particularly those in predominantly Republican districts, are, like Carney, distinctly moderate in their voting records. Carney and the other centrists have frequently had to buck the party line: Carney said, "I have no hesitation when I vote against the party view if it conflicts with the values of my district."

In his first year, Carney has systematically worked to establish a voting record consistent with the relatively conservative district he represents. In doing so, he has displeased many of his more liberal supporters, while he is certainly not conservative enough for his Republican opponents (who think they still own the district). It remains to be seen whether he is conservative enough for the majority of voters in the 10th District, but it is hard to imagine how he could be much more liberal and still win reelection.

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

If true, the only reason you need to NOT vote for HRC

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/5/131156/5021/187/469677

Clinton's people play the race card and the running-scared-of-muslims card.

See for yourself: