Ads are not an endorsement by the blog author.

Conservative Democrat

Public Journal
A pro-labor, pro-life, pro-gun rights and pro-traditional family Democrat Archives | Subscribe to Alerts Alerts Subscribe to Alerts | Feeds
 
Monday, May 26, 2008
Subject: Right Democrat
Time: 7:56:41 AM SST
Author:  rightdemocrat

On this Memorial Day, I wanted to share an excellent post from The Moderate Voice www.themoderatevoice.com about the need to support our veterans. The Republicans often talk about being pro-military but often fail to deliver when our vets need help with educational benefits and decent health care.

May 25th, 2008 by DORIAN DE WIND

As we observe this Memorial Day weekend, the news media are full of stories honoring and remembering the million of military heroes who have fallen in the wars our country has fought—as it should be.

In his weekly radio address Saturday, President Bush urged Americans to honor the sacrifices of those who have served our country, and who have made the ultimate sacrifice–as we should.

He also talked about the bravery and dedication of our military men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, “and other fronts around the world”–as he should.

But, on this Memorial Day weekend, absent from the President’s speech was concrete, meaningful support–as there should be–for those who are still fighting the wars that were launched under his command.

I am referring to the new GI Bill of Rights that is presently being debated on Capitol Hill.

I am referring to an improved version of the GI Bill that would provide our Afghanistan and Iraq war veterans with education benefits at least equal to those of our World War II and Vietnam War veterans.

I am referring to the more fair GI Bill sponsored by U.S. Senators Daniel Inouye, John Warner; supported by Sen. James Webb–the bill’s principal backer–and by many other Republicans and Democrats; and the bill that passed earlier this week on a 75-22 vote.

I am referring to the more generous GI Bill overwhelmingly passed by the House earlier.

I am referring to the version of the GI Bill that President Bush has threatened to veto because “it costs too much” and because it may hurt re-enlistment rates. (Supporters of the bill contend that such improved benefits will actually improve retention and enlistments).

The bill is estimated to cost $45 billion over the next 10 years. At the present rate of expenditures for the Iraq war–including the billions of dollars wasted, fleeced and not accounted for–we are talking about an amount equal to what we spend in Iraq in about six months. Is this too much to spend on our troops who are getting shot at, injured and maimed every day?

Now, the president has some support for his watered down GI Bill “Lite.” Among them, Republican presidential candidate John McCain, and my own Senator from the great State of Texas, Senator John Cornyn. There are a few others, but not many.

As a Vietnam War era veteran, I received all my higher education, including a master’s degree, using the G.I. Bill and other military educational programs and assistance. I am thus very disappointed that the “support the troops” Bush administration, gung-ho Senator McCain, and the support Bush-McCain senator from Texas oppose a more robust version of a renewed G.I. Bill of Rights, ostensibly because it costs too much and for other nefarious reasons.

This is a bill that will give our Iraq and Afghanistan wars veterans–who have sacrificed so much more than I did–at least the same educational opportunities that were given my and past generations of veterans by a president who then truly supported the troops.

When President Bush, on Memorial Day, lays a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery, I hope that he also remembers those who are still living, sweating, and dodging bullets, and sometimes being hit in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan.

I believe that we could offer no greater honor and respect to those who we are remembering this Memorial Day weekend than by promising to take better care of their brethren who are still living, and fighting.

http://themoderatevoice.com/general/19898/let-us-truly-honor-our-fallen-heroes-this-memorial-day/ 



Written by rightdemocrat Permalink | Blog about this entry
This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

Subject: Why Amendment 2 is Best for Florida's Families
Time: 7:48:32 AM SST
Author:  rightdemocrat

I urge the voters of Florida to support Amendment 2 which would place a ban on same sex marriage in the Florida Consitution. While it is important to treat gay and lesbians  fairly, the traditional family must be recognized as a source of strength. The vast majority of Floridians across party lines oppose gay marriage and do not want to redefine the institution of marriage.

As a labor Democrat who has spent his whole life fighting for the fair treatment of the poor and minorities, I see no inconsistency with my endorsement of Amendment 2. We should certainly consider some form of statewide domestic partnership legislation for same sex couples. Matters like inheritance rights and hospital visitation can be addressed without tampering with the institution of marriage. Gay bashing and employment discrimination against gays must be vigorously opposed but we must also recognize that the traditional family unit is the basic building block of our society.

As explained in the video link, Amendment 2 will not invalidate local domestic partnership laws. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6cT2Fxo-7s The recent California Supreme Court ruling shows the importance of Florida putting a ban on same sex marriage into the state constitution.

Full Text of Florida Marriage Protection Amendment

“Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no otherlegal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”


Why do we need a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in Florida?

* Natural Marriage is Under Attack

Gay and lesbian political groups and activist judges nationwide are trying to overturnstate Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) laws which define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This is what happened in California and Massachusetts to legalize “gay” marriages. It is only a matter of time before an activist judge will take a case that challenges Florida’s DOMA and rules that our state law is “unconstitutional.” This is why Florida is following the lead of 27 other states who have expressly defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman in their state constitution.


* Marriage is Beneficial to Florida

The institution of marriage provides the foundation for every humancivilization. Florida has a fundamental and compelling interest in protecting and preserving marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Our communities flourish socially, economically and in many other ways due to the stability and strength that marriage provides to children, families, communities and our state as a whole. Marriage benefits the common good of society in unique and lasting ways that same sex coupling does not.


* Same Sex Marriage Subjects Children to a Vast, Untested, Social Experiment

When you create a same sex marriage, you are simultaneously creating a same sex family. Our responsibility is to always ask, “What is in the best interest of children?” When it comes to marriage, children always do better when they grow up with a married mother and father. A massive body of social science literature over the past three decades, has empirically demonstrated this fact. Children raised with a married mom and a dad are protected from a host of social maladies.

* Opponents of the marriage amendment are waging a campaign of pure deception and deliberate misrepresentation

Our opponents know they will loose if they try and argue the policy merits of so called “gay” marriage. So they have resorted to a pathetic and dastardly tactic, namely trying to scare senior citizens into thinking that their “benefits” will be taken away. Amendment 2 is about one thing, and one thing only-- it defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman and does not interfere with anyone’s benefits. Detailed legal documentation proving this point is available at at http://www.florida4marriage.org/, under “Opponent’s Arguments.

Amendment 2 deserves the support of all Floridians who are concerned about the well-being of families. This is not a partisan issue and Amendment 2 needs the support of Democrats, Republicans and Independents.





Written by rightdemocrat Permalink | Blog about this entry
This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Subject: AFL-CIO joins with NRA to support worker gun rights
Time: 4:03:47 PM SST
Author:  rightdemocrat

Today's Tampa Tribune reported that the AFL-CIO has joined the National Rifle Association in supporting a proposed law to protect the gun rights of Florida workers. One of the leading opponents of gun rights in Florida is the state's Chamber of Commerce. Big business leaders feel that that employees should not have the right to keep and bear arms while traveling to and from work. http://tinyurl.com/2xuej3

By KEVIN BEGOS The Tampa Tribune

March 28, 2007

 
TALLAHASSEE - The issue was whether employees have the right to keep guns in their cars at work, and the National Rifle Association got help from an unexpected ally at a committee hearing Tuesday: the AFL-CIO labor union.

The business community strongly opposes the new NRA-supported legislation, but that's no surprise, said AFL-CIO spokesman Rich Templin, who said big businesswants sweeping new property rights.

"They're seeking to put the rights of dirt over the rights of people," Templin said. "They're seeking to say that the rights of Floridians stop at the boundaries of our property. People should not have to lose their rights simply to keep a job."

Templin said the labor group was motivated by situations in other states in which workers were fired for having union material in cars.

The Florida Chamber of Commerce and other business groups said the bill attacks their right to regulate behavior on private property. The bill sponsor is Sen. Durell Peaden, R-Crestview, and an identical House bill is sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala.

Peaden said the right to bear arms is the core issue in the bill.

Chamber Executive Director Mark Wilson said the bill is the biggest assault on private property rights the Legislature has been asked to consider. He noted that for many years his group and the NRA were partners in fighting to limit government power.

"When the NRA sides with labor unions for bigger government, we have a problem," Wilson said.

Sen. Nancy Argenziano, R-Crystal River and Criminal Justice committee chairwoman, said businesses aren't the only ones with property rights.

"I think there's two property rights," Argenziano said, referring to the owner of a car and the owner of a parking lot. "I think it's a great bill."

The committee voted 7-1 to approve Peaden's bill, but with an amendment that requires the guns or other private material to be kept out of sight in the car.

The vote doesn't guarantee the bill will pass. Last year a similar bill passed initial committee stops, but it stalled later and was not brought to a full floor vote.  http://www.tbo.com

A survey of union members would likely show strong support for gun rights among the labor rank and file. Let's hope that the AFL-CIO support of the Florida gun rights bill is just the start of a long-term partnership with the NRA and labor.

 

 


 


 



Written by rightdemocrat Permalink | Blog about this entry
This entry has 2 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

Friday, January 5, 2007
Subject: Blue Dog Democrats make their mark on legislative agenda
Time: 7:40:06 PM SST
Author:  rightdemocrat

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Congressman Allen Boyd (D-FL) and his fellow Blue Dogs today praised the passage of Blue Dog-endorsed provisions included in the House rules package.  Chief among these provisions, pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget rules mark the first, and most important, step to getting our country back on track fiscally and reigning in our national debt, now rapidly approaching $9 trillion.

The Blue Dog Coalition has long advocated a return to PAYGO spending, which expired in 2002.  In the 1990s, with PAYGO rules on the books, our government’s budget deficits diminished and we recorded budget surpluses both in 1999 and 2000.

“Today is an exciting day for the Blue Dog Coalition,” said Congressman Boyd, Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration.  “PAYGO worked in the past, and it will work again.  With the Blue Dogs leading the charge, the Democratic-controlled Congress has demonstrated their strong commitment to fiscal responsibility and subsequently, a strong commitment to the future of our children, our grandchildren, and our great nation.”

The House rules package also requires full transparency and justification of all earmarks.  This provision, in addition to PAYGO, is included in the Blue Dog 12 Point Plan, which was developed in 2005 to end the nation's addiction to deficit spending.

“The passage of the Blue Dog-endorsed provisions shows that the Blue Dogs have enhanced the Democratic agenda and will be a strong voice for fiscal responsibility in the new Congress,” Boyd stated.  “However, our work is far from over.  Today’s victory is simply the first step to balancing our budget and curbing our out-of-control national debt.” 

Congressman Allen Boyd is a fifth generation farmer and Army veteran from Monticello, Florida, beginning his sixth term representing Florida’s 2nd Congressional District.  In addition to his work on the Blue Dog Coalition, Congressman Boyd serves on the House Appropriations Committee and co-chairs the Congressional Rural Caucus.

* MODERATE STYLE AND WORKING CLASS ROOTS GIVE EDGE TO EDWARDS

DURHAM, N.C. (AScribe Newswire) -- John Edwards' role as the leading moderate among Democrats who are expected to run for president gives him an advantage with voters, says a Duke University political scientist who specializes in African-American and Southern politics. 

"As it stands now, he appears to be the candidate who is positioned more at the center of the party, and I think that's where most of the base is, where the majority of the country is," says Kerry L. Haynie, associate chair of the political science department. "He's well-positioned. Can he take advantage of the position? That's the question."

Haynie also says the former vice-presidential candidate's decision to announce "a grass-roots, ground-up campaign" in the Ninth Ward of New Orleans is an effective strategy. 

 "I think it's very effective, and I think it reflects who he really is. He's from humble beginnings, a working class background," Haynie says. Edwards, who became a multimillionaire trial lawyer, is the son of a textile mill worker.

"His wealth is self-made, and exemplifies the American dream of becoming successful through hard work. We don't mind wealth if it's made the old-fashioned way -- if you earn it."

*  A SECOND LOOK AT NUCLEAR POWER

Proposals to build nuclear power plants have often met opposition from environmental and progressive organizations, however, a growing number of green-minded activists are reconsidering their past objections to nukes. The Lakeland (FL) Ledger reported on 12/22/06:

"In an article he wrote for Technology Review last year, Stewart Brand, a founder of the Whole Earth Catalogue, argued: "Everything must be done to increase energy efficiency and decarbonize energy production," including development of renewable energy sources like solar, wind and bio mass."

"But add them all up," Brand continued, "and it's just a fraction of enough. … The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon dioxide loading is nuclear power." http://tinyurl.com/wtky2

The Progressive Policy Institute endorsed increased use of nuclear plants in "A Progressive Energy Platform" released last October.  http://tinyurl.com/y2lqyy  According to the report entitled, "A Progressive Energy Platform,” which was released in mid-October, “Nuclear power holds a great potential to be an integral part of the diversified energy portfolio for <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />America.  It produces no greenhouse gas emissions, so it can help clean up the air and combat climate change.  And, new plant designs promise to produce power more safely and economically than first-generation facilities.”

Even the founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore is now making the case for going nuclear http://tinyurl.com/qa6rn  If our nation is to gain energy independence, we must expand use of nuclear power and biofuels.


 


 

       - - - -

 



Written by rightdemocrat Permalink | Blog about this entry
This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

Monday, October 30, 2006
Subject: NY Times: Democrats Run To The Right
Time: 5:54:16 PM SST
Author:  rightdemocrat

Today's New York Times has a front page article titled "In Key Races, Democrats Run To The Right." http://tinyurl.com/y5tzz9  Times writers Shaila Dewan and Ann Kornblut give the following analysis of the center-right trend among Democrats candidates especially in "red" states:
 
"In their push to win back control of the House, Democrats have turned to conservative and moderate candidates who fit the profiles of their districts more closely than the profile of the national party."
 
"Heath Shuler is just such a candidate. Shuler, a retired National Football League quarterback, comes from an evangelical Christian background and holds fast to many conservative social views like opposition to abortion rights."
 
"But if candidates like Shuler do help the Democrats gain majority control of Congress, it will come at a political price, raising the possibility of a new centrist tilt to the Democratic Party."
 
"My guess is that if Democrats are in the majority, it's going to be because of these New Democrat, Blue Dog candidates out there winning in these competitive swing districts," Representative Ron Kind of Wisconsin, co-chairman of a caucus of centrist Democrats in the House, said in an interview."
 
"Democratic officials said they did not set out with the intention of finding moderates to run. Instead, as they searched for candidates with the greatest possibility of winning against Republicans in targeted districts, they said, they wound up with a number who reflected a more moderate approach. That is especially true in suburban areas and some rural districts, according to Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee."
 
"As a group, they are moderate in temperament and reformers in spirit," Emanuel said.
"But will they have an impact? Absolutely," Emanuel said. "They're going to have an impact on the Congress and the caucus."
 
"The candidates cover the spectrum on political issues - some are fiscally conservative and moderate or liberal on social issues, or the reverse. Their weight could help tip the balance, depending on how narrow the majority is in the House, as well as influence negotiations with Republicans on everything from Social Security to stem cell research."
 
"Shuler, who addresses environmental conservation from the viewpoint of an avid hunter and speaks of health care for the poor as a moral responsibility, is a prime example."
"There are currently two main groups of moderate Democrats in the House: the Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of socially conservative and moderate members formed in 1994; and the centrist New Democrat Coalition, formed in 1997."
 
"While there are differences between the two - the Blue Dogs tend to be more rural and Southern, with occasional alliances with Republicans, while the New Democrats are more suburban and wealthy and place a premium on party loyalty - there are members who belong to both."
 
"The centrist movement was embodied by former President Bill Clinton, who rose to prominence through the Democratic Leadership Council, which embraced a so-called "third way" of politics and eschewed what it saw as outdated liberalism. Yet since Clinton left office, Democrats seem to drift back in the direction of their liberal identity, nominating two presidential contenders who were seen as less committed to the moderate cause."
 
"Shuler, 34, grew up in a Democratic family, the son of a mailman in Bryson City, North Carolina. He has set out to bring conservative Democrats who have voted Republican, like Brenda Davis, back into the fold."
 
From behind the counter at Spud and Deb's Hunting and Pet Supplies in Enka, North Carolina, Davis, 41, said she voted Republican in the last election because of her religious beliefs, but this time around is supporting Shuler.
 
"Considering my son is a marine and he's done two tours in Iraq," Davis said, "I'm with the Democrats."
 
If Democrats continue to nominate candidates like Heath Shuler, I espect that many voters will consider supporting  our party candidates once again. Shuler seems to have the right balance of social traditionalism and economic populism.
 
Democrats need to move to the mainstream on social values and national security issues. There must be no doubt about our commitment to familyvalues and protecting America from the threat of terrorism.
 
At the same time, it is imperative that Democrats reaffirm support for an activist role by government to provide a safety net and protect workers and consumers. The greed of the marketplace has to be restrained by regulation to protect the public. Trickle down economic policies that have benefited the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class must be reversed. So-called "free trade" can be replaced by fair trade. A Democratic Party that embraces  economic fairness for working families and respects traditional morality will become the majority party once again.
 
 
 
 
 
 


Written by rightdemocrat Permalink | Blog about this entry
This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

Saturday, October 28, 2006
Subject: Corker firm hired illegal aliens as workers
Time: 8:12:09 AM SST
Author:  rightdemocrat

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has released a new television commercial hitting Bob Corker for hypocritically talking tough on illegal immigration even though his construction firm was cited for having illegal workers on its worksite. Harold Ford Jr. wants to control the borders and get tough on employers who break the law on hiring undocumented workers.

“Bob Corker wants us to believe he can be tough on immigration even though his company employed illegal workers who were then deported,” DSCC spokesman Phil Singer said. “How can he be trusted to make the law when his own company broke the law?”

Corker’s Company Was Investigated By INS For Hiring Undocumented Workers, Some of Whom Were Deported. According to official documents, the INS opened an investigation into Corker’s construction company, Bencor, after a February 1988 complaint that 30-50 Mexicans were working at Bencor’s Riverset Apartments project on Memphis’ Mud Island. By the time the investigation was closed in 1989, after the INS held two meetings with Bencor, four illegal workers were deported.

Corker Responsible For Illegal Hirings, Broke The Law. According to the 1986 immigration law, Corker’s Bencor was legally responsible for have illegal workers at the worksite, even if the subcontractors had been at fault. Bencor could have faced fines of up to $10,000.
Corker’s Firm Ignored Warnings. Corker’s Bencor had plenty of warning that illegal workers were working on their site. According to INS documents, INS held “two meetings with Bencor, Inc” prior to their 1988 raid. Corker’s Bencor also ignored press reports about the illegal workers.

Click Here to Watch the Ad.
Click Here for Ad Backup (PDF)

* ELLSWORTH GETS "A" RATING FROM NRA

EVANSVILLE,IN – Democratic nomineee for Congress Brad Ellsworth (Indiana-D8) received a perfect “A” rating from the National Rifle Association (“NRA”), according to the November 2006 issue of American Rifleman, the official journal of the NRA.

“I believe in the Second Amendment, and I am pleased that the NRA has recognized my support for it,” said Ellsworth.

Ellsworth is a long-time gun owner and an avid sportsman.

Ellsworth is currently serving his second four-year term as Vanderburgh County Sheriff, a post to which he was first elected in 1998. Ellsworth has served Vanderburgh County law enforcement continuously since 1982.

http://www.ellsworthforcongress.com

* FAITH AND FAMILY VALUES by Heath Shuler D-NC
HENDERSONVILLE,NC - America is only as good as the families that comprise it. Strong families, blessed with hope and opportunity, filled with ambition and dreams and guided by faith and principle are the heart of America. Growing up in the close knit community of Swain County, I learned from my parents and my church to love God, respect life, and to help those less fortunate than myself. Those fundamental principles have shaped who I am today.

I am a pro-life Democrat and I believe that all life is sacred. I also believe that a commitment to life extends beyond the womb and means ensuring that all people have adequate health care, receive a strong education, and be given proper care in their later years.

I have never shied away from openly discussing my faith. Throughout my high school, college, and professional career, I have been an active member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and a spokesman for Character Counts. I have spoken to thousands of students across the country, sharing my testimony and trying to be a positive role model for them. With the help of my wonderful wife, Nikol, we are raising our two children in the mountains of North Carolina working to instill the same values with which we were raised.

* Heath Shuler is the Democratic nominee for U.S. Congress in North Carolina's 11th District.
http://www.heathshuler.com

* JACK DAVIS MAKES THE CASE AGAINST "FREE TRADE"

Jack Davis, our Democratic and Working Families Party nominee for Congress in New York's 26th Congressional District, makes a compelling case against free trade. A strong advocate for fair trade to save American jobs, here is Davis' argument for a change in direction regarding trade policies.

After 30 years of free trade, look at the facts;

Total trade deficits of 3.8 trillion dollars.
Trade deficit of 435 billion dollars last year and increasing each year.
Trade deficit of 125 billion dollars with China, mostly manufactured products and increasing.
The total national debt is 7 trillion dollars; a new all-time record high and increasing.
Over one trillion dollars is owed to our Asian suppliers.
Federal budget deficit of $477 billion last year. Why? Workers without jobs don't pay taxes nor do companies that are not profitable.
Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, Albany, Binghamton, New York City and State of New York are all operating on deficits.
Family debt is also at record highs.
When companies lose business to foreign competitors, families lose jobs, health benefits and pensions.
An increasing gross domestic product is not a measurement of a good economy. GDP can be increased by borrowing, over spending and going into destructive debt.
An increasing value of the Dow averages is not a measurement of a good economy. Fifty percent of Americans own some stock. This increases their assets and retirement funds but is not what they live on.

A good economy for the majority of Americans is employment, a living wage, a possibility for advancement, affordable housing, affordable medical care, funded retirement, and a stable currency.

Looking at all these facts, free trade has definitely not improved our standard of living. In Engineering 101, we were taught, "If the facts don't support the theory, the theory must be wrong." I don't think they teach this theory in the University's economics or political science departments.

http://www.jackdavis.org

* THE GREATEST CHALLENGE FACING AMERICA
Jim Webb, D-VA Senate candidate

"There are many challenges facing Americans today: an unpopular war, skyrocketing health care costs, a shrinking job market and rising inequality in society. I believe in the strength of American character and the ingenuity of the American people. With the right leaders we can overcome all of these obstacles. America doesn't lack ideas, it lacks leaders willing to stand up and make courageous decisions.""I have fought — and continue to fight — to protect American values. I fought in Vietnam with the hope that the Vietnamese might share the same freedoms we enjoy. I fought as a congressional committee counselor to guarantee our veterans the treatment they deserve. I fought as Secretary of the Navy to maintain the excellence of our military. I fought, pro bono, on behalf of countless veterans and refugees, in order that they might have their voices heard in the vast government bureaucracy. And I will fight in the Senate to give all Americans the chance to achieve their dreams."

http://www.webbforsenate.com

A Little Help From Your Friends

http://www.bobcasey.com/blog/

Newspaper headlines this week confirmed what many of us have known for a long time: special interests have done very well with their buddy Rick Santorum in the Senate leadership, and they stand to lose a lot come Election Day.

Last year, Santorum voted for the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that gave oil and gas companies $2.6 billion in tax breaks. Something tells me that the only people celebrating this bill one year later are the execs at ExxonMobil who raked in the second-largest quarterly profit ever recorded by a publicly traded U.S. company.(ExxonMobil also set the record for the largest quarterly profit last year).

The execs returned the favor. Only two other congressmen have received more money from Big Oil than Rick Santorum -- out of 535, he is virtually tied for 2nd.

Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum is a big beneficiary of the industry's push. He was a leading proponent of the 2003 law that gave seniors Medicare coverage for prescription drugs, and helped shape the law in ways that benefited the industry. Battling to keep his seat in a crucial Senate race, Mr. Santorum's campaign has received almost $500,000 from pharmaceutical interests and their employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group. The industry has also helped fund television advertisements and aided get-out-the-vote efforts.

The Republican-controlled Congress has been kind to drug makers. As the prescription-drugs benefit was crafted, Republicans battled not just Democratic critics but also fiscal conservatives in their own party who opposed creating the expensive government program.

Congressional Republican leaders prevented Medicare from negotiating prices with the industry. They also killed a proposal that would have allowed the government to offer its own coverage in competition with those sold by private companies.
[Wall Street Journal, 10-25-2006]

Big Pharma has rewarded Santorum handsomely for his efforts. He has received more money from the pharmaceutical industry than any other member of Congress.

Voters are fed up with the special interests' stranglehold on Rick Santorum. We need a Senator for Pennsylvania, not ExxonMobil.

* ALERT FROM THE WORKING FAMILIES NETWORK ON PA SENATE RACE

Get the Facts: Bob Casey and Rick SantorumBefore you vote Nov. 7 for U.S. senator, check the record and get the facts.

BOB CASEY WILL FIGHT FOR WORKING FAMILIES. RICK SANTORUM HAS FAILED US.
JOBS AND WAGES

Bob Casey Will Protect Good Jobs and Wages. Casey supports raising the minimum wage and prevailing wage laws that guarantee we are paid a fair wage. He opposes unfair trade agreements like CAFTA that send our jobs overseas. (AP State and Local Wire, 7/25/06; www.bobcaseyforpa.com)

Rick Santorum Attacked Jobs, Wages, Benefits. Santorum voted for unfair trade deals like CAFTA that send our jobs overseas. He tried to eliminate the 40-hour workweek and cut our overtime pay, and opposed creating new jobs protected by prevailing wages. (S.1307, Vote #170, 7/1/05; S.AMDT. 128 introduced 3/7/05; Vote #68, 5/15/97; #93, 6/4/97; S.1072, #14, 2/12/04)

HEALTH CARE

Bob Casey Will Fight for Our Health Care. "No issue hits closer to home for me than health care." Casey advocated expanding CHIP, secured millions for our hospitals through his HELP program and supports the Family and Medical Leave Act. (The Hill, 4/26/06; Hospital & Nursing Home Week, 1/12/06)

Rick Santorum Undercut Our Health Care. Santorum supported $14 billion in cuts to Medicaid and voted against the Family and Medical Leave Act as well as the Patients' Bill of Rights, which ensures doctors answer to patients rather than to HMOs. (S.C.R. 18, 3/17/05, Vote #58; #393, 11/13/91; #22. 2/3/93; #443, 9/30/92; S.1052, 6/29/01, #220; S.2549, #121, 6/8/00)

RETIREMENT SECURITY

Bob Casey Will Strengthen Our Retirement Security. Bob Casey opposes privatizing Social Security and calls it a "scheme" that would jeopardize our guaranteed benefits. (The Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/17/06; The York Dispatch, 5/10/06)

Rick Santorum Tried to Privatize Social Security. One of the most vocal supporters of President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, Santorum co-sponsored a bill to create private accounts and voted against protecting our Social Security benefits. (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 12/6/05; The Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/27/05; S. 1302, 2005; S.Con.Res. 18, Vote #49, 3/15/05)

How you vote is a personal decision. Working America has carefully researched all the candidates' records and believes Bob Casey is the best choice for working families. Whatever you decide, please vote.Click here to learn more about the 2006 elections in Pennsylvania.

Written by rightdemocrat Permalink | Blog about this entry
This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

Wednesday, October 4, 2006
Subject: Casey, Ford and Webb may lead Dem shift to center
Time: 4:00:49 PM SST
Author:  rightdemocrat

During the past 25 years, we have seen a growing trend toward ideological polarization in both major parties. Single issue constituencies and idealogues have gained power in the major parties at the expense of those with more centrist views. The reality is that the largest group of voters remains in the middle which helps to explain why Americans are increasingly alienated from both Democrats and Republicans. Since self-professed conservatives greatly outnumber those who identity theselves as liberal, it is especially critical for Democrats to appeal to the center. This year, the Democratic Party is fortunate to have three nominees for U.S. Senate who recognize the need for our party to win back social traditionalists and to stress nationalism and economic populism. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee and Jim Webb of Virginia are all in a good position to claim victory and bolster the moderate-conservative wing of the Democratic Party.

Casey, Ford and Webb are certainly not the first center-right candidates to win a Democratic nomination for a major office. In past elections, moderate to conservative Democrats have often experienced the betrayal of progressive party activists and went down to defeat as party organizations withheld support. Some Democrats would prefer to lose with ideologically perfect candidates than compromise at all on any issue - especially the social issues like abortion, gun control and gay-lesbian concerns. While the moderate to conservative rising stars of 2006 have encountered some intra-party opposition, all have gained broad-based party support in their respective campaigns. Polls show Casey with a lead while Ford and Webb are in virtual ties with their Republican opponents.

Harold Meyerson has an excellent article on Bob Casey and Harold Ford in October issue of The American Prospect http://www.prospect.org/

Meyerson points out that Ford has shifted away from a formerly held "New Democrat" pro-free trade position and embraced nationalist positions on matters such as trade and port security.

"His (Ford's) campaign was one of the first to run ads against the Dubai ports deal. 'We need to control our borders," Ford says. 'We don't want to learn that terrorists came across the border and exploded our movie theaters, or that they have blown up 25 schools in the Midwest."

Ford has favored a hard line stand on ilegal immigration opposing any amnesty plan and supports a ban on same sex marriage. The American Prospect article quotes Ford as stating "They're going to say I'm a liberal. I believe that marriage should be between men and women. I don't know any better, that's how I was brought up. We didn't have any choice. Where I grew up, when you awakened on Sunday, you went to church...I learned the faith thing the old-fashioned way ! Me, a liberal ? I chair the faith-based caucus !"

Casey is described by Meyerson as a social conservative and economic liberal. The Pennsylvania Democrat is pro-life, pro-gun rights, a strong supporter of organized labor and a proponent of activist government. Meyeron notes "Casey's conservative positions on social issues are well known. This frees him to devote the lion's share of his speeches to economic fairness." In his Senate campaign, Casey has been focused on critical matters like developing renewable energy sources, fair trade agreements, a higher minimum wage and more affordable health care.

Jim Webb does not stress social issues like abortion and gay marriage in his Virginia Senate race but definitely reflects socially traditionalist values. Webb is first and foremost a military man. He wears combat boots to his campaign appearances. Webb is a decorated Vietnam Vet - a former Marine Officer who later served as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. A former Republican, Webb switched parties over the failed military intervention in Iraq. A conservative friend of Webb, Mackubin Thomas Owens pointed out in a National Review Online column earlier this year http://tinyurl.com/mlhw5 that Webb's opposition to intervention in Iraq does not mean that he is any way soft on defense and national security matters. Owens explained in the February 13 edition of NRO that Webb has opposed the Iraq war "based on strategic considerations — he is concerned that by committing such a large force there for an extended period of time we have weakened ourselves in the long run against a rising China."

Webb is a strong Second Amendment supporter. WDBJ-TV reported in August that the Virginia Democrat favors the right of Americans to carrry weapons and defend themselves and their families. In a May interview http://tinyurl.com/hdyq6, Webb shared his views on trade policy:

"We are in a situation where workers are losing jobs because of unfair trade practices from foreign governments, and we cannot and should not allow these practices to continue. The first place I would look would be the protections available to our industries in our existing trade laws. We should make it clear to foreign governments that we will not allow them to operate outside of established international trade law to gain an advantage over U.S. companies. Beyond that, I believe it would be fair to re-examine NAFTA and other acts to try and rebalance the playing field." Webb has summed up his position on trade as "free trade is not fair trade." http://tinyurl.com/hb7k8

A victory by Ford and Webb would greatly help to break the Republican hold on the Solid South. At present, there are only four Democratic U.S. Senators from the South and just three if you fail to count Bill Nelson of Florida - a Southern accented native Floridian who represents a state that is increasingly non-Southern except for geography. To win a governing majority, it is critical that Democrats become politically viable again in the South and other red states.

Casey's election to the Senate would send a message to working and middle class social traditionalist-economic populist voters that they are welcome again and have a real voice in the Democratic Party. Such voters make up a significant part of the swing vote in Pennsylvania and other states like Iowa. Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin. As a Senator, Casey will be a spokesperson for a long neglected element of the Democratic Party's constituency. Social traditionalists, often Roman Catholics from labor union backgrounds, once formed the base of the Democratic Party in many states. It is important that we welcome these voters back to our party. Let's hope that Casey, Ford and Webb prevail in November and move our party back to the mainstream values that have been exploited by hypocritical Republicans.

* "FOLEYGATE" FALLOUT - WASHINGTON TIMES SAYS RESIGN, MR. SPEAKER

The Washington Times cannot be accused of being a liberal newspaper. I think any reasonable person would agree that the newspaper leans strongly to the right on most issues and is certainly no front from the Democratic Party. In fact, the Washington Times, like Republican talk radio show hosts, often refers to the party as the "Democrat Party."

As a fairly partisan Democrat, I was shocked to find that yesterday's Washington Times contained an editorial which reflected my views on the mishandling of "Foleygate" by the Republican House leadership. The Times is calling for House Speaker Dennis Hastert to resign which I think under the circumstances would be the appropriate thing to do. I realize that Democrats in Congress have engaged in similar misbehavior at times, but the reality is that the Republican leadership despite all of the talk about moral values participated in covering up the actions of a pedophile. That is inexcusable in my view. See link to the Washington Times editorial http://tinyurl.com/r75ua
and text below:

"The facts of the disgrace of Mark Foley, who was a Republican member of the House from a Florida district until he resigned last week, constitute a disgrace for every Republican member of Congress. Red flags emerged in late 2005, perhaps even earlier, in suggestive and wholly inappropriate e-mail messages to underage congressional pages. His aberrant, predatory -- and possibly criminal --behavior was an open secret among the pages who were his prey. The evidence was strong enough long enough ago that the speaker should have relieved Mr. Foley ofhis committee responsibilities contingent on a full investigation to learn what had taken place, whether any laws had been violated and what action, up to and including prosecution, were warranted by the facts. This never happened."

"Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, the Republican chairman of the House Page Board, said he learned about the Foley e-mail messages "in late 2005." Rep. JohnBoehner of Ohio, the leader of the Republican majority, said he was informed ofthe e-mail messages earlier this year. On Friday, Mr. Hastert dissembled, to put it charitably, before conceding that he, too, learned about the e-mail messages sometime earlier this year. Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Hastert insisted that he learned of the most flagrant instant-message exchange from 2003 only last Friday, when it was reported by ABC News. This is irrelevant. The original e-mail messages were warning enough that a predator -- and, incredibly, the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children -- could beprowling the halls of Congress. The matter wasn't pursued aggressively. It was barely pursued at all. Moreover, all available evidence suggests that the Republican leadership did not share anything related to this matter with any Democrat."

"Now the scandal must unfold on the front pages of the newspapers and on the television screens, as transcripts of lewd messages emerge and doubts are rightly raised about the forthrightness of the Republican stewards of the 109thCongress. Some Democrats are attempting to make this "a Republican scandal," andthey shouldn't; Democrats have contributed more than their share of characters in the tawdry history of congressional sexual scandals. Sexual predators come inall shapes, sizes and partisan hues, in institutions within and without government. When predators are found they must be dealt with, forcefully and swiftly. This time the offender is a Republican, and Republicans can't simply "get ahead" of the scandal by competing to make the most noise in calls for afull investigation. The time for that is long past."

"House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance."

I applaud the Washington Times editors for their courage and willingness to speak out against the corrupt Republican leadership.

* NLRB CONTINUES ATTACK ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

The AFL-CIO Weblog today has a disturbing news item http://tinyurl.com/r58zl
about the latest attempt of the National Labor Relations Board to further weaken collective bargaining rights in our nation. As you may know, the Bush Administration has long been attempting to take away overtime pay protections from millions of workers. This decision is another blow to organized labor which has been under attack since the Reagan Administration declared war on the working class in early 1981.

"The Republican-dominated National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) voted along party lines to slash long-time federal labor laws protecting workers’ freedom to form unions and opened the door for employers to classify millions of workers as supervisors.Under federal labor law, supervisors are prohibited from forming unions."

"The NLRB ruled on three cases, collectively known as “Kentucky River,” but it’s the lead case Oakwood Healthcare Inc. that creates a new definition of supervisor. Dozens of cases involving the definition of supervisor now before the NLRB will be sent back, with employers having the option to craft arguments that will meet the new definition of supervisor and limit the number of workers who can join a union."

"Although the Oakwood decision covers only nurses, the expanded definition of superviors means up to 8 million workers, including nurses, building trades workers, newspaper and television employees and others may be barred from joining unions. In Oakwood, the board agreed with the employer that charge nurses are supervisors. But the ruling also sets broad definitions for determining who is a supervisor that invites employers to classify nurses and many low-level employees with minor authority as supervisors. The decision was issued Sept. 29 but not released until today."

"The board’s new definition essentially enables employers to make a supervisor out of any worker who has the authority to assign or direct another and uses independent judgment. Amazingly, the board also ruled that a worker can be classified as a supervisor if he or she spends as little as 10 percent to 15 percent of his or her time overseeing the work of others."
"AFL-CIO President John Sweeney calls the decisions “outrageous and unjustified.”

"It’s the latest example of how the Bush-appointed NLRB is prepared to use legal maneuvering to deny as many workers as possible their basic right to have a voice on the job through their union. The NLRB should protect workers’ rights, not eliminate them. If the administration expects us to take this quietly, they’re mistaken."

"This week, working people are coming together in the streets in cities across the nation to make sure everyone knows that the Bush administration is slashing workers’ right to have a voice on the job."

"In their dissent, NLRB members Wilma Liebman and Dennis Walsh say the decision “threatens to create a new class of workers under federal labor law—workers who have neither the genuine prerogatives of management, nor the statutory rights of ordinary employees.” Liebman and Walsh wrote that most professionals and other workers could fall under the new definition of supervisor, “who by 2012 could number almost 34 million, accounting for 23.3 percent of the workforce.” http://www.afl-cio.org

We must elect a Democratic Congress that will restore basic labor protections to America's workers.



Written by rightdemocrat Permalink | Blog about this entry
This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

Saturday, August 12, 2006
Subject: Take This Job and Ship It
Time: 6:42:29 PM SST
Author:  rightdemocrat

Here's a review of Senator Byron Dorgan's new book titled "Take This Job and Ship It: How Corporate Greed and Brain Dead Politics are Selling Out America" from St. Martin's Press. This is an important book that deserves to become a best seller.

As big companies move their jobs to China, sell their products in America, and run their profits through the Cayman Islands to avoid taxes, they undermine American workers and threaten our future.

For some commentators, the world may seem to be “flat,” but Senator Byron L. Dorgan knows better. With both barrels blazing, the senator from North Dakota contends in this forceful and provocative book that while exporting jobs may be good for the giant corporations, it is a disaster for America as a whole.

Trade can’t be “free” when our small businesses and working people are expected to compete with exploited workers and slave labor in third-world nations that care little about the conditions in their factories and not at all about the pollution they generate.

Our trade deficit now increases by $2 billion a day, but pharmaceutical companies have such influence in Washington that Medicare, by current law, is not allowed to negotiate lower drug prices. We import oil on an ever-increasing scale, putting ourselves into debt with the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and other Middle Eastern nations; with their windfall profits, they continue to buy American assets. China’s booming economy and abundance of cheap labor is threatening our economic survival as America’s manufacturing base is dismantled.

We have mortgaged our fortunes, our principles, and our way of life.

With biting wit and an unerring moral compass, Dorgan weaves colorful stories about the dancing grapes from Fruit of the Loom underwear, Fig Newton’s escape to Mexico, the disappearance of the flag decal from Huffy bicycles, and how a trade agreement sent exotic dancers to Canada. He exposes the absurdity of our global-trade policies, and isn’t afraid to name names.

Dorgan pulls no punches and, most important, he offers a refreshing, bold strategy for putting our country back on track. America can once again be a booming exporter as well as a good trading partner with the whole world, but to mindlessly cheer on the loss of more than 3 million jobs (and that’s only the beginning) is just plain folly. In the long run, the United States cannot help the rest of the world by impoverishing its own people and bankrupting its own economy. With a little courage and some original thinking, the negative trade balance can be slowed, even stopped and reversed.

Senator Dorgan’s is a message that must be heard – before it is too late.

* THE REAL CLASS WARFARE

Apologists for corporate greed often accuse economic populists of engaging "class warfare." Well, the real class warfare is being waged by overpaid CEO's who give receive additional perks while insisting that employee benfits and pensions must be reduced or eliminated.

Froma Harrop, one of my favorite syndicated columnists, called attention to this hypocrisy in Wednesday's Seattle Times http://tinyurl.com/o5xhl

"It's not news that American executives have put ordinary workers' benefits on a diet while they go for a fourth helping. What makes this redistribution of corporate wealth special is its brazen and unblushing quality. We are not talking here about some stock option deal where the top guys are rewarded for increasing shareholder value. In this case, the money gushing into the executive suite is simply being siphoned through holes drilled in workers' paychecks." An example, courtesy of The Wall Street Journal:

"General Motors has long complained that its "legacy costs" have made the automaker dangerously uncompetitive. By "legacy costs" it means the health benefits and pensions that it promised its workers and retirees. In an effort to ease those "burdens," GM recently announced it would end pensions for 42,000 of its salaried employees."

"But guess what The Journal discovered? It found that the fund for those middle-class pensions was actually bulging with $9 billion more than was needed to honor them. The real problem, it turns out, was GM's executive pensions, which management had been supersizing even as it demanded cuts from the lower-downs. GM's executive-pension obligations, we learn, are $1.4 billion."

"General Motors is not the only company to have built up extravagant pension deals for the privileged few. Executive-pension liabilities have hit $3.5 billion at General Electric, $1.8 billion at AT&T, and $1.3 billion at ExxonMobil and at IBM. "Sometimes a company's obligation for a single executive's pension approaches $100 million," The Journal reports.

"Cleary, the workers whose pension plans have been frozen aren't the only ones losing out. These unfunded executive pensions suck off earnings that are supposed to be going to the stockholders."

Corporate executive officer benefits are clearly out of control. Companies should not be allowed to escape their pension obligations and even file for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 while continuing to provide outlandish compensation packages to CEO's.

* THOUGHTS ON THE CONNECTICUT SENATE RACE

Despite Ned Lamont's narrow victory in last Tuesday's primary, the voters of Connecticut still have a race between two Democrats for Senator as the Republican nominee is not expected to be a significant factor. Joe Lieberman, now running as Independent Democrat, is not my idea of a perfect Senator.

While I did initially support U.S. intervention in Iraq, I now recognize that was a mistake. I also agree that Lieberman is out of touch with reality on Iraq and made himself vulnerable for a primary defeat by failing to criticize the Bush Administration's handling of the war. In my view, Lieberman has voted wrong on a number of issues including trade matters and some of the controversial social issues like abortion rights and gun control.

I do respect Lieberman for his willingness to take unpopular stands and that he seems to be a gracious man with a strong personal faith. Lieberman has been willing to criticize the entertainment industry for degrading our culture.

Far more important than saving Joe Lieberman's political career is stopping the Moveonner Left who want to have total control over the Democratic Party. If these people win control over the party, moderates and conservatives are eventually going to crushed although a few might be tolerated now.

Ned Lamont may not be radical but he is being backed by a dangerous faction in the party that will dissenting views if they are allowed to gain control of the party. Lamont will be obligated to this faction if elected. Any Senator from Connecticut will be relatively liberal but this struggle within the party is not so much about philosphy as about power and the tolerance for differing views within the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, Ned Lamont is a millionaire elitist who would have been a Rockefeller Republican thirty years ago. While Lieberman does not really fit the bill for a populist Democrat, Lamont will definitely take the party further in the direction of being a group of ivory tower social liberals. If re-elected, Lieberman will be a vote for Democratic Senate control as he will remain in the Dem caucus.



Written by rightdemocrat Permalink | Blog about this entry
This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

Saturday, July 15, 2006
Subject: A victory for the Second Amendment
Time: 8:57:27 AM SST
Author:  rightdemocrat

The Second Amendment Foundation has issued a press release about a U.S. Senate vote on Thursday affirming gun rights during emergencies and major disasters. I agree with Alan Gottlieb, spokesman for the group, that this vote represents a strong shift in the pro-gun rights direction.

A change in political climate toward defending the right to keep and bear arms was evidenced by a majority of Senate Democrats voting for the Vitter Amendment (Senate amendment 4615) which was co-sponsored by Robert Byrd D-WV.

The Vitter amendment passed by a 84 to 16 vote. All sixteen Senators voting no were Democrats which suggests that those of us who support gun rights within the Democratic Party still have some work to do. Among the Senators voting against gun rights, all but three were from the Northeast or California.

Passage of Vitter Amendment Shows Public Shift on Gun Rights After Katrina

7/14/2006 4:42:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, 425-454-7012

BELLEVUE, Wash., July 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Senate's overwhelming 84 to 16 vote this week to prohibit gun confiscations from private citizens in emergencies shows there has been a remarkable shift in the public's attitude about gun rights after the Hurricane Katrina debacle, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) said today.

"For many in the Senate, like Republicans Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, and Democrats Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell of Washington," observed SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb, "it was the first time they've voted to support the individual rights of law-abiding gun owners. They saw the looting and lawlessness, and watched the outrage of post-Katrina gun confiscations, and so did their constituents.

"Incredibly," he continued, "sixteen extremist anti-gun Democrats, led by Hillary Clinton, demonstrated by their vote that they think it's just swell for the government to seize private property from law-abiding citizens, often times at gunpoint and always without warrant or due process of law. This time, it's guns but what about next time? If it is okay with these senators for police to take legally-owned firearms without probable cause, what would they advocate next for confiscation?"

SAF successfully sued the City of New Orleans and St. Tammany Parish last September to force a halt to those illegal gun seizures. The National Rifle Association joined in that lawsuit.

"For people of such divergent political views as Joe Biden, Robert Byrd, Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, Patrick Leahy, Chuck Hagel, Orrin Hatch, Wayne Allard, Max Baucus and 75 of their colleagues, this vote was a no-brainer," Gottlieb observed. "What a pity that Sen. Clinton's group remains so myopic about firearm civil rights that they vote to essentially support the warrantless seizure of private property.

"We hope the House concurs with this vote," Gottlieb concluded, "so that never again, on American soil, will we witness a police state mentality that would sooner disarm people and leave them defenseless when they should be offered assistance and medical aid if necessary. Being secure from warrantless search and seizure is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, even if some people in New Orleans, and a handful on Capitol Hill, seem willing to ignore that."

The Second Amendment Foundation ( http://www.saf.org ) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

Pro-gun Democrats must continue to push our party in the direction of supporting our Second Amendment rights. Groups like Amendment II Democrats http://www.a2dems.net are getting out the word that many of us in the Democratic Party do favor the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control doesn't work and it bad politics too. 

* HELP 57 MILLION WORKERS GAIN A UNION

The following action alert was sent by the Working Families e-Activist Network
 
Today, 57 million workers in America want to join unions. But employers routinely block their efforts—and our laws are too weak to protect them. It's time for Congress to support the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow workers to make their own uncoerced decisions on whether or not to form a union. Please sign the following petition urging members of Congress to support this important legislation.

Subject:
Co-Sponsor the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 1696 and S. 842) 

Dear Representative or Senator:

We, the undersigned, urge Congress to support the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 1696 and S. 842) now.

Workers need the Employee Free Choice Act because workers need unions. Union workers typically earn 28 percent more than nonunion workers to support their families and contribute to their communities. Union members are much more likely than nonunion workers to have vital benefits such as health care coverage, disability insurance and retirement security. And no one can put a price tag on the pride of having a union voice at work.

Some 57 million workers would join a union if they could. But, as Human Rights Watch has documented, employers routinely harass, coerce, intimidate and stall to block workers' freedom to choose union representation. In fact, every 23 minutes a worker is fired or penalized for supporting a union.

We urge our elected representatives and senators to recognize the urgent need to restore workers' freedom to form unions and support the Employee Free Choice Act so workers once again can have the basic right to choose for themselves whether to belong to a union.

Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]

 

 



Written by rightdemocrat Permalink | Blog about this entry
This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

Sunday, May 14, 2006
Subject: Washington Post: GOP not the law-and-order party on illegal immigration
Time: 12:50:03 PM SST
Author:  rightdemocrat

Today's Washington Post cites a report by the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way concerning illegal immigration. A newly released Third Way clearly demonstrates that the Bush Administration has no intention of actively enforcing our immigration laws, but rather is more interested in assuring that big business interests continue to have a flow of cheap labor. See full Post article at: http://tinyurl.com/j6ero

"The report shows that the administration, despite their tough talk, is failing at border security and enforcing the employer sanctions provision," New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said. "It makes them vulnerable in what is their biggest and strongest argument -- that they are enforcing the law against illegal workers and are effective on border security."

"According to the report, federal data show that the number of agents more than doubled between 1995 and 2005, but that border apprehensions have fallen about 31 percent. From fiscal 1996 to fiscal 2000, apprehensions averaged 1.52 million a year. The number fell to an average of 1.05 million from fiscal 2001 to fiscal 2004."

"Away from the border, a similar pattern has occurred, with apprehensions falling an estimated 36 percent. 'This decline trend and low overall total suggests that illegal immigrants who escape beyond the border are more or less here to stay if they choose,' according to the report.

A third count in the Third Way indictment charges that the administration has been lax in punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants. 'Either the administration has no interest in enforcing the law, or there's a wink' at employers who hire illegal immigrants, Richardson said.

* HOWARD DEAN SAYS DEMOCRATS FAVOR "ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN" MARRIAGE

The Kansas City Star today reported that Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has been responding to attacks from gay activists and left-leaning bloggers for statements last week on the Christian Broadcasting Network about gay marriage. http://tinyurl.com/z3h3h According to the Star, Dean told CBN that the Democratic Party platform affirms marriage as between "a man and a woman."

"Dean acknowledged he was wrong about the party’s platform about gay marriage. Trying to reach out to evangelicals, he said the Democratic platform specifically said that 'marriage is between a man and a woman' But the platform does not define marriage this way."

"Dean: 'I misstated the Democratic Party’s platform, which does not say that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman, but says the party is committed to full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and leaves the issue to the states to decide."

Well, most of us in the Democratic Party and I think a majority of Americans favor equal protection for gays and lesbians in employment and housing. We condemn violence against gays and lesbians and might favor local domestic partnership registrations which already exist in a number of major cities and urban counties.

The reality is though that the vast majority of Americans and I suspect a majority of rank and file Democrats believe that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. Even Howard Dean just stated last week that "one man and one woman" marriage is the position of the Democratic Party.

Gay marriage is a divisive issue and perceptions that Democrats favor it threaten our ability to appeal to mainstream America. Our party should give a fair hearing to gay and lesbian concerns, but we also need to be inclusive of socially traditionalist and religious voters as well. If Howard Dean says that the Democratic Party affirms traditional marriage in our platform, why not make it so ?



Written by rightdemocrat Permalink | Blog about this entry
This entry has 0 comments: Add your own