Friday, October 31, 2008

Can you be pro-life and support Senator Obama ?



Doug Kmiec and Martin Sheen discuss the question - can you be pro-life and support Senator Obama ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IczsKEe6es0

Ronnie Musgrove answers opponent's effort to distort his record



Despite Roger Wicker's attempt to distort the record, Ronnie Musgrove is a Mississippi Democrat who shares oursvalues.

Ronnie Musgrove is prolife and worked to pass the Mississippi prayer in school law. He is pro-gun too and has an A rating from the NRA. Musgrove is opposed to gay marriage.

And Ronnie Musgrove will fight for the middle-class and end George Bush economics and special interest giveaways.

Background:

Musgrove's Conservative Record

Abortion

Musgrove Supported Additional Restrictions On Abortion: In 1990, Musgrove voted to require the licensing of abortion clinics by the State Board of Health. Also, Musgrove voted to require a 24-hour waiting period before a woman could obtain an abortion. In 1991, Musgrove again voted for a bill requiring the waiting period. (Clarion Ledger, 4/1/90; 4/7/91)

Musgrove Banned Public Funding Of Abortion: In April 2002, Musgrove also signed a bill that would ban spending public funds on abortions with a few exceptions (including when the mother's life is in danger, when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or when a fetal malformation is incompatible with the baby being born alive). (Clarion Ledger, 4/18/02 HB 1480, Summary of Legislation 2002)

Musgrove Voted To Require Doctors To Register As Abortion Providers: In 1995, Musgrove voted to require physicians performing more than five abortions per month to have their offices licensed as abortion clinics. (Clarion Ledger, 3/9/95)

Gay Rights

Musgrove Supported Ban On Gay Adoptions: In March 2000, Musgrove supported a ban on adoption by homosexuals or same-sex couples. The ban not only pertained to adoptions in Mississippi, but also ensured that Mississippi would not recognize adoptions by gay individuals or couples from other states if the parents moved to Mississippi. (Clarion Ledger, 3/23/00)

Musgrove Opposes Gay Marriage: Musgrove opposes gay marriage and believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. (Clarion Ledger, 10/3/08; Sun Herald, 10/22/03)

Guns

Musgrove Was Endorsed By NRA And Loves To Hunt: In 1999, Musgrove was endorsed (along with his opponent) by the NRA. The postcard from the NRA stated that "Musgrove also supported our right to self-defense with a vote as a state senator for 'right to carry' - an issue of strong importance to NRA members." Musgrove talked about his love of hunting in 2002 and the Clarion Ledger reported that Musgrove had killed a 10-point buck in 2002. (Clarion Ledger, 11/2/99 and 1/6/02)

Musgrove Received An "A" From NRA In 2008: In the 2008 election cycle, Musgrove received an "A" rating, the highest given and the same as Roger Wicker, from the NRA. (National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund)

Musgrove Signed Bill Allowing Conceal And Carry For Certain Persons: In 2002, Musgrove signed HB 844, which provided that guards and other persons could carry concealed weapons, even if they were not sworn law enforcement officers, if they obtained a permit to carry concealed weapons. (HB 844, Summary of Legislation)



Kay Hagan challenges Elizabeth Dole's voting record on economy



This is what the campaign for North Carolina’s U.S. Senate seat is about; North Carolina families deserve better than what they’ve gotten

October 30, 2008

GREENSBORO, NC- Reuters today reported that the U.S. economy shrank in the third quarter, the sharpest contraction in seven years, resulting in large part from increased consumer and business concerns about the economy. At the same time, Exxon Mobil reported another record-breaking quarter, topping out at $14.83 billion, exceeding their previous record by more than $3 billion.

“This is exactly why we need new leadership in Washington,” said state Senator and U.S. Senate Candidate Kay Hagan (D-Guilford). “On one hand, you have consumers and small businesses cutting spending and investment because they just witnessed Congress take the unprecedented step of bailing out Wall Street, and their concerns about the economy are more than merited. But on the other hand you have special interests like Big Oil and Gas raking in outrageous profits, breaking quarterly records, and benefitting from record gas prices over the summer because people like Elizabeth Dole have continued to allow them to write our country’s energy policy, regardless of what it means for working families here in North Carolina.”

Reuters’ report also showed that disposable personal income dropped by 8.7%, the steepest decline since these records started being kept in 1947. Exxon Mobil’s net income totaled $1,865.69 per second during the three months of July, August and September.

“This is what the Bush-Dole economy looks like where special interests come before North Carolinians,” said Kay. “In this economy, we need someone who advocates for us every day, every week, every month and every year. Elizabeth Dole’s record voting with President Bush 92 percent of time shows she doesn’t understand this. I do. While Elizabeth Dole is continuing to do everything in her power to avoid talking about the issues, North Carolinians are making up their minds that they can’t afford that kind of representation any longer.”

FDR Tribute

Franklin D. Roosevelt
First Inaugural Address 1933

This is a day of national consecration. And I am certain that on this day my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency, I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impels.

This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure, as it has endured, will revive and will prosper.

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life, a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunk to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; and the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone. More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.

And yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered, because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply.

Primarily, this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True, they have tried. But their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit, they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They only know the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

Yes, the money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of that restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy, the moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days, my friends, will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves, to our fellow men.

Recognition of that falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, and on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.

Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation is asking for action, and action now.

Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing great -- greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our great natural resources.

Hand in hand with that we must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land.

Yes, the task can be helped by definite efforts to raise the values of agricultural products, and with this the power to purchase the output of our cities. It can be helped by preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing loss through foreclosure of our small homes and our farms. It can be helped by insistence that the Federal, the State, and the local governments act forthwith on the demand that their cost be drastically reduced. It can be helped by the unifying of relief activities which today are often scattered, uneconomical, unequal. It can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities that have a definitely public character. There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped by merely talking about it.

We must act. We must act quickly.

And finally, in our progress towards a resumption of work, we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order. There must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments. There must be an end to speculation with other people's money. And there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.

These, my friends, are the lines of attack. I shall presently urge upon a new Congress in special session detailed measures for their fulfillment, and I shall seek the immediate assistance of the 48 States.

Through this program of action we address ourselves to putting our own national house in order and making income balance outgo. Our international trade relations, though vastly important, are in point of time, and necessity, secondary to the establishment of a sound national economy. I favor, as a practical policy, the putting of first things first. I shall spare no effort to restore world trade by international economic readjustment; but the emergency at home cannot wait on that accomplishment.

The basic thought that guides these specific means of national recovery is not nationally -- narrowly nationalistic. It is the insistence, as a first consideration, upon the interdependence of the various elements in and parts of the United States of America -- a recognition of the old and permanently important manifestation of the American spirit of the pioneer. It is the way to recovery. It is the immediate way. It is the strongest assurance that recovery will endure.

In the field of world policy, I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor: the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others; the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.

If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize, as we have never realized before, our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take, but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress can be made, no leadership becomes effective.

We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and our property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at the larger good. This, I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us, bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in times of armed strife.

With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.

Action in this image, action to this end is feasible under the form of government which we have inherited from our ancestors. Our Constitution is so simple, so practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form. That is why our constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has ever seen.

It has met every stress of vast expansion of territory, of foreign wars, of bitter internal strife, of world relations. And it is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly equal, wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure.

I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.

But, in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis -- broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.

For the trust reposed in me, I will return the courage and the devotion that befit the time. I can do no less.

We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of national unity; with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values; with the clean satisfaction that comes from the stern performance of duty by old and young alike. We aim at the assurance of a rounded, a permanent national life.

We do not distrust the -- the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.

In this dedication -- In this dedication of a Nation, we humbly ask the blessing of God.

May He protect each and every one of us.

May He guide me in the days to come.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Sojourners: Nightmare on Wall Street



From Sojourners:

Wall Street's collapse is the logical consequence of the economic philosophy that governs America.

by Jim Wallis

A telling word emerged in commentary about the collapse of the financial markets this fall—greed. It’s an old concept, and one with deep moral roots. Even venerable establishment economists such as Robert Samuelson said, “Greed and fear, which routinely govern financial markets, have seeded this global crisis. ... short-term rewards blinded them to the long-term dangers.”

The people on top of the American economy get rich whether they make good or bad business decisions, but their bad choices always make workers and consumers suffer. Prudent investment has been replaced with reckless financial gambling, creating what some have called a “casino economy,” where Wall Street high rollers absorb the winnings while leaving catastrophic risks to be borne—as now—by everyone in the economy. And the inordinate level of benefits accruing to top CEOs and financial managers—especially as the wages of average workers continue to decline—has become one of the greatest moral travesties of our time.

In the search for blame, some say greed and some say deregulation. Both are right. The financial collapse of Wall Street is the fiscal consequence of the economic philosophy that now governs America—that markets are always good and government is always bad. But it is also the moral consequence of greed, where private profit prevails over the concept of the common good. The American economy is often rooted in unbridled materialism, a culture that continues to extol greed, a false standard of values that puts short-term profits over societal health, and a distorted calculus that measures human worth by personal income instead of character, integrity, and generosity.

Americans have a love-hate relationship with government and business. The climate seems to shift between an “anything goes” mentality and stricter government regulation. The excesses of the 1920s, leading to the Great Depression, were followed by the reforms of Franklin Roosevelt.

The entrepreneurial spirit and social innovation fostered by a market economy has benefited many and should not be overly encumbered by unnecessary or stifling regulations. But left to its own devices and human weakness (let’s call it sin), the market too often disintegrates into greed and corruption, as the Wall Street financial collapse painfully reveals. Capitalism needs rules, or it easily becomes destructive. A healthy, balanced relationship between free enterprise, on the one hand, and public accountability and regulation, on the other, is morally and practically essential. Govern­ment should encourage innovation, but it must also limit greed.

Cokie Roberts, on ABC’s This Week, offered an appropriate judgment on those responsible for this fall’s financial debacle: “I’d like to see the CEOs of these companies marched down Wall Street in sackcloth and ashes.” Perhaps God’s own message to Wall Street can be found in the words of Micah: “Woe to those who plan iniquity, to those who plot evil on their beds! ... They covet fields and seize them, and houses, and take them. They defraud a man of his home, a fellowman of his inheritance. Therefore, the Lord says: ‘I am planning disaster against this people, from which you cannot save yourselves.’”

The behavior of too many on Wall Street is a violation of biblical ethics. The teachings of Christianity and other faiths condemn the greed, selfishness, willful blindness, and cheating that have been revealed in corporate behavior for decades and denounce the callous mistreatment of employees.

The strongest critics of the Wall Street gamblers call it putting self-interest above the public interest; the Bible would call it a sin. I don’t know about the church- going habits of the nation’s top financial managers, but if they do attend services, I wonder if they ever hear a religious word about the practices of arranging huge personal bonuses and escape hatches while destroying the lives of people who work for them or invest in their companies. We now need wisdom from the economists, prudence from the business community, and renewal courses on the common good from the nation’s religious leaders.

It’s time for the pulpit to speak—for the religious community to bring the Word of God to bear on the moral issues of the American economy. The Bible speaks of such things from beginning to end, so why not our pastors and preachers?

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0811&article=nightmare-on-wall-street

.

Leo Gerard: The Middle Class's Share of the Pie




From The Campaign for America's Future
www.ourfuture.org

The Middle Class's Share of the Pie
by Leo Gerard


Protestors disrupted a convention of mortgage financers in San Francisco this week, storming the stage as former Bush advisor Karl Rove spoke, heckling bankers with bullhorns and badgering a panel with demands for a foreclosure moratorium.

Fear and frustration compelled ordinary citizens to harangue the green-visor set at their normally staid annual meeting. Middle-class Americans are losing their jobs and their homes and their hope while watching Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson spend their tax dollars to bail out the infinitely wealthy on Wall Street, whose reprehensible risk-taking caused the country’s financial crisis. The middle class wants its piece of the American pie.

Congress is trying to dish it out in the form of a second stimulus package that would extend unemployment insurance and food stamps and create jobs through programs such as highway construction projects.

Republican candidates John McCain and Sarah Palin oppose it. They’re running around the country with caricatures of Joe the Plumber and Joe Six-pack, pretending to represent the best interests of the working class and small business owners. It’s all false rhetoric and no real action. McCain and Palin object to intervention for anyone other than the wealthy, for whom they plan to enshrine tax cuts; for overfed CEOs, for whom they believe the $700 billion bailout was justified; and for themselves, for whom they believe the Republican National Committee appropriately opened its purse to purchase haute couture wardrobes, hair stylists and makeup artists.

McCain wants to brand a socialist “S” on candidate Barack Obama, although both voted for the bailout plan under which the U.S. government is nationalizing banks.

However, Obama believes not in socialism but in everyone serving as their brothers’ keepers. He described “the American promise” this way in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention:

“It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have obligations to treat each other with dignity and respect.

It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, to look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools, and new roads, and science, and technology.

Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

That's the promise of America, the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation, the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper.

That's the promise we need to keep. That's the change we need right now.”

That philosophy has great appeal with unemployment at a five-year high of 6.1 percent; with the poverty rate rising to 12.5 percent in what is supposed to be the richest country in the world; with 47 million without health insurance; with 1 million homes lost to foreclosure in the past two years and another 1.5 million in the process, and with the chronically ill across American skipping medications because they can’t afford them, as The New York Times reported this week.

While you’re scrimping and saving and shopping at Costco to prevent foreclosure of your home, just remember what Palin told CNN reporter Drew Griffin about providing a stimulus package to help the middle class: “But now that we’re hearing that the Democrats want an additional stimulus package or bailout package for what, hundreds of billions of dollars more, this is not a time to use the economic crisis as an excuse for reckless spending and for greater, bigger government and to move the private sector to the back burner and let government be assumed to be the be-all, end-all solution to the economic challenges that we have.”

So, for Palin, great big government is okay to bail out Wall Street fat cats, but not to help the middle class. Palin’s knee-jerk Republican “let-the-private-sector-solve-it” attitude shocks the consciousness after the indiscretion of the private sector just landed this country in financial crisis. We’re not inclined to trust them, frankly, Ms. Palin.

McCain said the same, backing the bailout for the reckless on Wall Street, and damning attempts by Democrats to help those on Main Street – of course, all the while dragging up the image of Joe the Plumber and contending he’s the guy’s advocate.

The ticket clearly lacks both introspection and economic expertise. McCain said it himself last year – that he was no authority on the economy. By contrast, a person with some degree of economic proficiency, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, last week endorsed additional fiscal stimulus, saying it was appropriate now because the economy is likely to be weak for several quarters. In addition, economic expert and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman said last week that additional government spending now for a stimulus package is appropriate, particularly for infrastructure improvement, which would provide real value and create jobs.

Though McCain and Palin clearly don’t understand, it’s time for everyday Americans to share in the American pie. At a rally in Florida this week, Obama talked about how the policies of the Bush administration have shrunk the pie and permitted the wealthy to grab the few remaining crumbs. He told he crowd he has no desire to reapportion the pie, as McCain keeps accusing him wanting to — as a socialist, you know. Also, Obama objects to the McCain-Palin policy of continuing to feed the rich all of the crumbs, which is particularly evident in the GOP tax plan.

Obama told the group his goal is to expand the pie to ensure that all Americans get a piece. The crowd responded with a spontaneous chant of, “We want pie!”

That’s what is going on in America. That’s why protestors accosted mortgage bankers at their California convention. The middle class won’t stand for the rich wolfing down all of the pie anymore.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008104325/middle-classs-share-pie

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Texas Blue Dog Coalition plays critical role in Lone Star Democratic revival



Texas has been dominated by the Republican Party for too long. As the second most populated state in the country, it is very important to rebuild the Texas Democratic Party. To become competitive again in the Lone Star State, Texas Democrats are revitalizing the moderate-conservative wing of the party. Running as your typical across-the-board progressive does not win elections in Texas (outside of the Austin City limits) and other red states. The October 24 edition of the El Paso Times reports that Democrats are expected to make gains in the Texas Legislature. http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_10806213 The likely increase in Democratic-controlled legislative seats this November is in no small part due to the activities of the Texas Blue Dog Coalition. That is why I am shining a spotlight on these fine Texas Democrats today. Here is some information obtained from the group's website:

Blue Dog Democrats are Yellow Dog Democrats that hold to traditional, moderate-to-conservative-views on certain issues based upon deeply held personal, cultural or religious beliefs, and may otherwise be Progressive and Populist, but have been “choked blue” by increasing Party opposition to these views. Anyone that believes that classical liberalism and traditional conservatism are not always mutually exclusive are encouraged to join us.

Our aim:
-To ensure that Democrats with moderate-to-conservative-views maintain a voice in our Party.
-To guarantee that the diversity of our Party remains truly diverse by including a full spectrum of political viewpoints less we become just the flipside of our narrow-minded Extreme Right opponents.
-When possible we hope moderate-to-conservative-views will complement Progressive and Populist opinions and result in better policy than when considered separately.

Collectively we will take back Texas by providing government that is truly accountable and responsive to the real majority - ALL Texans.

Moderate voters in the 2008 Texas Democratic Primary stay steady while conservative voters increase

62% of voters in the 2008 Texas Democratic Primary described their ideology as moderate or conservative. Much of this increase is from a significant increase of independent voters. Independent voters increased from 20% in 2004 to 25% in 2008 of the Texas Democratic Primary voters. Republican voters increased from 5% to 9%, and despite all the talk of Republicans voting for Clinton to create conflict, Obama actually received more Republican votes than Clinton (The Texas Blue Dog Coalition did not endorse a Primary candidate, we encouraged our members to support the candidate of their choice). Also, there is no question that the Clinton and Obama contest has generated much activity; however, we feel strongly that much of the increase in Conservative Independent and Republican voting is due to down ballot local and County races where we have strong Democratic candidates and incumbents that represent districts with current Republican voting indexes. For example, 33 Texas State Representative districts with current Republican voting indexes are represented by Democrats.

Source of 2008 Exit Poll: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#TXDEM

2004 Texas Priamry Exit Polls: 55% of voters in the 2004 Texas Democratic Primary describe their ideology as moderate or conservative.
Source: CNN Exit Poll www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/TX/index.html

http://www.txbluedogdems.org/

Friday, October 24, 2008

Democrats for Life announce candidate endorsements



Washington, DC - October 22, 2008 - Democrats For Life of America is proud to announce our endorsements for the U.S Senate and House. Pro-life Democrats are pulling up in the polls in both the federal and state level. We are proud of the candidates listed below and are confident that they will all work hard to promote and pass legislation that will protect life at all stages. Importantly, we hope they will swell the ranks of our current pro-life members who are so dedicated to protecting pro-life issues in the Congress including Congressmen Altmire, Berry, Boren, Costello, Cuellar, Davis, Donnelly, Ellsworth, Holden, Kildee, Lipinski, Marshall, McIntyre, Melancon, Mollohan, Murtha, Oberstar, Ortiz, Peterson, Rahall, Skelton, Shuler, Stupak, Taylor and Wilson.

US Senate - Ronnie Musgrove (MS) (DFLA Priority Candidate)

Mississippi Governor since 2000, Ronnie Musgrove now challenges Republican Roger Wicker, who assumed Republican Trent Lott's Senate seat when he resigned in December 2007. There is no clear favorite in this race. Musgrove's statewide recognition could be the key to removing this seat from the Republicans. Also, his strong pro-life record will help in this pro-life state. As a State Senator, he supported a 24-hour waiting period before a women could obtain an abortion and to require those performing more than 5 abortions a month to be licensed as abortion clinics. As Governor of Mississippi, Musgrove signed a bill to ban public funding of abortion. He would be a welcome addition to the U.S. Senate for pro-lifeDemocraticSenators Ben Nelson and Bob Casey.

U.S. House Races

Bobby Bright (AL-02, open seat) DFLA Priority Candidate!

Bobby Bright was elected Mayor of the City of Montgomery, Alabama in 1999 and has been re-elected twice. He now challenges Republican candidate Jay Love for the 2nd Congressional District seat of retiring Republican Terry Everett. Although Love has a small lead in the polls, Bright could be the Democrat to challenge the area's Republican tradition. A poll that John Anzalone conducted for Bright's campaign shows that he has a strong lead among independents (51% to 37%). He has the support of the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition and has made financial security a core feature of his campaign.

Parker Griffith (AL-05, open seat) (DFLA endorsed)

With Democrat Robert E. "Bud" Cramer retiring from the 5th Congressional District, pro-life Democrat Parker Griffith hopes to defeat Republican challenger Wayne Parker and keep the district Democratic. Griffith has the advantage of Cramer's popularity and Parker's previous failed attempts in 1994 and 1996 to gain the seat. The race is close in funding and polling, with no clear lead. A former teacher and now a medical doctor, Griffith has the support of Alabama's State Fraternal Order of Police and the testimony of dozens of former patients. He says he is pro-life because as a doctor he has spent his "entire career as North Alabama's first Radiation Oncologist trying to saves lives" and he "understands how precious life is."

Doug Heckman (GA-07) (DFLA endorsed)

Doug Heckman challenges incumbent Republican Rep. John Linder for Georgia's 7th Congressional District seat. Linder has held that position since 1992. Doug, a West Point graduate, currently serves as a special forces colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves. He was endorsed by General Wesley Clark.

Mike Montagano (IN-03) (DFLA endorsed)

Although earlier polls favor incumbent Republican Rep. Mark Souder to win Indiana's 3rd Congressional District, recent news that most undecided voters do not identify as Republican is good news for challenger Mike Montagano. Montagano recently aired a commercial (which can be viewed here) where he explicitly highlights his pro-life beliefs. For that reason, he is faring well against the Republican candidate. Increasing name-recognition and advertising will be key as the election draws near. Recent polls put him within 5 points of the Republican incumbent.

David Boswell (KY-02, open seat) DFLA Priority Candidate!

After more than 30 years of public service, State Senator David Boswell of Owensboro, Kentucky is running for the open seat of retiring Republican Representative Ron Lewis of Congressional District 2. In addition to a good reputation and the respect of State Senators from both parties, Boswell enjoys strong support from his own party, having won all 21 counties in the primary. Kentucky has a long Democratic tradition, and in 2007 Democrat Steve Beshear defeated incumbent Republican Ernie Fletcher to become governor. In a campaign poll conducted October 8-9, Boswell maintained a small lead over opponent Brett Guthrie 41% to 40%. As for voter perceptions of the candidates, Boswell has a significant advantage: more than two-to-one voters who know Boswell view him positively, whereas Guthrie's margin is barely favorable. The Boswell campaign considers him "poised to win" with "solid prospects of victory."

Don Cazayoux (LA-06) (DLFA endorsed)

Pro-life Democrat Don Cazayoux won a May 3, 2008 special election to gain Louisiana's 6th Congressional District. In the conservative-leaning Baton Rouge area, Cazayoux was a strong candidate in part because of his economic platform and his pro-life committment. A Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee poll conducted October 8-9 shows Cazayoux with a lead of 46% compared to Republican challenger state Sen. Bill Cassidy's 29% and independent state Rep. Michael Jackson's 9%. Jackson lost to Cazayoux in the Democratic primary and poses a threat to securing the vote of African Americans, who represent one-third of district residents. Cazayoux will need to emphasize his approval ratings and performance this year to beat Cassidy's strong campaign and minimize Jackson's impact.

Joseph Larkin (MI-11) (DFLA Endoresed)

Lawyer Joseph Larkin faces incumbent Republican Thaddeus McCotter, who has represented Michigan's 11th Congressional District since 2002. Although McCotter is confident that he will win, Larkin has the support of several workers' associations. Larkin also supports term limitations and advocates a "citizen Congress" rather than career politicians.

Travis Childers (MS-01) (DFLA endorsed)

In a surprise win May 13, Travis Childers won a special election to replace Republican Rep. Roger Wickers in representing the 1st Congressional District of Mississippi. Since then, Childers' rating among voters has remained strong. He defeated Republican Mayor of Southaven Greg Davis in May by eight points and is poised to defeat him again. Thus far, Davis has been unable to convince voters to return the seat to Republican representation in a race that now leans Democratic.

Jim Esch (NE-02) DFLA Priority Candidate!

In his second run for political office, pro-life Democrat Jim Esch is challenging Republican incumbent Lee Terry to represent Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District. The district includes the core of the Omaha metropolitan area, Nebraska's Democratic base and home to three-fourths of the state's growing African American population. In the 2006 Senate race, pro-life Democratic Senator Ben Nelson won the District's Douglas County by over 30%, a good sign for Esch. An Anzalone-Liszt poll conducted October 13-15 shows Esch and Terry in a dead heat, with Terry's approval rating in decline. Esch leads 51% to 41% with voters who have not registered with either party. Although the district has leaned Republican in the past, the margin of support for Republicans has diminished, and polls reveal a close Presidential race. High voter turnout could swing this district blue.

Steve Driehaus (OH-01) DFLA Priority Candidate!

After three terms as a moderate Democrat in the Ohio House, Steve Driehaus is running against 1st Congressional District incumbent Republican Steve Chabot. Although Chabot has already served seven terms, his win in 2006 was his narrowest. The current political environment strongly favors Democrats, and high spending from both campaigns demonstrates that this race is tight. Driehaus emphasizes his fiscal conservatism and his previous efforts in the state legislature to address the foreclosure crisis. An independent Research 2000 poll shows Driehaus with a 46% to 44% lead against Chabot. A greater turnout among Democratic voters during this year's presidential election could be the boost Driehaus needs to end Chabot's tenure.
Bill O'Neill (OH-14) (DFLA endorsed)

Although Republican Steven C. LaTourette survived his party's battering in 2006, in Bill O'Neill he faces the toughest challenge in his seven terms as Representative of Ohio's 14th Congressional District. O'Neill is a former state appellate judge, a nurse on weekends and evenings, and a single father who has raised his four children since their mother's death in an automobile accident in 1995. LaTourette is favored, but O'Neill has raised more money than previous Democratic opponents. He could pull of a victory.

Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03) DFLA Priority Candidate!

Republican incumbent Phil English is running for an eighth term in Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District. After a mediocre win against a weak candidate during his last race, Democrats have high hopes that English's days representing Erie and greater northwestern Pennsylvania are numbered. Dahlkemper has proven her commitment to improving the industrial region's economy, earning an endorsement from Erie's General Electric Union and many other unions and workers' organizations. Union representatives have spoken out in support of Dahlkemper and against English's poor record on trade, wages, and other issues relevant to workers. The numbers testify to Dahlkemper's strength: an independent Research 2000 poll from October 6-8 showed her leading with 48% to English's 41%, with even greater support for Dahlkemper (57% to 31%) in English's home base of Erie County. With a mid-month endorsement from fellow Democrat Senator Robert Casey, Jr., Dahlkemper's victory is in sight.

http://www.democratsforlife.org

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

See Saw - TV Ad for the Employee Free Choice Act



From American Rights at Work:

A growing, bipartisan coalition of policymakers supports the Employee Free Choice Act, proposed legislation that would ensure that workers have a free choice and a fair chance to form a union. Simply put, the Employee Free Choice Act will allow workers to once again choose to form unions without the fear of being fired.

The legislation would give workers a fair and direct path to form unions through majority sign-up, help employees secure a contract with their employer in a reasonable period of time, and toughen penalties against employers who violate their workers' rights.

Why is this bill so important? It's plain as day: workers are struggling in this country. Today's workplaces are tilted in favor of lavishly-paid CEOs, who get golden parachutes while middle-class families struggle to get by.

The Employee Free Choice Act can restore the balance, giving more workers a chance to form unions and get better health care, job security, and benefits – and an opportunity to pursue their dreams.

Corporate interests are fighting the Employee Free Choice Act with everything they've got. They're protecting the status quo – a rigged system which allows employers to intimidate, harass, and even fire workers who try to form a union. We're not talking about isolated incidents: 30 percent of employers fire pro-union workers during union organizing drives.

Protecting the right to form unions is about maintaining the American middle class. It’s no coincidence that as union membership numbers fall there are growing numbers of jobs with low pay, poor benefits, and little to no security. More than half of U.S. workers—60 million—say they would join a union right now if they could.

Why? They know that coming together to bargain with employers over wages, benefits, and working conditions is the best path to getting ahead. Workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than non-union workers, and are 63 percent more likely to have employer-provided health care. Without labor law reform, economic opportunity for America’s working families will continue to erode.

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org

Dr. Alveda King Radio Ad for Florida's Amendment 2



Text of radio ad in support of Florida's Marriage Protection Amendment 2:

Hi, I'm Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. A "yes" vote on 2 does only one thing: it defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman. No one loses benefits. Everyone's civil rights are safe. Don't be mislead by dishonest ads about benefits. Protecting marriage between one man and one woman simply protects our children and grandchildren. Please, vote "yes" on 2.

www.yes2marriage.org

Monday, October 20, 2008

Economy in Crisis: How NAFTA is destroying U.S. Manufacturing


From Economy in Crisis:

In the early 1990s the North American Free Trade Agreement was sold to the American people by promising endless benefits job creation and rising incomes for U.S. workers, cheaper goods for American consumers and unseen surges in exports to markets that had never before been open to U.S.

After initially embracing NAFTA on false pretenses, the first myth to be busted was the promise of an increase in trade surplus with Mexico. While the U.S. held a small trade surplus with Mexico prior to NAFTA, by 2007 that turned into a $91 billion trade deficit. With Canada and Mexico combined, the U.S. has turned a $24 billion deficit into a $190 billion deficit in just 15 years - an astounding 691 percent increase.

NAFTA has outsourced jobs to Mexico where labor is incredibly cheap and the environment is a mere after-thought, thus driving down wages and forcing American workers into more direct competition with one another. U.S. manufacturing employment declined from 16.8 million people in 1993 to 13.9 million in 2007.

Over 20 percent of our country’s good manufacturing jobs have been lost during the NAFTA-era, only to be replaced by low-paying service sector jobs with little or no benefits.

Instead of creating jobs, NAFTA has sent revenues across the border where iconic American companies such as Coca Cola, Ford, General Motors, and General Electric have opened up production facilities in Mexico. The average line worker in a U.S. factory earns $18 per hour, whereas his Mexican counterpart will be lucky to make $3 per hour. Since 1993, 15 percent of employers in manufacturing, communication and wholesale distribution have shut down or relocated.

1993 300,000 family farms have been put out of business. Each year we import over $71 billion in food products - double the total pre-NAFTA. Those farmers lucky enough to survive are hanging on by a thread. Net farm incomes have declined by 13 percent over the last 15 years.

NAFTA eliminates tariffs, one of the few proven weapons to protect the U.S. against cut-wage competition and other predatory practices used to destroy our industry and subjugate our economy.

Eliminating tariffs through "free trade" means companies have no choice but to locate their production facilities in countries with the lowest cost labor sources. Otherwise, they will go out of business fighting those who do.

How can the United States remain a superpower if we rely on others to produce our goods? We must stop forcing U.S. companies to outsource, relocate, or buy from foreign suppliers. It must be profitable to produce in the United States. Money we spend on imports returns to buy us out. The majority of many goods we consume are now made by foreign corporations or by foreign owned U.S. corporations. This is an intolerable condition we cannot allow to continue.

http://www.economyincrisis.org/articles/show/1956

China Military Threat ?



Link to video
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/10/20/ldt.fisher.interview.cnn?iref=videosearch

Saturday, October 11, 2008

McCain is No Friend of America's Veterans



The AFL-CIO's Now Blog reports:

As Sen. John McCain runs for president, he’s using his own service to cast himself as a friend to war veterans. The truth is, although he served honorably in uniform 40 years ago, his much more recent Senate record on veterans’ issues is very different than his rhetoric.

In contrast, Sen. Barack Obama has a voting record that lives up to this nation’s promise to support those who have served. Obama supported the 21st Century GI Bill, while McCain, who had announced his opposition to the bill, didn’t show up for the vote.

In a new mailer, the AFL-CIO is reaching out to some of the more than 2 million union members who are veterans. The mailer features Walter Springs, a Vietnam vet and AFT member who supports Obama.

John McCain hasn’t fought for veterans in Congress, and he won’t fight for them as president. As a veteran, I want to do what’s best for veterans. That means I’m supporting Barack Obama.

The new mailer is just one of the ways that union veterans are taking part in this fall’s election.

Although McCain makes claims about his support for veterans, his words don’t match reality. His claim of a “perfect voting record” on veterans’ issues is contradicted by the Disabled American Veterans, which gives McCain only a 20 percent rating, and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, which gives McCain a “D”—a sorry distinction the group granted to only four other senators. In contrast, the IAVA gives Obama a “B,” and the DAV gives him an 89 percent rating.

Vet Voice, a veterans’ political group, has compiled a comprehensive list of McCain’s repeated votes against veterans’ benefits and health care.

McCain has proposed a plan that could shift veterans out of the Veterans Affairs (VA) system and into private health care, a move that’s been greeted by skepticism and criticism from veterans’ groups.

Rep. Chet Edwards, a Texas Democrat who chairs the subcommittee overseeing the VA and has won recognition from veterans’ groups for his excellent record, says McCain’s plans for veterans’ services just won’t cut it.

The Disabled American Veterans, at their national convention in Las Vegas this year, said that the McCain “plastic card” program could undermine the VA health care system, and in the worst-case scenario could even cause the VA system to be closed. Privatizing the VA health care system is something that virtually every major veterans’ organizations in our country opposes…it would undermine the expertise, the resources and the credibility we have at our veterans’ hospitals, where a vet knows he or she is going to be treated with special care and attention.

It would be devastating to a lot of combat-wounded veterans if you undermined our VA health care system and tried to privatize it, just as [McCain] supported partial privatization of the Social Security system…and that, frankly, would hurt a lot of veterans as well.

What’s more, McCain’s record on issues like jobs, trade and retirement security has disappointed working families across the country—as vividly illustrated by Paul Puzanghera, a canvasser for the AFL-CIO community group, Working America. As part of his door-to-door canvassing to talk with people about working family issues, he stopped at a flag-bedecked house in Bucks County, Pa., where the veteran who lived there said he was voting for Obama because “I don’t want to lose my home.” With the economy topping voters’ lists of concerns, union veterans are voting to protect their jobs and their families this fall.

Retired four-star Admiral John Namath is impressed with Obama’s record of support for the military.

Sen. Obama has consistently voted to fund our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and, just as importantly, has a proven record of support when they return home. That’s why independent veterans’ organizations give Sen. Obama higher marks than Sen. McCain. Despite consistent distortions of his record, thousands of veterans like myself support Sen. Obama because he has the judgment, character and integrity to be a great president. We will need a great president to lead us in these very challenging times.

Union veterans like Walter Springs understand that despite McCain’s service in uniform, his Senate record and his proposals don’t address the needs of today’s veterans and their families.

http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/10/09/mccains-claims-on-veterans-issues-dont-match-reality/

Thursday, October 09, 2008

Conley Says $700 Billion Taxpayer Bailout a Fiasco



CONLEY SAYS $700 BILLION TAXPAYER BAILOUT A FIASCO

COLUMBIA,SC - Democratic challenger Bob Conley, running for South Carolina’s U.S. Senate seat, is strongly opposed to the bailout of Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. “I said at the very start that the bailout would not restore confidence in Wall Street or the financial markets,” said Conley.

“Now we see the Dow Jones continuing its sharp decline to the lowest point in four years and banks still refusing to lend to each other. The result is that credit is still not becoming available to businesses and consumers, despite the anticipated $700 Billion from taxpayers,” Conley said.

“Picking the pockets of taxpayers to compensate for the disastrous policies of Congress, lax oversight of regulators, and the excesses of Wall Street is no way to restore the confidence of Main Street,” said Conley.

“The people will have to take matters into their own hands,” Conley said. “If they don’t, they will be fleeced of even more money, which could lead to bigger trouble ahead.”

“I call on all voters to take corrective action in November by using the power of the ballot box to remove from office incumbents like Lindsey Graham who voted in favor of the policies that set up South Carolina and the nation for this catastrophe,” Conley said.

“We can begin to restore confidence by getting rid of politicians who have been proven wrong time and again,” said Conley. “The future of South Carolina and the Republic are at risk by leaving these people in charge of finding solutions. Quite simply, they are not up to the task.”

Conley said that as the next United States Senator for South Carolina, he would work immediately for legislation to accomplish the following goals and restore confidence in the economy:

* Outlaw lobbying in Washington by banking and finance firms

* Stop market-distorting bailouts

* Put strict leverage limits on all financial institutions
Revise “mark to market” accounting rules

* Limit the size of financial firms so they can never be “too big to fail”

* Reinstate the separation of banking, insurance and brokerage

* Mandate transparency among banks to remove trust barriers

* Roll back government policies that encourage mortgages for those who cannot afford them

* Prohibit congressional earmarks, wasteful spending, and no-bid contracts

* Correct massive trade imbalances

http://aimhighwithbob.com/

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

George McGovern: Shill for big business interests ?



GEORGE MCGOVERN WITH DICTATOR FRIEND FIDEL CASTRO

Is it any surprise that George McGovern, the man who split the New Deal Coalition and nearly destroyed the Democratic Party in 1972, is now a shill for big business to stop an effort to revitalize organized labor ? McGovern is an old enemy of the labor movement and has long sought to weaken the influence of unions with the Democratic Party. The '72 McGovern campaign sought to end the traditional role of Democrats as the party of working families and capture the party organization as a vehicle to advance a counter-culture agenda.

Rick Perlstein writing in Blog for Our Future puts the spotlight on the McGovern distortions about the Employee Free Choice Act:

In August former Democratic Presidential candidate George McGovern wrote a fretful op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which he cautioned "fellow" Democrats against supporting the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would make it easier for workers to form unions. At the time Ian Welsh concluded McGovern was "out of step" with mainstream views.

Tonight McGovern will cross yet another line at the behest of business interests - during the Presidential debate, an ad featuring George McGovern will air in which he "condemns his own party" for supporting legislation that makes it easier for workers to join unions. McGovern's ad is part of a $120 million campaign by business groups and wealthy special interests who are trying to confuse & divide pro-worker leaders who support the Employee Free Choice Act.

Don't be fooled. Here's why.

First things first. McGovern is the *only* major Democratic figure who doesn't support the Employee Free Choice Act. Every single Democrat in the Senate and all but two in the House voted for the Employee Free Choice Act in 2007, excluding Tim Johnson, who was hospitalized. Even Joe Lieberman joined the Democratic caucus on this vote, and 1 Republican Senator and 13 GOP House members supported it as well. McGovern is virtually alone in his opposition to this bill.

Second, McGovern's claim - that the Employee Free Choice Act takes away "secret ballots" for union elections - is not true. The Employee Free Choice Act gives workers the choice to form a union, taking away businesses' veto power on the matter. Basically, once 50% +1 of workers in a workplace say they want a union, they get their union if the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law. But today, even if 100% of workers want a union, the employer can veto it. Rick Perlstein explains the situation well, via economist Dean Baker:

"The only change with the Employee Free Choice Act is whether card check recognition is at the discretion of the employer of the worker. In other words, it changes absolutely ZERO about whether the right of workers to organize is determined by secret ballot or not. The only thing it changes is who gets to decide the manner of certification, workers or employers."

Why is it a good thing if it's easier for workers to form unions? Take a look around. Do you think it's any surprise that the worst economic crisis in decades comes when the fewest workers are organized in unions?

When workers are able to form or join a union, workplaces across the country are more fair, giving people the chance to earn better wages and benefits - and protecting against excesses like we're seeing in corporate America today.

Look at what kind of a difference unions make:

* Union members earn 30% more than non-union workers.
* Workers in unions are 59% more likely be covered by employer-provided health insurance.
* A large union presence in an industry or region can raise wages even for non-union workers.
* Patients suffering heart attacks have a 5.5% greater chance of survival if their nurses are union members.

For months now, business groups like the one running McGovern's ad have poured literally tens of millions of dollars into 8 Senate races and national TV advertisements, even hiring some guy to dress up as Death and chase Senate candidates around their campaign events. This is for whom George McGovern now speaks.

Wealthy interests are running scared that workers can soon have their voice at work. The Employee Free Choice Act will restore the Middle Class and bring balance back to our country - something these groups just can't stand.

So, don't be fooled - George McGovern and the Employee Freedom Action Committee speak only for themselves and their wealthy funders, not for anyone else in the country. The remainder of the Democratic Party, and a good chunk of the GOP, supports Free Choice for workers. And in January, we'll have the chance to make that choice.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008104107/george-mcgovern-continues-sell-out-labor

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Florida Congressman Tim Mahoney gets NRA endorsement



The Sun-Sentinel reports:

South Florida Congressman Tim Mahoney, a prime target for Republicans this year, today proudly accepted the endorsement of the National Rifle Association in his hard-fought re-election campaign.

Mahoney of Palm Beach Gardens was once considered one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the House after replacing scandal-tarred Mark Foley two years ago.

His district, which includes northern Palm Beach County and several rural counties, has been Republican territory for many years. Mahoney just barely won in 2006 after both parties poured lots of money into a race that drew national attention.

Mahoney, who cultivates the image of a businessman and not a career politician, landed a spot on the Agriculture Committee and joined the so-called Blue Dog Democrats, a budget-conscious group of relatively conservative party members.

The NRA endorsement should help his re-election chances, especially with rural voters and hunters who don’t take kindly to gun control.

Mahoney has repeatedly stood up for the Second Amendment right to bear arms. He filed a brief with the Supreme Court contesting the constitutionality of the District of Columbia’s gun ban.

The Cook Political Report and The Rothenberg Report, which rate election campaigns, both say the Mahoney race is leaning Democratic. South Florida Congressman Tim Mahoney, a prime target for Republicans this year, today proudly accepted the endorsement of the National Rifle Association in his hard-fought re-election campaign.

Mahoney of Palm Beach Gardens was once considered one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the House after replacing scandal-tarred Mark Foley two years ago.

His district, which includes northern Palm Beach County and several rural counties, has been Republican territory for many years. Mahoney just barely won in 2006 after both parties poured lots of money into a race that drew national attention.

Mahoney, who cultivates the image of a businessman and not a career politician, landed a spot on the Agriculture Committee and joined the so-called Blue Dog Democrats, a budget-conscious group of relatively conservative party members.

The NRA endorsement should help his re-election chances, especially with rural voters and hunters who don’t take kindly to gun control.

Mahoney has repeatedly stood up for the Second Amendment right to bear arms. He filed a brief with the Supreme Court contesting the constitutionality of the District of Columbia’s gun ban.

The Cook Political Report and The Rothenberg Report, which rate election campaigns, both say the Mahoney race is leaning Democratic.

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/dcblog/2008/10/mahoney_gets_nra_endorsement_1.html

Will McCain continue to avoid economic issues facing working families ?




Seth Michaels asks in the AFL-CIO NOW Blog if John McCain will even attempt to address the economic issues facing working families in tonight's Presidential debate.

Michaels writes:

It seems as though Sen. John McCain has given up any pretense of addressing substantive issues in his run for the presidency.

Over the past few days, McCain aides have been increasingly clear that they plan to stop talking about real issues—especially the economy.

“We’re looking forward to turning the page on this financial crisis,” McCain aide Greg Strimple told The Washington Post. “If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we’re going to lose,” an unnamed aide told the New York Daily News.

McCain thinks he can run for the highest office in the nation without addressing issues that top the concerns of working families, like jobs or the economy.

Hello? The nation has seen nine straight months of job losses, with some 760,000 jobs lost so far this year. Paychecks are stagnant while the price of health care is rising fast. More than 2 million homes were foreclosed on in just the first half of 2008. The decline in the stock market is hurting pensions and retirement savings. But McCain thinks that if he throws out enough baseless smears and irrelevant, misleading attacks, he can distract voters from what’s actually going on in their lives.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, yesterday, said these tactics are an affront to working families.

Families are struggling with a long-running economic squeeze, the totality of which is still unknown. So what is John McCain’s response? He thumbs his nose at the real issues facing working people—issues for which he has no good answer because his record of support for the Bush financial agenda is indisputable. He turns to Bush fear-mongering tactics to try to change the subject.

The McCain/Palin tactics are not just false, they’re offensive. Sadly, they’re more of exactly what we’ve come to expect from the Bush White House—neglect of the economic issues that are reshaping working families’ lives. Perhaps it should not come as a surprise from the presidential candidate who voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time.

Maybe McCain doesn’t want to talk about the economy because his proposals don’t come close to addressing what’s wrong with the economy. In fact, his plans show he’ll continue along the Bush-era path that has rewarded corporations and squeezed middle-class family budgets.

McCain has proposed $300 billion in tax cuts to the very wealthiest and corporations, but millions of workers wouldn’t see any benefits from these cuts.

McCain supports bad trade deals that ship jobs overseas.

McCain’s health care plan, which creates a new tax on health benefits, could push millions of us out of our current employer-based health care coverage and leave us at the mercy of an unregulated, consumer-unfriendly private insurance market.

McCain wants to gamble Social Security funds on the stock market, putting retirees at risk.

What’s more, as working families have moved away from the Bush agenda, McCain has only embraced it more. In 2001 and 2003, McCain said he couldn’t “in good conscience” support tax cuts so heavily weighted toward the wealthy. Now, as a presidential candidate, his tax giveaways are even bigger and more tilted toward the very wealthiest than were those of Bush.

Sen. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is pushing hard for both short-term economic stimulus and long-term economic solutions.

Obama supports extending unemployment insurance and giving aid to struggling homeowners, to help workers recover from the immediate effects of the crisis.
Obama knows that expanding access to affordable health care will be good for both workers and businesses.

Obama wants to invest in infrastructure and clean energy, to create millions of new, sustainable jobs.

Obama supports the Employee Free Choice Act to help workers form unions and bargain for better wages and benefits.

According to the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, voters are extremely concerned about the economy and paying close attention to it this election.

Some 77 percent of voters say the country is on the wrong track.
When asked, on a scale of 1 to 10, how closely they’re following the election, 72 percent of voters say “10.”

About 59 percent of voters say the economy is the top issue.
Other polls show similar results: Voters are worried about the economy, are following it closely and making it the deciding factor in how they view the election.

When McCain takes the stage tonight to debate Obama for the second time, will he have the courage to talk about what actually matters to millions of working families—our jobs, our homes, our ability to give our kids a good education and the health care they need?

http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/10/07/will-mccain-run-from-economic-issues-in-tonights-debate

Monday, October 06, 2008

Pro-life Democrat Martin Sheen speaks out against assisted suicide initiative in Washington

>



OLYMPIA the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide has started a $750,000 broadcast advertising campaign, featuring actor Martin Sheen. Sheen agreed to help publicize the dangers of Initiative 1000, the assisted suicide measure on the November ballot in Washington State.

"Martin Sheen is an outstanding actor and a person of impeccable integrity. His tireless efforts to help low income people across the country and his concern for vulnerable populations have earned him the reputation of a man who is compassionate and walks his talk," said Coalition Chair, Chris Carlson. "We are happy to add his distinguished voice to the growing chorus of people opposed to assisted suicide being legalized in Washington."

Carlson reported the the television ads are being aired in the Seattle, Spokane, Yakima and Tri-Cities markets.

For his part, Sheen was eager to make a statement against assisted suicide.

"I try to work when I'm not on the screen to help improve conditions for the most vulnerable people in our country -- low wage workers, immigrants, the disabled and the poor," Sheen said. "We have a health care system where the more money you have, the better medical care you receive. Initiative 1000 is a dangerous idea -- because so many people do not have the money necessary to get the care they need. When I heard about Initiative 1000, I wanted to help stop it before it harms people who are at risk."

"Assisted suicide and a for-profit health care system are a lethal mixture," Carlson said. "As a society, we should be focusing more on creating safe harbors for people truly in need at the end of their life, not providing quick fixes like suicide." He added, "In Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, some cancer patients have already been denied treatment and steered towards assisted suicide."

"The proponents have often suggested that assisted suicide is favored by good Democrats, liberals and progressives but that's just not the case," Carlson said. "I'm a Democrat, Martin Sheen is a Democrat, and many people opposed to I-1000 are progressives —- and that's why we're opposed; we don't want vulnerable people harmed, nor do we believe doctors should be asked to encourage people to end their lives prematurely."

Sheen is best known for his Emmy-award winning role in the drama "West Wing" where he played a Democratic president, and for many movie roles including "Apocalypse Now," "The American President," and "The Departed."

"It is absolutely crucial that voters understand the very real implications of I-1000. Most people in Washington don't even know that I-1000 is on the ballot this November, and ballots will be mailed in the next three weeks. Martin Sheen is a man of intelligence, integrity, character, and compassion, and we are grateful that he is lending his support to the effort to educate the public now about why Initiative 1000 is a truly flawed initiative and a dangerous social policy," said Eileen Geller, R.N., B.S.N., the Coalition's campaign coordinator.

According to Geller, the ads point out some of the little known, major flaws of the proposed law:

Spouses and family members do not need to be told before — or after — a loved one is given lethal drugs.

Persons suffering from depression can be given a lethal overdose without any psychological counseling or treatment — nothing in the Initiative requires an assessment of potential depression by a qualified professional.

Health care insurers and HMO's could exploit I-1000 to save costs, since a bottle of lethal drugs costs far less than other end-of-life care.

Heirs to a patient’s estate are allowed to participate in the assisted suicide and to witness the request for lethal drugs. This would contravene existing practice governing wills and estates, a scenario that worries law enforcement because of the real potential for abuse.

Geller noted that the Coalition Against Assisted suicide is working hard to raise more money to fund an even larger media buy, but the Coalition still expects to be outspent at least three-to-one by proponents of physician assisted suicide.

Copies of the ads can be found at www.noassistedsuicide.com/ads.html

Florida Marriage Protection Amendment 2 gains additional Democratic support



The Florida Marriage Protection Amendment continues to pick up Democratic support. The latest endorsement for Amendment 2 comes from Bob Hagenmaier, Democratic Nominee for State Representative in District 65.

Hagenmaier stated:

"I fully endorse the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment, which reads as follows: “In as much as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

"My reasoning is a follows. Over the ages, the special needs and obligations of families have led to the development of laws designed to protect families, parents and especially children, all based on the idea that a married couple consists of a man and woman. If, based on some fuzzy thinking about equality, we now change the legal meaning of the word marriage so that these same laws apply to homosexual couples we demolish this legal structure at risk to the welfare of the family, especially the children."

"This fuzzy thinking about equality seems to assume that being equal means being the same. However, certainly that is not the case. Women are equal to men, but most certainly not the same. Other fuzzy thinking leads to the claim that the amendment prevents same-sex partners from making arrangements for private-sector health care and estate planning, which is not the case."

http://bobhagenmaier.com/blog/endorsement-of-florida-marriage-protection-amendment-/

Radio Free Jacksonville goes on the air with Sarah Palin "welcome" on October 7



TO: All Northeast Florida Media Outlets.
FROM: Joe Lyles, News Director 105.3
SUBJECT: Sarah Palin's Visit To Jacksonville, Tuesday October 7.

On its very first broadcast day, Radio Free Jacksonville FM 105.3 www.radiofreejax.com will have a special welcome for Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. She is scheduled to speak sometime Tuesday Morning at The Landing in downtown Jacksonville. Guests will begin arriving at 7am, and FM 105.3 will broadcast a special one hour edition of "The Big Picture With Joe Lyles" beginning at 8 am, Tuesday. Coverage will continue during the regular broadcast of "The Big Picture With Joe Lyles" from 10 am to noon.

Callers will be welcome to offer their insights and opinions. The phone-in lines will be 904-997-1353 or 904-928-9128.

Radio Free Jacksonville, FM 105.3 will offer an alternative in the news-talk radio market to the one-sided conservative bias of other area talk stations. Programming will include station owner Andy Johnson's popular program "Down To Business Andy Johnson" -- the longest running radio talk show in Jacksonville. Other programming will include "The Big Picture With Joe Lyles" focused on national issues. Dave Siebert will offer a morning drive program focused on local politics. In addition to local programming, Radio Free Jacksonville will offer nationally syndicated programming including Thom Hartmann and Ed Schultz. "Talk Back Jacksonville" in the early evening will offer a variety of local perspectives, as will the Saturday line-up.

Populist-Conservative Dem Don Cravins running for Congress in Louisiana D-7



Louisiana Democratic Congressional candidate Don Cravins, Jr. on the issues:

Congressional Pay Raises: "Congress is a complete mess. I will work with Democrats and Republicans to get things done for the 7th Congressional District. And, unlike my opponent, I will never accept a pay raise during the term I am elected to serve!"

Immigration Control: "There is no question that the United States and Louisiana have a serious problem with illegal immigration. With workers being imported and jobs being exported, millions of our people are underemployed and unemployed and are also being forced to compete with illegal immigrants. We must secure our borders and enforce the laws on the books and punish the companies that hire illegals."

Energy: "I find it crazy that people in Louisiana are paying more than $4 per gallon of gas and our farmers paying nearly $5 per gallon of diesel. We need to expand our domestic drilling and refinery capacity, but I also believe the future of energy in America will be about renewable, sustainable energy sources. I think growing crops and making ethanol can and should be a new industry for Louisiana. In the Louisiana Legislature, I supported laws to encourage the development of an ethanol industry in Louisiana. Energy independence is critical to our national security and to the creation of millions of jobs here in Louisiana and America."

Medical care: "Healthcare is one of the most important domestic issues facing Louisiana and America. Before this healthcare crisis leads to further disaster, it is time for reform in Washington that benefits Louisiana’s families and the nation. I will fight to make sure all of Louisiana's children have health insurance. Unlike my opponent, I will always support the State's Children's Health Insurance Program and work to find other ways to make sure no child in Louisiana is without healthcare. As a Christian, I believe it is only right to care for our children."

Taxes: "I oppose higher taxes. In the Louisiana Legislature I repealed regressive taxes both for families and for small businesses. I believe that wealthy, big corporations that move American jobs overseas should pay more of their fair share and I will look for opportunities to make the tax system fairer for working people, the middle class and small businesses. Louisiana's working families deserve real tax relief."

http://cravinsforcongress.com

Link to TV ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkYT4oHl4r8#

Sunday, October 05, 2008

Frank Sinatra- The House I Live In video (1945)



I love this patriotic video from 1945. Of course, it is a lesson about tolerance but also an emphasis on the All-American melting pot. This film short brings to mind a time when Americans were capable of uniting and working for a common purpose.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMM6BOPSNGc#

Reps. McIntyre, Shuler win perfect scores for pro-family record




Two Democratic members of Congress from North Carolina have received perfect scores in ratings released by the Family Research Council. Mike McIntyre and Heath Shuler earned one hundred percent voting records on family and pro-life issues. The favorable ratings from the socially conservative group come as no surprise as Shuler and McIntyre are widely recognized as proponents of the right to life and traditional family values within the House Democratic Caucus.

Representatives McIntyre and Shuler have sound judgment on economic issues as well. Both showed courage by voting against the bailout of Wall Street last week. Supporting policies favorable to working families, Shuler and McIntyre backed increases in the minimum wage and opposed job destroying unfair trade deals.

Congressman McIntyre serves as a member of the House Agriculture Committee and House Armed Services Committee where he works to promote and protect our farm families and is committed to our nation’s servicemen and women, veterans, and military retirees. Additionally, he has been a leader on law enforcement issues, an avid defender of our senior citizens, and a strong advocate for improved health care and education.

As Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Rural and Urban Entrepreneurship, Congressman Shuler has used his position to highlight the potential to develop rural economies through new “green energy” businesses. He also sponsored, and saw signed into law, the Small Energy Efficient Business Act. This legislation spurs investment in the production of alternative sources, such as biofuels, and the development of energy efficient technology by increasing investment in small producers.

McIntyre and Shuler reflect the kind of economic populism and social traditionalism that our party needs more of. I applaud these outstanding Democratic leaders for their efforts on behalf of America's working families.

Fritz Hollings presents a plan for reversing America's economic decline



Fritz Hollings gives valuable insights on America's financial disaster and presents a plan for reversing our nation's economic decline in a column at Economy in Crisis.

Tried and True Formula for Saving the Country
Published 10/05/08
Economy in Crisis www.economyincrisis.org
by Former U. S. Senator Ernest F. Hollings

Having been governor, I am frequently asked the difference of being a governor and senator. As governor, if you want to raise revenue you raise taxes. As senator, if you want to raise revenue you cut taxes. In Washington you become smart. You become an economist and learn to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes. And promising not to raise taxes will guarantee your re-election. The Congressional Budget Office made a study of the cause of the increase in deficits the first four years of President George W. Bush: 48% due to tax cuts; 37% due to the cost of wars and national security; and 15% due to spending increases. The Bush administration and Congress have put the government on steroids for eight years, increasing the debt (as of 9/30/08) – not revenues -- $2.672 trillion.

Another smart thing you learn is how to low-ball the deficit by subtracting the trust funds. For example, the White House projected a FY 2008 deficit of $425 billion. The actual deficit is $1074 billion. The President and Congress constantly use Social Security surpluses to report a lower deficit. Section 13-301 of the Budget Act forbids this. But the President and Congress violate the law to appear fiscally responsible. Then they report Social Security is in trouble. Social Security reports a surplus of $2.4 trillion and is not in trouble.

Now we have the economists’ charade of free trade. As Henry Clay, one of John F. Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage, said in 1832: “Free Trade! Free Trade! The call for free trade, is as unavailing as the cry of a spoiled child, …. It never existed; it never will exist….” After World War II, we took up the chant of free trade as we spread capitalism with the Marshall Plan. Our goal in chanting free trade was to open the markets of the assisted countries. But Japan kept its market closed, starting a trade war for market share, selling at cost in international trade and making up the profit in its closed domestic market. Concerned that capitalism prevail over communism in the Cold War, we refused to compete in this trade war. We refused to force Japan to open its market. Now, Toyota is #1 as General Motors and Ford struggle. Now Corporate America is outsourcing like gangbusters and shout free trade for fear that the U. S. will engage in the trade war and stop the outsourcing.

I worked with Corporate America to protect our textile industry by passing a protectionist trade bill through the United States Senate in 1968. President Lyndon B. Johnson had Wilbur Mills, the Chairman of the Ways & Means Committee, block the measure in the House of Representatives. Then we passed four protectionist trade bills through both Houses of Congress only to be vetoed, one by President Jimmy Carter, two by President Ronald Reagan, and one by President George H. W. Bush. Corporate America was for protectionism not free trade. Denied protection by both Republican and Democratic administrations, Corporate America began outsourcing. Now making enormous profits from outsourcing they chant “free trade” to dump their offshore production into the United States.

The Economist reports: “Globalisation used to mean, by and large, that business expanded from developed to emerging economies. Now it flows in both directions, and increasingly also from one developing economy to another. Business these days is all about ‘competing with everyone from everywhere for everything’, write the authors of “Globality”, a new book on this latest phase of globalization by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG).” But the United States refuses to compete, to trade.

Globalization is a trade war with the U. S. AWOL. We started a trade war with the Mother Country at the adoption of a Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787. England had prevented manufacture in the colony, even prohibiting the printing of the Bible. In l787 we reached a consensus on protectionism directing the regulation of trade to the Congress in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. It took the United States four more years to reach a consensus on First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and the press. President Washington, in his first message to the first Congress in 1789 counseled: “A free people should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly military supplies.” After the adoption of the nation’s seal, the first bill to pass Congress, on July 4, 1789, was a 50% tariff on numerous articles. We financed and built this industrial giant, the United States of America, with protectionism. We didn’t pass the income tax until 1913. Edmund Morris, in Theodore Rex, describes the United States winning the trade war with England: “This first year of the new century (1900) found her worth twenty-five billion more than her nearest rival, Great Britain, with a gross national product more than twice that of Germany and Russia. The United States was already so rich in goods and services that she was more self-sustaining than any industrial power in history.” Theodore Roosevelt exclaimed at the time: “Thank God I am not a free trader.”

While spreading capitalism with the Marshall Plan, the United States raised our standard of living with the minimum wage, health care, safe working place, safe machinery, parental leave, plant closing notice, and started protecting the environment by instituting NOAA and the Environmental Protection Agency ensuring clean air and clean water. This high standard of living raised the cost of production. Corporate America could avoid this cost by outsourcing. But now, if your competition outsourced and you continued to work your own people, you would go bankrupt.

Production in America, in order to compete, finds itself forced to outsource. And the outsourcing and free trade charade are destroying the economy. We are outsourcing not just jobs and production, but research, technology, investment, the economy – even the debt. With the shocking $700 billion bailout, outsourcing the debt will be difficult. The country finds itself in the predicament of having to protect it’s production and standard of living or end up a banana republic. We learn that David Riccardo’s “comparative advantage” in economics is no longer English woolens and Portuguese wine, but government.

The Japanese and Chinese governments set the competition of managed trade in globalization. Bottom line, we can’t depend on our business leadership calling for free trade to prescribe our trade policy. Congress, under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, must assume the responsibility of regulating trade. Congress must make it profitable to produce in the United States. We’ve got to stop our binge of free trade, cutting taxes, deregulating, contracting out, and getting rid of the government. We have to put America back to work, pay for the government we provide, and instead of getting rid of the government make the government work.

We need to compete in globalization. We need to put a tourniquet on outsourcing. We need money. A value added tax is in order. Every industrialized country but the United States has a value added tax, which is rebated at export. Our corporate taxes are not rebated, which puts the United States at a tremendous disadvantage in international trade. A VAT would remove this disadvantage and begin to eliminate both the fiscal and trade deficits. A VAT could also provide the money to finance health care, infrastructure, and energy. Raising the price of imports with a VAT will require the consumer to save. And exports that have been saving the economy will be promoted. It will take a year for business and the Internal Revenue Service to gear up for a VAT. In the meantime, we should institute a 10% surcharge on imports as President Richard Nixon did successfully in 1971. Everyone has been worried about the shortage of troops for Iraq and Afghanistan, the exhaustion of our military. But equally important is that we don’t have the military supplies to go to war. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Crowe, warned of this shortage in 1991.

Globalization and outsourcing have imperiled our security. We had to await flat panel displays from Japan before invading Kuwait. We had to await Swiss crystals before invading Iraq. We can’t produce planes unless we get the parts from India. We can’t produce helicopters unless we get the parts from Turkey. This nonsense has got to stop. We must activate the Secretary of Commerce’s list of materials critical to our national security. Tariff or quota military imports and producing in country these supplies necessary to our security, we can put America back to work.

As Lincoln said: “As our case is new, we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves [from this free trade charade, and working together] we can save our country.”

http://www.economyincrisis.org/articles/show/1880

Saturday, October 04, 2008

Pro-life Catholic legal scholar endorses Obama



Writing in the National Catholic Reporter http://ncronline3.org/drupal/, Catholic legal scholar Nicholas Cafardi explains why he is supporting Barack Obama:

I believe that abortion is an unspeakable evil, yet I support Sen. Barack Obama, who is pro-choice. I do not support him because he is pro-choice, but in spite of it. Is that a proper moral choice for a committed Catholic?
As one of the inaugural members of the U.S. bishops' National Review Board on clergy sexual abuse, and as a canon lawyer, I answer with a resounding yes.

Despite what some Republicans would like Catholics to believe, the list of what the church calls "intrinsically evil acts" does not begin and end with abortion. In fact, there are many intrinsically evil acts, and a committed Catholic must consider all of them in deciding how to vote.

Last November, the U.S. bishops released "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," a 30-page document that provides several examples of intrinsically evil acts: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, torture, racism, and targeting noncombatants in acts of war.

Obama's support for abortion rights has led some to the conclusion that no Catholic can vote for him. That's a mistake. While I have never swayed in my conviction that abortion is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the abortion battle -- permanently. A vote for Sen. John McCain does not guarantee the end of abortion in America. Not even close.

Let's suppose Roe v. Wade were overturned. What would happen? The matter would simply be kicked back to the states -- where it was before 1973. Overturning Roe would not abolish abortion. It would just mean that abortion would be legal in some states and illegal in others. The number of abortions would remain unchanged as long as people could travel.

McCain has promised to appoint "strict constructionist" judges who would presumably vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. But is that sufficient reason for a Catholic to vote Republican? To answer that question, let's look at the rest of the church's list of intrinsically evil acts.

Both McCain and Obama get failing marks on embryonic stem-cell research, which Catholic teaching opposes. The last time the issue was up for a vote in the Senate, both men voted to ease existing restrictions.

But what about an unjust war? In 2003, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said flatly that "reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist." McCain voted for it; Obama opposed it.

What about torture? "There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," according to Antonio Taguba, the retired major general who investigated abuses in Iraq. Obama opposes the use of torture in all cases; McCain, himself a victim of torture, voted to allow the CIA to use so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- a euphemism for torture.

How, some may ask, can I compare these evils with abortion? The right to abortion is guaranteed by the federal judiciary's interpretation of the Constitution. And while the president appoints federal judges, the connection between a president's appointments and the decisions rendered by his appointees is tenuous at best. After all, in 1992, five Republican-appointed justices voted to uphold Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Yet on other intrinsic evils -- an unjust war, torture, ignoring the poor -- I can address those evils directly by changing the president.

There's another distinction that is often lost in the culture-war rhetoric on abortion: There is a difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion. Obama supports government action that would reduce the number of abortions, and has consistently said that "we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion." He favors a "comprehensive approach where ... we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children." And he wants to ensure that adoption is an option for women who might otherwise choose abortion.

Obama worked all of that into his party's platform this year. By contrast, Republicans actually removed abortion-reduction language from their platform.

What's more, as recent data show, abortion rates drop when the social safety net is strengthened. If Obama's economic program will do more to reduce poverty than McCain's, then is it wrong to conclude that an Obama presidency will also reduce abortions? Not at all.

Every faithful Catholic agrees that abortion is an unspeakable evil that must be minimized, if not eliminated. I can help to achieve that without endorsing Republicans' immoral baggage. Overturning Roe v. Wade is not the only way to end abortion, and a vote for Obama is not somehow un-Catholic.

The U.S. bishops have urged a "different kind of political engagement," one that is "shaped by the moral convictions of well-formed consciences."

I have informed my conscience. I have weighed the facts. I have used my prudential judgment. And I conclude that it is a proper moral choice for this Catholic to support Barack Obama's candidacy.

Cafardi is a civil and canon lawyer, and a professor and former dean at Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh. His most recent book, Before Dallas, examines the bishops' failures in handling the clergy sex abuse

http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2058