Why I'm voting for Harold Ford, Jr. without having to swallow my pride

Without my favorite candidate in the race, I am now in the precarious position of evaluating what to do with my vote. I would like to offer my perspective looking ahead.

First, to the Kurita supporters: Thank you for your tenacity, it is tough to stay with a long shot candidate no matter how much you believe in them. But now that Rosalind has closed up shop, I recommend you vote for Ford. I know it feels wrong after such a heated primary, but rather than sticking to your ideological guns and trying to avoid humility, take a look at Nader's votes in 2000 and the abstentions in 2004 and see if that protest vote is really worth it.

No need to bow, no need to crawl, and no need to go silent. Harold Ford, Jr. is now the superior candidate in this race (by a long shot). Proudly back him with all you've got!

Now, to everyone else:

I've spent hundreds of hours researching Harold Ford, Jr. I've read many full congresional bills and laws, floor debate, speeches, articles, editorials, press releases, and many other materials. I've looked at every vote he cast in the House two different times. My endorsement of Ford is no flippant thing. Likewise, it is not a concession. I admit I would have prefered Rosalind Kurita. But we do have to take into account electability, it's true. Ford is the one with the momentum. We also have to account for the ability to get things done in Washington, and here Ford has a proven track record.

There is no question in my mind that Harold Ford, Jr. should be our next Senator. Consider these four points:

1. Harold usually votes Democratic.

Whereas the Republican candidates are highly likely to use their offices to further the current corrupt culture and immoral policies of the Republican Senate and George W. Bush, Harold Ford is highly likely to further the general agenda of the Democrats.

Harold occasionally sides out when I wish he wouldn't. I have been very critical of him this year for having voted for several major GOP initiatives. But the flip side of the coin here is that these examples are the exhaustive product of hundreds of hours of meticulously combing votes and literature on harold Ford, Jr. The immutable act remains that he votes wit the Democrats the vast majority of the time.

2. Harold cares for the poorest Americans and he views them with great dignity.

There is a substantial distinction between Ford's supply-side approach and the Republican supply-side approach, one I have been shocked not to hear from his supporters this year: The strict conservative worldview says that people are poor because they deserve to be poor - they are immoral.

Dan Quayle called rich people 'the best people.' In 2004, Arnold Schwartzanegger said that if you work hard and play by the rules, you will get ahead - meaning if you haven't gotten ahead you are lazy and immoral. Van Hilleary says that entitlements are stealing from those who DESERVE their wealth [regardless of how the wealth was earned or whether the rich person is good by any other standard].

In contrast, when Harold Ford talks wealth and poverty he expresses the sentiment we heard from Barack Obama and John Edwards in 2004: the poor are very often poor because of systemic problems that prevent them from getting ahead. As a society, we must respond to their needs, we are our brother's keeper. As Bono said, we hope Jesus is with the rich but we know he is among the poor. There also should we be!

It is true, I disagree with Harold over how we get there - supply side economics is only half the story. But we're working from a very similar set of values towards a similar goal. This is morally, economically, and in all other ways superior to all three GOP candidates in this race.

3. Harold has consistently gotten it right on fiscal discipline, a woman's right to choose, the environment, and security.

The few criticisms I have leveled at Ford in these areas are fairly insignificant compared to his total voting record. harold is the only candidate in the race who will fight against irresponsible tax cuts, cuts to social services, and the belligerent Wolfowitz-doctrine foreign policy.

4. Replacing Bill First with Harold Ford is a unique and major improvement.

On the other hand, all three GOP candidates would be a step down. Above all, an American election has to do with looking at where we are and what our options are going forward. This is a clear case where only one candidate is set to massively and categorically improve the US Senate and Tennessee's representation in it: Harold Ford, Jr.

******************
I'd like to take this opportunity to do a little housekeeping before I close shop:

1. Protectionism isn't so good after all.... Two weeks ago I changed my mind on protectionism. I believe that we need social programs to retrain people and ensure transitions to liberalized trade do not destroy towns and families, but I no longer believe that protectionism is a sustainable official policy approach.

2. Ford has personal integrity, enough to overcome the questionable dealings of some of his family members.

My personal criticisms of the Ford machine are a legitimate issue, in my eyes. And we all know the Republicans will make that their driving argument since the GOP has such bad ideas and PR these days. I will admit that Ford's acceptance of the current scheme does bother me. I don't like the lobbyist or fundraising situation.

But this is a systemic criticism - all four candidates in this race are in the same boat, and I would argue that Hilleary is much worse in this respect. The pertinent question to my criticisms of the Ford family is to what extent this indicates Harold Ford is exactly the same. For that link I have always lacked sufficient evidence. Out of my concerns I have made innuendos and suggestions, but in retrospect I regret having taken that leap - it is highly questionabl at best.

And remember, folks - the Republican candidates cmoe from the Republican family. Which family am I for between the current Republican machine and the Ford machine? There's no question; I'll take the Ford clan every time.

3. Thank you all for checking in with me from time to time.

I'd like to thank the people who routinely posted on this blog, who questioned me and Rosalind Kurita. At our worst moments we played a ruthless game of devil's advocate. But when we were able to treat each other civilly, I really think we embodied a great democratic process. We're far more alike than different, I would be very proud if we found ourselves cooperating in the future. For the offenses we gave each other, I hope we can forgive and move on - in the interest of a more progressive Tennessee if nothing else!

Tennessee is full of people who care about the environment, who want the economy to reward hard work, who think the poor need help, who want to see a strong economy, a balanced budget, energy security, and a less dangerous foreign policy. And despite the strength of the anti-choice movement here, I think most people don't realize that abortions were lower under Carter and Clinton than under Reagan, Bush, or George II. We believe in real sex education, in helping poor parents achieve economic stability, in offering health care to pregnant women, and in so much more. I think most people are tired of war. They're tired of the lies from this White House, they want a Senate that will take a stand.

The progressives are the ones with the truly pro-life agenda and it's time for us to get a Senator who realizes it. I'll see you out there drumming up votes and changing hearts and minds!

Kurita Withdraws

I've just confirmed with the campaign. Details are forthcoming. Also, stay tuned for my follow up thoughts on the race as it now stands.

My heartfelt gratitude goes out to Rosalind, who put up a heck of a fight against the odds. Thank you for representing an underserved portion of our fine state!

Marsha Blackburn shows her ass on the House floor

Yesterday US Rep Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) gave a speech on the GOP budget proposal, which cuts services to the poor while increasing tax breaks for the wealthy and spending more on defense. She said that its opponents are whining that programs which are not getting an increase have been cut. She says this logic only applies in Washington DC, not in the real world.

From Investopedia: "When inflation goes up, there is a decline in the purchasing power of money. For example, if the inflation rate is 2% annually, then theoretically a $1 pack of gum will cost $1.02 in a year. After inflation, your dollar can't buy the same goods it could beforehand."

Besides a rudimentary understanding of real world economics, Marsha also fails at understanding the issue at hand. The problem is one of priorities - are we going to take care of the poor or the rich? Are we going to make prosperity or war? Are we going to spend responsibly or create bigger deficits?

Marsha's comments reflect the priorities of the GOP as far as I can tell. Certainly she'll get no opposition from Bryant, Corker, or Hilleary.

Rosalind Kurita's priorities include fiscal discipline and making sure the most vulnerable people in our society receive the crucial support they need. Our veterans, our elderly, and our children need our willingness to help. All those Americans working two and three jobs to keep the kids they don't have time to parent need our help.

The Tennessee Senate election is about priorities. Let's not replace Bill Frist with another person seeking to oppose the interests of the least of these. Let's replace him with the most progressive candidate on the ballot - Rosalind Kurita!

From Today's Tennessean Online

Fort Campbell soldier with ties to local schoolchildren confirmed dead

A Fort Campbell soldier "adopted" by students at Franklin Elementary School has been killed after a recent mission in Iraq.

Pfc. Joseph Duenas visited the school with a group from Fort Campbell at the beginning of the school year. He was adopted by Lisa Kozlik’s first grade class, which spent a day getting to know the 23-year-old soldier.

Duenas died when he fell out of a helicopter in Kirkuk after a mission, Fort Campbell officials confirmed Monday.

Administrators planned to tell students of the news just before the end of the school day.

"We want to give them a little time to absorb it,” said Assistant Principal Marcella Crenshaw. “It’s a lot to absorb for 5- and 6-year old children. Children are very resilient, but it depends on their personal lives and what they’ve dealt with like this before.”

And Iran, Iran All Night....

Last week I watched a panel discussion which included noted economist Diane Swonk. She spends most of her time in Washington DC these days, trying to get a handle on policy decisions. Swonk said it is common knowledge in the DC political circles America will be invading Iran after the midterm election. Additionally, her word is that Israel will accompany the US in this war outing.

We have this doctrine of Preventive War at work again. I'd like to ask everyone, including my Republican counterparts in Tennessee, to lobby their congressional representatives to make sure that the intelligence establishes and imminent threat. (Merely possessing WMD doesn't show they are likely to be used in an impending first strike.)

Meantime, I'd like to remind everyone of the architecture letter (below), the one in which the Wolfowitz Doctrine becomes the directive of our foreign policy. Clearly expressed is the idea that if we kill and dominate all the other people in the world we won't have to be scared anymore.

Theologian H Richard Niebuhr identified this as a particular worldview: The world is dangerous. We must build up systems of security against these threats. Everyone is independent, work hard so you can afford to isolate yourself from all the people and things that could harm you. This is a worldview entirely obsessed with Self.

Any theologian could tell you that obsession with Self is disconnection from God, what my own Christian tradition calls Sin (it's literally defined that way in the Catachesis of the Book of Common Prayer).

I would be very careful about following such men, even if a war were legitimately protective and therefore justified.

Here's the letter the neo-con army sent to Bush to outline how to seek world domination:

September 20, 2001

The Honorable George W. BushPresident of the United StatesWashington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We write to endorse your admirable commitment to “lead the world to victory” in the war against terrorism. We fully support your call for “a broad and sustained campaign” against the “terrorist organizations and those who harbor and support them.” We agree with Secretary of State Powell that the United States must find and punish the perpetrators of the horrific attack of September 11, and we must, as he said, “go after terrorism wherever we find it in the world” and “get it by its branch and root.” We agree with the Secretary of State that U.S. policy must aim not only at finding the people responsible for this incident, but must also target those “other groups out there that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.”

In order to carry out this “first war of the 21st century” successfully, and in order, as you have said, to do future “generations a favor by coming together and whipping terrorism,” we believe the following steps are necessary parts of a comprehensive strategy.

Osama bin Laden

We agree that a key goal, but by no means the only goal, of the current war on terrorism should be to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and to destroy his network of associates. To this end, we support the necessary military action in Afghanistan and the provision of substantial financial and military assistance to the anti-Taliban forces in that country.

Iraq

We agree with Secretary of State Powell’s recent statement that Saddam Hussein “is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth….” It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.

Hezbollah

Hezbollah is one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world. It is suspected of having been involved in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Africa, and implicated in the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Hezbollah clearly falls in the category cited by Secretary Powell of groups “that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.” Therefore, any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah. We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority

Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism, especially in the Middle East. The United States should fully support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism. We should insist that the Palestinian Authority put a stop to terrorism emanating from territories under its control and imprison those planning terrorist attacks against Israel. Until the Palestinian Authority moves against terror, the United States should provide it no further assistance.

U.S. Defense Budget

A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending. Fighting this war may well require the United States to engage a well-armed foe, and will also require that we remain capable of defending our interests elsewhere in the world. We urge that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war.

There is, of course, much more that will have to be done. Diplomatic efforts will be required to enlist other nations’ aid in this war on terrorism. Economic and financial tools at our disposal will have to be used. There are other actions of a military nature that may well be needed. However, in our judgement the steps outlined above constitute the minimum necessary if this war is to be fought effectively and brought to a successful conclusion. Our purpose in writing is to assure you of our support as you do what must be done to lead the nation to victory in this fight.

Sincerely,

William Kristol
Richard V. Allen
Gary Bauer
Jeffrey Bell
William J. Bennett
Rudy Boshwitz
Jeffrey Bergner
Eliot Cohen
Seth Cropsey
Midge Decter
Thomas Donnelly
Nicholas Eberstadt
Hillel Fradkin
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Jeffrey Gedmin
Reuel Marc Gerecht
Charles Hill
Bruce P. Jackson
Eli S. Jacobs
Michael Joyce
Donald Kagan
Robert Kagan
Jeane Kirkpatrick
Charles Krauthammer
John Lehman
Clifford May
Martin Peretz
Richard Perle
Norman Podhoretz
Stephen P. Rosen
Randy Scheunemann
Gary Schmitt
William Schneider, Jr.
Richard H. Shultz
Henry Sokolski
Stephen J. Solarz
Vin Weber
Leon Wieseltier
Marshall Wittmann

Censure George II: Sign the Petition

As you probably already know, Russ Feingold has moved to censure the President for breaking FISA and establishing an illegal surveillance and intelligence program. Please let me urge you to sign the petition for his resolution.

Although I personally opposed and still oppose the Clinton impeachment trial, Russ was the only Democrat to vote to hold the hearings. A Harvard law grad and classmate of John Roberts, Russ then said the question of whether the President has broken the law should always be given serious exploration and consideration, whether it's Nixon, Reagan, or Clinton. It is hard to argue with that kind of iron-jawed integrity, even when I disagree with him.

But the Republicans have attacked him as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They have publicly charged Senator Feingold with Treason.

That's right, folks, the Republicans are saying this: receiving oral sex in a public building and trying to hide it is Treason, illegally spying on Americans is okay, and trying to stop someone from illegally spying on Americans is Treason.

Big Brother Is Watching You.
Freedom is Slavery.
War is Peace.
Knowledge is Ignorance.

George II broke the law and the GOP Congressional mafia wants to change FISA retroactively to make his actions legal. This is an atrocity. Censure is a declaration of disapproval that applies pressure to get the president to change his actions - to make them legal. It is not even impeachment - and this IS an impeachable offense, by God.

Please sign up and support censure: this President needs a good dose of reality.

The Budget Matters

Our Moral Choice
by Jim Wallis

On Tuesday, March 7, Jim Wallis spoke on Capitol Hill at a "Rally to Protect America's Priorities" on the proposed 2007 budget, sponsored by the Emergency Campaign for America's Priorities, ACORN, and the U.S. Student Association. Following are his remarks.

I want to begin with what the Religious Community said all last year: A budget is a moral document! That was our clarion cry in the 2006 budget debate. If some political leaders haven't got the message yet - just wait until this year.

You see, we believe that fiscal choices, economic choices are also moral choices and, for us, even religious choices. Who is important? And who is not? What is important? And what is not? Who do we most value? And who don't we value at all? They are fiscal choices, but also moral and religious matters.

Jesus actually got uncharacteristically judgmental about these kinds of choices. He said, "As you have done to the least of these, you have done to me." Are you paying attention yet, members of Congress?

Because of moral pressure - much of it from the religious community who every day care for the poor that our national politics neglect - last year's budget almost didn't pass. It took a fast trip home from Dick Cheney to pass the budget in the Senate and, in the House, the final budget measure only passed by a few votes. Some elected officials were making new moral choices. But the White House and the Republican leadership seem not to have gotten this message from the religious community, by the look of the new budget they now propose. I thought we were supposed to be their base?

You see a budget process is just a series of moral choices: tax cuts for the wealthiest, or services for the poorest? Congressional pork and earmarks, or investments in the common good? Searching for security through endless expenditures for war, or seeking to end the insecurity of poverty to make our nation stronger? Ignoring the costs of deficits for our children's children, and making the most vulnerable pay the price of fiscal responsibility; or sharing the burdens of financial responsibility more fairly by not asking the poor to carry the heaviest load?

These are all moral choices. Those with the power to make budget proposals have made their moral choices; and so will we. They are choosing to bestow more windfalls of benefit on their wealthy donors - that's their moral choice. We will stand up for the low-income families that we know and serve and whom they will again ignore - no, assault - that's our moral choice.

They are choosing the corruption of rewarding the special interests who pay for them - that's their moral choice. We will defend those who have the most need - that's our moral choice. They will place no limits on money for wars that have no end, and weapons systems that have no need - that's their moral choice. We will not let them cut vital programs of nutrition, health care, child care, and education to pay for their bad choices - that's our moral choice.

Here is what the biblical prophet Isaiah says about their moral choices: "Woe to the legislators of infamous laws, to those who issue tyrannical decrees, who refuse justice to the unfortunate and cheat the poor among my people of their rights, and make widows their prey and rob the orphan."

Last Dec. 14, 115 Christians who work with the poor every day, interrupted their works of compassion to come to the Capitol-to pray, preach, and prophesy. And we were taken to jail. Mary Nelson, from Chicago, looked up at the congressional staff and members looking out their windows and invited them, "Come walk with us."

John Perkins, 75-year-old evangelical and Black church leader who has spent his life in faithful ministry with poor people, told the story of his mother's death from a nutritional deficiency when he was seven months old. John said he was breastfeeding at the time and thought for years that he had killed her. Only later, he said, did I realize that a white society doesn't care about the nutrition of poor black women and their families. And now they're trying to cut food stamps from this budget. Then he emotionally said, "This is my last stand," before he was arrested.

Due in part to the pressure from religious community - we saved food stamps from cuts. Now, the proposed cuts stamps are back. People should know that many of those arrested last December voted for George Bush, some twice. Now they get arrested to protest his moral choices. They were his base, they are no longer.

The media noted that the words religious, Christian, even evangelical, are no longer just alongside the words abortion and gay marriage, but now alongside words like food stamps, health care, and education. Get used to it. When the politicians pat faith-based organizations on the back for doing such a wonderful job, they are now turning around and saying, "Stop hurting the people we work with and care about!" Come walk with us.

After the vote, Republicans e-mailed me, "I just want you to know that I voted against this budget and am listening to the religious community." Bless you. Overcoming poverty must be a bipartisan commitment and a nonpartisan cause. The religious community will ask Democrats to stand firm against this budget violence against poor people, to make the moral choice of favoring the poor over the rich - which is also a biblical choice. Democrats must get religion on the budget.

And we will ask Republicans: Follow your conscience, not your party. Help your party make better moral choices than favoring the rich over the poor - stop turning the biblical wisdom upside down - and then having the nerve to claim that you are the religion-friendly party! It's time for Republicans to get religion on this budget.

We've had a year of organizing around the budget in the religious community. We are watching this debate very carefully. We will hold our elected officials accountable in 2006 and 2008 for their votes on this budget - whether they vote for or against poor families.

If you think we were aroused last year, we were just getting started. Budgets are moral documents and we will fight this budget. And that's our moral choice.

Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain

After the Gonzalez hearing and the State of the Union Address I find something very chilling. We're being told that we have to accept secret government survaillance and control in order to preserve freedom. In other words:

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU

And

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

Bush's speech also reminded us of the administration's standard refrain on the 'War on Terror':

WAR IS PEACE

That's sooo 1984....