Rosalind Kurita for US Senate Unofficial Blog

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

2006-04-12T14:24:00.000-05:00

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

2006-04-12T14:20:00.000-05:00

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

2006-04-06T10:31:00.000-05:00

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

2006-04-05T15:22:00.000-05:00

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....

2006-04-03T11:23:00.000-05:00

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

2006-03-17T09:53:00.001-05:00

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

2006-03-08T16:31:00.000-05:00

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

2006-02-08T10:20:00.000-05:00

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....

The State of the Union

2006-02-01T08:59:00.000-05:00

The speech last night was positively Orwellian. Judging by the phrases the President used, I would caution anyone from taking mainstream neo-conservative evaluations at face value. Last year we had Bill Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and David Frum all out talking about what a great speech it was only to find out they had written it. So let's deconstruct it a bit.

I think most people will focus on Iraq, but I think the second part of the speech, the part dealing with the economy, is most in need of clarification.

George II said, "Protectionists want to escape competition, pretending that we can keep our high standard of living while walling off our economy."

What he means by 'protectionists' is 'people who oppose free trade and free markets.' I guarantee this was insterted into the speech by someone from K Street, maybe AEI or Cato. Why am I so sure? One of the first economic actions Bush took was to institute a protectionist tariff to protect the steel industry. He's done this for several industries since he's been in office. I find it highly unusual that a President would flat out concede in the State of the Union that his early economic policies were fundamentally wrong.

What he's really saying here is that outsourcing is good. By exporting jobs we can consume the same goods cheaper - as imports. So when he says we want people to buy American, he means 'out of whatever we're still making after we're done hemorraging production jobs.'

The progressive approach to the economy is openly protectionist. We want to PROTECT America first. We will defend our standard of living by not giving up jobs, by making sure people aren't laid off and expected to comfort themselves in the knowledge that if they had an income they could buy cheaper food for their kids. We reject fully the idea that the free market will allocate resources morally. The free market naturally serves to reach equilibirum - because our standard of living is higher than everyone else's, free trade can only serve to decrease it while increases other nations' standards. If you aren't protectionist then you are leaving the economy open to attack.

Rosalind wants us to unabashedly do our duty to protect American families from cheap foreign labor and multinational corporations that have no loyalties save to money.

George II said, "Keeping America competitive begins with keeping our economy growing. And our economy grows when Americans have more of their own money to spend, save, and invest…. Because America needs more than a temporary expansion, we need more than temporary tax relief. I urge the Congress to act responsibly, and make the tax cuts permanent."

I love the Orwellian 'tax relief.' Taxes are burdens, you shouldn't have to pull your weight or contribute to the pot. If you do, it's a burden. The President wants to relieve you of that burden - he doesn't want any of us to have a stake in each other. This is an easy way of telegraphing, 'we should all be isolated individuals pursuing our own selfish ends, then everything would work out fine - the people who starve would be the selfless liberals who deserve what they get.'

Ridiculous.

First, taxes are not burdens, they are investments - tangible commitments to the greater good of America. And they are not lost contributions, the government has made very wise decisions with our investments overall. We have roads, the Internet, less crime, new drugs, more access to education, a better work force, more safety in participating in the economy, less AIDS cases in the world, and on and on, ad nauseum. Not doing your part, wanting to get out of supporting other Americans so that you can work for your own ends is greedy, selfish, and even treasonous.

Second, keeping more of your own money can increase your consumption but it does not increase aggregate consumption in the economy - whether the goverment is spending your money or you are, the money is already getting spent. Fiscal policy worked in Keynes' day but nowadays we have to rely on monetary policy to stimulate the economy. We'd all like to keep as much of our money as we can so we can have more control, but that doesn't make it an economic stimulus.

Rosalind understands that people want lower taxes so they can maximize control over their own wealth, and she also understands that people want America to remain great and for the disadvantaged to be helped. She is devoted to striking a balance between government and private interests as well as business versus individual interests.

George II said, "We must also confront the larger challenge of mandatory spending, or entitlements."

'Entitlements' are 'challenges.' The message here is that social support inherently creates a culture of dependence and are challenging because we therefore need to get rid of them. People who get assistance don't deserve it because they are immoral and selfless (which is why they are needy - otherwise the free market would have made them billionaires), which means it punishes the people who are acting morally and selfishly (and have therefore been rewarded by the free market with cash).

This is an incorrect understanding of the world and of morality. Leftists see that people can be poor because of the system and other people in it (think Edwards' Two Americas). And we see that we are our brothers' keepers - we have a commitment to others to help support one another. Sometimes that necessarily means supporting someone before they can or will support you.

When we talk about social supports, the challenge is how to deliver them more efficiently and use them to help recipients become givers as well as receivers in our system. It is a challenge of how we will pay for them. It is not a challenge of whether we will pay for them. Those who would contend that it is would do well to read any high school American History text that covers Hoover and FDR.

Geroge II said, "Keeping America competitive requires us to be good stewards of tax dollars."

Remember in 2000 when our biggest election issue was how to use our budget surplus? Hmmm....

President Bush and ALL Republican congresses are the worst stewards of tax dollars I've ever seen. This is intentional. Someone who can become a multi-millionaire by driving two separate companies into the ground understands that you can't spend more than you make. They are starving the government - the old Reagan strategy of 'starving the beast.' They chalk up massive deficits knowing that a future democrat will be forced to take responsibility by either raising taxes or cutting spending.

Being a good steward of tax dollars means not asking for a blank check for an unpopular war. It means not robbing from the poor to give to the rich. It means not running us into the biggest debt and deficits in the history of the nation. This is not a liberal or conservative issue, it is basic common sense and decency.

Senator Kurita is committed to working toward a balanced budget and reduced deficit, to making sure our tax dollars are stewarded with integrity.

Last night the President waxed poetic and stepped all over his own toes. It's becoming increasing clear to me that the people who are actually running the show, the puppeteers, will not be satisfied until we are all selfish and isolated. I hope to God the drunkards in control don't get us into a position from which we cannnot save ourselves. And I hope in 2008 we'll put up a sober candidate.

For now, your choice is easy - vote for Rosalind Kurita.

Coretta

2006-01-31T10:28:00.000-05:00

Coretta Scott King has passed away. She endured so much to change the hearts, minds, and laws of America; she was crucial to the civil rights movement. As a progressive I am deeply grateful for the life that she gave us all. I thought one of Al Sharpton's comments was beautiful: "The only thing worse than losing her is if we never had her."

Thank you, Coretta, for all you gave to us. May God grant you peace.

FEMA Mistake Repeat?

2006-01-27T08:50:00.000-05:00

I suppose we're all familiar with the consequences of President Bush's choosing an attorney with little experience with emergency response to head FEMA? Now it looks like the President will fill one of two Fed Open Market Committee positions, the committee that sets monetary policy, chaired by new Chairman Bernanke, with yet another attorney friend.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Kevin M. Warsh, the President's advisor for financial industry legal issues looks like he'll get the nod. His previous experience in the area is as an investment banker. This indicates he has knowledge of capital market relationships. However, the fed Open Market Committee is fundamentally a macroeconomic policy-setting body. This is the group most responsible in our Keynesian system for driving the economy as a whole. From what I can tell, Mr. Warsh is a highly qualified person - but not for this job.

Update

2006-01-23T10:12:00.000-05:00

It's been a while since I've posted because I am waiting to connect with the Senator for a discussion. I'd like to start a new format for the blog by starting with that interview. Just to check in, though, let me call two things to your attention.

1. A new survey revealed that only 40% of respondents have heard of Rosalind Kurita. Name recognition was also low for Ed Bryant, and was only slightly better for Bob Corker. Ford and Hilleary are very recognizable names.

Ford's campaign basically said that this indicates hios popularity. Aside from the usual commentary about how name recognition does not translate into popularity (we ALL know who John Ford is, I'd wager), I thought Kurita's campaign manager (Anastasia Apa) had a higher-quality response. She concede flat out that Kurita has an uphill battle and then added that they are confident she will connect with voters and close the gap. This is my thinking exactly.

2. Rosalind is hard at work making sure Tennessee gets the legislative ethics reform they deserve. This is making it difficult for me to find a time to meet up with her, but I'm deeply grateful for her commitment to serving us all.

Q&A

2006-01-09T09:06:00.000-05:00

Very soon I am going to try and catch up with Senator Kurita for a chat. Please submit any questions you would like her to answer!

The Kurita Blog Gets a Boost!

2006-01-06T13:30:00.000-05:00

After a couple weeks of not having much to post, I've contacted the Kurita campaign and asked that they, like all the other campaigns are diong with their bloggers, start aprising me of what she is doing and saying. Rosalind is constantly speaking and meeting folks IN TENNESSEE, and I'd like to share some of her appearances and thoughts on this blog.

Great changes are in the works!

I was pleased to learn from the campaign that there is an upcoming debate in February between Senator Kurita and Congressman Ford. Hopefully I will be able to provide juicy details. I can't wait!

Merry Christmas!

2005-12-23T16:44:00.000-05:00

Whatever holiday you celebrate, all of the traditions have organized their celebration around the Solstice. As the world grows darker and darker, we spend our time anticipating this season. Then, just as darkness envelopes the most of our world, the light shine and darkness again begins to recede. There's no greater metaphor for the holiday season. May yours be filled with light, love, and the wonderful world around you!

Demystifying 'Racism'

2005-12-22T10:55:00.000-05:00

In the comments for my last post, a couple claims were made that Rosalind Kurita is a racist. I'd like to first share an anecdote that I believe invaluable on this issue and then to present a complex question on which I'd like to read all of your thoughts.

Is Rosalind racist?

The one political conversation I've held with Rosalind was about school vouchers. We both like the intention of that movement and we explored the Swedish model together, which ensures equality while ensuring choice. Rosalind voiced two objections to it, one of which had not occured to me.

First, she spoke my objection: schools in the poorest neighborhoods would be closed, leaving the poor, a majority of whom are often a racial minority, with more of a burden than we started with. (Note that No Child Left Behind actually leaves behind schools in the poorest neighborhoods).

But then she talked about transportation. No proposal yet has come up with a way to ensure equality of opportunity and diversity. She went on at length about how the driving force behind America is the public school system because it brings different races, creeds, and economic classes together. She said that the future of America depends on keeping that diverse experience intact.

This was a casual conversation; there were no media representatives and I was already an admited supporter. This was long before I even thought about blogging.

Rosalind believes that ethnic and racial diversity are key lynchpins in the idea, strength, and spirit of America. In my opinion, it's quite hard to sustain a charge of racism against someone with that core belief.

What has 'Racism' come to mean?

I get confused in the conversations the Left has amongst itself. Anymore, we look and act like a loose-knit collection of liberal interest groups. Conservatives do not get hung up on these kinds of heated divisions, I hate to see us divided this way. I'd like to explore the issue of what our view of race and racial relations ought to be.

First, I'd like to dispel the myth that a member of a racial minority cannot be a racist. Coming into the 2006 senate race, I feared that a racism charge would appear for the simple reason that Harold Ford, Junior is the only black candidate. Somehow, for we empathetic folks that seems to create a basis for the charge before any other candidate says a word. But Rosalind is of mixed ethnicity (I believe her mother was Asian, if I am not mistaken). Does this suddenly change everything? I can'ty see why it would. So, from the outset, I'd like to do away with the naive and baseless idea that the subject's being a race other than white eliminates the questions of racism.

In that light.... Since this charge was leveled by admitted Harold Ford supporters and obviously they do not consider him to be racist, I'd like to explore the nature of that evaluation:

- Harold Ford, Junior is a member of the Black Caucus. To my best recollection, the Black Caucus determines membership elligibility based on a subjective evaluation of the melanin in the applicant's skin.

- Harold went to Michigan using affirmative action, after growing up with a massive economic and social advantage over most of the American population. When that program was challenged in court, Harold stuck by it on principle. He thus held that the appearance of melanin in the skin and/or the existence of distant African origin should result in favoritism over others with different melanin content and heritage.

Now, let's offer a definition:

rac·ism n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

I'd like to see what everyone thinks. What is 'racist'?

Is the very existence of the Black Caucus racist? Our instinct is to say 'no' because we hold in common the values of fairness and responsibility. But give it serious thought. Is it justified by the idea that the Congress is essentially the White Caucus? If so, should we accept as legitmate a Left-handed Caucus and a Caucus for people who don't like Chinese food? What about a Cat-Owner's Caucus? How about a Caucus for Reps from the states furthest from DC? Where are the boundaries? Do we move the goalposts whenever it suits our present needs?

What about affirmative action? Should we accept that race and not economic status is the best criterion for specialized treatment? Shoudl we apply the same idea to social programs and deny poor white people food stamps because they are 'advantaged' but allow wealthy minorities to get food stamps because they are 'disadvantaged'? Does the criteria make sense? If not, how does it differ from the way we currently use affirmative action?

Do we identify by our race first? Ignoring the sexual attraction aspect, in a room full of diverse people, who do we gravitate toward? People with the same religion? People with the same race? People with the same political affiliation? People with the same values? People who appear to belong to a certain economic class? People who like our favorite brand of soft drink or beer? What is your most basic identity? What does this say about the divisions among special interest groups on the Left?

I do not claim to have the answers in the least. I think it follows from our valuing diversity that a spectrum of differing opinions is a good thing. But I'd like to remove the taboo from this topic and ask what we think and feel when we actually hold these things out for examination. What are your heart and head telling you?

2005-12-16T08:58:00.000-05:00

The Real Christmas Scandal
by Jim Wallis

There is a Christmas scandal this year, but it's not the controversy at shopping malls and retail stores about whether their displays say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays." The real Christmas scandal is the budget proposed by the House of Representatives that cuts food stamps, health care, child support, and educational assistance to low-income families - while further lowering taxes for the wealthiest Americans and increasing the deficit for all of our grandchildren.

That was the message we brought to the steps of the House office buildings yesterday. The day was cold but the message was clear, as hundreds of religious leaders and faith-based organizers who daily serve the poor joined for what became a revival and prayer meeting in the United States capital.

This was the culmination of a yearlong effort by people of faith to teach our nation's political leaders that "a budget is a moral document." I was proud to be one of the 115 pastors and leaders out of that group who were arrested for kneeling in prayer. In the final stages of the budget process this week, after praying and making our best arguments from afar, we decided to take our prayers and presence to the steps of the Cannon House Office Building.

After some powerful preaching on the steps and a press conference that was more like a revival, we continued our praying and singing in front of the entrance, symbolizing the denial of access to Congress for low-income people. "Come walk with us!" we said as we invited members of Congress into our neighborhoods to meet the people who will be most impacted by their votes on a budget that virtually assaults low-income families. We sounded like a choir (and a good one at that) as we sang Christmas carols while being arrested, handcuffed, put into buses, and taken to a large holding cell roughly a mile away.

We all noted how full of faith the day was for those involved. Many of those who took part in the prayerful and nonviolent civil disobedience were from groups such as the Christian Community Development Association, whose member organizations around the country live and work alongside poor people every day. Their founder, John Perkins - who at 75 was one of the oldest people arrested - inspired us all as he has for 40 years of faithful ministry among the poor.

The text we kept repeating at the Capitol Christmas vigil was from the book of Luke - the best words ever about the true meaning of the coming of the Christ child. Mary, the mother of Jesus, herself a poor woman from an oppressed race and an occupied country, prophesied in her powerful prayer of thanksgiving - the Magnificat - about the Messiah whom she carried in her womb.

"My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant. Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for the Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name. His mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts. He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty."

Though today on Capitol Hill Mary would be accused of class warfare for uttering such words, they still bear the true meaning of Christmas. And the budget and tax cuts being proposed by House leaders directly reverse the priorities of Mary. For instead of filling the hungry with good things and sending the rich away empty, this budget would fill the rich with good things and send the hungry away empty!

So yesterday, on the House office steps, we tried to put Christ back into Christmas. Thursday morning, The Chicago Tribune led with the headline "Christmas Scandal Outcry!" and the story of the faith-inspired action in Washington was in dozens of newspapers around the country.

Yesterday the faith community across the country stood up and spoke up. Our vigil in Washington was followed by more than 70 vigils in more than 30 states. We prayed for a change of heart in our Washington leaders, we prayed for the poor families we serve, and we prayed that those elected to represent us act to protect the common good in ways consistent with the Christmas message of hope.

The bipartisan Senate budget bill, in contrast, protects low-income families, and yesterday senators passed resolutions vowing not to cut food stamps and Medicaid in the final budget negotiations with the House. They should be thanked and urged to stand firm.

So I have already received my Christmas present this year - the chance to participate in a faithful and powerful witness to the real meaning of the child who is born again to us this season. See the pictures and podcast of the event, and read the testimonies of others - and you will also receive the gift.

Merry Christmas.

The Blob II: This Time It's Fiscal

2005-12-13T08:27:00.000-05:00

The budget deficit is setting new records. Revenues are already supressed due to the mediocre economy and the misguided Bush supply-side tax cuts. Spending is up due to disaster response.

We could say, "Hey, everyone, this tragedy was unexpected, how about we all pitch in and give up tax cuts for this year so that we can help those suffering from the aftermath of these disasters?"

I would, and I suspect most of the Left would. I suspect most of the Right would, too, save the neo-cons. Instead, Bill Frist and others are fighting for tax cuts in order to have yet another excuse to cut social programs.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making those programs work when they don't. We have great room for improvement. But what ever happened to a sense of sacrifice? You know, 'crown thy good with brotherhood' and such?

Have you seen any campaign asking you to sacrifice for the war effort? Have we seen any Rosie Riveters? Any rationing? Any willingness to fund the war the tax-cutters were so anxious to get? Have we been willling to do without so that our troops can have what they need, and so that we do our parts?

Whether you agree with the War in Iraq or not, this seems to me a fundamental part of being an American. This new, self-centered approach to being American disturbs me. Rather than spending government money on propaganda for its own agenda, I'd rather enjoy seeing the administration spending it on propaganda for unity, self-sacrifice, and commitment to our higher values.

Are Capital Gains Give-Aways "Tax Cuts for the Wealthy?"

2005-12-08T14:21:00.000-05:00

From a new post at Blogging for Bryant:

Democrats opposing cuts in the capital gains tax portray it as a tax cut for the rich. Not so fast though. Currently, 47.9% of Americans are invested in the stock market. That's 91 million Americans who consider themselves part of the investor class. The capital gains reductions in President Bush's 2003 economic stimulus package are a big reason why the U.S. economy is booming - despite Hurricane Katrina - and the Dow is pushing 11,000!

Several points of order:

1. Since gains taxes are percentages, how much the investor has invested matters. I trust we all know that Bill Frist has millions in the stock market? He will receive a much fatter benefit than Joe Average. In other words, it is a perfectly regressive tax. The more money you have above and beyond your current living expenses, the bigger your benefit. If you have no extra money, if you aren't making ends meet, you get nothing at all. Under any sense of the term, a capital gains rollback is a tax cut for the wealthy.

2. The market involvement of individuals is regularly cast as part of some great advance in an 'ownership society.' In the November-December issue of CFA magazine there is a dicussion among five Nobel Prize in Economics winners, moderated by Peter Bernsetin, in which they discuss some current issues in capital markets. One of the main topics is that the stock market transfers wealth from individuals to institutions, which is to say, in-part, from those with less resources to those with more. In other words, the market itself is a mechanism that is currently increasing the gap between the middle class and the wealthy.

3. The assertion that the 2003 tax cuts are somehow driving the economy as we speak is quite flawed. One reason is that fiscal policy, unlike the Fed's monetary policy, has an immediate impact; there are no delayed effects in tax cut stimulus attempts. Another is that rates have continued to be low - access to capital is still high and inflation is already in check.

However, there are two large problems to watch with making a claim that the economy is booming. First, classical unemployment is only slightly higher than the average (at 5.5% from the average of 4.5%) but if we include 'discouraged workers' - those who want a job but have given up hope of ever finding one - unemployment is at 9%, much higher than that measure has been in a long time. Second, health care costs are continuing to rise astronomically and will continue to eat profits, lead to layoffs, and raise prices.

4. There is a massive denial going on here about what role social programs play in propping up our version of capitalism. Society-wide benefits for the working class (data says there is one, you can shun Marxism without giving up the goose) are essential to preserve economic expansion. This is why Wal-Mart actively seeks to have all its employees on Medicaid.

So the suggestion from Cato Institute, Ed Bryant, Bill Frist, et al. is that we eliminate these foundational benefits in order to fund even bigger capital gains taxes. We already tried that and it failed, you might of heard of it - The Great Depression.

The New Deal was the response to Hoover's well-intentioned but naive approach. Yes, it would be nice if all people were philanthropic and took care of their fellow humans, etc. Then we could accept libertarianism and all stop haggling over politics. But all the rugged individualists keep that from happening, and these people are one and the same with the ones who want libertarianism. They want to stop having to help other people because they got theirs and no one else is their responsibility. "My preciousssssss...."

If you want a market crash, by all means continue down this path. Our system is far more resilient nowadays, but their has been no development to change the fundamental principles of politics and capital flows. On the other hand, we can stop staking out corners and talk about non-governmental systemic solutions.

That is one of the big reasons I am for Rosalind. The other day I was speaking with someone who said she was on the fence. When I asked her about her objections to Rosalind, she said, "She's always so unconventional. It's like, whatever the argument is she's trying to find some third perspective." What can I say? She's guilty as charged. She has stated policies on Medicaid and the budget and economy, but I suport her not so much for those but because I am confident she will not be locked into opposing whatever the other guy says (which I am surely guilty of often enough). I believe she will conscienciously look for a way to try and get as many citizens' needs met as possible. That's all we can ask.

Quite a Contrast

2005-12-08T08:56:00.000-05:00

In the current Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill (HR 3010), even a positive resolution in the House will mean that Republicans succeed in keeping the Low Income Heating Assistance Program (LIHEAP) vastly underfunded. Specifically, Tennessee's needs are twice what it currently receives - we have a deficit in our LIHEAP funding needs of about $30 million, primarily due to record energy prices. Tennessee's Republican congressmen are unanimously in favor of this effort, our Democrats are aligned against it.

When these people get sick from the cold, said Republican Congressman are also, as I type, working to cut their access to health care so that they are less able to receive medical assistance.

It is wrong to cause someone to suffer and possibly die from exposure simply because they are poor. It is right to help alleviate whatever suffering of others comes from external sources.

With the money saved from overestimating TennCare appeals needs, Governor Bredeson has allocated $5 million of funding into Tennessee's LIHEAP funding, money that will help many families and elderly people who would not otherwise be able to heat their homes this year. Whatever your opinion on Bredeson, this move will alleviate the suffering of others and save lives. I for one am very grateful for this action on the Governor's part.

Let's Play Roy Blunt's Role Playing Game

2005-12-07T08:38:00.000-05:00

Roy Blunt told the press that Congress wouldn't act on improving the corporate Pension system this year because Democrats don't want to be a part of that solution.

Recall that Democrats are the ones who seek to ensure retirees have a guaranteed benefit under Social Security. Democrats are the ones who want all employees to have access to health care. Democrats want everyone to earna fair wage. Democrats do not want to allow discrimination based on any job-unrelated factor. Democrats are the ones who have tried to regulate businesses to keep corporate scandals from happening.

Recall that Republicans are the ones who view regulations to protect employees and citizens as 'burdens.' Republicans are the ones who oppose a living wage. Republicans are the ones who oppose health care for all employees. Republicans are the ones who want business owners to have the right to discriminate. Republicans not only turned a blind eye to corporate pension abuse but have actively passed legislation designed to encourage companies in sectors such as mining, oil E&P, and financial services to screw the citizens for a buck.

Now Roy Blunt tells us that Democrats are the ones who don't want to protect retirees from the risk of their employer reneging on a defined benefit plan?

Ooh, ooh, a new game just in time for Christmas. I want to play! Let's see....

"Republicans have been dragging their feet on investigating pre-war intelligence because they don't want our nation to have a strong defense against threats."

Hey this is fun!

"Republicans don't like the Democratic offers for cuts to spending that preserve Medicaid and student loan programs because they don't want to reduce taxes."

Wow, so I can just lie and pretend it's true and the press will print it uncritically with no reference whatever to reality, history, or even a basic frame of reference? Sweet!!!!

Liberal media my ass.

The Democrats have already expressed their concerns. For example, the Orwellian 'Pension Protection Act' by Rep. Boehner (HR 2830) would reduce the time companies have to fund a pension from 30 years to 7 years and increase the benefit obligation by as much as 3.5%. There is no economic study to predict the economic impact of such a huge change.

Rather than continue to offer pensions in this environment, it is far more likely employers would just stop offering a defined benefit plan (pension) and move to a defined contribution plan (deferred comp). Far fewer employees would get a guaranteed retirement and the risk is all transferred to the employee from the employer. If your investments go belly up or if you can't afford to save enough, too bad so sad.

And that was the Republican goal from the beginning. The Contract on America Mafia wanted to try and eliminate defined benefit plans and move to defined contribution because it reduces corporate costs and increases employee's control over their retirement. Their philosophy: If you are too undisciplined to save enough or if you make bad investment decisions then you deserve to starve.

Clearly they are taking a sheet out of Hoover's playbook. Here's a hint folks: IT DOESN"T WORK. Haven't they seen "It's a Wonderful Life?"

Democrats are squarely on the side of the employees, as usual. The media doesn't bother to explain the Democrat's rationale and let's Blunt's LIE go unexamined. Just the way the GOP want it. Once they convince us it's in our interests and the Dems are in the way, they get us lining up at the voting booth to go in and rob ourselves.

For shame.

The Hammer Gets Hammered

2005-12-06T08:40:00.000-05:00

When a judge dismissed the conspiracy charges against him, Tom DeLay's spokesman said that just underscored how baseless and politically motivated the charges were. I wonder what that says about the judge's uphodling the far more serious charge of money laundering?

Taking Care Not to Lose Our Souls

2005-12-02T09:36:00.000-05:00

There's a Nietzsche quotation from Beyond Good and Evil that has been on my mind lately, and I paraphrase one translation I've seen:

"When you fight with monsters, see that you do not become a monster yourself. For when you stare long enough into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you."

There are three thoughts I have about this.

1. On the corruption of the current Republican machine. Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, that California Rep (whatever his name is) - all corrupt and all trying to get away with it under our noses.

Democrats have shown some corruption through the years as well, but nothing nearly this intense. I think the psychological effect of otherizing your shadow side and projecting it onto your enemies has the effect of alleviating the burden of doing what is right. The end starts to easily justify the means.

I believe Senator Frist really believes the way he voted on health care issues, that judges deserve an up or down vote, and so on. That didn't stop him from knowingly having a financially significant stake in health care policy decisions or from stopping two of Clinton's judicial nominees from receiving a vote. He believed himself so righteous in his goals that he cared not how he achieved them.

2. On Democrats during this Senate race. I'm amazed how many Dems I've come across who do not seem to care that Harold Ford, Junior has staked out Republican positions on the most crucial issues and consider what Rosalind values and believes to be irrelevant because she has further to go with name recognition and funding.

Getting power is not an end in itself, it is a means. If you have to sell out to get those means, what good are noble ends?

3. On torture and ridicule of our enemies. I was behind a truck the other day that had a bumper sticker that said, "Aim high boys, them bastards are riding camels." I've seen a lot of serious justification lately of torture and such. And I'm sure we've all heard from people who suggest we raize the entire Middle East - "kill e'm all and let God sort 'em out."

Most of the people who say these things to me, and I suspect the driver of the pickup I saw the bumper sticker on, claim to be devotees of Jesus Christ. I believe morality is consistent regardless of your religion (we all basically agree on right and wrong), but for a Western nation that has roots in Christianity, this behavior is quite disturbing and indicative of a psychological break.

But that break appears every time we are at war - we project all evil onto our enemy. We're the good guys and they're the bad guys. Notice, I am still holding that we are in the right and our current enemies are in the wrong. But treating them as evil and less than human and ourselves as angellic and more than human, even as God's chosen nation, is counterproductive, scary, and asinine.

George Orwell used to write a column for a newspaper, I think it was called something like "As I See It." During World War II, he wrote one about a picture he had seen in the paper. Two Nazi prisoners had been stripped to their underwear and marched through the streets of London for the people to taunt them and throw things at them.

London was bombed during World War II, the pain and anger that would lead to this kind of action is certainly understandable. But this is not justice, compassion, or even basic retributive punishment. It is revenge. It is the Two Minutes Hate, where We The People set up our caricature of the evil enemy who has no family, no home, no hopes, no fears, no children, no love, no potential and we hate. We let hate consume us, we seeth it, we let it run out into our hands and mouths and take its toll on our target.

This process and all the states it produces are strictly forbidden to Christians by their scriptures. I would argue that ALL morality, which always involves the subjugation of Self and treating your enighbor as yourself, dictates that this is wrong. If we let ourselves become evil because our ends are noble, what good is it to have noble ends? Haven't we become the thing we're claiming not to be?

When you fight with monsters, see to it that you do not become a monster yourself. For when you stare long enough into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you.

Behind Closed Doors

2005-11-28T01:06:00.000-05:00

The Tennessee Coalition for Open Government reported that the number of secret legislative meetings is vastly increased this year. The Leaf Chronicle says there were "45 suspected offenses reported in the first 10 months of this year, 39 in 2004 and 31 in 2003."

A very simple matter-of-fact: On July 6, 2005 Rosalind Kurita proposed ethics reform legislation that would completely ban all secret meetings. Underlying all the issues and values Rosalind holds dear is a deep and abiding respect for democracy and government by the people. You should control your congress. Above and beyond any debates about campaign finance, the holding of clandestine meetings is an affront to the control of the voters and taxpayers. Senator Kurita will restore that control for us.

The Great American Smokeout

2005-11-17T09:25:00.000-05:00

Today is the day of the year when the American Cancer Society and many other organizations and individuals try to raise awareness of the hazards of smoking, empower smokers who would like to quit, and help prevent non-smokers from becoming smokers.

Having lost my grandfather, a lifelong smoker, to lung cancer when he was 52 and I was 4, I am personally committed to helping families across the state increase theire health and life spans together. If you get a chance, take a look at CHART, the Campaign for a Healthy and Responsible Tennessee.

Last month it was discovered that years ago Philip Morris invented a nicotine inhaler that would have allowed smokers to meet their chemical addiction need without inhaling burnt tar and other carcinogens. They've kept it from the public for many years because they wanted more profit. It also came out last month that several firms have developed flavored cigarettes and more colorful packaging to try and appeal to younger smokers, so that they can ensure a growing customer base as they kill their current customers off.

If bristol Myers Squibb discovered a cure for AIDS but withheld it because it's more profitable to sell the drugs that treat the symptoms until AIDS patients die, we would be outraged. There is no moral distinction here, I refuse to equivocate for this unadulterated greed on the part of Big Tobacco.

Rosalind has fought for years to discourage and decrease smoking in Tennessee. One of her primary efforts during her tenure in the Senate has been to try and decrease our budget deficit with a cigarette sin tax that would also discourage smoking. Although Rosalind cares deeply for the plight of our small farmers, she has displayed great confidence that we can work to save farms and to save lives at the same time.

The current Senate is shot through with Big Tobacco money. We need more leaders working for We the People and fewer corporate cronies. Rosalind will give us just that!

To Our Veterans

2005-11-11T08:26:00.000-05:00

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am ever grateful for your service. Your willingness to risk your well-being and enlist has been one of the bedrocks of America. Thank you.

Senator Kurita announced long ago that veterans issues will be one of her three main concerns in the US Senate. She is particularly concerned that veterans get the health care they need. In October she gave an interview on the UTK campus and spoke of those who return from Iraq with life-altering injuries. She said, "I want to be sure we're focused on them and they are not forgotten."

During her time in the Tennessee Legislature, Rosalind introduced legislation to give tax breaks to active duty families, tuition assistance for National Gaurd members, and privacy protection for veterans. These are no small or procedural issues. Rosalind listens to her soldiers. She serves them because they serve us.

Although there are people fighting for veterans on both sides of the political spectrum, the Disabled American Veterans, among many others have made it quite clear that under Republican leadership the VA and disabled vet benefits have come under assault. Even while taking us to war and telling us they supported the troops, The Republicans passed massive cuts to veterans benefits that would total $24.7 billion over 10 years. It's time for a fundamental change in leadership.

But not just any change. If we want to take care of veterans, the only sure way to do that is to elect a true and explicit champion who makes veterans an uncompromising issue. Rosalind has a unique advantage on veterans issues. Serving the district of Fort Campbell, she was, is, and will be in close community with our servicemen and women. Rosalind will go to the mat for you, you can count on it.

We love you, we appreciate you, and we are working to honor you. Enjoy your day!

Sincerely,
Daniel

A Call to Action

2005-11-08T13:46:00.000-05:00

Today, Sojourners put out an article I'd like to give a boost:

The death of compassionate conservatism
by Jim Wallis

Last week, I spoke with other religious leaders at a press conference in the U.S. Capitol, urging the House of Representatives to oppose cuts in social services in their budget bill. When it was over, we walked to the rotunda to offer a prayer for our nation and its leaders, that they would do the right thing for people in poverty. Suddenly, we were face to face with Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and took the opportunity to deliver our message directly to him. He listened politely, but offered little response.

The House is scheduled to begin debate tomorrow on its budget bill, which includes $54 billion in cuts. On the table are cuts of $9.5 billion in Medicaid - by requiring co-pays for pregnant women and children for the first time; $8 billion in foster care, child support enforcement, and aid to the disabled; and $844 million in the Food Stamps Program, which would prevent 300,000 people from receiving food stamps. Forty thousand children would be cut from reduced-price school lunches. Lawmakers intend to follow these with a further cut of $70 billion in taxes that will primarily benefit the top 3% of taxpayers. The message from Congress is that in response to Hurricane Katrina, we're going to cut services for the poor, cut taxes for the rich, and increase deficits for our children and grandchildren.

These plans for deep cuts to social supports, paid for by tax cuts for the wealthiest, are contrary to the national priorities we need to protect our most vulnerable citizens. We need strong moral leadership in Congress, especially during this time of war, record deficits, rising poverty and hunger, and natural disasters. Cutting food stamps and health care that meet the basic needs of poor families is an outrage. Cutting social services to pay for further tax cuts for the rich is a moral travesty that violates biblical priorities. The House leadership seems to be saying they literally want to take food from the mouths of children to make rich people richer. If this ideology and politics of rich over poor prevails and our leaders fail to govern from a set of moral values, then the religious community must conclude that compassionate conservatism is dead.

As this battle for the budget unfolds, I am calling on members of Congress, some of whom make much out of their faith, to start Bible studies before they cast votes to cut services that will further harm the weakest in our nation. They should focus on the gospel imperative - what Jesus tells us about our obligations to the "least of these." Some of them have heard the slogan "What would Jesus do?" Now they should ask, "What would Jesus cut?" Budgets are moral documents, and they reflect our national priorities and values. In the name of social conscience, fiscal responsibility, equal opportunity, protecting our communities, and the very idea of a common good, the upcoming budget votes will be closely watched by people of faith.

I urge you to.... pick up your phone, and call your member of Congress. Tell him or her to show political will in standing up for the least of these, as Jesus reminds us.

Infant Vitality

2005-10-31T10:17:00.000-05:00

An article in today's Nashville City Paper reports that Nashville's infant mortality rate for black babies is extraordinarily high at 11.8 deaths per 1,000 live births, as compared to 6.0 deaths per 1,000 births for white babies. Also, Tennessee ranks near the bottom for infant mortality rates nationally. In 2003, Tennessee ranked 48th with 9.2 deaths per 1,000 livebirths. It is crucial we address this epidemic.

Senators Alexander and Dodd (D-CT) have introduced legislation to study infant mortality causes nationwide. I commend their efforts. However, studies have already been done on the issue. According to this article, Project Blossom determined conclusively that infant mortality in Nashville was due to poor health of the mother from lack of prenatal care.

This is a moral issue: A pregnant woman and her fetus should not be denied life-saving medical care simply because the mother is poor.

The GOP candidates are obsessed with outlawing abortion but when it comes to caring for babies who are born they can't get beyond the refrain 'taxes are evil.' At this very moment, the House and Senate are debating not whether to cut health services to the poor but by how much they will do so.

Rosalind has two key issues, the ones she most wants to act on when elected: energy and health care. On health care, she is resolved that we can find an acceptable way to get prenatal care to the women who need it. In that spirit, Rosalind sits on the Board of Directors of Nurses for Newborns. Ensuring that our health care delivery system works for all our people is her most important issue.

So, I'd like to request you consider taking two actions to help save these babies. The first is to write, call, or email your Representative and Senators Frist and Alexander to let them know you will not stand for cuts to medical services to the poor. The second is to vote for Rosalind Kurita. She will move us past the obsession to do more studies while giving tax cuts to the wealthy at the expense of our children's lives. She will employ creativity and reach out to Senators from the whole political spectrum to try and reach an agreement for concrete action on prenatal care, including reform of the Medicaid system. I'd be grateful for your taking action on this issue!

Fair Play

2005-10-28T15:07:00.000-05:00

If you read my frustrated post on the Tennessee Democratic Party below, please take the time to read Will Pinkston's courteous reply in the comments for that post.

The Cost of a 'Free' Market

2005-10-28T14:24:00.000-05:00

Free markets can make no more moral distinctions than can gravity. You can make $1 by protecting the community in which you live. You could also make $1 by slaughtering 2,000 people, as Shell did in Nigeria. A free market does not distinguish between the two - these are both profitable and equal actions in the eyes of Adam Smith's "invisible hand." I'm going to commit the ultimate heresy and say that one of these actions is morally superior and that our society should favor the better one over the other.

Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary continue to bemoan our regulations that are designed to make these distinctions as 'burdens' on 'free markets.' On their ethical compasses, the government should not worry about companies poisoning our only air supply but the government should be up in arms if two men want to get cozy together. This pick-and-choose approach to morality indicates a fractured view of the world.

One burdensome regulation America has adopted was the Davis-Bacon Act of 1935, which guarantess prevailing wages are paid for work on government contracts. This act is crucial in supporting America's higher standard of living. It is the reason that people willing to work much cheaper don't cause all our wages to decline (as would happen under a free market).

Republicans tried to repeal this regulation all through the Contract on America phase. Last year, Marilyn Musgrave led the fight against it. This year, Musgrave, along with Tom Freeney and Jeff Flake, convinced President Bush that Hurricane Katrina was the prime opportunity to finally do away with this horrible limitation on individual freedom. Bush temporarily repealed the burden of living wages for workers in the Gulf. he wanted to help the poor of the Gulf by having them rebuiled their region for slave wages. Yesterday, public outcry finally led Bush to reinstate prevailing wages.

Bryant and Hilleary must be outraged at the atrocious burden that has been laid on firms rebuilding the Gulf. Still exempt from environment protections, affirmative action, and a host of other 'burdens,' these firms now can't lowball peoples' wages. The nerve of America wanting to preserve its standard of living and treat people like people.

This conservative ideology doesn't get it. Outsourcing is the economically efficient result of a free market economy - when a factory exports jobs and crushes a community it doesn't matter, it was economically inefficient. Free trade is designed to do just that. Until this year, Harold Ford, Jr. has been a big advocate of free trade, voting for free markets every chance he's had. This year he finally realized he's been hurting his constituency.

In this most recent outcry, America affirmed yet again that people matter more than money. the Social Darwinist candidates, Bryant and Hilleary, would do well to heed these voices. As for Rosalind - she's the only candidate who's had it right all along.

Bias in the Tennessee Democratic Party

2005-10-28T10:24:00.000-05:00

The official state party seems to have completely forgotten how to stay neutral during a primary. The Commercial Appeal reported yesterday (10-27-05) that Democratic spokesman Will Pinkston told them Rosalind had lost in a straw poll to Ford in Montgomery County. What I find most interesting is what Will did not say.

Like, for example, he apparently failed to qualify the event itself. In previous years I've attended the event where the poll is taken, that is the Charles Hand Farm picnic, which is co-sponsored by the AFL-CIO for Labor Day. The AFL-CIO has already endorsed Ford, Jr. Most of the attendees at the picnic are hard core union members who typically vote with the union brass. Largely because the state party plays up the event, the majority of the attendees are also NOT from Montgomery County.

Also unmentioned was the fact that the 2003 picnic held the same straw poll and showed that Howard Dean would win by a landslide, followed by Dick Gephardt. A petition to draft Al Gore indicated he would have come in second. I attended that year and I happen to know that the buzz was that day that all the union endorsements would go to Dean. I also happen to remember that the voting also corresponded directly to the amount of advertising the campaigns did for the attendees on that specific day. Howard Dean had at least three times the presence and four times the advertising space that all the other candidates had.

The state party failed to mention these tidbits. Maybe it was simple incompetence or ignorance, an honest error.

Or maybe the party is worried someone may actually dare to challenge their pre-selected golden boy. Roger Abramson already reported an event this week where the state party sponsored a Ford event. Will's response then was that it was an honest mistake.

This is not a new phenomenon, I have long had serious reservations about our state party's ability to support its candidates fairly. For example, in the November 2, 2003 issue of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, then Tennessee Democratic Party chairman Randy Button singled out Howard Dean as the most likely primary victor because he won this same straw poll the previous month.

All the candidates need support. C'mon, Tennessee Dems - you're not fooling anyone. If you folks insist on deciding the primary, then go work for the Ford campaign. Otherwise, let the people of Tennessee decide.

* Please read Will Pinkston's very gracious response to this post in the comments below.*

Senator Kurita in Memphis

2005-10-27T15:55:00.000-05:00

An article by Jackson Baker in the October 26th Memphis Flyer recounts one of Rosalind's appearances in Memphis recently. The article is a great read, but let emphasize three examples of Rosalind's creativity:

(1) Senator Kurita suggested that we should look seriously at the idea of making Iraq into three separate countries. The arbitrariness of demanding that three separate cultures come together in one government is not a crucible for democracy because Iraq was arbitrarily created anyway.

(2) Rosalind also set the goal that we should seek to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels altogether. Some possible alternatives that she would like us to pursue included geothermal, solar, and biomass energies.

(3) In reference to Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary's near obsession with limiting gay rights and banning abortion as the only moral issues on the table, the Senator remarked, "Haven't they ever heard of education? Jobs? The Environment?"

It seems that many Tennesseans have been waiting for someone who will take a values-based but non-ideological look at the issues affecting us all. This is the first time I've ever been happy to have been one of them. Thank you, Senator.

Rosa Parks

2005-10-25T15:31:00.000-05:00

What a brave and fateful action Rosa Parks took on behalf of all people of color. In celebrating her life, I'd like to emphasize something she cared deeply about.

In 1988, Rosa said she was deeply concerned that America, and black America in particular, had become complacent. We take for granted that the progress of America will continue in the right direction without our guidance and initiative. Rather, Rosa said, the struggle for peace, equality, and justice requires the continuing contributions of all of us.

That is the strong legacy of a brave woman. Bless you, Rosa.

Like a Nurse

2005-10-24T09:54:00.000-05:00

"As you know and as God is our witness, we never came with words of flattery or with a pretext for greed; nor did we seek praise from mortals, whether from you or others, though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, like a nurse tenderly caring for her own children. So deeply do we care for you that we are determined to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you have become very dear to us." - St. Paul, 1 Thessalonians 2:1-8

Paul came to Thessalonica to spread his message, which was the love of God for humanity. In doing so, he acted with the same caring he professed. He became an instrument by which God shows love to humanity. When he did so, I find it fascinating that he chose to describe the way he came as, 'like a nurse, tenderly caring for her own children.' So, according to Paul, this is the kind of love God has in store for humanity - love like a nurse for her own children.

Why like a nurse?

Every year Gallup does an extensive poll to determine which American professions are viewed as the most ethical and honest, with the most integrity. Year after year, with but one or two variations, the occupation that people view as the most ethical and honesty is Nurse. Always near the bottom are Lawyer and Congressman.

A nurse is a professional care giver. The nurse has chosen to make 'loving others as self' into a job, day in and day out. On days when nurses feel down and not able to love others, their profession demands it of them nonetheless. When we feel this way and remember to pray, go to church, or just be nice to someone, we get a taste of this phenomenon - that simple action always helps us stay centered on caring for others. It's no exaggeration to say that nursing is a spiritual exercise.

It's such an intimate and giving act that our forebears chose to give it the name we give to nourishing our infants. For some this might conjure the image of Roshasharn in the Grapes of Wrath, for others it may conjure images of mother and child. Coming to us like a nurse has a profound implication, then, doesn't it?

I think Rosalind is a natural nurse. She acts with empathy and strength, resolve and understanding, as protector and as supporter. What's more, she takes the hopes and fears she's felt with her own family and chooses to act consistent with her humanity.

This makes for a free-thinking lawmaker. She is not a liberal, conservative, or anything else. She calls herself conservative and I call her progressive, but these are only convenient labels to try and convey a known set of values. The truth is that she is a nurse. Her premier guiding values are loving God and loving others as self. No allegience to an ideology, no party commitment, no political gamesmanship ever trumps this inborn gift. She comes to us like a nurse.

So when we decide who will go to DC from Tennessee next year, this is an important choice. Paul did not comes like a politician. He did not come like a lawyer. He did not even come like a pastor. He came like a nurse. If I can listen with my heart, with my bones, with my soul, this really opens up a great truth to me. Is it saying anything to you?

Van Hilleary's Half-Empty Glass

2005-10-19T09:56:00.000-05:00

Van Hilleary's website says, "We need a Senator who knows that when you increase taxes, you decrease freedom."

This perspective wraps up what so many of us feel: we don't want our hard-earned money to go to others who may not deserve it. But what it ends up revealing in the process is that Van Hilleary will always expect and achieve the worst as a government respresentative.

It is a true statement - when you increase taxes, you decrease freedom. But it stops short. This key question will illuminate the statement:

What type of freedom is decreased?

When you take an animal out of the wild and put it into a zoo, you have taken away its freedom. It no longer gets to have its own natural habitat or roam free. But it also never has to go hungry. It doesn't have to go without medical attention. It doesn't have to compete for territory. So the freedom lost, that of the free range, is replaced with freedom from disease, freedom from starvation, and freedom from violence.

When you get married, or accept any official relationship, you have lost freedom - the freedom from obligation to a specific other person. When you accept a job you have lost freedom - the freedom to give your energy to something else when you are working. But people still work and get married. Why? Because the benefits to doing so far outweigh the cost.

Likewise, when we must pay more taxes we lose the freedom to choose how that portion of our money will be used. But those dollars will go toward better education, better defense, and a stronger social community. So we also gain freedom from economic, security, and social ailments.

When Jesus admonishes us to love our neighbors as ourselves, he is suggesting the same commitment. In so doing, we lose the freedom of not caring, we take on the obligation of caring for others. If pure freedom were the goal, the Good Samaritan would have passed by the bleeding Jew.

"But wait, it's different because you choose to get married or take a job but not to increase taxes!"

Look at the example of family - as an infant you did not choose your family but you accept commitment to them nonetheless. Not all exchanges of freedom need be voluntary for the above comments to apply.

Also, we are a democracy - our representatives have chosen when We the People choose to contribute more to communal action. It does require the individual to give some commitment to the whole, but then democracy always requires that from each of us.

This makes Van a poor choice for Senate.

Imagine Van saying, "I'd like to commit to decreasing taxes but that would decrease my freedom!"

He would never say that. What he is indicating is which freedoms he finds most important: The freedom from commitment and interdependence is more important than freedom from suffering, threats, poverty, disease, etc. Philosophically, this means being self-centered is more important than making a contribution to others. He values himself over Tennessee or America, he values the individual over all others, and he values autonomy over loving others.

I would suggest that all the great wisdom traditions explicitly reject this viewpoint. Loving thy neighbor as Self is a guiding principle not just for an individual but for society as a whole. Sometimes giving up one type of freedom - freedom to betray the United States, for example - is a worthy action and obtains something of far greater value - freedom from internal threats, for example.

Van apparently doesn't understand this fundamental rule of humanity.

Embracing America

2005-10-17T09:19:00.000-05:00

The standard conservative principle on government, shared by all three GOP candidates, is expressed on Bob Corker’s website:

“By reducing the burden of taxation, litigation, and regulation, American entrepreneurs will be better able to create exciting new businesses and good-paying jobs.”

Despite its intuitive appeal, this statement is wrong. But for the sake of staying focused, I would like to simply focus on what this says about America. Notice that there is no mention of wasteful spending versus responsible spending. What is being said here is:

“Doing your civic duty by paying taxes is always a burden.”

This standard conservative viewpoint is immoral for three reasons:

1. Paying taxes is first and foremost an issue of Patriotism. We make our commitment to keep America strong by deciding what needs to be done collectively and funding those actions. When taxpayer money is wasted we take initiative to invest more responsibly, we do not simply stop investing altogether. To do so would be to show true contempt for the very idea of America. Those who think taxes are always bad shirk their civic duty to America in order to try to enhance their own bank accounts. For shame.

2. Paying taxes is secondly an issue of Good Stewardship. Those who came before us invested in America to make it as great as it is. Those who claim taxes are nothing but burdens ignore and disrespect the sacrifice of our forebears. America cannot continuously run on the fumes of our great grandparents’ commitments, it requires the investment of each generation to keep it going.

3. Paying taxes is thirdly an issue of Fairness. In America, we each make a commitment to something greater than ourselves. We make good on that commitment by contributing to actions of the group. Not doing our part in a family, community, or country is not a value I see in the best of America.

Taxes are investments, much like a mortgage. You may not want to pay them, but you get invaluable public goods and services in return. We have roads, a standing military, the existence of the internet, well-trained medical professionals, and many other great things thanks to making our investments.

Democratic government is We the People. It is the means by which this great melting pot of a nation takes action together. It doesn’t always work well and it never will as long as we are only human. But to claim it doesn’t work at all and should be starved to death is to say that humans are beyond redemption, that people cannot and will not love one another or act morally. It is also to say that democracy doesn’t work and is bad.

This fatalistic hatred for democracy and mistrust of other Americans has no place in our leadership. We need an optimist, someone who understands the difference between bad government and good government, someone who understands that humans have the capacity to act with intelligence and compassion. Someone who is willing to fight for our values whenever the government acts with ignorance or hatred.

Rosalind Kurita wants to make sure we invest wisely and keep taxes low not because taxes are bad but because government has a responsibility to be effective and not to require more of the people than is necessary. From her website:

I am a fiscal conservative. The trouble with politicians in Washington is that they have a borrow and spend mentality. They keep borrowing more and more money, spending our children and grandchildren into perpetual debt. This is bad for our economy, bad for business, and bad for the future of our country.

We need better management of the public’s resources, not more taxes. I have voted against both an income tax and increasing the sales tax. I believe government should be responsible with taxpayer dollars.

While we should keep taxes low for the middle class, we also need a tax policy that makes sense. We simply can’t afford huge corporate giveaways like those included in the Bush tax policy. Folks like Ken Lay at Enron shouldn’t be getting huge tax breaks while their employees suffer with lost retirement accounts. Also, Benedict Arnold corporations who move their office and employees overseas to avoid paying taxes should be held accountable.

I do not have a borrow and spend mentality. We need more U.S. Senators who will stand up and say “NO” to the borrow and spenders. I’ve voted for balanced budgets as a state Senator and I’ll push for balanced budgets as your next U.S. Senator because our children and grandchildren deserve a chance for the American dream.

The three Republicans tell us all about how bad and evil government is, and make no mistake about that – if elected they will consider it their duty to prove it. What I am asking of you is that you commit to America, that you take responsibility for your part, that you help us all keep this country great. That’s an essential part of being American.

Recall the battered traveler laying on the side of the road. The man was a Jew who had been soundly trashed by muggers. Several people passed, unwilling to help because it would require them to give of themselves. But the Samaritan stopped and helped. The Samaritan, the ancient ethnic enemy of the Jews, gave of himself to help a Jewish stranger in need. The Golden Rule requires this of us all, Christian or not. The way of the universe is that we are interdependent with one another. That principle applies even at the national level and beyond.

In this race, a vote for Rosalind is a vote for America, a vote for your neighbor, a vote for yourself. You can push the button next year and be connected at once to the highest values of your respective god, of our Universe, and of America. Those who are pessimistic and who hate other people would have you be selfish and shirk your ‘burden.’ Don’t do it. When the time comes, I implore you to vote for America. Vote for Rosalind.

Kurita, for the Glory of Tennessee

2005-10-14T12:46:00.000-05:00

At this moment, America has accomplished so much. Without question we remain the greatest nation in the world. Yet there is so much yet left undone. There is still so much that needs undoing. Tennessee grows weary of being a great state despite our politicians. We long for someone who truly represents our people.

Hear ye, hear ye: Now, in the year of our Lord 2005 and in the progressive tradition of the great Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver, comes state senator and 2006 US Senate candidate Rosalind Kurita!

Rosalind represents the best of American values. She acts with responsibility, strength, and compassion. Kurita believes that humans are born equal, of whatever race or gender, and that all these people have natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. She firmly believes that the government should always be a help and not a hindrance. In the US Senate she will make sure that the government protects us from threats to our security, that economic opportunity is available to all Americans, that we protect our habitat, that we achieve energy security, that we don’t act fiscally irresponsibly, and that we take a common sense approach to using our government effectively.

Rosalind is one of us. She is a real person with real life experiences who wants to work for other real people. She is a mother, a wife, a daughter, and a nurse. She has worked for a living, she has fought for her kids’ educations, she has worried for their safety, she is concerned about her father’s retirement, she has cared for the sick and the dying, she has spent countless hours with our men and women in uniform. She knows what it means to be a real Tennessean.

This Blog provides a spot to report, promote, and discuss Rosalind’s candidacy. It is in no way affiliated with the Kurita campaign. As such, the opinions expressed here are entirely my own and should not be construed as the official positions or opinions of Rosalind Kurita. I’m simply a committed supporter who wishes to create a rallying point for her other supporters, as well as a public forum for those who support other candidates or no candidate at all.

Our wealthy politicians tell us things are getting better all the time while our farmers, soldiers, students, elderly, children, parents, teachers, and essential workers have a harder and harder go of attaining the American Dream. We’re tired of corporations writing our regulations. We’re tired of the poor getting left out of our great economic opportunities. We’re tired of putting our debts off onto our children. We’re tired of politicians who will say or do anything to get a vote. We wait for a politician who will support us as we support them.

Now is the time for Tennessee to claim its former glory as the progressive, free-thinking southern state. We are not a red state or a blue state. We are a state of intelligent, compassionate, and hard-working families who want to see our tax dollars and public interest stewarded with integrity. It has been many years since our Senators have truly provided common sense leadership for the nation. Rosalind Kurita will restore the traditional and legendarily progressive leadership of the Tennessee delegation to the United States Senate.

With that, the doors are opened wide, red carpet rolled out. Rosalind’s campaign is a feast to which you are all invited. Welcome!