|
Faith & the Democratic party
By Michael Carr Should the democratic candidates speak about their faith? Republicans regularly do so, sometimes to the point of exploitation. For democrats, the record is mixed. Previous candidates such as Howard Dean politely declined to talk about their religious beliefs. In 2004, John Kerry tried to do a balancing act by speaking about his faith just enough to appease both religious voters and secularists. Unfortunately, George W. Bush's eagerness to discuss his own religious values drowned out Kerry's more constrained discussion.
What's clear is that voters who attended church at least once a week voted for George W. Bush by a much larger margin than John Kerry. What's interesting though is that the policy stances of churchgoers mirrored John Kerry's more than Bush's. So why did they vote for Bush instead of Kerry? Because they wanted the candidate's beliefs to be sincere and heartfelt and relating policy stances to faith did just that.
Making the link between candidates faith and policy positions should be less challenging for Democrats than Republicans. Protecting the environment, looking after the less fortunate, practicing tolerance and fairness are all common religious values. Legislation which sets tougher environmental standards, puts more money into Medicaid & Medicare, provides equal protection to gays, and gives everyone access to the court system is the political version of those religious values. They are also the common values of the Democratic party.
The point being is that the Democratic party leaves a lot of votes to be had by being mum about religion and faith. Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Martin Luther King were arguably the three most successful progressives in the last half of the 20th century. They also spoke of their own faith more than any other progressives of their time. True, as the bible eloquently states, faith without works is dead. But faith that goes unsaid will likely see its works go undone.
Cuts Grow Deeper
From the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities The Center has conducted further analysis of Administration budget materials, including an OMB computer run that was released inadvertently and that contains proposed funding levels by discretionary program for each of the next five years. The Center's new analysis examines how the budget would affect a range of specific domestic programs, including programs the President previously has described as high priority. The new report also includes a state-by-state analysis of the impact of proposed budget reductions in specific programs. Programs that the new analysis covers include, among others: The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
Head Start and the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Food safety inspection
Special education and related services to children with disabilities, and several other education programs
Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program
Low-income homes energy assistance
EPA grants to states
PROGRAM CUTS IN THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET:
Cuts Grow Deeper Over Time and Will Hit States Hard
by Stacy Dean, James Horney, Sharon Parrott, and Arloc Sherman
http://www.cbpp.org/2-23-06bud.htm (summary)
http://www.cbpp.org/2-23-06bud.pdf 36pp. (full report with program cuts by state)
Protests are good, alternatives are better
By Michael Carr If politics were like a boxing match, President Bush would be on the ropes. Katrina, Iraq, and other embarrassing mistakes have seemed to cement President Bush's low approval ratings. Indeed, ever since last August when gas prices started to rise, President Bush's approval rating has consistently hovered at 40%. President Bush's congressional allies aren't doing any better. In fact, they are doing worse with only 25% of Americans approving of their job. Indeed, the corruption and runaway spending that this congress has been responsible for seems to resemble the way things were for the Democrats in 1993, just prior to the Republican takeover. But those who assume Democrats will reap the same fortunes that the Republicans did in 1993 may be in for a disappointment. What the Republicans had then was a "Contract with America". This contract was a unified set of ideas that showed the nation a clear alternative. The Democrats now need their own version in addition to pointing out the failures of that "contract". Simply put, the Democrats cannot win by criticizing the Republican's ideas without offering any of their own. Unfortunately, many Democrats live under the false notion that one day the nation will just "wake up" and realize how bad the Republicans are and vote them out of office. What many fail to realize is that nation has woken up and have indicated that they strongly disapprove of the path that the Republican party has led them down. But if no new path is given for people to follow then what are they suppose to do? The Democratic party must now offer a new set of bold ideas. In other words, the Democratic party must move beyond explaining what they are against and begin to explain what they are for. Without describing what the Democratic party stands for and why they would be a better alternative, their role as a vocal minority party will continue. Fortunately for the Democrats, the public trusts them to handle more issues than they do Republicans. In addition, most voters seem to side with Democrats in the generic sense. For example, most people wish to see a minimum-wage increase and believe that the tax-cuts should be rolled back in order to reduce the deficit. On many other issues such as the environment and healthcare, people's desires generally match the Democratic platform. At the least, this should serve as hope that with a new communication strategy, structural reworking and party discipline, the Democratic party could win big in 2006. It is up to Democrats to answer the bell and deliver the knockout blow.
Daddy Said I Could
Scooter Libby, testifying in his case involving the leaking of classified information, has point the finger upward. The LA Times version
DID YOU HEAR THAT? WHAT DOES IT REALLY MEAN?
RHETORIC: President Bush commented in his State of the Union address on Tuesday that America need to address its addiction to oil consumption and then proposed that the government spend 22 percent more on renewable energy. REALITY: While President Bush and the Congress supports the development of other forms of renewable energy like, ethanol and wind power. The federal goals may compete for research dollars and are costing some government researchers their jobs. The federal funding for the Energy Department is limited and when Congress earmarks pet projects, it reduces spending on similar projects at the Energy Departments’ laboratories. A recent New York Times article[1] noted that The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget. The budget for the laboratory, near Denver, Colorado, was cut by nearly 15 percent. The bottom line is that, federal employees at the department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, in Golden, Colo., and at contractors that the lab supports are losing their jobs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] "In Energy work, One Hand Giveth and the Other Taketh" by Matthew L. Wald, New York Times, 2-3-06.
Interesting Article on Religion In Politics
The Washington Post ran and article today profiling the views of former Senator and Ambassador John Danforth. In "'St. Jack' and the Bullies In The Pulpit", Danforth shares why he feels that the Republican party has gone too far with inserting religion into politics. "I'm counting on nausea," is how Danforth describes his belief that people will sour to Republican branded Christianity. Read more HERE.
ADA President Jim McDermott's Response To SOTU
The President Wanted a Vote of Confidence, He Didn't Get It January 31, 2006 Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) released the following statement reacting to President Bush's 2006 State of the Union speech.
If you hadn't lived in America over the last year, you might be taken in by the President's rhetoric. Instead of a speech, the President wanted a vote of confidence. He didn't get it.
This was the sixth time the President laid out his vision for the nation. It was the clearest indication yet that he does not see what his policies have done in America and in other parts of the world.
The President's rhetoric on Iraq is worn out and without foundation. The President's plan for Iraq has a cover page but no content. It's not working, but he persists in demanding support for his no-plan alternative, and stands by while those who ask questions are attacked in response.
With U.S. forces stretched to the brink, the President unveils a new threat to Iran. Bravado, not diplomacy, appears to be the President's new strategy for winning over the Iranian people and changing the direction of the Iranian government. It's not a winning strategy, but it is a troubling course.
Domestically, the President ignored the Middle Class and short changed the economic well being of the American people. He proposes to give more to the rich, while cutting health care for people in the middle. He is cutting America's hopes, aspirations and safety net to reward America's wealthiest. Tonight, millions of Americans are without health care, but the President disarms this national crisis. Millions of American children live in poverty, but the President overlooks their plight. And, millions of Americans fear they may never retire in dignity, yet the President ignores the threat, and does nothing to allay the real fear of Middle America.
The President reduced civil liberties- the foundation of America- to a chip he can play at will, on his own without any check and balance. The President calls it part of his strategy in the war on terror. Big Brother is a more accurate description.
The President's energy initiatives are not new and on their own will keep America addicted to oil. While prices keep rising and supplies keep falling, the President just keeps talking.
America's needs are readily apparent, but tonight the President failed to connect the dots.
(This was a statement put out by Representative McDermott's Congressional office)
Two Courts Find Abortion Ban Unconstitutional
Rulings in California and New York courts on Tuesday found laws banning late-term abortion unconstitutional. Read an article on the subject at the Washington Post.
|
|
