In an August 17, 2007 column appearing on MSNBC.com, Eleanor Clift of Newsweek noted that Nancy Keenan, president of NARAl Pro-Choice America, has argued that asking Presidential candidates their views of abortion or Roe v. Wade is less useful than asking a series of questions about family planning. Clift notes that not only are all the Republican candidates rhetorically "pro-life," but, more ominously, "the culture war goes on with some large corporations, such as Wal-Mart and Kroger, slow to stock the morning-after pill, and numerous reports of pharmacists refusing to offer it, especially in hard-to-access rural areas."

Keenan suggests more revealing questions: 1)Do you think it's acceptable for a pharmacy to refuse to fill a woman's prescription for birth control pills based on the personal views of the pharmacist? 2)Should hospital emergency rooms be allowed to withhold information from a rape victim about the morning-after pill, which can prevent a preganancy if it's taken soon enough after the assault? 3)Do you support age-appropriate sex education?

Even if these appropriate questions are not asked, Democrats should be careful about handling this last issue. When in July, Barack Obama stated "But it's the right thing to do, to provide age-appropriate, science-based, sex education in the schools," Mitt Romney accused the Illinois Senator of advocating teaching sex education to kindergarten students. (As ABC News reported here, Obama supported a failed measure in the Illinois state Senate in which kindergarten students would have been given rudimentary sex education, with an opt-out provision.) No matter that Governor Romney had not questioned Massachusetts' age-appropriate sex education curriculum, which included kindergarten students. (No word yet on whether Romney has changed his position on his date of birth, mother's maiden name, or the number of months in a year.) This is the kind of emotion-laden, volatile issue the GOP likes to trot out at election time and with the Repubs loathe to question civil partnerships (and Democrats on record as opposing gay marriage), sex education is among many which could become the GOP's wedge issue of the season.

The Republican Media- no. 7

Talking Points Memo ran on 8/30/07 an item inspired by a story of CNN the previous day. Entitled "Summer of Scandal" and subtitled "Republicans, Democrats Exposed," the report included host Wolf Blitzer referring to "dirty laundry... touching both political parties" and correspondent Carol Costello claiming "... both parties are not going to relax if and when he's (i.e., Senator Larry Craig) gone; they're going to be waiting for the next bombshell." It cited Mayor Anthony Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, involved in an affair with a woman covering his Administration for Telemundo; and James McGreevey, who resigned as Governor of New Jersey in 2004 after having an affair with a male aide.
More recently, scandal has touched one Democrat- William Jefferson, U.S. Representative from Louisiana, indicted in June for bribery. Twelve (12) Republicans have been caught up in scandal. They are the following: 1)Thomas Ravenel, Louisiana State Treasurer and then-state chairman of the Giuliani campaign, indicted for possession and distribution of cocaine; 2)Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator from Alaska, against whom a group has filed a complaint for buying a house at far below market value, constituting an illegal gift; 3)Ted Stevens, U.S. Senator from Alaska, under FBI investigation for his relationship with an oil field services contractor- Bill Allen of VECO Corp.- who had been convicted for bribing state lawmakers; 4) Don Young, U.S. Representative from Alaska (is there a pattern here?), also under F.B.I. investigation for his relationship with VECO; 5) David Vitter, U.S. Senator from Louisiana, client of "D.C. Madam," Deborah Palfrey; 6)Larry Craig, U.S. Senator from Idaho, who pled guilty to disorderly conduct in Minnesota for soliciting sex with an undercover male police officer at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport; 7)Bob Allen, state representative from Florida, charged with solicitation of prostitution after allegedly offering to perform a sex act upon an undercover police officer in the bathroom of a public park in Florida; 8)John Doolittle, U.S. Representative from California, whose Washington-area home was raided by the F.B.I. and whom The Washington Post reports "helped steer millions of dollars in military funding to one of the defense contractors tied to the bribery case" of former U.S. Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California; 9)Tom Feeney, U.S. Representative from California, also under federal investigation for involvement in the Abramoff corruption case; 10)Rick Renzi, U.S. Representative from Arizona, target of an F.B.I. investigation in a land swap deal; 11)Pete Domenici, U.S. Senator from New Mexico, being investigated by the Senate's Select Committee on Ethics for the phone call he made to David Iglesias, later fired as U.S. attorney for New Mexico, to intimidate Iglesias for not yet having indicted local Democrats for corruption; 12)Heather Wilson, U.S. Representative from New Mexico, whose phone call to Iglesias about the same matter(s) has provoked an interview with Iglesias by the House Committee on Official Standards of Conduct.

Had the report by CNN, emphasizing an alleged bipartisan problem of corruption, been broadcast by Fox News, it would not have been notable. We expect that from GOP TV. However, presented by CNN- previously derided by Repubs as the "Clinton News Network"- it demonstrates the Repub bias of the mainstream media.

On MSNBC's "Super Tuesday" coverage this afternoon, Tucker Carlson, discussing Fidel Castro with Patrick J. Buchanan, derided the Cuban dictator as "almost as far left" as John Edwards, whom he said "could win an election- in Latin America." (quotes may not be exact, but are identical in essence).

This is what is left of Communist to Tucker Carlson: ensuring that the government not impinge on an individual's reproductive freedom; protection of Social Security benefits; a trade policy with protection for labor and the environment; adoption of spousal benefits for gay people, though not the legalization of gay marriage; universal health care and a health care system responsive to the needs of individuals and families, rather than to drug and insurance companies; recognition of global warming and protection of the environment; opposition to reparations for slavery (CNN/YouTube debate, 7/23/07); shifting the burden of taxation from the middle class to the upper class; ending the Iraq war as soon as possible. (Ironically, moments earlier, Carlson and Buchanan were agreeing that a gradual withdrawal would endanger the remaining American troops.)

Say, for the sake of argument, that Edwards is as much a leftist as Buchanan is a rightist or Carlson a silly libertarian. Would the former North Carolina Senator have no chance if nominated? Consider the Presidential elections of 1976, 1980, 1984, 1992, 1996, 2000* (every mention of that election must come with an asterisk), and 20004- seven (7) of the last eight (8) elections. What do these elections have in common? The Presidency was won by the major-party candidate further from the ideological center. Jimmy Carter was a liberal back when liberals were not required to call themselves "progressive;" Ronald Wilson Reagan was very conservative, as Repubs continually remind us; supporters of Bill Clinton, father of an income tax increase that helped bring the longest peacetime economic expansion in American history, touted him as "centrist" (endearing him to the media) and "progressive" (i.e., liberal); and George W. Bush is clearly to the right of Ronald Reagan, though many conservatives (including Tucker Carlson), recognizing a failed Presidency, have labored to claim otherwise.

John Edwards is an underdog in the Democratic nomination race and would face vicious attacks (which, as the Clinton camp, points out, any nominee would face) from the Repubs. However, it would be fascinating to have a campaingn in which a Democratic nominee actually runs as a populist supporting the middle class, as reflected by Edwards' statement at the Livestrong Presidential Cancer Forum on 8/27/06: "If you give drug companies and insurance compies and their lobbyists a seat at the table, they'll eat all the food...We have to confront them head on, fight them,and bring about the change we need for universal health care."

A "Remarkable" Speech- part 6

Gaining practice, President Bush has become quite adept at waving the "bloody shirt" at his critics, as he demonstrated toward the conclusion of his speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention on 8/22/07 in Kansas City, Missouri. The President actually, with no hint of shame, said:


Our troops are seeing this progress that is being made on the ground. And as they take the initiative from the enemy, they have a question: Will their elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under them just as they're gaining momentum and changing the dynamic on the ground in Iraq?


Yes, he did say "pull the rug out from under them." Lisa Myers of NBC News reported in September, 2006 that the Pentagon "awarded one of its favorite defense contractors, Raytheon, a $70 million dollar contract to develop a new system to combat rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which have killed nearly 40 Americans in Afghanistan and more than 130 in Iraq." This, despite an Israeli anti-RPG system, Trophy, which a Pentagon division found extremely effective in tests, contrasted with the Raytheon system, tested only by the company itself. Add that to insufficient body armor and declining health care for veterans- and the President allegedly believes Democrats are "pulling the rug out from under" our soldiers in combat. This is a President who can't resist demonstrating how truly lacking in moral character he is.

A "Remarkable" Speech- part 5

In his speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars on 8/22/07, President Bush tried to draw an analogy between the Iraq war and the War in Vietnam. He stated in part:

His number two man, Zawahiri, has also invoked Vietnam. In a letter to al Qaeda's chief of operations in Iraq, Zawahiri pointed to "the aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents."


So the President believes that the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam emboldened our enemies and that a withdrawal from Iraq would do the same. But let me suggest a different analogy: Lebanon.

In mid 1982 (from counterpunch.org), James Bovard notes in "Terrorism & Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice & Peace to Rid the World of Evil," President Reagan dispatched U.S. troops to support the Lebanese army in the civil war raging in Lebanon. On April 18, 1983 a man drove his van into the U.S. embassy in Beirut. After it detonated, 46 people, including 16 Americans, were killed and hundreds of people injured. Although our soldiers were targeted by Muslim snipers,the U.S. force remained, and on October 23, 1983, a Mercedes truck was detonated at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 243 Marines. The Administration skillfully deflected blame for the attack(s), avoided accountability for the President's policy, and warned of dire consequences if we were to withdraw. Bovard quotes Reagan as arguing a U.S. withdrawal could result in a Middle East "incorporated into the Soviet bloc."

The Marine barracks were hit again; in September, 1984, Reagan blamed Jimmy Carter, and during his re-election campaign shamelessly (and falsely) accused Democratic opponent Walter Mondale of saying the Marines "died in shame." (But he had that great 'aw, shucks' manner.) Eventually, the Marines were withdrawn, with little or nothing accomplished.

Sound familiar? This President also warns of dire circumstances, quoting two anonymous scholars as saying "defeat would produce an explosion of euphoria among all the forces of Islamist extremism, throwing the entire Middle East into even greater upheaval. The likely human and strategic costs are appalling to contemplate." And this President skillfully avoids all accountability, and implies treasonous motives to his political enemies.
Good idea, though, for Bush to ignore this history. PBS.org notes following our Lebanon debacle, we suffered these terrorist attacks, in which one or more Americans were killed, over the next four years: hijacking of TWA Flight 847; hijacking of cruise ship Achille Lauro; bombing of Rome and Vienna airports; bombing of La Belle discotheque; bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. All on the watch of St. Ronald.

A "Remarkable" Speech- part 4

In his speech on August 22, 2007 to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, President Bush drew a parallel between the war in Iraq and the successful installation of democracy in Japan following World War II. It was quite a reach, and falls short. He argued:


Those who said Shinto was incompatible with democracy were mistaken, and fortunately, Americans and Japanese leaders recognized it at the time, because instead of suppressing the Shinto faith, American authorities worked with the Japanese to institute religious freedom for all faiths. Instead of abolishing the imperial throne, Americans and Japanese worked together to find a place for the Emperor in the democratic political system.

And the result of all these steps was that every Japanese citizen gained freedom of religion, and the Emperor remained on his throne and Japanese democracy grew stronger because it embraced a cherished part of Japanese culture. And today, in defiance of the critics and the doubters and the skeptics, Japan retains its religions and cultural traditions, and stands as one of the world's great free societies. (Applause.)

You know, the experts sometimes get it wrong. An interesting observation, one historian put it -- he said, "Had these erstwhile experts" -- he was talking about people criticizing the efforts to help Japan realize the blessings of a free society -- he said, "Had these erstwhile experts had their way, the very notion of inducing a democratic revolution would have died of ridicule at an early stage."

Instead, I think it's important to look at what happened. A democratic Japan has brought peace and prosperity to its people. Its foreign trade and investment have helped jump-start the economies of others in the region. The alliance between our two nations is the lynchpin for freedom and stability throughout the Pacific. And I want you to listen carefully to this final point: Japan has transformed from America's enemy in the ideological struggle of the 20th century to one of America's strongest allies in the ideological struggle of the 21st century. (Applause.)

Unfortunately for this twist, MSNBC found and put on Countdown that "one historian," John Dower, historian and professor at MIT and author of the award-winning "Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II." Stating that the use of his quote was "really perverse," Dowe asserted "everything says this is entirely different" than occuped post-war Japan. He cited Japan's "strong democratic tradition before" the militaristic culture took hold, the "fault lines" in Iraqi society absent in Japanese society, and the "formal war with a formal surrender" after World War II. He noted that the U.S.A. began planning for the occupation in 1942 and that democratic reforms were completed within the first three years of the surrender of Japan. Dowe asserted that he is "very distressed" at the "misuse of history" and maintained Administration officials "do not use history for illumination but for propaganda." Dowe was informed that politico.com has White House spokesman Tony Fratto claiming Bush used the quote "to in no way endorse his view of Iraq, only his view of Japan," suggesting that President Bush now is lecturing us on Asian history.

Better yet: with a spokesman, not Mr. Bush, issuing this preposterous statement, the President is spared the accusation of yet again lying to the American people.

A "Remarkable" Speech- part 3

In his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on August 22, President Bush repeated some of his favorite, discredited arguments. Here are three, helpfully included in the same paragraph:


As we saw on September the 11th, a terrorist safe haven on the other side of the world can bring death and destruction to the streets of our own cities. Unlike in Vietnam, if we withdraw before the job is done, this enemy will follow us home. And that is why, for the security of the United States of America, we must defeat them overseas so we do not face them in the United States of America. (Applause.)


There was a "terrorist safe haven on the other side of the world" as of September 10, 2001. Following the attacks of 9/11/01, United States forces, as directed by President Bush and supported by vitually every member of Congress from both parties, invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban, ally of al-Qaeda. Now, our resouces go to Iraq instead of Afghanistan, where, according to the Telegraph of the United Kingdom, as of mid-2006 "the country is facing its worst crisis since the Taliban was overthrown."

Will the "enemy" really "follow us home?" Probably no more than the enemy followed home the eighteen nations which were part of the "Coalition of the Willing" in 2003 which since have withdrawn their troops. Does George W. Bush believe that "the enemy will follow us home"if American troops are withdrawn from the Middle East? He apparently didn't believe it when he withdrew virtually all American troops from the kingdom of Saudia Arabia in spring of 2003.

Must we "defeat them overseas so we do not face them in the United States of America?" If "them" is the group of insurgents and terrorists (and al-Qaeda is only a small portion of the violent forces) in Iraq, not likely. If "them" is al-Qaeda, perhaps we should fight them, rather than pursuing in Iraq a war which is spawning more terrorists. Just a thought.