According to Hawaii’s GOP, Democrats have failed to stop crime in our State, improve education, and lower the cost of living. Not only do they suggest an Obama Presidency would be more of the same, but they completely neglect the fact that it is the GOP and a two-term Bush Presidency that have put us where we are. Not Democrats.

The troubled economy and rising prices in Hawaii are a result of failed GOP policies.

Two long, drawn out wars in the Middle East have helped to destabilize the oil market and raise crude oil prices. The first war, in Afghanistan, was intended to crush the Taliban and capture or kill Osama Bil Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. The GOP and Bush leadership have failed on both accounts, largely as a consequence of the ill-advised, unnecessary, and illegal war in Iraq.

The policies of the Bush Administration and the GOP have rolled back not just environmental standards, but oversight and regulation of, for example, the mortgage and loan industries. Deregulation of the mortgage industry left the foxes watching over the chicken coop, so to speak. Tumbling house prices were just the beginning as banks and mortgage brokerages go bankrupt and cry for government bailouts. This mean that while the value of our homes drop, the Bush Administration and the GOP take our hard earned tax dollars to bail out and prop up the very companies that put us here in the first place. How’s that for making Hawaii more affordable?

Education? No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has largely been a failure, as well. Aside from underfunding by the previously Republican controlled Congress, this law that Bush might describe as one of the crowning achievements of his Administration, countless teachers, parents, and education experts question what success, if any, the program has had. What’s more, the Advertiser reported last week that Congress, still made up largely of Republicans,

is unlikely to reauthorize the law before the November elections.

It would seem it’s not just Democrats that belive NCLB should be scraped, or at least reworked. And should I even mention the GOP’s support for school vouchers, which would have killed public education?

How does the GOP propose we curb crime in Hawaii? Already there are record numbers of Hawaii residents in prisons both here and on the mainland. I find it interesting that while the GOP blame Democrats for the crime spree they seem to think has gripped the Islands. There is little doubt that substance abuse, particularly ice, is a serious problem. And the GOP’s solution? Lock up everybody. Studies have shown, time and again, that treatment, not incarceration is the key to curbing substance abuse and associated crimes. Given that and given the GOP’s refusal to even consider treatment over incarceration, who is really ’soft on crime?’

Finally, with regard to their use of the word scandal to describe recent events at the Office of Elections, I have two things to say: Bob Awana and SuperFerry.

several points are raised by the BOE, in defense. first, the decision to send people to the conference was made at the individual school level, not by the BOE. while the BOE, at least to me, seems to be deflecting decision making blame to the schools, they are ultimately justified.

lingle has been pushing for the individual schools to have more authority on decision making and spending, so this attempt by the governor to oversee and reign in spending at the school level may seem, well, a bit hypocritical. the schools should have greater control, so long as they make decisions of which she approves?

again, the BOE may be deflecting some of the blame here and make reference to federal grants helping to cover some of the costs of the big conference bill. to silence the governor and maybe gain some support from a community hurting economically, it might be prudent for the BOE to share just how much of that $1.5 tab was covered by the federal grants.

lastly, the trips, and more relevant, the plans for the trips were made when the state budget and economy didn’t look so grim. should the governor really chastise, in hindsight,  the schools and BOE over budgetary decisions made months ago?

should someone be looking into trips, possibly frivilous trips, the governor as made at the state’s expense?

Alan asked that I join him today in talking to you on the topic of marriage for same-sex couples and I thank you for having me.

To start, I’ll share with you a bit of information that caught Alan by surprise and may surprise you as well; I’m not a member of the GLBT community. I am a heterosexual, single man. What’s more, there is no one in my family, as far as I know, who is a member of the GLBT community.

A few months back I, along with a few other members from the FEC (Family Equality Coalition), met with Senator Hooser to discuss legislation relating to the issue of marriage for same-sex couples. To open the meeting, each member introduced him or herself and gave a brief statement as to why they felt strongly about the issue. When my turn came, I told the Senator that the issue didn’t affect me directly, but I was interested in the the issue as a matter of social justice.

Before moving forward, let me tell you a bit about myself. I was raised as a Reform Jew in a Kansas City suburb. I attended Miami University, in Ohio, where I received a Bachelor’s Degree in Comparative Religion and Philosophy, with a Minor in Jewish Studies. For a short time, I considered attending Rabbinic School. Nearly six years ago, I moved to Honolulu and two and a half years ago became active in politics here. I was recently elected as a Co-Chair of the Progressive Democrats of Hawaii. I am on the Board of the Family Equality Coalition, with Alan, as many of you know and I am also the Chair of my District and President of my Precinct.

This cause, along with my belief in the need to protect our basic, Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, led me to join the ACLU and seriously contemplate becoming a law student.

Regarding the matter at hand and the topic of this discussion, I see the issue of marriage for same-sex couples in the light of separation of church and state, guaranteed by the First Amendment and in the shadow of the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

Starting with the former, let me take a moment to describe for you my religious background, upbringing, and beliefs. I was raised as a Reform Jew and practiced as a child by attending services occasionally, when required to do so by my parents. We celebrated the ‘important’ holidays such as Chanukah, Passover, Rosh Hashana, and Yom Kippur.

When I went away to college, I became active in Hillel, which is a collegiate Jewish organization, as a way to meet people and make friends. I met Jews from various types of upbringing, from Reform Jews like myself, to relatively Orthodox Jews in belief and practice. I started attending weekly Shabbos services, at first because doing so meant a free meal afterward. Then I started to learn about my religious heritage, about the different types of prayers, of traditions, of songs, and came to appreciate and look forward to the service itself, at least as much as the free meal.

The year I went away to college and became a Hillel member, I started keeping kosher. While I continued to question the existence of g-d, I liked the idea of keeping kosher because doing so made me conscious everyday of my Judaism. I’ve never been strong in faith, though I do feel a particular connection to the history, traditions, and culture of the Jewish people and religion. After college, my Jewish education continued and, for a time, I was praying three times daily, with tallis and tafilin. I strictly observed Shabbos for three months before moving to Hawaii.

One of the lessons I took from all these experiences was the notion of study.

Along with the Hebrew Scriptures, there is a long and voluminous body of Rabbinic Commentary on nearly every conceivable topic regarding daily life. As Jews, we are commanded to study; it is important the practice of our faith be more than memorization, recitation, and repetition. We must understand and internalize the prayers and rituals and make them a part of us.

The Jewish experience of faith is also a deeply personal one; while services are community events, recitation of the most important and meaningful prayers are spoken as a whisper, as a private conversation between you and g-d. Jews are not known for proselytizing and the Jewish tradition has never called on its people to convert ‘non-believers.’ While I have no doubt there are Orthodox, even Conservative Jews who are opposed to the idea of marriage for same-sex couples, never have I heard one publicly admonish the idea or actively work to prevent such a bill from becoming law.

Here is, in my opinion, the real intent of the religious establishment provision of the First Amendment; the protection of the minority views and beliefs from a religious majority. The Bible’s prohibition against homosexuality is religious in nature and like so many other laws passed throughout history, those prohibiting homosexual behavior, or marriage, can find their roots in religious beliefs. When those beliefs are contrary to the rights and freedoms provided by the Constitution, they should no longer be held up as law.

Two years ago, in the heat of the campaign season, I heard speak a Democratic Candidate for Governor, William Aila Jr. During a question and answer session, he was asked about his position regarding marriage for same-sex couples and his response was one I hadn’t heard and was startled by: government should remove itself from the business of marriage.

Let me say here, that this is certainly not in any way the position of the FEC, nor is it necessarily mine. I do, however, find the concept interesting and would like to draw it out a bit.

Marriage, which is used in all sorts of legal contexts, is ultimately a religious ritual and concept. That means all the legal rights, tax entitlements, insurance and estate benefits receive their legal standing from a religious union, further muddying the church-state separation. When President Bush and others speak about the need to protect marriage, they’re really referring to the traditional, religious concept of marriage. As such, the proposed Constitutional Amendment banning marriage for same-sex couples would be an affront to the Constitutional separation of church and state, much in the same way the fight for school prayer has lost in the courts, time and again, as being in violation of the First Amendment.

Continuing along this line of reasoning, it seems to me, government should not have the ability or authority, as is the case in Hawaii, for example, to define marriage. Again, marriage is a religious ceremony and contract, the definition of which should be confined to the realm of religious belief.

Following this idea of separating marriage and government would be a law requiring everyone to get a civil union, instead of, or in addition to, a religious marriage. Making this a requirement for all couples, it seems to me, would immediately make it impossible to distinguish the idea of marriage from that of a civil union. In either case, couples would have all the rights, privileges and benefits only married couples are now receiving in all but a few states. In this context would the state have the ability and authority to lay out the guidelines regarding civil unions, no marriage. For this, the word ‘marriage’ would in every legal context and document, be replaced by the term ‘civil union.’ A government created civil union would have a wholly separate definition from that of the religious union of marriage. A civil union in this instance would be devoid of religious undertones and as such it would be easier for government to ensure and protect the equal rights of same-sex couples.

Again, I’m not necessarily advocating this solution be applied as a remedy to guarantee the rights of gay couples, but make the case as more of a mental exercise regarding the current problem and, as I see it, the flawed notion of marriage in our civil society.

To be fair, and to show how strongly  I feel about the First Amendment’s church and state clause, I am of the opinion that government should not pay for or display religious holiday decorations on public property or government buildings.

Continuing on, I want to talk about the social justice aspect of the battle for equality for the GLBT community. As i see it, there have been three major battles in the United States for equality. The first came in the form of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. The second, woman’s suffrage, claimed a major victory in 1920, with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment. Finally, the third struggle came in the corm of the civil rights movement of the 1960s winning desegregation and affirmative action. While these struggles are largely seen as having been successful, women, blacks, and other minorities continue to struggle for real equality.

As with those previous major battles for equality, the GLBT community struggles to prove the deserve or need equal rights and protections under the law. In some ways, woman’s suffrage and the civil rights movement had it easier. For example, at no time did blacks or women have to deny their skin color or gender wasn’t a personal choice. With politicians, religious leaders, and scientists debating ‘nature versus nurture,’ homosexuals have an additional hurdle to overcome in convincing people that their attraction to the same sex is as innate, as natural as most people’s attraction to the opposite sex. They have also to contend with those with strong religious beliefs denouncing homosexuality as a sin. In the last two or three decades, the religious right has been a major political force making their collective voice loud and hard to ignore. Luckily, with the missteps of the Bush Administration and Republicans in recent years, their influence is starting to wane.

And while the ‘nature versus nurture’ debate may have been won in academic circles, many average citizens, even some of our elected representatives in government may still operate with the notion that it is a conscious choice.

There was a time in our country, not all that long ago, when it was the common feeling, even law, that whites and blacks could not marry. Even though there may still be those who believe this should be the case, the government and the law do not, in principle anyway, distinguish skin color. So will it be with sexual orientation.

I saw will, because if the events of the last few months and years are any indication, the tide is starting to turn. More and more people are starting to understand the need for equal rights for members of the GLBT community. People are ‘coming out,’ who just a year ago may have been too frightened to do so. Elected officials and governments are starting to understand the stress, the frustration, and the fear same-sex couples live with every day because they are not currently afforded the same protections and rights as others in this country.

To be honest, until recently, I didn’t understand why marriage was such an important goal. To me, if a civil union provided all the same legal rights and protections under the law, what was the difference? A few months ago, Alan made the distinction clear to me in an example, though he was actually speaking to someone else. At hospitals, patients can have visitors during visitor hours, though not otherwise. If a couple has had a civil union, giving them the rights matching those who get married, they’re still not ‘married’ and while the law may make a distinction, there will certainly be countless scores of people who won’t understand that, including doctors, nurses, and staff at hospitals. If Alan and JP were to get a civil union and later one of them, heaven forbid, ended up in the hospital, would the staff there understand the rights a civil union provides the patient and their spouse? It’s questionable. Technically, they wouldn’t be ‘married,’ so when one of them are asked how they’re related to the patient, how would they be able to respond in a way that was clear to the questioner. More to the point, however, should they even be forced to make such an explanation? For there to be true equality, the answer is a resounding no.

It is subtle differences as this one that would never occur to me, as someone who would never be in such a position. Sometimes in the fight for equality, educating the public is the most important aspect. During the civil rights movement in the 60s, black protesters brought their point home by showing the country just how they were being treated differently.

For me, the measure of equality lies in putting myself in the others place. How would I feel if I were denied service at a restaurant because of some personal trait over which I have no control or say? How would I feel if I were forced to the back of the bus, or denied the ability to visit a loved one in the hospital, or if I couldn’t plan for and protect my spouse in the instance of my untimely demise? What if I couldn’t marry the person I love? This is how I measure equality.

As a Jew, I’m luck to have never personally experienced antisemitism, though I’ve certainly read about it and have friends and family who’ve experienced it. If the United States truly aspires to be a light for and an example to the rest of the world, how can we continue to relegate a portion of our citizenry to second-class status, as we have with the GLBT community and same-sex couples?

The answer, simply, is that we cannot. We must, as a State and a Nation, take what might be the hard road.

Another point I feel I must mention, though it isn’t directly related to our topic, is the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ law for military service. All the men and women in our armed forces are strong, brave, and courageous people, so why should they have to lie about their sexuality to be fit to serve? If they love their country enough to serve, potentiall sacrificing their lives, what should it matter

given that, i still have problems with both candidates and their apparent attitude of ‘do what it takes to win’ whether it might actually be right or fair.  there is no doubt that campaign politics are not for the faint of heart.

i read this morning an opinion article from salon titled, why hillary clinton should be winning.  if you’ve never visited salon before, let me tell you my impression is they are a open-minded, fair, and progressive news source.

the author raises a question which, having not asked it myself, i thought was interesting.  why don’t the democratic primaries function under the principle of ‘winner take all’ as do the general elections?  the author lays out his case that, if the democratic primaries functioned more like the general election, it would be hillary, not obama, that would be winning.  and not just winning; she’d have a commanding lead and would likely and easily clinch the nomination months prior to the national convention in august.

without laying out the entire article here (i do suggest reading it) are a handful of bits if found particularly interesting:

But Clinton does not now have 1,743 delegates. According to CNN estimates, Clinton has about 1,242 pledged delegates to Obama’s 1,413. Most of that total is based on the peculiar way that delegates are apportioned in 2008. Some of it is because Obama’s backers are using the same kind of tactics as George Bush’s camp used in Florida in 2000.

Crucially, Team Obama doesn’t want to count the votes of Michigan and Florida. (And let’s note that in a winner-take-all system, Clinton would still be leading in delegates, 1,430 to 1,257, even without Michigan and Florida.)

the author makes an interesting point here, but it might be a position not quite as firm as it might seem.  simply validating and including the florida and michigan results might not be fair; how would the resuls actually look had the DNC not invalidated those primaries?  would hillary have won had obama been on the ballot in michigan and would the results in florida look different had their primaries been ’sanctioned?’

on the other hand, would revotes in these states be fair either?  given the campaign landscape now, can a revote fairly be held, invalidating the votes of those who voted previously?  what if someone voted the first time around, but can’t make it to the caucuses a second time?  what happens to their vote?  conviniently, or perhaps intentionally, the author igonres such difficulties when saying simply that it’s been ‘announced that such revotes can be conducted.’

Yet in this, as has happened more than once this primary season, the Obama camp’s reaction has not been to clean up the mess the party has created, but to benefit from it….

….In Michigan, Obama’s supporters thwarted efforts to pass the legislation necessary to conduct a new primary. In Florida, campaign lawyers threw monkey wrenches to stop the process cold, claiming that a revote would somehow violate the Voting Rights Act, and charging that a proposed mail-in revote would not be “fraud proof.” (Obama himself, it’s important to note, proposed a bill in 2007 to allow for mail-in voting in federal elections.)

in this context (which i admit sounds remarkably one-sided) it would seem obama isn’t the fair-minded progressive is supporters claim him to be.  my question, however, in this instance is more directed as those same supporters.  assuming they are like the superb, fair, honorable progressive i’m fortunate to know, how can they knowingly support and participate in such tactics?  just because ‘hillary is worse?’  i’m not claiming here that hillary’s campaign record is clear of any such items, but it seems the obama campaign projects an air of superior fair-mindedness that, given these instances, is misguided or just down right false.

Obama has tried to reinforce his democratic bona fides by asserting his superior electability, and by claiming that Clinton’s supporters are more likely to back him in November than vice versa. The polls, however, show otherwise. And even more important, the polling data on the electoral vote totals show an outcome very different from the one suggested by Obama. The latest state-by-state figures (as of late March) updated from SurveyUSA, indicate that if the election were held today, Clinton would defeat McCain in the Electoral College because of her lead in big, electoral-vote-rich states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania — and McCain would beat Obama.

now i’ve heard similar arguments made in favor of clinton and not being as politically savvy as some, i find it difficult to make such predictions.  admittedly, i like to think that no matter who wins, and on the issue of the war alone, mccain has no chance of winning.  then again, i still can’t believe that bush managed to win reelection by a comfortable margin four years ago.

lastly, in the whole article, i like this point the best.  it’s clear (at least to me) the author is a clinton supporter and might be just as blindly misguided as so many obama supporters seem to be.

In the final analysis, though, the fights inside the Democratic Party aren’t really about either an ideal American democracy or the American democracy that actually exists. According to the Obama campaign, democracy is defined as whatever helps Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a candidate arguing this way. But everybody should see it for what it is — not something new or transformative, but one of the oldest ploys in the playbook of American politics.

remember boys and girls, actions speak louder than words.

every attempt made by democrats in congress to end this pointless, not to mention illegal, war has been met with bitter failure.  republicans (with a few exceptions) refuse to leave the side of their trusted leader (even if he is a big horse’s ass).  i think democrats continually fall short of what is absolutely needed, ending the war, but i understand to some extent the necessity for compromise.  of course, on the other side, republicans will not budge and democrats are assailed with insults from every side whenever they present any kind of change in course or policy.

take for example the most recent defeat of senate democrats to put limits on how long troops can stay in the field and how long they must have at home.  in the past, republicans have been able to use their trusted mantra “democrats don’t support our troops.”  this time, however, even a monkey (though maybe not our president) could see that argument wouldn’t fly, so they showcased others from their bag of tricks: “this is a veiled attempt to change the course of the war through legislation.”  it may or may not be true, but the fact of the matter is this bill, in my opinion, was the best shot by democrats to date.  of course, they failed again, and i’ll tell you why; once again, they let the republicans control the conversation.  once again, the democrats were forced into a defensive position.

it didn’t, however, need to be that way.  not once did i hear any democrats insist than any republican who didn’t support the bill wasn’t supporting the troops either.  democrats should have fought, tooth and nail, insisting that this bill wasn’t an attempt to change course, but that the bill does support our troops and shows our gratitude for all they do by giving them a proper rest between tours of duty.  give them time to see their friends and loved ones.  give the military time to replenish their supplies so when those troops do return to the field, they do so properly equipped.

of course, the dems didn’t say any of this (at least not that i heard).  they once again got beat by their own cowardice, too afraid to appear on the wrong side of any issue.  they got beat by their own ineptitude and inability to frame and control the debate.

i’m so frustrated at this point, i don’t even know what to say anymore….

admittedly, i probably don’t know much about senator obama as maybe i should. the thing is, what i do know doesn’t thrill me. in a hopeful attempt to make progressive obama supporters reconsider, here are a couple of items i find disturbing:

several months back, while attempting to collect information about ALL the democratic presidential hopefuls, i sent a list of questions, via email, to each of the campaigns. while i’m still waiting (pretty much given up hope of a response) from most, i did finally receive a response from the obama camp. i, in turn, replied asking for a more direct, detailed response, particularly with regard to his stance on impeachment. his response, it seems to me, has become the standard tag line for democrats. basically, senator obama says an impeachment process now would be too divisive and lock up the government from working to improve the lives of average americans.

(the most recent response can be read at one of my sites, here and here.)

this position regarding impeachment makes me see red (figuratively, that is). senator obama won’t consider impeachment because he wants to avoid partisan politics and help people. at least the second excuse is admirable, if not misguided. the democratic presidential hopefuls wax poetic about restoring america’s place as the moral beacon of the world on the one hand, but on the other hand, won’t even consider impeachment hearings against a president at a time when roughly half the country thinks he’s broken the law. his claims of executive privilege and use of signing statements is nearly unprecedented and now he is directly and intentionally hindering not one, but several congressional investigations. could it be he actually has something to hide, some wrong doing maybe? well, according to obama, getting to the bottom of these issues would be playing partisan politics and that would be wrong.

personally, i think he’s a coward, but that’s purely my own opinion….

also, as obama works to position himself as something new, a centrist democrat who can truly attract support from every side of the party, he recently stated he would, as president, bomb pakistan, if necessary, without that country’s approval. of course, he’d do it all in the name of national security, so that makes it ok. oh and it’s worked out oh so very well for us in iraq…. did i miss something?

i am, of course, no legal scholar, but have read the United Nations Charter and i’m pretty sure that what obama suggests is similar to what bush did in iraq. Chapter One, Article 2 of the UN Charter reads as follows:

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article
1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

i added the boldface. so, it would seem that the mere threat of the use of force against the government or it’s territory is a violation of the UN Charter and, as follows, a violation against the US Constitution. obama says he would only do such a thing if the evidence was strong and well supported by intelligence. whew, now i feel better…. oh wait, isn’t that what bush said he was doing when he sent troops to invade iraq…?

sorry, i’m ranting just a bit. the point, however, is this; on the one hand obama wants to go and meet with leaders around the world who are ‘hostile’ toward us, so as to improve our international relations. of course, on the other hand, if he doesn’t like what they have to say, we may just go and bomb them. someone explain to me how that policy differs from bush’s?

if obama is elected, i fear we will have yet one more president who will SPEAK honorably about the US role in the world, and then DO whatever is necessary to protect and further US power and influence with little or no regard for justice or the rule of law.

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts on impeaching President George W. Bush. I appreciate and share your high level of dissatisfaction and frustration with the President, his actions and his priorities. I disagree with him on many issues, ranging from the war in Iraq to the future of Social Security to funding our children’s schools.

I support robust Congressional investigations into his administration and the highly questionable actions it has taken in areas such as domestic spying and the U.S. attorney firings. He has horribly mismanaged the rebuilding of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. The Democratic Congress has achieved important progress this year, but we are still stymied by a President who is out of sync with the American people, vetoing legislation to responsibly get us out of Iraq and to support increased stem cell research.

America needs to move forward again, and I don’t believe that continuing this era of bitter partisanship is the best course of action. As I travel the country campaigning, I hear the call for a new direction and a change in our politics, a thirst for something more. I don’t believe impeachment answers this call. I believe if we begin impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunctional. We would once again, rather than attending to the people’s business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus.

Instead, I will continue to move forward with a positive agenda in the Senate and on the campaign trail. I hope you will stay involved and work for progress on the issues that matter most to you. Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

Paid for by Obama for America

I received, a few minutes ago, an email from the campaign, in response (I’m assuming) to a request I send several months ago about where Senator Obama stands on a couple of very specific issues. I asked about single-payer health care, not health care in general. I asked about impeachment of the President and the Vice-President. These are example of just two issues I am curious about. If I wanted sound bites, or talking points, I know the website provides those.

In the months since I requested this information, I’ve been paying attention to what Senator Obama says and does (and what he doesn’t say or do). He’s clearly against a single-payer health care system, clearly against the idea impeachment. Fine.

However, as a concerned citizen and registered voter, I’d like to know why Senator Obama is against a single-payer health care system and in what way he think his system is better? I’d also like to know why this Presidential candidate hasn’t spoken to impeachment? Does he not believe this President and this administration have committed illegal acts: lying to Congress, wiretapping without warrants, violations of the Hatch Act, etc. Aren’t these issues that at least suggest the necessity of a level of investigation that only impeachment proceedings raise?

I think these are important questions that should be addressed by every candidate, particularly a top party-nomination contender. If Senator Obama is the fair, straight talker he claims to be, these should be simple questions to answer. Of course, if the Senator is worried his comments and position on these topics might ‘get out’ then I can understand his silence, though cannot respect it.

Thank you for your consideration.

with all the sites i try to visit everyday, i admit i don’t go to this site very often, but i was browsing yesterday and came across a report that was put together by media matters regarding the progressive majority and the myth that america is by and large a conservative nation.

personally, i’ve felt this way for a while, though clearly didn’t have this kind of data to back up my ‘hunch’. a similar (maybe in a more playful way) approach to this subject is taken up by Thomas Frank in his book What’s the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. of course, it’s a great book that i recommend (if you ask nicely, i may let you borrow mine).

anyway, the report, titled The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative American Is a Myth, is quite insightful (or at least i think so) and is full of statistics gathered over years by nonpartisan sources. while i’ve still got a bit to get through, i thought i’d share.

while, as they say, the devil is in the details, and while this report doesn’t (at least not yet) go into details regarding issues, the numbers don’t lie. the majority of the people in this country are at least progressive leaning, even if they wouldn’t use the term ‘progressive.’ i think this report is just what progressive need to direct the conversation away from the conservative talking heads and even mainstream news media. i think this is a report everyone should read, especially those who don’t already call themselves progressives (i call myself a liberal, but mostly to annoy people).

how can we begin framing the national debate in terms of what this report presents? i’ve already started thinking about….