=========================
YOUR EMAIL=========================
Pro-life: You believe that John Kerry will do a better job than Bush has done to eliminate abortions. I think what you are saying is that (1) "Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers." And (2) Kerry's policies will do a better job of providing jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers, and therefore, abortions will decrease. I completely believe (1), and understood and believed it before knowing that abortion rates have risen under the Bush administration. But I do have problems with (2) (and not necessarily in the following order) I do not trust that Kerry will do a good job of providing jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers. While I have always believed that Democrats generally focus on and work better for those things than Republicans do, I have seen no reason to think Kerry will do **anything.** When I listen to the news "soundbites" I only hear attacks on Bush that usually are attacking "straw men" – mischaracterizing Bush's record/actions in order to say he'd do better. HOW will he do better? I can't even learn much from his website – it's all generalities, spouting principles that I generally accept, but "where's the beef?"
=========================
MY THOUGHTS=========================
(a) That’s the problem with the news. You’re only getting “juicy” (I.e., what big media thinks is “juicy”) sound bites. You’re not getting the whole speech. If you keep listening, you hear the exact same thing from Bush – mischaracterizing Kerry’s actions and record in order to say that Bush will do better.
(b) And – again – if you go to www.FactCheck.org – the website touted by the Republicans as the best nonpartisan fact-checking organization, you will see that Bush/Cheney’s mischaracterizations are (a) more numerous; and (b) more “serious” (i.e., outright fabrications and/or gross distortions).
(c) I do not KNOW, obviously, whether the rate will decrease. I’m going with history. It DID decrease, dramatically, under Clinton – even when the congress went Red. Based on Kerry’s/the Democratic platform, it is reasonable to assume that it will go down again.
Record/re: abortion restrictionsPosition on Abortion (other than what was in my last email)Per www.ontheissues.org, against partial-birth abortion but there are exceptions. “KERRY: I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother. Secondly, with respect to parental notification, I'm not going to require a 16- or 17-year-old kid who's been raped by her father and who's pregnant to have to notify her father. So you got to have a judicial intervention. And because they didn't have a judicial intervention where she could go somewhere and get help, I voted against it. It's never quite as simple as Bush wants you to believe.” John Kerry voted to restrict late-term abortions but only where there was a clear exception for life or health of women. However, George Bush pushed through a different piece of legislation that failed to protect the health of women and that is what the Court struck down. See more below.
Where’s the Beef? Ok – obviously, he hasn’t been president, so we can’t compare his presidential record. But (a) take a good look at Bush’s record and ask how Kerry’s could possibly be worse; and (b) let’s look at the record Kerry DOES have. Re: (a) -- look at the attached chart re: Bush’s record (chart was chart from
http://www.compassiongate.com/promises/). It is all documented (click on any link if you don’t believe it and check out the source.)
People make a big huge deal about the fact that Kerry introduced fewer bills into the Senate than many others have. First, once again, The B/C campaign has vastly distorted his record. He has introduced or co-introduced 100s of bills. I’ll find the exact number and send it to you. Second, remember – he’s the JUNIOR senator from Massachusetts. Now – someone with a big ego would likely have fought harder to get his name on some bills. I personally see it as a sign of character that he was more interested (and effective) in supporting OTHER people’s bills, and not so focused on supporting his own.
So – faced with the unavoidable fact that he was from the same state as the senior Kennedy, what did he do? He found a niche and performed mightily well – and effectively – often with opposition from his own party and from the Republicans.
He performed a PUBLIC service, not a political service. What higher role is there? (Oh -- and he also actually did well in the legislation front too -- see below.)
1) In 1988, while chairing a panel on terrorism, Kerry discovered the facts that led to the uncovering of the Iran-Contra scandal in January 1985 (his first month as senator). “Kerry surrounded himself on his staff with tough, intelligent and independent-minded investigators, and he ordered them to follow the trail. In south Florida, they found men accused of drug running who were shipping guns to the Nicaraguan Contras and claiming to have been instructed to do so by the National Security Council. They tracked down a Contra advisor in Costa Rica known as "Colonel Flaco," who had evidence that North was involved in financing the Contras with Colombian drug money. The path led further to Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega and to Saudi funding sources. Kerry won support from Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to launch an official investigation in large part because of the drug aspect. (Since Vietnam, concerned about the destructive heroin addiction of many veterans, Kerry had keenly followed the geopolitics of drugs and CIA complicity.) For more information about this – and what the Republicans did in revenge, see
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2004/07/22/kerry/print.html; http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062003.shtml. 2) While investigating the Contra-drugs connection, Kerry discovered that Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), actually a front for drug running, money laundering and terrorism. He launched an investigation. Kerry was immediately faced with opposition from power-players on BOTH sides of the aisle. Everyone - literally everyone, from both parties, including President George H.W. Bush, whose son George W. had enjoyed BCCI financing for one of his doomed oil businesses - pressured Kerry to back off. Instead, Kerry took the information he had gathered and gave it to New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. Morgenthau agreed to begin a criminal investigation into BCCI. By 1991, the investigation had blown up what Morgenthau described at the time as "one of the biggest criminal enterprises in world history." Kerry’s continuing work on this investigation led to the closing down of BCCI after the discovery of massive money laundering and terrorism funding. His report noted that: “Regardless of what might be shown in the missing material, the remainder is more than adequate to document BCCI's criminality, including fraud by BCCI and BCCI customers involving billions of dollars; money laundering in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the America; BCCI's bribery of officials in most of those locations; its support of terrorism, arms trafficking, and the sale of nuclear technologies; its management of prostitution; its commission and facilitation of income tax evasion, smuggling, and illegal immigration; its illicit purchases of banks and real estate; and a panoply of financial crimes limited only by the imagination of its officers and customers.” Again, Kerry faced staunch opposition from other Congresspersons, because he was “messing” in the banking industry which is a very powerful lobby on the Hill. AND –note -- THIS WAS IN 1992 – when most Americans, including those in government, were not focused at all on the threat of terrorism. Kerry saw it early – and saw how it was being created – through creative funding and money laundering in international banks. For more on the investigation, see, e.g.,
http://yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_13879.shtml; http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html; For Kerry’s 1992 report, see
http://fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/04crime.htm.3) He also worked with John McCain to investigate the POW/MIA Issues in the early 1992. John Kerry and John McCain "doggedly investigated" an important and volatile issue which some described as an "unglamorous task that nobody else wanted." Regarding the investigation, John McCain said, "John Kerry handled the chairmanship of that committee with tremendous skill." In 1994, John Kerry sponsored an amendment with McCain that urged the American government to lift its 25-year trade embargo with Vietnam. He then worked closely with McCain and President Clinton to facilitate full normalization of trade and diplomatic relations with Vietnam. Kerry and McCain’s work led to the normalizations of relations with Vietnam in 1995. (Since I know you know about that - won't give links.)
Selected other achievements which show Kerry’s commitment to improving health care and the economy (I’m not going to create a 200-page document of his voting record – b/c then you’d never get ANY work done!! :>) – but here’s a few
1) Co-Authored – with Jeffords (R), Daschle (D) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) the Nursing Reinvestment Act, which was passed by the Congress in 2002. Act addressed the nursing shortage in hospitals and other medical facilities..
2) Co-Authored – with Bill Frist (R)– the 'The U.S. LEADERSHIP AGAINST HIV/AIDS, TB and MALARIA ACT OF 2002'. This bill, along with legislation authored by Senators Edward M Kennedy, provided an unprecedented $5 billion dedicated to the global fight on HIV/AIDS. The Kerry-Frist bill authorized $4.5 billion for a comprehensive package of funding for AIDS prevention programs and investments in vaccine research and purchase funds as well as the first effort to create a long term strategy for American leadership in responding to this global pandemic. The Senate passed package also included a bi-partisan legislation authored by Senator Edward M Kennedy and passed by the Senator Health, Education, Labor Pensions Committee that provides much needed authority to the Health and Human Services Administration, including the Center for Disease Control for $400 million to conduct a range of international HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria programs.
3) Co-Authored portions of the Energy Act of 2000 (a bi-partisan effort). His provisions addressed the price spikes in home heating oil, by adding consumer price protections.
4) Voted yes to increase minimum wage in 1995-96 term (it passed)
5) Voted yes to 1995-96 welfare reform law (it passed – and while some think this hurt people in poverty, per our prior discussions, I know you believe that accountability is a good thing – help – WITH accountability.
6) Voted yes to medicare prescription drug benefits law in 1999-2000 (it passed – 51-49)
There are dozens more – which show that Kerry can “play well” with Republicans – even those with whom he vehemently disagrees on other issues. He does not use a litmus “you’re with me or against me” test for other congressmen. (Few examples, the Kerry-McCain Fuel Efficiency Agreement, seeking to reduce foreign reliance on oil and improve fuel efficiency; the Kerry-Hatch proposed Medicare Patient Access to Preventative Diagnostic Test Act; the Murkowski-Kerry Medicare Education and Regulatory Fairness Act (MERFA) ….and so on.)
1) Co-Authored – with Rick Santorum (R) the introduction of THE WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT – which would protect workers from on-the-job discrimination related to religious beliefs and practices. The legislation would require employers to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice or observance unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. (This has not yet been passed. But – it indicates (a) Kerry’s commit to protecting religious freedom
2) Authored provision in the 2000 FAA Reauthorization Bill that will protect aviation workers from punishment when they report dangerous safety violations to federal authorities. Kerry's provision (passed) provides workers who are fired, demoted, or suspended in retaliation for "blowing the whistle" with the opportunity to take their case to the Department of Labor, which is required to swiftly investigate and review the case and, where called for, impose a remedy such as fining the employer or reinstating the employee.
3) Authored the Military Reservists Small Business Relief Act of 1999, which (a) authorized a deferral of loan repayments on any direct loan from the Small Business Administration (SBA), including disaster loans; (b) established a low-interest economic injury loan program to be administered by SBA through its disaster loan program; (c) directed SBA and all of its private sector partners to make every effort to reach out to those businesses affected by call up of military reservists to active duty. Those left behind to run the business while the military reservist is serving overseas may be inexperienced in running the business and may need quick access to management and marketing counseling.
=========================
YOUR EMAIL=========================
I do not trust Kerry's character. I am particularly troubled that he, as a Catholic man, he supports abortion. That is not to say that it is not possible to form a reasoned, principled belief – that completely accounts for and fully understands the Church's teaching – that the Church's position on abortion is wrong. (although it is difficult for me to see how). But if he has done so, he needs to tell us. A politician may have to recognize that he cannot impose his own faith on the nation, but he should not be able to separate his own personal beliefs and or even most of his actions from his faith.
=========================
MY THOUGHTS=========================
I keep coming back to a conversation I had with a bunch of (partners/colleagues) at (Restaurant) (I can’t recall who all was there, but (A, B, C and several others)). Now – let me say before you say it -- I do not necessarily consider these people to be paragons of virtue. However – as you know, it’s their JOB as lobbyists to evaluate Congresspeople and figure out who can help them with what. It’s their job to know who they can sway for their client and who they can’t – who can be “bought” and who can’t.
This was during the primary period when there were still 8+ candidates running. I didn’t really like any of them. So – I asked the group: Forget who you want to win or who you think will win or who will be best for (company) -- Who is the most honorable, honest, principled man running? (A) answered first – Joe Lieberman, but he doesn’t have a chance – and Kerry. The rest agreed that it was clearly Joe and John – everyone else was a typical … politico. I was shocked and said “WHY” – I really don’t LIKE this guy. And they kept giving example after example of when he went against his own party, and against the popular opinion to do something, AND that he didn’t try to steal the limelight but was a very very effective behind-the-scenes Senator. I’m pretty sure I told you about that. I remember it because at the time, I’d only been listening to the “sound bites” too – and I did NOT like Kerry. (Oh – and they all said that Kerry didn’t have a chance either). I think I said to you, now I gotta reconsider, because they all say that Kerry’s the “best” guy by what matters to me. So – I keep remembering that.
Also – Kerry has ALREADY, in my opinion, shown principle. When his economic advisors told him that his early campaign promises were too expensive/would simply NOT work – he revised them. And has acknowledged that publicly – that he was too optimistic. Contrast that with Bush – when the OAG was set to release a report proving that Bush’s Medicare program would be 3x more expensive, he was told that he would be FIRED if he released the report.
I cannot think of a single PRINCIPLED action that Bush has taken in office. Feel free to correct me. But what action has Bush taken that was based on a good principle? Not just rhetoric – but actions backed up by an honorable principle.
=========================
YOUR EMAIL=========================
Maybe Kerry could satisfy me on this, but I can't even find a REFERENCE to abortion on his website (don't hold me to that – I can't say I've ready EVERY WORD of the site, but I've looked. I also can't find a position on capital punishment). Kerry could tell us, for example, that he believes abortion is wrong, and that he reluctantly recognizes that he must/will enforce the current law, but that he will work to change public understanding/belief/opinion about abortion, and that his support for a "culture of life" will focus on taking away the reasons that many women feel they are forced to have abortions.
=========================
MY THOUGHTS=========================
I did a search on his website and there are at least a dozen articles – but – see my notes above and below re: his record. I think his statement in the debate – combined with his statements re: the partial birth abortion legislation – make clear that he wants to build a culture of life and hope. Rhetoric – yes. But – as you say below, Rhetoric does make a difference. YES – he remains primarily “pro-choice” – and has voted against bills limiting abortions (but he has also voted FOR bills limiting abortion when exceptions for life/health of mother); he has voted against bills requiring minors to notify parents (but has voted FOR bills requiring that when there’s a judicial “out” for cases of rape and incest – so that the minor can go to a judge – which is NOT an automatic “yes” – but is a protection). He also supports upholding Roe v. Wade. He resists many restrictions on abortions. He is against criminalizing abortion. Do I think that he will ever change his “pro-choice” position to a strict “pro-life’ position. Absolutely not. Per his statements in the debates and in connection with prior legislation – he won’t – because he believes that in the end, except in cases of late-term abortions and minors, it comes down to the woman’s personal religious and moral views and is not the role of the government.
I can’t find capital punishment on the JohnKerry website either – I got my info from the nonpartisan www.ontheissues.org
• Opposes death penalty except for post 9-11 terrorists. (Jul 2004)
• States should not engage in killing-too many mistakes. (Feb 2004)
• Moratorium on federal executions-only exception is terrorism. (Jan 2004)
• Death penalty for Osama bin Laden. (Dec 2003)
• Voted NO on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)
• More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001)
• Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)
=========================
YOUR EMAIL=========================
Also, there ARE alternatives for women who find themselves pregnant and who worry about being able to care for their child. Wouldn't you prefer to live in a society in which a woman who finds herself pregnant and doesn't want to be, for whatever reasons, doesn't even think about terminating her pregnancy but instead looks toward adoption or other care alternatives. I know our society is not close to a place where there are really good alternatives yet (e.g. open adoption where the mother doesn't have to lose complete contact with the child), but how do we get there, without open dialogue, and our politicians taking a stand?
=========================
MY THOUGHTS=========================
But criminalizing it won’t make it so. In 1967, before Roe v. Wade, there were an estimated 1.3 million abortions. So – the answer is NOT criminalizing it (as the Constitutional amendment and Republican Platform would do).
=========================
YOUR EMAIL=========================
Part of what I'm saying is RHETORIC does make a philosophical - and practical – difference. Standing strong for a "culture of life" that includes protecting unborn life is IMPORTANT. It isn't enough to be silent – even if the policies that you would try to implement would have the unintended (or even intended) impact of lowering the abortion rate. Lowering the abortion rate by itself just isn't enough.? (That said, EMPTY Rhetoric isn't good either, and I have come to see Bush's "culture of life" rhetoric as pretty empty – I'm not completely sure why, but I'm looking into that now – any thoughts would be appreciated).
=========================
MY THOUGHTS=========================
You really should watch the PBS Frontline thing. It was PBS. And was very balanced in that it showed the “good” and the “bad” of both candidates. Re: this issue, it shows – very clearly – exactly WHEN Bush realized that he could win a government position by courting the evangelicals (thanx to Karl Rove). It was in Iowa – when Bush Sr. was running against Pat Robertson. Bush Jr. was sent in to talk to Robertson supporters – a big group of evangelicals. He wooed them over with his talk of redemption. He left that meeting saying “I could win with this.” And thereafter started thinking about the Texas governor position. In 1999, after being asked by the Republican party to run, his FIRST public appearance where he discussed the issues was on Jim Robinson’s show (the Dallas evangelist who you’ll see on TV late nights) – where he told the same stories he told in Iowa. I believe that it is TOTALLY empty – and worse. I’ve been thinking about this since I watched that show. You know, there was only one time in the Gospels that the authors report that Jesus got angry – when he went to the Temple and saw how the leaders had traded in faith for political and monetary gain. Now, I fully recognize that Bush is not a religious leader. But from my perspective, what he has done is of the exact same ilk. He has taken the mantle of a religious leader and is bilking it – all the worst parts of it – for political gain. With no REAL action behind the rhetoric.
Again – go back to the Constitutional amendment against abortion. Neither George Bush nor ANY of the Republican leaders will tell people that the effect of the amendment will HAVE to be to criminalize abortion – which means that people who get and perform abortions will go to jail. They wont’ tell people that because the vast majority of people don’t want that. They just want a “pro-life” statement and to throw the doctors in jail. But the women HAVE to be, at a minimum, accessories to the crime. So – at best, what will happen is that the gov’t won’t enforce that part – they’ll only throw doctors in jail. Which means that doctors won’t do it any more. Which means that NONdoctors will. Which means that more women will die – because they will – as they did BEFORE Roe v. Wade, continue to get abortions. Criminalizing it will not change that. It never has – and it never will. Changing the culture WILL.
Go also to stem cell research. Bush’s position (and that of the RR) is that use of “unused” embryos for stem cell research should be illegal. What he doesn’t tell the American people is that if they’re NOT used for stem cell research, they’ll be destroyed. You are NOT saving a life by preventing stem cell research. You are preventing stem cell research. Legislation can (and HAS) placed very strict limits on WHAT embryos can be used – and its those that are not going to be used/are going to be destroyed (b/c the mother already “got” her kid – or has decided not to have). He is NOT telling the American people that the necessary logical basis for this position is that destroying any embryos should be illegal – which means that women who get fertility treatments and then only use some, but not all of the embryos are essentially committing murder. The necessary logical conclusion is that fertility treatments for women which result in unused embryos should be illegal. Now – I understand (or think anyway) that that is the Catholic position. That is one place where I have a real problem. Especially – since – as stated in my prior email – I am not SURE when the “life” of an embryo becomes a human life with a soul.
I would NOT be so .. angry at Bush based on his actions and positions were it NOT for the fact that he wraps himself in “religion” – That, I believe, is the ultimate hypocrisy. I did not like his father that much – but I RESPECTED him. From Bush (Jrs) very first state-wide election thru to this election, Bush and his team have engaged in very dirty politics behind the scenes, while projecting an image of a “man of faith.” The dirty tricks have been well documented most are not even contested by Bush/his party. They smile and say that Karl Rove is a genius. I find it abhorrent. And – I find it a pattern – his rhetoric has NOT, in my opinion, been principled. It has been calculated. Very calculated.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
